Acts 15 describes a one-time church council to resolve a doctrinal issue. There is nothing either stated or implied indicating the existence of an ongoing "governing body"in the manner understood by JWs today. The elders and apostles came together, resolved a problem, and then went about their business again. Anyone who argues for the existence of a first-century "governing body" needs to find better evidence than Acts 15.
NeonMadman
JoinedPosts by NeonMadman
-
6
1st Century GB... Peter
by leaving_quietly inwas there a 1st century gb?
jws say, it was centralized in jerusalem, and they use acts 15 to prove it.
however, today's wt study shows something interesting.
-
-
-
3
Guy Pierce Memorial Program
by lambsbottom inforgive me if someone already posted this but here ya go:.
.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/udl79c.
-
-
NeonMadman
I wonder what the reaction would be if a rank and file JWwho died had a colorful brochure giving his life story made up by his/her friends and family for the funeral? Do you suppose they would be accused of "glorifying a creature?"
-
6
1993-2014 THE BEST OF WATCHTOWER LETTERS PDF
by WatchTower87 in1993-2014 the best of watchtower letters pdf.
instruction: press the 'skip ad' button top right, you should then see the download screen more easily.
no virus ;-).
-
-
NeonMadman
*Comment deleted after I figured out how to get the downloads to work*
-
7
2014 Convention Program is up on jw.org
by factfinder ina new book for children on friday?.
a brochure about god's organization on saturday?.
-
-
NeonMadman
Saturday afternoon's closing talk almost sounds like it could include the release of a new version of the Proclaimers book. Not entirely out of the question; the book is now 21 years old. It would be surprising to see them release another expensive-to-produce book this soon after the new Bible, though.
-
29
WT Video on how to handle JWs contemplating suicide
by Oubliette inhttp://www.mediafire.com/watch/cvas6fcrc9zca94/shepherding_instructional_suicidal_widow.avi.
i just watched beginning of the recently leaked video produced by the wtbts allegedly instructing elders how to treat jws contemplating suicide.
i am so apalled i cannot even begin to describe it!.
-
-
NeonMadman
In the "Good" example, they quote Jeremiah 29:11 out of context and apply it to Mary. It's not a text about Christians, it's about the Jewish captives in Babylon in the 6th century BC. Not that it's unusual for JWs to take texts out of context, but this one gets used that way so commonly among non-JW Christians that I found it amusing to see the JWs doing it too. Minor point, I know...
-
44
edx-Course --> Early Christianity: The Letters of Paul
by fastJehu inlink to the course: https://www.edx.org/course/harvardx/harvardx-hds1544-1x-early-christianity-927.
intro video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rj3nxoyt7k.
it's my first time for a edx-course and i will try "early christianity: the letters of paul".
-
-
NeonMadman
"I hereby affirm that my prophecy will be correct, JFK will be shot dead near the end of the 60s in Dallas. Cheers, Dixon, 5 May, 1958."
Technically, that would be an incorrect prophecy, since JFK was killed in 1963.
But I see what you are getting at.
I only claim I would then believe (with high certainty) that note was written after Kennedy was killed and it would still take quite a bit of evidence to convince me it was written before JFK was shot. Do you think that is the wrong conclusion to draw?
I suppose I could see why you would accept that as a prima facie conclusion. What I think bothers me about the statement is the phrase "with high certainty." The problem, again, comes down to the question of whether one accepts that prophecy is a real possibility. You've said that you acknowledge that as being so. If that is the case, why necessarily conclude in an a priori fashion that the prediction almost certainly could not have occurred as claimed? If there really is no anti-prophecy bias at work, then the information should be evaluated as to its claims, not dismissed as being highly improbable.
Suppose in this scenario, Dixon had accumulated a group of followers prior to 1963 who touted the possibility of a president being shot dead in Dallas at that time? What if these followers believed in Dixon's prophecy so strongly that they were willing to undergo personal hardship or even death in order to spread her message far and wide - a message that, if it was false, they were in a position to know was false? Suppose, further, that the government considered these followers to be a problem and so began to suppress them, even violently? Would things like this happening before 1963 change your view of the possibility of the prediction being a real prophecy?
Are you saying unicorn and fairies are a-priori impossible but the existence of god, angels etc. is not?
No, that's not where I was going with that at all. I was trying to gague your openness to actual prophecy by seeing whether you would put real prophecy in the same basket with things like fairies and unicorns, or whether you actually considered it a real possibility.
And of course, your remarks about unicorns are correct; some might even use the term of a rhinoceros.
-
44
edx-Course --> Early Christianity: The Letters of Paul
by fastJehu inlink to the course: https://www.edx.org/course/harvardx/harvardx-hds1544-1x-early-christianity-927.
intro video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rj3nxoyt7k.
it's my first time for a edx-course and i will try "early christianity: the letters of paul".
-
-
NeonMadman
Here's another book you wont like Neon:
islamic-replies.ucoz.com/Bible_Books/22916607-Jesus-interrupted-Bart-D-ehrman.pdf
I've read some of Ehrman, and I'm not impressed. His data are excellent, of course. The man is clearly a scholar of the highest order in terms of his historical and textual research, but his conclusions strike me as being pre-determined by his agenda. Textual criticism is a well-developed science, and gives us good reason to believe that the New Testament we have today is very much as it was originally written. Ehrman acknowledges as much in some of his works, but takes the fundamentalist-like position that if there is any doubt whatsoever as to what the original manuscripts said, then we have absolutely no idea what they might have said. When we can trace multiple lines of manuscript evidence back to a largely unified critical text, it seems unfounded to claim that some unknown changes might have occurred in the earliest times that altered the text somehow in major ways before the manuscripts even began to circulate. It also seems to me that if Ehrman wants to assert such a thing, then the burden of proof is upon him to demonstrate it. This is another case of the "extraordinary evidence" fallacy, in that he subjectively has set the bar so high for "extraordinary" evidence that it could never be met by any evidence. Nothing short of a signed, dated, time-stamped original would satisfy him. Really, if Ehrman is right in his claims about the New Testament, then we have no idea whatsoever about any document, person or event in ancient history, since there is no evidence available that would meet the criteria he demands of the NT.
Numerous books have been written refuting Ehrman, of course, but the authors who wrote them don't become media darlings as he has.
-
44
edx-Course --> Early Christianity: The Letters of Paul
by fastJehu inlink to the course: https://www.edx.org/course/harvardx/harvardx-hds1544-1x-early-christianity-927.
intro video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rj3nxoyt7k.
it's my first time for a edx-course and i will try "early christianity: the letters of paul".
-
-
NeonMadman
Neon: I assume we are discussing here a letter that is claimed by someone to be written before 9/11?
No, I intended both the statement the way they were written, does that influence your answer?
Well, of course. If I simply found a document that described the events of 9/11, with no prophetic claim being made, then of course I would regard it as having been written after the event. That is not the case with the Gospels.
In 1964, I read a best selling book called A Gift of Prophecy, about Jeane Dixon. The book made the claim that Dixon had predicted, as far back as 1956, I believe it was, the assassination of JFK. Now, obviously, the book itself was written after the assassination, but it claimed that there were publications and documents that showed Dixon had made the prediction before the event. If one of those documents was produced (and, in reality, I'm not sure any ever were), it would be illegitimate to dismiss it as having been written after the fact. We would have to evaluate it claims on its own merits.
I'm certainly not advancing Jeane Dixon as an example of genuine prophecy. The book I cited contained a list of her predictions for the future, which I once evaluated many years later. As I recall, she had about a 10-15% accuracy rate, which probably most anyone could have achieved based on current events plus a bit of common sense. The most significant events that she predicted (World War III in the 1990s, the rise of a great world leader bringing a golden age in the 21st century) were completely off the mark.
Just the same, if you do believe that genuine prophecy is possible, I am wondering if there is any instance in history that you think might represent an example thereof?
No, I do not know of any. I know many instances of claimed prophecies, but none of them can be confirmed. If you ask me of the closest example I think i would say something like eg. nostra damus, but the problem here is what is being said is to vague to not be a coincidence.
Then I am curious on what basis you believe that prophecy is possible. Are you saying that prophecy might really happen, and some day we might also discover real fairies and unicorns? I agree about Nostradamus, by the way. His "prophecies" are written in such vague language that they could apply to almost anything, or nothing. It's impossible to know because of their non-specificity. Unlike Jesus, who was quite specific about what would happen to Jerusalem.
-
-
-
NeonMadman
Well, some atheists are NOT primarily skeptics, since many atheists simply don't WANT God to exist, just as many believers WANT God to exist. Of course, the existence of God(s) has NOTHING to do with one's wants and desires for God(s) to exist
I agree completely. Both religion and atheism are capable of being a psychological "crutch."
It's my commitment to the principles of skepticism that LED to my becoming an atheist, and not vice-versa, and unlike the lug-nut brained atheists you've apparently been talking to, I'd have NO CHOICE BUT to become a believer in God but only AFTER evidence of His existence is presented.
So I'll ask the usual question. What sort of evidence would be sufficient to convince you?
And if we're talking about the Abrahamic God portrayed in the Bible who is claimed to be omniscient, then great! He already KNOWS what evidence is required by EVERY atheist (including me), that would be sufficient to prove His existence. Ball's in his court.
And if we are talking about the Abrahamic God, then it's legitimate for me to refer to the biblical text of Romans 1:18-21, which says that there is already adequate evidence in the creation for everyone to believe, and that those who fail to do so are suppressing the truth. Those who fail to do so are said to be "without excuse." Sort of what I've been saying about the evidence of design in nature, albiet worded more strongly.
Or are you going to admit that no evidence could ever be presented that would convince you NOT to believe in God?
I'm trying to imagine what sort of evidence you might be referring to. I've never heard an atheist argue that there is abundant evidence of God's non-existence, only that there is not sufficient evidence that God exists. What kind of evidence did you have in mind?
-
-
-
NeonMadman
Neon: Must we really accept the idea that all of the universe's complexity arose from random forces?
It is a funny way to put it and I believe the laws of nature are far from random. I would say I am concerned with what the evidence support.
Are you saying that the laws of nature are designed? How would non-random work apart from intelligent design? I guess what I'm trying to understand is what the middle ground would be, in your mind?
Do you have evidence as to how random forces manage to generate high levels of complexity and information (like DNA molecules, for example)?
I would not believe completely random forces could produce anything on their own, but the laws of nature clearly can. It has been shown in laboratory conditions that organisms can evolve (eg. Lenskis experiment).
I'm not really arguing against evolution here, though I have to wonder where you think these "laws of nature" actually came from, if not ultimately from random forces. Apart from an intelligence behind it all, I don't se much of any other option than randomness. Even if one accepts the multiverse model of an infinite number of universes of which we just happen to be in the right one where conditions allow us to ask these questions (and I think that one takes at least as much faith as believing in intelligent design), we are still pretty much stuck with randomness as to why we are where we are.
Or are the theories formed, in many cases, to specifically exclude any intelligence behind the universe?
are they? Which theory (which is also widely accepted as true) would that be, specifically?
Well, the multiverse theory that I alluded to above comes to mind. Let's see, we have a universe here that sure looks as if it was designed in a lot of ways. Where do you suppose it came from? Maybe some intelligence actually designed it? Nope, nope, can't be that. There must be a multitude of universes (that we have no evidence for), and we just happen to be in the one out of gazillions that looks as if it was designed.
Why is extraordinary evidence required in order to believe in an Intelligent Designer, but not in the multiverse?
Interestingly, I ran across this article during the past week, which sort of illustrates the point I have been trying to make.