ASK YOURSELF this question and see what your answer is....

by Terry 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  GLTirebiter

  Doesn't it seem very odd to you...that...THE BIBLE itself was NOT PRESERVED??

  That's a puzzling statement to me. The thing is, the Bible wasn't the unified work(s) we know today until centuries after Christ, when Christians could practice and communicate their faith openly. Before then, it existed as many different books and letters, and no one group accepts all of them to this day. The biblical canon wasn't formally completed (by Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, churches) until the time of the Reformation. So saying "the Bible", as though there has always been a definitive version, is misleading. Ever since there were books of the New Testament (let alone the very concept of a New Testament), there have been different collections of the various works collectively known as the Bible. The various churches' efforts to standardize their Bibles were an effort to find order amid the scriptural chaos ensuing from centuries of Roman persecution, not a casual disregard of an ideal Bible that never existed.

  GLT
• 

  Farkel

  Terry,

  :Doesn't it seem very odd to you, strange and mysterious---in fact, passing all understanding that in view of the Church's passion for such items THE BIBLE itself was NOT PRESERVED??

  The Bible they had in the mid 4th Century was not a preserved Bible at all, but a many times copied Bible, full of whatever a many times copied Bible is full of.

  One need not have to wonder why the early Church was looking for goodies/trinkets/relics to perpetuate its existence when the Church itself was founded on goodies like merging pagan and Christian myths. And the notion of Empire.

  Follow the power and follow the money. The goodies fall into place then. The goodies are for the little people. The power and money are for the ones who show the little people the goodies.

  Farkel
• 

  wobble

  I thought about this very question years ago when I was a Dub. I too felt that the Vatican must be in posession of some pretty explosive stuff.

  Of course I then reasoned that in Big J's good time He would cause the publication of these autographs, or whatever they have in the Archive, and I believed then that it would show up where the divine name had been "removed".

  How naive I was then !

  I still would not be surprised if they do have some stuff they do not want seen by scholars, they have for years put much store by Jerome's Vulgate translation,claiming if I remember right , that it was inspired ! and early manuscripts may show this to be what we true scholars call, using one of our technical terms, piss poor !

  Love

  Wobble
• 

  lifelong humanist

  Terry

  Another interesting post, posing a thought provoking question.

  I've visited the Vatican museums on several occasions. About 8 years ago, I was even naive enough to wonder if I asked one of the Swiss Guards politely enough, that he'd allow me access to the 'secret' vaults. Alas, no. Back then, I often wondered what ancient manuscripts must exist therein. I believe that the Vatican genuinely treasures their manuscripts even more than their 'holy relics'. This is probably why the public has very limited access to them. Perhaps a scholar investigating could clearly establish the (many?) changes that have been inserted over the centuries.

  On the other hand, I must have seen 'hundreds' of bones from certain saints spread around Italian, French, Spanish and Greek churches, often not very well protected against theft.

  I think it is farly well established that we know today as the 'Holy Bible' is just the 'selected bits' of text that scholars wanted to be included. A bit like a 'cut and paste' job. I doubt that they stuck closely to whatever the 'original' document stated. I'm sure that many fragments of other so-called holy writings exist within the Christian church (as well as the other major world religions).

  When I was still trapped in the JW cult and, as Ministry School overseer, asked to deliver Instruction Talks based on the 'All Scripture is Inspired of God' book, I always found it strange how ready and willing the WTB&TS was to accept Roman Catholic and Protestant clerics views on who wrote each 'book', when it was written, where, etc. The same WT 'logic' took great delight in trashing everything else these churches teach and believe...

  Now, I consider the bible as merely a history book, with amazing stories of giants and heroic characters, full of violence, genocide, strange, even miraculous goings-on, etc.

  lifelong humanist
• 

  HappyGuy

  The Catholic church did preserve the Bible. The problem is that the Bible as written is not the one that they disclose to the masses. The Catholic church decided what writings would comprise the "holy" bible. The writings that they don't want us to see are preserved, it is just that you will never see them.

  By the time Constantin got involved the "Bible" did not exist as an extant original document. There were many writings, which had been copied many times.

  After the official bible canon was established the Catholic church scoured the known world for copies of the "unapproved" writings and burned them. They did keep copies of these works in their libraries in the vatican but made sure that you and I will never see them.
• 

  wobble

  Lets do an Apostaraid and go grab all these damning documents !

  Love

  Wobble
• 

  Judge Dread

  A conspiracy!!!!!!??????

  NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Where's WAC?

  Judge Dread
• 

  quietlyleaving

  Interesting points Terry

  I was reading little about the history of the period and the strikingly new form of worship that evolved. Whereas an integral part of the worship of the Romans and Jew was the use of sacred community places, rituals, shrines, synagogues and sacrifices etc the chrisitans were different. Their faith was centred on personal faith,expression and preaching.

  The fact that Constantine's wife showed such interest in relics shows a tendency to express her worship in a similar form to that of a Roman. BTW I'm not saying this to denigrate Roman aspects of christianty. Other christians gave primacy to the spoken word. This had the effect that the gospel could be dessiminated over wide areas. Then of course there were the judaisers who tended towards keeping a connection to the jewish way of life and all things Roman was anathema. This was a time of flux, change and controversy but most of all a rich source of inspiration and meaning whatever the form of worship

  Also I guess what I'm trying to say is what GLT says below.

  Doesn't it seem very odd to you...that...THE BIBLE itself was NOT PRESERVED?? That's a puzzling statement to me. The thing is, the Bible wasn't the unified work(s) we know today until centuries after Christ, when Christians could practice and communicate their faith openly. Before then, it existed as many different books and letters, and no one group accepts all of them to this day. The biblical canon wasn't formally completed (by Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, churches) until the time of the Reformation. So saying "the Bible", as though there has always been a definitive version, is misleading. Ever since there were books of the New Testament (let alone the very concept of a New Testament), there have been different collections of the various works collectively known as the Bible. The various churches' efforts to standardize their Bibles were an effort to find order amid the scriptural chaos ensuing from centuries of Roman persecution, not a casual disregard of an ideal Bible that never existed. GLT
• 

  Terry

  My Point is this:

  IF there really were actual, physical, hand-written manuscripts by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul in existence THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESERVED.

  They would be an extraordinary defense against corrupt texts!

  There AREN'T any.

  This cannot be an oversight in view of the official Roman passion for documentation and reverence for holy relics.

  The truth is, comparing every Jesus tale, saying, proverb, story with every other one must have been a NIGHTMARE!

  How would you reconcile so many variations, version, testaments, contradictory eye-witness accounts?

  Which "books" were the most disputed?

  1.Hebrews

  2.James

  3. Second peter,

  4. Second and Third John

  5. Revelation

  Think about THAT for just a moment! Imagine current belief, doctrine and understanding of Christianity if those 5 books were excluded from the very beginning.

  What is my point??

  The very existence of an OFFICIAL BIBLE (even with the power of Rome behind it) was extraordinarily difficult to bring about.

  The purpose of such a Bible was to settle disputes. It just created fights! Religious internecine epic battles!

  Christianity kept shifting, changing, disputing, struggling to define its central story, meaning and future.

  The Roman Church---at some point in history---had to make an executive decision.

  HERE IS MY SURMISE as to what that decision was.

  1. Shift the focus away from proving things by citing scripture.

  2. Make the MAJESTY of Church Pronouncement (Authority) the be-all and end-all.

  3. Once the Church ruled on matters--it was settled in Heaven!

  You see?

  As long as evidence in the form of a purported hand-written version of Jesus' teachings or Apostolic saying existed for human eyes to research and compare---ARGUMENTS, DISPUTES AND CONTROVERSY would split the Church into factions.

  An executive decision was made to get rid of the evidence!

  I think all the original writings (IF THERE WERE ANY) were destroyed on purpose.

  The Majesterium of the Church became more important than having church members reading and arguing and deciding for themselves!

  This is the main reason translators of existing Scripture (John Wycliffe, for example) were dealt with brutally and severly. It would shift the focus of common people away from Church Authority and place it in the hands of ordinary people would would start arguing and dividing into factions all over again.

  THIS IS WHY THE GOVERNING BODY of Jehovah's Witnesses has placed ITSELF in the forefront of the religion!

  The same problem is being "solved". Since 1975 the arguments over dates, policies and interpretations threatened to split and breakdown the Witness work. Just as the Roman Catholic church shifted away from each person or group thinking for themselves based on scripture---the Governing Body of the Watchtower has substituted Majesterium for scholarship.

  That's my view!

  That is why I asked the question.

  Terry
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  As much as I see your point, I truly believe there were many original manuscripts in Paul's handwriting. But he almost absolutely did not write all the letters attributed to him and they couldn't have some of his stuff lying around to compare it to.