Apostate NT Canon

by Pterist 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Pterist

  As mentioned in July 15th 2013 Watchtower "the apostasy started in the first century and FLOURISHED by the fourth century" or words to that effect.

  As I was reading FF Bruce's "the bible canon" ($14 kindle ver. on Amazon) I was very surprised to read that there are no original NT documents from the first century, just copies of copies of copies of many documents from that period. Apparently the 27 book NT Canon was not set until about the fourth century by trinitarian church fathers. Which begs the question, why does the WBTS use this same 27 book NT Canon that was set by Christians that they slander as apostates #%^
• 

  Jon Preston

  This is a question ive always had! Thanks for the post!
• 

  Jeffro

  It's a perfectly valid question, and one for which the Watch Tower Society will never provide an answer (beyond something stupid like 'Jehovah did a magic thing to protect it').
• 

  Satanus

  When i was in, my understanding was that there was always a faithful few who carried on w the true belief, whatever that was. The most emphasized point, though, was not believing in a trinity. It was these who put the correct bible nt pieces together and protected it. They used to name certain ones to this chain type group. However, they stopped doing that, when they became an embarrasment. I doubt any current jw could put together a plausible answer.

  S
• 

  CaptainSchmideo

  Plus, they carried those scrolls around when they went from door to door! I saw it in a WT illustration!
• 

  Maat13

  Excellent question. I've always pondered how a new religion (WT doctrine) could be formed based on an old religion(Catholicism) created by "selected" writings inspired by god... and yet the new religion calls the originators Apostates...Absolute confusion....
• 

  Barrold Bonds

  they jw's and other christians beleive that god made sure those books were picked. it's pretty weird why other books were dropped. for example, jesus celebrated hannaukah which comes from the events found in the books of Maccabees. It's legit as far as christians go so why were they dropped? The Book of Enoch is name dropped in the NT, but it's dropped from most bibles. why?
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Pterist

  As I was reading FF Bruce's "the bible canon " ($14 kindle ver. on Amazon ) I was very surprised to read that there are no original NT documents from the first century, just copies of copies of copies of many documents from that period.

  That's probably true of nearly all ancient writings. But some copies do get back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.

  BB

  it's pretty weird why other books were dropped. for example, jesus celebrated hannaukah which comes from the events found in the books of Maccabees. It's legit as far as christians go so why were they dropped? The Book of Enoch is name dropped in the NT, but it's dropped from most bibles. why?

  The books of Maccabees were not considered part of the Jewish canon. They were classified as 'deuterocanonical,' a sort of secondary canon.

  This Wikipedia entry has a reasonable outline of the situation.

  Athanasius ( 4th C ) listed his view of the books that constituted the OT and NT. ( http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html )

  There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 4544 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and 4545 the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

  5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. ( Letter XXXIX )

  Some ancient churches will have variations to that

  Nonetheless the essential point of this thread - that modern Christianity is indebted to early Christianity for the formation and preservation of the Bible canon is valid
• 

  smiddy

  Pterist

  You make a good point . According to witnesses the apostasy began soon after the apostles died off , three centuries later ,christendom determined what was inspired by God and what was not inspired , in other words , the apostates determined what was Gods word and what was not.

  And jehovahs witnesses blindly go along with it .

  smiddy
• 

  EdenOne

  Someone (I think it was Searcher) mentioned in another thread the case of Matthew 28:19:20, regarding the command to baptize "in the name of the father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit". The oldest extant copy of Matthew dates to the 4th century. However, earlier church fathers from the second century quoted from Matthew and this 'trinitarian' formula isn't mentioned, thus, it was added sometime later to suit the trinitarian agenda. We never see the apostles doing anything in the name of the "father, son and HS". We only see them baptizing in the name of Jesus.

  Therefore, how much more of the gospels and the Pauline letters, among other writings, have been corrupted, or written deceptively to suit a certain agenda? Until original manuscripts are found - if ever - we will never be entirely sure.

  Eden