Not enough non catholic here

[guanophore]

There are certainly some differences between our understandings of Jesus, but both your and my understandings can be ‘proven’ by scripture, which is pretty crazy really.

If I’m looking for the truth about Jesus with no preconceived ideas, who’s interpretation is correct? How do we know?

Redle.

This I think is the ultimate question for sure. It is also the reason that Jesus founded a Church, rather than writing books. He knew that there would be about as many interpretations as there are belly buttons, so He left us with an infallible authority to prevent us from getting lost in that “pretty crazy” reality.

 

[PRmerger]

Dear PRmerger, I will try to answer you, but I’m not entirely certain I understand what you are asking.

JWs, as you say, accept the 66 book canon of scripture.
We have few additional traditions, certainly much less than the RC church ( I think, as im no expert on your faith).
Even so, we have our equivalent ‘external authority’, which is the JW source of understanding - our anointed Governing Body.

Beyond this we understand that the Bible itself is enough to completely equip us.

Please tell me if this is a confusing response.

Redle.

Thank you for your response.

My following question: does your anointed Governing Body claim infallibility?

My assumption is that they do not.

So if it is not an infallible authority, does that not mean that it is going to be in error at some point?

So that prompts another question: how is it that you can trust your Governing Body when you know that it is going to be teaching error at some point?

 

[PRmerger]

PRMerger, I believe Mark should be considered canonical because it has been so for so long.
Around the late 2nd century there were catalogues of books of the Bible - Irenaeus and Clement for example. During the following 200+ years leading to 397CE there was acceptance of the canon which was formally adopted in the council of Trent.

Thank you for answering my question, redle. I must say, I am impressed that you did address it, for often when I ask that question, I receive non-answers, or questions to my question, or obfuscations.

So I am happy to see that your answer is an honest one!

And I am happy to see that you have made a very good argument for the Catholic position on Sacred Tradition! For what you have expressed “because it has been for so long” is nothing more than an explication of what Sacred Tradition is: that which the Apostles proclaimed and has been handed down “for so long.”

 

[redle]

You are correct to say the JW Governing Body do not claim infallibility, and as such have changed our understanding in the past. In fact just today at our Sunday meeting, we considered the latest WT which discussed an example of when this happened during the early 1900’s. Our official website jw.org also has a new understanding on it at the moment, which changes something we understood to be true for almost 100 years.

So to your second question of how can the GB be trusted if it can and has made mistakes?
We reason that all through history God has progressively revealed his word to his people. Today if we need to make adjustments, it is for this reason.

Please be aware that I am a JW apologist, but not blindly so. It’s all I have known through my life, but I am open to objective discussion.

As an example, simply being on this forum qualifies me for disfellowshipping and complete shunning, but I consider discussion to be of greater importance. So yes, I will always try to give you my most honest answers!

Redle.

 

[redle]

PS, ‘WT’ = Watchtower magazine. Sorry to use JW parlance where it’s not readily understood!

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct to say the JW Governing Body do not claim infallibility, and as such have changed our understanding in the past. In fact just today at our Sunday meeting, we considered the latest WT which discussed an example of when this happened during the early 1900’s. Our official website jw.org also has a new understanding on it at the moment, which changes something we understood to be true for almost 100 years.

So to your second question of how can the GB be trusted if it can and has made mistakes?
We reason that all through history God has progressively revealed his word to his people. Today if we need to make adjustments, it is for this reason.

Please be aware that I am a JW apologist, but not blindly so. It’s all I have known through my life, but I am open to objective discussion.

As an example, simply being on this forum qualifies me for disfellowshipping and complete shunning, but I consider discussion to be of greater importance. So yes, I will always try to give you my most honest answers!

Redle.

Honest answers are always appreciated, redle!

So if your GB can change its teachings, how is it that you can know the Truth? Does it not seem alarming to you that what they are proclaiming today can change tomorrow?

 

[redle]

Our view is that Daniel wrote things that were sealed up for the end. The apostles sometimes had mistaken expectations about the kingdom. We are taught to expect refinements so when they come they do not cause too many tremors.

As a side note, our core doctrines have not changed, it’s those which deal with prophecy which are undergoing a progressive revealing.

 

[PRmerger]

As a side note, our core doctrines have not changed, it’s those which deal with prophecy which are undergoing a progressive revealing.

How do you know if something is a core doctrine or not?

 

[redle]

A core teaching is one that hasn’t changed.
Actually no, that’s a (poor) joke!

For example the doctrine of the trinity, hell, immortality of the soul, fundamental teachings like this do not change.

 

[PRmerger]

A core teaching is one that hasn’t changed.
Actually no, that’s a (poor) joke!

Heh!

For example the doctrine of the trinity, hell, immortality of the soul, fundamental teachings like this do not change.

Thanks for those examples.

But my question is how do you know that these are core doctrines? You know this based on whose authority?

 

[Izdaari]

Here I am! One “emergent”, “post-charismatic” Anglo-Catholic Episcopalutheran reporting for duty.

But OTOH, I think formal debates are not that enlightening, mostly just talking past enough other. I’d rather just exchange views between adelphoi, like a friendly late-night college bull session over beer and pizza. IMO that’s both more productive and more fun.

 

[redle]

Thanks for those examples.

But my question is how do you know that these are core doctrines? You know this based on whose authority?

Hmm, that’s a good question - one I’ve never really pondered before. I suppose I can only say that a core doctrine is a fundamental one upon which another doctrine depends, with a large dose of subjectivity thrown in.

We do not have a list of “these are core and these are not”. In fact Core Doctrine is not a phrase we actually use ourselves, we just say ‘understandings’ and yes, they are subject to change.

For the reasons mentioned already, we accept the teachings handed down to us as being ‘food at the proper time’, taken from Jesus parable of the faithful and wise servant.

Redle.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d rather just exchange views between adelphoi, like a friendly late-night college bull session over beer and pizza. IMO that’s both more productive and more fun.

Yes, I take a similar model: that of sitting on someone’s patio, discussing religion, while sipping on your favorite cocktail and eating something deliciously unhealthy. Which is why my icon is that of a patio.

It serves as a gentle reminder that what we might say to someone on an anonymous forum we would never say to a friend, while sitting on a patio, discussing issues of great (or minor) import.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm, that’s a good question - one I’ve never really pondered before.

Again, your honesty is appreciated.

I suppose I can only say that a core doctrine is a fundamental one upon which another doctrine depends, with a large dose of subjectivity thrown in.

This is a definition of a core doctrine. Which I understand.

But how do you know whether something is a core doctrine?

What verses in Scripture tell you that something is core (or essential) vs something that is secondary?

We do not have a list of “these are core and these are not”. In fact Core Doctrine is not a phrase we actually use ourselves, we just say ‘understandings’ and yes, they are subject to change.

This, redle, is troubling. I hope you see why.

For some doctrine that you may stand up and fight for, may be, eventually, something that your GB later states, “Well, it’s not really true.”

And given that you acknowledge the fallibility of your GB you must see that there is NOTHING which you proclaim which cannot be error-free.

On the other hand, with the Catholic Church, we have the assurance that that which an infallible Church proclaims, we can die for. Because we know it is Truth.

For the reasons mentioned already, we accept the teachings handed down to us as being ‘food at the proper time’, taken from Jesus parable of the faithful and wise servant.

Redle.

But that they can be in error, right? Since they are not proclaimed to you by an infallible GB.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Interesting discussion going on. Civil and honest.

Anna

 

[redle]

I can understand the point you have made a number of times, basically that what can I as a JW put my faith in if it is subject to revision/change by the JW ‘popes’? (they would despise me for using that term however).

But that leads us all (all denominations) down a similar path: Are we honestly saying that there has never been a changed thought or teaching in our own denomination?

As mentioned, the prophets did not understand all the things they wrote, and the apostles themselves were subject to correction by Jesus.

It is something I wrestle with. Sometimes I ache to know why the Bible is so open to multiple interpretations. I have changed my lifecourse to suit my beliefs.
I know that men and women much greater than I have spent their entire, yes entire, lives in deep study, prayer and reflection, only to not have everything made clear to them.

I would be rather naive to expect it myself. Doesn’t stop me wishing for it though.

Redle.

 

[PRmerger]

But that leads us all (all denominations) down a similar path: Are we honestly saying that there has never been a changed thought or teaching in our own denomination?

The Catholic position is that the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

There can be no changes.

However, it is also true that doctrine develops. Our understanding grows.

So while it is indeed correct to say that there has never been a doctrine that has changed, it is also correct to say that our understanding of that doctrine has developed.

And, one needs to also have an understanding of the difference between doctrine (which is the teaching of the Church) that does not change and discipline (which is the customs/practice of the Church) which may indeed change.

 

[redle]

And, one needs to also have an understanding of the difference between doctrine (which is the teaching of the Church) that does not change and discipline (which is the customs/practice of the Church) which may indeed change.

We don’t make such a differentiation, rather just call all our doctrine ‘teachings’ or ‘understandings’.

As a religion, JW’s have significantly fewer terms, rites and ceremonies, and much less procedural structure than the RC church does.

Redle.

 

[redle]

The Catholic position is that the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

There can be no changes.

However, it is also true that doctrine develops. Our understanding grows.

So while it is indeed correct to say that there has never been a doctrine that has changed, it is also correct to say that our understanding of that doctrine has developed.

I find this interesting.

I am explaining to you the reality of the JW faith.
I could recite to you the ‘official line’ of the JW Governing Body, which is that we never change our doctrine, but that our understanding of it increases.

Semantically I would be claiming the same as yourself, but I am at least being honest when I say what that means in reality is we have to change our understanding as the doctrines develop.

I’m feeling a little like you are finding a parallel admission hard to make!

 

[PRmerger]

We don’t make such a differentiation, rather just call all our doctrine ‘teachings’ or ‘understandings’.

So all of your teachings, which are fallible, can change?

As a religion, JW’s have significantly fewer terms, rites and ceremonies, and much less procedural structure than the RC church does.

Redle.

Indeed.