JW looking clarity followup

[robvalue]

But if satan was fooling you, you would still be convinced you could back up your story with scripture. Isn't false confidence part of being deceived? Everyone else has the same confidence you do, and would similarly say they can show they're not being fooled. I respect that you admit it is a possibility, though.

If you bring satan deceiving people into the equation, you undermine yourself just as much as anyone else.

[Foxaèr]

Satan is always an excuse for not viewing something rationally. Satan is the veritable cognitive dissonance.

[Won2blv]

But if satan was fooling you, you would still be convinced you could back up your story with scripture. Isn't false confidence part of being deceived? Everyone else has the same confidence you do, and would similarly say they can show they're not being fooled. I respect that you admit it is a possibility, though.

If you bring satan deceiving people into the equation, you undermine yourself just as much as anyone else.

If the God of the bible exist then he has a position. And he would have the power to protect his position while still allowing Satan and humankind to control the earth and its temporary destiny. But I do not think that this god would allow Satan to meddle with anything that protects gods positions and his truths. In all of my crisis of faith, I find it so interesting that the bible has been changed more recently with translations into modern languages. But when you look at the older manuscripts, like the masoretic texts or the dead sea scrolls, there are relatively minor differences. Those are a 1000 years separated! I understand thats possible but it seems improbable. 

My point is, IF this god of the bible exist, it seems that his communication piece with mankind has been preserved. IF satan exists, he could still mine those scriptures to assist in skewing the truths about life. I think it starts in Genesis 3. God told Adam and Eve that they would CERTAINLY die if they ate of the tree. Satan said, you will certainly NOT die. A very simple separation in teaching, however, practically every religion in the world teaches that you do not actually die after death. IMHO, if someone wants to claim that they are not guided by satans lies then it starts at the very first one. 

One other thing that you might find amusing... in revelation 17 there is a woman described that is a protitute. She is decked out in the nicest clothes and jewelry. She is also drunk with power and is responsible for the blood of many people. Also, a scripture says that she is sitting on the waters that mean the people of the world. We believe that this woman is religion, but mostly false christianity. And the woman sits on top of a wild beast that JW's believe is ruling powers. I always loved this bit of scripture because it does kind of illustrate religion the past 2000 years. Religion hasn't exactly been the ruling power but it has had huge sway. And just looking at Popes, they haven't exactly been modest? But the best part is that the wild beast eventually devours the woman. So JW's believe that religion will be eradicated by the ruling powers at some point

[Aractus]

Ok sure, I can't read greek. But I have done research and found other non jw sources that come to the same conclusion. Again, because it was part of the parable as a place doesn't confirm he meant it to be a literal place. I go back to the fact that he didn't think a camel could actually walk through the eye of a needle or that you could have a rafter sticking out of your own eye.

As far as the first and last. I do find this interesting and I'm doing more research. Right of the bat, it is possible to me that such an appellation does not need to be uniquely for one being. As an example, the term "greatest of all time." You could say Muhammed Ali was the greatest of all time in boxing and Jack Nicklaus was the greatest of all time in golf. Exact same appellation and they could both be true. But that doesn't equate the two as being one. So, is this answer to this? I don't know... Is a better example, Muhammed Ali is the greatest of all time and Casious Clay (I think I spelled that wrong) is the greatest off all time. Same person, just different names from different eras. So I ask you, if god said, "this is my son..." or Jesus said, "i am not good, no one is good but the father in heaven" doesn't this seem to imply two separate beings? And wouldn't it make sense that there could be an alternate meaning to both being referred to as the first and last?

Your questions...

1. God making himself apparent in the past still doesn't demand that he owes it to humans today. I think you could further into this but that basically as simple as it gets. 

2. I was actually not saying this as an argument for the existence of god. It is a circular argument. It is just something that I observe that makes me wonder. I know there is a natural explanation of how things could have come about but thats why I'm on this forum. I want clarity. I want to feel confident in whatever I believe.

1. Well here's the problem. God apparently spoke to Moses directly on Mt Sinai. Yet Finklestein and other archaeologists have shown that the Hebrews never set foot anywhere near Mt Sinai. In fact this is a problem acknowledged by scholars who refer to the mountain talked about in the Pentateuch as "Biblical Mt Sinai". However Finklestein points out that it's not just Mt Sinai that they didn't visit, there are several sites listed in the OT that the ancient Jews supposedly visited as they crossed the Sinai peninsula, yet not a trace of their 40-year journey has ever been found, and if they had crossed the land as is claimed in the Bible then some archaeological evidence would have been found. We have had archaeologists looking specificity for any evidence of the Exodus for 200 years now, and nothing has ever been found that corroborates it. In fact, the archaeological record tells a very different history to the one proposed by the Pentateuch.

The obvious conclusion from the evidence is that Moses was not a historical person, therefore any events that take place where God shows himself to Moses are invalid.

As for Jesus using the title of "First and Last" in the book of Revelation let me remind you that as a sceptic I would limit what I think Jesus said to the contents of the four Gospels. The book of Revelation is not a book of history, but rather a book of prophecy. The author believe he has had a vision, or at least he said he has had a vision. Do remember that hallucinogenic drugs were used in the first century so it's quite possible this is the result of consuming something wacky.

But Jesus says in that book, according to the author that had a prophetic vision, that "I am the first and the last". He is using God's title that isn't used anywhere else in the Bible other than for Jehovah, such as several times in Isaiah.

If you were to read the Bible as more indicative of history rather than believing every word is true, you may draw the conclusion that Jesus did not believe himself to be deity, but that his followers did.

[Tonus]

It just doesn't make sense to me that someone could be df'd for only holding a view without discussing it.

It doesn't make sense to me either, yet the organization sent a letter with that instruction to congregations in 1980.  Like I said, it really just smacks of an attempt at targeting a single person via policy changes.  That is pretty scary behavior, IMO.

We're you a witness then? If so, as an atheist this point is moot but, if jw's serve Jehovah then they can trust in him to set matters straight.

I was raised a JW, and lived it for about 30 years before falling away from it and eventually realizing I did not believe in god.  I understand the view about trusting Jehovah to set matters straight, but it's the sort of view that can be used to excuse dangerous behavior like that I described above.

The Watchtower leadership claims that it is guided by god's holy spirit, but that the governing body is composed of fallible and imperfect human beings.   This allows them to demand that you accept their interpretations, explanations, and advice as god-given, but that you hold them blameless when they get things wrong.  To me that sounds like a lot of cult leaders that we have heard about over the years.

As for what the Bible teaches: the Bible is a poorly-assembled collection of old teachings, fables, stories, and letters selected from a much larger trove of such.  The many different interpretations and the many disagreements on various matters and subjects show just how easy it is to interpret it in an almost endless variety of ways.  Go through your Reasoning with the Scriptures book and you will note that for nearly every subject the explanation consists mostly (or entirely) of numerous out-of-context chapter/verse selections with short explanations.  But that isn't what should concern a JW.

Charles Russell originally had the belief that Jesus had begun his invisible reign in 1874 and that the war of Armageddon would be over and done by the autumn of 1914.  When this did not happen, he and Rutherford (his successor) offered up several other dates, until being constantly wrong led to massive defections in the mid-1920s.  Yet today you won't hear about that.  You will hear that from the start, Russell taught that 1914 was the beginning of the end times.  But that's completely false.  They have clung to the 1914 date because it was coincidentally when World War I started, and they could re-work the "prophecy" into something that appears to be divine.  That's a deliberate attempt to mislead: they are lying to the membership.

The issue of the date of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians is tied to this deception, because they use the date of 607BC to get to 1914AD via "Bible chronology." If the actual date is different (and it is) then the basis for their end-times prophecy is wrong.  Their revised history of Russell's end-time predictions becomes useless and their "chronology" is thrown into disarray.  So they insist on the 607BC date, not because it is correct, but because they are using one lie to carry another lie.

Maybe those apostates you know are miserable because they haven't been able to get over how thoroughly they were deceived?  I don't know.  I've always been a happy person, and leaving the organization did not change that for me.  I certainly can't imagine that I'd feel worse after cutting the ties to an organization like that.

[Won2blv]

Ok sure, I can't read greek. But I have done research and found other non jw sources that come to the same conclusion. Again, because it was part of the parable as a place doesn't confirm he meant it to be a literal place. I go back to the fact that he didn't think a camel could actually walk through the eye of a needle or that you could have a rafter sticking out of your own eye.

As far as the first and last. I do find this interesting and I'm doing more research. Right of the bat, it is possible to me that such an appellation does not need to be uniquely for one being. As an example, the term "greatest of all time." You could say Muhammed Ali was the greatest of all time in boxing and Jack Nicklaus was the greatest of all time in golf. Exact same appellation and they could both be true. But that doesn't equate the two as being one. So, is this answer to this? I don't know... Is a better example, Muhammed Ali is the greatest of all time and Casious Clay (I think I spelled that wrong) is the greatest off all time. Same person, just different names from different eras. So I ask you, if god said, "this is my son..." or Jesus said, "i am not good, no one is good but the father in heaven" doesn't this seem to imply two separate beings? And wouldn't it make sense that there could be an alternate meaning to both being referred to as the first and last?

Your questions...

1. God making himself apparent in the past still doesn't demand that he owes it to humans today. I think you could further into this but that basically as simple as it gets. 

2. I was actually not saying this as an argument for the existence of god. It is a circular argument. It is just something that I observe that makes me wonder. I know there is a natural explanation of how things could have come about but thats why I'm on this forum. I want clarity. I want to feel confident in whatever I believe.

1. Well here's the problem. God apparently spoke to Moses directly on Mt Sinai. Yet Finklestein and other archaeologists have shown that the Hebrews never set foot anywhere near Mt Sinai. In fact this is a problem acknowledged by scholars who refer to the mountain talked about in the Pentateuch as "Biblical Mt Sinai". However Finklestein points out that it's not just Mt Sinai that they didn't visit, there are several sites listed in the OT that the ancient Jews supposedly visited as they crossed the Sinai peninsula, yet not a trace of their 40-year journey has ever been found, and if they had crossed the land as is claimed in the Bible then some archaeological evidence would have been found. We have had archaeologists looking specificity for any evidence of the Exodus for 200 years now, and nothing has ever been found that corroborates it. In fact, the archaeological record tells a very different history to the one proposed by the Pentateuch.

The obvious conclusion from the evidence is that Moses was not a historical person, therefore any events that take place where God shows himself to Moses are invalid.

As for Jesus using the title of "First and Last" in the book of Revelation let me remind you that as a sceptic I would limit what I think Jesus said to the contents of the four Gospels. The book of Revelation is not a book of history, but rather a book of prophecy. The author believe he has had a vision, or at least he said he has had a vision. Do remember that hallucinogenic drugs were used in the first century so it's quite possible this is the result of consuming something wacky.

But Jesus says in that book, according to the author that had a prophetic vision, that "I am the first and the last". He is using God's title that isn't used anywhere else in the Bible other than for Jehovah, such as several times in Isaiah.

If you were to read the Bible as more indicative of history rather than believing every word is true, you may draw the conclusion that Jesus did not believe himself to be deity, but that his followers did.

That is quite a bit to digest. I am going to try and do research from a skeptical point of view. I have pondered the idea of there being no archaeological evidence of the Israelites. The best I could come up with is that they were wandering and god miraculously made their clothes not wear out and so on. I doubt that the writer could have the forethought of future archaeology but it could just be a coincidence. 

I need to do more research into what Jesus disciples thought of him. That is a good point, Jesus had one view but his disciples had another. I feel like Paul, who most scholars recognize as a legitimate person, seems to differentiate the two. Like in Colossians where he calls jesus the master worker but the firstborn of all creation. And somewhere in the Corinthian letters he talks about Jesus handing the kingdom back over to his father. 

But like I said, I am going to try and do research from the point of view as a skeptic rather than the assumption of divinity

[Aractus]

The problem with the explanation that "their clothes didn't wear out" is twofold - consider the fact that the Bible records their deaths and burials, and the fact that they had many other belongings after plundering the Egyptians. And secondly consider the fact that some of the events recorded in the New Testament are corroborated with the archaeological record.

Yes Paul is a legitimate person, absolutely, however he didn't write the book of Revelation. The two authors could have two different points of view. But I would argue that Paul did see Jesus as deity, for instance by his claim in Galatians 2 that Christ lives in him.

Gal 2:19-20: For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

The Nicene Creed is trinitarian. The reason why most Christians reject JW's as being Christian is because they believe the Nicene Creed unites all Christians (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant).

The earliest known Christian creed is in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (which Paul says was taught to him), and it doesn't mention the trinity. However, it should be noted that it is a very short statement of belief compared to later creeds, and that much of what the Christian church believes can be attained from the church records from the 2nd-4th centuries.

You also have to contend with the fact that they decided in Acts 15 (first council of Jerusalem) that the Law of Moses was to be abolished in favour of following the teachings of Jesus. As the law of Moses was handed directly from God to Moses this shows that they are equating Jesus's authority with Jehovah's authority. To say they didn't believe that Jesus was deity is to claim they are allowing a mortal man to replace a law given by a deity and that explanation doesn't make any sense.

[Won2blv]

The problem with the explanation that "their clothes didn't wear out" is twofold - consider the fact that the Bible records their deaths and burials, and the fact that they had many other belongings after plundering the Egyptians. And secondly consider the fact that some of the events recorded in the New Testament are corroborated with the archaeological record.

Yes Paul is a legitimate person, absolutely, however he didn't write the book of Revelation. The two authors could have two different points of view. But I would argue that Paul did see Jesus as deity, for instance by his claim in Galatians 2 that Christ lives in him.

Gal 2:19-20: For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

The Nicene Creed is trinitarian. The reason why most Christians reject JW's as being Christian is because they believe the Nicene Creed unites all Christians (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant).

The earliest known Christian creed is in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (which Paul says was taught to him), and it doesn't mention the trinity. However, it should be noted that it is a very short statement of belief compared to later creeds, and that much of what the Christian church believes can be attained from the church records from the 2nd-4th centuries.

You also have to contend with the fact that they decided in Acts 15 (first council of Jerusalem) that the Law of Moses was to be abolished in favour of following the teachings of Jesus. As the law of Moses was handed directly from God to Moses this shows that they are equating Jesus's authority with Jehovah's authority. To say they didn't believe that Jesus was deity is to claim they are allowing a mortal man to replace a law given by a deity and that explanation doesn't make any sense.

So even though I am skeptical of all that I believe at the moment I do have some thoughts on your points. And I think it should be noted that these thoughts/arguments presuppose that god inspired the bible. So it wouldn't make a difference what man wrote Galatians or Revelation. But again, they're what I have had engrained since I was a boy so I feel its worth being convinced they're not true. That being said...

1. The guy who called for the counsel, Constatine, was a lifelong pagan. He didn't even get baptized until his deathbed. Many of the reasons why we have pagan beliefs molded into christian customs is because of Constatines efforts to join the two so that they can be in harmony. Including a triune god among other things. I remember learning all of this from my french teacher and him saying, "so christmas isn't actually a christian belief but its fun right?"

2. Yes the law was abolished, but by Jesus Sacrifice. This foretold by Daniel in the 70 weeks prophecy. John 3:16 says that god loved the world so much that he gave is only begotten son for it. Paul also tells about how it served as a tudor, or protector, to Jesus. Peter had a vision of the disgusting things being eaten because god had lifted the mosaic law. This led to the first gentile, Cornelius, to be baptized.

3. The counsel of Nicea was a measure to try and unite what Christians believe, yet there are thousands of Christian denominations that have differing views. Yes, some are considered "christian." So am I going to let them tell me what makes me a "real" christian? Personally no. Especially when it seems like they're doctrines don't jive with scripture. 

4. Jesus wasn't just a mortal man to them. They believed that he had been killed and then raised up. Obviously he wasn't just a dude to them

Conclusion: If there is not a divine inspiration to the bible then some of those points are bunk. But you're playing both sides. You're saying how you don't believe in the divinity of the scriptures but making assertions of what a true christian should believe. Or maybe your not, but thats how I'm taking it. I am guessing that as an ex-angelican minister you have deep seeded beliefs, much as I do. Even if you don't actually believe them, they're still there

[Aractus]

I'm not an ex-minister.

And I'm not saying you aren't a Christian, I'm saying that the reason why Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians say that is because the JW church rejects the Nicene Creed, which is an early statement of faith of the early Christians and represents the consensus beliefs at the time. What I'm pointing out to you is that the for the JW church to be right it means that there were no known Christians with the "correct belief" about the deity of Jesus in the early 4th century.

Daniel did not foretell anything. From the DSS it is evident that the book has to be older than the 2nd century BC. It was, however, one of the last books of the OT to be written and we know this because most of it was written in Aramaic and not Hebrew. There are 66 books in the Old Testament, and the other 65 are all written in Hebrew. There is not a scrap of physical evidence that there ever was a first temple; and if there was then it would have been found. This fact alone convinces critical scholars that Daniel was written after the supposed destruction of the "first temple".