JW organization.

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

[onewithhim]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

1) What do any of these prohibitions have to do with Christianity? Answer:

-Voting: Christians do not vote because Jesus Christ is our King/president/governor/chancellor/whatever and we place our hope only in his rule. Christians also know that this world is run by Satan (IJohn 5:19), so why would we join in with its politics? (See also James 4:4; John 17:14; Eccles.8:9; Psalm 146:3.)

-Celebrating birthdays: The early Christians and the Jews of early times did not celebrate birthdays. "The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general." (The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries, New York, 1838, Augustus Neander (translated by Henry John Rose, pg 190.) "The later Hebrews looked on the celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days." (The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, London, 1874, edited by Patrick Fairbairn, Vol.I, pg 225.) "The various customs with which people today celebrate their birthdays have a long history. Their origins lie in the realm of magic and religion. The customs of offering congratulations, presenting gifts and celebrating---complete with lighted candles---in ancient times were meant to protect the birthday celebrant from the demons and to ensure his security for the coming year....Down to the fourth century Christianity rejected the birthday celebration as a pagan custom." (Schwabische Zeitung, April 3/4, 1981, pg 4) "The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea....This notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and the patron saint....The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks....Honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were placed on the temple altars of [Artemis]....Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes." (The Lore of Birthdays, New York, 1952, Ralph and Adelin Linton, pp.8,18-20.)

Wouldn't true Christians feel the need to extricate themselves from such observances? If Christ is the truth (John 14:6), would we mix in UNtruths with our worship of God? (2Corinthians 6:14-17) The bottom line is this: Wholesome gatherings of family and friends AT OTHER TIMES to eat and drink and rejoice are not objectionable.


-Celebrating Christmas or Easter: Christians do not celebrate Christmas because, as M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopoedia says: "The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of New Testament origin. The day of Christ's birth cannot be ascertained from the N.T., or, indeed, from any other source." (New York, 1871, Vol.II, p.276.) The Encyclopedia Americana says: "The reason for establishing December 25 as Cjristmas is somewhat obscure, but it is usually held that the day was chosen to correspond to pagan festivals that took place around the time of the winter solstice, when the days begin to lengthen, to celebrate the 'rebirth of the sun.' [The Roman Saturnalia; dies natalis Solis Invicti]...Christmas originated at a time when the cult of the sun was particularly strong at Rome." (1967, Vol.III, p. 656.) What about the "Wise Men" following the star? Those guys were magi---ASTROLOGERS from the East, and the practice of astrology is strongly disapproved in the Bible. Would God have led to the newborn Jesus persons whose practices He condemned? There are other reasons as well that a Christian who appreciated truth and Godly principles would not participate in a celebration with pagan traditions, mixing the truth of Christ with falsehoods.

As for Easter: The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea ABSENT from the minds of the first Christians." (1910, Vol.VIII, p.828.) The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us: "A great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of Spring, gravitated to Easter. The egg is the emblem of the germinating life of early Spring....The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility." (1913, Vol.V, p.227.) Need I say more about the pagan trappings of Easter, and why Christians would not get involved in it?


-Donating or receiving blood transfusions: Christians do not give blood or take blood into their bodies because of a Scriptural command (Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:20,29)---blood being sacred to God---and this position is proven correct even in scientific terms by modern medicine. Blood transfusions are old-school, passe, out-of-date, and are held on to by many doctors and hospitals because of the costliness of it and the money blood brings in to their own coffers. In reality it is a ruse to get people's money. Blood substitutes are much more efficient; they cost less, have no side effects, and the patient recovers more quickly. See the following for further information on Bloodless Medicine:


www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodless_medicine_surgery

www.upmc.com/Services/patient-blood-man ... ntact.aspx

https://www.pennmedicine.org/for-patien ... e-medicine


Why would conscientious Christians submit to taking someone else's blood into their bodies when (1) the Bible forbids it, and (2) there are many substitutes that are risk-free?

[JehovahsWitness]

Sorry, the Revelation fiction has us believe that those already dead and condemned are added to the final (or general) judgment, of all those who have ever lived.

Well we Jehovah's Witnesses don't classify Revelation as "fiction" we classify it as inspired prophecy. I presented the scripture on request as evidence that the bible implies a person can indeed die twice.

You asked, I responded.

You are still arguing beside the original topic regarding the resurrection of the "many" and their appearances to the "many" witnesses in Jerusalem, (which try to claim was done by only witnesses to their resurrection, something none of the other evangelists or any others report nor do any witnesses or persons told by these "many" witnesses. In short, it only the writer Matthews'yarn. (who wrote 50 years after the alleged event and was not an eyewitness).

Your sentence here is not very clear but from what I can glean I can say that no, I have certainly never argued anything to do with a "resurrection of the many" since I don't believe the passage in question refers to a mass resurrection at all.

[JehovahsWitness]

Let's get back to Elijah John's original post dealing with the JW Organization (in general).

Is this statement accurate?

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... estaments/

“…Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the entire Bible is “inspired of God and beneficial.� (2 Timothy 3:16) That includes both the Old Testament and the New Testament, as they are commonly called. Generally, Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to these sections of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures. In this way, we avoid giving the impression that some parts of the Bible are outdated or irrelevant.�

Opinions?

My opinion is that is accurate factual information. We do indeed believe the entire bible to be God's Inspired word, yes.

JW

[onewithhim]

2) Are any of these ideas compatible with the idea of Christian freedom? Answer: Of course. Christians are free of the turmoil and the harm of un-christian practices and tendencies rife in the world today, as long as we listen to Christ (who tells us what the Father wants us to know) and do what he teaches us to do.

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic? Answer: No way. See my responses to the listed objections above.

4) Could the JW organization flourish without these prohibitions, and still honor God? Answer: It could flourish like the mega-churches that are so popular, raking in people's money by the billions and not giving them a speck of real spiritual food, but the WT organization would not then be honoring God.

[polonius]

Let's get back to Elijah John's original post dealing with the JW Organization (in general).

Is this statement accurate?

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... estaments/

“…Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the entire Bible is “inspired of God and beneficial.� (2 Timothy 3:16) That includes both the Old Testament and the New Testament, as they are commonly called. Generally, Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to these sections of the Bible as the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures. In this way, we avoid giving the impression that some parts of the Bible are outdated or irrelevant.�

Opinions?

My opinion is that is accurate factual information. We do indeed believe the entire bible to be God's Inspired word, yes.

JW

RESPONSE: I find I have difficulty with this type of answer. How can "God's inspired word" contain errors and contradictions unless God himself is untruthful?

Or

Conversely, how can a writing containing contradictions and errors claim divine authorship?

[polonius]

Matthew 27 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.

51x And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,

52y tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.53And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

polonius.advice wrote:

You are still arguing beside the original topic regarding the resurrection of the "many" and their appearances to the "many" witnesses in Jerusalem, (which try to claim was done by only witnesses to their resurrection, something none of the other evangelists or any others report nor do any witnesses or persons told by these "many" witnesses. In short, it only the writer Matthews'yarn. (who wrote 50 years after the alleged event and was not an eyewitness).


JW posted:

Your sentence here is not very clear but from what I can glean I can say that no, I have certainly never argued anything to do with a "resurrection of the many" since I don't believe the passage in question refers to a mass resurrection at all.

RESPONSE: So you believe that Matthew’s gospel is not inspired on this point and is in error? So God did not really inspire this writing unless he too was in error?

[polonius]

(I'm in one of the parts of the country that's snowed in, so I have some time to write).

Since Matthew is considered the first divinely inspired gospel, let’s check if it contains contradictions and errors.

First of all, what we now call Matthew’s gospel was really written anonymously in about 80 AD and was first named “Matthew’s� by the Church Father Papias in 135 AD.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0 Introduction to Matthew

“The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories.�

Moreover, it is also written in the third person with no dialogue between the author and Jesus or any Apostle or other participant. Hence, probably a nonparticipant.

Matt 2:3 Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.*5b They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet:
6‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; since from you shall come a ruler,who is to shepherd my people Israel.’�

But that is NOT what the prophecy says.

Micah 5:2 wrote:

“ But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.�

This is a clan (or tribe) not a city in Judah. And the person who will come forth is David, not Jesus.

So at the very beginning here are two errors in supposedly divinely inspired scripture.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 66 by polonius.advice]
The account of the many risen Saints appearing to many is an attempt to add another fulfillment of prophecy to the list.

Ezekiel 37:12-14New International Version (NIV)

12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’�

It was an overreach on the authors part, for the obvious reasons.

[JehovahsWitness]

4) Could the JW organization flourish without these prohibitions, and still honor God? Answer: It could flourish like the mega-churches that are so popular, raking in people's money by the billions and not giving them a speck of real spiritual food, but the WT organization would not then be honoring God.

Good point. Also the traditional churches that in America and Canada for example, for the most part are losing members whereas Jehovah's Witnesses remain the fastest growing Christian group in those countries. Increasing in number isn't the ONLY evidence of God's blessing, indeed even if we were to lose members over this issue it wouldn't mean God has left us, but we do believe that our continued increase is due to God and if we have His blessings we are happy.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 67 by polonius.advice]

I certainly think you touched on some important points about Scripture. I would add, however, a most relevant issue here is also the accuracy of the Watchtower's New World Translation. It has been condemned time and again by major biblical scholars. Bruce Metzger, one of the great deans of modern-day biblical studies, especially the NT, said the NWT is "a frightful mistranslation," "erroneous," " pernicious," ' reprehensible."