You accept it or reject it, it's your choice.
Romans 10:13 - got owned in a jw study. need help with greek.
by bohm 54 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
ShadesofGrey
I have no idea what designs is talking about.
-
ShadesofGrey
What Name did Jesus Christ call on to be saved from death by resurrection before he died?
Jehovah.
Scripture?
-
Ding
Look at a Greek interlinear. It says "Lord," not "Jehovah." The tetragrammaton doesn't appear in any NT manuscripts. Compare verse 9 and verse 13. Jesus is kurion (accusative case of kurios = Lord) and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (kuriou, genitive case of kurios) will be saved. Verse 9 indentifies the "Lord" referred to in verse 13.
That said, if you don't know Greek or the Bible, I'd recommend staying away from such discussions.
If you do want to proceed anyway, have the JW read Romans 10:1-3 in English. It describes JWs to a T, trying to establish their own righteousness by their works at keeping the law, never being good enough. They do not understand receiving Christ's righteousness by faith as a free gift, which the whole point of the chapter.
-
Terry
No intellectually honest argument can ever take place on a false premise.
G.I.G.O. Garbage in= garbage out
JW's ONLY engage on THEIR premises.
So, what is the point in wasting your time?
Galileo had all the facts on his side. He had tracked the movement of the heavenly bodies using an excellent telescope. He kept accurate records. He published his evidence and got hauled before the Inquisition. Why? Galileo discovered the Earth goes around the Sun. The Church, however, taught what the bible taught. Apparently, the Sun goes around the Earth. (Biblical references Psalm 93:1 , 96:10 , and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc. [49]
The Catholic Church had a premise and a foundation called Magisterium.
The infallibility doctrine was the Authority to be RIGHT without fail.
What chance did Galileo have with only Scientific Evidence on his part?
Do you see my point?
The only possible grounds on which to engage a JW is the question of biblical authority itself. Not the particulars of interpretation of scriptures.
Otherwise, they always win because the Governing Body has modern day Magesiterium on their side: the faithful and discreet slave.
The foundation of Biblical Authority rests with history and not ecclesiatical opinion.
There are no original autograph uncorrupt manuscripts in existence.
There is no chain of possession of copies of copies (i.e. Provenance) the primary purpose of provenance is to confirm or gather evidence as to the time, place, and—when appropriate—the person responsible for the creation, production, or discovery of the object. This will typically be accomplished by tracing the whole history of the object up to the present. Comparative techniques, expert opinions, and the results of scientific tests may also be used to these ends, but establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation.
Since there are no originals and no provenance for the copies you CANNOT ASSERT ON EVIDENCE any fact as to the wording or accuracy of ANY scripture whatsoever.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
The game is rigged. Once you buy in to the false premise (the bible is the accurately preserved word of God) you are not going to argue FACTS or EVIDENCE. You are simply battling authority like Galileo did. You will always get your butt handed to you.
-
Band on the Run
Terry,
Just a note. I finished reading Carrol's Constantine's Sword about Christianity and antisemitism. The Popes were not considered infallible until the church felt under pressure from forces of modernity and communism at the end of the 1800s. As a power grab, the Pope in office convened a council of cardinals and theologians and came up with the novel idea of infallibity. Those present knew papal history with antipopes and heresies. It was rammed down the council's throat. Approximately one third of the cardinals stood up and walked out of the room. When the Pope died, the cardinals tried hard to have the doctrine renounced/ No human, even a pope, is infallible. I was raised that the earliest popes were considered infallible.
Wikipedia has some papal history. It is fascinating, full of scandal. Outrageous scandal, not piety.
The way a WT Bible Study is structured no give and take is permissible. You are not having a discussion with a peer or colleague. The very format of questions and answers from the lit. is false. I forget the term for the person studying. YOu have no power. If you dare ask questions and not be compliant, the study will be over. You will not learn the Bible but WT doctrine. They will prob. be n ice but attend meetings for a while and you are trapped forever. Powerful psychological forces at work. Far more goes on than appears on the surface.
-
Terry
The infallibility as a Doctrine does, indeed, have a date of inception.
However, the Magesterium is the sacred Tradition. The idea that True Truth was passed along from Apostles to Church and that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven precedes that.
On Catholic Planet website is an interesting recitation of Catholic "reasoning" or "logic" on how this works.
Then, this continues from the same website: http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/infallibility-tsm.htm
3. Sacred Scripture proceeds from Sacred Tradition.
Sacred Scripture is infallible because it proceeds from infallible Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is infallible because it is a true reflection and a true work of the Infallible Son. Sacred Scripture is infallible because it is words written by God, and because it is the Word of God, and because it is One Utterance of God.
If Sacred Tradition does not exist, or if it is not the infallible deeds of God, then Sacred Scripture would lose its foundation and would not be infallible. If Sacred Scripture is fallible, then it is not the Word of God. If Sacred Scripture is full of errors, then Sacred Tradition, from which Scripture proceeds, would be full of errors. If Tradition and Scripture are full of errors, then the Teaching of the Church would be full of confusion and error. Such is not the case.Notice, after this chain of logic, the writer leaps in to make the conclusion FOR YOU without evidence.
6. There is no single definitive version or edition of the Bible.
Among the many versions and editions of the Bible, in the many different languages, no one version or edition can stand alone as the definitive version. No one version or edition can claim to hold all the truths of the Bible. No one version or edition can claim to bring an end to the usefulness or necessity of all other versions and editions. Any particular version or edition may clarify certain truths, yet obscure other truths, even within the same verse. No one wording or language brings out every level of truth found in every verse. Comparing the wording of several different versions or editions, especially in different languages, often brings the reader to a greater understanding of the truth than could ever be presented to the reader in only one version or edition or language.
7. There is no single definitive language for the Bible
No one language is definitive over every other language, yet of the various languages used in ancient times, and of those used to translate in modern times, each makes their contribution to the task of making the unfathomable depths of the many levels of Truth found within the Sacred Texts clear and accessible to the faithful.
When the Council of Trent emphasized the importance and indisputability of the Latin Vulgate Bible, the Fathers of that Council did not specify a particular edition to be preeminent above other editions, but rather they taught that the Latin Scriptural tradition, having its roots in the earliest days of the Church, is authoritative, cannot be ignored or rejected or belittled, and must never pass away from usage and veneration in the Church. But neither did they even suggest that the Hebrew or Greek or other languages be ignored or rejected or belittled.
Contrary to the belief and practice of modern scholars, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek text of the Old Testament is definitive. The Greek text of the New Testament is not definitive. Even those languages not used during Biblical times, languages into which the Bible is translated, often bring to the text a new phrasing that clarifies truths which were otherwise quite obscure in the Biblical languages. Every language into which the Bible has ever been written or translated contributes substantially to this holy expression of Truth in written form. Let no one ever say or believe that the true meaning of the Bible cannot be understood apart from the original languages of the Bible. Let no one ever claim that any word or phrase in the Bible can only be understood in its original language. Every word and phrase in the Bible is able to be translated and able to be understood in its translated form.
8. The truths of the Bible are not completely contained, nor fully expressed, in any single edition.
The truths of the Bible subsist across every version and edition put together. Since no one language, translation, version, or edition of the Bible is definitive, the Bible is every manuscript, translation, version, and edition, in every language, put together. All the editions of the Bible are one edition. All the languages of the Bible are one language. All the languages, manuscripts, printings, translations, versions, and editions of the Bible are one Text, in the sight of the One Holy God. -
ShadesofGrey
Terry, I was a JW arguing with Christians on a creationist website. God used scripture to get me out of that cult and into Jesus. Scriptures work. My husband, myself, two of my relatives and one of my best friends are all proof, along with countless others.
Shades.
-
Terry
Terry, I was a JW arguing with Christians on a creationist website. God used scripture to get me out of that cult and into Jesus. Scriptures work. My husband, myself, two of my relatives and one of my best friends are all proof, along with countless others.
Shades.
Look, I don't start arguments with people who are convinced of something. I just try to get people to actually review whatever evidence is available BEFORE they defend a position. Living by facts or living by opinions; everybody chooses.
If 100 people examine the same thing and come up with 100 different conclusions it is obvious there is no reality to what is being examined.
As long as the Catholic Church could enforce their private interpretations of scripture people would tremble and obey and believe.
But, Martin Luther broke people loose from that. However, in so doing he opened up the bible to everybody.
Luther replaced Magesterium with Sola Scriptura: all you need is your bible and god's holy spirit.
What has been the result?
Thousands and thousands of denominations, sects, cults and interpretations such as Jehovah's Witnesses: ALL CLAIMING THE BIBLE IS THEIR SOURCE.
Logically, this is IMPOSSIBLE.
If you want to believe YOUR OWN ideas and call it the bible you are free to do so. But, the evidence is there: the bible is whatever anybody wants it to be.
PROVING things with scriptures is nonsense and a waste of time.
Here is the formula: OPINION=REVEALED TRUTH
-
ShadesofGrey
And your orginal point was this:
The only possible grounds on which to engage a JW is the question of biblical authority itself. Not the particulars of interpretation of scriptures.
Otherwise, they always win because the Governing Body has modern day Magesiterium on their side: the faithful and discreet slave.
I am telling you that is not always the case... Scriptures got me, my husband, my daughter, and several of my friends and relatives out of that organization. It is possible to take down the Governing Body, Faithful Slave, Watchtower Org without taking down the Bible. In fact, many have had success doing this. Captives of a Concept and How to Rescue Your Loved One From the Watchtower have some very good suggestions.
In addition, there is not so much disagreement as you think. I find myself agreeing with Christians and making friends with them and I find out much later that they belong to denominations that I thought were quite different (Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.). In my opinion, the denominations really aren't that different at all. There are certainly disagreements between denominations within the church on issues of doctrine, however they all cling to the essential teachings of the fathers of our common faith. Not to do so means they are NOT Christian but these are few.
It is my personal testimony that I accepted Jesus and He led me out of the cult. I saw problems for years before this and still hung on, depressed and friendless. Without Jesus, the God of the Bible, I am sure I would still be trapped.
Carmen