Posts by Sulla

13

"Doubting Jesus' Resurrection" by Kris D. Komarnitsky

by bohm in

this is a very simple idea i had not encountered before, and i hope other will find it interesting to.

the essay is taken from http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article809.html, but i would also strongly recommend the more recent answer to wlcs critisism of the argument at: http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article835.html.

"doubting jesus' resurrection".

Sulla

Well, captain, I'm sure your approach is significantly easier than mine. And that is a benefit.

11

Is the New Testament Just a Pagan Corruption of the Old Testament?

by Diest in

i find myself asking that question more and more of late.. my first reason is the claim of a virgin birth.

all of the jewish sources i read say that isaiah 7:14 does not talk about a virgin birth, but rather a birth to a young maiden.

it was only the greek septuagint that shifted this belief to a virgin birth that is similar to their greek myths.. .

Sulla

The task of the early Church was to re-interpret the OT in light of the resurrection. In some cases these were more or less legitimate expansions of OT insights, and in other cases the evidence is that they were working pretty hard at re-interpreting.

The observation about Isaiah being misinterpreted is not new. As I recall, this exact issue was raised in the Dialogue with Trypho, in the early second century. In that case, Trypho, a Jew, was criticizing Justin Martyr on just this question. Getting into who is right in that argument requires digging around the questions of whether the LXX was, in some sense, an inspired improvement over the original texts and whether the LXX is actually more accurate than the texts in Hebrew, which have authenticity issues of their own, in some cases. In any event, we ultimately return to the event of the resurrection, which is the sort of thing that most people figure gives them writ to explain the event by whatever means are necessary.

Something similar happened with references to the Trinity -- or at least the divinity of Christ -- in the OT. There was already a very old understanding of the appearances of the "Angel of YHWH" was, somehow, YHWH himself. This angel appears in lots of places in the early OT and makes a special appearance in the later writings of Zechariah, as well. These were re-interpreted as pre-incarnate appearances of the Logos, with considerable justification, I think. There was, at a very early stage in Judiasm, a feeling that the One God could be a little remote and that we required some sort of actual interaction. This is some evidence of a binitarian viewpoint, compelling or not, depending on your view.

And, of course, we should remember the events at Mamre, where YHWH appears as "three men," and where "YHWH called down fire from YHWH in heaven." Again, taken to be early actions of the Trinity.

It is true that the Jews -- those who didn't convert, anyhow -- figured all this was bunk. It is interesting to read Trypho's exasperation with Justin Martyr in the later chapters of the Dialogue; several quotes of the, 'I hope you see you are beside yourself, talking like this,' sort of thing. Really, the whole thing turns on the question of the resurrection; Christians really think it happened and that event justifies all their re-interpretation. Without that event, you really do have an unjustified bastardization of the Jewish scriptures.

13

"Doubting Jesus' Resurrection" by Kris D. Komarnitsky

by bohm in

this is a very simple idea i had not encountered before, and i hope other will find it interesting to.

the essay is taken from http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article809.html, but i would also strongly recommend the more recent answer to wlcs critisism of the argument at: http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article835.html.

"doubting jesus' resurrection".

Sulla

Well, it seems to me that one ought to read N.T. Wright's book -- all 700 pages of it -- to have a good idea of who has the better argument.

57

Aug. 15th WT - WT Society Dissing Internet Again - All JW's Beware !

by flipper in

jw
friends

we always know when the gb or wt leaders are nervous and worried about potential alleged " threats " to jehovah's witnesses - because they repetitively keep mentioning these perceived " threats " in talks at assemblies or in wt articles constantly.. the " witness only " august 15th wt is no different.

in a non-study article entitled " the internet - making wise use of a global tool " once again the wt society instills doubt and fear into witnesses by " warning " them about use of the internet.

3 " while the internet can provide valuable information, save us time, and serve a useful function, it can also misinform us, consune an inordinate amount of our time, and corrupt us morally.

Sulla

They don't know they're being ironic; they think that everybody knows and trusts them so applying their own criticism to themselves is one of those things that is inconceivable.

The problem, of course, is not so much the commentary (internet commentary is everywhere about everything and everybody knows how to filter it) but the primary documents and the serious analysis. And, thus, the problem is with actual facts, whether these are from an internet source or college. My final break with the JWs came entirely by accident while I was in college. Ancient history class had a very short piece about Israel and mentioned, entirely in passing, the date the Babylonians destroyed the place. I spent a full day searching the entire library for any source that would lend any cover for the JW date and, of course, found none.

Similarly with the primary documents. Anybody who wants to may find, for example, any of the Early Church Fathers' works in their entirety and see that the JW quotes of these men are lies.

The real problem is with the facts that are available now, to anybody with a little curiosity. And they can't withstand the facts.

126

A simple way to tell God probably doesn't exist

by poor places in

when's the last time you prayed to god?

did he respond?

i prayed to him for years and years and received no response.

Sulla

The argument is logically sound, but not, I think, strong. For two reasons.

First, we might similarly argue about whether or not Sulla exists. If I do not exist, then I will never do a headstand outside your front door while singing "We Built This City (on Rock and Roll)." Since I have not done so, that is more evidence that I do not exist than it is evidence that I exist.

Which is just another way of saying that the strength of the argument relies on one's prior assumption about the likelihood of the event happening in the first place. If God is the kind of thing that exists essentially, then this sort of constant reassurance is not something he needs. Indeed, one might think that a constant stream of miracles and so on wold actually place the essential being under the control of contingent beings. So, maybe sequence of unmistakable signs is exactly the sort of thing that we shouldn't expect to happen at all.

Second, we have to ask what an unmistakable sign would look like? How about parting a sea to facilitate the escape of his favorites? What about raising a man from the dead in such a way as to make him beyond death for all time? What about a miracle of the sun in 1917? What about miraculous healings? I know, you don't believe these things. But these are the signs you would say you need, and these are signs you reject; what frequency of miracles and signs would constitute proof to you?

And what makes you think you deserve proof?

126

A simple way to tell God probably doesn't exist

by poor places in

when's the last time you prayed to god?

did he respond?

i prayed to him for years and years and received no response.

Sulla

Actually, bohm, it might not be your, bohm's, argument at all, now that I review the thread.

So, whether it's yours or not, the argument I'm talking about is the one that asserts God can't exist because of the problem of evil and suffering. God could have saved the boy from being strangled and dismembered, but did not. An all-loving, all-powerful person would never allow such a thing, therefore, he must not exist.

LIke I said, I don't know if that's the argument you are advancing or not. That is the one I was talking about.

18

Whatever you do, arrive at 1914

by Doug Mason in

the wts claims that the length of babylons king nebuchadnezzars suppressed state symbolised the suppressed state of gods kingdom.

each day of the heathen kings lack of control represented a year of heathen supremacy.. .

since nebuchadnezzars experience was symbolic, it would have ended before the fulfilment started; unfortunately the hebrews scriptures do not specify that moment.

Sulla

Yes, total disregard of sanity is a low cost for the JWs, they are lunatics (compare Umberto Eco's definition). By "older teaching" I was referring to the more recent of the "generation" teachings, which held that the generation was simply the wicked people who did not accept the JW teachings. That group is really always going to be around, thank God.

126

A simple way to tell God probably doesn't exist

by poor places in

when's the last time you prayed to god?

did he respond?

i prayed to him for years and years and received no response.

Sulla

Indeed. What you have done is been arrogant, condescending, called us idiots and compared us to JWs. congratulations.

Thanks, but that wasn't much of an accomplishment. I can't help myself, really. I see weak reasoning treated as if it were profound reasoning and I have to say something.

You wrap it in fine words and do not make a case. Explain to me whose free will God would have violated by eg. warning about the 2003 tsunami?

Well this is what you are missing. Look, it is obvious that a divine warning about the tsunami given to the residents of Bandah Aceh would have not violated the free will of anyone. But that's not the argument you are making.

Imagine a world where the tsunami never happened (it wouldn't be enough to have a warning, because these people would still have lost their homes and livelihoods and experienced suffering). Imagine a world where there was no suffering at all, with the exception of an eight-year-old boy who was strangled and dismembered one summer day. Your argument would be just as forceful in this case -- even with a single instance of evil.

More than that, we can imagine a world where no evil happened for years: no murder, no cancer, no accidental deaths. But we would look back in time and find evidence of a prehistoric raid on a village. There, we would find the skeleton of a man with an arrowhead in his back and the skeleton of a crushed baby underneath him. He had seen the assault coming, grabbed the child, and run for the safety of the village palisade; the archer had shot him in the back, causing him to fall and crush the child with his own body.

And your argument would apply with equal force for this single event 50,000 years in the past. If God exists, why did he not save this man and this child? A single case of murder at any time ever would suffice for your argument. And a world without a single case of suffering is a perfect world, a world that is not broken, a world that is not fallen.

But given who we are: our natures, our desires, our constraints, whatever, we have broken our world. We are killers, bohm, we are rapists, we like to torture others. We are not ok. But if you view these evils as, ultimately, a failure to love, and if you think love is a free act chosen (or not chosen) by free people, then you begin to understand the depth of the problem. The mystery of evil is the other side of the mystery of love.

18

Whatever you do, arrive at 1914

by Doug Mason in

the wts claims that the length of babylons king nebuchadnezzars suppressed state symbolised the suppressed state of gods kingdom.

each day of the heathen kings lack of control represented a year of heathen supremacy.. .

since nebuchadnezzars experience was symbolic, it would have ended before the fulfilment started; unfortunately the hebrews scriptures do not specify that moment.

Sulla

There has been some chatter amongst the JW apologist class that all this 1914 / predicting the time of the End stuff is really a sideshow to the "core" teachings about the Trinity, hell, the soul, etc. Those teachings have never changed and are the real doctrinal marks of the JWs. Therefore, and because they're not supposed to be serving with some date in mind, the entire 1914 thing could be changed, no problem.

There are two problems with that. The first is merely logical (in the sense that JWs ignore logic all the time and it isn't really a problem for them): their entire ecclesiology is built on 1914. Many people have pointed this out before. But the entire JW justification for being the boss depends on this particular story.

The second is the one mentioned by wobble, above: the JWs have always been an apocalyptic sect. Take away the nearness of the End and you get rigidly moral Unitarians. But nobody is going to put up with the hassles associated with being a JW without a pretty good reason. All of the distinctive and divisive elements of the JWs makes some sort of sense if you are genuinely convinced of the whole story. Is it the kind of thing that holds together based only on its non-prophetic teachings? I think for a much smaller set of current JWs.

I think I would disagree that the overlapping generations has caused more problems than it has solved. I'd suggest it is a good teaching in the sense that it solves a big problem at low cost. The big problem it solved is, of course, that the older teaching had no sense of urgency: the End could have been hundreds of years off. Measure this against the cost, some low percentage of people rejecting the teaching and leaving, and you have a good policy. You keep the justification for high control, while only losing a small number of members. I think the JWs are really happy with that adjustment.

126

A simple way to tell God probably doesn't exist

by poor places in

when's the last time you prayed to god?

did he respond?

i prayed to him for years and years and received no response.

Sulla

bohm,

Perhaps you have missed the point that, up until my last post, I had not made any argument at all. So, you see, there's really no point in attacking me for poor argumentation, when I haven't made one. You're just getting excited because I mocked you for mocking God. But maybe now you could chillax.