been wondering about this lately.... what proof (outside the bible, of course) do we have for the "historical jesus"?.
in my earlier days (post jw to "born again christian") i remember reading that the one thing that differentiates christianity vs. "all the others" was that we had secular historical proof that there was a man that was called jesus, who died on a cross and was resurrected.
now i am wondering just what that proof is/was?
been wondering about this lately...
What proof (outside the bible, of course) do we have for the "historical Jesus"?
In my earlier days (post JW to "born again christian") I remember reading that the one thing that differentiates Christianity vs. "all the others" was that we had secular historical proof that there was a man that was called jesus, who died on a cross and was resurrected.
Now I am wondering just what that proof is/was?
Any thoughts?
for some reason on my way to the meeting last night i was thinking what if there was a reasoning book for talking with jws.
in particular a section with rebuttals for common jw thinking.
jesus disciple's made false predictions too.. jehovah has always used an organization.. the light keeps getting brighter.. who else is doing the work that we are?.
One more "stopper" that I am aware of:
"No one else teaches the Kingdom"
in a thread called" can any jw answer this" by jerome, alan f had stated that the term.
everlasting to everlasting applied only to the god of israel.
he could find no scripture in which this term applied to jesus.. i found some good info.
One more question, if I may:
What order should the NT be read, to more clearly see the evolution?
also, what is your view of the "other books" (Gospel of Thomas, etc...)
Okay, that was 2 questions, go ahead, shoot me...
Thansk again?
in a thread called" can any jw answer this" by jerome, alan f had stated that the term.
everlasting to everlasting applied only to the god of israel.
he could find no scripture in which this term applied to jesus.. i found some good info.
Thank you.
That is alot to digest. Was there any single book that helped you to get past the bias? Years of study/experience?
The more I learn, the more I learn that I have a lot to learn.
i would like your help on this matter of the interpretation of the bible, because many people say we interpretate diffently and we have diffent understanding.
how do we know when we interpretate the bible correctly?.
i have a relative for instance says the gay sex life is ok and they interpretated the bible to back up the right to live a gay life.. how can i prove their interpretation is wrong?.
JA...
Thank you for clarifying the translation.
in a thread called" can any jw answer this" by jerome, alan f had stated that the term.
everlasting to everlasting applied only to the god of israel.
he could find no scripture in which this term applied to jesus.. i found some good info.
AlanF, a question for you.
If Jesus was just claiming to be "really, really old" why did the Jews start to stone him? It was allways explained to me that it was for blasphemy, or for his claim to be the "I AM".
do we apostates fall into the same trap as jehovahs witnesses when it comes to blinding ourselves to the truth?.
how often have i confronted jws with overwhelming evidence that the so called signs of the times are simply not being fulfilled in our day only for them to bring up some barely relevant snippet of information, which, to them, shoots my argument down in flames?
it is incredible how jws can ignore the camel of evidence that contradicts what they believe and then exult over the gnat of evidence that supports their view.
gold_morning...
Many of your thoughts resonate within me. I have echoed them before to countless others.
For myself, this site serves as a sounding board, and a listening post to "undo" the the damage the WTBS has done. For some of us, it is very difficult to get past this.
Until I found this site a short time ago, I felt very alone in my thoughts, and felt I had no where to gather with others of "like mind". I am still getting used to the idea of posting here.
Getting outside the "box" that the WTBS puts us in requires much kicking, scratching and clawing. Ever watched a kitten escape from a cardboard box? Not a pretty site, but when it's out, boy it's out!.
I excaped many years ago, found the meaning of Christ while in the Air Force, was baptised, and since have moved beyond the need for "organized religion"... I have allways felt very secure in my beliefs, but never could quite "defend" them to the extent that some require. This site, and the many people here, have helped me to shore up my defenses.
(Some background, I studied in for apx 10 years, left (or went inactive) around 15-16. My Dad is an Elder, has been in for 25+ years, we have a strong relationship, but I know he wants me "in" and he of course believes the WTBS is the only "good" one out there, reguardless of past faults... Needless to say, with my recently discovered information, our conversations are "interesting...").
I know I have gone way off topic, but I have been needing to write this for some time now, and I thank you for listening.
On to the topic at hand:
1 sure "sign" that the WTBS is having serious issues is how "reactionary" they have become. Up until recently they rarely acknowleded the "Russell" years, and now they realize they HAVE TO. THe recent posts/quotes dealing with apostates, and the recent "If we knowingly lied we wouldnt..." stuff shows an incredible bit of reactionary stuff. This generally happens to anyone when they have been caught with thier pants down. Honest people usually never have to defend their actions....They may have to prove thier intent, or thier reasoning, but defense is usually not required.
Thanks again for listening...
in the april 1, 2002 issue of the watchtower, an article appears entitled "keep on serving jehovah with a steadfast heart".
paragraph 14 of this article states: "if jehovah's organization knowingly endorsed false teachings, advice to read the bible would never be given to jehovah's witnesses and those to whom they preach.".
i am withholding comment on this statement, because i'd like to hear from any who would like to post a response.
They may "advise you to read the bible" in one instance, and then they tell you that only the GB or "annointed class" are the only ones qualified to interpit it.
also, "Knowingly endorsing false teachings" is a loaded statement altogether. They gloss over the falsehoods with "new light" and "in times past...".
They didn't know it was false at the time. They have tacked accordingly.
My issue, regaurdless of the interpetation changes, is that they knowingly falsify many things in thier teachings, from their own history to the words of others that they quote. Of this, there is no doubt.
...
i would like your help on this matter of the interpretation of the bible, because many people say we interpretate diffently and we have diffent understanding.
how do we know when we interpretate the bible correctly?.
i have a relative for instance says the gay sex life is ok and they interpretated the bible to back up the right to live a gay life.. how can i prove their interpretation is wrong?.
JA,
I have read many of your recent posts, and have found many of them to be thought provoking, and generally well argued by yourself. However, this seems a bit of a stretch.
The word malakos appears four times in the Bible; three of the times it refers to softness of clothes; the other time it is appears in this passage, referring to an effeminate person, one who is soft is the feminine sense, in other words, gay."Soft in the Feminine sense = homosexual" ?? And you make that leap by 3 other places where it refers to soft clothes?Thus, it is clear that Paul is claiming that homosexual men will not enter the basileia theos (kingdom of God).
I have not looked up the surrounding text for a complete contextual view, but it seems to me that if we are to "clothe ourselves in christ" then this could very well be reffering to one that is "weak" or "soft" in spirit as well.
just my 2 cents, no change expected!
hello all... i came across this line of questioning many months on the inet so i decided that i would submit just this once to peer pressure and make a usefull contribution to the board.. here is the question... is jesus just "a god?".
many of the regular inet surfers would have come across this line of questioning before so if you have you could just sit back and relax and read the replys.. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>.
me: so is he a 'lesser true god' or a 'lesser false god?'.
All good points, simwitness, although if our knowledge of God comes from "within, without any outside influence", there will be as many gods as there are people.
thank you...
I want to clarify one thing...
I did not intend to say that "our knowledge of God comes solely from within", What I had intended to point out is that "our ability to know god comes from within". We certainly get "knowledge" from many external sources. The Bible is one such source.
IMHO, knowing God is much deeper than having knowledge of God. I also refuse to limit my ability to know God based on any single source of knowledge.
I learn something new everyday, but some things I know despite this.
(edited to clarify the clarification...)
