WT May 2022: The Seven Headed Beast (page 5)

peacefulpete

You asked, "why should they lie?"

Here's why.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

At issue to men like Irenaeus was control of the nascent Catholic church. It was seen as imperative that there be an unbroken succession from the Apostles to the present church leadership. It also served to facilitate church dogma beyond the text of the writings they endorsed as from Apostolic hand or association.

Vidqun

Yes, well, it's called politics. Pity that it infiltrated the church. However, this was predicted by Paul (2 Thes. 2:1-12). Till this day the Catholic Church claims the succession of the Popes, from Peter to the current Pope. So each must decide to what extent current teachings and traditions influenced historians, writers and commentators, where to draw the line and what to believe. Opinions will differ, from those that are total sceptics (modern scholarship) to those that believe all the handed down traditions (e.g., Catholics). I find myself in the middle, leaning towards the conservative side. I believe two sayings: 1) "Where there is smoke there is fire." 2) Allow for the benefit of the doubt if at all possible. This is closer to history, so scientific method will not necessarily work. Nevertheless, some of the principles could be applied. In my mind one could elevate one's beliefs up to the "theory" stage.

Scientific method starts with the postulation of a theory (the word theorem; theory being derived from Greek theoureou ‘I look at, behold.’ See also Greek ‘’ide ‘See! Behold!’ and Latin video ‘I see’) or hypothesis (from Greek hypotithenai to put under, suppose). The process would include astute observation and careful accumulation of available evidence. From these a theory or hypothesis could either be proved or rejected. [To the contrary, preconceived ideas would pose a threat to scientific method. These could prevent objective reasoning to take place, entice one to tamper with the evidence, cause one to adapt one’s data to suit the occasion or to ignore that which contradicts.]

hypothesis, theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation (a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs). theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth (the theory of evolution). law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions (the law of gravitation). See Webster.

peacefulpete

To the contrary, preconceived ideas would pose a threat to scientific method. These could prevent objective reasoning to take place, entice one to tamper with the evidence, cause one to adapt one’s data to suit the occasion or to ignore that which contradicts

Impossible to disagree. So then would not someone like Irenaeus who sought to establish himself as a passionate defender of his branch of Christianity have been susceptible to tamper with evidence? The objective mind is inclined to be cautious and look at motives. He revealed his own by less than subtly saying "true" Christianity has a succession to the Apostles. He forthwith produces one with himself as learning as a child at Polycarp's feet who in turn learned apparently also as a child at Apostle John's feet. To determine the value of this claim we need to see some supporting evidence, but all we find is unsupporting, even contradicting. A forensic scientist would not be impressed with this testimony.

PS. I thought about including some Greek words but then realized how that would come across as trying to impress.

Vidqun

That's what the quest for truth is all about. Unfortunately we are far removed from the actual events, so one has to rely on the written records. To assess a persons true motive from those is next to impossible. What I do know from Early Church history is that many Christians lost their lives, especially during the rule of Nero, Domitian and Diocletian.

A great deal of our vocabulary comes from Latin and Greek, so feel free to include them. I believe in the value of word studies and make frequent use of Dictionaries and Lexicons.

peacefulpete

Millions of Hindus, Muslims, Jews, even Mormons and thousands of JWs have died for what they believed. horribly tragic all. Wouldn't it have been better if they had been more critical of what they were taught?

Vidqun

In the past, as today, few engage in critical thinking. The majority prefer to be sheeples, following their leaders, usually to their detriment. However, somebody remarked that those without a strong spiritual grounding (whatever that means) are more liable to follow their leaders for guidance (instead of their conscience). I think if you are born in a situation, it is difficult rising out from it and following a different course in life. One just doesn't know what motivates people, and I'm glad I'm not the judge, deciding a person's fate. I will not know where to start. Most ex-JWs do exercise critical thinking, so we are "more experienced" in it, but we are the exception to the rule and a very small percentage of the whole. That's why I believe Jesus is a good choice as judge, because he has experience being human and will be able to sympathize with our plight.

peacefulpete

As evasive as that last comment was, I respect the spirit of it. We all do well to reexamine our beliefs and do so with humility.

Jeffro

Vidqun:

I believe Jesus is a good choice as judge, because he has experience being human and will be able to sympathize with our plight.

Plus, he’s dead, so that rules out any adverse judgement.

Jeffro

Vidqun:

One just doesn't know what motivates people, and I'm glad I'm not the judge, deciding a person's fate. … That's why I believe Jesus is a good choice as judge, because he has experience being human and will be able to sympathize with our plight.

Special pleading fallacy. Literally every human has had experience being human.

WT May 2022: The Seven Headed Beast

Share this