Quality of this Forum

by stevieb1 120 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  aChristian

  Jan,

  You wrote: Jesus allegedly fed what corresponded to the population of an entire city miraculously (twice!).

  However, few among them may have been aware of the miraculous nature of their meal. For Jesus gave the loaves and fishes He had multiplied "to his disciples and they in turn to the people." (Matt. 15:36) Those who did understand what had just taken place and told such a story to others would hardly have been taken seriously by secular historians.

  You wrote: Herod did a crime so extreme it is amazing if it was not recorded (e.g. by Josephus, who carefully listed many lesser crimes by Herod).

  You are speaking, I presume of Herod's killing of John the baptist. As the Bible tells us, "Herod was afraid of the people because they considered John a prophet." (Matt. 14:5) That being the case, it is very likely that Herod ordered that his killing of John not be publicized. His order may have been quite successful in keeping his actions from the public at large.

  You wrote: Not to mention all those "saints" suddenly resurrected and walking around in Jerusalem talking to people.

  You, of course, refer to Matt. 27:52,53. As you probably know, the exact meaning of this passage is disputed. Some say that the resurrection there spoken of was a heavenly one and "the holy city" into which the resurrected ones entered was "Jerusalem above." Others say that this passage only speaks of an earthquake which rocked a grave yard. However, I believe the popular interpretation which you allude to is correct. I just think that, then as now, when ridiculous sounding claims seldom get repeated by "respectable" historians.

  So far as your other attacks against the Bible's credibility and your allegations that it is filled with contradictions, I believe I could offer reasonable explanations for every one of your alleged "contradictions." But what would be the point? Even if you were convinced that the Bible contains no contradictions, as you have said, you are not going to accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence of their accuracy. And as I have said, I believe that if you are willing to believe God and serve Him He will eventually provide you with all the evidence you need to put your Faith in Him.
• 

  JanH

  aChristian,

  The feeding of thousands of people in the wilderness would require literally an army and a fortune even today. Back then, much more so, as even mighty kings had problems feeding armies of that magnitude in the field. Surely, nobody could interpret a poor preacher like Jesus feeding such multitudes as anything but a miracle.
  

  You wrote: Herod did a crime so extreme it is amazing if it was not recorded (e.g. by Josephus, who carefully listed many lesser crimes by Herod).

  You are speaking, I presume of Herod's killing of John the baptist. As the Bible tells us, "Herod was afraid of the people because they considered John a prophet." (Matt. 14:5) That being the case, it is very likely that Herod ordered that his killing of John not be publicized. His order may have been quite successful in keeping his actions from the public at large.

  Not at all. I speak of his alleged slaughter of all young boys in the Bethlehem area at the time of Jesus' birth.

  But you do prove my point. The killing of John the Baptist is mentioned in secular history, namely Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews XVIII, Chapter 5). So your whole point about it being secret is something you made up. Furthermore, you do demonstrate you know nothing about the historical record of the time, you just want it to be true.

  Naturally, when Josephus recorded the killing of one man by Herod, he'd surely record what would have been the most atricious crime of them all, and one it would be impossible to hide.

  You, of course, refer to Matt. 27:52,53. As you probably know, the exact meaning of this passage is disputed. Some say that the resurrection there spoken of was a heavenly one and "the holy city" into which the resurrected ones entered was "Jerusalem above." Others say that this passage only speaks of an earthquake which rocked a grave yard. However, I believe the popular interpretation which you allude to is correct. I just think that, then as now, when ridiculous sounding claims seldom get repeated by "respectable" historians.

  Naturally, the only reason the "alternative" interpretation has even been proposed, is that the events as described are too wild even for many conservative Christians to swallow. The "explanation" that is supported by among others the WTS is pretty ridiculous and totally incompatible with the text.

  Your ideas of what "respectable" historians of the day would believe and write is remarkably naive. History writing of the day were full of supernatural tales and superstitious claims.
  

  So far as your other attacks against the Bible's credibility and your allegations that it is filled with contradictions, I believe I could offer reasonable explanations for every one of your alleged "contradictions."

  You could offer more "could have been" stories that merely betray a total lack of understanding of history, and ignorance about the source material. What I see in your sentence above is even more evidence for what I wrote earlier: your faith is a purely emotional one. When you see contrary evidence, you are already convinced that your preconceived ideas are correct, and you speculate wildly to "harmonize" the accounts.

  For example, apologists have tried for centuries to explain the conflicting birth accounts of Jesus, including his genealogies. Two different genealogies would be definite evidence for foul play in every other respect, but to Christians, it is just yet another "seeming" contradiction that can be "harmonized" with mental and verbal gymnastics. You are engaging in sheer, massive intellectual dishonesty.

  Many of those ex-JWs who left because they were tired of making bad excuses for JW flip flops, false prophecies and chronological nonsense will recognize that mainstream Christian apologetics is exactly the same thing: blatant dishonesty and special pleading.

  - Jan
  --
  
• 

  Rex B13

  You are absolutely correct. I would rather it be like the old H2O. At least we could recommend interested JWs (usually) without having them run out screaming, "The Watchtower is right about apostates!".
  We have an element here who get their jollies showing that they are 'adults' and can talk all the obscenity they want to.
  Rex
• 

  JanH

  Rex,

  Lies prefer darkness, while the truth is comfortable in the light.

  - Jan
  --
  
• 

  aChristian

  Dave,

  I said this board is "for the most part a vast spiritual wasteland" because, as I also said, "By far, most discussions which take place here contain very little spiritual, intellectual or philosophical content."

  I never said or implied "that if a person does not believe in Christianity then they are not considered spiritual." Obviously that statement makes no sense, since a person has to be interested in spiritual things, and thus be a "spiritual" person, before they become a Christian.

  You wrote: There are several people on this board who have studied religion without the side blinders of trying to prove one better or more "true" than the other.

  I am one of them.

  You wrote: Christians like yourself feel that basic human decency is exclusive to your brand of religion

  I do not feel that basic human decency is exclusive to my brand of religion. I feel it is taught and practiced by people in nearly all religions. You really shouldn't make statements which attack the character and beliefs of others unless you know for a fact that those statements are true.

  You wrote: Just don't come off as someone who "knows all" and tells others that you alone own the one and only "truth" about life. We've had it up to our eye balls with exclusivity of spirituality and the one and only "truth."

  Since you "have had it up to your eyeballs with exclusivity" you may want to avoid reading the New Testament. For, as I pointed out, Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) I wonder why Jesus would say such a thing, seeing He was "so incredibly influenced by both Hindu and Buddhist religions," as you say.
• 

  aChristian

  WW,

  You wrote: I however disagree that there is only one right way to God.

  If you ever meet Jesus be sure to tell Him that you disagree with what He said in John 14:6 about how He is the only way to God. I am sure He will be very interested in your opinion.

  You wrote: God is a God of love and I do not believe he wants to condemn nations of people just because they were brought up to believe something you do not.

  Neither do I. I believe He will judge all who have not heard the good news of Jesus Christ mercifully. I am not so sure about those who have heard it and have rejected it.

  By the way, I agree with you that there is much good in all religious belief systems.
• 

  seven006

  aChristian,

  You ended your last paragraph with "I wonder why Jesus would say such a thing, seeing He was "so incredibly influenced by both Hindu and Buddhist religions," as you say."

  Would you like to read some things that have brought me to these conclusions? Have you ever read the Upanishads? Have you ever read the story of Buddha or Krishna? If I take the time to post them and give you links so you can read that is more than just "what I say" will you read it?

  Here is just a tiny taste of what you can read:
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Volney of France was perhaps the first to propound in the 18th century that "Jesus was a solar myth derived from Krishna' of Hindu mythology." Buddhism existed at least four hundred years before Christianity. Another French theologian, Ernest Havet, did the same in his study of primitive Christianity published in 1884. A

  He was followed by Ernest Renan, the famous Catholic theologian from France, who pointed out Buddhist parallels in the parables of Jesus in his Life of Jesus published in 1863.

  Max Muller noted "startling coincidences between Buddhism and Christianity in his India - What It Can Teach Us published from England.

  A stronger case along the same lines was made by Rudolf Seydel, Professor in the University of Leipzig (Germany), whose first book, The Gospel of Jesus in relation to the Buddha Legend, published in 1882, was followed by a more elaborate one, The Buddha Legend and the Life of Jesus, published in 1897. Finally, J. M. Robertson, a British scholar and a Member of Parliament, revived the Volney thesis in 1900 by stating in his Christianity and Mythology that "the Christ-Myth is merely a form of the Krishna-Myth.

  (source: Jesus Christ: An Artifice for Aggression - By Sita Ram Goel p. 53).

  In the past, the West and India were immediate neighbors. Before the Islamic civilization came between the two, the empire, which was first Persian, then Greek and later Roman, stretched from the Mediterranean to the Indus. The commercial ties between India and Europe were more direct than they have ever been over the last ten centuries. Indian monks and their disciples lived and taught for several hundred years in the Middle East and founded large monasteries, the traces of which can be seen mainly in Antioch and Alexandria. In the 4th A.D. Saint Jeremy fulminated against the fake prophets from India. But his protest came to late, for the men from India had already left their mark on the Mediterranean mind in search of holiness.
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------

  If you are really interested I will take the time to do this. If you are not, I will not waste my time.

  <<<I do not feel that basic human decency is exclusive to my brand of religion. I feel it is taught and practiced by people in nearly all religions. You really shouldn't make statements which attack the character and beliefs of others unless you know for a fact that those statements are true.>>>

  If I am wrong in this then I apologize. Are you saying that all religions teach good and moral things?
  If so, why did you choose Christianity? Geographical location? Familiarity with basic concept?
  You are right, I do not know you. I based my statements from what I have been reading by the more evangelical christians that post on this board. If you believe differently then again, I apologize.

  I have one problem and one problem only with certain Christians or for that fact any one form any religion. That is when they go into a public forum of any kind and state that they have the "absolute" right answer in regard to god and life. If you state such things you will hear from me just as others hear from you. It's that simple.

  Take care and I am sorry if I offended you.

  Dave
• 

  aChristian

  Jan,

  It simply slipped my mind that Josephus recorded Herod's killing of John. I read it years ago and, in fact, I had it underlined in my copy of Josephus.

  You seem very willing to say that I and other Christians refuse to reject the story of scripture because we want it to be true. However, I have been very careful not to say that you reject the story of scripture because you want it not to be true. I'll leave such a judgment to God.

  However, I will say that I believe God caused the Bible to be written in just the way that it was, and may have even caused secular historians to omit certain things from their historical records, to allow those who wish to reject the story of scripture to be able to do just that.
• 

  JanH

  aChristian,

  However, I have been very careful not to say that you reject the story of scripture because you want it not to be true. I'll leave such a judgment to God.

  No, that is a way of saying it while reserving deniability. I have indeed demonstrated I wanted to believe, first as a JW and then as a believing Christian. I only rejected it when the evidence against was totally overwhelming. This is pretty well recorded in many Usenet conversations, postings, and also on H2O where I made the transition from believer to non-believer. When you are a believer, the prospect of no afterlife is not very inviting, so I doubt many would make this transition for personal motives. Of course, a believer has all the motives in the world for sticking to beliefs long after they are debunked.
  

  However, I will say that I believe God caused the Bible to be written in just the way that it was, and may have even caused secular historians to omit certain things from their historical records, to allow those who wish to reject the story of scripture to be able to do just that.

  LOL. This must be the most ridiculous cop-out I ever heard. So God wants only ignorant and gullible believers? It would be more rational, if you believe God existed, to assume he doesn't want people to believe in him. Alternatively, God made a mistake by giving us brains. Or God is evil.

  - Jan
  --
  
• 

  sunstarr

  Jan,

  When you see contrary evidence, you are already convinced that your preconceived ideas are correct, and you speculate wildly to "harmonize" the accounts.

  IMO, everyone who enters a debate begins with the notion that they are correct. Would you suggest that your posts in this thread are any different? Do you really post things such as:
  

  You are engaging in sheer, massive intellectual dishonesty.

  with the idea that you may or may not be correct? Further, is it not speculation to suggest that no written record of Herod's slaughter of children exists simply because none to date has been discovered?