Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

[WitnessofJah]

Doesn't Satan Like it when we sin? That sounds like an affect to me

You're right that Satan loves it when we sin. However my response was to your comment of "Nope I don't think he did. Evil is a result of our sin". We are not responsible in the slightest for Satan's evil acts which caused the result of sin. We did not cause sin - Satan did - but now we have sin, we have to pay the consequences by sinning ourselves.

I agree with you that Satan instigated but Satan is not the cause of sin. The cause of sin is mans Pride, Lust, Envy. And the rest.

I agree - but without Satan setting the sin in humans in motion (i.e. Adam sinning), we never would have inherited sin to begin in the first place. The sins we commit today may not be directly caused by Satan - but because of Satan's original deed in the garden of eden, we now have that ability to sin...if you see what I'm trying to say.

 

[WitnessofJah]

Put it this way: evil is the name for the absence of good.
Of course he did. Allah created him.
No, he will die at the end of the world.

I agree with you...but you have misunderstood the context of when I said this. When I was asking those questions - I knew the answers - I was actually directing those questions to somebody else in critique of their argument because what they said conflicted with biblical scripture - not mine!

No, actually when Allah told the Angels to prostrate to Adam, he was with them, and he refused, boasting that he was made from fire and Adam from clay. Then, he asked for Allah's permisson to decieve mankind.

I 100% agree with the fact that Satan was not created evil - and I never did question that in this entire thread. However, I'm not so sure on your story about Adam and Satan - since it heavily conflicts with the Torah, a book that Muslims firmly believe in.

How do you inherit sin?

Like you can inherit any other faulty genetic trait. Can you explain why Adam, who was still close to perfection (still sinful though) despite sinning, lived for 930 years, and his sons and grandsons lived in their 700's-800's-900's, while on the otherhand, as we have have become more and more sinful over the years, our life-spans have become less and less, namely a mere 70-80 years of age? Explain to me this phenomena.

Shaitan (Satan) didn't only decieve Adam. He has tried to decieve every person to set foot on this Earth. So, Original Sin does not exist; rather, every person in history (except for a few. e.g. Prophets, Messengers) has sinned because of Shaitan's desire to corrupt us all and prove to Allah that we are just arrogant and ungrateful. Well, some of us are. However, there are some who believe in Him and are not arrogant and are grateful.

The word "Sin" means "miss" in the sense of missing or not reaching a goal, way, mark, or right point. RearingArabian, if you agree that Adam was a perfect individual at one point, why are his children "amiss" so to speak? Being perfect and sinful is as distinct as night and day - a lion cannot breed a lamb and a sparrow cannot breed a lizard. Therefore, perfection cannot breed sin, or the other way around.

In Genesis 2:16 and 17 (part of the Torah), says: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die." Jehovah God clearly specified here that if Adam was to eat the fruit - he would die by paying the wages of sin....so why are we paying that price for Adam also? Because Adam handed sin down to us.

God clearly specified to Adam that if he left the tree alone, he would not die, and if he did, he would positively die. So if according to you, we are responsible for our own sin, then why was Adam given a CHOICE and why have we not had that ultimate choice of whether we be sinful or be perfect also?

 

[WitnessofJah]

Well... it seems you are taking this a bit too personally.... so I'll bow out of this thread.

Any other post.... I am just a goofy guy from Massachsetts who enjoys talking about faith and philosopy. Try not to take every differing view as a personal attack... the forum will be a lot more fun for you if you don't.

Peace and God's blessings,
Scott

Sorry if I came across too aggressive...no hard feelings intended!

I did'nt take it personally, I just could'nt understand your logic. I'm a little disappointed that you did'nt respond to my post about the use of the Septuagint, since much of work went behind it!

Best Wishes,

WitnessofJah.

 

[chuck010342]

We are not responsible in the slightest for Satan's evil acts which caused the result of sin.

I agree that we as humans are not responsible for Satan's evil acts. But I disagree with the cause of sin. Satan did not cause sin Satan as you so beautifuly put it "He is the one who instigated it to us" Satan twisted the words of God in the first sin and eve believed him. The bible does not say that Satan forced Eve to sin but rather that eve listened to Satan. Satan is not responsible for sin humanity is.

We did not cause sin - Satan did - but now we have sin, we have to pay the consequences by sinning ourselves.

Actually it was Christ who paid the penalty of sin at the cross

I agree - but without Satan setting the sin in humans in motion (i.e. Adam sinning), we never would have inherited sin to begin in the first place.

Satan is not the one who caused it. Satan is the one who urged it forward. Lets say that there is a big cookie sitting on the counter. You know that you shouldn't eat it because it will give you a tooth ache. However the cookie looks tasty and you go over and eat it. And sure enough an hour later your tooth hurts. Now its not the cookies fault you went over to eat it. YOU made the logical decision to go over to it and eat it. Adam and Eve made the logical decision to listen to Satan.

The sins we commit today may not be directly caused by Satan - but because of Satan's original deed in the garden of eden, we now have that ability to sin...if you see what I'm trying to say.[/QUOTE]

 

[WitnessofJah]

I agree that we as humans are not responsible for Satan's evil acts. But I disagree with the cause of sin. Satan did not cause sin Satan as you so beautifuly put it “He is the one who instigated it to us" Satan twisted the words of God in the first sin and eve believed him. The bible does not say that Satan forced Eve to sin but rather that eve listened to Satan. Satan is not responsible for sin humanity is.

What you don’t realize is that Satan did’nt just “twist the words of God” for the sake of twisting it – he had ulterior motives. He was the first person in the history of the universe to question God’s sovereignty and God commandments (i.e. to Adam and Eve). Genesis 3:1: “Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it began to say to the woman: “Is it really so that God said YOU must not eat from every tree of the garden?” By actually changing what God had said to Adam and Eve, he tricked them into sinning when they thought he was telling the truth. What were Satan’s motives behind all this treachery?

Satan himself wanted to worshipped instead of Jehovah God and the only way he could do that was by making Adam and Eve sin before they had any perfect children. Satan’s acts of wickedness actually worked and is confirmed in 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says: “Among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.” Therefore, Satan got what he wanted, to rule the earth and for people to worship him by doing ungodly acts – but this is only because God allowed him to, Jehovah could have easily destroyed Satan on sight in the garden of Eden. The reason why God allowed Satan to rule is explained in depth earlier on in this thread. However, when God has proved his universal sovereignty for all to see, he will then destroy Satan the Devil.

Actually it was Christ who paid the penalty of sin at the cross

Jesus came down from heaven – out of his own free will and because of his love for mankind – to sacrifice his soul in exchange for many. Romans 6:23: “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” Jesus did not pay a “penalty” – he did’nt have to die for us and easily could have bailed out at the last minute which would have resulted in the whole human race dying – but he did’nt.


Also, Jesus did not die on a cross – he died on a stake – there is no mention of the cross in the original Greek scriptures. In classical Greek the word (stau·ros´) rendered "torture stake" in the New World Translation primarily denotes an upright stake, or pole, and there is no evidence that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures used it to designate a stake with a crossbeam.The Bible clearly states (Acts 5:30): "The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom YOU slew, hanging him upon a stake."Jesus died a Roman death, and back in Jesus time, it was a customary Roman procedure to impale humans by hanging then on a stake - there is even archaeological to support this, since "stakes" have been found on ancient Roman settlements.

Here is the definition of the "stake" in the dictionary: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?dict=B&searchword=stake

Satan is not the one who caused it. Satan is the one who urged it forward. Lets say that there is a big cookie sitting on the counter. You know that you shouldn't eat it because it will give you a tooth ache. However the cookie looks tasty and you go over and eat it. And sure enough an hour later your tooth hurts. Now its not the cookies fault you went over to eat it. YOU made the logical decision to go over to it and eat it. Adam and Eve made the logical decision to listen to Satan.

Your analogy about a cookie is hilarious!


However, there is a huge difference between a cookie looking tasty and Satan deliberately tricking Adam and Even purposely before they reproduced perfect children for his own ulterior motives and agenda so that he himself could rule the earth. He made Adam sin so that all his children (the entire human race) could inherit sin also. Romans 5:12: “That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

 

[Scott1]

Well.... now I feel bad.... I can't let all your hard work go to waste!

I would like you to respond that you understand my function here as a moderator and that you understand the disctinction between a Mod Post and my personal replies.... it is of utmost importance to me that you understand ReligiousForums.com WILL NOT "endorse" one faith or another.... EVER. It is an open community and no members of the forum staff will ever supress a viewpoint that is given in a respectful, tolerant manner. Ever. :tsk:

With that said, on to your posts:

You very well know that I did'nt direct you onto that page -

You are mistaken:

And if you don't think that the Septaugint translation is reliable, then you have definitely missed something somewhere. Read these:

http://www.watchtower.org/library/w.../article_01.htm

Non-JW:

http://www.septuagint.net/Septuagint.htm

My quotes were taken from the second source..... I am sure that your apology is forthcoming.

My “church” and many other religions exclude the Apocrypha. On the flip side of the coin, what gives the few religions that follow it (like the R.C.) the authority to put it in despite overwhelming evidence?

The fact that other faiths do not include it does not mean a thing.... they are just as wrong as you.... in my opinion of course.
What is does come down to, as you correctly realized, is authority. Authority given by Christ to the Apostles.... and those who they appointed to follow them.

Thinks that “oral stories” are more conclusive than the Bible.

Wrong.... the Bible was complied by these "oral stories" that were eventually written down. If you discount all "oral stories" ... you discount your Bible.

Thinks that “Tradition” is more powerful in the development of the Bible than God himself.

Wrong again.... Apostolic tradition was given by God, and recorded in the Bible.... and as we follow the teachings of Christ, and did not change the word of God some 1800 years later, we can be open and honest about the formation of the Canon.

Failed to provide a single Biblical scripture in favour of the Trinity

Well, my friend, I could provide several.... the problem is that you would refute them.... ignoring the fact that your denial would be your personal interpretation and non-authoritive.... I choose to follow the authority of Christ who chose Apostles to shepard the faith after He went to sit at the right hand of the Father.

Fails to see the fantastic contradictions of the Bible with his comments

By your PERSONAL interpretation there are contradictions.... most of which you came to by reading Watchtower tracts, so don't be so blind to where your "knowledge" comes from. We are both standing on the shoulders of others.....

Argues that the Bible does not have 66 books, and then realizes that most of the Bibles on earth have 66 books, and reverts.

Ignorant and non-logical. I would gather that there are more Korans than Bibles... do we now have truth by popular vote.... truth by a best-seller list? Give me a break.

Believes in a book (The Apocrypha) that contradicts his own faith.

Oy vey..... you hold you opinion is very high regard..... it does not contradict my faith.

Failed to answer my question about why “Jehovah/Yaweh” is not in his Bible translation despite being in the original copies.

It's a translation.... you have failed to give evidence of why this must be in the "original" form, but every other word may be translated. Your faith contradicts the meaning of this message by translating the word of God.... if one word must remain "original" who gives you the authority to translate ANY of the other words?

Deliberately misquoted me by going onto a website page I had not specified.

We covered this above.... again, waiting for an apology.

Creates an argument over elementary things that are so simple, they don’t need to be argued.

If they are so simple.... why can't you answer? I think you can see by the atheists jumping in, you are failing to provide a plausible explaination of where your Bible came from, save circular logic.

Why is’nt it included in the Bible?
Thus, the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.

Hmmm... so a Jewish (who at the time were anti-Christian) Council is your authority?
When did the JW church become obedient to Jewish councils?

More to follow....

 

[Scott1]

Some history that I'm sure you have not read:

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

The Didache
"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).



The Letter of Barnabas
"Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).



Clement of Rome
"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).


Polycarp of Smyrna
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).



Irenaeus
"Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]" (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

"Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]" (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).



Hippolytus
"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).



Cyprian of Carthage
"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).

"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).



Council of Rome
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).



Council of Hippo
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).



Council of Carthage III
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 .D. 397]).



www.catholic.com

 

[Scott1]

Augustine
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

The Apostolic Constitutions
"Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius" (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [A.D. 400]).

. It also appears that the more learned Bible scholars these were, the more they opposed the Apocrypha. Thus Augustine, who leaned toward recognizing the Apocrypha, was not nearly the Bible scholar that Jerome, translator of the Vulgate

Jerome
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).



Pope Innocent I
"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).


History, my dear friend, should be sought outside of your Watchtower tracts.

Peace,
Scott

 

[Rex]

*Lets remember to keep this Thread on topic and not let it turn into something we don't want.*

Remember this is for everyones education!

 

[WitnessofJah]

SOGFPP, I won't have the time to answer that until tomorrow, because I'm short on time, but I will definitely answer it in full detail when I get the chance. In the meantime, answer me these questions (because you did'nt answer them in your "historical" summary of the Apocrypha):

- Why did'nt Jesus and his Apostles quote from the Apocrypha a single time?
- Why does'nt the rest of the Bible quote or refer to the Apocrypha a single time?
- Can you explain to me the nonsensical historical and geographical discrepencies in the Apocrypha? (Remember, God does not make mistakes).
- Who wrote Maccabbees?

 

[Scott1]

SOGFPP, I won't have the time to answer that until tomorrow, because I'm short on time, but I will definitely answer it in full detail when I get the chance.

Take your time, my friend.

- Why did'nt Jesus and his Apostles quote from the Apocrypha a single time?

Not evidence. The Bible never refers to the Watchtower.... by your logic that makes it a non-Biblical organization.

- Why does'nt the rest of the Bible quote or refer to the Apocrypha a single time?

Your own post explains this.... "While this of itself is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon"

- Can you explain to me the nonsensical historical and geographical discrepencies in the Apocrypha? (Remember, God does not make mistakes).

You are assuming there are discrepencies..... the same tactic that atheists use against the entire Bible. Again not evidence.

- Who wrote Maccabbees?

"No data can be found either in the book itself or in later writers which would give us a clue as to the person of the author. Names have indeed been mentioned, but on groundless conjecture. That he was a native of Palestine is evident from the language in which he wrote, and from the thorough knowledge of the geography of Palestine which he possessed."
Care for a non-JW explaination of Machabees? Click here.

Scott

**edit**
I'll add this one last tidbit:

The Apocrypha was not fully accepted into Catholicism until 1546. So it’s either you who is wrong or it is the Catholic history books that are wrong. Pick one.

When a Council defines something, it is not that something was not fully accepted... in fact, often times the subject is something that was never in doubt and so did not need definition. That was largely true (although even after Trent, there have been questions) for the Canon of Scripture. Remember, Trent was a response to NEW .... non-historically backed teachings of the Reformation..... absent for the 1500 years previous.... which is kinda my point when it comes to your JW Bible and views.
Old Testament Canon .... look for the The Council of Florence (1442)
New Testament Canon
Just is case you want to see a non-JW view....

 

[maike]

I dont think JWs should eat meat. didn't your god say you could eat meat only in times of severe famine ??? Why do you disobay him ??

 

[WitnessofJah]

You are mistaken:
My quotes were taken from the second source..... I am sure that your apology is forthcoming.

I directed you onto that page, but not onto the entire website! The page I directed you onto was quite factual and non-religious, but you decided to go on to the other pages of that website which I did not agree with and actually quote from them for your argument!

The fact that other faiths do not include it does not mean a thing.... they are just as wrong as you.... in my opinion of course.

What is does come down to, as you correctly realized, is authority. Authority given by Christ to the Apostles.... and those who they appointed to follow them.

So if according to you, the Apostles were the ones were responsible for the Apocrypha, why did’nt they mention it in the Gospels a single time, the books the Apostles wrote? And even better, why have you not backed up your statement with biblical scriptures? Simply saying that the “Apostles appointed those to follow them” is not evidence…it is simply hearsay until you can show me where you got those theories. I have to say that most of your “points” are not even supported in the Bible whatsoever, which brings me to my next question:

Do you believe in the Bible from cover to cover or do you deviate deliberately to support doctrines that don’t exist?

Wrong.... the Bible was complied by these "oral stories" that were eventually written down. If you discount all "oral stories" ... you discount your Bible.

We don’t discount oral stories written in the Bible, but unlike you, you include oral stories that are outside it! Show me a scripture that supports this idea of yours, while in the meantime, I’ll show you a biblical scriptures that denounces this kind of behaviour:


Colossians 2:22: “respecting things that are all destined to destruction by being used up, in accordance with the commands and teachings of men?”


“Do not go beyond the things that are written,’ in order that you may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other. For who makes you to differ from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, now, you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”—1 Cor. 4:6, 7.


Colossians 2:8: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ”.

Wrong again.... Apostolic tradition was given by God, and recorded in the Bible.... and as we follow the teachings of Christ, and did not change the word of God some 1800 years later, we can be open and honest about the formation of the Canon.

Show me your “Apostolic tradition” in the Bible, since you yourself said it was “recorded in the Bible”. I am looking forward to seeing it.

Well, my friend, I could provide several.... the problem is that you would refute them.... ignoring the fact that your denial would be your personal interpretation and non-authoritive.... I choose to follow the authority of Christ who chose Apostles to shepard the faith after He went to sit at the right hand of the Father.

How would I be able to refute them if they were right in the first place? More to the point, what have my religion or I got to gain from saying that the Trinity does not exist? The answer is we have nothing to gain – but only the truth to find. Whereas, if Catholicism was to change it’s theories all of a sudden, the entire religion would fall apart – therefore, they do everything they can to maintain the beliefs they have – right or wrong.

By your PERSONAL interpretation there are contradictions.... most of which you came to by reading Watchtower tracts, so don't be so blind to where your "knowledge" comes from. We are both standing on the shoulders of others.....

From your comment, you don’t know what a Watchtower is. It is not a deviation from the Bible in the slightest like most of the R.C. concepts are; rather, it is an aid to understanding the Bible even better. Illustration: Most people don’t know what a cell is, and on sight, would never comprehend it. Therefore, an encyclopaedia is provided which provides you with illustrations, simple descriptions, and easily digestible material so we can understand about the cell better. Likewise, the Watchtower is an aid to helping people understand the Bible by making it easier for them to comprehend, therefore, them benefiting from the Bible. On the otherhand, Catholicism leaves its followers in the dark and let’s them make them make their own interpretations of the Bible, which is clearly evident from your posts.

Ignorant and non-logical. I would gather that there are more Korans than Bibles... do we now have truth by popular vote.... truth by a best-seller list? Give me a break.

You gathered wrong, the Bible is the most printed book of all time. Next, we have the truth not by popular vote, but by the expulsion of the Apocrypha, which bring the book number to 66. The fact that anybody can accept that the Apocrypha is inspired of God beggars belief.

Oy vey..... you hold you opinion is very high regard..... it does not contradict my faith.

Re-read my post on the Apocrypha again, compare it to the rest of the Bible, and think again:


http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5471&page=26&pp=10

It's a translation.... you have failed to give evidence of why this must be in the "original" form, but every other word may be translated. Your faith contradicts the meaning of this message by translating the word of God.... if one word must remain "original" who gives you the authority to translate ANY of the other words?

You never answer this question but always go off on a tangent. In your Bible, Yaweh/Jehovah is replaced with “God/Lord/Sovereign” which are clearly not names, so why have you translated it otherwise? Please, enlighten me, don’t keep avoiding the question.

If they are so simple.... why can't you answer? I think you can see by the atheists jumping in, you are failing to provide a plausible explaination of where your Bible came from, save circular logic.

I have provided you a plausible explanation, but you refuse to accept it, which is not my problem. The Bible we use is the same as all the other translations, but as close to the original as possible. Don’t believe me? Look it up and compare it to your own Bible:


http://www.watchtower.org/bible/index.htm

 

[WitnessofJah]

Hmmm... so a Jewish (who at the time were anti-Christian) Council is your authority?

When did the JW church become obedient to Jewish councils?

What happened to the other few hundred of sentences you cut out from my post? Why can’t leave the others in and quote from them also? This has been your typical trend throughout this thread to leave out most of my posts that you can’t explain. At that, let me re-post it so that you can re-read it again, and please quote form the entire section next time!


Why is’nt it included in the Bible? The complete lack of canonicity. Also, the original Greek Septuagint version did not contain the Apocrypha – but it was added later. Many, perhaps most, of the Apocryphal writings were admittedly written after the commencement of the translation work of the Septuagint and so were obviously not on the original list of books selected for translation by the translating body. At best, then, they could rate only as accretions to that work. Additionally, while the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria eventually inserted such Apocryphal writings into the Greek Septuagint and apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings, the statement by Josephus quoted earlier shows that they were never brought into the Jerusalem or Palestinian canon and were, at the most, viewed as only secondary writings and not of divine origin. Thus, the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.

One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the fact that none of the Christian Bible writers quoted from these books. While this of itself is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant.


Also, re-read my posts on the summary of each Apocrypha book - a post in which you decided to avoid.


More to follow when I get the time!

 

[Scott1]

Witness,

I am growing tired of the whining.... please just answer the questions.

This has been your typical trend throughout this thread to leave out most of my posts that you can’t explain.
.....a post in which you decided to avoid.
....On the otherhand, Catholicism leaves its followers in the dark and let’s them make them make their own interpretations of the Bible, which is clearly evident from your posts.

Can we get rid of this.... I may say that I think you are wrong, but I don't spend time every thread whining about what portions of my questions you avoid (which you do) or make sweeping generalizations like "Catholicism leaves its followers in the dark "... which is just argumentative.... and beneath you.

Just answer the questions and give your opinion.... if you would prefer to let this degrade to name calling... you'll be doing it alone.

Scott

 

[WitnessofJah]

Witness,

I am growing tired of the whining.... please just answer the questions.

I've answered all your questions with historical references, biblical references, and crystal clear logic - but you have not even begun to answer any of my questions.

Can we get rid of this.... I may say that I think you are wrong, but I don't spend time every thread whining about what portions of my questions you avoid (which you do) or make sweeping generalizations like "Catholicism leaves its followers in the dark "... which is just argumentative.... and beneath you.

The portions you "forget" to quote from are critical to the argument, while on the otherhand, I go point-by-point with everything that you say - and you can't deny that. Why even have an argument if you're not going to quote from what I say, in fact, why even have a forum? If you're not even going to have a mature debate with me, then what is the point of the argument?

As far as Roman Catholicism, the only reason why I have not dug up all the untruths and hypocrisies is because this is not the thread for it - I'll get to that eventually.

Just answer the questions and give your opinion.... if you would prefer to let this degrade to name calling... you'll be doing it alone.

Scott

I have been using the same terminology you have been using,- in fact, you probably have been worse. If you have to resort to going off an a tangent like "stop calling me names" every time I put evidence in front of yours eyes which you never disprove, what is the point of this debate?

 

[[email protected]]

Is it correct to say that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate most holidays and people's birthdays? If that is true, what is the reasoning?

This is true. We do not celebrate most holidays or peoples birthdays, there are several reasons why.

There are two places in the bible where birthdays were celebrated. They are Genesis 40:20 (Phar'aoh's birthday)and Matthew 14:6. (Herod's Birthday)It is noticed that on these days, it is not GODS people who were celebrating. However, It was GODS people who were killed on these days. It. is never once mentioned in the bible that GODS people celebrated birthdays. These traditions were only observed by people who did not serve GOD.

Secondly, there is only one day in the bible that Jesus' followers were told to celebrate. That was The memoral of Christ's death. Luke 22:19,20. So every year we do celebrate this.
Many of the holidays orginiate from people who did not serve the true God. So when we do research on these days we find that many of the traditions are not in harmoney with Gods word the bible.

 

[cardero]

Did we just get a "substitute" WItness?
In that case allow me the opportunity to say hello and welcome you aboard [email protected].

 

[[email protected]]

When God created the heavens and the earth and all the creatures in the planet, was He alone? If not who is with him?


Genesis 1:22 And god went on to say: "Let us make man in our image"
When God was talking in the scripture he was talking to his only begotten son,( John 1:18) The first born of all creation, Jesus. Before God created anything or anyone else he created Jesus. Jesus was with God in the beginning (1 John 1:1). Brfore there was a moon,stars,angles,sun or anything. Jesus was there when all other things were created.

 

[[email protected]]

Hello Carrdero,
WitnessofJah, is really answering the questions in harmony with Jahovah's Witiness beliefs. I am not trying to take over the thread. I just saw a few that I was able to answer because I get those questions a lot.