What is there in the Pastoral epistles that wasn't the case in the first century? What in them is to only be understood as referring to the distant future, and not the situation as it was at the time?
Jesus, the people of his day, and of theology
by drew sagan 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
DavidChristopher
well, I could be wrong, but were they expecting Christ to come again in Their lifetimes? Surely they would have known better than that.
-
peacefulpete
Just as Leolaia implied, there is nothing in these books that evidences supernatural powers of divination. As recognized by most everyone 2 Tim 3 was a rip off of Romans 1 and written BECAUSE the author wanted readers to identify their time with the last days..
-
DavidChristopher
So basically you are saying That all scriptures are NOT inspired by God, or He made some mistakes. Which is it?
-
peacefulpete
My conclusion is that my indoctrination as a JW was not limited to a certain doctrinal interpretation of the Bible. The first step to recovery was to ask fundamental questions such as whether the Bible really merits my reverence. I learned that everything that I was told proved the book to be supernaturally inspired was dust in the wind. Therefore it is up to you to decide whether you will continue this line of questioning or call me stupid, lost and evil and go on your merry way. There are folks here of every persuasion, you being welcomed here does not depend up your decision.
-
DavidChristopher
It is ok Pete, I have a thick back, and I don't need to look down on people to make myself feel better about myself. you are simply needing some proof, as am I. Difference is, I am looking for it. I would say you simply have more"patience" than me.
-
Mysterious
Weren't there also things in the epistoles where commands were given because it might stumble someone's faith indicating they did not all believe the same way? And the command was not because there was anything inherently wrong in these other beliefs in the first place.
-
DavidChristopher
been my experience that the "truth" is "common sense". If you come up with a theory that a hot stove will not burn you, and try to make others test it out for you, I would say that would be "wrong". However, if you touch the stove first, and no harm comes to you you would be "right". What I am saying is, If you want others to follow you, take the lead, don't assert something if you are not willing to go first, and do it yourself. That makes you a hypocrite. Lead by example, not words. If you believe I am wrong, it is your duty to prove it to me. If I am wise, I will thank you, and get myself back on the right track. Then, BOTH of us will be happy. these "disagreements" are nessesary to learn new things. However, when you put a gun to my head and tell me to do what you say, because I should have faith in you, because you "said so". I think that is where the "disagreement" goes too far, and nothing is learned. I don't see anybody truly happy then.
-
peacefulpete
Chris said: you are simply needing some proof, as am I. Difference is, I am looking for it.
Please share. You seem to forget that I was where you are now. If you want to share your proofs, I'd be willing to soberly discuss them.
-
peacefulpete
been my experience that the "truth" is "common sense". If you come up with a theory that a hot stove will not burn you, and try to make others test it out for you, I would say that would be "wrong". However, if you touch the stove first, and no harm comes to you you would be "right". What I am saying is, If you want others to follow you, take the lead, don't assert something if you are not willing to go first, and do it yourself. That makes you a hypocrite. Lead by example, not words. If you believe I am wrong, it is your duty to prove it to me. If I am wise, I will thank you, and get myself back on the right track. Then, BOTH of us will be happy. these "disagreements" are nessesary to learn new things. However, when you put a gun to my head and tell me to do what you say, because I should have faith in you, because you "said so". I think that is where the "disagreement" goes too far, and nothing is learned. I don't see anybody truly happy then.
If by common sense you mean that without religious indoctrination the average person would reach the conclusion that the Bible is supernatural, I disagree. And it is not my 'duty' to prove anything to you. Whether you see it or not this is a JWism. People can live very well together with different opinions and views as long as noone has the 'mission' to prove everyone else wrong. I have asked for reasons you feel the Bible is supernatural. Will you share? Are you semiconsciously aware of the irrationality of the belief and want to be left alone? It is easy to see this in others (especially of those of different religious beliefs) but painfully hard to admit to ourselves.