Left Behind

by gravedancer 65 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Xander

  The problem we have, borgfree, is that you are obviously uneducated about the topics on which you continue to debate, we POINT YOU in the right direction to learn about what we are talking about, so, if nothing else, you could intelligently debate with us, yet you continue in your course of ignorance seemingly under the umbrella of 'I don't have to understand anything - god will provide' or somesuch.

  That is the only thing I have to say I really hate about christianity - much of the time, it promotes stupidity (not ALL of the time - see below).

  RESEARCH! RESEARCH! RESEARCH!

  They ARE legitimate scientists and biologists who are still have the 'christian' faith. They try to reconcile the fact of evolution with the christian god, and have enough success to satisfy themselves.

  If you never do the research, though, you keep arguing from ignorance, and it shows through.

  Your comments like "Scientists have said a bumblebee cannot fly"! Ridiculous! No scientists has ever said that! And, in your defense, you claim your science teacher claimed so. Well, I hate to drop this on you, but unless this 'school' was a college, there is almost no chance at all your 'science teacher' was a scientist, and I'm beginning to wonder in exactly how rural an area you went to school that you had so obviously uneducated a teacher....

  Just because SOMEONE says something doesn't mean they are in any way qualified to make that conclusion (another problem with many of the so-called 'christian scientists', who are not legitimate scientists at all!).

  Again,

  RESEARCH! RESEARCH! RESEARCH!

  There is simply no excuse not to.
• 

  waiting

  LA dawg,

  Waiting,

  You posted:

  JW's don't put any stock into a reality approach to the Bible.

  And Dispensationalists like LaHaye do?

  Actually, a "reality approach" to the Bible by jw's is a mixed bag. They READ it as reality (when it suits them), but don't stop to think about it in terms of actually happening - that would be called "speculation" and "speculation" is not allowed for jw's. Whether historically or in visions of the future, they don't want to think about what a world that would be like - particularily if they and their children were alive at the time - and they're taught not to think or speak about "such speculative happenings. Trust in Jehovah."

  My belabored point was.........it's like watching an action/science fiction movie. I don't believe 90%+ of them either, but it's interesting. This is just bible style action/ science fiction. Since we've READ about it for decades in an obscure kinda way - and most of us believed it wholeheartedly, it's curious to play out the drama....because jw's have been trained hard not to speculate.

  And LaHaye is speculation, like any other science fiction. Don't care about his religious views - don't read his books for religious information. Got enough of that with the science fiction of the Watchtower and Awake! magazines.

  waiting

  Edited by - waiting on 17 July 2002 14:21:12
• 

  LizardSnot

  Here is something I found with regards to historical references to Christ's existence.

  Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. [Meie.MarJ, 89]

  Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

  But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

  A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus (see next entry). Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value. It is unfortunate that France so readily agreed with Wells' assessment. An investigation into the methods and background of Tacitus, as reported by Tacitean scholars (whose works, incidentally, France does not consult), tells us that this is an extremely reliable reference to Jesus and for early Christianity.

  http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

  Lizard
• 

  Xander

  And I parry with:

  Next the Christians will point to the Annals by Tacitus. In the Annals XV,44, Tacitus describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person named Christus who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias. It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from Christ or Christus (Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made by the Christians themselves. They appeared in the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, which had already been widely circulated when the Annals were being written. (The Annals were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly not written before 110 C.E.) Thus, although the Annals contains a sentence in which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value. It is quite ironic that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus" he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of Middle East history in his book the Histories is so distorted as to be laughable. We may conclude that his single mention of Christus cannot be taken as reliable evidence of an historical Jesus.

  http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

  Edited by - Xander on 17 July 2002 17:12:56
• 

  LizardSnot

  So is it possible that a large group of people in the first century that called themselves Christians were basing their worship on someone that never existed?

  LizardSnot
• 

  Xander

  Ummm...YEAH...

  Is it possible a group of people would allow themselves to be burned to death in a ranch in Waco following a Messiah who didn't exist?

  Is it possible a group of people could commit suicide hoping for a free ride aboard a space ship following a comet?

  EDIT: Is it possible 6 million people from around the world would let themselves die rather than accept a blood transfusion on the direction of a body of men who claim to speak for a god that doesn't exist?

  (Some more notes, btw, from http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html):

  The quotation from Tacitus is an important one. That part of the passage which concerns us is something like this: "They have their denomination from Chrestus, put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius." I wish to say in the first place that this passage is not in the History of Tacitus, known to the ancients, but in his Annals, which is not quoted by any ancient writer. The Annals of Tacitus were not known to be in existence until the year 1468. An English writer, Mr. Ross, has undertaken, in an interesting volume, to show that the Annals were forged by an Italian, Bracciolini. I am not competent to say whether or not Mr. Ross proves his point. But is it conceivable that the early Christians would have ignored so valuable a testimony had they known of its existence, and would they not have known of it had it really existed? The Christian Fathers, who not only collected assiduously all that they could use to establish the reality of Jesus -- but who did not hesitate even to forge passages, to invent documents, and also to destroy the testimony of witnesses unfavorable to their cause -- would have certainly used the Tacitus passage had it been in existence in their day. Not one of the Christian Fathers in his controversy with the unbelievers has quoted the passage from Tacitus, which passage is the church's strongest proof of the historicity of Jesus, outside the gospels.

  But, to begin with, this passage has the appearance, at least, of being penned by a Christian. It speaks of such persecutions of the Christians in Rome which contradict all that we know of Roman civilization. The abuse of Christians in the same passage may have been introduced purposely to cover up the identity of the writer, The terrible outrages against the Christians mentioned in the text from Tacitus are supposed to have taken place in the year 64 A.D. According to the New Testament, Paul was in Rome from the year 63 to the year 65, and must, therefore, have been an eye-witness of the persecution under Nero. Let me quote from the Bible to show that there could have been no such persecution as the Tacitus passage describes. The last verse in the book of Acts reads: "And he (Paul) abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling, and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding him." How is this picture of peace and tranquility to be reconciled with the charge that the Romans rolled up the Christians in straw mats and burned them to illuminate the streets at night, and also that the lions were let loose upon the disciples of Jesus?

  Edited by - Xander on 17 July 2002 17:25:15
• 

  Derrick

  I rented the DVD and they have chosen a sensational manner to present this material. Some will feel confused, frightened and dazed, while others will roll their eyes and say "this is ridiculous."

  The only thing lacking is the scriptural support for this entire end of the world thesis.

  Derrick
• 

  L_A_Big_Dawg

  Derrick,

  So I can be clear, are stated that the end of the world is not scriptural, or that LaHaye's (the Dispensational view) is not biblical?
• 

  LizardSnot

  For one to say that 1st century Christians didnt believe in a real person called Christ is like you or I saying that Abraham Lincoln never existed. Some of those people had the opportunity of having met him. Maybe those people who called themselves Christians back then...never existed either.

  Lizard
• 

  Xander

  Some of those people had the opportunity of having met him

  Indeed, and can you prove it?

  Give me one - ONE account of a person who can prove Jesus existed (who did not belong to the 'christian faith' - and thus have an agenda for claiming so).

  There aren't any.

  There isn't A SINGLE ONE.

  NOT ONE.

  For 'the greatest man on Earth,' who walked on water, raised the dead, and founded the largest religious movement in history - don't you find it a tad odd that NOT ONE SINGLE SECULAR SOURCE can prove he even existed? SURE we can prove the early christian church existed, and that they CLAIMED they got their religion from an earlier source - but there is no proof of it.

  It would, in fact, be more akin to me claiming that because the Paul Bunyan tales are so widespread and so many people know them, then he MUST have existed and these stories MUST be true simply because everyone has heard them. With no more conclusive evidence than that.