(June 10, 2015 at 11:38 am)whateverist Wrote: Rob, can you explain to me why the question of Jesus having been a historical person from around that time should make any difference to me?  I'm willing to concede that so that we can get on to the more interesting question of what reason there is to subscribe to the divinity claims.

I suspect that this is why the question continues to be discussed and argued endlessly.

(June 10, 2015 at 9:41 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Historical Jesus' existence doesn't get you anywhere....just a reminder

(June 10, 2015 at 9:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Quick comment...and I'm late to work!

Considering you're posting from a PC and 2 hours ago you said you need to leave in 15 minutes, hell yea you're late.

Heh. Yeah, today I went to my office...then came home for a quick bite to eat and another quick post...then went to my other office for the day.

I understand how that could look confusing.

---

(June 10, 2015 at 11:05 am)robvalue Wrote:

(June 10, 2015 at 9:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Rob-

Quick comment...and I'm late to work!

I spent a couple of hours reading all of the threads in which Tim O'Neill has posted. Every post.

I have to say, he covered a lot of ground and answered a lot of questions that pop up here over and over and over...some were yours, of course.

If you have not reviewed that recently, it might be interesting for you to go back and re-read all of that again.

He's an atheist. No question about that. But he argues for the historical Jesus brilliantly.

Yes, I did just that when he turned up and I made an ass out of myself the other day. He does generally make a good case, and I remember now that it was him who convinced me there was something to the HJ case. Before that I thought there was absolutely nothing to it. I don't agree with everything he says, but he made some valid points.

Cool! 

---

(June 10, 2015 at 11:38 am)whateverist Wrote: Rob, can you explain to me why the question of Jesus having been a historical person from around that time should make any difference to me?  I'm willing to concede that so that we can get on to the more interesting question of what reason there is to subscribe to the divinity claims.

(June 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't think it should make any difference to you at all

I mean, I suppose if you don't accept there ever was a single person who the story is based on, then there can't also be a magical version of that person either. But conceding a historical person makes no difference towards the supernatural claims, other than to stop the squabbling over this moot point. I guess this is why christians fight so hard to make this case, because it is a requirement... but then they often stop, as if establishing a historical Jesus is enough to just believe the rest of the drivel.

The story seems to me to be almost entirely mythical in nature, so to say it is "based on" a real person means almost nothing. It may as well not be. "Inspired by" would be more accurate! We can confirm a handful of facts, at best. The rest of the gospels are just hearsay rumour-mill talk.

That is my take on it all anyway! I'm even willing to concede Jesus said and did everything as described in the bible for the sake of argument, except the supernatural stuff. It all makes no difference. That last hurdle is impossible. Personally, to conclude that the whole story didn't at some point borrow elements from another real person seems very difficult, but I don't need to worry about that when facing supernatural arguments. I can hand over everything else, just as I did in the reliability of the NT thread.

Well, hang on...

If Jesus is PURE myth, then there is no reason for anyone to pay another moment's attention to him, agreed? 

But if He was a real person, then you have to ask what we do and do not know of him, and you have to consider the possibility, however remote, that there was some reason for the disciples to believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead. Why did they do this?

There might be an explanation that does not require magic...but then you need to know what that explanation is...in light of ALL the best arguments and evidence. Simply arguing against the weakest claims of Christianity won't do at all.

If, and I know this is truly a long shot, but if you cannot come up with a reasonable alternative to magic, well, magic it is.

(June 10, 2015 at 3:55 am)robvalue Wrote: OK well, I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly, I made my case. I don't care what "most people" mean by a word, especially when they are wrong. When I'm talking to you, I hope we could agree on what words mean.

Its just the same as me saying that Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow drug use, and you saying, well... alcohol is a drug. Sure, it is technically. But you're missing the point. 

(June 10, 2015 at 3:11 am)Stimbo Wrote: Are you suggesting that homosexuals can get baptised as JW as long as they're not practicing? If so, what do you think about this imposing of a level of denial and restraint of their sexuality? Would heterosexuals be subject to a similar imposition and would your opinion be the same?

Yes, as a JW, heterosexuals could not commit fornication

This would be the same requirement of celibacy that you said would deter you from being part of the religion?

And it doesn't really address the issue of coupkes in a same-sex relationship. Are they required to be celibate where a hetero couple would not?

(June 11, 2015 at 1:01 am)Stimbo Wrote: This would be the same requirement of celibacy that you said would deter you from being part of the religion?

And it doesn't really address the issue of coupkes in a same-sex relationship. Are they required to be celibate where a hetero couple would not?

If two men or two woman, or two woman and a man and on and on wanted to have sex together, it just wouldn't be permissible to be one of JW's. Its as simple as that. 

But I'm talking of same-sex couples in a relationship, just like opposite sex relationships. Let's say I and my partner - call him Stan - wish to be baptised in a JW sense. We've been together ten years and committed, via legal ceremony, for the last three. In the eyes of the law, we are married. Would we (a) be allowed to join and (b) be expected to be celibate where a 'traditional' wedded couple would not? If the answer is no to either or both of these, what do you feel about it?

Does it trouble you that your founder Charles Russell predicted "Christ's second advent," using some bizarre method known as "pyramidology," to occur in 1874, and yet nothing remotely of the sort took place?

Whoops, a testable claim? You know what happens when you do that religion! Naughty religion.

This is what happens, rob:

Quote:That which occurred in 1881, like that which occurred in 1874, can be discerned only by the eye of faith in the light of God's Word. It was the date of the close of the high calling, and hence the date for the beginning of restitution announcement—the Jubilee trumpet.

Whatever the hell it was that happened, you need to acquire the "eye of faith," which for all I know, might be lying inside the Great Pyramid (no, seriously) next to the Master Sword. But for a fun exhibition of an unraveling mind fixated on religious delusions (that like a virus eventually spreads to a million more minds, according to the OP), check out the rest of this publication from 1891 (it's rather long and from what I can tell, rather uninteresting, but if you do a search for "1874" and "1914" you'll find some pretty incredible prophecies!):

http://www.pastor-russell.com/volumes/V3/v03s10.php