after jesus fasted for 40 days, he was tempted by a man (not an evil angel) to turn stones into bread, jump from the temple and bow.
the tester was a pharisee of the ruling class.
jehovah's witnesses believe the tester to have been an evil spirit or leader of fallen angels named satan the devil.
cofty - So why did you claim there are no serious scholars who reject the historicity of Jesus?
Because I never considered him a serious scholar. His arguments were never convincing, and I do believe he does a lot of "footwork" to get to his conclusions. But as I said, I will revisit his arguments and try to take him more seriously.
after jesus fasted for 40 days, he was tempted by a man (not an evil angel) to turn stones into bread, jump from the temple and bow.
the tester was a pharisee of the ruling class.
jehovah's witnesses believe the tester to have been an evil spirit or leader of fallen angels named satan the devil.
For all it's worth, I did know of Carrier's work. But I do see your point. Would I be able to respond to his book? No. I admit I am no expert. I only read works of experts to form my own opinions. I will reconsider my stance against Carrier.
after jesus fasted for 40 days, he was tempted by a man (not an evil angel) to turn stones into bread, jump from the temple and bow.
the tester was a pharisee of the ruling class.
jehovah's witnesses believe the tester to have been an evil spirit or leader of fallen angels named satan the devil.
cofty, I said that there is not a single scholar employed at a university or college. To my knowledge, Carrier is not employed at either university or college. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
after jesus fasted for 40 days, he was tempted by a man (not an evil angel) to turn stones into bread, jump from the temple and bow.
the tester was a pharisee of the ruling class.
jehovah's witnesses believe the tester to have been an evil spirit or leader of fallen angels named satan the devil.
cofty - The Christ Myth theory is a minority position among scholars but it is not absent. The most recent contribution to the field is Dr Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt".
Perhaps you should read it for an appreciation of both sides of the debate.
I know about both sides. I happen to heartily disagree with Carrier.
punkofnice - Looks like you have an overbloated view of yourself.
Possibly. I admit that I am arrogant.
punkofnice - No, I won't go away tail between my legs and then come back begging for forgiveness from you because you look down your nose at people.
Okay. I don't look down at people. I look down at certain people.
are jehovah's witnesses really the only religion that promotes and preaches the name of jehovah?.
jw's are always claiming that they are the only religion that preaches and uses the name jehovah, and that is why only they will be saved.
for example, look at this quote from the watchtower:.
atomant - One would think if the GB are the channel whom god operates through god would at least tell them his proper name.
Exactly. This is especially laughable because the name Jehovah comes from joining the name JHVH (YHWH) with the title Adonai, which literally means "my Lords" but is usually translated to "my Lord" or "Lord."
When you join the consonants from JHVH with the vowels from Adonai, you get "Jahovah." From there, you get to Jehovah. It's a completely man-made name.
(By the way, is it not funny that half of that name is a title, not a name, which is translated to "Lord"? I've heard Witnesses object to people who use "Lord" as God's name (think: the Catholic church) because it's only a title, not a name.)
so i have been studying early christianity a bit and noticed that before christianity really took off after 325 ce, there were a lot of religions.
gnostics teachings , belief in all sorts of different gods from egypt to greece .
the practice of emperor worship etc.
deegee - Please note that in my previous comments I never stated anything about the reason for Constantine's conversion to Christianity
This is how I understood it. I thought you were saying that Constantine converted to Christianity for political reasons. I've heard people claim it before, so I thought this was what you were implying. I think the whole thing about "the political value" of Christianity is total nonsense, so I objected to it.
Now I see that you might have actually been talking about why Constantine sought to resolve the disputes within Christianity, which is an altogether different matter.
so i have been studying early christianity a bit and noticed that before christianity really took off after 325 ce, there were a lot of religions.
gnostics teachings , belief in all sorts of different gods from egypt to greece .
the practice of emperor worship etc.
Doug Mason, thanks for your post. I am actually surprised, but I guess deegee told you about our conversation. Having that said, I am not sure whether we understand each other. I will try to make myself clear once and for all.
While Constantine elevated the Paulines, the greater influence came with Theodosius in 381. But if you disagree, that is your right to do so, but when you disagree, please remain agreeable.
Yup... We clearly misunderstand each other. I am not talking about whether the orthodox church became popularized after Constantine's conversion. Before he became Christian, only about 7–10% (probably even less than that) of the Roman population was Christian. By the end of the fourth century, however, it jumped up to around 50%. That's a big difference. So, yes, I do agree with you that Constantine and Theodosius influenced Christianity. Theodosius even made it the state religion. But, again, this is not what I was talking about and disagreeing with in my previous posts.
What I was talking about is why Constantine became Christian. deegee made claims that it was for political reasons—to bring unity and peace to the Roman Empire. I believe that this is total nonsense. This is what I was talking about, and I gave reasons for my stance in one of my previous posts.
I hope we understand each other better now. I am looking forward to reading your study. (Does anybody still use the word "shall"?)
My desire is to show that the Watchtower lies. I am concerned at the human damage they cause through trashing families, risking lives because of their stance on the medical use of blood, and the mental damage they cause by forcing people to believe things they do not give full mental assent to.
I totally agree, by the way.
when jehovah brings armageddon, will he let me live long enough to witness the deaths of my children and grand children because they didn't believe in him?
.
since i've faded and i don't promote worshiping him anymore, i am just wondering.. at least i'd know for sure what kind of god he is?.
watson - When Jehovah brings Armageddon, will he let me live long enough to witness the deaths of my children and grand children because they didn't believe in him?
Pray to him about it.
"Because of this I say to you, whatever things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and they will be given to you" (Mark 11.24).
Edit: While I was translating the verse, I noticed that 2+2=5 already said that... but he added a nice twist to that: "He is a loving father."
so one of the many stupid articles deals with getting answers from the bible.. 1st question is about prayer.. ---would you say that he answers the prayers of .
some people.
what the bible says.
Landy - Schoolboy error.
You'd have been better off stealing it and praying for forgiveness ;)
I love that post!
hello brothers and sisters and truth seekers,.
i am an active jehovah's witness.
i don't believe in 1914 and i'm tototally against their way of dealing with abuse cases.
To my knowledge, you can observe the Sabbath and still be a Jehovah's Witness. A Sabbath is simply about not working on Saturday (unless you persist it be Sunday, but then I'm not sure why you would want to adhere to other Biblical rules but not this one...) If you choose not to work on Saturday, which in and of itself would not be participating in unscriptural holidays, you're completely fine—but again, to my knowledge only.
But if you don't believe in 1914... Well, you're gonna get disfellowshipped. The whole belief in the Governing Body is based on this year. And the whole belief in the Armageddon. So...
