Posts by pseudoxristos

37

What About The Soul?

by Francois in

jw
friends

i don't recall that we've ever gotten into this issue; maybe we did and i just don't remember.

if so, it won't hurt to revisit it; if not, it's way past time that we did.. we were all trained to believe that humankind does not have a soul, but that we are souls.

this teaching came from the spiritual geniuses abiding at jw headquarters in brooklyn, likely assisted by their undefined "spirit-led" descision making activities and with help from someone's secret decoder ring with the secret compartment.. personally, i have 86-ed that particular piece of nonsense a long time ago.

pseudoxristos

Brummie,

In a way, I can understand your point.

Dub theology concerning the soul has always bothered me.

If Man does not have a soul, this means that his thoughts and attitudes are physical. Even though thought is based on chemical and electrical reactions, these processes exist in a physical realm. In order to gain favor with their God, their thoughts must conform to a certain standard. In the end it is their physical condition that God is accepting or rejecting.

Does God really care about someone’s physical condition?

pseudo

37

What About The Soul?

by Francois in

jw
friends

i don't recall that we've ever gotten into this issue; maybe we did and i just don't remember.

if so, it won't hurt to revisit it; if not, it's way past time that we did.. we were all trained to believe that humankind does not have a soul, but that we are souls.

this teaching came from the spiritual geniuses abiding at jw headquarters in brooklyn, likely assisted by their undefined "spirit-led" descision making activities and with help from someone's secret decoder ring with the secret compartment.. personally, i have 86-ed that particular piece of nonsense a long time ago.

pseudoxristos

With all the pets that I've had in the past 40 years, heaven would be more like hell.

I hope your wrong

pseudo

37

What About The Soul?

by Francois in

jw
friends

i don't recall that we've ever gotten into this issue; maybe we did and i just don't remember.

if so, it won't hurt to revisit it; if not, it's way past time that we did.. we were all trained to believe that humankind does not have a soul, but that we are souls.

this teaching came from the spiritual geniuses abiding at jw headquarters in brooklyn, likely assisted by their undefined "spirit-led" descision making activities and with help from someone's secret decoder ring with the secret compartment.. personally, i have 86-ed that particular piece of nonsense a long time ago.

pseudoxristos

Ok, here's what I think about the ideas concerning the soul in the Bible.

The Hebrews initially did not believe that there was an immortal soul. Their original thoughts centered on the welfare of the tribe. As the tribe became more established, their thoughts naturally started to center more on the individuals.

Thoughts of individuals obtaining a resurrection eventually became popular; in part to rationalize the injustice of the wicked living a long and prosperous life, while the pious sometimes did not do as well.

In the time period between the OT and the NT, the Jews incorporated the Greek idea of an immortal soul. At the same time they retained many of their ideas concerning the resurrection. This lead to the confusion we currently call the New Testament.

The Rich Man and Lazarus story closely parallels many of the ideas in the non-canonical writings produced between the two Testaments. The thought that Abraham would receive the righteous in paradise (not really heaven, kind of a purgatory) is found in these writings. It was also believed that the one of the pleasures that the righteous would enjoy, would be the ability to observe the unrighteous suffer in torment, for they would both go to the same place but to different areas. A chasm would prevent them from crossing to the other area. In the end the righteous would be resurrected.

The dub claim that this is just a parable, just does not cut it. A parable uses a well known and understood concept to explain a new idea. These concepts of the afterlife were well known and were being used to explain something?

The canonical and non-canonical writings do not really provide a complete and coherent picture of these different ideas, but for some to say that the NT does not teach some concept of an immortal soul they must completely deny many of it’s scriptures. Yet the older idea of the resurrection is also there.

Personally, I would like to believe that we have a soul, but logically I cannot justify it with my belief in evolution. The point at which man or proto-man obtained a soul is problematic.

pseudo

11

Maybe!

by Farkel in

jw
friends

: doesn't a whole heap of "bttt"s constitute spamming?.

not if it's used in "moderation!".

bttt.

pseudoxristos

bttt

I couldn't resist.

pseudo

40

Is the baby being thrown out with the bath water?

by Chap in

if god spoke to a man and told him to write down what he said, how are we to distinguish this writing from other people who say god spoke to them?

we know the human beings can lie about anything for any reason.

if a writing supposedly contains prophesy, some say it wasn't prophesy and was written after the fact.

pseudoxristos

Chap,

If we do not set aside how we are here, the so called absurdities would not be absurd. Either nothing became something all by itself or something always existed. I see no other possibilities and either one of these is more absurd than any you mentioned. I do not remember Job saying that his wife was his sister.

Your statement above also suggests that God is absurd. Either he came from nothing or he always existed?

I believe that this should really be handled as a separate issue. I don’t have the answers to such questions, but I can examine the so-called inspired word of God and determine if it is significantly different than other ancient beliefs. In my opinion, it fails miserably. I’m more comfortable admitting that I don’t know where we came from, than believing stories with talking animals.

Sorry about the reference to Job. I meant to say Isaac. I should have been a little more careful while proofreading. Here are the references to this:

10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was sore in the land.
11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:
12 and it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.
13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister; that it may be well with me for thy sake, and that my soul may live because of thee.
Gen 12:10-13 (ASV)
2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister. And Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
Gen 20:2 (ASV)
9 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife. And how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die because of her.
Gen 26:9 (ASV)

If God created Adam and Eve and he told them how he did it, wouldn't it make sense that they would pass this information on to their children; same thing with Noah and the flood. So there was legend mixed in with truth in the time of Moses. God told Moses what was true. If there was nothing like what Moses wrote down in other cultures, wouldn't we say "where is the secular account?"

If a God could intervene in history, why wouldn’t he insure that the information he passed on to his creation would remain significantly superior to the other myths and legends of Man? Why has he stopped intervening in the affairs of Man? Science continues to produce answers, which reveal a universe that does not require a God, while this so-called ancient God does nothing to confirm his existence.

I would still like to believe in a God and that the Bible is God’s word, but now that I’ve explored the alternate theories that account for its origin, I will always notice the cracks behind the facade. At some levels I believe that Mankind has outgrown the Bible. It has been dissected beyond repair. At the same time, Mankind has not outgrown his need to pursue his spiritual nature.

I guess it all boils down to this simple question. How do you determine whether a text is inspired?

pseudo

9

Should we discount the book of Revelation?

by Warrigal in

jw
friends

considering that the apostle john wrote the book of revelation based on the visions that he saw while on the island of patmos, and since there was no second witness there to see what he saw, should we not consider the book of revelation in light of the wts requirement that there be 2 or more witnesses when an accusation is made?

he made accusations against and condemned religion, politics and commerce...where is his second witness?

pseudoxristos

It is likely that the author of the book of Revelation and the author of the Gospel of John are not the same person. If the Apostle John was the actual writer, he could have given the book more authority by referring to himself as the Apostle John or the Disciple John instead of using "servant" or "brother".

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; Rev 1:1 (ASV)

9 I John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Rev 1:9 (ASV)

The grammar in the book of Revelation is significantly simpler than that of the Gospel of John.

It needs to be thrown out and replaced with a Steven King Novel.

pseudo

40

Is the baby being thrown out with the bath water?

by Chap in

if god spoke to a man and told him to write down what he said, how are we to distinguish this writing from other people who say god spoke to them?

we know the human beings can lie about anything for any reason.

if a writing supposedly contains prophesy, some say it wasn't prophesy and was written after the fact.

pseudoxristos

Chap,

Does having a lot of questions about the origins of the Bible justify throwing it out completely? If I choose only the parts I like about the Bible to follow, I may be in trouble because I could be required to follow the whole thing.

There are really only two possibilities. Either the Bible is Divinely inspired or it is a work of Man. It becomes obvious after studying just a few books of the Bible that it is just a work of Man.

If it can be shown that the book of Genesis was not divinely inspired, then this will cast considerable doubt on remaining books of the Bible. Jesus himself quotes from the book of Genesis referring to people such as Abraham. So, if the book of Genesis is just a work of Man (containing Myths and various absurdities and impossibilities), then Jesus could not have possibly been the so-called “Son of God”. The entire authority of the Bible crumbles once this is established.

Setting aside for the moment, the questions of “how and why we are here?” consider the following anomalies from the book of Genesis.

Scholars believe that Genesis was created by the combination of several traditions, two of which are the Elohist and the Yahwist traditions. These traditions are distinguished by their use of differing names for God. This can easily be seen when observing the Creation account and the Flood account. It is obvious that Gen 2:4-25 is part of the Yahwist tradition unlike Gen 1:1-2:3 which does not use the name Yahweh. For an interesting look at the different traditions used in the Flood account, see my post in the following thread. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/40361/4.ashx
The following are just a few of the absurdities that I can think of off the top of my head: Light including “evenings” and “nights” created before the sun. Multiple contradictions between the two Creation accounts. The impossibility of a worldwide flood, especially considering the diversity of life between the different continents. Life has only existed for 6,000 years. The color patterns of unborn cattle can be altered by showing its mother differing color patterns. Abraham twice, and Job once fooled a King into believing that their wives were their sisters. Then the King was punished for their trickery. Snakes talk. Donkeys talk. There were Giants. Men lived 800 years. The sun stood still for one day.
It is pretty much accepted as fact that the Hebrews borrowed much of their Myth and Legend from the surrounding civilizations. Similar Creation accounts and Flood stories dating before the Biblical accounts exist.

As for why we have all these questions; the answer is sin, or rebellion against God. If there was no such thing as lying, and God spoke to an individual(s), things would a lot clearer and less (no) faith would be required to believe because we would be able trust everyone. Things being the way they are, the question is who can we trust?

The word of God should at least stand up to the test of scrutiny. I really cannot see any difference in it and the hundreds of other writings produced by the Jews and Christians. It seems that a caring God would provide some means to get around this problem. Members of other religions are just as confident as Christians are that their writings are inspired. Belief or Faith will not guarantee that your religion is correct.

I don't know what issues you have with the synoptic gospels but there is no contradiction on the crucial points. There are differences (not contradictions) in minor details based on the vantage points of the writers. If there were no differences in the gospels, wouldn't we claim "collusion"?
I put my trust in Jesus Christ who claimed to be "the truth".
Luke 11:51

As you’ve brought out “there is no contradiction on the crucial points”, I tend to agree. But, this is somewhat related to the issues that I have.

It is believed that Matthew and Luke used Mark while writing their gospels. Matthew and Luke follow the same general outline as Mark. Where they do contradict, never do Matthew and Luke agree together to contradict Mark. This along with the many places where there are word for word copies of the same phrases indicates that this is the most likely way the synoptic gospels were created.

So the fact that they do not contradict on the crucial points, further implies that Matthew and Luke were copyist and were not inspired, unless you consider a Xerox machine to be inspired.

From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
The murder of Zacharias was recorded in 2nd Chronicles 24: 20-22. 2nd Chronicles is the last book in the Hebrew Bible. Of course the murder of Abel was recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Bible. There were apocryphal books written that Jesus must have known about but he didn't include them in this statement. Jesus spoke of "the flood" as a literal event. I believe that Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, and others were mentioned by name as writers of scripture.
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus did cause a lot of controversy but he never said that the scriptures they had were in any means incorrect.

I’m not real sure what your point is, but I will say that it seems that you are using circular logic to establish the cannon of the Bible.

pseudo

40

Is the baby being thrown out with the bath water?

by Chap in

if god spoke to a man and told him to write down what he said, how are we to distinguish this writing from other people who say god spoke to them?

we know the human beings can lie about anything for any reason.

if a writing supposedly contains prophesy, some say it wasn't prophesy and was written after the fact.

pseudoxristos

demar,

Hey most of you people who don't believe the bible have a problem with your will. Its not that you can't believe its that you won't believe. Before you downtalk something why not check the evidence. Pick up a bible and read

Oh, I didn't realize that it was that simple. I guess, I had better start reading.

pseudo

40

Is the baby being thrown out with the bath water?

by Chap in

if god spoke to a man and told him to write down what he said, how are we to distinguish this writing from other people who say god spoke to them?

we know the human beings can lie about anything for any reason.

if a writing supposedly contains prophesy, some say it wasn't prophesy and was written after the fact.

pseudoxristos

Chap,

Many that have really looked into the Bible and its claim to inspiration, have not only thrown out the baby with the bath water, but have thrown out the tub as well.

As far as I'm concerned the problems of God and his inspired "Word", far out weigh the few questions that remain once you dismiss him and his so-called writings. The few remaining questions such as, “how did we get here?” and “what is our purpose?” are very significant, but they pale in comparison to the multitude of questions that arise when one attempts to undertake a exhaustive study of the origin of the Bible.

Starting with the Book of Genesis, the two Creation accounts immediately raise some serious questions. Not to mention the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the numerous didographies, the countless absurdities and finally ending with the questions of authorship. Moving on to the book of Exodus, we have a couple of million people wondering in the wilderness for forty years. The logistics problem that this created is unimaginable. I could go on and on about the OT, but moving to the NT, the synoptic gospels raise enough issues to make anybody question their inspiration.

Oh, yeah, we can’t forget about the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library. The Israelites were very active in producing what they thought was God’s word. Today Christians use just a fraction of these writings

I don’t know about you, but I tend to believe that the simpler solution is usually more accurate. With my present belief system (or non-belief) there are just a few simple (but significant) questions that remain unanswered. I don’t foresee that I will ever find the answers, but I am much more comfortable with these than the countless other questions I had as a believer.

pseudo

33

Rabbi Responds to Jehovah's Witnesses

by DevonMcBride in

jw
friends

the below message was e-mailed to a friend of mine who then sent it to me.

devon

on the subject of jehovah's witnesses: they don't visit us anymore, they used to come by regularly.

pseudoxristos

I never became a Witness, but I did take the time to learn to read Greek. I also looked into Hebrew, but never got to the point of being able to read it. Along the way I decided that the Bible was mostly myth so it didn't seem quite as important to finish my study of Hebrew.

At the time it seemed that the subject of God and the Bible was important enough to justify the effort. Even though I am a not believer, I'm still very glad that I studied the Biblical languages.

To bad the lady didn't accept a study. She may have been able to teach the Witness a few things about the OT.

pseudo