bologna

TheLoveDoctor

what do you call this

it-1p.1205Inspiration

There is clearly a distinction between the inspired writings of the Bible and other writings that, while manifesting a measure of the spirit’s direction and guidance, are not properly classed with the Sacred Scriptures. As has been shown, in addition to the canonical books of the Hebrew Scriptures, there were other writings, such as official records concerning the kings of Judah and Israel, and these, in many cases, may have been drawn up by men devoted to God. They were even used in research done by those writers who were inspired to write part of the Sacred Scriptures. So, too, in apostolic times. In addition to the letters included in the Bible canon, there were doubtless many other letters written by the apostles and older men to the numerous congregations during the course of the years. While the writers were spirit-guided men, still God did not place his seal of guarantee distinguishing any such additional writings as part of the inerrant Word of God. The Hebrew noncanonical writings may have contained some error, and even the noncanonical writings of the apostles may have reflected to some degree the incomplete understanding that existed in the early years of the Christian congregation. (Compare Ac 15:1-32; Ga 2:11-14; Eph 4:11-16.) However, even as God by his spirit, or active force, granted to certain Christians the “discernment of inspired utterances,” he could also guide the governing body of the Christian congregation in discerning which inspired writings were to be included in the canon of the Sacred Scriptures.—1Co 12:10; see CANON.

aSphereisnotaCircle

Are they saying the catholic church was once the GB?

TheLoveDoctor

what i get is they think the gbody is better than the apostles in knowing what is the authentic word of god

aSphereisnotaCircle

The society loves to obfuscate what the teach, using extraneous info that is backed up with scripture that does not apply.

What you posted is a great example, I've read it several times and still can't sort it out.

To me it is saying that the GB canonized the bible

Leolaia

There was no NT canon in the first century; so indeed the "GB" that canonized the NT would have to be the Catholic Church.

The oldest extant form of the NT canon, the Muratonian Canon, included Wisdom and the Apocalypse of Peter and did not include Hebrews, James, and 1-2 Peter. Is that "old light"?

GrandmaJones

marking

Band on the Run

There were only a few books considered scriptural in Jesus time. Both old and new testament were canonized much later. The Witnesses make it sound as though Peter, Paul, James and the rest sat across a table and stamped "canon" on some books and not others. I've read some of the debates concerning whether certain books should be included. Job was almost excluded, as was other Wisdom literature. If I recall correctly, scripture for Jesus would have been the Torah, Psalms and major prophets. The Christians fiercely debated whether to have one inclusive gospel or four gospels with different empahses. It was an intellectual and political process. Magic did not happen. Each region vied for its particular tradition. One thing I've noticed clearly. All the initial defining work of Christianity occurred in the Middle East and not Rome. The bishop of Roman was only a bishop. No big deal.

Why doesn't the Watchtower discuss this time period in detail? Gnosticism flourished during this time. They did not believe that the physical world was good. Rather, a lesser god created the universe. One's essential self or spark existed out there and could be reached with special knowledge. Jesus was not God in their formulation but a teacher who only appeared to be here. He was not crucified or resurrected in actuality. The Desert Fathers, whose pithy sayings were collected by Thomas Merton in The Wisdom of the Desert also played a huge role. Christianity was malleable. It could have evolved in other ways.

I have no idea when the WT stops believing in the progress of Christianity. They face a serious problem if it were before canonization. I don't know what could happen that a particular date would be chosen. Monday we have true Christianity. Tuesday the same people are no longer Christian. This statement appears to be written b/c of all the publicity Gnosticism has received in the past few years with more and more new finds. They were splashed all over every major newspaper and the Internet. I've read Gnostic Gospels extensively. The core stories and sayings about Jesus are the same as the canonized gospels in most cases. The interpretation is very different, however. I assume that Jewish Christians believed in a nontrinitarian viewpoint and the teachings did not sell in the wider world. Paul's influence is gigantic. If Paul were not around, someone else would have emerged, IMO. Recently, I've come to suspect that Paul is a Western tradition. Indians believe St. Thomas preached to them and established their main churches. I lived in a polygot NY neighborhood with may different rites on top of each other.

So out of this diversity, only Charles Taze Russell sees the Truth. All the heresy battles through the Middle Ages were meaningless. If you interview the Christians burnt at the stake, I think they believe differently. I encourage everyone to read these documents. It is like eating from the forbidden fruit. They lie. I don't mean regular Witnesses. The leaders lie.

ProdigalSon

I love the term Nate Merritt (who wrote "Jehovah Unmasked") came up with for this idea that the New Testament canon was miraculously transferred from the Apostles down to the ROMAN CHURCH (LOL!!) in the 8th century AD (or later!) ......

Spiritual Osmosis.....

designs

LoveD-

The Society, like many modern Christian Denominations, wants their cake and ice cream but not the sour milk. 'The Bible was inspired by God' yea! it was compiled by the Church of Rome, Ooops. 'We want to be considered as an unbroken line of truth' yea!, terrible things were done by this lineage, Ooops.

Whatcha gonna do.....

Band on the Run

Do they believe that the early Christians had a governing body? Which city or region? If it were the group in Jerusalem led by James, Paul was in direct confrontation with them. Christianity as Jewish sect and Christianity embracing the world are two different messages. This summarizes what I dislike about the Witnesses. They lie about factual matters. Wikipedia must cut into their recruiting efforts. When I was a child, I was so full of myself for being exposed to adult scholarly literataure through the WT. I grew up and read the lit. myself. Outright lies, misconstructions. Whoever conceived and wrote this article was fully aware they were lying about the facts. Opinions can differ but objective facts do exist.

It is not the end of Western civilization but it is humiliating. Also, it is hard to refute b/c how many rank and file are PhD candidates or have some other accesss to academic databases. It is embarassing.

bologna

Share this