Posts by Disillusioned JW

21

Dr. Bart Ehrman Live Webinar Did Jesus Call himself God?

by Diogenesister in

there's a live webinar with dr. ehrman on the subject of the divinity of jesus.

folks will be able to put questions directly to dr. bart, the cost is $14.00 with the webinar covering the following topics:.

• soon after jesus’ death, his disciples claimed that he was god .

Disillusioned JW

Oh. Thanks slimboyfat. I should have looked up those verses in a Greek interlinear NT before saying they said chrestos.

21

Dr. Bart Ehrman Live Webinar Did Jesus Call himself God?

by Diogenesister in

there's a live webinar with dr. ehrman on the subject of the divinity of jesus.

folks will be able to put questions directly to dr. bart, the cost is $14.00 with the webinar covering the following topics:.

• soon after jesus’ death, his disciples claimed that he was god .

Disillusioned JW

Let me clarify, I am not giving credence to the Cista Mystica website, except for the portion that is the Mirror of John Bartram's disappeared site on Chrestianity.

I am aware that the Mirror of John Bartram's disappeared site on Chrestianity says what you quoted it to say. I encourage you to read more of that mirrored site, since it explains the reasons for the shocking claims he made in the words which you quoted.

The Roman writer named Suetonius (in a document which many Christians say is about Christ actually says Chrestus instead of Christus. The Roman historian Tacitus (in a document which many Christians say is about Christ and Christians) which says Christianos has been forensically shown be a change of an original wording oof Chrestianos. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christ_Myth and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory .

In one of the gospels Jesus is credited as saying "Why do you say I am good. No one is good but the father." In that passage the word translated as "good" is "chrestus".

Paul's letter to the Philippians at 1:21 in the way it is translated in most English translations is perplexing: "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Regarding that verse, the famous Jewish scholar and historian named Hugh J. Schonfield, in his translation of the NT called The Original New Testament says the following on the back dust jacket. "Here in the Greek word Christos (Christ) has carelessly been set down by a scribe in place of chrestos (useful), which is called for by the context." In the footnote for the verse Schonfield says the following. "By a scribal error Christos was substituted for chrestos. The mistake was easy since Chrestos, meaning useful, was a well-known proper name. The Roman historian Suetonius once referred to Christus as Chrestus."

Regarding The Shepherd of Hermas it was indeed included in some ancient New Testament Bibles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd_of_Hermas which says the following. "The Shepherd was very popular amongst Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries.[2] It is found in the Codex Sinaiticus,[3][4] and it is listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus." The Shepherd of Hermas is not included in modern Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant Bibles.

21

Dr. Bart Ehrman Live Webinar Did Jesus Call himself God?

by Diogenesister in

there's a live webinar with dr. ehrman on the subject of the divinity of jesus.

folks will be able to put questions directly to dr. bart, the cost is $14.00 with the webinar covering the following topics:.

• soon after jesus’ death, his disciples claimed that he was god .

Disillusioned JW

A historical Jesus of the NT probably never existed (I now think that the idea of Jesus most likely started out a cosmic Christ myth), but if he did he was probably as Earnest describes Ehrman's current view of a historical Jesus.

That which is Christianity possibly started out as Chrestianity; see http://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrestianity/sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/introduction.html and the other pages of that site. According to the site, the oldest known copies of the NT originally said (as transliterated into the English alphabet) "IS Chrest" and had a horizontal bar over "IS" (which allowed readers to interpret IS as Isis or Iesous [Jesus] according to their preference). See http://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrestianity/sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/syncretism/a-chronology-of-chrest-chrestian-christ.html and http://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrestianity/sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/christianity/how-christianity-subverted-archaeology-and-historiography.html . The latter page has photographs of Codex Sinaiticus showing that the '... Greek "H" (in English "E") has been scratched to become "I" - the "eta" ofChrest became "iota" to read Christ.'

This information is a huge revelation (in a nonsupernatural sense) and interestingly an atheist author in a publication in the late 1800s said that the Christians were originally called Chrestians!

83

I understand your separating yourselves from the Org...BUT~

by Revealed in

...why have you left the god and his son?.

Disillusioned JW

I agree with the short list stated by truth_b_known since it is what I have also found as a result of extensive research, though I have also found scholars stating the opposite regarding some of those claims. For example, see the book called Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald, an an atheist activist and a historical researcher.

Revealed, our species of humans (Homo sapiens) has existed for well more than 100,000 years according to modern-day anthropologists (see https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133807-our-species-may-be-150000-years-older-than-we-thought/ ) and multiple human languages likely existed before the year 4026 B.C.E.

10

Which Proverb fits best when encountering Ideologues.

by peacefulpete in

proverbs 26:4. do not answer a fool according to his folly,.

proverbs 26:5. answer a fool as his folly deserves,.

that he not be wise in his own eyes.

Disillusioned JW

Regarding contradiction and paradox https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197526187.001.0001/oso-9780197526187 says something very interesting, something which even might have a bearing regarding interpretation of quantum physics (and even if time travel to the past is possible) and not just regarding interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures. It says the following (I have added boldface for emphasis.)

"What Can't be Said: Paradox and Contradiction in East Asian Thought

Yasuo Deguchi, Jay L. Garfield, Graham Priest, and Robert H. Sharf

Abstract

Paradox drives a good deal of philosophy in every tradition. In the Indian and Western traditions, there is a tendency among many (but not all) philosophers to run from contradiction and paradox. If and when a contradiction appears in a theory, it is regarded as a sure sign that something has gone amiss. This aversion to paradox commits them, knowingly or not, to the view that reality must be consistent. In East Asia, however, philosophers have reacted to paradox differently. Many East Asian philosophers—both in the Daoist and the Buddhist traditions—have openly embraced paradox. They have taken compelling arguments for contradictory positions to suggest that the world is—at least in some respects, and often in very deep respects—inconsistent, and that our best theories of the world will therefore be inconsistent. This book is an initial survey of the writings of some influential East Asian thinkers who were committed to paradox, and for good reason. Their acceptance of contradiction allowed them to develop important insights that evaded those who consider paradox out of bounds."

10

Which Proverb fits best when encountering Ideologues.

by peacefulpete in

proverbs 26:4. do not answer a fool according to his folly,.

proverbs 26:5. answer a fool as his folly deserves,.

that he not be wise in his own eyes.

Disillusioned JW

Mentioning Proverbs 26:4 and then mentioning Proverbs 26:5 is certainly not an example of "Jumping to a completely different bible verse", since Proverbs 26:5 is the verse which immediately follows the verse of Proverbs 26:4. But, yes it is good to not jump around in quotes of Bible verses (at least when not taking into account the context of their immediately surrounding verses).

peacefulpete, your question about those two verses is indeed a good one. I thought those two verses contradicted each other, until I read Konagirl's post which quoted from the Amplified Bible (AMP). The quoted Bible verses seem to be using a technique often used in by eastern philosophy (such as in Asia and in regards to Buddhism), which is done to get people to think deeply about a topic. For example see https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth . That source says "When Western philosophers look East, they find things they do not understand – not least the fact that the Asian traditions seem to accept, and even endorse, contradictions."

Regarding Proverbs 26:5 (as worded by the AMP) it seems to be saying that if a person does not say anything in response to a foolish statement, the one who uttered the foolish statement will think that the other person agrees with him/her, and that as a result the wise one should correct the foolish one. I've thought about that principle a number of times when I read debate posts (and when I heard people speak something) in which people made a comment (whether as a statement or as a question) to me. Sometimes I thought I had to respond, but other times I thought it would probably be a waste of my time in responding since the person would be unconvinced by me and then make another statement I disagree with, or ask another question and that no consensus would result between us..

The study notes in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: Augmented Third Edition - New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books - College Edition, An Ecumenical Study Bible (in 2007) edited by Michael D. Coogan, on pages [935 Hebrew Bible] - [936 Hebrew Bible] says the following.

'4-5: Juxtaposing the two sayings provokes reflection on their competing claims. Depending on the circumstances, one might interpret according to their folly to mean "in fools' terms" (v. 4) or "as fools deserve' (v. 5).'

The annotation in The New American Bible - Saint Joseph Edition: Illustrated (in 1991), a Catholic Bible, says the following. "26, 4f: There is no contradiction between these two proverbs. In any answer the wise man gives he must protect his own interest against the fool."

The New Bible Commentary: Revised (in 1970) edited by Guthrie and Motyer, on page 567 gives the following interpretation of the apparent contradiction of Proverbs 26:4-5. "It is more likely however that the difference is simply between profitless arguing with a fool at his own level and occasionally, lest he think he cannot be answered, meeting his prating with wisdom."

The International Bible Commentary with the New International Version (in 1986) edited by F. F. Bruce, on pages 683- 684 says the following regarding the two verses.

"Talking to him is a frustrating but unavoidable affair (4, 5). ... Verses 4, 5 are not naïvely contradictory, but amount to 'It needs insight to talk to a fool; sometimes humour him, sometimes rebuke him'."

A Commentary on The Holy Bible By Various Writers - Complete In One Volume (copyright in 1909 and reprinted in 1935) edited by Dummelow, on page 388 says "Answer or not, according to circumstances (Mt12:30 Mk 9:39)."

24

The Deity of Jesus Christ

by Reciprocity in

fair warning, i am not a jehovah's witness believer, but i am curious about what it is you believe and why you believe it.

so i am interested in talking to you instead of reading about you from my own christian perspective.

after all, who understands what jehovah's witness believes better than a jehovah's witness?

Disillusioned JW

I strongly disbelieve that the "Jehovah's Witnesses are told to stay off the internet except for a few approved sites". There was a time when the WT said (if I recall correctly) to avoid the internet, but later they instead said to avoid certain kinds of sites, such as those where apostate views would be stated and where immorality was likely to be promoted (such as in certain kinds of private chat rooms, as such were called in the 1990s).

Around the year 2013 the WT told me they won't provide to me a list of references/sources for the quotes of scientists in the Creator who Cares book (I had sent a letter to the WT asking for such), and that I should ask the elders if they have the information. I thus reluctantly I asked the elders (of the congregation I last attended) for the information (I knew they didn't have the information). They encouraged me to look for it on the internet, saying I would likely find it there.

42

False members numbers

by asp59 in

is watchtower faking there member numbers?

i live in europe.

for the last 15 year's probably 25 person i knew or more were df, pimo, left by own will, inactive.

Disillusioned JW

IWant2Leave, I notice that you said the following. "There are probably 2-3 million P.I.M.O.'s like me who are reporting Field Service time, but not preaching the J.W. doctrine anymore." For the F.S. time you report are preaching any doctrine at all (though not JW doctrine), or are you doing no preaching at all?

It never occurred to me that a considerable percentage of people are making fraudulent reports of field service time (reporting field service time without preaching anything at all). In my case when I stopped engaging in field service (even informally) I stopped reporting field service activity.

If there are 2-3 million PIMOs who are reporting field service time without participating in field service, then if they would stop reporting field service time it would help discourage PIMI JWs about the religion (at least if I was still a JW it would discourage me). As a result of such discouragement of PIMI JWs, it would also accelerate the decline of the WT's JW religion (at least I hope it would).

68

Help with 1975 please

by jhine in

i answered a question on quora about jw flip flops .

i mentioned, amongst other things , the 1975 debacle.

how witnesses were told that armageddon was coming in the fall of that year.

Disillusioned JW

Rattigan350, the WT said (in one of their WT's or some other publication of theirs) that the creative days were 7,000 years long, that 6,000 years of human history would be reached in the year 1975, and that it would be appropriate for Christ's 1,000 year reign to begin in 1975, such that at the end of the 1,000 years the 7th creative day (of 7,000 years duration) would end, at which point Christ would turn over the kingdom to Jehovah God. With that line of reasoning Armageddon would have to have ended by some time in 1975, since its end (according to Revelation) precedes the abyssing of Satan for 1,000 years.

10

Science news articles supporting biological evolution, including by discoveries of fossils

by Disillusioned JW in

"a billion-year-old fossil of an organism, exquisitely preserved in the scottish highlands, reveals features of multicellularity nearly 400 million years before the biological trait emerged in the first animals, according to a new report in the journal current biology by an international team of researchers, including boston college paleobotanist paul k. strother.." see https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/528947 and https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/billion-year-old-fossil-reveals-missing-link-evolution-animals for details.. the first article listed above says the following.. "the microfossil, discovered at loch torridon, contains two distinct cell types and could be the earliest example of complex multicellularity ever recorded, according to the researchers.

the fossil offers new insight into the transition of single celled organisms to complex, multicellular animals.

modern single-celled holozoa include the most basal living animals and the fossil discovered shows an organism which lies somewhere between single cell and multicellular animals, or metazoa.".

Disillusioned JW

Fisherman, are you saying I made a misquote, or are you perhaps making a joke?

My quote was by copy and paste of the EurekAlert! article, thus I did not make a typo regarding the "400 million" years. Furthermore, Earth is dated to about 4.6 billion (billion in the sense of thousand million) years old and the universe is currently dated to about 13.8 billion year old, thus there is no way the fossil could be 400 trillion years old.