JW Insight on the Scriptures

  • Thread starter Thread starter Waynec
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Waynec

Guest
I was reading the Insight book(another story altogether) vol 1 page 369 Brothers of Jesus. I would appreciate (name removed by moderator)ut from JW’s here also.

Anyway, there are a few things here that bother me. The article mentions “the majority of Bible scholars.” Who are these scholars, we don’t know because they aren’t cited. One out of the majority is mentioned J.B. Lightfoot who is Protestant.

My question is :an excerpt from the article says:" the claim that brother (adelphos) here means cousins is a theoretical contention, the invention of which is credited to Jerome(who I gather to mean St. Jerome), and dates back to no earlier to 383 C.E. Not only does Jerome fail to cite any support for his newborn hypothesis but in later writings he wavers in his opinions and even expresses misgivings about his cousin theory."

I find it rich that Insight complains about St. Jerome not citing anything to support his writing. They are guilty of the same thing. They do not cite which writing of St. Jerome that they are talking about and the writing where they say St. Jerome might have changed his mind.

I have written a letter to the Watchtower asking where they got the St. Jerome writing but to no avail. No surprise there.

Is any one knowledgeable enough here to help me find what writing of St. Jerome the JW’s are referencing? I get the feeling that Watchtower wants the reader to take what they say at face value and not question what they write or why else wouldn’t they cite where they got the exact quotes from St. Jerome? They are smart enough to realize that an average reader will not read the thousands of pages that ST. Jerome has written and even if he did might not understand.

I know that I am asking a lot.
Thanks in advance.

If I find their references to be untrue I will send off another letter probably to no avail again.
 
Todd977 said:
St Jerome defended the perpetual virginity of Mary in his tract Against Helvidius
Click to expand...
I did see this writing of St. Jerome but I didn’t see in there where he back peddled and changed his mind as it said in the Insight book. So that leads me to beleive that the Watchtower is being less than truthful.
 
Waynec said:
…I get the feeling that Watchtower wants the reader to take what they say at face value and not question what they write or why else wouldn’t they cite where they got the exact quotes from St. Jerome? They are smart enough to realize that an average reader will not read the thousands of pages that ST. Jerome has written and even if he did might not understand. <…snip>
Click to expand...
👍

Bingo. You are right on!

Psst… don’t hold your breath waiting for a response from the WT, it is the way they operate.
 
Waynec said:
I did see this writing of St. Jerome but I didn’t see in there where he back peddled and changed his mind as it said in the Insight book. So that leads me to beleive that the Watchtower is being less than truthful.
Click to expand...
Sad thing is the vast majority, if not all, JW don’t realize how dishonest this organization is. Last ones that came to my door said if I had any questions just email them. Probably should turn the tables and challenge THEM to email the question and get back to me with an answer.

We are not talking about differences in interpretation, these are out and out deliberate misrepresentations by the Watchtower in order to deceive. Pretty ironic considering they accuse all the other churches of intentionally deceiving their followers.
 
Waynec said:
I was reading the Insight book(another story altogether) vol 1 page 369 Brothers of Jesus. I would appreciate (name removed by moderator)ut from JW’s here also.

Anyway, there are a few things here that bother me. The article mentions “the majority of Bible scholars.” Who are these scholars, we don’t know because they aren’t cited. One out of the majority is mentioned J.B. Lightfoot who is Protestant.

My question is :an excerpt from the article says:" the claim that brother (adelphos) here means cousins is a theoretical contention, the invention of which is credited to Jerome(who I gather to mean St. Jerome), and dates back to no earlier to 383 C.E. Not only does Jerome fail to cite any support for his newborn hypothesis but in later writings he wavers in his opinions and even expresses misgivings about his cousin theory."

I find it rich that Insight complains about St. Jerome not citing anything to support his writing. They are guilty of the same thing. They do not cite which writing of St. Jerome that they are talking about and the writing where they say St. Jerome might have changed his mind.

I have written a letter to the Watchtower asking where they got the St. Jerome writing but to no avail. No surprise there.

Is any one knowledgeable enough here to help me find what writing of St. Jerome the JW’s are referencing? I get the feeling that Watchtower wants the reader to take what they say at face value and not question what they write or why else wouldn’t they cite where they got the exact quotes from St. Jerome? They are smart enough to realize that an average reader will not read the thousands of pages that ST. Jerome has written and even if he did might not understand.

I know that I am asking a lot.
Thanks in advance.

If I find their references to be untrue I will send off another letter probably to no avail again.
Click to expand...
I ran a quick Google search to see if I could find something where Jerome back tracks his stance on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and couldn’t find anything. I also found an article that says in “Against Helvidius” Jerome uses not only scripture, but Church Fathers to refute the claim. That pretty much destroys the Watch Tower saying that it was invented by Jerome, because if he’s quoting Ignatius and Justin Martyr, they’re a few hundred years before him, and Against Helvidius was written in 383.

What it seems we have is an outright lie by the WT to their faithful, which is a shame. They’re intentionally giving misinformation to keep their people in check, and prevent them from asking questions. I remember Jesus saying something about it being better to have a millstone tied to one’s neck than to deceive. Man, I would not want to have to answer for that.

I think what I’d really want is for someone from the JW to come here and openly discuss their faith, and how, in light of things such as this, or the doctrinal changes, or the failed prophecies they can maintain that faith. I’m sure there are a lot of intelligent JW’s out there, do they just not think?
 
ShanPO said:
I think what I’d really want is for someone from the JW to come here and openly discuss their faith, and how, in light of things such as this, or the doctrinal changes, or the failed prophecies they can maintain that faith. I’m sure there are a lot of intelligent JW’s out there, do they just not think?
Click to expand...
I have seen several JW posters, but now that I think of it, they stick to discussions on scripture only and when challenged enough they normally just stop posting. Have never seen them get into a discussion to defend the Watchtower (other than the obligatory Matthew 24:45 reference).
 
JW is amiable in the eyes of the Trinity but no so much so Christological proof of divinity.
 
ajcstr said:
Hey - If you are gonna shake off the dust you may as well do it in style.
Click to expand...
You are on a roll here. Laugh #2 for the day.

I plan on discussing this with my JW friend and point out to here the unreliability of WT writings. I can’t come right out and say they lied or deliberately misinformed their congregation or can I ?

You can only wonder if the are dishonest in such a small thing what about a big thing?
 
Waynec said:
You are on a roll here. Laugh #2 for the day.

I plan on discussing this with my JW friend and point out to here the unreliability of WT writings. I can’t come right out and say they lied or deliberately misinformed their congregation or can I ?

You can only wonder if the are dishonest in such a small thing what about a big thing?
Click to expand...
I would show her that they say in their publication that they say Jerome was the first to claim Mary’s perpetual virginity in 383, but then bring up that he quotes people in his writings regarding such that were way before his time. That’s not something she can back out of, if you think about it, and it goes one of two ways:

1). Either they just didn’t do their homework, threw together an article and pushed it to press, which makes them shoddy at research and untrustworthy

or,

2). They know better, and they’re lying because they feel like their people are blind enough to simply follow them no matter what they say.
 
Waynec said:
I plan on discussing this with my JW friend and point out to here the unreliability of WT writings. I can’t come right out and say they lied or deliberately misinformed their congregation or can I ?
Click to expand...
Well on this I don’t think you can accuse it was a deliberate lie but you can certainly say you see no evidence that this is a true statement then follow with the documented cases where people have been misquoted and spoke up about it.

And of course the general statements they make in their publication with no references provided.
 
ajcstr & ShanPo: Thanks for the advice. I’ll be seeing her on Friday.
 
ajcstr said:
You have had several conversations now, do you feel that she is listening or just talking?
Click to expand...
This can be very hard to determine. I have had many conversations where I thought they were listening to find out later that was not at all the case.:(:nope:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top