Posts by ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

SFF wrote:

I would be interested to know why you think that scripture shows atheists and agnostics will not perish? Isnt it a requirement/statement of scripture that one must believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved?

Well then how do you account for the hundreds of millions of people all over the world before Jesus, as well as the vast vast vast majority of mankind since Jesus over most parts of the world who never heard of Jesus or the Bible. Are they lost just because they were not accidently born in a "Christian" culture? That would make no sense at all. So how do I derive an alternative from scripture? Well, there are many points and its difficult to be brief, but I'll try.

First the scriptures do not say that God worked only through Israel. Examples:

* Almost the entire known world lay between Mesapotamia/Babylonia/Assyria and Egypt when Isaiah was written. Read Isaiah 19:18-24.
* Also Amos 9:7, which I'll quote here: "Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel? says the Lord. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?

There are a number of scripture texts that refer to salvation for all men. Examples:

John 12:32
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Romans 11:32
For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

And my favorite:

1 Timothy 4:10
(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

The Bible story does not say the dead in Christ will be the only ones to rise. It says they will rise first. (1Thes.4:16.)
Revelation 20 speaks of two distinct resurrections. Those in Christ rise at the beginning of the thousand years, and the rest of the dead rise after the thousand years. Those of the "first resurrection" it in effect says are already judged for their commitment to Christ. The "rest of the dead" rise after the thousand years and are to be judged--not according to what they believed, but--according to their works/deeds/actions/what they did (depending on what translation you read). This agrees with the words of Jesus at Matt.16:27 and Rev.22:12.

The way I read it, only the intentionally evil will be destroyed.
If you believe that Christ's followers represent New Jerusalem and the "bride of Christ", then if you read Rev.21:1-5, it sounds like those of the first resurrection join those who survive the "rest-of-the-dead" resurrection, and all will share the same existence in the end.

That's the way I get the metaphor.

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

Farkel:

I'm quite delighted to know you do have a godly faith. :-)
I can understand deism.

What I believe (in fact derive even from scripture) is that people of all faiths, including decent atheists and agnostics, will not perish.

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

jayhawk1 and pseudoxristos seem like they may not have actually read my and jst2laws posts. It seems they are still locked into 100% literal interpretation.

How should we know the answers to these questions? Maybe in the heat of battle it seemed like a whole day--I don't know. You're asking question that can only be speculated. Do I believe the earth literally stopped for a day? --No. Do I think the writer of the account might have exaggerated. Maybe. Do I think it's critical to the message? No.

Wasa and Farkel:

I do understand where you are coming from. I don't discount your logic. On the other hand, its the same as for jayhawk1 and pseudoxristos: All I or anyone could do is speculate on these specific questions. There is no way to know another person's mind.

The reasons for my faith cannot be answered in a short post. There are too many details.

I hope it doesn't seem like a cop-out reply, but the best way I can summarize it briefly is that my independent study of the Bible leads me to see an underlying message, that some of it is inspired, or at least the story is inspired, because there are too many coincidences that culminate in the man Jesus, particularly in the last week of his life. And, for me, I cannot conceive that the universe came from nothing. I've heard the logical arguments on both sides of that question, and for me, it couldn't happen without a supreme intelligence. In the Bible, some of the things I am fascinated by, I discovered by my own observation. Things that are not readily evident without looking for it. I'll give you one example (one of many):

Skeptics will say that the Gospels were probably written after the fact, designed to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Then I have a question for them. But first, a little background of Israelite tradition:

As you know the story of Moses coming down from the mountain with the two stone tablets, and upon finding the Israelites committing idolatry, he threw down the tablets and commanded the Levites to execute them. It says that 3000 were slain. (For this point, forget whether it was literally 3000, or whether this was a loving God, etc. It's the story here.) In Jesus' day, tradition held that this occasion was the first Pentecost.

PENTECOST Thereafter, the celebration of Pentecost was to be observed 50 days after the first day of the week following Passover (i.e., the day after the Sabbath that followed Passover). See Ex..334:22; Lev.23:15-17; Deut.16:8-10

That first day of the week following Passover was known as the celebration of "First Fruits". It was also known as the "Festival of Weeks" which began the counting of 50 days to Pentecost, another festival. (Incidentally, I happen to be in agreement with the Bible scholars who determine that Jesus was executed on Friday, the day before Passover began that evening after sundown, and followed through the day of Saturday (Sabbath) until sundown.

NOW THE QUESTION: How is it that all four of the Gospel writers failed to observe this very important point in all of their accounts: That not only did Jesus die at the 9th hour when the first lamb was slaughtered in the temple by the high priest for the sins of Israel, but he was risen on the first day of the week following passover, i.e., the day of the festival of "first fruits"?

This is what was required to make this happen: 1) Passover had to fall on the Sabbath that year so it would be "parts of three days" from the Sabbath to their Festival of First Fruits.
(And btw, that is how the Israelites did count (a part of a day or a year counted as one)--we know from the way they counted the years of reigns of kings compared to the way the Babylonans counted. This point is covered in COJ's book Gentile Times Reconsidered.) 2) Jesus had to be executed on the day before Sabbath.

50 days later, on Pentecost, it says that 3000 were converted. Acts 2:41
The first Pentecost 3000 died, that last Pentecost 3000 saved. =============================

Please realize I'm not trying to sway anyone, but you might at the very least find the coincidences interesting.

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

So, how do we really know WHAT HAPPENED BACK THEN, if the Bible is not WHOLE, ENTIRE and FLAWLESS

Why from history and anthropology books that are whole, entire and flawless, of course.

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

jayhawk1 asked:

Just a question;
If I remember correctly the Earth rotates at roughly 1000 miles per hour, so if the Earth was stopped from rotating for 1 day, wouldn't all creation be thrown to the East at 1000 miles per hour? (See Newton's laws for gravity/motion.)

No. Only what is on the earth. (Or do you believe, as your comment might imply, that the universe revolves around the earth?)
~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

jst2laws:

I see we are quite on the same wave. Very well put. (As I said, I think I am (we are) in some pretty good company. :-)

Blessings,

~Ros

82

Fables, Farces and Facts

by Farkel in

no, this piece is not about alliteration.

for true believers?

the subject matter is quite serious, and may just possibly affect the quality of the rest of you lives; it may also affect your eternal fate, if there is such a thing.

ros

Hello,

Generally, I think (perhaps wrongfully) that these debates are not "fruitful". :-) However, having ended a busy workweek with a WildTurkey and pineapple soda, I'm entertaining a little different mood. Hope I'm not stepping too far out of character. If so, please excuse.

Wasasister asked, and Farkel asked why no one answered:

Does not the legitimacy of Jesus Christ as the Son-of-God rely on the veracity of the Bible? If the Bible is not reliable, how can one put faith in the Messiah to whom it points? If the Bible is even occasionally in error, how do we believe what quotations are attributable to Jesus?

I can only answer for myself as a non-fundamentalist believer (and I think I'm in some pretty good company. :-).
I think most of these questions and discussions are directed at the absolute bible unscientific literalness that is espoused by fundamentalism, whether mainstream, orthodox, or bornagainism. Based on my personal study, I have a different perspective of the bible and scripture. In my opinion, it is immaterial whether every word of the bible, as an historical record of the Jewish people, is wholly literal, inspired, true, or whether it was a compiled written record of a people, by a people, written from the perspective of the writer(s), or whether much of it is analogical, any of which happened to have the purpose of an underlying spiritual truth from The Creator.

What historical record does not have error? Does that mean history has no value? Did George Washington chop down a cherry tree and then lie about it? Who cares? Does that story diminish the historical record about George Washington? (I guess that might depend on whether you are French or American. :-)

So to answer Wasasister's question from my perspective, the legitimacy of Jesus Christ does not rely on the veracity of a whole, entire, flawless, scribe-Catholic-compiled biblical record. Not imo. If we refused to believe anything that is even occasionally in error (e.g., newspapers, magaines, history books, science books, evolution books, the bible, etc. etc.) then we would be without anything to believe except our own personal observation of nature? Quite limited.

Wasa also asked:

And finally, did Jesus' own mother, who was the closest and most personal observer of his miraculous birth, believe from the beginning in his ministry? If not, why not?

How could anyone know that? According to John 2, indications are that she held some kind of faith in his exceptional abilities. However, as a point of speculation on the record, it seems that most of the Jewish people did not comprehend what his (and John the Baptist's) ministry was about, including his apostles while he was alive. Many were looking for a nationalistic messianic deliverer to resore the literal throne of David. (As a point to ponder in the biblical 'story', it occurs to me that Mary must have been chosen to be Jesus mother for the very reason that she was the finance of Joseph, because it is he who would have been the one in royal lineage from King David from whom Jesus would have been the heir to the throne in that culture. Just a thought.)

Many biblical scholars conclude that when crowds waved, and "Jesus wept", when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a colt shortly before he was executed, that the crowd was believing he had come to deliver Israel, expecting a literal messiah, and he wept because they did not comprehend.

To put it in perspective, most mothers don't fully understand their sons and their lives; so why should Jesus' mother be so different (unless you accept the religious pious perspective of everything in the bible record of course)? When I was in Israel about three years ago, our Jewish guide used the account of John 2 as an example of a typical Jewish mother, even though she was expecting something extraordinary. Something like: "Jesus, I ask a little favor. Never mind my pain giving you birth, just a little favor for your mother, make us some wine. Is it so much to ask, for youra mother . . ." :-)

In my opinion, if you're analytical, you'll never find a viable faith in in the fundamentalist literalist biblical perspective. I think the message is beyond religion. Nevertheless, religion does not prove nor disprove Christianity, nor does science, any more than history books prove or disprove history. But that is not to say you should have no faith in history books. The information is fascinating if you really dig for it. But may be my interest--not necessarily yours. The question is, how far should we judge? Not.

Jmo,
~Ros

29

IS THIS A BELIEVABLE COINCIDENCE?

by jst2laws in

i had a really unique experience today that i want to share but will have to give you a little of my background first.

i hope you find it interesting.. .

teenage years.

ros

Hey, Jst2Laws:

That's two coincidences I know about you now. Remember when you and Joy2bfree said you hoped to make contact with some long lost JW friends, and I happened to be in correspondence with them? Actually, I've heard several very interesting coincidences with exJWs since I've been on-line.

Smaaaaal world!

~Ros

53

Is Mouthy the coolest 'gran' in the world?

by Simon in

jw
friends

.

i'd have loved to have a gran as cool as mouthy (grace) ... surfing the net and stuff!.

what do you think?

ros

Hey, Grace--you're too young to be my granny! But I luv ya anyway!

You have all made my day .. Have to get a bigger hat !!!!! ( sweeled head.

Is that the hat I brought ya a coupla years ago?

Blessings,
~Ros

91

To: IW - Stop Dodging the Bullet

by Amazing in

jw
friends

first, simon and other mods, please let this thread run its course for a while.

if it gets too dicey, then i will move or lock it.

my goal is not to have a big flame war, but to expose an issue for what it is.

ros

Simon said:

... or simply doesn't have any information?!

Actually, to my knowledge, that is the case. I asked Ray about Greenlees some years ago, as to whether he was dismissed from Bethel, as rumour had it, for being homosexual. Ray said very pointedly, "tendencies . . . tendencies." He indicated no knowledge of any kind of actual sexual misconduct committed by Greenlees at Bethel.

Ray is very careful about hearsay and gossip. He avoids it. Considering how badly he and his wife have been personally affected by it, one can readily understand why. He is very careful to avoid slander.

It would seem others might see a lesson from a recent thread here about Ray and a letter supposedly written by Ray objecting to copyright infringement for his Spanish material on the Web. Whether or not it was justified, evidently that letter has been exposed as a fraud.

~Ros