Witnesses and Consensus of Bible Scholarship

by Band on the Run 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I was reading the thread on female hatred in the WTBTS. It seems that for most posters, Paul's sayings in books that no reputable scholar now believes Paul wrote are preferred over the nonsexist statements he made. He named women as important leaders and colleagues. Specific women were named. Paul's famous conception that in Christ, there is no longer male or female is ignored. These pro-woman statements are in recognized Paul epistles, not later glosees, incosistent with his theology that somehow bear his name as a source of authority. Read Romans or Corinthians and then read Timothy or Hebrews. A different person is speaking. The writing style is different. The theological highlights diverge.

    I don't know the exact date of canonization. Currently, I am reading Carroll's Constantine's Sword, the Church and the Jews. Canonization occurred after Constantine's conversion and control of the church. The original Nicene creed was already forumulated. I like that that a variety of Christian writings were included in the canon. Many leaders argued for only one gospel. Reading Augustine, it is something to appreciate that he only had access to one gospel, the psalms and a few prophets.

    The WT never seemed clear to me when the church was no longer the church. Certainly, it was before canonization. How then do they accept the canon? Have they ever raised the issue of works not written by the person claimed as author. If the scriptures are restricted to works actually written by Paul and others,most of their nutty views would fade. How do they account for the scholarship?

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    According to the WT, ALL the epistles that they SAY were written by Paul WERE written by Paul.

    Hebrews does NOt make claim to being written by Paul and actually says that the writer got his information about Christ from the apostles and those that knew Christ and Paul would not havs said that since he MET the ressurected Christ.

    1 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, 3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

    Note verse 3:

    After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard

  • sir82
    sir82
    How do they account for the scholarship?

    The same way they deal any other issue that contradicts their viewpoint and/or authority: "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one".

    Bible scholars, in their view, are either godless or belong to "apostate Christendom", and either way, not to be trusted.

    That's what happens when you convince yourself that you are literally "one in a billion" - out of 7 billion people on the plane, God only speaks to the 7 members of the Governing Body.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Funny thing is that IF a scholar says soemthing that they agree with, they will quote them.

    I guess that even corrupt and evil scholars serve a purpose, LOL !

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    I don't know the exact date of canonization.

    THE work on the issue:

    The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger ( Paperback - Apr 10, 1997)

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    It boggles my mind b/c the scholarship in historical Jesus and the NT is not a fledgling field anymore. Altho there is controversy, there is clear consensus on certain issues. How do they know Paul wrote these books? The tone is very different. One need not consults any journal articles or books. The canon occurs after Constantine. They despise Constantine. In fact, they reject all the Church fathers who participated in Nicea and other councils. The church is already polluted to them.

    I would say my Bible interest is mostly b/c of being a Witness. It completely freed me. (except for fears of demons and 1975). The GB and writers cannot be so stupid. Can they? If they can quote an aberration to prove their point, how do the individuals not read the rest of the text. It is so contrary to my experience that I find it hard to fathom.

    Of course, I can see myself in KH asking about Schweitzer, Bonhoffer, Berrigan, N.T. Wright, Marcus Borg, or Elaine Pagels. I imagine I would be summarily evicted. One need not agree with all they say but what is wrong with dialogue. The truth should be able to withstand it.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    The authoritive books were authoritive BEFORE they came to be canon, they did NOt BECOME authoritive becasue they were proclaimed canon.

  • sir82
    sir82
    The GB and writers cannot be so stupid. Can they?

    Never underestimate the stupidity of WTS leaders.

    Your points on the authorship of books attributed to Paul is a good one - but the even more egregious case is the authorship of the book of Revelation. The WTS insists that it was the same author as the Gospel of John, when virtually every scholar agrees that it had to have been a different "John".

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    The canon debate shows there was no consensus about which books were authoritative. Local tradition accepted different books. I wonder how many churches had access to all the books before the council. The council was the work of Constantine ordering unification at all costs. The discussions reveal very different positions on authority. If I never read Matthew, why would I suddenly consider it scripture. This is not Christianity fumbling along. It is a political act.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    BOTR,

    You should really pick up that book by Metzger on the development of the Canon.

    There was a consensus on the vast MAJORITY of the NT.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit