Jehovah's-Witness . com forum discussions

Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Why WT will ALWAYS be around
/  





 

Why WT will ALWAYS be around
by JT 13 years ago 9 Replies latest 13 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
JT
JT 13 years ago


From time to to one will read a post where the question is Posed "WILL WT FALL"

and for many who have taken a serious look at "Belief Systems" the answer for the most part is NO and the reason is simple-
Belief Systems provide humans with answers to "Life's Questions":

it matters not if the answer is correct, only as long as an answer is provided- - the article below is just another example that highlights that despites proof, evidence, documentation, etc for the TRUE BELIEVER THERE IS NO TURNING BACK
################
The Will to Believe Keeps the Worldwide Church of God Afloat
by Vern Bullough

The following article is from a forthcoming issue of Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 22, Number 4.

Worldwide Church of GodOne of the more fascinating stories of the rise and decline of a church is that of the Worldwide Church of God, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong (1892-1986) in 1933 in Eugene, Oregon. Originally it was called the Church of God, of which there were many. Armstrong did not add the term Worldwide until 1968.
Armstrong’s teachings were essentially based upon what religious scholars call the "Sabbatarian Adventist" tradition; that is, Armstrong held Saturday to be holy and anticipated the almost immediate second coming of Jesus. Self-educated, he regarded himself as God’s chosen apostle-messenger for these last days. He assumed absolute authority within his church, ordaining and appointing all its ministers. Armstrong believed in pacifism and British-Israelism (the doctrine that Britain and the United States had been settled by the two lost tribes of Israel), and was opposed to medical intervention because only God could cure and divorce and remarriage. He subscribed to what can only be called a smorgasbord of other beliefs. Many of Armstrong’s biblical interpretations were mistranslations from the original Hebrew scriptures or misunderstanding of the English translations.
Armstrong's key to success was a radio program, The World Tomorrow, which he began in 1934. However, he did not learn to use the media effectively until he moved to Pasadena, California, at the end of World War II. It was also in Pasadena, in 1947, that he founded Ambassador College to train clergy to spread his beliefs. Armstrong's organization was now officially called the "Worldwide Church of God." From radio, he expanded into television and began publishing a magazine called Plain Truth, whose circulation for a time reached 500,000.
Money poured in. Armstrong used part of it to build an architecturally beautiful $50 million campus for his college in Pasadena, with Ambassador Auditorium as its capstone. To celebrate the opening of the auditorium, he imported the Vienna Symphony. The event was followed over the years by headline concerts and performances by individuals ranging from Arthur Rubenstein and Luciano Pavarotti to Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. Sometimes his plans were more ambitious than his knowledge base. The story is told that, when he invited the Vienna Symphony, he thought he was getting the Vienna Philharmonic. Still, the college proved successful, and by the 1980s it had moved from a missionary training center to an accredited academic institution that offered degrees.
The church grew rapidly. At its peak, in the early 1970s, it had approximately 120,000 members with congregations throughout the United States and annual earnings of $200 million. A television program hosted by Armstrong's son and apparent successor, Garner Ted Armstrong, was one of the nation's most popular religious programs and was syndicated all over the world.
Decline and Fall
But cracks in the church 's facade began to appear, and its troubles quickly mounted. The first scandal involved Garner, the church's most impressive media representative. In 1974, he was accused of adultery, and in 1978, he was abruptly dismissed from his television program and excommunicated by his father. Garner countered by establishing a rival religious organization, the Church of God International, and continued his television career out of Texas.
Factions within the church began to challenge Armstrong’s financial dealings. In 1978, several ex-members successfully brought a lawsuit to have the church placed in receivership pending a trial on charges of misuse of funds. The trial never occurred because the California legislature, lobbied by a variety of other churches, intervened to prohibit such actions against churches on the grounds of separation of church and state.
Dissent continued, but was less open until the death of the senior Armstrong in 1986. Without the infallible prophet, “Christ’s end-time apostle,” as he once referred to himself—and still without any sign of the Second Coming—controversies that had ranged silently broke out in the struggle for leadership. Many critics, some of whom had gone to professional religious seminaries as well as Ambassador College, discovered that Armstrong's idiosyncratic beliefs lacked the scriptural basis he had claimed. Rather, they said, his claims were unique and distorted interpretations of the Scriptures, and should be abandoned. Within a few years, all these church tenets had been abandoned as false. Also abandoned was Saturday worship, the celebration of traditional Jewish holidays such as the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement, and even the British-Israelite belief.
The shedding of almost every doctrine the Worldwide Church of God once clung to is a story almost without parallel in American religious history. Although on a much smaller scale, institutionally it could be compared to the pope renouncing the Petrine succession because it was based on myth and misinterpretation (which religious scholars say it is), or the Mormons saying that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon.
The death of its leader, the radical change in doctrine, and the financial mess that ensued disheartened believers, broke up families, and most importantly drastically curtailed church income (based on tithing). Ambassador College was closed , the campus was sold, and the surviving organization was moved to Texas. In the words of one of the current leaders, J. Michael Feazell, the church liberated itself and abandoned its legalistic observance of non- essential doctrines to concentrate on the importance of a Christian’s standing with God.
Whether a somewhat less drastic reformation/cleansing would have lessened the trauma to the church is uncertain. Still, even with the radical dismantling and discarding of most of the doctrine taught by Armstrong, the Worldwide Church of God survives in a much reduced form in a loose alliance of congregations. That a church could essentially abandon all of its basic doctrines after the death of its founder, publicly at least imply that its founder was a fraud, and still manage to retain even a modicum of its believers is indicative of just how strong is the will to believe for vast numbers of people. This phenomenon is something that secular humanists always find difficult to understand and accept.
 
kproscts
kproscts 13 years ago

Sad but true. I was just having a conversation today about this very topic. I was telling a friend about this site and how I stummbled into it and that it got me so pumped up that I was going to start digging myself, put together nothing but a fact based binder supported with documentation and send it back home. Other than knowing who JW's are he is not fimiliar with the overall belief structure and his reply was "What would happen after reading the material I sent them if they were then in turn to question the leaders regarding this and then let's say the leaders claim what I sent them was falsified documents?" I told him they would most likely believe them! Sad but true.
 
minimus
minimus 13 years ago

Is it all about life's questions being answered? I don't think so! People simply have a need to say that they believe in something. It doesn't have to mean that they embrace a certain way of thinking. It certainly doesn't mean that a person truly believes everything they're told or that they have real answers to life's questions. People stay in a religion for various reasons. Their family might have been in the religion before them, They may believe it is a good religion, or they might feel that staying in a religion is the course of least resistance. Some people are Democrats, Republicans or Independants because they always have been. Some are idealists. Some just hope that things will change within their party. I think people stay on their course, usually, because it's easy to do so, not because they feel that they get true answers to life's questions........Regarding the WT., I think it will be existent for years to come because there's a sucker born every minute.
 
nilfun
nilfun 13 years ago

WT will ALWAYS be around <----------with more WT recruits coming in from my family recently...I'm inclined to agree with that statement.
 
Hamas
Hamas 13 years ago


People always want to hold on to something in life.
Some people like being told what to do, some birds are just meant to be caged. The only thing we can do is help those birds spread their wings.
 
JT
JT 13 years ago


MAX

My only point was it is usually "belief systems" that take a stab at answering Lifes questions- and i agree for many they remain due to that is ALL THEY KNOW--
or a range of other reasons, BOTTOM LINE-- belief systems will ALWAYS have folks who will attempt to say:
THE KINGS HAS ON CLOTHES
 
LovesDubs
LovesDubs 13 years ago

It might be around, but with the old guard dying off...I think changes will ensue. There will be a power struggle and a need to redirect the way they reach people. The old doom and gloom thing after 125 years aint workin any more and people realize it. A new CARROT will have to be dangled. Why would people knowingly join a cult which acts as quick sand? Sucking them in and down with no way of escaping intact? Their exposure on the internet alone is enough to make people stop and think. The trend in the last few years because of the internet has been that their biggest growth has only been in places where there IS NO INTERNET and people are hopeless, poor and looking for relief. And you know the Watchtower has no tolerance for poor and needy people. Its too greedy.
 
kgfreeperson
kgfreeperson 13 years ago

You know, I do believe it will always be around in some form. And I don't really care. I just want to get the person I love out. And that probably won't happen, either.
 
ISP
ISP 13 years ago


You could be right JT.
I see it becoming an old persons religion in time. It might struggle financially and see a decline in congregations.
ISP
 
waiting
waiting 13 years ago


That a church could essentially abandon all of its basic doctrines after the death of its founder, publicly at least imply that its founder was a fraud,
Quite similiar to the WTBTS.....only difference is that they say Russell's light was cloudy (like that ol' mirror example they used in the WT).
and still manage to retain even a modicum of its believers is indicative of just how strong is the will to believe for vast numbers of people. This phenomenon is something that secular humanists always find difficult to understand and accept.
Well, if the more liberally educated secular humanists (atheists?) find it difficult,..........at least we're in good company, eh?
Thanks TJ............and I agree - the WT will stay around, but I wouldn't be surprised that in 20 years if any of their teachings are the same as they were in the 80's.
lol - except that The End Is Coming.....Real Soon Now.
waiting
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights You Did Not Hear at the 8-23-2015 WT Study (PRAYER 1)
by blondie 6 months ago
Island Man
The massive gaping hole in Watchtower's understanding of Matthew 25:31-40
by Island Man 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 09-20-2015 WT Study (LOYALTY)
by blondie 6 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/53173/why-wt-will-always-around






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Meet the JW's little brother:
/  





 

Meet the JW's little brother:
by Winston Smith :>D 11 years ago 17 Replies latest 11 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
Winston Smith :>D
Winston Smith :>D 11 years ago


Meet the JW?s little brother:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/mar05/311434.asp 


Killings shed light on church


Doctrine shift in '90s had shattering effect


By DAVE UMHOEFER and MARIE ROHDE 
Posted:


Two decades ago, as Terry Ratzmann was embracing the small Christian community upon which he left his fatal mark this month, a spiritual earthquake was beginning to shake the foundation of the Worldwide Church of God he had entered.
In a series of stunning, rapid changes considered without precedent in American religious history, the California-based church known for its trademark televangelism program, "The World Tomorrow," renounced key doctrines and lurched toward its current status in the mainstream of  's evangelical movement.
By the mid-1990s, the tremors had left 145,000 members at a crossroads that wound up separating friends, dividing families and driving some pastors to nervous breakdowns. The tumult, for many, meant a choice. They could abandon lifelong views and swallow the new mainstream message. Or they could join new offshoots that would follow the controversial teachings of the late Herbert W. Armstrong, the Iowa-born advertising-man-turned-preacher and self-appointed apostle who founded the Worldwide Church of God.


Ratzmann, like tens of thousands of others, took the latter path, staying the course and landing in a small splinter group, the Living Church of God. On March 12, his rampage during his congregation's Saturday Sabbath service at a  hotel would leave eight people dead and bring new attention to the practices and views of the Living Church of God and the other Armstrong-inspired "splinters" around the globe.


With 7,000 members, the Living Church of God is considered stricter in enforcing lifestyle rules than most of the splinters. The North Carolina-based church is led by Roderick Meredith, a patriarch of the Armstrong movement and a man whom religious scholars view as an authoritarian figure in the mold of Armstrong. Church leaders confirm they follow Armstrong's teachings almost to the letter.


The tragedy also drew attention to the group's booming end-of-time prophecies and its controversial beliefs, espoused by Armstrong, that it should focus mainly on preparing an exclusive group - the British-descended "Anglo-American peoples" - for the second coming of Christ.


of God members and former members report that the group's rules and practices  discourage dating  and  marriage with non-members ,  frown on interracial dating, prefer women wear  modest attire  and be  subservient  to their husbands , and discourage use of  anti-depressant medication  or mind-altering prescriptions . Like many other churches, they oppose abortion , divorce , premarital sex and homosexuality .


Members are to shun birthdays , and the church considers  Christmas, Easter  and other traditional Christian holidays as  pagan .  The crosses left as memorials outside the hotel where the shooting occurred are generally accepted as sincere messages of condolences, but the  considers them  pagan  symbols rather than religious icons .


How the church's rules and practices may have affected Ratzmann is one of the central mysteries of the  tragedy. Church members and others have said that Ratzmann must have been mentally ill, leading to the question of how much his church follows Armstrong's old policy of urging members to rely on God instead of medical professionals for healing. Friends have talked about how the socially awkward 44-year-old was desperately searching among congregations throughout the country for a wife.


of God pastors say they have moved beyond Armstrong's rigid rule on medical consultation and leave the decision up to individual members while encouraging them to pray for healing. But some still follow the old way, and prescription anti-depressant use is discouraged by some pastors, according to interviews with church members. Ratzmann's mental condition is unknown, but some who knew him have said he was unhappy.


End-time prediction in 1975
 
Members of the Armstrong movement , past and present, say they have grown used to being asked  if they are in a cult , given the unusual combination  of Old Testament-based practices  endorsed by the church , its  strict adherence  to  doctrine  and the heavy financial demands on members.


Officials of the remade Worldwide,  looking back at their former beliefs , say Armstrong was in charge of a " cult " - the label that critics had plastered it with for years .
Armstrong and his ministers always preached that the end of time was near, to be followed by the second coming of Christ. But they drew major attention with an unusually specific  prediction that the end-time was coming in 1975 .
 
of God members hail from all walks of life, and many are highly educated. Members object to the  cult  label , often  citing biblical chapter and verse  to  support the church's beliefs .  Past and present members are frequently described by themselves and observers of the groups as normal and decent people striving for  truth .
Members say they are a peace-loving church, one that  discourages military service  by its members.
 
Ruth Tucker, a professor at Calvin Seminary in  , and an expert on alternative religions, said nothing in the Armstrong movement supports violence. The slayings could have happened at any church, she said.


"You can argue the theology is a little crazy, but it would seem to me the shooter was mentally ill," Tucker said.


Some scholars who have studied the Churches of God say it is not a cult but has "cultish" tendencies. They say the popular understanding of "cult" conjures images of forced communal living, suicide pacts and similar extreme behaviors that have not been a factor in the Churches of God groups.


Initially called the Radio Church of God because of Armstrong's  pioneering use of the airwaves , his  grew rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s. Leadership turmoil and questions about finances have marked the movement's history.


In 1979, the State of  investigated allegations that millions of dollars had been stolen from the church by Herbert W. Armstrong and Stanley Rader, a top aide. But the church rallied other denominations behind legislation pre-empting such investigations into religious groups. The investigation was eventually closed without charges, but the church was in court-ordered receivership for more than a year during the probe.


Beliefs and practices


members say they believe the legalistic teachings help them lead good lives , and that they find hope for a "glorious outcome" in the  end-time prophecies , not just fearfulness.  They say the church practices what it preaches , unlike some churches that allow congregants to routinely ignore key teachings. They say they are following  Jesus' teaching from the first century, living as the early apostles did .
 
The  turns to the book of Leviticus for guidance on how to live as Jesus did. They celebrate Passover, Pentecost, Purim and other Old Testament holy days; they follow dietary rules similar, but not identical, to those of Jews.


They are not  supposed to vote in elections or serve on juries .


"The Scriptures teach that we are  not to be a part of the civil government , but that we should support the leadership and  respect its laws as long as it does not conflict with the law of God ," said Tom Geiger, a church member. "In a sense , we are aliens residing in this country. We answer to our home government,  God's government ."


The Lord's day begins at sunset Friday and ends at sunset Saturday. The worship service often runs two hours or more, beginning with the singing of hymns selected from a collection of those composed by Herbert Armstrong's brother, followed by an opening prayer delivered by one of the men in the congregation. Another man will give a "sermonette," essentially an introduction to a live or videotaped sermon delivered by an ordained minister.


Women  may become deaconesses,  but they do not have leadership roles in the services .


Members say they don't always follow the church's rules, and enforcement appears to be inconsistent, but as a whole the dictates are taken seriously, in some cases leading to members being " disfellowshipped " - kicked out.
 
Double- and triple-tithing


Members are asked every year to double tithe - give 20% of their income - and triple tithe twice every seven years. The first tithe goes directly to the church for "the Lord's work"; the second defrays members' own expenses for keeping the holy days, particularly the Feast of Tabernacles, an eight-day gathering attended by members from all over the world; the third tithe is to support widows and others in need.


Tithing is done on the honor system, but founder Herbert W. Armstrong accused those who didn't as "stealing from God." Actual giving is an individual decision, members said. "They don't come and check my taxes every year to see that I give my pound of flesh," Geiger said.


The church's harshest critics say the legalistic nature of the groups, and their restrictions on member's contacts with outsiders, socially isolate adherents and leaves them  vulnerable to mind control .
 
"The individual is lost to the group.  It's very  clannish, very closed ," said William Hohmann, a former  member from  who is part of an "exit and support network" for persons leaving the Armstrong splinters.


"The majority of members are of greater than average intelligence, believe they can't be deceived and don't know the Bible well when they join," Hohmann said. "So they are susceptible."


A former member of the  congregation of Worldwide, Gloria Elam, scoffs at the idea that those that departed the church need to be "deprogrammed because we were in some strange cult."


"We were always concerned about the people around us. We prayed for others not in our fellowship, and we tried our best to set a right example to all,"  said.
Other critics focus on the Anglo-based theory and the organization's "one true church" message as divisive and exclusionary. The Living Church of God welcomes minority members, but still emphasizes the salvation of Anglo-American people in its public statement of beliefs.


The  is not the only one to claim a corner on salvation. And the Armstrong churches are hardly alone in issuing end-time speculations. Those are pandemic in evangelical Christianity, said Hank Hanegraaff, president of the California-based Christian Research Institute, an evangelical organization that counters what its regards as doctrinal errors in religious groups.


Hanegraaff sees a  bleak future for churches  that  rely on repeated doses of doom and gloom  to hook new members.
 
The Living Church of God, whose top officials did not respond to interview requests for this story, does not appear to have extraordinarily deep pockets. It took in $8.9 million in 2003 and reported a $320,000 deficit, with net assets of $2.3 million, according to figures it provided to the GuideStar Web site that tracks non-profits.


Its response to the  shootings could play a role in its future. But it will continue to rely on mass media campaigns to reach new members, much of it in the form of leader Meredith's in-your-face "Tomorrow's World" telecasts and commentaries worldwide.


He issued a particularly emotional appeal in the wake of the devastating Indonesian earthquake and tsunamis in December. Meredith saw portents of the last days, declaring the quake "only among the very first of an entire series of natural disasters which are destined to shake the entire world in a manner never before experienced!"
He concluded with a plea for people to learn more by sending away for a free copy of the  's booklet titled "Fourteen Signs Announcing Christ's Return."
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


My comments:


Not only do JW?s not have the market cornered on fear-mongering, cult-like tactics to retain their mind-controlled members; apparently JW?s are also not the only ones who have understand, teach and live by pivotal teachings of The Truth? such as:


This church believes in  no dating or  marriage with non-members ,  women  are kept under thumb and  subservient  wearing  modest clothing and are not allowed to teach.  They discourage professional mental health treatment. They avoid birthdays,  Christmas, Easter  and other traditional Christian holidays because they are  pagan . Crosses are also  pagan  symbols.


They  discourage military service  by its members, are not  supposed to vote in elections or serve on juries , are  not to be a part of the civil government and answer to only one government, God?s government.
 
They are also often  citing biblical chapter and verse  to  support the church's beliefs, are  frequently  described as normal and decent people  striving for  The Truth ?, put hope in a "glorious outcome" in the  end-time prophecies,  they practice what they preach. They say they are following  Jesus' teaching from the first century, living as the early apostles did .


And if you don?t, they Disfellowship you.


Can?t believe another church actually uses that term.




So all of you fading JW?s here on the forum, remember this: the next time someone asks you, ?Where else will you go? Only the JW?s have teachings of everlasting life!?  Be sure to tell them about the ?Living Church of God?, because they have teachings of everlasting life just like the rub-a-dub dubs.


Apparently there?s enough ?crazy? to go around for everyone.
 
kls
kls 11 years ago

Hi Winston, yes this is so pathetic to see the jws have not cornered the market on their B,S. As my jw husband said about this cult ( my word )is that they ,The Living Church of God has only a small number of flock where as the jws have such a large number, it shows who is the true religion.He does not associate anything with the two cults except that the end is coming,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
BrendaCloutier
BrendaCloutier 11 years ago

Thank you Winston, that is an insightful article.!
 
candidlynuts
candidlynuts 11 years ago


very interesting article winston..thanks for posting it... this comment stood out and really reflects the wtbs as well.
The church's harshest critics say the legalistic nature of the groups, and their restrictions on member's contacts with outsiders, socially isolate adherents and leaves them vulnerable to mind control.




 
RunningMan
RunningMan 11 years ago


The WWCOG is probably closer to the JWs idealogically and procedurally than any other group - at least until their reform a few years back.
JW management should wake up and smell the coffee. There, but for the grace of God, is them.
 
bikerchic
bikerchic 11 years ago


I did research on the Living Church of God a few years back when my daughter's SIL and BIL were disfellowshipped from them. I couldn't believe the similarities between them and the JW's. What is really weird to me is that this lady (SIL) was raised as a JW, her whole family fell away when she was quite young and then she turns to that church! Her parents were really upset about it too.
She told us some horror stories about exactly how much they had to tithe and how much of their time is spent doing church activities. They had almost no time of their own other than work time, if they didn't work for the church somehow. Every minute of their day, night and weekends was spent with Church activities! They had to have their children go to the churches schools which were all run by church members. They also didn't allow them to spend time with family members who weren't church members so they snuck around to see their family because they didn't want to give up family.
When they decided to leave the church they were disfellowshipped yet the church leaders kept calling them and wanting them to come back. They finally decided the only way to get away from the Church completely was to move away and not leave a change of address which is what they did.
 
gumby
gumby 11 years ago


I think I know what happened. Rutherford was re-incarnated in Herbert A's body, then when he died, some fundie took over his place and his kid went along with it cuz he never liked pop anyways........that's prolly it.
Gumby
 
Junction-Guy
Junction-Guy 11 years ago

I just posted on another thread that I heard when I was younger that Armstrong had a JW connection many years ago and either was a JW or studied with them, either way he borrowed alot of his doctrines from them.
 
willyloman
willyloman 11 years ago


Apparently there?s enough ?crazy? to go around
I just loved this and wanted highlight it. Good work, Winston.
 
Scully
Scully 11 years ago


So much for the idea that the highlighted teachings are Unique to Jehovah's Witnesses?. In light of that information, what exactly are the teachings that are Unique to Jehovah's Witnesses?, anyway?
◦disfellowshipping/disassociating (and shunning) members who commit wrongdoing - nope, WWCOG does that, so do the Mormons and Amish; Muslims execute you, and Orthodox Jews practice shunning as well
◦marrying only in the Lord - nope, WWCOG does that, so do Amish, Mormons, Orthodox Jews and Muslims
◦end times predictions - nope, 7th Day Adventists and its various splinter groups, including JWs and WWCOG have done that
◦no voting, no jury duty - nope, WWCOG does that too
◦no military service - nope, Amish and Mennonites and Dukhobors do that
◦non-belief in the Trinity - nope, the Jews and Muslims share that belief, as do Buddhists
◦that there must be a preaching of the good news during the last days - nope, Mormons do that too
◦no blood transfusions - nope, Christian Scientists would do that too, along with all other medical treatment
◦women must be in subjection to men - nope, Mormons believe that, as do Orthodox Jews and Muslims
◦non observance of Pagan? holidays - nope, Jews, Muslims and WWCOG refuse to observe those as well
◦no afterlife (i.e., the soul that is sinning will die) - nope, atheists don't believe in an afterlife too
◦God's Government - nope, WWCOG teaches that too
You know what I'm thinking? The only belief that JWs hold that is unique to them, and them alone is this: That the WTS represents the Faithful and Discreet Slave? that is appointed by God. That's it, that's all. Everything else comes from somewhere else. And even that belief is not so unique in itself: why bother belonging to a religion that doesn't sincerely believe that their way is the best way to do God's Will?
 
Robert K Stock
Robert K Stock 11 years ago


There are a lot of "spiritual cousins" of Jehovah's Witnesses. Herbert W. Armstrong was ordained a minister by the Church of God Seventh Day. A group that had its origins in the the Second Adventist movement of William Miller. When 1844 came and Jesus did not many Millerites set up their own churches.
Second Adventist Ellen White began to share her "visions" founding what would be known as Seventh Day Adventists. An old yankee sea captain named Joseph Bates said Ellen White was nuts and founded what would be the Church of God Seventh Day. (Both White and Bates picked up the Saturday Sabbath from a small group of New England Baptists.)
One of the major influences on Charles Russell was an old Millerite named George Storrs, who helped found two groups, the Adventist Christian Church and the Life and Advent Union.
From the Seventh Day Adventists we have the Branch Davidians of Waco infamy.
The various Assemblies of Yahweh, Black Nationalist and White British Israelite factions, also trace their origins to the splintering of the the adventist movement.
There are a myriad of churches that share the same basic recipe as Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not that they studied with the Witnesses or had ever been part of the Watchtower. The common denominator is William Miller's Second Adventists. From Miller these groups have developed their own little quirks but all share the same nonsense about being "The Truth" "God's Kingdom is no part of the World" "Unquestioned Loyalty To God's Earthly Channel" and that "The Whole World Is Ensnared By Satan"
 
talesin
talesin 11 years ago


Doctrine is not the only thing this church has in common with the JWs. When I was a kid, my grandfather used to listen to the broadcast of this church every night. It was called `Garner Ted Armstrong and the World Tomorrow`. He was Herbert`s son, and was disfellowshipped from the WCCG in 1972 because of his sexual misconduct with young women.

Excerpt from a history of WWCG:


GTA was disfellowshipped from the Worldwide Church of God in 1972 for "sexual sins; however HWA told the members that his son had "emotional problems." He was later reinstated. GTA's sexual infidelities were never admitted publicly by HWA, but repeatedly covered this up. Then in 1974 it became known to the ministry that Garner Ted had been committing adultery with a large number of Ambassador college girls, coeds, baby-sitters, and other women. Eventually in 1978 GTA was permanently ousted, the reason being that Herbert Armstrong felt his son tried to turn the church into a "secular and worldly organization" while HWA was ill. GTA then founded the Church of God International in 1978.
Garner Ted's bisexuality had been known by others for a long time. In William Hinson's The Broadway To Armageddon, Ken Westby says to GTA in a letter from 1974, "Testimony from a man who observed you propositioning a young fellow on the street in southern California." p.114. Also, Ambassador Report #61, 1996 claims Ted was involved in a sodomitic relationship as a young man, but his father, HWA, pulled him out of it.
It was understood that GTA could pursue all the girls he wanted, but he was to shun same sex unions .
Criminal charges were filed against GTA in 1995 (Texas) by Suerae Robertson (a licensed vocational nurse whom GTA had hired for massage therapy) and as a result of this, GTA resigned from Church of God International. The Exit & Support Network ? investigated and covered this GTA sexual assault lawsuit and has a 200+ investigative report report in our files on the lawsuit that was waged against GTA when he molested Suerae. GTA was videotaped unknowingly at the time. On 7-11-97 Suerae and her lawyer appeared on the Geraldo Rivera?s TV Show, "Sex, Crime and Videotape," concerning GTA's behavior. When Geraldo aired the video, it was testified that pictures of naked women were seen tattooed all over GTA's body. This and other depraved behavior by GTA was reported in an article in the New Times Los Angeles.

I didn`t look further for more details, but was surprised to learn what I did.
t

 
IP_SEC
IP_SEC 11 years ago

I remember being about 10 y/o or so and armstrong was preaching on tv one day about the evils of christmas and the time of the end and so on. I told my mom "look the witnesses are on tv" She was like "NOoooooooo! its the apostates change the channel"
 
Robert K Stock
Robert K Stock 11 years ago


talesin:
Garner Ted Armstrong joined the Navy as an act of rebellion against his father. It may have been while in the navy that he was tatooed.
GTA's brother David was being groomed to succeed Herbert as leader of the church but died and GTA was drafted.
Herbert did admit that GTA was disfellowshipped for adultery. I do not have the material in my possesion now, but have read about this in Herberts' books or magazines. It has been so long ago I do not remember which.
 
SixofNine
SixofNine 11 years ago


Check this out (from, http://www.isitso.org/guide/fails.html ) :

Personal from the Webauthor
I first encountered Festinger's book and the theory of cognitive dissonance while taking a course in Social Psychology at Michigan State University in 1974. The book was required reading. At the time, I had been a member of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) for several years. Founder Herbert Armstrong had bombastically led his supporters to accept the year 1972 as the deadline for The Church to be whisked to a "Place of Safety" prior to the Great Tribulation, which would be followed by Christ's Return in 1975. When this failed, a number of followers had become disillusioned and left the organization, but a large percentage had not. At the time, it did not occur to me to apply the information I was learning in the course to my own personal circumstances! But it surely did apply.
In looking back and examining why I was not totally disillusioned by the disconfirmation  in 1972, I can only conclude it was because my husband and I had already invested so much of our time, efforts, and financial resources in the organization. The level of discomfort and confusion at the single event of the disconfirmation was not high enough to off-set what we viewed as positive aspects of our involvement. These included our positive experiences in the organization; the level of doctrinal truth which we had thought we learned from the group and which we didn't believe was available elsewhere; and the many personal relationships which had been built with church members?which we knew would end if we were to leave the organization.
This off-set was upset, however, in 1978. For details of the circumstances which led to our departure from the WCG, see our abbreviated biography elsewhere on this site. In summary, in that year there was a huge upheaval in the church leadership, with Herbert Armstrong disfellowshipping his own son Garner Ted, who had been the primary spokesman for the church on television and radio, and managing executive of most of its operations. When I saw confusion all around me, when I saw outright lies published by the church Headquarters, when I saw mountains of evidence of corruption and greed and profligate extravagance and distortion of the facts, I was unable to just gloss it over in order to resolve the dissonance and bring my mind into a peaceful state again. I had to have answers. And even though the answers were painful, I found facing them more tolerable than staying in ignorance, and having my mind in a state of perpetual cognitive dissonance.
After our departure from the WCG?and later Garner Ted Armstrong's Church of God, International?I began my study of groups which had predicted The End or who had claimed an exclusive position as the only true expression of The Church on earth. And while studying the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Seventh Day Adventists, I discovered they had all been subject to incredible inner turmoil from about 1970 on because of failed prophetic speculations and/or revelations about some of their cherished teachings and foibles of their founders and current leadership. The same sort of internal politics that I experienced in the WCG and CGI, that forced me out of those groups, were rampant in these other groups. And thus thousands upon thousands of folks ... including long-time ministers ... were also forced out of their groups. For if they had not, the presence of dissidents and their questions would have increased the level of cognitive dissonance present in the minds of those members who did not have immediate knowledge of the many issues. Thus the "disconfirmations" presented by dissidents within these groups not only did not lead to reformation or dissolution of the groups, but rather the proselyting of the groups increased greatly after the dissidents were removed.
The following is an excerpt from an article on prophetic speculation titled Lions and Leopards and Bears?Oh MY! which I wrote in 1989. It gives further commentary and documentation on some of the points above. The full text of the article can be seen at:
http://www.isitso.org/guide/llb1-3.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A thing that strikes one who browses around in the vast literature that has grown up about the book of Revelation is the UTTER DOGMATISM with which so many put forth their opinions, not as opinions, but in categorical statements, as to the meaning of the most mysterious passages, as if they know all about it, and their say so settles the matter. We think a spirit of reverent humility, and openness of mind, would be more becoming in those seeking to interpret a book like this." Henry Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook (24th ed., p.684)
Wise counsel! Why has it been so widely ignored among modern commentators? I offer a possible answer: with a limited audience among which to garner supporters for evangelistic ministries, the most dogmatic teachers are often the most successful at gathering around themselves the most enthusiastic- and financially generous- followers. We live in confusing, troubling times. Sure answers to "what will happen next" give people a secure anchor in the stormy sea of life. In addition, being "in the know" about mysterious prophecies gives many people the heady feeling of being one of the "elite," an assurance that they are among "God's Chosen," which further strengthens their anchor.
Amazingly, this desire for security is so strong that many teachers are even able to hedge their prophetic interpretations with "possiblies," "probablies," "maybe's"- and find that their followers filter out these words and hear only "thus sayeth the Lord." For example, for several years preceding 1975, the leaders of two major religious sects- Jehovah's Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God- promulgated the concept that the year 1975 would be cataclysmic in some way. The STRONG suggestion was that it would bring the Battle of Armageddon and usher in the Millenium. In addition, the Worldwide Church emphasized that the evangelistic work of that church would end in 1972, when the "Great Tribulation" (which was to last 3 1/2 years by their calculations) would begin and their members would be miraculously taken to a "place of safety" to await the Second Coming.
Numerous articles and booklets were published by both groups about these events, complete with detailed chronological charts and sometimes gruesome line drawings of the coming horrors. The Worldwide Church even published a booklet in the 1960's titled "1975 in Prophecy" which covered the prophecies regarding the "Great Tribulation" and the Battle of Armageddon. Of course, when 1975 came and went with no great cataclysm, the Worldwide leadership denied the title was ever meant to be taken as a "specific" prophecy. They claimed the title date was merely chosen as a "literary device," in response to a popular article in a secular publication which spoke glowingly of man's technological advances predicted for 1975. This was news to most of the members, who also remembered many sermons and articles and prophetic charts that all pointed to that date!
The same confusion reigned among Jehovah's Witnesses. In the October 8, 1968, issue of their publication AWAKE , appear the following quotes:
According to reliable Bible chronology, Adam and Eve were created in 4026 B.C.E. ... This would leave only seven more years from the autumn of 1968 to complete 6,000 full years of human history. That seven year period will evidently finish in the autumn of the year 1975...
How fitting it would be for God, following this pattern, to end man's misery after 6,000 years of human rule and follow it with His glorious Kingdom rule for a thousand years! (from a photo-duplicate reproduced in Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses Who Love the Truth  by William Cetnar, p. 36)
The lay members of that organization should certainly be forgiven for assuming that this article, along with many other articles, charts and sermons, was encouraging them to look to 1975 with expectation. But for them also, 1975 came and went with no cataclysm.
And what was the response of the leadership of both organizations to this failure of prophetic interpretation?
"Some years ago I saw factors INDICATING the POSSIBILITY that our work might be completed by early 1972, and immediately followed by the [3 1/2 year] Great Tribulation. I NEVER SET A DEFINITE DATE. I NEVER SAID IT WOULD DEFINITELY HAPPEN- but cautioned there were indications of the possibility. Yet some misunderstood and took it as a definite prophecy for a definite date." (Worldwide Church founder Herbert Armstrong in a letter to his followers dated 3/25/75
This same general approach was adopted by the Witness leadership as well. As one member wrote after 1975:
I have been associated as a baptized Witness well over 39 years and with Jehovah's help I will continue to be a loyal servant. But to say I am not disappointed would be untruthful, for, when I know my feelings regarding 1975 were fostered because of what I read in various publications, and then I am told in effect that I reached false conclusions on my own, that, I feel, is not being fair or honest. (Robert Warren quoted in Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz)
One would think after such disappointments the lay members would be more wary. Although this is true for some, the desire of most to be reassured their leaders have an inside track on God's timetable encouraged the leaders of both organizations to continue resetting "possible" time interpretations of prophecies. This is not really surprising, as both organizations had successfully weathered many unfulfilled prophecies over a period of decades: The Witnesses had set many dates in their publications for the "probable" beginning of the Millenium, including, particularly, 1914 and 1925. Each "disappointment" led to some drop in membership, but most members soon developed "amnesia" about the incidents, and new proselytes were seldom aware of past Witness failures- and the organization soon picked up momentum in growth again. For instance, in 1969, the total U.S. membership of Jehovah's Witnesses (as reported in the World Book Encyclopedia Year Book) was about 334,000. Below is a chart showing the net change in membership for each year from then until 1980. (If a group gains as many new members as it loses old members in one year, its net change in total membership for that year would be zero .)
Note the huge net increase for 1975. In that year, they gained enough new members to make up for any lost to death or disaffection, plus  another 66,000. It would be logical to attribute this unusually high increase in total membership to the "urgency" of the door-to-door preaching by Witnesses who felt "The End" would come that year in the fall, and the panic effect this might have on susceptible converts who were frightened by the preaching into joining the ranks of those who claimed the only safety in the perilous times to come. And note the rapid drop almost immediately! The trend down, starting in 1976 and hitting a "low" in 1979, was likely directly related to the disillusionment and defection of many current members, deeply cutting into missionary efforts of the group. At the "bottom" in 1979, they LOST as many members as they gained PLUS losing 35,000 beyond that!


JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES:
Net change in membership 1971-1980




As for Herbert Armstrong, he had been announcing erroneous "probablies" for almost 40 years, including these gems from his Plain Truth Magazine during World War II (quoted in Armstrongism?Religion or Rip-off? by Marion McNair, p. 164-166):
We cannot imagine Hitler, ruler over a German nation twice as great in population as Italy, turning all his vast power over to Mussolini... yet Bible prophecies [show]...most if not all of the nations now coming under Hitler's influence, finally giving their armed power over to [Mussolini] the Roman leader... Possibly Hitler will die or be killed within the next eighteen months. (Feb-Mar 1939 issue)

Democracy went, yesterday, in England! Today England is a dictatorship, as absolutely as that of Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini... And when the United States gets into the war...THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN HERE!...the president will become dictator absolute and not only soldiers, but factory workers, farmers, every dollar of our money and wealth- all will be CONSCRIPTED! And it is THEN...[that] the Great Tribulation shall come, and the MARK of the Beast will be enforced! THE TIME IS AT HAND. IT IS time for us to AWAKE!...Armageddon, we believe, must be at least [only] three or four years away..." (Apr-May 1940)
It is part of God's prophesied plan that Britain shall be invaded and conquered ...It is in the prophesied course of the war that the main fighting shall be in the Mediterranean and the Near East. (Sep-Oct 1941)

Armstrong's organization in the years after 1972 and prior to his death in 1986 did not grow with the kind of numbers the Jehovah's Witnesses have sustained, but, in spite of frequent repeats of the type of dogmatic mistakes quoted above, it did manage an impressive growth record for a small, obscure start: Attendance at the church's annual fall convention of the Feast of Tabernacles was a few hundred, held at one site, at the beginning of the 1950's. In 1988 the church announced an attendance of about 144,000 (total), attending scores of sites around the world. (For more details regarding the history of the WCG, see the profile of the organization elsewhere on this site.)
Observing these embarrassing failures, leaders of other church organizations which emphasize prophecy have become much more wary in recent years about setting any dates. While "selective amnesia" may work in organizations such as the WCG and the Jehovah's Witnesses, it is obvious to many that this is because those organizations are strongly authoritarian, and their memberships are used to accepting many discrepancies because they are used to being obedient to leadership. In less authoritarian organizations, the members might be less "forgiving" of radical failures in prophetic time tables!
Does this mean that teachers in these less-authoritarian organizations are less prone to prophetic dogmatism? NO! It is just that they reserve their dogmatism for aspects of prophecy that are less "testable" than dates. When it comes to identifying mysterious Biblical "symbols" such as the "beasts" in the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation, many teachers are just as dogmatic as the leaders of the Witnesses and the Worldwide Church. And, until the actual prophecies come to pass, they can usually safely expect that no one can really prove their interpretations "false."
 
Aude_Sapere
Aude_Sapere 11 years ago


I remember seeing copies of Armstrong's The Plain Truth all around town usually in restaurants.
The word I got was that he plagerized the WTS.
I mostly found it more interesting reading than the WT. (Oops!! Did I actually admit that??!!)
Maybe it was just that it was a different writing style....
-Aude.
 
Robert K Stock
Robert K Stock 11 years ago


Aude:
The Plain Truth was better written then the Watchtower. Armstrong had been a salesman and understood how to properly package his message. Armstrong was a wacko but he had flare and style.
 
Aude_Sapere
Aude_Sapere 11 years ago


Thanks for the validation!
It's been more than 20 years and I didn't remember specifics. Just that I enjoyed reading his publication much more than the WT.
-Aude.
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
The Searcher
Missionary Deceptively/Mistakenly Misquotes Scripture.........
by The Searcher 6 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/87342/meet-jws-little-brother





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ NO! WE HAVE THE TRUTH!
/  





 

NO! WE HAVE THE TRUTH!
by smellsgood 9 years ago 8 Replies latest 9 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
smellsgood
smellsgood 9 years ago

Well, MutualRespect is greatly MISTAKEN! As a member of the Worldwide Church of God, WE HAVE THE TRUTH!
In the section of his book on The End Time Elijah (p.89) HWA states,
 "The END-TIME Elijah had A COMMISSION TO RESTORE TRUTH, but only to the Church."
WE have restored first century Christianity!
"For decades Herbert W Armstrong PROCLAIMED THAT HE WAS THE FIRST PERSON IN EIGHTEEN AND A HALF CENTURIESs to comprehensively RESTORE ALL THE DOCTRINES OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD. That was a discreet way of claiming to be the endtime Elijah." G. Neilson
#
 "No-one else in the 20th Century (which alone can be regarded as the start of the endtime as prophesied in Daniel), can legitimately claim to have preceded Herbert W Armstrong in RESTORING AS MANY TRUTHS IN THE Church." G.Neilson
SO THERE! YOUR CLAIM IS ILLEGITIMATE MUTUAL RESPECT!
 .

Time Has Run Out, Ronald Weinland wrote:
 "THIS RESTORATION OF TRUTH, which occurred during the leadership of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the period of time we know as Philadelphia, should be an easy thing to acknowledge. Yes, GOD REVEALED FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH TO HIS CHURCH ONCE AGAIN. This era kept His word and did not deny His name. Sardis was known for just the opposite- letting the word of God die out as they themselves were dying spiritually- denying the life of God to live in and through them.
 Our history is A TESTIMONY TO THE TRUTHd Mr. Armstrong to restore truth to His Church. Doors were opened by God that made this task possible- doors that no one could shut...
 To deny that Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong was the Elijah to come before the end-time is either ignorant or willing denial of what is true concerning our history and what God did through him. It is God who RESTORED NECESSARY TRUTH to the Church so that a people would be ready for the second-coming of Jesus Christ."
We have restored the truths to the Church about the Nature of God, the United Nations, the celebrations of Christmas and Easter, THE YUCKY YUCKY TRINITY and the Afterlife.
"Although Mr. Armstrong understood that the Trinity WAS A LIE, God did not give him full understanding of what was true concerning Himself and His Son, Jesus Christ. God did not fully lead him out from the pollution OF THE FALSE TRINITY DOCTRINE. Mr. Armstrong still believed that Jesus Christ had eternally existed..." AS ONE OF THE ELOHIM (PLURAL DUH!)
Ron Weinland
Herbert W. Armstrong was prophecied in Scripture as the Second Elijah, and did he fulfill that role faithfully?? Yes he did!
WE are the ones WHO HAVE BEEN CHOSEN BY GOD TO DO THE PREACHING WORK TO ANNOUNCE THE SECOND COMING
 "The great door that God has opened to this work is the facility to go INTO ALL THE WORLD AND PREACH THE GOSPEL; the door of radio, the door of the printing press, plus many other such doors. God has set before us an open door and no MAN can shut it. God can shut it, and He will when the work is finished and the Philadelphia Church goes to a place of safety. ...The Laodicean Church is not going to he worthy to escape to a place of safety. When it is too late, they will find that the Church of Philadelphia has gone to safety" (What Is the "LAODICEAN CHURCH"? Good News, August 1959 Vol. VIII, Number 8).

AS GOD USED JOHN THE BAPTIST, to prepare for the physical Jesus, so have we prepared the way in the SPIRITUAL WILDERNESS to announce the SPIRITUAL coming of Supreme Power of CHRIST to his SPIRITUAL Temple! He's enthroned! And we announced it, and he works through us!
David Pack quotes from HWA co-worker letters. The, first, dated March 19, 1981, states (bolding mine),
 As John the Baptist prepared the way, in the PHYSICAL wilderness of the Jordan River for the first coming of the HUMAN Jesus (both man and God), then coming to His MATERIAL temple, and to His PHYSICAL people Judah, ANNOUNCING the Kingdom of God to be set up more than 1,900 years later, SO God would use a human messenger in the SPIRITUAL wilderness of 20th-century religious confusion, to be a voice CRYING OUT the Gospel of the KINGDOM OF GOD, about the SPIRITUAL CHRIST, coming in SUPREME POWER AND GLORY to His SPIRITUAL TEMPLE, to actually ESTABLISH that spiritual KINGDOM OF GOD. "Brethren, HAS THAT BEEN DONE BY THIS CHURCH?
The second, dated, August 24, 1982, states,
 John had come in the power and spirit of Elijah, but they did not recognize who he was. "Now why, then was Elijah YET, in the future, to come-just before the 'day of the Lord?' Verse 11, Jesus said to 'restore all things.' John the Baptist DID NOT do that!...Have WE, through this Work, RESTORED anything? Indeed we have! We have RESTORED the TRUE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST".

David Pack's booklet also quotes from HWA's final Feast of Trumpets sermon of September 16, 1985,
Ok, please, pay attention, WE have restored "vital doctrines of truth" that had been buried since 69 A.D.!
Mr. Armstrong WAS an Apostle, MORE than a prophet, but of course, he just never ever ever said ANYTHING of the sort! That's what he told me. "smellsgood, Never, ever ever did I ever say I was the second Elijah" And then he laughed.

 "There was an Elijah to come and to restore things in the Church. THAT HAS HAPPENED and what has been restored is the government of God-and many of the truths, at least 17 or 18 principal, vital doctrines of truth, have been added to about the three that had survived in the Sardis era of the Church."
And John was also not "a prophet." Since he was a forerunner of Mr. Armstrong, this fact is important. Christ said that he (this one who was a type of Elijah) was actually "MORE THAN a prophet." This is a fascinating statement! The Bible says the Two Witnesses "are prophets" (Rev. 11:3, 10). Mr. Armstrong was an apostle. This means he also was "more than a prophet" (I Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11) and, at the same time, more like John the Baptist than either of the Two Witnesses...A related point needs examination. Mr. Armstrong has been accused of being a "false prophet" many times. Here is the point-and most never seemed to understand this: Mr. Armstrong was NEVER a prophet. He was always "more than" a prophet-he was an apostle! To those who apparently went out to "see a prophet," you missed the entire point of one of the greatest reasons why Mr. Armstrong was the final Elijah! It is also one of the reasons we can now see, in retrospect, his office was greater than that of the Two Witnesses (I, like the rest of the Church, once thought he would be one of them). He was an APOSTLE. They will be PROPHETS. To assert that the final Elijah will be one of the Witnesses is to, in fact, diminish-reduce-the office of Elijah (Pack D. I WILL SEND ELIJAH TO RESTORE ALL THINGS).




"It is revealed in Malachi 3:1-5 and 4:5-6 that God would raise up one in the power and spirit of Elijah, shortly prior to the Second Coming of Christ. In Matthew 17:11 Jesus said, even after John the Baptist had completed his mission, that this prophesied Elijah "truly shall first come, and restore all things." Although it is plainly revealed that John the Baptist had come in the power and spirit of Elijah, he did not restore anything. The human leader to be raised up somewhat shortly prior to Christ's Second Coming was to prepare the way--prepare the Church--for Christ's coming, and restore the truth that had been lost through the preceding eras of the Church. Also a door was to be opened for this leader and/or the Philadelphia era of the Church to fulfill Matthew 24:14: "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." It was to be at a time when, for the first time in the history of mankind, the weapons of mass destruction were produced that could erase all humanity from the earth (Matt. 24:21-22). This also was to occur just before the Second Coming of Christ (verses 29-30). These prophecies have now definitely been fulfilled. The true gospel has been restored and has now gone in power into every nation on the face of the earth."

SURE HERBERT W. SET DATES, BUT HE IS AN IMPERFECT MAN, IT DOESN'T MEAN HE DOESN'T HAVE THE TRUTH. HE WAS JUST SO EAGER TO SEE THEIR FULFILLMENT.

"Satan showed his cleverness soon after Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong died, when through the Tkach administration, he persuaded ministers to avoid prophetic subjects! Typically Satan mixes some truth with error. It was said that the Church had made some mistakes - that Mr. Herbert Armstrong had set times and dates which proved to be incorrect. IN FACT, MR. HERBT ARMSTRONG, WITH HIS NATURAL ENTHUSIASM TO FINISH "THE WORK," WAS WARY ABOUT PREDICTING EVENTS WITH EXACTITUDE. HE ****COUCHED HIS REMARKS WITH PHRASES INDICATING THE POSSIBILITY RATHER THAN THEIR CERTAINTY OF ANY SUCH EVENTS HAPPENING AT A PARTICULAR TIME. Yet the Church was in error in respect to end-time chronology, specifically with regard to the 1260, 1290, and 1335 days of Daniel 12. By placing the thirty days of 1290 plus the forty-five days of 1335 prior to the beginning of the 1260 days, the Church left no room for the day of the Lord, which follows the 1260 days of the tribulation. By this reckoning, the millennium would begin at Christ's Second Coming. The argument for placing the thirty days, plus forty-five days ahead of the start of the tribulation was based upon the theory that the Church would require a total of seventy-five days to get to a place of safety, which it was thought then would be Petra in Jordan. Today we understand that the Church will be taken almost instantaneously to a place of safety (Lk. 17:34-37; Matt. 24:17-21, 36-41). With that misunderstanding corrected, we can now see that there are 1260 days of tribulation followed by thirty days for Christ to subdue the nations and a further forty-five days to prepare Jerusalem and the Messianic temple for the commencement of the millennium on the 1335th day, the Feast of Pentecost. The Church further compounded this error, in respect to end-time chronology, by pushing the three and one-half years for the tribulation back to two and one-half years, to make room for one year to include the day of the Lord, yet the Bible clearly gives a full three and one-half years for the tribulation and today we know the day of the Lord lasts thirty days. God's Church, Worldwide has understood this revised chronology since 1995. This also made us different. Apart from this Church group, I know of no other which has this understanding [Elliot R. GCWW. Hold Fast Letter June 2003]
 
smellsgood
smellsgood 9 years ago

G. Neilson on HWA
 *
 The first two entime characteristics were not possible before the unprecedented 20th Century. Therefore, the endtime Elijah could not restore all things until the 20th Century endtime of hugely increased knowledge and travel had begun.
 *
 And since he restores all things, only the final Elijah could be the cause of the huge increase in spiritual knowledge necessary for spiritual purification, which therefore, could only have started when the endtime began in the 20th Century.
 *
 The third fulfillment began precisely during this period, when the greatest known number of genuine members--other than in the Bible--were purified spiritually and inducted into the true Church. This happened under the leadership of Herbert W Armstrong, who restored all the doctrines in the Worldwide Church of God.
 *
 For decades Herbert W Armstrong proclaimed that he was the first person in 18-and-a-half centuries to comprehensively restore all the doctrines of the true Church of God. That was a discreet way of claiming to be the endtime Elijah.
 *
 The final Elijah is specifically called a prophet in Scripture (Malachi 4:4-6). Mr Armstrong repeated his claim to be Elijah in his final and most important book, Mystery of the Ages. Either that claim was correct, or Mr Armstrong was a false prophet. And if so, then so were and are the ministers who walk in his footsteps. That proposition is ludicrous. Mr Armstrong prophesied of the coming Kingdom of God to a wider audience than all the Bible prophets combined. And proclaimed the very same message all of the other prophets did, as Acts 3:19-21 shows...
 *
 No-one else in the 20th Century (which alone can be regarded as the start of the endtime as prophesied in Daniel), can legitimately claim to have preceded Herbert W Armstrong in restoring as many truths in the Church.
 *
 Therefore no-one else can legitimately claim to be Elijah...
 *
 Mr Armstrong started Ambassador College in 1947 to train a ministry. The first five Evangelists in the Radio (later renamed Worldwide) Church of God, were ordained in 1952, some 21 years after Mr Armstrong's ordination--and 26 years after he first began to understand God's truth in 1926. Therefore, all of them--and everyone else--is too late to be the final Elijah.
 *
 The great endtime Falling Away from God's truth cannot occur, until after Elijah's greater Restoration of All Things, from which so much truth can fall.
 *
 To claim Herbert W Armstrong wasn't the final Elijah, is to claim that someone else is yet to restore ALL things.
 *
 That scenario would mean NOTHING restored or taught by Herbert W Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God ministry in his day was of lasting value, because before Elijah's restoration everything must be in a comparative state of disrepair, until Elijah comes.
 *
 What else could any supposed still-to-come Elijah restore, that would give anyone a better salvation than the one Herbert W Armstrong (under Christ's direction) already led the Church to?...
 o 20 years after his death, the combined efforts of all the splinters of the Worldwide Church of God have so far managed to recruit a fraction of new members compared to HWA's efforts...
 *
 The Plain Truth is, no-one else but Herbert W Armstrong is, was, or can be, the endtime Elijah.
 *
 Can Elijah be one of the Two Winesses?
 Since they come on the scene too late to be the first to restore all things in the endtime, the only way that Elijah can be one of them is if God brings him back.
 
nvrgnbk
nvrgnbk 9 years ago

we know as Philadelphia
I like Philadelphia. Lots of good bars there.
Thanks, smellsgood.
 
Elsewhere
Elsewhere 9 years ago

I like how ya smell when you're on a roll!
 
smellsgood
smellsgood 9 years ago

Just pay attention here for a minute please Mutual, maybe you'll learn something about how WE fulfilled Matthew 24:14, HOW WE have done the preaching, and the restoring, etc.
This is a Sermon from Mr. Elijah himself, HWA
Let us study the life-giving words with all the intensity we can muster, and delight in his spiritual banquet!
"Greetings, everybody! This afternoon I want to speak on the mission of the Philadelphia Era of the Church, this Church today in comparison to the first era of the Church, the Ephesus Era of the Church. It's been seeming more and more to me, as the years go by, that the Bible was written primarily for the Philadelphia Era of the Church...Today's mission of the Church you will find in Matthew 24:14. And this gospel of the kingdom…that is the same gospel that Jesus preached…shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
WERE THE ONES WHO IDENTIFY CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS FOR WHO THEY TRULY ARE
"Then the great deception, the counterfeit of Revelation 17:5, Babylon, the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, her daughter churches and who they are...Those people in the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches have been deceived."

WHO DECEIVED THEM???? SATAN THATS WHO
"And the fact that Satan, the devil, has deceived the whole world. Brethren, Satan is the one who is guilty. Those people in the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches have been deceived. And I think they really believe. God just hasn't opened any more truth to them. We don't sit in judgment of them. We're not judging them YET. We're going to do it and when WE judge them, then all truth will be opened and God will take away the blindness from their eyes so they can understand if they're willing. Today they couldn't understand it, even if they're willing. I don’t think they're willing, either, as far as that goes."
 
nvrgnbk
nvrgnbk 9 years ago

That Satan guy is a real bastard!
Fighting both the JWs and the WWCG? Sheesh!
LMAO!
 
smellsgood
smellsgood 9 years ago

a quote from "Mystery of the Ages" Authors HWA statement
As you can see, like C.T. Russell, but different because Herbert actually learned the truth...he was reared a Protestants, and was SOOO counFOUNDED by all the DENOMINATIONS AND THE DISAGREEMENTS!!!! Lucky for us, the Bible which is a sealed book as the WT says, was open to Herbert!




 But who can understand the Bible? I certainly never had understood it. And even if one does, can one believe the Bible? Does it speak with any authority? That question puzzled me and is the mystery to be cleared up in this volume. How I came to understand began at age 34, in the year of 1926. But it only began there. The final crystal-clear reason that impelled me to write this book did not fully reveal itself to my mind until December of 1984. It was a mind-boggling realization--a pivotal truth--that will be made clear in this book. "

The bible wasn't INTENDED to be understood until the 20th century! It's a "coded" book!
"I found the Bible to be a coded book, with answers to the paramount mysteries confronting all humanity.
 The revelation of these mysteries was lost, even to the Church of God, although the revelation of them has been preserved in the writings of the Bible. Why, then, has the world not clearly understood? Because the Bible was a coded book, not intended to be understood until our day in this latter half of the twentieth century"
 
smellsgood
smellsgood 9 years ago

And continuing.. As you know, the Churches teaching were lost after the first century, so God waited til the 20th century to decode the coded truth of the Bible through Herbert

Mystery of the Ages statement

"Time may prove this to be the most important book written in almost 1,900 years. Not because of literary excellence or flowery language of scholarship that it has purposely avoided, but because of its plainness of speech in clarifying the most important knowledge ever revealed from the supreme source of understanding of that which has mystified all humans since man first appeared on earth."
"All these mysteries were long ago revealed by the one supreme authority of all knowledge, but in a coded message not allowed to be revealed and decoded until our time."
 The Church was INFILTRATED DURING THE FIRST CENTURY WITH ANOTHER GOSPEL. Many FALSE TEACHINGS AND FALSE TEACHERS under the name of "traditional Christianity" arose. As God reveals in Revelation 12:9, the whole world has been deceived. These basic truths have been kept a mystery. Even sincere and well-meaning men among the clergy have received their teaching from other men as handed down traditionally in these churches. They have assumed these false teachings to be the true teachings of the Bible."
 
smellsgood
smellsgood 9 years ago

That Satan guy is a real bastard!
Fighting both the JWs and the WWCG? Sheesh!
NO NO NO! HE ONLY WORKS AGAINST HERBERT! He's TOTALLY in CAHOOTS with the WT!!!

Thanks guys, now its cake time for me.
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Freeandclear
My Story
by Freeandclear 2 months ago
new boy
My Bethel Experience Part 13 "Love and Sex" at Bethel
by new boy 2 months ago
The Hermit
The Hermit's story PART 3
by The Hermit 2 months ago
Garrett
A friend
by Garrett 24 days ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/139229/no-we-have-truth




Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Baptism, Legalism and JWs
/  





 

Baptism, Legalism and JWs
by jukief 15 years ago 9 Replies latest 15 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
jukief
jukief 15 years ago


An Aspect of the Legalism of Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses like to think that their organization
goes entirely by the Bible, and that because of following
the Bible they are not tied to following every "jot and
tittle" of some "Law." They contrast themselves with the
first-century Pharisees who were indeed so concerned.
This essay shows that in the matter of the relation
between the individual Jehovah's Witness and "the
congregation," the Watchtower Society has made and enforces
a number of legalistic rules. Furthermore, these rules are
not clearly stated to people who become Jehovah's Witnesses.
Instead, the prospective convert is given a sanitized and
idealized view, so that if he gets into difficulty with the
congregation the real rules come as a shock.
We will examine these matters by looking at the baptismal
vows Jehovah's Witnesses have made when joining the
religion. Until 1985, these vows were seen as a dedication
of the individual to his God, whereas in 1985 the Society
changed them into an agreement to follow the rules and
regulations of the Watchtower Society.
According to statements published by the Watchtower
Society, Christians are not dedicated to an organization.
From the October 1, 1966 Watchtower, pp. 603-4:

Jehovah is the giver of life. "For with you is the
 source of life." (Ps. 36:9) We cannot keep
 everlasting life in view without staying close to
 Jehovah, the source of life.... This is what we mean
 when we dedicate our lives to Jehovah. We do not
 dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to
 an organization. No, we dedicated ourselves to the
 Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator,
 Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very
 personal relationship between us and Jehovah.
The January 15, 1970 Watchtower, pp. 37-41, asked the
question, "Which Comes First -- Your Church or God?"
Speaking mainly to Catholics and Protestants, the article
said, in part:

With some, God comes first and their church is merely
 a means used to worship him. With others, their
 church has become an end in itself, taking priority
 over God and his Word, the Bible. Where do you
 stand? In your own heart and mind, which comes first
 -- your church or God?
The article then described what the French weekly news
magazine, Le Nouvel Observateur, said about three
categories of believers:

"The first man is the one who feels at ease within the
 traditional structures of the Church; the second would
 like to see some changes made in these structures; as
 for the `third man,' he has left the Church, but
 quietly, without making a fuss. He still believes in
 the Gospel values, but he expects no more help from
 the Church. He has quit, and the Church's problem has
 ceased to interest him, once and for all."
The article went on to say, under the sub-title
"Questions for the `First Man' ":

The "first man" represents the believers who remain
 faithful to their church out of loyalty to the
 religion they were brought up to believe in. Their
 attitude is: Right or wrong, it is my religion! Is
 that the way you feel? If so, you are certainly a
 loyal person. But to whom do you owe the greater
 loyalty -- to your church, or to God? With so much
 disbelief rife throughout the earth, you are to be
 commended for maintaining your faith, but where should
 your faith be placed -- in a religious organization,
 or in God? Why do you go to church? Basically, is it
 not because you believe in God? Do atheists go to
 church? Is not the very purpose of churchgoing to
 worship God and gain his approval? So if it became
 clear that your church was not fulfilling its basic
 purpose, where would your first duty lie?
"But," you may reply, "how can one tell if one's
 church is fulfilling its purpose?" Well, is your
 church drawing more and more people to God and helping
 them to serve him? Or are its best and most sincere
 members disappointed, disillusioned and
 disheartened?....
The article next shows how certain practices merit God's
displeasure, and then says:

Furthermore, to be pleasing to God, should not a
 church teach the truth?.... "God is spirit, and those
 who worship must worship in spirit and truth." -- John
 4:21-24, JB.
Notice that worship in "truth" is a must! It is
 therefore impossible to worship God acceptably without
 a deep love of the truth. The true Christian religion
 must be founded on the truth, not on traditions,
 creeds, dogmas and articles of faith that are often
 hard to understand because they defy all the faculties
 of reasoning with which God created us. Now what is
 the Christian standard for measuring truth? Is it not
 the Bible? So if there should prove to be
 contradiction between the tenets of a church that
 claims to be Christian and the plain statement of
 truth found in the Holy Scriptures, which should come
 first in your worship -- your church or God's Word,
 the Bible? What will be your answer if you sincerely
 desire to be "the kind of worshipper the Father
 wants"?
The next sub-title was "Reasoning Things Out with the
`Second Man' ", which said:

The "second man" mentioned in the Nouvel Observateur
 represents those Catholics and Protestants who stay
 with their church because they do not know where else
 to go. They have been taught that their church
 represents God, and they do not want to turn away from
 him. They disapprove of many church practices or
 doctrines, but they hope to reform their church from
 within.
Typical of these are the 744 French Catholics who, in
 November 1968, sent a long open letter to the pope.
 In it they stated: "Today the Christian needs to live
 in a `true' church . . . Therefore all that is false,
 contrary to the Gospel and scandalous within the
 Church today wounds the Christian." Then followed a
 long list of grievances against the Catholic Church
 and its current teachings and practices. Yet, toward
 the end, these Catholics expressed their unconditional
 adherence to their church by alluding to John 6:68 and
 stating: "Who could we go to? In her [the Roman
 Catholic Church] we find the One who has words of
 eternal life."
But can Christ dwell in a church where so much is
 admittedly "false, contrary to the Gospel and
 scandalous"? Did not the apostle Paul write: "What
 participation hath justice with injustice? Or what
 fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord
 hath Christ with Belial?"....
Thus, honest Catholics and Protestants are beginning
 to recognize the necessity of choosing between the
 church and Christ, the church and the Gospel. What
 about all you `second men,' who hope to reform your
 church from within? Which comes first with you --
 your church or God? Indeed, what is the church of
 God? After the words quoted above, Paul wrote to
 sincere anointed Christians: "For you are the temple
 of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in
 them, and walk among them; and I will be their God,
 and they shall be my people...."....
What example did Paul himself set?.... Did Paul
 remain within the traditional church, the Jews'
 religion, and attempt to reform it from the inside?
 No! He considered that the only way to worship and
 serve God acceptably henceforth was to `go out from
 among' the Pharisees and become a part of God's true
 church which, at the time, was a small despised
 sect....
Consequently, if your church teaches and does things
 that are contrary to the Bible and displeasing to God,
 your duty as a Christian is clear: Imitate Paul and
 `serve the Father and your God' within the true
 religion which, not surprisingly, the churches often
 "call a heresy."
The final sub-title, "Reassuring News for the `Third
Man' " said:

This brings us to the "third man," representing the
 disillusioned who have ceased practicing their
 religion altogether, yet still maintaining their
 belief in God. Although this article is not written
 primarily for them, since they have already chosen to
 abandon the church systems of Christendom,
 nevertheless we have some good news for them.
The article then concludes with an invitation for the
`third man' to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
While the Society has said that Christians do not
dedicate themselves to an organization, it tells Witnesses
that salvation does not come apart from the Watchtower
organization. For example, the March 1, 1979 Watchtower
stated (p. 18):

Devoted Witnesses have kept their faith in Jehovah's
 organization. They know which one of all
 organizations on earth the Almighty God has used to
 give the greatest witness to his name and kingdom in
 all Christian history... Is there any cause for us to
 lose faith in Jehovah's visible organization because
 of mounting difficulties in this world? Those who
 believe that Jehovah will never desert his faithful
 witnesses answer, "Absolutely not!" In demonstration
 of such faith, we will keep on sticking to it and
 working with it without slacking the hand. Our
 unwavering faith will be rewarded with victory and the
 crown of life!
In line with these sentiments, in 1985 the Society
changed the baptismal vows such that new Jehovah's Witnesses
dedicated themselves, not only to God as had been done for a
century before, but to the Watchtower Society itself. This
is evident from the baptismal vows published up through
1985:
Baptismal questions from the August 1, 1966 Watchtower, p. 465:

(1) Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as
 a sinner who needs salvation, and have you
 acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from
 him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?
(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his
 provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself
 unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he
 reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the
 Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?
Baptismal questions from the May 15, 1970 Watchtower, p. 309:

(1) Have you recognized yourself as a sinner and
 needing salvation from Jehovah God? And have you
 acknowledged that this salvation proceeds from him and
 through his ransomer, Christ Jesus?
(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his
 provision for redemption have you dedicated yourself
 unreservedly to Jehovah God, to do his will henceforth
 as that will is revealed to you through Christ Jesus
 and through God's Word as his holy spirit makes it
 plain?
Baptismal questions from the May 1, 1973 Watchtower, p. 280:

(1) Have you repented of your sins and turned around,
 recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned
 sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged
 to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the
 Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?
(2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his
 provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself
 unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he
 reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the
 Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?
The newest baptismal questions, from the June 1, 1985
Watchtower:

On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have
 you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to
 Jehovah to do his will?
Do you understand that your dedication and baptism
 identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in
 association with God's spirit-directed organization?
Contrast these latest questions with the statements
above, from the October 1, 1966 Watchtower.
Finally, compare these statements to those made in the
October 15, 1992 Watchtower, p. 19:

So for the Christian, baptism following dedication
 establishes an intimate relationship with Jehovah God,
 his Son Jesus Christ, and the holy spirit...
By recognizing God's authority, we draw close to him
 and enter into a relationship with him... We become
 God's property as his slaves, bought with the price of
 Jesus Christ's ransom sacrifice... The apostle Paul
 also told first-century Christians that they belonged
 to Jesus Christ, not to any men who might have taken
 the truth to them... Baptism in the name of the Son
 implies recognizing this fact, accepting Jesus as "the
 way and the truth and the life."...
At the time of dedication and baptism, therefore, we
 need to reflect prayerfully on what is involved in our
 new relationship. It requires submission to the will
 of God, demonstrated in the example and ransom
 provision of Jesus Christ, to be carried out through
 holy spirit as it directs all of God's servants in
 love and unity worldwide.
This last is a most unusual statement in that the
"faithful and discreet slave" is not mentioned as directing
the work. In any case, the Society has managed to get newer
members to, in effect, join a worldly club from which their
membership can be terminated at any time by the Society
(disfellowshipping) while at the same time convincing these
newcomers that they have only dedicated themselves to their
Creator. Can any actions be more devious?
The fact that the Society changed the baptismal vows to
protect itself legally is shown by the letters that it sends
out to people who threaten with legal action for trying to
enforce on them what they thought was a dedication to
Jehovah alone. One such letter read:

From the date of your baptisim and your joining the
 organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, you professed the
 Christian faith, agreed to adhere to the doctrine of
 Jehovah's Witnesses and agreed to submit to the rules
 and procedures of the ecclesiastical government of
 Jehovah's Witnesses.
Talk about legalism! It is obvious that a great many
people would never have become JWs in the first place if the
possible consequences to them were spelled out as above.
To further show the Society's legalistic view of baptism,
here are some excerpts from a lengthy letter written in the
early 1990s by a Watchtower attorney, Philip Brumley, to a
person who questioned the Society's legal right to
disfellowship him:

I represent Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New
 York, Inc., the parent organization of the
 congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout the
 United States. By means of your numerous letters and
 telephone calls to this office, I have been informed
 that your membership in the organizations of Jehovah's
 Witnesses was terminated when you were disfellowshiped
 from the English Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses,
 [xyztown], Massachusetts. . . .
The relationship between a congregation and its member
 is consensual as to both parties. A congregation of
 Jehovah's Witnesses is a voluntary association. Both
 the member and the congregation have a right to
 determine if they will remain united. The member has
 the right to disassociate himself or herself from the
 congregation. The congregation also has the right to
 separate from a member if it is determined by an
 ecclesiastical tribunal, which Jehovah's Witnesses
 call a judicial committee, that a member is not
 conducting his or her life according to the tenets of
 the religion.
A. If a member no longer wishes to be one of
 Jehovah's Witnesses, then the member may disassociate
 himself or herself from the congregation. The term
 "disassociation" applies to the action taken by a
 person who, although being a baptized member of the
 congregation, repudiates his or her Christian standing
 as such, rejecting the congregation and stating that
 he or she no longer wants to be recognized or known as
 one of Jehovah's Witnesses. A brief announcement
 would be made to inform the congregation that the
 person has voluntarily disassociated himself or
 herself from the congregation.
B. If a member is charged with wrongdoing and wishes
 to continue to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then
 such one should submit to the hearings of the judicial
 committee. If charges of wrongdoing are brought to
 the attention of the body of elders of one's
 congregation, then they investigate the charges. If
 it is established that there may be substance to the
 charges and evidence is produced showing that a
 serious sin actually may have been committed, the
 congregation's body of elders will assign a judicial
 committee, consisting usually of three elders, to
 handle the matter. . . .
II. APPLICABLE SECULAR LAW
C. Relation Between the Congregations and its
 members. It is axiomatic that the essence of the
 relationship of a religious society with its members
 is held by the courts to be the agreement of the
 parties, and generally, a profession of faith,
 adherence to the doctrine of the religious society and
 submission to its government. 76 C.J.S. Religious
 Societies 11 (1952). A party having voluntarily
 assented to becoming a member of a congregation
 thereby subjects himself or herself to the existing
 rules and procedures of said congregation and cannot
 deny their existence. All who unite themselves to
 such a voluntary religious organization do so with the
 implied consent to this government and are bound to
 submit to it. . . .
Since you did not disassociate yourself from the
 organization, then under the law you gave implied
 consent to its government, subjecting yourself to the
 existing rules and procedures and being bound legally
 to submit to it. The theocratic government of the
 congregation to which you legally submitted includes
 specifically the legal agency of Jehovah's Witnesses,
 known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New
 York, Inc., and all their duly appointed
 representatives, including the elders of the
 congregation with which you were associated. The
 rules and procedures which you subjected yourself to
 include those of the judicial committee arrangement
 set forth in detail above. . . .
Note that the above legalese says that once a person
joins the Witnesses, he has only two choices if he wants to
leave: disfellowshipping and disassociation. These two
choices are enforced by American law. However, even if the
Watchtower lawyer has correctly stated matters, he has
neglected the case of the child who gets baptized and
submits to "ecclesiastical law." By law minors cannot enter
into legally binding contracts. Therefore by law, people
who got baptized when they were children have a third
legally enforceable option when they leave: to simply
quit, without disassociating and without submitting to a
judicial committee, or "ecclesiastical tribunal." Of
course, the Society will not tell people about this.
From the above extensive discussion by the Watchtower
attorney (the complete letter contained dozens of pages) it
is evident that people who become Jehovah's Witnesses are
not fully informed of the rules and obligations they will be
expected to obey. For example, a rank-and-file member is
expected to fully obey an elder, since elders are "duly
appointed representatives" of the Watchtower Society.
The Society has given statements to the news media
indicating that if a person wants to leave the Witnesses,
all he has to do is quietly fade away and life will go on
unchanged. The above letter from Mr. Brumley proves that
these public statements are pure lies.
From the material presented in this essay it should be
clear that the Jehovah's Witnesses parent organization, the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, is a thoroughly
legalistic, Pharasaic and deceptive organization. It
recruits members under false pretenses and bullies them into
remaining by deceptive, legalistic means. No one who wishes
to be a good Christian should tolerate these practices.
AlanF
 
JanH
JanH 15 years ago


You like wearing your wife's clothes, Alan?
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
 
AlanF
AlanF 15 years ago


Lock, stock and barrel, man!
What are you doing up so early? :smile:
AlanF
 
JanH
JanH 15 years ago


Early? Isn't it late...? Oh damn...
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
 
Jang
Jang 15 years ago


Well written Alan and something I am going to keep and pass around to others ....
Good for you !!!! [8D
JanG
CAIC Website: http://caic.org.au/zjws.htm
Personal Webpage: http://uq.net.au/~zzjgroen/
 
Tina
Tina 15 years ago

Hi Alan
 Brilliant essay! Thanks .
 You presented some legal aspects of baptism that never occured to me before. hug,Tina
 
outnfree
outnfree 15 years ago


Alan,
Thank you for taking the time to prepare and post this.
outnfree
 
jukief
jukief 15 years ago

So, Jan, is it so hard to believe that I wrote that instead of Alan? :smile:)
 
wasasister
wasasister 15 years ago


You had me going until the signature line, Alan! I was thinking: "Way cool, Jukie's posting now and what a great first post! She must be spending way too much time with Alan, though, she sounds remarkably like him."
To whoever wrote this:
the following quote made my stomach churn...

"But," you may reply, "how can one tell if one's
church is fulfilling its purpose?" Well, is your
church drawing more and more people to God and helping
them to serve him? Or are its best and most sincere
members disappointed, disillusioned and
disheartened?....
Can they really ignore this any longer? Truly, the most enlightened, educated, and sincere among them are the very ones who are leaving.
You also brought up a fine point for those of us baptised as minors. Since I was a mere 13 at the time of my baptism and further, since I answered the questions way prior to 1985, they probably have no authority at all over me.
I suddenly feel very free. Thanks Alan AND Jukie
PS: Jukie, drop by chat sometime, will you?
 
JanH
JanH 15 years ago


Julie,

So, Jan, is it so hard to believe that I wrote that instead of Alan?

Yeah, for some reason, I recognized Alan's style in it, and not yours
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Tenacious
Has anyone noticed how in the October JW Broadcast, Losch encourages good works towards ALL people?
by Tenacious 5 months ago
AndersonsInfo
Trey Bundy: One Year of Reporting JW Child Abuse - Your comments please!
by AndersonsInfo a month ago
Esse quam videri
Google.ca search bar 'royal commission'
by Esse quam videri 7 months ago
AndersonsInfo
Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties
by AndersonsInfo a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6490/baptism-legalism-jws





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Enemies of the Church: Who Are They?
/  





 

Enemies of the Church: Who Are They?
by cameo-d 7 years ago 5 Replies latest 7 years ago   watchtower beliefs
5
10
20
cameo-d
cameo-d 7 years ago

Remember when preachers named "Satan" as the enemy of the church? It was always the invisible demonic forces they were up against. When things didn't go right, or you fell down on your luck...it was Satan playing havock in your life, trying to mess you up because you were serving god. Disease and handicaps...those were Satan's invisible forces, too, reminding you that man's fall through temptation caused it all.
Things were different when the church had a mission to "go ye therefore" and convert all the heathens. Now that "the word" has been spread worldwide and all the heathens and ungodly have had their chance to "repent" come under subjection of the rule of the church....time is up.
There is no such thing as "live and let live" in the christian churches.
The christian churches are now becoming aggressive toward those unwilling to convert and subject themselves to Kingdom rule. Satan and his demons now have names and faces.
Take a look at the language being used by an organization that calls itself christian international.

Join us as we corporately warto bring God's will to pass on earth!
Warfare Training Day- Santa Rosa Beach, Florida - April 6th
Be equipped to sharpen your discernment, spiritually map territories and execute tactical maneuversto outwit and ambush the enemy.
Receive hands-on training with an opportunity to apply your newly acquired strategiesduring a time of corporate prayer.

Heaven is very active and preparing for the takeover of all times. I saw the Lord declaring a message of “Divine Time in 2009”.

......to join the armies of heavenwho are preparing a divine “takeover” so that the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdoms of our God.
....ready for “marching orders from heaven.”

Prepare yourself for many areas of your life to take make a quick and sudden change. God is moving quickly

Omega Generation
God is opening up the timing and purpose of a “finishing generation.”
People who are 25 years of age and younger will become bolder for the Lord. This generation will have anArmy of the Lord passion, ready to confront all powers of darkness.

Unifying the Body of Christ
The Lord is pulling down the walls between denominations and people from different ethnic groups this year. We will see a unifying power of God sweep through The Body of Christ knocking down walls that have kept people distant and separate.

Unified Team…Army of the Lord Arise
The warring Church will grow this next year because of challenges presented by the powers of darkness.
God will pull His church together, unified and ready to rise up with powerful declarations, discernments and warring passions.
Because of this unity and intensity of war, we will begin to see many battles shift releasing the Kingdom of God into the kingdoms of this world.

We will begin to see the church coming against darkness with a unified power that will shock the plans of the enemy.

1st Choice Obedience
The Lord will test The Church proving their passion to obey His voice. This test will increase the alignment and response of saints all over the world to quickly obey the Will of God

take the gospel of the Kingdom to a world that needs a demonstration of the lordship of Christ. The gifts of the Spirit are not toys for the saints to play with in church. They are mighty weapons of war! God has provided them so we can take territories and nations

Jesus commands us to occupy until He comes!

It is also important to keep your ears open to directions that the Lord is giving.

CI Family Church has formed a Community Transformation Taskforceinvolving

This is just one of many. No longer are they engaged in fraudulent healing frenzies.....they have changed their direction.
Here is how they are using scripture to their advantage to sway any rational thinking.

Psalms 69:9
9 My strong love for your Temple completely controls me.
 When people insult you, it hurts me.
9 for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.

Who are the enemies of the church? Do you think it is something imaginary? Or do you think they intend to do something about those who now knowingly are rejecting their idea of a New Kingdom where elite men speak for god?
Whassup?
 
ninja
ninja 7 years ago

cammy........the wolves are in the sheep pen
check out dr bill harmon of christian international
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/hamon.html
 
cameo-d
cameo-d 7 years ago

cammy........the wolves are in the sheep pen

 The wolves will not hurt the sheep in the pen. They know they will have them later.
The wolves will soon be at war with the free sheep who are trying to break down the pen.
 
cameo-d
cameo-d 7 years ago



There's a war on!
 
ninja
ninja 7 years ago

it's finished
 
cameo-d
cameo-d 7 years ago

it's finished

Can you explain that in another 10 words or less?

BTW....for Hamsterbait...
did you notice the wings and posture stance of the ziz or gryphon in the logo above?
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
pandorasbox1914
Overlapping Generation
by pandorasbox1914 a month ago
KiddingMe
Police: Teen killed in N.Y. church assault wanted out
by KiddingMe 5 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago
JakeM2012
The extent that desperate cults will go to keep control of their youth
by JakeM2012 5 months ago
defender of truth
Matthew 24 - "This Generation": If you are a Jehovahs Witness that dares to study the Bible itself...
by defender of truth 6 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/172940/enemies-church-who-they





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ A Question for Anyone to Answer- thanks
/  





 

A Question for Anyone to Answer- thanks
by JT 12 years ago 13 Replies latest 12 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
JT
JT 12 years ago

Do you think we will ever see the day the WT does this?




Joseph Tkach
AS REGULAR READERS of this magazine know, the Worldwide Church of God, sponsor of The Plain Truth, has changed its position on numerous long-held beliefs and practices during the past few years.
At the heart of those changes has been an acceptance that salvation is by grace through faith. While this was preached in the past, it was always coupled with the message that God owes us a reward for our works that build holy, righteous character.
For decades we regarded scrupulous adherence to the law as the basis of our righteousness. We attempted to relate to God through old covenant rules and regulations in our fervent desire to please him.
In his mercy, God has shown us that old covenant obligations do not apply to Christians who are under the new covenant. He has led us into the riches of his grace and a renewed relationship with Jesus Christ. He has opened our hearts and minds to the joy of his salvation. The Scriptures speak to us with fresh meaning, and we rejoice daily in the personal relationship we have with our Lord and Savior.
At the same time, we are acutely aware of the heavy legacy of our past.
The Holy Spirit is working today in the body of Christ to heal historic wounds and restore good relations between offenders and offended. It is my painful responsibility to acknowledge that the Worldwide Church of God has been among the offenders.
Our flawed doctrinal understanding clouded the plain gospel of Jesus Christ and led to a variety of wrong conclusions and unscriptural practices. We have much to repent of and apologize for.
We were judgmental and self-righteous?condemning other Christians, calling them "so-called Christians" and labeling them "deceived" and "instruments of Satan."
We imposed on our members a works-oriented approach to Christian living. We required adherence to burdensome regulations of the Old Testament code. We exercised a strongly legalistic approach to church government.
Our former old covenant approach fostered attitudes of exclusivism and superiority rather than the new covenant teaching of brotherhood and unity.
We overemphasized predictive prophecy and prophetic speculation, minimizing the true gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.
These teachings and practices are a source of supreme regret. We are painfully mindful of the heartache and suffering that has resulted from them.
We've-been wrong. There was never an intent to mislead anyone. We were so focused on what we believed we were doing for God that we didn't recognize the spiritual path we were on. Intended or not, that path was not the biblical one.
 
stillajwexelder
stillajwexelder 12 years ago

If they did (which they will not) my respect for them would increase by about 1 thousand percent
 
seattleniceguy
seattleniceguy 12 years ago

I recognize that...it's quoted in the fourth edition of Crisis of Conscience, right? Yeah, it's pretty amazing how wonderful it is when an organization owns up, takes responsibility for its faults, and promises to learn from them. Given the current mentality in the organization, I personally don't see this coming anytime soon. I think they would rather die.
SNG
 
JT
JT 12 years ago

continue

As we look back, we ask ourselves how we could have been so wrong. Our hearts go out to all whom our teachings have misled in the Scriptures. We don't minimize your spiritual disorientation and confusion. We earnestly desire your understanding and forgiveness. We recognize that the depth of alienation can make reconciliation difficult. On the human level, reconciliation is often a long and difficult process over time.
 
wednesday
wednesday 12 years ago

I have seen that before. I was just amazed that they did that. I gew up around COG people. The WTS won't do it b/c they have so enraged former members(us) that they know many would sue them if they could. But if at a point in time the WTS had done what they did, they could have avoided all the hate flowing toward them. too bad for them. too late now. they have made their bed.even now, if they said it, i would respect them more, but if i coud sue them, i would. they have destroyed so many lives. Look at all the people on the alter of their blood doctrine.
 
JT
JT 12 years ago

contin

i apologize for breaking it up my formatting is off--

Yet we pray daily for it, realizing that the healing ministry of Christ can close even the deepest wounds. We make no attempt to cover up the doctrinal and scriptural errors of our past. It is not our intention to merely paper over the cracks.

We are looking our history squarely in the face and confronting the faults and sins we find. They will always remain a part of our history, serving as a perpetual reminder of the dangers of legalism.

But we cannot live in the past. We must rise above our past. We must move on. We say, with the apostle Paul: "Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 3:13-14).

We have set our minds and hearts on Jesus Christ and trust explicitly in him. I have never been more thrilled about the state of our fellowship!

We are pooling our energies and moving forward in preaching the gospel worldwide and equipping our local congregations to be healthy examples of the body of Christ. We are using the spiritual gifts we have been given and capitalizing on the intense dedication to Jesus Christ?now rightly channeled?which has long characterized our church.

So we stand today at the foot of the cross?the ultimate symbol of all reconciliation. It is the common ground on which estranged and alienated parties can meet. As Christians, we all identify with the suffering that took place there, and we hope that identification will bring us together.

We desire to meet there with anyone we may have injured. It is only by the blood of the Lamb and the power of the Spirit that we can put the hurts of the past behind us and move forward toward our common goal. I have expressed these sentiments in sermons and letters in recent months, but I wanted to restate them for our Plain Truth readers.

So to all members, former members, co-workers and others?all who have been casualties of our past sins and mistakes of doctrine?I extend my sincerest heartfelt apologies. And I invite you to join us in proclaiming the true gospel of Jesus Christ around the world?as even now God is blessing us with renewed growth and vigor in his service.

Joseph Tkach, President

Published in the March/April 1996 Plain Truth
 
JT
JT 12 years ago

thank you for your thoughts

this was given to me by a former jw who is sending a copy of rays book and he showed me the quote so i had to read it in its entirety

it is the best example of a cult coming clean
 
Carmel
Carmel 12 years ago

stillajwexelder, that would be 1000 X 0 which in my advanced math text book means still 0,,,?
carmel
 
seattleniceguy
seattleniceguy 12 years ago

I think I know what XJWE meant, though. It's ironic that by refusing to admit one's mistakes, only anger is generated, but by coming totally clean as this organization did, it engenders such respect. I was struck myself when I first read it at how much I respected this church for coming forward like this.
I think the Society is afraid to do so. Even if certain elements feel this way, I think they fear that admitting their mistakes and the far-reaching effects they have had in people's lives would open the way for massive outrage and lawsuits.
SNG
 
Amazing1914
Amazing1914 12 years ago

If the Watchtower Society published such an article, I would cry tears of joy.
 
Larry
Larry 12 years ago

I don't think that will happen. Interesting that you bring up that subject, because I was thinking that on a broader level - What if all business, government officials, religious leaders, entertainers, parents, etc admitted to the life altering mistakes they've made on other. Whew, what a concept :smile: But I think the answer to that question could be seen in the attached photo (Hell Freezing Over :smile:
Peace - LL :smile:
 
myauntfanny
myauntfanny 12 years ago

It is beautiful, very moving. I don't think this can ever happen for JWs because I believe that they really are a book publishing corporation, at the top. But if they did do this, I would change my mind about that. Obviously.
 
codeblue
codeblue 12 years ago

The WTBS will never publish any kind of letter like that. They are too haughty to express sincere apologies for their errors.
 
myelaine
myelaine 12 years ago

Hi! I'm new here. I just wanted to comment on the letter from Church of God. Of course the day will come that the Watchtower writes a letter like that. You just have to think about how many prayers over the last century have been relating to this in one way or another. God does and will answer prayer. Keep praying!
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
Saved_JW
Discussion with a Pioneer: CONCLUSION
by Saved_JW 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/76161/question-anyone-answer-thanks





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Jehovah's Witnesses and The Worldwide Church of God
/  





 

Jehovah's Witnesses and The Worldwide Church of God
by JWStruggle 4 years ago 12 Replies latest 4 years ago   watchtower beliefs
5
10
20
JWStruggle
JWStruggle 4 years ago

I recently posted an article on my blog that tapped into a comment made to me by an awake Witness about The Worldwide Church of God. It discussed some questions that have been on a lot minds among the awake JWs and Ex-JWs lately. Questions adressed are:
• Could reform come after some critical mass is reached, or when the leadership ages and younger ones take their place?
• Will the WTO ever make an apology such as the WCG did?
While the answers are likely in the negative, that by itself does not have to be the point. The fact that it HAS happened within a large movement in recent years does. Also, the parallels in teaching between the groups is quite revealing- I certainly didn't know that the two groups had so many doctrinal beliefs in common.
The link is below:
http://www.jwstruggle.com/2011/09/jws-and-the-worldwide-church-of-god/

As always, your thoughts are appreciated.
JJ
JWStruggle.com
 
Witness 007
Witness 007 4 years ago

Changing doctrine so radically was like throwing a hand granade into the Congregation......not much left now of the "World wide" church of God.
 
Bella15
Bella15 4 years ago

gosh, I don't think the WCG and others have blood in its hands like the Watchtower Corporation for its blood doctrine ... it is a HUGE liability for them right now ... also sex abuse coverage ... at least here in the USA this type of lawsuits would really really damage it ... for this reason they will never put anything in writing as recanting their doctrines like the WCG, TBN, P.Robertson, etc., have done in the past.
 
sd-7
sd-7 4 years ago

Any admission of guilt or wrongdoing would be against their very nature. You can't claim to be faithful and discreet if you do that.
--sd-7
 
LV101
LV101 4 years ago

Bella15: liability is "HUGE" right now because of blood doctrine/sex abuse??? haven't heard too much lately but realize they settle out of court w/gag orders on the victims. apparently, not HUGE enough to make a dent, unfortunately.
i'd love to see a group of attys. advertisement on TV about representing vics of the sex abuse and the blood deaths. maybe law professors should be contacted to get the ball rolling. it's called FEAR of the witnesses to come forward and seek legal counsel. there needs to be billboards --- the power of suggestion.
 
blondie
blondie 4 years ago

Only part of the WWCOG split off. Quite a few stayed with the original organization and retained the old beliefs. I do believe Robert Meredith heads up that part.
 
JWStruggle
JWStruggle 4 years ago

The apology that was made seemed so sincere, but many did not want to change and make that a large a leap. I found a number of WCG websites when researching the topic that continue to defend H. Armstrong and his teachings, as so many do to this day with C.T. Russell.
 
Mad Sweeney
Mad Sweeney 4 years ago

Could reform come after some critical mass is reached, or when the leadership ages and younger ones take their place?
Leadership HAS aged and younger ones HAVE taken their place. Not one GB member from Ray Franz's time is still alive. The OLDEST GB member was appointed to the body in 1994. This IS the new regime.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. . . only stupider.
 
designs
designs 4 years ago

If you think David Splane is any less crackers than Fred Franz think again...
 
Mad Sweeney
Mad Sweeney 4 years ago

But Franz was a sort of savant genius even though he was a certifiable loon. Splane's just another aging Dub, captive to a concept.
 
AwareBeing
AwareBeing 4 years ago

Thanks' again JJ!

Here's a brief on the article:

Opening; “Recently, a lot of current and former Jehovah’s Witnesses have increased their calls for reform in the governing body of it’s Watchtower and Tract corporations.”

Similarities; “Armstrong had been successful in the advertising business and stated: “It was a training such as one could never receive in any university or theological seminary.” His long solitary studies in the scriptures (not the Bible Student’s book) gave him the idea that ”legalism” was it’s interpretation. Herbert also read Seventh Day Adventist literature, circulated “The Plain Truth” magazine, ran “The World Tomorrow” TV program, and founded ”The Ambassador College.””

Closing; “Splits are bad for all parties; but for victims of cultic abuse, it’s a major advent for change. It will create a better church, many [more] of them and allot of confusion for the faithful. They will have more options and be freer. Yet these babbling groups will still be parts of false religion, all be it even more confused then ever!” -AwareBeing

PS: JW Struggle is a thoughtful, spiritual, non-combatant site.
 
Palimpsest
Palimpsest 4 years ago

Both the Witnesses and the Church of God are Adventists, so of course there's going to be doctrinal overlap. As much as Witnesses deny it, there's nothing all that special about their teachings.
Same goes for Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists. They both formed out of a schism from the original Millerite Adventists, so there's far more in common between the two than different. That's why the SDAs so aggressively recruit JWs, because it's a relatively easy transition to make and they know it.
Nothing bothers the WTBTS more than reminding them that they're just run-of-the-mill half-Protestant throwbacks and just as much a part of "Christendom" than anyone else. There's nothing original about their roots. They're downright boring theologically.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 4 years ago

When Regis Philbin first moved to NY, he had a local show that had more character than the national Disney production. One day some dissident JWs were on air, fresh from picketing Bethel. This is not normal TV. I telephoned the producer and asked for the man's phone number so I could get help with my JW problems. It was called Fundamentalists Anonymous. When I explained my serious problems to the man, he said I was so far out of the Witnesses and that my issues were trivial. He said he was performing suicide watches with former Witnesses and Armstrong members.
Armstrong's ads give me the creeps. Yet my family was in since Russell times. As a young girl, I saw occult symbols and crosses that had me running in fright and tears to my mom.
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Divergent
November 22 Study Article: God is a hypocrite & is NOT impartial!
by Divergent 4 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/216471/jehovahs-witnesses-worldwide-church-god





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Called to be Free - Dissolution of the Worldwide Church of God
/  





 

Called to be Free - Dissolution of the Worldwide Church of God
by Dogpatch 5 years ago 43 Replies latest 4 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
Dogpatch
Dogpatch 5 years ago

[The time links work on my website, not good here]
Called to be Free - Dissolution of the Worldwide Church of God
[Note: This presentation is over an hour long and is very well done, but I have marked key time slots from the video so if you are in a hurry you can watch the key highlites.]
Herbert W. Armstrong shared many similar doctrines with Jehovah's Witnesses when he began his ministry in the 40s. No hell, Jesus is not God, the message of the gospel is not about Jesus or about "grace" but about obedience to God's laws, and that his job was to spread the "gospel" to the world. [10:20] He even taught that Christ would return in 1975! And no, he was never a Jehovah's Witness nor did he study with them.
In 1947 he founded "Ambassador College" in Pasadena, Calif. with four members. By 1955 he began his work of spreading his "gospel" via radio with a program called "The World Tomorrow," and had followers in 60 countries. His "Plain Truth" magazine had a huge circulation of 8 million copies per issue.
[10:58] "When this message has gone around the world, THEN the end will come," say Armstrong.
His church grew to 150,000 followers at its peak. Before he died in 1986, he appointed Joseph W. Tkach as his successor. In 1995 Tkach Sr. died and was succeeded by his son Joseph Tkach Jr.
But in a scenario similar to Raymond Franz and a small group of writers at the Watchtower headquarters in 1979, Joseph's son, Joseph Tkach Jr., along with a few other staff members, began to understand the true message of the New Testament; the true New Testament gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and the subsequent reign of grace that replaced the Old Testament Law. That meant no more sabbath observance, no more tithing, and no more festivals. In other words, they were no longer to be controlled by the sticklers of salvation by following laws.
WHAT IF Joseph Jr. had not convinced his father of what errors they must abandon - the false prophecies and teachings of their original leader, Herbert W. Armstrong? Most likely it would have turned out like it did at the Watchtower headquarters in 1979-1980 with the expulsion of all who disagree with Armstrong's teachings.
But amazingly, much of the core leadership embraced a more orthodox understanding of the Bible. This COULD have happened at Brooklyn Bethel, but it did not. The old men in control were too powerful and railroaded out anyone who questioned the teachings of the Watchtower organization out with their ten "loyalty" questions.
Nevertheless, the WCG splintered, as many chose to remain followers of Armstrong. And much like the Bible Students that followed Charles Taze Russell splintered into many sub-sects, the same happened with over half of the WCG members. They had to quit the radio, The Plain Truth magazine, and sell Ambassador College because funding dropped off severely.
Ruth Tucker, an evangelical leader and an early supporter of the changes which occurred in the WCG, wrote in an article in Christianity Today that

The "changes"—as they are referred to by insiders—are truly historic. Never before in the history of Christianity has there been such a complete move to orthodox Christianity by an unorthodox fringe church.
Vern Bullough, a secular humanist and senior editor of Free Inquiry, commented on the significance of the changes noting:

The shedding of almost every doctrine the Worldwide Church of God once clung to is a story almost without parallel in American religious history.
After his death, the WCG (headed by Joseph Tkach Jr.) reiterated its full acceptance of the doctrinal changes implemented by Tkach and published an apology to current and former members of the church for the impact previous doctrines had had on members. As evidence that Tkach's work was instrumental in the move toward mainstream Christianity, the WCG was accepted into the membership of the National Association of Evangelicals within two years of his death.
-from Wikipedia

How sad it is that the leaders of the Watchtower in the late 70s had no ear for truth, but only cared for their careers. Now they are all dead; replaced by a dull group of men on the current Governing Body that will likely see their own kingdom splinter within a few short years. Almost all the recent articles in the Watchtower magazine are preparing the seven million Jehovah's Witnesses around the globe from listening to anyone "anointed" who speaks a different tune. Start the countdown!
a few interesting clip marks:
[35:24] The leadership members on Tkach's side say, "How will we tell the people?"
[37:46] Greg Albrecht tells of the shock of the members of the WCG.
[38:15] people freaking out
[39:29] one apostle vs. another
[49:46] the others who stayed with Armstrong's beliefs
[52:33] the shunning!
[58:54] Hank Hanegraaff of Christian Research Institute (The "Bible Answer Man") comments on the rarity of the phenomena.

Randy
freeminds.org
 
wannabefree
wannabefree 5 years ago

Thanks Randy.
This video was a key to my examining my own religion. I met a man in the door to door ministry who had recently become a follower of one of the holdout Armstrong groups. In doing research for a return visit, I came across this video. The similarities between this group and JW's brought too many questions to my mind that I had to research. It started the death of my faith as a JW.
 
factfinder
factfinder 5 years ago

It's funny because when I first started to read witness literature my brother gave me in '76 I also saw the Plain Truth and would take copies of it too- it was free at Shop Rite ! It offered free booklets so I sent for some. Similar to witnesses but what made me stop reading it was they taught the 144,000 rule ON the earth and not OVER it!
 
Aussie Oz
Aussie Oz 5 years ago

marked for later

thanks
oz
 
Room 215
Room 215 5 years ago

Fascinating; through it all and whatever their defects, the Worldwide Church of God had one virtue the WTBTS sorely lacked/lacks: something of a social conscience
 
Ding
Ding 5 years ago

Randy,
Very powerful and moving video!
Have you succeeded in getting some JWs to watch it?
I wonder how many JWs would see the parallels between the Worldwide Church of God and the WTS.
I fear that at the point in the video where some of the church leaders started believing in the Trinity, a JW would be likely to walk away and miss the entire following discussion of grace and forgiveness.
What has been your experience with JWs who see this?
 
Dogpatch
Dogpatch 5 years ago

Hi Ding,
I would definitely use it in an exit counseling! Haven't done any in a while.
Randy
 
brotherdan
brotherdan 5 years ago

I'm watching the video right now, Randy. It is absolutely amazing!
 
brotherdan
brotherdan 5 years ago

Really if you watch the video and you substitute every reference to Herbert Armstrong with "The Governing Body" you have an almost mirror image...
 
Doubting Bro
Doubting Bro 5 years ago

And this is why even if the majority of the GB were to believe that a major doctrine was incorrect, they would NOT change it. Say all of them came to the conclusion that the "last days" didn't really start in 1914. Does anyone here think for a minute that they would publish that information? Hell to the no they wouldn't.
And apologize?? LOL LOL LOL
Protecting the status quo is their #1 job right now. In my opinion, if they were to make changes surrounding 1) no paradise earth, 2) no immortal soul, 3) not all Christians go to heaven, 4) no Trinity, 5) no shunning on df'ing or 6) no prohibition on blood it would result in major schisms.
As long as they keep those things along with no holidays and some form of preaching, they can tweak pretty much anything else they want with minimal damage.
They are not "seekers of truth" but protecters of the status quo. Way too much to lose.
 
dgp
dgp 5 years ago

Great article, Randy. If only...
 
brotherdan
brotherdan 5 years ago

It's taking quite a while to load up on freeminds...so here is a direct link to youtube.




 
Ding
Ding 5 years ago

In CoC, Ray talks about how many of the GB had doubts about the 1914 chronology after the 1975 failure but circled the wagons instead of facing the truth.
It is indeed miraculous that so many key leaders of the Worldwide Church of God came to similar conclusions at the same time AND had the humility to stand up in public and tell the faithful, "Our major doctrines are wrong."
They lost power, prestige, money, followers...
If only something similar would happen with the WTS!
 
pirata
pirata 5 years ago

Great Video!
[5:44] Armstrong predicts Jesus' return in 1975
 
brotherdan
brotherdan 5 years ago

I like how on 32:20 or so, the guy talks about how they were almost "grace phobic". Isn't that the Watchtower? They are so afraid of loosening the rules. They have no trust of the "brotherhood".
 
brotherdan
brotherdan 5 years ago

Uh oh....look closely at the upper left hand corner during this interview. See a familiar book?!?!? I hope he just uses it for apologetics...



 
moshe
moshe 5 years ago

The WWCofGod didn't need many members as they were getting tithes from them and for the most part their meetings were in cheap rented facilities.
 
brotherdan
brotherdan 5 years ago

They stopped getting all tithes. They had to shut down their university, their tv studios, and lost most of their members because they realized they were in error. This was a beautiful film!
 
aSphereisnotaCircle
aSphereisnotaCircle 5 years ago

The COG will be reborn and become bigger and stronger then ever, they will use this event as proof that they have gods direction and backing.
I think these men are sincere, but now they are even more sincere, and more convinced of their correctness.
Kudos to them for fessing up when they discovered their error, but they still believe they are under gods direction and are just as capable of effing up peoples lives.
I am not impressed.
What would impress me would be if they stopped "teaching" other people. They should disqualify themsleves from leading others, but they do not, they still believe in their own authority.
They will continue to mess up peoples lives.
 
aSphereisnotaCircle
aSphereisnotaCircle 5 years ago

As I type this, the ad at the top of this page has a big pic of Herbie and it says,
He was right!
Remembering five decades of accurate forecasting by Herbert Armstrong
WTF!
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
Saved_JW
Discussion with a Pioneer: CONCLUSION
by Saved_JW 4 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
AndersonsInfo
Trey Bundy: One Year of Reporting JW Child Abuse - Your comments please!
by AndersonsInfo a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/205634/called-free-dissolution-worldwide-church-god






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Called to be Free - Dissolution of the Worldwide Church of God
/  





 

Called to be Free - Dissolution of the Worldwide Church of God
by Dogpatch 5 years ago 43 Replies latest 4 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
Ding
Ding 5 years ago

Randy,
If you were going to use this video with a JW, how would you introduce it?
How would you handle it if they ask, "What does this have to do with me?"
Wouldn't a JW get hung up on specific issues like, "The Trinity? This is just a bunch of people exchanging one false religion for another."
How do you get them to see the mind control parallels?
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 5 years ago

The video would have us believe that all these people in the leadership of the church simultaneously came to the view that the Bible teaches the Trinity as well as other orthodox doctrines, repented of their ways, and led their flock back to God. That looks to be a rather odd turn of events to me. They call it a miracle. I do not believe in miracles, but if I did it would appear an odd choice of miracle for a God to perform, given all the problems and real tragedies played out the world over, to use his power to change the doctrines of a small religious movement, just so that evangelical Christians could use it as an advert for their own ideology.
The claim that it was a miracle rests on the contention that the leadership had absolutely nothing to gain by changing their ways and that they repented of their error entirely of their own volition. The facts would seem to suggest otherwise. They decided to pursue a course of fundamental change reluctantly and from a position of weakness not of strength. The founder of the movement had died in 1986, all his prophecies had failed and there was no charismatic leader to take his place. The church entered a period of crisis and was declining in membership and funds when the leaders attempted to tweak the doctrines to keep the movement going. (This period of smaller changes was totally airbrushed out of the story in the video, as it would have detracted from the presentation of an abrupt and miraculous change within the church) Those tentative efforts did not halt the decline or crisis within the church, and eventually nine years later in 1995 the new leader announced radical changes in the teachings of the church, not as a bold gesture prompted by God's grace, but as the last throw of the dice by a leadership desperate to salvage something out of the troubled organization they had inherited. From an organizational viewpoint it seems to have been a shrewd move since instead of total disintegration they managed to preserve a small core of the church while also gaining respectability among other mainstream churches.
 
Terry
Terry 5 years ago

Herbert W. Armstrong was a staple of my grandmother's radio listening schedule.
I listened intently as a small boy.
Armstrong was simply a wonderful speaker. He was plain in speech and powerful in building a common sense argument to a pointed conclusion.
His son, Garner Ted Armstrong, has the same style and approach. You can catch him now and then on cable tv selling old tapes and pamphlets.
What the Watchtower Society did not do in the 1970's when they had the "opportunity" is not surprising, really.
I married into a Jewish family and really got to know both ordthodox and Reformed Jewish people who were quite intelligent and articulate.
It is simply unthinkable for them--EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW full well how non-literal their beliefs are because of intellectual honesty--turning their back on thousands of years of faithful observance would be like spitting on their ancestors devout struggle to remain in solidarity with the past.
A lot of JW's feel the same way.
There is a hard-headed obstinancy in them.
They are contrarian to the bone.
Becoming what they hate is beyond them in every way.
 
Violia
Violia 5 years ago

My dad got " The plain truth" in the mail. I used to read it as a kid. We were inactive most of my childhood , but it was sort of ok then, they still considered you a jws anyhow. It sounded so much like jws , I thought it was. I remember some jws thought he was an apostate, but he wasn't. I could understand him easily b/c he sounded so much like the jws.
I recall the break up of the church and them publically admitting they felt they were wrong and saying that in print. They were wrong. I was impressed , to say the least. If the wts could do that I'd probably still be with them.
Yes Terry, it is a solidarity they feel to "mother". No matter who they have to hurt, they will protect her.
 
myelaine
myelaine 5 years ago

dear Randy...
thank you for this video!
xoxo
+
dear Terry...
you said: "Herbert W. Armstrong was a staple of my grandmother's radio listening schedule.I listened intently as a small boy."...
!?!exactly!?!..why so many objections now?
love michelle
 
brotherdan
brotherdan 5 years ago

myelaine, Terry's loss of faith is a tragedy. Especially since he has such a wonderful mind. While he thinks he is "free" now, he is captive of his own thinking. It really is sad.
 
Terry
Terry 5 years ago

Poor Terry. If only he had the enlightenment of both MyElaine and Brotherdan.
But, alas! Perhaps God will find it in His infinite mercy to overlook the dear lad's obtuse and adamant recalcitrance.
 
myelaine
myelaine 5 years ago

dear Terry...
I hope you don't go down to hell.
love michelle
 
laverite
laverite 5 years ago

marked for later.
 
Violia
Violia 5 years ago

I'm sorry, but lol at myelaine for believing in a literal hell.  lol
If I read that wrong, myelaine, sorry.
 
Juan Viejo2
Juan Viejo2 5 years ago

I used to watch Garner Ted Armstrong's TV program all the time. He was a lot like that other fellow that wrote all of the books about the end times (name escapes me at the moment), with his prophecies of the "king of the north and king of the south," "Gog and Magog," etc.
I loved how his prophecies would change as America's perceived enemies changed over the years. First Russia, then Iran, then Iraq.
Garner Ted got DF'd from the WWCoG by his dad. Then he went to Texas and set up his own branch, which I think is still active and follows a lot of the old WWCoG beliefs. GTA died a few years ago. He was DF'd by his dad because of infidelity in his marriage and was also accused of misuse of church funds for his personal uses.
I had a co-worker that was a WWCoG member. I remember him telling me that he gave 10% of his GROSS pay to the church, before taxes, med ins, stock plan, etc. He was always borrowing money from the rest of us to buy lunch or to fill his gas tank. He also did not work on Saturday's, so when he was a supervisor at the phone company he had to find a replacement willing to work his weekend duty - and it usually was me.
They were a weird bunch, but like the JWs, fairly dedicated and trying to be good Christians. But it was so obviously a personality cult under Herbert and son Garner Ted. Plain Truth had pages and pages of Herbert shaking hands with Sadat, and DeGaulle and other major world leaders. I think Sun Yun Moon learned and patterned his Moonie religion after HWA and GTA and their approach to world evangelism.
Anyone remember that Bing Crosby's concert career effectively came to an end when he fell off the stage at Ambassador College's concert hall while giving performance?
JV
 
Violia
Violia 5 years ago

There was another preacher on TV that I used to watch . He wore a Cowboy hat and smoked a big cigar. His young wife took over for him when he died. He was the most interesting religious person on TV to me. I would stay up late at night just to listen to him. Sort of the Art Bell of TV, or at least I thought.
 
garyneal
garyneal 5 years ago

marked
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 5 years ago

I used to watch old Herbert's old show in the '80s. I remember seeing him talk about 1914 and I was like "Whoa" JWs are not the only ones talking about that date. I even got literature from the WCOG at that time because I was interested if they had additional arguments against Easter and other holidays than what the JWs use. Turned it the content of the booklet was largely identical with the stuff found in JW literature.
In the early '90s I had a workmate who was in the WCOG. My main memory was that we lined up overnight to get concert tickets to see Depeche Mode and she was really excited to go with me to the show. Then a few days beforehand she was PISSED. Turned out that the show fell on one of the WCOG holy days and she was not allowed to go. I felt really bad for her. She gave me her tickets and I asked someone else to go with me.
 
Lunatic Faith
Lunatic Faith 5 years ago

Thanks for sharing! I thoroughly enjoyed the video. I even found the original on youtube and shared it on my facebook account. Let's see how much damage I can do.
 
JimmyPage
JimmyPage 5 years ago

I can remember going on bible studies as a kid and Herbert Armstrong was often brought up by the householder.
I had no idea why there was an issue then, and only just now learned in the past few years.
I have so much respect for an organization that can admit its mistakes.
It is something none of us here have ever experienced.
 
freetosee
freetosee 5 years ago

Its a very moving video. It is amazing how many parallels can be found to jws. They surly dealt with the situation much better then the WT GB.
Overall I have to agree with slimboyfat.
 
wannabefree
wannabefree 5 years ago

There was another preacher on TV that I used to watch . He wore a Cowboy hat and smoked a big cigar.
Was this perhaps Dr. Gene Scott? I used to watch him late at night, before I was a JW.

&feature=related
 
Violia
Violia 5 years ago

If you click on that video it wil take you to youtube and you can see Dr. Scott in his more usual form, hat and cigar. That is some wild TV.
 
aSphereisnotaCircle
aSphereisnotaCircle 5 years ago

I think it should be noted here that "mistake" that the COG corrected was purely doctrinal.
I see nothing in that video that says they feel their cult behavior was a "mistake"
They still believe in tithing, and excomunicating, so would someone please explian to me how they have changed for the good?
I saw nothing that said they were wrong about shunning doctors and they regret all the members who died and suffered because of it. (though I only watched the firt 50 minutes, so maybe they did redeem themselves in the end)

Above, the poster Ding asked a very valid question, that has been ignored. I cant answer it, could someone else who thinks that the COG is so brave and noble please answer it? I woul love to hear an answer.
Anyone?
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
[the time links work on my website, not good here].
called to be free - dissolution of the worldwide church of god.
[note: this presentation is over an hour long and is very well done, but i have marked key time slots from the video so if you are in a hurry you can watch the key highlites.].



Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
Saved_JW
Discussion with a Pioneer: CONCLUSION
by Saved_JW 4 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
AndersonsInfo
Trey Bundy: One Year of Reporting JW Child Abuse - Your comments please!
by AndersonsInfo a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/205634/called-free-dissolution-worldwide-church-god?page=2&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Called to be Free - Dissolution of the Worldwide Church of God
/  





 

Called to be Free - Dissolution of the Worldwide Church of God
by Dogpatch 5 years ago 43 Replies latest 4 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 5 years ago

They did stop tithing according to the video.
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

"30 years in the Worldwide Church of God"

Bill Fairchild:
This long letter is an incomplete hodge-podge of things I remember from 30 years in the Worldwide Church of God. I believe in naming names, including my own. I have used full names when the individuals involved either did something good or knowingly did something bad, and withheld names when I believe the person involved was not being hypocritical. I have tried to be balanced by telling good things as well as bad things. I sincerely hope this memoir is not overly verbose, and that it helps someone who may read it someday.
May God open everyone's mind to the understanding that our minds are the most precious thing we have, and we must all someday be called into account for what we have done with our minds. I now want my mind to be open to new possibilities and tolerant of all other people, because we are all made in God's image even if we don't all think alike.

The Painful Truth, Part I
http://www.hwarmstrong.com/fairchild-30-years-in-worldwide-church-1.htm

The Painful Truth, Part II
http://www.hwarmstrong.com/fairchild-30-years-in-worldwide-church-2.htm

The Painful Truth, Part III
http://www.hwarmstrong.com/fairchild-30-years-in-worldwide-church-3.htm

The Painful Truth, Part IV
http://www.hwarmstrong.com/fairchild-30-years-in-worldwide-church-4.htm

The Painful Truth, Part V
http://www.hwarmstrong.com/fairchild-30-years-in-worldwide-church-5.htm
 
GOrwell
GOrwell 5 years ago

Wow, leavingwt, those articles are a fantastic recounting of life inside the WCG. I'm only on section #2, but it is EERILY creepy how similar WTS and the WCG was (and the WTS still is). Granted, the WCG seemed to be more of a personality cult to the bitter end, but these comparisions are amazing!
 
Diest
Diest 4 years ago

Marked
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
[the time links work on my website, not good here].
called to be free - dissolution of the worldwide church of god.
[note: this presentation is over an hour long and is very well done, but i have marked key time slots from the video so if you are in a hurry you can watch the key highlites.].



Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
Saved_JW
Discussion with a Pioneer: CONCLUSION
by Saved_JW 4 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
AndersonsInfo
Trey Bundy: One Year of Reporting JW Child Abuse - Your comments please!
by AndersonsInfo a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/205634/called-free-dissolution-worldwide-church-god?page=3&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Living Church of God & the Watchtower
/  





 

Living Church of God & the Watchtower
by JAVA 11 years ago 36 Replies latest 11 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

I?m sure most of you have seen some coverage about the murder/suicide by a member of the evangelical church called the Living Church of God. The church was founded in the mid-1990?s when it split from Herbert W. Armstrong?s Worldwide Church of God. The Living Church observes the Sabbath on Saturday along with other Old Testament rituals. It rejects the Trinity, and counsels members to remain separate from the secular world, by not participating in juries, politics or the military. The church?s pre-millennial view asserts that we are moving toward the ?end times,? and the church warned members to pay off credit-card debts and hoard savings in preparation for the coming financial collapse. Terry Ratzmann, a member for 5 years killed 7 members during last Saturday?s service before taking his own life. Survivors said he became upset during a service two weeks ago, and stormed out of the church. I often wonder about some of the fringe JWs that might be disappointed with the Tower?s end-time carrot. It?s a wonder this hasn?t happened at one of the Kingdom Halls.
 
integ
integ 11 years ago


Interesting. I've wondered about that myself. It's probably only a matter of time before somebody flips out at a kingdom hall.
Integ.
 
RunningMan
RunningMan 11 years ago


I've often wondered the same thing.
The JWs attract persons of fringe mentality. They pressure them in many ways. They shun and ostrasize members. They claim to be God's only chosen people and await the end of the world - a recipe in itself for mental instability.
With 6 million members and all these contributing factors it seems reasonable that it will eventually happen to them. On the other hand, maybe it already has happened. Remember Mark Barton, the Atlanta day trader who killed 14 people and left behind a note filled with Jehovah-speak, or the JW in Oregon who killed his family and himself.
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

RunningMan ? You?re right, we have seen a few JWs or folks associated with the Tower do some bizarre things, like murdering others. But I can imagine the day might come when a JW will walk into a Kingdom Hall or an assembly and unload a gun into the crowd. We had a guy in our KH that was on the fringe I visited in his home many years ago. He went upstairs to get something, and I remember looking around the room for an escape route if I expected or saw a weapon. The irony of that situation was he worked at the Post Office.
 
RunningMan
RunningMan 11 years ago


Maybe the euphamism in the future will be "going Watchtower" instead of "going postal".
Remember the bomb that went off in a kingdom hall in Australia a few years back. However, God's holy spirit prevented anyone from being hurt.
 
GetBusyLiving
GetBusyLiving 11 years ago


God I hope it never happens but I could totally see somebody wigging out and shooting up a Kingdom Hall one day. Its inevitable. They are attracting more and more crazy's to the org.

GBL
 
rebel8
rebel8 11 years ago


You are right, it is a wonder this hasn't happened at a KH...otoh, it probably has and we just don't know about.
The closest thing I know about is a JW father from my old cong killed his 2 kids, wife, and himself in a murder-suicide. We were told he was angry about something and not to ask any more questions.
 
GetBusyLiving
GetBusyLiving 11 years ago


:We were told he was angry about something and not to ask any more questions.
That has got to be the understatement of the century.
GBL
 
kls
kls 11 years ago


GBL i think the org is growing their own crazies and yes i think there will be more of this as sad as it is to say but some have reached the end of sanity and being involved in a controling religion like this one and the JWS , they see no way out.

This so called religion also does not celebrate holidays,,,fyi
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

rebel8 -- Your post reminds me of several JW suicides that I'm aware of in Dayton, Ohio. There was a woman with some mental-health issues that attended meetings from time to time. I remember how upset she became when 1976 rolled around and nothing happened. Not long after that she jumped out of a highrise and landed in a dumpster. She had such high expections and faith in the Tower, but saw nothing to live for after the 1975 failure. What a shame--so sad. Had she had a gun, and walked into a KH, it's no telling what could have happened.
 
blondie
blondie 11 years ago


I was told about a brother who kidnapped his wife at gunpoint...it was found out later that the elders were aware of his cache of guns, he was preparing for the end.
Another sister was lucky the gun jammed as her JW hubby pointed it at her head and pulled the trigger.
Of course, there is the Bryant family's sad story, DF'd dad kills family and self.
http://www.portlandmercury.com/2002-07-18/feature-2.html
Then Christian Longo who killed his family and went off the Mexico with a woman.
http://www.oregonlive.com/special/longo/
 
AK - Jeff
AK - Jeff 11 years ago


And the Meza family in South Carolina
http://www.silentlambs.org/SCmurderarticles.htm
 
Valis
Valis 11 years ago

I'm gonna go Door to Door on yer asses!
 
Carmel
Carmel 11 years ago


I'm surprised that someone wrongfully df'd hasn't come back for a little "elder revenge"!
caveman
 
Neo
Neo 11 years ago


JAVA,
I'm glad to see you counting time on JWD.
I often wonder about some of the fringe JWs that might be disappointed with the Tower?s end-time carrot. It?s a wonder this hasn?t happened at one of the Kingdom Halls.
That's true. It may happen sooner or later. There's more stuff on this subject in the following threads:
◦Watchtower's Dangerous Game
◦Italy: Man Threatens to Blow Self up at JW Meeting of 2,000
Neo
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

Carmel -- The number of disfellowshipped could be in the millions. Revenge on the elders or someone who turned them in to the body of busybodies might cause a normal person to go over the edge. When reading about the member of the Living Church of God who unloading his gun (twice) in the group of around 60 members because he seemed upset with a sermon, one can't help but wonder what folks like that would do if they were shunned.
 
kls
kls 11 years ago


The news was just on and one of the followers of this religion said,,It was a horrible tragedy but these are things that are to come before the end and maybe this is Gods way of spreading our beliefs and getting the word out.
This was a women who was at the shooting and it has not stumbled her faith.
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

kls ? I guess God works in mysterious ways. In order to be heard God gives a member of an end-time sect a gun and over 20 rounds of amo. Next God has this guy murder 7 members of the group, then kill himself. God figures this is a great way of spreading the news about this wonderful group. Hey, where does one sign up? I think this shows how desperate some folks are in following the blind.
 
Berean
Berean 11 years ago

You should check out their web site. The similarities to WBTS is amazing.
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

http://www.livingcog.org/ I did Berean, that's why I believe this case around members of the Living Church of God reminds me of the Watchtower in so many ways.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/86933/living-church-god-watchtower





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Living Church of God & the Watchtower
/  





 

Living Church of God & the Watchtower
by JAVA 11 years ago 36 Replies latest 11 years ago   jw friends
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
Berean
Berean 11 years ago

I found an ?apostate? Living Church of God site; evidently they are a sect of Armstrong. The site claimed that Armstrong got some of his ideas from the Adventist and Jehovah?s Witnesses, among others. I know that Armstrong had many ideas strongly resembling JW?s.
Very interesting.
 
GetBusyLiving
GetBusyLiving 11 years ago

:The news was just on and one of the followers of this religion said,,It was a horrible tragedy but these are things that are to come before the end and maybe this is Gods way of spreading our beliefs and getting the word out.
God I hate these crazy "last day's" bullshit sects. If these morons would do a little research they would see how much better off they are living now than practically ANY other time in human history.
GBL
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

I remember hearing Armstrong on the radio in the mid 1960s, and he sounded like someone right out of the headquarters at Brooklyn, but with a lot more polish. When I discovered the Living Church of God was a splinter group from Armstrong, I saw red flags. The guy that killed 7 people before killing himself had the same hopes and mindset as a JW.
 
blondie
blondie 11 years ago


I found an ?apostate? Living Church of God site;
Do you have the URL for that, berean?
 
under74
under74 11 years ago


There are a ton of splinter groups from Armstrongs original WW Church of God. Which was somewhat of an offshoot from Church of God-7th Day which came out of the 7thDay Adventist which came out of the Millerites. I think it's somewhat like the JWs but so are many other Adventist churches because they all have the same origin.
Here's a link showing all the splinter groups: http://www.wcg.org/lit/aboutus/splits.htm
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

blondie try -- http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/asurviv.htm I'm sure there are other apostate sites that looks at the Living Church of God. As already posted, the group splinted from Armstrong's large sect, and has only been around for about 10 years.
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

Thanks under74 -- I don't know why my Mac doesn't create links when I'm on this forum. I guess most folks use PCs, and the format is different.
 
under74
under74 11 years ago

I'm not using my computer (a mac) right now, so I can do all kinds of stuff I can't normally do...like this and  and a bunch of other crap...
 
DocHayes
DocHayes 11 years ago

I won't lie. I've wanted to kick the ass of the school overseer for giving me a "W" on a talk.
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

DocHayes -- That might have been me, I was the TMS before the elder arrangement. I really hated that assignment, and didn't give many Ws. Some talks were so bad, they were difficult to praise. I remember one talk where the guy stood up on the stage for nearly the entire 6 minutes and didn't say a word. He managed to wrap his one leg around the podium--that was interesting.
 
GetBusyLiving
GetBusyLiving 11 years ago


:the guy stood up on the stage for nearly the entire 6 minutes and didn't say a word. He managed to wrap his one leg around the podium--that was interesting.
LOL are you serious? Why was he so messed up? Just nervous?

GBL
 
Berean
Berean 11 years ago

blondie
I beleive the one where the most information I found is at http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/asurviv.htm
 
Berean
Berean 11 years ago

Sorry, I didn't see JAVA's post until after I answered Blondie's question.
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

GBL -- Yes, it really happened. The poor guy was elderly and had been a JW for years, but never gave talks in the MS. Several pressured him into taking an assignment, and when he got up to the platform, he froze. After a few minutes, I walked up beside him and thanked him for his effort. No one pressured him again about joining the TMS. The guy was smarter than the rest of us--he beat the system of giving talks in the MS. :smile:
 
Undecided
Undecided 11 years ago


One of the elders that came by last week, when he gave his first talk, cried, I was the TMSC at the time. One of the remarks he made to my wife was,"Ken held my hand when I came into the truth." I wish I hadn't, although he seems happy to be a JW.
Ken P.
 
JAVA
JAVA 11 years ago

Ken P. -- I think most JWs are "happy" being JWs, until something inside snaps and they start the process of questioning. When that happens, the world around them falls apart and their happiness quickly fades. One can see the stages a Witness goes through when this happens. It reminds me a little of Kubler-Ross' stages of Death and Dying.
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 11 years ago


Mark Barton's suicide note:
http://massmurder.zyns.com/mark_barton_04.html
"I have come to hate this life and this system of things....I know that Jehovah will take care of all of them in the next life.... If Jehovah is willing, I would like to see all of them again in the resurrection, to have a second chance."
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
i?m sure most of you have seen some coverage about the murder/suicide by a member of the evangelical church called the living church of god.
the church was founded in the mid-1990?s when it split from herbert w. armstrong?s worldwide church of god.
the living church observes the sabbath on saturday along with other old testament rituals.



Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/86933/living-church-god-watchtower?page=2&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Mormons: Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted
/  





 

Mormons: Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted
by AMNESIAN 10 years ago 35 Replies latest 10 years ago   watchtower scandals
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
AMNESIAN
AMNESIAN 10 years ago

Compare: "1914" and "no-blood" bedrock doctrines of the WBTS:  http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story?coll=la-home-headlines
 From the time he was a child in Peru, the Mormon Church instilled in Jose A. Loayza the conviction that he and millions of other Native Americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel that reached the New World more than 2,000 years ago.
"We were taught all the blessings of that Hebrew lineage belonged to us and that we were special people," said Loayza, now a Salt Lake City attorney. "It not only made me feel special, but it gave me a sense of transcendental identity, an identity with God."
A few years ago, Loayza said, his faith was shaken and his identity stripped away by DNA evidence showing that the ancestors of American natives came from Asia, not the Middle East.
"I've gone through stages," he said. "Absolutely denial. Utter amazement and surprise. Anger and bitterness."
For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.
For those outside the faith, the depth of the church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.
Critics want the church to admit its mistake and apologize to millions of Native Americans it converted. Church leaders have shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed.
Yet at the same time, the church has subtly promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds with long-standing Mormon teachings.
Some longtime observers believe that ultimately, the vast majority of Mormons will disregard the genetic research as an unworthy distraction from their faith.
"This may look like the crushing blow to Mormonism from the outside," said Jan Shipps, a professor emeritus of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has studied the church for 40 years. "But religion ultimately does not rest on scientific evidence, but on mystical experiences. There are different ways of looking at truth."
According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an angel named Moroni led Joseph Smith in 1827 to a divine set of golden plates buried in a hillside near his New York home.
God provided the 22-year-old Smith with a pair of glasses and seer stones that allowed him to translate the "Reformed Egyptian" writings on the golden plates into the "Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."
Mormons believe these scriptures restored the church to God's original vision and left the rest of Christianity in a state of apostasy.
The book's narrative focuses on a tribe of Jews who sailed from Jerusalem to the New World in 600 BC and split into two main warring factions.
The God-fearing Nephites were "pure" (the word was officially changed from "white" in 1981) and "delightsome." The idol-worshiping Lamanites received the "curse of blackness," turning their skin dark.
According to the Book of Mormon, by 385 AD the dark-skinned Lamanites had wiped out other Hebrews. The Mormon church called the victors "the principal ancestors of the American Indians." If the Lamanites returned to the church, their skin could once again become white.
Over the years, church prophets — believed by Mormons to receive revelations from God — and missionaries have used the supposed ancestral link between the ancient Hebrews and Native Americans and later Polynesians as a prime conversion tool in Central and South America and the South Pacific.
"As I look into your faces, I think of Father Lehi [patriarch of the Lamanites], whose sons and daughters you are," church president and prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said in 1997 during a Mormon conference in Lima, Peru. "I think he must be shedding tears today, tears of love and gratitude…. This is but the beginning of the work in Peru."
In recent decades, Mormonism has flourished in those regions, which now have nearly 4 million members — about a third of Mormon membership worldwide, according to church figures. "That was the big sell," said Damon Kali, an attorney who practices law in Sunnyvale, Calif., and is descended from Pacific Islanders. "And quite frankly, that was the big sell for me. I was a Lamanite. I was told the day of the Lamanite will come."
A few months into his two-year mission in Peru, Kali stopped trying to convert the locals. Scientific articles about ancient migration patterns had made him doubt that he or anyone else was a Lamanite.
"Once you do research and start getting other viewpoints, you're toast," said Kali, who said he was excommunicated in 1996 over issues unrelated to the Lamanite issue. "I could not do missionary work anymore."
 Critics of the Book of Mormon have long cited anachronisms in its narrative to argue that it is not the work of God. For instance, the Mormon scriptures contain references to a seven-day week, domesticated horses, cows and sheep, silk, chariots and steel. None had been introduced in the Americas at the time of Christ.
In the 1990s, DNA studies gave Mormon detractors further ammunition and new allies such as Simon G. Southerton, a molecular biologist and former bishop in the church.
Southerton, a senior research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, said genetic research allowed him to test his religious views against his scientific training. Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world had already shown that they shared common strains of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America. One mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300 Native Americans from 175 tribes.
Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA in the genetic strands of today's American Indians and Pacific Islanders.
In "Losing a Lost Tribe," published in 2004, he concluded that Mormonism — his faith for 30 years — needed to be reevaluated in the face of these facts, even though it would shake the foundations of the faith.
The problem is that Mormon leaders cannot acknowledge any factual errors in the Book of Mormon because the prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed it the "most correct of any book on Earth," Southerton said in an interview.
"They can't admit that it's not historical," Southerton said. "They would feel that there would be a loss of members and loss in confidence in Joseph Smith as a prophet."
Officially, the Mormon Church says that nothing in the Mormon scriptures is incompatible with DNA evidence, and that the genetic studies are being twisted to attack the church.
"We would hope that church members would not simply buy into the latest DNA arguments being promulgated by those who oppose the church for some reason or other," said Michael Otterson, a Salt Lake City-based spokesman for the Mormon church.
"The truth is, the Book of Mormon will never be proved or disproved by science," he said.
Unofficially, church leaders have tacitly approved an alternative interpretation of the Book of Mormon by church apologists — a term used for scholars who defend the faith.
The apologists say Southerton and others are relying on a traditional reading of the Book of Mormon — that the Hebrews were the first and sole inhabitants of the New World and eventually populated the North and South American continents.
The latest scholarship, they argue, shows that the text should be interpreted differently. They say the events described in the Book of Mormon were confined to a small section of Central America, and that the Hebrew tribe was small enough that its DNA was swallowed up by the existing Native Americans.
"It would be a virtual certainly that their DNA would be swamped," said Daniel Peterson, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, part of the worldwide Mormon educational system, and editor of a magazine devoted to Mormon apologetics. "And if that is the case, you couldn't tell who was a Lamanite descendant."
Southerton said the new interpretation was counter to both a plain reading of the text and the words of Mormon leaders.
"The apologists feel that they are almost above the prophets," Southerton said. "They have completely reinvented the narrative in a way that would be completely alien to members of the church and most of the prophets."
The church has not formally endorsed the apologists' views, but the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints —  http://www.lds.org — cites their work and provides links to it.
"They haven't made any explicit public declarations," said Armand L. Mauss, a church member and retired Washington State University professor who recently published a book on Mormon race and lineage. "But operationally, that is the current church's position."
The DNA debate is largely limited to church leaders, academics and a relatively small circle of church critics. Most Mormons, taught that obedience is a key value, take the Book of Mormon as God's unerring word.
"It's not that Mormons are not curious," Mauss said. "They just don't see the need to reconsider what has already been decided."
Critics contend that Mormon leaders are quick to stifle dissent. In 2002, church officials began an excommunication proceeding against Thomas W. Murphy, an anthropology professor at Edmonds Community College in Washington state.
He was deemed a heretic for saying the Mormon scriptures should be considered inspired fiction in light of the DNA evidence.
After the controversy attracted national media coverage, with Murphy's supporters calling him the Galileo of Mormonism, church leaders halted the trial.
Loayza, the Salt Lake City attorney, said the church should embrace the controversy.
"They should openly address it," he said. "Often, the tack they adopt is to just ignore or refrain from any opinion. We should have the courage of our convictions. This [Lamanite issue] is potentially destructive to the faith."
Otterson, the church spokesman, said Mormon leaders would remain neutral. "Whether Book of Mormon geography is extensive or limited or how much today's Native Americans reflect the genetic makeup of the Book of Mormon peoples has absolutely no bearing on its central message as a testament of Jesus Christ," he said.
Mauss said the DNA studies haven't shaken his faith. "There's not very much in life — not only in religion or any field of inquiry — where you can feel you have all the answers," he said.
"I'm willing to live in ambiguity. I don't get that bothered by things I can't resolve in a week."
For others, living with ambiguity has been more difficult. Phil Ormsby, a Polynesian who lives in Brisbane, Australia, grew up believing he was a Hebrew.
"I visualized myself among the fighting Lamanites and lived out the fantasies of the [Book of Mormon] as I read it," Ormsby said. "It gave me great mana [prestige] to know that these were my true ancestors."
The DNA studies have altered his feelings completely.
"Some days I am angry, and some days I feel pity," he said. "I feel pity for my people who have become obsessed with something that is nothing but a hoax." ------------
AMNESIAN
 
moshe
moshe 10 years ago

This DNA evidence might slow down the conversion rates - However, Mormons have never been able to find any evidence to bolster their Book of Mormon history of the Americas. The Book of Mormon mentions a rather large Native American society that had it's own coinage. No metallic coins have ever been found to support this and thousand of treasure hunters are out every day with metal detectors looking for coins. If this society existed ,it would have been discovered by now. Mormons are a close knit family, they will not quit over this. Would Christians admit that Jesus was just a man and isn't coming back ,if some scroll from AD 40 was unearthed that told a human story of Jesus life with no ressurection?
peace,
Moshe
 
misspeaches
misspeaches 10 years ago

Qcmbr are you around? I'd like to hear from your mormon perspective how you feel about this article... Inquiring minds want to know!
 
IP_SEC
IP_SEC 10 years ago

Joseph Smith was called a prophet
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
He started the Mormon religion
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Joseph Smith was called a prophet-
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Many people believed Joseph
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
And that night he-ee saw an angel
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Joseph Smith was called a prophet
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
He found the stones and golden plates
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Even though nobody else ever saw them
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
And that's how the Book of Mormon was written
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dahumb dahumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dumb dumb dumb duuumb, duuumb.
Martin went home to his wife
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
And showed her pages from the Book of Mormon
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Smart smart smart smart smart
Martin Harris dumb dadumb-
Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Martin Harris dumb.
So Martin went on back to Smith
Said the pages had gone away
Smith got mad and told Martin
He needed to go pray
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
 
RunningMan
RunningMan 10 years ago

Pesky facts keep getting in the way of faith.
 
DanTheMan
DanTheMan 10 years ago

Bizarre cultish religions are all the same ain't they? LOL
 
willyloman
willyloman 10 years ago

"We would hope that church members would not simply buy into the latest DNA arguments being promulgated by those who oppose the church for some reason or other," said Michael Otterson, a Salt Lake City-based spokesman for the Mormon church.
When dubs read this, bells should go off. Change one or two words and this could be J.R. Brown talking.
 
Scully
Scully 10 years ago

(((((( AMNESIAN ))))))
Great to see you again!
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 10 years ago

The Book Of Mormon has plenty of proofs if you want to interpret the evidences in a certain way - just as evidence can be found against it:
Let me answer my reading of the BOM history:
BOM describes a migration from Asia at the time of Tower of Babel - that population numbers millions by time the Israelites arrive (numbering in the tens.) The Israelites are described as having cities way before they would have been able to breed that many people which suggests an immediate mingling with other people. The Israelites ae pared back by war several times to only a few hundred and these then intermingle with a group of principally phoenicians with very little Israelite blood. In all this time there is nothing that says that there weren't migrations from Asia at a constant rate. All in all I'd be stunned if you found any Israelite blood in the US according to a strict reading of the BOM. On the other hand the author of the BOM (assuming it wasn't Joseph Smith on trippy time) didn't make any distinction between races when referring to different groups - in fact it seems that the major distinction is political (i.e. if a city changes hands in battle so its citizens change designator - not the way we would normally describe it) so to that style of author you could easily claim Israelite heritage for all when in reality its a notional concept.
The biggest challenge to the LDS faith in my eyes is this:
If the LDS really have a true prophet then we will see some action - if the LDS don't they'll go the way of all other well meaning Christian groups into a cozy niche market. If we niche I'm out.
 
misspeaches
misspeaches 10 years ago

Interesting... thanks for sharing that with us Qcmbr.
 
Shazard
Shazard 10 years ago

This happens when Cults try to influence this World. Jesus told that his Kingdom is not of this world, so the Christians ar not of this world, still have to exist in this World.
 
Abaddon
Abaddon 10 years ago

Qcmbr
The Book Of Mormon has plenty of proofs if you want to interpret the evidences in a certain way - just as evidence can be found against it:
You can say this about ANY religious book!! The writings of Ron Hubbard for example. Hell, the Chronicles of Narnia, or the Lord of the Rings have "plenty of proofs if you want to interpret the evidences in a certain way". The fact you want to interpret evidence in a certain way so as to have belief in the Book of Mormon has precisely NOTHING to do with whether it is factual or not. What your statement illustrates is your continued failure to accept the fact there are commonly accepted reasonable standards of evidence, and your inability to step away from presuppositionalism. Mormons have , are and will further niche themselves Qcmbr, just as per JWs. There is as much evidence for the LDS having a 'true prophet' as for Charlie Russell being inspired of god. i.e., none, apart from the evidence indicating they are not a true prophet. They have a niche for those born in and too intimidated or stupid to get out, and a niche for those with poor critical thinking skills who are desperate for some form of identity and belonging with a fantastical pay-off at the end, who get sucked on. They also have a niche for men using the original doctrines of the church to have plural marriages - sometimes with disgustingly young women. They used to have a niche for second-class Mormons - black people. But even Mormons had to accept the fact their religion was founded on nasty misogynistic and racist principles and reject such doctrines - although just as the JWs do, when they change their mind they wrap the parcel of shit up nicely so the Rand and Files don't feel too stupid. Apart from an overwhelming desire to believe in errant nonsense (two cults down, how many to go...?) I am sure you are a fine person. You'll obviously chuck this one when you accept reality - your statement 'if we niche I'm out' is not the most enthralling statement of faith I've ever heard, but it makes it clear you are in it for results, results that you will never see. Pity you have to waste life to find this out.
 
LittleToe
LittleToe 10 years ago

I've often considered that faith in a cult is at most risk from ex-members of similar cults, rather than ex-members of the cult to which you belong.
The message is exactly the same, but the barriers are reduced as it doesn't directly impact your immediate worldview. It allows a reasonable level of critical thinking to sink in, as you discuss rational things with those who were never your peers.
When Q eventually leaves the Mormons (though that might risk alienation from exisiting friends and family, for all the lack of a formal shunning policy) he would probably make the best candidate for helping get our families out of the JWs.
Regardless of whether or not that pipedream comes true, and regardless of whether he does actually see that light, I still like him
 
hooberus
hooberus 10 years ago

BOM describes a migration from Asia at the time of Tower of Babel - that population numbers millions by time the Israelites arrive (numbering in the tens.) The Israelites are described as having cities way before they would have been able to breed that many people which suggests an immediate mingling with other people. The Israelites ae pared back by war several times to only a few hundred and these then intermingle with a group of principally phoenicians with very little Israelite blood. In all this time there is nothing that says that there weren't migrations from Asia at a constant rate. All in all I'd be stunned if you found any Israelite blood in the US according to a strict reading of the BOM. On the other hand the author of the BOM (assuming it wasn't Joseph Smith on trippy time) didn't make any distinction between races when referring to different groups - in fact it seems that the major distinction is political (i.e. if a city changes hands in battle so its citizens change designator - not the way we would normally describe it) so to that style of author you could easily claim Israelite heritage for all when in reality its a notional concept.
http://www.irr.org/mit/Lamanites-DNA-Book-of-Mormon.html
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 10 years ago

these then intermingle with a group of principally phoenicians with very little Israelite blood
Phoenicians were Northwest Semites just like the Israelites were....
As for the limited geography hypothesis mentioned in the article (i.e. that the Book of Mormon only refers to a relatively small population in Mesoamerica), this is discussed at length in American Apocrypha (which looks at the BOM with a text-critical and higher-critical approach), which points out that text itself is not consistent with the Tehuantepec geography assumed by the theory (cf. Alma 22:32, 50:34, 63:5; Mormon 2:29, 3:5; see the discussion by Vogel & Metcalfe, pp. ix-xvii), while the traditional hemispheric interpretation is most felicitous with the text itself (cf. Ether 1:33-34, 42, 2:17, 7:11; Helaman 11:20; see the discussion in George Smith, pp. 125-133).
A good article on the DNA evidence is by Thomas Murphy on pp. 47-77.
 
AMNESIAN
AMNESIAN 10 years ago

Thanks, Scully .

AMNESIAN
 
Think
Think 10 years ago

Book of Mormon ? I have the "priviledge" to read "IT".
If this is book inspired by God, so is Book " Selling for Dummies" .



 
Abaddon
Abaddon 10 years ago

Ross
Liking him is neither here nor there as far as his religious beliefs go. One can like someone whose religious beliefs you disagree with and vice-versa. He means well, and I mean it when I say I'm sure he's a fine person.

It allows a reasonable level of critical thinking to sink in, as you discuss rational things with those who were never your peers.
Yup, precisely the point in Hussian's Combatting Cult Mind Control. Attack a characteristic of a cult by using a cult the person you are speaking to will be quite happy to be critical of. You can get them to attack a characteristic their own religion has... and hopefully they will realise that, even if you're avoiding a direct reference.
And sometimes, they do it themselves!!! They attack a characteristic of another 'cultic' / toxic thinking group - like the Mormons ignoring or "explaining" away inconvenient scientific data. When they do it themselves!! WHo could possibly ever do anything like that?
*snort*
*cough*
hooberus
I love the fact you embrace DNA evidence.
Any comment on the numerous falsification of your Creationistic-esqe beliefs that DNA evidence provides? Oh, hang on a minute... no, you couldn't be...
Who would have believed it?

hooberus, I'm sure you're a fine person too. You know only to well my opinion of the validity of your beliefs.
Do think about this.
You're so obsessed in ignoring the massive consensus of scientific data your literalistic beliefs conflict with, so busy tilting at windmills, so intent on attacking any opinion which disagrees with your own... that you use science, the same science you "explain" away or flatley ignore when it's inconvenient, to attack someone whose beliefs conflict with yours.
Kinda mad, eh?
It's not about the evidence for you, it is about the beliefs. You'll use or ignore reasonable proof as it suits the defence of your belief. It's there on the page in black and white.
Leolaia
Your posts never cease to delight. If I normally 'did' "Who's Hot?" threads, I'd vote for you.
Think

If this is book inspired by God, so is Book " Selling for Dummies
LOL!
 
sf
sf 10 years ago

I feel as Scully...good to see you Amnesian.
Take good care, sKally
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr 10 years ago

Abbaddon you do talk some cr*p sometimes.
I'd be interested in your evidences of the Narnian story....please feel free to play devils advocate and pretend to some.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Brother Jeramy
A difficult yet necessary decision
by Brother Jeramy 8 months ago
Terry
Is this a BEAUTIFUL STORY--or what?
by Terry 4 months ago
truthseeker100
Scientists Seek Religious Experience -- in the Brain
by truthseeker100 a year ago
RULES & REGULATIONS
What is the main reason the Watchtower Society baptize their children so young?
by RULES & REGULATIONS a year ago
Daniel1555
German Branch visit talk Mark Sanderson (Parents; don't hinder young children to get baptized)
by Daniel1555 10 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/107940/mormons-bedrock-faith-jolted





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 

Home
/ Topics
/ Mormons: Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted
/  





 

Mormons: Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted
by AMNESIAN  35 Replies latest    watchtower scandals
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
Qcmbr
Qcmbr

P.S. I think your nice as well
 
AMNESIAN
AMNESIAN

That's very kind of you, sKally. Thanks so much.

AMNESIAN
 
Terry
Terry

I found this to be very, very interesting.

Did I mention..VERY interesting?

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingcontents.htm
 
Abaddon
Abaddon


Qcmbr
Abbaddon you do talk some cr*p sometimes.

 Well, if this was true you certainly have the experience to comment. But as already pointed out, your critical thinking ability is zero, so your ability to accurately assess crap even if it were right under your nose must be called into question. For the record, what distinguishes the vapourings of your prophet and those of;
1.Mohammed
2.Ron L Hubbard
3.Sun Myung Moon
4.Charlie Russell
... go on, do enlighten me...
At the same time could you explain how the vacilation in doctrine over the status of black people and plural marriage is not a clear sign that Mormons make up and discard doctrine as politically expedient? And why is it called the "Bring 'em Young University?"
I'd be interested in your evidences of the Narnian story...
Well, I happen to feel it "has plenty of proofs if you want to interpret the evidences in a certain way".
For example, if is a fact that inter-dimensional travel using wardrobes has never been proved as impossible, nor have multiple realities been proven as impossible. If they are not impossible they are possible, even if there is not one shred of proof.
You for example maintain that Israelites travelled to North America. There is not one shred of proof for this outside Mr Smith's Book of Bollocks. Yet one cannot prove that such a claim is impossible. If it is not impossible, then it is possible, even in the absense of proof.
In fact, the only difference in their validity is that C S Lewis made no bones about the fact he was writing allegorical fiction, whereas Mr Smith claimed he was inspired by god. You are basing your entire life on claims of inspiration, not on fact.
If C S Lewis had claimed he was inspired of god and the Chronicles of Narnia were based on fact, then there would be NO DIFFERENCE between his claims and Mr Smith's claims. Both would have a book they claimed was inspired that had no proof to back it up.
But, you're mind is as soft as runny cheese. It doesn't have to be. You're not stupid. You allow yourself to wallow in this ridiculousness because you are afraid of letting go of illusory hopes.
 
Qcmbr
Qcmbr

Abaddon - vicious even for you.
Normally though I can expect a smidgeon of sound thought but here you just gave up when challenged directly and went vitriol mad.
All I want is your evidence of Narnia - I'm not going to defend LDS beliefs at this time - you made a bold statement as though it carried conclusive weight to disprove LDS beliefs and then utterly failed to produce it.
Now I do agree that no evidence, in context, is evidence, for example 'There are no weapons of mass destruction created by Saddam Hussein' can indeed be lent credence by the lack of evidence. Using the same premise to argue for interdimensional wardrobes is frankly bizzare. In one single sweep you reveal your own self rather than crush me with your brilliance. Making statements regarding why I may or may not believe certain things is a strawman and you know it is. Despite contradictory evidence that suggests beliefs gained through direct experience and my willingness to engage in reasoned polite debate you instead suggest it is my critical thinking ability that leads me to such irrational thinking.
Again Abbadon - I challenge you to separate your feelings RE soft runny cheese and indeed back up your assertion that there is any actual evidence to back up Narnia (and as a suggestion - using that time to further reinforce your acceptable suggestion that the LDS faith is wrong is not counted as proof for Narnia either.)
 
Double Edge
Double Edge

At the same time could you explain how the vacilation in doctrine over the status of black people and plural marriage is not a clear sign that Mormons make up and discard doctrine as politically expedient?
{{{clearing throat}}} excuse me... I'd like to submit a historical fact to this 'debate'. As a student of American history, let me say that the mormons weren't different in their 'status' belief of black people than any mainstream American Christian church in the 19th and early 20th century. In fact, mormons were more liberal than their counterparts. By and large, "Christian" churches taught the inferiority of blacks, even after the civil war "settled" the issue. There were VERY few mixed white and black "Christian" congregations in the U.S. (can we say almost ZERO) up until the 1960's. Although few in number, African-Americans have been welcomed into mormon congregations throughout their history (though until the 1970's, males could not hold their priesthood offices). When the mormons went west in the mid 1800's and settled what is now the Utah desert, some African Americans were a part of their wagon trains and congregations. Looking back through 21st century eyes, the thought that anyone is 'inferior' to anyone else is really an ignorant (if not silly) notion. Strong, carried-on beliefs, however stupid, take time to die-off, and is usually left to the next generation or two. Why bring something up that's 'ancient' and hasn't been a doctrine for a generation or so? That too is either ignorant, stupid or silly. my 2 cents..... continue the carnage....

upside/down
upside/down

If we niche I'm out.
interesting...
How are they NOT "niched"?
u/d(of the all cults religions are "niched" class)

TD
TD




Qcmbr,
Whether one believes there is anything supernatural to it or not, it cannot be denied that the Bible speaks of real places and at least some real people. If there is some way to look at the evidence and deny that Egypt existed or that Rome existed, or that Judea existed or that Pontius Pilate or James the Just existed then I am curious to hear it. I don't think it's a matter of how one interprets the information.
You can take a trip to the Holy Land if you're so inclined You can see the Mount of Olives, the Wailing Wall, the ruins of the house of Caiphus. You can see and sometimes touch artifacts that are contemporary with the Biblical account. You can learn Koine Greek of you're so inclined. You can get photostats or many extant Biblical manuscripts and see for yourself that the Bible is indeed an ancient collection of writings that dates back to at least the 3rd century A.D.
When were dealing with the BOM, things are a little different as you well know.

Qcmbr
Qcmbr

U/D - The LDS church claims its the only right one, the only one with a prophet etcetc so it couldn't possibly be a niche IF it was right as it would need to fulfill Daniel's prophecy ergo - not a niche but clearly dominant.
TD - I was careful above not to start trying to prove the BOM using some evidences that can be seen by all people but are only 'proofs' of the BOM if you so interpret them - just as the city of Jerusalem existing doesn't prove Jesus existed. Here are some things off the top of my head that are citable as evidence though I agree non are conclusive.
Legend of the white, bearded God who would return.
Wall murals showing white skinned people and dark skinned people.
Possible baptismal fonts found (maybe just a jacuzzi:)
Statues of bearded people.
Records written on metals (In both New and Ancient world)
Evidence of horses before Europeans arrived.
Appearance of fully formed cultures.
Tree of Life motif in Central America.
Usage of the symbol of cross predating Europeans.
Legends of a people who came by boat.
Los Lunas Decalog - hebrew style inscription found in Americas.
Wheels - Toys found with wheels . BOM mentions chariots. Most argued against wheels for Americas.
Usage of cement in some settlements.
Usage of chiasmus in BOM.
Usage of hebrew idomatic style (O that thou wouldst be like this valley)
Identification of different authours of BOM by computer analysis.
Asiatic combat styles and political systems described.
An accurate consistent description of the effects of guerilla warfare and how it was defeated.
DNA evidence that backs up the BOM assertion that the Americas were populated by Asiatics mainly.
Biblical 'proofs':
Ezekials two sticks
12 tribes, Josephs blessing (bough that would overflow the well and his inheritance was greater than Israel's in terms of land.)
Voice speaking from dust
Isaiah:
'Arise,Shine;' Kum-orah chapter
'I will proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder' - 'Yaw-aseph ..(anglicised english future tense - Joseph) (will) proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder'
'I cannot read the words of a sealed book'
'I have created the smith to blow the coals'
'Mountain of Lord's House' to be established in 'Tops of the mountains' - Utah in the Ute language.
Now I hope you'll agree - this at least gives some room to have a sensible discussion about whether there is indeed anything that could point to truth behind Joseph Smith's claims unlike other comments regarding declared works of fiction.
P.S. Of course to the LDS non of these mean a fig since this isn't where we are expected to get our proof.

Abaddon
Abaddon

Qcmbr
All I want is your evidence of Narnia
Are you mad? It's children's fiction written as a Christian allegory. At no point have I said there is real evidence for Narnia. I HAVE said that Narnia has "plenty of proofs if you want to interpret the evidences in a certain way", but the quoted sentence is your own.
You made this claim about the beliefs of the LDS. And the "evidences" are? A book without reputable provenance that is claimed to be inspired even in absense of any proof.
You're ignoring the FACT that the only difference between Joe Smith and C S Lewis is that one author admitted he made it up and the other claimed he didn't.
In terms of proof, as in physical evdience. there is as much evidence for Lehi and the wonderful imaginary pre-Colombian world of Joe Smith as for Edmund, Lucy, Susan and Peter.
The fact you can't see this validate all my comments about your ability to think critically/runny cheese head.
The LDS church claims its the only right one,
Yes, like many other cults.
so it couldn't possibly be a niche IF it was right as it would need to fulfill Daniel's prophecy ergo - not a niche but clearly dominant
But you can't prove it is right, therefore it is indistinguishable from other niche cults in all respects including it's claim to being right - a claim ALL cults have.
Legend of the white, bearded God who would return.
Not proof. It is not certain this myth was interpretted this was by the Aztecs until the Spanish came; Quetzalcoatl is increasingly identified as Venus and thus talk in prophecy of 'appearing in the West' is likey a reference to the calander. Also, Quetzalcoatl is in pre-Colombian art hundreds of years before Jesus. In any case, any claim about this legend being based upon Jesus visit to North America (ya know, inbetween going to Glastonbury and taking Mary Magdelene to France to found a dynasty there ) ignores the fact that Jesus was as white as Yassar Arafat.
Wall murals showing white skinned people and dark skinned people
Haven't you ever heard of 'ebony and ivory work together in perfect harmony'? LOL. Again, this isn't proof. It is nasty racist nonsense to imply that any Israelites who made it to the America as described in the Book of Mormon were white. They weren't.
Possible baptismal fonts found (maybe just a jacuzzi:)
Possible is not proof.
Statues of bearded people.
This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
Records written on metals (In both New and Ancient world)
I assume you don't mean the Gilden Plates, as they ain't proof unless you can show me. I'm glad you bought up metallurgy though, as accodring to the Book of Mormon steel was in use by the ancient inhabitants of America; thius would be a BIG suprise to them!!! No proof whatsoever.
Evidence of horses before Europeans arrived.
This isn't desputed by anyone; they died out prior to 10,000 years bp, although relic populations may have persisted until 2,500 year bp. Either way, it is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
Appearance of fully formed cultures.
This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
Tree of Life motif in Central America.
This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
Usage of the symbol of cross predating Europeans.
This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
Legends of a people who came by boat.
This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact
Los Lunas Decalog - hebrew style inscription found in Americas
Interesting but inconsistent with any claim made in the book of Mormon, the language of the claimed Israelite immigrants, and the 'Reformed Egyptian' the book of Mormon was claimed to have been written in. It is plausable evidence, like a few other things, of pre-Colombian contact between the New World and the Old World. But everyone has already agreed there WAS pre-Colombian contact! This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
Wheels - Toys found with wheels . BOM mentions chariots. Most argued against wheels for Americas.
Mmmmm... there's no proof of practical applications of the wheel (like wheel transport) prior to Colombus. The Olmecs seemd to have discovered the wheel and used it as a toy, much as the Chinese did with gunpowder... This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
Usage of cement in some settlements.
Cement was developed several times in different places using suitable local materials. This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
Usage of chiasmus in BOM
Usage of hebrew idomatic style (O that thou wouldst be like this valley)
I sayest unto thou Qcmbr, doth thou not know that if this Joe Smith a charlatan was, Hebrew style is like unto the play of a child to imitate! Yay, I sayest, as Hebrew style is like unto childsplay to imitate, if Joe Smith a charlatan was, he would have found it like unto a child's play to imitate.
There's chiasmus and idomatic style for you; does this mean I am inspired of god too...? Such things prove nothing... whilst the absense of any proof of a Semitic language being used by established cultures in the Americas is yet another glaring piece of evidence pointing to the contrived nature of Joe Smiths book; he just subscribed to the theories of the time and supposed Native American languages were related to Semetic languages!!
Identification of different authours of BOM by computer analysis.
Ah! So more than one person faked it? Maybe several had a hand in coming up with ways to turn the ideas expressed in View of the Hebrews, a book written by Ethan Smith (no kin to Joe) into an 'inspired book'. You do know about that book I suppose? Written 5 years BEFORE the Book of Mormon? Maybe the Book of Mormon is inspired... of Ethan...!
Asiatic combat styles and political systems described.
Please specify how this could be proof.
An accurate consistent description of the effects of guerilla warfare and how it was defeated.
Anyone familiar with the War of Independence could create such a fictional account. This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!
DNA evidence that backs up the BOM assertion that the Americas were populated by Asiatics mainly.
Mmmmm... of course, that BOM assertion has changed over the years. Just as 'generation' has changed beyond all recognition in Dubbie doctrine, so to has 'principle' changed in Mormom doctrine. Before there was evidence to show the Americas were largely populated from Asia, 'principle' meant 'leading genetic contributors'. Nowadays there is no evidence for any Semetic ancestry in any First Nation people, 'principle' means something different. How convenient! How like a cult! If what you used to say was wrong, change the meaning of the words used so you are no longer wrong!!!
P.S. Of course to the LDS non of these mean a fig since this isn't where we are expected to get our proof.
No, of course not.
Since when do leaders of a religious cult direct their members to think independently and only believe in things that have reasonable scientific evidence?
They tell you to accept it out of faith - just like every bunch of charlatans since the first shaman figured out manipulating memners of his tribe was a far easier life than suporting himself.
Double Edge
As a student of American history, let me say that the mormons weren't different in their 'status' belief of black people than any mainstream American Christian church in the 19th and early 20th century.
Correct. Almost all churches were deeply racist, with many backing the ethnic cleansing of the West with rubbish like 'Manifest Destiny' as justification.
I'd say from my reading of the LDS history, the 'flavour' of LDS that became predominant was intrinsically racist to a far, far greater depth (no priests) than many churches, and persisted in this for getting on for a decade longer than most churches dared. Other versions of LDS did not become as racist. There are definately passages in the book of Mormon that show some equality is possible;
"[the Lord] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile". (Second Nephi 26:33).
However, it ain't all that peachy, and as you point out, is typical of the religionists of the day - catch the last word of thios quote;
"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness..." (Book of Jacob 3:8-9).
You ask;
Why bring something up that's 'ancient' and hasn't been a doctrine for a generation or so? That too is either ignorant, stupid or silly. my 2 cents..... continue the carnage....
1978 - 2006 is just about a generation.
Just as the mealy mouthed WTBS never apologise when they revise doctrine, even if people suffered as a result of the old doctrine, so to have the LDS never apologised for their old doctrine to those who suffered as a result of it.
If someone is claiming that their faith is the real deal, the truth, yadda-yadda, highlighting the doctrinal changes that show their 'truth' is just as variable and subject to revision as any other 'truth' (and therefore it's impossible for them to claim it is absolute truth) is obviously pertinent.
You're doing the equivalent of suggesting the revision of transplantation or vaccination policy by the WTBS is not usable in criticising them as it was too long ago.

LittleToe
LittleToe

Usage of hebrew idomatic style (O that thou wouldst be like this valley)
Interesting. This is Olde English, not Hebrew. I can't think for the life of me why a 19th century "prophet" would want to translate genuine Hebrew into that form of the English language, unless he wanted it to sound like the KJV of the Bible, from which so much of the BOM was lifted.

Terry
Terry

Interesting. This is Olde English, not Hebrew. I can't think for the life of me why a 19th century "prophet" would want to translate genuine Hebrew into that form of the English language, unless he wanted it to sound like the KJV of the Bible, from which so much of the BOM was lifted.

 I think it is much easier to see the lunacy in the thinking of another religion than to see it in one's own.


When I describe to people (in conversation) what I use to believe (in Witness doctrine) they look at me like I must have been brain-dammaged.
Well--yes!
Faith detaches your rational mind from fact and context and makes ANYTHING possible to swallow whole!
I'm deeply ashamed I allowed that to happen.
Why do you think I'm such a jerk about faith now?
T.

TD
TD

Qcmbr
just as the city of Jerusalem existing doesn't prove Jesus existed
I understand. The existence of the city of Jerusalem does nothing to prove that the events the Bible alleges to have occured there were real.
However if Jerusalem did not exist, there is absolutely no possiblity that the events the Bible alleges to have occured there were real. Any doubt that Jerusalem existed would, of necessity transfer commensurately to events alleged to have occured there. --The greater the doubt that Jerusalem existed, the greater the doubt that any events alleged to have occured there were real.

Qcmbr
Qcmbr

At the end of the day I guess our already decided upon worldview will inform what evidence we accept or reject and what particular spin we put on it.
Just for the record - from someone who is genuinely researching his spiritual roots and trying his best to be objective it actually makes it very difficult to stay objective when being attacked rather than reasoned with over an issue since I'm in a position of defense which automatically reinforces kinship with what is being attacked. I think Moshe provided a very useful piece of evidence (lack of coinage) which I can go away and study. I'm only saying this since many here have a sincere and heartfelt desire to help people leave cults but you have to do it by building on common beliefs rather than with a sledgehammer, delicate surgery removes cancers not chainsaw massacres.
As a slight update I've read the links and extra info provided by Terry RE the Martin Hoffman fraud and done some other background reading and this is my reaction:
1/ As per an earlier post I mentioned I'd want to know the intention of someone before I fully accepted their viewpoint and the Tanners are avowed anti-LDS. That said they seemed fair on this site with one notable disapointment for me - everything was for sale. When money motivates truth becomes less the driving cause (see David Ickes site for what I mean).
2/I noted several times how they pointed out their own intelligence at spotting the fraud - I'm not fond of self publicity - but critically the core of their argument was that LDS leadership clearly were not being 'inspired' in this situation but they (as Christians) similarly pointed out that their doubts regarding this was also not inspired(i.e. they also were using logic, common sense, deduction etc.. ) and so the very thing they criticised regarding LDS leadership they themselves did - used their own wisdom rather than received any form of inspiration.
3/ Very valid point regarding LDS 'inspiration' - they were well and truly conned. The ONLY point that I thought good enough to justify the site.
4/ Point regarding the lack of using any seerstones and the use of a magnifying glass by the then prophet. Well, heck like they would show the Urim and Thummin in public if they had it (would be claimed immediately by the state and confiscated from LDS) but far more likely they don't have it - its 'wherever' the plates are? So an OK point but not a ball buster.

LDS church - Poor result. 1 - 0 to the LDS are wrong camp.
Christianity - Poor result(from Tanners). 1 - 0 to the christian religion is wrong camp.
Qcmbr - still LDS but crisis 'slightly' deeper though still not near fatal:)
I'm currently reading up on genetics before I re-embark on evolution/ID/creation.

Abaddon
Abaddon

Ocmbr
I give you the straight dope and don't treat you like a simpleton or a child. You might prefer molley-coddling but I see no good in it. If I 'tweak you nose' through caustic humour, realise I'd do this to your face, and I often do it to try and get you to stop using the thought stopping techniques you unconciously resort to when your beliefs are challenged. I'm also not going to lie about what I think about some beliefs; I did enough of that as a Dubbie.
I've made it clear I don't think that this is about brains, indeed tried to make it clear belief is largely about HOW you have been trained to think - or trained NOT to think. At the end of the day if I didn't care I wouldn't do it. It's not about what I get out of this, it's about what I hope you might get out of changing the way you analyse facts, as currently your programming only allows you to come up with the answers you're 'meant to', rather than a genuine examination of the availabe facts.
At the end of the day I guess our already decided upon worldview will inform what evidence we accept or reject and what particular spin we put on it.
True.
But if your worldview stems from reliable rules about what is a fact, what is falacious, what is reliable evidence, what is a decent method of scientific enquiry ... if ones worldview is based on things like that, then there is an immediate link between fact and worldview. It is a worldview based on external evidences which in turn provide more detail for the worldview.
A worldview of 'if BOM says x and science says y I will believe x, or try to attack y without using the same criteria to attack x' is a self-supporting world view based on INTERNAL factors. It's got nothing to do with right or wrong in the real world.
Ask yourself, if BOM was being tried in a court of law, would it be found true, untrue or (to give the option available in Scots law) unproven?
I'm in a position of defense which automatically reinforces kinship with what is being attacked.
If you're aware of this, fight it. This is why I am so direct - I can see you are increasingly aware of HOW and WHY you react. Being aware of WHY you do things is very important as it means one has to be more honest with ourselves. Realising we are being asked to think in ways that can lead to intellectual dishonesty is an important part of disengagement from a high control group.
Having your viewpoint attacked doesn't mean you are right, yet you admit yourself being put on the defensive reinforces your beliefs! If you're smart enough to figure that out, you're nearing an important step.

LittleToe
LittleToe

Terry:
I think it is much easier to see the lunacy in the thinking of another religion than to see it in one's own.
So true. We've been there and done that. Why do you think that I emphasise spirituality over religion, so often?
Why do you think I'm such a jerk about faith now?
Because you never got in touch with your inner child?


«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
compare: "1914" and "no-blood" bedrock doctrines of the wbts:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story?coll=la-home-headlines
from the time he was a child in peru, the mormon church instilled in jose a. loayza the conviction that he and millions of other native americans were descended from a lost tribe of israel that reached the new world more than 2,000 years ago.. .



Related Topics




Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/107940/mormons-bedrock-faith-jolted?page=2&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
/  





 

El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
by kwintestal 9 years ago 43 Replies latest 9 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
kwintestal
kwintestal 9 years ago

I've been thinking about this for quite a while and I'm not exactly sure how the best way of putting it out there, so if it seems like I'm blabbering at points, I more then likely am and I'm sorry. I'm kind of merging two different thoughts together, historical info I got from the book, "the Bible Unearthed" and personal research and discussions with others regarding "el".
El obviously played an important part in early Hebrew language as it was their word for "god". But, El was a Caananite god, and to them the God of all gods, supreme God father of all things and humankind. Here's the wikipedia entry for El: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29 .
So if the Jew's word for "god" was "El" wouldn't it make sence that their god prior to YHWH was "El"?
Now the book "The Bible Unearthed" shows (or tries to show) through archogical evidence that the bible was created by King Josiah and/or Hezikiah and basically the whole bible (prior to Josiah) was a work of fiction, and it does a good job at proving it.
My thoughts are if the bible was in fact created around the time of Josiah, YHWH beging created at the same time, the language would change around the same time, with the word for God being switched from "el" to variations of "YHWH". Now words that were common wouldn't change, so that's why we have words like "bethel" - house of god, "shekel" - money of god and not "bethyah" or "shekyah".
So how do we find changes in the language? The only way I could think of is changing of names, to include portions of YHWH. In the bible, there are at least 89 names that include "El" in them with their Hebrew translation and at least 30 that use a variation of YHWH. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophory_in_the_Bible
I was thinking that a geneologist or language specialist would almost be able to pinpoint a date (and by pinpoint I mean within a few hundred years) as to when they started using YHWH in their names. It would be interesting if the date would coincide with the rule of Josiah.
Any thoughts on this or other input? Anyone know if this type of study has been done?
Kwin
 
Awakened07
Awakened07 9 years ago

Well, I don't really have a lot of valuable input, but it's an interesting subject you bring up, and likewise the Wikipedia article, although it was missing a lot of citations.
I haven't read the 'Bible unearthed' book, but the History channel program based on the book can be found on YouTube in several parts. Just search for 'bible unearthed'.
I thought of Psalms 82:1 (and 6), where both El and Elohim is used. But if I recall correctly, that verse is understood as these gods being human beings; the judges. Can't remember if this is because the rest of people's faith dictates that it couldn't have meant other gods, or if there are some verses that clearly show that they were human judges.
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

Whereas there is much evidence that El was once regarded in Israel as the supreme god like in Ugaritic mythology (with many similar aspects, such as the bull imagery, or his position as chairman of the assembly of gods), not every single occurrence of 'elohim (which in Biblical Hebrew is the common noun for any god) can be traced back to El worship. In Ugaritic too 'l is a noun applying to any god, not only the name (or title) of El as the Father of gods.
If Josiah enforced the exclusive worship of his (i.e., Jerusalem's) Yhwh, he certainly did not invent the name. Theophoric personal names including some form of Yhwh, yw or yh, are found as early as the 11th century BC (ywchnn = yochanan), and the Mesha stele in the 8th century BC clearly aknowledges Yhwh as Israel's national god. So what the Bible reflects is a particular development of Yhwh's character (merging El and Baal traits, for instance, in the henotheistic phase of Josiah's reform and subsequent deuteronomism, then making the resulting mix the only "God" with Deutero-Isaiah), rather than the creation ex nihilo of a Yhwh deity.

Edit: while Beth-El is certainly related to El worship (even though at some point "Bethel" becomes the name of an autonomous deity, cf. Jeremiah 48:13 and the 5th-century BC Elephantine inscriptions), shekel otoh has nothing to do with El or 'l (the letter "l" is part of the root shql, "to weigh," whence a weight and a currency).
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

You might like to pick up a copy of: The Early History of God Yahweh and the other deities in Ancient Israel http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X Goes into a lot more details, and reference. kind regards Steve btw how to i get this to format correctly, none of the 'return breaks' seem to be working?
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

In addition to whmhg's excellent reference
http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X
you might also check the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Goddesses-Library-Testament-Studies/dp/0826468306
http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Deities-Demons-Bible-Ddd/dp/9004111190
 
Terry
Terry 9 years ago

Now the book "The Bible Unearthed" shows (or tries to show) through archogical evidence that the bible was created by King Josiah and/or Hezikiah and basically the whole bible (prior to Josiah) was a work of fiction, and it does a good job at proving it.
There was a kind of TEMPLATE of ideas which all surrounding nations, tribes, tongues used to retrofit their own embellishments.
Frequently, it was rooted in Astrology mythology.
Think of these hero tales and god tales as plot devices over which layers could be added which pertained to your particular tribe or nation.
The easiest example to point to in history of this is with the Roman Empire.
The Romans had their very own religion with gods and goddesses who did this and that.
However, the Roman religion borrowed huge gulps of pre-existing Greek mythology. In many cases just changing the names of the characters and leaving the particulars intact!
This mythic/religious plagarism was quite common.
If your tongue cannot pronounce the name of a God or goddess you just give them a name change and make it easier.
Sampson's exploits in the O.T. mirror Hercules (Hera-cles) for example.
These religious tales were mostly oral. When they began to be written down they took on a superficial importance.
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

What stood out with me from this book, was the validity given to Baal in Canaan as a legitimate god, the references to a female god as well, and the eventual traits of YHWH, that undeniable encompass the personalities of these other gods. .
I have ordered the other book mentions Yahweh And the Gods And Goddesses of Canaan , thanks for the link!


Steve
 
DeusMauzzim
DeusMauzzim 9 years ago

Besides the other books suggested, and the excellent reply by Narkissoswho is responsible for my post being so short , I would recommend:
Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Regards,
Deus Mauzzim
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Interesting topic and a complex one. But my take from a Biblicalist point of view is that since everyone is descendant from Noah, that it is reasonable that they understood or adapted concepts of the Creator and indeed would have been potential worshipers, or just acknowledge him in the pantheon of these other "gods" who probably can be linked to the principle angels involved.
Case in point the ancient Sumerians concept of VIRGO, a virgin carrying a branch, representing the "virgin mother" is a clear concept of Satan as portrayed in Eden as "the woman and her seed." The branch represents her family tree or her seed. Thus women holding a seed (like Athena) or Virgo, all Mother Goddesses are directly based upon Satan's idenity in Eden as the woman.
So if that concept was so clear and fresh in Sumer and they understood who Virgo was and what happened, then I think it's quite possible for them to have had a concept of El and may have paid some perfuntory worship to him.
Another issue we have to deal with in regard to early worship of YHWH who may have very well been called El just as we say, "God" and everybody knows what/who we're talking about, is MELCHIZEDEK. He was a Canaanite, living at Jerusalem, which apparently was a center of worship of YHWH since he was a king-priest of Yahweh. So is Melchizedek from the time of Abraham was already set up as priest of El/YHWH then we have direct Biblical proof that some of the Canaanites indeed worshipped El and understood who he was.
Finally, the destruction the Jews did in Canaan was a timed event. Canaan had a certain period of time to remain in charge of their land before the Israelites took over. So it's possible that Canaan had been a center of YHWH worship early on and had become totally corrupted and rebelled and so their destruction was connected with this rebellion against YHWH. And other accounts clearly show the Canaanites knew who EL/YHWH was, even if that concept had become corrupted over time.
Or take Greek mythology as another example. Those concepts of the one great father-god figure and the angels coming down and marrying beautiful women, many attribute to the angels marrying women before the flood, etc.
Having noted that, the only true issue here is not whether or not the Canaanites influenced the Jews and their concept of El and YHWH many, many years later, but that the original concepts of the creator, the angels that rebelled, even Satan as handed down by Noah had their own parallel but independent developments.
Sorry for this astrophic. I wanted to just show the ancient Sumerian concept of VIRGO, a woman holding a branch, representing the "woman and her seed" who represents the Mother Goddess, who is Satan/Lillith is ancient mythology. If they knew precisely who Satan was, I would think they would know just as precisely who El was. At least some of them.


Here is another form of the "woman and her seed", Satan as the Mother Goddess in the form of Ceres from Pompei. Notice the sheaf of grain.
alt
Another of Ceres holding a sheaf.
alt
Satan depicted as a woman frquently and consistently in religious art:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/Lilith/aNePics.html
So the Canaanites knew generally or precisely (i.e. Melchizedek) who the creator-god was and had specific concepts of Satan/the Mother Goddess as well. So the Canaanites calling the Creator "El" is not inconsistent with Biblical history, but doesn't mean that Abraham or the Jews needed the Canaanites to develop their concept of YHWH, which would have been handed down to them via Noah as much as he handed those concepts and events in Eden down to everybody.
That's why early on the idea of needing to connect Canaanite religion to YHWH worship fails immediately for "The Bible Unearthed." There's no need for any connection other than the common source through Noah. Further, nobody is saying that there wasn't some YHWH worship going on in Canaan under the name of "El", as long as El had the concept of the great creator-father god figure, which apparently he did. Thus I find Finkelstein's aggressive presumptions about the basis of Jewish worship of YHWH with reference to a foundation in Canaan a bit short-sighted, IMHO. But he's certainly entitled to attempt to make the connection.
JCanon
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

JC,
Leaving aside your original yet anachronistic references to "Satan," I'd just point out that Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is not connected with Yhwh but with 'El `elyôn ("God Most High" in many translations), who is regarded as Yhwh's father in the polytheistic synthesis which forms the background of Deuteronomy 32:8ff (on this passage see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66342/1.ashx).
His name/title and place may relate him to two other distinct Canaanite deities (equally attested in Ugarit), namely Zedeq (cf. Adoni-zedeq as another king of Jerusalem in Joshua 10, and possibly Zadoq as the eponym ancestor of the Jerusalem priesthood) and Shalem (Jerusalem = "city / foundation of Shalem"). It seems that the introduction of Yhwh worship in Jerusalem is quite late (as the divergent Biblical traditions about the city as "Jebusite" down to Joshua or David's times also confirm indirectly).
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 9 years ago

Good posts (well, aside from the one by our resident Messiah). I would also strongly recommend the book Religious Texts From Ugarit by N. Wyatt (2nd edition) which is a comprehensive translation of all mythic, liturgical, and legendary texts found at Ras Shamra. I think of it as my "Canaanite Bible", and it is fully annotated as well with many OT parallels highlighted.
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Hello Narkissos:
WOW! Thanks for pointing to that reference. We don't particularly disagree. There is room for both of our views, just as a matter of semantics and detail. For instance, if someone said that the Jews worshipped Baal. I couldn't disagree, could I? Because some did. But we know from other references that that was a problem for the official religion. So it doesn't matter how many teracotta images of other gods are found all over Israel, we know they are the gods and goddesses of the rebels. But since the Bible mentions this worship of some of other gods doesn't mean there was not a group that believed in one specific god, YHWH with his own "pantheon" of other angels/gods, one chief being Michael, and a main adversarial woman being his now divorced wife, Satan.
Here's an interesting excerpt from the post you linked (thank you!):

When moving from polytheism to monotheism, Judaism came to understand the expression as meaning « son(s) of God », i.e. heavenly being(s) subject to the unique God: ?angels?, good and bad according to the context. So the Greek Septuagint often translates son(s) of (the) god(s) as angels of God. In this perspective the idea of one main, archetypal heavenly Son of Goddevelops, as a sort of chief-angel (or arch-angel). He may be seen as eternal, though not equal to God (cf. Mc 13,22); this tradition merges with another, that of the Wisdompersonified/hypostatized as ?daughter of God? (from Proverbes 8 on).
Now I'm going to try and do this without writing a book. But basically God/YHWH has four attributes, represented by four images in heaven, a man, a lion, a bull and an eagle. These in turn represent love, justice, power and wisdosm, respectively. But a subdivision of these atributes in heaven are attributed to two angels. These two angels are the "covering cherubs" who are on top of the Ark of the Covenant, which represents holy Mount Zion. It's a special place of holiness in heaven. The two angels are specific individuals though. Their images are alternated on the curtains of the sanctuary. One depicted as a cherub with a man's face and the other as a palm tree. These two angels are like husband and wife. The palm-tree angel figure is the feminine one. They represent Michael and who I'll call Lucifera (feminine for Lucifer). So yes Jesus and Satan were once married. Shocked! Don't be. We all know Jesus marries the Bride Class, the church, do we not? Technically, this wife becomes associated with the temple and God's holiness where he dwells, and so the Bride Class actually replace Satan's position in heaven on holy mount zion.
But getting back to the daughter with wisdom. The Mother Goddesses, whom is based upon Satan's identity is connected with focus to the two qualities of god most associated with the feminine side of the androgynous divine being, although all are incorporated in Michael. That is, if you were to sort of separate the four entities of gods qualities, then Michael would take on the masculine ones, that of the bull (power) and the man (love), and Satan would be associated with the other two, the Lion (Justice, legal) and the eagle (wisdom, knowledge).
Now in the garden of Eden, this symbolism of these two angels continue, just as it does in the cosmos. The Sun represents Michael and the the beautiful moon, Satan. In Eden, Adam reflects Michael, the man and lifegiver, and Eve reflects Satan, his helper. Likewise the two trees in the garden where Christ is the Tree of Life and Satan is the Tree of Knowledge. Which brings us back to Satan's core identity, that of being a woman and being beautiful and associated with WISDOM. That's the Mother Goddesses whole thing from the beginning. How knowledge transforms one from human form into a god. "If you eat, you will have knowledge of good and evil and be like god." Even some of her Goddess Figures deal with Wisdom Personified, such as Sophia, upon which the concept of "sophistication" is based.
Remember Satan approached Eve in the Tree of Knowledge. When Isis is depicted as a tree goddess, whe gives her breast as suck to her followers, representing she is the source of special knowledge.

And who could miss that message with the multi-breasted Diana of Ephesus! Those breasts representing her primary function as a goddess of wisdom and knowledge for her followers, based upon the personal identity of Satan in heaven as this incredibly beautiful (i.e. sophisticated) goddess with much knolwedge and wisdom, knowledge that transforms her followers away from the physical and toward the mental, suppressing the physical to attain higher and higher mental states, the whole foundation of the Mysteries.
Diana of Ephsus
alt

But having said that, also in line with Satan being called "the woman and her seed" at Genesis 3:15, there is no way you can separate out that there was no precise concept of Satan in ancient times, since Satan is represented in the Mother Goddess as well as other false gods and goddesses, but emphasizing Satan's own personal spiritual attributes, among them being an angel of great wisdom and beauty.
Narkissos: Leaving aside your original yet anachronistic references to "Satan," I'd just point out that Melchizedek in Genesis 14 is not connected with Yhwh but with 'El `elyôn ("God Most High" in many translations), who is regarded as Yhwh's father in the polytheistic synthesis which forms the background of Deuteronomy 32:8ff (on this passage see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66342/1.ashx ).
But this now comes full circle. The academic propaganda wanting to claim late origin to the concept of "Satan" as well as the adaptation of the YHWH in later times based upon a previously polytheistic influence from Canaan. Some even taking that a step farther by saying there was no original 12 tribes but some of those who would become part of the Jewish nation were made up of Canaanite tribes already there. Now while I enjoy seeing just how may scenarios these scholars can come up with, it doesn't mean it really happened, especially when some of it cannot be proven one way or the other and there is direct written evidence in the Bible to the contrary with its own supporting historical confirmations. So my position would be firmly placed here that after Noah's time, it was quite clear in the minds of those worshipping especially the Mother Goddess that this was in rebellion to YHWH, religion inspired by Satan him/herself. The most ancient concept of the "woman and her seed" that of VIRGO testifies to that if little else.
Further, there are "the Mysteries" that have to be factored into this. Those Satanists who are in the woodwork who cannot make the direct connections to everything they propagandize on the public. Thus while even the Catholic Church follows the Bible and has a concept of Satan, this male force of Evil, with the folkloric and pop-culture concept always being this horned scary person, or the Red Devil with a tail and horns, etc. right there on the Sistine Chapel and in dozens of other paintings of the scene in Eden, Satan is a snake-woman! So in pictures Satan is this snake-woman, but where is the written connection with why this is so?
Look at how often and consistent this is here:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/Lilith/aNePics.html
HERE'S THE SCENE FROM THE SISTINE CHAPEL. WHY ISN'T IT TAUGHT THAT SATAN IS A WOMAN IN CHURCH DOCTRINE?
alt
But again, we come full circle. Those in "the Mysteries" who made the paintings and depict Satan as this woman are more accurately representing the concept of who Satan is on a spiritual level in Heaven, that is as the wife of Michael/Jesus and the "woman and her seed" at Genesis 2:15. This snake-woman is the same "original serpent and DRAGON" mentioned in Revelation. Snake-person is Satan even in the Bible! So even to hint that the idea of "Satan" is a late development is rather humorous, though understandable because of his modern alter-ego representation as this horned Red Devil, etc. That modern image, of course, distracting from the fact that Satan is the personalification of the Mother Goddesses, likely the closest true concept of Satan's spiritual identity. The beautiful Goddess of Wisdom. Wisdom Personified.
So again, looking at the situation from Noah handing down what happened to Eden and how these basic elements concepts are clearly seen, even in Greek mythology, thought distorted, we are a long, long way from deciding because the Canaanites worshipped a God named "El" that that's the basis of Jewish doctrine and adaptation to YHWH. But that's what the Satanists would want people to believe, of course.
Further as you noted, the DETAIL of father and son and daughter and wife and all that is all mixed up and exchangeable. You must know this. So we can't take for face value those assignments at any given point in time, any more than finding teracotta goddesses of Asherah all over Palestine means this was the original Jewish religion and the Bible's history is thus totally invented. There is no way you can prove this. It's just a conflict on what happened between the interpretation of what has been found by archaeologists and the Bible itself. I err on the side of giving the Jewish historians the best benefit of the doubt before simply dismissing that history as made up because it can otherwise seem logically explained by scholars trying to harmonize the historyo of the Jews into everybody elses history without exception.
Finally one more complication. After the Exodus and the Ten Plagues, Egypt and Assyria and like some in Caanan converted to monotheistic Yawism for a time. This was during the time of Akhenaten. The altar Akhenaten built in the middle of Egypt, which he personally claims was from the inspiration of his god, is mentioned in the Bible (Isa. 19:19). So at some point, I myself am looking at this period for evidence of some type of worship of Yahweh or its influence in places like Ugarit (as you mentioned), which was one of the Caananite city-states under the Egyptian suzrainty at the time. So you can see my complication here. I fully allow for the possibility of some forms of YHWH/EL worship at various times in Canaan, and maybe indeed Abraham and others understood this to be the same god, sort of how the Jews and Christians understand they are worshipping the same god and I believe the Muslims are too. Isn't "Allah" Jehovah basically? Isn't there a connection to Allah historically with the YHWH of the Jews? The ultimate creator-god?
So there are lots and lots and lots of explanations and possibilities for the similarities and names and identities of all these gods and goddesses, so much so, a quick presumption that the Jews just invented this during later times to create some type of psychological rescue of the Jews in their current situation just doesn't come to the table until much later, IMHO.
So what? The Caanites worshipped EL/YHWH, the same god as the Jews? The Jews didn't thus invent YHWH? So what? That would explain why God had the Jews go in and execute them at the appointed time. They were rebels of Melchizdekian Yawism/El-ism from way back! ???
Thanks again for the reference!
JCanon
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Narkissos: Thanks again for sharing your comments:
His name/title and place may relate him to two other distinct Canaanite deities (equally attested in Ugarit), namely Zedeq (cf. Adoni-zedeq as another king of Jerusalem in Joshua 10, and possibly Zadoq as the eponym ancestor of the Jerusalem priesthood) and Shalem (Jerusalem = "city / foundation of Shalem"). It seems that the introduction of Yhwh worship in Jerusalem is quite late (as the divergent Biblical traditions about the city as "Jebusite" down to Joshua or David's times also confirm indirectly).
Your point is valid on the specifics, but I think that at some point the blurr between the gods and their identities and duplication and overlap are such that we can take little for face value and have to just compare the similarities to the Biblical scenario of what happened in Eden. Case in point, do you remember a book the WTS once put out called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop? (Actually, I think it is available online now!) Well in that book as well in some alchemy symbolism, they reflect the concept of the peircing of the head of the serpent on one hand, and horus and his sickle cutting off the feet of Saturn or something. (Actually I should check the facts first). But point being, these original Edenic stories turned into fables and got all twisted around incidental to time, or were deliberately switched around just to make it more mysterious and complex to outsiders.
The Mysteries got reflected in Freemasonry as well so some of those symbolisms, like the sickle is connected with Satan because Satan is supposed to bruise Jesus in the heel. Even the story of Achilles being only vulnerable in his heel is considered to be related to Satan bruising Jesus in the heel, etc. So at some point, it all gets mixed up, so much so it doesn't matter if one god in one culture is a father-god and in another a son-god, or a wife becomes a daughter, though often they are BOTH. In fact, that is part of the trinity doctrine made up of Osiris, Isis and the child Horus, Horus being thought to be some reincarnation of Osiris come back to life, etc.
Even the prodigal son scenario shows up in the Mysteries, as the fretting Dementer mother-goddess crying over her dear Persephone who is now in Hades, like the father crying over his lost son who is dead when he leaves his father's house. Note the parable about the "woman" and the drachma coin, how when she loses it, she frets and cries and searches desperately to find it, like Dementer does with Persephone. So all of this was worked out in advance, the first and second coming, how Israel would reject god but be redeemed at the last minute, the ultimate prodigal son scenario, all mocked in the pagan cult religion.
Even one of Satan's key upsets by Jehovah when he turned the tables on Satan in Eden. You see, it was hard to get rid of Satan without SIN and DEATH attached to it. In heaven it's just DISCUSSION. It's just concepts. How could God execute an angel? and for what? Not liking God's policies. Challenging why he alone must be worshipped and none others? It was complex. So basically Jehovah said, "Okay, I've had enough, let's see you put your money where your mouth is." and God created the physical world where there would be man made in god's image but who would have laws to abide by and if he didn't abide by them there was the penalty of death. But ultimately it was trap since the angels were bound to obey these laws as well, thus Satan was condemned to death for his part in Eden. Still, that wasn't necessarily LEGALLY good enough, since a jury in the majority could be wrong about something, right? So what Jehovah basically did was said this. I'm going to kill everybody! I'm going to call in my lease on every life and that's it. I will kill all my children, including my favorite firstborn son. Now that is what did Satan in. Satan likely was glad he had accomplished that much as a result of his rebellion, the death of Christ. BUT... turns out death is really not that big of a deal if you come back the next day! Death is only a horror and a torment day and night like the fires of Gehenna if you are never to live again. So God turned the tables on Satan with the Ransom Sacrifice, whereby, after killing all his children in order to get rid of Satan, he instilled new rules about whom he could bring back to live again forever. And that new rule was basically, "Whomever I chose!" So God had the last word on that. God could get rid of Satan if he killed everybody, with no legal liability. It was his option since he gave life to take it away. But after killing everybody, obviously he wins if he brings back the ones he wants. That's why the Bible says those who try to hold onto their lives will lose it, that is, to have a life that does not recognize God's sovereignty. But if you decide to die for God's cause, like many people do in any war, then you have the promise you will get your life back. So those who love Jehovah enough to be willing to give up their own lives so that God wouldn't have to deal with Satan any more, get their life back! Case in point, Satan tries to make a mockery of God killing his children, or "passing them through the fire" like this by all that cultic infanticide that was going on in Canaan. Passing the children through the fire imitates how Jehovah passes his children through the fire, but only those that are true gems survive. If you're not spiritually fire-resistant material, then the fire consumes you.
Having noted that, once you study "the Mysteries" and Freemasonry and all that occult worship stuff, you know there is very little you can take for face value and so just because something found in one place where the pantheon was one way, we can't presume that's the case all over and at all times. Thus trying to superimpose that on trying to challenge the Bible's historical account just doesn't work. It doesn't even come close.
If you don't know a lot, then smart people with nice books and lots of fancy words seem convincing. But if you do your own investigation, you not only see other scenarios, you often find where those people are biased or deceptive, with their own anti-Biblical agendas.
JCanon
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 9 years ago

Hey JC,
You're quite fascinating in your own peculiar way...
I'm on a hurry right now because I must leave home in a few minutes and will be away for some time, so I'll just give the link to one old thread where much of the above was already discussed (credits to Leolaia).
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/73244/1.ashx
Cheers to all.
 
kwintestal
kwintestal 9 years ago

Thanks for all the comments. I'll start by seeing what books my local library have of the ones listed.
Kwin
 
Forscher
Forscher 9 years ago

I own a copy of an interesting anthology Canaanite Mythology and Hebrew Epic; Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, edit. by Frank M. Cross, which has some interesting reading on the subject.
However, since I do not subscribe to much of the scholarship which has come out of the Documentary Hypothesis school of thought my thoughts on the matter should be fairly obvious. Using the internal evidence of the Bible itself, it would appear that God chose not to reveal a personal name for himself until just before the Exodus (Exodus 6:3). Since God is quote as saying to Moses on that occasion "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, but by my name the LORD (Jehovah, my note) I did not make myself known to them, RSV, ( ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????) it would appear that God chose for some reason not to use a personal name for himself with his worshipers prior to that time. Remember that el is not a name. It is a noun which may refer to a supernatural being, or even a powerful man, just as theos may also be used.
I realize that my rejection of documentary hypothesis thinking runs against the current here, but I feel its foundational atheistic assumptions are counter productive for the purpose of serious biblical scholarship. If one really does believe that there is no god and, hence, no god had anything to do with authoring that book in the first place, then just ignore it and stay out of the field of bible studies entirely. The real insights based on that line of thinking have been few and far between in my opinion, and those few insight only result from the incidental objectivity which resulted from that psuedo-scientific school of scholarship's rejection of any religious dogma's influence on its research. However, its not so objective premise that the Bible is merely another work of man, as well as its quest to prove that premise makes me wonder if those few insights are really worth it.
I realize that Leo and Narkissos disagree with my opinion, and I respect their right to do so. All I ask is that folks respect my right to reject scholarship I see to be based on seriously flawed premises.
Forscher
Respectfully
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

I replied to some comments, but don't want to get too far away from "The Bible Unearthed." Thus one reason why this goes nowhere is because of the very foundation on which Finkelstein starts off in order to first archaeologically discredit the Bible and then come up with an explanation after the fact. But if you don't get to that qualified dismissal or there are errors or omissions in that original premise, then the whole argument falls down.
Thus Finkelstein gains momentum for his argument connected with David and Solomon he doesn't deserve. Now indeed, archaeologically, his position is quite convincing and firm. Key points are that the Canaanite pottery era as he says reaches well into the 10th century BC (999-900 BCE). This indeed conflicts with David who would have ended that period who is currently dated from 1010-970BCE by popular dating (i.e. the WTS is some 67 years earlier!) (page 341: "Both the ceramic and carbon-14 evidence suggests it was still in exitence several decades later--well into the tenth century BCE.") He then gets momentum by noting during the time of Solomon between 970-930BCE Palestine was not developed, there was no centralized government in place to build any great palaces, etc. So he dismisses him as an invention of the Jews later on in history, ostensibly needing the psychological boost. But notice how quickly all this falls through when you insert the original Biblical timeline, or one based on Martin Anstey's interpretation of the 70 weeks prophecy that dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. When you do that, then Solomon's rule is reduced 54 years down to 910-870BCE.
So you see, its not that the palaces themselves were myths here. The palaces were found, they just were not built in the era now assigned to Solomon from 970-930BCE. But, the archaeologist do indeed date these palaces, using RC14 dating. So for those following the Bible more closely for the Bible's own chronology and not the defective chronology of secular dating piggy-backed off the fixed Assyrian Period age based upon a single eclipse they date to 763BCE, then the story changes! Here's another quote from the book, Page 142:
"Finally, a series of samples from the destruction of a stratum at TEL REHOV near Beth-shean, which is contemporary with Megiddo's supposed Solomnic city, gave mid-ninth century dates--long after its reported destruction by Shishak in 926 BCE."
He is talking about Level IV destructive level at Tel Rehov. Here is the actual chart of the RC14 findings:


Now please note that Finkelstein isn't lying when he says it gives "MID-NINTH CENTURY DATES", since basically any dates from 975-925BCE could loose be considered mid-ninth century, with 950BCE and dates closer to that coming to mind. But at this point we question Finkelsteins motives just a bit since archaelogists usually break down the century into quarters, as Kenyon did when he noted that fall of Jericho occurring in the "third quarter of the 14th century BC." But of course, the lower the dating in the range the more dramatically he can dismiss the 925BCE chronology. But when you look at the chart, it clearly does not have a focus from the findings at Rehov in the mid-ninth century. The highest peak of "Relative Propability" stems from a broad range of dates from 918-823BCE, with the peak clearly pointing to dates from 874-867BCE. What is so valuable about this study is that they found when they tested a sample muliple times a random phenomenon occurred where the highest average finding fell near the center of the overall range. That is what we are looking at here. Thus the "true date" the closes to the event, also was closest to the middle of the range. If we find the exact center of the range, therefore of 918-823BCE, you get 870.5. (918 + 823 = 1741. Divide 1741 by 2 = 870.5, which is 871 BCE). So? So 871 BCE falls in the upper half of what would be call mid-ninth century, but Finkelstein contrasts that to 925BCE as being "nearly a century" later. I consider this suspicious, especially since it suggests he is looking at the lower mid-ninth century dating that might extend down to say 840-830BCE which would be nearly a century later than 925BCE. If we consider that, then Finkelstein himself is not focussing on the best available RC14 dating from Rehov from which he quotes. That is, if we use the primary date of focus here, 871BCE, then it really is only 54 years after 925, only a half century away from the 925BCE date.
Having noted that little detail of potential "dishonesty" or misrepresentation, we still have the direct scientific evidence he is speaking of. It is this evidence that we then test against the other chronologies from the Bible concerning this group. One being the date of Shishak's invasion per the witnesses in the 5th of Rehoboam, which would be 993 BCE (some 68 years earlier than 925BCE), and the dating by Martin Anstey based upon 455BCE as the 1st of Cyrus which dates the 5th of Rehoboam to 871BCE. That's right! The best averaged (mid-range) date from the RC14 from Rehov points right to the same year the Bible dates that event.
So what do we have here? We have a theory of revisionism based on the idea that the archaeology dating proves it was invented since the buildings of Solomon didn't appear later and we have RC14 evidence that Shishak's invasion didn't occur either until later closest to 871BCE, but that uses a Biblically incorrect dating for this event falling in 925BCE. When the correct Biblical timeline is used, or even just an alternative Biblical timeline, it lines up with the archaeology and chronology perfectly. David's rule would not begin until 950 BCE which is plenty of time for the Philistine pottery period to continue into the first half of the 10th century BCE as Finkelstein asserts. No problem. And it's not that the palaces claimed to have been built by Solomon was never found. They were indeed, confirming a time in Israel of a centralized government. Further Shishak's invasion listing over 150 cities destroyed isn't the invasion of some underdeveloped rural area of small towns! This is another confirmation that Israel was wealthy and highly developed at the time the buildings were built. The only problem is the DATING. Finkelstein's dating is too early for one thing, and it's not the Bible's timeline for another. The Bible's timeline dates Shishak's invaision in the 39th year of Solomon in 871BCE. (i.e. 455 BCE is a jubilee year that occurs as the 20th jubilee after the Exodus. Thus 19 jubilees earlier we can date the Exodus to 1386BCE. 19 x 49 = 931 years. 931 plus 455 = 1386BCE. Solomon's 4th year is 480 years after the Exodus = 906 BCE, 1386 - 480 = 906. Solomon's rule is thus dated per the Bible from 910-870BCE. Shishak's invasion mentions no Jeroboam and we find Rehoboam still consorting with the "princes of Israel" when they repent. We know that Rehoboam and Jeroboam were appointed together before Solomon's death, so obviously they began their official rules at that time, both of them, though the division of the kingdoms didn't technically take place until after Solomon's death. This explains why the attack on Rehoboam was of the northern cities as well since he was still over this region and the princes of Israel, yet another detail in the Bible that completely escaped Finkelstein's notice!) Therefore, there is no conflict with the chronology and the archaeology when you use the 455BCE dating.
Having noted that, however, with perfect harmony between archaeology and the Bible's true timeline, what basis is there for claiming revisionism now? NONE! You see, if you don't have the established conflict in the timeline, you have no need for a theory of revisionism. And remember this is two-part. It would be different is NO PALACES were found at all. Then you could go ahead and say that's a basis for a myth. But the Solomonic Era did occur, only later than they are dating Solomon! So if you move Solomon down to a later time, the history works and is true. Solomon did build those buildings. So Finkelstein's argument is entirely based on chronology not archaeology! If you believe in another dating system that dates Solomon at least a half century later, then a revisionism argument is groundless.
So in summary, Finkelstein's arguments only work if you use the revised chronology, or if you follow JW chronology which is also based on the revised chronology which adds another 67-68 years! (i.e. 539BCE is their "pivotal date" for the fall of Babylon, the same dating used by the 587BCE chronology for the fall of Jerusalem and found in the VAT4956). But if you believe in another chronology that lowers Solomon's rule to c. 910-870BCE, then there is no archaeological conflict as any basis for revisionism and so Finkelstein's arguments, however, logical if the facts were correct, evaporates for us totally. We like Finkelstein a lot because he develops a lot of the chronology for this period and lines up everything for us (and actually he's kinda cute!), but we can only use his archaeological assessments, the rest is just nonsense if its based on the wrong chronology which it is, or not the strict Biblical chronology, which it isn't. So he ends up a great archaelogist but definitely a Biblical historian lightweight.

Israel Finkelstein


JCanon
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Since some are recommending books, I recommend "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, which is why this concept will have a difficult time getting off the ground.
It's available online, amazingly, at several places, most without the graphics, but this site has some of them:
http://www.piney.com/HislopTOC1.html'
Here are some others on line:
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/
http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/index.htm
At any rate, this was once published and available through the WTS! Not sure if they still carry it.
This book is largely a basis for the WTS focus at one time on "Babylon the Great" and all the connections of ancient Babylon's religion found in modern religion, both pagan and Christian. It is a confused, jumbled mess! There is barely an ancient goddess in one culture that doesn't have a parallel or overlap in another. So identities get duplicated and crossed, distorting the original concepts. The result is different interpretations and variations on these themes. In that case, its hard to take a variation or adaptation, deliberate or otherwise, and then use that as a historical marker and basis for describing the origin of something else in another cultures, especially when that culture has its own well-documented record of its historical origins and traditions, which the Jews have. So if I might just get slightly off the topic a bit of Finkelstein and on the general concept of occult symbolism and how it relates to the Bible, I'd present the current Freemasonry illustration below, where a woman is crying over this pillar and behind her is an angel with a sickle and nearby the hourglass, which is also a Freemasonry symbol.
alt
Explanation? Source? Remember all that stuff about the "dying king" that is reborn in the spring and all that. And how women were weeping over Tammuz, who was supposed to Nimrod? Crying over pillars and stones? That is no different than Mithraism where the young boy kills the bull and is sorry he did it. It's the same story. In other alchemy it shows the person with sickle cutting off the feet of another god and thus related to Satan bruising the heel of Jesus. Thus it is the sickle that has broken the column and Satan is pretending to be sorry about it only to make people not feel it is so murderous, though necessary. This is linked to Christ dying and by his death giving life and paradise to the world. Thus the "dying king" is related to Jesus' death. How everything dies when he dies but is then brought back to life. Very Edenic and Biblical themes, regardless of what the current concept might be.
Originally in Eden, Satan was represented by Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. Notice the book that is opened suggesting wisdom and knowledge. Adam and the tree of Life represented Jesus Christ. In the four living creatures representing Jehovah himself, when it is divided into the two covering cherubs, Christ focus is on the man and the bull, which is love and power, whereas Satan carried the images of the Lion and the Eagle, which were Justice (legal issues) and Wisdom (knowledge). The competition in Eden was smiple. Satan versus Jesus. In Canaan this got represented first as the Lion (Satan) killing the Negro child (Jesus). Another form of that was the Lion and the Bull fighting. In Persia we see the the Lion Killing the Bull, which simply represents Satan trying to Kill Jesus.


This then got converted to the Lion becoming a Persian boy though Mithras is clearly associated with the image of the Lion:


Here is Mithras as the LION GOD
alt

Now some won't buy this at all, and some even criticize Hislop! But the fact remains anybody can interpret this stuff and find common threads. And if the common thread one finds doesn't agree with the same speculative common thread of some other author then that author's argument, which is no stronger than his weakest point of evidence will fall on deaf ears.
Someone mentione that "Satan" is a late invention, as if he isn't part of the Edenic setting from the very beginning. Yet that is only because that person doesn't recognize the cultic and occultic references for Satan in ancient history, and some of those forms emphasizing various themes. You think there are a whole lots of gods but really there are just varying themes of the same principal gods.
Thus even Yahweh, "El" in the Bible is the THUNDER GOD, the God of clouds. And I wonder if some concept of him isn't the basis of the Persian god Ahuramazda! That's because when God is said to ride his celestial chariot, it is carried on the wigs of angels who have wings on the side and also wings that cover their feet!
alt
Is this a distorted, revised concept of Yahweh? The one "true god" who fights against Ahiram, the god of evil?
The Bible doesn't say no other people were worshipping YHWH just because he focussed on the Jews to bring the messiah through them. Other people knew of YHWH, even Baalam! So God talked to other mediums/prophets besides just the ones associated with the Jews! So the Bible just focusses on what is going on with the Jews.
In the meantime, the "deeper things of Satan" are going on, who wages a spiritual and psychological war against Jehovah and Jesus and the more confused he can make it the better!
So again, my position is that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SORT ALL THIS OUT SIMPLY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SIMPLE.
Finkelstein is welcome to give his own version, but it's invalidated for anyone using the 455BCE Biblical chronology, which has completely archaeological compatibility.
Finkelstein, however, loses credibility and is considered biased because of that same archaeological evidence. Kathleen Kenyon, for instance, long ago dismissed the current chronologies about the Exodus and thus the fall of Jericho 40 years later when she dated the fall of Jericho by the Israelites to 1350-1325BCE, getting back to the hard archaeology finally....
Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:
"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

But Kenyon complicates matters for Finkelstein, because the Exodus is 40 years before the fall of Jericho. If Finkelstein were at least honest and open about it, he would have covered the pros and cons of the dating for the fall of Jericho in relation to the Biblical timeline. That is, using Kenon's earliest date for the fall of Jericho, clearly during or afer the reign of Amenhotep III, Finkelstein would have easily extrapolated the dating for the time of Solmon. That is using 1350BCE as the earliest potential date for the Exodus, the 4th of Solomon would have fallen in 910BCE and thus his rule from 910-874BCE. Even if you don't insert the 6-year co-rulership, he would have come up with the 5th of Rehoboam c. 879BCE, which is right in range with where the RC14 dating places Shishak's invasion!!
So you see, there is a lot of choices here and options that Finkelstein doesn't go into detail about at all, but that he could have and should have, just as a general background reference to his own position. By not doing this, he loses credibility as an un-biased archaeologist, not that it isn't clear he intends to take aim at Christians. Thus here you have an archaeologist drawing a direct reference to Jesus as the greater Solomon, who would be nobody if there was never any great Solomon! If Solomon wasn't anybody, then how could Jesus be? Now I wonder where he got that from? He's not Jewish, is he? If he were Jewish, it would be understandable why the bias would be there since Jews need to dismiss Christ in any way possible.
Further discrediting of Finkelstein also comes with the fact that the only extra-Biblical reference that exists of the pharoah of the Exodus agrees completely with the archaeology. That would be Manetho's reference that Amenhotep III was the pharoah of the Exodus. How did he miss that? Taking that reference as a historical marker, again, you get Solomon dated later to a time when there is no archaeological contradiction.
Thus Finkelstein is soooo far out on a limb, academically speaking and what we know about the Greek Period revisionis and what not, that he's bordering on being a joke (except for his archaeology) as far as his ideas about Biblical revisionism. Funny isn't it how so many people are so quick to claim the Bible is "revised" and there is "revisionism" when the Bible is concerned, but if you DARE even mention, the Babylonians or Persians revised one single thing they call you a raving lunatic fundamentalist! Oh no! Don't use the R-Word (Revisionism) except when discussing the Bible!
I've written Finkelstein and Mazar and that entire college by the way, so they know about the 455BCE chronology, not that they didn't know it before. Jewish rabbinical timelines long ago dated the 4th of Solomon precisely in 906BCE interestingly enough. So it's almost like the rest of the world might take things for face value, but if you're Jewish and thus presumably aware of the Jewish alternatives to the secular timeline, which they contradict (even covered in O. Jonsson's GTR3 where the Jews reduce the Pesian Period!), then it leaves little room but to presume this is just biased anti-Biblical and anti-Christian propaganda at the core, with some archaeology thrown in to help validate it.
Thanks for listening!
JCanon
 
Mum
Mum 9 years ago

I'm not sure whether this was brought up by anyone else, or if you have already researched it:
The Graf-Welhausen theory (JEPD) addresses the different names for G-d in the OT. Probably some of the books others have recommended would have information on it.
Regards,
SandraC
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

Jcannon,
And so i understand you clearly, you reject the theory put forth in the 'The bible unearthed' and side solely with a biblical version of history correct?
regards
Steve
after thought:
after reading your post, isn't the point of evidence to follow it where it leads you rather than trying to shoe horn into a whatever holy book you need to validate?
His view is that the evidence fit a particular view of history that has come from this evidence, however their is no emotional vested interest, if he was completely proven wrong tomorrow, one man ego 'may' be hurt.
This is what i find so amazing, when seeing anyone ( i am not aiming this at you ) tyring to align evidence to fit their own holy book, and the reason are far more suspect than some one just putting a theory out there, what happens when history proves something in the bible wrong??... well huge emotional investments are at stake so we have comments like Richard Hess, saying
 "However, it may be noted that the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 may be symbolic and not refer to a specific date"
which to me show the how the bible leaks.
You would think is a God was going to get a book penned about himself, it would show and prove in every light without fault and how greatly knowledge the author has, yet it fails time and again. But as a man-made book written for political end, it does pretty well.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Crazyguy
Biblical clues to what God the Jews worshipped
by Crazyguy 2 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/139354/el-vs-yhwh-el-into-yhwh-those-whove-read-bible-unearthed





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
/  





 

El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
by kwintestal 9 years ago 43 Replies latest 9 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Wow, I'm glad you expressed what you are getting out of this! You are mistaken.
Jcannon,
And so i understand you clearly, you reject the theory put forth in the 'The bible unearthed' and side solely with a biblical version of history correct?
regards
Steve
No. that is not correct. The "Bible Unearthed" puts forth a theory of why Solomon is dated too early based upon revisionism of Jewish history during a later period, rather than revision of Greek history. That's the only difference. We BOTH agree or don't contradict the RC14 dating say that would date the level IV at Rehov associated with Shishak's invasion to where it points to, the highest probability being to 871BCE. So both of us are claiming revisionism in the historical record. Finkelstein thus basically asserts that the Babylonian and Assyrian chronology are accurate and thus the bases his Bible timeline on that based upon the Battle of Karkar occurring in 853BCE. It's a simple matter then of counting back about 72 years to the 5th of Rehoboam. That's where they get 925BCE. But it is my opinion that misrepresents the Bible's own chronology, which contradicts relative and absolute history for the NB and Persian Periods. So I do not reject at all the archaeological dating, in fact, I'm thankful to Finkelstein for putting it all together, linking the various sites and levels. But his theory is based on the conventional timeline out of Babylon which was revised with the help of the Greeks so his dating comparison is subject to that, regardless.
after thought:
after reading your post, isn't the point of evidence to follow it where it leads you rather than trying to shoe horn into a whatever holy book you need to validate?
I totally agree. But do you think Finkelstein is going to do that? Forget it! For instance, I quoted him from his book where he clearly mentions Rehov's RC14 dating and says that it falls clearly in the "mid-ninth century." He thus uses the scientific information to bash the Bible under the presumption of Shishak's invasion per the Bible falling in 925BCE. But, does he will follow through with his own chronology? The 925BCE dating is based on the fixed dating of the Assyrian Period based upon a single eclipse occurring in 763BCE. The link event from the Assyrian chronology into Biblical chronology is the Battle of Karkar in the 6th of Shalmaneser 90 years after the eclipse which falls in 853BCE. Guess what? 853BCE is just about as close to "mid-ninth century" as you can get! Normally there is about a 72-year gap from the Battle of Karkar to the 5th of Rehoboam, right? (925 - 853 = 72). So how is it now that all the evidence is pointing to (1) that this level was destroyed by Shishak, and (2) that this level was destroyed per RC14 dating around 871, though Finkelsteins extends that to mid-ninth century, and it not contradict the Persian timeline? There is no way to harmonize this. That is, the RC14 dating not only contradicts the 925BCE dating for Shishak but the Battle of Karkar in 853BCE upon which it is based. But do you think Finkelstein will "follow here it leads" and start challenging the fixed Assyrian timeline? Of course not! He cops out totally and in his later book wants to associate the Level IV destruction which he now is clearly showing is consistent with Shishak's invasion, with saying Shishak didn't do this attack, it must have been Hazeal later on, and then basically ignores the primary dating found from RC14 pointint to 876-867 BCE and tries to push this destructive level far enough past the Battle of Karkar in 853BCE so that it doesn't conflict with that very specifix and fixed dating. So he totally abandons Shishak for this level later on. So is he really following the evidence. No! That's why he's a JOKE. He wants it both ways but can't have.
He's a joke because all of this is resolved if you simply downdate everything by 54 years and use the 709BCE eclipse instead. The 763BCE eclipse is already in question even by casual reference on the net by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/760s_BC
"June 15, 763 BC - A solar eclipse at this date (in month Sivan) is used to fix the chronology of the Ancient Near East. However, it should be noted that it requires Nisan 1 to fall on March 20, 763 BC, which was 8 to 9 days before the vernal equinox (March 28/29 at that time) and Babylonians never started their calendar year before the spring equinox. Main article: Assyrian eclipse"
So there is plenty of evidence that the Assyrian timeline itself is too early, but Finkelstein prefers to have us believe the Bible writers for some reason wanted to move the glorious time of Omri to the make-believe person of Solomon.
I, on the other hand, can completely escape your challenge of bias by retrodating from the primary date. That is, per the chart, the highest probability date for Shishak's invasion is 876-867BCE with the absolute center of the range provided being 870.5 BCE. I can presume this is the most accurate dating and see what kind of chronology I get if I date Shishak's invasion to 871BCE specifically, year 39 of Solomon as the Bible indicates. That would date the 4th of Solomon to 906BCE and the Exodus in 1386BCE. That in turns dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. That in turn harmonizes with the VAT4956 dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511BCE, dating that would downdate the entire NB Period by 57 years. The closes matched eclipse during the Assyrian Period for that adjustment is the 709BCE eclipse which is 54 years after 763BCE, but it is the conventional third month, with the first month occurring after the equinox, not before as in the case of 763 BCE. So in this case, I can follow the evidence precisely without a blink. Finkelstein cannot. The fact is, he's painted himself into a corner here. He'll have to go with the conventional chronology and ignore the RC14 dating, or go with the RC14 dating and change the Assyrian dating to make things match. In the meantime, since serious Bible students don't use that timeline anyway, it's really not our problem. The archaeology agrees with the Bible's timeline this time, and strongly so.
His view is that the evidence fit a particular view of history that has come from this evidence, however their is no emotional vested interest, if he was completely proven wrong tomorrow, one man ego 'may' be hurt.
Oh, paleeeze! This is an archaeologist. He is supposed to be talking about archaeology. Do you know what he and his co-writer Neil Asher Silberman write about? He has a whole chapter on: "Messianic Visions - David and Solomon, from Judaism to Christianity." Here's a quote: "Yet it is obvious that the great ideological switch that occurred in the postexilic period--namely, the use of David and Solomon as the avatars of later religious belif, rather than dynastic fortune--gave rise to a wide range of interpretations that would be influential among the new religious variations that gradually evolved within Judaism, and later in Christianity." (Page 234, "David and Solomon")
So why is Finkelstein, an archaeologist, suddenly an exegetical interpreter of church doctrine? That's not his field of expertise. But he's entitled like everyone else, sure, but to say he has no "emotional vested interested" is certainly not the case. Problem is, he never gets to square one of making David and Solomon "mythical" if he uses the wrong timeline to do so. The Bible dates Solomon precisely where the archaeology does. Do you realize what that means? It means if the buildings that they found occur during the time Solomon lived per the accurate Bible chronology, then the Bible writers were correct in saying Solomon built these buildings. In which case they were not lying or revising desperately during the postexilic period as Finkelstein is trying to claim! His entire argument is no stronger than the weakest link, the distorted chronology timeline from the Greeks. So where does that argument go now? Since Finkelstein clearly is not going to use the RC14 dating to challenge the fixed Assyrian timeline, even though there is a clear contradiction, we have no choice but to presume he and Silberman's true motive was to get more anti-Biblical and anti-messianic bashing credibility from the discrepancy in the Solomonic dating now contradicted by more and more archaeological evidence. Problem is, all he does is confirm more and more that the Bible's timeline that lowers Solomon's rule to 910-870BCE is precisely correct and thus the 1st of Cyrus should be dated to 455BCE as the Bible indicates. So it's totally a miss here. It only works in the narrow range of how substantiated and stable the Assyrian chronology is, and the VAT4956 alone redates that by 54-57 years automatically by virtue of having both the revised and original dating in the same text. So it's basically over. Finkelstein is just JOKE. His entire theory evaporates into thin air with the very archaeological evidence he presents.
This is what i find so amazing, when seeing anyone ( i am not aiming this at you ) tyring to align evidence to fit their own holy book, and the reason are far more suspect than some one just putting a theory out there, what happens when history proves something in the bible wrong??...
That's just it, the Bible is not wrong. The Bible cross-dates and cross-references lots of chronology, so several prophecies have to line up with actual dated events to be correct. It is such a science now and so absolute it cannot be wrong. Also, there were only a couple of options anyway. It's not like what we have now is going to change completely and then we have to change. It's all ABSOLUTE now.
well huge emotional investments are at stake so we have comments like Richard Hess, saying
"However, it may be noted that the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 may be symbolic and not refer to a specific date" which to me show the how the bible leaks.
You would think is a God was going to get a book penned about himself, it would show and prove in every light without fault and how greatly knowledge the author has, yet it fails time and again. But as a man-made book written for political end, it does pretty well.
The Bible doesn't leak. Those like the WTS and others who find the Bible isn't working out with their timelines then try to ignore or twist things. You might accuse me of the same thing, but I offer you to examine it. In fact, come to think of it, what my chronology does, all my research into all the ancient history, is allows me NOT to have to use the Bible to get the dating I want. For instance, I want Cyrus to begin his rule in 455BCE, right? It's easy for me to get that from the Bible. But I can get that several ways from other sources. For instance, the VAT4956 that dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzer to both 511BCE and 568BCE, dismissing 568BCE as a fake date. That means his 23rd year falls in 525BCE. I then use Josephus to confirm that 70 years expired from the last deportation until the 1st of Cyrus. Year 23 was the year of the last deportation. Thus Cyrus per the VAT4956 and Josephus would date the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE. Did I mention Jesus? No. Did I mention the 70 weeks prophecy? No. See. Easy.
Same with the Peloponnesian War eclipse that doesn't work in 431BCE. I found the original in 402BCE which dates the beginning of that war in 403BCE. That means the 30-year peace agreement ends in 394BCE, the 10th year of the War. Xerxes invasion thus falls in 424BCE. I check that for an Olympic year and it works! The Battle of Marathon occurs in 434BCE, 10 years earlier. Darius dies at Marathon in his sixth year. Thus this should be the same year the temple is completed, which began 21 years earlier. 21 plus 434 is 455BCE. See how that works?
Same with Artaxerxes II dying in the 8th year of the war, 396BCE. He ruled for 41 years and thus began his rule in 437BCE. Artaxerxes II and Xerxes were the same king so they began ruling at age 18, the same year their father began to rule. Of course, Persepolis proves that Xerxes was already an adult in the 4th year of Darius when the city was begun, so that doesn't work. Still if we calculate back to the birth of Xerxes he is born in 455BCE, the same year Cyrus began to reign. Thus we know where that legend came from. Xerxes was the first child of Darius and Atossa who was born after Cyrus took over kingship of the entire empire and thus he was the first royal heir under that new empire and thus became king designate ahead of his older brothers. 455 BCE without the Bible as a primary source. Let me count the ways!
So its really just a matter of BEING INFORMED. I share my research and let people make up their own minds. I even write archaeologists like Finkelstein and Mazar and authors like Furuli and let them go their own way. That's all I can do. Besides trying not to laugh sometimes.
JCanon
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

JCanon Thanks for clearing that up. Some interesting points you have highlighted to me, which i will be checking out. My issue with history and the bible is so much of its claimed history just isn't , not that I really want to get into it in this thread, and i am sure this has been debated before on this board. I continue to read up and study. regards Steve
 
drew sagan
drew sagan 9 years ago

Good topic.
 As a side point, why is it Leolaia that you always have to get me excited about a particular book that either is out of print or costs over 75 bucks?
 It's not right I tell you, it's not right!
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Wherehasmyhairgone: JCanon Thanks for clearing that up. Some interesting points you have highlighted to me, which i will be checking out. My issue with history and the bible is so much of its claimed history just isn't , not that I really want to get into it in this thread, and i am sure this has been debated before on this board. I continue to read up and study. regards Steve
That is what you SAY, but you give not a specific example. I know that some things cannot be proven, but far more that is presumed not accurate turns out to be misrepresented. This is a perfect example. For instance Shishak's invasion of primarily the northern cities of Israel is counted as evidence the Bible is not accurate because it represents Shishak attacking Rehoboam in the South and Jeroboam being the good friend of Shishak, so why is the focus in the north? Turns out Rehoboam and Jeroboam began to count their rulerships from the time of the divine appointments, before Solomon died and thus Rehoboam was in his 5th year of co-rulership with Solomon when the attack occurred. Thus the attack on the northern cities was an attack on the entire united kingdom that was still under the rule of Rehoboam.

1 And it came about that, as soon as the kingship of Re·ho·bo´am was firmly established and as soon as he was strong, he left the law of Jehovah, and also all Israel with him. 2 And it came about in the fifth year of King Re·ho·bo´am that Shi´shak the king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, (for they had behaved unfaithfully toward Jehovah,) 3 with twelve hundred chariots and with sixty thousand horsemen; and there was no number to the people that came with him out of Egypt—Lib´y·ans, Suk´ki·im and E·thi·o´pi·ans. 4 And he got to capture the fortified cities that belonged to Judah and finally came as far as Jerusalem.
5 Now as for She·mai´ah the prophet, he came to Re·ho·bo´am and the princes of Judah who had gathered themselves at Jerusalem because of Shi´shak, and he proceeded to say to them: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘Y OU , for your part, have left me, and I, too, for my part, have left YOU to the hand of Shi´shak.’” 6 At that the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said: “Jehovah is righteous.”
According to the above, Shishak attacked the "fortified cities of JUDAH", yet we find "the princes of Israel" still dealing with and subject to Rehoboam during this incident. Further there is no mention of Jeroboam who was king of the 10 tribes of Israel. Also consider the context. Jeroboam set up false worship in Israel when he took over. The archaeological facts show Shishak invaded cities in the north as well. Obviously, since the north is much bigger than the area of the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah, there would be more cities in the north attacked. So what do we learn from this? That the divine appointment of Jeroboam and Rehoboam as kings, which are parallel reigns, is what the rulerships were counted from. Co-rulerships are not at all unusual at this time, in fact, were quite standard. Thus all is resolved once you understand that the 5th year of Rehoboam was still during the very last years of Solomon, in fact, his 39th year, apparently. How do we know this? Comparative chronology. That is, if we correct the 763 BCE eclipse during the Assyrian Period to its original date of 709BCE then the 925BCE date for Shishak's invasion based on the 763BCE eclipse drops down 54 years to 871BCE. Using the Bible's absolute chronology based on when Jesus got baptized in 29CE that establishes 455 BCE as the year the Jews began to rebuild their city, which we date to the 1st of Cyrus, we calculate the Exodus at 19 jubilees earlier to 931BCE. The Exodus and the return of the Jews from Babylon both harmonize with the Jewish jubilee years. In that case, the Exodus occurs in 1386 BCE. Jubilees are every 49 years, the 1st year of every 49 but the 50th after the previous 49. Solomon's 4th year would fall 480 years after the Exodus and thus in 906BCE. That means his rule would be from 910-870 BCE (or 909-869 BCE), thus 871BCE falls during his 39th year. There's an overlap. This also explains, of course, why Shishak would attack the cities in the kingdom of his friend, Jeroboam. He didn't. In fact, he did him a favor by destroying the cities that would have allowed Judah to maintain Judah's control in the north. The result is that all is well. You have a wonderful combination of archaeological and historical continuity between the Bible and a confirmed secular event recorded by Shishak, with absolute complete harmony. The RC14 dating, which is specific to within a few years as you can see, point right at 871BCE as well. So everything should be great, right? NO. Writers and anti-Biblical archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein who didn't realize that Solomon was still ruling at the time point out this discrepancy with the Bible and make it seem as though the Bible doesn't match archaeology. Furthermore, since he's using the wrong chronology which pushes events back some 54 years earlier than when they occurred, he makes even more presumptions. But he has too because the archaeology doesn't fit the 925BCE date! For instance, he claims Israel was not developed at the time and it was just a lot of rural cities. So the question arises, why is Shishak so concerned with conquering all these rural cities and why would he brag about it if these cities were of little account? So Finkelstein, lost to explain it, decides that Shishak must have been interested in conquering the area for later development for agricultural means! See how one stubborn error breeds another. So Finkelstein has to contradict the fact that Shishak invaded many great fortified cities. That's right! Because the evidence shows that this event happened so much later than 925BCE, Finkelstein is forced to abandon the idea (in spite of the evidence presented that link this invasion with Shishak) that Shishak actually did this invasion and claims it must have been done by Hazeal much later, dating that event enough after the battle of Shishak in 853BCE that it makes sense. But when he does that, the RC14 peak dating is abandoned as well! So while he bashes the Bible for being inaccurate using the RC14 dating and claims at this point this proves Sishak's invasion was much later, he abandons this evidence linking Shishak with this invasion entirely, since it doesn't work out with the dating for the Assyrian Period. So he flip-flops. But at this point he is (1) ignoring the archaeological evidence from pottery linking this destruction to Shishak that he claims earlier, (2) He ignores the apparent advanced state of Israel as evidenced by Shishak's inscription that he attacked a highly developed region, and (3) He abandons the specific RC14 dating pointing to an event around 871BCE, which because it doesn't fit the fixed Assyrian chronology, forces him to presume this couldn't have been Shishak at all, but must have Hazael. All that proves that the RC14 dating effectively contradicts the Assyrian chronology, so much so, he has to abandon it. But for Biblicalists like myself who have done the research and know 82 years of fake Persian history was added and thus the timeline is inflated, we just laugh at the archaeologists trying to figure it out wondering when they are going to figure out that the only problem here is the timeline. Move Solomon down 54 years and suddenly the archaeology fits the history perfectly. But persons like yourself, who generally believe some of the Bible's history isn't true, simply because it may be hard to believe, like the miracles that happen, or even that there's a real God, will read Finkelstein and think there is more verification that the Bible is not a true book of history or has been revised and until you really see what the other side says, that becomes a reality for you, but an inaccurate one. But Biblicalists like Finkelstein because he links the destruction of Rehov IV so effectively with the Shishak level of destruction of the palaces at Megiddo and Jezreel, thus there is no argument about that when we use 871BCE from the RC14 to date that event per the Bible to 871BCE. Thus I cannot emphasize enough that Finkelstein's entire argument has little to do with the archaeological facts or the Bible's true timeline, but with the distorted timeline from the Assyrian Period. Once that changes or historians finally discover they can't cover up the Greek Period revisions any more and the history is corrected, then Finkelstein's theories about Biblical revisionism will be nothing, completely fantasy, since the archaeology and history of the Bible will then be completely and perfectly coordinated. Things like this happen with the major events people think are not accurate in the Bible, like even the Exodus, which if you have the right chronology, gets verified quite effectively. So combined with those scholars who distort the chronology or avoid evidence supporting the Bible, many think there is lots and lots of history in the Bible that doesn't work but it's just not true. The Bible may contradict secular records that are suspected of revision, but in the case of the archaeology from the time of the Exodus all the way down to Shishak's invasion, which is dated archaeologically including using RC14 dating, there is perfect harmony. So I speak out against Finkelstein and others who distort the situation and who play both sides of the fence, using evidence to bash the Bible on one hand, then ignoring that same evidence to make it seem that the Assyrian timeline is archaeologically coordinated with the facts, when it is not. If there is any other major historical event that you think has absolutely been proven to be false in the Bible, something we can actually make comparisons with, then let me know. The co-rulerships during the Divided kingdom, I must say, is a large part of the problem and do make a difference in coordinating the facts. So try me! Give me a couple of events that the scholars are saying don't match the facts and we'll see if my research has a different angle on it. You may still choose not to believe the Bible, but at least you would have kept an open mind and heard both sides of the story. It would be a shame to make such a drastic presumption and turn out to be wrong, would it not? JCanon
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

Jcanon,
Just so you don't need to use my ridiculous screen name...my name is Steve

OK first things first. It is not a question of what i believe, if there is no evidence, then why are you believing it.
Well for starters you mention God, my question is which God and why is any more valid than the other, to imply the Christian God is valid, their is no evidence other than the bible to correspond the God in the bible as the alleged creator of our World.
OK lets hit the very beginning Gen 1& 2 , the evidence shows the contrary to the statement made about man origins. To allow this to happen you need to invoke a miracle about God allow incest to allow the humans populate the earth, which is odd way to go about things. So he break one of his own laws to accomplish his purpose, or you need to accept that incest is OK is god says it is, and if that the case Morality is an illusion.
Then you have the Noah flood, and the issue at hand here is than the human population restarted again after the flood in the area where the ark landed, this would show up in our DNA trail, but it simple doesn't exist. That a again leaving ALL the other evidence of the flood itself never happening on a world wide scale.
regards
steve
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 9 years ago

drew sagan....I've scanned these for you, so you can see that it is a good value.








 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 9 years ago

http://s1.amazon.co.uk/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y07Y1449793Y5394694/qid%3D1186257275/202-6604334-7553415
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 9 years ago

Thanks, slim, weird that the UK Amazon site gives the revised book its 1998 title rather than the current one.
 
drew sagan
drew sagan 9 years ago

Thanks for the scans Leolaia, quite helpful.
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Hi Steve. You bring up some interesting perspective!
Jcanon,
OK first things first. It is not a question of what i believe, if there is no evidence, then why are you believing it.
I don't understand precisely. But some things are to be believed in by faith. I was raised a JW and never questioned the Bible but then when I pursued to analyze everything with what we can as far as the facts and science, I became more of a believer.
Well for starters you mention God, my question is which God and why is any more valid than the other, to imply the Christian God is valid, their is no evidence other than the bible to correspond the God in the bible as the alleged creator of our World.
That is certainly a fair question. Many of us a raised believing what the Bible says. But it's a moot question now because I've actually had an experience where I spoke with God personally, so I'm sort of out of that loop. That is, the God I met and spoke with was the same God of the Jewish Bible. So that's why that is not an issue for ME, but I think it's a valid question for others. But certain evidence suggests that God at one time had challenged some of the others gods; Baal at one time and the gods of Egypt at another. When he challenged the gods of Egypt at the time of the Exodus with the Ten Plagues, the next king, Akhenaten, converted to monotheism. So, testing what the other gods can do or are saying in comparison to YHWH is also something that makes him stand out to me. Even the Bible (I'm a Biblicalist) itself is an amazing book. As you know, I consider it to be more reliable history than the secular records, though there is far more compatibility than the archaeologists allow because they don't pay close enough attention to the details.
OK lets hit the very beginning Gen 1& 2 , the evidence shows the contrary to the statement made about man origins. To allow this to happen you need to invoke a miracle about God allow incest to allow the humans populate the earth, which is odd way to go about things. So he break one of his own laws to accomplish his purpose, or you need to accept that incest is OK is god says it is, and if that the case Morality is an illusion.
Well, that's an old issue and rather academic. Eve was made from Adam's rib, so I would say she was a bit closer than a sister. I don't know all the DNA rules, but esoterically, Adam carried the dominant genes we find in all the different "races" today and eve the recessive ones. Adam came from the earth, the rich dark soil, so he would have been dark with Asiatic features. Eve would have been fair, blond, blue-eyed. All the varieties of mankind fall within those two extremes. Even when Adam said, "You will become the mother of everyone living" seems to be something a black man would say to a white woman, because so many of her children would not be white. As far as the laws of incest go, those laws were not put into place until much later. Plus it has been suggested, so close to perfection at first that the genetic anomalies were not an issue early on as they were later. But from your perspective, this would also be academic, that is, the laws against marrying a sister had not been in place at the time.
Then you have the Noah flood, and the issue at hand here is than the human population restarted again after the flood in the area where the ark landed, this would show up in our DNA trail, but it simple doesn't exist. That a again leaving ALL the other evidence of the flood itself never happening on a world wide scale.
regards
steve
I'm not sure what persepctive you are claiming about the DNA, not that medicine knows everything about the early DNA during the time of Noah. I think it is possible for some strands of DNA to be "breeded out" as well, so that it does not show up. If you have a specific article that discusses this that you base this on, I'd be happy to read more on this. Otherwise, I have no real explanation but wouldn't consider it proof either. I mean, after all, the entire human family is the same, everyone is genetically compatible with everybody else, no matter what race. The human family is one, suggesting regardless of some isolated DNA in some groups that there was a common origin.
Thanks for sharing more of your perspective. But actually there are some questions that cannot be answered I don't think at this point. But remember that there were a lot of doubters at the time of the Flood. And reasonable doubters too, after all, it had never rained before and certainly not so much to flood the entire earth. Can you imagine Noah telling them the waters will go so high it will cover the tops of the mountains in case you were able to climb to the top to avoid the water? But when it did begin to rain they all then believed it. Now, those of us with personal experiences with God or who are of the "anointed" who have had the "sign of the son of man" for instance, personally appear to them, we are not in doubt that the God of the Bible is the real, only true God. So that's sort of a blessing. Our faith that it was true became fulfilled with the modern fulfillment of everything the Bible said would happen.
And Jehovah for our sakes and I suppose for even the sake of those who are still doubtful provided the sign for us. When you see the sign, it's amazing because it allows you to explain the scriptures. For instance, you might ask why do those who see the sign "beat themselves in lamentation" as if mourning over someone dead. Then you understand because the sign is of the sleeping dead child. So those kinds of things, for those who accept it and which fits into their belief system, have added reason to have faith in this particular god and that even there is a god and that the Bible does turn out to be his book and a book of truth; though there are many hidden things in the Bible and it remains a closed book of understanding from some. So it's kind of different for an insider than an outsider. It's like if you saw an angel and someone else told you they saw one and described the same angel, you're prone to believe them. Otherwise, you'd presume they were crazy likely. That is, until the angel appeared to you. So there is no middle ground. Those who see miracles and angels, etc. and those who don't. Those who do would like to share that with those who don't but there is no way possible. There is a chasm between the two worlds... " 26 And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and YOU people, so that those wanting to go over from here to YOU people cannot, neither may people cross over from there to us.’ (Luke 16:26).
Thanks, again, for sharing your views.
JCanon
Sign of the son of man. which appeared in 1998, proves the god of the Bible is real for those who understand the sign and accept that it is actually from God himself: http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/clouddove.jpg

 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

JCanon,

Unfortunately my newness to the board, i have no idea how to do quotes from your post and able to post my comment under neither, so please bear with me.
Like i said i am not out to 'knock' anyone faith of belief, I to was a JW until i was nearly 30 years old, and would willingly hunt out the atheist and vicar on the ministry to debate them, so i guess i have sat on both sides of the fence.

OK first things first, you said
"But some things are to be believed in by faith. "
Not so, things that require faith ( look up the definition of faith, are things that run contrary to evidence and logic an reasoning, now as God apparently gave us these tools doesn't it seem strange to them ask us to suspend them. Faith is a trump card that can be played any any religion to justify its dogma,,,,, i.e it requires faith to believe that Mohammad went up to heaven on a white horse. even though some claims a hoof print on a certain temple roof is evidence of this.

OK next point,
"But it's a moot question now because I've actually had an experience where I spoke with God personally, so I'm sort of out of that loop."
My question is how do you know that wasn't Satan just pretending to be God to fool you into leaving the 'real' religion? and also your claim is echoed by thousands of others in a variety of different religions throughout the world,. a great many claims it to be Allah, so just because someone tells you they are God, doesn't mean that they are. I will concede that the bible does contain some historical evidence, however a Book from a god that created the universe would need to be far different, and certainly the bible when read from a critical standpoint, shows it human failing, in matters of science, geography etc etc, something i would expect the god of the universe being the inventor of those things would be Right on the mark.
OK next issue.
"Eve was made from Adam's rib, so I would say she was a bit closer than a sister. "
Complete statement of faith..period, considering this 'Eve' and bear in mind their is no evidence for a Eden eve, came from Adam which of come again a statement of faith. Yes their is a evidence for a ultimate what is called mtEve eve, but this is not to be confused with the eve of the bible, i would go into detail here but go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
OK rich dark sailor has nothing to do with adman skin colour, pigmentation and soil colour are apart as far apart as saying fire is hot water ( oilthigh i would say they are probably closer) Are we originally from dust,,well kind of, we are made up of basic compound , hence we are sometimes reference to as carbon life forms.
Your comment about Eve is purely speculative, and actually the blue eye reference is incorrect as all human are start with brown eyes and a error in causes the blue eye effect. So suggesting that would be claiming that God created EVE with errors from day one. http://www.earthlife.net/insects/evolve.html about half way down the page, their are better information resources but from this it gives you an overview of how eye color is determined and why the idea of an Eve with blue eyes is false.
Your comment about incest, sates in effect that morality is relative and if God allows incest one day and out laws it the other, then you have this scenario, Murder is wrong today, but tomorrow if god says its OK , then its no longer wrong.
This unfortunalty leads you into a paradox about morality and god and it is this
Does God say something is wrong because it is wrong or does he say its wrong just because God deems it to be wrong?
Now,
if you say things are wrong because God says so , then morality has no value, because right or wrong can be anything, God changes his mind and all of sudden Murder is OK...or incest. whihc makes morality shallow.
Now , if you say something is wrong because it wrong, and the issue here is that if Gods commands something is wrong because it is wrong, then things being wrong doesn't depend on God. i.e something is wrong and that's WHY God commands them. so at best God in the OT has relative morals!

NOW the claims about perfection again is pure faith statement, no examples in nature exist or any evidence does, so the claims that nearer perfection this wouldn't cause harm is a groundless claim due to the fact that nature doesn't allow it. NOW if you gonna claim that perfection is real, then you need to concede you are believing this against all the evidence and more important because its validates your faith, whihc means your view if no more valid that that of a buddhist or pagan.
One final point on this matter, your statement as the laws were not in place, i would understand from that that this is reference to the exodus commandants not being given at this time, if so my comment would be, did that mean before the 10 commandments murder, rape and incest were something that were permitted by God?
So my final points about DNA, sorry i was a little vague, but here is the issue about the records in our DNA, from the gnome project and extended project since a DNA map of our origin has been laid out
National geographic march 2006 DNA linking to every human in the earth can be traced back to central Africa as you know, now are their some tribes there that although have been isolated from civilisation until now, are shown o be are ancestors and their are the same, (their is a video of a documentary on your tube, although cant find the reference which i will post which explains this in great detail from the leads scientist in this project)
Now if Noah had restarted the human race ( and his sons) what would we expect to find in our DNA well, a areas close to where the ark rested of people sharing DNA that is present is all living humans, but this is not the case, you need to travel much further into Africa and more importantly much further back in time. i will try and find the NG march 2006 on line for you to read, i only have it in written form , although i would be happy to photocopy it for you and send them to you.
Also again you statement about in never rained before the flood again is a statement that is faith based, the evidence opposes this completely, that as well as the suggested water canopy http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
As so far as your statement about being anointed and have spoken to god, doesn't it concern you that so many other claims exactly the same but with different Gods, and let they all believe to the point of death some of them that their experience is true and their god is the only true God.

MY final comment about your post, and firstly let me thank you for spending the time is this:
Many claim to see Elvis on a daily basis, we tend to lock them up, why?
The light is something many in all different beliefs see, and to statement that yours is the correct ones is groundless as all the other claims the same, now, think of it this way, God in the OT ordered the death of over 2.5 million people, for his people and his nation, a nation that he no longer cares about, so all those people died in vain. God in the OT had no problems killing children ( a quick read of Lev,deut & number ). SO if you want to service a god that i Happy to create you then visit the mistake of your forefather's on you time and again (i.,e Adam) i would hope you don't punish your children's children for the father mistakes, and if you don't, does that make you more moral that the God you serve?
I did believe, I was a regular pioneer for many years, and did as i was told and stay away from anything that could damage my faith. Then I saw a gaping whole in the entire biblical story and the more i looked into it the bigger it came. .
Again thanks for taking the time to post, and sorry i can't do that clever thing with including your posts in my post...i will learn!..lol
regards

Steve
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Hi Steve,
Unfortunately my newness to the board, i have no idea how to do quotes from your post and able to post my comment under neither, so please bear with me.
It's easy. Just highlight the text you want in quotes and then click on the "white cloud" next to the smiling face in the tool bar and it will put what you highlighted in a quote. But obviously, that's after the text gets on your page. Thus you must block and copy what you want to quote and then paste that into your new REPLY post. Then you can do as I noted above to make a quote. I'll explain further if that wasn't understandable -- you never know how much computer experience a person has.

"But some things are to be believed in by faith. "
Not so, things that require faith ( look up the definition of faith, are things that run contrary to evidence and logic an reasoning, now as God apparently gave us these tools doesn't it seem strange to them ask us to suspend them. Faith is a trump card that can be played any any religion to justify its dogma,,,,, i.e it requires faith to believe that Mohammad went up to heaven on a white horse. even though some claims a hoof print on a certain temple roof is evidence of this.

It may indeed be a trump card, but I think there is "blind faith" and "faith" that has some foundation. But still, one is required to have faith in some things the Bible says that you are not going to get a video confirmation of. Some people don't believe a thing unless they see it themselves, which excludes everything in the past that happened before they were born. So yes, it could be a trump card for some, but I think that's a wide range. I can't PROVE what Abraham said. The Bible says he said some things. I trust the Bible so have "faith" that it's true. "Faith is not a possesion of all people."

OK next point,
"But it's a moot question now because I've actually had an experience where I spoke with God personally, so I'm sort of out of that loop."
My question is how do you know that wasn't Satan just pretending to be God to fool you into leaving the 'real' religion? and also your claim is echoed by thousands of others in a variety of different religions throughout the world,. a great many claims it to be Allah, so just because someone tells you they are God, doesn't mean that they are. I will concede that the bible does contain some historical evidence, however a Book from a god that created the universe would need to be far different, and certainly the bible when read from a critical standpoint, shows it human failing, in matters of science, geography etc etc, something i would expect the god of the universe being the inventor of those things would be Right on the mark.
You make a good point. But again, it's just my own collective assessment that this is a real god AND the god of the Bible. He had features that were mentioned in the Bible, so there was some consistency. For instance the Bible says God has wooly hair. My god had what we'd call today a "natural", a rather medium-sized rounded one, finely combed. So when I saw that, it registered, "Oh, yeah, hair like 'fine wool' that's how they described it when others saw it. So again, people will question and doubt but I'm convinced it was real and this was the God of the Bible.

OK next issue.
"Eve was made from Adam's rib, so I would say she was a bit closer than a sister. "
Complete statement of faith..period, considering this 'Eve' and bear in mind their is no evidence for a Eden eve, came from Adam which of come again a statement of faith. Yes their is a evidence for a ultimate what is called mtEve eve, but this is not to be confused with the eve of the bible, i would go into detail here but go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
Aha! You are wanting PROOF before you believe. Jesus said, "“A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jo´nah the prophet." So I admit there are those who doubt and first want to see some proof before they believe the Bible. Others believe the Bible first and then check to see if there is anything that can absolutely disprove it. So there are two groups. But now, of late, those who first had faith, those thus who had "much" are given "more." The signs that perhaps would convince the nonbelievers are given to those who already believe. That's how it is set up. In fact, God has made it so that even if you knew the details it would be too hard to believe:
" 41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’ ”
I think some people think God owes them some somersaults and magic tricks before they believe the Bible. It's not like. It's more like if you show a tendency to doubt and disbelieve the Bible, especially when no sign beyond the Bible basically is to be given, then God is really just interested in those people who can accommodate the Bible, have faith and then he gives them more confidence that what they believe is true. But for those who reject from the beginning and don't want to believe, God casts them into darkness, leads them to a steep cliff and then Jesus comes up from behind and pushes them over. So while yes, there is an intense effort to gather a certain type of individual into the kingdom and there may need to be some persuasion, there is little interest in another type, the "weeds", the "goats." They are like chaff on the threshing floor which Christ cleans up. So those without the right garments don't get into the kingdom and some that might get in by accident and found lacking are thrown outside.
OK rich dark sailor has nothing to do with adman skin colour, pigmentation and soil colour are apart as far apart as saying fire is hot water ( oilthigh i would say they are probably closer) Are we originally from dust,,well kind of, we are made up of basic compound , hence we are sometimes reference to as carbon life forms.
Adam being MALE and from the EARTH (dark brown) and dominant and Eve being FEMALE and from the bone white bone of Adam is an esoteric reference that Eve was "bone white" and Adam was the color of the earth, red/brown. So you are free to reject that interpretation if you wish. It seems reasonable since genetics breaks down genes into dominant and recessive genes that the male would carry the dominant genes and the female the recessive ones. That's where that comes from.
Your comment about Eve is purely speculative, and actually the blue eye reference is incorrect as all human are start with brown eyes and a error in causes the blue eye effect. So suggesting that would be claiming that God created EVE with errors from day one. http://www.earthlife.net/insects/evolve.html about half way down the page, their are better information resources but from this it gives you an overview of how eye color is determined and why the idea of an Eve with blue eyes is false.
Everybody knows who studies genetics that brown eyes are dominant compared to blue eyes. Brown skin is dominant compared to white skin. It's academic. For instance. If you have one black man and one white man, 200 white women and 200 black women. If the black man marries all the white women, all the children will be mullato. If the white man marries all the black women, all the children will be mullato. The black genes are dominant compared to white. That's what "ethnic cleansing" is all about. The only way a white man can foster a whilte child is with a white woman. Any children he has with any woman other than a white woman will be non-white. A black man will always have black children no matter whom he marries. His children will always be black, no matter what. Blonde hair, pale skin and blue eyes are all considered "recessive" genes compared to dark hair, curly hair or brown eyes. That's just the facts of genetics.
Your comment about incest, sates in effect that morality is relative and if God allows incest one day and out laws it the other, then you have this scenario, Murder is wrong today, but tomorrow if god says its OK , then its no longer wrong.
Well now you're getting philosophical here. Satan likes philosophical arguments. God is defined by the "four living creatures" and Christ has the dominant features of the bull (power/virility) and the man (love), whereas Satan (before he rebelled) carried the primary features of the eagle (wisdom/knowledge) and the Lion (justice/legal issues). So Satan brings up some of the same issues. For instance, in order to get rid of Satan, God decided to just kill everybody, including his primary son, Jesus/Michael. That removes any "legal" issues, because God has a right to limit the lifespan of his gift of life. If he kills everybody, then there is no legal challenge. But Satan didn't like this idea so to mock God, Satan inspired infantacide, where worshippers caused their children to "pass through the fire" just as God made all his children "pass through the fire" as well to test them. This turned out an effective means to get rid of Satan, however, without hearing any long, drawn-out legal and philosophical arguments from Satan, though some were permitted at the time of the "battle in heaven" during which I was present via a vision. But it turns out Satan got tricked. You see, God created man with laws to abide by with the penalty of death for disobedience. But death is a relative thing, just as you brought up "murder". Murder is actually a LEGAL term. Killing someone is the actual act, but whether it is murder or not depends on the circumstances. Killing in self defense is not considered murder. When the state executes someone, it is not considered "murder." At any rate, the penalty of death is a subjective thing as well. Because it is only an incredibly horrid thing if you never come back. But if you come back the next day, it's not that big of a deal, is it? That's how God tricked Satan. Satan was willing to die for his cause, but so was Jesus for God's cause. As long as everybody was going to die, that made Satan happy. But he got tricked because God decided he would bring certain of his favorites back to life, making their death only temporary. So ultimately, it's just a little pain. Like a bruise in the heel. Permanent death is like a bruise in the head of a serpent. By the way, Satan was condemned to death not necessarily because of any of his issues he had against god, perhaps similar to yours where you see God's inconsistencies here and there. It was because no matter what Satan was going through, however unhappy or justified, what excuse was there to extend that to mankind and kill billions of innocent people? None. That's where the line was drawn. Satan was the ultimate hypocrit. He was unwilling to die honorably if that was his philosophical position. No instead, he had to kill others in order to hurt God and Christ, thinking he would force god to be consistent with his own laws. He was. Mankind was condemned to death, but Satan at the same time. Only with the Ransom Sacrifice, all those who might have been granted everlasting life, will have that chance again, regardless of what Satan has done.
That's why really, with this second-chance, God views rather prejudicially at someone who would throw away their own life, seeking to find fault with God and his decisions. So for those, those who are looking at the LEGAL issues, yes God comes through. Ultimately I call that group those who believe that "Might Makes Right." If that's what someone wishes, then fine. God has the power, the ultimate power to follow-up on his moral code, so Might Does Make Right, if one insists. Likewise, the LEGAL premise here is does God have a right to create the universe the way he wants if it's his universe.
It's like you. You buy a house. It's a nice house with a nice yard. You decide you will make a rose garden. So you dig up the earth and find the roses you want to plant in it and make it just as you wish. That's the privilege of owning a home, right? But then what if your neighbor looks over the fence and starts criticizing your choices? Or while you're inside looking at Oprah, comes over and pulls up your roses and puts in some marijuana plants that he likes without your permission. What are you going to do? Say, "Oh, wow! If I had known you didn't like roses I would never have planted them. I see you've planted some weed so I guess I'll just have to accept that." Is that what you would do? I don't think so. That's the legal premise in regard to the universe. Ultimately, whether we like it or not, God has a right to do what he pleases.
But because he also understands freedom of choice increases happiness, he made angels and man free moral agents, so that those who liked his way of running the universe would be happier because they chose that. There is a built-in understanding that there is going to be a failure rate for some. In the heavens that was one-third of the angels. But that was a sacrifice god was willing to make in order that the two-thirds that remained BY CHOICE would be at a higher level of hapiness.
Now technically, someone like Satan would say: That's no real choice! And maybe it's not. But if you are given something that you know already that you would have chosen, then why do you care? The government has sentenced me because of speaking about the Bible. As punishment, I will be sent to Hawaii and made to go to the beach everyday and shop and spend at least $100 every day on the homeless. Oh WOW, what a penalty to pay! I'm a slave! On the other hand, I already had on a Hawaiian shirt and my surf board packed so, I ain't gonna complain. The government then comes to me and says, "hey, we reviewed your case and you can appeal." I say, "Ohhhhh, nooooo, thanks, but no appeal! I think the court were just and I deserve this penalty for what I did! I plead guilty and I'd only repeat my offenses, so send me to Hawaii to get what I deserve!!!" It's great. It is said that true freedom does not exist without responsibility.
This unfortunalty leads you into a paradox about morality and god and it is this
For you. Not for me. And that might be the issue with the one-third of the angels who rebelled. They had issues with this god. I'm sure he was disappointed to some extent, but it's not an issue. God basically acquiesces and says, okay. Create your own universe and do what you want. But in mine, this is what I prefer so I'm just exercising my divine right. Hope you don't mind. But without LIFE, there is nothing. So it's rather nice if one is the sort of person that really likes this particular god and the way he does things. But he's not everybody's cup of tea.
God has the type of personality, if I might just say quite superficially, of someone who will just walk up to you and get involved with your personal business. For instance, you're in a bar, sitting alone drinking your drink, and all of a sudden this extremely gregarious person comes over and starts talking to you, complementing you and starts to get into your personal affairs. Some people hate that type of individual. But I like that type of person with the outgoing personality. I collect people like that in my life. But I'm careful not to mix more than one at the same dinner table. They are the kind of people who have charm and are fun and can't just deal with the people at their own table, but has to be involved with the table next to them. It's starts with a nice compliment, then asking them what they are having, then recommending what to have, while everybody else just sits back in wonderment. But generally feels its entertaining. It might seem entrusive to some, but suddenly, dinner is an event! Some people can't stand people like that, but others don't mind. Now I'm not like that generally, I tend to be shy and quiet but not all the time. I'm the kind of person, for some reason, if we're in Vegas and you hit a jackpot, I come over to experience it with you and congratulate you. That irritates the hell out of some people who didn't ask for that. But some people don't mind and wish you luck! So it DOES depend upon what you like. Satan is this stuck-up, upper class diva kind of person who doesn't want to give you the time of day and would be insulted is approached by someone not invited. Some people have that "common touch" so that everybody, rich or poor, just likes them. But some people who are jealous of that, don't like that type of person and feel they are treading on their space.
Does God say something is wrong because it is wrong or does he say its wrong just because God deems it to be wrong?
It's God's choice. He decides. It's his yard, his universe, his right. So its like a good marriage. It's all in the match-up. Some people who are boring to one is simply amazing and fascinating to another.

Now,
if you say things are wrong because God says so , then morality has no value, because right or wrong can be anything, God changes his mind and all of sudden Murder is OK...or incest. whihc makes morality shallow.
Well, I wouldn't say that. If anything, God is consistent with his own program. Though he does trip up people he doesn't like. So one thing that is important, if you want life, is to find out as much as you can about this god and what he likes and what buttons to avoid for the things he doesn't like.
NOW the claims about perfection again is pure faith statement, no examples in nature exist or any evidence does, so the claims that nearer perfection this wouldn't cause harm is a groundless claim due to the fact that nature doesn't allow it. NOW if you gonna claim that perfection is real, then you need to concede you are believing this against all the evidence and more important because its validates your faith, whihc means your view if no more valid that that of a buddhist or pagan.
I have supernatural proof that my god is real: This is the "sign of the son of man" that appears to the anointed. God displayed this to a skyscape photographer so I'd have a photo of it. If a Budhist or Catholic came up with something like this, I'd be impressed.

I have no doubt my god is real and the god of the Bible. This imagery relates to things in the Bible.
One final point on this matter, your statement as the laws were not in place, i would understand from that that this is reference to the exodus commandants not being given at this time, if so my comment would be, did that mean before the 10 commandments murder, rape and incest were something that were permitted by God?
ROFL! Where did murder and rape come in? I don't think rape was ever permitted by God and certainly the wrongness of murder were established when Cain killed Abel. So we are just talking about incest in the early times when the human family first started. God permitted incest at that time, but not later. But God's laws do change with the circumstances. For instance, once the world has reached population zero, obviously because people will not die, then there will be no need for marriage, no need for children. But also no need for the indiviual sexes. So while women are consider the "weaker vessel" compared to men, eventually everyone will be like the angels, being androgynous, with both sexes. And with no fidelity issues for marriage, you can have sex with whomever you want on the planet, every single individual. So laws against adultery will be banished, and since everybody will have the same sex, obviously everybody will be homosexual. See how that works? It's going to be a great time to be had by one and all!
So my final points about DNA, sorry i was a little vague, but here is the issue about the records in our DNA, from the gnome project and extended project since a DNA map of our origin has been laid out

National geographic march 2006 DNA linking to every human in the earth can be traced back to central Africa as you know, now are their some tribes there that although have been isolated from civilisation until now, are shown o be are ancestors and their are the same, (their is a video of a documentary on your tube, although cant find the reference which i will post which explains this in great detail from the leads scientist in this project)
Now if Noah had restarted the human race ( and his sons) what would we expect to find in our DNA well, a areas close to where the ark rested of people sharing DNA that is present is all living humans, but this is not the case, you need to travel much further into Africa and more importantly much further back in time. i will try and find the NG march 2006 on line for you to read, i only have it in written form , although i would be happy to photocopy it for you and send them to you.
Also again you statement about in never rained before the flood again
Yes, I would like to look at the information just out of curiosity. But obviously, certain presumptions are being made that don't fit the historical scenario presented in the Bible. So usually that means there is some unseen error the scientists are making or there are exceptions they can't see around. So it won't go that far. My position would be to look for an obvious explanation and suggest the theory be revised to accommodate what actually happened (what I believe actually happened). But I would like to see what information is there. But obviously, the anomalies or differences might have a very natural explanation. I wouldn't know.
is a statement that is faith based, the evidence opposes this completely, that as well as the suggested water canopy http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH310.html
First of all, tropical plants found under the artic ice is all the evidence needed to substantiate the canopy. My position is that it was solid ice and created sort of a glass bubble around the earth. There would be no pressure issues involved. Here's what your article noted:
1.
2.A vapor canopy with more than twelve inches of precipitable water would raise the temperature of the earth above boiling (Morton 1979). A vapor canopy of only four inches of water would raise the temperature of the earth to 144 degrees F. It is worth noting that several prominent creationists agree with this conclusion, yet their close colleagues continue to teach that there was a vapor canopy (Morton 2000).
3.A vapor canopy capable of producing the global flood would have increased earth's atmospheric pressure from 15 PSI to 970 PSI.
4.Some creationists try to solve the vapor canopy problems by moving the canopy out of the earth's atmosphere and into orbit. A canopy of orbiting ice would have been unstable (it could only exist in a ring much like Saturn's). It would have cooled the climate (probably just slightly) until it somehow collapsed to cause the flood. Then the release of its gravitational potential energy would have converted all the ice into superheated steam, not into a flood.
#1 and #2 are eliminated because the canopy was ice, so we need only to deal with #3. It says the ice would have been "unstable" but there is not enough specific information about how it was formed to make that presumption. He also suggests one scenario of some. My scenario is that it was solid ice, clear, that would let the sunlight through, and created the same effect as a greenhouse. From the time Noah entered the ark there were seven days before the rains started. I believe that the ice was being superheated at this time and formed rain clouds, think. Thus it was completely dark by the time it started raining. The clouds were think enough to rain for 40 days and 40 nights with enough water to cover the tops of the then known mountains. Whether they were as high as our current ones are not, I don't know. But the tallest mountain peak in the world is under water, even now. So we just don't know enough details. After the flood, the Bible says "winds" were used to help dissipate the water. That could include water spouts that funneled the excess water into outer space. And we know from comets that there is water in outer space because they are covered with ice. Again, as I noted, the tropical plants found under the ice in the artic is consistent with the earth being a tropical place all over which is consistent with the canopy.
As so far as your statement about being anointed and have spoken to god, doesn't it concern you that so many other claims exactly the same but with different Gods, and let they all believe to the point of death some of them that their experience is true and their god is the only true God.

Not really. What I have going for me, besides the physical evidence above for the "sign of the son of man", which is not just something that happened that I think was supernatural, but is mentioned in the Bible, but also the Bible itself and Bible chronology relates that these things would happen in our time. We are in a very unique time in Bible history. For instance, you may have heard of the 70 weeks. 70 weeks is 490 years. If you make up a week of 70 weeks, you'll have seven days that are 490 years each. So in a 3430-year period, you'll have a 7th-70th week. That is, you have one 70th week for each of the seven 490-year periods, but the 7th, which would be a repeat of the theme of sevens, occurs only once in 3430 years. Well the pattern of 70 weeks is FIXED, with the third day of this week being from 455BCE to 36CE, the 70 weeks related to the first coming. IF that is the third day, then the entire week would begin in 1435BCE, but it would end in 1996! So the 7th-70th week of this week is from 1989-1996. So if God starts talking to people during this week, especially in line with some things that are supposed to be happening at this time, then it adds to a person's personal belief that this is credible. 3430 years earlier takes you back to the time of Moses.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/jcovwk1996G.GIF The Jewish Covenant Week Chart.

MY final comment about your post, and firstly let me thank you for spending the time is this:
Many claim to see Elvis on a daily basis, we tend to lock them up, why?
Because they are likely hallucinating, that's why. But in the case of God, some people look out and see the stars and know from that that there must be a god since they see intelligent design and a "BIG BANG" accident just seems less likely to them. Since the Bible's gives an explanation of what we see today, the plants and animals and man, etc. There is reason to consider it might be God's book. It's a judgment call, but for me personally, I have more reason to believe the Bible is true than simply a book of stories of the Jewish people that has no basis in truth. But on that point, even if Armageddon came, which is prophesied in the Bible, you still could claim that nothing in the Bible is true, since Armageddon wouldn't really PROVE that Adam and Eve ever existed. But it would add credibility to the story.
The light is something many in all different beliefs see, and to statement that yours is the correct ones is groundless as all the other claims the same, now, think of it this way, God in the OT ordered the death of over 2.5 million people, for his people and his nation, a nation that he no longer cares about, so all those people died in vain. God in the OT had no problems killing children ( a quick read of Lev,deut & number ). SO if you want to service a god that i Happy to create you then visit the mistake of your forefather's on you time and again (i.,e Adam) i would hope you don't punish your children's children for the father mistakes, and if you don't, does that make you more moral that the God you serve?
Your take on this is interesting. But in God's defense as far the the legal premise. Yes God does bring the error of the parents on the children, but that rule was necessary to apply the Ransom Sacrifice. Thus though through one man all mankind had sinned, it would only take the death of one righteous man to correct that. So while we inherit sin from Adam, we inherit a second chance by Christ's death. If God did not bring the sin upon the children, he could not save them through the Ransom Sacrifice. So you have a choice. To bring the error of the parents onto the children and let all 20 billion children of Adam die without a chance. Or create a rule that connects the error of the father to the children and save them through the ransom sacrifice? As I said, in this way, only one perfect man had to die and give up his right to have his own children and adopt Adam's to save mankind. But that is not possible until the error of the parent is applied to the children. Even the Holocaust mimics what the Jewis women were doing thousands of years ago. They were burning children alive so a time would come when their children in the distant future would experience the same thing. So the message there is that if God would do this to his own people, the Jews, then certainly he's not going to give the gentile rebels any slack. He starts with his own house first and works outward. So the wrath of God is coming and it is a sure thing, just as sure as the holocaust was long ago prophesied.

I did believe, I was a regular pioneer for many years, and did as i was told and stay away from anything that could damage my faith. Then I saw a gaping whole in the entire biblical story and the more i looked into it the bigger it came. .
Again thanks for taking the time to post, and sorry i can't do that clever thing with including your posts in my post...i will learn!..lol
regards
I didn't realize you were a pioneer! Wow! So was I at one point. So I know about that. I can understand your doubts and all that and I don't have much of an answer other than the closer we get to Armageddon the more things the Bible says will affect people on a global level. Right now things are happening in a focussed way with the anointed, with the Jews and with Jehovah's witnesses, but that will expand. Soon Babylon the Great will be affected and that will involve the destruction of all the organized religions, and then after that the political entities ruling today will be destroyed and Christ's kingdom will take over. Now if that really happened, I think most people would not question anything that's in the Bible. But it's great if you can believe before that. I'm glad I'm one who was able to have faith. But I'm quite curious and skeptical in the opposite direction. Just as you doubt the Bible, I doubt anything that is contrary to the Bible, including often mistaken scientists and their theories.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate understanding your point of view. I'm sure you represent a certain demographic out there. A sort of skeptical and frustrated demongraphic trying to sort out everything. It's not easy. But I wouldn't give up hope or close my eyes. Just keep on the watch and don't go to sleep. Our times are too urgent!
JCanon

 
Terry
Terry 9 years ago

Eve was made from Adam's rib, so I would say she was a bit closer than a sister. I don't know all the DNA rules, but esoterically, Adam carried the dominant genes we find in all the different "races" today and eve the recessive ones. Adam came from the earth, the rich dark soil, so he would have been dark with Asiatic features. Eve would have been fair, blond, blue-eyed. All the varieties of mankind fall within those two extremes. Even when Adam said, "You will become the mother of everyone living" seems to be something a black man would say to a white woman, because so many of her children would not be white.
Do you ever go back and read the things you put out here for others to read?
How can we take you seriously when your chain of reasoning is aberrant?
If you present the above as logic how can we take anything you say seriously?
Do you just say the first thing that comes into your mind and go with it?
Talking to God, meeting him and such certainly qualifies you for serious consideration. However, none of us here are psychiatrists, so; we can't give the kind of consideration necessary to your treatment.
What would seem to be a proper diagnosis? I haven't the academic credentials to say for sure.

Diagnostic criteria: Narcissistic personality disorder
At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD):
1.has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2.is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3.believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
4.requires excessive admiration
5.strong sense of entitlement
6.takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7.lacks empathy
8.is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
9.arrogantaffect.
The length of your perorations demonstrate a confused and bewildered concentration with scarcely a lucid moment of actual sober analysis.
For example. Please show us all here and now how your mind functions by parsing your reasoning process on this quotation:
Adam came from the earth, the rich dark soil, so he would have been dark with Asiatic features. Eve would have been fair, blond, blue-eyed.
Wikipedia: Adam's name is a reference to red earth or red clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'.
Enlighten us, please!
If you can't, then; explain why the ravings of person in love with his own brain-spew should merit consideration as any kind of authority deserving of attention?
 
Terry
Terry 9 years ago

But in God's defense as far the the legal premise. Yes God does bring the error of the parents on the children, but that rule was necessary to apply the Ransom Sacrifice. Thus though through one man all mankind had sinned, it would only take the death of one righteous man to correct that. So while we inherit sin from Adam, we inherit a second chance by Christ's death.
Justice. Where is Justice?
If God has a perfect standard and adheres to His own standard that is Justice.
Holding people accountable for their behavior is justice.
Getting what you deserve is Justice.
Grace is unwarranted favor; unmerited and undeserved.
To let humanity off the hook is no more Justice than attributing sin to them at birth!
The wages of sin is Death, right? Adam DIED and paid his DEBT.
So, how is it Justice to hold Adam's children responsible for a Debt which Adam paid already??
It isn't.
The entire premise of the Bible, Salvation and God's righteous standards falls into ruins because there is no Justice demonstrable.
Punishing Adam is Justice. Punishing humanity is injustice.
Punishing a sinless man (Jesus) is injustice.
The whole thing reeks.
 
nvrgnbk
nvrgnbk 9 years ago


Punishing Adam is Justice. Punishing humanity is injustice.
Punishing a sinless man (Jesus) is injustice.
The whole thing reeks.
Four sentences.
More revealing and truthful than fifteen-hundred plus pages of revered ancient text.
The Bible is invalidated internally.
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago


The entire premise of the Bible, Salvation and God's righteous standards falls into ruins because there is no Justice demonstrable.
Punishing Adam is Justice. Punishing humanity is injustice.
Punishing a sinless man (Jesus) is injustice.
The whole thing reeks.
I can see your point, but you don't understand the the big picture, I don't believe.
Think in terms of mankind at the time being MINOR CHILDREN. They repeat the result of their parent's status until they are independent of them and on their own. So it was the minor, unborn children of Adam that suffered from Adam's sin because they were unborn. If they had been born already and of the age of majority, what Adam did would not have affected them.
The Ransom Sacrifice of Christ is, from a legal perspective, exchanged at the unborn level. Christ exchanges all his potential unborn children for those of Adam, that then gives them a right to grow up and be judged on their invididual basis. So in the end, on Judgment Day, all are judged individually as adults, but they benefit from being the adopted children of Jesus, which removes the sin Adam dumped on them.
So everything is quite fair. This is basically a rescue mission, done with all the advantages, which is saving righteous mankind (not the wicked, who would have died anyway) and getting rid of Satan and all those who would rebel and cause trouble. The tough standards are in place partly to make sure that Satan and everyone like Satan who would cause a disturbance of the peace is eliminated. So those who are part of this arrangement don't Judge God's methods, but trusts that this was the best way for all concerned.
JCanon
 
nvrgnbk
nvrgnbk 9 years ago

JCanon:
but you don't understand the the big picture
Terry:

Diagnostic criteria: Narcissistic personality disorder
At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD):
1.has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2.is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3.believes that he or she is " special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
4.requires excessive admiration
5.strong sense of entitlement
6.takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7.lacks empathy
8.is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
9.arrogant affect .
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
wherehasmyhairgone
wherehasmyhairgone 9 years ago

Jcanon,
Thank you for your reply. and also the quoting advise , hopefully this will work in this post now.
Ok,
It may indeed be a trump card, but I think there is "blind faith" and "faith" that has some foundation. But still, one is required to have faith in some things the Bible says that you are not going to get a video confirmation of. Some people don't believe a thing unless they see it themselves, which excludes everything in the past that happened before they were born. So yes, it could be a trump card for some, but I think that's a wide range. I can't PROVE what Abraham said. The Bible says he said some things. I trust the Bible so have "faith" that it's true. "Faith is not a possession of all people."
Faith has nothing to do with being able to see something or not. Faith as defined http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Now this doesn't mean things you can not see. i.e i can not see the electrons in my PC but i do not need faith in order to know they are there. People who will believe in nothing they can not see are being just a dogmatic as those who claims a higher insight. The claims to be from God, its claims to be written from God, but this is just circular logic i hope you can see that. Forget what Abraham said, how about whether Abraham actually exisited, again outside of the bible their is no evidence of his existence. So you need faith ( which is a belief without evidence) that Abraham exisited. Now bear in mind evidence is not necessarily something you can see or observes directly it can also be indirect evidence.
You make a good point. But again, it's just my own collective assessment that this is a real god AND the god of the Bible. He had features that were mentioned in the Bible, so there was some consistency. For instance the Bible says God has wooly hair. My god had what we'd call today a "natural", a rather medium-sized rounded one, finely combed. So when I saw that, it registered, "Oh, yeah, hair like 'fine wool' that's how they described it when others saw it. So again, people will question and doubt but I'm convinced it was real and this was the God of the Bible.
I am slightly at a loss at this statement, except for the scripture that says no man has ever seen God. And God on one hands according to you need you to have faith and believe in him without any evidence and on the other hand then reveals himself to you, so why to you and not to everyone else? ( I am sure you do not know Gods mind) But why doesn't just reveal himself to everyone then everyone will believe, in fact if he is all powerful, why not just make everyone able to believe he exists, its certainly doesn't affect this issue of sovereignty in the bible.

Aha! You are wanting PROOF before you believe.
You say that like its a bad thing! Wanting proof for something when that something defies logic and reason ( apparent God given qualities) proof gives us the ability to evaluate the claims, otherwise I can make a statement that I am God and am here on this board to show you all that you need to follow (insert relevant belief) no based on the idea that wanting proof is a negative trait then you 'have to' accept what i am saying and follow me. otherwise you are using you own reasoning to determine what i am saying is false.

That's how it is set up. In fact, God has made it so that even if you knew the details it would be too hard to believe:
" 41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’ ”
I think some people think God owes them some somersaults and magic tricks before they believe the Bible. It's not like. It's more like if you show a tendency to doubt and disbelieve the Bible, especially when no sign beyond the Bible basically is to be given, then God is really just interested in those people who can accommodate the Bible, have faith and then he gives them more confidence that what they believe is true. But for those who reject from the beginning and don't want to believe, God casts them into darkness, leads them to a steep cliff and then Jesus comes up from behind and pushes them over. So while yes, there is an intense effort to gather a certain type of individual into the kingdom and there may need to be some persuasion, there is little interest in another type, the "weeds", the "goats." They are like chaff on the threshing floor which Christ cleans up. So those without the right garments don't get into the kingdom and some that might get in by accident and found lacking are thrown outside.
If you want someone to follow you, would you make it impossible for them to believe in you? would a father wanting his child to believe he was his father, ensure that he never saw him, and all the evidence point away from him, then punish him with death because the son doesn't believe his father is who he claims he is. Doesn't that strike you as very sadistic?
There is a comment that says, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However as God apparently though out biblical claimed history regular suspended the natural laws to provide a miracle, But here the rub. So tomorrow too large feet come down from the sky and scientists can not explain this, and the voice says.. everyone on earth I am God and i need you to know that the true religion that represents me is Islam. NOW what would happen? I would put money on the fact that Muslims would become unbearable to live with, and every other religion would denounce this as a work of the devil, why, because proof and evidence is not the concern of religion it is what feels right to the individual. Now your comment about God being only interested in people who can accommodate the bible, the kinds of qualities that require this are, the ability to believe in something because someone says so, an unquestioning disposition, to name a few. But reason and logic's things that gives us the ability to create morality are considered bad traits by this reasoning.
Adam being MALE and from the EARTH (dark brown) and dominant and Eve being FEMALE and from the bone white bone of Adam is an esoteric reference that Eve was "bone white" and Adam was the color of the earth, red/brown. So you are free to reject that interpretation if you wish. It seems reasonable since genetics breaks down genes into dominant and recessive genes that the male would carry the dominant genes and the female the recessive ones. That's where that comes from.
You have no basis other than a personal opinion in this. I do not need to interpret this at all, the bible make no claims as to the skin color of adman or eve. Dominant and recessive genes have nothing to do with what you are proposing here. I will make available the article i mentioned and provide some other references over the next few days for you to understand the way in whihc DNA traits are seen.
Well now you're getting philosophical here. Satan likes philosophical arguments. God is defined by the "four living creatures" and Christ has the dominant features of the bull (power/virility) and the man (love), whereas Satan (before he rebelled) carried the primary features of the eagle (wisdom/knowledge) and the Lion (justice/legal issues). So Satan brings up some of the same issues. For instance, in order to get rid of Satan, God decided to just kill everybody, including his primary son, Jesus/Michael. That removes any "legal" issues, because God has a right to limit the lifespan of his gift of life. If he kills everybody, then there is no legal challenge. But Satan didn't like this idea so to mock God, Satan inspired infantacide, where worshippers caused their children to "pass through the fire" just as God made all his children "pass through the fire" as well to test them. This turned out an effective means to get rid of Satan, however, without hearing any long, drawn-out legal and philosophical arguments from Satan, though some were permitted at the time of the "battle in heaven" during which I was present via a vision. But it turns out Satan got tricked
I am not quoting everything you said here ( to save space on this post)
Your comment implies that God 'IS' right and wrong. This then means our morality has no value. Which means the only reason you do not commit incest is cause God now says its wrong. Likewise you do not kill as God says it wrong, but if he said it was OK, you would do it. Legal issues have nothing to do with this matter. Your comment highlight to me the real problem with what religion does to our species. It cheapens life, so the line goes, Well if we die its ok we can come back. Which paves the way for martyrdom etc etc.
There is no evidence , and never has been for anything after death, however this is a very convenient way for belief systems to grown their flock so but their faith above their own life. What sicken me so much was Abraham and Issac story, the fact that Abraham heard a voice in his head ( or maybe saw what he assumed to be god) and this apparent loving God told him to kill his son, and without question was going to it, and then he is held up as an example. So if Abraham had said, I am not going to kill my son, a loving God would never say that it must be the devil saying this, would this give him good morals.
I can name a lot of people nowadays that are quite willing to believe killing innocent people because they think God is telling them to do so, Yes just like Abraham. That is why this personal relationship with a God is so dangerous, I hold Abraham up as a good example of how not behaviour. I would rather be killed myself that to kill my own son, but apparently according to the bible that would make me unfaithful. The bible is immoral.

Does God say something is wrong because it is wrong or does he say its wrong just because God deems it to be wrong?
It's God's choice. He decides. It's his yard, his universe, his right. So its like a good marriage. It's all in the match-up. Some people who are boring to one is simply amazing and fascinating to another.
Then morality is invalid, as morality is hinged on the day to day whim of a God, God has been anything but consistent with his morals, First incest ( he could have just created more humans in the first place you know) then outlaws it. Allow man to develop his own sense of morality...murder is wrong. Then commend someone like moses to go back into the certain nations and kill the male children as well. That sickens me. God in the OT practices ethic cleansing on a scale that is shameful. New born and young killed who are innocent , and the argument comes back well he will resurrected them, then why create them in the first place. God see no problem in allowing new born and young infant experience the horrible death of drowning ( as in the flood) suffering to God is something that doesn't both him. But in the same breath commands his people about that Way they cut their beard or the food they eat. Bi-polar is the word that comes to mind. God-in the OT is anything but loving and kind.
Your picture you included, i have no idea what it is meant to show, i personally can't see anything, so can you elaborate or something.
My scenario is that it was solid ice, clear, that would let the sunlight through, and created the same effect as a greenhouse.
physics wouldn't allow that to happen period. clear ice! at that height and solid, for that weight it would need into in orbit, then for it to reenter the earth it would heat up, and that amount of water would have boiled off the oceans. The flood is a physical impossibility period.
Yes you are free to believe anything you want, but if that belief flies in the face of all the evidence to the con try then you are deluding yourself. That is not faith that is delusion


Many claim to see Elvis on a daily basis, we tend to lock them up, why?
Because they are likely hallucinating, that's why.
So that is also possible with ones who claim to see God. The explanation of God gives no such explanation of why we see things today. I feel God is the lazy man answer to everything.... don't know how someone happened...oh ok God did it.
So on that assumption God created out beautiful world, but also, the virus, the incests that can kill with one bite, also radiation that can kill us, asteroids that can wipe out life on earth, poises gases that can kill us and the list goes on.
But in God's defense as far the the legal premise. Yes God does bring the error of the parents on the children, but that rule was necessary to apply the Ransom Sacrifice. Thus though through one man all mankind had sinned, it would only take the death of one righteous man to correct that. So while we inherit sin from Adam, we inherit a second chance by Christ's death. If God did not bring the sin upon the children, he could not save them through the Ransom Sacrifice.
Bearing in mind God created the who sin thing in the first place, he could just forgive us you know, but he made the rutles didn't he, he determined that all men must now die because of Adam, he determined that children are born for just a few weeks to die a horrible death because of birth defects.. Remember God apparently has the power to stop these things but allow then to continue ..why to prove a point that the only reason , to show how man cant rule himself. Anyone who can watch a baby die of a disease and have the power to heal that baby and doesn't is a very bad person.
The Ransom doesn't even make sense if you sit down and think it through. but that right don't think, have faith...no thanks.
The end of mankind may be close, and it may be brought on my some religious lunatics, but God stepping it,, i don't think so. if he exisited then i would like the chance to tell him how he let mankind down.

Kind regards

Steve
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago


Diagnostic criteria: Narcissistic personality disorder
At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD):
1.has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2.is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3.believes that he or she is " special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
4.requires excessive admiration
5.strong sense of entitlement
6.takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7.lacks empathy
8.is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
9.arrogant affect .
Oh that fits me perfectly! Only you forgot ego creates cloud art to help support claims of divine communication. If you're gradiose enough you can actually cause photographs to materilize with your ego!


JCanon


 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago


Wikipedia: Adam's name is a reference to red earth or red clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'.
Enlighten us, please!
If you can't, then; explain why the ravings of person in love with his own brain-spew should merit consideration as any kind of authority deserving of attention?
Have you seen any red people? Have you seen dark brown people? The color of fertile soil? "From dust you are and to dust you will return." From the Blueletter Bible:



'adamah

Pronunciation
ad·ä·mä' (Key)
 
Part of Speech
feminine noun

Root Word (Etymology)
from H119
 
TWOT Reference
25b

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) ground, land
a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
b) piece of ground, a specific plot of land
c) earth substance (for building or constructing)
d) ground as earth's visible surface
e) land, territory, country
f) whole inhabited earth
g) city in Naphtali
JCanon
Now that I checked, not a single use of the word for adama is used in the context of red. When "red" or "ruddy" is implied another form of the word is used. So it may be related or incidental, I can't tell. But certainly with its obvious usage earth or ground is a primary reference more than "red". So the term might have a double meaning, "Adam" referencing being from the earth primarily and from the ground, not necessarily specifically related to "red clay". Fertile, rich soil tends not to be hard clay but rich and dark brown, sometimes nearly black.
Interesting. Thanks for the reference!!!

JCanon
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
i've been thinking about this for quite a while and i'm not exactly sure how the best way of putting it out there, so if it seems like i'm blabbering at points, i more then likely am and i'm sorry.
i'm kind of merging two different thoughts together, historical info i got from the book, "the bible unearthed" and personal research and discussions with others regarding "el".. el obviously played an important part in early hebrew language as it was their word for "god".
but, el was a caananite god, and to them the god of all gods, supreme god father of all things and humankind.



Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Crazyguy
Biblical clues to what God the Jews worshipped
by Crazyguy 2 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/139354/el-vs-yhwh-el-into-yhwh-those-whove-read-bible-unearthed?page=2&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
/  





 

El vs. YHWH or El into YHWH. for those who've read "The Bible Unearthed"
by kwintestal 9 years ago 43 Replies latest 9 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20
nvrgnbk
nvrgnbk 9 years ago

What the hell do you see in those clouds?
Wait...I know...only the chosen ones...those with faith...have the required discernment.
 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago


What the hell do you see in those clouds?
Wait...I know...only the chosen ones...those with faith...have the required discernment.
Not at all. You could be having browser issues where you can't see the imagery. The cloud images are a tri-part message representing aspects of the second coming. It is something provided by Jehovah, likely to simply dismiss claims that I and others are just imagining everything totally, which would be a valid claim if there was not a great coming forth of more direct evidence at first. So when people claim we are all crazy or delusional, we throw the photo in their faces and ask how did our imaginations come up with this cloud art? The fact that others have seen it is verified by the semi-subliminal imagery found in the "Revelation" book, which appeared I think in 1989, long before the photo was taken on December 26, 1998, the 6th anniversary (7th appearance) of the sign since the second coming. The image shows the face of a sleeping black child accompanied by a bird, which you can see in the imagery in the Revelation Book, below. The claim is that all the anointed see it and understand it, and this would confirm it. Obviously, the sleeping black face appearing in the palm of Jesus links this directly with the messiah.
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 9 years ago


 
JCanon
JCanon 9 years ago

Great discussion, everybody. I'll comment further when I finished seeing the complete video.
JCanon
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
i've been thinking about this for quite a while and i'm not exactly sure how the best way of putting it out there, so if it seems like i'm blabbering at points, i more then likely am and i'm sorry.
i'm kind of merging two different thoughts together, historical info i got from the book, "the bible unearthed" and personal research and discussions with others regarding "el".. el obviously played an important part in early hebrew language as it was their word for "god".
but, el was a caananite god, and to them the god of all gods, supreme god father of all things and humankind.



Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Crazyguy
Biblical clues to what God the Jews worshipped
by Crazyguy 2 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 11-22-2015 WT Study (God Loves us?)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/139354/el-vs-yhwh-el-into-yhwh-those-whove-read-bible-unearthed?page=3&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Book Recommendation: The Bible Unearthed
/  





 

Book Recommendation: The Bible Unearthed
by GinnyTosken 15 years ago 15 Replies latest 4 years ago   jw friends
5
10
20
GinnyTosken
GinnyTosken 15 years ago


I recently finished reading The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Here is part of a review that drew my attention to the book:

The book reaches its conclusions from a huge array of archaeological evidence of different kinds, some quite clever, such as the analysis of camel bones; others representing new trends in field archaeology, such as settlement surveys. The Biblical narrative is always interpreted in the light of this physical evidence, producing the clear conclusion that the Bible was almost entirely written in the seventh century B.C., and revised or added to later, by a new political party, only sporadically in power over a polytheistic society, espousing a novel religious idea of monotheism and a unified kingship based on this. Most of the Bible is found to be legend or propaganda favoring that party or its agenda. The Israelites did not come from somewhere else, neither Ur nor Egypt, but are the same people who had been living there for millenia, not much different from any of their neighbors, like the Canaanites. This is pretty much accepted as fact by most experts.
The authors add to this, however, the more controversial position that in fact there was never even a united monarchy: according to their view, this was a deliberate invention serving the interests of some of the kings of Judah (spearheaded by the ambitious Josiah, whom the Bible depicts actually "discovering" the book of Deuteronomy) who dreamed of conquering the northern territory of Israel. Finally, the authors make sense of this theory by advancing their own addition that Judah was an undeveloped rural backwater throughout its history until after the downfall of Israel to the north at the hands of Assyrian conquerers. According to this view, had Israel, which was a far more developed and sophisticated civilization, survived to tell its own version of Jewish history, we would have a very different story.
Among my favorite chapters are "Searching for the Patriarchs" and "Did the Exodus Happen?" The authors present evidence that supports the Biblical accounts and evidence that raises some difficult questions. For example, an Egyptian historian named Manetho writes of a people he calls Hyksos who established themselves in the Nile delta and lived there for about 500 years. He says they were driven from Egypt to the frontiers of Syria and that this people went on to found Jerusalem and build a temple there. The problem is that the Bible dates the Exodus at around 1440 BCE, and the Hyksos were expelled around 1570 BCE. Also complicating matters is the Biblical reference to the Israelites' enforced labor in the construction of the city of Raamses. The first pharaoh named Ramesses came to the throne only in 1320 BCE.
If the authors are correct, their theory helps make sense of many Bible stories, particularly why repeatedly a younger son usually triumphs over an elder. When one realizes that these characters represented tribes and political struggles, the stories make much more sense.
Below is an excerpt for anyone who would like to sample this book. Information in [ ] has been added by me.
Ginny

The relationships of Israel [by Israel, the authors mean the northern 10-tribe kingdom] and Judah with their eastern neighbors are also clearly reflected in the patriarchal narratives. Through the eighth and seventh centuries BCE their contacts with the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab had often been hostile; Israel, in fact, dominated Moab in the early ninth century BCE. It is therefore highly significant--and amusing--how the neighbors to the east are disparaged in the patriarchal genealogies. Genesis 19:30-38 (significantly, a J text ["J" meaning the Jahvist thread, believed to have been influenced by southern priests from Judah]) informs us that those nations were born from an incestuous union. After God overthrew the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his two daughters sought shelter in a cave in the hills. The daughters, unable to find proper husbands in their isolated situation--and desperate to have children--served wine to their father until he became drunk. They then lay with him and eventually gave birth to two sons: Moab and Ammon. No seventh century Judahite looking across the Dead Sea toward the rival kingdoms would have been able to suppress a smile of contempt at a story of such a disreputable ancestry.
The biblical stories of the two brothers Jacob and Esau provide an even clearer case of seventh century perceptions presented in ancient costume. Genesis 25 and 27 (southern, J texts) tell us about the twins--Esau and Jacob--who are about to be born to Isaac and Rebecca. God says to the pregnant Rebecca: "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger" (25:23). As events unfold, we learn that Esau is the elder and Jacob the younger. Hence the description of the two brothers, the fathers of Edom and Israel, serves as a divine legitimation for the political relationship between the two nations in late monarchic times. Jacob-Israel is sensitive and cultured, while Esau-Edom is a more primitive hunter and man of the outdoors. But Edom did not exist as a distinct political entity until a relatively late period. From the Assyrian sources we know that there were no real kings and no state in Edom before the late eighth century BCE. Edom appears in ancient records as a distinct entity only after the conquest of the region by Assyria. And it became a serious rival to Judah only with the beginning of the lucrative Arabian trade. The archaeological evidence is also clear: the first large-scale wave of settlement in Edom accompanied by the establishment of large settlements and fortresses may have started in the late eighth century BCE but reached a peak only in the seventh and early sixth century BCE. Before then, the area was sparsely populated. And excavations at Bozrah--the capital of Late Iron II Edom--revealed that it grew to become a large city only in the Assyrian period.
Thus here too, the stories of Jacob and Esau--of the delicate son and the mighty hunter--are skillfully fashioned as archaizing legends to reflect the rivalries of late monarchic times.
 
Scorpion
Scorpion 15 years ago


Thanks Ginny,
This is interesting reading.
 
TR
TR 15 years ago


Thanks, Ginny. I'll have to pick up this book.
TR
 
uncle_onion
uncle_onion 15 years ago


Hi Ginny
Does the book make mention that th eSumerian legends were VERY similar to the Genesis account?
UO
 
Moridin
Moridin 15 years ago

I've been looking for this book for about six months now and haven't been able to find it in any of the local book stores. I'll probably have to get it online. Thanks for the excerpts.
 
patio34
patio34 15 years ago

Thanks so much for the posting. I'll be sure to that book. It's amazing what's available outside the WTS, isn't it.
 
GinnyTosken
GinnyTosken 15 years ago


Uncle Onion,
The Bible Unearthed focuses on archaeological findings rather than comparative mythology, so little mention is made of the myths of Sumer.
I have, however, read about the striking similarities elsewhere. One book that leaps to mind is The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image by Anne Baring and Jules Cashford. Another is The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara J. Walker.
Below are a few tidbits from the latter book.
Ginny
Under Creation:

Myths of creation generally present a symbolic view of birth. Conditions before creation suggest the uterine environment: darkness, liquid, stirring or churning movement, the "eternal flux" associated with the blood of the Mother (Kali's Ocean of Blood, for example). Often there is a suggestion of one entity inside another. "When there was neither the creation, nor the sun, the moon, the planets, and the earth, and when darkness was enveloped in Darkness, then the Mother, the Formless One, Maha-Kali, the Great Power, was one with Maha-Kala, the Absolute."
The Bible's highly derivative version says "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the Deep" (Genesis 1:2). The Deep was the Mother's womb, tehom, derived from Tiamat, the Babylonian name of the primordial Goddess . . .
Most creation myths speak of a splitting or opening in the dark, formless Mother. The beginning of the existing world is signaled by the coming of light. Romans made the connection with birth quite clear: Juno Lucina was not only a creatress, but also the Mother who brought "light" to the eyes of the newborn. . . .
Creation/birth was inseparable from the figure of the Mother. The oldest myths made her divider of waters, maker of heaven and earth. When a god came into the picture, he was at first only her subordinate consort, one of the beings she had created; sometimes a disembodied phallus, in the form of a serpent . . .
Often it was said when the god was allowed to create, he became puffed up with pride, and began to ignore his Mother and claim sole authorship of the universe. This angered the Goddess. She punished him, bruised his head with her heel, and sent him down to the underworld. Sumerian creation myths said when the Goddess's son-spouse began to show signs of hubris, she laid the curse of exile on him, saying, "Henceforth thou shalt dwell neither in heaven nor on earth."
About Adam:

Indians of South America said all mankind was made of "moon blood" in the beginning. The same idea prevailed in ancient Mesopotamia, where the Great Goddess Ninhursag made mankind out of clay and infused it with her "blood of life." Under her alternate names of Mammetun or Aruru the Great, the Potter, she taught women to form clay dolls and smear them with menstrual blood as a conception-charm, a piece of magic that underlay the name of Adam, from the feminine adamah, meaning "bloody clay," though scholars more delicately translate it "red earth."
About the Flood

The Biblical flood story, the "deluge," was a late offshoot of a cycle of flood myths known everywhere in the ancient world. Thousands of years before the Bible was written, an ark was built by Sumerian Ziusudra . . .
As long ago as 1872, George Smith translated the Twelve Tablets of Creation from Ashurbanipal's library, and discovered the earlier version of the flood myth. Among the details that religious orthodoxy took care to suppress was the point that the god who caused the flood was disobedient to the Great Mother, who didn't want her earthly children drowned. Mother Ishtar severely punished the disobedient god by cursing him with her "great lightnings." She set her magic rainbow in the heavens to block his access to offerings on earthly altars, "since rashly he caused the flood-storm, and handed over my people to destruction."
Old Testament writers copied other details of the ancient flood myth but could not allow their god to be punished by the Great Whore of Babylon, as if he were a naughty child sent to bed without supper by an angry mother. Thus, they transformed Ishtar's rainbow barrier into a "sign of the covenant" voluntarily set in the heavens by God himself (Genesis 9:13).
Edited by - GinnyTosken on 22 March 2001 10:57:30
Edited by - GinnyTosken on 22 March 2001 11:14:12
 
uncle_onion
uncle_onion 15 years ago


so is the book "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" providing evidence that the Bible acounts are right or is it trying to say some thing else?
UO
 
Tina
Tina 15 years ago

Hi Ginny
 Thanks,it's now on my booklist!! hugs,Tina
 
uncle_onion
uncle_onion 15 years ago


just bought it! Cost me 20 quid from Amazon.co.uk
UO
 
GinnyTosken
GinnyTosken 15 years ago


Uncle Onion,
I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did. While the authors show that the Hebrew Scriptures taken literally do not always match archaeological evidence, I never feel that they are spouting vitriol. If anything, I came away with an awe for a people that early recognized the power of the written word and story. It's amazing to consider that the Hebrew Scriptures come from a people who lived in an area smaller than New Jersey, and who are estimated to have numbered less than 450,000 in the eighth century--fewer than the present population of Oslo, Norway. Who could imagine that this small group would change the face of world history?
Ginny
 
uncle_onion
uncle_onion 15 years ago


Ginny
But is it saying that the Bible is fabrication or is to be taken literaly?
UO
 
GinnyTosken
GinnyTosken 15 years ago


Uncle Onion,
The authors believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are not a literal history, but neither are they complete fabrication. The places and people mentioned in the accounts did exist, but events didn't always happen when and how the Bible says they did.
Ginny
 
transhuman68
transhuman68 4 years ago

 More book review here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
 
transhuman68
transhuman68 4 years ago



 
transhuman68
transhuman68 4 years ago

Suck it up, Larsinger58 !
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Esse quam videri
Question re: TerryWalstrom post on Reza Aslan
by Esse quam videri a year ago
Legacy
WT for This Sunday...1/26/2014..Were they still in Egypt?
by Legacy 2 years ago
cofty
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty 2 years ago
terrypike
Which school of thought is right about How long were the Israelite's in Egypt 215 or 430 years?
by terrypike a year ago
HowTheBibleWasCreated
How The Bible Was Invented- 5. Jeroboam the son of Nabat also known as Aaron
by HowTheBibleWasCreated 2 years ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/3587/book-recommendation-bible-unearthed






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ A Christian responds to an Atheist
/  





 

A Christian responds to an Atheist
by FetterFree Annie 14 years ago 29 Replies latest 14 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
FetterFree Annie
FetterFree Annie 14 years ago


Atheism vs. Christianity, A Response to Unanswered Questions
Christian--Dr William Lane Craig
Atheist--Frank Zindler

1. Today's Christians have narrowed the definition of "Christian" so much that it excludes everything and everyone embarrassing to Christianity. Hitler was baptized a Christian and said he was promoting "Positive Christianity." David Koresh and Jim Jones were Christians. You Christians try to avoid responsibility for all these evil Christians by arbitrarily excluding them by definition.
A: This is an equivocation fallacy. While atheists often accuse Christians of limiting the definition of Christianity, they expand it to the extent that it is meaningless - such as calling Hitler a Christian when his definition of "Positive Christianity" was "Positive Christianity is National Socialism . . . . The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation" . To indict Christianity because of evil people who attempt to identify themselves as Christians, the atheist must first establish that the leader of Christianity (Jesus Christ) and his teachings (as found in the New Testament) condone, command, or encourage such evil. They don't. This is reviewed succinctly
2. Jesus was a man and needed to breathe to live. How, for example, according to Acts, could he have "ascended" into space, which has too little oxygen to support human life?
A: Atheists who attempt to ridicule the Bible by ignoring normal rules of literary interpretation and usage end up ridiculing themselves. Abundant general literary precedent, as well as specific Hebrew and Greek literary techniques, affirm that phrases including geographical references to non-geographical states such as heaven, hell, death, and despair are not meant to refer to actual geographic or spatial locations. Jesus didn't need to find oxygen to breathe in space because he didn't go into space. Heaven is a different dimension, not some place past the galaxy! A contemporary example would be the common phrase, "You're driving me crazy," which no one should interpret to mean that you are physically restraining me in your vehicle as you transport me to the geographical location of lunacy (probably California!).
3. The Bible teaches that there is a flat earth. For example, Satan couldn't have shown Jesus all the kingdoms of the world at once if the world weren't flat. Also, if "every eye shall see him" refers to Jesus' Second Coming, the Bible must assume the earth is flat.
A: Neither passage cited can be used to infer a flat earth assumption on the part of the Bible. Even if the earth were flat, the distances involved would preclude both Jesus' human eyes seeing far enough to see all kingdoms and also each human seeing far enough to see Jesus at His Second Coming. The verses have nothing to do with any assumptions about the shape of the earth. Additionally, neither passage says how either all the kingdoms could be seen at once, or Jesus could be seen by everyone at once. If man, in the relative infancy of his technological creativity, can "show" a football game in Florida to an audience in Oregon via satellite, surely it wouldn't be hard to believe that an evil angel in the one example, or God Himself in the second example, could reveal either the kingdoms of the world to one person, or one person to the entire world. Again, the atheist must accord the same literary sophistication to the Bible as he would to any other literary work, including the figurative "four corners of the earth" (a Greek idiom) in Revelation 20:8 and the "circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22. Frankly, if the atheist is willing to believe Satan and Jesus talked, and that Jesus is coming again, he doesn't have far to go to believe that one can see either the kingdoms of the world or the Son of God.
4. The Greek word for "breath" is pneuma, and is used to refer to the Holy Spirit and/or the human spirit or life force. The Bible compounds its ignorance by ascribing physical breath to God, who is allegedly non-physical, and then calling that physical breath the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit!
A: Atheists who dogmatically assert that biblical words such as "spirit" can have only one meaning (are univocal) betray their ignorance of common word usage. Any good biblical language aid recognizes the variety of terms used to refer to the immaterial part of man (his spirit) and the variety of uses for the one word pneuma. For example, generally when pneuma refers to the third person of the Trinity, it is used with the definite article (a definite article is like "the").
5. The Bible is not only internally inconsistent, but also medically ridiculous. The Old Testament says "the life is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11), and New Testament verses ascribe life to "breath." Neither ignorant biblical view recognizes the facts of modern medical science, which understands animal life as ending with brain death and/or heart failure.
A: Both "blood" and "breath" are used metaphorically to refer to one's life. This is common in many other cultural traditions and ages as well as in the biblical world. In this kind of metaphor, called synechdoche, "the whole is named by the part," as in the common nautical designation of "the fleet is in" when we mean to include the personnel as well as the vessels. Use of various kinds of metaphors is in Ryken's Words of Delight. Additionally, the plain sense of the passage is an indisputable "medical" observation - those with no blood or no breath do not live.
6. We know that man evolved and therefore Adam and Eve are fictional characters. All mankind is not descended from one human couple. If the story of Adam and Eve is fiction, then so is the universality of the Fall. If the Fall is fiction, then there is no need for atonement to be provided by Jesus Christ. If there is no need for atonement, then Jesus is out of a job and has joined the ranks of the unemployed.
A: There are several different approaches to this question that show it is not a valid objection to the existence of the Christian God. First, whether or not the biblical account of creation is accurate or Jesus is "unemployed," God could still exist and the Bible could be flawed. Second, it does not follow logically that the theory of macro or general evolution contradicts the idea of a historical Adam and Eve. Some people who believe the Bible speculate that man could have developed through primate evolution until a specific point when the first fully human pair were infused with "the image of God," including moral responsibility. Third, evolutionary science is not nearly so monolithic or universally trouble free as Zindler believes. As a matter of fact, serious non-Christian scientists have called into question not only particular details of common evolutionary theory, but have also raised serious challenges to the foundation of evolutionary theory. Fourth, that every human being commits sin (moral transgression) is self-evident and socially documented, regardless of the explanation (such as the Adam and Eve account) for that propensity to sin. Since every human being commits sin, we are in need of a remedy, which the Bible says is provided through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ on our behalf according to the scriptures - so Jesus Christ would not be "unemployed" even if the Adam and Eve account were not true. In conclusion, the Adam and Eve account is not conclusively disproved by the theory of evolution, which itself has scientific problems, and even if it were, every human being's sinfulness still needs atonement.
7. The Bible has a primitive idea of humanity and without any evidence assumes that man has an independent, immaterial soul. Because science has shown us evidence of the validity of evolution, we know the idea of some sort of immaterial soul is foolish.
A: This is a variation on question number six. This atheist argument contains two false assumptions. First, that science has proved evolution; and second, that scientific testing, designed to test physical things, can adequately disprove nonphysical things such as the soul. The atheist's unwarranted naturalistic bias makes him think his argument is valid.
8. The Bible arrogantly describes man as a special creation of God, qualitatively different from any other life form. However, modern science has proved that genetically we are 98% similar to apes - we are only separated by a 2% genetic difference.
A: The atheist who broaches this argument has made no argument at all. Percentages prove nothing. After all, we're mostly water, but Zindler would not claim we are close cousins to lettuce. When the Bible describes humans as qualitatively different from any other created thing, including other animals, it refers to man in the image of God, that is, with attributes relating to the immaterial part of his nature, not to his physical body. What distinguishes humans from animals are attributes such as personality, will, self-determination, self-cognizance, creativity, and rational discourse. None of these attributes are physical. In fact, since both humans and animals are created by the one God, it should not surprise us that both share many physical similarities. Far from disproving the Bible, such similarities can point to a common Designer.
9. Another example of the Bible's scientific foolishness is the claim made in 2 Peter 3:5 that the earth was made out of water!
A: The atheist who seeks to ridicule the Bible for its purported scientific sophistry should not by his very ridicule reveal his own biblical and literary sophistry. A careful reading of this verse and its meaning in a good commentary shows that it is not saying that the earth is composed or made out of water at all. Simon J. Kistemaker says, for example, "The land itself, then, comes forth out of the water. This interpretation relates more to origin than to substance; that is, the text explains how the earth was formed, and does not disclose the source of matter". Scientific evidence and the Bible do not disagree as to the prevalence of water and the molten state of the ancient earth.
10. Every scholar knows that the book of Daniel is a forgery, composed centuries after its purported date of the 500's B.C. It was actually a late composition, reflecting recent Jewish history as prophecy, as though it had not yet happened, when in fact it had happened. It was probably composed one or two hundred years before Christ, and it also contains numerous historical mistakes, such as (1) misnaming the last king of Judah, (2) misnaming the liberator of the Jews from Babylon and (3) misnaming the last king of Babylon.
A: Careful historical, geographical, lexical (word usage), and etymological (origin of words) study points to the composition of Daniel in its final form during the beginning of the Persian reign over Babylon (during the sixth century B.C.). Gleason Archer, for instance, in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974) shows how the literary, linguistic, and grammatical evidence of the text points to an early date for the book of Daniel. He says, "The most likely date for the final edition of the book, therefore, would be about 530 B.C." (379). Archaeology has amply demonstrated the historicity of the Babylonian captivity of Judah. Daniel does not say that Jehoiakim was the last king of Judah. Jehoiakim's son was not permitted to remain on the throne (a fulfillment of Jeremiah 36:30's prophecy). Instead, the son's uncle, Zedekiah, was made a vassal king under Babylon. Regarding the Jews' liberation from Babylon, it is important to note that while Cyrus allowed them to return and begin building the second temple, the work was suspended until the second year of Darius the Great, about 520 or 519 B.C. Darius ordered the temple to be completed and it was finished in 516 B.C., the sixth year of his reign. Concerning the issue of the last king of Babylon, several points of reconciliation prevent this from becoming a problem that stands against the trustworthiness of Daniel. Belshazzar was named co-regent by his natural father, Nabonidus, who lived in retirement in North Arabia. Also, on the night of the fatal feast (Daniel 5), Nabonidus had been in the hands of the Medo-Persians for four months; therefore, Belshazzar was the last king in actual fact. Problems such as this are discussed not only in Archer's Old Testament book, but also in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982).
11. The book of Acts is filled with historical errors. For example, Acts quotes Gamaliel referring to two false messiahs, Theudas and Judas the Galilean. The quote mistakenly dates Theudas before Judas, who is linked to the "time of the census" (around A.D. 7). The Jewish historian Josephus correctly dates Theudus to an uprising against the Romans in A.D. 44. Obviously, Acts is a late composition of the Church purporting to be an "eyewitness" account.
A: The atheist has made the mistake of assuming that there could only have been one rebel messiah named Theudas. However, there was also a Theudas who revolted in A.D. 6, the year Herod Archelaus was deposed from the throne. In this case, the revolt of Judas against the legate of Syria, P. Sulpicius Quirinius, would have occurred one year later. Two books which address this problem are Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe's When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: SP Publications, 1992).
12. The Old Testament conquest stories regarding the Jews' various conquests in Palestine have been disproved by current archeological investigation.
A: This bold statement makes two mistakes about archeology. First, it assumes that archeological evidence is not open to interpretation or bias. Second, it assumes that the evidence is overwhelming against the Old Testament record. Neither assumption is true. In fact, while we have a wealth of archeological evidence, we have unearthed only a small fraction of the remains that exist in the Middle East, and what we have unearthed is open to interpretation not only about the identity of the sites, but also about the significance of the remains. For example, the noted archeologist Kathleen Kenyon's work at Jericho is frequently cited against the historicity of the Old Testament's account of the Jews' conquest of Jericho. However, more recent independent examination of Kenyon's evidence has turned up discrepancies in some of her opinions and instead affirms the reliability of the biblical account. Archaeologist Bryant Wood concludes, "When the final Bronze Age city at Jericho is properly dated, it is seen that there is a remarkable correlation between the biblical narrative and archaeological findings" ["Uncovering the Truth at Jericho" by Bryant Wood in Archaeology and Biblical Research (Autumn 1987), 16]. See also Edwin Yamauchi's The Stones and the Scriptures (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1972), and Kenneth Kitchen's Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1966).
13. Many of the blatant historical errors of the New Testament are evidence that the New Testament books were composed long after the supposed events they record by a Church that invented its own mythology. For example, Bethany, Bethphage, Nazareth, and Capernaum, all towns that were listed in the gospels as important towns in Jesus' life and ministry, did not even exist at the time of Christ.
A: Historical and archeological investigation has disproved skeptics' suppositions and affirmed the historical reliability of the New Testament. The particular examples of Bethany, Bethphage, Capernaum, and Nazareth illustrate the problems atheists invent regarding New Testament accuracy.
BETHANY: This suburb of Jerusalem (less than two miles away on the southeast slopes of the Mt. of Olives) is not mentioned in the Old Testament, except possibly with a variation on its name in Nehemiah 11:32. In addition, its precise location and extent has not been pinpointed since it has grown and shrunk over the centuries. However, archeological work provides us with lamps, vessels, and coinage from the first century, and continuous occupancy of the area from about the sixth century B.C. to the fourteenth century A.D., certainly covering the time period of Jesus. Today Bethany is called el-'Azariyeh, a corrupted form of "Lazarus," because it was here that Jesus raised his friend Lazarus from the dead (John 11). Definitive excavations have not been done because many significant historical buildings, including churches and memorials to the raising of Lazarus, occupy the area and cannot be destroyed to discover the ruins beneath them.
BETHPHAGE: Bethphage is between Bethany and Jerusalem on the southeast slopes of the Mt. of Olives. Archeological evidence from this settlement includes caves, coins, cisterns, pools, and tombs ranging from the second century B.C. to about the eighth century A.D., again covering Jesus' time. Bethphage is also not mentioned in the Old Testament, but this argument from silence ignores the archeological evidence.
CAPERNAUM: For many years historians and archaeologists argued about the precise location of Capernaum, but the area of Tell Hum is now widely and certainly accepted. The name of Capernaum was confirmed in an Aramaic inscription found in an ancient synagogue ruin. Capernaum is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but is mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus and is in the Jewish Talmud, and was evidently settled and grew after the Jewish return from captivity (after the Old Testament was completed). The area of the ancient town itself, on the northwest shore of Galilee, has not been excavated to any great extent for its first century ruins since those lie below still-standing structures from succeeding centuries, including an important fourth century A.D. synagogue. The remains of a first century house, which has been identified as Peter's, as well as the ruins of a first century synagogue, have been uncovered.
NAZARETH: Nazareth today, with its traditional churches, shrines, and memorials is not on the same exact site as Nazareth in Jesus' day. However, both towns were anchored by the same well, the only one in the area, today called "Mary's Well." During Jesus' day it was a small village of about 400, four miles from the prospering Roman city of Sepphoris. Archeological evidence shows it was inhabited continually from a thousand years before and during the Roman period, including the time of Christ. Artifacts found in area tombs date from the first to the fourth centuries A.D. Contrary to Mr. Zindler, Nazareth was not merely a necropolis; the pottery remains give evidence of the small vase-making industry located there, which produced vessels widely used for agricultural purposes. Moreover, beneath the convent of the Dames de Nazareth the remains of a first century house have been discovered. First century A.D. Nazareth is identified in an inscription in Hebrew found in Caesarea. The "Nazareth Decree" is a response from the Emperor Claudius, probably composed between A.D. 44 and 50, commanding that no one disturb a grave or tomb, violate its seals, or remove its body, under penalty of death. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament or by the Jewish historian Josephus, no doubt due to its insignificance.
Mr. Zindler's dismissal of these towns' historicity is based on a faulty understanding of archeology and history which is so faulty as to border on wilful ignorance. It ignores the long gap between the completion of the Old Testament and the birth of Christ, when many towns were newly settled. Its arguments from the silence of the Old Testament, the Talmud, and/or Josephus are inconclusive. Its ignorance of archeology is inexcusable. The archeological evidence we have is, as scholar Edwin Yamauchi says, "but a fraction of a fraction of the possible evidence" The Stones and the Scriptures, 146. Only a fraction of what was built or written has survived, only a fraction of what survived has been surveyed, only a fraction of what has been surveyed has been excavated, only a fraction of what has been excavated has been examined, and only a fraction of what has been examined has been published (Yamauchi, 146-160). To dismiss the historicity of scripture based on absence of data is academically irresponsible and has been overturned time after time by new discoveries. Yamauchi notes, for example, Homer constantly refers to the bronze greaves and cors-lets (breastplates) of his heroes. H. L. Lorimer in 1950 wished to delete the lines that mentioned bronze corslets as late interpolations, because no known corslets of an early date had been dis-covered. In 1960 at Dendra in Greece the first known metal corslet of the Bronze Age was discovered. Then three years later a second bronze corslet was found .
 
JanH
JanH 14 years ago


Ah, the Craig-Zindler Debate. Zindler is a biologist, and stupidly moved into areas where he was totally ignorant.
This is a long list of topics, which really will require encyclopedic amounts of information to debate seriously. We are only given Zindler's basic assertions, not the arguments supporting them. Neither do we have access to rebuttals to Craig's statements. Much comes to mind, but this is a nice summer day, and I don't feel like writing all evening.
Which topic would you like to discuss?
Most of the topics listed are mere bitfiddling, but I have some information here about dating of Daniel, evolution/creation and the existence of the soul. Take your pick. State your point. Let's see if you can do more than copy and paste.
In the meantime, enjoy reading The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection -- The Debate between Christians and Skeptics by Jeffery Jay Lowder at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/index.shtml
- Jan
--
- "How do you write women so well?" - "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability." (Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets")
 
Elsewhere
Elsewhere 14 years ago


Well that's it!!! I'm going to have to renounce my non-belief now.
[8>]
"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x ><
 
Valis
Valis 14 years ago


FetterFree Annie, so do youu actually believe any of that cut and paste? The article is exactly right about one thing. New archeological finds, geologic finds, and astronomical finds, push the dates of the universe, civilization and the earth back much farther than WT numerology can account for by readjusting dates.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
 
teenyuck
teenyuck 14 years ago


When I opened this my first thought was "So what, another person tryig to prove that god exists and people need salvation."
Then I read some and realized....I Don't Care.
Until god walks up introduces himself to me and does some miracles that can be documented on film (in front of myself and witnesses (not the JW kind)), I prefer to think of him as a fantasy and the bible as a book written to control people. Lots of rules don't ya think?
 
SYN
SYN 14 years ago


I loved this bit:

Heaven is a different dimension,
LOL! These people think dimensions are like little rooms you can go in and out of! Sad, very sad!
They've been digging in the Euphrates Valley and have uncovered a layer of agrarian culture 8,000 years old, and an older caveman culture. Recently, they reached another layer of fused green glass.
 
funkyderek
funkyderek 14 years ago


Atheism vs. Christianity, A Response to Unanswered Questions
Most of those questiones are not only unanswered but unasked. How many people don't believe in God or the Bible because they think 2 Peter 3:5 says that the earth was made out of water? [8>]
--
Bad times, hard times - this is what people keep saying; but let us live well, and times shall be good. We are the times: Such as we are, such are the times. - St. Augustine, 354-430
 
FetterFree Annie
FetterFree Annie 14 years ago


I'm sorry if I've offended anyone by 'cutting and pasting'. But is it against the rules of the forum? (Simon, if you read this, can you tell me.)
I came across this interesting debate when surfing for answers on questions atheists pose about how they perceive God and the Bible (sorry, only the Bible-God does not exist of course)
I thought it might make interesting reading!
Jan, if you feel that it may not be balanced because Zindler's rebuttal was not offered. Feel free! Rebut away!
Your answers may even be better than his, considering he is a mere marine biologist- and probably had no idea what he was talking about although he was atheist enough to engage in a debate witnessed by 8,000 people.
One of atheists' gravest mistakes when speaking about God, the true God, is that they bundle God along with His limited creation, as though He is subject to its environment, its Laws and its entanglements. They devise invalid situations and conclusions which do not and cannot apply to a God infinitely higher than what their minds can conceive of.
Atheists reveal they have never understood the God true Christians say exist. Atheists think of God as one bound by the problems and limitations of this world. No, God is not bound by
time and space-He is infinitely higher.
One of the mistakes that atheists repeatedly make is to think that God's benevolence should be a panacea against all forms of maladies and injuries inflicted upon mankind. But since man still suffers, God is either void of goodness or God does not exist.
Atheists say atheism isn't about morality.
On one hand they say there are no moral absolutes, but on the other hand they charge that God is immoral, because he allows innocent people to suffer.
But atheist who charges God with immorality must have some absolute, universal, and invariant system of morality by which he can judge God. Christians get their system of justice and morality from God's revelation, but from where does the atheist's sense of morality come?
From his own subjective opinion? Then he has no right to criticize anyone else's system.
From society? Then in Hitler's society ethnic cleansing is "good."
From the innate survival mechanisms of nature? Then whatever humans (part of nature) do must be "good" because their actions are products of their natures and thus "good."
From some moral agent beyond this material universe who has the authority to impose morality on this material universe and its inhabitants?
And so we come back to the idea of a transcendent moral God, exactly what the Christian affirms to exist. Now, the Christian deals with this problem further by arguing that the God who created, gives life to, and sustains people has the proprietary "right" to extinguish people according to his own will, even if it appears to us to be "immoral."
As Jeremiah says, the potter has the right to make one clay pot beautiful and to destroy another (Jeremiah 18:1-10)
The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?" So we have no reason to question God for saving some and punishing others. God is definitely capable of saving everyone, but He does not want to, Period. He is God, we all belong to Him, we have no right to question God. Like it or not.
God, the author and sustainer of life and the source of morality and justice, as a being categorically different than we are, has rights we do not have. Just as a father has the right to tell his child to go to bed but the father can stay up late, so God has the right to take a human life while we do not.
Jan, I don't want to debate the historial accuracy of the Bible with you, simply because I haven't spent years studying the subject. There are worthy men and women out there who have done so, and I bow to their expertise.
All I know is that God is alive and to say it ain't so, is a fallacy.
But what about the subject of moral absolutes. Care to comment?

The fool has said in his heart there is no God.
 
JanH
JanH 14 years ago


Jan, I don't want to debate the historial accuracy of the Bible with you, simply because I haven't spent years studying the subject.
That is evident, I can aassure you.
As for morality, does this mean you subscribe to the Divine Command Theory of ethics?

- Jan
--
- "How do you write women so well?" - "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability." (Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets")
 
ThiChi
ThiChi 14 years ago


FetterFree Annie:
Thanks for the info. THe point is that no one here has life all tied up in a nice little box. Free thinkers know better.......
 
L_A_Big_Dawg
L_A_Big_Dawg 14 years ago


ThiChi,
You wrote,
Thanks for the info. THe point is that no one here has life all tied up in a nice little box. Free thinkers know better.......
So as a "free thinker" you are superior? Puh-lease
"That's me in the corner. That's me in the spotlight, losing my religion." REM
And thank God I lost my religion.
The Big Dawg
 
SYN
SYN 14 years ago


They devise invalid situations and conclusions which do not and cannot apply to a God infinitely higher than what their minds can conceive of. 
HMMMM.
As Jeremiah says, the potter has the right to make one clay pot beautiful and to destroy another
Pots do not have brains. Don't mix your metaphors. There is quite a large gap between a pot and a human.

so God has the right to take a human life while we do not.
And in the Old Testament he seems to do it with great glee. Your God is a horribly cruel God.
I'm so glad nobody has seen him do anything since that time. God has gone on vacation, it seems!
All I know is that God is alive and to say it ain't so, is a fallacy.
Well, there are people who say that Elvis is alive, too. And they have photos!
Note: This post is not meant to be derogatory, I respect your for coming back and posting your opinion here - you have obviously thought about it at great length. I'm not ripping you off or anything, but I do have DOUBTS.
 
ThiChi
ThiChi 14 years ago


L_A_Big_Dawg:
Try it, you will like it......
 
L_A_Big_Dawg
L_A_Big_Dawg 14 years ago


I am a "free thinker." The difference between my free thinking and yours, is simple. I don't look down on people that disagree with me.

"That's me in the corner. That's me in the spotlight, losing my religion." REM
And thank God I lost my religion.
The Big Dawg
 
DanielHaase
DanielHaase 14 years ago

Sheeesh, every single damn reply from the christian side required complete blind faith in the Bible's words, especially from a literal perspective. No reason, no objectivity. I'm not here to bash christianity, but I saw no reasonable, even slightly humanistic response to those somewhat superficial atheistic statements. Both sides can do better than that!
 
Elsewhere
Elsewhere 14 years ago


All of those questions have got me wondering...
How many atheists can dance on the head of a pin?

"As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
Believe in yourself, not mythology.
<x ><
 
L_A_Big_Dawg
L_A_Big_Dawg 14 years ago


Ok, let's look at the atheist's position logically. No Bible required.
Atheist ascert that
in the entire universe
there has never existed in the past
nor now existing in the present
nor will ever exist in the future
any god, gods, or goddesses
of any size, shape, or description.
First, what we have in this sentence is what is termed in logic a universe negative. Universal negatives can not be proven. Since universal negatives can not be proven or demonstrated then to affirm a universal negative is irrational.
Secondly, in order to prove that there is no god, one must become God.
A. You must be everywhere at one time, therefore omnipresent and infinite.
B. You must be able to travel from the past, to the present, and into the future at the same time. This means you would be eternal.
C. You must be able to know all things. Making you omniscient.
D. In order to be omnipresent, infinite, eternal and omniscient you would need to be omnipotent. Therefore, you would be God.
If only an infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God can declare that there is no God, then you have a self-contradictory statement which is a violation of logic, and is also irrational.
So folks, it is more of a "blind leap" to be an atheist. Atheiism is a blind leap because it is irrational and illogical.
See how easy that was? No name calling, no straw men, just looking at the view with plain hard logic.
ThiChi, this is "free thinking", maybe you should try it.
DanielHaase, I do not have blind faith in the Bible. The book has been affirmed by people more learned than you or I (I will not bore you with the names, besides they are out there if you choose to look for them).
FunkyDerek, if you quote the Bible please remember that a passage out of context is a pretext for a prooftext. Funny how old JW habits refuse to die. [8>]
Please have fun, and play nice
"That's me in the corner. That's me in the spotlight, losing my religion." REM
And thank God I lost my religion.
The Big Dawg
 
funkyderek
funkyderek 14 years ago


Atheist ascert that
in the entire universe
there has never existed in the past
nor now existing in the present
nor will ever exist in the future
any god, gods, or goddesses
of any size, shape, or description.
No they don't. At least I don't. There are certain gods which can be proven not to exist, but if the term god is defined broadly enought, then it's nonexistence can never be proven, for the reasons you outlined. Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of belief in gods. As such it is not a positive assertion. I don't believe in gods, nor do I believe in unicorns, fairies, elves, goblins, or the Easter Bunny. It is not necessary for me to prove the eternal nonexistence of these entities for me not to believe in them, nor does the fact that I cannot do so tell us anything about whether they actually exist or not.

See how easy that was? No name calling, no straw men, just looking at the view with plain hard logic.
There was a straw man. Your initial premise was incorrect (based on a flawed understanding of atheism), and therefore your conclusions, although they followed logically from that premise, were incorrect.
DanielHaase, I do not have blind faith in the Bible. The book has been affirmed by people more learned than you or I (I will not bore you with the names, besides they are out there if you choose to look for them).
It's also been denied by "people more learned than you or I." Seems like a stalemate, unless we have some standard of proof other than an argument from (anonymous) authority.
FunkyDerek, if you quote the Bible please remember that a passage out of context is a pretext for a prooftext. Funny how old JW habits refuse to die. [8>]
Please read my post again carefully. You'll see I did nothing of the sort. You may also wish to read the original post to which I responded.
--
Bad times, hard times - this is what people keep saying; but let us live well, and times shall be good. We are the times: Such as we are, such are the times. - St. Augustine, 354-430
 
gsx1138
gsx1138 14 years ago


quote-
One of atheists' gravest mistakes when speaking about God, the true God, is that they bundle God along with His limited creation, as though He is subject to its environment, its Laws and its entanglements.
The biggest mistake that Christians make is assuming that they know the "true God". They believe that their religion and Bible are pure in the sense that all that is contained within it are unique. It is very well proven that much of the Bible and Christianity is nothing more than stories borrowed from other religions and a Dogma centered around a small offshoot of Judahism.
I'm not an atheist but I respect their views and often I find that it is refreshing to have a viewpoint not scewed by blind faith. Any belief system that claims to know the true God is a lie. It can so often be easilly proven to be nothing more than opinion.
 
L_A_Big_Dawg
L_A_Big_Dawg 14 years ago


FunkyDerek,
I can not challenge your "brand" of atheism. This was a general statement as to what is commonly accepted by atheists in general. Which you admitted. Therefore, the statement is not flawed, and the conclusion is correct. However, you still have a problem. The existence of the entities you listed has been disproven. The existence of a god has not. The reasons why this is so are listed in the second part of my post which you did not touch. More on that later.
Secondly, no matter how you spin your view, you are still holding to a universal negative, which still can not be proven. Since belief in God is widely held, it is up to the atheist to prove his hypothesis, not vice versa. Again we are left with the issues from the second half of my post. If one is to say that there is no god, one most become a god, therefore creating a self-contradiction.
I will grant you that my arguement from an unknown authority was in bad form. However, I simply didn't have all of my notes on the case against atheiems in front of me. If you wish to have a clear, concise and logical treatise on the case against atheism, I would suggest Dr. Robert Morey's book The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom. Also, I recommend, J.P. Moreland/Kai Neilson debate on the subject. Both are refreshing and intellectually stimulating.
As for your last statement, do not modern evolutionists hold that life came from water? Or is that you disagree with them too?
Lastly, the atheist still has to answer the second part of my post. In order to rationally believe that there is no god, gods, or goddesses, the atheist must meet all those criteria. If that is the case and the atheist does declare no god, then we have a self-contradictory statement, and therefore illogical.
P.S. good arguements I hope that we can continue to talk on good terms. I bear no ill will.
"That's me in the corner. That's me in the spotlight, losing my religion." REM
And thank God I lost my religion.
The Big Dawg
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Faithful Witness
STARTING OVER with my Elderette - What Does the Bible REALLY Teach?
by Faithful Witness 2 years ago
opusdei1972
Did Josephus believe in Jesus as The Christ?
by opusdei1972 a year ago
hoser
November 1 1960 QFR
by hoser a year ago
AndersonsInfo
When did the WTS begin to require baptismal candidates to answer 2 questions. What were they?
by AndersonsInfo a year ago
Letts Party
my first post! (long read sorry in advance)
by Letts Party a year ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/29514/christian-responds-atheist






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ A Christian responds to an Atheist
/  





 

A Christian responds to an Atheist
by FetterFree Annie 14 years ago 29 Replies latest 14 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
JanH
JanH 14 years ago


Big Dawg,
I can not challenge your "brand" of atheism. This was a general statement as to what is commonly accepted by atheists in general. Which you admitted. Therefore, the statement is not flawed, and the conclusion is correct. However, you still have a problem.
It's interesting that you feel comfortable telling a group of atheists what they all believe in.
You are wrong and Derek is correct. Atheism is disbelief -- or lack of belief -- in God and gods. This defintion, in various forms, can be found in the writings of many atheist organizations, and in books written by leading atheists. In fact, it would require no more work from you than looking up the alt.atheism FAQ at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html Since I fear that you will not look it up, I will quote it for you:
""What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods."
I also recommend you look at some good articles on atheism which you can find at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/index.shtml
Consider doing your homework before telling atheists what they believe, or, for that matter, trying to teach cats to climb.

However, you still have a problem. The existence of the entities you listed has been disproven. The existence of a god has not.
Nonsense. Derek listed unicorns, fairies, elves, goblins, and the Easter Bunny. Surely none of these have ever been disproved. Few people will believe in these, however, as we do not have positive evidence.
If you will repeat your assertion that (e.g.) fairies are disproved, I challenge you to come up with a formal proof for the universal non-existence of fairies.

Secondly, no matter how you spin your view, you are still holding to a universal negative, which still can not be proven. Since belief in God is widely held, it is up to the atheist to prove his hypothesis, not vice versa. Again we are left with the issues from the second half of my post. If one is to say that there is no god, one most become a god, therefore creating a self-contradiction.
You seem to think you have posted logical arguments, when in fact you have just asserted some Christian slogans without evidence.
Atheists do not have to prove the non-existence of any gods. If positive evidence is lacking, that is sufficient reason for rational people to reject the hypothesis. Your attemt to shift the burden of evidence has failed.

As for your last statement, do not modern evolutionists hold that life came from water? Or is that you disagree with them too?
Life on this planet almost certainly originated in water, yes.
Lastly, the atheist still has to answer the second part of my post. In order to rationally believe that there is no god, gods, or goddesses, the atheist must meet all those criteria. If that is the case and the atheist does declare no god, then we have a self-contradictory statement, and therefore illogical.
Nonsensical assertions. Making a slogan does not make it true.
You could just as well say that you had to be a god to believe that Odin, Ba'al, Zevs or Vishnu do not exist. Atheists simply move to the logical next conclusion: the Jewish/Christian Yahweh/God do not exist either. Monotheists can at least be credited with being only one god away from the truth.
I have to point out, again, that atheists do not necessarily believe that God does not exist. They do not believe that God exists. The difference may seem subtle, but it is important.
Finally, it is not true that you cannot prove a (universal) negative. Sometimes existence has necessary consequences, that, when proved absent, proves a negative. For example, if someone asserted that a nuclear explosion had happened in my hometown this morning, I would be able to prove that this did not happen (I am here, for one). Likewise, if someone asserted that somewhere in the universe, there is an object of infinite mass, I can prove that this is untrue, since such an object anywhere in the universe would cause infinity gravity everywhere, and we do not observe that.
Gods are postulated agents, and since believers have been fighting a losing battle for centuries, God is now postulated to be invisible, transcendent, and depending on who you ask, outside time and the universe itself. As such, the God of monotheists is a bit hard to disprove.
The problem for Christians, though, is that their God is postulated alongside some necessary properties: omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience.
First, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. If God knows what he will do, and what everybody will do, for all eterntity, he will be powerless to actually change the future. If he changes it, he was not omnicient. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent.
Since this God leads to a logical contradiction, we can conclude that this God does not exist.
Second, an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God will always be knowing about suffering and evil, will always be able to stop it, and since he is all-good, he will always choose to stop it. Since suffering and evil exists, this God does not exist.
Thus, the God of Christianity (and other monotheists) is disproved.
At this point, apologists tend to perform a holy ritual known as handwaving. It usually consists of intriducing the word "free will" which is an orwellian thought-stop word for Christians, and then hope the problems briefly outlined above will disappear into thin air.
- Jan
--
- "How do you write women so well?" - "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability." (Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets")
 
gsx1138
gsx1138 14 years ago

Excellent posts. I do feel a bit out of my depth as I can convey my beliefs better in speech than in written word. One thing I do find interesting that there is a continuence of the word mythology by the believers of of the three "main" religions. As posted before, Odin is no less real or tangible than Jehovah and if you want to open a can of worms, Jesus. I can't find the link but I seem to remember reading something on infedels.org about there not being much evidence that Jesus even existed. If you have more info on this idea JanH I would appreciate it since I'm in a heated debate with a christian literalist in class.
 
ShaunaC
ShaunaC 14 years ago


Nicely done, Jan!
Would you please suggest some more books on Christianity vs. Atheism. I am not as of yet atheist, more so agnostic purely for the reason that I have not done my reasearch as of yet. But I'm very interested in now reading some literature regarding religious mythology, including the debate of whether Jesus really existed.
Thank you, Baby!
Shauna
 
JanH
JanH 14 years ago


Thanks, Shauna.
I have really not read many books on atheism, but I have read countless essays, most of them on the Net.
The library at infidels.org is a real treasure chest of quality articles on the subject: See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/index.shtml for an overview.
You can find lots of articles on the historicity of Jesus here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/historicity.html
Still, Doherty, Carrier and Lowder are some of my favourite authors on this subject.
Still's introduction to the whole debate/subject can be found here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/jesus_search.html
All articles contain references to books and articles.
I read quite a few books on early Christianity when I studied, alas, none of them in English.
Good luck & have fun
[edited to add:smirk:
gsx,
I hope you find some good references in the above. Yes, there is not solid evidence that Jesus even existed. On the balance, I think it is likely that there once was a real human being called Jesus who were executed by the Romans, but how much of what this person did and said influenced the mythical Christ we find in the NT is pretty much open to debate.
- Jan
--
- "How do you write women so well?" - "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability." (Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets")
 
L_A_Big_Dawg
L_A_Big_Dawg 14 years ago


Jan,
Thank you for replying. To bad you had to take on such a condescending tone in yours. I will look at the links you posted over the weekend and post accordingly.
I look forward to meeting the challenge.
Have a great day.

"That's me in the corner. That's me in the spotlight, losing my religion." REM
And thank God I lost my religion.
The Big Dawg
 
ThiChi
ThiChi 14 years ago


L_A_Big_Dawg:
For a free thinker, you are sure uptight. Chill out, bro. Also, it would help if you don’t put words in people’s mouths. You seem to proceed from a number of false assumptions...........
 
L_A_Big_Dawg
L_A_Big_Dawg 14 years ago




"That's me in the corner. That's me in the spotlight, losing my religion." REM
And thank God I lost my religion.
The Big Dawg
 
Kenneson
Kenneson 14 years ago

Perhaps man's free will is more important to God than His omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and all other omnis. I'd hate to think of us all being little "robots," inspite of the fact that man can inflict harm and death to his fellowman. Then we would have something else to accuse God of!
 
L_A_Big_Dawg
L_A_Big_Dawg 14 years ago


Having spent the last couple of weeks reading up on what has been called by an atheist acquaintance as "weak" atheism (his term, not mine). He termed "strong" atheism as the denial of the existence of a god, and "weak" atheism as lack of belief. There was nothing in any of the posts from Infidels.com that actually convinced me that believing in God is irrational. I still stand behind my previous post.
That does it for me on this topic. Have fun and play nice.
 
teenyuck
teenyuck 14 years ago


Well Jan, you did it again!
You proved your point...and nicely, thank you.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
atheism vs. christianity, a response to unanswered questions .
christian--dr william lane craig.
atheist--frank zindler.



Related Topics
Faithful Witness
STARTING OVER with my Elderette - What Does the Bible REALLY Teach?
by Faithful Witness 2 years ago
opusdei1972
Did Josephus believe in Jesus as The Christ?
by opusdei1972 a year ago
hoser
November 1 1960 QFR
by hoser a year ago
AndersonsInfo
When did the WTS begin to require baptismal candidates to answer 2 questions. What were they?
by AndersonsInfo a year ago
Letts Party
my first post! (long read sorry in advance)
by Letts Party a year ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/29514/christian-responds-atheist?page=2&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Book - Research-Bible-Artifacts with a chapter on VAT 4956 by Rolf Furuli
/  





 

Book - Research-Bible-Artifacts with a chapter on VAT 4956 by Rolf Furuli
by VM44 4 years ago 14 Replies latest 4 years ago   watchtower bible
5
10
20
VM44
VM44 4 years ago

This book contains a chapter on the subject of VAT 4956 that is written by Rolf Furuli.
http://www.gersam.de/neuheiten_2/Artifacts/artifacts.html




Research - Bible - Artifacts
For centuries we have been able to learn about the history of the Middle East because of many ancient writings are in existence. One of these writings, the Bible, plays an important role as it tells us about those that primarily lived in the so-called “Fertile Crescent.” In the past 150 years archaeologists have unearthed countless artifacts from which we have been able to gather knowledge about these ancient cultures. How can these artifacts help us to better understand the biblical account and to view it in its historical setting?
This question will be considered in the new released book Research – Bible – Artifacts. With the help of a selection of artifacts mainly from the famous “Pergamon Museum” in Berlin the reader receives a vivid picture of biblical accounts. Each page is colourfully laid out with a photograph of each artifact and also linked with the appropriate scripture. (The volume contains over 90 colourfully illustrations and maps.) In an appendix you will find more information about the capture of the old city of Babylon and also how the old historians Herodotus and Xenophon confirm the Bible account. In addition it contains also a chapter about the Neo-Babylonian Chronology and the cuneiform tablet VAT 4956 from Berlin, written by Dr. Rolf Furuli.
Size: About 128 pages, paperback (228 mm, 175 mm).
Left hand pages will cover the text in German, whereas right hand pages will be in English.
Prize: 12,50 € plus shipping. (Please note that the shipping cost will vary according to the postal address.)
A Scientist:
I find that it is both beautiful and instructive. I have already recommended it to several …
A Bookseller:
Thank you for your book which I found very interesting.
A Reader:
A must for every good library …
 
VM44
VM44 4 years ago

I believe this was once source that The Watchtower used when writing the material about VAT 4956 last November.
 
Bobcat
Bobcat 4 years ago

VM44: (That sounds like a naval or marine squadron)
Check out this review of the book here. It would seem to answer the question of why a book would use Furuli's unorthadox views on VAT 4956.
Here is a link to a downloadable PDF of the book. (free)

Take Care

Edited: I spoke to soon. The PDF only has the index of chapters. Sorry about that.
Hold the presses. Edited again. Here is a 9 page downloadable PDF. (Its a little more.)
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 4 years ago

It has a very Watchtowerish style about it.
Where can you buy it?
 
SadElder
SadElder 4 years ago

Isn't Rolf Furuli a Jdub?
 
diamondiiz
diamondiiz 4 years ago

yes Furuli is a dub, that's why he's able to twist the reality to fit his own idea BS belief.
 
Bobcat
Bobcat 4 years ago

Sad Elder:
Isn't Rolf Furuli a Jdub?

According to the review on this site, the author (Geram Verlag) is also. So it makes sense that Furuli would be a contributor.

That site also has a link to purchase from the publisher. I think they are asking 12.5 Euro plus shipping.
Here is a link to a German Amazon site with the book. I couldn't find it on the English Amazon.
Here is another JW book seller that reviews it (a little) and reccomends it for use in "Bible Highlights." They say it is out of stock. It must be a congregation best seller.
 
Bobcat
Bobcat 4 years ago

It must be good. Look how several experts rate it: (from this site)

A Scientist:
I find that it is both beautiful and instructive. I have already recommended it to several ...
A Bookseller:
Thank you for your book which I found very interesting.
A Reader:
A must for every good library ...

Curiously enough, all their first initials are the same, "A."
 
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Billy the Ex-Bethelite 4 years ago

It looks like some people aren't satisfied with just the "spiritual food" being "served" through "Jehovah's spirit-guided channel!"
 
kurtbethel
kurtbethel 4 years ago

Is this the same Rolf Furuli who discovered this?
http://www.staggeron.org/universe.html#ancient_pepper_spray
 
AnnOMaly
AnnOMaly 4 years ago

kurtbethel - funny spoof!
Bobcat - thank you for the link to a preview of the book. Some of those pages I haven't seen before. The first thing I noticed (as others have) was the 'Watchtower style' font. The second thing I noticed was the time-line on p. 8/9. Although it's meant to be an approximate guide, it has the Kings of Judah ending in the 600s BCE :smile:
SadElder - Yes of course Rolf Furuli is a JW. This is well known.
VM44 - Furuli's article at the end is just a summary of what's in his 'Chronology' book 2 and it's the book that the recent WT articles are based on. If you want his article from 'Research-Bible-Artifacts,' let me know. I'll email it you.
It is interesting that nobody wanted to put their name to the recommendations. Also, the English version of the recommendations doesn't quite match up with the German version - somebody's not been careful. And I would be particularly interested to know who the 'Museum expert' was (not 'A reader'!) who said, "A must for any good library."
 
VM44
VM44 4 years ago

Hi Ann,
Thank you, yes, I would like to get the article from the 'Research-Bible-Artifacts' book.
 
AnnOMaly
AnnOMaly 4 years ago

On its way.
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 4 years ago

Bobcat....Umm that's not a person's name....Verlag is German for publishing house.
 
Bobcat
Bobcat 4 years ago

Leolaia:
Well, Boy Howdy! I saw the box that said "Author Gersam Verlag." It sounded like a name to me. Just don't send me to pick up any German food for you. Who knows what I'll come back with.
But thanks for pointing that out.
Take Care

Edited to add: And thanks for being kind (in the way you put it) to a dummy.
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
fulltimestudent
Why is the Bible silent about the real Israel/Egyptian connections?
by fulltimestudent 12 days ago
slimboyfat
Why does the Watchtower leadership slap its own defenders in the face?
by slimboyfat 4 months ago
freemindfade
Creationist Museum Acquires 5,000-Year-Old T. Rex Skeleton
by freemindfade 8 months ago
goingthruthemotions
Stranger in my own house, Since my wife and i don't talk much anymore nor sleep in the same bed. i feel like a stranger.
by goingthruthemotions 5 months ago
pronomono
Let's All Volunteer for the Warwick Project!!!
by pronomono a year ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/217344/book-research-bible-artifacts-chapter-on-vat-4956-rolf-furuli





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Is the Watchtower stubbornly holding onto the 70 year exile figure within the Old Testament?
/  





 

Is the Watchtower stubbornly holding onto the 70 year exile figure within the Old Testament?
by sabastious 5 years ago 22 Replies latest 4 years ago   watchtower beliefs
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
sabastious
sabastious 5 years ago

I read Outlaw's post about how he has watched people make an online career out of debating for and against arguments regarding 607 and 586 being the date of Jerusalem's fall. He's right that this has happened and it's had the nasty side effect of "mudding up the waters" so-to-speak in regards to anyone wishing to glean wisdom from these debates.
I am not a historian and when posts start getting overtly historical my reading of them seems to slow down and I find myself having to reread posts.
I am going to try to simply state each argument to see if I have put it together (correct me if I am wrong):
The Watchtower says that they default to the Bible's figure of 70 years of Jewish exile which is used more than once in the Old Testament. They use 539 b. c. e. as a cornerstone date because they agree with our current archaeological data, because it doesn't confict with the Bible, as the date of the destruction of Babylon by the Persians. I'm still not sure how they get 607 out of the numbers 539 and 70 maybe someone can enlighten me as to why this is?
Archeology has unearthed many relics that support the 586/587 date which contradicts with the Bible's 70 year exile depicted in the Old Testament IF you start from the secular destruction of Babylon: 539 b.c.e. Wouldn't this mean that archeology actually supports a LESS THAN 70 year stay for the Jews in Babylon? Is that ultimately why the Witnesses can't agree with the historical record?
-Sab
 
sabastious
sabastious 5 years ago

btt
 
No Room For George
No Room For George 5 years ago

Archeology has unearthed many relics that support the 586/587 date which contradicts with the Bible's 70 year exile depicted in the Old Testament IF you start from the secular destruction of Babylon: 539 b.c.e.
One thing to bear in mind Sab, is that archeology doesn't necessarily contradict the Bible. The 70 years had to deal with, "these nations" and their subservience to Babylon following the Battle of Carchemish. (Jer 25:11)
 
Witness My Fury
Witness My Fury 5 years ago

WTS claims a 70 year exile and 70 year "devastation / desolation" for Jerusalem.Hence they go from 539, then Cyrus 1st year, then a little journey to Jerusalem to get to to 537bce, then they subtract 70 years to get back to 607 as Jerusalems destruction.
The Bible says 70 years "servitude" to the Babylonians. "All these nations" nearby including Judah / Jerusalem were included in this.
The WTS hangs up on DESOLATION and COMPLETELY WITHOUT AN INHABITANT, seeming to forget that there's a lot of poetic license taken in prophecy to hammer a point home through over dramatisation, plus they FIX the 70 year period to THESE conditions being met.
 
MeanMrMustard
MeanMrMustard 5 years ago

@sabastious:
You wrote:
The Watchtower says that they default to the Bible's figure of 70 years of Jewish exile which is used more than once in the Old Testament. They use 539 b. c. e. as a cornerstone date because they agree with our current archaeological data, because it doesn't confict with the Bible, as the date of the destruction of Babylon by the Persians. I'm still not sure how they get 607 out of the numbers 539 and 70 maybe someone can enlighten me as to why this is?
They take 539 BC date as the fall of Babylon. Then they figure that Cyrus released the Jews by 538 BC. Then they figure it probably took them a year to get back to their land, and get started rebuilding. So they end up with 537 BC, when they got back to Jerusalem and the land was no longer "desolate without an inhabitant". So according to them, the 70 years is over at that point. They subtract 70 years from 537 and get 607 as the start.
But you have to keep in mind that to the WTS, the 70 years is that of "desolation without an inhabitant". The Bible doesn't say that at all. Witness My Fury was pointing that out. Just a simple read of Jeremiah 25 and you'll see its not about "desolation without an inhabitant". Rather, the 70 years is that of servitude to Babylon for many nations. When Carl Olof Jonsson wrote his book, he dedicated most of it to outlining the archelogical lines of evidence against 607 and for 587. But a good portion of his book considers the scriptures that mention the 70 years. These, IMHO, are the most powerful chapters because JWs need to see that its not a battle against archeology and the Bible. They actually agree. It's only the WTS interpretation of the scriptures (which they use to justify their power, so they have a vested interest) that are out of line with the Bible and historical evidence.
MeanMrMustard
 
Mad Sweeney
Mad Sweeney 5 years ago

But you have to keep in mind that to the WTS, the 70 years is that of "desolation without an inhabitant". The Bible doesn't say that at all.
That, to me, is the key to the argument. They assert it without ANY proof (and just the tiniest bit of inference) and THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT AT ALL.
 
djeggnog
djeggnog 5 years ago

@sabastious:


I am going to try to simply state each argument to see if I have put it together (correct me if I am wrong):
I'm still not sure how they get 607 out of the numbers 539 and 70 maybe someone can enlighten me as to why this is?

I concur with@WMF's response to this portion of your question. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jerusalem as well, for the land of Judah would have to pay off its sabbath rests during the years of its desolation until 70 years had been completed; accordingly, during this 70-year period, no one dwelled in the land of Judah. (2 Chronicles 36:20, 21; Jeremiah 44:2) Jehovah used Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, to come not just against his own people and the land of Judah to deport them to Babylon, but Nebuchadnezzar would also strike the surrounding nations, who would become vassals (servants) for Babylon during this 70-year period. (Jeremiah 25:8, 9, 29:11)
Jehovah also told his people that when the 70 years of desolation was complete, that he would bring them back to the land of Judah. (Jeremiah 29:10) After Cyrus had deposed Babylon in 539 BC, he decreed in 538 BC that the Jews could leave Babylon and return to the land of Judah to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem, and thereupon released them from Babylonian captivity. Upon their arrival in Judah and repatriation of their cities by 537 BC, the 70-year period came to an end. Thus by subtracting 70 years from 537 BC, Jehovah's Witnesses calculate that the 70 years of desolation began in 607 BC.
@WMF goes on to say the following with which I do not agree:


The Bible says 70 years "servitude" to the Babylonians. "All these nations" nearby including Judah / Jerusalem were included in this.
The WTS hangs up on DESOLATION and COMPLETELY WITHOUT AN INHABITANT....

@MeanMrMustard concurs with what @WMF says:


But you have to keep in mind that to the WTS, the 70 years is that of "desolation without an inhabitant". The Bible doesn't say that at all. Witness My Fury was pointing that out.... Just a simple read of Jeremiah 25 and you'll see its not about "desolation without an inhabitant". Rather, the 70 years is that of servitude to Babylon for many nations.

As you can read for yourself, @sabastious, Jeremiah 36:21 speaks of the land of Judah "lying desolated ... to fulfill seventy years" and Jeremiah 44:2 does explain how, not just Jerusalem, but "all the cities of Judah" had become "a devastated place" in which there was "no inhabitant," so @MeanMrMustard is mistaken.
Actually, both @WMF and @MeanMrMustard are fond of citing Jeremiah 25, notably Jeremiah 25:11, which speaks to the fate of the surrounding nations that were destined to become servants of Nebuchadnezzar during the 70 years, but Jehovah wasn't really punishing these nations at all, but sought to discipline his people, who had proven to be disobedient and had failed to keep the sabbaths they owed, prompting Jehovah to give his people a 70-year exile at Babylon to pay off these sabbaths and to discipline them, which "devastations" Daniel has determined from reading Jeremiah's prophecy, would be fulfilled after 70 years. (Daniel 9:2)


Archeology has unearthed many relics that support the 586/587 date which contradicts with the Bible's 70 year exile depicted in the Old Testament IF you start from the secular destruction of Babylon: 539 b.c.e. Wouldn't this mean that archeology actually supports a LESS THAN 70 year stay for the Jews in Babylon?

Yes.


Is that ultimately why the Witnesses can't agree with the historical record?

No. Because Jehovah stated quite clearly 70 years, Jehovah's Witnesses are unwilling to consider reconciling the Bible with archeological lines of evidence that, at best, render God's word void by assigning 50 years, instead of 70 years, for the period beginning with the destruction of Solomon's temple and the desolation of the land of Judah to its repatriation, and could care less what an apostate like Carl Olof Jonsson wrote in his book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Chronology and Christ's Return, since we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and have faith that when Jehovah said "70 years" he meant "70 years," and not "50 years," no matter what evidence may be presented that contradicts the Bible.
Recall, too, that Jesus said (1) that his disciples are "no part of the world," so we don't much care what the world says if what they should declare our God to be a liar, and (2) that God's word "is truth." (John 17:16, 17)
@djeggnog
 
Witness My Fury
Witness My Fury 5 years ago

But still no EVIDENCE for 607, just a lot of hot air and wishful thinking.
There are no "extra" years to play with, ANYWHERE in the period under discussion. The FACTS and methods that are used (even by the WTS) to establish 539 bce as the fall of Babylon ALSO establish 587 bce as the fall of Jerusalem. To cherry pick here is grossly dishonest. Only by holding to a very narrow "understanding" and reading of the 70 years is 607 arrived at.
If that understanding of prophecy is in direct opposition to fact then something is wrong with that understanding. ...This is not a bible vs secular chronology argument as the WTS would like you to believe, as the bible clearly supports the 587 date in line with secular history. It is the narrow and forced 607 argument that is not in line with both the bible and secular chronology, this is why many are leaving the JWs now that we are in the information age and can more easily see through the WTS propaganda.
 
AnnOMaly
AnnOMaly 5 years ago

^ *groan*
You've already been beaten to a pulp on this subject, eggie. Why are you offering yourself again for more humiliation?
 
Witness My Fury
Witness My Fury 5 years ago

Because he is VERY stupid Ann.
 
Alfred
Alfred 5 years ago

I hate to repeat what has already been said here, but here it goes again...
The WT has no choice but to keep saying "desolation" (instead of servitude) or face having to explain which Bablilonian king the jews were serving between 539 and 537 B.C.E..
As the WT knows all too well, there was no Babilonian king... he was killed in 539 B.C.E... so it's best that they stay away from even mentioning that 70-year "servitude" thing... the brothers might stumble (the smart ones anyway)... besides, Jehovah will clear things up in his own due time...
 
Dutch-scientist
Dutch-scientist 5 years ago

here we go again. :smile:
 
Dutch-scientist
Dutch-scientist 5 years ago

Jer 29:10 For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon
Besides At or For in the translation it ended when Babylon reign ended.
No Judah or Jarusalem or 537 what so ever.
 
St George of England
St George of England 5 years ago

Don't confuse the issue by looking at facts.
The only thing of any importance to JW's is that the date plus 2520 years must end up at 1914.
The fact that the 1914 prophesy has failed is also ignored by JW's
George
 
Witness My Fury
Witness My Fury 5 years ago

Just don't mention 1914 is the same thread as one discussing 607 or old egg gets all huffy about it for some reason. ...oh that's right, ...it's embarrassing.
 
Dutch-scientist
Dutch-scientist 5 years ago

yep 1914 must stand for all cost by jw's.
Even there is no zero year or Jarusalem was destroyed in a other year or the 70 yeard ended and started in a other year then JW's believed.

THEY (JW) HAVE 0.0% PROOF BUT THEY ARE ATTACKING PROOF THAT THEY ARE WRONG.
 
Hoping4Change
Hoping4Change 5 years ago

Here's a plug for Doug Mason's work on this:
http://www.jwstudies.com/babylonian_captivity.html
 
Kensho
Kensho 5 years ago

70 yrs. exile, 586 or 607 1914, 1975, overlapping generation yada yada yada....
These type of debates and arguments about dates, time tables,prophecies, and when the end will come etc. etc. whether they are promoted the WT religion or any other man made religion is all a waste of time.
WHO CARES? The GB just uses this stuff to make the R&F think they are spirit-directed and because they have all the time (and your money) in the world to sit around and conjure up this crap they get away with it! The R&F are to busy trying to make a living,preaching and going to all the meetings, so whatever the GB says is just dandy with them.
The Bible and all the other “holy books” claim their source is from God and that we should pattern our lives after them and then command us to convert other people to do likewise.
The very fact that the “truth” is not plain and understandable by everyone proves these books are not from the Creator of the universe.
This is evident from the order in the universe, the Creator would never give his creation a jigsaw puzzle with several key pieces missing and then tell us to just figure it out especially if it meant your life. The Creator would certainly not expect us to let the likes of Russell, Rutherford, Franz and the gang hand the missing pieces out either, just look at how many WRONG pieces they have handed out over the last 100+ yrs.
These books are fairy tales from superstitious people who lived thousands of years ago to give them some sort of direction in their miserable lives. I mean come on goat herders, nomads,and tent dwelling tribal butchers are the ones chosen to record the word of God..give me a break.
Today in the 21 st century Christian’s, Muslims, Hindus etc.….... and especially JW's have locked up their God given gift of REASON and are trying to live in a fairytale in a modern day that easily dispels fairy-tales and at the point of human evolution that these things defy reason
I for one choose to watch my fairy-tales on the movie screen and deal with the reality of this life we have been given, we are in the here and now let's make the best of it and leave the rest to the Creator, and unite our belief in God with our gift of reason.

Peace
Kensho Satori
 
sd-7
sd-7 5 years ago

I just finished reading that October 1, 2011 WT article on this subject. Wow. Unbelievable. The reasoning used there is entirely dependent on the ignorance of the reader, both of the Bible and of secular history, not to mention just devoid of the capacity for logical analysis.
The BIBLE ITSELF says in Jeremiah that Nebuchadnezzar took further inhabitants from the land of Judah in his TWENTY-THIRD YEAR, which is SIX YEARS after Jerusalem was destroyed. Oops! Guess the land wasn't completely emptied out, even if it was destroyed in 607 BCE. 70 year exile debunked...BY THE BIBLE. Jeremiah 52:30. Jews taken into EXILE in that verse had to be taken from Judah, or else it's a redundant thing to say.
WT and friends just continue to believe what they want to believe, since none of them apparently bothered to actually read Jeremiah for the sake of anything but supporting a preset belief system.
...And did eggnog say "for Babylon"?? Doesn't he mean "AT Babylon"?? Shhh! Don't say anything, unless you want him to sue you for "plagiarizing the Bible"...
--sd-7
 
sabastious
sabastious 4 years ago

Recall, too, that Jesus said (1) that his disciples are "no part of the world," so we don't much care what the world says if what they should declare our God to be a liar, and (2) that God's word "is truth." (John 17:16, 17)
Here's the whole part of the beautiful scripture you have turned into a soulless tagline:

John 17: 6-19 - 6 “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
13 “I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
Here Jesus is soulfully thanking his father for allowing him to save us. If anything this scripture empowers the individual to continue being the beautiful individuals they are. It has an encouraging "help is on the way" tone of which is lost when quoted out of context and referred to by a tagline.
From Jesus' perspective it was the individuals of his world that needed protection from it since most were corrupt. When he speaks of people "not of this world" he is speaking of his observations of a profound difference in heart condition between the small amount of good people who lived in his day and the corrupt masses of the "world."
Jesus saw what anyone with eyes could see. The Hebrews, a once proud (albeit violent) nation, suddenly found themselves under feudal rule by the Roman empire. Many friends must have became traitors and enemies to save their own skin and the rest became severely oppressed. Yet even in the midst of darkness Jesus found people who didn't deserve it. They deserved redemption. He knew that there was injustices that stifled their true potential. He saw Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi types in the lower and middle classes of his time and knew that if they could just be given hope they could and would change the world. He hated the rich even so much as to develop what psychologists today would call dysfunctional prejudice. He looked within the ranks of the lower and middle classes to find his heroes.
What you're doing here, DJEggnog, is using the Bible outside of the scope of it's purpose. You are doing this by taking a snippet from a general principle within, in this case that there is always good worth saving no matter how much evil looks like it has taken over, and turning it into something quite different. You have ignored a whole set of scriptures for what they are truly conveying, quite beautifully I might add, and misuse an except to further an organizational agenda. Shame on you and stop living and breathing for a fraudulent human organization.
-Sab
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Island Man
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man 2 months ago
slimboyfat
Dissenters in Watchtower History: Differing Departures
by slimboyfat 4 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago
Terry
A POP QUIZ about the origin of "NEW LIGHT"
by Terry a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/213960/watchtower-stubbornly-holding-onto-70-year-exile-figure-within-old-testament







Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Is the Watchtower stubbornly holding onto the 70 year exile figure within the Old Testament?
/  





 

Is the Watchtower stubbornly holding onto the 70 year exile figure within the Old Testament?
by sabastious 5 years ago 22 Replies latest 4 years ago   watchtower beliefs
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
PSacramento
PSacramento 4 years ago

DJ has shown over and over again that he has NO IDEA what he is talking about and that he refuses to accept ANYTHING other than what the WT tells him, even if it flies in the face ot DIRECT teachings of Christ.
Why you guys even bother is beyond me but I admire your tenacity.
The fact that the WT needs to interpret these bible passages erroneously so that their 1914 doctrine and, perhaps more importantly for THEM, their 1919 doctrine ( that THEY were the ones chosen by Christ) are shown to be "biblical", is based on a screwed up mixed bag of calculations that go in direct violation of what Christ taught and that, was to To NOT try to "guess" when he would return because it is NOT anyone's business but GOD'S.
The more they adhere to 1914, to 607 and to the incorrect interpretation of the 70 years, the more they show how against Christ they truly are.
 
lepavoux
lepavoux 4 years ago

It dos'nt matter about 607 BC or 587 BC, why not? Because Daniel 4 had no 2nd fulfillment of the chopped down tree, it was all made up by people who lived before Charles Russell, therefore there is no 2520 years, no 1914, no 1919, no 1914 "Overlapping Generation".
Therefore all of you Jehovah's Witnesses who are reading these posts need to THINK and to search for what the real truth is---it's there for you if you really want to fined it!
 
wobble
wobble 4 years ago

As Doug Mason shows on other threads, they just made all this nonsense up with no backing whatsoever from scripture or history.
J.W's, wakeup and smell the B.S, I mean coffee.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
i read outlaw's post about how he has watched people make an online career out of debating for and against arguments regarding 607 and 586 being the date of jerusalem's fall.
he's right that this has happened and it's had the nasty side effect of "mudding up the waters" so-to-speak in regards to anyone wishing to glean wisdom from these debates.. i am not a historian and when posts start getting overtly historical my reading of them seems to slow down and i find myself having to reread posts.. i am going to try to simply state each argument to see if i have put it together (correct me if i am wrong):.
the watchtower says that they default to the bible's figure of 70 years of jewish exile which is used more than once in the old testament.



Related Topics
Island Man
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man 2 months ago
slimboyfat
Dissenters in Watchtower History: Differing Departures
by slimboyfat 4 months ago
Saved_JW
Watchtower Paralells Mormonism
by Saved_JW 4 months ago
Terry
A POP QUIZ about the origin of "NEW LIGHT"
by Terry a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/213960/watchtower-stubbornly-holding-onto-70-year-exile-figure-within-old-testament?page=2&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ QUESTIONS and ANSWERS with NT scholar Prof. Bart Ehrman
/  





 

QUESTIONS and ANSWERS with NT scholar Prof. Bart Ehrman
by Terry 2 years ago 12 Replies latest 2 years ago   watchtower bible
5
10
20
Terry
Terry 2 years ago

The following is a tiny excerpt from Bart Ehrman's blog of which I'm a member.
This particular entry contains questions and answers about the nature of translating the New Testament.

_____________________
gabilaranjeira August 22, 2014
Hi Bart,
Did the fact that early Christian scripture was written in koine Greek have an effect in how the religion was perceived by the pagan elites and imperial family? In other words, did that make the religion look bad or koine Greek was acceptable? Did later Church Fathers write in Attic Greek (is this correct? Is Attic the Greek the “highbrow language” of the elites you mentioned above?)?
___________________
Bart Ehrman Bart Ehrman August 22, 2014
Yes, the literary elite looked down on the early Christian writings as completely third-rate. Some of the later fathers wrote in more elegant Greek — some of them were among the real intellectuals of the empire. But not for the first three centuries.
__________________
gabilaranjeira August 22, 2014
Do you think that this progression from koine to more elegant Greek used by later Church Fathers was a critical factor for Christianity to win over the elites and also Constantine, as Christians could then defend their faith in more sophisticated grounds?
____________________
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
Yes, indeed, it probably was!
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_____________________
Macavity August 22, 2014
When did you learn Classical Greek? Wasn’t the Greek taught at Wheaton College predominately Koine Greek? What do you think of the benefits of learning Classical Greek from the beginning rather than starting with Koine Greek?
______________________
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
At Wheaton we learned classical (Attic) Greek before beginning to translate texts out of the Koine. It is much better to do it that way. Anyone who can read Attic Greek can easily handle the Koine, but not the other way around.
________________________
TomTerrific August 22, 2014
How different is koine Greek from Attic? Would there be an analogy in English?
My wife likes to watch BBC and I find it difficult to understand some of the accents.
Then again, in school we were exposed to Chaucer as it was originally written and it was very difficult to read.
__________________________
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
I suppose koine would be like what you hear on the street and Attic would be Faulkner.
_________________________
qaelith2112 August 22, 2014
Dr. Ehrman,
This is a question which has nothing to do with the blog entry (using this as a means of getting another question across), but the “translation” aspect reminded me that I have been wanting to ask this.
Having read “Misquoting Jesus” (among others, but only these two are relevant for this question) and “Orthodox Corruption of Scripture”, and having followed up on those by comparing a number of the passages which have suffered corruption in some number of extant manuscripts to several English translations, I’ve noticed that translations vary quite a bit in exactly which witnesses they favor as a basis for their English translation. Among the bibles I have compared, so far the New English Translation (NET) seems to have agreed with you on a larger proportion of your conclusions than the others. That is to be commended, but it nonetheless goes with the reading which is more likely to have been a corruption in more passages than I would have liked.
The question: Do you have an opinion as to which modern translation or translations (or actually the teams doing the translation) have ended up making the highest proportion of good decisions (meaning those that your research would identify as more likely original) with respect to disputed passages? And as another related question, which translations seem to do the better translation into English? I’m hoping for one translation to both translate well and to make the best decisions most of the time regarding which reading to use.
The translational quality question may be a bit more loaded because I realize that a part of it is subjective — the “literal vs. readable” tradeoff and the passages that may need to be paraphrased in some way in order to better convey to a modern reader the actual meaning of something which might not be obvious in a strictly literal translation (such as “feet” actually meaning “penis” in biblical Hebrew).
Very sorry for wordiness in conveying the question.
Regards,
Chris Jones
_______________________
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
Well, I disagree with decisions of a lot of the translation committees. On the other hand, they disagree with me! My preferred translation is the New Revised Standard Version, which I especially like in a study edition, such as the HarperCollins Study Bible. (My mentor, Bruce Metzger, who taught me textual criticism, was the chair of the NRSV translation committee.)
_____________________________
RonaldTaska August 22, 2014
The possible variations in translation are quite interesting and I discovered the existence of such translation variations when I took New Testament Greek in college which made it even more difficult for me to understand the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy since there was no universal agreement on the correct translation.
What do you make of the New Testament being written in “Koine” rather than more sophisticated Greek? Does this, for example, mean that it was not a very “scholarly” endeavor?.
­­­­­­­­­­­­­_____________________________
Bart Ehrman August 23, 2014
Yes, it was not the work of scholars, but of educated lay folk.
___________________________
Bart Ehrman on his classes and teaching:
In most of my PhD seminars we have weekly translation assignments. I assign a passage (last semester, from the New Testament; this semester from the Apostolic Fathers) and the students are required to translate it for class. And then we spend an hour together, where I will ask one student at a time to translate out loud, without having an English translation sitting in front of them. They read the Greek on the page with their eyes, and give an oral English translation for the rest of us. Whenever they get something wrong I’ll correct them; I’ll ask them questions about how the grammar is working; I’ll ask them to parse difficult Greek forms (for the verbs: what is the tense, voice, mood, person and number, e.g.), and so on
Lots of times in every class period we will discuss alternative ways to translate this or that word or this or that line. Often, to get the nuance, we talk over a number of ways to try to get to the meaning.
And that’s how I read Greek for over thirty years – either by myself or in a communal setting. What I wasn’t expecting when I agreed to translate the Apostolic Fathers was that it would be a very different kind of task altogether. But it was. And it surprised, aggravated, and distressed me. For now the task was different. I don’t know why I didn’t realize that it would be, but it was – very different. Because now, instead of coming up with three or four ways to render a sentence (or a word) to get to the nuances, I had to sit at my key board and render it in ONE way. When you publish a translation, you are making decisions at every point – every sentence and every word – and when you decide to render the text in one way you are deciding not to render it in another way, and you can’t suggest three or four options. You have to type something. And so which of the various good options will you choose? It was a discombobulating and difficult experience at first. (I obviously got used to it.) No one rendering is really satisfactory, yet you have to produce one rendering. And at every point you’re thinking that other scholars looking at this are going to disagree with the choice you made. And in a two-volume set of translation, you are going to make thousands and thousands of choices. Ai yai yai…..
And so I found it really hard – not because I couldn’t read the Greek, but because the very act of translation is really complicated, far more involved than one would think. Or at least than I ever thought.
The entire project took an enormous amount of time and effort. On one level it was invigorating. For a few years before that, I had been writing college-level textbooks for nineteen year olds and trade books for their parents and grandparents, but had not been doing serious hard-core scholarship since The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (well, except for some academic articles I had written). So on that level doing the Loebs was great. But it was unusually difficult, far more difficult than I had imagined or that I imagine most people would imagine.
When I finished the project, I vowed with some vehemence that I would never, ever do another translation project. It was great to have done one, but one was enough. Never again. Until, well, I decided to do another one. I’ll talk about that one in the next post.
To be continued . . .
____________________________
(You can go to EHRMANBLOG.ORG and become a member for about $7.98 as a Trial Membership. All proceeds go to charity.)
 
Bungi Bill
Bungi Bill 2 years ago

Interesting!
Anyone who can read Attic Greek can easily handle the Koine, but not the other way around.
This is something to remember when directing criticism at the late FW Franz, whose academic credentials were in Classical Greek - but who had only (so it is said) two or three days formal tuition in Koine Greek. According to Prof. Ehrman, this matters not one jot!
Bill
 
Pistoff
Pistoff 2 years ago

Bungi Bill:

" This is something to remember when directing criticism at the late FW Franz, whose academic credentials were in Classical Greek - but who had only (so it is said) two or three days formal tuition in Koine Greek. According to Prof. Ehrman, this matters not one jot!"
What academic credentials are those?
Does he have a degree in Classical Greek?
Does he have more than one semester even?
Do you have the transcripts?

 
TJ Curioso
TJ Curioso 2 years ago

Terry You can ask him about the NWT... :wink:
 
Bungi Bill
Bungi Bill 2 years ago

Pistoff,
I do not have any transcripts, but understand Frederick Franz did study Classical Greek for two years while at university. (Although I don't believe he actually graduated with a degree). For a person of his times, this is not in any way unusual - studies in "The Classics" used to be quite commonplace. In fact, in the English public school system, education was limited to little more than those subjects.
Just for the record, I am in no way a fan of Mad Freddies!
Bill.
 
designs
designs 2 years ago

Koine was the hip-hop of its day...
 
Phizzy
Phizzy 2 years ago

" Koine was the hip-hop of its day..." LOL.
Koine was the Lingua Franca, understood by most of the known world to some degree. It is interesting that the Greek of Revelation is not even as elevated as Koine, it must have been on a par with the speech and writing of one of today's teenagers who has hardly ever attended School.
There has always been a preference for people to use a local dialect in the past, at least for the spoken word, so Jesus and his disciples would have spoken in Gallilean Aramaic, so we have an immediate translation going on by the Gospel writers from the spoken word in to Koine. Which is then translated again for us.
In view of Bart's comments above on the huge problems with translation, we can see how very silly it is to put any weight on what the Bible says.*
* "What the Bible says", I should not use that phrase, it is one of my pet hates, the Bible says nothing, it is merely a collection of books. People say things, and they are usually wrong.
 +1 / -0
Terry
Terry 2 years ago

Terry You can ask him about the NWT... ;)

I did ask.
I'm trying to find my way around the huge Blog to where I asked and he answered!
I'll let you know. Next time, I'm putting down bread crumbs to find my way back.
 +1 / -0
Pistoff
Pistoff 2 years ago

BungiBill:
"I do not have any transcripts, but understand Frederick Franz did study Classical Greek for two years while at university. (Although I don't believe he actually graduated with a degree)."
As far as any information posted in the 12 years I have been posting and reading here, he had one semester of Greek; does anyone have any more information?
 
the girl next door
the girl next door 2 years ago

I thought he had two years of Koine.
 
Bungi Bill
Bungi Bill 2 years ago

Pistoff,
Enrolement records from the University of Cincinatti confirm that one Frederick William Franz was enrolled at that institution between September 1911 and December 1913. During that time he studied Liberal Arts, Latin, Classical Greek, and also received an introduction to Koine Greek. He left before graduating, making his formal qualifications that of a "College Dropout".
Crazy Fred's total tuition time in Classical Greek amounted to 21 hours, and that in Koine Greek just 2 hours. It certainly was NOT the two years of intensive studies in Greek, like he tried to portray it was when he wrote his autobiography (see the Watchtower of 1 May 1987). In fact, one could argue that he received just enough tuition in Greek to make him dangerous!

The point I was trying to make in my original post was that the criticism levelled at FW Franz's lack of qualifications as a bible translator should be:
(i) The brevity of his formal studies in the Greek language.
(ii) And also the fact that he never completed the degree course.
However, the fact that almost all his brief tuition in Greek was confined to Classical Greek should NOT count against him - as according to Professor Ehrman, anybody who understands Classical Greek would have no problem understanding Koine Greek. (In our loathing of the WTS, there is always the temptation to get a bit reckless when criticising such things as the New World Translation. Leave that to the William Schnells of this world!)
Believe it or not, that is all I was trying to say!
(As an aside, if you have lived in countries such as Papua New Guinea - as I have - it is not at all difficult to understand how an individual versed in Classical Greek would understand Koine Greek.
The people who lived along the Gulf of Papua - i.e. on PNG's southern coastline - developed a language called "Hiri Motu", to allow them to be able to trade with one another. The "Hiri" was the annual trading expedition that set out from what is now Port Moresby, to trade with the peoples further around the gulf. The Motu people spoke the "pure" form of the Motu language, and between themselves and the Daru, Keremas and other groups, they developed a simpler form of that same language to be able to communicate when trading.
After Papua was proclaimed a British Protectorate in 1884, the Administration adopted Hiri Motu as the official langauge of government, as it was already well established as the lingua-franca of the Papuan coast area.
The relationship between "pure" Motu and Hiri Motu is very similar to that between Classical Greek and Koine Greek - i.e. those who can speak "pure" Motu have little difficulty in following a conversation in Hiri Motu. On the other hand, if you can speak only Hiri Motu, don't even attempt a conversation in the pure form of the language!)
Bill.
 
JWdaughter
JWdaughter 2 years ago

I had a year of spanish and a decent grade and I can barely ask where the bathroom is. I doubt that everyne is as incompetent as I am on the subject, however, there are some other realities of the NT that are more significant than merely translating it. I think this info about the greek and the translations in general though is very interesting.
 
garyneal
garyneal 2 years ago

Terry, how did you get on this blog? I would like to join too if it is possible.
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
The mistranslation of John 8.58
by Wonderment 3 months ago
Terry
PAROUSIA: The Watchtower's IRON BALLOON
by Terry 8 days ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/284569/questions-answers-nt-scholar-prof-bart-ehrman






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Ehrman: Paul Viewed Jesus Christ as an Angel.
/  





 

Bart Ehrman: Paul Viewed Jesus Christ as an Angel.
by Emery 3 years ago 52 Replies latest 3 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
Emery
Emery 3 years ago

In his upcomming book, "How Jesus Became God" Bart Ehrman has a new view on how Paul viewed Jesus. Since I am a huge Bart Ehrman fan I am a member of his blog site, http://ehrmanblog.org link to direct blog entry: http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of-jesus-as-an-angel-for-members/
There he made a recent blog entry where he argues that Paul viewed Jesus to be an angel according to Galations 4:14.
"Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ."
To preview his argument, he writes:
" I had always simply read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself. But in fact the grammar of the Greek is suggesting something quite different. As the Gieschen has argued, and has now been affirmed in a book on Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett, the verse is not saying that the Galatians received Paul as an angel or as Christ; it is saying that they received him as they would an angel, such as Christ. By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel.
As I indicated, the reason for reading the verse this way has to do with the Greek grammar. When Paul uses the construction “but as … as” he is not contrasting two things; he is stating that the two things are the same thing. We know this because Paul uses this grammatical construction in a couple of other places in his writings, and the meaning in these cases is unambiguous. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:1 Paul says this: “Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ.” The last bit “but as…as” indicates two identifying features of the recipients of Paul’s letter: they are fleshly people and they are infants in Christ. These are not two contrasting statements; they modify each other. The same can be said of Paul’s comments in 2 Cor. 2:17, which also has this grammatical feature."
Of course he continues to add to this argument on his blog site. Anyways, I was very surprised that Bart, along with several other scholars (which he mentions) are in agreement that Jesus was a Pre-existent angel according to Paul.
 
sir82
sir82 3 years ago

It would be the height of hilarity if the WTS ends up quoting from this book to bolster their anti-trinitarian views.
Ehrman's books positively skewer the idea of "divine inspiration" for the Bible - yet if the WTS finds one little snippet from his book that supports their theology, they would have no shame in using it.
Bet you 2 donuts that, if/when they do use it, they say something like "a prominent scholar writes..." so as not to cause the half-dozen or so remaining thinking JWs to search out his books.
 
Emery
Emery 3 years ago

@sir82, that's exactly what I thought as soon as I finished reading it. This will feed their confirmation bias for sure. The Watchtower will still have to reconile the epistle to the Hebrews where there's a detailed argument for Christ being greater than the angels, however. Ehrman agrees that the author of Hebrews was reacting against and correcting an earlier angelic christology, such as the one held by Paul.
 
breakfast of champions
breakfast of champions 3 years ago

Interesting. . . Will have to check it out.
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 3 years ago

Yes I read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? recently and his Christology is positively Arian if not JW in fact.
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 3 years ago

And I agree with him about Gal 4:14 as I argued here.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/239787/1/Jesus3dThe-archangel-Michael
it is one of the best scriptures for showing Paul's angel Christology.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

Bart Ehrmann is impressive but I want to see what more constrained academics think. Very intriguing. In my opinion, I think there had to be small steps between a Jewish view of Jesus, such as James and Peter, and Paul's expanded view. Jesus could be an angelic form of God. It does not preclude God. I always found it strange, though, that Paul the consumate Jews suddenly embraces Jesus as God. The staging is too drastic for me. What do you think? You, not Bart.
 
yadda yadda 2
yadda yadda 2 3 years ago

Bart Ehrman's right on the money with that, but ironically he is also on the money on how and why the Bible can't be trusted. He has to be the most intellectually honest Bible scholar out there.
 
ÁrbolesdeArabia
ÁrbolesdeArabia 3 years ago

Dr. Bart Ehrman is a best selling author because he knows how to work the crowds and touches on the sensitive topics once considered too sacred to touch. What do I think about Paul's view of Jesus Christ? There is no doubt Paul knew all the accounts the other Gospel writers wrote about Jesus Christ, one interesting area to ponder is to think about how many people brought demon possessed people to be cleaned by God's Son Jesus Christ. In Hollywood, we often see the demons with huge amounts of power while the simpleton priests are battling the demons who curse the person trying to do a exorcism. The reality to those who believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Most High Living God is much different.

Paul knew Mark, Matthew and Luke's accounts of the power Jesus Christ had over the unclean spirits. St. Paul was given different gifts including the authority to expel the unclean spirits under the name of "Jesus the Nazarene, The Messiah". The book of Daniel speaks of the angel Gabriel being stuck for forty days until the Arch Angel Micheal removed the Prince of Persia chains holding back Gabriel from delivering the message to Daniel and answer his prayers. Compare the power that Jesus of Nazareth to the angels who were hindered by the demons, "Legion" in the following scripture could have been ten to ten thousand if we use a Roman Legion average soldier count.

 "Luke 8:
Jesus Heals a Demon-Possessed Man
26 So they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes,[ c ] across the lake from Galilee. 27 As Jesus was climbing out of the boat, a man who was possessed by demons came out to meet him. For a long time he had been homeless and naked, living in a cemetery outside the town.
28 As soon as he saw Jesus, he shrieked and fell down in front of him. Then he screamed, "Why are you interfering with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Please, I beg you, don't torture me!" 29 For Jesus had already commanded the evil[ d ] spirit to come out of him. This spirit had often taken control of the man. Even when he was placed under guard and put in chains and shackles, he simply broke them and rushed out into the wilderness, completely under the demon's power.
30 Jesus demanded, "What is your name?"
"Legion," he replied, for he was filled with many demons. 31 The demons kept begging Jesus not to send them into the bottomless pit.[ e ]
32 There happened to be a large herd of pigs feeding on the hillside nearby, and the demons begged him to let them enter into the pigs.
So Jesus gave them permission. 33 Then the demons came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the entire herd plunged down the steep hillside into the lake and drowned.

 I find it interesting Jesus allowed the demons to kill off the swine his fellow Jews were raising (against the mosaic law) to sell for profit to people who were not following the Law. This region wanted Jesus out of there as fast as possible, they were terrified of the power of God and Jesus was more than happy to leave since they did not want to hear the Good News.

These Cowards were terrified Jesus would order them to go to the Abyss or even destroy them. The power Jesus Christ had compared to the angels is beyond our comprehension and I do not think Paul thought Jesus Christ to be a Angel. His words follow the train of thought, Jesus was a creation of incredible power only second to the Father (YHWH). Pauls following words in this various passages don't seem to tell me he thought Jesus was some type of angel, I think Paul knew from his revelations "He speaks of someone he knew who had a vision of the Third Heaven", Dr. Bart is trying to sell books and really, I don't think he cares either way what is true as long as he hits all the shows and sells lots of books. What do you think "Band On The Run" from all Pauls writings?

I found it interesting Jesus did now allow the demon possessed man to come with him even though he begged Jesus to come and travel with him. Jesus used the man to preach to these weird people and witness to all that region.

Does Pauls words written here sound like he is talking about a angel?

GALATIANS 1:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
No Other Gospel
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people?If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Paul Called by God
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.".

PHILIPIANS 1:
3 Every time I think of you, I give thanks to my God. 4 Whenever I pray, I make my requests for all of you with joy, 5 for you have been my partners in spreading the Good News about Christ from the time you first heard it until now. 6 And I am certain that God, who began the good work within you, will continue his work until it is finally finished on the day when Christ Jesus returns.
7 So it is right that I should feel as I do about all of you, for you have a special place in my heart. You share with me the special favor of God, both in my imprisonment and in defending and confirming the truth of the Good News. 8 God knows how much I love you and long for you with the tender compassion of Christ Jesus.
9 I pray that your love will overflow more and more, and that you will keep on growing in knowledge and understanding. 10 For I want you to understand what really matters, so that you may live pure and blameless lives until the day of Christ's return. 11 May you always be filled with the fruit of your salvation-the righteous character produced in your life by Jesus Christ[b]-for this will bring much glory and praise to God."
 PHILLIPIANS 2:
 "
Have the Attitude of Christ
2 Is there any encouragement from belonging to Christ? Any comfort from his love? Any fellowship together in the Spirit? Are your hearts tender and compassionate? 2 Then make me truly happy by agreeing wholeheartedly with each other, loving one another, and working together with one mind and purpose.
3 Don't be selfish; don't try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves. 4 Don't look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too.
5 You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.
6 Though he was God,[ a ]
 he did not think of equality with God
 as something to cling to.
7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges[ b ];
 he took the humble position of a slave[ c ]
 and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form,[ d ]
8 he humbled himself in obedience to God
 and died a criminal's death on a cross.
9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor
 and gave him the name above all other names,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
 in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
 to the glory of God the Father.
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 3 years ago

Ehrman makes a very interesting point about Phil 2:5-11. He says that after his kenosis and suffering on the cross Jesus is said to have been "super-exalted" which means he was given a greater position than he had to start with. How could that be possible if Jesus was already God at the beginning? It therefore makes more sense to consider that Paul viewed Jesus as an angel who was given an even greater position after emptying himself and dying on the cross. If Jesus was God then talk about him being super-exalted makes no sense.
 
ÁrbolesdeArabia
ÁrbolesdeArabia 3 years ago

Slim, that is a interesting point! I don't think Jesus Christ is almighty God and I don't think he was just a angel created by his Father. It's one of those areas that nobody can be certain over this issue. The older scriptures in Isaiah point to Jesus as "Eternal Father" and "Mighty God", what if God created Jesus with a higher level than the highest angel? A creation we are not told about who is given the status of some kind of god after proving himself?

I no longer believe anyone will die for not believing or getting it exactly right what Jesus is? I know he is the First of Creation, what he was before he was exalated, it would be nice to know but it's not a life or death question the Watchtower make's it out to be. I enjoy Dr. Barts books and will probably read it and than read Dr. Wallace's remarks on his book. Thanks for bring this book to our attention!

Slim, it's people like you who bring out great topics and discussions I could never have at the Kingdom Hall because they were too busy reading the dumb-down versions of the liter-a-trash the organization printed. Thank's Slim!
 
sarahsmile
sarahsmile 3 years ago

I enjoyed reading Barts first book and second book but along came the Others. He was just leading every one to read the book of Thomas and the other ones. Anyhow, it been years and I think he lost something along the way. He changed and miss the old Bart. I just thought he was one of the best bibical historical writers of our times.
I can see the JW qouting Bart Jesus is an angel concept. Bart probably got the thought from a WT.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

You are discussing how many angels fit on a pinhead. We are dealing with God, not a human construct. My gut feeling is with Arobles. Notice the Legion account is from Luke and not John. I don't think jesus of Nazareth was fully conscious of his status. Christ is different.
Many Jews, and god-fearers (Gentiles who would be Jews but for circumcision) quickly proclaimed Jesus as God.
Bart is not the last word. Indeed, he is not the most respected by other scholars. His opinions are important and crucial to the field. In no way, though, is he the field. You can't pick your favorite scholar and be true academically. Of course, we can as individuals. I prefer N.T. Wright and Paul Crossan. Elaine Pagels, too.
Elaine always taught us the full gamut of scholarship. Please when I was one of her students, "Q" definintely existed. After law school, I have time in my practice so I glance at a NYT article. Few now believe "Q; existed. Decades pass, "Q" now existed for many academics but some still doubt it. There are fads in NT scholarship. Also, it is great that these scholars write popular books and that a mass market for their books exist. The real meat, though, and qualifications are present in the NT academic journals. One person never has a monpoly on truth. Someone can argue politely that they think their view is better. Other people with equal credentials will respond, "no, you are wrong. I prefer X;s theories."
This is not new stuff. It revolves around and around. Such claims sell the mass market books. Life is usually more nuanced.
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 3 years ago

Dominic Crossan you mean.
 
EdenOne
EdenOne 3 years ago

Jesus is an angel, just like all other spiritual "sons of God". He happened to be the first to be created, therefore he was special to Jehovah. He happened to be the one that assisted his Father on creating everything else, including the other angels like him. Jehovah is a Father for all other angels as well. The superior power and authority that the spiritual Jesus has over the other angels isn't because he was made differently from the others; It's simply because the Father empowered him more.
Naturally, after his earthly experience, the angelic Jesus was "super-exalted" to a position superior of that he had before; not in terms of "ranking", for he continued to be number two after Jehovah, but in terms of respect. He had gone through such an experience that he was now even more worthy of respect and admiration from the other angels - and from his Father as well.
What's so difficult about that?
Eden
 
Larsinger58
Larsinger58 3 years ago

Thanks.
 
Pistoff
Pistoff 3 years ago

"We are dealing with God, not a human construct."
God is of course a human construct.
The name and nature of god/gods changes with each culture and changes over time.
It may be the thing that most differentiates humans from animals.
 
mP
mP 3 years ago

Well the cause of bart is probablly the simple fact, that Paul knows nothing of the earthly jesus. No Mary, virgin birth, bethlehem, apostles, death on a cross and so on. Paul always refers to Jesus as a spirit creature.
 
mP
mP 3 years ago

@arboles
Does Pauls words written here sound like he is talking about a angel?
mP:
The words you quote, dont sound like an earthly man.
In his writings Paul says jesus wouldnt even be a priest if he was on earth.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

Dominic Crossan is right. I can never remember his first name. The first book of his that I read had to deal with Paul and the Roman Empire. Not that I know deep background in the field but I was so impressed. I despise my notion of Paul b/c of the Witnesses. Despite years of hearing others go on about Paul being great and not writing what I object to from my soul, Crossan's arguments and writing style altered my vision of Paul. I don't know enough to know whether he is correct. I mix St. Paul and Crossan up in my brain.
I always want to share my experience with other Christians and I tell them about Crossan. His first name forever eludes me. I can even recall his photo. He looks more like a Dominic than a Paul, too.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/253729/bart-ehrman-paul-viewed-jesus-christ-angel






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Ehrman: Paul Viewed Jesus Christ as an Angel.
/  





 

Bart Ehrman: Paul Viewed Jesus Christ as an Angel.
by Emery 3 years ago 52 Replies latest 3 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
donuthole
donuthole 3 years ago

I'll have to read this, but in Greek an "angel of God" is a messenger from God. Paul viewed Jesus as being a messenger from God and believed that he too was received as such.
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 3 years ago

Crossan thinks Jesus was a Cynic, but I reckon Ehrman is right that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet rather. If he existed at all that is.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

If He/he existed at all. Yet to write these words, even as a churchgoing Christian, here one opens oneself up to vicious attack. The LORD Almight God, creator of Heaven and Earth, Prince of Peace, Lord of Lords, Jeshuymyig decreed that all Christians must not read or think. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this thread.
Let us all now proceed to the river and wash any literacy, education, cheap magazine subscriptions out of our collective heads. Alleuia. Bless the Lord.
 
JWdaughter
JWdaughter 3 years ago

What about "messenger"-is that not the literal word that was translated as angel in some versions? Of course, some would question anything Paul said on principle, but if we accept Paul, should we not then pay attention to the actual words?
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

I think sometimes former Witnesses, myself included, try to figure out the actual Koine Greek and may even read too much. It is so refreshing and shocking to study a variety of sources. Today's "hot" scholar is replaced by someone else. I don't know about others but I've gently confronted profs. and the priests that I know love reading these studies. It makes no sense to me. I know there are no bright lines or clear answers. What I thought was settled often becomes unsettled with time. Their socialization is so different from mine. Add the legal analysis and hypotheticals and I am flying. The world could end and I am so focused and intent that I would not notice.
They won't get into heavy debates about whether one recognized scholar is closer than another. Sometimes they tell me I am too bright and sophsipticated to even be asking them the questions. It shocks them. How does it affect my daily life as I wash dishes, do the laundry? It does not. Does it impact my faith? No. If they say what I want to hear, I will discount it.
Sometimes I just need to discuss this stuff b/c I could not growing up.
What is funny now is that I am no longer geographically near the centers where this work is hotly debated. I go to church. My resolve is to keep my mouth shut b/c I want to have friends. The utter boredom gets to me. Perhaps two people may know these author's names. I am reluctant to claim any insight as my own so I say I read or I once heard something. I paraphrase or repeat word for word what I heard from some important person in the field. It is a narrow field compared to the rest of the world. If a priest is present, the poor person protects me and has to spend twenty minutes explaining to the others. When a priest is not present, God help me. I don't know how to respond. Knowing this stuff is not the essence of briliance. Most of the time I can't figure out why I spend so much money and effort to read these books. I know for certain that I can take off from my other pursuits and present sent them with a prepared document proving that I have the right to say it. What does it matter, though?
I am curious as to how others with an addiction to this literature cope with the results of revealing your knowledge. Of course, I am acutely aware that I have the knowledge of a hobbyist. Sometimes reading such books gives me a rush as though I were mainlining heroin.......
 
QC
QC 3 years ago

Strong's 32 aggelos ang'-el-os from aggello; a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:--angel, messenger.

NIV Gal 4:14 "and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself."
ESV "and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus."
AV Lk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel aggelos departed from her.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

Wow, these verses in isolation demote Jesus big time. They are in isolation, though.
 
QC
QC 3 years ago

Jesus doesn't see it that way. He's content with being the " SON of God." It's always been that way.
Our job is to pay attention to details, like YOU pay attention to legal brief facts of a case.

Facts of this case:

Remember?
 
Doug Mason
Doug Mason 3 years ago

ÁrbolesdeArabia,
Paul did not know the accounts traditionally attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. They were all written after his death. Luke was written some 60 to 90 years after Paul had died.
Secondly, Paul explicitly states that he did not receive any of his teachings from any human source. He got them directly from the Lord, presumably in the form of visions. Thus he did not get his ideas of baptism, Last Supper, substitutionary death, resurrection, Coming, and so on from any person. They are his ideas. His opponents were the Jerusalem party led by James, Jesus' biological brother. The Jerusalem party saw Jesus as being nothing more than a human, with human parents. The birth narratives are highly ingenious creations of imaginitive minds; unfortulately, they did not collaborate and their stories seriously contradict one another.
Thirdly, Mark and Luke were Paul's adherents, and thus followed his lead. The NT Canon was set by Paul's followers, not by James' followers (Ebionites).
Doug
 
Doug Mason
Doug Mason 3 years ago

Regarding Gal 4:14, has anyone produced the chiastic structure of that passage?
Doug
 
ÁrbolesdeArabia
ÁrbolesdeArabia 3 years ago

Hi Doug, I don't think you read my post close enough, I took that into account when I wrote my original post about Paul and his access to first hand accounts.

 " Paul knew Mark, Matthew and Luke's accounts of the power Jesus Christ had over the unclean spirits. St. Paul was given different gifts including the authority to expel the unclean spirits under the name of "Jesus the Nazarene, The Messiah". The book of Daniel speaks of the angel Gabriel being stuck for forty days until the Arch Angel Micheal removed the Prince of Persia chains holding back Gabriel from delivering the message to Daniel and answer his prayers. Compare the power that Jesus of Nazareth to the angels who were hindered by the demons, "Legion" in the following scripture could have been ten to ten thousand if we use a Roman Legion average soldier count."

 Did Paul have access to talk with Peter, John, James, Mark, Matthew, Luke by the time he was in Rome and began to write the letters in the Twilight of his life? When we would visit with our JW friends who loved to discuss Bible apologetics the time flew by and we could sit back and talk for hours and hours with our Pioneer or Missionary buddies. Paul had access to the first hand accounts when he went to Jerusalem to combat the men trying to get the Gentiles to follow the Law. The books might not have been written as I presumed in my post, I believe Paul with his education and Holy Spirit helping him was able to get much of his questions anwsered.

Hi Mp, I think Paul's words describe something far beyond a angel, throughout the book of Romans Paul speaks of the New Creation and how we can't be seperated by the love of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul goes onto to establish men, angels nor Hell can seperate us from the love of God and his Son Jesus Christ who loved us so much and gave his life.

Mp, according to the Greek Sciptures Jesus Christ was the first to be given immortality and a name above ever other name in Heaven. i wish I could be precise but that is exactly what get's us all into trouble, we are not privy to the substance Jesus Christ has now been honored with by the Father. Romans 5-8 are great scriptures that describe something beyond a Angel, being a JW for so long we were not good with studying these books we were told did not pertain to us. I think Jesus Christ revealed to Paul he was higher than a Angel, some creation much higher "Paul speaks of a vision of the third-Heaven and seeing things it was not legal to see", Pauls books show Jesus Christ was rewarded as the New Creation Jehovah made to honor his holy Son, parents are always willing to do the most for their kids, the love and joy Jehovah had for his first born creation after refuting Satan's lies, are show in Pauls writtings that Jesus Christ was the first "New Creation" and given that title.

Mp, sorry if the answer seems convoluted because I wish I had the exact answer to provide you! Peace be with you Mp!
 
mP
mP 3 years ago

@Arboles
Your overview of some of Pauls work, doesnt change the fact that Paul never mentions anythhing about jesus the man and has no knowledge of the gospels.
Paul never mentions
- never quotes the gospels, then again its obvious why as the gospels were written after Paul died.
- jesus being born in Bethlehem
- mary
- joseph
- the crucifiction
- jesus earthly ministry
- jesus miracles
- the ressurrection,
- herod
- judas
- the apostles
- Paul visits jerusalem but never tells us about any galgotha, etc

Of course if im wrong show me a scripture written by Paul that mentions a few or even one of the above aspects of jesus life.
How is it that Paul never tells us any of these historical facts about Jesus ?
 
Doug Mason
Doug Mason 3 years ago

ÁrbolesdeArabia,
I did read your post and I provided a few reasons for my disagreement.
Paul claimed that he did not receive any of his instructions from any human. He claimed that he spoke with no one for 3 years after his conviction regarding Jesus Christ, that he spent 14 years without making any contact with Jerusalem, and when he gave them his gospel message, they added nothing. He speaks quite contemptuously of them (James, Cephas, and John). When the 4th century Church at Rome decided which writings they would canonise (currently our NT), they wrote James out of the picture, even though he was Jesus' full brother and leader of the Jerusalem community.
Paul indicated that his teachings came directly to him from the Lord, without any human involvement. Either he is deluded, telling a lie, or he is honest.
Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death and re-edited during subsequent centuries. He created the ideas and others followed, some of which I mentioned in my previous response.
Did Paul invent Christianity?
Doug
 
Comatose
Comatose 3 years ago

Lars viewed himself as the messiah. He wasn't. It doesn't really matter how Paul viewed him... If you read Bart's books you realize the miracles in the stories you talk about with demonic possession probably didn't happen.
 
yadda yadda 2
yadda yadda 2 3 years ago

I think 1 Corinthians 9:22 is a good bet for how the gospels may have originated.

19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
Paul may have been admitting here that he was guilty of what we today call pious fraud to gain as many converts as possible.
The theory goes that there was an original oral tradition and quite possibly original Q documents of sorts, which Paul heard and perhaps carried with him in his missionary travels. These contained written accounts of Jesus's basic oral teachings and ministry, but these accounts quickly got corrupted and embellished by the heathens who soon elaborated the stories with themes from their ancient Roman myths. Paul tolerated it and perhaps even promoted this in order to gain more converts!
The fact that there was a very strong tradition of numerous gnostic gospels being written (although quite some time after the original gospels) around which whole religious communities developed tends to support the idea that people back in those ancient times took a lot of pious and literary licence, tending to confuse and blend historical accuracy and tradition with their unique brand of religious mysticism.
By the time the gospels were written long after Paul had been travelling for many years around the far-flung circuits of the Roman empire and with no original Jewish disciples around to place a check the embellishments (all in Jerusalem or thereafter killed or lost in the diaspora), the original oral tradition had become widely corrupted. Paul wanted to 'save' as many and as quickly as he could, so he let the embellishments go unchecked. Better that some falsehood is tolerated and more 'saved' than rigidly sticking to the original accounts.
By the time Mark was written, the writer himself a pagan convert writing the account for a Roman audience, the damage was done. Then the other gospels flowed from Mark.
 
QC
QC 3 years ago

@Yadda

"The theory goes"
Interesting post, but “theory goes” can’t be taken as creditable Biblical evidence. You agree?
"Mark was written, the writer himself a pagan convert"
ALL Bible writers are Jews, not one was a pagan gentile convert.
"Moses...received living words to pass on to us [Jews];" Acts 7:38 "Advantage...in being a Jew...Jews have been ENTRUSTED with the very words of god." Ro 3:1-2 NIV
@Comatose
Paul "speaks quite contemptuously of them (James, Cephas, and John)."
I disagree:

YLT  Ga 2:9 "Having known the grace that was given to me,  James , and Cephas , and John , who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the nations, and they to the circumcision may go"
"Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death."
I disagree:
Paul and Peter are martyrs in Rome c. 64-69 C.E. The 4 Gosples were complete before then, only possible exception is John.


 
QC
QC 3 years ago

@Comatose: sorry, got you by mistake, my bad.
@DMason
Paul "speaks quite contemptuously of them (James, Cephas, and John)."
I disagree:
YLT Ga 2:9 "Having known the grace that was given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the nations, and they to the circumcision may go"
Luke was written some 60 to 90 years after Paul had died.... "Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death."
I disagree:
Paul and Peter are martyrs in Rome c. 64-69 C.E. The 4 Gosples were complete before then, only possible exception is John.


 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

You need to read more history sources.
 
QC
QC 3 years ago

@Band
You need to read more history sources.
 New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
Mark
From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before A.D. 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem , such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place. On the other hand, if xvi, 20: "But they going forth preached everywhere", be from St. Mark's pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (A.D. 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts 14:26 and 15:3 , that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale. Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews , but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel , occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul's arrival in Europe (A.D. 50-51). Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between A.D. 50 and 67.
Matthew
Now, following a certain tradition (admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles separated twelve years after the Ascension , hence the Gospel would have been written about the year 40-42, but following Eusebius ( Church History III.5.2 ), it is possible to fix the definitive departure of the Apostles about the year 60, in which event the writing of the Gospel would have taken place about the year 60-68. St Irenæus is somewhat more exact concerning the date of the First Gospel , as he says: "Matthew produced his Gospel when Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church of Rome , consequently about the years 64-67." However, this text presents difficulties of interpretation which render its meaning uncertain and prevent us from deducing any positive conclusion.
Luke & Acts
As regards the date of the Book of Acts , we may at most assign a probable date for the completion of the book. It is recognized by all that Acts ends abruptly. The author devotes but two verses to the two years which Paul spent at Rome . These two years were in a certain sense uneventful. Paul dwelt peaceably at Rome , and preached the kingdom of God to all who went in unto him. It seems probable that during this peaceful epoch St. Luke composed the Book of Acts and terminated it abruptly at the end of the two years, as some unrecorded vicissitude carried him out into other events. The date of the completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul's Roman captivity . Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul's coming to Rome in the year 62; hence the year 64 is the most probable  date for the Acts . [Gospel Luke is earlier, Luke travels with Paul]
 
yadda yadda 2
yadda yadda 2 3 years ago


"creditable Biblical evidence"
What "creditable evidence" about 2,000 year old books that are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies....etc.
Thomas refused to believe until he had hard physical proof with his own eyes, so why should I believe?
It's completely irrational to believe in miracles claimed by ancient hearsay.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
in his upcomming book, "how jesus became god" bart ehrman has a new view on how paul viewed jesus.
since i am a huge bart ehrman fan i am a member of his blog site, http://ehrmanblog.org link to direct blog entry: http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of-jesus-as-an-angel-for-members/.
there he made a recent blog entry where he argues that paul viewed jesus to be an angel according to galations 4:14. .



Related Topics
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/253729/bart-ehrman-paul-viewed-jesus-christ-angel?page=2&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Ehrman: Paul Viewed Jesus Christ as an Angel.
/  





 

Bart Ehrman: Paul Viewed Jesus Christ as an Angel.
by Emery 3 years ago 52 Replies latest 3 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20
QC
QC 3 years ago

@DMason
"Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death"

I found this tidbit:

Gospel John

Attention must be given to John 5:2 where John uses "is" rather than "was" concerning the pool near the Sheep Gate. This places the Gospel John to be written a time before 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed.

YLT  Jn 5:2 and there is in Jerusalem by the sheep-gate a pool that is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches,
 
mP
mP 3 years ago

QC
"Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death."
I disagree:
Paul and Peter are martyrs in Rome c. 64-69 C.E. The 4 Gosples were complete before then, only possible exception is John.
MP:
Its a fact that Mark 13(???) is a record of the destruction of the temple of jerusalem which occured around 70ad. Given that Mt and Lk copied Mk, they are even older. We also have the strange fact that the apostle Matthew is copying someone else when he was an eyewitness ? HOw is this exaplined ?
 
mP
mP 3 years ago

QC
Attention must be given to John 5:2 where John uses "is" rather than "was" concerning the pool near the Sheep Gate. This places the Gospel John to be written a time before 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed.
mP:
Well mark has an entire chapter which is clearly written after the destruction of jerusalem (mk 13). One chapter weighs a lot more than a single word.
 
QC
QC 3 years ago

@mP
"Its a fact that Mark 13(???) is a record of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem"
That’s partially correct, i.e. Mark 13, Mat 24, Luk 21, have Jesus’ PROPHECY of Jerusalem’s destruction. This prophecy is then FULFILLED in 70 A.D.

That’s an important distinction. And, why you as a Jew should believe your fabulous Bible, NT and OT.

Usually your posts get no response from me because your “facts” are ALWAYS the artful practice of spewing malicious propaganda.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

Many of the people arguing on this thread have yet to read a neutral analysis of the gospels or of the "historical Jesus." Once upon a time, this would be understandable. So many scholars stopped publishing in journals, though, and went mainstream. These books are best-sellers. This history is very old now. It started in the late 1800s, principally in Germany.
If you read Roman Catholic books or a denomination's books, history will be viewed through their agenda.
Your basic information would never stand scrutiny from most college students. I suggest calling a secular university and asking to speak with a religous historian for a two minutes. Ask for a referral to an academic book concerning NT scholarship. Explain you don't have an advanced background. I no longer know what is the latest and best in the field. They will gladly tell you and perhaps where to get a discount. In fact, I routinely see some of the books I read in public libraries. This info is no longer a big secret.
Your premises are wrong and so are your dates. Religous history and Biblical analysis is complicated by the wealth of utterly biased information on the market. One needs to read selectively. Also, I know from personal experience and debates with seminarians that there is a diversity within the field. They agree on the basics but other scholars do not necessarily agree with their theories from the basic facts. With computers and modern archaeology, as we move further away in time, more and more ancient material is being uncovered. Photographs from space craft revealed many ancient cities that no one could locate before.
I don't want to be rude. My reading time is precious so why not read the best.
 
QC
QC 3 years ago

"Your premises are wrong and so are your dates. Religous history and Biblical analysis is complicated"
I know, why should you have to explain a 4 th century”trinity Rianti” predilection, or any other fanciful self-illusion.
‘It’s all so “complicated” keep going until you find someone in the library, they’ll agree with me, they’ll explain it to you.’

Keep deluding yourself.
Bible understanding comes with a configuration of the heart, “the pure of heart see God.” It does not come with scholarship or a college degree.
 
Cold Steel
Cold Steel 3 years ago

...
There is absolutely NOTHING in the scriptures to indicate that Jesus was an "angel" in the traditional sense of the word. The word also can refer to "sent one" or "messenger," as many translations render it. Galatians 4:14 states:

◦...and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus...." (Young's Literal Translation)

◦And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. (KJV)

◦Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ. (Ehrman's translation)

Given his translation, Ehrman believes the Galatians received him as an angel, or messenger, of God, "as Jesus Christ." And what are we to make of the word "angel" (which means "sent one" or "messenger")? To me it seems obvious that Paul was referring to himself. Remember, there was no punctuation in these ancient languages. One has to figure out what's being said, then add the punctuation.
Does it make sense to say that they received him as the angel of God, Jesus Christ? Or that they received him as a messenger, or sent one, of Jesus Christ? I see no evidence whatsoever that the Galatians received him as they did Jesus Christ. (Or, as he would have it, "an angel of God, even Jesus Christ.") Even Ehrman wouldn't go that far and admits the verse is "a bit obtuse." So he's willing to go out on a limb and create a new doctrine that isn't anywhere taught in either the Old or New Testaments!
But let him have it his own way. A third interpretation he doesn't mention is that the Galatians received Paul as Jesus Christ. But, again, it doesn't make sense contextually. Why would they receive him as Christ, or as they received Christ? It only makes sense that they received him as a messenger of God, even as they did Jesus Christ. As Ehrman puts it, "I had always simply read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself."
But what's all this he makes of angels and angelic visitors. If one views the verse in Young's Literal Translation: "...and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus...."
Malachi writes of Christ when he says: " Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord , whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap...." (Malachi 3:1-2)
Another scholar notes of Jesus: "He is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Creator. He is our Advocate with the Father. He is our Exemplar. He is often called the Good Shepherd or the Great Judge. He is sometimes referred to as our King, or as the King of Kings; as the Lamb of God; as the Light of the World; as the Lawgiver; or as the Mediator. Sometimes he is called the Messenger of the Covenant, or the Rock of our Salvation; the Chief Cornerstone; the Son of Man; the Anointed One, the Deliverer, or the Man of Sorrows; or the Only Begotten of the Father."
Opinions will inevitably vary. Some believe Jesus was simply Michael the Archangel made flesh. Others believe he is Yahweh, Jehovah, made flesh. The debate will go on, but one thing's for certain. It's far from being settled by Bart Ehrman.
------------------
Background: Evangelical Don Closson writes:

Bart Ehrman is a product of evangelicalism's center. Educated at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, he knows how conservative Christians think because he used to be one. His recent book Misquoting Jesus has been called "one of the unlikeliest bestsellers" of the year, and with it he has managed to bring to the public's attention the obscure world of New Testament textual criticism.
 Having professed faith in Christ while in high school, Ehrman went off to college with a simple trust in the New Testament text, a trust that included verbal, plenary inspiration. In other words, he believed that God had inspired and preserved every word of the Bible. By the time Ehrman began doing graduate work at Princeton, he was having serious reservations about the text and its source. He now considers himself an agnostic and writes books that question most of what his fellow classmates at Moody and Wheaton believe.

 
mP
mP 3 years ago

@QC
MP:
Mk 13 is not written as a prophecy, its written as history. Forget the holy book context and read the text for what it says.
QC
That’s an important distinction. And, why you as a Jew should believe your fabulous Bible, NT and OT.
MP:
Im not a jew, not that it mattes.
As an individual praise or blame me for what i have done, dont just me because of my ancestors. Stop being racist and judging people on their ancestors.
QC
Usually your posts get no response from me because your “facts” are ALWAYS the artful practice of spewing malicious propaganda.
mP:
What propaganda ? If god wrote it, then be honest and take the text for what it says. Changing the meaning of the text is dishonest, and has been done many many times with many many different meanings, all of which are of course wrong.
Idiots spew forth accusations at the character of someone they disagree with. I hope your not one of those kinds of people, who cant argue on a higher level.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

I've read Ehrman for a while along with other populizers. He always draws headlines with either a title or something that is always provocative. It is designed to titillate the fundie/conservative audience. I find it tacky. The publisher, though, moves books and makes money. Overall, reading Ehrman is better than not reading anything. He has a definite bias. I feel it is so obvious that I only note it. So my academic heart is so "cold." Thank you for the statement. It verifies that I am correct. Also, it is proof that read your skewed gospels to kingdom come, you are no great Christian. What do you expect here? A bunch of simpering JWs who will not question you. The heart remark was the clincher. You don't care about truth or Christ. You care about being right. Rather than researching your not research, you should find a bunch of simpering idiotic Christians to anoint you with oil and hail you as the new Jesus. Ego from people who don't know basic facts.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

I've read Ehrman for a while along with other populizers. He always draws headlines with either a title or something that is always provocative. It is designed to titillate the fundie/conservative audience. I find it tacky. The publisher, though, moves books and makes money. Overall, reading Ehrman is better than not reading anything. He has a definite bias. I feel it is so obvious that I only note it. So my academic heart is so "cold." Thank you for the statement. It verifies that I am correct. Also, it is proof that read your skewed gospels to kingdom come, you are no great Christian. What do you expect here? A bunch of simpering JWs who will not question you. The heart remark was the clincher. You don't care about truth or Christ. You care about being right. Rather than researching your not research, you should find a bunch of simpering idiotic Christians to anoint you with oil and hail you as the new Jesus. Ego from people who don't know basic facts.
 
mP
mP 3 years ago

Malachi writes of Christ when he says: " Behold, I will send my messenger , and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord , whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant , whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap...." (Malachi 3:1-2)
mP:
From the OT who or what is a messenger of the convenant ? Jesus was never called that in the NT, so your match is completely wrong.
Malachi is not a name it means "messenger". The scripture your referring to is actually probably the author talking about themselves.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 3 years ago

Some people here continue to say Paul knew the gospels. He could not b/c the earliest and most apocalyptic, Mark, was written after Paul's deatrh. It is a fact that anyone in diverse religions believe. It is fact. Paul may have had access to a hypothetical Q, which was the source of the synotpic gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The similaries are too great to be based on independent sources. Q probably contained sayings of Jesus, handed down orally and finally written. For some reason, there is no narrative. Maybe people already knew the narrative but wanted the precise words of Jesus before the oral tradition degraded them. There is no miraculous birth or even Passion in Q.
Paul had to rely on what he was taught by oral tradition or perahps some fragmented writings that are now lost. Clearly, his view of Jesus differs from that of James and Peter. There is no scripture that conclusively settles the Christological debate. To me, it matters deeply whether Jesus was adopted by God, is highly evolved, or is God. For some reason, it did not consume early Christians. Perhaps certain cities had different views.
When I read a critical biography of Augustine recently, I was shocked at the diversity of scripture during Jesus; life and Augustine's. Different cities considered different books holy. One city might have no knowledge of another gospel. Many Christians only had one gospel. Sometimes the writings considered scripture can be traced to the historical tradition that linked a particular apostle with the founding of the local church. Every little church was founded by one of the Twelve or Paul. They all had relics, too. The canonization of the gospels and the development of orthodoxy only happened after Constantine's conversion. Constantine ordered local bishops to gather and define belief. The result was many disputes. The historical records can be easily found online. Once Constantine converted, what Christian bishops decided was important to everyone in the Roman Empire. Time and time again, Constantine interferes for political reasons. He wants one united church. His legitmacy as a Roman Emperor was sullied. A cohesive church increased his personal legitimacy.
I thought that the Trinitarian view was decided by the Nicene Creed. Presently, I am reading a historical novel about a young woman who poses as a man to have a place among Christian intellects. Arianism lasted for a long time in Europe. There were military battles and suppression deep into the MIddle Ages. Predictably, there was not widespread debate among Christians. What view of Jesus you held mostly depended upon where you lived in a geographical region. Your war lord determined what you would believe.
This is a rich history, full of contradictions. Within mainstream denominations, even those that recite the Nicene Creed during every service, few would claim it is absolute. A sophisticated view that I endorse is that God acts in people's lives in sundry ways. Each person has a range of experiences. The Trnity is best viewed as a clumsy attempt to describe the manifest ways we view God. No one would be defrocked for this view.
The same is true of American history. Few Americans have a clue how sexy, interesting, and personal it is. Rather than tarnish it with the great American myths that are total lies, why not embrace it. We comes across as a far better nation with the truth. Any time scripture or supposed history, selected and misconstrued as in the WT manner, fits neatly into a framework, the result is fraud on a large scale.
I don't know the truth. The first century actors disagreed. I can only quote my readings and personal insights. Others may have other views, just as legitimate. I do know utter junk and bunk when I read it. Were this not the exWT world, I would ignore it. Eden One completely and totally misrepresented the Gnostic scriptures. Total misrepresentation. He writes boldy but he knows very little. In his mind, he is a giant and we are little itsby nothings. Well, I know better and will proclaim it. I am sorry if I get carried away but I despise a supposed teacher claiming truth that isn ot truth in any fashion. All my higher education moves me to call bunk.
When someone proclaims something shockingly different from accepted norms, the person should cite extensive sources and the process by which they reached their conclusions. Many an academic field has improved by such action. Eden One could be right. I highly doubt it. Conclusory statements are not enough. I recall being impressed by shoddy scholarship when I was a teenager. The WT was the only truth. Well, I am much older and wiser now.
 
Cold Steel
Cold Steel 3 years ago

MP: From the OT who or what is a messenger of the convenant? Jesus was never called that in the NT, so your match is completely wrong. Malachi is not a name it means "messenger." The scripture your referring to is actually probably the author talking about themselves.
The reference is to Jehovah, or Christ. First, Malachi never fulfilled the prophecy.

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.
Jehovah/Jesus is the "Messenger" who comes to purify and judge the earth. Notice that it's the "Lord of hosts" who announces that he is the fulfillment. And because Jehovah is the premortal Christ (NOT the Father), he announces his intent to judge the peoples of the earth. How do we know this? Because Jehovah, throughout the Old Testament, says that he will be the judge of mankind. But Jesus not only told the Jews that he was the great "I AM" of scripture, John states, "For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son." (John 5:22)
In Genesis, Jehovah also is called an angel:

And he [Jacob] blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. (Gen. 48:15-16)
In other words, "the God which fed me" (Jehovah) is called "the Angel" or "the Messenger" who redeemed him from all evil. Jesus also fits that bill as redeemer and savior of mankind. Jacob, who had been renamed Israel by God, said, "and let my name be named on them," which was "Israelites" (also known as the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). If Jehovah was an angel, or messenger, who was it that sent him?
The Father is the only logical answer, which means Jehovah cannot be the Father.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
in his upcomming book, "how jesus became god" bart ehrman has a new view on how paul viewed jesus.
since i am a huge bart ehrman fan i am a member of his blog site, http://ehrmanblog.org link to direct blog entry: http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of-jesus-as-an-angel-for-members/.
there he made a recent blog entry where he argues that paul viewed jesus to be an angel according to galations 4:14. .



Related Topics
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/253729/bart-ehrman-paul-viewed-jesus-christ-angel?page=3&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Ehrman says the text about women being submissive on 1 Cor 14 was forged
/  





 

Bart Ehrman says the text about women being submissive on 1 Cor 14 was forged
by dgp 5 years ago 23 Replies latest 5 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
dgp
dgp 5 years ago

In "Forged: Writing in the Name of God. Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are" (http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God--Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012614/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302541788&sr=8-1), Bart Ehrman points out that the section of 1 Corinthians were women are told to remain silent in church is most likely an addition by someone other than saint Paul.
Ehrman writes:
"One of the most hurtful passages for the cause of women who want to be active in the Christian church occurs in 1 Corinthians 14:35-35 Here Paul is recorded as saying:
Let the women in the churches keep silent. For it is not permitted for them to speak; instead, let them be submissive, just as the law itself says. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Women are to be silent and submissive to their husbands. They are not to speak at all in church. This obviously makes it impossible for a woman to utter a prophecy in church, pray publicly and openly in church, or teach in church. Women are not allowed even to ask a question in church.
These verses are very much like what one reads in one of the Pauline letters that is not authentic, 1 Timothy, which, as we saw in Chapter 3, also indicates that women are to be subject to men and not to exercise any authority over them (2:11-15). But Just as 1 Timothy is forged, so too has this passage in 1 Corinthians been falsified. These verses in chapter 14 were not written by Paul. Someone added them to the pasage later, after the letter had been placed in circulation.
Scholars have adduced many reasons for this view. For one thing, the verses seem to intrude in the passage in which they are found. Immediately before these verses Paul is talking about prophecy in the church; immediately afterwards he is talking about prophecy. But this passage on women interrupts the flow of the argument. Take them out, and it flows much better.
Even more, it is hard to believe that Paul would tell women that they could not speak in church here in 1 Corinthians 14, when just three chapters earlier he indicated that they could indeed do so. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul urges women who pray and prophesy in church to do so only with veils on their heads. If they were allowed to speak in chapter 11, how could they be told not to speak in chapter 14? It makes better sense that those scholars are right who think that the verses were not originally part of the text of 1 Corinthians. Someone has falsified the book by adding the verses to it, making the passage say what these copyists wanted it to say rather than allowing Paul to say what he meant to say".
Opinions, anyone?
 
Terry
Terry 5 years ago

The writings of the First Century were more of a backdrop than an engraved in stone pronouncement.
For one thing, everybody had an opinion.
As time went by certain views became accepted while others less so.
The letters or espistles sent from church to church were not viewed as a SACRED record of DIVINE intrusion into mundane affairs.
Not at all at first.
This was a gradual view like owning a baseball card of your favorite player which later acquires collector status and is valued differently in time.

In our own day and time there are hundreds and hundreds of FAN FICTION sites all over the web. They are doing what the people back in Paul's day were doing. Shaping stories with a personal touch and injecting a particualr viewpoint into a larger framework.
In Paul's day the framework was the transition taking place between Judaism and a detached non Kosher Messianic Judaism and consequently
a breaking away into a polarized singularity.
Paul's writings and the FAN FICTION in his name and style merely gave voice to other opinions.

We have come to view the whole lot (remaining) as rather more of a HOLY RELIC that it ever was in its day.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

Lookat what Paul says here in Romans:
Personal Greetings
16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon a of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.
3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, 4 and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert b in Asia for Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked very hard among you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, c my relatives d who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. 8 Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. 9 Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. 10 Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. 11 Greet my relative e Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus. 12 Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; and greet his mother—a mother to me also. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers and sisters f who are with them. 15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. 16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.

Notice whta Paul says of a few females:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon a of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints
Greet Andronicus and Junia, c my relatives d who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.

In just these 3 parts alone, Paul makes reference to different women as Deacons, apostles and Saints.

Does that sound like Paul wants them to "be quiet" in Church or views them as "second class citiziens"?
 
sabastious
sabastious 5 years ago

Psac, I haven't seen you in weeks! Hows it going?
-Sab
 
dgp
dgp 5 years ago

I agree that Saint Paul didn't want women submitted and quiet. I would go even further, and, in agreement with Terry, I would say that Saint Paul's opinions are nothing but opinions, and so, in my humble "opinion" (sorry for being so repetitive), they are not to be taken as indicative of what churches need to do. His saying that wives must ask their husbands whatever it is wives want to know, for example, is not exactly a good thing.
But people who believe in the Bible may find it interesting that apparently the words calling for the submission of women are not Saint Paul's. It seems scholars are in agreement about this. Why don't we know that?
I would also say, if one section of Saint Paul's letters wants women to be deacons and the like, and the other wants them in submission, why is it that all churches have chosen submission?
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

Hi Sab :smile:
Better, things are going better my friend :smile:
Dgb, it is quite possible that Paul's words were changed, he didn't alwats write them himself and at times dictated them.
It is possible that were simply altered at the copy stage or perhaps simply misunderstood ( according to Peter, Paul wasn't always clear on things) or it coud be that Paul was addressing a specififc situation in which women were being more vocal than ANYONE should.
We need to remember that Pauls letters, while at times having a general motif, where addressed to specific churchs, specific people and at time dealing with specific situations ADN also that Paul was simply stating his opinion on the matter, opinions that at times were not followed.
 
Deputy Dog
Deputy Dog 5 years ago

My question to Ehrman would be; why does he (an Agnostic) care so much about what women do in the church? He left the church years ago. Does he want them to stay in or leave?
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

Bart's issue has always been with those that take the bible as inerrant.
Just like he did before he discovered that it wasn't inerrant, according to him.
He is simply trying to lead people to the truth, wherever that truth may lead.
Bart's problem is not his message, the "test all you are taught" is biblical as we know it, his problem is his delivery method.
 
Deputy Dog
Deputy Dog 5 years ago

PS
I think his problem is he's not happy with how God's treating him. You know all that evil and suffering. That is why he claims he's agnostic now.
 
dgp
dgp 5 years ago

Deputy Dog,
I have learned to do better than defending someone else when that someone else can stand up for himself. So I won't say why Ehrman does this or does that. I can't speak for him.
I can say, however, why I would be concerned over the role of women in a church, any church, even though I am an atheist myself and find myself in a situation much like Ehrman's, at least regarding his sense of truth.
You may not believe this, but some Catholics, however little they read the Bible, are indeed zealous and are certainly deeply interested in "the truth, wherever it may lead". Saint Dominic Savio is reputed to have said "I would rather die than sin", and is also reputed to have sort of stood up to that challenge (he died at 14, by the way). I was one of those Catholics and I find myself that the things I was told were not so. I think any behavior that results from belief in a lie is wrong. So, if a sister believes her husband is her "head", in the sense the witnesses give to this word, I feel sad for her, as much as I feel sad that Muslim women are infibulated or the like. I recognize infibulation is perhaps extreme, but I want to convey a sense of why I care. I speculate this is also the reason why Ehrman cares.
I don't think God is treating me badly because I don't think there's a God. There's evil and suffering, but I don't think that is God (or Satan), but the concrete people who inflict the harm. Or what I would call "bad luck".
I'm saying this because I want to make a point. Say Ehrman is resentful with the way God treated him, or say he is messing with how the sisters behave in churches and he is not a member of any church, if you will, but I still think he is raising a good point here. If Saint Paul wanted women not to speak in church, why does he actually say how they should speak in church a few chapters before? Either he had a very short attention span, didn't know what he was writing, or someone else put those words (by mistake, for the purpose of deceit, whatever) and - this is what matters- we have been falling for that inaccuracy for two thousand years or so. I think that's a good thing to do, even if the motivation is resentment, or anger at God, or whatever.
 
glenster
glenster 5 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians#Composition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus_and_women#Silence_in_the_church
 
Justitia Themis
Justitia Themis 5 years ago

Scholars have adduced many reasons for this view. For one thing, the verses seem to intrude in the passage in which they are found. Immediately before these verses Paul is talking about prophecy in the church; immediately afterwards he is talking about prophecy. But this passage on women interrupts the flow of the argument. Take them out, and it flows much better.
This might seem like a relatively minor issue--so he got a little off track in a letter--but it is HUGE. Paul was educated in Greek philosophy, which has very stingent rules for letter-writing. The type of letter dictates the format.
This form of logic/writing exists today in legal writing, which is incredibly formulaic. Greeks, Paul, and good legal writers do NOT get off track; they are experts at logic and flow. If you would like to see shining examples of it, visit the U.S. Solicitor General website and read some opinions.
Paul would NEVER have interrupted the logic to add such an unrelated point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAC
 
Mad Sweeney
Mad Sweeney 5 years ago

So we're pretty certain that Paul actually wrote some of that stuff but not others? Based on what? Can't be the original copies because they are LONG gone. What's the oldest Pauline manuscript we have? Third century? How do we know ANY of it is his writing?
 
Justitia Themis
Justitia Themis 5 years ago

I would also say, if one section of Saint Paul's letters wants women to be deacons and the like, and the other wants them in submission, why is it that all churches have chosen submission?

If you take a class in religion (or oganization theory in general) you will find that groups at tension with society often start out with stark equality between women and men. As the religion/group starts to garner followers, more power and authority are given to positions, and at that point, women usually get pushed out.
Additionally, during periods of time when physical/economic harm is associated with belonging to the group, women and men share equally. As the group enlarges and becomes more mainstream and the threats subside (and perhaps a measure of social collateral is gained) then men start pushing out the women.
In short: if it is costly to be a leader, men are more than welcome to share the limelight. If it is profitable to be a leader, men push women out.
Women were welcomed as Christian leaders when it meant they might be fed to the lions, but when it meant associating with the political elite (Constantine) women were no longer welcome.
 
designs
designs 5 years ago

It was Paul reflecting on his six wives
 
dgp
dgp 5 years ago

Justitia, my experience in real life tells me you are so, so right. It also happens that "smart" males give such positions to "dumb" males.
A bad thing about "Forged..." is that Ehrman refers you to his other books for the background of some of his statements. It is somewhat like Lenin asking you to read his complete works before he can give you an answer. So, he doesn't say why he thinks some epistles were indeed written by Saint Paul. He does say that 1 and 2 Peter were not written by Peter, and, in my humble opinion, the fact that Peter spoke no Greek and was probably illiterate supports Ehrman's views.
In passing, I would like to say that for some reason the gift of speaking in tongues does not have the equivalent of writing in other languages. No one has ever claimed to be able to write in a different language without learning it first. At least I don't know of anyone. I used to have some Pentecostal neighbors who claimed they spoke in tongues when the Holy Spirit came to them; but they never claimed to be able to write.
Justitia, I have never taken any course on Organization Theory, but you did make me remember "The Peter Principle" and "Parkinson's Law" .
Ehrman also informs about other documents that didn't make it into the Canon but are also forgeries.
 
Pistoff
Pistoff 5 years ago

Ehrman is a figure that makes fundamentalists uncomfortable: he was one of them, and was determined to be the one who got a university level education in bible studies and not lose his "faith". Problem is, that is exactly what it did.
It is helpful to read a variety of scholars regarding Paul; when one does that, it is obvious that Paul wrote 6, maybe 7 of the 13 letters ascribed to him. The rest were written by a 'school' of Paul, not an uncommon thing in the day and the letters would not have been viewed as fraudulent. They were not viewed as coming from god then, as they are viewed by most christians today.
But of course, they came to be viewed as Law, and Gospel, and are still used to set in stone the practices in congregations.
Some who seem to be Christian state here that this is just Paul's opinion, but I am betting that they would not stand up in the middle of the congregation and say it. That is heresy to mainline and fundamental religions alike; Paul is THE architect of christianity.
I agree with Bart, but I agree because I have read many scholars and agree with the methodology of the studies that lead them to say that much of what is attributed to Paul is not from Paul.
After all, Paul is the man who said 'there is no jew or greek, no slave or master, no male or female' only followers of Christ.
The early church leaders were women, as cited above.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

So we're pretty certain that Paul actually wrote some of that stuff but not others? Based on what? Can't be the original copies because they are LONG gone. What's the oldest Pauline manuscript we have? Third century? How do we know ANY of it is his writing?
That is a valid pint and question.
Textual criticism helps us to see that certain modes of writing and use of languages and words characterize an author, so "writing style" is one way to see if Paul wrote A and B as well as C.
Here is a good place to start:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm

Beyond that there are a few books on the subject, I would suggest contacting Leolaia, she may have a few suggestions.
 
Terry
Terry 5 years ago

None of this would be a problem to any of us if the Protestant Reformation had never happened.
Pre-Martin Luther, the institution of THE CHURCH had all the authority necessary to dictate roles for men and women.
There was no questioning the Magisterium, the Tradition or the Authority of Church pronouncements.

However, the Protestant Reformation did arrive.
Why? The male-dominated heirarchy failed utterly to preserve or practice uncorrupt christian ethics!
This was a "teaching moment" for anybody who cared to make an honest evaluation.
IF the male-dominant Catholic Church was blessed by Almighty God who signed off on whatever was "bound on earth", the Church simply
could not have fallen into such corruption.

Martin Luther scrapped the authority's premise: Magisterium and inerrant pronouncement on faith and morals.
HERE IS WHERE CHRISTIANITY CRASHED and BURNED.
Not only had history completely refuted the idea of "Church as Divine Institution" it opened the door for more catastrophe.
That catastrophe took the form of SOLA SCRIPTURA. Sola Scriptura REPLACED Magisterium.
A NEW THEORY.
Luther invented this.
No longer were devout, faithful, bible-believing christians subject to official institutions of faith for guidance. No. All any christian needed was
a bible and faith in Jesus.
Period.
A quick glance at the second 1,500 years of christianity has ALSO REFUTED the efficacy of Sola Scriptura!
Hundreds upon thousands of denominations split off and created cherry-picking hypothesis of what True Christianity is.
No two agree.
Women remained at the bottom of the heap and men at the top (corrupt as ususual.)

The problem, then, isn't the EQUALITY of men and women in Christianity.
Can you guess what the REAL PROBLEM is?
Hint: history has told the story.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 5 years ago

Ehrmann is just repeating what scholars have long believed. Forged is a loaded word. I don't think anyone held a meeting with co-conspirators to forge Paul's words. Maybe it was subtle. Christianity seemed to lose its most significant parts when it became the official state religion and orthodoxy ,was defined. Constantine prob. converted for political reasons, not spiritual.
Someone posted about Ehrmann just a short while ago. His claims are over the top. No scholarly article would use the word forged. Forged involves intent along with whatever elements. Clearly, St. Paul had no intention of barring women. A few years ago I read Dominic Paul Crossan's book on Paul and the Roman Empire. I doubt Paul was an ardent feminist. Later Christian thought was reactionary.
Jesus' treats women very well. Paul had them as teachers and supports. I believe women were bishops and deacons in the early church. It should be warning for women today that women had vast power and lost it completely. No right should be treated as inconsequential.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
LAWHFol
Does God Exist? / Who is God? These are Questions which Lead nowhere. What is God Like, is the Correct Question.
by LAWHFol 5 months ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
punkofnice
Questions for JW lurkers
by punkofnice 5 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/208679/bart-ehrman-says-text-about-women-being-submissive-on-1-cor-14-forged






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Ehrman says the text about women being submissive on 1 Cor 14 was forged
/  





 

Bart Ehrman says the text about women being submissive on 1 Cor 14 was forged
by dgp 5 years ago 23 Replies latest 5 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

The thing is that, like pretty much ANY and EVERY ancient historical document(s), all we have are copies.
Unfortunatley in those days people didn't date the "revised" copies with the date of the original copyright and realse, LOL !
Of course we have MANY documents from different sources that we can compare to each other and make "corrections" if needed, and that contiunes to happen today.
The copyists and scribes were human and as such that were falliable and itis quite possible that some passages in some manuscripts were altered to make a meaning of a verse "more clear" accoring to the scribe/copyist, the "Johannine comma" is an example of that, and also an example of the correction that was done to it, albeit not by all translators of course.
It is quite possible that the many letters could have been "combined" into one, that the current form we have now is perhaps a cmbination of letters as opposed to one big one, ot it could be that in the copying process someone took liberties or it could be that some parts were lost that coudl clear up the context of a "difficult" passage.
This is why we need to take a gospel or letter as a WHOLE and not use any specififc verse to create some controversial "human doctrine" that is at odds with the overall consistency of the letter/gospel/message.
 
dgp
dgp 5 years ago

Band wrote:
No scholarly article would use the word forged. Forged involves intent
Forgery involves intent, yes. In this case, intent to get people to believe something was written by say, Saint Paul, to give that text an authority it wouldn't otherwise have. That is exactly the case with some of the forgeries, according to Ehrman.
Ehrman uses a few words from 2 Thessalonians to prove his point:
"There are thirteen letters in the New Testament that claim to be written by Paul, including two to the Thessalonians. In the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, we find a most intriguing verse in which the author tells his readers that they are not to be led astray by a letter "as if by us", indicating that the "day of the Lord" is almost here (2:2). The author, in other words, knows of a letter in circulation claiming to be by Paul that is not really by Paul. This other letter allegedly teaches an idea that Paul himself opposes. Who would create such a forged letter? Obviously someone who wanted to advance his own views about when the end would come and decided to do so with the authority of Paul, even though he was not Paul.
But there is a terrifically interesting irony connected with the passage. Second Thessalonians, in which the passage appears, is itself widely thought among scholars not to be by Paul, even though it claims to be written by him (we'll see the reasons for thinking this in chapter 3). Is 2 Thessalonians itself a forgery in Paul's name? There can be little doubt about the answer: one of the "tricks" used by ancient forgers to assure readers that their own writings were authentic was to warn against writings that were not authentic. Readers naturally assume that the author is not doing precisely what he condemns".
I omit a few paragraphs here, and now let me continue to copy:
"With 2 Thessalonians you are presented with a particularly interesting situation. No matter how one understands the matter, the books shows that were were almost certainly forgeries in Paul's name in circulation all the way back during the time of the New Testament writings. If scholars who think that 2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul are wrong - that is, if Paul really wrote it - then it shows that Paul himself knew of a forgery in his name that had come to the Thessalonian church. But if the other scholars are right, that Paul did not compose 2 Thessalonians, then this book itself is a forgery in Paul's name that was floating around in the church. Either way, there must have been Pauline forgeries already in the first century".
Ehrman questions why scholars don't want to call forgeries forgeries.
Ehrman is also very careful about what he calls a forgery. For example, he doesn't call the gospels "forgeries". He says that the gospels were not written by the people who are alleged to have written them, but that does not mean they are forgeries, only books incorrectly attributed to an author by people who didn't know better but honestly believed those were the authors. The gospels were originally anonymous, not pseudonymous.
PSacramento, I'm with you until the very last sentence of your last post. I don't feel Ehrman takes verses out of context and builds doctrines on them.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

Oh, I wasn't speaking of Bart, Bart doesn't do anything of the sort.
I was referring to what many religions tend to do, that's all.
In regards to Bart's views on the Gospels, well...the oldest writings we have say that the were indeed written by those that they are ascriebed too, that said, that doesn't mean they were physically written by Mark, Matt, Luke and John, though Luke admits as much that they were wwritten b y him.
The Gospels were according to Mark, Matt and John, which doesn't mean they were the writters per say, but that those gospels originated with them.
They may have been "penned" by their followers or originally penned by them and later put together by their followers.
I don't know if we can take the modern day concept of someone sitting down and writting a whole gospel at one sitting, they were probably penned at different points and put together after, Marks's ending was probabaly lost and John's was put together in a way that at times seems a bit out of sequence.
I don't think that forgeries is the correct term to use, that makes a huge statement that can't be proven at all, it is rather sensationalst and that may be why Bart uses it.
Certainly, AFTER the books that later become canon, there were other gospels and letter circulatiing that didn't have the same message, but those were AFTER the ones we know today as canon and they were regarded as "heretical" and why there is some debate NOW in regards to them, in their day they were indeed viewed as being "against the gospels" that were already being accepted by the vasy majority.
But that is another discussion.
Bart makes good points and poses interesting theories and opinions, but the fact is, that is all that they are.
 
Terry
Terry 5 years ago

A great many writings (hundreds and hundreds) were "reviewed" before being denied special canonical status by the Church.
Apparently, whatever seemed to fit the current view of CORRECT was the standard. The rejected writings were burned, confiscated or some such.
What a disservice to history!
An inventory should have been maintained.
Burning evidence is never an honest idea.
Some of the CURRENT canonical books were pooh-poohed and at least 9 we DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE were APPROVED and remained IN CANON for fifteen hundred years! Then Luther and his minions snipped them out!
A lot of human ego shaped the Bible!
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
in "forged: writing in the name of god.
why the bible's authors are not who we think they are" (http://www.amazon.com/forged-writing-god--why-bibles-authors/dp/0062012614/ref=sr_1_1?ie=utf8&qid=1302541788&sr=8-1), bart ehrman points out that the section of 1 corinthians were women are told to remain silent in church is most likely an addition by someone other than saint paul.. .
ehrman writes:.



Related Topics
TTWSYF
What's up with the HEBREWS translation?
by TTWSYF 3 months ago
Wonderment
John-1-1-Colossians-1-16-all-other-things - Part 2
by Wonderment 3 months ago
LAWHFol
Does God Exist? / Who is God? These are Questions which Lead nowhere. What is God Like, is the Correct Question.
by LAWHFol 5 months ago
Gorbatchov
2002 radio interview with J.R. Brown, spokesman of WTBTS (The God Show)
by Gorbatchov 2 months ago
punkofnice
Questions for JW lurkers
by punkofnice 5 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/208679/bart-ehrman-says-text-about-women-being-submissive-on-1-cor-14-forged?page=2&size=20






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Interesting query and reply about THE CROSS on Bart Ehrman's blog
/  





 

Interesting query and reply about THE CROSS on Bart Ehrman's blog
by Terry 2 years ago 10 Replies latest 2 years ago   watchtower bible
5
10
20
Terry
Terry 2 years ago

 kleenmaint July 5, 2014

Dear Bart:
I couldn’t find a topic on Josephus so I hope you see my question. In your book “Did Jesus Exist” on page 59 you quote (Antiquities 18.3.3).
Both this quotation and the more conservative version that seemed more plausible as his original writing have one very fundamental flaw that you didn’t mention. I of course am asking for your opinion. I’m no expert, but my understanding is that the word “cross” would be a dead give away that this is an interpolation.
The Romans used upright torture stakes not crosses. If this is true then these couldn’t be Josephus words.
Hope you see this. I would like to know. Please forgive me if you address this later on as I have just started reading your book. I am so thankful for your books and the integrity and courage you have demonstrated by exposing these apparent myths to the “light of day”.
Ron
(reply)
◦Bart EhrmanBart Ehrman July 6, 2014
No, the term cross (Greek: σταυρος: STAUROS) is the term used in all our sources for the crucifix used by Romans; I don’t know of any references to it being simply an upright stake

 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run 2 years ago

Yea!
 
givemejustalittlemoretime
givemejustalittlemoretime 2 years ago

They used both depending on what kind of pain you want to input
 
opusdei1972
opusdei1972 2 years ago

STAUROS had the primary meaning of a simple pole in Homer's times (eight centuries before Christ). But in Jesus days it could be t-shaped, T-shaped, I-shaped and X-shaped. Any honest research would conclude that. Also, Romans generaly placed the patibulum ( a pole) as a crossbar at the vertical stake of the CRUX. Of course, when there were many convicted ones to be tortured, romans had to use one pole on account of the limited numbers of woods.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 2 years ago

The Epistle of Barnabas ( respected enough to be included in the Codex Sinaiticus) states that the cross Jesus was crucified on was in the shape of the letter "TAU", "T".
 
Heaven
Heaven 2 years ago

Bazinga!
 
Splash
Splash 2 years ago


PSacramento The Epistle of Barnabas (respected enough to be included in the Codex Sinaiticus) states that the cross Jesus was crucified on was in the shape of the letter "TAU", "T".
Would that be a sTAUros then?
Splash
 
sir82
sir82 2 years ago

Ehrman's being polite, but I'm sure he's thinking "What utter idiot would ever dream up that Romans used 'upright torture stakes'?"
Exhibit A on why the WTS doesn't want individual JWs on the internet "defending the faith". They'd be embarrassed, humiliated, and degraded within 3 minutes.
 
L3G
L3G 2 years ago

Not that I believe the stake thing, but just to be fair, the Swedish scholar Gunnar Samulson published a book 4 years ago that has caused some controversy on the matter. Perhaps Ehrman is unaware of it, or just doesn't give it much credence. But maybe he should have at least mentioned the book.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jesus-christ-died-cross-scholar/story?id=11066130
http://earliestchristianity.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/gunnar-samuelsson-swedish-crucifixion-scholar-has-a-website/
There are dozens of other links to this if you do a google search. No offense to Ehrman, but the now "inactive" (yikes, a JW term applied to a forum member here!) Leolaia did the best research on this right here on JW.net years ago.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/92381/1/The-facts-on-crucifixion-stauros-and-the-torture-stake#.VA8hB1b-vwI


 
Pistoff
Pistoff 2 years ago

There is this newer (?) piece from Leolaia; long and superbly documented, it demolishes the WT argument for an upright stake.

http://freeminds2.org/?s=Leolaia

Edited:

Sorry, I guess it is nearly the same post; there is an added paragraph at the beginning for sure, wondering if there is more in the post on Freeminds2.org
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 2 years ago


Would that be a sTAUros then?
Splash

Yes.
 

5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Saved_JW
Discussion with a Pioneer: CONCLUSION
by Saved_JW 4 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/284464/interesting-query-reply-about-cross-on-bart-ehrmans-blog






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Ehrman...Jesus Existed
/  





 

Bart Ehrman...Jesus Existed
by XJW4EVR 4 years ago 34 Replies latest 4 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
XJW4EVR
XJW4EVR 4 years ago

When the uber-liberal, agnostic Bart Ehrman says it...it must be true.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 4 years ago

"The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions)."



 
baltar447
baltar447 4 years ago

He doesn't seem to make much of a case outside of the bible. article seems pretty weak, imo.
 
XJW4EVR
XJW4EVR 4 years ago

LOL!
 
botchtowersociety
botchtowersociety 4 years ago

He needs a better editor to review his work before publication:
Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.
 
dyakoub
dyakoub 4 years ago

I didn't read the article but I have read various of his books. As I did skim the article I know the argument much longer more complicated and far more substantiated that it (perhaps) was in the article. He does use several outside, Roman sources that mention things such as " a man that caused trouble amongst the jews" or "the man they follow which they call Cristus". Stuff like that.
As for only using the bible. That is not a problem from his view point. He does not see the bible as one book or the Inspired scriptures of God. He sees the New testament scriptures as mostly, apart from the synoptic Gospels, as independent accounts of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. To him all, accounts of Jesus are historical documents and he studies them as such. And through cross referencing many, many accounts of Jesus he comes to the lowest common denominator in the all hoo-haa: A preacher/prophet whom denounces the rigidity of his religious leaders and preaches a coming Judgement. He is an apocolyptic Prophet. And since this was one of the major flavors of Judaesim of the time, as Erhman argues, its not at all far fetched to believe in the this man Jehoshua.
 
slimboyfat
slimboyfat 4 years ago

Which Jesus existed? The Jesus of the gospels? Unlikely.
 
dgp
dgp 4 years ago

It is not hard to argue that Jesus the man existed, without that being evidence that the religion preached on him is false. Muhammad existed, and so did Joseph Smith. But did an angel really talk to them? Was it really an angel that dictated stuff to Joseph Smith and gave him gold plates?
Did the Achaeans ever wage war against Trojans? Sure. Does that mean Achilles was a demi-god?
The message conveyed is that the historical figure existed. But we should not take it to mean anything else.
I expect lots of ink being spent on saying that "even Barth Ehrman says Jesus existed" and oceans of ink spent on denying the rest of what the man says.
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 4 years ago

dgp: Good points. Ehrman certainly doesn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
 
xchange
xchange 4 years ago

This is not a newly formed opinion from Ehrman. In several of his past books he has stated his confidence of the existence of a human (not divine) named Jesus.
 
Rob Crompton
Rob Crompton 4 years ago

I think it is fairly certain that there was a historical Rabbi Jesus who was expected, by some or even many, of his contemporary disciples to become Messiah, and about whom various miracle stories were told. To what extent the story of this Rabbi Jesus can be recovered from the gospels is debatable - as, indeed, is the extent to which this Rabbi relates to the Jesus of later Christian belief.
Rob Crompton  http://snigsfoot.blogspot.com
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 4 years ago

When I saw him at the SBL last year, he said he was writing a book to respond to the mythicist position.
 
Pistoff
Pistoff 4 years ago

Most scholars think that Jesus the man existed, though I have never read a scholar who thinks Jesus was a Rabbi.
There is the (biased) gospel accounts; there is reference from Josephus (possibly biased) and from Roman history, probably more credible than Josephus.
Rabbinic Judaism post dates Jesus; it is post temple era.
 
SweetBabyCheezits
SweetBabyCheezits 4 years ago

XJW4: When the uber-liberal, agnostic Bart Ehrman says it...it must be true.
But Ehrman's Jesus doesn't perform miracles and rise from the dead, so Ehrman remains agnostic. Right?
 
heathen
heathen 4 years ago

If jesus was not a rabbi of sorts then why are his words preserved by his followers? Not an expert on these things but figures that if someone is holding something as sacred and documenting it, using it to teach others then a rabbi being a teacher is a correct term.
 
cofty
cofty 4 years ago

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior.
I think it was from Erhman that I first heard the following that I posted on another thread.
If Jesus had been invented out of whole cloth Matthew and Luke would not have had weave these strories to accommodate Jesus' connection with Galilee


Matthew and Luke both want Jesus born in Bethlehem to establish his royal link to king David, but there is a problem in that the historical Jesus was from Galilee.
The two gospel writers come up with different and mutually incompatible ways of achieving this.
Matthew begins with Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem. His problem is to get Jesus up to Galilee so he invents Herod's slaughter of the innocents and the flight and subsequent exodus from Egypt, with obvious echoes of Moses. They return to Israel when an angel tells them Heord is dead but..
".. when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene." - Matt.2:22,23 (let's leave the blunder of the Nazarene reference for now)
Luke goes the other way; he has Joseph and Mary living in Galilee from the start and invents the far-fetched story of a census to get then down to Bethlehem just in time for the birth. Can you imagine being told to return to your hometown for registration and going to a place where an ancestor lived 1000 years previously? Mary and Joseph then go to the temple to make the prescribed offering a month after the birth and then go home to Nazareth.


I do believe though that there are examples of the influence of pagan myth in the gospels.
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 4 years ago

There are many examples of miracle stories attributed to historical men of importance within the lifetimes of those who knew them. The emperor Vespasian was said to have healed a blind man in Alexandria by spitting into his eyes (compare Mark 7:33), as well as healing a man with a withered hand by touching it (cf. Mark 3:1-5, 5:25-34), as reported by Suetonius (Vespasian 8.7), Dio Cassius (Roman History 65.8), and Tacitus (Historia 4.81), the latter citing the reports of "eyewitnesses". There are many miraculous stories about the second-century AD rabbis in the Mishnah (completed c. AD 200), written within the lifetime of witnesses of the fourth, third, and possibly the second generation of the tannaim: (1) R Eliezer and R Aqiba b Joseph instantly filling a field with cucumbers and then gathering them all together with a single command (b. Sandedrin 68a; cf. m. Sanhedrin 7.11, y. Sanhedrin 7; 25d), (2) R Eliezer tearing a tree out of its place a hundred cubits by a single command and making water flow backwards (b. Bava Metzia 59b, y. Kil'ayim 3,1; 81c-d), (3) R Gamaliel II calming a storm at sea with a prayer (b. Bava Metzia 59b; cf. Mark 4:35-51), (4) R Joshua b Hananiah being challenged by Emperor Hadrian to prove to him the power of a lion, and after praying a lion roared and all the pregnant woman in Rome miscarried and the walls of Rome fell (b. Hullin 59b), (5) R Simeon b Yohai, who was "experienced in miracles," exorcizing a demon from the Emperor's daughter (b. Me'ilah 17a, b), (6) R Judah h Nasi healing the dumb sons of R Yohanan b Gudgada by prayer (b. Hagigah 3a), (7) R Pinhas finding a lost pearl from a Saracean king swallowed inside a mouse who coughed it up (y. Demai 1; 22a; cf. Matthew 17:27 and the tale of Yosef Moqir Shabbat finding a lost jewel in a fish's mouth in b. Shabbat 119a), and so forth. The similarity of these stories with the miracle tales attributed to Jesus in the gospels is quite apparent. The stories are also quite legendary; there is no evidence, for instance, that the walls of Rome ever fell in the reign of Hadrian.
And of course many of the miracle stories of Jesus draw on OT traditions as well, such as the stories of Elijah and Elisha. That the messiah ought to work miracles was an expectation found in earlier Essene writings: "For the heavens and the earth shall listen to his Messiah and all which is in them shall not turn away from the commandments of the holy ones....For he will honor the pious upon the throne of his eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bowed down....For he shall heal the critically wounded, he shall revive the dead, he shall send good news to the afflicted, he shall satisfy the poor, he shall guide the uprooted, he shall make the hungry rich" (4Q521 2:1-13; cf. Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18-19, 7:22). The miracle stories thus have a theological objective.
 
yourmomma
yourmomma 4 years ago

2 thoughts, dgp pretty much nailed it. we are now going to see dishonest fundementalists claim that somehow what bart erhman said means christianity is true. he said no such thing. he said what the evidence proves, Jesus existed. there no evidence that he rose from the dead, and if you think he believes that, check out his debate on the exact subject vs william lane craig.

my second point is that i find it comical that the fundementalists on the other side will reject what Erhman, a respected scholar and historian says, just like the creationists reject what scientists say about evolution.
one of the greatest examples of this is when "the infidel guy" interviewed Erhman on his show. this is one of the classic examples that both sides of the God issue have extremists who have no interested at all in evidence.
 
Rob Crompton
Rob Crompton 4 years ago

Pistoff said: "Most scholars think that Jesus the man existed, though I have never read a scholar who thinks Jesus was a Rabbi."
It is true that most Christian biblical scholars are reluctant to refer to Jesus as a Rabbi but he is quite clearly portrayed as such in the Gospels. In his ethical teaching and his use of parables he follows a similar pattern to the rabbis or sages of his day - particularly those who followed Hillel.
Jacob Neusner says: "Among earliest writers in Israelite Christianity, Jesus finds ample representation as King-Messiah, but also as prophet and king, and, furthermore, as perfect priest and sacrifice, and always as sage, wise teacher and rabbi. That accounts for the fact that the bulk of the ethical sayings given to him are commonplaces in the Judaism of the age." (Neusner: Judaism in the beginning of Christianity, p36)
Rob Crompton http://snigsfoot.blogspot.com
 
mP
mP 4 years ago

Crestus is not the same as Christus. The former means useful while the latter means annointed. They are quite separate different words.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
The Searcher
Missionary Deceptively/Mistakenly Misquotes Scripture.........
by The Searcher 6 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/223503/bart-ehrman-jesus-existed





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Ehrman...Jesus Existed
/  





 

Bart Ehrman...Jesus Existed
by XJW4EVR 4 years ago 34 Replies latest 4 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
Pistoff
Pistoff 4 years ago

Rob:
My point is that to call Jesus a Rabbi is misleading; technically correct maybe but misleading.
If we take the sayings of Jesus at face value, they are at odds with nearly all of the traditional relighous ideas of his day, including praying for enemies, disregard for the letter of the law and associating with outcasts.
 
designs
designs 4 years ago

A Jewish man I use to call on as a return vist called Jesus an Intinerant Rabbi. Jesus, as a Maggid or wandering preacher, is very possible. Jesus thinking of himself as the Messiah is also very possible since dozens of others made the same claim in his era. Hearing an inner voice is common and seems to attrack religiously devout people.
The struggle in christianity is to see Jesus as Jewish, just look at the artwork in the Watchtower and most churches.
 
DT
DT 4 years ago

I have enjoyed Bart Ehrman's books in the past, but I'm not sure if can fully agree with him on this point. (I should point out that I haven't read his latest book yet.)
There is certainly enough evidence to suggest that Jesus may have existed or may have even probably existed, but to make a firm statement that he definitely existed is a little extreme in my opinion.
I don't think we know nearly enough about various first century sects and their writings to make definite conclusions about their motivations for telling and retelling the Jesus stories. There likely was a lot of dishonesty, exaggeration, and possibly telling stories with moral lessons that weren't meant to be taken literally. Many, if not most, of these writings may be lost forever. We also might not have any surviving information from some of the groups that contributed to these stories.
What if more than one person or some combination of real and fictitious characters contributed to the Jesus stories? I don't think we can rule this out. In this case, would it be fair to call Jesus a historical person? Would it be fair to call Paul Bunyun a historical person? Some of his stories may have also been inspired by one or more real people.
Would it be fair to say that Big Foot is real? The total amount of evidence for Big Foot far outweighs the amount of evidence for Jesus. The problem is that none of it is particularly reliable and most of it can be interpreted in more than one way. I think the same problems exist for the evidence for Jesus.
 
Rob Crompton
Rob Crompton 4 years ago

I think the perception of Jesus as being at odds with the religious ideas of his day is misleading. He is very much within the tradition of the rabbis. There was certainly consideerable disagreement between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The latter did not believe in a coming messiah, resurrection, or a return of the gift of prophecy. The Pharisees did believe in those things. The conflict stories in the gospels reflect the same disagreements that were prevalent between Pharisees and Sadducees and also the debates amongst the Pharisees and Rabbis. And several of the parables which are attributed to Jesus in the gospels are echoed in parables attributed to other Rabbis.
A couple of books by Jewish scholars which I would recomment are: Jacob Neusner: Judaism in the beginning of Christianity, and Hyam Maccoby: Jesus the Pharisee.
(And perhaps I should add that the Pharisees are not to be regarded solely as the baddies. Folk who read Neusner and Maccoby can expect to see a very different picture to that which is usually painted!)
Rob Crompton http://snigsfoot.blogspot.com
 
glenster
glenster 4 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Historical_views
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xi5xIxgnNgcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=how+on+earth+did+jesus+become+a+god&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ywpvT7jWJc6Q0QHytuW8Bg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=how%20on%20earth%20did%20jesus%20become%20a%20god&f=false
 
mP
mP 4 years ago

Sometimes i wonder from reading and hearing Barts speeches if he doesnt want to sound to extreme in saying jesus didnt exist. hes happy to repeat how many thousands of differences are between the same version of the same book and contradictions within the gospel stories. He also likes to say the books in the NT are all mostly greek because of puns and language that only works if it was greek.
 
robB
robB 4 years ago

Nuts!!!
The NT manuscript evidence undebatedly supports 1st century authorship. Start with the John Rylands papyrus and compare that to anything from antiquity, then consider the additional thousands of pieces of MS evidence coming from commentaries quoting the NT from the 2nd - 5th centuries. Arguing against it is as narrowminded as a JW denying the prophecies of CTR. Reread the Gospels. It's in your face. Everywhere you can find the names, places and events supporting the messiahship of Jesus. You can't heal people that do not exist. That Paul's point in Acts in his trial with Agrippa (26:26).
You can decide not to be grateful to God but you cannot deny that God has left enough physical evidence to reasonably put your faith in his Son.
You people's problem is that you are so used to someone lying to you, you cannot tell when someone is telling the truth. And the False Prophet wins.
 
John_Mann
John_Mann 4 years ago

Yes, Jesus Christ existed and was a woman!
 
mP
mP 4 years ago


ROB

Nuts!!!
The NT manuscript evidence undebatedly supports 1st century authorship. Start with the John Rylands papyrus and compare that to anything from antiquity, then consider the additional thousands of pieces of MS evidence coming from commentaries quoting the NT from the 2nd - 5th centuries. Arguing against it is as narrowminded as a JW denying the prophecies of CTR. Reread the Gospels. It's in your face. Everywhere you can find the names, places and events supporting the messiahship of Jesus. You can't heal people that do not exist. That Paul's point in Acts in his trial with Agrippa (26:26).
You can decide not to be grateful to God but you cannot deny that God has left enough physical evidence to reasonably put your faith in his Son.

You people's problem is that you are so used to someone lying to you, you cannot tell when someone is telling the truth. And the False Prophet wins.

Your Rylands papyrus is the size of a coin and has barely a few words on it. Thats hardly proof of the entire contents of the NT.
Take a look at the papyrus, is that really proof that the bible has not been altered ? The dead sea scrolls and nag hamrabbi scrolls have many interesting stories that are dated before jesus and they tell many similarities. Xians never mentions these texts because they are uncannily similar to the gospel stories or have very different messages which they want to hide.


 
robB
robB 4 years ago

The John Rylands papyrus is the start of evidence. It is dated by scholars to the first quarter of the second century, 125 AD. It is an incredible find. You have to understand the weight this gives to first century authorship of the NT. Consider Ceasar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico, the oldest copy of this work is from the 10th century.
The Rylands papyrus not only gives unparralled weight to 1st century authorship, it also clearly shows how unmolested our copies are today. When the Rylands papyrus was found did anyone say, Oh we have to go back and change the book of John? No because this is what was found:
Gospel of John 18:31-33
ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ
OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ-
ΠΕΝ ΣHΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ-
ΘΝHΣΚΕΙΝ ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ-
ΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠIΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ
ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥ-
ΔAΙΩN the Jews, "For us it is not permitted to kill
anyone," so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he sp-
oke signifying what kind of death he was going to
die. Entered therefore again into the Praeto-
rium Pilate and summoned Jesus
and said to him, "Thou art king of the
Jews?"
Gospel of John 18:37-38
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ TOΥΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ
ΚΑΙ (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) ΕΛΗΛΥΘΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΣΜΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΜΑΡΤY-ΡΗΣΩ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΩΝ EΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕI-
ΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ
Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΚAΙ ΤΟΥΤO
ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΙΟΥ-
ΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔEΜΙΑΝ
ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ

a King I am. For this I have been born
and (for this) I have come into the world so that I would
testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth
hears of me my voice." Said to him
Pilate, "What is truth?" and this
having said, again he went out unto the Jews
and said to them, "I find not one
fault in him."
You can listen to morons endlessly try to discredit the Bible, but for a moment, consider the text on this fragment and look at the words in a modern copy of the Bible. Marvel at the transmission of these words for 2000 years. It makes people shut up.
If you would suggest the Bible has been altered, on what grounds should I consider the Nag Hammurabi or Dead Sea scrolls?
 
designs
designs 4 years ago

Yeshua ben Yoseph may very well have thought himself the messiah, he was not alone, some 50 individuals also made the claim in the 1st century like Simon Magus. In fact nearly every century since then has seen many claiming to be the messiah, very popular.
 
mP
mP 4 years ago

@Rob
Your very translations show just how little the Rylands fragment tells. We can tell when the remainder or 99.9% of the NT was written or what it had. That fragment can only be proof for what amounts to ten odd words in John. . The text in the fragment only has ten words and can only be used to verify the same ten words in John, nothing more and nothing less. We cant use those few characters to then authenticate or verify the entire bible passage. This is but a tiny fraction of the entire text.
The text also does not say Jesus, it could well be talking about someone else. There are stories of many messiahs about that time in text such as nag hammadi and dead sea scrolls. Theres a reason why xians never hear about these scroolls, simply because they are very much the same with twists that are incompatible with what xians have accepted.

Lastly your quote if the text is date from 125, that is 2nd century authorship. I know about the range of 25ish years variation but thee earliest possible dating is 100 or it coluld also equally be 150. 125 is nearly a hundred years after jesus death...given John must have been around jesus age he would have been over a hundred years old. To claim that an apostle wrote the story is very decietful. There is no way an old man 120ish years old wrote that book. Its just absurd that John waited until he was 120.
- What if he died before this time ?
-Why would someone wait until 120 to tell the greatest story ever for posterity ?
In all reality this sort of witnessing doesnt sound very well planned.
 
mP
mP 4 years ago

@ROB
Go look at the last chapter of Mark, 16 the verses with the resurrection. Even the NWT admits these are an addition. To think without this insertion there is no ressurrection no ascension, what was Mark thinking to simply forget these major events ?
 
robB
robB 4 years ago

mP,
Your suggestion that maybe the papyrus is not referring to Jesus is childish. I won't continue with this. If you are generally interested in the topic of historical manuscripts I suggest you read a book on Palaeography.
I made the point that early 2nd century dating of the Rylands papyrus argues strongly for 1st century authorship. John wrote his books sometime in the 1st century (year 1 to 100 AD) The Rylands papyrus is not the original autograph.
I'm well aware of the issues from Mark. The point is similar to JWs saying there's not trinity in the Bible. What does the Angel tell the nice ladies? What are the possible conclusions from the discussion?
 
mP
mP 4 years ago

ROB
Your suggestion that maybe the papyrus is not referring to Jesus is childish. I won't continue with this. If you are generally interested in the topic of historical manuscripts I suggest you read a book on Palaeography.
MP
Lets be fair no where in the text that you have highlighted does the name Jesus or Son of God appear. Most of the words are general every day words like "the", "of" etc. You only know those words are a part of John because someone else has done the hard work and identifed the exact location. By itself the text says very little that is understandable. That papyrus is only the start it is not evidence that the entire NT story has remained constant.


the Jews, "For us it is not permitted to kill
anyone," so that the w ord of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he sp-
oke signifyin g what kind of death he was going to
die. En tered therefore again into the Praeto-
rium P ilate and summoned Jesus
and sai d to him, "Thou art king of the
Jews?"
The text only has the words "the Jews, For us, anyone, so that, signifying, die, and said", withoput the cheating can you honestly get anything out of that text ?

If God really had a message to convey to us he did a terrible job preserving its contents. Other peoples like the Assyrians managed to record their thoughts and the clay tablets have lassted 3000+ years. Its a shame God didnt have the brains to realise his message would get lost and we would need to gather scraps or fragments and recreate the text in a giant puzzlegame.
Remember this is the word of God surely he is special and should know how to preserve his valuable word. Its as simple as that. Only a fool would write with chalk a message to last thousands of years, knowing what rain does to chalk. The same is true of God he should have known that scrolls and papyrus decays and breaks up. The details of why these materials breakup is not important, God being all wise should know that this happens and he should also have predicted the future actions of man and taken that into account when his strategy to spread his word was started.

If you presented that papyrus as proof that a contract to a solicitor you would be laughed at.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
when the uber-liberal, agnostic bart ehrman says it...it must be true.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html.



Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
The Searcher
Missionary Deceptively/Mistakenly Misquotes Scripture.........
by The Searcher 6 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/223503/bart-ehrman-jesus-existed?page=2&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Books about early Christianity
/  





 

Books about early Christianity
by EdenOne a year ago 32 Replies latest a year ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
EdenOne
EdenOne a year ago

I've just finished reading two (imo) great books:
"A History of Christianity - The First Three Thousand Years", by Diarmaid MacCulloch
"Misquoting Jesus", by Bart Ehrman
I've purchased now another four:
"Jesus, Interrupted" and "Lost Christianities", by Bart Ehrman
"The Jesus Dinasty" and "Paul And Jesus", by James D. Tabor
Have you read any of these? What are your thoughts? Can you recommend other works about the historical Jesus, early christianity(ies) and the formation of the Bible canon?
Eden
 
Laika
Laika a year ago

NT Wright's 'Christian origins' series is pretty good, if a bit heavy.
 
Phizzy
Phizzy a year ago

A couple of good On-line articles are to be found on this site : http://www.davidpratt.info/homepage.htm
That is the guy's homepage, ignore the first items and scroll down to the two articles, in black ink, "The origins of Christianity" and "Who was The Real Jesus" . (I may not have those titles spot on, but other articles are in blue ink).
At the end of each article he quotes a number of scholarly source books, which may be worth a look.
 
Ucantnome
Ucantnome a year ago

I recently read The Spirit of Early Christian Thought, Robert Louis Wilken.
 
Chris Tann
Chris Tann a year ago

I recomend The Secret Initiation Of Jesus At Qumran. Also if you are open to hearing both sides of the argument: The Case For the Real Jesus, or mabey it's called The Case for the Historical Jesus by Lee Strobel.
 
Doug Mason
Doug Mason a year ago

“St. Paul versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions”, Michael Goulder
“The Rise of Christianity”, W.H.C. Frend
“Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea, AD 30-325”, Geza Vermes
“A New History of Early Christianity”, Charles Freeman
“Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years”, Philip Jenkins
“Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew”, Bart Ehrman
“AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State”, Charles Freeman
“When our world became Christian 312-394”, Paul Veyne

The Bible was created by the Church. The Bible did not fall out of the sky, therefore read on their canonisation processes.

“Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament”, Bart Ehrman
“The New Testament Apocrypha”, M.R. James
“The Apocryphal New Testament”, J.K. Elliott (based on the book by M.R. James)
“The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning”, Harry Y. Gamble
“The Problem of the New Testament Canon”, Kurt Aland
“The Formation of the New Testament”, Robert M. Grant
“A High View of Scripture?”, Craig D. Allert
Doug
 
Magnum
Magnum a year ago

Doug, thanks for the list. Like EdenOne, I, am interested in books like that.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run a year ago

My suggestion would be Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999). Both authors studied with the same prof. They agree on certain historical facts. One is a believer and the other is not. They take turns addressing certain NT issues.
 
Hairtrigger
Hairtrigger a year ago

They just went on my " Must read ", list!! Thanks.
 
Band on the Run
Band on the Run a year ago

I wrote a term paper in college on the "historical Jesus," which meandered to "son of man" theories. It was a long time ago. I suggest a Google Scholar search of journals.
 
jehovahsheep
jehovahsheep a year ago

I read a couple of aforementioned books and sadly am coming to the conclusion that Christianity is a false religion.
 
Doug Mason
Doug Mason a year ago

jehovahsheep,
Are you yet able to extend your conclusion to all religion?
Doug
 
GLTirebiter
GLTirebiter a year ago

Can you recommend other works about the historical Jesus, early christianity(ies) and the formation of the Bible canon?
I suggest works by the early church fathers
 
HowTheBibleWasCreated
HowTheBibleWasCreated a year ago

The book New Testament Apocrypha is by Bart Ehman actually..
 
Doug Mason
Doug Mason a year ago

While the cover of the book is given as "The New Testament Apocrypha" and as being edited and introduced by M.R. James, the internal title page states: "The Apocryphal New Testament: being the apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles and apocalypses, with other narratives and fragments translated by Montague Rhodes James". It was first published in 1924 by Clarendon Press; the Acrophyle Press Edition was published in 2004. It runs for almost 600 pages.
Doug
 
Ucantnome
Ucantnome a year ago

the theology of Paul the apostle by James D G Dunn.
 
HowTheBibleWasCreated
HowTheBibleWasCreated a year ago

Doug: I see ...two different books... same texts.
 
garyneal
garyneal a year ago

Cool, I was given a list of books from my philosophy professor back in college. I haven't read any of them yet but plan to. Marking to add the books listed here to my list also.
 
EdenOne
EdenOne a year ago

I've finished reading my books. Both books by James Tabor blew my mind. I strongly recommend them, to get an understanding on how Paul theologically hijacked the Jesus movement and how was the Jesus movement before Paul took over it. I like Bart Ehrman when he goes on textual criticism details, but he repeats a lot of material across his books, which at times is boring already.
I've purchased three more books:
"James, The Brother Of Jesus", by Robert Eisenman
"The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls ( 7th ed)" by Geza Vermes
"The Nag Hamadi Scriptures" by Marvin W. Meyer
Doug, thank you for that list, I'll have a look at some of those.
Eden
 
Doug Mason
Doug Mason a year ago

EdenOne,
Geza Vermes was one of the great modern scholars, who died only recently. If you want recommendations from the list I provided, I suggest the books by Allert (start at page 37), Gamble, Goulder, Freeman and Jenkins.
Of course, it is impossible to overestate the significance of Kurt Aland, as any "Google" search shows, and of Geza Vermes.
Doug
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
A.proclaimer
1914, leap years, and sticky math situation
by A.proclaimer 3 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/286943/books-about-early-christianity






Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Books about early Christianity
/  





 

Books about early Christianity
by EdenOne a year ago 32 Replies latest a year ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
Magnum
Magnum a year ago


jehovahsheep: I read a couple of aforementioned books and sadly am coming to the conclusion that Christianity is a false religion.
Doug Mason: jehovahsheep, Are you yet able to extend your conclusion to all religion?
Doug, does the quote shown above indicate that you believe that all religion is false? I am interested in your feelings/opinions since you seem to have really studied & pondered the matter. Are you a firm atheist? (I am PMing you)


garyneal: I was given a list of books from my philosophy professor back in college. I haven't read any of them yet but plan to.
If you still have the list, would you please post it here or PM it to me?
This thread has been helpful. Thanks EdenOne for starting it and thanks to everybody for the reading suggestions.
 
Doug Mason
Doug Mason a year ago

Magnum,
I have no problem if a person needs to have a supernatural being to make sense of the world and to cope with it, or if they need to gain strength through physical association with like-minded people. Each person must make up their own mind for what genuinely helps them.
I perceive religion as a means for a small group of people to control the minds and lives of many. Of those who control, one can ascribe motives such as the sense of power or yet again the sense of helping. Institutions need to ensure obedience by the masses, to protect the organisation, to make sure that the boat is not rocked, regardless of what is truth. The leaders need to protect their position of authority. Read the OT in this light.
For me, whether there is a God or not is God's probem, not mine. It is up to the gods to be concerned whether they exist. If you want to pigeon-hole me, call me an agnostic who does not trust the "God told me" assertions that people hide behind.
What is up to me is to live each day, having made a contribution, making life better for someone, regardless of their creed or colour; to behave towards them in the way I would like to be treated.
Doug
 
James Brown
James Brown a year ago

There is a 3 hour video on youtube of a
"History of Christianity"
Also Paul and Jesus by Tabor. on youtube.
Bert Ehrman has videos on you tube also.
 
OrphanCrow
OrphanCrow a year ago

EdenOne,

If you are interested in dissecting Christianity and the Bible, you may find it helpful to investigate where that Bible came from.
Contrary to what most Christians will tell you - the Bible is not a primary book. The Old Testament (Torah) gets much of its content from pre-existing sources. Even though some Christians will ignore or reject the Old Testament, it is undeniable that Christianity has layered itself over the old writings.

The discovery of Ugarit has done much to add to scholars' understanding of the Biblical text.
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

The ancient Canaanite city-state of Ugarit is of utmost importance for those who study the Old Testament. The literature of the city and the theology contained therein go a very long way in helping us to understand the meaning of various Biblical passages as well as aiding us in deciphering difficult Hebrew words. Ugarit was at its political, religious and economic height around the 12th century BCE and thus its period of greatness corresponds with the entry of Israel into Canaan.
Why should people interested in the Old Testament want to know about this city and its inhabitants? Simply because when we listen to their voices we hear echoes of the Old Testament itself. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is greatly illuminated by the language of Ugarit. For instance, look at M. Dahood’s brilliant commentary on the Psalms in the Anchor Bible series for the necessity of Ugaritic for accurate Biblical exegesis. (N.B., for a more thorough discussion of the language of Ugarit, the student is advised to take the course titled “Ugaritic Grammar” offered by this institution).
In short, when one has well in hand the literature and theology of Ugarit, one is well on the way to being able to comprehend some of the most important ideas contained in the Old Testament. For this reason it is worthwhile that we pursue this topic.






 
EdenOne
EdenOne a year ago

OrphanCrow,
I've discarded the validity of the OT quite awhile ago, at least in the sense of allowing it to have any significant wheight on my wordview. Being a "Christian", my primary interest was to test the validity of the Christian wordview. To do so, one MUST investigate the historical Jesus, what he really said, what he really taught. The result is astonishing: We know not much about what the historical Jesus actually said. What we DO know, for the most part, is what the apostle Paul constructed from the Jesus movement. And nowadays, especially with the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Qumran [Essene] community, and the Nag Hamadi texts, we have a much better idea about the "Jesus movement", and what they stood for. I have to say the result of that isn't flattering for the faith in Jesus Christ.
To a fundamentalist Christian, which now I acknowledge that I was, as a Jehovah's Witness, the notion that the historical Jesus said and taught everything that the New Testament texts say is crucial; if Jesus isn't the son of God and he didn't teach those things, it's utterly damaging to your faith. It's what's happening to me. Some may have a more allegorical / philosophical reading of the NT; given my background, I can't do it. It either is, or isn't. Finding out it isn't is absolutely damaging to the 'christian' faith.
Eden
 
OrphanCrow
OrphanCrow a year ago

Oh. I see, Eden One.

So 'Christianity' discards the Old Testament altogether and just sticks it in the closet where it won't be so bothersome.

If your goal is to dismantle the Christain thought, I would think that Old Testament validity would be relevant - seeing as the Christian faith is so intricately linked to that old text.

But, good to know that you have thrown out the validity of the Old Testament already.
Why are you bothering with 'Christain' biblical text when its foundation is so shaky?
 
EdenOne
EdenOne a year ago

OrphanCrow
When I started out, I wasn't set on dismantling the Christian thought. The OT is important to give Christianity context, but I thought Christian thought could do well without it - simply store it on a closet as an obsolete worldview, as you said.
However ... upon close observation [and I say this as I am getting to the end of the book on James, by Eisenstein], the NT is but a war of words and ideas between a post-maccabean, xenophobic, apocalyptic jewish zealot movement [represented by the Qumran community, that ended up producing John the Baptist, Jesus, his brother James plus his other brothers, the Zealots, Siccars and the Ebyonites] opposing the Herodean-Roman rulership and the polluted temple establishment in Jerusalem, and a personal re-interpretation of this movement by an esoteric pro-hellenist, pro-roman, neo-platonist pharisee named Paul, who hijacked the near-exclusive jewish nature of the Jesus movement and transformed it into a new religion, pallatable to the greek-roman world.
We know who won this war.
Eden
 
OrphanCrow
OrphanCrow a year ago

Oh, Okay, Edenone.
So you are studying Christianity - and discovering that all that religious maneuvering is just about political power.

Religion=politics.

Nothing has changed. Religion is just politics under another name.

However, when you say:

Paul, who hijacked the near-exclusive jewish nature of the Jesus movement
you are acknowledging the importance of the Jewish faith in the develoment of the Christian religion. Therefore, I don't see how questioning the validity of the Old Testament doesn't come into play in this.
 
EdenOne
EdenOne a year ago

OrphanCrow, you said

you are acknowledging the importance of the Jewish faith in the develoment of the Christian religion. Therefore, I don't see how questioning the validity of the Old Testament doesn't come into play in this.
I never questioned the relevance of the Old Testament into the understanding of the Christian wordview. Like I said, the Pauline version of Christianity - or, better, Christianity IS Paul's much altered version of the Jesus movement - can stand on its own without needing theological support from the OT except to provide it context. The OT is relevant, of course, to understand the nature of the Jesus movement, because it's through and through jewish in nature. But in order to do so, one needs to handle the NT with extreme care because nearly all of it, (with the exception of James and Jude) is written under heavy Pauline point of view. And this includes the four biblical gospels.
As for the OT, the mere fact that the apocalyptical movement that Jesus came to be the symbol of FAILED in its intents and aspirations, should be a cautionary tale about taking the jewish OT as "truth". Point is, I had already discarded them even before I started my examination of the NT scripture and apocrypha. It's an interesting set of texts, some wisdom can be retrieved out of it, but I don't let it have any wheight on my worldview anymore. Sadly, I'm coming to the exact same conclusion about the NT as well.
Ps: I can see Cofty with a wicked smile saying: "told you so, Eden, told you so..."
Eden
 
Phizzy
Phizzy a year ago

Have you tried Eden, seeing how Jews themselves view their Scriptures ? They do not view them the way JW's and other groups do. Yes, they see the hand of God in them, but they see the Scriptures as having sprung from the religion, not the religion from the scriptures.
The same could be said for early Christians of all hues, they did not have "Scriptures" of their own, but they all had a religion, the Scriptures, those inside and outside of the accepted Canon, came later.
Many a modern Christian sees Scripture as unimportant in the final analysis, what is important is to believe in J.C, that belief can be aided by Scripture, but is not dictated to by Scripture.
Thus arguments about Canonicity, or every "Jot and Tittle" of the Writings, is irrelevant to such people.
Of course they have to admit, if they are honest, that theirs is the very best example of Blind Faith. ( The sad condition, not the Supergroup LOL)
 
Doug Mason
Doug Mason a year ago

Eden,
I agree that Paul invented Christianity. He said he owed nothing to the Jerusalem Church. His writings were first and the others copied ideas from him, such as Jesus' words at the institution of the eucharist; he was not there and neither was any of the Gospel writers.
However, I think that the Jerusalem Church is represented in the NT Canon by Mark (follower of Peter) and by Matthew (given its Jewish focus, character and culture). The Matthew Gospel does give priority to Peter (as against Paul) as having the "keys to the kingdom".
As an aside, it is interesting to see how much use the NT writers made of the Jewish writings that are now considered apocryphal. And 2 Peter, which was written by a Pauline about 150 CE, is a commentary on Jude, which you say is Jewish Christian.
Doug
 
EdenOne
EdenOne a year ago

Doug, regarding the assumption that Mark and Matthew are less "Pauline" than Luke and John, and therefore, keep a more "authentic" record of the early Christian tradition, you really should read Eisenman's "James, The Brother of Jesus", because it utterly debunks that notion. Eisenman makes too much of certain "themes" and "reversions" [such as the 'cast out', 'whiteness', 'eat', etc] found in the synoptics and John, but he's absolutely thorough in demonstrating the anti-Jesus famiily [anti-Qumran] agenda that pervades Mark and Matthew. I was blown away. It's not an easy read, especially for me, a non-english native speaker, but it's based on fresh research, published very recently - and Eisenman is one of the scholars involved in the publishing of the Dead Sea Scrolls texts.
Eden
 
EdenOne
EdenOne a year ago

Phizzy, tell me: For a Jew, is it man that outreach for God, or is it God that outreaches for mankind In the first place?
Eden
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
i've just finished reading two (imo) great books:.
"a history of christianity - the first three thousand years", by diarmaid macculloch.
"misquoting jesus", by bart ehrman.



Related Topics
A.proclaimer
1914, leap years, and sticky math situation
by A.proclaimer 3 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/286943/books-about-early-christianity?page=2&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Ehrman
/  





 

Bart Ehrman
by Joey Jo-Jo 5 years ago 44 Replies latest 5 years ago   watchtower beliefs
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
Joey Jo-Jo
Joey Jo-Jo 5 years ago

Hi everybody,
Bought Gods problem by Bart Ehrman's, firs book i have read from this author, he makes some interesting points about suffering(biblical vs the real world), jews view on Jesus etc, and that he does not believe in the OT or NT but he does not consider himself to be an atheist , if anyone has read this book what do you think? negative or positive feedback appreaciated .
Thanks,

Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo
 
3Mozzies
3Mozzies 5 years ago

Sounds absolutely fascinating!
I have never heard of it, I'm going to look into it. Thanks Joey Jo-Jo
So what do you think of it so far Joey?

3Mozzies
 
Watchtowers Witnesses
Watchtowers Witnesses 5 years ago

I have not read God's Problem, but have read Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interupted. Both books are by Ehrman. I highly recommend them. Both books were very eye opening.
 
Joey Jo-Jo
Joey Jo-Jo 5 years ago

3Mozzies - One word awesomeness with a capital O
 
sabastious
sabastious 5 years ago

I have seen his lectures. I love his arguments against Biblical inerrancy.
-Sab
 
behemot
behemot 5 years ago

I read the book last year: very good stuff, sound reasoning against theodicy's nonsensical arguments.
I also had an exchange of emails with the author, very cool guy.
 
onemore
onemore 5 years ago

I read Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus and sections of Lost Christianities, both very intriguing and eye opening books. Actually, Misquoting Jesus was one of the first books that I read which was not related to JW stuff. They sparked my interest into studying the historical context of early Christianity.

But…from my experience as a JW, I learned to always check and consider the other side of the argument, in other words, to check what other have to say about certain points. So, a little after reading Misquoting Jesus, I read Reinventing Jesus  by J. Ed Komoszewski. I highly recommend reading this book, and The Historic Reliability of the Gospel. Both books present an excellent response to the questions raised by Ehrman’s books; also, they further clarify certain historical events and details that were misrepresented by Ehrman in his books.

Here is a good video....




 
xchange
xchange 5 years ago

I think what Erhman stressed in his books is to read the bible through a historical lens versus a devotional lens and you will come up with a different idea of the bible. Bottom line is that men, mere men, wrote the the books that make up the bible and it shows.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

Almost every point that Bart makes has been answered a few times over, many of them by his own professor Bruce Metzger, when he was alive.
Nothing new there it seems, but I have n ot read "God's problem" so I don't know what THAT books is stating.
Just remember that Bart is stating an opinion and nothing more and like any opinion, the counter arguments should also be studied with equal zeal.
 
donuthole
donuthole 5 years ago

I have read some of Bart's books, but not God's Problem. In my opinion his books are often inflated in importance. It seems like every Easter he has a new hardcover on the shelf with the publisher claiming to offer some earth-shatering secrets on Christianity or the Bible. Then when you get the book it just a retread of dusty old scholarship and the same old Bible discrepencies that have been bandied about for a century or more. His books are easy reads and may give a person a different perspective but for every one of his passioned arguments you'll find another "scholar" who can give an equally passionate rebuttal. If your faith matters to you, I wouldn't put my trust in Ehrman, or any man for that matter.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

Donuthole,
Agreed, it seems to me that many people are looking to find a way to disbelieve in God and the bible and these book with their air of authority hlep them do just that.
One wonders if they put this much effort into CONFIRMING what these authors OPINIONATE or if they take them as facts at face value.
 
sabastious
sabastious 5 years ago

Just remember that Bart is stating an opinion and nothing more and like any opinion, the counter arguments should also be studied with equal zeal.
I have studied them, they are a lot less logical IMO.
-Sab
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

Here's one thing I learned from Professor Ehrman: We don't have any original manuscripts. We have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. If the WT teaches this, I must have missed that particular meeting. I suppose I was just operating under the "God did it" explanation.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

The codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus are from the mid to late 4th century, just 300 years after Jesus's death and the first writings about Jesus, as any historian will tell you, that is VERY close in historical terms.
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

VERY close <--------- Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies.

As long as you receive a Personal Revelation, then I don't see how the Scriptures even matter. Moreover, most folks just interpret away the portions of Scripture they don't agree with.
 
Deputy Dog
Deputy Dog 5 years ago

donuthole
A couple of weeks ago Don Veinot gave a very good lecture on some of Ehrman's stuff at the WNFJ convention. He's also written some on him as well.
Here's a sample: http://midwestoutreach.org/blogs/interrupting-ehrman
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

Below is a very recent debate with Ehrman. . .
This is the March 31, 2010 debate between two prominent New Testament scholars: Dr. Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Bart Ehrman (specific debate info and bios here) on the topic: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus? The format revolves around 7 critical questions on the topic, with each participant providing their prepared answers. Wintery Knight has his overview of the debate here. Video can be found here.
 Full Debate MP3 Audio here. (90 minutes)
http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/04/craig-evans-vs-bart-ehrman-debate-does.html
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

From Deputy Dog's link, above, is this statement:


He was and continues to be very clear that the Bible is fundamentally not reliable.

PSac, do you agree with Ehrman on this point? Or, is that description a bit too strong? I know that you don't think the Bible is free of errors, etc.
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 5 years ago

He's an interesting guy. I got to see a lecture he gave and meet him. With all my arcane questions I asked him after his talk (such as NT allusions in the epistle of 1 Clement or the exegetical use of Psalm 69 in early Christian writings), the funny part was when he asked, "Who ARE you?" lol
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

The guy in the YouTube video above (posted by onemore) seems to have as much disdain for "Liberal" Christians and NPR as he does for Ehrman (an agnostic).

IMHO, Ehrman's books don't represent a threat to Cahtolics or Episcopals. His books 'might' shake the faith of an ignorant Fundmentalist -- which is what I used to be.

Reality tells us that MOST Christians don't view the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights You Did Not Hear at the 8-23-2015 WT Study (PRAYER 1)
by blondie 6 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/201067/bart-ehrman





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Ehrman
/  





 

Bart Ehrman
by Joey Jo-Jo 5 years ago 44 Replies latest 5 years ago   watchtower beliefs
«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

VERY close <--------- Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies.
Historically speaking, yes.
As long as you receive a Personal Revelation, then I don't see how the Scriptures even matter. Moreover, most folks just interpret away the portions of Scripture they don't agree with.
Personal revelation, the bible, interpretation, all work in union, its not a case of either/or.
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

interpretation

I'm content with knowing that interpretation can explain ALL of our differences of opinion. I'm also fine with it.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

PSac, do you agree with Ehrman on this point? Or, is that description a bit too strong? I know that you don't think the Bible is free of errors, etc.
Actually, Bart is incorrect, the bible is FUNDAMENTALLY reliable, if by fundamentaly you mean "basically".
That is, IF you take the bibel for what it is and do not add to it what you wanted it to be or what it was never meant to be.
IMHO, Ehrman's books don't represent a threat to Cahtolics or Episcopals. His books 'might' shake the faith of an ignorant Fundmentalist -- which is what I used to be.
It's been hinted by some that know Bart that his "crisis of faith" came while working on the book about the canon of the NT with his teacher Bruce Metzger. Note that Metzger is NOT an bible inerrant and wasn't at the time but Bart WAS.
Reality tells us that MOST Christians don't view the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.
To say that a book written by Man is without errors is to insinuate Man is perfect.
While the Word of God is revealed in many passages of the bible, the bible is not JUST about that and not all passages and stories and not all the content of the bible is about God per say.
Some of the bible is stories, some is history, some is parable but the problem for US, going at it 2000 years after the fact, is putting ourselves into the sandals of ancient man and trying to understand what was being said to THEM and THEIR time and WHO was saying it and WHY.
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

what it was never meant to be.

Now, we're back to interpretation. What was the Bible meant to be?
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

To say that a book written by Man is without errors is to insinuate Man is perfect.

The Fundmentalist will answer, quite simply, that God can accomplish anything he wants to accomplish, with or without imperfect men.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

Now, we're back to interpretation. What was the Bible meant to be?
Well, IF the bible was simple meant to be the "word of God", then all it would have in would be a bunch of rules, commandments and principles that were sated by God and yet there is FAR more than that.

The Fundmentalist will answer, quite simply, that God can accomplish anything he wants to accomplish, with or without imperfect men.
Well, how can one argue with reasoning like that ?
Wait, I know, read the bible itself and you will see warnings about attempts to "speak for God", you will see warnings to test what is written and what is taught, you will see Jesus saying " you search the written words for God yet you do not find Him there", you see Jesus saying, "who sees me see that Father", not " who sees scriptures sees the father".
Scriptures are a tool for us to use, but like any tool, it must be used properly.
Just because you cna use a mug to hammer a nail, doesn't mean it was designed for that or that there isn't something better for that job, like a hammer.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

I'm content with knowing that interpretation can explain ALL of our differences of opinion. I'm also fine with it.
So were most of the early Christians, Paul didn't always agree with Peter, James didn't always agree with Paul, John had his own outlook on things, Thomas didn't believe unless he had "emperical proof" and no one thought that Judas ever got that hangman was just the NAME of that game.
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

Well, IF the bible was simple meant to be the "word of God", then all it would have in would be a bunch of rules, commandments and principles that were sated by God and yet there is FAR more than that.

This itself is an interpretation. Why should anyone accept your view? How did you reach this conclusion?
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

Scriptures are a tool for us to use, but like any tool, it must be used properly.

An interpretation. How does one know how to use it properly?
 
cofty
cofty 5 years ago

I've read "God's Problem" and highly recommend it.
There is no such thing as the Bible's answer to theodicy - there are a range of answers. He addresses each of them thoughfully.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

This itself is an interpretation. Why should anyone accept your view? How did you reach this conclusion?
Not sure what you mean...are you saying that the bible has nothing BUT Gods commandments and principles to live by ?
Cofty,
A bit outside the thread, but have you read The irrational atheist ?
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

Not sure what you mean...are you saying that the bible has nothing BUT Gods commandments and principles to live by ?

Is the Bible the word of God? If not, why do you say so? Is it because you've read it and you don't interpret it as being God's word?
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

The bible is a book that has written in it, the teachings of God passed on to Man, and many of these teachings were inspired by God and others were written down by man. The Word of God is Jesus Christ and while the bible my lead us to Christ, it can only take us so far, the rest is up to Us individually.
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

The bible is a book that has written in it, the teachings of God passed on to Man, and many of these teachings were inspired by God and others were written down by man.

You state it as a fact, but it is just an opinion. How did you reach such a conclusion?
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

You state it as a fact, but it is just an opinion. How did you reach such a conclusion?
Well, putting aside that all we have is opinions and the only fact we have about the bible is that SOMEONE worte it and it is heavy and mades of various materials, I came by that conclusion from not only reading the bible and trying to read it from the POV of ancient man, but also from reading commentaries and various books of differing views about the bible, in the end I came to my own conclusions ( leaving out any mention of personal revelation which is only anecdotal anyways).
I don't think that God said that shrimps are an abomination and that marriage to a rapist is the best God could come up with, know what I mean?
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

I don't think that God said that shrimps are an abomination and that marriage to a rapist is the best God could come up with, know what I mean?

I hear you. You argument, for the most part, will by with folks who do believe these things about the book.
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

Back on topic, here is the direct link to that March 2010 debate with Ehrman.

http://www.ffc.org/video187.htm
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

I hear you. You argument, for the most part, will by with folks who do believe these things about the book.
Yes, so I have been told...such is life :smile:
By the way, having read Barts book, have you read his and Metzgers about the transmission, development and corrupotion of the NT?
I am almost done the "irrational atheist" and I will be re-reading that one after.
 
leavingwt
leavingwt 5 years ago

I have only read 'Misquoting Jesus'. Within this book, he does not suggest that people leave Christianity. Rather, he explains why he believes the Gospels to be an unreliable testimony of what actually happened. To him, if he cannot know what the texts originally said, they are of limited value.
 
PSacramento
PSacramento 5 years ago

And that is Bart's opinion, itis funny that his own mentor never felt that way.
One of Bart's "classmates" mentioned online that he felt that Bart's "rebellion" against it was that he felt slighted since he USED to beleive in bible inerrancy.
I don't think that is ALL of it but maybe some of it.
Here is one review of that book:
http://answersforthefaith.com/bookreviews/misquoting-jesus-by-ehrman/
 

«
 1
 2
 3
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
hi everybody,.
bought gods problem by bart ehrman's, firs book i have read from this author, he makes some interesting points about suffering(biblical vs the real world), jews view on jesus etc, and that he does not believe in the ot or nt but he does not consider himself to be an atheist.
joey jo jo junior shabadoo.



Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
blondie
Blondie's Highlights You Did Not Hear at the 8-23-2015 WT Study (PRAYER 1)
by blondie 6 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT critiques? A look at Allin's evaluation of Jn 8:58.
by Wonderment a month ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/201067/bart-ehrman?page=2&size=20





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Erhman, transformation complete?
/  





 

Bart Erhman, transformation complete?
by peacefulpete 10 years ago 30 Replies latest 10 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20
peacefulpete
peacefulpete 10 years ago

Bart began as a Fundamentalist like ourselves but in time his studious nature led him to critical Bible scholarship. His books are viewed as authoritative. In an interesting interview he recounts this transformation and hints that he has finally left the conviction that there ever was a historical Jesus, or that personage/s whose lives are reflected in certain episodes in the legend served merely as sources for the Jesus character. Here's the article, it is a couple pages long.
The Washington Post profiles Bart Ehrman
 
bavman
bavman 10 years ago

Something about him sounds familiar. Thanks for the article.
 
Oroborus21
Oroborus21 10 years ago

Greetings!
I didn't gather, from the article at least, that Erhman's belief is that there "was no historical Jesus" as you state in your post, but rather that there is no (accurate or untampered) history regarding Jesus. Erhman rejects the divinity of Jesus but I don't think he or any other serious scholar reject the fact of a historical Jesus.
Regarding the article also, I found the quotation of Erhman stating that "there is no hint of Jesus divinity" to be found in Mathew, Mark or Luke to be disagreeable. I mean to say that I would disagree with it as any basic reading of those Gospels indicate a belief in the divinity of Jesus. Even the recordation of miracles indicates this so I don't know where Erhman would be coming from with a statement like that.
Also, the first passage noted as being suspect, the one regarding the Adultress and the casting of stones, is known to be a suspect passage (which is why in the NWT and other translations it is noted and set apart as only being in some of the Manuscripts). While the idea that this passage may be apocryphal or a later addition may be surprising or shocking to many Protestants and Catholics or even non-religious folk who remember such a powerful scene from most of the TV/Film portrayals of the life of Jesus, it is not a real surprise for others better informed.
Anyway, Erhman's previous books are must-reads for anyone interested in the Bible and I have found them to be interesting and enlightening. While he is agnostic true, I would be be surprised to learn that he doesn't believe in even a historical Jesus and again, that is not what I understood from the Washington Post article.
-Eduardo
 
New Worldly Translation
New Worldly Translation 10 years ago

His experience is very much like Joseph Wheless, an ex-minister, who lost his faith in the bible after indepth study of it. He wrote his book 'Is It God's Word?' early last century and it was banned for quite a few decades. If you've got an ebook reader you can get it here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ataru/ebooks.htm
Most of the authors like Ehrman have trod ground already furrowed by Wheless. Writings by Robert Ingersoll are also excellent, especially considering the time they were written.
 
peacefulpete
peacefulpete 10 years ago

Oroborus21, actually the arguments for the Christ/Jesus character having been a literary creation are very sound and persuasive. There are a growing number of conservative (small c) scholars who are reconsidering the necessity of a man who history forgot and every action attributed to him are manifestly myth and midrash. And this was the line that caught my eye:

Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord," he tells a packed auditorium here at the University of North Carolina, where he chairs the department of religious studies. "But there could be a fourth option -- legend."

Bart would not likely have mentioned the 4th option a few years ago before the work of Wells,Price,Doherty and others.
 
Shining One
Shining One 10 years ago

>Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord," he tells a packed auditorium here at the University of North Carolina, where he chairs the department of religious studies. "But there could be a fourth option -- legend."

Nope, legend does not work at all. There was not nearly enough time passage, it takes centuries for a legend to develop. The histrical data is insurmountable, both secular, Biblical and unispired letters from private individuals. You could not make up a figure like Christ and there are none like Him. The teachings of Jesus line up with the revelation of all scripture. One can plainly discern Christ in the Old Testament teachings and see the end result of the prophecy fullfilment in His ministry. Your buddy Bart is just another 'johnny come lately' to the fringe left of scholarship. He IS NOT authoritative any more than Ding Dong Spong.
Rex
 
tetrapod.sapien
tetrapod.sapien 10 years ago

Nope, legend does not work at all. There was not nearly enough time passage, it takes centuries for a legend to develop.




 lol rexette.
i am going to help you do some counting in numberz this evening:
century 1, century 2, century 3, century 4, century 5, century 6, ..., century 19, century 20, century 21. 21 centuries!!! BWA HA HA!!
you've heard that old saying: a tale grows taller in the telling? ya. 21 centuries, even the first 8, where much more than "it takes centuries".
TS
(i include 21 in there because i imagine you xians will still be saying the same garbage)
 
Kaput
Kaput 10 years ago

There was not nearly enough time passage, it takes centuries for a legend to develop.
I beg to differ. People have actually become legends in their own lifetimes.
 
Shining One
Shining One 10 years ago

A link for everyone: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html
Factor #1 -- Who Would Buy One Crucified?
 1 Cor. 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
 1 Cor. 15:12-19 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
With the exception of the Christ-mythers and conspiracy theorists (and I put Muslims in this rank, where this issue is concerned!), few would deny the historical reality of the crucifixion. But once that door is opened, it brings about the first of our problems: Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?
As Martin Hengel has amply shown us in his monograph, Crucifixion, the shame of the cross was the result of a fundamental norm of the Greco-Roman Empire. Hengel observes that "crucifixion was an utterly offensive affair, 'obscene' in the original sense of the word." (22) As Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [263-4], crucifixion was a "status degradation ritual" designed to humiliate in every way, including the symbolic pinioning of hands and legs signigfying a loss of power, and loss of ability to control the body in various ways, including befouling one's self with excrement. The process was so offensive that the Gospels turn out to be our most detailed description of a crucifixion from ancient times - the pagan authors were too revolted by the subject to give equally comprehensive descriptions - in spite of the fact that thousands of crucifixions were done at a time on some occasions. "(T)he cultured literary world wanted to have nothing to do with [crucifixion], and as a rule kept silent about it." (38) It was recognized as early as Paul (1 Cor. 1:18; see also Heb. 12:2) that preaching a savior who underwent this disgraceful treatment was folly. This was so for Jews (Gal. 3;13; cf. Deut. 21:23) as well as Gentiles. Justin Martyr later writes in his first Apology 13:4 --
 They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place after the unchangeable and eternal God...
Celsus describes Jesus as one who was "bound in the most ignominious fashion" and "executed in a shameful way." Josephus describes crucifixion as "the most wretched of deaths." An oracle of Apollo preserved by Augustine described Jesus as "a god who died in delusions...executed in the prime of life by the worst of deaths, a death bound with iron." (4) And so the opinions go: Seneca, Lucian, Pseudo-Manetho, Plautus. Even the lower classes joined the charade, as demonstrated by a bit of graffiti depicting a man supplicating before a crucified figure with an asses' head - sub-titled, "Alexamenos worships god." (The asses' head being a recognition of Christianity's Jewish roots: A convention of anti-Jewish polemic was that the Jews worshipped an ass in their temple. - 19) Though confused in other matters, Walter Bauer rightly said (ibid.):
 The enemies of Christianity always referred to the disgracefulness of the death of Jesus with great emphasis and malicious pleasure. A god or son of god dying on a cross! That was enough to put paid to the new religion.
And DeSilva adds [51]:
 No member of the Jewish community or the Greco-Roman society would have come to faith or joined the Christian movement without first accepting that God's perspective on what kind of behavior merits honor differs exceedingly from the perspective of human beings, since the message about Jesus is that both the Jewish and Gentile leaders of Jerusalem evaluated Jesus, his convictions and his deeds as meriting a shameful death, but God overturned their evaluation of Jesus by raising him from the dead and seating him at God's own right hand as Lord.
N. T. Wright makes these points in Resurrection of the Son of God [543, 559, 563]:
 The argument at this point procceds in three stages. (i) Early Christianity was thoroughly messianic, shaping itself around the belief that Jesus was God's Messiah, Israel's Messiah. (ii) But Messiahship in Judaism, such as it was, never envisaged someone doing the sort of things Jesus had done, let alone suffering the fate he suffered. (iii) The historian must therefore ask why the early Christians made this claim about Jesus, and why they reordered their lives accordingly.
 Jewish beliefs about a coming Messiah, and about the deeds such a figure would be expected to accomplish, came in various shapes and sizes, but they did not include a shameful death which left the Roman empire celebrating its usual victory.
 Something has happened to belief in a coming Messiah...It has neither been abandoned or simply reaffirmed wholesale. It has been redefined around Jesus. Why? To this question, of course, the early Christians reply with one voice: we believe that Jesus was and is the Messiah because he was raised bodily from the dead. Nothing else will do.
The message of the cross was an abhorrence, a vulgarity in its social context. Discussing crucifixion was the worst sort of social faux pas; it was akin, in only the thinnest sense, to discussing sewage reclamation techniques over a fine meal - but even worse when associated with an alleged god come to earth. Hengel adds: "A crucified messiah...must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish." That a god would descend to the realm of matter and suffer in this ignominious fashion "ran counter not only to Roman political thinking, but to the whole ethos of religion in ancient times and in particular to the ideas of God held by educated people." (10, 4) Announcing a crucified god would be akin to the Southern Baptist Convention announcing that they endorsed pedophilia! If Jesus had truly been a god, then by Roman thinking, the Crucifixion should never have happened. Celsus, an ancient pagan critic of Christianity, writes:
 But if (Jesus) was really so great, he ought, in order to display his divinity, to have disappeared suddenly from the cross. This comment represents not just some skeptical challenge, but is a reflection of an ingrained socio-theological consciousness. The Romans could not envision a god dying like Jesus - period. Just as well to argue that the sky is green, or that pigs fly, only those arguments, at least, would not offend sensibilities to the maximum. We need to emphasize this (for the first but not the last time) from a social perspective because our own society is not as attuned as ancient society to the process of honor. We found it strange to watch Shogun and conceive of men committing suicide for the sake of honor. The Jews, Greeks and Romans would not have found this strange at all. As David DeSilva shows in Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, that which was honorable was, to the ancients, of primary importance. Honor was placed above one's personal safety and was the key element in deciding courses of action. Isocrates gives behavioral advice based not on what was "right or wrong", but on what was "noble or disgraceful". "The promise of honor and threat of disgrace [were] prominent goads to pursue a certain kind of life and to avoid many alternatives." [24] Christianity, of course, argued in reply that Jesus' death was an honorable act of sacrifice for the good of others -- but that sort of logic only works if you are already convinced by other means!
Sorry to trash your buddy Bart's newly found dis-beliefs!
Rex
 
Shining One
Shining One 10 years ago

>I beg to differ. People have actually become legends in their own lifetimes.
Well, maybe legends in their own minds...kinda like Tetrasap.
Rex
 
tetrapod.sapien
tetrapod.sapien 10 years ago

Sorry to trash your buddy Bart's newly found dis-beliefs!
yes. indeed. something smells like trash.
ts
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 10 years ago

There was not nearly enough time passage, it takes centuries for a legend to develop.
Not at all.
1) It took about 30-40 years for the Roswell legend to develop to its current state. There has been a lot of research in the past few years on how memories and oral stories developed into this current legend.
2) With respect to Jesus, one just needs to read Papias (c. AD 140) to see the kinds of oral tales that were being told about Jesus and the apostles. The grotesque and midrashic legend of the death of Judas Iscariot is a case in point. Papias wrote about a century after the putative time of Jesus, and about 70 years after the publication of narrative gospels.
 
Oroborus21
Oroborus21 10 years ago

Howdy,
I have always understood it. A LEGEND is a story which has at its core some basis in fact. This is compared to MYTHOLOGY which does not.
Both types of story often serve similar purposes, are often first transmitted orally before being put into writing, often have variations and additional embellishments and sometimes they also manifest or reflect the universal archetypes of human society.
While much mythology refers to fact or real events or persons, the story itself is almost always a fabrication of the society or culture. Legend on the other hand has a grain of truth or fact around which the legendary portions of the story are built. It is the embellishment of a story (including often the addition of much fiction) which transforms a historical event into a Legend.
Take for example Leolaia's comment regarding the Roswell UFO legend (never actually heard it called a "legend" before and I am from the area Artesia NM). The Roswell Incident has at its core some basis in fact. The crash of "something" or some real thing, whether weathe balloon, military test vehicle or UFO or whatever. Whatever crashed was real and the wreckage of it was witnessed by observers. Thus the Roswell Incident as told as a story is not a myth, it is a legend.
Likewise when Erhman refers to the Gospel story as understood from the Scriptures as a "legend," I believe that what he is saying is that much of what has been added to the historical fact about Jesus is possibly fictitioius embellishment.
Again, while there may be some scholars or non-scholars who wish to deny the existence of a real Jesus, I would place such ones in the came category as those would deny the Holocaust or who persist in a Flat-Earth belief. Again I don't think Erhman is one of these.
It is clear that he has become agnostic by his own admission and in that sense he has transformed his personal views but I still haven't read anything that would clearly indicate that he no longer believes in a historical personage we know to be Jesus.
-Eduardo
 
tetrapod.sapien
tetrapod.sapien 10 years ago

symantics symantics. what's the big deal? myths are often paired with legends. but ya true, when it comes to sport heros, as in legends who have not yet become myths (heh), they are not referend to myths. no one calls babe ruth a myth. he's a legend. but maybe, in a few hundred years when legend has it that the babe was great because he used his penis to bat all those homers, and that god himself made the babe erect for the job, it will be time to start calling the legend of babe ruth, a myth. at that point it won't matter if the babe was real or not. the mythological properties have forever obscured the real babe ruth in the minds of those who really really want the babe to be an erect penis batting god.
if jesus is indeed a legend, then he probably is way more boring than the bible makes him out to be. a carpenter who liked to talk a lot about the potential of spirituality. but not the magical-miracle-wand-weilding gospel man. that is a myth, in all liklihood. a nice myth, but a myth all the same. you have no proof that he was anyhing else than a boring carpenter, a legend in his own time for being a rebellious wise man, who later became a myth as the tales grew taller. i mean, who would want to sit around the dinner table and keep telling the same jesus legend over and over again, when one could throw in a few miracles and never clear the matter up with the credulous children listening in? it's way better when the old patriarch can say: "well, i know something from ages past that you younger ones did not know. did you know that jesus was able to cure the sick? yup, that's right." -- "ooohh, aaahh grandpa! amazing! a penis batting legend in his own right!" .... and so turn the days of our lives, generation after generation. it will never end, so i don't really fault you for continuing the saga on. i just like to post now and then is all. :smile:
ts
 
tetrapod.sapien
tetrapod.sapien 10 years ago

Again, while there may be some scholars or non-scholars who wish to deny the existence of a real Jesus, I would place such ones in the came category as those would deny the Holocaust or who persist in a Flat-Earth belief.
whatever helps you through the long cold nights, man.
TS
 
peacefulpete
peacefulpete 10 years ago

I find it puzzling how passionate some people are about denying the possibility that the Jesus charcater was a literary creation. Silly arguments about how much time it takes for legends to form around an historical person are irrelevant if what is being proposed is that there was no historical person. Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Legend of Paul Bunyon etc. But for the record Erhman does appear to have actually acepted this possibility, his words simply suggested to me that he was aware of the position and regarded it as worthy of repeating. Erhman makes his arguments for "authentic words" of an historical Jesus in his most recent book. However careful ananlysis of his arguments reveals just how basless his and the Jesus Seminar's premises are. Their approach gives the appearance of modern legend making taking place as one argument is stacked upon another and accepted for its attractivness rather than its soundness.
Equating Holocaust "denial" with literary criticism of a story filled with magic and contradictions is just inappropriate and inflammatory. The Holocaust is attested by millions of eyewitnesses and physical evidence. Jesus as historical person not only has neither but does have all the hallmarks of allegory and fiction and reasonable objective people should assume this to be the case unless significant evidence directs otherwise. Despite endless protests such evidence has not been found.
 
Midget-Sasquatch
Midget-Sasquatch 10 years ago

I think there's a reasonable amount of evidence for the existence of James the Just. I know that its only a tradition that he was the brother of Jesus, but it isn't one that significantly contributes to the mythology. A genuine historical detail that lingered possibly? That tidbit would hint at a flesh and blood Jesus having kicked around (minus all the miraculous stuff of course).
 
peacefulpete
peacefulpete 10 years ago

That is argued but there is great question about the James character as well. Was he Christian? Josephus' describes a James as a reformer of sorts that was killed by a competing priesthood. With the certain Christian interpolation removed ( "who was the Christ") we only have a Jewish James that had a brother Jesus son of ?. The subsequent sections describ any number of Jesuses who may have been the Jesus named as the brother of the James killed. In the NT Galations calls James a "brother of the Lord" which may well be a later interpolation as we can easily identify a number of these in reference to "Peter" whereas Paul speaks of Cephus. Alternately the expression "brother of the Lord" bears the marks of a religious title or identifier as member of a society of believers. IOW we don't have much of anything to hang your hat on about this James. It is the opinion of "radical" scholarship that the Gospels fleshed out Jesus by giving him a family. It is possible that Josephus inadvertently provided some of the fodder for this new layer of legend.
 
Shining One
Shining One 10 years ago

>Not at all.
If Jesus is a legend then absolutely ANYONE in history is a legend and not one shred of historical evidence can be trusted. Compared to anyone else, Jesus historical existence has much more evidence to support the facts of his life. Perhaps you are one of the leftist fringe, Leo?
Rex
 
peacefulpete
peacefulpete 10 years ago

Why are you picking on her Rex? I'm over here punk.
 

«
 1
 2
 »
 5
10
20




Share this topic






Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Island Man
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man 2 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
defender of truth
Matthew 24 - "This Generation": If you are a Jehovahs Witness that dares to study the Bible itself...
by defender of truth 6 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/109426/bart-erhman-transformation-complete





Got it!
We use cookies to personalize content & ads, provide features and analyze traffic. We share data about site usage with social media, ad & analytics partners. More info





 src
Latest

Topics

Users
 
 


Welcome Visitor!
Sign up Sign in
Home
/ Topics
/ Bart Erhman, transformation complete?
/  





 

Bart Erhman, transformation complete?
by peacefulpete 10 years ago 30 Replies latest 10 years ago   watchtower bible
«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20
Midget-Sasquatch
Midget-Sasquatch 10 years ago

Rex
Alot of the non-NT material you're putting forward as "evidence" (Seutonius etc.) only demonstrates what christians believed and taught at the time of writing. The Gospels are contradictory in several places so aren't reliable history.
PP
I agree with you that the expression "brother of the Lord" could also have a religious meaning (that perhaps added to his legitimacy as head of the Jerusalem community?). I'm not won over by Eisenmann's idea of Jesus and James having set up a succession of sorts like the Maccabeans. I am fascinated though by the question of who exactly was this James, since he apparently had the popular support of the Jews. He was supposedly killed for his opposition to the religious powers that be...a revolutionary of sorts? Political revolutionaries were crucified. I think its an interesting parallel.
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 10 years ago

We are indeed left with a ton of questions.
"Jesus" is sandwiched between John and James, two characters of some historical consistency, to which Christian sources relate him contradictorily: John is presented either as an immediate "precursor" (but he obviously had an ongoing line of non-Christian disciples, which would be quite strange if he had really pointed to Jesus as his "successor"), or a close relative (Luke), or a more remote figure (Jesus can be presented as the "resurrected John," cf. also "since the days of John the Baptist"); James is either a "brother" (literal, as the Gospels imply? spiritual, as the title "brothers of the Lord," parallel to the "apostles" or the "Twelve," suggests?) or a disciple (the striking parallel between the inner circle of disciples in the Gospels being "Peter, James and John" and "Cephas, James and John" in Galatians; Acts 12 has the "James of the Twelve" killed by Herod just before James of Jerusalem pops up from nowhere).
Very little of what is said about James in non-NT documents (Josephus, Hegesippus) suggests a relationship to Jesus. One can imagine Jesus and James as members of the same (Nazorean?) movement, but James hardly appears as a "disciple of Jesus". Moreover James is a kind of aristocratic priestly figure in Jerusalem rather than a Galilean popular prophet-rabbi.
If there is room for a historical Jesus from what is not purely literary fabrication from OT material in the Gospels, the hypothesis of a Galilean nationalist seems among the most plausible; but then the connection with John and James becomes dubious. And there are many otherwise known contemporary historical figures (e.g. Judas the Galilean) which may have provided the model for the construction.
Anyway, the "earthly Jesus" that really matters to Christian faith is the one who walked on the sea: the god-man that can be built from the Gospels, rather the historical person(s) that may have stood behind them.
 
Midget-Sasquatch
Midget-Sasquatch 10 years ago

Sabeans...mandeans...yeah, I can see John the Baptiser had a fairly good franchise of his own. That, along with Josephus, and the matter that the gospels are made to address a rivalry of sorts (perceived by the christian side at least) shows John was very likely real. But zippo on the other side. sigh.
Eiseman's book on James the Just, mentions that there was once a version of Josephus that attributed the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD to the death of James. From that, he figures James was favoured by zealots and similar movements. That he may have been viewed by them as their legitimate (high)priest in opposition to the establishment (in line with the Herodians and Romans....puh-too-ee). What do experts on Josephus say about the likelihood of such a passage?
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 10 years ago

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesdeath.html
 
Leolaia
Leolaia 10 years ago

There is also yet another (legendary) account of the death of James in the Ascents of James (dating to the mid-second century, but in its present form to the third century), which amusingly posits Paul as the instigator responsible for James' death. This is discussed at length in Van Voorst's commentary.
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 10 years ago

Another piece to the puzzle is the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 7, in which Saul/Paul is involved: it is strongly reminiscent of Josephus' account of James' death.
 
Balsam
Balsam 10 years ago

I have several of Professor Bart Ehrman lectures from the Learning Company, and love them. Also have read all his books, and agree with him. I know it is hard for fundamentalist to loosen the grasp they have on their bibles to even entertain the thought he might be right. I fully understand their fears, I've had them myself. But I've stopped being freaked out by the idea the bible is myth, and learning to live without the biblical net. It is not so scary now.
Balsam
 
Midget-Sasquatch
Midget-Sasquatch 10 years ago

Thank you all for the fresh material to read over (the well attested and the legendary). --- And I'm not just writing that to push myself closer to 1,000 posts ---- cross my heart---- Errrrr, but now, if I've been persuaded to conclude its all myth, that gesture should mean squat to me. So how do you know I'm not fibbing?
Joking aside, I have a deep respect for all of you who've fundamentally changed your core beliefs. I can't say I've undergone the process to the same extent, but I've had the mixed emotions that come from realizing the uncertainty of it all. Now a small part of me still wishes that there be at least some grain of truth to the Jesus figure. But in interests of truth, like one JWd poster once wrote "I'd rather have questions I can't answer, than answers I can't question." I love learning how these different beliefs developed and trying to fit it all together. Good night all.
 
Shining One
Shining One 10 years ago

>Equating Holocaust "denial" with literary criticism of a story filled with magic and contradictions is just inappropriate and inflammatory.
A 'story'? How about 66 books written by many different authors that tell a cohesive, prophetic story about how the world needs a messiah to right itself from degeneration and eventual extinction?
>The Holocaust is attested by millions of eyewitnesses and physical evidence.
The Bible is attested by millions of believers who know God in a personal way. They offer hundreds of legitimate, eyewitness testimonies and thousands of material evidence of both inspired and secular in nature.
>Jesus as historical person not only has neither
Really? Perhaps you can prove your assumptions and deny they are caused by your own bias?
>but does have all the hallmarks of allegory and fiction and reasonable objective people should assume this to be the case
How do you define what is 'reasonable and objective' for people? Who made up the rules you are quoting and what is their basis in logic? Many more intelligent people than you have looked at the same evidence and said, "this is from God".
>unless significant evidence directs otherwise.
Er uh, excuse me? How many mountains of manuscripts and millions of testimonies do you need to find something 'signicant'?
>Despite endless protests such evidence has not been found.
Disprove the evidence that you say does not exist.
Rex
 
Shining One
Shining One 10 years ago

Hey Balsam,
None of us need your condescension....you assume that faith is some kind of 'crutch'. Perhaps you need one? If you are a betting man why not take 'Pascal's wager'?
Rex
 
Narkissos
Narkissos 10 years ago

Shining One, beware of overshining yourself
 

«
 1
 2
 »
5
10
20




Share this topic



Topic Summary
bart began as a fundamentalist like ourselves but in time his studious nature led him to critical bible scholarship.
his books are viewed as authoritative.
in an interesting interview he recounts this transformation and hints that he has finally left the conviction that there ever was a historical jesus, or that personage/s whose lives are reflected in certain episodes in the legend served merely as sources for the jesus character.



Related Topics
blondie
Blondie's Highlights from 11-15-2015 WT (FAITH)
by blondie 4 months ago
The Searcher
A First Stepping-Stone For Bethelites & Lurkers?
by The Searcher 5 months ago
Island Man
How the Bible disproves the JWs' 1914 invisible presence doctrine.
by Island Man 2 months ago
Wonderment
How credible are NWT's critiques?: Allin and John 8:58. (2)
by Wonderment a month ago
defender of truth
Matthew 24 - "This Generation": If you are a Jehovahs Witness that dares to study the Bible itself...
by defender of truth 6 months ago



Community Guidelines

Posting Rules

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

DMCA

Copyright © 2001-2015 Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum | JW.Org Community Information.
 


http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/109426/bart-erhman-transformation-complete?page=2&size=20