a number of years ago, there was a large group of us that went to an unasigned territory.
many of us stayed at a small motel, motel 8, 6, 666 something like that, others camped out.
so, most of those that stayed at the motel were in the in group.
Nobody
Damn.
I was a chubby hairy little middle-eastern looking kid who grew up to be a chubby middle-eastern looking adult. I was married and still couldn't get a date during the convention.
I've lost weight now, but I still look like I belong behind the counter of a gas station.
CyrusThePersian
greetings, friends:.
a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.
the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.
Compound Complex,
Faith is the assured expectation of thinggs hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.-Hebrews 11:1
To put it succinctly, faith is belief without evidence. Let me illustrate:
If I told you I had a ginko tree in my backyard and you believed me without seeing it you would have faith that what I told you is true. If you came over to my house and confirmed that I do indeed have a ginko tree you would no longer need faith. Why? Because you now have evidence. Therefore your faith was well placed.
If, on the other hand, I told you that I have a Ferarri in my garage and you believed me you would have faith that what I told you is true. If, however, you came over to my house and found in my garage a rusty rake, a few paint cans and my minivan, but no Ferarri, then the evidence would lead you to the conclusion that your faith was misplaced...
...I was a Jehovah's Witness for 45 years. Most of that time I was an elder in the congregation. I had faith, strong faith in God and the Watchtower. Then something happened that shook my faith. (The generation change in the Nov.1995 WT). I began to investigate, to search out the evidence and I found that the Watchtower was, basically, a crock. But for some reason I didn't stop there. I continued to investigate- seeking out the evidence of the "deep things of God" and, to make a long story short, found that my faith was misplaced.
Despite JosephMalik's tirade that I'm trying to destroy people's faith, that is not my purpose. My purpose is to encourage the seeking of evidence, of proof for the things you believe, no matter where that journey takes you.
CyrusThePersian
greetings, friends:.
a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.
the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.
JosephMalik
I did not make "wrong assumptions". I made balanced reasonable conclusions based on the evidence, to wit:
FACT: The author of 2nd Timothy references "Jannes and Jambres" in 2nd Timothy 3:8. These two characters are not found anywhere in the Old Testament. They are found in the apocryphal Book of Jannes and Jambres. The writer then goes on to state that, "All scripture is inspired of God..."
CONCLUSION: The fact that 'Paul' referenced an apocryphal book and then declared that all scripture is inspired raises questions as to what 'Paul' believed to be scripture.
FACT: Jude directly quotes a book which is now known to be a forgery and cites the quotation as a prophesy.
CONCLUSION: Jude's quotation of a forged document and calling it a prophesy casts strong aspersions on Jude's own authenticity and value.
CyrusThePersian
greetings, friends:.
a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.
the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.
Leolaia,
Nice catch!
Are you saying that if Jude thought that the words he quoted from 1st Enoch 1:9 in v14 of his epistle. were written "long ago" that it would lend even greater credence to the idea that Jude felt that 1st Enoch was inspired and was written by the real Enoch? Too, the fact that Jude says the condemnation was written down shows that he was referencing a written source, i.e.1st Enoch.
We know today that the books of Enoch were only 200-300 years old by the time of Jude's epistle. That's not "long ago" by the standards of that era.Therefore if it's true that Jude thought that this book was ancient then it's another piece of evidence to show 1st Enoch's importance to first century Christianity
Thanks!
CyrusThePersian
greetings, friends:.
a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.
the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.
Can you prove that they did not?
I don't have to.Miracles are, by their nature unlikely, if not impossible events. It is up to the one making the claim that these events occured to provide evidence for that claim. As Carl Sagan said,"Exraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
In other words, I don't have to prove that miracles didn't occur any more than I have to prove that there are no pink elephants on Neptune. It simply isn't my job. It's your job to prove miracles happened.
No one is asking you to believe it. Get lost if you do not like it. But no, you want to influence someone else as if you knew better. But in reality you know nothing about such past history and just want to argue.
Now that's not very nice...
This is the past, things happened and not everyone knew of them just like now. Not every detail was recorded. And it was not unusual to ignore material already covered adequately in other texts.
This is true. However, a miracle working itinerant preacher who could raise the dead, feed thousands of his followers with a few scraps, and have hundreds of people clamoring for his attention to heal their sick ones and had hordes of people following him all over the countryside but whose miraculous works nevertheless failed to get the attention of Suetonius, Tacitus or especially Josephus (the highly suspicious Testimonium Flavinium aside) seems to me to be highly suspect.
CyrusThePersian
greetings, friends:.
a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.
the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.
Leolaia
Sorry! I wasn't trying to give the impression that it was dangerous for Jude to call an uninspired work a prophesy, merely that semantics were much more important back then than they are now. I was trying to point out that when Jude's readers read the word "prophesied" pertaining to 1st Enoch that they would automatically assume that 1st Enoch was an inspired prophetic work, at least in Jude's eyes.
I was merely using the fact that Jesus just said a few words to the Sanhedrin and it got him sentenced to death to show that people put a lot more stock in what people said back then. (Richard Dawkins wouldn't have lasted two days in ancient Palestine!)
CyrusThePersian
greetings, friends:.
a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.
the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.
Not if those rights rightfully belong to you
If those rights rightfully belonged to him he should have proved it to the chief priests and the Sanhedrin. Since Jesus made the assertion that he was the son of God, which is what netted him the charge of blasphemy in the first place, it behooved Jesus to offer proof of who he was to his accusers. He did not. Therefore the charge was valid, based on his own testimony.
What would you have done if you was a member of the Sanhedrin and some yahoo was brought before you and he told you he was the son of God? Remember, Jesus wasn't the only one to make that claim in this era.
And raising the dead, healing the sick, and walking on water etc. is a powerful way of "putting your money where your mouth is".
For some reason, the Sanhedrin and the chief priests in the book of Matthew, as well as secular historians of that time (and the apostle Paul, who doesn't mention any of Jesus' miracles) seem singularly unimpressed with Jesus' miraculous feats. Could it be that they never happened? Can you prove that they did?
CyrusThePersian
greetings, friends:.
a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.
the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.
It was a false charge of blasphemy which is not the same thing.
Yes it is! It still got him killed, didn't it?
Whether the charge was true or false is not the point. The point is that just saying a few wrong words to the wrong people at the wrong time could get you killed back then, which is why (getting back to the main point) it's unthinkable that Jude would would refer to !st Enoch as a prophesy if he didn't believe it was inspired.
SIDEBAR: According to definition #3 in my American College Dictionary the word blasphemy can mean, "The crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God." Therefore, technically speaking, Jesus was guilty of blasphemy!
CyrusThePersian
greetings, friends:.
a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.
the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.
JosephMalik,
Nonsense right back at ya!
Jesus Christ himself was sentenced to death for the "crime" of blasphemy! -Matt.26:64-68.
The point I was trying to make is that Jude would have been more careful in his use of the word eprophéteusen if he didn't believe that 1st Enoch was an inspired work.
CyrusThePersian
greetings, friends:.
a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.
the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.
JosephMalik
I must humbly disagree. In ancient times people didn't bandy about with words like "prophesied" like we might today.(After all, this was an era when "blasphemy" could get you killed.)
James H. Charlesworth, Princeton's George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature stated that Jude's use of eprophéteusen (prophesied) shows that Jude felt that his source material (1st Enoch 1:9) was inspired.
If the author of Jude did not believe 1st Enoch was inspired (and many people of that time DID believe it was inspired) he would NEVER have cited it as a prophecy, not even to make a point.
CyrusThePersian
