Does the Watchtower really parallel 1st Century Christianity?

by Emery 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  GLTirebiter

  I wanted to get a list of arguments that illustrate how the Watchtower Society is or isn't following 1st century christianity today.

  WTBTS publications exemplify what Pinytus criticized during the second century (according to Eusebius, Book IV, chapter 23--emphasis is mine):

  "Pinytus, replying to this epistle, admires and commends Dionysius, but exhorts him in turn to impart some time more solid food, and to feed the people under him, when he wrote again, with more advanced teaching, that they might not be fed continually on these milky doctrines and imperceptibly grow old under a training calculated for children."
• 

  mP

  Blues:

  1) First Century Christians did have Holy Spirit.

  2) "Sisters" could "Prophecy" [Acts 21.9]

  3) The Apostle Paul did not want to be a "Master over their faith" [ 2 Cor 1.24 ] He did not want to regulate every little thing because they answered to Jesus, not him

  4) The leaders of the first century church did not make unwise predictions that failed. If any in the congregations were doing so, the epistles warned them against doing so.

  5) First century church leaders may have had personal shortcomings, but what they taught was spot on accurate . J W's use the personal things as an excuse for doctrinal error and revision.

  I could go on...

  mP:
  Funny Paul also said tht Women were too stupid to learn and should be silent at church and ask their husbands after the meeting. Does that make any sense ?
• 

  mP

  Vidqun:

  I am sure First Century Christians would not have tolerated or protected pedophiles. They would not have taken out membership of a political organization in order to use its library.

  MP:

  Are you aware that pedophilia was widely practiced in the 1st century, just like slavery. It was not considered illegal or immoral. In fact just like the NT fails to condemn slavery it also fails to condemn pedophilia another social norm.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Ancient_Rome

  The masculinity of an adult male citizen was defined sexually by his taking the penetrative role, whether his partner was female or a male of lower status. [88] A Roman citizen's political liberty (libertas) was defined in part by the right to preserve his body from physical compulsion or use by others; [89] for the male citizen to use his body to give pleasure was considered servile and subversive of the social hierarchy. [90]

  Male couple on an ancient Roman oil lamp

  It was considered natural for a man to be attracted to a beautiful young male, [91] but the bodies of citizen youths were strictly off-limits. [92] Acceptable male partners were slaves, male prostitutes, or others who lacked social standing (the infames). Same-sex relations among male citizens of equal status, including soldiers, were disparaged, and in some circumstances penalized harshly. [93] In political rhetoric, a man might be attacked for effeminacy or playing the passive role in sex acts, but not for performing penetrative sex on a socially acceptable male partner. [94] Threats of anal or oral rape against another man were forms of masculine braggadocio. [95]

  In other words only the upper classes could screw the lower classes and not the other way around.

  Given that Paul travelled throughout asia minor which is filled with Greeks he would have seen this very arrangement in xian churches. We have text were he encourages slaves to return to their masters, unfortunately he makes no comment about pedestry.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

  Pederasty or paederasty ( US: /'p?d?ræsti/ , UK: /'pi?d?ræsti/ ) is a (usually erotic) relationship between a young man and a pubescent boy outside his immediate family. The word pederasty derives from Greek ( paiderastia ) "love of boys", [2] a compound derived from πα?ς ( pais ) "child, boy" and ?ραστ?ς ( erastes ) "lover".

  In antiquity, pederasty was seen as an educational institution for the inculcation of moral and cultural values, [11] as well as a form of sexual expression, entered history from the Archaic period onwards in Ancient Greece , though Cretan ritual objects reflecting an already formalized practice date to the late Minoan civilization , around 1650 BC. [12] According to Plato, [13] in ancient Greece , pederasty was a relationship and bond – whether sexual or chaste – between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside of his immediate family. While most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys, [14] exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women, and others rejecting relations with boys. In Rome , relations with boys took a more informal and less civic path, men either taking advantage of dominant social status to extract sexual favors from their social inferiors, or carrying on illicit relationships with freeborn boys

  Given Paul had an education and spoke Greek theres a reasonable chance he was a boy involved in such a relationship himself as was typical of teacher, students. All of his letter are in Greek to communities in a Greek world. Given he failed to condemn this, then he obviously had no motivation to condemn it as it was fine in his eyes, just like the unequal treatment of women was acceptable to him.
• 

  mP

  Phizzy -> MP:

  I don't quite understand mP's claim above that "there were no 1st century Xians".

  I would say Paul thought of himself as a Christian, his authorship of say the Letter to the Galatians is undisputed,(some other books are definately deutero-pauline), the date is not as certain, but certainly it was long before the destruction of the Temple in 70C.E and he writes to fellow believers.

  So, we ONLY have what Paul writes to base our thinking on as to what his readers believed, but of course we do not have their reaction to his letters, perhaps their Theology and Christology was different to his, he is trying to persuade them of his views.

  The Gospels ,being very late, though some of Mark may possibly be pre temple destruction, but the rest of them are late and written with an agenda, as is Acts, so we may as well discount them as any real proof of 1st century belief or practice.

  However, the WT/JW's believe the Gospels to be early, and Acts and so we can if we like compare how they teach and act with what is contained in the Gospels etc, and as said above , they still fail ! Miserably !

  The 21st Century teachings, organisation, and practices, including rites and rituals of the Jehovah's Witnesses bears no relation to those of early followers of "Jesus".

  mP -> Phizzy

  My point is your assumptions and comments assume that Pauls, Acts writings are all authentic and honest. Most scholars today accept that half the writings in the canon are pseudographical a fancy name for fraudulent writings. This explains why in some parts Paul is anti circumcision and in others he tells Timothy to be circumsized. This is a very sharp contrast in ideas. The fact that Acts tells three incompatible stories about Pauls conversion further shows they are simply making it up, and hardly honest but simply making myth as they see fit.

  My comment was simply without Paul there is absolutely no proof of xians. Lets also recall that originally the church also admits that jews and xians were essentially the same religion. The romans were persecuting Jews, for their rebellion and terrorism. However there are no records of xians being persecuted. In fact fathers like Origen and Eusebius admit that there wre very few martyrs in reality and that they made that up. THese same fathrs admit that they lied to support the church on many occassions.

  If you feel otherwise show some proof of your first century xians. Scholars havenot and cannot demonstrate archeological proofs of any of their churches, homes or anything.
• 

  Phizzy

  Thanks mP, I now understand what your post was actually saying. We are singing from the same hymn sheet it seems.

  I agree that Acts is not to be relied upon as to 1st Century christian belief or practice, and is not to be relied upon for its biographical and historic stories, it was written with the same agenda as the Gospels at a late date.

  Much of what is ascribed to Paul in the N.T is not by his hand, which was why I chose Galatians in my example, which nowadays has little doubt cast upon it by scholars as to Paul's authorship.

  The way I see the whole jesus thing is thus: There was a teacher/prophet type person, "Jesus", who had more than the usual effect upon his contempories, so that after his death a cult began to form which formed a sect within Judaism, and probably at that time, just after his death, had no concept of forming a new religion seperate from the Jewish religion.

  Paul had his mini-stroke, or whatever it was on the raod to Damascus and from then on he believed that "Jesus" was in Heaven. Paul then set about persuading the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah of the O.T, during his association with the members of the cult of Jesus he fitted what they told him about Jesus and his teachings in to what he believed.

  After the Temple destruction the Jews needed a way to ensure their religion and culture survived, to latch on to Pauls idea that all the Temple worship led to Jesus suited this agenda, so the Gospels were concocted in smokey rooms late at night toward the end of the 1st Century, John perhaps later (?)

  Subsequently several sects which were of the cult of Jesus evolved ,some perished for a variety of reasons, and a group emerged trying to bring about an "orthodox" faith, the "Church Fathers".

  This was all changed when the might of Rome adopted the cult of Jesus for its own political purposes.

  I may be wrong in a lot of this and am willing to change my views if evidence to the contrary is offered.

  Of course the historical realitty does not bother the W.T, but as I said above, if you wish to go along with them and say that all that is in the N.T is true, the present day WT org. bears little if any resemblance to what is contained in the N.T and their unique doctrines are not to be found in the N.T

  So, as per the thread title, however you look at it, the WT does not parallel 1st century "Christianity", or any followers of "Jesus" at that time.

  The WT/JW claims that they are in possesion of the same beliefs and faith as any 1st Cent. group are just plain rubbish.
• 

  mP

  Phizzy

  After the Temple destruction the Jews needed a way to ensure their religion and culture survived, to latch on to Pauls idea that all the Temple worship led to Jesus suited this agenda, so the Gospels were concocted in smokey rooms late at night toward the end of the 1st Century, John perhaps later (?)

  You might find it interesting to read what has been said in where i try and explore and show proofs of why the Romans created Jesus. Some of what you have said fits with the basic idea. THe Romans needed a peaceful messiah. They needed to show that the messiah had come, and the jews should stop following the fraudulant ( arent they all) messiahs that kept popping up. Religion was at the heart of the rebellion, and needed otbe changed.

  http://jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/239186/1/I-Want-Proof-Jesus-Even-Existed
• 

  konceptual99

  @recovery...

  You say...

  For the record I have been a pioneer for many years. And there is no "secret information" given to pioneers or elders. It can all be found in various WT publications.

  This is not strictly true. I've not looked at the Pioneer book for some time but I would hazard a guess that pretty much everything in there could be gleaned from other WT publications. I would also agree that much of the info in the Shepherd book can be got together from other WT publications. There are however a number of aspects of the Flock book, along with letters, that are not detailed in other publications. Are you aware, for example, of the line to be taken with any elder, MS or pioneer that attends a wedding of someone "marrying out of the lord", especially if that one has been inactive for many years. You can research this in the WT lib and never come to the conclusion that is reached in the Flock book. Why? Because it's only in the Flock book and is not represented, even in a watered down form, in the publications (let alone the Bible).

  Another example.. try and find out what the current stance on what happens if you accept a blood transfusion is... You won't find it in the organisation book under disassociation or disfellowshipping.

  The Flock book and the letters elders outline many procedural, legalistic and organisational "what ifs" that are never detailed in the other publications. More and more it's about trying to define a process for every situation and not about the simple application of love. There are many situations that can arise where you would never be able to come to the same conclusion as an elder because only the elder has access to the WT line on the matter.

  Of course, the elders are the ones faced with trying to sort a myriad of complex issues that arise and it would seem a bit pointless to swamp everyone with the paperwork but frankly most of the paperwork would disappear if elders could shepherd with love instead of trying to work out what rule to apply.
• 

  donny

  I have always been amused when the Society compares itself to the activities of the early church. The pic posted earlier of the 2 guys preaching while carring bags of scrolls was hilarious.

  You have to remember that the 1st century Christians only had the Old Testament to use. One day at a "gathering" many years ago, I asked some of my fellow JW's to try witnessing only using the "Hebrew Scriptures" and no one was able to make a decent presentation, even though they had the use of it in a convenient book form.

  I have no doubt that the early Christians just preached about Jesus because it was something they wanted to believe because they liked the message, not because they could prove him by Scripture.
• 

  Vidqun

  Christianity is an offshoot of the Jewish religion. A great percentage of early Christians were Jews. So, most Christian practices would have followed those of the Jews and not those of the Greeks. The Jews would not have tolerated the above, neither would the Christians for that matter. Just read what they thought of such practices in their writings. Early Christians did stand out for being exemplary, and that's why they were persecuted. That you can read in Roman historical works and letters. Here I give the Bible writers, especially those of the Christian Greek Scriptures or NT, the benefit of the doubt.
• 

  DarioKehl

  I cannot believe that illustration. Door to door? In the 1st Century?!?!? With Louis Vuitton satchels??? Containing SCROLLS????? I LOL'ed when I saw it in the ragazine and I LOL'ed again just now! That's the epitome of historical editing and academic dishonesty. I cannot believe the writing committee and art department signed off on that picture. It can easily be debunked. The fact that they're HANDING OUT PAMPHLETS IN SCROLL FORM implies that there was a governing body (albeit lowercase) publishing the material on parchment. The NERVE!