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]

[Replying to post 238 by Justin108]

I appreciate you taking the time to address every point I made. People usually aren't willing to do that.

I still maintain that, whether or not you respect the Hebrew Scriptures as speaking of the Messiah, every one of the points I listed shows that what actually happened to Jesus did fulfill what was said in the O.T. You don't consider Psalm 22 relevant. Most people do, and correlate it with Jesus. David wrote many things that turned out to refer to the Messiah. (Psalm 110 comes immediately to mind.) You scoff at the idea that Jesus was a descendant of David and Jesse. Mary was a descendant. Joseph was too, and it was the law that an adoptive son inherited the adoptive father's line of descent. So either way, Jesus was a descendant of David. (Literally, through Mary.)

Again, what actually happened to Jesus did square up with passages in the O.T.

[Justin108]

No, not really. The Scripture could refer to non other than the fall of Babylon. One can discern this if one will take the time to read the following:

2 Chronicles 36:15-23

Ezra chapters 1 through 6



Even non-religious historians know that Cyrus conquered Babylon.

I know that Cyrus conquered Babylon. My point is that the Bible did not predict this. The Bible predicted a dude named Cyrus... doing something at some point in the future, but there was literally no mention of "Babylon" in that text. This would be the equivalent of me saying "a man named Jack will do something amazing in the future" and then 200 years later, a man named Jack finds a cure for cancer. Would you consider this a successful prophecy? Is saying "a man named Jack will do something amazing in the future" the same as predicting Jack will cure cancer?

[Justin108]

You don't consider Psalm 22 relevant. Most people do, and correlate it with Jesus.

So when Psalm 22 says "But I am a worm, and no man", is it talking about Jesus?

David wrote many things that turned out to refer to the Messiah.

Unless David intended what he said to be about the Messiah, you cannot call it a prophecy. For example, if I said "I'm a big fan of the Beatles" and later that day, a beetle land on my shoulder, would you consider it a prophecy? Or just a coincidence? Now if I said "a beetle will land on my shoulder today" then I'd consider it a prediction. But saying something and something similar later happens... I would not call that a prediction. Just because Jesus' bones weren't broken, for example, does not mean that Moses' Passover instructions are a prophecy all of a sudden. That's absurd.

You scoff at the idea that Jesus was a descendant of David and Jesse. Mary was a descendant.

How do you know Mary was a descendant?

[onewithhim]

No, not really. The Scripture could refer to non other than the fall of Babylon. One can discern this if one will take the time to read the following:

2 Chronicles 36:15-23

Ezra chapters 1 through 6



Even non-religious historians know that Cyrus conquered Babylon.

I know that Cyrus conquered Babylon. My point is that the Bible did not predict this. The Bible predicted a dude named Cyrus... doing something at some point in the future, but there was literally no mention of "Babylon" in that text. This would be the equivalent of me saying "a man named Jack will do something amazing in the future" and then 200 years later, a man named Jack finds a cure for cancer. Would you consider this a successful prophecy? Is saying "a man named Jack will do something amazing in the future" the same as predicting Jack will cure cancer?

Did you read 2 Chronicles 36:15-23 and the book of Ezra?

[onewithhim]

You don't consider Psalm 22 relevant. Most people do, and correlate it with Jesus.

So when Psalm 22 says "But I am a worm, and no man", is it talking about Jesus?

David wrote many things that turned out to refer to the Messiah.

Unless David intended what he said to be about the Messiah, you cannot call it a prophecy. For example, if I said "I'm a big fan of the Beatles" and later that day, a beetle land on my shoulder, would you consider it a prophecy? Or just a coincidence? Now if I said "a beetle will land on my shoulder today" then I'd consider it a prediction. But saying something and something similar later happens... I would not call that a prediction. Just because Jesus' bones weren't broken, for example, does not mean that Moses' Passover instructions are a prophecy all of a sudden. That's absurd.

You scoff at the idea that Jesus was a descendant of David and Jesse. Mary was a descendant.

How do you know Mary was a descendant?

It looks to me like David knew he was writing about the Messiah at Psalm 110, because he called the person to whom Jehovah spoke "my Lord." David's Lord. David wasn't writing about himself there. (See also Matt.22:41-45.)

Moses' Passover instructions were fore-gleams of the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29; I Corinthians 5:7) The whole Law pointed forward to the Messiah who would negate the necessity for bulls and sheep to be sacrificed for the nation's sins. Jesus of Nazareth fullfilled the Law, and therefore the Passover instructions applied to him as well, being the Lamb of God.

Addressing the question of Mary's lineage, Matthew considered Jesus to be the "son of David" (Matt.1:1), and Luke also believed Jesus to be a descendant of David (Luke 1:32.33), so why leave out Mary's name in the genealogy? Mary does seem to be indicated in Luke's listing, as we can see the two genealogies diverge from each other in places, so are not of the same person. Frederic Louis Godet (Commentary on Luke, 1981, p.129) felt that Luke's "document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus THROUGH MARY....Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus'---The descendant of the mother is not called her descendant. ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)"

Finally, in the words of another Bible resource: "We may conclude that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through Mary, of David's line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus' birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander." (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.I, pp.916,917)

So apparently there is good reason to believe that the genealogical list in Luke's account is actually Mary's lineage. It just was not the Jews' custom to overtly record the descendancy of the mother.

[Justin108]

No, not really. The Scripture could refer to non other than the fall of Babylon. One can discern this if one will take the time to read the following:

2 Chronicles 36:15-23

Ezra chapters 1 through 6



Even non-religious historians know that Cyrus conquered Babylon.

I know that Cyrus conquered Babylon. My point is that the Bible did not predict this. The Bible predicted a dude named Cyrus... doing something at some point in the future, but there was literally no mention of "Babylon" in that text. This would be the equivalent of me saying "a man named Jack will do something amazing in the future" and then 200 years later, a man named Jack finds a cure for cancer. Would you consider this a successful prophecy? Is saying "a man named Jack will do something amazing in the future" the same as predicting Jack will cure cancer?

Did you read 2 Chronicles 36:15-23 and the book of Ezra?

Yes

[Justin108]

It looks to me like David knew he was writing about the Messiah at Psalm 110

Psalm 110 was not one of the prophecies you mentioned before. Psalm 22 was. And there is nothing to suggest Psalm 22 to be a prophecy. I'll ask again: when Psalm 22 says "But I am a worm, and no man", is it talking about Jesus?

Moses' Passover instructions were fore-gleams of the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world"

How do you know?

Matthew considered Jesus to be the "son of David" (Matt.1:1), and Luke also believed Jesus to be a descendant of David (Luke 1:32.33)

Why do the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ?

Mary does seem to be indicated in Luke's listing

Luke was very clear on this.

Luke 3:23 "Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, the son of Heli"

Luke is Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's

as we can see the two genealogies diverge from each other in places

Yes. This is what is commonly known as a "biblical contradiction"

[onewithhim]

It looks to me like David knew he was writing about the Messiah at Psalm 110

Psalm 110 was not one of the prophecies you mentioned before. Psalm 22 was. And there is nothing to suggest Psalm 22 to be a prophecy. I'll ask again: when Psalm 22 says "But I am a worm, and no man", is it talking about Jesus?

Moses' Passover instructions were fore-gleams of the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world"

How do you know?

Matthew considered Jesus to be the "son of David" (Matt.1:1), and Luke also believed Jesus to be a descendant of David (Luke 1:32.33)

Why do the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ?

Mary does seem to be indicated in Luke's listing

Luke was very clear on this.

Luke 3:23 "Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, the son of Heli"

Luke is Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's

as we can see the two genealogies diverge from each other in places

Yes. This is what is commonly known as a "biblical contradiction"

Jesus was treated like less than a man, so I would think that "a worm" would describe how he felt and how some others viewed him.

I understand the Passover instructions to point to Jesus, because of my study of the Bible. I have already posted Scriptures showing that Jesus was said to be "the Lamb of God."

I also explained why Matthew and Luke differ on Jesus' genealogies. Yet you choose to dismiss what I said. That's OK. Just don't keep asking the same questions, esp. after I already answered them.

Have a nice week end.

[Justin108]

Jesus was treated like less than a man, so I would think that "a worm" would describe how he felt and how some others viewed him.

How can Jesus call himself the Son of God, and then call himself a worm? Psalm 22 says "I am a worm", not "people treat me like a worm". Whoever wrote Psalm 22 did not think much of himself. Regardless, there is nothing to suggest Psalm 22 was meant to be understood as a prophecy

I understand the Passover instructions to point to Jesus, because of my study of the Bible.

Unless you can demonstrate it, your understanding is not enough to objectively make the claim that the Passover instructions were meant to be a prophecy

I have already posted Scriptures showing that Jesus was said to be "the Lamb of God."

These are all New Testament scriptures. Someone saying in the New Testament that "oh and by the way, what Moses said was actually a prophecy all along" does not make it a prophecy...

I also explained why Matthew and Luke differ on Jesus' genealogies. Yet you choose to dismiss what I said.

I dismiss it because it is an ad hoc excuse for a contradiction in the Bible

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 247 by onewithhim]


[center]
Jesus was perhaps a bit naive about the politics[/center]

Jesus was treated like less than a man, so I would think that "a worm" would describe how he felt and how some others viewed him.

A lot of self-styled saviors have paranoid delusions of persecution. Jesus seems to fit right in with the rest of them. If he was stirring up trouble, he should NOT have been surprised at being being treated poorly by the people in authority who he was openly criticizing.

Protesting the law makers was viewed poorly back in the day.
It's not even viewed well in our day, but maybe people don't get crucified for it as much.