You are most welcome. I appreciate the thanx.
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff 118 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Perry
Let's review:
The idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... Clearly, it isn't.
The above is Jeff's fundamental doctrine. He appeals to major heretical writings to support this erroneous claim, although Christian Faith was Jewish in the beginning and was not dependent on ANY A.D. writings ... Christian or heretical.
What is the basis for the claim that the bible is a product of holy spirit? Thousand of scrolls, with tons of variant readings, held among various groups and tribes is what one finds as to how the bible came around.
I suspect that Jeff well knows that this is simply not true, as I have posted on this topic extensively before. There have always been two streams of manuscripts. The one stream through Antioch the other through Alexandria Egypt. These are generally known respectively as the Majority and Minority texts. In the Majority texts, numbering into the many thousands, there is a 99% or so agreement between them. In the minority scripts, primarily Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the few mss that are based on them, they are characterized by omissions and vast disagreement between them.
I have put together a website that addresses this subject and why I believe the Majority mss are superior. www.wordfamine.com See "Two Streams"
Other sites are far more detailed than mine in refuting claims like those of Jeff. The most exhaustive that I have found is here:
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/textsversionsheader.html
The fact is, contrary to Jeffs simple announcement, that among the Majority Mss, there is near total agreement among the "various groups and tribes" all throughout Europe. ... many of which was found, collected, chronicled, and interpreted by that great "catholic" scholar Erasmus in the early 1500's.
-
Narkissos
"We step and do not step into the same river." (Heraclitus)
-
AllTimeJeff
First of all, I need to clarify my attempt at sarcasm, which was lost on people quoting my statements out of context, after which, I will respond to some of the bible apologists doing a happy dance right now..... (I partially blame myself for poor editing, but here is the statement verbatim with better editing...)
Here is what this is beginning to sound like to me... which unfortunately is a bit too familiar.
JW say: "You only need to accept what the FD Slave says through the WT. No need to investigate what critics might have to say. That will only destroy your faith. Their only aim is to destroy your faith. They preach lies."
SomeChristian apologists say: "You only need to accept Jesus as your lord as found in the traditional gospels. There is no need to investigate what other scholars and historians have to say regarding the bible, its history, or how the canon was put together. That will only destroy your faith. Some, like Bart Ehrman, have a totally biased agenda and only write what they do to destroy your faith."
Some here have used the Ehrman comment I made as if I believe that. All I am pointing out is that some apologists sound an awful lot like JW's in trying to dissuade people from investigating the history of the bible and the history of how it got here.
That I don't respect, regardless of what a person chooses to believe.
This post is just for clarification. Next.....
-
AllTimeJeff
This is loooong...
I took great pains in my opening salvo to say that belief and faith were not being attacked by me. That this thread was merely an invitation to read up on what is out there about the bible and the canon, a very reasonable thing to suggest in light of how old the bible is. And that some/many might be surprised to learn about the history of the bible canon, its formation, and the people behind it.
And (for the last time) I acknowledge that I should have titled this post better. (....There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Religion) I do apologize if that caused offense.
Also, my apologies for including the "Holy" Roman Empire. I was in error. I was referring to the Roman Empire and its embrace of "Christianity" at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century. Thank you Mad Dawg for noting this.
Mad Dawg, if you are so sure that you have it right, why should you be concerned if anyone else reads the works of Bart Ehrman and others? When I said that if you have the truth it will be ok, then I see you and Perry try to discredit Ehrman in particular, I have to wonder, what are you afraid of people reading about?
Are you more interested in propping up a faith that is dependent on accepting ancient scrolls as the unerring message of god? I didn't attack your right to believe as you will.
Perry, you said:
What is the basis for the claim that the bible is a product of holy spirit? Thousand of scrolls, with tons of variant readings, held among various groups and tribes is what one finds as to how the bible came around.
I suspect that Jeff well knows that this is simply not true, as I have posted on this topic extensively before. There have always been two streams of manuscripts. The one stream through Antioch the other through Alexandria Egypt. These are generally known respectively as the Majority and Minority texts. In the Majority texts, numbering into the many thousands, there is a 99% or so agreement between them. In the minority scripts, primarily Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the few mss that are based on them, they are characterized by omissions and vast disagreement between them.
Perry, I have no problem with ANY one reading this to do their own research and find out for themselves what is said here. No need to get defensive, and certainly, there is no need to try the tried and true approach of JW's and other religions to try to get the masses to take your word for it instead of reading up on it themselves.
I am really glad that the Christians here (esp those who have done their own research) can agree that they agree. There are many like myself who read the history and see many red flags.
I certainly hope that people reading this won't be dissuaded from reading up on what other scholars have to say. To me, the efforts to discredit the findings of those who have studied this for their life's work is a bit JW like.
Some (not all) Christians who have participated in this discussion have a real bias towards the bible. They view it as divine revelation. I obviously do not, and find a whole host of reasons why I do not view it this way.
BUT I AM NOT AFRAID TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH BY THOSE WHO ARE NOT CHURCH APOLOGISTS AND SEE WHAT THEIR FINDINGS ARE AND IF THEY HAVE THE RING OF TRUTH TO THEM.
It disgusts me that rather then let these records stand on their merits, the scholars themselves are attacked, with the (perceived) hope of discouraging honest inquiry.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE GOVERNING BODY TRIED TO DO TO US WHEN WE WERE JW's.
WHAT IN GODS NAME ARE YOU APOLOGISTS AFRAID OF PEOPLE READING UP ON AND FINDING OUT???????
Here is a newsflash for all you apologists for defending something that was never attacked by me: ALL YOU HAVE ADMITTED TO AT BEST IS THAT THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MSS, MOSTLY FRAGMENTS, THAT HAVE TO BE PUT TOGETHER LIKE A JIGSAW PUZZLE. THIS IS GOD'S UNERRING DIVINE REVELATION TO MAN???? AND THAT MAN WROTE ALL OF THEM??? THATS ALL FOLKS... SERIOUSLY, RE-READ YOUR OWN WORDS.
Get over yourself. No one here is gods messenger. God doesn't need you to defend him. God, it seems to me, is perfectly capable of writing his own book if he so chooses to.
This pious attempt by a couple here to defend the bible, when all I did was suggest that readers see for themselves the real history of the bible and how the Church got started makes me angry. HAVE YOU APOLOGISTS CONSIDERED THE REAL POSSIBILITY THAT A READING OF THESE SOURCES COULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF STRENGHTHENING THE FAITH OF SOME WHO READ IT???
And that would be A-ok with me.
Perry, I thought my respect for you as a theist could not get lower, but I stand corrected. When god talks to you next time, please confirm with him my DOD (Date Of Death) and when I can expect my first day of burning in hellfire forever. You can PM me or start a thread, it doesn't matter to me.
PSacramento and Stephen and PasswordProtected, I thank you for sharing, and in spite of my rhetoric, I really am happy for your faith and beliefs. I know we differ right now on many matters regarding faith and belief, but in my defense, I hardly think that starting a thread that informs of the fact that there is much to learn about one's religion/faith is to suggest that their faith is wrong for them.
Mad Dawg, we haven't had many chances to interact, but it is clear that YOU have done your research and have come to your own conclusions, which I happily respect and accept.
Lastly, lets not forget, if its the truth, there is nothing to be afraid of. Read up! Don't just read people who have already made up their mind and have as their only goal to get you to believe as they do. See what critics have to say. Why are they critics? What have they found that so upsets believers and apologists? IF ONE'S FAITH IS SO WEAK THAT READING CRITICS WILL DESTROY IT, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE QUALITY OF ONES FAITH, AND THE EVIDENCE THAT COULD DESTROY THAT FAITH?
We already went through censoring as a JW. I hardly see how that could be a good habit to continue in our ex JW existence. Don't fall for it. Read up, take responsibility for your beliefs, and make up your own mind. I for one am not the least bit afraid of what you will find.
Lets see, shall we put Ehrman and Ray Franz on the same level for the efforts of believers to discredit them before you even read a word, or seek to understand what and why they say what they say?
-
Perry
I don't begrudge Perry's faith, except for the times he uses his opinions on faith as a platform to spread a message of destruction for all non Christians and sinners who don't accept Jesus. I will always argue against that.
Jeff, can you provide one example where I said God was going to "destroy" everyone who is without Christ? Of course you cannot. Your idea of "destruction" is left over theology from your days as a Jehovah's Witness elder. The WT teaches destruction for everyone not a JW. Whereas Judeo/Christian belief is Judgment with a merciful accomodation of Substitution (circumvention) of that punishment for those who choose it.
If God does not Judge then that makes him a collaborator in evil...Him having the means by which to punish but refusing to do so. Your idea of God (if there is one) is one who simply sits back and allows evil endlessly.
Just as a reminder of reality, all are in a state of destruction, decay and eventual death. You cannot on the one hand blame God for this and on the other hand assume the normality of it as your naturalistic philosophy demands. You can't have it both ways. Either death (destruction) is natural or it isn't.
-
Mad Dawg
ATJ said:
All I am pointing out is that some apologists sound an awful lot like JW's in trying to dissuade people from investigating the history of the bible and the history of how it got here.
Hmmm… In all my life I have never had anyone try to dissuade me from investigating the history of the bible and the history of how it got here. Although I have never been a JW, I grew up in a hard core Baptist church and was always encouraged to investigate. Even when they didn’t like my conclusions.
ATJ, would you please be more specific in your accusations? Frankly, your grasp of history is quite poor. And you wish to teach me about my faith? You would do well to take your own advice. This time using research from across the spectrum, as I have done.
-
AllTimeJeff
Perry, I will slap my own wrist for derailing my thread with that statement to you. You do consistently made statements that in effect, say that god will destroy and punish. So I wrote what I wrote to you with that in mind, though I admit it has nothing to do with my own thread (I am embarassed!) and apologize to myself for hijacking my own thread.
-
AllTimeJeff
ATJ, would you please be more specific in your accusations? Frankly, your grasp of history is quite poor. And you wish to teach me about my faith? You would do well to take your own advice. This time using research from across the spectrum, as I have done.
Actually Mad Dawg, no. I haven't made accusations. It seems we agree that others should do their own research and read up, right? I am not teaching you about your faith.
Get over yourself, and stop patting yourself on the back for your immense amount of apologetic research. You have a mirror to congratulate yourself, you don't need to post how grand you are for "using research across the spectrum."
-
Perry
I took great pains in my opening salvo to say that belief and faith were not being attacked by me.
Yes, you did. And then you went on to do the exact thing that you claimed you did not want to do... here:
The idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... Clearly, it isn't.
When that thesis was successfully refuted, you claimed that your real thesis was this one instead:
What is the basis for the claim that the bible is a product of holy spirit? Thousand of scrolls, with tons of variant readings, held among various groups and tribes is what one finds as to how the bible came around.
When that "thesis" was demonstrated to be false, you changed your thesis once again:
all I did was suggest that readers see for themselves the real history of the bible
And for that we owe you a debt of gratitude. Otherwise the vast amount of information on this thread relating to Christianity would have never been written. On the basis of your last thesis, I would like to be the first to declare you the winner of this discussion.
Thank you.