After Jesus fasted for 40 days, he was tempted by a man (not a fallen angel).

by quincemyles 88 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Ruby456

    quincemyles - rather than christadelphian I thought you might have a perspective similar to John Crossan

  • quincemyles

    Ruby 456, Vanderhoven asked whether someone was a Christadelphian. My response was to him. I assumed you noticed his question.

    Redpilltwice. The Tempter was human, not just a personification of temptation.The one to whom the accuser (satan) spoke may have been a representative of God on earth in those court sessions. If not, God would have spoken to Satan even when that satan was on earth. Job 38 and other verses show God talking to Job. Did Job go to heaven for him to speak to God? No. Did the accuser need to go to heaven to raise those concerns before God? No. The accuser walked in the land of Uz, roamed in Uz. The book of Job does not say the meetings were in heaven but does say the accuser was on earth, walking about. He may as well have been a human accuser who spoke to God like Job spoke to God.

  • punkofnice

    Before I believe that the Bible has any relevance, I'd like to see the evidence OUTSIDE of the Bible that the Jesus of the Bible actually existed.

    I'd like to read something Jesus actually wrote.

    It's all very well believing in things 'because the Bible says so', or seems to say so. However, if the Bible is just the confection of some blokes here and there, it's a pointless task.

    Evidence outside the Bible, independant of the Bible and proven scientifically would be nice. Not just anecdotal stuff.

  • quincemyles
    The beauty of being adults is that we can work to find answers to our questions and we do not expect others to do the work of searching for us. He that does not search let him not have the answers.
  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    You clearly haven't searched very hard then have you.

  • Ruby456

    we have been taught to think in simplified terms so that we remain passively supportive of the leaders' agenda (and this doesn't only happen in religion). we need to develop the knack of looking for complexities and nuances in order to come out of passively accepting everything the leader tells us. so i agree that a way to do this is to carry out our own research.

  • punkofnice

    Whereas I enjoy research. Sometimes there's only spin based on certain confirmation bias.

    I still haven't found anything 'Jesus' directly wrote in his own hand.

    I still haven't found actual evisdence outside of the Bible for this man. despite these years of searching.

    Anyone would think he was ficticious.

  • Ruby456

    well the evidence is incomplete, I agree punckofnice, but if anyone offers an hypothesis then it at least should agree with the gospel accounts. so this is not saying that the gospel accounts are accurate history but that it is most of what we have. so far quincemyles' thesis is plausible imo because he has answered the objections raised and does not contravene what the gospels are saying to much - but this is not to suggest that I consider that the gospel accounts are accurate history.

  • TD

    The idea is interesting, but it falls apart for me at the point where the tester (i.e. A Jewish person ostensibly versed in the Law themselves..) asks for an act of worship.

    From a Jewish standpoint, there is so much wrong with the idea that it's hard to know where to start.

  • Saename
    punkofnice - I still haven't found actual evisdence outside of the Bible for this man. despite these years of searching.

    If you're talking about the historical Jesus who was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher named Yeshua who lived in the first century and claimed to be the messiah but who didn't perform any miracles, then I don't think you've been searching for years. Then you're just blind. If, however, you're talking about the Jesus of the Bible who did perform miracles, then there's no evidence or any reason to believe in that myth.

    Ruby456 - so far quincemyles' thesis is plausible imo because he has answered the objections raised

    As far as I'm concerned I already debunked his hypothesis. And he didn't answer my objections. I don't see how that makes it plausible.

Share this