thought i'd start a separate discussion on the subject.. those who know me know i'm struggling with faith; i want to believe, some days i do but it becomes difficult.. many believers say there is verifiable proof of jesus' existence outside of the bible.. please post this proof..
The greatest miracle is that the man who supposedly performed many miracles and supposedly brought the very separation of history into BC and AD left no historical proof of himself having ever passed through history!
If scholars admit now that certain portions of the Bible are added later (such as those now put into brackets), it casts doubt on rest of the portions too.
strong family ties & family values did not matter to jesus:.
- a person must hate his or her family and themselves in order to be jesus’ disciple (matthew 10:37; luke 14:26).
- jesus will give a big reward to those who forsake their family, abandon their home, leave their family behind for him.
His fleshly family was extremely critical and used to call him "senseless" (Mark 3:21) which may have had a bearing on his teaching. That means his teaching was not universal, but he was the offspring of his time and circumstance which paved the way for numerous sects in the future as each one understood his teachings differently.
strong family ties & family values did not matter to jesus:.
- a person must hate his or her family and themselves in order to be jesus’ disciple (matthew 10:37; luke 14:26).
- jesus will give a big reward to those who forsake their family, abandon their home, leave their family behind for him.
Interpreters say what Jesus meant was to keep family ties secondary. But if that is what Jesus really meant, what is the difficulty for Jesus to say "keep your family ties secondary" rather than going round about and say "A person must hate his or her family and themselves in order to be Jesus’ disciple"? A religious teacher must be crystal clear like explaining traffic signal: Red means STOP; Green means START leaving no opportunity for any one to interpret them.
i'm honestly in awe about this particular scripture (and honestly i can't keep thanking jwfacts enough for providing biblical contradictions to the jw doctrine!).
"john said to him: "teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.
" but jesus said: "do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; for he that is not against us is for us.
Both the statement reportedly made by Jesus (“Whoever is not on my side is against me” & “He that is not against us is for us”) may not have been made by him because both the statements lack meaning. For example, many of the divorced couples are not on each other’s side, and are neither against one another nor supportive to each other.
In view of the other statements Jesus made, the statements he could have made could be something like this:
‘Whoever is not on my side is not against me but is great as he is neutral;
He that is not against us is not for us but is great as he is neutral.
Jesus taught neutrality through his action when he said: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's” (Mark 12:17; Mathew 7:12, 21-23)
bible writers were somewhat naïve with regard to many subjects.
through old testament, bible writers paint a god who exalts one nation over others.
and through new testament, they paint him who exalts one of his children over the rest (something god cannot do—deuteronomy 10:17; romans 2:11).
Bible writers were somewhat naïve with regard to many subjects. Through Old Testament, Bible writers paint a God who exalts one nation over others. And through New Testament, they paint Him who exalts one of His children over the rest (something God cannot do—Deuteronomy 10:17; Romans 2:11). In Exodus 20:5, they attribute even negative quality (jealousy) to God which portrays Him as one who feels insecure. To be worse, they even use the negative expression “fear God” over 300 times throughout the Bible!
To be god-fearing is to be god-unloving because fear and love can't coexist. Fear is coercion. Love has no place for fear and vice versa. The god that frightens is no god. But the fact is that He gives humans freedom even to deny Him.
JWs are more at fault than those Bible writers because they justify the expression “fear God” using a senseless example, saying ‘you love the sea because you go to sea-shore, at the same time you also fear sea because you refrain from its deep waters, its storm … etc ]. Here under the guise of sea, they are talking about totally different things—sea shore, deep waters, storm ... etc. They simply ignore all the mistakes Bible writers have made, and also try to justify them wherever possible.
there was a recent thread on another site where posters maintained that many of the *most* long-standing jw's don't believe at least one official watchtower doctrine.
i've even read reports from bethelites saying they've heard bethel overseers say they don't believe some watchtower theology.
this made me think - i believe there are a few official doctrines that are common for many jw's to be either in denial about or simply not really believe ( often one and the same thing).. i'd say these are pretty high in the ranking:.
I know my close friend who is a long-time Witness who says: 'I simply cannot digest the teaching of no-blood transfusion.'
create a superhuman character performing amazing feats, make him speak very good proverbs and parables which find easy acceptance among people, thus make him an authority on spirituality, and then make him speak business: become rich through improper means (luke 16:1-12) and avoid going into hell by sharing a portion of the ill-gotten wealth to the poor (mathew 25:31-46; contrast luke 16:19-31) which resulted in many orphanages and similar institutions coming into existence with the rich sponsoring them and the management living in luxury while working on behalf of the poor.
or make him provide basis for adoption of rituals that ensures a luxurious living for the management..
doubtfuly yours,
Thank you for that YouTube link--I watched it. Good video. I agree with his idea that every religion is a different perspective of its founder who was only catering to the need of his time, yet truth may be far away from them all.
after being a jw made me lose trust in religion, from the lies, hypocrisy and greed of this organization made me lose faith completely.
what does one do after this mind f$%@, what is there to look forward to?
do i make up my own agnostic theory in head and hope for the best?
There is no point in regretting. Even religious leaders had no answers to serious questions (John 9:1-3) which means everyone has to make his own conclusion. It seems Bertrand Russell made a good attempt in this regard. He said: “Philosophical contemplation enlarges not only the objects of our thoughts, but also the objects of our actions and our affections; it makes us citizens of the universe, not only of one walled city at war with all the rest. In this citizenship of the universe exists all true freedom, and liberation from the thralldom of narrow dogmas and fears."
after being a jw made me lose trust in religion, from the lies, hypocrisy and greed of this organization made me lose faith completely.
what does one do after this mind f$%@, what is there to look forward to?
do i make up my own agnostic theory in head and hope for the best?
If I had done my homework and carefully ready at least three verses of the Bible (Mathew 7:21-23) I would not have joined JWs.
Jesus had already ruled out JWs when he said: "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’because the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21) See how JWs contradicts Jesus saying Kingdom is established in 1914, and the invisible presence of the King is here ...and these are the signs of his presence ...etc.
in the latest 2013 revision the footnote of john chapter 8 states; a number of ancient and authoritative manuscripts omit vs 53 (of chapter 7) to chapter 8, vs. 11.. yet the 1984 revision quotes a similar footnote, however the passage of scripture is included in the text, albeit separately at the bottom.
this passage of scripture is about the scribes and the pharisees who brought a woman that was accused of adultery before jesus to test him on the punishment to be meted out.
then came his famous reply; let the one of you that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her.. i just found it interesting that the wtbts would leave this out in the latest revision.
When ocean itself is salty, there is no point in asking why one particular drop is salty. Bible is hung on the thread that God chose a nation as His own terming others as pagan (OT) and God exalted one of His children over the rest of children (NT)--something that is impossible for God to do (Deuteronomy 10:17; Romans 2:11)
