Perry, there were many schools of thought regarding Christ, the New Covenant by many factions of Christian sects and congregations back then. Read up, thats all I have to say.
I stand by my statements.
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff 118 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
PSacramento
ATJ,
I, for one, do not view your thread or any of your posts as an attack on my faith ( I have no religion), far from that, I like having my views tested :)
No one's faith should be so weak as to feel intimidated that it is being tested.
God, though Jesus, will judge your HEART and, from what I gather from your posts, it is in the right place if not in the right direction ;)
-
AllTimeJeff
God, though Jesus, will judge your HEART and, from what I gather from your posts, it is in the right place if not in the right direction ;)
LOL! Thank you. I sense a direction in my life. I don't think that god will hold it against me that I asked where he was and didn't take another man's word for anything.
-
PSacramento
ATJ,
It is when we take another man's word as "gospel" that God has issues, not the other way around.
God knows why there are so many doubts in the world and God knows that not everyone will find him before they die, its a fact of life.
There are many reasons why one can be "turned off" or even turned away from God, and God knows all of them, that's his Job.
I think that there are many paths to God, he made it that way, because people need to come to God on their own terms, find their own path because by doing that, THEY are coming to God personally, not by "walking in someone else shoes", but by walking in theirs.
-
AllTimeJeff
It is when we take another man's word as "gospel" that God has issues, not the other way around.
God knows why there are so many doubts in the world and God knows that not everyone will find him before they die, its a fact of life.
There are many reasons why one can be "turned off" or even turned away from God, and God knows all of them, that's his Job.
I think that there are many paths to God, he made it that way, because people need to come to God on their own terms, find their own path because by doing that, THEY are coming to God personally, not by "walking in someone else shoes", but by walking in theirs.
It appears you and I share similar thoughts on the how, if not the who. :)
-
Mad Dawg
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?
ATJ, did you miss where I said:
Actually, understanding the history of the Bible will increase one’s confidence in it. One should read different takes on it – not just those that wish to shred it like Bart.
Where have I discouraged anyone from reading anything?
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…
He deserves discrediting. All error deserves discrediting.
I have to wonder, what are you afraid of people reading about?
Nothing, why are you so upset that I said that one should read other things in addition to Bart? Such a lengthy post and all you can fixate on is two comments?
Are you more interested…
I am interested in truth, whatever that may be.
There are many like myself who read the history and see many red flags.
Have you ever read anything that would explain the “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.
Are you saying that Bart is above scrutiny?
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.
Which, by definition, means that you have a bias against the Bible.
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.
Please read my quote in green above.
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.
Attacked? Puh-leeeeze. Why the thin skin?
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE GOVERNING BODY TRIED TO DO TO US WHEN WE WERE JW's.
And the GB wants us to accept their word as truth without question. Are we allowed to question Bart?
WHAT IN GODS NAME ARE YOU APOLOGISTS AFRAID OF PEOPLE READING UP ON AND FINDING OUT???????
Absolutely nothing. Please read the green quote above.
Here is a newsflash for all you apologists for defending something that was never attacked by me: ALL YOU HAVE ADMITTED TO AT BEST …
An oversimplification of what was said, and out of context to boot.
God, it seems to me, is perfectly capable of writing his own book if he so chooses to.
Which He did.
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.
Because of your poor grasp of history, I decided to correct your errors. Why does that so upset you? Why are you spending so much emotional energy on a tiny portion of the posts? If you want to talk history, then talk history. When you do, please back up your claims with evidence.
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???
Again, please read the green quote above.
And that would be A-ok with me.
And me.
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.
Thank you, I most sincerely appreciate that.
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.
Does this include critics of Bart and others who wish to discredit the Bible?
Read up, take responsibility for your beliefs, and make up your own mind.
Agreed 100%.
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?
Let’s see, shall we put Ehrman and the GB on the same level in that they cannot be questioned? I understand Bart, that is why I descredit him.
-
Perry
Perry, there were many schools of thought regarding Christ, the New Covenant by many factions
Yes there were and still is. And they all tried to make it more complicated than it really was. The end goal of all false assumptions about Christ is to get the "believer" to somehow violate the terms of the New Covenant and thereby assure his own vulnerability at Judgment Day.
2 Corinthians 11:3 - But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ
Here the principle of Substitution of Punishment is carried forward to Christ:
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
The word "testament" literaly means contract ....further explained as a blood covenant (literally a pact) in Hebrews.
Other "overly simplistic" elements of Christianity are:
1 Corinthians 2:2 - For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
AS JW's we out and out rejected the New Covenant because of the 144,000 doctrine. Others, violate the terms of the "Contract" by accepting another Mediator between them and God. Or, possibly violate it by adding works to the agreement. God knows.
The New Testament (literally New Contract) only has two parties - You and Jesus. It is a blood covenant requiring the death of both signatories. God has signed his name on the Contract with the blood of his own Son (which is also his WORD) thereby guaranteeing by no greater authority a total declaration of "absolvo" of ANY crimes the sinner may have committed, them having been punished by the flagellum, the cross, and descent into Hell.
Justice and wrath having been satisfied, and with the death of the sinner finally sealing the pact, legal inheritances and rights now come into play. In addition to all the ownership rights that are inherent in being pronounced a Son, rewards of inestimatible value are placed on the children of God that exceed mere rights.
This simplicity is rejected by cults in favor of more complicated understandings. Yet, God is holding in his extended hand a simple Contract signed with his own blood that gives the legal right to become a Son to "whosoever". I am a whosoever.
If there are any here who have not accepted this offer, I highly reccommend asking God right now, to place your name in that blank space. God is faithful. Christians are not always faithful...but God is.
-
AllTimeJeff
Mad Dawg, all I can say is that your opinions and statements are duly noted.
I think you and I both acknowledge that it is an excellent exercise to read up and learn both history and dogma. Ultimately, that was my point.
As far as Ehrman goes, you have stated what you believe about his works, which I totally disagree with. I do challenge anyone here to read up on him and a couple of his books with an open mind. Thats all.
Thanks for sharing.
-
PSacramento
ATJ,
I read "misquoting jesus" a whiel back and, to be honest, didn;t get much out of it.
There was really nothing new in it, maybe 20 years ago or 50 years ago it might have been more "revolutionary".
Bart has all the right to express his view, but lets not forget that it's just his view and his interpretations.
-
Narkissos
Too bad for Heraclitus. Apparently I am the only one to see a connection between his aphorism, "we step and do not step into the same river," and the initial statement of this thread, "we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... Clearly, it isn't."
Keywords: identity and difference, being and becoming.
Thesis (A): a collective identity like "Christianity" can only exist inasmuch as it includes both synchronical and diachronical difference, i.e. conflict and coexistence at any time of its history, AND changes as time goes on. This being true from its very "beginning," as the diversity and tensions within the NT texts suggest.
The only alternative option (B) I can think of is just too well known: my understanding of Christianity is, has always been and will ever be the only valid one, and all other interpretations of it are to be discarded as fake or false Christianities.
N.B.: alternative option (B) is actually included, not excluded, by thesis (A), although sophistically thesis (A) will certainly be dismissed as a form of option (B).