Great post. I find it amazing how people who claim that every single word in the Bible is a divine revelation from God eventually resort to all sorts of strange reasonings to make their points clear. You see things just like I do. Thanks for the post.
History of the Bible - JWs will not like this
by Amazing1914 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Amazing1914
Greendawn,
Amazing 1914 I understand you were raised as a catholic but you now incline more towards the Orthodox though I don't think there is much difference between the two.
Well, they are the same faith. The differences, though, are important to me. The two churches started spliting about the time that the Roman Empire started splitting. Travel and communication were slow enough that East and West did become affected by the culture and political circumstances of the times. I believe had Jesus come in our day, that problem would have been mitigated, but then again, we may have other problems that would be worse.
The big differences for me are that Orthodox Priests can be married. This used to be the practice in the Roman church. Before the schism in 1054, the entire Catholic Church worked out matters of doctrine by Ecumenical Councils. All Bishops were considered equal and should be heard if they want to speak. The Bishop of Rome was considered the first among equals, and the chairman so to speak. But he was not a monarch that he is today. The Orthodox also stay out of most personal issues of conscience, such as birth control, etc. Although they are against abortion the same as Rome.
What I did not know until recently is that the Apostles went forth and set up churches where they arrived as a main center of operations. These first churches became known as Holy Sees because of being founded by an Apostle. e.g. St. Peter founded Antioch, Syria, St. Mark founded Alexandria, Egypt, St. Andrew (St. Peter's brother) founded what is known today as Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey. St. Peter eventually moved on to Rome, but did not found Rome. Each Holy See has maintained meticulus records of Apostolic succession for nearly 2,000 years. They each report to the others as to who the next successor is so that the Church could remain aware of itself, and never lose touch with history. (Prior to this information, I used to believe that Rome was the only Holy See, and the only one with Apostolic succession.
What is strange is that in spite of the schism of nearly 1,000 years ago, both East and West have evolved in almost identical manner. When I attend a Greek Orthodox mass, it is just like being in a Catholic Church, because it is Catholic. Prior to the schism, the two church had long been almost out of communication for all sorts of reasons. In 1965, they mutually annulled their respective ex-communications of each other, and are in essence reunited, excect that the East has not agreed to the Papal Monarchy. Also, there is a small issue about the Holy Spirit and the Trinity, but I believe that it can be worked out. Upon full reunification, the East will still allow married priests. The West will not. However, I do not see such reunificaton to happen very soon.
I foudnt that the Greek Orthodox has a closer connection, and in many ways more closely resemble, the first century Christians. Though, there is no church today that is a duplicate. As I have read and studied the early Church Fathers, I find that their beliefs and practices resemble both Rome and Constantinople, except that they seem closer to the East.
Another good reason for me to affiliate with the Greek Orthodox for now is that they have Greek classes, and I thought it would be great to learn Greek from Greeks. I want to be able to read the Greek Septuagint and early Greek manuscripts of the Bible for myself.
Jim Whitney
-
Carmel
Jim, good post! Just to add one additonal spin from another perspective. Paul being the "educated" amongst the apostles, may well have been aware of other religions of the world and not only limited to the ancient Hebrew text. Hence, "all scripture is inspired" may have had a much broader application than simply authenticating the Old Testament. Ancient Bhuddist, Hindu and Zoroastrian scripture may well have been included in his remark.
carmel
-
sass_my_frass
Hey thanks for this!
-
z
The link below will give you good info about Biblical History
http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/dinur/Internetresources/historyresources/biblical_studies.htm
Z -
Mattica
I am so glad I found this board, the last 6 months or so I have become fascinated with biblical history, and church history. First as I am sure all of you are aware of the reason why the JW's came up with their own translation. To correct the errors the early translators made. When I was growing up I was only allowed to read from the NWT, there were no other bibles in our house. When I got into my teenage years and started looking into matters of doubt that were creeping into me I started looking at other bibles, mostly the KJV. The brothers saw me slipping away and and elder and m.s. started holding bible studies with me and strongly cautioned me not to use other bibles with study material. After being out for a couple of years and studying again I found it very hard to use the NWT, I found the NASB and even the KJV to be more easy to read, and again was told not to use anything other than the NWT. That's when I noticed when I would go to meetings, every single witness was using one bible. Twilight zone moment. Anywho I am almost done reading a book called The Other Bible. It is a compilation of the Gnostic Gospels, Dead Sea Scrolls, Visionary Wisdom Text, Christian Apocrypha, Jewish Pseudepigrapha, and the Kabbalah. And I have read a lot of similarities between the standard bible and most of these rejected text, and I thought of 2 Tim. 3:16 and asked my Lutheren Pastor if that scripture just applied to the 66 books of the cannon, and he pretty much said yes. I showed him what I have read so far and he said those other books weren't accepted into the cannon because they did not fully expound or conform to the message of salavation that Jesus offered. Which makes sense to me, but I myself am starting to believe that scripture meant not just the 66 books of the cannon, but others as well. Even the Infancy Gospels, (great reading!)
So has anyone else read any of what I have, and what are your thoughts on other books written on the existence of God, nature, the universe, etc. The gnostic writers were very creative and poetic, and some even say they have the words of Adam himself handed down through generations. OH I could go on and on but I gotta get my daughter to school.
Matt
-
willyloman
The Christian faith is built far more upon tradition and Church evolution than upon Biblical developments. This is a point that completely escapes and ultimately undermines the credibility of such groups as Jehovah's Witnesses who think that they have restored "truth" but in fact have done nothing more than created a fiction.
Jim: Really profound! Thanks for sharing.
-
RevFrank
Try not to forget..but the Orthodox church(catholic) was the first established church as the Eastern Orthodox catholic church.......
-
RevFrank
Try not to forget..but the Orthodox church(catholic) was the first established church as the Eastern Orthodox catholic church.......
-
Leolaia
And I have read a lot of similarities between the standard bible and most of these rejected text, and I thought of 2 Tim. 3:16 and asked my Lutheren Pastor if that scripture just applied to the 66 books of the cannon, and he pretty much said yes.
I might first point out that despite the Lutheran belief in sola scriptura, the notion that Scripture only corresponds to these 66 books which were put together into an anthology after they were written is nowhere taught in the Bible itself. This doctrine is, for want of a better word, unbiblical. Nowhere do these books list what books are scripture and what are not; neither do they spell out in an objective way how Scripture can be distinguished from non-Scripture. The process of canonization occurred sometime after the books themselves were written. The books of the Apocrypha are canonical for the Catholic Church, tho distinguished in a "second canon" (deuterocanon) due to Jerome's acceptance of the Hebrew canon as fully authoritative. The early Church Fathers, even Jerome himself, recognized that there could be inspired Scripture outside of the official canon, but this distinction became lost in Protestantism which rejected the deuterocanonicals as a whole (because these books gave scriptural support to certain Catholic beliefs and practices) and conflated canon = Scripture = inspired = authoritative, when earlier Christians had more finer distinctions (i.e. Scripture that is inspired but not canonical). Moreover, different churches (Roman Catholic, Lutheran/Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic, Armenian, Nestorian, Ethiopic) have different canons; the dominant canon is far from the only one, and you may be surprised to learn what is in other Christian canons.
The NT itself shows evidence of an open canon, or a different idea of what constitutes inspired Scripture than what your pastor might have. Most of the letter of Jude alludes to 1 Enoch in some fashion and Jude 14-15 directly quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 as inspired "prophecy" (see my post for more details). Jude 9 also alludes to a story from the conclusion of the Assumption of Moses, as recognized by a number of Church Fathers. John 7:38 and 1 Corinthians 2:9 quote as "Scripture" statements that are not found in the OT, and the "Scripture" quoted in James 4:5 may well be a passage from the lost Book of Eldad and Modad (see my post for a full discussion of the evidence). Even closer to home, just a few verses before 2 Timothy 3:16, the author alludes to "Jannes and Jambres who defied Moses" (v. 8). These individuals appear nowhere in the OT, but the first century AD Book of Jannes and Jambres describes just the sort of thing alluded to in 2 Timothy 3:8, so one wonders about what the author of 2 Timothy thought of as "Scripture" since he finds such a story "profitable for teaching and for reproving" (2 Timothy 3:16), tho he does not directly quote the book itself.