This just occurred to me;

by 2112 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • 2112

    We all know that the NWT is a truly lousy version if the Bible. When they started using the Bible why did they not add their own writings. I know they use the WT and other books but I mean, in the lines like the Mormans did. I just figured they want to "look" Christian.

    Then I started to think about their claim that there have always been anointed witnesses since Jesus. Also their claim that all other Christian religons are of the devil. So I ask "Who compiled the differant writings into the Bible and said that there were the truly inspired writings?" Was it not the Catholic Church? If that is the case the that must mean that the Catholic church were the first anointed witnesses. But that can't be because they are from the devil. I mean after all they celabrate Christmas, Birthdays, Easter, they use the cross, you know all the things that the Bible Students were doing in 1918 when Jesus viewed all religions and chose the Bible Students as the true religon.

    But really, if a false religion compiled the Bible why would the "true" religon use it and say that it is inspierd? If the reason is that those compiling the Bible had Gods spirit then that means that their is no way for anyone to be in a "one true religon". Because any religon that has Gods spirit, especially in something as important as communicating his eternal word to mankind, would have to be approved by him. Therefore we could not be punished for aligning with said religon as it was through them that God gave us his word.

    I hope I am explaining my thoughts clearly. Please let me know if I'm totaly messed up in my line of reasoning. Thanks

  • Inquisitor

    That's an interesting way of looking at things... that the compilers of the Bible canon (approved by Witness theology since they do not adopt a different canon) must have some divine backing to be able to do so (well, at least for arguments sake).

    You may well stun a practising JW for a moment. But only a moment, no longer. I mean it isn't hard to imagine them saying, "I suppose Jehovah must have used Babylon the Great back in the Council of Trent to achieve His divine purposes." Besides, JW's are know only too well how "divine favour" is fleeting, its greed to be nourished only by tedious deeds of righteousness. One false move and all is moot. They could use that principle to explain the Council of Trent, though I'd doubt any Witness would be comfortable lending any form of credibility to the Catholic Church.

    That's my two cents,


  • ithinkisee

    Here's the kicker.

    Nowadays the Society says, "Even if Jehovah's Organization makes mistakes, and even if the do something wrong - STICK WITH THE ORGANIZATION - since this is God's approved channel." They hint at this in the literature, but outright say it at the assemblies and in CO visits.

    Yet, if the Catholics were the original anointed based on "apostolic succession", then THEY ARE THE APPROVED ORGANIZATION.

    By the Society's logic that "even if the do something wrong - STICK WITH THE ORGANIZATION" we should all be part of the Catholic Church, in spite of the Catholic Church's obvious problems/scandals/etc..

    Why? Because they were the ORIGINAL approved Organization. They compiled the Holy Bible. The Society even (mis)quotes the early church fathers in the Trinity brochure.


  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    The big thing with the society is degree. Many of the members feel that what the WT has done wrong is so tiny as compared to all the "false doctrines" other christians hold.

    If it is a matter of degree like is presented in the magazines, then my logic tells me that organizations are not what god exclusivly follows. Instead it's the motivation and intentions of the individual that he monitors, not any kind of organizational approval.

  • TallTexan

    That is an interesting point. This was the same group (the Catholic church) that also accepted around the same time period (roughly) the doctrines of the Trinity, hellfire, eternal soul, etc. So if the Society's thought is that the men who gathered the Bible canon were somehow 'inspired' (and, as you point out, they must, as they accept that canon), then how did they suddenly become 'un-inspired' when it came to their acceptance of those 'false' doctrines?

  • DaveNwisconsin

    You really made a good point. If my mother was still alive I would use it on her. I would think she would deny that the bible had roots from the Catholic church. Nice point though

  • FaithfulDoubter

    I got into a discussion with a JW about this EXACT same point.

    The facts are very simple: not all of the Bible books agreed to be canon were widespread, there were (then) widespread books not included in canon, the canonized books reflected the Church fathers idealogies of the time (largely a rejection of Gnosticism). This is canon used by the WTB&TS.

    I made this point, and was responded to by saying that "God didn't wait for manmade councels", and that "true Christians new the books of the Bible". I responded by pointing out that most true Christians didn't have, and some probably didn't even know about, all of the Epistles. At this point, the JW got more and more hysterical, and eventually broke down to saying that "the wheat and weeds" would make it impossible to tell the true organization. He was more and more vehement and offended as I pointed out that the Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox organizations were the only visible organization for hundreds of years, despite his insistance that there always has been a true organization to turn to.

    I don't think he ever allowed himself to realize that it was the Catholics that chose the bible as it is today, and was offended I even suggested it, despite the massive amounts of historical evidence to the contrary. In the end he changed the subject and tried to move on.

  • BlackSwan of Memphis
    BlackSwan of Memphis

    Great point.

    A few months ago when I was trying to compile my letter, I was sifting through some info that I'd printed on the early church fathers.

    The WTS teaches that they Did Not believe in the various doctrines of the soul, trinity etc.

    When I went to read what exactly the early church fathers believed, it contradicted everything the WTS teaches. Then I started thinking like you, just about word for word. And it is a matter of degree. The Catholics have a "worse" record then the witnesses.

    What got me, was the child abuse thing. They go off on the Catholics for covering up sin. Ha! That hypocrisy was huge for me.


  • AuldSoul

    I arrived at the exact same conclusion. As an added point, it struck me that Jesus said he would send "the helper" to teach his disciples. He didn't say his disciples would be forever bound to words written on scrolls.


  • acadian

    Hello All,

    I hope I am explaining my thoughts clearly. Please let me know if I'm totaly messed up in my line of reasoning. Thanks

    Yeah, yer messed-up, LOL Just kidding, good points, I always thought the same things

    If you wanna see how messed -up the bible is, do a search on "bible corruption" and see what you come up with.

    Kind Regards

Share this