Posts by accuracy

19

Sunday's Radio Show with the Dub's

by Unclepenn1 in

jw
friends

well, we had our radio show on sunday with the jehovah's witnesses and i don't think it went all that well, namely because it turned into a game of rhetoric.

(if you listened, i would love to hear your thoughts).. .

2 tim 2 :14 says- keep reminding them of these things.

accuracy

But you cannot argue only on the basis of English meanings of words, when the Bible was written originally in Hebrew and koine Greek. It is necessary to consider how the word "true" is used in those languages, and whether it is in the exclusive sense implied by the English word. In such a case, a word's actual usage in the Bible has to carry more weight.

You cannot argue on the basis of the Bible's use of the word "true" that calling the LORD (Jehovah) "the only true God" makes Jesus a "false" God. It simply doesn't work that way. There are too many cases that prove otherwise, that "true" is not necessarily the opposite of "false." The context governs.

For example, when the writer of Hebrews (at 8:2, NASB) calls Jesus "a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man," he is contrasting this "true tabernacle" of Jesus with the tabernacle Moses pitched in the wilderness. But that tabernacle of Moses was also, according to the Bible, the Lord's true tabernacle, otherwise it would not have been used for worship. Was Moses' tabernacle therefore a "false" tabernacle? The Bible nowhere indicates this. Clearly, calling the symbolic tabernacle in which Jesus serves a "true" tabernacle does not mean that the tabernacle of Moses was a "false" one. There are many, many such examples of the actual use of the word "true" in the Scriptures.

I did not hear the program of which you speak. But if the objective was to somehow prove the Trinity from the Bible, it was doomed from the beginning. The LORD (Jehovah) is the only true God who must be worshiped. But Jesus is also a true god in that he is truly of divine nature and possesses the true attributes of divinity. It is not an instance of one postulate being "true" and the other being "false." Regardless of English usage, when dealing with the Bible, we have to look at instances of the Bible's usage.

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

accuracy

Joseph, you must know that there are many scholarly works -- not just by fundamentalists, but by conservative Christian scholars -- who see the glass as half full rather than half empty in this instance. That Christian traditions are reported in different form and manner may as well reflect reports that are complementary rather than contradictory. It is a stretch to argue on the basis of our rationale 2,000 years after the fact. To me, it's like those guys who want us to believe they know what Jesus really said, 2,000 years down the line, as opposed to the testimony of people who actually lived in the time of Jesus, or shortly thereafter. The "Jesus Seminar" reconstructionists are doing a hatchet job on the Gospel of Christ, but what standing do they have to give us a better reading of what Jesus taught?

There are many so-called hard sayings and apparent contradictions in the Bible. Conservative scholars and Evangelicals believe that they can be resolved in a number of ways. To some who are more critical, such resolution may not be enough. To each his own.

Obviously, those who do not wish to hold the Bible as divinely-inspired will not do so, and those who do so wish, will. What remains certain is that we, today, do not have all the facts and the evidence at our disposal, and whatever arguments we come up with, on either side, will be neither proof positive, nor final.

17

Did the Son of Man Come?

by JosephAlward in

if the author of the book of matthew can be believed, jesus left no doubt about when the apocalypse would occur.

it would be before all of jesus' disciples died, even before his disciples would be able to spread the good word to all of the cities of israel.

since all of the disciples are dead and the apocalypse hasn't occurred, we must conclude that matthew was wrong and that the bible is in error.

accuracy

Well Joe, for all I know those Muslims who sacrificed all, bismillah, did go to Paradise to be with the beautiful Houris. I can't prove that one way or another, but it is not for me to judge their faith. As for the followers of David Koresh, at least they had no doubts that the man David Koresh actually existed, whether he was Jesus Christ or not.

The thing about Jesus, though, is that his disciples and apostles were eyewitnesses of the man, and Paul of the resurrected Christ. It is also interesting that the ancient Jewish writers in the Mishnah and Talmud never doubted the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, they accepted that there was a Jesus, Yeshu bar-Maryam, "Jesus the son of Mary," just that he was not the Son of God. It does not surprise that secular records make no mention of Jesus, since to them he would have been just another wild visionary or Jewish revolutionary among hundreds of the time. The world is concerned with its own affairs at all times, and seldom with the affairs of God.

S-S, I really can't treat your reply with any seriousness. The nature of faith is belief in the unseen. Even scientists believe in the unseen, and several theories of physics are based on the unseen. It is irrelelvant that I have not personally seen Jesus. I believe in Jesus. And the resurrected Jesus in whom I believe is reported to have said to a disbelieving disciple: "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." (John 20:29, NASB)

17

Did the Son of Man Come?

by JosephAlward in

if the author of the book of matthew can be believed, jesus left no doubt about when the apocalypse would occur.

it would be before all of jesus' disciples died, even before his disciples would be able to spread the good word to all of the cities of israel.

since all of the disciples are dead and the apocalypse hasn't occurred, we must conclude that matthew was wrong and that the bible is in error.

accuracy

As a student of historical critical writing and form criticism from a Biblical perspective, I am well aware of past and modern authors who wish to write Christ out of the Gospel, and to trash most of what he is reported to have taught and done. Nothing new here, this has been going on since the 18th century.

However, we should remember that those early believers in a supposedly "phantom" Jesus were willing to do all and risk all for their belief. While many may be content to spin fabulous stories, not many are willing to die for those fables. Christianity has been from the beginning a religion that people were willing to make great sacrifices for, and to practice altruism and philanthropy for.

I prefer to think it was for more than for "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

If you would accept the word of the critics, none of the important people mentioned in the Bible ever actually existed. No Abraham, no Jacob, no Moses, no Joshua, no Saul, no David, no Isaiah, no Jesus. Strange, then, that this book and its heroes of faith have spawned a nation, several religions, and an ethical flowering of humanity. All on the basis of unrealities? If that is the case, unrealities must be more real than reality itself.

Over the centuries, archaeoligists have found physical verification and memorabilia of many people mentioned in the Bible, who were previously thought to be have been non-existant. Just a few years ago, there was found the tomb of the high priest Caiaphas, who presided over the trial of Jesus. Before this find, the critical scholars were as certain that there was no such person as Caiaphas as they are presently certain that there was no such person as Jesus. In fact, so often have the "missing" people of the Bible been verified, that it is really a dangerous thing to assert that they did not exist, simply because we have not "found" them yet.

And Jesus? He lives in the hearts of millions. Not bad for a phantom.

17

Did the Son of Man Come?

by JosephAlward in

if the author of the book of matthew can be believed, jesus left no doubt about when the apocalypse would occur.

it would be before all of jesus' disciples died, even before his disciples would be able to spread the good word to all of the cities of israel.

since all of the disciples are dead and the apocalypse hasn't occurred, we must conclude that matthew was wrong and that the bible is in error.

accuracy

Brother Joe,

This sounds like so-called higher criticism to me. In reality, if we are to conclude that "Matthew" lied, he was only reporting the words of Jesus. Thus, we must conclude also that Jesus lied, his apostles lied, and those who reported the words of the apostles lied. Ergo, Christianity is a lie, the resurrection is a lie, and we are all just animals awaiting that part in the circle of life which is death.

Nihilism or Christianity...which one shall it be?

10

good enough translation?

by gotcha in

what's a good enough bible translation to use..?

how abt the new american bible?

accuracy

I use many different Bible versions for study, but prefer those that are basically literal, such as the New American Standard Version. Paraphrases or "dynamic equivalence" versions can offer valuable insights sometimes, but are also more prone to individual interpretation. My basic belief is that the Bible is the Word of God in its original, and although we do not have those originals today, translations that try as much as possible to recover those originals are the most suitable for study.

Exegesis and hermeneutics are also good tools in their place, which is to try to uncover possibilities and proper understandings. So long as their findings are not treated as infallible, but merely as probable, they are useful.

My religion? I am, or am trying to be, simply a Christian.

56

On STUMBLING BLOCKS

by You Know in

jw
friends

just a few loose ends and random thoughts for a select group of readers who have not been completely defrauded of your faith.. on the topic of stumbling: stumbling typically involves the mistakes of others whether real or perceived.

the reason jehovah does not consider any stumbling block as a valid reason for abandoning ones faith is because a persons faith should be in jehovah and christ in the first place.

and since god most assuredly did not let his worshipper down, what a fellow believer does or does not do should have no bearing upon our personal relationship with our heavenly father.

accuracy

You Know, what you have said makes perfect sense. I see you are a "stumbling block" to those who want to present Witnesses as monolithic clones. You don't play the game their way. It's interesting to observe the whole thing.

The Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek put-down is irrelevant. Been there, done that. Truth does not come from grammar and syntax alone.

Do your thing, You Know. You have as much right to do so as anyone else.

10

good enough translation?

by gotcha in

what's a good enough bible translation to use..?

how abt the new american bible?

accuracy

I doubt that any translator or group of translators functions from a vacuum, but rather from supposition pools based on their training and theology. Thus, a translation produced by Jews will differ in some points from one made by Christians. And among Christians, there will be differences according to theology: Catholic, Evangelical, conservative Christian, etc. And among those differing theologies, some translators prefer to render word-for-word, others thought-for-thought. Some translate literally, some paraphrase.

One may, however, have recourse to the best available Hebrew and Greek critical texts, but these are also determined by committee and consensus. There are no original manuscripts in existence. On the basis of what is available, a serious student can either read the texts for what they say in plain translation, or accept an understanding that is theologized. Even with that, there appear to be some basic readings to which all agree....or, nearly so.

99

YK on WT UN NGO STATUS

by You Know in

several posters have asked what i thought of the.

revelations about the wt being associated with the un.

as an ngo so i thought i might make a brief comment on.

accuracy

I appreciate your comments, YK. As for the question why we "need" an organization, it is for the same reason the individual Jew needed the Temple and the synagogue. It is for the same reason the individual Christian needed the Congregation and its arrangement. It is because God set it up that way, for His worship to be an organized, arranged worship.

Hillel said: "Do not separate yourself from the community." (Pirkei Avot 2:5). Hillel was a Jewish teacher, but you can find the same sentiments in the New Testament.

10

good enough translation?

by gotcha in

what's a good enough bible translation to use..?

how abt the new american bible?

accuracy

If you're Catholic, the NAB is fine. Otherwise, you might try the NASB (New American Standard Bible) or even the NKJV (New King James Version).