Diminishing glory of JWs, confusions are at the root

by Ireneus 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Ireneus

  Hi Drearyweather,

  Church required a verse that says it is appointed by God, hence they added such portion in Mathew 16:18. Context of this verse is Jesus’ famous question “Who do you say I am?” However, if you compare this portion with its parallel account in Mark 8:27-38, you will find that Jesus never made such church-friendly sentence. Jesus had unequivocally declared that he won’t appoint any church or organisation to work on his behalf after leaves the stage till the end of the world (Mathew 7:21-23), and judgement is based on whether a person acted humanely or not, not according to one’s religious affiliation or worship (Mathew 25:31-46)

  Such additions being made to what Jesus originally said was common in early days. Hence Luke deleted whatever added in his life-time. (Luke 1:1-3) For example, teaching about ransom sacrifice of Jesus was a Church doctrine which they added to Mathew 20:24-28 which is not found in the parallel account of Luke 22:25-30
• 

  Drearyweather

  Church required a verse that says it is appointed by God, hence they added such portion in Mathew 16:18.

  Interesting. How do you know that the verse was added? Do you have evidence that the early manuscripts did not have this verse?

  How do you come to a conclusion that one verse is inspired and one is not?
  
  
• 

  Ireneus

  Drearyweather, Jesus himself says in Mathew 7:21-23 that he would not make such statements.
• 

  Vidiot

  Drearyweather - "How do you come to a conclusion that one verse is inspired and one is not?"

  You pick the one that's most advantageous for whatever your agenda is, obviously.
• 

  Drearyweather

  Drearyweather, Jesus himself says in Mathew 7:21-23 that he would not make such statements.

  That's a bit absurd. The rock mentioned in Matt 16:18 is Jesus and not Peter. Eph 2:20 says that Jesus was the cornerstone of the true Christian faith. Peter and other apostles did take the lead but formed a part of the foundation, not the cornerstone itself. No way does it contradict with Matt 7:21-23.

  Matt 7:21-23 says that those who do the will of God will be acknowledged by Jesus. The will of God was explained by Jesus and the other apostles who came after him and wrote the other books of the Bible.

  If a scripture somewhere looks out of context then that means that it is necessary to dig deeper to understand the events when they were told. Matt 7 was a part of the Sermon on the mount told to a group of thousands of believers and unbelievers, whereas Matt 16:11-28 was a part of a private conversation between Jesus and his apostles. Jesus was preparing his apostles for his upcoming death and thus the conversation dealt with uncomfortable subjects leading to Peters admonition to Jesus and Jesus' resulting rebuke.
  

  In the Sermon on the mount, Jesus told that blessed are the peacemakers. (Matt 5:9) But later, while sending his disciples for preaching, Jesus told that he has come not to make peace but with a sword. (Matt 10:34). Two different occasions, with different people addressed and in different contexts. Not contradictory.

  Discrediting a scripture as not spoken by Jesus because we cannot reconcile it with the context is like me telling that Einstein did not invent the theory of relativity because I can't understand it.

  
  
• 

  venus

  I disagree with you Drearyweather,

  Though context may have a bearing on some statements, things referred to in Mathew 7:21-23 are absolute which can mean one and the same thing in any context. Interestingly, phrases such as “the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted because of righteousness” etc are prima facie refer to those what they mean—not to a particular faith or organization.

  In addition, Jesus made it sure that no one would interpret it in any other ways by elaborating it in the simplest illustration of sheep and goat (Mathew 25:31-46) where it is described with absolute clarity that judgment is based on whether humans acted humanely or not, not based on one’s belief.
• 

  Drearyweather

  things referred to in Mathew 7:21-23 are absolute which can mean one and the same thing in any context

  True. In fact, for a Christian what Jesus told in all the four Gospels are absolute and in harmony with each other. That's my point.
• 

  Ireneus

  Hi Drearyweather,

  Here is something for you to ponder over.

  Two verses contradicting each other can occur, and it is natural when two writers are involved. Yet Bible writer named John was so careless that he could produce a verse that is inherently contradicting itself: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” (John 3:13) It means only Jesus who descended from heaven has gone into heaven, no one else has gone into heaven! Jesus ascended into heaven at the end of his ministry, after his death. Hence how could he say he has ascended into heaven at the start of his ministry? This is because writers just thought what Jesus could have spoken or done if he were treading on earth and wrote them down. Yet its contradiction goes even beyond itself. There were others who went to heaven without dying, such as Enoch (Genesis 5:24). Regarding Enoch, you can say like JWs. However, if that's what it means, why can't the writer write it exactly what it meant instead of "Enoch was no more because God took him away." (Genesis 5:24)
  
• 

  Drearyweather

  Yet Bible writer named John was so careless that he could produce a verse that is inherently contradicting itself: “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.”

  Ireneus, With due respect, I feel you are again taking things out of context and are also isolating sentences from conversations.

  You have missed an important word from John 3:13, and that is the verse begins with 'and'. The verse is a part of the conversation that Jesus was having with Nicodemus. (verses 10-31).

  Why did Jesus tell this verse? To comprehend Jesus's words you need to understand the entire conversation. In the entire conversation from verse 10, Jesus was talking about his authority as being the only person who had been with God in his prehuman existence and had the knowledge to teach people about heavenly things. No other person was in that position because no one had been with God there.

  Had any human in the Bible gone to heaven and then come down from heaven and taught people about the kingdom of God? No. Only Jesus. So when he told that only he had ascended to heaven, it meant that only he was the one who had been in Heaven earlier and thus can now teach people about the kingdom of the heavens. That's the way we humans use certain semantics.

  "ascended to heaven" cannot always mean physically going to or raised to heaven. You cannot take it in a literal sense if the context does not warrant. Let me give you an example:

  Take the following three sentences:

  1. I went to a musical concert yesterday, and wow, I should say that her performance was out of this world!

  2. I went to Jane's house for a party and Kim drank until he was out of this world.

  3. After seeing the first rocket launch, my 99-year-old grandpa excitedly exclaimed, "O Man, no one could imagine we can send such a huge thing out of this world"

  Will you take the phrase "out of this world" in its literal sense in all the sentences?

  in the above three sentences, the phrase "out of this world" means three different things in each instance, first sentence. it denotes extraordinary performance, the second sentence refers to intoxication and third means sending out in space.

  It's about semantics. An effort is needed to understand it rather than simply discrediting it as contradictory.
• 

  Ireneus

  Hi Drearyweather,

  What you say I have already read in some commentary.

  You have the satisfaction of having explained something, and I have the satisfaction that John 3:13 was never uttered by Jesus.

  If what you say is what Jesus really meant, Jesus could have worded it exactly the same as you say. Yet we have very candid theologians like William Barclay who in his commentary admitted that Jesus never uttered this, it is the wording of the writer. It is such brave and faithful theologians we want.