so again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
Isn't it customary, when asking a question like this, to first explain why the question arises in the first place? There is no sense, anywhere in this magazine, as to who has been asking this question in the first place, who supports the idea, how it originated, or the arguments involved.
They quote Einstein not once, but twice. The same quote, taking up space in a very short article, already devoid of any real content.
boondoggles and preppers watchtower style!
a religion of doom and luxury!.
in 1866, the times of london wrote:.
Vassarion was very interesting but the interview was poor. He didn't even ask about sex or money.
shouldn't they say thanks for" holding down the fort" until we take over?.
Because they are the scarlet coloured wild beast?
so again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
I take it they don't engage scholars who doubt the existence of a historical Jesus: Robert M Price, Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, Raphael Lataster, Thomas L Thompson, Thomas L Brodie.
so real quick, i know this comes up now and then and i've looked over some of the posts from the past but here's the thing.. when i was a jw i drank all the cool aid, i was 100% and so i have all my own arguments (from the jw's) for why the bible is inspired.
i no longer believe this but i'd really like to read something that is pretty much 100% academic on this subject.
i want to read what scholars have to say about the authenticity of the bible and it's claim at being the inspired word of god.
Excellent episode:
Does the New Testament say that Jesus is God?
so real quick, i know this comes up now and then and i've looked over some of the posts from the past but here's the thing.. when i was a jw i drank all the cool aid, i was 100% and so i have all my own arguments (from the jw's) for why the bible is inspired.
i no longer believe this but i'd really like to read something that is pretty much 100% academic on this subject.
i want to read what scholars have to say about the authenticity of the bible and it's claim at being the inspired word of god.
Robert M Price the Bible Geek he is the best! I've listened to all his podcasts.
And don't forget his lesser known podcast The Human Bible!
as i recall in the 1980s talks and watchtower literature, magazines and books were always talking about the "generation" teaching and how it proved armageddon was going to come any day now.. but am i correct in thinking they have only actually mentioned the new "overlapping generations" teaching once or twice in the literature?
why are they so shy about talking about their great new interpretation?
it's almost enough to make you suspect they are a embarrassed about it.. mention it once or twice, don't dwell on it, hope everyone just accepts it, and don't bring it up again.
It was true when I posted it. I never predicted they'd start advertising their stupidity.
Plus I doubt ordinary JWs are using it as a talking point on the ministry, like they did with the old generation teaching in the 1980s.
so i was having this argument with a friend about the westboro baptist idiots.
my point is that while they are horrible people, they are pretty much right in that the bible is against gays because it has verses in both the old and the new testament.
which is one of many reasons to reject the bible as merely man-made rules from ancient middle-easterners.. and she argued that there are problems in translation, etc.
Prominent NT scholar Ben Witherington III explains why he opposes gay marriage.
This is perhaps the mildest, kindest and most reasonable explanation of a biblical position against gay marriage you could hope to hear. Miles ahead of most Watchtower comments. Yet it's interesting that this view is still totally unacceptable. It seems it doesn't matter how reasonable or loving you try to make the position sound, it's just plain wrong whichever way you look at it.
as portrayed in the convention videos this year about sergei (the fictional jw character in cold-war-era ussr), the jw leaders expect loyalty, even enduring imprisonment and/or death.
in one scene sergei was offered an early release from prison if he would sign a statement renouncing his religion.
well he refused and spent 5 years in prison as a result.
No he affirmed his faith by partaking of the holy sacrament of theocratic warfare strategy. I once wrote a thread on this topic.
now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!
perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.
now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.
That's a coincidence Cofty game me some great advice by PM too. He said to me: "fuck off". I still remember the exact phrase to this day.
They say Balir should be tried for mismanagement rather than war crimes now. Whatever. If it ends up behind bars we could live with the false terminology.
