The Pope a JW...!!!

by JWD 36 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dark clouds

  Yeru:
  thanks for explaining

  Ozzie:
  agreed the writers were not catholic for the scrolls were much older than the religion and the RCC apperared a few centuries later. so im with you there, having been compiled does not equate it with being written by.

  months ago i wrote a post based purely on speculation.
  in it i asked why was it that the torah and the greek scriptures came to be known as the bible as we know it today as opposed to having combined lets say the greek scriptures with the koran or the torah with the koran or even all three writings as one,

  for more details on this i will post the link if you care to read it if you havent yet i would appreciate additional comments
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3701&site=3

  JWD:
  i like your analogy of containers, as they are the medium which holds the belief, your view is similar to the hindu view which holds that all roads lead to Nirvana.

  Just to expand on Hinduism very briefly the way they see the other world religions would explain the diversity needed, for all repeated incarnations, depending on where you are born or what you are born into in the next life, a path to Nirvana is still available. . .
  somehow i find that option to be the option a loving creator would offer, but im not here to preach nor am i hindu but the view is very refreshing at least to me. . . .
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Remember, the church was first called "catholic" by Ignatius in about AD 105. As early as AD 95 Churches were turning to the heirarchy in Rome to settle disputes (Witness the letters of Clement to the Church at Corinth). That the Church developed is beyond question. Jesus did not leave a blue print for church organization. The core doctrines have pretty much always been there though. The one thing that makes Catholics most Catholic, the teaching of the REAL PRESENCE in the Eucharist, has been central to Christianity UNTIL the Reformation and was there in the beginning. Yes, it did take a few centuries for the Papacy to develop into what it has. That does NOT mean the Catholic Church didn't exist until the Papacy had fully developed anymore than the WTBTS didn't exist until it's current development with the GB and the Corp. It is the FAITH that we transmit, the body of beleivers and beleif that Ignatius called "catholic". The Core was there and built upon. So I would say yes even the writers of the NT were Catholic in that we received from them the faith and have passed it on to the present. Not without a few hiccups I might add.

  Just my humble opinion.

  Yeru

  YERUSALYIM
  There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
  Shakespere: Hamlet
• 

  JWD

  Let me throw a thought in about the place of forms and ceremonies in
  the OT vs. the NT.Many of the images which we read about in the OT,
  if actually carried out today (i.e.sacrifice,robes,candles,temples, etc.) would make Christian worship look very similar to many other
  religions. Yet,when the NT era comes along,almost all type of `form`
  seems to disappear.Why? What has changed? Reading the book of Hebrews
  seems to be saying that external forms have been fulfilled in the person of Christ and been replaced by internal reality. I sometimes
  think of it as the difference between having a picture of my wife in
  her absence, verses having her with me everyday.When she is with me,
  I don`t look at pictures of her. I believe that the invisible presence of the person of Christ is like that. The very concept of
  FAITH demands invisibleness, otherwise it would not be faith, but
  rather sight.It seems to me that whenever a religion places great
  emphasis on CORRECT clothes,songs,methods of service,etc. it has
  moved out of the realm of faith and into religion(a man made concept).
  Does nayone remember the 1979 WT article titled, `Put Your Faith In
  God`s Visible Organization`? What a contradiction of terms! Faith and
  visible. Has the GB never read Heb.11 or II Cor.4&5 ? JWD
• 

  ozziepost

  JWD,

  In thes "enlightened" times many JWs I've spoken to express no knowledge of that article. Frankly, it should be 'required reading'; it's an eye-opener to the real insidiousness of this "organisation" thing among the Witnesses. As you rightly highlight it, let's make it on our 'must reads' for lurkers.

  For their benefit it's Watchtower March 1st, 1979. The cover shows people with happy faces streaming from God's Holy Mountain while OT types look on in fear. The caption on the cover reads: "PUT FAITH in a VICTORIOUS ORGANISATION" [no emphasis added]

  Does anyone agree that this is blasphemy?

  Ozzie
• 

  bluesapphire

  Hi Ozzie:

  For starters:

  35-90 A.D. -- Little formal sense of a Canon of Scripture

  90-160 A.D. -- New Testament not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings. I.e., Gospels accepted but not by all; Acts scarcely known or quoted. Pauline Corpus generally accepted by 130 but not as "scripture"; Phillipians, 1 Timothy rejected; 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon rejected; Hebrews rejected; James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter accepted but not as "scripture"; 1,2,3 John not canonical; 1 John disputed; Jude not canonical; Revelation not canonical.

  160-250 A.D. -- Awareness of Canon begins toward end of 2nd century. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use the phrase "New Testament"; Gospels accepted; Acts gradually accepted; Pauline corpus accepted with some exceptions; 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Not accepted as "scripture"; Jude and Revelation gradually accepted as canonical; Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, Apocalypse of Peter, Acts of Paul, Gospel of Hebrews all accepted and quoted as scripture.

  190 A.D. -- Canon excludes Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter. INCLUDES Apocalypose of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon.

  250-325 -- Catholic epistles and Revelation still being disputed.

  325 -- Council of Nicaea questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, 3 John and Jude. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE WTS claims the Church is completely APOSTATE by this time yet there is still no "Bible"

  325-397 -- Council of Carthage. Athanasius (Definitely a Catholic) first lists our present 27 books of the New Testament in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is AUTHORITATIVELY closed.

  My question to you is this: If the Church was apostate, why accept their authority on the Canon? Why not develop our own Canon? Also, up until this time, WHO wrote, protected, preserved, duplicated, read, promulgated the 27 books that made it into the Canon?

  Like I said before, the Bible is a product of the Catholic Church -- unless you have something to share that I am not aware of. In which case, I'm ready, willing and able to give it a look. :-)

  Love,
  Bluey
• 

  JWD

  Although the WT doesn`t burn apostates at the stake (probably only
  because it`s illegal) they do have many similarities to medival
  Catholicism.Recently, one un-believing husband in our cong. brought
  home some literature critical of the WTS.His wife,a pioneer sister,
  gathered up his literature and in his absence lit it on fire.When he
  came home it had become a pile of ashes in his own front lawn!
  Ironically, a while before that the WT had contained an article
  about medival church practices including the burning of books and
  literature critical of the church. JWD
• 

  esther

  No, no, Anglise, you have the wrong idea. The GB are NOT infallible, they say that. The thing is that if you disagree with them you are 'running ahead and not waiting for Jehovah'. In other words, they are fallible, but you had better not let that fact cloud your judgement into thinking that ANYONE can get anything right without their permission

  esther