Jesus was just a man?

by Joey Jo-Jo 96 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Pistoff

  The thing is I believe Jesus is an important figure in history, and that he is the center of religion for some and spirituality for others.

  But the fundamentalists, like Godrulz, take the gospels literally even though to do so requires NOT studying them and reading them critically; they also attribute to Paul all of the books that bear his name, in spite of the major differences in viewpoint, grammar and syntax in the older MSS.

  It is possible to take them seriously but foolish to take them literally.

  To take the story literally is to misread it; the signs of myth and legend are all over the gospels.
• 

  godrulz

  MrDark: thx for the warm welcome. I do not think you are dumb, stupid, immature, uneducated, rationalist, etc. When I say JWs are rationalists, I refer to the philosophy in Russell's day and life that elevates raw reason above biblical revelation. His initial basis for rejecting trinity, 'hellfire', etc. was that it did not seem rational to him (how can one God be 3 gods straw man; and how can a loving God torture people if I would not torture my kids or a dog, etc.). It was the spirit of the age that spawned the main pseudo-Christian cults. I did not mean to imply it was rational, but rationalism. It elevated irrational, flawed human reason above divine revelation that is not always palatable to sinful, fallen man, though still true. Reasoning from the Scripture, taking in knowledge, endless literature studies and meetings, suppression of emotions and critical thinking, etc. are hallmarks of WT. It is no good to reason if one twists God's revelation and reasoning with endless logical fallacies, ignorance of sound scholarship and other views, etc. We apprehend revelation with reason, but defaulting to simplistic answers that sound good to the mind (but it is affected by the noetic effects of sin), but are still not true is problematic. I wonder if your WT apologetics were based on your own thinking, research, clearly understood views, or searching WT literature like Aid or Reasoning book and using their arguments whether you fully understood them or not. If I am going to exegete Scripture, I want to understand the grammatical, contextual issues, not just trust an experts view that may or may not be right. My experience is that most JWs will run when they cannot answer something or try to point to a pat answer from a WT tool that is refutable, flawed, and not really understood to the point of being able to defend it by the average JW (they also don't check the sources of their quotes/misquotes, but I do, so I see how they have misused credible authorities to try to gain support; quoting a trinitarian to disprove the trinity is classic stupidity and shows that they are misquoting to make the author say the opposite of what he intended; e.g. Mantey took them to task over their misuse of his Grammar).

  The evidence is out there. God bless your search (that requires illumination from the Spirit).
• 

  godrulz

  pist: Paul does quote Jesus. Paul never saw Jesus in person, so learned things from the other apostles in addition to direct revelation and contact with the risen Christ. Pauline theology has a strong Christological foundation. In Cor. 11, he does quote Jesus in relation to Lord's Supper (WT evening meal nonsense). Paul's theology is focused on His greatest miracle, the resurrection! He talked about signs and wonders generically, etc. The Spirit inspired the Gospels and Paul's writings are issue literature about local churches. It is apparent that his theology is in line with Christ and that he does refer to the Lord in many places. What is the point of your pointless question?
• 

  godrulz

  Glad: I would question that they are Christians if they deny that the Bible is the Word of God. Nominal, liberal, pseudo-Christians should not be confused with the real thing. Evangelicals have a high view of Scripture. If it is not the Word of God, we have no basis for Christianity. Do these so-called christians also deny the Deity and resurrection of Christ? If so, they are definitely not Christians.
• 

  TheSilence
• 

  godrulz

  I will fetch it and bring it back to you. I am your servant in Christ who wants to be your FELLOW servant in Christ as brothers/sisters in the Lord.
• 

  Pistoff

  Godrulz:

  WHERE does Paul quote Jesus TEACHINGS, or SAYINGS?

  Where does he mention the nature miracles, or water into wine, or resurrection of Lazarus? Surely those would be proof of his Sonship.

  Where does he mention his strong anti-authoritarian streak?

  I would question that they are Christians if they deny that the Bible is the Word of God. Nominal, liberal, pseudo-Christians should not be confused with the real thing.

  Shame on you. You insist that YOUR way is the only christian way; this is the definition of arrogance and judging, anathema to Jesus. What if I just like what Jesus said? What if I see his rejection of religious structure of his day as a good reason to reject the religious structure of ours. including judgemental fundamentals like yourself? What if he was just a man who had a revolutionary idea, that is, to pray for your enemies?

  What if his best idea is to distrust entrenched religious institutions, as they indeed become corrupted by power?

  That is enough lesson for me.

  The rest, his miracles, his resurrection, etc, is all just wishful thinking by those who could not understand why he died and had to find a reason for it.

  Pauline theology has a strong Christological foundation.

  Yes, but not as laid out by Jesus, that is my point. Paul develops, invents, all by himself the idea that the slain Jew Jesus is the messiah; the problem is that Paul, influenced by the culture and mystery religions of the day, sees Jesus as a risen messiah, and asks that we drink his blood just like the pagans. Think about it. The Bible is not history, but a slanted take on what happened with a view to making it match up to prophecy.

  Your issue, and all fundamental christians, is that you think you can take Paul's words at face value, that they mean now what they meant then, instead of understanding them in the context of wartime in the Levant and coming from a persecuted minority who used literature as a way to strike back at their enemies.

  The point of my question is that YOU still have not answered it: why no mention of teachings and miracles by Paul, Jesus' greatest booster?

  ANSWER: They did not exist when Paul wrote, or he DID NOT BELIEVE THEM.

  They are the invention of those who sought to bolster the case for Jesus' divinity.
• 

  Pistoff

  Here is another question for you Godrulz:

  Where does Paul use the word, resurrect or resurrection?

  Please don't evade this question, like you have the one about miracles.
• 

  TheSilence

  I will fetch it and bring it back to you. I am your servant.

  Seriously, dude, if you only knew what kind of a girl you just made that offer to...
• 

  undercover

  Seriously, dude, if you only knew what kind of a girl you just made that offer to...

  That may just have to win the "post of the day" award...