it has been extensively reported on the forum that there has been a marked increase in effort over the past two years by the governing body of jehovah's witnesses to encourage an increase in monetary donations.
this has also been accompanied by the stripping of financial capital from the local congregations.
as has also been reported on this forum, this has in all probability been done to facilitate the financing of the vast new hq building project as well as the financing of the shift from a publishing company to becoming an internet based charismatic multimedia company which produces lame pixar/disney animation knock offs while simultaneously parading the governing body's ever expanding waistlines, blingy accoutrements and stupid grins.. meanwhile the financials of the organization remains as murky as ever.
Wondering why there's no evident dip until 2014? How often do adjustments have to be made to value of assets held? Not cumulative impact of 2006 to 2012 drops finally hitting their accounts or something like that?
Interesting, thanks for pulling the non-profit information out.
with some 30,000 different christian denominations, how would one know which one was for real?
some folks think jesus did start a church, others think no.
It's certainly a learned response. One reads, one examines the evidence, one learns. Or not, as the case may be. :)
We must agree to differ on whether saying something will happen is the same as saying it has happened. You say it clearly means the same thing, I disagree. Your view is supported by your opinion, mine by reading comprehension.
The rest of your post isn't really something I'm even interested in discussing, as you obviously have your faith and beliefs and opinions and my general view is that I'm glad I don't live in an era where the church gets to burn anyone who asks questions.
with some 30,000 different christian denominations, how would one know which one was for real?
some folks think jesus did start a church, others think no.
the question or op is 'Did Jesus actually start a church to himself?'
Scripture is pretty explicit in it's proof texts. He commissioned the apostles to go baptizing in his name [or, also the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost]. He laid out instructions on what the apostles should do, what they should teach and how to live. Of course he started a church to himself.
Ask yourself this. If you read that Mohamed said he started a church to himself, would you state something like ' the koran was written 100 years after he died and he was speaking in future tense...so...'
Of course not. The reason is because the argument is not reasonable. Don;t take that as a dig, it's just that you would never read that and think 'he didn;t start a church to himself' even though the test says that he did.
Your argument that HE DIDN"T start his church is not within reason.
Make sense?
Just asking
I'm going to build a house here. Therefore the house already exists.
That's your argument TTWYSF. Can you not see why it doesn't even work in itself, and without the surrounding context of the other writings accepted as canon which paint a different picture?
A Jewish man does Jewish things, says a few nice things, constantly references Jewish scripture, but also claims to be divine. His followers are Jews who do Jewish things, constantly reference Jewish scripture, and think the Jewish man is the Jewish messiah who'll return after death to smite Jewish foes. A reasonable interpretation of events during the life of the Jewish man may just well be that this is a bit Jewish.
Vanderhoven gives an interpretation which fits with the evidence, such as it is from the canon texts. Early believers were into personal salvation, not a church. There's a lot of support for that view of very early christianity where there is little in the way of a central authority to establish doctrine. Where doctrine can be changed by personal divine revelation.
It's not that I don't understand what you're attempting to argue, it's that it's an argument unsupported by even the most selective use of the evidence available.
with some 30,000 different christian denominations, how would one know which one was for real?
some folks think jesus did start a church, others think no.
The Roman Catholic Church considers itself the one and only true church back to the Apostle Peter. But that is an offshoot of the church in Constantinople. First split?
edit: just a general link which covers a pretty uncontroversial interpretation of early christianity and its various shades for anyone interested or wanting me to support my argument:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/losthiddenchristianity_article_01.shtml
with some 30,000 different christian denominations, how would one know which one was for real?
some folks think jesus did start a church, others think no.
That's a different question again TTWSYF. I've some sympathy for the idea of Paul (with his claim of divine epiphany) presenting a challenge to what was previously run by those who claimed direct personal knowledge of Jesus. But that's not a church established in Jesus' lifetime. Other than Matthew, which is clearly not saying what you want it to, you haven't presented anything to show a church established in Jesus' lifetime. Your personal belief on how it started is one thing, proving it another. You've not made it past first hurdle on proving it even from the canon, and with someone who is letting you assume it is divinely inspired word relaying accurately historical events and not debating the translation of 'ekklesia' to 'church' as we both seem to understand it.
Just curious, but other than the canon bible, have you read anything at all written by early christians? Or even commentary which covers them? Honest questions. You referenced the church fathers, but must surely be aware that they don't agree amongst themselves over basic doctrine?
I'm an evidence driven man TTWYSF. Show me the evidence. Show me the explicit texts which say "Jesus began the church and then when he died Peter took over". Even the catholic church only claims its origins from after Jesus' death, and use the Peter/rock thing as proof of primacy amongst churches (plural) for Rome.
with some 30,000 different christian denominations, how would one know which one was for real?
some folks think jesus did start a church, others think no.
Hey TTWSYF
I'm just asking for a basic standard of evidence. I'd accept that the writer of Matthew was claiming a church existed in Jesus' lifetime if he weren't using the future tense when describing it. One would think that establishing a church would be a major part of Jesus ministry no other gospel writer would have missed. Kind of like angels turning up to his birth, or when he was born, or when he died, or what happened when he died, and what happened when he came back... Actually...
Anyhow, Mark surely would have mentioned it (earliest canon gospel). You'd think the writer of John would. The writer of Luke claims he's a historian, surely it would have been of interest? The whole point he says he's writing a gospel is to cover bits other gospel writers (of which we know of a few dozen) haven't mentioned or have got wrong (Luke 1). It's a huge thing in Acts 2 (v.42 on) when he starts describing the 'fellowship'. In fact, that seems the closest thing to an origin story for christian churches...
Multiple sources better than single source. Multiple sources agreeing on basic facts better than mutiple sources disagreeing over them.
If Matthew uses future tense, then the claim that Jesus established a church in his lifetime can't be proven by that statement. That's basic reading comprehension. If we can't agree on something as simple as that, then we're obviously going to struggle to do more than talk past each other. We're both entitled to our opinions, but we do have to share the facts. :) I have absolutely no idea on Jesus' intentions, sorry. It would seem that even those who say they followed him round for years didn't either, as they seem to have been expecting him to return and smite the wicked and died without that happening.
So by saying to Peter he's a rock and something will happen in the future, a church is established by Jesus in his lifetime? Doesn't really work for me. I can see where you're coming from, but saying for the future isn't making it so in his lifetime.
just read speculation about this on another thread.
who thinks vincent tool, if looses his law license and becomes less useful to wt that he will then be reassigned to the field.
or is he just to big of a player to lose even with out a practicing law license.
i'm not sure why i was thinking this but does anyone else find it an incredibly rare coincidence that geoffrey jackson just so happened to be in australia attending to his father when the arc happen to be at the exact stage for him to be deposed as a witness?
what are the chances of him being in the country at that precise moment?.
divine intervention?
There was plenty of time for another of the GB to show up so Jackson could spend with his father. Did they even offer to do that? How about a videolink from New York? Nada. You'd think that would have been just a human thing to do? "Here I am Lord, oh no, don't send me there. How about one of the Pacific Islands with a nice beach instead?" Hypocrites.
Limited sympathy for Jackson, even less with their blatant attempt to mislead the commission on the true role of the GB, and absolutely none reading his written clarifications backtracking from his 'we'll consider it' position he used when under personal scrutiny on the stand.
Likely was just coincidence, especially with him being an Aussie on the GB, although I'm sure the commission would have requested someone from the GB at some point as it'll become very obvious now that JWs won't shift sufficiently on child protection issues. Jackson just didn't get the option not to turn up, whereas they'd have thumbed their nose at the request from Brooklyn if they'd been able to.
with some 30,000 different christian denominations, how would one know which one was for real?
some folks think jesus did start a church, others think no.
Mephis- So in your mind, Jesus din't start a church to himself because in Mathew, he says he WILL build his church is in future tense, but Mathew is written 50 years later, iS THAT RIGHT?
Just want to be sure that I understand your position
I'm pointing out that two uses of the term ekklesia in Matthew are not evidence for Jesus founding a church in his lifetime for that reason, yes. I've highlighted that even after Jesus is meant to have died and visited the apostles again, Acts 2 has the believers gathered together to celebrate a Jewish festival. There is no shared creed in Christianity for centuries. Early christianity is small communities of believers who have their own prophets and elect their own leaders and spend centuries arguing over who Jesus was, what he did, what it means etc etc. It's not just one reason, it's a whole host of them all pointing to the same thing.
