Interesting how Christ had to come back to approve an organization

So the BORG states...  Cause it was the "pagan" churches who actually approved what books went into the bible hundreds of years after Jesus died...  Jesus could have made the bible last to our day and have the books approved through peasants or "those few people who had the truth up til Russell"...

But instead Jesus chose the "apostate churches" to do this?  Does the BORG ever address this?

makes no sense, huh?

I wondered the same thing when I first heard in my adulthood that the Bible is a Catholic book. I wondered why God would use "pagan" churches to make a book that JW's could use. I don't know why they "follow" the Bible, given its origin. A birthday celebration is bad because of its origin, but the Bible is good and has the same origins and pagan stories.

Up untill they published the NWt, the JW's used the KJV.

It was good enough for everyone up untill that point it seems, even for they creator of the WT.

Its seems that the apostate canon was still used when the NWT was developed, of course they interpreted it in their own unique way.

The apostate churchs are what kept alive the word of God for almost 2000 ywars before Russell came along, funny how those things work.

Russell seaked out NO ONE in his creation of "the truth", nor did he seak out ANY organization that exisisted at that time.

My guess is if pressed, they would admit this point but point out 'Christendom' can not understand it, since they lean upon their own understanding.  I would gear this conversation to WHY Jesus approved the WT. 

But, no Cognac, I do not recall the org ever addressing this, nor do I think they would want to.

According to my memory, the wt has claimed that some of the apostles helped decide the canon at a place called jamnia in 90ce.  However, i am unable to find a reference that includes any apostles at jamnia.

*** it-1 pp. 407-408 Canon ***

Canonicity of a book therefore does not rest in whole or in part on whether some council, committee, or community accepts or rejects it. The voice of such noninspired men is valuable only as witness to what God himself has already done through his accredited representatives.

The exact number of books in the Hebrew Scriptures is not important (whether a certain two are combined or left separated), nor is the particular order in which they follow one another, since the books remained as separate rolls long after the canon was closed. Ancient catalogs vary in the order the books are listed, as, for example, one listing places Isaiah after the book of Ezekiel. What is most important, however, is what books are included. In reality, only those books now in the canon have any solid claim for canonicity. From ancient times efforts to include other writings have been resisted. Two Jewish councils held at Yavne or Jamnia, a little S of Joppa, about 90 and 118 C.E. respectively, when discussing the Hebrew Scriptures, expressly excluded all Apocryphal writings.

---------

It's vague though, on exactly who was there.  Just says 'jews'.  It then lists a bunch of names of false christians who accepted what was supposedly decided at jamnia.

*** it-1 p. 409 Canon ***

We read that “near the close of the 1st cent., Clement bishop of Rome was acquainted with Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth. After him, the letters of both Ignatius bishop of Antioch and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna attest the dissemination of the Pauline letters by the second decade of the 2nd century.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by G. W. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 603) These were all early writers—Clement of Rome (30?-100? C.E.), Polycarp (69?-155? C.E.), and Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st and early 2nd centuries C.E.)—who wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing their acquaintance with such canonical writings.

Justin Martyr (died c. 165 C.E.) in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (XLIX), used the expression “it is written” when quoting from Matthew, in the same way the Gospels themselves do when referring to the Hebrew Scriptures. The same is also true in an earlier anonymous work, “The Epistle of Barnabas” (IV). Justin Martyr in “The First Apology” (LXVI, LXVII) calls the “memoirs of the apostles” “Gospels.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 220, 139, 185, 186.

Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century C.E.) declared: “Concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.” Theophilus then uses such expressions as ‘says the Gospel’ (quoting Mt 5:28, 32, 44, 46; 6:3) and “the divine word gives us instructions” (quoting 1Ti 2:2 and Ro 13:7, 8).—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1962, Vol. II, pp. 114, 115, “Theophilus to Autolycus” (XII, XIII).

By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures.

-----

S

"Canonicity of a book therefore does not rest in whole or in part on whether some council, committee, or community accepts or rejects it. The voice of such noninspired men is valuable only as witness to what God himself has already done through his accredited representatives".  What unmitigated and convuluted RUBBISH.

Let me get this straight - God needed the pagans to 'witness' what his own witnesses, here otherwise known as  'accredited representatives'   didn't witness to adequately.  He accredited them as his representatives, but they obviously failed to accredit the books; hence the need for the pagan Catholic Church to do so.  Otherwise, how would any of us in this 21st century know what is CANON or not?  Does it get any crazier than this?

Another gem in the All Sripture is Inspired book re: the canon states something to this effect:  (don't have the exact page at hand at the moment) that the Catholic Church claims credit for the Canon of the Bible; then goes on to say that "THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE, HOWEVER... (yada yada)."  Does that then mean the Bible claims credit for the Catholic Church???  You couldn't make this stuff up!  Theological swiss cheese....

There was a post in a thread, posted by Leolaia or Narkissos I think, that showed not only when the canon was formed but who was involved and which people voted for which books to be part of the canon.

MJNM

It's obvious that the christian fathers who led to the catholic church, and then the catholic church, itself decided the bible canon.  It follows that the rc church is THE church.  The later reformers were the heretics.  Protestants are heretics.  Themz the fax.

S

We read that “near the close of the 1st cent., Clement bishop of Rome was acquainted with Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth. After him, the letters of both Ignatius bishop of Antioch and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna attest the dissemination of the Pauline letters by the second decade of the 2nd century.”

Thanks for posting that Satanus.  I read the part of the encyclopedia and at 90ce they were putting together the Pauline letters.  When they did this, they were missing 3 of Pauls's letters and didn't have the rest of the new testament Books. 

It also states that in encyclopedia a few pages after there quote that Eusebius who was born in the year 265 did an investigation and at that time the books that belonged in the Canon were still being disputed...  It also stated that it was the Churches who decided what books would and would not be a part of the bible...

Satanus:  my bad!  when I called the Catholic Church pagan, I was speaking as a JW would, and as I at one time did.  I was led to believe that the Church  compromised with pagan beliefs etc.  yada yada...

The Bible, in my present view, is the greatest story ever Sold...there was only ever one Christian and he didn't write anything. 

MJNM

I wasn't taking issue of whether early christians were partly pagan, or not.  A few pagan attachments doesn't negate their being christian, imo.  Many parts of christianity and ot jewish traditions came from outside their own, ie pagan.

S

What I don't understand is why Jesus approved the witless religion in its form in 1919.  Either it was correct in 1919, or it was not.  If it was, then why didn't Jesus prevent the problems--and does he still approve what the witlesses have become today?  I don't think so.

If the witlesses today are correct, then why didn't Jesus correct the issues back in 1919?  You have issues being fixed at different intervals.  Christmas was banned in 1927.  The cross went down in 1931.  Birthdays were banned around 1950.  Field circus became mandatory, I believe, around 1922.  
Smoking was banned in 1973.  Now, weren't these all well after 1919?  If Christmas was wrong, why didn't Jesus correct the problem in 1919?  If Jesus died on a stake, why did he wait another 12 years to fix it?  If smoking is wicked, why did Jesus allow smoking for another 54 years?