Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
 

 FAQFAQ SearchSearch Free GamesMake a Donation  UsergroupsUsergroups Free GamesForum Rules ProfileContact RegisterRegister 
ProfileWebsite News Log inSubmit Articles  ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in 

History and Divergent Doctrines


Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Jehovah's Witness
Author Message
Ron
Grizzly Bear



Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 750

Location: home, wa, usa

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:17 pm    Post subject: History and Divergent Doctrines Reply with quote

I want to post some material on Jehovah's Witness history and doctrine. I will do this in small threads so that anyone disputing the material can remain focused on the individual topic rather than bouncing around.

This thread will be on history. I have written this here past but will resubmit in this thread.

History
Officially known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Jehovah's Witnesses are a product of the life work of Charles Taze Russell, born February 16, 1852, near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1870, while still in his teens and without formal theological education, Russell organized a Bible class whose members eventually made him "Pastor."

In 1879 he founded the magazine Zion's Watchtower in which he published his own unique interpretation of the Bible, and in 1886, the first volume of seven books (six written by Russell) entitled The Millennial Dawn was published. (These later were retitled Studies in the Scriptures.)

By the time of his death in 1916, "Pastor" Russell, according to the Watchtower, traveled more than a million miles, gave more than thirty thousand sermons, and wrote books totaling over fifty thousand pages.

A few months after the death of Charles Taze Russell, the society's legal counselor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, became the second President of the Watchtower Society. It was under his leadership that the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was adopted.

Rutherford died in 1942 and was succeeded by Nathan H. Knorr. It was during Knorr's presidency that the society increased from 115,000 to more than two million members. In 1961, under Knorr's leadership, the society produced its own English translation of the Bible entitled The
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Claims of the Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses are zealous and sincere, and they claim to accept the Bible as their only authority. However, their theology denies every cardinal belief of historic Christianity including the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, His bodily resurrection, salvation by grace through faith,
and eternal punishment of the wicked.

The Watchtower has this to say about itself-
“It is God's sole collective channel for the flow of biblical truth to men on earth.”

Source of Authority
Note the following statement by "Pastor" Russell:
“If the six volumes of Scripture Studies are practically the Bible, topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes "the Bible in an arranged form," that is to say, they are not mere comments on the Bible, buy they are practically the Bible itself. Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has became familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years -if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness, On the other hand, if
he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references and had not read a page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.”

Although the Watchtower contends that the Scriptures are their final authority, they constantly misuse the Scriptures to establish their own peculiar beliefs. This is accomplished chiefly by quoting texts out of context while omitting other passages relevant to the subject. For all practical purposes their publications take precedence over the Scriptures.

Trinity
The Watchtower makes it clear they do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. "The trinity doctrine was not conceived by Jesus or the early Christians .... The plain truth is that this is another of Satan's attempts to keep the God-fearing person from learning the truth of Jehovah and
His Son Christ Jesus." In Watchtower theology neither Jesus Christ nor the Holy Spirit is God.

Jesus Christ
In the theological system of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ is not God in human flesh, but rather a created being. "Jesus, the Christ, a created individual, is the second greatest personage of the Universe. Jehovah God and Jesus together constitute the superior authorities."
"He was a god, but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah."
"If Jesus were God, then during Jesus' death God was dead in the
grave." "The truth of the matter is that the word is Christ Jesus, who did have a beginning."

The denial of the deity of Christ is nothing new in the history of the church. It is a revival of the ancient heresy known as Arianism (named after the fourth-century A.D. heretic Arius.) Arianism teaches that the Son was of a substance different from the Father and was, in fact, created.
The Jehovah's Witnesses, in an attempt to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is not Jehovah God, appeal to the Bible to substantiate their beliefs. However, it is the Bible that contradicts their theology, revealing it to be both unbiblical and non-Christian.

This is the basic doctrines of Jehova's Witness and the points in which they diverge from Christianity. [/b]
_________________
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Yours in Christ with much love,
Ron

http://www.arkwebshost.com/theology/ron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
TBax
King Kong



Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2126


PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jesus is not Jehovah.Jesus pointed this out himself.
Luke 20:41 In turn he said to them: “How is it they say that the Christ is David’s son? 42 For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand 43 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ 44 David, therefore, calls him ‘Lord’; so how is he his son?”

Jehovah and Jesus are seperate individualls.The Bible does not contradict their theology but is the basis for their theology.
_________________
Agape,
TBax
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
saveme2
Newbie Alert



Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 4


PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TBax wrote:
Jesus is not Jehovah.Jesus pointed this out himself.
Luke 20:41 In turn he said to them: “How is it they say that the Christ is David’s son? 42 For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand 43 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ 44 David, therefore, calls him ‘Lord’; so how is he his son?”

Jehovah and Jesus are seperate individualls.The Bible does not contradict their theology but is the basis for their theology.


Well the answer must be that He is NOT David's Son in the literal sense
but according to th eJewsish line of descendants,,

Luk 20:41 - (5) And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?

(5) Even though Christ is the son of David according to the flesh he is also his Lord (because he is the everlasting Son of God) according to the spirit.

saveme2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FFT
Emperor of the Universe



Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Jewish Messiah is supposed to be a direct male-line descendent of David. He is supposed to be a king on Earth, as a son of David.

The reason there are two conflicting lineages is that two authors independently remembered that the Messiah had to be a descendent of David, and independently manufactured the lineages.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
RevJP
Moderator



Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Jewish Messiah is supposed to be a direct male-line descendent of David.
Based on what?

Quote:
The reason there are two conflicting lineages is that two authors independently remembered that the Messiah had to be a descendent of David, and independently manufactured the lineages.
You know this how? Certainly you were not a companion of theirs whom they confided in about what they were writing and why. So one could assume you are simply making up stories. I'm sure you have some sort of evidence other than your considerably suspect opinion, don't you?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog


Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
FFT
Emperor of the Universe



Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RevJP wrote:
FFT wrote:
The Jewish Messiah is supposed to be a direct male-line descendent of David.
Based on what?
Isaiah 11:1: A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock, a bud will sprout from his roots.

The text mentions David’s father Jesse, instead of the great king himself. Perhaps this is done for rhetorical reasons to suggest that a new David, not just another disappointing Davidic descendant, will arise. Other prophets call the coming ideal Davidic king “David” or picture him as the second coming of David, as it were. See Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5; and Mic 5:2 (as well as the note there).

(from netbible.)

RevJP wrote:
FFT wrote:
The reason there are two conflicting lineages is that two authors independently remembered that the Messiah had to be a descendent of David, and independently manufactured the lineages.
You know this how? Certainly you were not a companion of theirs whom they confided in about what they were writing and why. So one could assume you are simply making up stories. I'm sure you have some sort of evidence other than your considerably suspect opinion, don't you?
Do you have a better explanation?

I mean, you didn't even know who the Messiah was supposed to be, on what grounds do you deny the possibility that the writers made stuff up? The books themselves weren't written until long after Jesus died and (allegedley) came back to life. They certainly weren't written by anyone who was a companion of Jesus, how did they know he was descended from David?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6365

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was comparing David and Jesus. And boy the similarities are uncanny.

Descend
1 Strong's Number: 2597 Greek: katabaino
"to go down" (kata, "down," baino, "to go"), used for various kinds of motion on the ground (e.g., going, walking, stepping), is usually translated "to descend." The RV uses the verb "to come down," for AV, "descend," in Mar 15:32; Act 24:1; Rev 21:10. See COME, No. 19.2 Strong's Number: 2718 Greek: katerchomai
"to come or go down," is translated "descendeth," in Jam 3:15, AV; RV, "cometh down." See COME, No. 7.

The annointing in which David was annointed , is this same annointing that Jesus was annointed with?

The Holy Spirit is the annointing of both David and Jesus. Therefore descendant would be the one on whom the Holy Spirit fell on?

So Jesus is a descendant of David in that they shared the same Life Spirit?

Check out David and Jesus
David slew Goliath and Jesus slew the devil.

Johnathan was Davids soul mate. John was the disciple Jesus loved.

Lots of similarities there..

Peace Lone
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
RevJP
Moderator



Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Isaiah 11:1: A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock, a bud will sprout from his roots.

The text mentions David’s father Jesse, instead of the great king himself. Perhaps this is done for rhetorical reasons to suggest that a new David, not just another disappointing Davidic descendant, will arise. Other prophets call the coming ideal Davidic king “David” or picture him as the second coming of David, as it were. See Jer 30:9; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5; and Mic 5:2 (as well as the note there).

So what you are saying is that you are adding 'direct male descendent' to the qualifications of messiah. Glad you cleared that up. Anything else you would like to invent to promote your hatred of God and scripture?

Quote:
Do you have a better explanation?

I mean, you didn't even know who the Messiah was supposed to be, on what grounds do you deny the possibility that the writers made stuff up? The books themselves weren't written until long after Jesus died and (allegedley) came back to life. They certainly weren't written by anyone who was a companion of Jesus, how did they know he was descended from David?
So again, your evidence here is; "because I say so!"

How long after Jesus died were the books written? You say they were not written by 'companions' of Jesus - who exactly do you think authored them? Fred and Barney? Who was Matthew? Who was Mark? Who was Luke and John? Who actually scribed the Gospels and who dictated them? Your whole commentary here is so full of horse... holes, it is laughable.

I understand your desire to try and incite ill-will and strife. I understand that you are angry at God, religion, christianity, what-have-you, that you would say almost anything to try to discredit the lot of 'em, but really. Posting what is either ignorance or outright lies is beneath even you.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog


Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
FFT
Emperor of the Universe



Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RevJP wrote:
So what you are saying is that you are adding 'direct male descendent' to the qualifications of messiah. Glad you cleared that up. Anything else you would like to invent to promote your hatred of God and scripture?
Learn your history, please. Women were barely seen as human. It did not matter what women you were descended from, inheritance was based on male-line ancestry. If you were the "seed" of someone, you were a direct male line descendent.

This is not something I have invented, it's simply how the culture of the times worked.

RevJP wrote:
How long after Jesus died were the books written? You say they were not written by 'companions' of Jesus - who exactly do you think authored them? Fred and Barney? Who was Matthew? Who was Mark? Who was Luke and John? Who actually scribed the Gospels and who dictated them? Your whole commentary here is so full of horse... holes, it is laughable.
The scriptures show signs of being manufactured. Matthew, in particular, shows distinct signs of manufactured events to make Jesus look like the messiah. What explanation is there for this, if not that they are manufactured?

RevJP wrote:
I understand that you are angry at God, religion, christianity, what-have-you, that you would say almost anything to try to discredit the lot of 'em, but really.
I'm curious: do you hate Darth Maul for killing Qui-Gon? Or Loki for being a bad influence on Thor?

I understand that you are angry at me for trying to teach you the way things are, and would say almost anything to discredit me, but really.

RevJP wrote:
Posting what is either ignorance or outright lies is beneath even you.
It is neither. You quite obviously do not know your own scriptures.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
RevJP
Moderator



Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005

Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If you were the "seed" of someone, you were a direct male line descendent.
Seed?

Quote:
Isaiah 11:1: A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock, a bud will sprout from his roots.
What seed?

Quote:
It did not matter what women you were descended from, inheritance was based on male-line ancestry
Joseph.

Quote:
The scriptures show signs of being manufactured. Matthew, in particular, shows distinct signs of manufactured events to make Jesus look like the messiah.
Where? According to whom?

Quote:
I understand that you are angry at me for trying to teach you the way things are, and would say almost anything to discredit me, but really.
Angry? No, not at all. Simply pointing out your misinformation, falsehoods, et al. What are you trying to teach me? That your opinion is worth the same as anyone elses?

Quote:
You quite obviously do not know your own scriptures.
What is obvious is your blatant bias against God and Scripture. Demonstrated continuously by your opinions, false offerings, and hostility. So sorry you seem to be offended when someone points out that you have no idea of what you are speaking about.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog


Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
gnosis
Tadpole



Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 15


PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Gospels were written around 60AD.

In Jewish tradition, the female line is actually important. There are multiple bloodlines because one including females is not appealing to Roman readers.


When asked why you can only be Jewish by birth if your mother is Jewish, I was told, "Well, you always know who your mother was."

Quote:

I'm curious: do you hate Darth Maul for killing Qui-Gon? Or Loki for being a bad influence on Thor?


I'm more upset at Jörmungandr for distracting Thor and letting Odin die to Fenrir during Ragnarok. Or wait, hasn't that happened yet?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FFT
Emperor of the Universe



Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337

Location: Memphis

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RevJP wrote:
FFT wrote:
If you were the "seed" of someone, you were a direct male line descendent.
Seed?
FFT wrote:
Isaiah 11:1: A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock, a bud will sprout from his roots.

What seed?
I was using the same set of metaphor as the Isaiah verse, that's all.

RevJP wrote:
FFT wrote:
It did not matter what women you were descended from, inheritance was based on male-line ancestry
Joseph.
I'm glad it's clear that Jesus is not the son of God, then.

RevJP wrote:
FFT wrote:
The scriptures show signs of being manufactured. Matthew, in particular, shows distinct signs of manufactured events to make Jesus look like the messiah.
Where? According to whom?
Herod's massacre, most notably.

RevJP wrote:
Angry? No, not at all. Simply pointing out your misinformation, falsehoods, et al.
You have yet to show that I have been, only asserting.

RevJP wrote:
What are you trying to teach me? That your opinion is worth the same as anyone elses?
Not at all. I'm trying to teach you that one of our sets of opinions is contradiction free, and rests on fewer assumptions.

RevJP wrote:
What is obvious is your blatant bias against God and Scripture.
What's obvious is your blatant bias against atheism and evolution.

RevJP wrote:
Demonstrated continuously by your opinions, false offerings, and hostility.
You have yet to show that any of my assertions are false.

Of course my offerings seem hostile: they are antithetical to your belief system. I offer them, however, in the spirit of rational thought. I don't post here because I expect to convert anyone, I post here because I feel it should be done.

RevJP wrote:
So sorry you seem to be offended when someone points out that you have no idea of what you are speaking about.
Offended? Only by your willful ignorance.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
TBax
King Kong



Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2126


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

saveme2,

The point is the Bible shows in that scripture Jesus is not Jehovah as Ron was trying to assert.The Bible shows Jehovah as God Almighty alone and this verse shows Jehovah and Jesus are not the same.

(John 6:46) Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father

Duet 6:4 “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.

Jesus is not Jehovah.Jesus pointed this out himself.
Luke 20:41 In turn he said to them: “How is it they say that the Christ is David’s son? 42 For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand 43 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ 44 David, therefore, calls him ‘Lord’; so how is he his son?”
_________________
Agape,
TBax
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TBax
King Kong



Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2126


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fft,

The 2 lineages are different because one is from his mothers side and one is from his step fathers side.Both say "Joseph,son of" because Mary was his wife and the son in law is considered the son the womans parents.
_________________
Agape,
TBax
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pondering
King of the Jungle



Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most answers taken from:
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter16.html

RevJP wrote:

How long after Jesus died were the books written?

"current estimations are now moving into the early end of the 70-120 CE spectrum provided by unbiased secular scholars."

RevJP wrote:

You say they were not written by 'companions' of Jesus - who exactly do you think authored them? Fred and Barney?


That's actually harder to answer than it sounds. Note that these are the "Gospels according to ...." not "Mark's account"

But, "The authors don’t positively identify themselves by the names designated in the titles or by any other handle. In addition, not one of the authors claims to have personally known Jesus. This is no surprise for Mark and Luke, but Matthew and John were two of his disciples. Moreover, the Gospels are written in a manner hardly befitting of eyewitnesses: third person. Furthermore, there are no known original documents for the accounts, only copies. Since it’s probable that several people handed the tales down via oral recitation before they were archived, thus the “Gospel According to X” designation preceding each one, we have a justifiable reason for the glaring complications and contradictions among the four books....

... there were at least a dozen authors who claim to have a unique story about Jesus. Incidentally, there were about seventy-five known Gospels, epistles, and letters eligible for New Testament inclusion; a mere third of these made the cut... a number of the Gospels, such as James, Nicodemus, Mary, and Peter, weren’t chosen to be enshrined in the Bible ...

[by] Irenaeus of Lyon around 180 CE. His idea was to accredit only four Gospels because there were four zones of the world, four winds, four forms of living creatures, four divisions of man’s estate, and four beasts of the apocalypse. Rolling Eyes For these poorly thought-out reasons, Irenaeus believed that there should only be four Gospels accepted by the church."

So does that make bible-studier Irenaeusians?

RevJP wrote:

Who was Matthew?


He was a discipile, but there are problems with his account that indicate he didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. To wit:

"Though the Gospel of Matthew was traditionally attributed to Matthew the disciple, most biblical scholars believe that the Gospel was written in Antioch around 90 A.D. by a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian. Scholars today do not believe that there is any reliable information about Matthew after Jesus' ministry."
http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/thetwelve.htm

Want more? check out the link at the top of the page.

RevJP wrote:

Who was Mark?


Not sure, but his Gospel was probably written by a Roman:

"- Mark (1:2) makes an incorrect reference to Hebrew scripture by quoting Malachi 3:1 as being the work of Isaiah. The KJV does not contain this error...
- Mark also claims that only God can forgive the sin of another (2:7), but that’s a direct contrast to actual Jewish beliefs, which hold that other men can forgive sins as well.
- Mark mentions the region of Gadarenes being near a large body of water, but it’s about thirty miles from even a sizable lake (5:1).
- Mark mentions multiple “rulers of the synagogue” even though almost all synagogues only had a single leader (5:22).
- Mark records Jesus ridiculing the ancient food laws set by God and Moses (7:18-19)
- Mark also has Jesus misquoting one of the commandments as refraining from defrauding others (10:19).
- The author of Mark strangely refers to David as “our father” (11:10). This is something no Jew would ever do because all Jews weren’t descendents of David.
- Mark also gets the traditional date for killing the Passover incorrect (14:12),
- On the night of the crucifixion, Mark says that it’s the time before the Sabbath (15:42). Being a Roman, the author was obviously unaware that the Jewish day begins with the evening. Thus, the evening following the crucifixion wasn’t the night before the Sabbath; it was the start of it.
- Finally, Mark mentions “the fourth watch of the night” (6:48). The Jews actually divided the night into only three watches, while the Romans made the division into fourths.

RevJP wrote:

Who was Luke and John?


John was a disciple.

I know you were a little excited when you wrote this, but the question should be "Who WERE Luke and John? Smile

but I digress..."Luke begins with a surmised admission that the author didn’t personally experience any of the details contained within his account because he alleges the presence of eyewitnesses but fails to notify himself as one. "

RevJP wrote:

Who actually scribed the Gospels and who dictated them?


Good question. Other good questions, why didn't Jesus..a learned and wise man write? Or why didn't one of the 12 take notes? Or write their own accounts of the life of Christ? Oh, that's right -- Irenaeus's magic number of 4!


BTW for future ref...the 12 Disciples were:
1) Simon, (son of Jona, younger brother of Andrew)
Martyrdom by crucifixion (upside-down) in Rome
2) James, son of Zebedee,
Martyrdom by decapitation at the command of Herod Agrippa I
3) John, the brother of James,
4) Andrew, the brother of Simon
Martyrdom in Patras
5) Philip
Martyrdom in Hierapolis
6) Bartholomew, Nathanael
Martyrdom in India
7) Matthew - Son of Alphaeus,
8) Thomas, Didymus
Martyrdom in India
9) James son of Alphaeus
10) Thaddaeus, Judas son of James,
11) Simon the Cananaean,
12a) Judas Iscariot
According to Mat and Act, he died soon either right before or right
after the crucifixion.(Accounts are different)
12b) Matthias (voted in after Judas' death)
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Jehovah's Witness All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 1 of 7

 

© 2001-2007