The Truth about the bible

by TTWSYF 49 Replies latest watchtower bible


    It really is common sense, but nobody here seems to recognize or acknowledge this blatant and obvious truth.

    The holy bible is the result of the Catholic liturgy.

    They used these scriptures in their religious practices and confirmed which books would and would not be part of THEIR cannon.

    They picked, preserved and promoted these books and gave 'The Word of God' to the world.

    I know that pisses off some folks, but it is the truth [not the 'truth'tm]

    the truth will set you free


  • john.prestor

    Yeah, pretty much, you're right on the money. To be fair, early on a sort of quasi-canon developed naturally which included texts most Christians don't consider 'scripture' anymore, 1 and 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barmabas (great reading on the last one, you'll hear how God doesn't want men to get blowjobs) alongside the new testament we know today, although many church fathers questioned the value of James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, etc. But the church fathers accepted those last ones eventually and pushed out the first, and then outright banned and cursed texts a lot of Catholics read and believed in, the Acts of John and acts like that, the Gospel of the Hebrews, etc.

    The Bible contains an artificial selection of texts the Catholic church chose because it reinforced and legitimized their power. That's all it is.

  • nonjwspouse

    With Pagan worship the oldest, along with Jewish sects, the catholic church was the church that resulted from Jesus' teachings, and began with Peter.It is not the direct result of Roman Catholic Liturgy, it is a result of a council of christian churches, collectively called catholic.

    If you are speaking of the Latin Roman Catholic Church, that was later when there was the beginning of schisms.The Power of the Latin Church wasn't always there, but they did gain power. Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church is also powerful.

    The Canon was an attempt to hold the teachings to a universal one instead of the many schisms.So in that respect it was used to control the way the writings were taught. Some writings were not clear that they were actual accounts and true. It wasn't until the late 300's that the Bible canon was decided upon, with all the schisms represented in councils. Until that time there were different books in different churches, all claiming to be teaching as the successor of Peter.

    Since that time many different religions have developed with Jesus as a figure but not the messiah, such as Islam, or as a Christian religion such as Protestant, etc.

  • john.prestor

    No, it didn't come from Peter. That's a late tradition based on

    -The 2nd century Acts of Peter in which Peter goes to Rome and performs all sort of absurd miracles like raising fish from the dead and battling Simon Magus in the sky and making dogs talk. The claim that the Catholic church began with Peter

    -Pope Anecitus in the late 2nd century who during an early power struggle over when Jesus died claimed Peter founded the Roman church to back up the day Roman Catholics celebrated, Nisan 13, to try to trump the Asian churches who claimed John as their founder and said Jesus died on Nisan 14; king trumps queen, Peter trumps John, both being equally bullshit claims.

    Go find me a source before Anicetus or Acts of Peter who claims Peter founded the church at Rome. You won't find one because he didnt. Everybody and their brother traced their authority to one apostle or disciple or another by the mid-2nd century.

  • Crazyguy2

    I have read that parts of the Bible were in result or to dispute different sects of early Christianity. Just imagine what the JW Bible would look like in 500 years?!

  • Phizzy

    The Canon was only vaguely fixed by the 4th Century, debate and dispute carried on, and was given impetus by Martin Luther, so the Protestant Canon got agreed, but again, still scholars argued.

    The funny thing is that the J.W Org has always accepted the Protestant Bible, established by a Church they say is Apostate, and based on the previously mentioned Canon that was established by the "Apostate" Catholic Church, and yet the JW's claim it is the Word of God, laughable when you think of how they shit themselves about "apostate" writings today. They are using an "Apostate" Bible !

  • ElderEtta

    First you tell me there's no Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Now this?

  • WillYouDFme

    You guys know its all a giant fiction... right?

  • Ultimate Axiom
    Ultimate Axiom


    Even if this were true (which it isn’t) it would only apply to the new testament. The OT cannon was pretty much established long before Jesus arrived.

  • eyeuse2badub

    Strange how jehober used the Catholic Church to preserve "His Word" but he didn't use the Catholic Church to preserve "His Name". According to jw's, the Catholic Church was responsible for hiding "His Name".

    Strange how god works!

    just saying!

Share this