JW stopped by my house......

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]

dj Dave,

1. I’m just wondering where did the JW’s get their Bible from? Since it’s missing 7 books, in the Old Testament, (by the way even the 1611 (I believe was the year) King James was first written with all the same books that the Catholic Bible has in it today.

I believe the JW’s Bible is just a “re-write” of the King James Bible of today. Please correct me if I’m wrong and by all means I’d love to see the proof and what the names of the transcriptors are.[/SIGN]

Let’s first talk about the 7 missing books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of Apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”—Against Apion, I, 38, 41 (8).
Arguments in favor of the canonicity of the writings generally revolve around the fact that these Apocryphal writings are to be found in many early copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which translation was begun in Egypt about 280 B.C.E. However, since no original copies of the Septuagint are extant, it cannot be stated categorically that the Apocryphal books were originally included in that work. 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.
The need for giving due consideration to the Jewish stand in this matter is clearly stated by the apostle Paul at Romans 3:1, 2.

To be continued
We re going to look at all 7 books…get ready.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Don’t hold your breath, people. This is a typical ploy when they run out of scripture to refer to or cannot answer questions. “We’ll check on it and get back to you”. All cults do the same thing when confronted with the REAL truth.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Looks like Dave is setting up another ‘bible study’ for us.
Your closer reminds me of a quote that fits the situation here , all too well :​

Once you know the Truth, everything else is just cheap whiskey.​

 

[Bob4BVM]

[SIGN]
adelore;5999837:

dj Dave,

1. I’m just wondering where did the JW’s get their Bible from? Since it’s missing 7 books, in the Old Testament, (by the way even the 1611 (I believe was the year) King James was first written with all the same books that the Catholic Bible has in it today.

I believe the JW’s Bible is just a “re-write” of the King James Bible of today. Please correct me if I’m wrong and by all means I’d love to see the proof and what the names of the transcriptors are.[/SIGN]

Let’s first talk about the 7 missing books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of Apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”—Against Apion, I, 38, 41 (8).

Arguments in favor of the canonicity of the writings generally revolve around the fact that these Apocryphal writings are to be found in many early copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which translation was begun in Egypt about 280 B.C.E. However, since no original copies of the Septuagint are extant, it cannot be stated categorically that the Apocryphal books were originally included in that work. 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.
The need for giving due consideration to the Jewish stand in this matter is clearly stated by the apostle Paul at Romans 3:1, 2.

To be continued
We re going to look at all 7 books…get ready.

Dave, Please spare us the std discussion of Apocryphal writings . That has been covered to exhaustion in other threads. . .

I believe we would all be MUCH more interested in the CHANGES OF WORDS AND MEANINGS OF PHRASES which are present only in the NWT, not in any other Bible.
Those places where the NWT is completely inconsistent with ANY OTHER Bible.
You probably know them all, and maybe you have good reasons why the texts were changed in the NWT. Let me know if you need a list.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]
adelore;5999837:

dj Dave,

1. I’m just wondering where did the JW’s get their Bible from? Since it’s missing 7 books, in the Old Testament, (by the way even the 1611 (I believe was the year) King James was first written with all the same books that the Catholic Bible has in it today.

I believe the JW’s Bible is just a “re-write” of the King James Bible of today. Please correct me if I’m wrong and by all means I’d love to see the proof and what the names of the transcriptors are.[/SIGN]

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.

Not without weight also is the fact that leading Bible scholars and “church fathers” of the first centuries of the Common Era, on the whole, gave the Apocrypha an inferior position. Origen, of the early third century C.E., as a result of careful investigation made such a distinction between these writings and those of the true canon. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Amphilocius, all of the fourth century C.E., prepared catalogs listing the sacred writings in accord with the Hebrew canon and either ignored these additional writings or placed them in a secondary class.

Jerome, who is described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church and who completed the Latin Vulgate in 405*C.E., took a definite stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings. Thus, in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, Jerome lists the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures in harmony with the Hebrew canon (in which the 39 books are grouped as 22) and then says: “Thus there are twenty-two books … This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.” In writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter, Jerome counseled: “Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—Select Letters, CVII.

There were some differing Catholic views. The trend toward including these additional writings as canonical was primarily initiated by Augustine (354-430 C.E.), although even he in later works acknowledged that there was a definite distinction between the books of the Hebrew canon and such “outside books.” However, the Catholic Church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E.

It was, however, not until as late as 1546 C.E., at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church definitely confirmed its acceptance of these additions into its catalog of Bible books, and this action was deemed necessary because, even within the church, opinion was still divided over these writings. John Wycliffe, the Roman Catholic priest and scholar who, with the subsequent help of Nicholas of Hereford, in the 14th century made the first translation of the Bible into English, did not include the Apocrypha in his work, and the preface to this translation declared such writings to be “without authority of belief.” Dominican Cardinal Cajetan, foremost Catholic theologian of his time (1469-1534*C.E.) and called by Clement VII the “lamp of the Church,” also differentiated between the books of the true Hebrew canon and the Apocryphal works, appealing to the writings of Jerome as an authority.

It is to be noted as well that the Council of Trent did not accept all the writings previously approved by the earlier Council of Carthage but dropped three of these: the Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras (not the 1 and 2 Esdras that, in the Catholic Douay Bible, correspond with Ezra and Nehemiah). Thus, these three writings that had appeared for over 1,100 years in the approved Latin Vulgate were now excluded.

Internal evidence. The internal evidence of these Apocryphal writings weighs even more heavily against their canonicity than does the external. They are completely lacking in the prophetic element. Their contents and teachings at times contradict those of the canonical books and are also contradictory within themselves. They are rife with historical and geographic inaccuracies and anachronisms.

The writers in some cases are guilty of dishonesty in falsely representing their works as those of earlier inspired writers. As we will see—They show themselves to be under a Greek influence, and at times resort to an extravagance of language and literary style wholly foreign

to the inspired Scriptures. Two of the writers imply that they were not inspired. (See the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus; 2 Maccabees 2:24-32; 15:38-40, Dy.) Thus, it may be said that the best evidence against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the Apocrypha itself. A consideration of the individual books will be in my next post, back later.:

 

[adelore]

dj dave,

Ok, I’m ready. But while your at it, could you please comment on the fact that the names of the NWT translators are kept from people, along with their “education background”. Do you really have that kind of “Trust” when you don’t even know if it was two or possible three people who did this? And what if their education background isn’t even up to par? True the Reason of the Scriptures says that the NWT will stand on it’s own merit. What does that mean?

If John, Mathew, Paul, Mark and Luke, could put their names on the books they wrote…and years later…men who transcribed them…put their names out there for all to see…What’s the Big Deep Dark Secret who the Translators of the NWT is? This is a serious matter to think about Dave.

Since I really like the book of Tobit , I’ll make a coment on that one…** I did see **that Scroll, in person, here in Michigan, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were here in the United States on loan traveling to only a handful of Musems (and it was in with the Bible Scrolls…as part of the Bible…) I invited some JW’s to go with me to see the Dead Sea Scrolls…but no one wanted to go. Now I don’t know about you…but other than Oral Teaching and Tradition…there’s nothing older than the scrolls… And since I saw it…I believe what I saw, not what someone writes about. You can check out the website about the Dead Sea Scrolls and find out more information, that just maybe the JW’s are omiting from their fold.

Of the list you listed, you might just want to “dig a little deeper in History” for you will find those books have always been part of the Bible. But keep going I like to see what people come up with and why they believe the way they do.

Have a nice evening…I look forward to see what you have to show us.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]

[SIGN]

Dave, Please spare us the std discussion of Apocryphal writings . That has been covered to exhaustion in other threads. . .

I believe we would all be MUCH more interested in the CHANGES OF WORDS AND MEANINGS OF PHRASES which are present only in the NWT, not in any other Bible.
Those places where the NWT is completely inconsistent with ANY OTHER Bible.
You probably know them all, and maybe you have good reasons why the texts were changed in the NWT. Let me know if you need a list.

[/SIGN]

First of all Bob, I was addressing Adelore’s post–not yours. You seem to ‘take over’ everyone’s posts. Sit back and be quiet while I work on answering all of Adelore’s questions.

 

[adelore]

dj dave,

You might enjoy reading this. Hope you have a good evening.

The Canon of Scripture and Salvation

By Frederick P. Pogorzelski, Catholic Catechist
Page 1 of 3
The Bible came out of the Catholic (Universal) Church and so does Salvation.

After the death of Christ on the cross, and in the centuries before 419 A.D., there were many, perhaps hundreds of writings, and some forgeries that had to be sorted out and decided upon as to if they were canonical (canon = rule or official list) or not. The early Catholic Church was scattered out in communities over a wide geographic area. Many people in these communities liked the Shepherd of Hermas and it was very popular and read as if it were scripture. On The Shepherd of Hermas; in the document The Muratorian Fragment, approx. 170-180 A. D., it is written: “was written quite recently in our own time by Hermas, while his brother, Pius, was filling the chair of the Church of the city of Rome”. ( Pope Saint Pious I apparently occupied the chair of Peter approx. 140 - 155 A. D. ). Origen ( 185-232 A.D. ) believed the author of The Shepherd of Hermas to be the same Hermas referred to by Saint Paul in Romans 16:14. The Epistle of Barnabus was accepted as Scripture by Clement and Origen but not by Saint Jerome. While both of the books; the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabus, were read and accepted by many Early Church communities they are not found in today’s Bibles

The Gospel of Thomas was also in circulation and accepted by some followers of Mani ( Manicheans ). Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Cathechesis V ( approx. 348 A.D. ), states: “Let none read the gospel of Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but one of Mani’s three wicked disciples.” Manichaeanism is a heretical idea that has echoed down the centuries and has persisted even unto today. Likewise, Gnosticism ( Gnostics were Docetists = Greek “to appear” ) teaches that salvation is liberation from the body because the material world is evil. These heretical teachings and writings were rejected as false by ecclestical authority. The important thing to remember about heretical ideas is that they will continue to re-emerge, in more virulent form ( variants ), and under different name, throughout the centuries.

Some communities did not accept the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) as Scripture, so it was not so popularly read and it was a disputed book. The Council of Laodicea about 360 A.D. did not include Revelation in the Canon of Scripture. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, also rejected it and forbade it’s reading in public or private as well. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexanderia, accepted it as Scripture as it is shown in his festal letter of 367 A.D. [1] Disputes over the canonicity of the Book of Revelation contributed to divisions in the Eastern Church communities, and some Greek Churches of today do not accept it as Sacred Scripture. [2] [3]

The Bible did not come complete with an index, telling us which books, and how many, are inspired writings and canonical or not. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture. The bishops were preserved from falling into error, as our Lord promised, on this important matter concerning the Holy Catholic Church. (Matt. 16:18; 28:18-20) (John 14,15, and 16) (1 Tim. 3:14-15) (Acts 15:28) They included Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Roman Catholics call these books deuterocanonical. Protestants call them Apocrypha. There are some additional passages in Daniel and Esther not found in Protestant Bibles.

**Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees,) or Aramaic (Tobit). The Protestant reformers of the 16th century were not aware of the Hebrew and Aramic Versions of the deuterocanonical books in the Alexandrian canon. These are significant and noteworthy because it proves that some of these books were in circulation in Palestine and were accepted by Jewish groups there. **Many of the Christian evangelists and apologists used the Alexandrian canon ( Septuagint LXX ) preserved (not composed or originally written) in Greek. Hellenists Jews from outside Palestine had their own synagogue where the Bible was read in Greek.
The Hebrews were native Palestinian Jews with their own synagogue. Their language was Aramaic and their Bible was read in Hebrew. There were complaints and disputations amongst these two Jewish groups ( Hellenists and Hebrews ), who used different languages, as is noted in ( Acts 6:1-2 ).

To be continued…

 

[adelore]

The Protestant Reformers (not preserved from falling into error) thought that all the deuterocanonical books in the Alexandrian canon had been composed in Greek. The Protestant reformers accept 39 books found in the Hebrew Canon. They do not accept 46 books as they thought their to be seven (7) additional books to the canon of the Holy Bible only composed in Greek (LXX). Actually, many of the the books were preserved in Greek (not composed or originally written in Greek). Here, the reformers of the 16th century had taken, or been guided into, a historical and spiritual, wrong way turn. The archeological evidence available to the reformers of the 16th century led them to believe that the deuterocanonical books were later Greek language compositions and additions to the Holy Bible. Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic.
[In their own presumptuous way, and promoting individual authority, the reformers of the 16th century adopted a shorter 66 book canon of the Holy Bible. Today’s Catholic Bibles usually count a 73-book canon of Scripture not 72. This is simply because they number the book of Lamentations separate from Jeremiah. However, once dogmatically defined, there can be no dispute as to the canonicity of the sacred books on the part of Catholics. The Reformers accept the 27 books of the New Testament.

(Martin Luther dishonored and nearly eliminated some of the New Testament books like James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. The insistence of his friends stopped him from eliminating some of the New Testament canon. Luther was suffering from scrupulosity.) The 16th century Protestant Reformers were wrong about the canon - as are some modern day “Bible Christians” - such as Erwin W. Lutzer. Note the contradiction(s) in historical facts as exemplified by footnote’s 4 and 5 below. As always, read both books in context.]

The Bible came out of the Catholic Church around the end of the 4th century. ( No small feat! ) The Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D.,and later, Carthage 419 A.D., ( along with the Traditional Bible or Latin Vulgate ( LV ), 406 A.D., by Saint Jerome ),gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as Catholics know it today. Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. This is very relevant and significant because earlier Protestant reformers of the 16th century, were very suspicious of, and rejected books, only available to them in the Greek Language. In part therefore, the Protestant canon of 66 books of Sacred Scripture is deficient - short seven (7) books.

 

[adelore]

The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris. (The archeological findings and analysis pertaining to the Council of Rome 382 A.D. and some of the Popes may not be a settled fact.)

A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied - honoring Saint Exuperius - with a letter listing the canonical books:
Consulenti Tibi Dated February 405 A.D.

. This list is the same as the canonical list that Catholics have today. This includes the Protestant apocrypha or Catholic deuterocanonical books of the Holy Bible.

Around the end of the fourth century more evidence on the canon is found from the Church in Spain, in the work of the heretic Priscillian, Bishop of Avila (died 385 A.D.). Priscillianism is a variant of Gnostic-Manichaean. . In his work “Liber de Fide et Apocryphis” Priscillian defends and includes the deuteros although he does not claim that all the deuteros are inspired only some. In the Early Church their was much debate on The Canon of The Old Testament.

The Ecumenical Council of Florence again affirmed the list of inspired books in 1442 A.D., about 100 years before the Council of Trent. The “Decretum pro Jacobitis” by Pope Eugenius IV lists the inspired books, and according to the common teaching of theologians, these documents are infallible True meaning of infallible states of doctrine. Since there was no urgent challenge or compelling reason why it should, the Ecumenical Council of Florence did not dogmatically pass on the canonicity of the inspired books. It did however teach that the books were inspired.

The decrees of the local or regional Church councils (Synods) of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, around 400 A.D., were submitted to the “transmarine Church” (Rome) and approved by the Popes and are considered official Church teachings by official Church councils. Although these councils were merely local, and they in themselves did not have universal binding authority, their decrees were submitted to various Popes and approved. [6] The Latin Vulgate (LV) version of the Bible by Saint Jerome was completed about 406 A.D. and included the deuterocanonical books. About 1000 years later, the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

 

[adelore]

The canon of the Bible was solemnly defined and made dogmatic Dogma and Classes of Revealed truth by the Fourth Session of the Ecumenical Council of Trent of the Catholic Church held in northern Italy 1545-1563 A.D. by the Decree “De Canonicis Scripturis” on April 8th, 1546. Pope Pius IV formally confirmed all of its decrees in 1564 A.D. This put the canonicity of the whole Traditional Bible (LV) beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. The books of the canon were listed individually and agreed with the earlier listing already taught (for about 1000 years prior to the Council of Trent) by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church.[7] [8]

Footnotes:

[1] The Interpreters Bible The Holy Scriptures in The King James Version, Volume XII, Page 353, Abingdon Press, 1957, Nashville 2, Tennessee

[2] history of Eastern Christianity, Page 248, By Aziz S. Atiya, University of Notre Dame Press, 1968, Notre Dame, Indiana

[3] Eastern Christianity, Page 191, By Nicholas Zernov, G.P. Putnam’s sons, 1961, New York

Compare footnotes [4] and [5] below. FOOTNOTE [4} IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.
[4] The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall 1990, Raymond Edward Brown, Roland Edmund Murphy, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Editors, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
Page 1041, #38 states the following: “…(2) it was once thought that the extra (deuterocanonical) books in the Alexandrian canon had been composed in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic the sacred languages known in Palestine. Actually, a good number of the deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sir, Jdt, 1 Macc) or Aramaic (Tob). The Qumran discoveries prove that some of these books were in circulation in Palestine and accepted by Jewish groups there. The fact that the codices of the LXX do not isolate the deuterocanonical books as a group but mix them in with the Prophets (Bar) and the Writings (Sir, Wis) shows that there was no awareness that these books had a unique origin, as there would have been if they were thought to be later and foreign additions to an already fixed collection translated from Hebrew. (3) The thesis that the Jews in Alexandria had a different theory of inspiration from the theory shared by the Jews in Jerusalem is gratuitous.”

[5] Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible By Erwin W. Lutzer, Published by Moody Press, September 1998, Chicago, Illinois 60610
Dr. Lutzer states on Page 187, item 6: “Finally and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew Canon. We have already emphasized that Christ assumed that the Hebrew canon ended with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Apocrypha was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and appeared at a later time.”

[6] Henri Denzinger’s Enchiridon Symbolorum Et Definition, No. 84, Page 35

[7] “Faith Facts” from Catholics United for the Faith (CUF), 827 North Forth Street, Steubenville, Ohio 43952

[8] For earlier lists, cf. Synod of Laodicea (end of IV cent.), c. 60, the genuineness of which canon however is contested (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des conciles, I, 1026); Synod of Rome (382) under Pope Damasus (Denzinger, Enchiridion, no. 84); Synod of Hippo (393), c. 36, which the III Synod of Carthage (397) made its own in c.47 (idem, no. 92); Innocent I in 405 to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse (idem, no. 96); Eugene IV in the Council of Florence (Mansi, XXXI, 1736; Hardouin, IX, 1023f.). The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures

Opinion on “ecclestical authority:” I understand creedal definition, papal definition, or conciliar definition. see: Responses To 101 Questions On The Bible by Rayomd E. Brown, published by Paulist Press, New York, pages 11 - 16 and pages 73 - 74.

dj dave,

I know these post are long, sorry about that, but I thought you’d enjoy reading them.

 

[Bob4BVM]

[SIGN]

[/SIGN]

First of all Bob, I was addressing Adelore’s post–not yours. You seem to ‘take over’ everyone’s posts. Sit back and be quiet while I work on answering all of Adelore’s questions.

Oooh, sorry Dave.
Just interested in getting to the meat of the matter.
Last I knew everyone here was free to comment on any post

 

[Bob4BVM]

The canon of the Bible was solemnly defined and made dogmatic Dogma and Classes of Revealed truth by the Fourth Session of the Ecumenical Council of Trent of the Catholic Church held in northern Italy 1545-1563 A.D. by the Decree “De Canonicis Scripturis” on April 8th, 1546. Pope Pius IV formally confirmed all of its decrees in 1564 A.D. This put the canonicity of the whole Traditional Bible (LV) beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. The books of the canon were listed individually and agreed with the earlier listing already taught (for about 1000 years prior to the Council of Trent) by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church.[7] [8]

Footnotes:

[1] The Interpreters Bible The Holy Scriptures in The King James Version, Volume XII, Page 353, Abingdon Press, 1957, Nashville 2, Tennessee

[2] history of Eastern Christianity, Page 248, By Aziz S. Atiya, University of Notre Dame Press, 1968, Notre Dame, Indiana

[3] Eastern Christianity, Page 191, By Nicholas Zernov, G.P. Putnam’s sons, 1961, New York

Compare footnotes [4] and [5] below. FOOTNOTE [4} IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.
[4] The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall 1990, Raymond Edward Brown, Roland Edmund Murphy, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Editors, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
Page 1041, #38 states the following: “…(2) it was once thought that the extra (deuterocanonical) books in the Alexandrian canon had been composed in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic the sacred languages known in Palestine. Actually, a good number of the deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sir, Jdt, 1 Macc) or Aramaic (Tob). The Qumran discoveries prove that some of these books were in circulation in Palestine and accepted by Jewish groups there. The fact that the codices of the LXX do not isolate the deuterocanonical books as a group but mix them in with the Prophets (Bar) and the Writings (Sir, Wis) shows that there was no awareness that these books had a unique origin, as there would have been if they were thought to be later and foreign additions to an already fixed collection translated from Hebrew. (3) The thesis that the Jews in Alexandria had a different theory of inspiration from the theory shared by the Jews in Jerusalem is gratuitous.”

[5] Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible By Erwin W. Lutzer, Published by Moody Press, September 1998, Chicago, Illinois 60610
Dr. Lutzer states on Page 187, item 6: “Finally and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew Canon. We have already emphasized that Christ assumed that the Hebrew canon ended with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Apocrypha was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and appeared at a later time.”

[6] Henri Denzinger’s Enchiridon Symbolorum Et Definition, No. 84, Page 35

[7] “Faith Facts” from Catholics United for the Faith (CUF), 827 North Forth Street, Steubenville, Ohio 43952

[8] For earlier lists, cf. Synod of Laodicea (end of IV cent.), c. 60, the genuineness of which canon however is contested (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des conciles, I, 1026); Synod of Rome (382) under Pope Damasus (Denzinger, Enchiridion, no. 84); Synod of Hippo (393), c. 36, which the III Synod of Carthage (397) made its own in c.47 (idem, no. 92); Innocent I in 405 to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse (idem, no. 96); Eugene IV in the Council of Florence (Mansi, XXXI, 1736; Hardouin, IX, 1023f.). The Tridentine list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures

Opinion on “ecclestical authority:” I understand creedal definition, papal definition, or conciliar definition. see: Responses To 101 Questions On The Bible by Rayomd E. Brown, published by Paulist Press, New York, pages 11 - 16 and pages 73 - 74.

dj dave,

I know these post are long, sorry about that, but I thought you’d enjoy reading them.

Nice work Adelore,
Thanks for all your good effort on this. You are way more patient than me…
But, Are you Sure that the RCC didn’t add the 7 books at the Council of Trent !

 

[Javl]

Nice work Adelore,
Thanks for all your good effort on this. You are way more patient than me…
But, Are you Sure that the RCC didn’t add the 7 books at the Council of Trent !

Bob: the seven books were orignally in the Tanakh, but later removed. They were also part of the Torah.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Ceil-1]

djDave is used to calling the shots, apparently. Seems to enjoy his role a little too much.


Interesting posts, adelore.

 

[dj_dave]

dj dave,
[SIGN]
Ok, I’m ready. But while your at it, could you please comment on the fact that the names of the NWT translators are kept from people, along with their “education background”. Do you really have that kind of “Trust” when you don’t even know if it was two or possible three people who did this? And what if their education background isn’t even up to par? True the Reason of the Scriptures says that the NWT will stand on it’s own merit. What does that mean? [/SIGN]

Quickly, for the same reason that no one knows the photographers, incredible artists writers, printers or anyone else that puts out the 25 million watchtowers a week in 257 languages.
They do not take credit for any of their work.

“It is the truth rather than its servant that should be honored and proclaimed,”Pastor Taze Russell wrote in 1900, adding: “There is too much disposition to credit truth to the preacher, forgetful that all truth is of God, who uses one or another servant in its proclamation as it may please him.” This is the principal reason why writers and translators of Watch Tower publications, as well as members of the New World Bible Translation Committee, choose to remain anonymous.

Words can have more than one meaning.
Phrases can often be translated more than one way.
More often than not, you’ll find that at many other translations agree with the New World Translation.
Don’t be hasty to condemn the New World Translation as incorrect, or to impute bad motives to its translators. Look into it. Get out dictionaries, check other translations, ask people who speak the Bible languages. Have an open mind. You may not agree in all cases with the NWT rendering. But at least you’ll understand why the translation choice was made and will know why you disagree. We supply a complete list of the Manuscripts that were used and when they were used in our Large Study Bible’s 125,000 footnotes

All Bible translators, not just the NWT translators, make generous use of lexicons, grammars, commentaries and other translation aids. Few, if any, of them approach their work so casually as to attempt to translate without recourse to all the printed scholarship that is available. It is simply not expected of a translator that he or she should be able to work without all these aids.
As The Translator’s Handbook puts it:
“No translator, no matter how accomplished or well versed in both the source and target languages, can do without dictionaries and reference literature.”

Some critics charged that the work should be summarily dismissed as the product of amateurs, but not all took such an unreasonable stance. Writes Alan S. Duthie: “If we know who the translators or the publishers of a particular Bible translation are, does it help us to decide whether that translation is good or bad? Not directly. There is no substitute for examining the characteristics of each translation itself.”

Interestingly, the jacket of the 1971 Reference Edition of the New American Standard Bible similarly stated: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.”

Translation involves careful study of a wide variety of resources. Furthermore, translation is a synergistic group effort, in which a number of different translators contribute their expertise and talents. Additionally, there is no reason why the New World Translation Committee could not have sought the (name removed by moderator)ut and comments of a number of authorities on Bible languages, both inside and outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization

No translator, no matter how accomplished or well versed in both the source and target languages, can do without dictionaries and reference literature. Soon I will invite Bob to list a few (at a time) scriptures where he feels we have mistranslated.

Also there is this…web.archive.org/web/20040219064832/mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/dangerous.htm

Now back to your question Adelore BTW this is why we do not have the 7 books in the NWT

Foremost among the Apocryphal books must be placed 1 Maccabees, of unknown authorship and uncertain date. A patriotic history of the Jews, it covers forty years, from 175 B.C. to 135 B.C. Its “style is simple, terse and restrained, and objective”; which is remarkable, since it extols the prowess and religious zeal of one Mattathias and his four sons, the founders and leaders of the Maccabees. Good history it is, but is it of God or of men?

Definitely of men. Thus the Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it “history is written from the human standpoint.” Its author seems to have been a Sadducee, as he ignores the crimes the chief priests committed during that time, thus betraying his lack of objectivity. Another authority excuses the “few historical and geographical inaccuracies,” but divine history does not thus err. More than that, the prophetic, miraculous and the Messianic elements are entirely lacking as is also any reference to the resurrection hope. The writer even studiously avoids naming the Creator as either “God” or “Jehovah.” How superior in these respects is the inspired book of 1 Chronicles!

What about 2 Maccabees? Contrary to what might be expected, ]it does not chronologically follow 1 Maccabees as the books of Chronicles follow each other.

Cont.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]What about 2 Maccabees? Contrary to what might be expected, ]it does not chronologically follow 1 Maccabees as the books of Chronicles follow each other.

Cont.[/SIGN]

It was written entirely independently of 1 Maccabees and apparently by a Pharisee who had no aversion to recording the crimes of chief priests. It covers some fifteen to twenty years, from 180 B.C. to 160 B.C., authorities not agreeing on these dates. It begins earlier than 1 Maccabees and covers about one half its time period. Its style is just the opposite: emotional, florid, sensational, and it abounds with references to angels and the miraculous.

It claims that the prophet Jeremiah, at the destruction of Jerusalem, took the tabernacle (which had been replaced by the temple 420 years before) and the ark of the covenant to the mountain from which Moses viewed the land of Canaan. Its reference to the offering of prayers for the dead “is without parallel in Jewish literature.” (2 Macc. 12:43-45) It obviously exaggerates and is filled with glaring historical and chronological errors. But no need to single these out, as the writer himself admits the work is of human origin, saying:
“And here will I end. And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto.

For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone, and as wine mingled with water is pleasant, and delighteth the taste: even so speech finely framed delighteth the ears of them that read the story. And here shall be an end.” (2 Macc. 15:37-39) Who says wine and water alone are hurtful and that wine mixed with water is better—and meaning what? Can we find any parallel in the Bible of a writer apologizing for his efforts and confessing to striving for effect?

The Book of Baruch likewise proves itself of human origin by its typically Apocryphal mistakes. It purports to tell of captive Jews in Babylon collecting money and sending it to the priests in Jerusalem in the fifth year of that city’s having been burned by Nebuchadnezzar, when, in fact, at that time there was neither man nor beast there.

It shows Jeconiah with the other Jews in Babylon, when, in fact, he was in prison. It tells the Jews that they will be in Babylon for seven generations, whereas the facts are that they were there only seventy years. And it speaks of the Jews having “waxen old in a strange country,” although having been there only five years. No wonder Jerome did not think it worthy of translation!—Baruch 1:2-7; 3:11; 6:3.

Cont.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]dj dave;

It shows Jeconiah with the other Jews in Babylon, when, in fact, he was in prison. It tells the Jews that they will be in Babylon for seven generations, whereas the facts are that they were there only seventy years. And it speaks of the Jews having “waxen old in a strange country,” although having been there only five years. No wonder Jerome did not think it worthy of translation!—Baruch 1:2-7; 3:11; 6:3.

Cont.[/SIGN]

WISDOM (OF SOLOMON) AND ECCLESIASTICUS?
Even as the Book of Baruch professes to be by Jeremiah’s servant Baruch but is not, so Wisdom professes to speak for Solomon but was written many centuries after Solomon’s time. Not only does it quote from Bible books written long after Solomon’s day but quotes them from the Septuagint Version. A typical example is Wisdom 15:10 taken from Isaiah 44:20. Its human origin is further betrayed by the fact that it contradicts God’s Word about man being created mortal and subject to death if disobedient. Wisdom says: “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” “In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die, . . . yet their hope is full of immortality.” And not only is immortality repeatedly attributed to man but man’s body is pictured as a mere hindrance to the soul, which at death is “received up.”—Wisdom 2:23; 3:2, 4; 16:14.

Ecclesiasticus has the twofold distinction of being the largest of the Apocryphal books and of having a definitely known author, one Jesus the son of Sirach. It has a lie in its very first Prologue (written by another), for it claims that this Jesus “was not less famous for wisdom and learning” than was King Solomon. The author himself, however, in the second Prologue apologizes: “Pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have labored to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew and translated into another tongue have not the same force in them.” Actually an apologetic self-justification.

How this book is of man rather than of God can be further seen by its worldly wisdom and, in particular, by the writer’s low opinion of womankind. In contrast to God’s Word, which squarely blames the man Adam for our woes, he says: “Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” “Give me . . . any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman.” (But why want any wickedness?) “All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman.” Yet some would place these two books on the same plane as the Bible’s “wisdom” books.—Ecclesiasticus 25:24, 13, 19.

Now, what about “TOBIT, JUDITH AND THE ADDITIONS”?

In Tobit we are asked to believe that a pious old Jew was blinded by bird’s dung falling in both of his eyes; that an angel impersonating a human became the traveling companion of his son, whom the old man sent to collect a debt; that on the way the son acquired the heart, liver and gall of a fish; that by burning the heart and liver he caused a stench that drove away a certain demon, who, in jealousy, had killed seven husbands of a certain woman; that this widow then married the son, who, after accomplishing his mission, returned home and restored the sight of his father by placing the gall of the fish on his eyes. Could anything be less creditable in the light of the Scriptures? Could this book be of God?

Proving itself also of human origin but for different reasons is the Book of Judith. It tells of a beautiful woman decapitating the leading general of the enemies of the Jews, resulting in their deliverance. While the story itself is not implausible, the details are so unhistorical as to make its location on the stream of time impossible. On the one hand it purports to tell of conditions after the Jews returned from captivity, yet it mentions Nineveh, the Assyrian armies and King Nebuchadnezzar, all of whom perished long before the Jews returned to Palestine, and even makes Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Assyrians.

Authorities state that “the geographical inaccuracies are equally embarrassing,” and their censure that the apocryphal books “demonstrate that all true historical consciousness was deserting the people” applies most of all to the Book of Judith. In view of all this, what doubt can there be as to what is its origin?

What about the supplement to Esther, 10:4 to 16:24, appearing in the Apocrypha? It fares no better in the light of objective criticism. It asks us to believe that Mordecai was “a great man, being a servitor in the king’s court” in the second year of Artaxerxes, 150 years after he was taken captive the first time Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem. And in claiming that Mordecai occupied this position so early in the king’s reign it not only contradicts the canonical part of Esther but also its own reference later on to his being advanced. Profuse with references to God and acts of piety, it obviously was added to give Esther a religious tone. But references to God in themselves do not prove divine origin any more than their lack proves human origin.

Cont.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]dj dave; And in claiming that Mordecai occupied this position so early in the king’s reign it not only contradicts the canonical part of Esther but also its own reference later on to his being advanced. Profuse with references to God and acts of piety, it obviously was added to give Esther a religious tone. But references to God in themselves do not prove divine origin any more than their lack proves human origin.

Cont[/SIGN]

The Song of the Three Holy Children reads as though one of them first offered a prayer, in the vein of those of Ezra and Nehemiah, and then the angel of the Lord “smote the flame of fire out of the oven.” After this follows the song, which is very similar to Psalm 148. The song, however, makes reference to Jehovah’s temple, priests and cherubim, which does not at all fit in with the desolated condition of Jerusalem at the time. It consists of sixty-eight verses that were interpolated between verses 23 and 24 of Daniel 3.

Susanna and the Elders, chapter 13 of Daniel, tells of two elders framing a virtuous woman because she refused to have relations with them, causing her to be sentenced to die. Youthful Daniel exposes their duplicity by questioning them separately. The elders die, Susanna is spared and Daniel becomes famous. If this actually happened to youthful Daniel, why does it appear as an appendix and why was it first written in Greek, as also were the other two additions to Daniel, when the book itself was written in Hebrew and Aramaic?

The remaining Apocryphal writing to be considered is the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. In the first half Daniel exposes a hoax practiced by the priests of Bel in eating food set out for Bel and supposedly consumed by the idol. Commanded to worship a live dragon, he causes it to explode by feeding it a concoction made of pitch, fat and hair. For this its devotees have Daniel thrown into the lions’ den. While there an angel takes the prophet Habakkuk, who happens to be far off, by the hair to the den to give Daniel a bowl of porridge. After seven days Daniel is delivered and his enemies are thrown to the lions. Does such a tale recommend itself to our judgment as the Word of God?

As one authority summed up the case against the Apocryphal writings: “They have not had the sanction of the Jewish and the early Christian Church; . are wholly wanting in the prophetic spirit. not only do not claim inspiration but bewail the want of it; are characterized in many passages by an air of romance and mythology alien to the simple grandeur of the Bible; contradict themselves and some well-known facts of secular history; teach doctrines not contained in the Bible.and appear never to have been quoted as an authority by the Lord or his apostles.”—Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Abbott, pp. 50, 51.

Truly the Apocrypha is not of God but of men. What a lack of understanding and appreciation to place its writings on the same plane as those of God’s Word, the Bible! Well can Paul’s warning against paying attention to Jewish fables be applied to the Apocrypha.—Titus 1:14.

Conclusion…next

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]dj dave;
Truly the Apocrypha is not of God but of men.Well can Paul’s warning against paying attention to Jewish fables be applied to the Apocrypha.—Titus 1:14.

Conclusion…next[/SIGN]

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Bible is complete.
Experience has taught the Witnesses that the Bible has no gaps in stating God’s purpose or in providing needed counsel for day-to-day living. It tells them why we are here and where we are going. In brief—the Bible is complete.Bible Canon—A Complete Catalog

From the Bible’s opening chapter to its concluding one, The account begins with God’s blessing two people living in a regional paradise and ends with his blessing untold millions living in a global paradise. And the 1,187 chapters in between progressively reveal how God will bless mankind and how we can fit into the divine purpose. The Bible does this without leaving a single gap of vital information that needs to be plugged by other documents.

Why can Jehovah’s Witnesses be sure that no vital book is missing from the Bible? Because the inspired writings that are “beneficial for teaching” have a set catalog, often called a canon. (2 Timothy 3:16) Originally, the word “canon” referred to a reed used as a measuring rod. The Bible canon came to mean the set of books accepted as genuine, inspired of God and worthy of being used as a straightedge for measuring faith, doctrine, and conduct.

The official listing for the Hebrew Scriptures (often called the Old Testament) was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. Jesus Christ and his apostles used only books from this catalog when quoting Scripture. Therefore, Jehovah’s Witnesses follow this same pattern for the Hebrew Scriptures. But what about the so-called New Testament, or the Christian Greek Scriptures?

Evidence for an authorized listing of writings for the Christian Greek Scriptures began piling up as early as 90-100 C.E. And by the end of the second century, there was no question that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures had been closed. There are at least 16 outstanding early catalogs of the Christian Greek Scriptures, from the Muratorian Fragment of 170 C.E. to the Third Council of Carthage of 397 C.E. Additionally, manuscripts of this part of the Bible in the original language (Greek) total more than 5,200. No other ancient document is so well supported. Hence, Jehovah’s Witnesses look upon the Christian Greek Scriptures as being complete.

Jesus repeatedly cited the Scriptures as authoritative, often prefacing his points by saying: “It is written.” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10; Luke 19:46) Indeed, when Jesus spoke about man’s marital situation, he drew, not upon Greek philosophical conjecture, but upon the Genesis account of creation. (Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Matthew 19:3-9) Clearly, Jesus considered the Scriptures to be inspired by God and factual. In prayer to God, he said: “Your word is truth.”—John 17:17.

The Bible records Jesus’ censure of the religious leaders of his day: “Adroitly you set aside the commandment of God in order to retain your tradition. . . . Thus you make the word of God invalid by your tradition.” (Mark 7:6-13) Similarly, the apostle Paul resisted the pressure to assimilate either Greek philosophy or erroneous traditions into his teaching. “Look out,” he cautioned. “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.” (Colossians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 1:22, 23; 2:1-13) True…There were some traditions, or teachings, that Paul urged Christians to maintain, but these were based on the Scriptures and were totally in harmony with them. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-15)

Remember, Paul warned Timothy: “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, . . . and they will turn their ears away from the truth.” He urged Timothy: “You, though, keep your senses in all things.” (2 Timothy 4:3-5) But how?

One way is to be “noble-minded.” A Greek lexicon defines this Bible word as “a willingness to learn and evaluate something fairly.”Being noble-minded did not make the Beroeans skeptical, disinclined to believe in anything. Rather, the result of their honest inquiry was that “many of them became believers.”—Acts 17:11, 12.

The early Christians were noted both for their adherence to the Bible and for their self-sacrificing love. Today, however, as you probably know many people have “a form of godly devotion but [are] proving false to its power.” (2 Timothy 3:5) Any form of Christianity today that is not faithful to the original cannot have genuine power for good in people’s lives. Could this help to explain why, in the greater part of Christendom, we see increasing violence, immorality, family breakdown, and materialism? In some “Christian” lands, vicious ethnic wars are carried on even between members of the same religion.

Gotta run. Peace.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]adelore;2. Could you also explain to me how Jesus spread the “Good News”? Was it written or by Oral teaching?

3Again this is not to cause a debate.

• Just a footnote. I’ve been up for almost 24 hrs working…so words could be spelled wrong…the brain and the fingers might not be moving well together… [/SIGN]

To answer your question I am going to share with you an excerpt out of our newest book.

*** cf chap. 8 pp. 77-82 “For This I Was Sent Forth” ***
“For This I Was Sent Forth”
Jesus says “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” Puzzled, they take his words literally at first. Then he explains: “My food is for me to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work.” (John 4:32,*34) Jesus thus teaches that his main work in life is more important to him than eating.

5 Jesus once said: “I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth.” (Luke 4:43) Yes, Jesus was sent to preach and to teach the good news of God’s Kingdom. Jesus’ followers today have the same work to do. It is vital, then, that we consider why Jesus preached, what he preached, and what his attitude toward his assignment was.

Why Jesus Preached
6 Let us consider how Jesus felt about the truths he taught; then we will discuss his attitude toward the people he taught. Jesus used a vivid illustration to show how he felt about sharing with others the truths Jehovah had taught him. He said: “Every public instructor, when taught respecting the kingdom of the heavens, is like a man, a householder, who brings out of his treasure store things new and old.” (Matthew 13:52) Why does the householder in this illustration bring things out of his treasure store?
7 The householder is not simply showing off his possessions, the way King Hezekiah of old once did—with painful consequences. (2 Kings 20:13-20)

What does motivate the householder? Consider an illustration: You visit a favorite teacher in his home. He opens a desk drawer and pulls out a couple of letters—one of them yellowed with age, the other newer. They are letters that he received from his father—one of them decades ago when the teacher was but a boy, the other in recent times. His eyes gleam with pleasure as he tells you how much he values these letters and how the advice they contain has changed his life and could help you. The letters are clearly treasured by the teacher, holding a cherished place in his heart. (Luke 6:45) He shares them with you, not to boast or to profit in some way, but to benefit you and to convey to you a sense of their worth.

8 The Great Teacher, Jesus, had similar motives in sharing God’s truths with others. To him, those truths were treasures beyond price. He loved them, and he was eager to share them. He wanted all his followers, “every public instructor,” to feel that way. Do we? We have ample reason to love every truth we learn from God’s Word. We treasure gems of truth whether they are long-cherished beliefs or recent refinements. By speaking with heartfelt enthusiasm and maintaining our love for what Jehovah has taught us, we convey that love, as Jesus did.

9 Jesus also loved the people he taught. Prophecy foretold that the Messiah would “feel sorry for the lowly one and the poor one.” (Psalm 72:13) Indeed, Jesus cared about people. He cared about the thoughts and attitudes that drove them; he was concerned about the burdens that weighed them down and the obstacles that hindered them from grasping the truth. (Matthew 11:28; 16:13; 23:13, 15) Recall the Samaritan woman, for example. No doubt she was greatly impressed that Jesus took an interest in her. His insight into her personal situation moved her to accept him as a prophet and to tell others about him. (John 4:16-19, 39) Granted, Jesus’ followers today cannot read the hearts of the people to whom they preach. However, we can take an interest in people, as Jesus did; we can let our concern for them show; and we can tailor our words to meet their particular interests, challenges, and needs.

What Jesus Preached
10 What did Jesus preach? If you were to seek the answer by examining the teachings of many churches that claim to represent him, you might conclude that he proclaimed some kind of social gospel. Or perhaps you would get the impression that he advocated political reform or that he stressed personal salvation above all else. However, as previously noted, Jesus said plainly: “I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God.” Just what did that involve?
Cont.