by Terry 79 Replies latest jw friends

  • JH

    But it's funny how in the book of Revelation, Jesus or God says that anyone adding or taking away from the bible would have to deal with him...

  • JH

    It's also funny not to see God's name YHWH in the new testament.

  • Terry
    I would like to ask this again, "I would also like to ask, are there any disputed parts/readings in the New Testament manuscripts that involve doctrine?

    Doctrine is established through specificity of verse. Until you can specify what verse says what you cannot confirm doctrine as other than established opinion backed by authority. The writer(s) purported to be Matthew are a case in point. This gospel wishes to establish Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy. How does he do this? He cites scriptures. The scriptures are used as proof texts. Were these texts intended to point to Jesus? It is ASSERTED to be thus. My point was (and IS) the following:

    1.Who wrote what is asserted and never undisputed.

    2.The exact wordings are controversial and the precision of the wordings often makes the difference between one side's PROOF and the other's.

    3.Christianity is, after all, about Jesus! What he may have said and to whom is all there is to his messege for mankind. What we know and how we know it is the subject of controversy. Pretending it is settled fact is to joust at windmills.

    4.Paul shuffles the deck and deals and the Catholic church picks up the hand and trumps Judaism. It is not to be underestimated the destructive force (destroying evidence) of papal pronouncements.

    5.Who was "in favor" with Constantine or subsequent emperors went a long way toward whose views were "official" and who was not tolerated to spread influence. No Constantine; no Councils. No Councils; no orthodoxy. No orthodoxy; no Church and no enforcement against naysayers.

    It doesn't matter who says what about the Bible, in the long run. The fact is, NOBODY HAS A LOCK on what the Bible means mainly because it cannot be proved by resorting to texts. The divinity of the words is as impossible to establish as the words of the texts and texts of the eras in which they were wrought (and by whom.)

    If that isn't daunting to the concept of truth or evidence or even reliable opinion I have to shrug it all off and say, "Why bother discussing it at all?"

    There is no "there" there.


  • daystar


    I'm glad someone has the tenacity to argue this stuff more or less coherently. I certainly do not have the breath to waste.

  • Terry


    I'm glad someone has the tenacity to argue this stuff more or less coherently. I certainly do not have the breath to waste.

    Actually, I find it on the edge of boredom. I'm forcing the issue here. I really am too lazy to put everything out I've compiled over time. It is such drudgery and not many people actually take the time to read it.

    Technical posts go on and on and never prove what you set out to prove. You know why? The person with the adversarial attitude will find a misplaced semicolon to cavil about and the discussion devolves into patching cracks in an otherwise foundational argument.

    The Bible as a source of God-data is a wedge issue.


  • Terry
    The only thing I'm curious about is which theological seminary you attended and had a finger wagged in your face?

    I work at a bookstore that buys books directly from the public and resells them at half the original price. I'm in charge of the Religion and Philosophy sections.

    We are situated pretty close to the Seminary here. I have many regular customers who are Seminary Students (and the occasional professor). Invevitably the discussions arise......

    I ask lots of questions and seldom venture an opinion one way or another. (For one thing, it isn't allowed as a bookstore policy; so, I save it for JWD :)

    The Fort Worth Baptist Theological Seminary, I assume, is little different from other seminaries throughout the land of the free.


  • talesin

    A good read, Terry. Yes, like another poster said, I knew these things through accumulation of knowledge over the years, but you've laid it out quite nicely.

    LMAO at CYP! We have the reruns on late-nite TV, and Jane & Dan never cease to make me ROFL.


  • Forscher

    I think the classicist wrote a pretty good refutation.

    The saddest thing to me is that all this angst and anger toward the Bible is really a result of people who claim to follow it ignoring it on the most important points. The WTBTS is a prime example of such conduct. Although Jesus is recorded telling his disciples not to be dogmatic and legalistic like certain Jews in his day, the WTBTS ignores what he said and embraces legalism (like the lawyer who led it down that path after Russell's death) anyway with the same tragic results. As a result, the Bible itself is cursed all day long by many who once were in that organization. It is not the Bible that is the problem. It is power hungry men who misuse it!

    I have a copy of the majority text with footnotes noting the differences between different manuscripts and can say that the comments on the differences mainly consisting mainly of spelling and word order differences (since Greek is largely an inflected language, the word order is not always so important as in our own language) are true. The inerrancy is not in the technical details, rather, it is in the message of a faith based on love which organizations like the WTBTS and the Catholic Church (although I'll give the RCC it's due by acknowledging that it considers the Bible as only ONE source for it's truth, not the ONLY source) largely ignore. Such organizations ignore that message which permeates the New Testament because it is very inconvienient to their agendas of increasing their power.

    In closing, don't throw out the baby just because the water is dirty. Just because power-mad men misuse God's word for their own nefarious end doesn't mean that it is neither inspired nor of good value. It only means that such men are all the more evil for their doing so.

  • Cygnus

    I'm too lazy, depressed, tired, sad, sick, etc. to look it up, but I love how a c.1960 Watchtower brushes the whole argument aside and said that the Bible itself proves its authenticity and we don't need no stinkin' Catholics or anybody else to say what it is or isn't.

    Cyg, of the slept all day and just got up at 6:30 PM class

  • Satanus

    Since the catholic church created christianity and put the bible together, ya'll should either become catholics, or fogedaboudit.


Share this