sept. 12th (tomorrow night) in los angeles right by the freeway - 405 and santa monica blvd.. i'll be there!.
well the link is also here:.
gregorio smith is an independent filmmaker and writer.
Hi Randall,
This film is also coming to Phoenix, where I live.
http://www.tugg.com/events/5361
So far they've sold 34 tickets. They need to sell another 15 in the next 18 hours for the event to go forward. I hope it does, and am looking forward to seeing it.
Regards,
-Randy
ps. I have visited your FreeMinds website on and off over several years. Thank you for all your hard work!
i think that in our various discussions about life after the wt, we many times forget about the cornerstone of christian life - the resurrection.
the implications of the existence a man who holds the power of life and death is manifold.
it makes discussions about the existence of god obsolete.. for all of scientists' accomplishments they have never been able to make even one amobea come alive from non-life.
Hi mP,
Just dropping by to say thanks -- I'm reading through your latest post.
I've been thinking about actually taking up your challenge directly. Although it would take some time to read all of the books said to be written by Paul. But I am interested in this in any regards, esp how often different phrases are used like "God", "Lord", "Jesus", etc, then of course how often Paul make some historical, even in passing, reference to Jesus.
Cheers,
-Randy
the truth be told film is coming to phoenix.
hope to see you there :-).
http://www.tugg.com/events/5361.
Hi Everyone,
When I posted this note they had sold 12 tickets, I now see they're up to 25. They have 24 more to go for the event to happen. I'm now hoping it will happen just to see that many Ex-JWs in one place!
Cheers,
-Randy
i think that in our various discussions about life after the wt, we many times forget about the cornerstone of christian life - the resurrection.
the implications of the existence a man who holds the power of life and death is manifold.
it makes discussions about the existence of god obsolete.. for all of scientists' accomplishments they have never been able to make even one amobea come alive from non-life.
Hi mP,
How exactly does that make my assertion wrong ? The gospels talk about Jesus does that make them *wrong* for the same reason because they talk about mundane and grander things ?
(disclaimer: In case someone sees just single posts of mine, you should know I an atheist and am not arguing for the idea Jesus was God, rather just exploring what reasonable conclusions can we reach from NT material).
I probably wouldn't say Paul's comment philosophy makes your assertion wrong. I would say we don't have enough information to make strong right vs wrong declarations. I went back a few posts to grab what you said...
Even Paul knows nothing about Jesus the man. scan thru all his writings and write down the facts you learn about jesus. stop when you get to 5. You wont learn about his family, where he went, what miracles he did, when he lived, who his apostles were and so on.
First, I think that is a great challenge for any Christian to under take. When I ran across this in the Brian Flemming film it really struck my how obvious things can be in the Bible, but unless you're doing critical analysis you'll miss it. The other alternative is to have someone point this out to you. Now of course Flemming asserts Paul's lack of commentary is part of the proof the historical Jesus did not exist. Your assertion is more mild, just that Paul knows nothing about Jesus. And my assertion is even more mild, that all we can say is if Paul did know specific details of the life of the historical Jesus he didn't report on them.
To use your George Washington example, if you referenced GW with nearly every post to point out what an important man he was to your philosophy, should we find it odd, that you refrain from citing any specific about the life of GW? Maybe. But I'm not sure that could be used as proof that you didn't really know any about GW.
In regards to the gospels, my feelings are they are different than Paul's writings for two reasons. The obvious is different authors have different styles. But I think the biggest difference is in purpose -- the intent of the gospels (esp the synoptic ones) was the capture a life-story of Jesus. Likely the ones selected for the Bible canon were the most popular and most trusted of their day. One of the challenges a friend of mine who was in the process of leaving the faith, while I was still strongly in, gave me was to reconcile the resurrection accounts. I thought no problem, pulled out the Greatest Man book and The Bible and started. Alas, I don't think it can be done. The accounts have serious and not so easy to dismiss contraditions.
Cheers,
-Randy
i think that in our various discussions about life after the wt, we many times forget about the cornerstone of christian life - the resurrection.
the implications of the existence a man who holds the power of life and death is manifold.
it makes discussions about the existence of god obsolete.. for all of scientists' accomplishments they have never been able to make even one amobea come alive from non-life.
Hi mP,
"The argument that P didn't mention facts about J makes no sense. He often gives other mundane facts that we can assume they already knew. He repeats personal details about himself which they already knew. The easier to believe or ponder fact is that P didn't know our J. If you read the text J exists on a different spiritual plane. P's Judaism is different from that of the apostles."
Alas, we can't go back in time and interview Paul or Jesus. Probably the best we can do is get a sense or feeling about what Paul knew about Jesus and what he didn't based on the material we have. As per the record in Acts, Paul, in fact did not know Jesus personally, so I would argue that favors the idea he wouldn't reflect on specific details from the historical life of Jesus.
Consider Paul's words a Colossians 2: " See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces [ a ] of this world rather than on Christ. "
I think the mention of "philosophy" is key to understanding Paul. The Roman world of his day, was influenced by Greek philosophy. Paul even quotes from the Stoic Philosopher Aratus at Acts 17:28 " For we are also His offspring ." Paul viewed knowledge about the Christ as the answer to competing philosophy of his day. Also notice when Paul make these sort of arguments his stress on "Christ" rather than "Jesus."
Even many modern preachers of Christianity talk very little about the historical details of Jesus life.
In summary my argument is, given that Paul did not know Jesus personally and his style was to focus on philosophical aspects of belief, we should not expect him to comment on many historical details of Jesus life. Even so, there is at least one case of historical reflection. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, reflects on the last supper event.
Cheers,
-Randy
the truth be told film is coming to phoenix.
hope to see you there :-).
http://www.tugg.com/events/5361.
Hi Everyone,
The Truth Be Told film is coming to Phoenix. Hope to see you there :-)
http://www.tugg.com/events/5361
Cheers,
-Randy
i think that in our various discussions about life after the wt, we many times forget about the cornerstone of christian life - the resurrection.
the implications of the existence a man who holds the power of life and death is manifold.
it makes discussions about the existence of god obsolete.. for all of scientists' accomplishments they have never been able to make even one amobea come alive from non-life.
Hi Rose Mary,
"Lazarus was reportedly resurrected after being four days in the tomb, hence is not an ordinary event, but most spectacular display of power, and was the grand finale of miracles; yet why did all three gospel accounts which were written earlier did not know of this great event, but found only in the Gospel of John written towards 96-98 AD?"
The resurrection of Lazarus is interesting. It is as you say, only recorded in John, a very late and different Gospel. A few bits of John strike me as attempt to answer likely objections to other accounts in circulation. When Jesus mentions the signal of "dipping the morsel" and giving it to Judas it is John that tells us about the "leaning back" (John 13:25 vs Matthew 26:23, Mark 14:20, Luke 22:23), thus answering the question of why Judas was not tipped off.
One could argue that the resurrection of Lazarus was so well known during the eyewitness period it didn't need to be written down. That seems unlikely, considering that Luke says he had traced "all" things, it would be rather hard to justify leaving this out of the story.
The story of Lazarus seems to serve a couple purposes. It certainly could answer any objection that earlier accounts of ressurections involved people that weren't really dead. I would also suggest, as time marched on, there would be growing concern in the community of believers about the return of Jesus, the fate of those who already had died and their own life coming to an end. Not at all unlike the feelings some long time members of our former faith, who hoped all their lives for a get-out-of-jail-free card in regards to death.
You'll notice, in the account Jesus intentionally delays (John 11:6) to the point Lazarus dies.
Cheers,
-Randy
i think that in our various discussions about life after the wt, we many times forget about the cornerstone of christian life - the resurrection.
the implications of the existence a man who holds the power of life and death is manifold.
it makes discussions about the existence of god obsolete.. for all of scientists' accomplishments they have never been able to make even one amobea come alive from non-life.
Hi mP,
"Even Paul knows nothing about Jesus the man. scan thru all his writings and write down the facts you learn about jesus."
It is amazing that one can spead a life time reading the Bible and not see obvious details like this. Only after I left the faith for several years, did I finally watch the documentary The God Who Wasn't There, by Brian Flemming, wherein I saw this point made for the first time.
Since then I have thought about this argument. I will say it is interesting and is something that could support the notion that Jesus never really existed. However, I think there are a couple reasonable ways of explaining this issue. Paul generally wrote letters to congregations of believers, who would already know the back story of Jesus. As a writer, his style does not seem to be one of historical reflection, but instead on knowledge of God wrapped in the Christ (Col 2:3).
Paul is introduced to us in Acts, which is really a continuation of Luke, that is of course one of the gospels that has the life story of Jesus.
Finally, I would think that a need for a written narrative of the life of Jesus would grow as the eyewitness period was ending. This, could be the reason why the first Christian writings are Paul's letters, followed by the 3 gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke).
Cheers,
-Randy
ok so you got out of the watchtower society after discerning it was false.
what is amazing is how many have turned their back on the king or was it they had no faith in the first place and the spiritual food they received did not help them stand upon a rock.
jesus the christ your saviour is a living breathing being with emotions.
Hi Cassuk11,
Thanks for directly answering my questions, I appreciate that. The key difference between our views of course is I don't hold one source of written information in a special place above all others. However, as James said, "You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18). Whatever our 'faith' might be, we want what we do, our 'works', to be good.
Good luck on your journey!
Cheers,
-Randy
i think that in our various discussions about life after the wt, we many times forget about the cornerstone of christian life - the resurrection.
the implications of the existence a man who holds the power of life and death is manifold.
it makes discussions about the existence of god obsolete.. for all of scientists' accomplishments they have never been able to make even one amobea come alive from non-life.
Hi Vanderhoven7,
"The fact that some of the Gentiles in Corinth did not subscribe to the (general) resurrection of the body does not reflect upon the actual testimony of the apostles or the 500 who attested to having witnessed Christ's post-resurrection appearances in and around Jerusalem. . . . But, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, their error reflects only on themselves."
Unfortunately Paul does not elaborate in 1 Cor 15 who the "some" were. Perhaps, they were Christian leaders in Corinth who preached an anti-resurrection message. Certainly we know Paul talked about "super-fine apostles" he disagreed with elsewhere. To be exact, we can't say we have the testimony of " more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters " (verse 2). Instead what we must say is the author of Corinthians, who we generally agree was Paul, was making this claim.
Eyewitness testimony itself can be problematic. The shocking and sudden demise of Jesus could have had a profound impact on the community of believers. A small assembly of 500 listening to someone speak of Jesus message could over time easily has transformed into a story of him really being there. Certainly we know religious folks with sufficient motivation give questionable testimony -- otherwise we would be compelled to conclude people near Joseph Smith really saw and handled the gold plates.
Nonetheless, I do give some weight to this aspect of Paul's argument. But from there he goes downhill rather quickly...
" If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. " (1 Cor 15:13, 14)
Here Paul is basically arguing that resurrection of Christ happened, because such is required for their preaching and faith. Such circular reasoning weakens his argument. Finally Paul concludes with these words...
Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” [ e ] 34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame. (1 Cor 15:33, 34)
This is not the sign of good argument! To suggest belief depends, not on evidence, but rather avoding "bad company" and tied up in "sin" and "shame" is not impressive.
These are my views of course, and you likely would put weight on different aspects of the account. That's the personal challenge to parse through this material and various viewpoints in an effort to reach a reasonable conclusion.
Cheers,
-Randy
