Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith

by AllTimeJeff 118 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Perry

  Jeff, I know you want to save face but you lost this argument, period.

  The title of this thread indicates that you have something you want others to learn about Christianity. And this is your thesis:

  The idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... Clearly, it isn't.

  My rebuttals to your thesis is dead on topic. You just don't like it that I stepped over your quagmire. Your supporting information starts decades if not hundreds of years after the start of Christian Faith does it not? So, it is irrelevant to original Christianity, which is the central tenet of your thesis. Please stop saying that it is not. You simply cannot go back and erase the highlighted words that you typed above.

  God spent well over a thousand years teaching the Jews a lesson on sin and its punishment.

  And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: - Levet:16:21

  And the Levites shall lay their hands upon the heads of the bullocks: and thou shalt offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, unto the LORD, to make an atonement for the Levites. - Numbers 8:12

  If the Jew followed this practice he could be confident that his sin was abolished and then he had a legal right to the priviledges in the House of God. As JW's we completely missed this point in our theological instruction...being told that the significance of animal sacrifice was nothing more than a sweet smelling odor to God. However, the Jews knew what it meant. It meant substitution of punishment.

  So, when Jesus willingly exchanged his LIFE for individual sinners (not Adam as the WT teaches) the early Christians (Jews) knew that it meant the exact same thing. And as they searched the Scriptures they found references to that Sacrifice that had been in there all along. That evidence is still available to us today in the Old Testamant.

  Christianity is about avoiding Judgment and Punishment by allowing Jesus, who was perfectly innocent to endure a Roman Flagellum so that we can declare that " by his stripes we are healed." - Is. 53: 5

  Instead of studying heresies in the later centuries in an alleged attempt to learn about early Christianity; why not just study the real thing? However, if your goal is to introduce confusion, doubt, and misdirection into the meaning of Christianity, then by all means carry on....as foolish an endeavor as that may be, carry on.

  Just for the record, and so as to insult no ones intelligence here, I have a problem with the judgmental aspects of Perry's faith

  Of course you do Jeff. So does every single person who has every lived. Christianity is offensive; being an affront to our vanity. Initally at least, humans (myself included) would far rather be left alone with their various illusions and self-justifications. However, God is God. He cannot simply not judge, because that would make him evil as an enabler of sin. Judgment must come.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  What was this thread about again? I'll admit I digressed also, but only to correct what I perceived as inaccuracies.

  BTS
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Perry, if you want to think you "won", please be my guest. I will allow my earlier statements to speak for me.

  BTS, read my last post on page 3, and my initial thread.... The intent was that there is a lot to learn about ones faith/religion besides the dogma. There is much in the way of interesting history, and it does reveal much about how the dogma came to be adopted.

  Thats all...
• 

  Mad Dawg

  ATJ, what is your basis for saying that the selection of the canon was a political process?
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Variuous groups were rejected, notably the Gnostic Christians. People like Marcion, (decried by The Roman Church as a heretic) were excommunicated for his views that were not accepted by early church fathers.

  In addition, the works of the early church fathers demonstrate that they had definite viewpoints, and used the scrolls and citations that were available to them to prop up their beliefs.

  The bible canon was commisioned after the Church became the official state religion. The establishment of the Church was itself a political exercise.

  I think the opposite of the question is: What is the basis for the claim that the bible is a product of holy spirit? Thousand of scrolls, with tons of variant readings, held among various groups and tribes is what one finds as to how the bible came around.

  Again, in the end, those with a political agenda created the Holy Roman Empire, with the Church now the official mouthpiece of the Empire. How is that NOT political?

  Here is what this is beginning to sound like to me... which unfortunately is a bit too familiar.

  JW: You only need to accept what the FD Slave says through the WT. No need to investigate what critics might have to say. That will only destroy your faith. Their only aim is to destroy your faith. They preach lies.

  Some Christian apologists: You only need to accept Jesus as your lord as found in the traditional gospels. There is no need to investigate what other scholars and historians have to say regarding the bible, its history, or how the canon was put together. That will only destroy your faith. Some, like Bart Ehrman, have a totally biased agenda and only write what they do to destroy your faith.

  Remember, if its true for JW's, its true for ALL religions: If its the truth, it will stand up to critical scrutiny.
• 

  Chalam

  Some Christian apologists: You only need to accept Jesus as your lord as found in the traditional gospels. There is no need to investigate what other scholars and historians have to say regarding the bible, its history, or how the canon was put together.

  I agree.

  That will only destroy your faith.

  Not mine or most others. Some of the historical stuff is interesting, some not but I cannot see that church history alone destroys faith. Maybe I am missing something here Jeff?

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  willyloman

  I have to disagree with Perry. If this is some sort of contest, Jeff has clearly won.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  That will only destroy your faith.

  Not mine or most others. Some of the historical stuff is interesting, some not but I cannot see that church history alone destroys faith. Maybe I am missing something here Jeff?

  Stephen, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. I never meant that learning early church history, or the history of the bible canon will destroy faith. I really don't want that. I appreciate the power faith has with many here and all over the world. (and that includes non Christian faith) I don't begrudge your personal faith for a second, even if I personally don't subscribe to it. I don't begrudge Perry's faith, except for the times he uses his opinions on faith as a platform to spread a message of destruction for all non Christians and sinners who don't accept Jesus. I will always argue against that.

  My point with some Christian apologists is that at times, they come across as a bit too defensive in trying to discredit scholars who report on the history of the canon or creation of the church. In doing this, they resemble the Governing Body's efforts to discourage critical thinking and analysis of their beliefs and the source of those beliefs.

  I think it disingenuous to learn all we can about JW history, as we should, and not be willing to look at the entire historical record regarding the formative 1st - 4th centuries, before the Holy Roman Empire came to be. There is a lot there. For some, it could have the effect of challenging long held beliefs in the light of historical record, for others, it will not have that effect. But being willing to consider all the evidence is honest, and protects against a purely superstitious acceptance of faith.

  Willyloman, thanks. I am not trying to debate anyone here with this particular thread, although if some people think so, that is fine. If Perry disagrees and challenges what I have said, he is on the record, and I respect his right to do so. However he, or anyone else, charectarizes this thread is totally up to them. I never burden myself with the goal of trying to win arguments against Perry, insofar as "god" talks to him. I have no doubt that I lose in all arguments with him. I ain't god ya know? ;)
• 

  PSacramento

  Maybe the thread title shoudl have been "....About your RELIGION".

  ;)
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  PSacramento

  I think that is an excellent point! Although at times "faith" can be used as a word in place of "religion", with something like this essay, it seems to have had the effect of muddying the waters.

  My apologies. It would have been better if I had titled this thread and replaced "faith" with "religion".

  PS Edit: Although, having said the above, many people's faith comes directly from the religion of their birth, and so there is a bit of the blurring of the lines there... It's all a bit semantical, but overall, if the title has come in the crosshairs, I could have named it better....