Jehovah's Witnesses-What do they really believe? (prophecy, God, Christian, believers)

[alicenevada]

Originally Posted by WCRob

Alice, what is the pillar and foundation of truth?

P.S. I didn't say I was Catholic.

Doh! Sorry for assuming. I guess there was something you said that I thought implied that.

I'd say Christ is the pillar and foundation of truth. He said 'I am the way, the truth, and the life'. However, depending on the context of conversation, you could also say the foundation of truth is God's Kingdom, which is the only hope for mankind.

(Incidentally, The District Conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses that we have every summer are currently underway all over the world and the theme is 'Follow the Christ'. I'm very excited that Jesus' ministry is the theme this year and looking forward to the discourses alot. There is always so much great information.)

[Teach07]

Process of Canon Selection

The early church made decisions about which writings should be considered authoritative first in local councils of elders, and later, as the church became institutional, through councils of bishops. Criteria used for selection of texts included orthodoxy, apostolic origin, general acceptance by the churches, and whether they had been cited by bishops.

The earliest list we know of Christian books judged as Scripture is the Muratorian Canon from the late second century. Its stated criterion is that a book must be suitable for reading in church. This canon did not include the letter to the Hebrews or those we know as James, 3 John, and perhaps 1 and 2 Peter. It did include the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. The Muratorian Canon rejects the Shepherd of Hermas and Pauline letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians. It also rejects the writings of the Gnostic Valentinus.

By A.D. 200 there was general agreement by the major Christian communities on the core of our New Testament canon: the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s epistles, 1 Peter, and 1 John. By the late fourth century, the twenty-seven books we now have had been generally accepted, with Revelation the last and most controversial. During these four hundred years, the Christian church was also developing from a small movement within Judaism to the official religion of the Roman Empire, which stretched from Britain to Morocco, to Armenia and Egypt.




Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria

In his Festal Letter for A.D. 367, St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, was the first to list the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament. He called them the "springs of salvation" (allegorizing Isaiah 12:3), and claimed that "in these alone is the teaching of true religion proclaimed as good news; let no one add to these or take anything from them." He distinguished canonical from apocryphal, and determined that the Shepherd of Hermas, for example, did not belong to the canon.



By A.D. 400 these twenty-seven books were generally accepted as Christian Scripture, although no official action was taken by the church until 1546. The canon was not actually formally ratified until the Council of Trent, when the Roman Catholic Church was fine-tuning its teachings and beliefs in reaction to the Protestant Reformation. Protestants have accepted this canon, without the Apocryphal books, by common consent.

Four hundred years is a short time to form a canon when contrasted with the lengthy period of Old Testament formation.Yet it is a long time when we consider that for some 400 years after the life of Jesus the church was still determining what would be the normative texts.

[Pathwalker]

Originally Posted by alicenavada

Doh! Sorry for assuming. I guess there was something you said that I thought implied that.

It's okay. I think it was the other thread where I stated in one of my posts that I wasn't Catholic, but that I was researching Orthodoxy and Catholicism in preparation for a conversion.

Originally Posted by alicenavada

I'd say Christ is the pillar and foundation of truth. He said 'I am the way, the truth, and the life'. However, depending on the context of conversation, you could also say the foundation of truth is God's Kingdom, which is the only hope for mankind.

You'd say- ? I don't mean to sound like a smart-alec, but in your previous response to me, you said something about thinking I would have read a lot of religious history before making my decision to become Catholic and that I would have known most of this already......yet, you say you know the Bible, so did you not read it enough to know where it specifically states the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth? Read 1 Timothy 3:15.

I'm also a bit curious about why you're referencing the works of people opposed to, or with a flawed view of, the church - some of whom question the validity and truth of the Bible (such as Pagels). Not to mention, they are contemporary writers who based their views on other works written throughout history, some of which are very likely biased. Durant himself thought moral law was a product of evolution. (Do you believe in evolution?) Wolfson was said to be known as a ""daring" scholar, one who was not afraid to put forward a bold hypothesis with limited evidential support". It was said he often chose bold conjecture over safe, but boring, analyses. So why are you allowing yourself to believe the material authored by those who question the validity and truth of the Bible?

I don't have time to research the other references you cited. I would like to note, however, that you yourself have indicated elsewhere that you felt I was basing my information on the works of those who were ex-Witnesses, or who had a misunderstanding of JW doctrines. Would it be fair for me to reference the works of those who have a flawed view of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses?

I don't pay attention to the writings of people who are merely expressing their opinions about the validity and history of the Bible and the Church. I pay attention to the CHURCH - the pillar and foundation of truth.

[Teach07]

Stages of Canonization
Canonization (selection of which books were put in the Bible) was a process that went through several stages and took many centuries. These stages were not separate but sometimes overlapped:



Composition (manuscripts were written either as a recording of oral stories and teachings or as original documents)
Community (manuscripts were read, circulated, and revised within the religious communities)
Criteria (certain manuscripts became accepted as authoritative scripture within the religious communities-- different groups accepted different scriptures)
Collection (scriptures were gathered together in single scrolls, codices, and later in books-- the physical manner of collecting scriptures also had an influence on canonical decisions)
Canon(a defined group of scriptures in a single collection became accepted by a certain religious community as The Bible-- different groups chose different canons)

[alicenevada]

Originally Posted by WCRob

It's okay. I think it was the other thread where I stated in one of my posts that I wasn't Catholic, but that I was researching Orthodoxy and Catholicism in preparation for a conversion.



You'd say- ? I don't mean to sound like a smart-alec, but in your previous response to me, you said something about thinking I would have read a lot of religious history before making my decision to become Catholic and that I would have known most of this already......yet, you say you know the Bible, so did you not read it enough to know where it specifically states the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth? Read 1 Timothy 3:15.

I'm also a bit curious about why you're referencing the works of people opposed to, or with a flawed view of, the church - some of whom question the validity and truth of the Bible (such as Pagels). Not to mention, they are contemporary writers who based their views on other works written throughout history, some of which are very likely biased. Durant himself thought moral law was a product of evolution. (Do you believe in evolution?) Wolfson was said to be known as a ""daring" scholar, one who was not afraid to put forward a bold hypothesis with limited evidential support". It was said he often chose bold conjecture over safe, but boring, analyses. So why are you allowing yourself to believe the material authored by those who question the validity and truth of the Bible?

I don't have time to research the other references you cited. I would like to note, however, that you yourself have indicated elsewhere that you felt I was basing my information on the works of those who were ex-Witnesses, or who had a misunderstanding of JW doctrines. Would it be fair for me to reference the works of those who have a flawed view of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses?

I don't pay attention to the writings of people who are merely expressing their opinions about the validity and history of the Bible and the Church. I pay attention to the CHURCH - the pillar and foundation of truth.

Yes, I'm familiar with that scripture and incidentally, it does read 'congregation' in my bible. It just didnt occur to me that you were referring to that particular scripture. See, that question is a loaded question and one that would be answered differently depending on which religion is asking it of me. Some churches say "Christ" (since indeed w/out Christ there would be no congregation), some refer to God's Kingdom as a 'pillar' , and some, miraculously, are referring to that particular scripture. All three hold water, in retrospect. But the actual verse did slip my mind for a moment so thanks for reminding me. That is, of course, referring to the early Christian congregation before it was corrupted.

Yes I referred to all types of people in my post. Why not? Pagels does question the bible but she also references lots of historical documents that do not favor Church or State-and these are facts. I think a nonbiased view is very important to get the true story. I don't agree w/ everything in those books but I do find the historical evidence very interesting. And no matter WHO you read, Rob, there will always be negative information about them. These are still consider acredited scholars any which way you look at it and, like I said, you certainly aren't limited to them. If you can find a 'flawless' scholar to read, please do so (though I doubt there is one) .

If you want to verify whether their information is correct, it's quite simple. The book The History of the Catholic Church was written by an Italian Catholic and The Oxford Dictionary of Popes is an unbiased reference book that has been approved by the church itself. In Leo Rosten's book "Religions of America", the Catholic Church explains their own beliefs and they confirm most of this as well...the origins are not specifically discussed but the attention to tradition can easily be traced to the facts. Plus, there are always Encyclopedias, if you'd rather. Believe me, you can research this on your own.

I appreciate that you want to respect and listen to the Church, at Christ's command. But don't you think you owe it to God and Christ to research that Church and make sure it is not steeped in apostasy? Jesus said it was very important to do so and, through his disciples, warned the congregation repeatedly about the coming corruption. History shows that the Church was indeed corrupted. If the teachings of my Church and the teachings of Christ are not in agreement, I would feel it was my duty to examine that Church.

[alicenevada]

Originally Posted by Teach07

Stages of Canonization
Canonization (selection of which books were put in the Bible) was a process that went through several stages and took many centuries. These stages were not separate but sometimes overlapped:



Composition (manuscripts were written either as a recording of oral stories and teachings or as original documents)
Community (manuscripts were read, circulated, and revised within the religious communities)
Criteria (certain manuscripts became accepted as authoritative scripture within the religious communities-- different groups accepted different scriptures)
Collection (scriptures were gathered together in single scrolls, codices, and later in books-- the physical manner of collecting scriptures also had an influence on canonical decisions)
Canon(a defined group of scriptures in a single collection became accepted by a certain religious community as The Bible-- different groups chose different canons)

Teach, I appreciate the references. I am familiar w/ each bible book and why it became part of the eventual canon. I like that you have also done your research. I've found that not all researchers are in agreement though so it's important to prayerfully consider what you're learning, isnt it?

[Pathwalker]

Originally Posted by alicenavada

Yes, I'm familiar with that scripture and incidentally, it does read 'congregation' in my bible. It just didnt occur to me that you were referring to that particular scripture. See, that question is a loaded question and one that would be answered differently depending on which religion is asking it of me. Some churches say "Christ" (since indeed w/out Christ there would be no congregation), some refer to God's Kingdom as a 'pillar' , and some, miraculously, are referring to that particular scripture. All three hold water, in retrospect. But the actual verse did slip my mind for a moment so thanks for reminding me. That is, of course, referring to the early Christian congregation before it was corrupted.

Yes I referred to all types of people in my post. Why not? Pagels does question the bible but she also references lots of historical documents that do not favor Church or State-and these are facts. I think a nonbiased view is very important to get the true story. I don't agree w/ everything in those books but I do find the historical evidence very interesting. And no matter WHO you read, Rob, there will always be negative information about them. These are still consider acredited scholars any which way you look at it and, like I said, you certainly aren't limited to them. If you can find a 'flawless' scholar to read, please do so (though I doubt there is one) .

If you want to verify whether their information is correct, it's quite simple. The book The History of the Catholic Church was written by an Italian Catholic and The Oxford Dictionary of Popes is an unbiased reference book that has been approved by the church itself. In Leo Rosten's book "Religions of America", the Catholic Church explains their own beliefs and they confirm most of this as well...the origins are not specifically discussed but the attention to tradition can easily be traced to the facts. Plus, there are always Encyclopedias, if you'd rather. Believe me, you can research this on your own.

I appreciate that you want to respect and listen to the Church, at Christ's command. But don't you think you owe it to God and Christ to research that Church and make sure it is not steeped in apostasy? Jesus said it was very important to do so and, through his disciples, warned the congregation repeatedly about the coming corruption. History shows that the Church was indeed corrupted. If the teachings of my Church and the teachings of Christ are not in agreement, I would feel it was my duty to examine that Church.

Alice, I'm going to hang it up with this thread - not because of anything you've said, and not because I feel like I'm losing or anything like that. It's just that I generally don't like to debate stuff when neither side is really going to change their position. I say one thing that you counter, and vice versa. It's quite pointless. I'm firm in what I believe and so are you. We aren't going to achieve anything doing this.

[alicenevada]

Hmmm, were we debating? . I didnt open this thread to debate and from what I can see, we haven't done that. I'm not here because I'm 'searching' and evidently neither are you. I'm just here because alot of people are misinformed about my faith and I wanted to do what I could to rectify that.

Have a good day.

[TravisW]

If the Church was corrupted by the 3rd century, and they were the ones who compiled the New Testament, how can you know that it was inspired and correct?

[Pathwalker]

A debate, by definition, is the exchange of arguments by those on opposing sides of a subject, the aim of which is to ultimately determine which side's position is more justified than the other.

Yes, this was clearly turning into a debate.