Oh dear. Is it time for one of these posts again? Someone leaves WT and then a post like this follows. Excuse me while I sit this one out.
Christ Alone
JoinedPosts by Christ Alone
-
28
Is the bible really god's inspired word?
by yalbmert99 inhttp://www.watchtowerlies.com/watchtowerlies_148.htm.
the watchtower bible and tract society pretends that the bible "really is gods inspired word" -the watchtower march 1, 2010 p. 4-7. but is it true?
if god has inspired the bible, how come the bible doesnt mention many important things?
-
-
-
46
SECRET LETTER of Watchtower Media Changes!
by TheSnarkyApologist inhere's a letter that has circulated among many ex-watchtowerites!.
just thought you'd want to know!.
awake!
-
-
Christ Alone
I think this is a great thing for 2 very specific reasons. Consolidating their sites into 1 large site will have the effect of lowering their online presence. Also, most people doing personal research use the internet heavily. For example, if I wanted to know the basics of how a doctor performs a face transplant, I will probably not make a day out of it by going to the library and checking out books to get a completely comprehensive idea of how it's done. Most likely I will go on a site like howstuffworks.com and find out the basics. The same would be true of researching JWs. Most people will research them on the interent.
The benefit of them consolidating the info to 1 site is this. Most people do not only look at 1 single site when they are researching. They will browse a few sites or more. In the past it may have been possible for someone to go to watchtower.org first and look around. Then maybe head over to jw-media.org and then finally jw.org. Now with 1 site, they will be forced to look at other non-jw sites. Perhaps now they will stumble onto jwfacts.com or freeminds.org, or carm.org/jehovah'switnesses, or even 4jehovah.org.
I see only good things coming out of this. Smaller WTs. Less internet presence (parousia... :-) ). More opportunities for those ignorant of WT schemes to arm themselves. This is great news!
-
23
Rutherfords view of the Holy Spirit
by Christ Alone indoes anyone have scans of these references?
this comment was taken from http://ed5015.tripod.com/jwoccultconnection58.htm.
joseph rutherford, the second president of the wts, believed his spiritual enlightenment came from angels because the holy spirit had ceased functioning since 1918. the angels channeled information into his mind from god residing on the star alcyone.
-
-
Christ Alone
Does anyone have scans of these references? This comment was taken from http://ed5015.tripod.com/JwOccultConnection58.htm
Joseph Rutherford, the second president of the WTS, believed his spiritual enlightenment came from angels because the Holy Spirit had ceased functioning since 1918. The angels channeled information into his mind from God residing on the star Alcyone. (Preservation 1932 pp.5l; 201-203; Watchtower 1931 November 1 p. 327; The Watchtower 1934 April 1 p. 105)
-
-
-
Christ Alone
I did read your post, cofty. And that is what I responded to. Dionysus did not turn water into wine. He generated wine from nothing. Jesus used the Jewish ceremonial washing jars and turned the water into wine. There is no parallel. The entire stories do not match. I've read your "West Side Story" analogy, and it seems weak to me.
It is easy to imagine or force a parallel when you want to. For example, look at what the Watchtower did in comparing different events in Revelation to what happened in their own history. If you want to force something to fit, you can.
-
-
-
Christ Alone
Cofty, you're wrong about that too. Jesus changed the water in SIX Jewish ceremonial washing jars into wine. The parallel just doesn't fit. You're looking for something that isn't even there.
Fact: Dionysus did not turn water into wine
-
-
-
Christ Alone
Cofty, the links for Jesus vs Dionysus are very weak. Here are some major claims of those trying to make the link, and what I have found in comparisson to the article that you sent:
Myth 1: Dionysus was born on December 25 and was a Holy Child placed in a manger
Answer 1: Dionysus birthday was celebrated on January 6th. He was not born of a virgin. His mother Semele was sexually impregnated by Zeus. Also in the stories that I've found, many of which are in the book "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy, he was never laid in a manger or called a Holy Child.
Myth 2: Dionysus turned water into wine
Answer: Even in the source that you gave, there is nowhere that says that the water was turned into wine. Dionysus was the "god of the vine" but Jesus wasn't. I did find a certain claim that seems to show water being involved, but if you read it carefully, that is not the case. The referrence is "The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon" by Achilles Tatius in the 2nd century A.D. It talks about Dionysus introducing wine into the world of men. Dionysus calls it "the water of summer" and further states "This is the water, this is the spring." Dionysus never "TURNED" the water into wine, rather he called wine a type of water.
Myth 3: Dionysus is called "King of Kings" and "God of Gods"
Answer: Nowhere is he called this (at least as far as I could find). This also wouldn't fit him since he was a child of Zeus. The title might have fit Zeus, but even he was never called these titles.
Myth 4: He offeres his followers a chance to be born again through baptism.
Answer: This too is untrue. Dionysus followers never claimed to be born again, and the "baptism" wasn't anything that we would recognize today. It involved waving a fan over their heads and not submersing them in water.
To try and tie Dionysus to Jesus is more than a stretch. It's a link that just does not exist.
-
-
-
Christ Alone
Context: Justin Martyr was making an attempt to convince the Roman emperor that the Christian's teachings were not that dissimilar from other Roman religions which were favored by the empire. If you examine Justin Martyrs examples, he was making an extreme stretch to compare Jesus to the other gods. He speaks about Aesculapius who was struck by lightening and then taken to the heavens. He was making an apologetic speech to gain recognition from the Romans for Christianity and to show them that Christian beliefs were not as bizarre as they were thinking it was.
But again, the parallels are unclear. Research into the gods that are mentioned by Justin Martyr shows that they were not similar at all in regards to the actual details. The first clear account of a god dying and raising again does not even occur til after Jesus crucifixtion. The earliest versions of the death and resurrection of Adonis appeared after A.D. 150. The accounts of Attis, the Phyrgian god of vegetation who was responsible for the death and rebirth of plant life, are not until the 3rd century A.D. (200 A.D.) or later. In the accounts of Marduk there is no clear death or resurrection mentioned. Adonis, in the earliest visions, contains no death or resurrection reports. His first death and resurrection accounts do not occur until after A.D. 150.
Also, these other gods were not considered to be "real" people or humans like Jesus was.
Finally early Christianity was birthed in a Jewish cultural context. The early Christians, in fact, worshipped in the Jewish temple and believed that Christ's resurrection fulfilled Old Testament prophecy). In light of this, these Jewish Christians believed in a physical resurrection which was a view that was not accepted by the Greco-Roman culture who ridiculed such an idea. Therefore, it is unlikely that these Jewish Christians would adopt pagan mythology.
-
-
-
Christ Alone
So yes, Christianity did bring into it some things from other myths.
I could agree with that. December 25 is a good example.
-
-
-
Christ Alone
Even if that were so, cofty, the writers of the gospel were still willing to die for their writings. You can claim that all the gospels were written by people other than who they are acredited to. However, the time in which they were written was during a period of intense persecution towards Christians.
Also there is alot of evidence of who wrote the gospels. Take for example Luke:
The Muratorian canon (c. 170) states, "Luke, the physician...wrote in his own name what he had been told (ex opinione), though he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh."
Irenaeus (130-c.200) writes, "Luke the companion of Paul set forth in a book the gospel a preached by him (Paul)" (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1)
Tertullian (c. 160-225) attributes the Gospel of Luke to Luke (Adv. Marc. 4.2.1-5).
The Anti-Marcion Prologue (2nd century) says that Luke the physician from Antioch, Syria wrote the gospel known as the Gospel of Luke.
The Monarchian Prologue (2nd or 3rd century) affirms that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke.
The oldest manuscript of Luke, the Bodmer Papyrus XIV (p75), dated about 175-225, attributes the Gospel of Luke to Luke, using the title "The Gospel according to Luke."
It is reasonable to conclude that the Luke was the author of the Gospel of Luke.
-
-
-
Christ Alone
I just wonder why you are so determined to dismiss all of it even if much of it is exaggeration.
I'm not. If there is actual evidence, I am willing to consider it.
Why should it be odd if gospel writers did borrow from other myths?
Because those writers were willing to die in horrid ways for their writings and beliefs. If the writers, as Bart Ehrman claims, were behind the removal of Jesus body and they had merely rearranged older myths to give "proof" of a fictional human, then why would they be willing to be tortured and killed for a completely fabricated lie?