The Governing Body and the Jerusalem Church

by greendawn 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  greendawn

  To justify concentrating all authority in their hands the handful of GB members resorted once more to alchemies. The Jerusalem Church leaders were supposedly the GB in the early Church and today they just resurrected that institution in their religion.

  What they conveniently do not mention is that this supposed GB did not by any stretch of the imagination centralise power in its hands in the way that they have done. Numerous christians, prophecied and taught without any reference to any GB in Jerusalem, merely by the motivation of the Holy Spirit. The ones that first sought to centralise power in the manner of the JW leaders were the popes of Rome not the leaders of the Jerusalem church who wouldn't even conceive in their minds such a monstrosity.

  So the JWs are doing well to ask why their leaders claim that the Holy Spirit deals with only them, just ten or twenty individuals. Also what happened to the GB institution after the destruction of Jerusalem, supposedly they left that city before the Romans put it under siege and were scattered all over Palestine. The Jerusalem church for all we know disintegrated in this way.

  Finally think, the Jerusalem leaders practised a kind of Christianity that was much at variance with Pauline Christianity. They believed in following the Mosaic law which Paul taught was a kind of curse as well as being obsolete and pointless after Christ. Many of these Jewish Christians thought of Paul as an evil traitor and apostate from Judaism. So Paul was obviously ignoring this GB and following his own way.
• 

  Amazing

  Greendawn,

  The early Church did not develop as the modern day evangelicals or reformationists believe. And, you are correct in saying that the early Church did not develop as the JWs believe. But beither did it develop with Popes seeking to grab power ... as that is myth. Rather, the Church grew as the Apostles established Holy Sees, such as St. Mark founding Alexandria Church in Egypt, or St. Andrew (brother of St. Peter) founding the Church in Asia Minor that today is known as Constantinople. Likewise, St. Peter founded the Antioch Church, and with St. Paul, together they founded the Roman Church. The Holy Sees functioned under Ecumenical Councils for over 100 years, with the Roman Church (Pope) as the lead Bishop. That is historical fact.

  In 1054 AD it changed when Rome and Constantinople entered a schism with one another. It further split in the west with the Refomation. The eastern Church never suffered such major splits.

  Today, since 1965, Rome and Constantinople are not in a schism, and are talking reunification. Once that happens, the Church will once again function as it did ever since the time of Christ. The council in Jerusalem is an example of just such an ecumenical council.

  The Roman Catholic Church is not under the power and control of the Pope ... that is Evangelical and fringe sect myth. Catholicism has always been under the control of local Bishops, as it is also done in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, groups like the JWs and their leaders have been very skillful at lying often enough about the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that even ex-JWs still believe GB myths.

  It is simply Amazing
• 

  greendawn

  Amazing, I am not trying to invalidate the catholic (or the orthodox) church but a careful reading of the history of its heads, the popes, leaves much to be desired. The fact is that they and also the protestant churches simply failed in their mission to genuinely christianise society and often engaged in activities that drove things in the opposite direction. It's that taming of the raw instincts and their integration into spiritual forms that was never achieved, never taken seriously. The excessive lust for wealth, power, glory and also sex. Only relatively few individuals kept up a good standard, as an example Saint Francis.
• 

  Amazing

  Buzkid: I too grew up in the Church, was trained by Dominicans and Franciscans, and what you are saying is reflective of how the JWs managed to recreate our Catholic memories. For example: The RC does not excommunicate Catholics, except in very rare cases where some high profile leaders go far afield ... but, intellectual honesty demands to disclose that excommunication in the RC does not get one shunned, but rather one merely does not receive communion at Church on Sunday. By leaving out that fact, one misleads the ex-JWs or JWs reading this, and they easily confuse it with JW disfellowshipment and shunning. First, weed out what the JWs did to you, and you will see a different RC Church. This is not about going back to the Church, but about fundamental honesty.

  Greendawn: Amazing, I am not trying to invalidate the catholic (or the orthodox) church but a careful reading of the history of its heads, the popes, leaves much to be desired.

  Agreed. There have been some scoundrals and morons for Popes ... as we find anywhere.

  Greendawn: The fact is that they and also the protestant churches simply failed in their mission to genuinely christianise society and often engaged in activities that drove things in the opposite direction. It's that taming of the raw instincts and their integration into spiritual forms that was never achieved, never taken seriously. The excessive lust for wealth, power, glory and also sex. Only relatively few individuals kept up a good standard, as an example Saint Francis.

  Well ... you are partly right ... but this issue requires much more discussion. The mission of the Church, as I understood it growing up a Catholic, and upon my return to the Church 4 four years ago, was never to convert the world, but to bring the message of Christ to the world. In her first 1000 years, the Church nearly achieved the total conversion of western Europe, and the Eastern Church that eastern Europe, Russia and large parts of the Middle East. But, they did not maintain their influence for a variety of reasons. In the east, Islam was spread by force and reversed the spread of Christianity. In the west, the Church did too little too late to prevent the Reformation ... but by the 20th century, Christianity in general has suffered serious setbacks due to people turning away from God.

  Amazing
• 

  Narkissos

  Amazingly selective use of "history" (real or legendary): when it comes to validating the church institution and authority it counts, when it comes to criticising it, it's just past history and only the present counts... ;)

  Back to the topic, I think the principle of "apostolic succession" (quite different from the centralised GB pattern indeed, but still aiming at tracing back all authority in the worldwide or 'catholic' church to the apostles) is very much a part of the narrative strategy of Acts (as it is in the rhetoric of the Pastorals). Concentrating the "beginning" on one group of disciples around the Twelve in Jerusalem at Pentecost in "big bang" fashion (which required dismissing the Gospel traditions of apparitions in Galilee), having Peter (and John) validating Samaritan, then Gentile "Christianity" as expansions from this original group, submitting Paul to apostolic blessing right after his "conversion," making him second to Barnabas and then "sent" by the apostles, putting echoes of Pauline original theology on Peter's lips instead of Paul's, ascribing to apostolic envoys the appointing of church elders... all of this wouldn't make sense if 2nd-century churches were satisfied with an independent foundation...

  The problem for Protestants is that this version of church history happens to be found in the Bible. The problem for Catholic and other Apostolic churches is that it is only one version of Christian history, which is at odds with other texts (e.g. Pauline writings).
• 

  Amazing

  Narkissos: Amazingly selective use of "history" (real or legendary): when it comes to validating the church institution and authority it counts, when it comes to criticising it, it's just past history and only the present counts... ;)

  Who said that? I do not see anything in the above comments by anyone that fits your allegation.

  Narkissos: Back to the topic, I think the principle of "apostolic succession" (quite different from the centralised GB pattern indeed, but still aiming at tracing back all authority in the worldwide or 'catholic' church to the apostles) is very much a part of the narrative strategy of Acts (as it is in the rhetoric of the Pastorals). Concentrating the "beginning" on one group of disciples around the Twelve in Jerusalem at Pentecost in "big bang" fashion (which required dismissing the Gospel traditions of apparitions in Galilee), having Peter (and John) validating Samaritan, then Gentile "Christianity" as expansions from this original group, submitting Paul to apostolic blessing right after his "conversion," making him second to Barnabas and then "sent" by the apostles, putting echoes of Pauline original theology on Peter's lips instead of Paul's, ascribing to apostolic envoys the appointing of church elders... all of this wouldn't make sense if 2nd-century churches were satisfied with an independent foundation...

  Not sure what you are trying to say here. Perhaps you be more clear.

  Narkissos: The problem for Protestants is that this version of church history happens to be found in the Bible. The problem for Catholic and other Apostolic churches is that it is only one version of Christian history, which is at odds with other texts (e.g. Pauline writings).

  The "Protestants," as you call them, do not necessarily follow the Bible ... but rather they follow individual interpretations, which is why we have thousands of variations of Protestant sects. And, no one is able to answer the question of why it is so important, almost an "inspired requirement," to claim to follow the Bible. Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) did just fine for many hundreds of years without the Bible. Rather, the Bible was not even begun to be put together until the 4th century when Roman Catholic Pope asked St. Jerome to compile works of the Apostles and early disciples. St. Jerome developed what we know as the Latin Vulgate ... which is still the standard used by scholars today. The Bible was debated for centuries, with books being added and deleted. It was not until the 8th century when Rome declared the Bible to be "inspired" that is was mostly settled upon with exceptions, such as The Shepherd of Hermes, once considered to be inspired. The Bible was not available to average Christians until the invention of the printing press by Guttenberg in the 15th century. The Protestant Reformation did not take place until the 16th century when Martin Luther broke with Rome ... and he had valid arguments, of which Rome agreed with 40 or 50 of his 95 thesis. The King James Bible (Protestant version and historical standard for the Reformation) was not available until the 17th century.

  The point is, so called Biblical Christianity is a Protestant fiction in an effort to ignore Christian roots founded in the Apostles as practiced and handed down for centuries by the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Have Catholics and Orthodox committed serious sins and done terrible things? Yes, as have all Christians, including Protestants. None of this, however, negates the original passage of sacramental powers from Christ to the apostles, and subsequently to the disciples. Nothing, however, that Rome or Constanople have stated in their teachings have been shown to be at odds with the Bible or the writings of St. Paul.
• 

  Narkissos

  Hi Amazing,

  I was referring to your characterisation of church tradition about the foundation of the main apostolic churches as "historical fact" (which most Catholic historians, afaik, would rather qualify as legend with bits of history here and there). Even if it were true, that would put it on par with every subsequent page of "church history" (not all of them glorious, as you admitted -- although better documented). Now why can some pages of (alleged) history validate the church institution, while none can invalidate it? There's no transcendence in history per se. When religious belief starts looking for justification it will never find it in "history" -- that's why myths are there in the first place.

  What I meant about the book of Acts as the first (known) instance of "church historiography" (and the starting point for later "church historians" such as Eusebius) is that the "history" it tells us is consistently bent and shaped to serve a specific agenda, one essential feature of which is to portray the worldwide ("catholic") church as deriving more or less smoothly from one apostolic source. Differences and antagonisms are consistently misrepresented or downplayed (e.g. Hebrews/Hellenists, Paul/James, Paul/Barnabas, etc.). Which serves your point to an extent: it means that most 2nd-century churches if not all did not picture themselves as "independent" (in Protestant fashion), but felt the need to be traced back to The (one and only) Origin through a line of people ("apostles/bishops") rather than just identity of teaching (orthodoxy). My opinion (with which you will disagree) is that such line in most cases could only be established through pseudo-history...

  I agree with much of what you say about the "Bible" (I don't know which "scholars" still regard the Vulgate as "the standard" though, or from what standpoint).
• 

  yesidid

  Narkissos!

  I am really happy to have you on the board. You give it great balance.

  Keep up the good work.

  yesidid
• 

  oompa

  why are we doing this???
• 

  JustHuman14

  Good points Amazing....

  In my case since I'm Greco/italian origin, after leaving JW's I looked and in both Churches: The East and West Roman. Indeed there are many common things among the 2 Churches, but there are also 2 severe issues that makes them different.

  The basic issue is the Filioque. The major issue occured with the translation from the Hellenic language to Latin, since the West Roman Church started to use Latin, instead of Greek. That is why the Orthodox Church still using the Original Greek Text of the Bible in the ceremonies in order to avoid any misunderstanding of the scriptures and their meaning. Greek language is so accurate on this and transtalions can lead to serious mistakes if you don't take consideration of the Greek Text. That is why the West Roman Church fell into serious mistakes and even more mistakes we can see in the Protestand Movement with thousands of sects, while the Orthodox Church had a very few schismas and kept the unity for all those years.

  The other issue is the Pope and the way he wanted to have power upon the entire Roman Church. There is a complete different view from the Orthodox believers of the Patriach of the Orthodox Church and the way that the Roman Catholic Church glorifies Pope

  Indeed the Orthodox Church is Synodic and the Bishops are all equal. The Ecoumenical Patriarch in Constantinople he is just the Presiding Overseer and holds no power upon the rest of the Bishops.

  As for the subject there was no GB in Jerusalim. A close read of the account of Acts show the opposite. It was a Synodos and open door one!!! Plus Paul would have been disfellowshiped for apostasy since he disobey them and circumsised Timothy and the Church in Antioch are apostates too since the named themselves Christians without any GB approval in Jerusalim!!!

  JustHuman14 formely known justhuman