Posts by peacefulpete

7

Q & A on Jesus and God. The real TRUTH.

by apostate man in

23. if jesus is the first and the last, why did god say in isaiah 44:6 that he was the first and the last?

matthew 1:20 says that the holy ghost was the father, while romans 15:6, ii corinthians 11:31, and ephesians 1:3 say that god was the father.

51. does the bible say that jesus was god with us?

peacefulpete

No hooberus, it does not prove the Trinity to be wrong, but it does demonstrate that the doctrine was unfamiliar to early writers.
Everyone is aware of the debates and controversy about the nature of Christ that raged in the 2nd,3rd,and4th centuries CE.This is because abundant writings of Church fathers survived to be read.Is it not reasonable to believe that the debate actualy arose at the very birth of Chritianity?
Interestingly,
the Ebionites are little known to us today largely because their writings were burned as heretical at about the same time as the Gospels were being written.Late 1rst century,early 2nd.What we do know is that they were centered in Jerusalem,saw Jesus as a prophet,practiced Judaism at the temple,and kept largely to themselves.Perhaps some of the Jesus traditions in the Gospels can be traced to them.

A science called Textural Critcism seeks to analyse texts of notable works.They detect vocabulary changes,phrasology changes,discontinuity of thought,unusual word placement,anachronisms and so on and overlay this with what we know about the political and social environment of the time to summize the extent of reediting that the text has undergone.Numerous popular books have benefitted from their findings.

What they find when studying the text of the Bible requires numerous books to relate.As to the NT, it is accepted that the work reflects a changing theology,under gnostic and Greek influence.None of the Gospels were written in their final form by "Apostles".The Epistles also bear certain evidence of late authorship.Arguements to the contrary have only late traditions and gut feelings to use as proof.Passages such as John 1:1-18 are plain out of sync with the simple monotheism of the OT.The result has been confusion.

There then is evidence then that the debate about the nature of Christ was already begun during the writing of the NT.It continued with fury until Constantine threatened death to dissenters. This thread is evidence of renewed confusion naturally resulting from the Catholic loss of power in recent centuries.

43

Was Noah's Flood Local?

by JosephAlward in

achristian believes those who think the bible teaches that the flood was global look foolish.

he wrote, .

i encourage all christians to investigate the possibility that the bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of noah.

peacefulpete

Sorry about the lack of paragraphs,I did put them in but it reformated when I entered it.

43

Was Noah's Flood Local?

by JosephAlward in

achristian believes those who think the bible teaches that the flood was global look foolish.

he wrote, .

i encourage all christians to investigate the possibility that the bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of noah.

peacefulpete

Hooberus

It is always a good start to check the credentials of advocates of any cause.But it must be remembered that some very highly schooled people are Catholics,Mormons,UFO buffs,Saskwatch chasers,Pyramid mystics,etc.I'm sure you get the point.
Pseudo science always has elements of science that serve as glue.It follows that at least a few scientists would be advocates of these pseudosciences. What I should expect to see is at least some of the scientists who feel there is proof of a global flood or young earth to be Agnostic or Atheists or Hindu. Then I would not be as concerned the published findings were tainted with preconcieved dogma.(This conclusion after all does not in any way presuppose a divine cause or a Christian theology.)I do not see this,rather of all the philosophical opinions in the world only fundemental Christian scientists hold this position.Why they are now fundementalist Christians is not possible to determine nor is it relevant..What is relevant is how much their beliefs affected their conclusions.

After determining if those endorsing this position are truly aquainted with the facts.The next step is to ask the tough questions: What is lacking so that this position does not have wide acceptance in the scientific community?Facts or Faith?
A serious problem with groups such as the CRS is their lack of philosphical diversity among it's members.As I said all members are hard core young earth creationists. In fact the CRS broke away from it's mother organization the ASA(American Scientific Affiliation)because the ASA had gradually come to accept the possibility that the earth was in fact 4-5 billion yrs old as science was saying, rather than the 6-10 thousand yrs young earth creationists insist the Bible teaches.They accused the ASA of "abandoning the doctrines upon which it had been founded." Sound like good science to you?
When faced with overwhelming evidence that the earth is very old,while not conceeding,they often respond that God can do anything! If he wanted to make the earth with the appearance of great age and then inspire the Bible to say it is only 6000 yrs old, He could.And it would be a test of faith. Their belief in the literalness of the Bible has necessitated a dishonest God.A God who misleads scientists into believing one thing when the opposite is demanded by Him for any chance to go to heaven.
Yes I know they have their "facts" .My honest and careful search consistantly revealed a twisting of statistics,antiquated science,misquoting of authorities,faulty logic,demonizing of opponents,and appeals to emotion.
If I may recommend a couple excellant books by Michael Shermer:How We Believe, the search for God in an age of reason,and Why People Believe Weird Things. Both boks require an honest self evaluation of why we believe what we do.From there we gain some insight into the minds of others.It is worth the effort.

82

I HATE THEM, I HATE THEM, I HATE THEM!!!

by AGuest in

jw
friends

father, please... forgive me.... dearest jw.com posters... may you all have peace!.

i wish to share something with you that i had no idea of until just a few minutes ago.

after listening to my lord direct me to go back and read and read and read, i must say, dear ones, that i knew robert and janet (jannie) bryant from shingle springs, ca, personally.

peacefulpete

What can I say but that this is one of the unfortunate fruitages of religion. I'm afraid to attempt to sway her thinking away from her delusion for fear of the consequences to her if I am successful. Peace to you,speak about your experience to everyone you meet until you no longer feel the need to.

24

A Case of Entrapment?

by patio34 in

why is it that modern justice says entrapment is unfair?

are they more just than god?

consider the case of adam and eve: there they were, more innocent than any humans who had ever lived.

peacefulpete

On a related vein,why has God delayed sooo long (even using Bible chronology 6000 yrs)?The WT.adopted an idea of an issue of universal sovereignty from the Seventh Day Adventists.And as the story goes God is delaying for three reasons: 1 to demonstrate that He was not to blame for the sin of man because his design was capable of perfect obediece.The WT has said this issue was closed by the perfect obedience of Jesus so this can not apply to the last 2000 yrs. 2 To allow man to come to "the height of his acheivements" to prevent any charge that He intervined before they could implement a better system than His.This is meaningless rhetoric,what is "the height of human achievement?"As soon as men invented spears he used them on each other,when he invented wheels he made war machines,when he discovered the secrets of the atoms he bombed his neighbor.Any point in history was called the "height of human achievement",because men have always and will always grow in understanding of the world.If He wanted to make the point that men misuse what they learn, he could have ended this millenia ago.This 2nd excuse for God's inaction will always seem to apply as we are always in awe(terror) at what men have achieved.Therefore it is meaninglss rhetoric. 3 To allow each of us personally to prove our alliegence dispite the suffering He allows .Again this excuse has no end in sight.There will always be new ones to be tested,so this offers no explanation for His not ending this long ago.And why should I need to know how to endure suffering if he plans to end suffering forever?Is suffering the only way to endow us with the desirable qualities he demands?Did he then intend to put the screws to Adam even if he did not sin?
My point is this,attempts have been made for centuries to excuse this omnipotent God from action in behalf of the suffering.These modern attempts of the WT.are the best humans have come up with, yet they are shallow and impossible to defend if analyzed. The creation story was a very early attempt to exhonerate God from guilt while retaining his all powerful statis.And of course the people wished to believe their God was worthy of worship,so it welcomed the shift in blame for all the world's troubles on two people.

43

Was Noah's Flood Local?

by JosephAlward in

achristian believes those who think the bible teaches that the flood was global look foolish.

he wrote, .

i encourage all christians to investigate the possibility that the bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of noah.

peacefulpete

If I wished to prove that "Goldy Locks and the Three Bears"was based on fact,I would proceed in a manner similar to this discussion.I can show concclusively that bears exist,little girls do get lost,children can be finnicky eaters,bears will eat porridge,on and on. Yet I doubt I could convince you it really happened,Why not?Is it not your prior knowledge of the world around you that precludes talking hospitable bears?
Similarly whether or not flooding in the ancient past occured and whether acacia wood floats and the mts of ararat exit, this story must be viewed as legend because it also includes fantasy elements.Giants,animal cooperation,spirits,etc.
Honestly if it were not for our JW indoctrination that the Bible is literal history would anyone conclude the Flood story is anything but a moral treatise?

12

Atheist Myths

by cellomould in

excerpts from http://www.hdiweb.com/atheism/html/atheist_myths.html .

as i have said many times before, the purpose of this column is not to promote the us vs. them mentality against the theists, rather to promote understanding and tolerance.

however, we all know that many theists are so closed-minded about us that they wont even talk to us, let alone try to understand us.

peacefulpete

It might seem irrelevant but to say "just a theory" is to perpetuate a misuse of terminology.Creationists say that the word theory implies uncertainty.It does not as it is used in a properly capitalised title(Evolution Theory,Particle Matter Theory,Gravitation Theory etc.) Scientists adapted the term in a way unique to science.A "Theory" is a unifying expression of observable facts.It neither implies uncertainty or certainty.It sort of becomes a subject heading.For instance if I asked all my friends to write the best bass fishing secrets they knew and I added my own,coupled it with biological facts,added some historical records,I could title the book "Theory of Bass".Certainly such a work would not be all that could be said of the matter, but what ever is later appended in later editions would still have the same title "Theory of Bass".It is unfortunate that every specialized field of learning uses words in a unique way.What is worse is when they also use the word in its common context.It is true that various opinions exist of the exact path evolution has taken or the relative importance of differant factors but noone is questioning whether evolution is a biological fact.Therefore you might say that there are many "theories" within the "Theory of Evolution.No doubt words such as hypothesis or postulate or suggestion would serve better and with less confusion.To make matters worse often the capital "T" is left off.So it requires of the reader to understand if what is meant is a "theory" or a"Theory". But Creationists have used folks ignorance of this to suggest that biological evolution is in some question among scientists.Let's set them straight.

7

Q & A on Jesus and God. The real TRUTH.

by apostate man in

23. if jesus is the first and the last, why did god say in isaiah 44:6 that he was the first and the last?

matthew 1:20 says that the holy ghost was the father, while romans 15:6, ii corinthians 11:31, and ephesians 1:3 say that god was the father.

51. does the bible say that jesus was god with us?

peacefulpete

The debate rages on.And why? Because the Bible is a collection of writings some of which were reedited by later copyists and or writers.Some of the parts reflect a very orthodox Jewish approach others were under greater Greek or Gnostic influence.When a book becomes popular, redactors must be less obvious when adjusting the text.Yet the opportunity was not lost during the early decades of Christianity before any sort of Canon developed. So naturally some of the old will remain in place along side the new.There is no doubt Paul (if in fact his letters were not also reworked)associated godship wih Christ.The Gospels the final drafts of which were written under Pauline influence reflect a tradition in tansformation.It is not therefore wrong to say that the Bible Does and Doesn't teach the Divinity of Christ.So everyone is right!

43

Was Noah's Flood Local?

by JosephAlward in

achristian believes those who think the bible teaches that the flood was global look foolish.

he wrote, .

i encourage all christians to investigate the possibility that the bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of noah.

peacefulpete

I forgot an interesting piece.The symbolism of the flood and river crossing was not lost on Paul.He connects Baptism with the account at 1 Cor 10.Perhaps he did not view it as actual history,who knows.
We do know that Baptism was a comon religious practice among middle eastern cultures representing the same thing it does for christians.New life.Funny how all their enemies copied the Jews> Even before they began doing it.

43

Was Noah's Flood Local?

by JosephAlward in

achristian believes those who think the bible teaches that the flood was global look foolish.

he wrote, .

i encourage all christians to investigate the possibility that the bible does not really teach that the whole earth was flooded at the time of noah.

peacefulpete

Sargon is correct.It was an origin story using the water motif.Repeated tales of passing thru water,rivers,lakes,or floods had symbolic significance to Ugaritian writers as representing newness,rebirth,etc.
It is interesting that numerous pagan cultures had very similar tales, yet never were they viewed as literal.Literal accuracy was not the objective of ancient religious teachers, it was first to provide a cultural identity thu legend and also to give emotional force behind their teaching.
It is a waste of time to find ways to make the story fit the facts of science.To do so is to overlook the beauty of the legend.