Posts by yaddayadda

17

Will the WTS. disolve and fade a way in time... ( Your perspective )

by thetrueone in

hi, just wanted to know your thoughts on what you think the future holds for the wts.

what for an example what do you think they will be writing on the cover of the w & a magazines 50 or 100 hundred years form now ?.

will the age of information and techology finally catch up to them (eg.

yaddayadda

The only thing that will truly affect the organisation is if there is some radical change of one or more of their fundamental/core teachings and this creates a marked polarisation in the congregations to the effect that the organisation fractures into two or more groups. For example, if the 1914 teaching was dropped or drastically re-jigged, it might cause a large 'stumbling' and those who left might form new groups of their own. But if the Society decided to accept, say, the trinity teaching, it would basically be the death knell of the organisation known as JW's.

Information Technology is already catching up with the Society in a profound way. Logic dictates that the more JW's have access to the www information highway, the more JW's are discovering the flaws and dirty laundry of their religion.

14

Angel Christology

by POSTMAN in

new to this list so i am not aware what has been discussed perhaps i am requesting for repete answers forgive me if this is the case.

i am very interested in the christ michael argument.

could i be directed to all watchtower arguments where this belief is set out.

yaddayadda

I would also recommend Larry Hurtado's books 'At the Origins of Christian Worship' and 'How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?' (both of which I own), although they deal more on issues surrounding the development of devotion to Christ and 'worship' of him and do not directly address the Michael/archangel question.

78

Watchtower 2007 3/15 -- Is 1914 dropped?

by observer in

watchtower 2007 3/15 is very unusual.

it is titled (when freely translated) "how coming of the christ affects you?".

in the first article there is not speaking about 1914 or invisible presence.

yaddayadda

Although the article is focused on Rev 1:7, which the WBTS has always applied to the future, it does seem very odd that they do not at least mention 1914 just once.

A person who knew nothing about the JWs who casually attended a meeting where this article was studied would be left with the distinct idea that Jesus' rulership doesn't begin until the future. Look at this paragraph:

"Jesus taught his followers to pray for God's Kingdom to come and for God's will to take place, 'as in heaven, also upon earth.' (Matt 6:9,10) This Kingdom is a government with Christ Jesus as its God-appointed King. It will solve all of mankind's problems. for God's Kingdom to bring about changes on the earth, however, there has to be a change from human rulership to the rulership of Christ. This is exactly what Christ's coming will accomplish."

What other conclusion would an independent observer take from such a paragraph other than that Jesus rule and the kingdom are not yet realities!

All it would've taken was for a couple of sentences to be inserted in the article stating something along the lines of, "...The evidence clearly indicates that God's kingdom has been ruling since 1914 and that Jesus presence (parousia) began then. Since then we have been in the 'short period of time' described at Revelation 12....".

We've seen the Society include statements like the above time and time again in it's material. Why not do it in this article, and all the more so, since it is an article discussing matters pertaining to the timing of God's Kingdom/Jesus acting, etc!

Thus I agree that the lack of any mention of 1914 in this article, a date once so proudly flaunted by the Society, is pretty strange. It could easily indicate a policy of deliberately de-emphasizing the date. It could well be that 1914 is becoming somewhat of an embarrassment to the Society(except perhaps to the likes of old boys like Jack Barr, who stressed the date at the latest Gilead graduate talks) and, as someone insightfully mentioned earlier in this thread, any mention of the date just tends to remind JW's of the lengthening elapse of time since 1914; this only serves to reinforce growing disquiet in the ranks about how long this system is taking to come to an end.

It's hard to deny that this trend of de-emphasising 1914 will likely continue until, many years from now, 1914 will be nothing more than a creedal footnote similar to how the SDA's now treat 1844, if not abandoned altogether.

15

Do JW's flout Romans 14:1?

by yaddayadda in

romans 14:1 .

nwt welcome the [man] having weaknesses in [his] faith, but not to make decisions on inward questionings.

niv accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

yaddayadda

Actually, that comment is not a footnote, but forms part of the entire article. Here it is in full (it's loaded with faulty lines of reasoning, some of which I've commented on in bold and parentheses):

*** w86 4/1 30-1 Questions From Readers ***

Q Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?

A Those who voice such an objection point out that many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views. Even some clergymen disagree with basic teachings of their church, yet they remain in good standing. In nearly all the denominations of Christendom, there are modernists and fundamentalists who greatly disagree with one another as to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

[THE ARTICLE STARTS OFF WITH A 'SLIPPERY SLOPE' ARGUMENT. IT IMPLIES THAT IF THE WBTS STARTED LETTING PEOPLE HAVE DIVERGENT VIEWS ON SOME THINGS THEN THE ORGANISATION WILL END UP WITH PEOPLE ADOPTING ALL KINDS OF EXTREME VIEWS SUCH AS ARE SOMETIMES FOUND IN BROADER CHRISTENDOM. BUT THOSE WHO SEEK MORE FREEDOM OF INTERPRETATION IN THE ORGANISATION ARE HARDLY TRYING TO QUESTION 'BASIC TEACHINGS' SUCH AS THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. THUS THE ARTICLE IS SUBTLY SUGGESTING THAT THOSE WHO WANT FREEDOM TO HAVE 'DISSIDENT' VIEWS ARE FAITHLESS.]

However, such examples provide no grounds for our doing the same. Why not? Many of such denominations allow widely divergent views among the clergy and the laity because they feel they cannot be certain as to just what is Bible truth. They are like the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day who were unable to speak as persons having authority, which is how Jesus taught. (Matthew 7:29) Moreover, to the extent that religionists believe in interfaith, they are obligated not to take divergent beliefs too seriously.

[BUT IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE TO HAVE TOTAL CERTAINTY ABOUT BIBLE TRUTH? THE SOCIETY'S TRACK RECORD OF FLIP-FLOPS AND CHANGING CREEDS ITSELF GIVES THE LIE TO THIS. THERE IS EVEN A TEACHING ENUMERATED IN THIS VERY ARTICLE THAT HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE SOCIETY? CAN YOU SPOT IT? THERE ARE DEBATEABLE AREAS OF BIBLE TEACHING, WHERE THERE ARE CONVINCING ARGUMENTS BOTH FOR AND AGAINST. WHAT RIGHT DO A FEW MEN HAVE TO IMPOSE THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OF SUCH GRAY AREAS ON THE CONSCIENCES OF OTHERS AND CLAIM THAT IT IS A 'CERTAIN' TRUTH? NOTICE ALSO HOW THE SOCIETY ARROGANT LABELS OTHER DENOMINATIONS AS LIKE THE 'SCRIBES AND PHARISEES' AND COMPARE THEMSELVES TO JESUS AS ALONE TEACHING WITH 'AUTHORITY'. WHAT DID JESUS SAY ABOUT THOSE WHO PROUDLY BOAST THAT THEY ARE NOT LIKE ALL THE OTHER SINNERS?]

But taking such a view of matters has no basis in the Scriptures. Jesus did not make common cause with any of the sects of Judaism. Jews of those sects professed to believe in the God of creation and in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the Law of Moses. Still, Jesus told his disciples to “watch out . . . for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:11, 12; 23:15) Note also how strongly the apostle Paul stated matters: “Even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond what we declared to you as good news, let him be accursed.” Paul then repeated that statement for emphasis.—Galatians 1:8, 9.

[THE ANALOGY USED HERE BETWEEN JESUS AND THE JEWISH SECTS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE JEWISH RELIGIOUS LEADERS WERE AT FAULT ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR MESSIAH AND SAVIOUR. ON THE OTHER HAND, ALL CHRISTIANS ACCEPT JESUS AND BY AND LARGE DO THEIR BEST TO FOLLOW HIM AND WORSHIP GOD IN TRUTH. THERE ARE DIFFERENT SHADES OF INTERPRETATIONS BUT THEY ALL CONSISTENTLY FOCUS ON CHRIST AND OBEDIENCE TO HIM AND GOD AS THE ONLY HOPE FOR SALVATION. AS FOR GALATIANS 1:8,9, EVEN A BASIC EXAMINATION OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY'S 'GOOD NEWS' REVEALS HOW DIFFERENT IT IS TO THE 'GOOD NEWS' PREACHED BY THE FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS. THE JW'S 'GOOD NEWS' IS MAINLY ALL ABOUT A GOVERNMENT IN HEAVEN RULING OVER A FUTURE PARADISE EARTH THAT IS INITIALLY INHABITED ONLY BY JW'S AFTER JESUS AND THE ANGELS HAVE SLAUGHTERED MOST OF HUMANKIND. WHERE IS THIS EXPLICITLY TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? RATHER, THE 'GOOD NEWS' TAUGHT BY THE EARLY CHURCH WAS ALL ABOUT JESUS CHRIST AS A PERSONAL SAVIOUR AND THE WAY BACK TO GOD THE FATHER, YET HOW OFTEN DO JW'S COME TO YOUR DOOR AND START OFF BY TALKING ABOUT THAT?]

Teaching dissident or divergent views is not compatible with true Christianity, as Paul makes clear at 1 Corinthians 1:10: “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (New International Version) At Ephesians 4:3-6 he further stated that Christians should be “earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One body there is, and one spirit, even as you were called in the one hope to which you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all persons.”

[YES IT IS TRUE THAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE UNITED IN MIND AND THOUGHT, BUT THIS IS AN IDEAL STANDARD THAT CAN NEVER BE ENTIRELY ACHIEVED BY SINFUL, IMPERFECT HUMANS UNTIL CHRIST'S RETURN. IT IS APPARENT THAT PAUL WAS NOT SUGGESTING CONFORMITY TO EVERY TINY CREED TAUGHT BY SOME FUTURE DENOMINATION. WHAT HE WAS SAYING IS THAT THEY SHOULD BE 'PERFECTLY UNITED' IN THE FUNDAMENTALS, THE ESSENTIAL TEACHINGS, IN OTHER WORDS, NOT TO DEPART FROM THE APOSTOLIC BODY OF CORE TRUTH THAT WAS HANDED ON TO THEM. THAT BODY OF APOSTOLIC TEACHING IS QUITE SIMPLE, AND DOESN'T COMPRISE NUMEROUS RULES, REGULATIONS AND DUBIOUS CREEDS AND POLICIES SUCH AS THE SOCIETY EXPECTS JW's TO CONFORM TO. THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF SOME FACTIONS IN THE EARLY CONGREGATIONS WHO WERE BECOMING INFLUENCED BY GNOSTIC IDEAS THAT WERE TEACHING QUITE A DIFFERENT VERSION OF JESUS AND THE ORIGINAL GOOD NEWS. HENCE WHY PAUL SAID TO ALLOW NO TOLERANCE FOR SUCH WIDELY DIVERGENT TEACHINGS. BUT THAT WAS IN RELATION TO THE BASIC, ORIGINAL TEACHINGS.]

Was this unity to be achieved and maintained by each one’s independently searching the Scriptures, coming to his own conclusions, and then teaching these? Not at all! Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose “some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man.” Yes, with the help of such ministers, congregational unity—oneness in teaching and activity—could be and would be possible.—Ephesians 4:11-13.

[ACTUALLY, SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES AND MAKING UP THEIR OWN MIND IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ANCIENT BOREANS WERE COMMENDED FOR DOING. ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL ORIGINALLY DID? HE INDEPENDENTLY SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES, CAME TO HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS, AND THEN TAUGHT THEM!! THE SOCIETY ITSELF DOES THIS AND CHANGES ITS OWN INTERPRETATIONS FROM TIME TO TIME. OBVIOUSLY, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER IT IS CORRECT TO SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES FOR YOURSELF AND FORM YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS AND SHARE THESE WITH OTHERS. NO, THE ISSUE HERE IS ALL ABOUT THE SOCIETY ARROGANTLY WANTING THE POWER TO DO THIS TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERYONE ELSE. THE SOCIETY ASSERTS THAT IT ALONE HAS THE DIVINE RIGHT TO TEACH OTHERS ONLY WHAT THEY CLAIM IS 'CERTAIN' TRUTH. TO MAINTAIN THIS FICTION THE SOCIETY MUST CONSTANTLY APPEAL TO ITS ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF MATT 24: 45-47.]

Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[WHAT DO THE EXCLUSIVITY OF THE POPE AND ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY HAVE TO DO WITH TOLERANCE FOR SOME DIVERGENCE OF OPINION IN A DENOMINATION, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION? AS THE SOCIETY NOTED EARLIER, "many religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident views". SO THE ISSUE IS NOT EXCLUSIVITY BETWEEN DENOMINATIONS, WHICH IS THE SMOKESCREEN THEY USE HERE, BUT WHAT IS THE DEGREE OF FREEDOM THAT SHOULD BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE JW ORGANISATION FOR HOLDING TO DIVERGENT INTERPRETATIONS.]

Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?

That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present “great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep.”—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4.

[A NUMBER OF THE ABOVE TEACHINGS CAN EASILY BE ATTACKED AND SHOWN TO HAVE OTHER, EQUALLY, VALID POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS. IT IS RATHER DISGRACEFUL THAT THE 1914 TEACHING IN PARTICULAR IS LISTED HERE AS SOME KIND OF 'CERTAIN' TRUE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE. ANYONE JW NOT TOTALLY IN FEAR OF RESEARCHING THINGS FOR THEMSELF (WHICH MOST JWS ARE) WILL SOON SEE JUST HOW SPECULATIVE AND TENOUS THE FOUNDATIONS OF THIS MANMADE CREED ARE. NO WHERE IS IT AN EXPLICIT, CLEAR, 'BASIC' TEACHING OF THE BIBLE. EVEN WORSE, THE TEACHING THAT THE 'GREAT CROWD' IS NOW PRESENT WAS DISCARDED BY THE SOCIETY IN THE MID 1990'S. THIS GIVES THE LIE TO THE SOCIETY POMPOUSLY DICTATING WHAT INTERPRETATIONS ARE AND ARE NOT THE 'the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible'.]

Do we have Scriptural precedent for taking such a strict position? Indeed we do! Paul wrote about some in his day: “Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.

Similarly, the apostle John termed as antichrists those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. They may well have believed in God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Jesus as God’s Son, and so on. But on this point, that Jesus had actually come in the flesh, they disagreed and thus were termed “antichrist.” John goes on to say regarding those holding such variant views: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 7, 10, 11.

[ANTICHRISTS ARE THOSE PERSONS WHO ESPOUSE DIFFERENT TEACHINGS TO THAT WHICH ARE EXPLICITY TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE - SUCH AS THAT JESUS CAME IN THE FLESH. ANTICHRISTS ARE NOT THOSE WHO SUSPEND BELIEF IN CERTAIN SPECULATIVE AND DEBATEABLE CREEDS AND INTERPRETATIONS. HOW IRONIC THAT THEY REFER TO PERSONS BEING LABELLED ON 'THIS ONE BASIC POINT, WHAT THEY WERE TEACHING AS TO THE TIMING OF THE RESURRECTION.' THE SOCIETY CAN EQUALLY BE REGARDED AS APOSTATES IF THEY HAVE THE 'TIMING' ALL WRONG ON WHEN JESUS IS ENTHRONED AS KING IN HEAVEN AND WHEN THE HEAVENLY RESURRECTION OCCURS. AND ITS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY INDEED HAVE THE TIMING ALL WRONG ON THIS.]

Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation. (See Titus 3:10, 11.) Of course, if a person just has doubts or is uninformed on a point, qualified ministers will lovingly assist him. This accords with the counsel: “Continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save them by snatching them out of the fire.” (Jude 22, 23) Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic, but it does highly value and work toward the unity encouraged in God’s Word

[THE WBTS'S POSITION IS INDEED TOTALLY DOGMATIC AND HARSH. IT IS ALL ABOUT PUSHING ASIDE LOVE, MERCY, AND REASONABLENESS IN FAVOUR OF STRICT LEGALISTIC CONFORMANCE TO IT'S OWN PECULIAR BRAND OF TEACHINGS BORNE FROM ITS OWN DESIRE FOR CONTROL. WHERE A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION CAN BE FORCEFULLY ARGUED AGAINST, THE CORRECT STANCE FOR ANY CHRISTIAN LEADER IS TO AVOID BEING DOGMATIC AND INSTEAD TO HAVE RESPECT FOR AN INDIVIDUALS CONSCIENCE BY PERMITTING THEM TO HOLD TO THEIR FAVOURED INTERPRETATION AND REMAIN IN GOOD STANDING IN THE CONGREGATION. (IT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER IF THAT PERSON IS BOMBASTICALLY PREACHING HIS VIEW WITH THE RESULT OF TRYING TO BRING DISCIPLES TO HIMSELF AND THUS CAUSING 'DIVISIONS AND SECTS' IN THE CONGREGATION). SADLY, THE WBTS INSTEAD CHOOSES TO TOTALLY 'LORD' IT OVER THE FLOCK - 1 PET 5:3 AND AS A RESULT JW'S HAVE GIVEN THEIR MINDS OVER TO THE WBTS, THUS BECOMING SLAVES OF MEN RATHER THAN CHRIST - 1 COR 7:23.]

15

Do JW's flout Romans 14:1?

by yaddayadda in

romans 14:1 .

nwt welcome the [man] having weaknesses in [his] faith, but not to make decisions on inward questionings.

niv accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

yaddayadda

Thanks for that Mouthy.

That 1986 Questions from Readers article and the awful footnote should be proof enough that the organisation is just as much (probably more) about mind-control/cult tactics than genuine Christian freedom.

15

Do JW's flout Romans 14:1?

by yaddayadda in

romans 14:1 .

nwt welcome the [man] having weaknesses in [his] faith, but not to make decisions on inward questionings.

niv accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

yaddayadda

Hey good luck with that ErEf. Be sure to emphasise Romans 14:1 (take a copy of the different bible versions with you perhaps?) to show them you are scripturally within your rights to hold to different opinions about 'doubtful'(and downright false) beliefs taught by the Society. Put the onus on them to prove from the bible that you must conform to every whim of teaching from men.

93

Christianity did NOT borrow from pagan "Dying-Rising" God motifs

by yaddayadda in

it is a fallacy that the early christians weaved the tale of a dying and rising god-man on the loom of mystery religions.

the idea of the dying-rising god as a parallel to the christian concept of the death and resurrection of christ was popularized by james frazer in the golden bough, first published in 1906. scholar edwin yamauchi (1974; easter: myth, hallucination, or history?

) has observed that, although frazer marshaled many parallels, the foundation was very fragile and has been discredited by a host of scholars since frazers ideas were at the height of their popularity in the 1960s.

yaddayadda

tetrapod: "people who fight this view, have an ulterior motive that they may not always own up to, or even be aware of: God."

Oh come on! Spare us the self-righteous 'ulterior motive' crap. The exact same thing could be said of those who attack the reliablity of the New Testament. They can just as easily be charged with being motivated by a disbelief of God.
(But if you want to indulge in ad hominem attacks, hows this) And even more so, since disbelief in God, hence disbelief in the Bible, means no accountability to anything higher than yourself and the police. Eat, drink, fornicate, and generally be merry with impunity, for tomorrow you are to die. Complete moral freedom. Lovely notion aye. So very tempting. I'd fight tooth and nail to defend my right to complete moral freedom.

Its not hard to see who has more reason for 'ulterior motives'.

93

Christianity did NOT borrow from pagan "Dying-Rising" God motifs

by yaddayadda in

it is a fallacy that the early christians weaved the tale of a dying and rising god-man on the loom of mystery religions.

the idea of the dying-rising god as a parallel to the christian concept of the death and resurrection of christ was popularized by james frazer in the golden bough, first published in 1906. scholar edwin yamauchi (1974; easter: myth, hallucination, or history?

) has observed that, although frazer marshaled many parallels, the foundation was very fragile and has been discredited by a host of scholars since frazers ideas were at the height of their popularity in the 1960s.

yaddayadda

“ One has to take into account the accommodating language of the early Christians. This seems to take at least two forms, language articulated by "a missionary motive" and language motivated by a desire to be accepted by the culture at large. The apostle Paul fits the first model; the second century-writer Justin Martyr, the second.

Paul told the Corinthians, "I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some" (1 Cor. 9:22) Paul knew how to speak the language that would best communicate to his particular audience. He did this when he addressed the philosophers in Athens (Acts 17) and the recently converted Christians in Thessalonica. The real question is, "Does the fact that some New Testament writer knew of a pagan belief or term prove that wheat he knew had a formative or genetic influence onhis own essential beliefs?" The language Paul used is meant to be a point of departure - to show that Christianity is not in any of its essentials like the pagan religions.

Justin Martyr (c.100-165) was motivated by impulses that find their antecedents in Philo of Alexandria (c.20 B.C.-A.D. 50), the Jewish writer who packaged Judaism in Greek philosophical terms. Does this mean that Judaism was indebted to Greek philosophy? Hardly. But it does show the lengths to which an ancient writer might go to make his religion winsome, understandable, and palatable to outsiders.

Similarly, Justin Martyr came from a pagan home and was weaned on Greek philosophy. “Justin was forced by his conversion to Christianity to seek connection between his pagan, philosophical past and his Christian, theological present. This biographical quest would come to expression as he sought to mediate between the worlds of Greek and Christian thought.” For example, Justin defends the virgin birth as follows “And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.” Obviously, there is a sense in which Justin wants to find commonality with other religions – in part, to lessen the attacks on Christianity (since it was an illegal religion at this time) and, in part, to present the gospel in a winsome manner, to show that it is not really unreasonable to embrace it.

It is true that Justin claimed that Satan had inspired the pagan religions to imitate some aspects of Christianity, but even this is a far cry from claiming that he saw the essential Christian proclamation duplicated in any other religion. As J.Gresham Machen argued, “We should never forget that the appeal of Justin Martyr and Origen to the pagan stories of divine begetting is an argumentum ad hominem, ‘YOU hold,’ Justic and Origen say in effect to their pagan opponents, ‘that the virgin birth of Christ is unbelievable; well, is it any more unbelievable than the stories that you yourselves believe?’ “

Whether this kind of accommodation was the best approach in spreading the gospel is a matter of debate. Tertullian (c.160-c.225), the North African defender of orthodoxy, felt that it was inappropriate. “Justin’s view that philosophy is continuous with Christianity was emphatically not shared by “ Tertullian, who “regarded philosophy as folly and the source of heresy.”.

At the same time, a careful reading of Justin shows that at every turn he sees the gospels as ultimately unique and thus superior to pagan religions. “

Komoszewski, James Sawyer, Wallace (2005; ‘Reinventing Jesus – what The Da Vinci Code and other novel speculations don’t tell you’)

93

Christianity did NOT borrow from pagan "Dying-Rising" God motifs

by yaddayadda in

it is a fallacy that the early christians weaved the tale of a dying and rising god-man on the loom of mystery religions.

the idea of the dying-rising god as a parallel to the christian concept of the death and resurrection of christ was popularized by james frazer in the golden bough, first published in 1906. scholar edwin yamauchi (1974; easter: myth, hallucination, or history?

) has observed that, although frazer marshaled many parallels, the foundation was very fragile and has been discredited by a host of scholars since frazers ideas were at the height of their popularity in the 1960s.

yaddayadda

Narkissos, your response is a classic case of someone who embraces the old “history of religions” school of biblical criticism. To you the gospels merely represent some kind of complicated, fictional patchwork embodying all manner of literary redactions, plagiarisms and syncretism over a long period of time. The slightest similarity between the NT and other literature is taken to mean the latter borrowed if from the former.

Even the premier liberal German historian of early Christianity during the first three decades of the twentieth century, Adolf von Harnack (1911), admitted:

“We must reject the comparative mythology which finds a causal between everything and everything else…By such methods one can turn Christ into a sun god in the twinkling of an eye, or one can bring up the legends attending the birth of every conceivable god, or one can catch all sorts of mythological doves to keep company with the baptismal dove…the wand of “comparative religion” triumphantly eliminate(s) every spontaneous trait in religion.”

All religions must appeal to universal human needs and desires. It’s no surprise that Christianity and other religions have some similarities of language and codes of conduct. But it can hardly be maintained that parallels indicate dependence. Walter Kunneth (1965) argues it this way: “The fact that the theme of the dying and returning deity is a general one in the history of religion, and that a transference of this them is possible, must not be made the occasion for speaking at once of dependence, of influence, or indeed of identify of content. Rather, the scientific task is not to overlook the essential differences in form, content and ultimate tendency, and even in cases of apparent formal analogy to work out the decisive difference of content.”

Those who see parallels every which way between the NT and other religions fall into the ‘terminological fallacy’. Nash puts it this way: “one frequently encounters scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices and then marvel at the awesome parallels they think they have discovered.”

Metzger summarizes any claimed parallels as follows: “It goes without saying that alleged parallels which are discovered by pursuing such methodology evaporate when they are confronted with the original texts. In a word, one must beware of what have been called, ‘parallels made plausible by selective description’ .”

According to Komoszewski, Sawyer and Wallace (2005), “Oxford University historian Robin Lane Fox asserts that nearly all the supposed parallels between pagan practices and Christianity are spurious. Fox challenges the thesis that Christianity was “not so very novel in the pagan world.” His research led him to conclude that there is, in Leon McKenzie’s words, only “a marginal and weak connection between paganism and Christianity.” “

Thus there is no “overall similitude” as Narkissos claims.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of syncretism in apostolic Christianity. The first century Jewish mind-set loathed syncretism and refused to blend their religion with other religions. Judaism was strictly monotheistic, as was Christianity.

There is no archaelogical evidence today of mystery religions in Palestine in the early part of the first century. Norman Anderson (1984): “If borrowing there was by one religion from another, it seems clear which way it went. There is no evidence whatever, that I know of, that the mystery religions had any influence in Palestine in the early decades of the first century”.

Nash (2003) states: “The uncompromising monotheism and the exclusiveness that the early church preached and practiced make the possibility of any pagan inroads…unlikely, if not impossible.”

Metzger (1968) makes the same point: “Another methodological consideration, often overlooked by scholars who are better acquainted with Hellenistic culture than with Jewish, is involved in the circumstance that the early Palestinian Church was composed of Christians from a Jewish background, whose generally strict monotheism and traditional intolerance of syncretism must have militated against wholesale borrowing from pagan cults.

If there is any dependant relationship between the mysteries and Christianity, as some liberal scholars contend, it is for the most part a REVERSED dependency. The mystery religions from their very beginning displayed syncretistic tendencies. So it was Christianity, beginning in the first century, that influenced the mysteries, not the other way round. The mysteries that became more eclectic, softening their approach, and adapted to compete with Christianity. But any evidence that these same cults had all these features prior to the rise of the Christian faith is nonexistent. On this Nash states:

“Far too many writers on this subject use the available sources to form the plausible reconstructions of the third-century mystery experience and then uncritically reason back to what they think must have been the earlier nature of the cults. We have plenty of information about the mystery religions of the third century. But important differences exist between these religions and earlier expressions of the mystery experience (for which adequate information is extremely slim.).”

The sources skeptics typically cite as evidence that pagan religions influenced early Christian beliefs postdate the writings of the New Testament. It was only in later centuries that Christianity borrowed from the mystery religions.

15

Do JW's flout Romans 14:1?

by yaddayadda in

romans 14:1 .

nwt welcome the [man] having weaknesses in [his] faith, but not to make decisions on inward questionings.

niv accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

yaddayadda

Romans 14:1

NWT – “Welcome the [man] having weaknesses in [his] faith, but not to make decisions on inward questionings.”

NIV – “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.”

NASB – “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.”

NLT – “Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong.”

NKJV – “Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.”

If a JW told a few people in his congregation that he had developed some doubts about certain teachings of the Society, and that it was his opinion that some of the teachings might in fact be wrong, what would the reaction be?

If they mentioned what their specific 'opinions' and 'doubts' are - for example, if they said, "I think it is doubtful that that Kingdom was established in 1914" - what would the reaction be?

Even if that JW refrained from arguing and disputing over the matter, ie, simply expressed their specific doubts and opinions and left it at that (out of consideraton for the conscience of the other person as Romans 14 counsels), do you think they would avoid being perceived as an 'apostate' and facing a judicial committee or suffer 'marking' by the congregation?