WHO WROTE THE BIBLE??? RESPONSE TO THE NEW PUBLICATION.

by whereami 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JustHuman14

  Good subject I'm waiting to see what the WT have wrote about it.

  The most strange thing is that the WT accepts a BIBLE that came out from "apostate"Christendom and the Holy Orthodox Apostolic Church. At the time when the Biblical Canon was set by Saint Athanasius(Greek)in the 4th Century it was one United Church the East and West Roman.

  WT denies the so called "apocrypha" the other 10 books of the Old Testament, while Jesus, Paul, Peter are reffering from those Books!

  Also there are many other writtings, from the fist century like Ignatius, Klementos, Bishops in the first century, the Apostlolic fathers, Saints, just to main a few, that they are importand writtings of the Christian faith, something that the WT denies.

  The Gospel was preached and spread out through the Crecoroman world due to the Greek language. One of the most accurate languages and wealthy in the world. The Gospels were written in the Hellenic language. So trying to compare the NWT with the Origninal Hellenic Gospel we will see a complete twist of the message by the WT, in order to fit their theology. So the WT preaches "another Gospel"

  JustHuman14 formerly known justhuman
• 

  gubberningbody

  You know I was thinking that there were canonicity issues in the 1st century w/the Pharisees accepting all manner of scripture and the Saduccees only the 1st 5 and if Jesus had been interested in clarifying these things he might have, however he didn't.

  In the case of the questions on levirate marriage w/the saducees in dealing w/the resurrection (which they didn't buy into) he quotes a passage from Moses and emphasizes a verb tense to make his point. "I AM (present tense) the God of Abraham..." and later w/the Pharisees he uses an illustration w/Lazarus & the rich man w/the concept of immortality of the soul and hellfire doctrine embedded to make a point (because the Pharisees believed both).

  It seems to me that he was unconcerned with the doctrinal truths and canonicity issues and more concerned with the moral truths w/regard to people's behavior and their hopes for a possible better future and used whatever scriptures or evidence they accepted to make his points.

  If this is really representing Jehovah's view of the matter, it would seem that he too is mostly concerned w/our behavior and treatment of each other than if we've got it "right".
• 

  Leolaia

  You know I was thinking that there were canonicity issues in the 1st century w/the Pharisees accepting all manner of scripture and the Saduccees only the 1st 5 and if Jesus had been interested in clarifying these things he might have, however he didn't.

  I don't think we know enough about the Sadducees to make a judgment about what their concepts of canon were. The Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch but it is certainly possible that Sadducees had a broader canon. The proto-Sadducee works of Ecclesiastes and Sirach seem know a much broader collection of scripture than the Torah, but that is still not enough to decide on what they thought about their status as authoritative and inspired. It is clear however from the Essene library preserved at Qumran that the Essenes, and the Essene sectarians in particular, had a very different concept of canon than the Pharisees. The Essenes accepted many pseudepigraphal books as inspired scripture (such as Jubilees, 1 Enoch, the Temple Scroll, etc.), and the early Christians similarly treated many such books as scripture (cf. 1 Enoch cited as inspired scripture in Jude, Barnabas, and Tertullian). To this day, the Ethiopian Orthodox Chuch still recognizes 1 Enoch and Jubilees as part of the Bible.
• 

  gubberningbody

  Though interesting, that's not the point that I'm driving at. I don't see where anything in any of the Gospel accounts indicate any sort of concern on the part of Jesus to clarify these differences.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  So? We know that nothing is recorded of Jesus' saying anything about this, but we don't know that didn't actually say anything. I find it strange when people make a fuss about what Jesus didn't say. If there were a record of everything that Jesus said and did, as some seem to wish, It would take a collection of books the size of an encyclopedia to contain it.

  Just because Jesus, Paul, or Jude quotes something outside the canon, that doesn't make the source an automatic part of the canon. While the apochrypha, psuedopgrapha, and other extra-canonical wrintings are very useful, even important, to the understanding of the canon, that does not mean they are necessarily a part of the canon. There may be shades of gray regarding the issue of the "canonicity" of a document. I don't believe that there is a stark dichotomy.

  When the canon was "settled," they didn't gather up everything in existance then pick and choose to support a doctrine they had written themselves. What they did was look at the works that were accepted already by Christians and compiled them. Most of the books were quickly agreed upon. Relatively few (such as: 2 Peter, Jude, The Revalation of John, The Revalation of Peter, The Shepherd of Hermas) were the cause of debate. There was no (little?) debate over gnostic works such as the Gospel of Judas because these works obviously didn't measure up and the commitee was doubtful of the authenticity of such works.
• 

  jookbeard

  that's qiute long , but will sit down and watch the whole thing later
• 

  gubberningbody

  The truth is that we cannot know what the truth is. We can engage in textual criticism on the various texts, we can form various hypothesis as to what was believed or said by various groups for various reasons, but none of these things establishes the truth of either what the texts themselves originally said, whether these individuals (whomever these might have been) accurately recorded what actually occurred, or even if these things which might have been accurately recorded were ever true statements when these things were being spoken, said or done.

  What can be said is "This is what I'd like to be true, these are the reasons I'd like these things to be true and these are the reasons I have for supporting actions which suggest that these things are true."

  We can discuss:

  1. Why I want these things to be true.

  2. What evidences I'm putting forward to submit for examination.

  3. Why I feel that I can honestly act in fath on these things being an accurate reflection of truth.