Posts by JuanMiguel

31

Hidden implications of Genesis

by losthobbit in

today when i read it, i see a completely different story.. the bible is completely true, or at least that's what many people believe.

when asking them which translation is true, the person might pick their favourite translation.

when asking about things that contradict, be logically incorrect, or refer to unscientific things like the four corners of the earth, one might get a response that some of it is symbolic, and not meant to be taken literally, but everything else is entirely true.. the same principle can be applied to any piece of writing.

JuanMiguel

While not meaning to contradict your belief or that of others who accept the Scriptures as inspired of God, if I may be so bold to add some things to think about regarding what might add to our understanding of Genesis.

1. Both Jewish history and textual analysis reveal that the first chapter of Genesis (more precisely Genesis 1:1-2:3) was added to the book after the return from Babylonian exile. It also appears that the story of Noah and the flood was greatly expanded and interpolated (with its most recognizable details) at this time also into the format we are now used to reading it.

Because the Jews believed that it was their failure to follow the Mosaic Law (exemplified in keeping the Sabbath) that led to their being exiled in the first place, the old creation story that begins at Genesis 2:4 was re-told in the form of a mnemonic lesson—similar to putting a story to music—a lesson that used a creation as a reminder to keep the Law (by means of remembering to keep the Sabbath) as well as use the days of the week as the main mnemonic device in which to recall and remember the various facets of creation that come from God.

Key to realizing it is not meant to be taken literal: the “creative days” are each only 12 hours in length in this narrative, beginning with the lack of light well after sundown and ending with the crack of dawn. The Hebrew day is sundown to sundown, and the modern day is likewise 24 hours in length (midnight to midnight). The writer is using a lot of holy symbolic numbers in this story, and obviously not by accident (7 days in a week, 12 hours in a day, etc.). There is also a clear pattern as to why the order of creation in this account is different from the one that follows, demonstrating a set of created elements on one side, and then identifying them as “players” in God’s “drama” over which the Lord asserts control:

Day 1: The heavens, light, and darkness

Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars of the sky

Day 2: Water that comes from the sky as rain, and water that comes from the earth in rivers and seas

Day 5: Birds are created to inhabit the sky, and fish and other water animals are placed into the rivers and seas

Day 3: Land comes forth from the seas and vegetation sprouts from the earth

Day 6: Animals are created to inhabit the land, and humans are created to cultivate the earth and care for it

God has control of what is first chaotic, and his final act of control is in governing obedience to his Law, again seen in the narrative device that describes God as “resting on the seventh day.”

If this were meant to be a literal account and the days are meant to be taken for some sort of equivalent for years, then what does that mean for the older account that follows? Why blatantly contradict it? Apparently it is not meant to be a contradiction but a complimentary lesson.

2. Why create trees with fruit that were not meant to be eaten?

It isn’t likely that the “trees” were as literal as we imagine them today. This is not to say that there is not some historicity to be gained from this account, but that we might be reading it with the wrong approach.

In the Bible animals never talk outside of the “fable” scenario. Now I don’t mean fable as in the vernacular to mean a false story. I mean “fable” as in the genre, namely a story or parable that teaches a lesson. Aesop’s fables used animals almost exclusively, but the morals were never as make-believe as the characters or situations he created.

This is a very ancient formula that is followed today to teach people lessons. We aren’t crazy about being “preached” to. I don’t like being told I am wrong about something I am doing, nor do I like being corrected. Never have, and probably never will. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that pretty much everyone is the same.

Ancient moralists understood this about humanity. So when they had some lesson to teach, they changed up their stories to look like fiction by disguising the narrative into a story with speech-enabled animals. Often the animal taught the lesson or exposed the fault of humans and made the moral more palatable as a result.

Now if Genesis 3 is a literal account of sin’s origins, then if you are like me you probably have asked yourself why it’s missing the most important thing that any good historical account requires. What is that? An explanation.

The account doesn’t tell us what “sin” is. It never does. It also doesn’t tell us what connection the fruit has with “sin” or how exactly sin settles into Adam and Eve, why it makes them cover their bodies and hide from God, and why God has to guard the Tree of Life from being taken from if just a few sentences earlier (in 3:15) he promises to change things around so that nobody has to die. Couldn’t God just forgive them there and lead them to eat of the Tree of Life instead of sending them away (as well as why would God give in to their “sin” of thinking they were “naked” by making clothes for them once outside the Garden of Eden)?

Do you suddenly see what I see? Yup, the story is “missing something.” And if you can’t put your finger on what the story is missing, don’t worry. If it’s a story with a lesson (and I am sure most of you have caught on by now) then this is a purposeful element to the story—as much as the talking snake was.

Sure there’s a connection with Satan and the snake, but not until Christianity comes around. So originally you’re not supposed to read the snake as being Satan. Satan is the interpretation of what the snake is meant to be (another indicator that this is not a literal tale). If the snake represents something, obviously everything else does too.

While there is little time or space to go into all the details (and it is really within reach of most basic Bible commentaries, so find one you like and read the interesting details—which are as ancient as Christianity itself), the main point is that the story is not telling us “how” sin came to be, but the sin is as old as humanity itself.

Which is as old as God’s purpose to end human suffering, to bring all the elements into obedient order (see the connection with the addition of the narrative of the first chapter yet?), to bring things to their final “rest” with God. (Compare Hebrews 4:9-11) The writer doesn’t know about sin’s actual origin. He also can’t explain what sin is or why it affects us like it does. The only thing the writer knows is that God cares for our needs “outside the Garden” and that God intends to set all matters right.

Yes, a “nude man” who doesn’t “sin” like the woman does and the “tree” of life (both which are absent from the presence of the talking snake at the moment “sin” comes to play in the story) will play a part much later in the fulfillment of God’s purpose, but none of this is understood at the time of this writing.

I personally agree that this is not the only way to interpret the story (that is if one accepts it as something worthy to be interpreted in the first place), but this limited view into current accepted exegesis on Genesis should at least be considered as at least worthy of some consideration when we try to understand this narrative for ourselves.

46

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.

by whereami in

the victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts.

in a study that explores the close relationship between the social history of early christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging new testament, ehrman examines how early struggles between christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged.

his thesis is that proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally altered their sacred texts for polemical reasons--for example, to oppose adoptionists like the ebionites, who claimed that christ was a man but not god, or docetists like marcion, who claimed that he was god but not a man, or gnostics like the ptolemaeans, who claimed that he was two beings, one divine and one human.

JuanMiguel

I totally agree with Wobble, but there is nothing wrong with a religion selecting texts that serves it's own needs. Why would it select texts that served the needs of those who opposed them or perscuted them or who were trying to destroy them?

This doesn't mean we should all join the Roman Catholic Church or pretend that there aren't some serious problems there, but again like the Jews who wrote and collected books about their own religious history for their own purposes, what was the difference? Whose texts were they?

As to the historicity of the texts of the gospels, scholarship agrees that none of them were intended to be historical biographies. The writers made no mention of the appearance of Jesus, a profile of his personality traits, or even attempt to keep the events they report on in chronological order. Each of the gospels are religious testimonies on the meaning of Christ and what events in connection with his life prove (at least from the Christians' point of view) his claim that he was the promised Messiah.

And the gospel texts we have are not changed much at all from the originals or their sources. We have the John Rylands fragment of John which is only a few years older than the original (and may have been a first-hand copy of that gospel) and the writings of the Church Fathers, many of whom quote large portions of the text centuries before their canonization, and these prove that only errors ever found their way in some manuscript copies, no errors which are beyond identification even to laypersons today. There's no need for a repeat of Qumran for Christianity regarding the accuracy of the texts we have today because there are far more dependable witnesses to their precise transmission than that which exists for the plays of Shakespeare.

If you develop a philosophy or invent a religion, you likewise have the say of any writings you adopt as special if you choose so. It is true that at the time of the final canonization the fact that universally accepted books like the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and Peter's revelation were not included while the highly suspect 2 Letter of Peter and the mostly unheard of Revelation to John were chosen instead did not sit well with a lot of the bishops and members of the churches. For whatever reasons Eusebius and Athansius give for their selection, it appears that there will never be a lack of people around who will disagree.

Like the Jews, the Christian Scriptures were not the basis for the Christian community and its religion. Their religion was based on their encounter with Jesus of Nazareth who they confessed as Christ and the teaching set by the Apostles. The books they wrote, cherished, collected, and later canonized were not chosen to create a text upon which to base Christianity itself but to show how its origins were set in authority, to compliment itself. If Christianity were meant to be based on what one finds in the Christian texts, we would not have a Christian religion to speak of as there would have been no one to write them, no one to read or distribute them about, and no one to choose and have the final say over which books belonged in its canon. Like the Jews, these texts were not the basis for this faith (as the Witnesses claim the Bible should be). Instead the Christian Scriptures were based on the already set beliefs of these Christians, and it was by the authority they wielded that it came about, not the other way around.

Whatever value we wish to attribute to such is a whole different subject altogether, however, and a personal matter.

46

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.

by whereami in

the victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts.

in a study that explores the close relationship between the social history of early christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging new testament, ehrman examines how early struggles between christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged.

his thesis is that proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally altered their sacred texts for polemical reasons--for example, to oppose adoptionists like the ebionites, who claimed that christ was a man but not god, or docetists like marcion, who claimed that he was god but not a man, or gnostics like the ptolemaeans, who claimed that he was two beings, one divine and one human.

JuanMiguel

As most of us here on this board are probably well-versed in Baloney Detection (sound argumentation versus fallacious arguments and rhetoric), the work of one author does not truth make.

While I can only speak for myself in agreeing with a critical approach to Biblical analysis, this leaves me and the rest of academia—religious and otherwise—as condemned by Ehrman for using the historical-critical method, especially employing disciplines in textual source analysis.

Ehrman does not believe in textual criticism. Instead he advances his own theories as superior, theories which advance as fact that it was the heretics of Christianity who had that religion and the correct rendering of Bible books right, and that the Church Fathers were purposeful corrupters of Scriptural texts.

This is interesting but highly unlikely due to the fact that there was no canon of agreed Scriptures during the time of the Church Fathers or the heretics that he claims had a better view of the Christian texts like Marcion, for example. There was no “New Testament” or official collection of books that the Christians viewed as a continuation of the Hebrew Bible for several centuries after Christ, and the resulting canon contains several books that were not widely distributed and even questionable by a great number of congregations (such as 2 Peter and the Revelation to John) while ignoring books that were universally read and used (like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas, to name a few).

Another factor that Ehrman tends to ignore is that persons like Marcion wanted a canon as a means of advancing a “proof text” system to support Gnostic views. Such use of texts was highly uncommon among the early Christians as there was no authoritative text for them beyond the Hebrew Scriptures, and these were rejected by Marcion as useless. Marcion had to develop his own canon because of the absence of one in Christianity, and he is specifically remembered in history for doing just that. This leaves us with the question, how could the Church Fathers corrupt the words of a canon that Marcion had to invent because of its non-existence in the first place?

Finally, Ehrman is interested in advancing his personal views as an agnostic because of the failure of evangelical Fundamentalism to prove efficacious to his needs. He makes this very clear as he uses his disappointment with this type of a theology as a reason for rejecting any evidence that speaks contrary to his own contrived theory of Church Father corruption of a canonical text that did not exist yet. He also admits in his own writings that he is the one who invented this view, and he also advances that his view is but a theory and nothing more. His approach is an admitted cynical one, and this differs greatly from a critical approach which generally employs disciplines, some of which are in line with the scientific method.

Of course I respect your convictions because at least you are showing that we don’t have to lean on the Watchtower concepts and any others in particular to arrive at finding workable answers for ourselves. And regardless of my own views on Ehrman, at least he is an educated man and did not stick with his previously held Fundamentalist views after he tested them and found them wanting. That shows a lot of courage. He is a prolific author, and despite having a cynical approach, from what I gather he is unusually respectful with it nonetheless, at least where civility is concerned—a rare combination.

123

Translating the NWT in the Shadows

by JuanMiguel in

note: the following is not meant to be construed as a recommendation but to demonstrate the sharp contrast between any authentic bible translation and the new world translation.

for those of us who participate and or read the threads on this board, i understand and appreciate that all here have different views on religion, the existence of god, and of the catholic church.

i believe each individuals convictions should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

JuanMiguel

Regardless of whether they pronounce the name of not, they have never altered the original writings. It still occurs in the Hebrew text for people to see, to learn about, to know. No one has removed it, they just don't pronounce it.

Besides, the Hebrew Testament was written by those who worshipped YHWH. It is a product of their religion. The Scriptures didn't come first and then the Jews decided to follow what was written in it. They had a religious system, the Mosaic Law, and an oral history of dealings with God, along with a complex worship system around a Temple that they claim was inspired of the same God. This religion existed before the Hebrew Scriptures, and these Scriptures are based on the Jewish religion. They are not what the Jewish faith is based on.

If they want to pronounce certain things in it or not, that is their right. It's their religious text. We have to accept it on the basis of the faith community that wrote it and preserved it. If we don't like that they don't pronounce God's name, then we should take it up with them.

And just because they wrote it down is not evidence that they pronounced it. They still leave it in place in Hebrew each time they make a copy of the text. Just because this entails they write it down some 6,000 times is not proof that they pronounce it. In fact we know they don't.

We have every right to our opinions, however. But we should believe the Jews when they tell us why they do or don't do something with their own holy writings. After all, they wrote them. They should know.

31

Did The Elders Ever Try To Adjust YOUR Thinking?

by PublishingCult in

.

did the elders ever try to "adjust" your thinking?.

can you share what they felt was incorrect about your thinking?.

JuanMiguel

One last thought I should have added to my comments:

I know that I'm not the only one who has had similar run ins with elder bodies. A brother from Canada that I knew ran into this problem in one congregation in NY. And I believe there was a similar story I was once told by a brother who had been a Witness from the time of WWII (the details escape me). I gave such stories a roll of the eyes then, but I wanted to say if any of those brothers were out there now reading this (well, "Older Brother" would be well into his early 100s by now, so not too sure about him), I'm sorry if I didn't believe you then. They had both given their stories to me to "warn" me not to be surprised that my "best efforts" would be shot down.

I also want to add that I disassociated myself by letter and by word of mouth in front of two elders who showed neither emotion nor a desire to "adjust" my thinking when I told them that I was formally seperating myself from the religion of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of all the times to offer "adjustment," one would think that would have been the moment to say something. But the two elders didn't flinch, and one of them said with a dry, almost rehearsed-sounding voice: "It would appear you have your mind made up."

31

Did The Elders Ever Try To Adjust YOUR Thinking?

by PublishingCult in

.

did the elders ever try to "adjust" your thinking?.

can you share what they felt was incorrect about your thinking?.

JuanMiguel

The elders called me to a special meeting because I was "doing too much in the service of Jehovah and doing it too well" to the point of 'making the other elders and servants' in the congregation "look bad."

This might seem like a joke or the rantings of a wanna-be or something, but I promise you that it is not. The Tuesday after giving a particularly well-received public talk I was called back to the "little room" (jokingly referred to in our congregation as "the Holy of Holies") and told my thinking, attitude, and manner of service to Jehovah needed serious adjustments and immediately if I were not to lose my good standing in God's organization.

I was shocked, as I had no idea what I had done.

Then an elder read a list of my "crimes" and places in my life where adjustment needed to be carried out immediately "or else":

1. Stop giving such well-delivered talks from the platform as it was showing up the other elders and their lack of education, speaking ability, and most of all causing me to be requested to be a guest speaker by other congregations far too much.

When I tried to explain I didn't think I had been showing off (and if I had inadvertantly done so that I was willing to be corrected), I was told that this was not the case at all. Regardless of the natural gifts given me by Jehovah and if I had just been trying to do my best to serve God and the congregation with my talents, I was told to show less effort and to bring the quality of my talks down to the same level as the rest of the elders.

I was also warned that if I ever gave a public talk that was considered to be "outstanding" by the congregation again that the privilege of delivering public talks would be taken away from me.

2. I was informed that reading the Watchtower well was also to be adjusted so that I didn't sound "so educated" by comparison with the other elders .

Regardless of the fact that I explained I was merely following pronounciation and inflection found on the Watchtower on cassette, that my efforts should be abandoned because I was sure to become' too proud of myself and eventually fall due to such pride.'

3. I was informed never to go out in field service with the group of Witnesses during the week, as I was the only brother who was a regular pioneer among sisters.

Despite the fact that I was generally avoiding working with any sisters on a one-on-one basis anyway, there had been a handful of occassions where a sister wanted to hand over an interested male or use my talent for speaking several languages (including signing for the deaf) to act as interpreter on a return visit or established regular call.

This was to be stopped immediately because without a third party from the congregation present (and that was rare) such actions were giving the impression that I was playing with temptation and likely engaged in immoral activity with these women (who were all wives of elders, by the way). I was told to get my pioneer hours by working alone in the field if no brothers were present in the group regardless if I were needed by the sisters in any way.

4. Change my attitude about volunteering at the district level at conventions.

I didn't understand this one, so I asked for it to be explained. Apparently since I had been chosen by several of the district overseers over the past several years to serve on parts in the programs, dramas, and especially as a regular sound and microphone handler (or whatever it was called), this had not been appreciated by the elders. "It makes you look too visible, and the congregation always sees you. You need to stop drawing so much attention to yourself."

When I explained I never asked to serve in such capacities, neither had I even made friends with any overseer prior to be chosen by them for such duties (I was told by overseers that I had been chosen because of good reports by word of mouth and by what written records kept on me in the congregation showed), I was accused of wanting to be 'famous' in the eyes of others. I was instructed to "tone it down" when it came to serving in such circumstances, but when asked just how they suggest I do that, no further information was given and the meeting was abruptly ended with prayer.

This was the only time I found myself "in serious trouble" as a Witness. It was shortly after this incident that the congregation saw the last of "Brother Miguel," but not before seeing most of the brothers in this group removed from their positions of service (for reasons never explained) or saw them step down of their own accord (again never knew exactly why--though there was plenty of the always-present Kingdom Hall gossip), or saw two of them suddenly disfellowshipped. I waited till the dust settled and then, when all looked cheery, formally disassociated myself after giving another of my "renegade"-like public talks, given 'all fancy-like with big words and correct pronounce-see-a-chuns' and plenty of "learnin'" apparent to all...

That was also the weirdest thing I've ever experienced. I could be visited by space aliens in my sleep tonite and be kidnapped and probed, turned into a two-headed space bovine and abandoned on some moon in another galaxy...and it would still be the weirdest thing that ever happened to me.

21

Newbie: Galatians overview - original or textbook?

by the pharmer in

i hope this doesn't seem irrelevant, but i have a jw friend who seems to shut down whenever information opposes her belief, regardless of who has initiated the information or the source of the information.

when it comes to this person's expressions of their religious beliefs, i'm not accustomed to getting thorough answers that aren't textbook responses.

i can't tell if the most recent correspondence is their own words or not.

JuanMiguel

I don't recall anything in particular. As I mentioned I haven't been a Witness for a very long time. I don't own any of their literature and I haven't read a Watchtower in ages. I am sure someone else who has more access will come across this post and help you find your answers.

Once I left them behind, I left them behind.

21

Newbie: Galatians overview - original or textbook?

by the pharmer in

i hope this doesn't seem irrelevant, but i have a jw friend who seems to shut down whenever information opposes her belief, regardless of who has initiated the information or the source of the information.

when it comes to this person's expressions of their religious beliefs, i'm not accustomed to getting thorough answers that aren't textbook responses.

i can't tell if the most recent correspondence is their own words or not.

JuanMiguel

Again, I can't say if there is any possible way in their mind. I'm not a mind reader. There's no possible way that either I or anyone else can tell you what is on a person's mind or if they are open to accept anything or not.

I am also not advocating the view I've written. Being that you're a newbie you should understand that sometimes on this board individuals don't necessarily mean to imply that they believe in what they are sharing. For instance, because I have a lot of atheist and agnostic friends who are like family to me, I often advocate for their rights--I haven't had that opportunity here--but this does not mean I am not a theist.

I know how to take a side, make a point, and write something while attempting to stay objective, unbiased (and I may not succeed as well as I would like, but I try). Sure, sometimes I am talking about my convictions, but most of the time I will use any argument that is sound to prove a point when it comes to helping others see the JW religion for what it is. I may have to explain something I don't personally adhere to, but I do it to show where the Witnesses are not being accurate or honest, etc.

Is there some way they can say that Galatians contradicts the point you are trying to highlight? Yes. Does this mean they will be correct and/or honest in doing so? No. Like I mentioned above, it is illogical to debate with someone who hasn't come to you to be taught, especially someone who has come to defend their views and convictions.

In a debate the other person can take up an absurdity and argue it, because in debate there is no check-proof system. The winner is the one who can debate better, not the one who proves his or her case via the scientific method. Deabte is about showcasing a speaker's talent and entertainment, not about being concerned with facts or the truth.

I don't know any more information on the subject than what I just offered, my apologies.

21

Newbie: Galatians overview - original or textbook?

by the pharmer in

i hope this doesn't seem irrelevant, but i have a jw friend who seems to shut down whenever information opposes her belief, regardless of who has initiated the information or the source of the information.

when it comes to this person's expressions of their religious beliefs, i'm not accustomed to getting thorough answers that aren't textbook responses.

i can't tell if the most recent correspondence is their own words or not.

JuanMiguel

I can no longer speak for the JW mindset since I've not been a Witness for well over a decade now.

Besides, Galatians isn't understood as teaching "justification by faith in Christ" without works by either Jehovah's Witnesses or "Christendom" in general. Why not? The issue in Galatians is not actually that of adhering to the Mosaic Law--according to mainstream interpretation--as much as it is to the practice of circumcision as given to Abraham before the Law and how those advancing the idea were shortsighted not only about but Christ but about what they were preaching. And the JWs don't believe you can have one without the other anyway in the salvation process.

The current explanation favored goes something like this: Paul's peculiar identification of those demanding adherence to certain Mosaic Law requirements and attaching it the message about the cross (or "torture stake," if you prefer) as "Judaizers" suggests that these persons were not Jews, per se, but converts to Judaism and late-comers to the gospel message at the time Paul was writing. Some suggest that they were Essene prosolytes.

Paul advocates the efficacy of actions or "works" as an essential and normal by product of faith. How? He corrects his audience by telling them that the act or "work" of circumcision was given to Abraham by God as a verification or physical sign that Abraham's faith was authentic. By this example Paul reasons that it is faith that circumcision is signifying, but faith in a promise, not in the Mosaic Law. (3:18) Paul was not teaching that circumcision itself was forbidden to Christians, but that its connection with the Mosaic Law promised no means of justification for the individual. If they were going to submit to the procedure in the belief that they were thus somehow fufilling the Law, they were mistaken. Seeking to be justified by the Law would mean living all of its demands perfectly without need for Christ, not just circumsizing themselves.--5:1-3.

While that might argue against "justification by faith in Christ alone" in the minds of some, it is not the point the apostle is making. Fulfilling the Law required the "work" of love because, like circumcision which typified it, authentic faith in Christ calls believers to this type of service. (5:13-14) Such type of love goes beyond the mere demands of the Mosaic Law and, by comparison, is a life of freedom from ritual observances as a result. Freedom in Christ is the main point.

I didn't come up with this that I wrote you, now. This is a culmination of several years of study on the subject of religion, and it is based on the current understanding of "salvation by grace alone" that is now the shared understanding in so-called "Christendom." (I had to pull out a lot books to get this typed up, and I may not have done it justice in my attempt.) Several Bible versions have this information or something like it in their introductory notes to Galatians, and I just combined a lot of the shared points. To repeat, I may not have done a very good job because I can't say I'm affiliated or even familiar with the religion of all those involved.

Lastly I can only add that JWs believe their system of religion is not out of line with this understanding, and in many ways they are correct. Granted their understanding of these points is greatly out of focus by comparison, mind you, and therefore some of these conclusions have been out of reach as a result of such short-sightedness; but you cannot convince them otherwise that their view is muddled or in any way in conflict. You will also not get far with others who still adhere to the "faith alone" argument either, since they also view a conflict with these texts as impossible.

And when you think something is impossible, you don't investigate the subject further. This is why religious debate in itself is pointless as it does nothing to correct and disarm any attitude that prevents reason from coming through. Without that being done, the best reasoning is lost from the get-go.

21

Newbie: Galatians overview - original or textbook?

by the pharmer in

i hope this doesn't seem irrelevant, but i have a jw friend who seems to shut down whenever information opposes her belief, regardless of who has initiated the information or the source of the information.

when it comes to this person's expressions of their religious beliefs, i'm not accustomed to getting thorough answers that aren't textbook responses.

i can't tell if the most recent correspondence is their own words or not.

JuanMiguel

That's always been a hard nut to crack. I was never quite sure how the two were truly reconciled in Watchtower terms. Oh, I read all the articles and studies, mind you. I'm not saying I couldn't parrot the answers given in a magazine article on the subject during a Watchtower study.

But JW theology on salvific issues is one of the least of their exegetical exercises. It's quite thin and stiffled since it remains generally untouched since the days of Russell, and this likely because it was borrowed directly from Adventist understandings of the 1800s, though that's just a guess.

Interestingly this issue has grown considerably in mainstream theology with the Reformation arguments of faith versus works finally over. Except for a few splinter groups and some Fundamentalists, Protestant and Catholic theologians are now officially in agreement that people are neither saved by faith alone or works alone or faith and works together, but by God's grace (which enables faith and works to have any merit in the first place). Whether we personally buy into Christianity and its views is another issue completely, but when you find a religion today that is still trying to balance the faith vs. works issues, it's usually a sign that they don't have any connection with what's happening on the universal scene in Christianity.

So it's anybody's guess. You would have to ask the writer themselves. There has not been any real progress on the issue in the halls of the Watchtower due to the fact that they cut themselves off from all theological academia. So if the person was really citing Watchtower information, it is likely that their view would be as muddled and unclear as the Watchtower view--claiming faith as the only means but seeming to advance the idea of works.

And because of delinquishing "grace," which other Christians view as a supernatural and free act of assitance by God, to the dry and dead level of "underserved loving kindness," there is no means for that theology to ever embrace the currently agreed-upon standard.