Posts by David

24

The Bible or God? - A Message to Formerbrother

by David_Jay in

“i still can not find any other option that comes as close to all the bible as jws do.”-- from the profile of formerbrother.. this is lengthy, but it should help you, formerbrother.

the problem is not in your search for this "option" but that you are searching according the criteria set out by the jehovah’s witnesses (and likely following the reasoning set out by their claims).. before proceeding, understand clearly (as there will always be someone reading this that will skip this point that i make) that i am not writing to advance any particular religious view.

though raised and baptized as a jehovah’s witness in my late teen years, i am jewish.

David_Jay

Zana,

Two things:

1. You proved my point.

2. I'm Jewish. I don't have a problem with what people believe.

My argument is that there is an authority outside the Scriptures, and that if you believe that the Scriptures are inspired, then you must believe those who canonized were equally inspired. You stated:

He probably not only inspired the writers, he also inspired those responsible for choosing the chapters that went in and the ones that were kept out. If you believe in the former it's not such a stretch to believe in the latter, too.

And that was my argument from the beginning.

The canon was closed is 367 by Athanasius in his Easter letter, of all things. It was canonized by Easter-celebrating Trinitarians, the Trinity being formerly adopted by the Church in 325, just a few years earlier at the Council of Nicea. If God inspired the Church to canonize the Bible, obviously the Church was doing God's will (but JWs claim it was under Satan by this time). Unlike the Governing Body, the Catholic Church claims it canonized the Scriptures by inspiration of God, whereas the Governing Body has said just recently that they are not inspired, and never have been.

So the Jehovah's Witness who holds to this argument has just created a paradox here, and you agree by claiming that the Church that canonized the Scripture was inspired, the same that claims the Trinity is true and had just formerly defined it. The Council of Nicea also included the discussions on the canon, which, as noted came to a close with Athanasius fulfilling his assignment.

That would imply the Trinity is true, the Catholic/Orthodox Church is true, and since it has the authority to define what goes into the Bible, it likely has the authority to define what it means. As you said: "If you believe in the former it's not such a stretch to believe in the latter, too."

Finally, I'm Jewish. Jews don't believe in Original Sin or that people aren't saved "without knowing about Jesus," as you state about the Native Americans.

And I think the Bible is a great start for anyone wanting to know what the original Christians and the Jews believe. If you have been following me on other threads, you should know by now that I don't necessarily subscribe to what I am writing about. I try to stay very objective.

My point is that there is a failure in the logic. If you being with a false premise, you cannot arrive at a correct understanding. If you add when you are supposed to subtract, your answer won't be right. And if you claim that the Bible is the ultimate authority as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, you have created a paradox for, as you said yourself about what produced the Bible canon that, "This Something was God, plain and simple." The Jewish and Catholic/Orthodox position is that an act of God, like a theophany or epiphany trumps what is written in Scripture. You ended up proving my point.

By the way, two more points to add: You stated in your argument that God isn't "speaking to us directly, no apostles still alive, no prophets, no miracles," yet then you said that "God" was the "Something" that was "responsible for choosing" what went into the Bible. Then what do you call that? It's some form of communication, wouldn't you say. Therefore your first argument that God isn't "speaking to us directly" doesn't hold in such a case if God is still working directly with people to do things like set the canon in 367 CE. Remember, the New Testament says that God can speak without a voice coming directly from the heavens or without a prophet.--See Acts 1:24-26.

And to add a little more, the Old Testament canon that JWs and Protestants accept was not set until the 700s, when the Masoretes settled on the contents on the Tanakh. The Catholic Church held to a longer canon, the one with the apocrypha that appears in the Alexandrian Septuagint. So here with the Hebrew Scripture canon that JWs accept, God was working with non-Christians, Jews who didn't accept Jesus some 400 years after Athanasius? Was God inspiring them too?

And second, you stated: "Catholic traditions [are] subject to change." That is incorrect. Tradition is that dogma within a religion that does not change, not that which changes. In Catholicism you cannot change Apostolic Tradition. Not even a pope can do that. It is not a custom, which can change, but a doctrinal teaching that has been handed down in writing or orally. (See 2 Thessalonians 2:15, NWT) I am not sure where you got such a view you have on Catholic Tradition.

24

The Bible or God? - A Message to Formerbrother

by David_Jay in

“i still can not find any other option that comes as close to all the bible as jws do.”-- from the profile of formerbrother.. this is lengthy, but it should help you, formerbrother.

the problem is not in your search for this "option" but that you are searching according the criteria set out by the jehovah’s witnesses (and likely following the reasoning set out by their claims).. before proceeding, understand clearly (as there will always be someone reading this that will skip this point that i make) that i am not writing to advance any particular religious view.

though raised and baptized as a jehovah’s witness in my late teen years, i am jewish.

David_Jay

Zana,

Good point, and let's work from there.

While Ruby is still dealing with even our traditions being the beginning of things (and that wouldn't make sense, Ruby, because then you are saying our traditions started our traditions, and they didn't start themselves so we are back to square one), let's go with the statement you've made, Zana, about "the Bible is the next best thing."

I have had that told to me before and was expecting that a lot sooner after I wrote this, so I am glad you brought it up now.

If the Bible is what we are to base our religion on today (saying that Christianity is the real true religion--forget that I am a Jew for now), because as you say "we have to take what we can get, because today we have no God speaking to us directly, no apostles still alive, no prophets, no miracles," then you have created another problem.

The Bible didn't assemble itself. Someone, somewhere, put it together. Someone decided what went in, what stayed out, and closed its canon.

There are no instructions in the Scriptures that say what books belong in or out. There is no inspired list, no inspired criteria for determining this, no instruction that states that reading Scripture and following it are a requisite to salvation. Something from outside the Bible made the Bible "the Bible."

Talking about the Christian Greek Scriptures or New Testament, its canon was not a popularity contest as if the books that went into it were those most widely read and accepted. That was not the case. The most popular Christian writings in the early Church were the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, and the Catholic apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus was used for a millennia as an introductory catechism by the early Church.

Except for Ecclesiasticus, the other books are often unheard of by most people, especially Jehovah's Witnesses. They might have heard of the Didache, but the Shepherd of Hermas? Mostly likely not.

Do you know what was not heard of? 2 Peter, the Revelation to John, Hebrews, James, and the three epistles of John. How did unpopular, even unheard of writings get chosen over the more popular ones, and why? Who chose them? Who made the decision to chose them? Who had the authority?

And there's your problem you've created. What's your answer?

A Heretic and a Poor Welsh Girl

The Christian Bible as we know it today and the fact that it is available to just about anybody, everywhere has to do with what two historic people did, two people who lived almost 2000 years apart. One was a bishop who became a heretic, and the other was a poor welsh girl who did something that changed the world Charles T. Russell grew up in.

The bishop-gone-apostate was Marcion of Sinope. Around 130 CE, Marcion adopted the Gnostic view that holy religious writings were a more trustworthy form of revelation than theophanies or epiphany. The other two relied on tradition to carry them down, but writings, taught the Gnostics, could carry the "gnosis" or knowledge of divine revelations in a permanent form. Therefore they were far superior to the witness of any church or group or nation. Marcion took this and applied it to the Christianity he practiced, devising a "rule" (in Greek "kanon") of holy writings by which to base the true gnosis of Christianity. This canon consisted of an edited version of Luke's gospel and some of Paul's epistles. Marcion rejected all the Jewish texts however, and taught that the Hebrew God was a lesser deity than Jesus. Drawing away an impressive amount of followers, the Church excommunicated Marcion who, reportedly, was "surprised" that they would do that to him.

Marcionism raised the issue of whether there was any form of revelation in written texts. So the Church began to study the issue. Bishops began a process in which they studied what writings were often read during liturgy of the Eucharist along with texts from the Hebrew Scriptures (there is a rotating calendar of Tanakh readings used even today by Jews that Christians adopted immediately for their own meetings, adding readings from their own books in the process). From the time of Marcion onward the Church worked on setting its own "rule" or canon.

The canon was decided and eventually closed by the 300s after the Council of Nicea. Taking into account the study by the bishops and using two opposing ones to finish the work, namely Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria (the two were definitely not fans of one another), Athanasius in his Easter letter of 367 CE drew upon Eusebius' canon tables and essentially set the canon as it is accepted today. By this time the Church had already accepted the Hebrew canon that Marcion rejected (albeit the one found in the Alexandrian Septuagint), ending the the issue raised by Marcion in a strike against his belief that writings were greater forms of revelation and that "proof-texts" could be used from within to prove Gnostic points of doctrine.

This is the first problem raised by the counter-argument, in that an outside authority chose the books that went within. This authority is obviously greater than the Bible as to be able to say what is and what isn't Scripture, thus making the Bible subject to the authority of this other authority, namely the Church.

But one more person changed forever the way the Bible became what it is, and she directly affected the creation of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (actually all Bible societies everywhere).

A Bible for Pennies

Today just about everyone has a Bible, and if you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses you are taught that except for where and when the Catholic Church wielded its "fiendish" control, the Bible was widely available everywhere and to everyone.

But that has never been the case until fairly modern times. Not even discussing that current levels of global literacy were not high enough to make the Bible understandable to large numbers until reading became more common knowledge in the era between the two world wars, if it were not for this poor girl's desire for a Bible, not even Charles Taze Russell would have likely had as easy access to one as he did.

The girl was Mary Jones, and she was born on the 16th of December, 1784. Having a strong faith as a child and learning to read quite early, at just 8 years of age she had the desire to own and read the Bible for herself. This was quite a task since Bibles were scarce as it was much too expensive to publish them so that the average person could own one, not to mention that one in Mary's language was a rarity (almost unheard of). Mass production of the Scriptures had not come to pass yet in history.

Mary spent six years saving her pennies to buy a Welsh Bible from a minister named Thomas Charles who lived 26 miles away from Mary. One day, in 1800, Mary made the long journey, barefoot, carrying her bag of pennies to buy a Bible from Rev. Charles, only to be dismayed upon her arrival to learn that none were available for her. Crumbling to tears, the Rev. Charles was moved to give her one promised to another (likely having to wait a day or two for shipment), and it was this event that is said to have inspired him to propose in 1802 the invention a new type of organization: the world's first Bible society.

The idea spread, and suddenly everywhere, everyone who was religious developed their own Bible societies (including one we are all familiar with). The era of mass production of low-cost Bibles than anyone could afford was here. But if it were not for Mary, this may not have ever happened, and most people would still not have access to Bibles as readily as they do today.

Not So Easy Now, Is It?

And that's my question to the counter-argument you propose. If the Bible is the basis for true religion as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, then where did the Church get its authority to canonize it? Who were they to tell Marcion of Sinope that he was wrong? And if they didn't have the canonized Bible to base their religion on yet, why would we accept the canon the Church authorized? They didn't have true religion, especially if you believe the JWs. Since most of the popular books of the New Testament didn't get in the canon, how and why do we have the books we have today? Something with authority over the Bible made this decision, and that would mean this authority has the right to define Scripture. Do you listen to that authority?

Second, if the Bible is the basis for true religion, why did it take until after Mary Jones made her barefoot trek over 26 miles before people started mass producing them? Why would God keep mass production of Bibles away from the world until the 1800s if it was vital to true religion and salvation? You are talking almost 2000 years since Jesus walked the earth, and you are telling me that the only sure way to know the truth about him was only readily available for the past 200 years? That's crazy.

44

The Jewish perspective of the OT according to poster David_Jay

by deegee in

i note your comments in the following threads regarding the jewish perspective on certain old testament (ot) events:.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5700922233585664/when-you-stop-think-about-why-would-gods-chosen-people-old-testament-need-army?page=1&size=10 ,.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6065451475927040/why-didnt-god-also-reveal-himself-canaanites-just-he-did-moses-burning-bush.

David_Jay

Deegee,

Part of what you are saying is accurate, hits the nail on the head.

But part of it has to do with the vast differences between what people expect of "God."

For the most part, and I can't and won't say Jews are above this, humans have a habit of making God into an image they can deal with. From the Jewish view this is necessary as God is transcendent in our view: God can be described and yet defy our descriptions. We struggle to know this God who communicates in return, while at the same time it is easier than we sometimes make it out to be and there's nothing to be heard.

Jews do allow for the concept that God tells different people different things, and that if indeed this is so, this is likely due to our inability to truly comprehend God. This doesn't mean that there is more than one "truth," but it might suggest that not all can or would grasp God as God is.

The Hebrew Bible was never written with the intention that it would be used by anyone else except Jews, so it flies out of the window of expectation in Jewry that other non-Jewish views are intended at the expense of the Jewish experience.

In other words, if Buddhists write a holy book, is it meant to be taken out of Buddhism and raised to be something else it was never intended to be by its authors? If that sounds illogical, why is it okay to take the Jewish writings and do the same thing?

44

The Jewish perspective of the OT according to poster David_Jay

by deegee in

i note your comments in the following threads regarding the jewish perspective on certain old testament (ot) events:.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5700922233585664/when-you-stop-think-about-why-would-gods-chosen-people-old-testament-need-army?page=1&size=10 ,.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6065451475927040/why-didnt-god-also-reveal-himself-canaanites-just-he-did-moses-burning-bush.

David_Jay

Deegee,

Your questions are a perfect example of what psychologists theorize as "cognitive dissonance."

Notice your speech: "I can't image..." In other words, you even admit that you can't take the steps to wrap your mind around the explanations given because they don't measure up to your standpoint.

And that's actually a very common and normal response when Jews explain their perspective. While there has been growth and change in Jewish theology, please note that I never said that the Jews have never taken things from a literal view. I mentioned before that there are literalists among Jews, didn't I?

But even among the Orthodox, Jewish literalists have never read the Scriptures with a view that it was all plain as read on the surface, as if these writings are something to be understood at face value. The very fact that there is such a thing as Jewish mysticism, such as Kabbalah, is evidence that even when read by literalists, the Scriptures are believed to have underlying meanings far greater than what is on the surface.

And the fact that the Jews did adopt the cosmology of the Mesopotamians as a tableau for Genesis 1 does in fact mean they once accepted that cosmology as literal. I've never denied any of that. Just because some aspects are literal or were taken as literal does not imply that the Scriptures are a literal retelling of all the stories. Remember, The Miracle Worker has literal aspects too. That is why I started with that. Some of it is literal, some of it is not. The same with the Bible.

It seems as if you are skipping over all that example of The Miracle Worker in my trying to demonstrate how the Bible is a mixture of literal and not so literal parts. Why would you do that? I actually know why. Your questions are examples of cognitive dissonance doing its work. It's like going into the denial stage when someone dies: "They can't be dead because such-and-such, and this-and-that, and I can't imagine it..."

You use the phrase "I can't imagine" twice up above. You state that you are not sure that your questions were answered, even though I went into this thing telling you that you might not get a straight answer. I mentioned this and explained that you sometimes have to give up asking "why" in order to understand the Jewish perspective.

I never stated that Jews see nothing literal in their texts, otherwise all my words about The Miracle Worker were for naught. Helen Keller was real, she was literally blind and deaf, she literally learned that "w-a-t-e-r" meant "water" just like the play says she did. But it didn't happen the way The Miracle Worker dramatizes. Something about my answer doesn't sit well with your current concepts about the Bible, concepts you are not willing to part with, but I never said that the things in Scripture weren't or aren't sometimes accepted as literal as you state.

You are coming to a conclusion I never wrote because, as cognitive dissonance does, you are struggling with something you aren't letting go of. You have to let go of your views if you are to understand the views of people who were the creators of something. You can't place what you decide the Scriptures of Jewish people mean by placing your own view as an overlay anymore than you can tell a writer of a play that your interpretation of his work is more correct than his original intentions.

I can't make you let go, and you may find letting go to what you expect I should say or want me to something too difficult to accept as it will mean demolishing a lot you've come to believe about yourself and the world around you. But many people have rejected what the Jews understand about their own writings to place their own interpretations over it, and many of the same were responsible for the pogroms, the Inquisition, and the Shoah even though they claimed to believe and understand the Bible.

Apparently one does miss the point if one ignores the intent of the authors and "can't imagine" that their view and that of their culture carries more weight than foreigners who wouldn't even be able to read the work if it had not been translated from our language in the first place. Just like you have to learn our language and accept its rules to translate Hebrew, you have to do the same for the written word just as much to understand it.

24

The Bible or God? - A Message to Formerbrother

by David_Jay in

“i still can not find any other option that comes as close to all the bible as jws do.”-- from the profile of formerbrother.. this is lengthy, but it should help you, formerbrother.

the problem is not in your search for this "option" but that you are searching according the criteria set out by the jehovah’s witnesses (and likely following the reasoning set out by their claims).. before proceeding, understand clearly (as there will always be someone reading this that will skip this point that i make) that i am not writing to advance any particular religious view.

though raised and baptized as a jehovah’s witness in my late teen years, i am jewish.

David_Jay

Got it. And that's why you have to let go of that view.

All the questions that people come up with when I tell them this scenario is actually what psychologists theorize as "cognitive dissonance." While some people here think that it is always a tense feeling or disturbance of some kind, actually the mere fight with the "wagon-without-wheels" scenario and all the attempts to push the conversation off course by trying to discuss the validity of the narrative, whether Jesus was real or not, etc., are just the cognitive dissonance trying to keep us from accepting that the Bible never was the foundation the Jehovah's Witnesses taught us it was.

It's hard to grasp because Gentiles often ask, "Then why write the Bible?" They want a guide to tell them what to do. Sorry, but you want Mormonism if you want to follow a religion where a book "fell out of the sky," so to speak, and you base your religion on it as a revelation from God.

24

The Bible or God? - A Message to Formerbrother

by David_Jay in

“i still can not find any other option that comes as close to all the bible as jws do.”-- from the profile of formerbrother.. this is lengthy, but it should help you, formerbrother.

the problem is not in your search for this "option" but that you are searching according the criteria set out by the jehovah’s witnesses (and likely following the reasoning set out by their claims).. before proceeding, understand clearly (as there will always be someone reading this that will skip this point that i make) that i am not writing to advance any particular religious view.

though raised and baptized as a jehovah’s witness in my late teen years, i am jewish.

David_Jay

Ruby456,

No, we aren't talking about the end product at all. Because regardless of how the traditions got shaped into their final form, they started before they were written down. We're not talking about the stories in the Bible, but whether or not the Bible can even be the basis for a religion in the first place.

You might be still stuck in the Watchtower view, something I call the "wagon-without-wheels" scenario. Don't be alarmed or insulted. It happens to almost everyone who leaves the Witnesses (and while you are a JW you can't see it). I can continue to say the same things over and over again that I have already mentioned above repeatedly, but because you are reading them with definitions you learned from the JWs you aren't understanding. So this should help:

Imagine you have invented the wagon, the very first wagon ever in human history. It has space to carry anything you wish and a handle to pull it anywhere you wish. How wonderful an invention, no?

There's just one problem. The wheel has yet to be invented. And it won't be invented for several hundreds of years after you've died. So your wagon is not much of an invention after all, huh? It's just a box with a handle to drag it around.

Now imagine that the wagon is Christianity. It's wonderful, no? Tells great stories about how we are all saved by this guy Jesus, etc., etc., etc. The handle of the wagon is the Bible. Still got it?

Now the wheels are the actual historical events on the time line of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, his life and ministry, and death and (allegedly) his resurrection. This won't happen for several hundreds of years until after you've died.

So how did the wagon get here? What about its handle? How did the Gospels get written if Jesus has yet to be born and won't be for hundreds and hundreds of years? This can't be right!

It isn't right. The wheels come first. Then the box, and then, afterwards the handle. Got it?

If you say that true religion is based on the Bible, then that means the handle came first. Then the box came afterwards. No wheels yet, however.

But in reality, historically speaking, Jesus of Nazareth came first. He gathered disciples. They started a movement (a religion) and this religion later wrote a Bible. The Bible was not the starting point. It was not the basis for their religion. It was not the wheel. The wheels? Jesus of Nazareth.

Now I am Jew. I'm not saying Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah or real or not real. None of that.

But what I am saying is that if Formerbrother is looking for "the true religion," and thinks (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) that one finds the true religion by examining the Bible, this means you are saying that the Bible is the basis, the rule, the foundation, the start of religion. You are saying that it, the Bible, is the "handle" on things.

Without this "handle," they claim, you cannot properly build the box of the wagon. Got it so far?

But there would be no need for a box of the wagon or the handle if the wheel had not been invented first. The wheel has to come into history first. The idea of the box and the handle on the wagon are inspired and based on the coming of the wheel. Get it?

So the basis for true religion cannot be the Bible. The Bible is the product, the end result of religion, do you follow?

And on top of it all, if the Bible is the basis for measuring true religion, then the writers of the Bible books already had and practiced true religion. If they didn't, then one shouldn't follow what they say. If they did, then the true religion started first, based on something else, otherwise members of this "true religion" would never have come into existence and the Bible would never have either. Get it?

I am not saying there is a "true religion." I am also not saying that Judaism and/or Christianity are "true religions." I am saying the formula that Jehovah's Witnesses tell you to follow, namely "true religion is based on the Bible" can't be true.

It is essentially building a wagon and handle when the wheel doesn't exist.

Major Protestant Bible Gets approved Catholic Edition

by David_Jay in

a very different way of doing things compared to the nwt of the jehovah’s witnesses, one of the most popular translations in the protestant world now has a formal catholic edition (and thus will drown the nwt further below the growing numbers of this new bible edition).. originally released to the english-speaking catholics in india, and soon to be released in the uk and the united states, tyndale publishers has received an imprimatur for their top-selling new living translation (nlt).. one of the best-selling bibles in english, the nlt was originally designed to be a revision of the popular living bible.

however, as the revision work grew, the nlt became a translation in its own right.. not understanding what was involved, originally tyndale attempted to release a catholic edition of the nlt in the 1990s in the usa.

it failed because the translating team and publishers, who at the time were mostly evangelical protestants, didn’t comprehend the way catholic books get published and why catholic faithful tend to put so much faith in the “official stamp” of an imprimatur.. afterwards the translating team behind the nlt decided to bring their translation into the realm of interconfessional cooperation by building a team of translators from various christian traditions and denominations.

David_Jay

A very different way of doing things compared to the NWT of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, one of the most popular translations in the Protestant world now has a formal Catholic edition (and thus will drown the NWT further below the growing numbers of this new Bible edition).

Originally released to the English-speaking Catholics in India, and soon to be released in the UK and the United States, Tyndale publishers has received an imprimatur for their top-selling New Living Translation (NLT).

One of the best-selling Bibles in English, the NLT was originally designed to be a revision of the popular Living Bible. However, as the revision work grew, the NLT became a translation in its own right.

Not understanding what was involved, originally Tyndale attempted to release a Catholic edition of the NLT in the 1990s in the USA. It failed because the translating team and publishers, who at the time were mostly Evangelical Protestants, didn’t comprehend the way Catholic books get published and why Catholic faithful tend to put so much faith in the “official stamp” of an imprimatur.

Afterwards the translating team behind the NLT decided to bring their translation into the realm of interconfessional cooperation by building a team of translators from various Christian traditions and denominations. The only piece missing from their board was Catholic representation, that is until now.

As this video below explains, the popularity of the NLT was not lost on the Catholic English-speaking world. While interest in the United States still grew regarding an official NLT for Catholics, Tyndale was approached by Catholics in India to produce the project. The ending result was an official New Living Translation, Catholic Edition released just recently in India.

How Did the NLT-CE Come About? - https://youtu.be/Jynv7Jes0tU

Tyndale has begun the process of preparing editions for the rest of the English speaking world, and beginning in 2017 the NLT Catholic Edition will be available to persons in other English-speaking countries and territories. The US edition is scheduled for release in the Fall of 2017.

According to CBA (Christian Booksellers Association, which until recently counted only Protestant editions of Bible sales), the NLT is the second most popular Bible translation based on unit sales after the NIV in the Protestant world. While the NLT will not replace the formal official versions of Scripture used in the Catholic Liturgy in the US (the NABRE) and India (the RSV-CE 2nd Ignatius edition--the UK will start using the RSV-CE for Liturgy shortly), the new NLT-CE is currently approved for personal use by Catholics everywhere.

How very different from the Jehovah's Witness world where such a shared translation would never come about as it would be tantamount to making a deal with the Devil, literally.

24

The Bible or God? - A Message to Formerbrother

by David_Jay in

“i still can not find any other option that comes as close to all the bible as jws do.”-- from the profile of formerbrother.. this is lengthy, but it should help you, formerbrother.

the problem is not in your search for this "option" but that you are searching according the criteria set out by the jehovah’s witnesses (and likely following the reasoning set out by their claims).. before proceeding, understand clearly (as there will always be someone reading this that will skip this point that i make) that i am not writing to advance any particular religious view.

though raised and baptized as a jehovah’s witness in my late teen years, i am jewish.

David_Jay

Ruby456,

You bring up some good arguments which link to some of what I've written, but they also suggest you might be missing the point --and this happens a lot when I introduce this subject to both Jehovah's Witnesses and ex-JWs.

The point is not WHY were the Scriptures composed, or WHAT they were composed of, or why Jesus was followed by people in that era. The point is that the Bible was not the starting point.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Bible is the basis for religion (the ultimate revelation from God), and as such what one believes and practices must be based on the Bible. On the other hand Jews believe that the Great Theophany is the ultimate revelation, and Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation from God greater than the Bible.

Because of still clinging to this belief, Formerbrother is on a goose chase. He wants to fully break away from the Watchtower, but in order to do that he wants to find the group or option that "follows the Bible" better than the Witnesses. By looking for who "follows the Bible" best, Formerbrother is following the criteria for religion set by the Jehovah's Witnesses. But this criteria upon which he searches is flawed.

This criteria set by the Watchtower is incorrect because neither Judaism nor Christianity is BASED on the Scriptures. Both started centuries prior to inventing the Scriptures. Judaism is based on what we call the Great Theophany, and Christianity is based on the Epiphany in Jesus of Nazareth (which is why Christians teach that their central doctrine is the Trinity or Incarnation).

Regardless of why they wrote things down, what they wrote, or why Christians followed Jesus, the point is the basis for these two religions is NOT the Bible. We Jews don't base our religion on the Bible, for instance. It's the other way around: the Bible is based on our religion.

The focus is that if one thinks that the Bible is the ultimate authority, then they will never find what the first century Christians did or what my ancestors encountered at the foot of Mt. Sinai.

Even some ex-JWs hold on to this belief, some for years after leaving, and it is usually a shock when they realize that the religions that wrote Scripture are the starting points, not the book these already established, functioning religions produced.

24

The Bible or God? - A Message to Formerbrother

by David_Jay in

“i still can not find any other option that comes as close to all the bible as jws do.”-- from the profile of formerbrother.. this is lengthy, but it should help you, formerbrother.

the problem is not in your search for this "option" but that you are searching according the criteria set out by the jehovah’s witnesses (and likely following the reasoning set out by their claims).. before proceeding, understand clearly (as there will always be someone reading this that will skip this point that i make) that i am not writing to advance any particular religious view.

though raised and baptized as a jehovah’s witness in my late teen years, i am jewish.

David_Jay

Nevuela,

I am not sure what you meant by "outing" Formerbrother. I didn't reveal any secret information about him (I don't know any), and this subject is running concurrently with another thread he started on the subject.

Instead of hijacking that thread, since I was going off subject, protocol is that you start on a new thread.

This thread is discussing the basis for his question. I am trying to show that he is still holding on to Jehovah's Witness reasoning, and thus won't find what he has publicly requested on this forum. He has asked publicly for assistance in his finding it.

"Outing" is when you have a secret about someone and you reveal it publicly.

24

The Bible or God? - A Message to Formerbrother

by David_Jay in

“i still can not find any other option that comes as close to all the bible as jws do.”-- from the profile of formerbrother.. this is lengthy, but it should help you, formerbrother.

the problem is not in your search for this "option" but that you are searching according the criteria set out by the jehovah’s witnesses (and likely following the reasoning set out by their claims).. before proceeding, understand clearly (as there will always be someone reading this that will skip this point that i make) that i am not writing to advance any particular religious view.

though raised and baptized as a jehovah’s witness in my late teen years, i am jewish.

David_Jay

Prologos,

As a Jew I am not recommending Christianity. But the fact is that Christians did not base the Christian religion on the New Testament. They based it on their experiences with Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul--none of the books or epistles ascribed to these writers came before Christianity was established. Christianity came first. It is a religion based on a person, and the New Testament is a product of that religion.

I am not saying Jesus is the Messiah. I am not saying I believe in Christianity. I am not even saying that your statement is wrong. I am only saying that for the Scriptures to be a guide for the "one true religion" as Jehovah's Witnesses claim, this means these Bible writers had to have "true religion" first, otherwise they wouldn't have written anything. If they didn't start off with something that convinced then they had found the truth then they wouldn't have written the Scriptures. And since this implies they believed their religion was the Truth (which is why they wrote what they did), then it means the source of their "truth" can't be the Bible since they wrote the Bible. They wrote that they found the truth in Jesus, a person.

All this demonstrates that the criteria Formerbrother is using to find his "option" is a paradox. And that's what I am demonstrating, not whether it is wise to base a religion on Jesus or not.

And thanks for your comments, Muddy Waters.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay