SOLA SCRIPTURA

by Ravyn 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ravyn

  some of this post is taken from another one, but I thought it deserved its own thread.

  JWs hate the Catholic Church so much, that it is unfair to automatically assume that what the JWs have claimed against it(and to some extent the whole Protestant movement has claimed--altho after 500 years it has lost some of the sharper edges). The Church who's Council put together the Bible was just as much a part of the Protestants as it was of Catholics, since the Protestants came FROM the Catholics. Don't fall into the same trap JWs set of changing history...the Protestants did not always exist as an oppositional force to the Catholics. In the beginning of the Church it was all Catholic--the word meaning Universal. And in the beginning of the protest, Martin Luther did not intend to create a new sect of xtianity either--he merely wanted to reform Catholicism. It was after his death that it became the runaway train of revolution. But in the case of the Bible being constructed---it was constructed by the Church-the only one- about 1200 years before Protestants even existed. Catholics do not consider the Bible to be any more or less important than tradition or the Church itself. So you can't look at it from the Protestant viewpoint of SOLA SCRIPTURA. I mentioned in another post that the difference between Protestant and Catholic view of the Bible is:

  Protestants believe the Bible was first and the Church came from the Bible. Catholics believe the Church was first and the Bible came from the Church.

  http://www.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html

  this ^ is an EXCELLENT debate on SOLA SCRIPTURA and it is on an anti-Catholic website. I HIGHLY recommend this page. It will take a few minutes to read---but it makes the point of the difference between how the Protestants and Catholics view the Bible very clearly. I found it invaluable in my post-JW deprogramming. Many of the anti-Catholic arguments you might hear in Protestantism are not even relevant to Catholics-they only mean something to the ones making the points. Like apples and oranges.

  Ravyn
• 

  SwordOfJah

  JWs hate the Catholic Church so much, that it is unfair to automatically assume that what the JWs have claimed against it

  Wouldn't this statement apply also to ex-JWs talking against JWs?
• 

  avishai

  JWs hate the Catholic Church so much, that it is unfair to automatically assume that what the JWs have claimed against it

  Wouldn't this statement apply also to ex-JWs talking against JWs?

  Yep, & I have no problem w/ that. I don't hate dubs individually, but you bet your sweet ass I hate the org. that ripped my family off & got my bro. molested because teh f**kin elders refused to turn the molester the first time. Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em!. They suck. They fit nearly ALL the parameters of a cult, 21 out of 23 I think, & you need, like ten of them to really start thinking about your religion. They sure do turn out good janitors, though!
• 

  avishai

  In the beginning of the Church it was all Catholic

  What about the copts?
• 

  Ravyn

  sword of jah---the reason I left JWs is because I finally did the research and proved to myself it was not where I needed to be. I never said a person should not research the beliefs of any religion. Your comparing these two situations is nonsense. JWs hate Catholicism based on jealousy-- not on any facts. It is not necessary to passionately hate Catholicism if you don't agree with it---just leave. JWs have more at issue with Catholics than dogma----that is what is unfair to base your whole outlook(as an individual) on.

  Ravyn
• 

  Ravyn

  "Athanasius in turn, who was chosen by the Coptic Patriarch to reply, presented a close-knit argument, and in great eloquence stated step by step all the follies that result from the Arian folkloric lyric: "There was a time when the Son was not." Athanasius' argument swayed the Council members to the Orthodox position including the Emperor who commended him for the way he marshaled all his forces to present the Apostolic faith and to refute Arius' argument. After that heated debate a creed was called for. It was Athanasius again who formulated the text of the creed, which was accepted unanimously by the Council.

  The Council of Nicea (325 AD) was the beginning of an era in the history of the Church that could be defined as the age of the Ecumenical Councils. As mentioned earlier, those Councils set the basis of the Christian Creed. In all of them, the role of the Copts was supreme and their theological and philosophical contribution to Christian doctrine and dogma was unsurpassed. The Ecumenical Movement ended with the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). "

  http://www.stmarkcoccleveland.org/copticchurch.html

  yes the Coptic Church was also one of the contenders--with Mark at its head. But notice--the first schism or break off the one Church did not occur until after the Council of Chalcedon, and I am not even sure if that was a physical break at that time or just a doctrinal one. In 325AD when Constantine established the Church of Rome, it was just one Catholic Church.

  It is interesting that if you look up Bible Students on the internet you will find that they claim JWs were a spinoff of THEM, not that the Bible Students ever changed and BECAME JWs as JWs claim. Similar situation I think. I tend to believe the original establishment. Especially if they still exist.

  Ravyn