by gumby 179 Replies latest watchtower bible
To FlyingHighNow:
No I haven't but I most certainly have not forgotten about you. I have had my hands full talking to Gumby and then Narkissos. Yours will have to be about a week or so from now, because there is a lot to examine in yours. I do have some thoughts on it now, but will wait till I can give it a more serious consideration.
Regards!
Rod P.
Have we covered yet that there's dubiety over whether or not John the Baptist entered the kingdom of heaven, as per Matt.11:11 and the Gospel of Thomas?
Just hang on a bit LT....just hang on a bit! We'll get to that one when ol'' rod gets his dinger out of the ringer *sticks out tongue at rod*......just kiddin rod.
On the other hand, John was human like the rest of us. Maybe, after rotting in that prison for a few months, John started to have some doubts about his own mission, and his own experiences. How could he get in this mess? Why doesn't God help me? Why didn't Jesus free me, if he's the Messiah? Why didn't he even come and see me while I'm in here? Does he even care? Yeah, I did have that experience with him and heaven when I baptized him, but all God said was that He was pleased with him
Well I think Narkissos hit the nail on the head. Bible contradictions can be explained away by anyone who chooses to believe strong enough.(something like that anyways)
Rod....you and achristian just produced some wild maybe's in your post. Have either one of you considered the fact that maybe the whole story is bogus.......or does that thought EVER cross your minds?
Why do you two suppose Jesus's earthly life was NEVER mentioned in any of the epistles? Why ONLY in the gospels is jesus life ever mentioned? No miracles, no statements, no comments about his baptism, his family.......nadda, zip, zero.
Perhaps you two should do some research on how the gnostics veiwed jesus... and the latter question of mine would make some sense.
Gumby:
Just hang on a bit LT....just hang on a bit!
Oops
Sorry dude, I only skimmed the thread and was gettin' over excited again.
I need spanking!
Ahem, anyways...
I think that part of the problem was that they may have been expecting him back any day, and so it wasn't until they got old they decided it might be a good idea to start writing stuff down.
As for the epistles, they are just personal correspondance that got canonised.
I pity the poor 25th century guy who extracts JWD from an ancient archive and canonises our words...
IMHO the overturning of the establishment happens every [last] day, in the lives of people who "connect with the Divine".
Gumby!
I don't think you are being very fair here. I never pretended to have all of the answers to every one of your and Narkissos' questions right at my finger tips and sitting there in my brain just waiting to pop out whenever you ask a question? If I have to do a little digging, so what! That doesn't mean there isn't a good answer, and it doesn't imply that you are right and I and everyone else is wrong. So let's get a little bit real here.
Wait a little bit!.... Just hang on a bit!.... You betcha. What's wrong with that? I have not tried to ignore any one of your questions, nor Narkissos', and I have been dealing with them point-by-pont-by point, very methodically. Just because I haven't answered them all yet, just because some of this is a work-in-process, does not mean that I've got my "dinger in a wringer". I think you got some answering to do too, Gumby. Maybe I should start peppering you with a bunch of questions, like a sniper waiting in the bushes for the first opportunity, and then shoot the hell out of you whenever I get the chance. Then if you take a while to get back to me, I can start accusing you of having your "dinger in a wringer"!
Now, tell me about these "wild maybe's" in my posts. Show me. I have tried to show YOU from the gospels that the so-called contradictions you claim are in there are NOT really there, and this was done with geography, with chronology, with comparisons, and with reasoning as to context and cause and effect, and so on. You, on the other hand, seem bent on pushing your agenda that the Gospel accounts are bogus at any cost! Well that's easy for you to say, but you certainly have not yet (there's that word again) demonstrated to me or anyone else here that you found a "big ol' fat lie in there again". So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Gumby!
Yes, I most certainly HAVE considered the question as to whether the Gospel accounts are real or bogus. In spades! I had a gejillion questions and doubts along the way, and I still have a pile of unanswered questions, and probably will till I die. I'm sure we all do. Look at science- the more questions they answer, the more new ones crop up. It is a never ending pursuit. But just because we don't have all the answers does not negate everything. You don't see scientists abandoning their fields just because there are unanswered questions, and even experimental results that often contradict one another. That does not make them blind or stupid or gullible.
I have a "core belief" from the depth of my being, and that is that there is a God. I also believe that there is evidence all around us today, as well as in history, and yes, even in the Bible, that God is part of the overall equation of Reality and the Universe. And I am also in tune with a lot of the descriptors offered by the Gnostics, even though I don't agree with a lot of what they say. I also told you that I do have a lot of problems with the Bible. It's just that I think you have been erecting some "straw men" respecting the gospel accounts, and that is where I get off. There are a lot more serious questions to be concerned with than the ones you have brought up, and that is my point also.
With regard to the epistles. Most of these letters written to various Christian congregations were by the Apostle Paul. (And let me tell you, I have some real questions and problems about him which I won't get into right now.) But the accounts about the life of Jesus were already out there in circulation. How do you think there were converts to the Christian churches of Paul's day? Now why should the epistles have to necessarily be yet another account of the life of Jesus. They simply had another purpose, and a biography of Jesus was not one of them. Another thing, a number of Apostles in Paul's day were still alive. They headquartered in Jerusalem, but also travelled around the country preaching the gospel, and testified of Jesus. They were living testimonials of Jesus Christ, rather than historical monuments written up in a book, since they were with Jesus during his ministries and were therefore eyewitnesses. Paul was the only Apostle who was not there with Jesus during his ministries, but did encounter him on the road to Damascus. If you were Paul, and you were visiting different churches in different locations, would you be writing the life of Jesus every time you wrote them a letter? Of course not. But Paul did have a lot to say about Jesus as the Messiah, and his fulfillment of prophesy, and the meaning of his death and resurrection, and faith and works, and love, etc. etc. etc. He did not necessarily have to write another account of the life of Jesus. Also, there were a lot of sayings of Jesus that different people had remembered when Jesus spoke to them, and they were written down. There were so many letters and documents being circulated, that what started to happen is that one guy would start saying this teaching or that doctrine, while another one was saying a teaching that contradicted the other guy. And so what you had was a lot of confusion in circulation, which needed to be straightened out. Eventually, councils were convened, and bishops gave rulings as to what was authentic or accurate or doctrinally consistent with Jesus' teachings, and what was not. And then we get into that whole vast subject of what became included in the bible canon, and what did not. The point is, though, there was undoubtedly a lot of written material on the Life of Jesus Christ that was already available to the believers of those days. And so the fact that the epistles do not deliver another account of the Life of Jesus like the Gospels do does not bother me in the least, and most certainly does not provide evidence that the Gospel accounts are all bogus.
BTYL
Rod P.
Why don't you sit down and write us all a nice post that explains exactly how and why and when and by who this whole Gospel account thing is all bogus? That oughta be a good one. Oh, and don't mind if I take a few pot shots at the things you say. It might even be fun to sit and watch you squirm a bit, or even duck once in a while.
Yes, I know that in the final analysis, it all boils down to a matter of faith, and the choices we make.
Gumby!
I have to apologize.
I didn't realize until now that you were talking to Little Toe about "Just hang on a bit....Just hang on a bit"
And I didn't see LT's post until after I submitted mine. I thought you were complaining to me that I was stalling, because I didn't have all the answers right there on the spot. That's why I accused you of not being fair.
So, I take that back, and I do apologize! (I'm kind of new at this game of acronyms, so I don't always recognize what's going on with these posts)
Regards!
Rod P.
Rod P,
But the accounts about the life of Jesus were already out there in circulation.
Sorry I don't see the slightest evidence for that assumption.
How do you think there were converts to the Christian churches of Paul's day?
The question is: was the religion of the Hellenistic churches to which Paul imposed his "apostleship" the development of the preaching of some Galilean rabbi who was crucified a few decades before? Or rather a Jewish version of the Hellenistic mystery cults, such as Osiris' or Attis'? The lack of biographical references to a historical Jesus in the epistles, compared to the wealth of cultic material (re: Baptism and Eucharist) might point in the latter direction.
Another thing, a number of Apostles in Paul's day were still alive. They headquartered in Jerusalem, but also travelled around the country preaching the gospel, and testified of Jesus. They were living testimonials of Jesus Christ, rather than historical monuments written up in a book, since they were with Jesus during his ministries and were therefore eyewitnesses.Remember, Paul's main interlocutor in Jerusalem was James, as is obvious in Galatians and even in Acts (although the latter clearly takes the edge off the real antagonism between James and Paul). How central Jesus was to James is the true question. To me there is very little doubt that James saw his relationship to Judaism as a whole as prioritary to his relationship with the pauline "Gentile believers in Christ Jesus".
Rod.....no problems my friend. I was grinnin ear to ear when I was reading your post. As for 'your dinger in a ringer'.....take no offence...I just talk like that but mean no harm. I appreciate the time you took to post what you have and for your willingness to discuss things. Were it not for people as yourself, these bible topics wouldn't be covered well enough.
Now that I just bragged on your arse, your explanations for the absence of ANY of Jesus earthly life contained in the epistles was weak as is any others I have heard. Peter, James, John 1&2nd, were contemporaries and buddies of Jesus. When compelling others in their preaching to believe in Jesus.....it only makes logical sense that these ones would have mentioned the fantastic feats their Lord accomplished as well as any eye witnesses as proof for their argument. They never did. Why? What BETTER proof could one provide? Why did not Josephus mention him except in the widely accepted spurious section of his annals? Did you know the spurious part wasn't in his originals?
To be honest...the bible contradictions are the weakest reason for lack of belief in the bible as being from a creator in the minds of many, myself included. Narkissos mentioned the pagan mystic cults surrounding the jews during christ supposed life. Anyone comparing the mystery cults with christianity ....will see why things sound as crazy as they do in the bible. The comparisons are too close to be ignored by ones who will open their eyes.
The other reason for many others lack of belief, mine included....is the attrocities the O.T. god performed on humanity and the ludicrous ideas presented within it's pages. This part of the bible ALSO is a mimic of much EARLIER beliefs that can be documented by writings older than the bible itself.
LT....I was funnin with you ya bastard.....quit gittin so dang serious. Ever since you left Dallas, you've had a complex....what the hell did those people do to you!!! Freakin desert dwellers, their ALL troublemakers!!!
Gumby
Gumby:
O.K. I think you have made some good points that are worthy of consideration. I too, have had a number of concerns of some of the things done by the Jehovah of the Old Testament, but have alway thought "Who am I to question God's motives, or his purposes, or even his right to do what he did?"
But I am by no means convinced that the Apostles didn't testify to others about the many wondrous miracles of Jesus in their preaching. Also, Mark is supposed to have gotten a lot of what he wrote from Peter, so there's one example that contradicts your statement. I'm confident I will be able to find more, and will certainly present them to you guys when I get them.
I have been doing a little "nibbling around the fringes" about these pagan mystic cults and the possibility of their influence on original Christianity as well as Judaism, and I want to pursue this further in light of what you and Narkissos are saying or alleging. I am also going dig into this business of the Mandeans, and the question of why the disciples of John did not merge with the disciples of Jesus, if indeed that is the case. I need proof on that one.
Anyway, I am going to have to book off for a couple of days, and will try to peek my head "in the door" on the weekend.
Regards y'all! Over and out.
Rod P.
I too, have had a number of concerns of some of the things done by the Jehovah of the Old Testament, but have alway thought "Who am I to question God's motives, or his purposes, or even his right to do what he did?"
For when you return Rod.....your above statement is similar to how we believed as Jehovahs Witnesses. You have every right to question god if this god says one thing and does another. That makes him untruthful ( see...I didn't say liar). The bible god made man to reason, use justice and fairness, and gave him logical thinking.....why would he condemn anyone who honestly questioned him. Abraham questioned god first reaction to Sodom.
As for the Mystery religions compared with christianity..........your in for a big surprise!
Take care
Gumby
