by Terry 79 Replies latest jw friends

  • Forscher

    Good try Satanus!

  • ezekiel3

    Terry, well written.

    I expect Bible canon apologies to dissolve into the murmer of myth within our lifetime. For more great reasoning on this topic, get on this merry-go-round:

    *** si p. 302 Study Number 4—The Bible and Its Canon ***

    The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

  • Cygnus


    Not for that exat reason, but if I were to get knocked over the hea and believe in Jesus again I would be a Catholic.

    PS: I'd like to start a new topic but the system says I have to wait 27 hours, and my last two attempts at replying here have been stopped by the software. How's about an explanation, Simon?

    Edited to add; ezekiel, thanks for looking up that article. It is, I believe, what I referred to earlier.

  • thinker

    Hi Terry,

    Good stuff on the bible. When I read the title of your post I thought that maybe you had stumbled onto some of the more interesting things I have found inside the bible.

    For example, did you know sex toys are mentioned in the bible? Eze. 16:17

    Did you know the phrase "hung like a horse" comes from the bible? Eze. 23:20

    Did you know that all-important prophet Isaiah walked around naked for 3 years because God told him to? Isa. 20:3

    Did you know the words "watchtower will become a wasteland" is in the bible? Isa 32:14 (NIV)

    Take care,


  • jws

    If you're a believer, you're going to say that God was behind the scenes, making sure that what he wanted got included in the Bible and what he didn't got dropped. So, regardless of who convened when and where and who argued what, what God wanted made it into the final draft.

    At one time, I also believed this about the origins and operations of the JWs. After reading Crisis of Conscience, I realized it was all man-made behind the scenes and I lost my faith in it.

  • DevonMcBride

    Very interesting Terry.

    If you get a chance read The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty.


  • Terry
    If God wanted us to have His word preserved he could do so NO MATTER what humans tried to intervene.

    I hear this one alot.

    You know what I reply?

    "Have you ever seen these so-called preserved texts? They look like what the streetcleaners find in the bottom of dumpsters after tickertape parades on NY city streets! The condition of your 'preserved" Bible is the best evidence that God has not deigned it necessary to keep this book intact. On the contrary, it looks EXACTLY as though God has let garbage remain garbage while silly self-important men scurry about puzzling the pieces into a patchwork quilt they can project feckless fantasies upon and call it inerrent 'Truth'."

    If you're a believer, you're going to say that God was behind the scenes, making sure that what he wanted got included in the Bible and what he didn't got dropped. So, regardless of who convened when and where and who argued what, what God wanted made it into the final draft.

    From the looks of the actual artifacts, God has done a pretty awful job. The Great Pyramid of Gizah is in better shape. The texts of Euclid's Geometry is pristine by comparison. No, the invisible hand of God is very much invisible on this one.


  • Oroborus21


    ineresting points Terry. The only one I would take issue with is that I believe that some of the Pauline letters were considered authoritative at the time that he circulated them. So while your statement that none of today's (new testament) were part of the then considered holy sriptures or in any scrolls is correct, the implication is not quite accurate. Otherwise very nice points.


  • the_classicist
    I think the classicist wrote a pretty good refutation.

    Thanks for the compliment Forscher, but no one really bothers to look at it as most are trying to do whatever they can to "discredit" the Bible.

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

    Geez, no one ever talks about Orthodoxy! They're Christians too.

  • the_classicist
    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.


    What an artful dodge. By differences in doctrine, I mean an important verse that says one thing in one manuscript and another thing in another manuscript and that can't be resolved by the majority reading. For example, this is a minor change that doesn't effect meaning or doctrine, "Go into the city and preach the Gospel...", as opposed to "Walk into the city and teach the Gospel..." (<---- hypothetical). Now a change involving a doctrine would be something like, "Christ was born of a virgin," as opposed to "Christ was not born of a virgin." Or, "Go and preach to the Jews," to "Go and preach to all the nations."

Share this