peacefulpete,
Luke 22:19-20 are late additions to the text.
How is that known to be true?
since today is the memorial i thought it would be a good time to ask this quesion: why is it that the gospel of john does not include the passing of the bread and wine representing jesus' blood and flesh?
of all the gospels, john's goes into the greatest detail of jesus' last evening with his disciples yet he omits the passing of the covenant emblems.
and of all the gospels you would think john's would include that since his is filled with more symbolic and mystery material than the rest.
peacefulpete,
Luke 22:19-20 are late additions to the text.
How is that known to be true?
do the wt authors consider the early church fathers to have been apostates?
i seem to have a vague recollection that they do.
however, they don't seem to have a problem reading and selectively quoting or citing from their writings which would then be the writings of apostates.
Leolaia,
It seems to me that they would pretty much have to consider Irenaeus to have been apostate. After all, he was active as late as around the end of the second century and was involved with the developing Rome-based hierarchy of the day (at least according to the online Catholic encyclopedia at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm). If the JWs don't consider the apostasy -- as they view it -- to have been in full swing by that time, how can they seriously advance the claim that significantly less than 144,000 legit Christians had existed before the JW era?
do the wt authors consider the early church fathers to have been apostates?
i seem to have a vague recollection that they do.
however, they don't seem to have a problem reading and selectively quoting or citing from their writings which would then be the writings of apostates.
Do the WT authors consider the early church fathers to have been apostates? I seem to have a vague recollection that they do. However, they don't seem to have a problem reading and selectively quoting or citing from their writings which would then be the writings of apostates. So, is it OK to read some apostate literature as long as it's only apostasy from original Christianity and not apostasy from the JW org.?
comments you will not hear at the 4-4-04 (varying) wt study
review comments will be in black and parentheses ().
wt quotes will be in red and quotes "".
What is it that apostates want? Most are not content to leave the faith that they once perhaps viewed as true. Often, they want to take others with them.
Isn't that exactly what is expected of former Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc., when they become JWs? Aren't they expected to make some effort to try to take their family and friends with them? Don't JWs view that as a good thing?
We "avoid them" by steering clear of their reasoning?whether in person, in printed form, or on the Internet.
They are so afraid of having their cages rattled. It's a good thing that this sort of viewpoint has not prevailed in science else we'd still all be believing that the world is flat.
what was your misconceptions about the gb?
here was one of mine, when folks would ask me why wasn't their any blacks on the gb.
i would say that the blacks weren't educated enough at the time (late 1800's - early 1900's) to govern a worldwide organization.
Did you know that Eastern European congregations still are allowed to celebrate christmas? yes!
little witch, I eagerly await the backup for this that you are looking for. This would be pretty interesting.
http://quizilla.com/users/coldredrain/quizzes/should%20you%20be%20suspicious%20of%20your%20religion's%20quirks%3f/
Interesting quiz. I took it giving answers that would have reflected my state of mind when I was a JW. The response I received when my answers were tallied was "You should really think about the church you belong to. Think to yourself about if your church may be helping you." Boy, that's putting it mildly!
.
the bible gives faith a very high value and make faith in god a virtue that is rewarded with everlasting life.
this,,, is what gives the bible strong power,,, over the mind causeing it not to think clearly and see the clever control faith is.
Here are three relevant definitions of faith from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
As frankiespeakin pointed out in his original post, the Bible states that faith is a requisite virtue for all Christians. However, he is also correct in drawing attention to the potential for error and abuse when people allow themselves to be controlled by or in the name of beliefs that do not "rest on logical proof or material evidence." In fact, depending upon how this observation is worded exactly, I think many if not most Christians would agree since they are likely to acknowledge that many others, even many calling themselves Christian, have put faith in falsehood.
anyone know when the early church "fathers" first unequivocally wrote of the trinity?
how about when they first unequivocally wrote of the unitarian/arian viewpoint?
and when did one view versus the other first become an issue?
Leolaia,
Thanks for the survey of early Trinitarian writings. I thought the idea of the Son being coequal but not coeternal with the Father particularly interesting. I wonder if this conception of the Trinity might be easier to defend against the spin that JWs put on certain scriptures in their anti-Trinitarian arguments.
I gather that you view the doctrine of the Trinity as something that evolved over time until it became fixed in its present form in Constantine's day. Do you feel that it developed from an original "primitive" Unitarian view that was held by Christians as a whole? Or do you think that their conception(s) of the nature of the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was varied and/or confused from the start?
BTW, any other comments regarding the other parts of my query? ("How about when they first unequivocally wrote of the Unitarian/Arian viewpoint? And when did one view versus the other first become an issue?").
-- True North
anyone know when the early church "fathers" first unequivocally wrote of the trinity?
how about when they first unequivocally wrote of the unitarian/arian viewpoint?
and when did one view versus the other first become an issue?
Anyone know when the early church "fathers" first unequivocally wrote of the Trinity? How about when they first unequivocally wrote of the Unitarian/Arian viewpoint? And when did one view versus the other first become an issue?
this was posted originally in the rodney dangerfield thread......
i don't really know much about the trinity other than what i was told as a jw but it does seem to me that the holy ghost is definitely running a distant third in the popularity contest.
when jws get into arguments with trinitarians, it's almost always about whether jesus is god, isn't it?
Leolaia,
Thanks for the followup on the Rodney Dangerfield thread; very interesting stuff. And boy, all those feminine pronouns and allusions: are you suggesting that one member of the Trinity could be viewed as being female?