isn't it true that the roman catholic church put together the bible (canonized the books), and decided the order and all that?
if this isn't true set me straight please.. what do the witnesses think about this?
is it (the bible) just as valid if part of "christendom" decided which books of the bible would be included?
My date was an average, as they date it from the 90's to the 150's so I took the middle of the road, either way John didn't write it
I also wanted to comment on what you said about the early fathers quoting from it. Well, No one in the first century quoted from it at all, non of them not even Mark that was the first gospel written.
Seedy3
isn't it true that the roman catholic church put together the bible (canonized the books), and decided the order and all that?
if this isn't true set me straight please.. what do the witnesses think about this?
is it (the bible) just as valid if part of "christendom" decided which books of the bible would be included?
The gospel of John was the last canoned gospel written and is shown to have been written somewhere around 120ad, again psuedepigraphiclly, by some one that had no idea who or what jesus was or if he even really existed.
seedy
oh dear.
jwzone never fails to deliver, and the only thing that can make me laugh when i have a hangover this bad (sucky thing is, i don't even drink!
) is a post like the following from that haven of dubiness:"size matters not," to borrow a phrase.
I sorry, and i do not mean to offend anyones belief, but DEMONS???? I deal in spiritism, I work with those troubled by spirits, but I have never ran into a demon. I have ran in to some real troublesome spirits, but never a demon.
On the story at hand, I hope they searched the house for all the Smurf dolls too, they do some mighty strange things too ya know, LMAO.
Seedy
isn't it true that the roman catholic church put together the bible (canonized the books), and decided the order and all that?
if this isn't true set me straight please.. what do the witnesses think about this?
is it (the bible) just as valid if part of "christendom" decided which books of the bible would be included?
Although all of the books of the bible, including the Hebrew/Old Testiment have authors attributed to them, there has been no evidence that any of them were written by their supposed authors. The Greek/New Testiment was much written much after the time of the apostles, with the exception of some of the epistles attributed to Paul. All of the NT were written pseudepigraphiclly, meaning no author took the credit for the writing, and they were given someone else's name as author.
The Gospels all of which, except for Mark, were written long after the apostles had to of died. The real jest of the situation with Christianity as we now know it, is that it is not a religion started by any one named Jesus, or Yehushuha, it was really started by Paul, and his followers. One breif point of evidence is "Who wrote most of the NT?" Paul and some of his followers, Mark and luke were followers of Paul, so right there we have the attribution that it is actually a Pauleian religion. I'll post some study links and reasearch to do on this, it is quite facinating (I have them bookmarked at work).
Seedy
the watchtower once believed that if a woman did not scream while being raped, then she was guilty of fornication.
she was 'in on' her own rape, thus she too is just as guilty as her rapist.
i don't think there is a person in this forum today, who does not find this reasoning repugnant and archaic.
Ok First off let me make this clear, I do not beleive the Bible is the word of any God.
Ok now that I got that off my chest lets get to the matter at hand.
If this is to be taken literally, lets examine it for a moment and apply it to todays usage by the JW's
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
"In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her,
YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst."
Ok the first sentence is pretty clear, a couple that is not married, but engaged to be married. If she has sex with another man other then her "Betrothed" she is to be stoned for fornication. The City would mean the congregation of christians today and pelting them with stones, would be the equal of DF'ing for the JW's. So there-by if you today as a JW are engaged you should be DF'd for fornacation. according to a literal application to this scripture and using it in our sence today. But......... lets look further then this scripture, because, if this one is to be taken literal then so should other onthe same subject matter.
Deuteronomy 22:28,29
If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
So on this note, a woman/girl that is not betrothed, and is caught fornacating, is to marry the man that had sex with her, and he is to pay her father money to purchase her. But....... The WTS does not accept this law as they do the other one. In their opnion even the non-betrothed woman should be stonned (DF'd) for fornacation.
Also what about the laws on sabbath, eating certain meats, Sacrafices, ect, ect, ect. These laws they say were fulfilled by Jesus perfect example and his death. So....... why do they refer to Deuteronomy to justify their actions? Why is there selective law fulfilment?
Seedy
my jw sister and i are on good terms, and i talk to her on a regular basis.
on the other hand, i have a jw cousin who i hope never to talk to again.
i have only seen her once in 30 years and that was at my sister's daugher's wedding.
I've felt that way abuot people, but not because they were Jdubs
Seedy
how do witnesses view aa meetings and aca meetings?
are they ok with the 12 steps?
the reason i am asking is because i think it might be beneficial for my jw-wife to attend some aca meetings but i'm unsure of how "anti-aa" the witnesses are.. also, if anyone care to make any comments re aca meetings, i'm all ears.
Well this is what I know of the situation,
My ex-wife who is a Jdub, is also and alcholic, she, before I left her, had 3 DUI's (it is now up to 4) she was a serious drunk and the judicial system saw it. She was told by the court that she had to go to AA meetings. The local congragation elders had little to say as to her actions. yet they did council her on how she viewed the AA meetings, especially being they drew on a Higher being, and actually said "God" in most of them. I think as long as she only accepted their call on "God" was to her God it is ok. However, I do agree with Mary on the anal view of many of the Jdubs.
Seedy
i'm not sure where the best place for this is but it looked good in this section and i think most of you will get a kick out of it.
check out the wts mentioned here, and this isn't even an apostate sight, and they sure make fun of the jdubs.. .
i just loved this site lmao.. seedy
I'm not sure where the best place for this is but it looked good in this section and I think most of you will get a kick out of it. Check out the WTS mentioned here, and this isn't even an apostate sight, and they sure make fun of the Jdubs.
I just loved this site LMAO.
Seedy
wednesday evening at 7:00 pm cst there will be an airing of an interview with myself, heidi and amber with connie chung.
there may be an additional followup on thursday.
enjoy this wt.
Does CNN do transcriptsof these programs, I only get CNN international, I can't remember a time when I saw Connie Chung on, But lets see, 8PM eastern is 10am here so maybe that's why, I dunno, I'll set upi the VCR to record that time frame and see what I get, but I still would like to know if there is going to be a transcript available
Seedy
many years ago i heard that the jw's in mexico weren't allowed to sing songs or pray at the meetings due to the government not wanting to recognize them as a 'religion'.
is this true?
then i heard that jehovah helped them and now they are recognized as a religion and they can sing & have prayers in meetings.
Nancee is correct, on her statements, the only part that was left out is the reason the WTS never registered as a religion, becasue many groups were registered religions in Mexico, even before the changed law.
The reason the WTS did not regtister is that they could not own property in Mexico if they were a registered religion, all religious property was goverment owned. So therefore the WTS could not go out and increse their wealth in that nation as a religion, but they could as a non-profit Organisation. Until the law changed which then gave them the ability to buy and sell property, which is when they became a regestered religion in Mexico.
Seedy
P.S. Correct me if I am wrong but that is what I remember of the situation.
