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).
CG: The other mentioning of a Jesus most experts agree this texts was a forgery.
What is the source for this? from Wikipedia:
The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration
There is IMO a lot of questionable assumptions floating around in the atheistic community on Jesus mythicism.
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.
Hi Freeandclear,
If you are looking for middle-of-the-road stuff I would recommend Israel Finkelstein's "The bible unearthed" for the OT and "Misquoting Jesus" (or another book by Bart Ehrman; he write the same in all his books ;-) ) for the NT.
Perhaps even better Yale has their courses on the OT and NT available online.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtQ2TS1CiDY&list=PL279CFA55C51E75E0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V006bX4mlu4&list=PLfbxB0kKayCQ2Hf6JlCCDN6z47ySYxsCW
they should give a good overview of the mainstream academic view. Start with the NT, the lecturer (Dale Martin, a Christian) is really entertaining.
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).
SBF:
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.
I think this is a very precise observation.. I think this is the general tactic for the WT, they never try to frame the argument (context, history, who believes it, why, etc.) but just introduce it like "Some people say/believe.." (always "some") and then pile on their counter arguments without explaining the other position in details. I think the best example is "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" which I think the WTBs in 100 years has still not defined even once.
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 have always been amazed at how the WT will quote Einstein in support of their positions whenever possible but ignore most of what he believed:
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).
Yah that was predictably awfull. I dont doubt jesus existed, but it is amazing the wt cant even make a good argument when they are right.
full set: http://imgur.com/a/1ru5z .
sample:.
.
I actually thought it would be bigger. Any idea about how many it will house?
whilst browsing my local football team's fan forum, i spied this thread.... http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?340338-10-000-expected-at-the-amex.
Yah, nice comment. The shitty youtube videos are a gift that keeps on giving.
i kid you not, giving money is an act of love according to jwtv (juli edition).
I swear this is the last one. After this i will never proofread another sentence.
i kid you not, giving money is an act of love according to jwtv (juli edition).
This one has less embarrassing spelling:
Has they ever done this before? Said that contributing is an act of love?
and yah, it's a nice touch that it is one or more folded notes that is being contributed. None of those coins cheapskates.
i kid you not, giving money is an act of love according to jwtv (juli edition).
I turned the latest money begging into a picture:
It's at 13:25: https://www.jw.org/download/?fileformat=MP4&output=html&pub=jwb&issue=201607
The whole broadcast is pretty cringeworthy.
