Christianity and Christian Scriptures.

[Pegg]

Pegg, you are being a complete hypocrite because you interpret the Bible by what the Watchtower says it means and you are not allowed to disagree (whereas Catholics have varying opinions on various things and we're not going to get excommunicated for it; we have nothing like disfellowship).

Don't forget to have this on hand when you're reading your sectarian New World Translation:

Yes, because they've studied it and only teach what is in it.

The churches are teaching things which are not even in the bible....this book is the tool we use to highlight the bible's teachings...it says nothing of doctrine.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I prefer the bibles teachings.

*I prefer the Watchtower's teachings.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Pegg]

*I prefer the Watchtower's teachings.

Fixed that for you.

yes, because they come from the bible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, because they've studied it and only teach what is in it.

But what about reading it on your own since it's so clear that you don't need outside interpretation?

Your hypocrisy is nauseating.

The churches are teaching things which are not even in the bible....this book is the tool we use to highlight the bible's teachings...it says nothing of doctrine.

The Church has never abided by Sola Scriptura. That's a much later Protestant invention.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

yes, because they come from the bible.

That's what you're taught to believe. The point is that you didn't reach those conclusions yourself.

 

[savagewind]

I prefer the Watchtower's teachings.

because they come from the bible

The New World Translation changes (Matthew 28:19) "going therefore disciple the nations" to "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations..."


πορευθέντες (having gone) οὖν (therefore) μαθητεύσατε (disciple) πάντα (all) τὰ (the) ἔθνη (nations)

Which can mean Jesus is going (not your going) therefore (meaning because of the fact that he is going which results in his leaving the world scene) disciple (meaning do what I did, like I did) all (meaning every kind) the (about) nations.....

"Your life be in imitation of me" (disciple) "to every kind of people" (do not discriminate).

They were to do as Jesus did. What did Jesus do? He didn't make disciples.

AND THEN ((when people will attatch themselves to you (for whatever reason)) baptize them....teaching them.

Jesus never said "make" them.

The word Make is ASSUMED.

 

[savagewind]

And the word make is assumed by whom? By the very same people 1. who are dying at Armageddom because they are not right and 2. By men who have made mistakes before and who are interpreting, for the most part, the Bible the same way as those who are destined to die at Armageddon.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I am not christian but I'd like to say that while I haven't read much of the bible, taken from what i heard from in it and how i interpret what I heard about it are far off from how many christians do.

 

[ChristineES]

Ah.... yeah!

The watchtower magazines have been pointing out these differences for over 100 years.

And the christians who started the JW movement were from all different denomination who inadvertently discovered these things through their own personal reading of the bible. When they found things that were not what they had been taught, you can imagine how upsetting it was for them to learn that they had been lied to for so long.

So they fought against the misinformation by publishing what the bible actually teaches.

Yeah. But, at the same time, ALL people can be victims of misinterpretation, which is always a good thing to keep in mind. I like to hear how others see things that is different from the way I see it, so I can have a better idea of what it truly means.

 

[Pegg]

The Church has never abided by Sola Scriptura. That's a much later Protestant invention.

the protestant movement was born out of the churches refusal to base their teachings on the scriptures.

Now that is nauseating.

 

[Pegg]

That's what you're taught to believe. The point is that you didn't reach those conclusions yourself.

its certainly good to be guided by someone who knows the scriptures.

When you have a question, and they can direct you to several scriptures that provide an answer, then you can truly say that you are learning from the scriptures.

 

[Guiri]

The New World Translation changes (Matthew 28:19) "going therefore disciple the nations" to "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations..."


πορευθέντες (having gone) οὖν (therefore) μαθητεύσατε (disciple) πάντα (all) τὰ (the) ἔθνη (nations)

Which can mean Jesus is going (not your going) therefore (meaning because of the fact that he is going which results in his leaving the world scene) disciple (meaning do what I did, like I did) all (meaning every kind) the (about) nations.....

"Your life be in imitation of me" (disciple) "to every kind of people" (do not discriminate).

They were to do as Jesus did. What did Jesus do? He didn't make disciples.

AND THEN ((when people will attatch themselves to you (for whatever reason)) baptize them....teaching them.

Jesus never said "make" them.

The word Make is ASSUMED.

You should acccept that there is a great deal of controversy regarding the authenticity of the trinitarian formula used in Matthew 28:19 and that the original may have been, “Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.”
On another unrelated point, what evidence is there that the author of the gospel attributed to Matthew was in fact written by the apostle?

 

[Shiranui117]

its certainly good to be guided by someone who knows the scriptures.

When you have a question, and they can direct you to several scriptures that provide an answer, then you can truly say that you are learning from the scriptures.

It's also good to be guided by someone who personally knew the Biblical authors--they won't just direct you to other verses that explain the matter, but can tell you what the author had taught orally, but hadn't written down! This way, if we look at the most ancient witness of the first Christians, then we get the full teachings of the Apostles, not just the small, teensy-tinsy part that was codified as the New Testament.

 

[Guiri]

Who were the gospel authors? Considerable doubt exists on Matthew, Mark and John and, while Luke is widely recognised as the author of his gospel and Acts, what do we know of Luke?

 

[Shiranui117]

Who were the gospel authors? Considerable doubt exists on Matthew, Mark and John and, while Luke is widely recognised as the author of his gospel and Acts, what do we know of Luke?

St. Luke was a companion of St. Paul, along with Barnabas. Barnabas has an Epistle that is extant, and St. Clement of Rome, who has an Epistle or two to the Corinthians, was also a companion of St. Paul in Corinth. So we know of people who very likely had contact with Luke.

St. Mark was a disciple of St. Peter who founded the church at Alexandria. He also may or may not have been the man who ran away naked after Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane. Both Sts. Matthew (formerly a tax collector, son of Alphaeus) and John were members of the Twelve.

 

[Pegg]

It's also good to be guided by someone who personally knew the Biblical authors--they won't just direct you to other verses that explain the matter, but can tell you what the author had taught orally, but hadn't written down! This way, if we look at the most ancient witness of the first Christians, then we get the full teachings of the Apostles, not just the small, teensy-tinsy part that was codified as the New Testament.

unfortunately there's been noone like that for at least 2,000 years.

 

[Guiri]

So we know three people who knew Luke, two of whom wrote non-canonical scripture, i.e. scripture that the church does not recognise as being authorative. The fact that he also wrote Acts, which after the council of Jerusalem becomes very much the Acts of Paul does at least tell us that Paul's theology was more attractive to him than that of the apostles.
Mark may or may not have been a disciple of Peter, but there is no proof beyond church tradition that he was the author of the gospel attributed to him. Peter also supposedly wrote 2 epistles whose authorship is also widely disputed.

 

[Shiranui117]

unfortunately there's been noone like that for at least 2,000 years.

But we have their writings, and they taught students, just as they themselves were taught by the Apostles. And we can see if the writings of the students match the writings of the teachers. And guess what? They do.

 

[Shiranui117]

So we know three people who knew Luke, two of whom wrote non-canonical scripture, i.e. scripture that the church does not recognise as being authorative.

Just because some people wanted them to be in the NT Canon and they didn't ultimately make the cut doesn't mean that these texts aren't important for establishing what the first Christians were practicing and teaching, and how these first Christians (who knew the Apostles) were interpreting the Scriptures.

 

[Guiri]

Just because some people wanted them to be in the NT Canon and they didn't ultimately make the cut doesn't mean that these texts aren't important for establishing what the first Christians were practicing and teaching, and how these first Christians (who knew the Apostles) were interpreting the Scriptures.

It was your use of Clement of Rome and Barnabas to support Mark's authorship to which I was referring. Hippolytus distinguishes three Marks: Mark the Evangelist, John Mark and Mark the cousin of Barnabas. You seem to be making a composite Mark.