"Turned aside after Satan."?

by scout575 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • scout575
    scout575

    The NT contains several references to Christians abandoning Christianity. They are referred to as having "turned aside after Satan" ( 1 Tim 5:15 ), as being like "the dog that is turned to his own vomit." ( 2 Peter 2:22 ), as being the "enemies of the cross of Christ" ( Php 3:18 ), and as being "not of us" ( 1 John 2:19 ).

    As the early Christian congregation believed itself to be "the pillar and ground of the truth" ( 1 Tim 3:15 ), the true religion, its no surprise that they referred to those who left Christianity in the above unflattering terms, after all, they believed that they were right, and that therefore anyone who left Christianity must be wrong, and have fallen prey to Satan.

    Had the internet have been available in those days, those exiting Christians may have set up a discussion board ( JWD - Jesus Witness discussion? ) Had you have been one of those disillusioned Christians ( as I suspect I would have been ) what reason would you have posted on the site, as to why you lost faith in Christianity, and felt that you had no choice but to walk away from it?

  • hallelujah
  • Dr Jekyll
    Dr Jekyll
    what reason would you have posted on the site, as to why you lost faith in Christianity, and felt that you had no choice but to walk away from it?

    Mine would have been Pauls sudden involvement in the movement and how he was begining to weigh down Jesus's followers with petty rules and regulations, dismissing Jesuses mates who knew him and telling everybody else what jesus would have wanted when he never even knew him

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    Fantastic analogy scout

    I think I would have been disillusioned because Christ hadn't returned before the end of the generation (Matt 24:34). I might be wondering if he wasn't really the Messiah after all.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    scout,

    Interesting question.

    Your presentation however assumes that "early Christianity" was a somewhat "unified organisation" as the WT has it, so that people would be either "in" or "out". This is very questionable historically.

    Most of the NT anathemas were probably against people, not stepping out of "Christianity," but holding to a different ("heretical") Christian perspective. The Pastorals and 2 Peter are obviously targeting Christian Gnostics, perhaps including the Johannine circles. Paul condemns Judeo-Christians, Matthew condemns Pauline Christians. It is debated whom the Johannine epistles condemn: most scholars consider they were full-fledged Gnostics, while the author would hold for a middle position (between Gnostics and the Pastorals); others think they were turning back to Judaism or even to the Pastoral churches (the Diotrephes of 3 John behaves like a Pastoral "bishop").

    In any case, I feel an early 2nd-century forum would have discussed more about what is "true Christianity" than whether Christianity was right or wrong.

  • robhic
    robhic
    ...Had you have been one of those disillusioned Christians ( as I suspect I would have been ) what reason would you have posted on the site, as to why you lost faith in Christianity, and felt that you had no choice but to walk away from it?

    In reality it would be difficult to say. Back then when all the knowledge wasn't available to make a good assessment, I don't think my reasons would have been the same. Probably all the violence would have turned me off enough to not even join in the first place.

    But today, after reading, studying and researching so much material, I'd have to say the utter preposterousness of the whole thing was enough to shake me of any firm beliefs in christianity and any religion at all, for that matter.

    They're all a "snare and a racket" to quote the judge...

  • ColdRedRain
    ColdRedRain

    I wouldn't have joined Christianity back then or if I were born into it, I would have soon left, because of the same reasons why I don't believe in Jebus today. He was a man that claimed to have walked on water, was born from a virgin and could turn water into wine. Think about it.

  • robhic
    robhic
    I wouldn't have joined Christianity back then or if I were born into it, I would have soon left, because of the same reasons why I don't believe in Jebus today. He was a man that claimed to have walked on water, was born from a virgin and could turn water into wine. Think about it.

    I bet that if jeebus had offered to teach people how to do that stuff, too, there'd be a different take on it!

    Can you imagine taking the shortcut over a body of water and turning regular old water into wine? Man, you'd get invited to more parties than Paris Hilton!

  • hallelujah
    hallelujah

    We have to look at the bible as less authentic than something we might read on wikipedia. Only it was altered and rewritten over centuries while anything on wikipedia might have only been edited over the last few years.

    Nevertheless there are teachings from Jesus which are capable of being salvaged out of the Bible (and it's got nothing to do with walking on water or making wine out of water)

  • scout575
    scout575

    Sad emo: I agree, particularely if I had been a Christian living at the close of the 1st century, over 60 years after Jesus prophesied that his return would come within the lifetime of his listeners. At Luke 9: 27, he said: "But I tell you of a TRUTH, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

    When I post on JWD I often see that banner advert for a book ( the 'correct words of TRUTH book' ) criticising JWs for the 1925 fiasco. Whilst, of course, JWs, were wrong for thinking that the Bible pointed to the year 1925 as the year when the 'end' would come, I wonder if that book criticises Jesus for making such a spectacularly false propecy at Luke 9:27?

    I notice that whilst many posters on this site also criticse JWs ( rightly ) for their 'false prophecies' ( really just misinterpretations of the Bible and its chronology, rather than prophecies in the conventional sense of the word ) I have yet to see one word of criticism for Jesus' false prophecy at Luke 9:27 and Matthew 16:28. Is it like the 'elephant in the front room'? We know that Jesus' prophecy didn't come true, but we just don't like to talk about it?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit