with the unveiling of the new jw logo, and all of the emphasis placed on it , will the borg dare to put it on a flag?
i hope they do!
imagine all whom would wake up with such an act!
FUN FACT: It took the early Christians a little over a century to create and accept the divinity of Christ and the holy spirit to create the Blessed Holy Trinity. It took Jehovah's Witnesses about the same time to come up with their own Jehovah = GB = Jworg trinity.
Coincidence?
The more one tries to NOT be something... the more alike they become.
ablebodiedman posted~ 10 mins ago (8/16/2014).
post 741 of 741. .
"i absolutely 100% believe in god, jesus christ and everything recorded in the bible.. the reason why is because of the overwhelming amount of evidence.. there is so much evidence that it has taken me years to examine what has cemented my own convictions.".
@opusdei1972 Is it really... a problem? I mean, I consider it a problem when they want to force pseudoscience in schools or pass laws to regulate civility... yes, then it's a problem.
Outside that, any toddler religion today is simply doing what religions have done for thousands of years. There is absolutely nothing the Watchtower can come up with that the Catholics have not tried and abandoned as some point in their history. None of this is new.
So if people want to... in their personal lives... walk backwards in history, so be it. You may call it a problem, I call it "weeding."
with the unveiling of the new jw logo, and all of the emphasis placed on it , will the borg dare to put it on a flag?
i hope they do!
imagine all whom would wake up with such an act!
@JW GoneBad the first two on your list... possibly three are slowly becoming one entity. So that when one talks about one, they are actually including the other two.
In other words, Jehovah's Witnesses are creating a TRINITY: JEHOVH = GB = PUBLICATION/WEBSITE.
ablebodiedman posted~ 10 mins ago (8/16/2014).
post 741 of 741. .
"i absolutely 100% believe in god, jesus christ and everything recorded in the bible.. the reason why is because of the overwhelming amount of evidence.. there is so much evidence that it has taken me years to examine what has cemented my own convictions.".
Historically speaking, not even the bible is evidence of the bible. LOL.
That's fine. The simple minded tend to enjoy boxes where the unknowns are presented in a way that has been comfortable for thousands of years. Whether it was Ra, Zeus, YHWH, or Jehovah, the SAME STORIES have existed through many revisions for a reason. People are willing to believe in them with all their hearts because of captivating literature. They are free from inquiry, wonderment, and void of the burden of questioning life and living.
For them, all life's problems are solved. There is nothing more to look for. Good for them.
Now... was there a point to this post?
and he said to them, "i tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of god come with power.
(mark 9:1).
when you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.
Vanderhoven,
The easy answer to your questions is simply that there are no names written on the original manuscripts. In later manuscripts scribes (slaves) would have attributed whatever gospel account to people who they felt were in close proximity to Jesus, perhaps based off stories said to originate with the apostles, but later in the century. Paul had already written Galatians and 1&2 Thessalonians + before Mark was written, so that gives you the time line where those close to Jesus would have been of considerable age or dead. As most people were not literate (especially in formal Greek), these stories remained word-of-mouth for many years. Matthew and Luke use Mark as one of their sources. NONE of these were eyewitness accounts. AND whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts quite possibly as one book.
But with manuscripts of the time, many books did not have names. Paul's letters have specific congretations but books not written by Paul like Ephesians do not have "Ephesians" in the title. It says "Letter to the ____." Some manuscripts have another name written in. This meant it was a circulated letter, not something Paul did. Same with the gospels, they were nameless and circulated.
The gospels were not "made up." There were many miracle workers at the time... that was not odd. There were many apocalyptic prophets... also not new. But Jesus was popular as he lead his group and the group of his predecessor, John. So books can be written about miracle workers... no big deal. However, those that believed the Christ was the Messiah ran into a problem... he DIED. Now this goes into the whole concept of Jews and the resurrection that I will skip and say people told stories based off what they thought they saw at that time. It isn't made up... it's just not necessarly REAL.
People today can apply the stories however they want. Just because it's inspiring literature doesn't mean it's LITERAL literature. This somewhat Protestant approach of asking over-simplistic questions as if in disbelief does not favor LEARNING. The bible is a dense subject and there is A LOT of criss-cross information to come to just one conclusion. But if even the most common of knowledge is foreign to you, you might consider putting in some effort of your own and taking a (secular) class on the subject rather than rattling hard-earned knowledge out of others.
There is WAY too much about the fundamentals of bible history you do not know to answer the questions you are asking.
and he said to them, "i tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of god come with power.
(mark 9:1).
when you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.
I've been meaning to read Zealot. Maybe after I finish a book about Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses and an old Stephen King novel I've been meaning to read... lol.
I'm diverse.
and he said to them, "i tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of god come with power.
(mark 9:1).
when you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.
Also, Jesus was a JEWISH prophet who spoke like the JEWISH prophets of old. So there isn't a lot of difference between Jesus and those that came before him who preached destruction during the time of the prophets.
The fact that LATER, elements were (somewhat randomly) applied to his teachings different than those found in the Tanakh or the writings of the prophets had more to do with Jesus' popularity and mobility in garnering a following than anything he was teaching.
His actual teachings that HE taught in HIS lifetime were not all that special. End of Days ideology goes back some 500 years B.C. with local religions in what is now modern-day Iran (and we see how well THAT has worked out for them). Writers who wrote about Moses/Abraham took this concept, and those who wrote about Jesus expanded on it, even though Jesus himself did not.
atheists believe that god should stop the large-scale injustice on earth; if he does'nt, then he does not exist.
jws believe that god will intervene sometime in the last days!.
interestingly, both throw themselves on their own expectation of soemthing god should or will do, yet in fact something god does not have to do.
It's sad when people stop believing in the existence of God, automatically their humaneness disappear.
YES! That is why CHRISTIANS are leading the way in AIDS research, the cure for cancer, renewable energies, electric cars, and overall sustainable living in every major country in the world.
OH WAIT...
atheists believe that god should stop the large-scale injustice on earth; if he does'nt, then he does not exist.
jws believe that god will intervene sometime in the last days!.
interestingly, both throw themselves on their own expectation of soemthing god should or will do, yet in fact something god does not have to do.
Atheists believe that God should stop the large-scale injustice on earth; if he does'nt, then He does not exist.
That is, quite literally, the stupidest thing I have read this week. That is a claim bible people put on us, and it is something to consider in argument. HOWEVER, no thinking atheist thinks this way because (1) it doesn't make sense, (2) the logic is flawed as it is reversed, (3) there is no scientific data to support this, (4) it's a very weak argument at best.
This is what is called a Christian's view of Atheism and I personally find it offensive. Instead of actually asking an atheist personally, one will rely of second hand information, posted stories, assumptions, and haphazard deductions. I suppose I could say that because all Christians belief in god, they feel they can write such shit because if it were wrong, god would tell them.
You cannot give expectation to something that doesn't exist. You CAN have expectation of the people who think it does. You are certainly proving one of those.
my wife, who now thinks i am not competent enough to discuss spiritual matters with the kids, thinks that i could really benefit from discussing matters of the bible with this nasa engineer who attends meetings at her kingdom hall.
apparently, he is quite knowledgeable in the bible and has a good grasp of their doctrines.
at least according to her as i never actually spoken with the man at length but i do know that he is an elder.
What does being a smart engineer have to do with individual belief in eternal salvation?
And who makes the assumption that just because a person is a NASA engineer, they have the personal ability to translate the knowledge of GOD'S WORD any better than an uneducated pioneer... or even rocks of the earth (Luke 19:40)?
