@ctrwtf
wow Ty, for some reason I assumed that was the gospel... :/ lol
Jonathan Drake
JoinedPosts by Jonathan Drake
-
11
The Bible's huge implicit contradiction on the subject of love for God vs love for your fellow man.
by Island Man in"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
-
-
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Jonathan Drake
@cofty
scholars can't account for the origination of the phrase Son of Man. It's unique to Christ himself. They call it an ideolect, and he only used it when referencing himself. So when Christ asked, who are they saying the son of man is? It was the same as him saying, who are they saying I am?
son of man is not a phrase found anywhere else at that time, and when he said it it was not a reference to the Old Testament references to someone like A son of man, which is a different phrase.
-
11
The Bible's huge implicit contradiction on the subject of love for God vs love for your fellow man.
by Island Man in"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Ok, I'll concede that point you made. However it still doesn't change the error regarding the second quote.
As to your example of Ruth, Ruth fulfilled the comment of Your first quote above to love her brother (sister). In doing so she was an example of what God wanted for his people, proven by christs example and words testifying to this. god would have been pleased with this.
There really isn't an issue in any of these references. Ruth was praised as an example of love. she followed the later example, love your brothers you can see first.
-
53
What exactly was going on after Jesus was put to death and no longer around?
by Terry inthe jesus believers were meeting in people's homes.
members of that community would take turns using private homes to gather.
thus, they went house to house.. these footstep tracers of jesus (they called themselves akolouthontes "followers" or some called themselves mathetai or "learners.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake I currently doubt that Paul wrote the second letter to the church of Thessalonica, because it contradicts the first one, and as the priest Raymond Brown has noticed, the author tried to copy just exactly the same structure of the first letter.
Could you you point out the contradiction so I can check it out?
-
11
The Bible's huge implicit contradiction on the subject of love for God vs love for your fellow man.
by Island Man in"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
In your first quote Christ is talking about loving God almighty, not himself. It therefore has no bearing on the second quote.
In the second quote is not a contradiction because of the point ive already made. However, if you read the context his reason for saying this is clear. He had just given an illustration, and the point he was making was that nothing should come between you and your devotion to following christs teachings. He wasn't giving permission to hate, he was saying if anyone gets in the way of your obeying his commandments and example or says they'll leave you if you do or whatever - you should choose to follow him instead. Whatever cost may come from choosing that life was your torture stake, and he said you should be prepared to bare it.
-
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
The wandering around just muching grains argument may be fair enough (or not, but whatever), but the first thing that went through my mind was, so THOSE grains didn't count against you for the sabbath like all calories don't count (if you are driving, on your birthday, if you are drunk, or while you are cooking). It strikes me initially with it being a distinction without much of a difference. Gathering grains to eat is what you do during the harvest, too. I imagine some of them are "munched", too.
An actual harvest was drastically different. They actually harvested the field, it was a lot of real work - and all at a time when they had no farming equipment we'd see today. So it's a huge difference to call picking off a few grain heads working and saying it's the same as actually harvesting.
the blood doctrine is absolutely not scriptural btw. None of the scriotures they use to support it actually do, nor do any of the logical arguments. I highly suggest reading the article about it on jwfacts.com.
-
27
Did You Know Any Bad JWs?
by minimus inover the years, i knew some individuals that were pretty bad witnesses.
they broke more commandments that most.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
I worked for a man who was an elder. I was trying to get out on my own, had an apartment all picked out, and the work stopped coming. But only for me.
I finally had enough and I confronted him and he said he was giving all the work to everyone else because they had families and I don't. So I guess as far as he was concerned I can go F off in a gutter since I was unmarried and had not children.
i have quite a few stories. the organization is a robot, a corporation with no love whatsoever. The higher you go the less love you have and the better you get at acting.
-
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
From Jonathan:
"My beliefs are irrelevant. Either you believe the bible, and thus understand why he was killed. Or you don't, and its a story of a man snubbing an all powerful being and being killed for it."
That 'either or' argument of yours is flawed; it supposes that the bible is a reliable source and that the '10 commandments' really were from God, were recorded correctly, handed down without error, that a man really did collect wood, was killed for it, that Jesus collected grain on the sabbath, and that the conversations took place just as you read them in your modern printing of an old, much edited book.
You are believing it is true, when none of it can be proven, not a single shred of it, including the existence of an all powerful being (who apparently is a real dick; he can conjure up fire out of thin air, but wants us to sit on our hands one day a week).
Welcome to the 21st century; you don't have to be bound by bronze age superstitions, unless they fit your world view.
No, what I said was either you believe it's true or it's just a story book. And I mesmt like, a fictional book. Those are the only two options, either you think it's fiction or nonfiction. I suppose I could have been clearer though.
also as to the previous comment you made, all the gospels are presented as eyewitness accounts. I'm aware of the theory that it was a ghost writer type situation, bit it's still being presented as an eyewitness account. Also this ghost writer idea has no way of being proven. But even assuming it's true, it won't change the presentation is meant as an eyewitness testimony.
also, this theory has some serious issues. Scholars now know that the gospels were written using a sayings material known as q which was a very early record of things Christ said written down by those who actually heard it - so in other words, the gospels are a handed down eye witness testimony no matter how you choose to look at it.
-
32
The hypocrisy Jesus had towards the pharisees and sadducees
by adjusted knowledge init is no wonder the jewish leaders had ridiculous rules concerning the sabbath.
the following scripture alone should instill fear of those forsaking the sabbath.. (numbers 15:32-36)--"now while the sons of israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33and those who found him gathering wood brought him to moses and aaron, and to all the congregation; 34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
"Paul also contradicted the Law.
"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? [that is, to bring Christ down from above] or, who shall descend into the deep? [that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead]. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach....",
Rom. 10:6-8
Paul mutilated Deut. 30:12-14
"It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it? But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it".
The latter is only saying that his (Moses) commandments are easy to obtain. They are not far off but as close as one's heart or mouth. Deut. says nothing about "faith."
It refers to seeking "it" and doing "it," not seeking "him" or doing "him."
It does not even imply Christ or Jesus, let alone mention him.
Deut. is referring to Penitence and is not about believing on or bringing down Jesus from heaven or up from the dead.
Deut. is saying that God wills us to repent of sin and that you may know when you have sinned. You have only to look at his law which is very close by."
Alright so starting with the quote in Romans 10, Paul was not contradicting the law. As a side point, it would be very strange for him to do this since he was a Pharisee before his conversion. Now, at the start of chapter ten Paul says it's his hearts desire that the Israelites will be saved (verse1), he then says, recalling his Pharisee history, "For I can testify about them that that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." (Verse 2) he explains this in verse 3 by making reference to the same thing Jesus referred to in his ministry, which was that they didn't follow gods law, "but sought to establish their own." He here is referencing how the Pharisees went beyond the law and were oppressing the people, this wasn't gods righteousness - they had set up there own. He then says in verse 4 that Christ is the culmination of the law, "so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." This is because the law God gave to the Israelites could not be fulfilled or kept perfectly by any man. But Christ did keep and fulfill it perfectly, hence he was the culmination of the law, a law which served to remind them they were sinful and could never be perfect. But Christ, releases them from this because now regardless of their inability to live up to gods expectations his sacrifice redeems all sin.
He then compares righteousness by law (the law no man could live up to) with righteousness by faith (in Christ who fulfilled the law for all). But he does not contradict either one. He is only explaining Christ's place and importance and saying that he hopes the Israelites will be saved and except Jesus.
So Paul was saying the same thing you are saying about deut. Because you're right, the point being made was that "you have only to look at this law which is close by." But this is exactly Paul's point here. He's saying that Christ fulfilled this law, you no longer have this law against you showing you to be sinful and making you have to make sacrifices - because Christ died as a sacrifice for all sin. So now you no longer need to think of the law this way, but instead you think of the gospel which is not far off, profess faith in Christ as dying for your sins and being raised.
So it's not a contradiction, it's a comparison and explanations of the role Christ had just taken as the messiah. -
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Terry said: "Could you clarify what you mean about what exactly Peter gave Paul which Paul passed along?
To wit:
Some argue that the inclusion of the Gentiles explains it, but it does not. Because history attests that it began with the Jews, and even in the bible we see Paul stating that he passed on what he was given - which he got from Peter in Jerusalem."
I can certainly do that, I'll provide a few quotes from the book I'm currently reading. I just read a rather large chapter in which was the subject of the plausibility of hellenization of culture explaining the view of Christ. The full title of the book is, "Lord Jesus Christ | Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity" by Larry W. Hurtado. I'm not done with it yet but I'm enjoying it.
Anyway, on beginning on page 230 it states:"To Repeat an earlier emphasis: the interpretation of Jesus' death attested in Paul's letters, by all accounts, derive from his "predecessors," including Judean circles such as the Jerusalem church. Moreover, as also previously noted, Paul's acquaintance with Jewish Christian beliefs began in the very first few years (ca 30-35 C.E). The only meaningful period of Christian development "before" Paul is at most the very first few months or perhaps years. But Paul's introduction to Jewish Christian beliefs must even be dated prior to his conversion, for his opposition could have been directed only against a prior Jewish Christian phenomenon.Furthermore, Paul claims that the traditions such as he repeats in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 represent not only his own prior missionary message but also the proclamation of Judean leaders (15:11). Scholars may dispute the validity of Paul's claim, of course. But we must also note that those to whom he attributed these traditions (e.g., Peter/Cephas and James) were still very much active and able to speak for themselves. He was not as much at liberty to make specious attributions and claims about the origins of Christian traditions as we modern scholars!"
It should be noted that the above quote is taken from a page where he's addressing the treatment of the Q material toward Christs death. However as the quote itself states he elsewhere made this same assertion in addressing the hellenization issue, which I'm still trying to find in the book.... (It's rather large)
Found it. Okay so he addresses the Hellenists starting on page 206 and there is a great deal of information. Such as the first instance of the above quoted information can be found somewhere here. So what I'm going to do is type out the last paragraph leading up to the summary of the chapter and then some of the summary itself. But remember all the things he asserts up to this point has his references in the footnotes and very detailed reasons for why the assertion is made. What I'm going to put here is a summary, because otherwise I'd be typing all day long.
"Whatever one thinks of the idea that the Hellenist believers of Jerusalem had developed a distinctly radical view of Torah and temple, however, for my purposes here the key question is whether they dissented from the sorts of christological categories and devotional practice that came to expression initially among Judean circles of the early Christian movement. The answer: there is no evidence that the Hellenists as a group had a distinctive Christology, or that they collectively rejected the sort of reverential practices studied in this chapter. But, even if one prefers to think of the Hellenists as some sort of proto-Pauline group that was critical of "the ritual law" and the Jerusalem temple, this does not in itself provide any basis for thinking they also developed a significantly different view of Jesus or a distinctive pattern of devotional practice. Within the limits of our evidence (secondhand reports of Acts and traditions in Paul's letters), it appears that the "Hebrews" and the "Hellenists" in Jerusalem made similar christological statements and engaged in similar devotional practices."
Following this statement is the summary, which is quite lengthy, but on page 215 he says this:
"The most important points to make here are these, by way of summary: The high place of Jesus in the beliefs and religious practice of Judean Christianity that comes across in this evidence confirms how astonishingly early and quickly an impressive devotion to Jesus appeared. This in turn helps to explain why and how it all seems to have been so conventionalized and uncontroversial already by the time of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles in the 50's. As Bengt Holmberg notes, when Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (or perhaps about five years after Jesus' execution), "he there encountered a religious group which had reached a fairly high degree of development in doctrinal tradition, teaching, cultic practice, common life and internal organization."He then cites his reference in the footnotes.
He goes on to further assert in a few lines that Jesus place in Christian worship was very early, and as we can see from their practices developed prior to the Gentile mission of Paul.