LiBrary, in regard to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses I am not sure what you mean when you say that "Jehovah's Witnesses reject the key point of historic Christian text." Perhaps you could elucidate.

I can't speak for Jehovah's Witnesses, but perhaps someone can enlighten us. My understanding is that they deny the divinity of Christ and assert (like Mohammed in the Qur'an) that he is a great prophet who can direct us toward God. It is also my understanding that their version of the Bible is different than the version used by orthodox christian sects (KJV, NIV, NAS, RSV, NKJV, etc.). I hesitate to state this, as I'm not a Jehovah's Witness.

The Ecclesiastes text--one of my favorite--is often cited as an existentialist-leaning text in the OT. In the NT, it was acknowledged (Paul used it in Acts to divide a crowd antagonistic to him) that some of the Jews (Sadducees, I believe) did not believe in a resurrection or life after death, and some (Pharisees) did. The question of the eternal duration of the soul is still debated among Jews--some believing (as Bradbury does) that you live on in your descendants) and others accepting the premise of a resurrection in one form or another.

The NT seems to do away with any confusion on this. In I Corinthians 15, especially, Paul cites a belief in the resurrection as crucial to any claim to be christian and that a christian who does not believe in the resurrection has a faith that is vain and of no value.

I'm a fan of the gnostic texts (Gospel of Philip, Thomas, Judas the brother of Jesus, and the newly discovered Gospel of Judas). But I think it's important to remember that the biblical record--especially the epistles of Paul--are focused on denouncing heresies and false beliefs. The gnostic gospels could be historically true, but could still represent false teaching about Christ. In other words, the fact that its old makes it historically significant in understanding the culture and ideas of the times, but may have been false when written.

Mr. Dark:
The church condemned as heresy those Gnostic gospels, Thomas, Phillip, etc. etc. way back in 300 AD. The way the media would have it they would like you to think they were newly discovered. Makes news headlines.

The Bible itself denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. Nowhere in any of the various translations does it say that Jesus is God. God is God, the Supreme Being and Jesus is his first born (Colossians 1:15-17) "Who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation, because in him everything was created in the heavens and on earth, the visible and the invisible, be it thrones or lordships or governments or dominions-everything has been created through him and to come to him, and everything he is, and in him everything holds together." The Bible in Living English-Byington.

How much clearer can that be? Something is being forgotten here--forget Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Catholics, or whatever religion you might wish to mention, what does the Bible say? That should be our source because it is the Word of God.

The Bible also brings out that Jesus is not a prophet, but the Son of God whose life was sacrificed so that mankind might have the hope of everlasting life. What is so hard to understand about that?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: biplane1,

Don't want to trample toes or feelings in a theological dispute separate from Bradbury. On a philosophical note, however, If God is divine, and Christ is the Son of God, how can Christ not be divine? God is divine, but not his son? There are scriptures that talk about the oneness of God and Christ. Can one be divine and the other not, if they are one? In John, Christ's prayer says that we shall all be one with Christ as he is one with the father.

I guess my point is that there is very little that is simple when it comes to definitions of God. As I've said before, and we discuss in our philosophy classes, language is a finite tool and God is an infinite reality. It is impossible for language to fully define God as one is limited and one is unlimited. So language can point to God, and with paradox can assist us in getting to know God, but I don't think human language is capable of fully capturing the infinite God.

As a result, I don't think we can really talk of how simple a statement of God's nature is. But I recognize that is simply my opinion.

biplane1. There IS an important passage where Jesus specifically says he is God! ( I'm running out the door right now, but will look for the exact passage later.) It is a reference to Exodus 3, near the middle, concerning the burning bush, where God Said: I Am the One Who Always Is. In the New Testament, there is a passage where Jesus specifically refers to that incident and says: "It is I who talked to Moses in the burning bush." Now unless he got himself confused as to who he is, he is referring to God talking from the burning bush. It is one of those verses that refute the Jehovah Witness claim of Jesus being merely created.

Later.

In at least two places in the Bible, Jesus equated himself with God the Father. Technically if God was his father, that makes Jesus half-human, but still a divine spirit in a human form.

It's important to understand that in Jewish culture way back then, to say you are a son...was to make yourself 'equal' with your father. It was one of the serious things that infuriated the Jewish leadership. Many of the common people probably didn't give two hoots and a hollar. But the Jewish religious leaders understood what it meant when someone claimed that they were a 'son'. It really meant that you were equal in "all" things with your father. Which meant, to them, that Jesus was making Himself God. Not a god... one of many... or one of the angels created by the father, (Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus was actually Micheal the Archangel before coming to Earth)...but in fact... God! Now if you take time to read the very early Church writers in the first Century, like Josephus for instance, you will see that this was one of several things the court brought against Christ to have him condemned.

libRArY: Speaking of the the Jehovah Witnesses ...
...they are some of the finest people I've ever meet. They are kind, sincere, and downright fervent. But when I later heard that they believed that Jesus Christ had ALREADY returned the second time... specifically in 1914... then, I ask, what is really left to debate with them? I can't think of a thing!

Thanks! It can all get a little confusing if you don't keep track of the players.

Well, perhaps in the future someone will invent a time machine and go back and seek the answer to the question. Forget about the usual get-rid-of-Hitler-and-stop-WW2 routine, or warning the captain of the Titanic...etc. ad nauseam.

I would go back and see if HE was for real.
Then, if you want to get REALLY strange, you could obtain a blood sample from him, bring it home and clone yourself another Messiah. I mean, he said he would return...he didn't say how or when...

This stuff is only half-serious. I AM a sci-fi writer, you know.

Robert M
Blevins

All kidding aside, many of the writers of the epistles in the New Testament and Gospels knew Jesus personally. Flavius Josephus is one of the earliest and more popular historians who wrote in length of Christ. He was born somewheres in the 30's AD and died some 70 years later.

quote:

...I would go back and see if HE was for real.
Then, if you want to get REALLY strange, you could obtain a blood sample from him, bring it home and clone yourself another Messiah. I mean, he said he would return...he didn't say how or when...

Just make sure you don't tread on any butterflies while you're there!

I actually thought of writing a story with the theme I mentioned a few posts back. At first, I felt sort of strange about it, as if it would be 'against the will of God,' or something. Later, I considered it would be no worse than writers who put out fiction about some heinous killer...

In the end, I decided to hold on it, though. To LibRArY: If Flavius was born in 30 AD, would not this make him pretty young when Jesus was crucified?
By the way, this entire subject is rather touchy for most people, but the question of whether Jesus actually existed is probably settled. I would say yes, he did. Too many people wrote about him and changed their lives because of him, so he was likely not fictional. That is my opinion from a strictly evidential point of view.
No, I am not an agnostic.

Was it C.S. Lewis that wrote of "chronological snobbery"? I.e, successive generations presuming to know more or be more "enlightened" than their ancestors...?
All this stuff was dealt with long ago.
In fact, today comemorates the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, the main heresy being dealt with then (early 3rd century) being Arianism. Arius said Christ was created and therefore not equal in essence with God the Father. This was condemned, of course, but not til it had gained some popularity. In fact, it is Arianism that both Russell and Rutherford built their JW theology upon, including their "translation" of the NT. The latter had to admit in court that he, in fact' knew little or no Greek and, thetefore had no authority in proffering his "correct translation".
Interesting note, St. Nicholas, loving patron saint of children, got into some trouble for the manner in which he showed his disapproval of Arius' doctrine: he slapped him in the face!

Blevins,
Someone told me about a book they read, and I have no idea of the title (maybe someone could help me out) about this guy who goes back in time to try to find Jesus and he goes to all the places, the sermon on the mount, the sea of gallilee, etc. talking to people trying to find Jesus and the people listen to him and pretty soon he finds himself being crucified because he had become the historical figure of Jesus.

....Then again, there's always Monty Python's Life of Brian....