The WTS and its vicious slandering of the early church

by greendawn 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  greendawn

  One of the most disagreeable actions of the WTS is the vicious way in which it relegates the Christian martyrs of the early church not only in seeking to minimise their number but also their authenticity.

  They claim that after the first century the church went apostate and there were basically very few genuine Christians so most martyrs were worthless. Yet when we examine the early church doctrines closely we see that they were pretty much based on the Bible and perhaps also on books that were then circulating among the churches and considered, perhaps wrongly, to be genuine at the time.

  The WTS is once more acting very superficially and is ready to condemn when they know numerous if not all of their own doctrines proved erroneous though they have the benefit of 2000 years of history and the genuine books of the Bible.

  Why couldn't they also give the benefit of the gradually increasing light to the early church? And if many of the bishops apostatised by becoming self serving and vain minded does that mean the R&F were also at fault? And finally aren't the GB acting just like those bishops in lusting after power and lording it over every one else? Aren't they also part of what they call the composite "man of lawlessness that will sit in the house of God like a God" ? And are their martyrs under the Nazis say, not also worthless?

  My verdict is that the early church for all its weaknesses and failures did not doctrinally apostatise, not before Constantine anyway.

  

  Heavy wolves having no pity for the flock, also disguised as sheep so beware.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  A sister and I in my congregation had this discussion a couple of months ago. In light of the ever increasing number of partakers, we were discussing whether or not the number 144,000 was literal (YES!!! These conversations ARE taking place in the congregation by people who are considered "strong" JWs!!) In the course of the conversation, I said that I didn't know how it could be literal in light of how many martyrs died in the 1st and 2nd Century. She went with the party line of...yes, they died for their faith, but they had apostasized.

  I asked if she thought the anointed who died in Nazi Germany were martyrs. She said yes. I asked her how they differed from those early Christians. They had incorrect beliefs also, cross, holidays, etc., but we excuse them because they did it unknowingly. Then, I asked why we do not excuse the early Christian R&F, who might have had some wrong understandings such as those brothers and sisters in Germany, but who died horrible deaths for their beliefs and faith in Jesus.

  No answer....dear in the headlights expression. You could literally see her mind churning.

  Justitia
• 

  LovesDubs

  I think we all asked ourselves that question...how could it be 2000 years after the life of Christ that there havent been 144,000 elect in that time period? And what of the thousands killed by the lions in the arena? I recall reading that because "there were no records that those people were BAPTIZED CHRISTIANS that their professing it and dying for it basically meant nothing because it lacked PROOF!!! I was stunned...sickened by that.

  I never believed that the ENTIRE book of Revelation which was dreams, visions and portents could have ANYTHING literal in it when the entire REST of it was PORTRAYALS and ILLUSTRATIONS of what goes on in heaven and what was to happy on the earth in the future. AGain they take that condom and stretch it over the bowling ball to make the bible fit the theory.

  yuck
• 

  LongHairGal

  I remember having this conversation with an older JW in the early years. I was raised Catholic and knew all the saints and martyrs. My question was that they also died for their beliefs, so why would their sacrifice be any less than somebody who was martyred in modern times? I remember getting a real stupid answer from the JW which I never accepted.

  Part of the reason for my exit from the religion was their stupid belief that God is only cutting them slack for their mistakes. Well, why then is he not cutting other religions slack for their mistakes?? Aren't they all wrong in varying degrees???

  LHG
• 

  Pahpa

  Greendawn

  From what I have read of the early history of the Christian church there were already seeds of controversy from the early beginning. (Gnostics, Judaizers, etc.) But the main body of believers held to the basic teachings of Christ and kept a reasonable acceptance of their Christian brothers who may have disagreed with some doctrines. The "good news" of their time was that Christ had come, given his life in sacrifice and was now exalted to heaven to be with His Father. It's only when the expectations of his early return came to disappointment and when efforts were made by various leaders to control the believers that the early church began to fragment. I think this disintegration started in the 2nd century after Christ's death. By Constantine's time, the "bishops" were well established over their control over the churches. But "orthodoxy" still was still "in flux" as evidenced by the trinity controversy.

  Only God will be the judge of who the true Christians are. From what I have read in the Bible, one is judged by one's own "deeds" not doctrine. (Remember the Good Samaritan?) And the Watchtower will come under the heavier judgment of God if it has spurned some of Christ's brothers.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  And the Watchtower will come under the heavier judgment of God if it has spurned some of Christ's brothers.

  AMEN!!!!!

  Justitia
• 

  Leolaia

  It is interesting to read what they write about Ignatius of Antioch. On the one hand, they praise him for his faith by accepting martyrdom rather than betray his brothers:

  *** w51 9/1 p. 517 Hated for His Name ***

  A Christian widow, refusing to sacrifice to the emperor, was hung by the hair and then drowned in a river. Phocus, a Christian overseer, was thrown first into a hot limekiln, then into a scalding bath until he died. Another, Ignatius of Antioch, was scourged by fire, had his flesh torn by red-hot pincers and was finally ripped to pieces by wild beasts... The Devil’s vicious assaults by violence against Christianity continued through the Dark Ages, the Reformation and right into the present days. Only the hand of the persecutor, not the basic reasons for persecuting, has changed. To find what those issues were and are, hear how those early Christian stalwarts gave firm answers to questions still asked by modern-day "Caesars".

  But then again they criticize Ignatius for being one of the first big apostates in the early Church:

  *** w83 9/15 p. 12 par. 12 ‘Quietly Bringing in Destructive Sects’ ***

  This apostasy was "already at work" in Paul’s day. However, it became fully revealed only after the death of Jesus’ true apostles, when the "restraint" of their presence was removed. (2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7) Little by little, a clergy class began to appear. In the early second century C.E., Ignatius, "bishop" of Antioch, wrote about a three-grade hierarchy of bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons. "The man of lawlessness" was beginning to take shape.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  about a three-grade hierarchy of bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons.

  ...kinda like the FDS, anointed and elders???

  Justitia
• 

  greendawn

  Justitia, LHG, Pahpa, and LovesDubs indeed the JWs have this deeply seated mistrust of the early church between 100AD and 313AD and it shows that they have little if any real understanding of what was going on at the time also when they say that their org is exactly like the primitive church had been pre 100AD which is of course an obscene lie.

  The apostates of the time were the gnostics and the judaisers the orthodox part of the church did keep the apostolic tradition to the best of their abilities though some bishops and especially those of Rome began to think about their authority in a self serving way from early on. The JWs jumped on the protestant bandwagon which wants to disgrace the early church in order to disgrace the catholic church that goes back to it. Also it was the need to pretect their 144 000 doctrine. What I note however is that the GB of the JWs behaves in exactly the same way (if not worse) than some of those early bishops did, being very greedy for control and power to the point that they exclude everyone else even their other anointed from any authority at all.

  They dubs say for example: "oh but they believed in hell which is a false doctrine." Not necessarily since there are verses in the Bible that at least give that impression eg the lake of fire and sulphur, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.

  Leolaia I could never understand what was wrong with having the clergy class since the apostles did instruct for such positions, it's just that unlike the dubs they wanted their religious leaders to be full time and professional in their functions, isn't that preferable? Didn't the Jews also have a priesthood?
• 

  zack

  The WTS slanders the early church because it

  1. Doesn't know enough to understand it

  2. They displayed a faith unlike ANY MEMBER OF ANY GB has ever had to display

  3. Were simple in their message (as has been said)

  4. Shows up the lie of 144k being a literal number

  5. Allowed for personal conscience in most matters of life and even differing views about interpretation of scipture