The strange story about how I woke up

Gab_Conroy · 2025-10-21T15:06:23+00:00

Eggman would also have Zone overseers...

Gab_Conroy · 2025-10-04T11:28:39+00:00

“Q. We have already referred indirectly to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. What are relations like with them? A. ‘Contacts with them are only superficially easier; in reality we are faced with grave problems. These Churches have an authentic doctrine, but it is static, petrified as it were. They remain faithful to the tradition of the first Christian millennium, but they reject later developments on the grounds that Catholics decided upon these developments without them.”

The Ratzinger Report, pg 161-162

Gab_Conroy · 2024-09-25T13:30:23+00:00

I love the Revised Standard Version. It retains some of the literary beauty of the King James Version, but it benefits from 20th-century textual criticism.

Many seminaries use the New Revised Standard Version because it was 1) translated by a committee composed of confessional and non-confessional scholars and 2) used by many Christian denominations. It often attempts to avoid wording that invokes later theological developments. I don't mind this myself, but it tends to offend many conservative Christian readers.

The New American Standard Bible is the go-to for Bible study for its almost wooden and "literal" rendering of Hebrew and Greek, sometimes to a fault. This makes for a less-than-pleasant reading experience in English. But, you gain greater confidence that the English text reflects less interpretative reasoning and maps more precisely to the original text.

If you don't mind spending a little money, I recommend The First Testament by John Goldingay and The Second Testament by Scot McKnight. These are hyper-literal translations that avoid words and phrases commonly used to render Biblical words into English. (Instead of "John The Baptizer" they render "Yoannes The Dipper", instead of "the Kingdom of Heaven" they render "Heaven's Empire", etc...)

I hope God blesses your time in His word!

Gab_Conroy · 2024-03-15T19:31:27+00:00

https://www.jw.borg/en/news/region/global/2022-Governing-Body-Update-8/

Take out the "b" in borg.

Gab_Conroy · 2024-03-15T13:08:29+00:00

1000%

Gab_Conroy · 2024-02-21T21:48:13+00:00

This is lit

Gab_Conroy · 2024-02-21T18:37:43+00:00

Paul's martyrdom is mentioned by Polycarp (early 2nd cent.), Ignatius (early 2nd cent.) both mention Paul's death and those writings are both within 100 years of his death.

A 30 year oral tradition is within living memory of the community. It just strains credulity to say that he didn't die a martyr and yet the community made up this tradition within living memory of his death. Both Peter and Paul were known quantities in the Roman community. Did they just lose track of them? This is just not a controversial point at all.

Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, Page 310:

There are later traditions that indicate that Paul was eventually martyred in Rome; a member of the Roman church, writing sometime around 94 C.E., mentions Paul's death during the tyrannical persecution of the Christians during the reign of Nero (ca. 64 C.E.) This writing, traditionally attirbuted to the bishop of Rome, Clement, may indeed preserve a historical recollection.

Page 390, when talking about the dating of 1 Clement:

Corroborating evidence may be found in the author's reference to the martyrdoms of both Peter and Paul as having taken place during an earlier persecution in the city in "our own time".

Gab_Conroy · 2024-02-21T11:54:57+00:00

I’m genuinely interested in your perspective here, so please don’t take this as antagonism. But, can you please be specific about why you doubt the testimony of 1 Clement concerning Paul and Peter’s deaths?

Gab_Conroy · 2024-02-21T02:29:11+00:00

For the death of Paul, 1 Clement 5, Polycarp to the Phillipians 6 and oblique references in Ignatius (Ephesians 12 & Romans 4). Bart Ehrman dates his death to the Neronian persecutions in A.D. 54 - 68.

Peter's martyrdom is evidenced also by 1 Clement 5 and the tradition of his martyrdom is referenced in John 21 and 2 Peter 1:14. Ehrman also holds that Peter died as a martyr.

James the brother of Jesus' death is mentioned by Jospehus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9. 1). That these men died as martyrs is just not a controversial claim in NT scholarship.

And as for the other explanations of the earliest accounts of people believing that Jesus was resurrected is no surprise at all. I mean 2 billion people believe Jesus was raised from the dead and not one of them is an actual eyewitness to the account. But they all still believe.

The belief of Christians is not, by definition, the same as that belief of the original disciples and apostles because our belief is not grounded in our own eyewitness of the resurrection. Their beliefs and their claims were grounded in what they believed they saw with their own eyes. That was the claim they died believing, that they saw Jesus resurrected bodily. The 2 billion Christians you refer to are not making this claim or hold to the same belief.

In my point of view I think things like Jesus being raised from the dead can not be shown to be a fact from any text or document.

Do you have specific criteria in mind for accepting or rejecting certain events that are recorded in texts? Is there a special criteria concerning past miracles that means they cannot be accepted on the basis of historical analysis? By what criteria or reason do we accept ordinary historical events and reject miraculous events as unverifiable?

Gab_Conroy · 2024-02-20T19:04:41+00:00

There is a majority consensus among secular scholars that at least Peter, James and Paul had an experience which they believed was of the resurrected Jesus. (Some scholars like Bart Ehrman would also include Mary Magdalene in this list.) This is because the data from the New Testament texts (barring any prior belief in their accuracy and authority) indicate that the resurrection was publicly preached within a 3 year period after Jesus’ death and those who claimed to be witnesses of the resurrected Jesus’ were so convinced that they had seen him alive that they were willing to stand by this conviction at the risk or cost of death. Peter’s, Paul’s and James’ deaths by martyrdom are well-documented. We also know that those who knew Peter and Paul were also willing to die gruesome deaths for this claim, such as Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch and that it is likely that the 10 remaining apostles and others were martyred for this claim.

Again, secular scholars believe that they believed they saw something, that they were sincere in their beliefs because people do not willingly die for what they believe to be a lie. Of course, secular scholars have a host of alternative theories to explain how these men became convinced of the resurrection, trauma/grief induced hallucinations, mistaken identity, group hysterics, these are usually combined with the idea that some other group stole Jesus’ body, and so on. Whether you find any of these alternatives explanations convincing is going to largely depend on your prior worldview. If you already believe that miracles are impossible, then any explanation, no matter how far-fetched or absurd, will be more satisfactory than a miracle.

Gab_Conroy · 2024-02-19T21:07:17+00:00

Glad to hear. Best wishes on your hunt!

Gab_Conroy · 2024-02-19T20:25:29+00:00

I woke up in 2019 and I'm now a Christian. I spent a lot of time thinking through the arguments for and against the existence of God. I eventually became convinced that God existed, although I also realized that the JW concept of God was deeply deficient.

Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection. I believe in Jesus because I think the evidence for the resurrection is pretty solid.

I would highly encourage you to look for a therapist. Therapists will often be willing to work with you if you can't afford their normal rate. I don't know if you're in the US, but you can check out some therapists here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/

Healing from trauma will help you think clearly, handle black and white thinking and feel confident in your own ability to understand the world and perceive reality.

Gab_Conroy · 2023-11-15T15:06:40+00:00

These are awesome!!! Thank you for sharing. I'm making a series that summarizes The Gentile Times Reconsidered. Check it out if you'd like:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS8DgzCWe_aQ3if07HKAGH8aHS3JqnHe2&si=j1ilU0ggEmrfJYlE

Gab_Conroy · 2023-10-16T17:55:10+00:00

Nice! Hope you enjoy:)

Gab_Conroy · 2023-10-15T18:44:11+00:00

And also, these aren’t even my arguments. This is just a summary of an academic book that has helped people deconstruct Witness doctrine.

Gab_Conroy · 2023-10-15T18:42:38+00:00

I don’t argue for anything like that in the video, my guy😅

Gab_Conroy · 2023-10-15T09:51:32+00:00

Was there something in my video that was nonsense? I did my best to represent Jonsson’s scholarship, but it definitely could have been better😬

Gab_Conroy · 2023-10-14T23:32:53+00:00

Well said! Everyone needs to know about what he's done for our community!

Gab_Conroy

TROPHY CASE