by Perry 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
2 Timothy 3: 16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ... NIV
Since only the OT was available at that time, it is the OT that was the "All scripture," that Paul was writing about. An agreed version of the NT was not going to be available for hundreds of years. Even, then some of the decision-makers did not fully agree with the inclusions.
Paul was afraid his Gentile followers would hear the real story from Jews in their communities so Paul put the hex on that- "and a veil remains to this day when they read the old covenant and only Christ can remove it" 2Cor.3, meaning- Paul's version of the messiah.
It's strange that for 3/4 of the history of Christianity, the so-called word of God was not available to anyone except the clergy, yet the churches survived. Then in the 1400's when the first bibles began to be mass produced it not only led to mass disagreements to what it actually said, but they could not even agree which books should be part of the sacred canon and which ones should not.
Then there were disagreements as to which of the many, many versions were the most accurate. I just recently watched a debate between the KJV only crowd and ones supporting other versions. At the end of the debate I could only surmise that the KJV only group believed as tehy did just because they wanted to and not because of any reasonable points made.
It is obvious that the first century church only relied on the Old Testament as the "all scripture beneficial for teaching." It was not until some two centuries later that anything resembling the New Testament was assembled.
I find it amazing that the supposed "Most High" being used text as a means of people getting to know him, her or it. And not only using text, but text written in three languages and then subjected to all of the translation and interpretation we see today.
If God was trying to send a clear message via text, then he has failed miserably. The plethora of Christian denominations, each one claming they have the correct understanding, attests to that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
@ Perry: You can find testimony all over the internet about this. [what Jesus is allegedly doing in people's lives]
.
"Well of course there is no way that a person can know such things unless they have been there, seen and tested everything to a conclusion which of course never happens. The testimony of one person cannot spawn testimony in another. Ignorant faith based on brainwashing doesn’t cut it!" -Dougla A. Wallace, author (ex-Mormon)
.
@ donny: If God was trying to send a clear message via text, then he has failed miserably.
A most simple point religious people always overlook (or deliberately ignore).
Marked
Emery: Perry, I have never thought about it that way until now but that is one very powerful point to get across to JWs.
I agree. Even though I’m now agnostic and haven’t “found Jesus” as Perry thinks he has, I admit that I have never thought about the point he made about 2Ti 3:16,17. That is a powerful point to use on JWs.
designs: Perry- I bet you have Bible Dictionaries, Maps, and Encyclopedias on you book shelf right now. No one is "Bible Alone" the Bible is to old and to arcane to not have reference works to know meanings and terms it uses.
I was thinking the same thing. No one can use the Bible alone. It is too old and too arcane. The languages it was written in are dead. The idiom, lifestyles, wording, geography, society, etc are foreign. And the writing is poor to me; it’s hard to follow in many places.
But, still, I do like the point to use on JWs. They claim the passage is referring to the Bible and they say they believe every word of it. OK, then, it does say, as Perry said, that scripture should make one “fully competent” and “completely equipped". It doesn’t say reading the Bible, going to meetings, reading the Watchtower, etc. will make one fully competent and completely equipped.
LisaRose: Right, the bible is inspired because it says it is inspired.
Good point. I always thought that was ridiculous to believe the Bible because it says it’s inspired.
2 Timothy 3: 16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ... NIV
It is imagined that by the second century CE there was a movement in the early church to establish which books available within the church could be considered to be authoritative.
It seems that the document called the Muratorian fragment is one of the earliest extant attempts to provide such a list. Its called a fragment because the introduction is missing, and it starts (as you see below) in the middle of a sentence.
Found in the 18th century CE by an Italian scholar named Muratori, the date of the original is disputed, but many think it belongs to the later second century CE (i.e. between 150 to 190 CE ).
So, for at least one hundred plus years after Jesus, there was no NT, as we know it.
The document lists 22 of the 27 NT books now recognised by the church. It does not list Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter and 3 John. It also includes The Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. The then popular Shepherd of Hermas is accepted conditionally. That is, it could be read in church, but was not held to be a sacred text.
A translation of the Latin text of this document:
Web-reference: http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html
The following translation usually follows the amended text edited by Hans Lietzmann, Das Muratorische Fragment und die Monarchianischen Prologue zu den Evangelien ( Kleine Texte , i; Bonn, 1902; 2nd ed., Berlin, 1933). Owing to the wretched state of the Latin text, it is sometimes difficult to know what the writer intended; several phrases, therefore, are provided with alternative renderings (enclosed within parentheses). Translational expansions are enclosed within square brackets. The numerals indicate the lines of the original text. For a discussion, see chap. VIII.1 above, where freer renderings are sometimes given in place of the following literalistic translation.
. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, [2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. [3] Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements [3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith (19) of believers, since by the one sovereign [3b] Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the (21) nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, (22) concerning life with his disciples, (23) and concerning his twofold coming; (24) the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, (25) the second glorious in royal power, (26) which is still in the future. What (27) marvel is it then, if John so consistently (28) mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, (29) saying about himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes (30) and heard with our ears and our hands (31) have handled, these things we have written to you? [4] (32) For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, (33) but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order. (34) Moreover, the acts of all the apostles (35) were written in one book. For 'most excellent Theophilus' [5] Luke compiled (36) the individual events that took place in his presence — (37) as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter (38) as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] [5a] (39) when he journeyed to Spain. As for the Epistles of (40-1) Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent. (42) First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; (43) next, [6] to the Galatians, against circumcision; (44-6) then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme). [6a] It is necessary (47) for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed (48) apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor (49-50) John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians (51) first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, (52) to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, (53) to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans (54-5) seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56-7) yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59-60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68) Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; [7] and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends [7a] of Solomon in his honour. (71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. [7d] (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, [8] or among (80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. (81) But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, (82) who also composed (83) a new book of psalms for Marcion, (84-5) together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians [8a] . . .
Footnotes:
1 The meaning may be that Mark arranged the material of his Gospel in the order indicated by Peter, who was participant in the events narrated.
2 The reading of the Fragment, quasi ut uris studiosum, 'as so to speak, one zealous for (or, learned in) the law,' has been variously interpreted and/or emended. For example, Routh took iuris as translating του δικαιου , i.e. Luke was studious of righteousness; Buchanan replaced ut iuris with adiutorem, 'assistant'; Bartlet supposed that the translator read νοσου as νομου (Luke was 'a student of disease'); Zahn replaced ut iuris with itineris, thereby referring to Luke's readiness to accompany Paul on his journeys; Lietzmann conjecturedlitteris, i.e. Luke was well versed as an author. Harnack (Sitzungsberichte der königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [1903], p. 213) and Ehrhardt (op. cit.), who retainiuris studiosus of the Fragment, have pointed out that in technical language of Roman law this could refer to an assesor or legal expert who served on the staff of a Roman official. Although this title was current prior to the time of Justinian's Digest (published in 533) and so was available to the translator of the Fragment, it is anybody's guess what Greek phrase it represented—assuming, of course, that the Canon was drawn up originally in Greek (unfortunately no help is provided in David Magie, De Romanorum iuris publici sacrisque vocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conversis [Leipzig, 1905]).
It is significant that the Latin text of the Fragment appears to have been a source for Chromace of Aquileia, who in his commentary on Matthew (written between 398 and 407) refers to Luke as follows: Dominum in carne non vidit, sed quia eruditissimus legis erat quippe qui comes Pauli apostoli ... (See Joseph Lemarie, 'Saint Chromace d'Aquilee temoin du Canon de Muratori,' Revue des etudes augustiniennes, xxiv [1978], pp. 101-2).3 Here ex opinione is taken as the equivalent of εξ ακοης . Others conjecture ex ordine, representing καθεξης ('orderly sequence.' Luke i.3).
3a Latin, principia. —M.D.M.
3b Latin, principali. —M.D.M.
4 I John i.1-3.
5 Luke i.3.
5a That is, the city of Rome. This lack of specificity is one indication that the author was a Roman. —M.D.M.
6 The letter 'b' in the Latin text before 'Galatians' may belong to 'Corinthians' ( προς Κορινθιους Β' ).
6a Latin, principium. —M.D.M.
6b Tregelles writes, “It appears impossible to suppose that the cento of phrases from St. Paul’s genuine Epistles, often found in Latin MSS. under the name of Epistola ad Laodicenses, is here intended. … the writer seems to have intended the Epistle to the Ephesians, which Marcion altered, and to which he gave this name, either as part of his changes, or it may be from having obtained his copy of it from Laodicea.” (p. 47) —M.D.M.
6c Nothing is known of the Epistle to the Alexandrians mentioned here. —M.D.M.
7 It may be, as Zahn (Geschichte, ii, 66) and others have supposed, that a negative has fallen out of the text here.
7a Tregelles suggests that the Latin translator of this document mistook the Greek Philonos "Philo" for philon "friends." Many in ancient times thought that the so-called "Wisdom of Solomon" was really written by Philo of Alexandria. —M.D.M.
7b The Apocalypse of Peter describes with some imaginative detail the torments of hell and the blessings of heaven. It was read with respect and used for admonition throughout the churches in early times. —M.D.M.
7c The Shepherd of Hermas is another work widely read in early times. It is a kind of moral allegory, like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, but more impressive in that it purports to convey a series of divine revelations. —M.D.M.
7d This would be Pius I, bishop of Rome from about 142 to 157. —M.D.M.
8 Perhaps the Fragmentist means that there are three major Prophets and twelve minor Prophets.
8a The few words that follow this are unintelligible, and so the fragment practically ends here. —M.D.M.
How can a book that came out of the "Dark Ages" be Scripture?
The mistake being made by all of what man himself calls "Christianity" is that "The Bible" is Scripture.
If I am not mistaken, God sent His Son, not a book. It was man who gave this book its name; it was man who calls it holy; it was man who calls it Scripture; and it is man who calls it "The Word of God."
In other words, God sent His Son into the world and man sent a book he named "The Bible" into it.
Within the Bible, we are told that all Scripture is "God Breathed." In other words, all Scripture is anything that God says (breathes). Did not Jesus also say this to the Devil at Matthew 4:4:
"Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth."
Everything written in the Bible are not things spoken by God. Adam speaks in it. Eve speaks in it. The Serpent speaks in it. Job and others speak in it. THEIR words are not Scripture. Thus, "The Bible" is not the Word of God.
Only one person is The Word of God. (Revelation 19:13)
It is not a book that one should be listening to, but Christ himself. This can only be done by prayer to the Father through Christ and receiving Holy Spirit. No book can be "the way, the truth and the life."
This is why so many are confused about the Father and His Son. They have turned to a book for knowledge, wisdom and understanding about them. It will never happen.
They have placed faith in something they can see (a book) and it requires faith to believe in something that cannot be seen. (John 4:23-24, Col 1:15 and Hebrews 11:1)
Jesus is even portrayed as a flesh and blood man (a White man) and that is not his form at present as he resides in heaven unseen. Christ is ialive but invisible. Again, showing a faithless generation.
Do not listen to these persons (and religious organizations) who push that "The Bible" is Scripture. Only the things God speaks is Scripture. Since Christ has been identified as "God's Word" (His spokesman), all that he teaches is Scripture.
Yet, today the Bible gets more props than Christ himself. Christ himself can say something and most people will say that "The Bible" says it.
Think !!!!
R. Jerome Harris
e-prophetic.com
So, if reading the Bible without explaination is enough, why are you guys trying to explain the Bible? You are basically telling that your interpretation is better than others. That's make you equal to The Borg.
