It is merely a story that someone wrote down because he thought that it would appeal to those who followed that guy who claimed to be the messiah. It is very much like other stories where the hero has doubt (showing the human side) and then overcoming his doubt and accomplishing his task. It does remind me, though, of the night I fell asleep on the couch during the news and woke up at 2:30am with the strong desire to buy a magic bullet... Humans can hear, and retain information, even when sleeping.
A simple question about Jesus prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane.
by nicolaou 64 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
FlyingHighNow
How can that even be called Christianity?! Diluting your faith and covering it with sugar may make it more palatable to the masses but, and this is the heart of the topic we're discussing, it has little to do with what Christ actually spoke or taught. At it's core Christianity is a very divisive message and it was always meant to be such.
Bull caca. You are being just as narrow in your idea of Chrisitanity as fundamentalist Christians here. You are overlooking the fact that it is them who claim the book is all inspired and infallible. The rest of us see the book as a recorded history of two major groups of ancient peoples. We recognize while there is some truth and some accuracy included in the Bible, that it is not a book written by God. We don't believe that God only loved or loves Christians or only communicates with Christians. We believe that God loves all of his children. ALL. You have a problem with that? You just have a very narrow view of the spectrum of Chrisitan beliefs that exists and existed from the get go. I consider myself a universalist who believes in God and believes Jesus is a real person whose life was real and is far above the fundamentalist idea of him that is. currently and very loudly promoted.
No, this is not a watered down version. It's a much more powerful concept of Christ and God. It is not divisive. Though you seem to like that idea of Chrisitanity better.
By the way, how do YOU know what Christ spoke or taught? Are you going chiefly on these scriptures that you yourself believe are not inspired. That's a double standard. And not a good one.
-
darth frosty
the pisos family made up...er wrote the account.
-
Band on the Run
The authenticity of Bible accounts no longer bothers me as much as it once did. Any notion of a fundamentalist understanding flew out the window as a teeanger. The canonization process decreed that the canon was closed forever. This is a sad outlook. It means that Christ is no longer active in our lives to produce sacred scripture. I'd say such works as C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L' Engle are sacred. Our present time is just as important and Christ imbued as the canonization time. Canonization was blatantly political. The Gnostics see creation as evil, a horror. Secret knowledge can free one to return one's soul to the original source, free of the physical body. Jesus was illusory, a great teacher, not God. They view our God as a Satan. A minor figure causing anguish through creation itself.
Yet the stories and sayings follow the NT gospels for the most part. To be certain, they add extra sayings of Jesus and stress he only appeared to be human. The core is the same though which encourages me to believe in the authetnicity of basic events in the gospels. We only know what the church taught. Jesus and the apostles are very sketchy about most doctrinal matters. Matters for which Christians were martyred by the Romans and then by competing nation states and internal struggles.
When I left the Witnesses, I wrote a paper on the historical Jesus for a college class. The topic was chosen b/c I wanted to write about something neutral, something I knew nothing about so I could be objective. There were many Paul topics open but I could not even read Paul then b/c of the Witnesses, much less write a paper. Today I tend to remain mired in the Bible. It strikes me that the Bible focuses almost too much on the historicity of Jesus, rather than the Risen Christ and his nature or his Second Coming. Bible knowledge does not add to my character or conduct as a Christian. I believe I am churched. Beyond that, I don't know why I have to purchase and read every Jesus book that looks mainstream.
Rather than knowledge of Jesus in detail and different theories, I want grace and faith. Jesus is so radical in many places. Turn the other cheek does not mean having social knowledge. He could have been radical concerning slavery, IMO. Christians existed without written details for quite a while and flourished.
Personally, I believe the Trinity encapsulates Christianity. No one has the credentials to define Christianity for all people. It seems to be a self-reporting. Jesus seems robbed of all value when he becomes a good teacher or prophet. Christians were not willingly thrown ot lions for such beliefs. My basic beliefs are gut beliefs, not rational or scientific. When I stumbled upon a denomination radically different from the Witnesses, with great rituals and a very loose doctrinal system yet rooted in tradition, I fell in love. Without the Witnesses, though, I don't think I would be active in any denomination. I can't escape the Witness influence. Many Jewish people marry or have funerals from Unitarian churches.
I don't much about this strand of Christianity. Most mainstream scholars would not define JWs as Christian. But assigning definitions is meaningless. I recall crying so hard when I was in kindergarten. The neighborhood kids ganged up on my bro and I. They were all RC. The KH and no celebrations was so brutal for me. They said they could not play with us b/c we were not Christian. Their proof was that in school prayer we did not cross ourselves. In my heart, I knew I was suffering as a little kid for Christ. I knew far more Bible stories than they did. When they told me they were wearing the authentic fabric from the Virgin Mary's dress the day Christ died, I kept my opinion to myself.
Christianity watered down too much stops being Christian. On the other hand, I do believe all religions are valid. Were I born in China, I'd be Communist, Confucian or Buddhist. Pakistan-Moslem, India-Hindu. The cultural determinant is strong. So if believe these religions are true, too, I don't understand why diluted Christianity bothers me. I never claimed my belief system was rational. Paul said we believe in utter folly,
-
nicolaou
FHN; Where on earth do you pull your "powerful concept of Christ" from if not the Bible? Without the Bible THERE WOULD BE NO CHRISTIANITY and yet you almost dismiss it by saying that there is only "some truth and some accuracy included in the Bible, that it is not a book written by God".
Wow! That's exactly the position that atheists like myself have been trying to get across for years!
As for Christianity not being divisive, listen to the words of its 'founder' (and these words WERE heard by plenty of witnesses).
(Matthew 10:34-37) . . .Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be persons of his own household. 37 He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. . .
(Matthew 7:13-14) 13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.
(Matthew 25:31-33) 31 “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
This is more than just wordplay FHN, division is at the heart of the Christian message - whichever Bible translation you use.
-
ProdigalSon
Without the Bible THERE WOULD BE NO CHRISTIANITY
That's true, of course, and I'm not disputing it, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the "pagan" aspect of the Christian religion is at the very least, 10,000 years older than the Bible, as it was taken from ancient myths and literalized by the Roman Church.
As an example of what I'm saying, you just quoted this scripture:
(Matthew 7:13-14) 13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.
This is something that was stolen from the Hindu "Wheel of Samsara" and the Tibetan "Wheel of Life", and it has to do with cyclic existence on this earth. The wheel goes around every 25,000 years, a "Precession of the Equinox", and at the top of the wheel is what is called the "Gate of Eden". This would be liberation from cyclic existence and entering the state of Nirvana. The 2012 event is the end of one of these cycles. It is a narrow gate because it is difficult to enter. This is what is known as the "harvest". This has nothing to do with eternal destruction, it is simply liberation from suffering. Jesus may very well have said this, but if he did it was because he condensed all the teachings of the Ascended Masters into his own more succint version.
The Church would have a lot to gain by making it seem as if is this was something that applied to the world at large based on their boldfaced lie of one life/one judgment. Hence, when I read this scripture literally as a child, it was probably the single biggest reason why I believed there had to be a true religion, and I thought it was the Watchtower. It is instead a personal achievement.
-
undercover
could be any number of explanations
it could be that the disciples were pretending to sleep
He could have talked about after his ressurection. Maybe someone was only pretending to be asleep
Could be that since His disciples were all Jewish at that time, they felt no need to record anything. You know, oral tradition, and all that jazz?
coulda woulda shoulda
It could be an invented story... a fairy tale...legend...myth.
Occam's razor... Occam's razor
-
PSacramento
Without the Bible THERE WOULD BE NO CHRISTIANITY
Well, it grew and expanded and survived persecution for almost 300 year without one.
To paraprhase Jesus:
"If you were to silence Us, even the stones would yell out the truth"
-
nicolaou
Well, it grew and expanded and survived persecution for almost 300 year without one.
That's a fair point although who's to say how many letters and records were circulating amongst the faithful back then? The whole thing I'm getting at with this topic is to suggest that the record of what Jesus actually said and did is unreliable, that's surely one of the reasons why the Christian faith is so fragmented.
There's just too much room for creative interpretation!
-
PSacramento
That's a fair point although who's to say how many letters and records were circulating amongst the faithful back then? The whole thing I'm getting at with this topic is to suggest that the record of what Jesus actually said and did is unreliable, that's surely one of the reasons why the Christian faith is so fragmented.
There's just too much room for creative interpretation!
You say that as if it was a bad thing.
Because totalitarian religions/theologies/philosophies are so much better?