WATCHTOWER'S basic premise is false (i.e. copy the earliest form of Christianity and you get it 'right')

by Terry 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry
    Terry

    Bart continues in today's Blog post:

    " Most textual critics back when I started (and probably still today) considered the variants found in our manuscript (that is, the changes from the original, at least so far as we can judge) to be simply chaff to be discarded on the way to finding the kernel of wheat in the pile. What mattered was the original reading (the wheat). Everything else was simply an alteration of the text, a corruption (the chaff.

    I came to think that this simply did not have to be the case. The alterations were interesting in and of themselves. They should be studied not simply to help us know what the authors originally wrote, but also to see how (and why) scribes changed the text the way they did.

    That may not seem inherently interesting at first (in fact, it did not usually seem interesting for many centuries), but it was, and is, interesting to me. Here is one reason why: we have very little primary source material for what Christians were thinking and believing in the second and third centuries. All of our sources that do survive from the period were written by the very best educated, most highly placed, elite Christians. We are really handicapped in knowing anything beyond what these sources tell us about Christian beliefs and practices.

    What if we uncovered another set of sources not written by such highly educated elites? Sources that could reveal information about Christianity during the period. That would be *terrific* for our understanding of Christianity in the period.

    And I came to realize that this is precisely what we have in the manuscripts of the New Testament. The people who copied them were of course more highly educated than most people. But they weren’t the very upper-crust of the literary elite. If we could detect their interests, concerns, problems, practices, and beliefs, it would enable us to learn more about a period of great interest, the time between the NT writings and the conversion of Constantine, and then the empire, in the fourth century. That could be really interesting. Or so I thought. And continue to think."

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy
    The Christians were killing each other over opinion and it took the counsel at Nicea and the Roman armies to uphold the one and only opinion after.
  • Terry
    Terry
    The Watchtower gangsters also threaten your life if dare step outside their narrow framework. Armageddon is a bludgeon and disfellowship is a shun gun.
  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    CrazyGuy - "The Christians were killing each other over opinion and it took the counsel at Nicea and the Roman armies to uphold the one and only opinion after."

    And clearly, that solved all the problems. :smirk:

  • Terry
    Terry

    Christianity, with its 40,000 denominations, is more than skilled at compartmentalizing disparate elements of reality into walled-off ghettos of hermetic contamination.

    The true believer tiptoes around in Hazmat gear, gingerly avoiding facts which falsify the f premises they choose to regard as beyond proof.

    This is not merely a Christian phenomenon, it is a human psychological survival mechanism allowing us to create an alternate world worth living in in case the cruel real one indicates we aren't going to survive.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Another problem for the JW Org is that the "earliest form of Christianity" is impossible to determine. They like to give the illusion that there was one single church with one single set of beliefs until the end of the first Century.

    Of course, this is nonsense. It is plain even from the canonical writings that very different groups emerged right away after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Groups with divergent and opposing ideas.

    There is no "original" or "primitive" Christianity to discover, or to recover.

  • Terry
    Terry

    A microcosm of the contention is illustrated by the apostles arguing over who would sit at Jesus' right hand in heaven.

    Those apostles didn't seem too bright or intellectually redoubtable.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Terry - "Those apostles didn't seem too bright or intellectually redoubtable."

    Hell, there've been times I even doubted their sanity.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Now that you mention it--you've got a point!

    Perhaps they were like most of the uneducated people you'll find in Appalachia (Deliverance country) who are superstitious, naive, magic-thinking, and easily impressed.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit