An Invitation To ThirdWitness & Scholar - strengthen their faith.

by hillary_step 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  Third Witness & Scholar,

  I am sure that given your sneering remarks in recent months you know that many, though not all, who post to this board are agnostic / atheists or have 'lost their faith' in the Bible. I am inviting you to present a defence of the Bible in order to strengthen the resolve of the many JW's who read this board anonomously. This surely is your duty as 'Christians'?

  During several long threads on the matter of Biblical chronology I suggested to you that if one could show the bible to be unreliable as a book of science and history, then it can no longer be trusted abover secular scholarhip for defining chronological issues and would make all these threads a moot point. I will remind you of my post :

  Thirdwitness,

  You have really built up my faith in JWs having the truth. Thanks.

  You came here with an agenda. Your brief was to stick to one line of argumentation, whatever explanation, evidence and proof was offered to you in answer to your questions. This was your plan from the first post to the last. You have avoided answering questions which did not support your agenda, you have ignored historical realties when bought to your notice, again in favor of an agenda.

  Your claims have not just been debunked, but debunked repeatedly, but you chose to ignore the conclusions to which a thinking persons mind ( to coin a WTS phrase! ) is inevitably drawn. You then claim victory in this debate, in the desperate sounding post that you made from which I quote above.

  Do you really think that you have served your Brothers and Sisters well by exposing WTS doctrine to such critical analysis?

  Now, if you really believe, as you claim, that JW lurkers have had their faith strengthened in the WTS by your monotonous attempts at presenting a flawed agenda, then please invite them to write to you in private mail and pass on their comments to the Board. I am calling your bluff Thirdwitness.

  I also challenged you repeatedly to allow me to open a new thread directed at proving Biblical inconsitencies. It is an important issue, as when and if one can prove that the Bible is unreliable as a book of science and chronology, then all your arguments regarding its reliability and 'truth' are without foundation. This will clear up any issues that both yourself and Scholar may have between secular and Biblical chronology.

  So, I am calling your bluff over two issues Thirdwitness. If you continue to ignore these challenges, the JW lurkers will know that you do not have the confidence in the Bible that you purport to have. Silence speaks many words.

  Are you up for this challenge ThirdWitness? If you wish, you may engage the help of Scholar in this enterprise.

  I am once again challenging you to a public, international debate on the subject of Biblical inconsistencies over the matter of science, history and chronology.

  Will you take up this challenge, or at the very least let the readers know why you are unable to do so.

  HS
• 

  Here4You

  Regarding the bible, as everyone has made mention of, the bible is full of errors to begin with. The men that wrote the bible, claim the same as that of the Watchtower, to have God's spirit or God spoke to them, etc.

  The bible was written by imperfect men, and as we all know, imperfect men lie, so how can we trust that God even exsist? The Watchtowers answer is, we must have faith! Faith is one thing, but having real solid evidence is another!

  Who is to say that as crazy as it may sound, that scientist did not create half of the propaganda they claimed to have found, such as transcripts, etc? How do we know? Were we there?

  My point is I have no faith in things I can not "see". Any thoughts on this? If I got off base a tad, forgive me.
• 

  Qcmbr

  IMO the bible was never the source of faith for any sincere believer - never was and never has been. If the 'collection of canonised scripture' was the source of anyone's faith then they are scuppered as (contrary to JW missionaries) never did the evangelisers of Jesus's day say anything other than that Jesus was the source of faith and that a personal relationship was required. The church was not built upon scriptural interpretation but upon Jesus. This is interesting in its lack of scriptural refernce:
  
  (New Testament | Matthew 16:15 - 17)
  
  15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
  16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
  17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
  
  So for Peter to know who Jesus was required revelation from God not just an interpretation of scripture though this also testified of the Messiah. When Jesus taught after his resurrection he also pointed something out (assuming you don't think this section is spurious)
  
  (New Testament | Luke 24:32)
  
  32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
  
  That the experience of understanding scripture elicits a response more than just speculative wondering at meaning but also that scripture if not eliciting such a response is no more than an interesting work of literature much as Shakespears plays are.
  
  I think we must not deify any book no matter if it is canonised or accepted as scripture by anyone else. Once we accept that you don't need the bible or any scripture to understand God then you are free from the mistakes and interpretations of men and Priests, no bible based religion can ensnare you any more - once you are free you can seek (if you want to!!) to know God and if you receive of His SPirit then the bible (and indeed life itself) becomes a testifier to truth (ie that Jesus lives) rather than the book itself/experience itself being idolised.
• 

  OUTLAW

  3rd Witness and Scholar,what a wonderfull opportunity to give a Witness,to all who post and lurk here.I`m sure you can show that know it all hillary_step a thing or three.The nerve of him to challange you two genius`s.What chance could he possibly have in a biblical debate against you two..Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!..Actually..Your gonna get your ass`s kicked..I`ve seen you two post.Together,your no match for him..That I can promise...OUTLAW
• 

  hillary_step

  BTTT #1
• 

  jgnat

  Might we invite "Shining One" as well, please?
• 

  hillary_step

  I have no objection to inviting a medicated version of Shining One, but I believe he steers clear of the particular issues that are the party-piece for Scholar and now ThirdWitness.

  The only stipulation is that the thread does not get littered with long 'cut and paste' articles from other Internet sources, and that participants show they actually know what they are talking about by presenting their own thoughts and argumentation.

  HS
• 

  Arthur

  I am inviting you to present a defence of the Bible in order to strengthen the resolve of the many JW's who read this board anonomously. This surely is your duty as 'Christians'?

  If they really are devout Witnesses as they claim; they would not be on this site to begin with.

  What has the Society said over, and over, and over again? They have told JWs explicitly to stay away from sites like this. Anyone who is a loyal JW, is not going to disobey the "Faithful Slave Class" on this matter. A truly devout JW would never even think of corresponding with "apostates". The only kind of JW who would correspond with "apostates" is one who has serious doubts, who is on their way out of the organization.

  Secondly, anyone who is truly a devout JW will follow the "party line" and accept the teaching that it is only the place of the "Faithful Slave Class" to "feed the flock spiritually". Any devout JW who thinks that they can "spiritually feed" other JWs in a way that the "Faithful Slave" can't has delusions of personal grandeur.

  Why the hell are we giving so much time and attention to two characters who claim to be JWs? I think that it is clear that these two individuals are either lying about being JWs, or they are on their way out of the organization. Given this fact, how in the world are they in a place to give spiritual guidance to anyone on this board? What could these two pseudo-Witnesses possibly tell JWs that the WTS hasn't already taught?

  I think it's time that we quit treating these two posters as if they have any relevance.
• 

  SirNose586

  I think it's time that we quit treating these two posters as if they have any relevance.

  I'm down for that. Of course, nobody likes to miss out on a good argument. On an old board I used to frequent (with dubs), I'd often goad people into arguments just to exercise my int4rw3b fl4ming chops. It probably pissed off a handful of people...but hey, it's fun!
• 

  Amazing

  Whether one accepts the Bible as the word of God is more of an issue "after" the late 4th and early 5th century. The early Church operated without a NT Bible for four hundred years until Pope Damasus directed the collection of the first "lists" of books that would later be considered for inclusion in the New Testament. Pope Damasus had Jerome translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, (although there was a less complete attempt called "Vetus Latina" dating back to the 2nd or 3rd century) which became known as the Latin Vulgate. It was declared the only authentic Bible in 1546, after the creation of the printing press in 1452 by Gutenberg. The NT was not made generally available until after the printing of the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible 1582 in German, and in 1609 in English, and later the King James, in 1611. Actual general distribution still lagged until more people were able to afford Bibles, and the retail infrastructure made them more available. Functionally, the NT Bible just did not exist for the average Christian for the first 1600 to 1700 years after Christ.

  The Eastern Orthodox Churches also have various collections of manuscripts, and they eventually settled on the old Byzantine Text, which became the Majority Text, and was later included in the Textus Receptus, on which the King James is based. But, like Rome, Constantinople and other Eastern Church centers held manuscripts sacred treasures. Viewing was limited to scholars and theologians for fear that the old parchments would not hold up to handling.

  What did Christians do for a Bible prior to the 4th Century? They has some limited access to the Greek Septuagint of the OT through synagogues and libraries in some cities. But, other than a copy here and there of the Espistles and Gospels read to them before these were passed on to other Churches, they only had oral teaching. The prime teaching tool was to memorize what we today know as the "Apostles Creed." This creed can be found in baptismal questionnaires and in some early Church writings dating back to about 150 AD, or about 50 years or so after the death of the Apostle John.

  The Creed reads as follows: I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth; I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

  BTW: The earliest mention of the "catholic" Church was about 107AD by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch. The NT Bible is not that important to the Christian faith. It is useful, but not essential. I was raised Roman Catholic, and we generally did not open a Bible, unless a Gospel account was read to us at Mass. In some respects the NT Bible has been used to identify serious errors made by Rome and to a lesser degree Constantinople. But, I think the biggest mistake made by the Catholic Church was to create the New Testament and declare it official and inspired. The Church did quite well for 1500 years without a NT Bible being available to the public.

  All Protestant denominations, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, suck at the tits of the Catholic Church when they employ the Bible. They forget that the Church has many additional books they left out, such as the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, and others. The Church also included other books at one time that have since been removed, such as the Shepherd of Hermas.

  If the Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to be really "unique" and demonstrate that they are "spirit directed" they would take a look at all of the early Christian writings, including those of the Apostles Peter and Thomas, and create their own "inspired" text. But, they know better than to leave the Roman Catholic standard ... the Governing Body knows that any serious departure from what Rome said is Holy, would get them into serious trouble. Rome has New York over a barrel.

  Jim Whitney