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 338 by onewithhim]

I agree with you owh. Paul was no Trinitarian and always made the distinction between Jesus and God.

But unfortunately, we have little evidence that Paul honored the Name of God, seems to have preferred "Christ".

Contrast this to Jesus, who taught us to hallow God's Name.

And to King David, who honors God's name over and over and over again in the Psalms, and implores us to do the same.

Agreed. However, as has been brought out before, where Paul may have used the Divine Name, scribes may have replaced it with "Lord." I have heard that there have been discovered older Greek texts that do include the Tetragrammaton. I have to do more research into that. It has to be said that whether or not Paul used "God," "Lord," or "Jehovah," he referred A LOT to the Father of Jesus.


.

[tam]

[Replying to post 335 by onewithhim]

The WTS did not add God's name anywhere in the OT (as far as I know). The WTS did add God's name in the NT. Not just in places that are a direct quote from the OT (which makes sense to me, even if that is not in the copies they are translating from), but also in places where they are 'interpreting' that the author was speaking of God, rather than of Christ.


So while some may have confused the issue of who is being spoken of (God or Christ) in the OT, as OWH said... the WTS has done this in the NT, by placing "Jehovah" in places that are about Christ.


But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.


The WTS renders Lord, here, as Jehovah. But Paul is speaking of the difference between the law (moses) and Christ, and states that in Christ, the veil is taken away. When one turns to CHRIST (rather than the law/Moses) the veil is taken away.


Christ is the Lord being spoken of in this verse. The NWT covers over this truth by changing Lord to Jehovah.

**

So then one can continue the passage correctly, where Lord refers to Christ. The very next verse... flowing from the previous which is referring to Christ:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The scriptures you cited may very well be referring to Jehovah; there is no way to tell which Lord is the subject of those verses, even the verses or phrases that come after the mention of Christ.

Then the WTS should not have taken it upon themselves to make a change that they cannot and do not know is true!

If the NWT is wrong, how is the import of the verses really changed? Doesn't all power and authority go back to the Father, Jehovah, anyway?

Does truth not matter?


In this case, I have received from my Lord the answer to your question:


Because the truth is that it is when one turns to CHRIST, that the veil is removed.




The NWT removes this truth (removing the importance of Christ Himself) in this passage. And because the WTS does not turn to Christ (and teaches the same to all of their followers), the veil remains. Or they would know who the Lord in this passage is referring to.

The Father, who Paul always refers to as "God," is very much included in his letters....more than most people realize. He is always the top honcho, if you will, the one that is the most supreme. So to place Jehovah's name in the verses which you cite is not unreasonable.

It is unjustified. Your own words confirm this:

... there is no way to tell which Lord is the subject of those verses, even the verses or phrases that come after the mention of Christ.


However, even those words are incorrect because Christ can reveal who the subject of "Lord" is in those verses. If indeed, one is His sheep and hears His voice. If indeed one turns to HIM.

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ....God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." (I Corinthians 1:3,9, NASB) The Father, Jehovah, is always mentioned, and in the most high position of authority.

What is your point? What does God having the most high position of authority have to do with whether or not Christ is referred to as Lord, by Paul, on numerous occasions? Or whether or not Christ is the Lord being referred to by Paul on THIS occasion?


What does this have to do with the truth that the veil is removed when one turns to CHRIST?



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 335 by onewithhim]

The WTS did not add God's name anywhere in the OT (as far as I know). The WTS did add God's name in the NT. Not just in places that are a direct quote from the OT (which makes sense to me, even if that is not in the copies they are translating from), but also in places where they are 'interpreting' that the author was speaking of God, rather than of Christ.


So while some may have confused the issue of who is being spoken of (God or Christ) in the OT, as OWH said... the WTS has done this in the NT, by placing "Jehovah" in places that are about Christ.


But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.


The WTS renders Lord, here, as Jehovah. But Paul is speaking of the difference between the law (moses) and Christ, and states that in Christ, the veil is taken away. When one turns to CHRIST (rather than the law/Moses) the veil is taken away.


Christ is the Lord being spoken of in this verse. The NWT covers over this truth by changing Lord to Jehovah.

**

So then one can continue the passage correctly, where Lord refers to Christ. The very next verse... flowing from the previous which is referring to Christ:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The scriptures you cited may very well be referring to Jehovah; there is no way to tell which Lord is the subject of those verses, even the verses or phrases that come after the mention of Christ.

Then the WTS should not have taken it upon themselves to make a change that they cannot and do not know is true!

If the NWT is wrong, how is the import of the verses really changed? Doesn't all power and authority go back to the Father, Jehovah, anyway?

Does truth not matter?


In this case, I have received from my Lord the answer to your question:


Because the truth is that it is when one turns to CHRIST, that the veil is removed.




The NWT removes this truth (removing the importance of Christ Himself) in this passage. And because the WTS does not turn to Christ (and teaches the same to all of their followers), the veil remains. Or they would know who the Lord in this passage is referring to.

The Father, who Paul always refers to as "God," is very much included in his letters....more than most people realize. He is always the top honcho, if you will, the one that is the most supreme. So to place Jehovah's name in the verses which you cite is not unreasonable.

It is unjustified. Your own words confirm this:

... there is no way to tell which Lord is the subject of those verses, even the verses or phrases that come after the mention of Christ.


However, even those words are incorrect because Christ can reveal who the subject of "Lord" is in those verses. If indeed, one is His sheep and hears His voice. If indeed one turns to HIM.

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ....God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." (I Corinthians 1:3,9, NASB) The Father, Jehovah, is always mentioned, and in the most high position of authority.

What is your point? What does God having the most high position of authority have to do with whether or not Christ is referred to as Lord, by Paul, on numerous occasions? Or whether or not Christ is the Lord being referred to by Paul on THIS occasion?


What does this have to do with the truth that the veil is removed when one turns to CHRIST?



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Yes, the veil is removed when one accepts Christ, but Who is the one that Paul points to to receive all the glory and honor? THE FATHER, GOD. So when people turn to the FATHER, through Christ, of course, the veil will be removed. Have you forgotten that Christ always pointed to his Father as the One who helped him, taught him, commanded him, sent him, anointed him, and gave him authority? It was the Father's idea to have Jesus come here to earth to redeem mankind.

You see, JWs do NOT still have the veil over us, because we know who the "Lord" is that Paul referred to in the verses you cite. You say that we diminish Jesus' importance, but that is an unsubstantiated accusation. How could that be true when I just said that people must turn to the Father through Christ?


.

[OnceConvinced]

In this case, I have received from my Lord the answer to your question:

Because the truth is that it is when one turns to CHRIST, that the veil is removed.

Moderator Comment

In the Theology, Doctrine and Dogma subforum, scripture is considered authoritative. What you believe Jesus has said to you is not. Please avoid making such unsubstantiated claims.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[tam]

[Replying to post 335 by onewithhim]

The WTS did not add God's name anywhere in the OT (as far as I know). The WTS did add God's name in the NT. Not just in places that are a direct quote from the OT (which makes sense to me, even if that is not in the copies they are translating from), but also in places where they are 'interpreting' that the author was speaking of God, rather than of Christ.


So while some may have confused the issue of who is being spoken of (God or Christ) in the OT, as OWH said... the WTS has done this in the NT, by placing "Jehovah" in places that are about Christ.


But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.


The WTS renders Lord, here, as Jehovah. But Paul is speaking of the difference between the law (moses) and Christ, and states that in Christ, the veil is taken away. When one turns to CHRIST (rather than the law/Moses) the veil is taken away.


Christ is the Lord being spoken of in this verse. The NWT covers over this truth by changing Lord to Jehovah.

**

So then one can continue the passage correctly, where Lord refers to Christ. The very next verse... flowing from the previous which is referring to Christ:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The scriptures you cited may very well be referring to Jehovah; there is no way to tell which Lord is the subject of those verses, even the verses or phrases that come after the mention of Christ.

Then the WTS should not have taken it upon themselves to make a change that they cannot and do not know is true!

If the NWT is wrong, how is the import of the verses really changed? Doesn't all power and authority go back to the Father, Jehovah, anyway?

Does truth not matter?


In this case, I have received from my Lord the answer to your question:


Because the truth is that it is when one turns to CHRIST, that the veil is removed.




The NWT removes this truth (removing the importance of Christ Himself) in this passage. And because the WTS does not turn to Christ (and teaches the same to all of their followers), the veil remains. Or they would know who the Lord in this passage is referring to.

The Father, who Paul always refers to as "God," is very much included in his letters....more than most people realize. He is always the top honcho, if you will, the one that is the most supreme. So to place Jehovah's name in the verses which you cite is not unreasonable.

It is unjustified. Your own words confirm this:

... there is no way to tell which Lord is the subject of those verses, even the verses or phrases that come after the mention of Christ.


However, even those words are incorrect because Christ can reveal who the subject of "Lord" is in those verses. If indeed, one is His sheep and hears His voice. If indeed one turns to HIM.

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ....God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." (I Corinthians 1:3,9, NASB) The Father, Jehovah, is always mentioned, and in the most high position of authority.

What is your point? What does God having the most high position of authority have to do with whether or not Christ is referred to as Lord, by Paul, on numerous occasions? Or whether or not Christ is the Lord being referred to by Paul on THIS occasion?


What does this have to do with the truth that the veil is removed when one turns to CHRIST?



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Yes, the veil is removed when one accepts Christ,

Specifically, in this passage under discussion, when one turns to Christ. That is what this passage is saying; and the WTS obscures this truth by specifically rendering Lord as "Jehovah".

One turns to Moses... the veil remains.

One turns to Christ... the veil is removed.

but Who is the one that Paul points to to receive all the glory and honor? THE FATHER, GOD.

OWH, what does this have to do with who one must turn to, being referred to in this text?

So when people turn to the FATHER, through Christ, of course, the veil will be removed.

The point is that one must turn to Christ. This DOES mean that one is turning to the Father, but one MUST turn to Christ.


Some people think that they can come to God without coming through Christ. Such people think that they can enter the sheep pen without going through the gate. Christ said that anyone who attempts to do that is a thief and a robber. This passage emphasizes who one must turn to.


Christ is the one Paul preached. Christ is the one we are to be witnesses OF. HE is Himself the witness to His Father.


So why change the passage? Because that is a question for the WTS (or you if you are justifying the change) to answer; not me.


Why would a group of people change the text from Lord to Jehovah, when there is no evidence that the text is referring to God, and all evidence that the text is referring to Christ?



(And do you think that the people who turned to the law did not think that they were also turning to God? Because Moses was the mediator between man and God, right? Moses was the mediator of the old covenant. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, and the one mediator between man and God. One must turn to Christ, and the veil is removed. That is the truth that Paul was sharing with this passage.)

Have you forgotten that Christ always pointed to his Father as the One who helped him, taught him, commanded him, sent him, anointed him, and gave him authority?

Of course I have not forgotten. But this has nothing to do with who the Lord is referring to in the passage.

It was the Father's idea to have Jesus come here to earth to redeem mankind.

It was His will yes. Again, this has nothing to do with the subject.

And why would you be engaging in damage control by suggesting that it does not matter if they are wrong in this translation, if you could not see that they might indeed be wrong?

You see, JWs do NOT still have the veil over us, because we know who the "Lord" is that Paul referred to in the verses you cite.

You are contradicting yourself.


Your words from earlier: "there is no way to tell which Lord is the subject of those verses"

You say that we diminish Jesus' importance, but that is an unsubstantiated accusation. How could that be true when I just said that people must turn to the Father through Christ?

You asked how the importance of the verse is changed.

So you tell me... why would they change it to Jehovah (and it is a change, that is firmly established, the original text being copied from does not have that in the text) when everything about the Lord spoken of in that verse is true of Christ?

When we know that one must turn to Christ?

When we know that we are being made into the image of Christ?

When we know that it is in Christ that we have our freedom?





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Elijah John]

The point is that one must turn to Christ. This DOES mean that one is turning to the Father, but one MUST turn to Christ.


Some people think that they can come to God without coming through Christ. Such people think that they can enter the sheep pen without going through the gate.

What does it mean Tammy, to "come through Christ, when Christ himself taught direct access to God? He did this in the Lord's prayer and other places. No mention of even praying "in Jesus name" in Lord's Prayer, or in the Synoptics...at all.

On the contrary, the Jesus of the Synoptics taught only to hallow the Father's name.

Let me ask you this. Was King David with the Father or not? Seems his only"gate" was the name of the LORD, Father YHVH, whom David constantly invoked and praised by Name, in Psalm/prayer.

[McCulloch]

The post you point to only really demonstrates the antiquity of the Canon, not it's validity as the "Word of God".

QUESTION How do we know the bible (canon) is the word of God?

The contents of the bible present convincing evidence of its Divine origin.

#1 It claims to be the word of God.

Few authors actually claim the content of their books are the word of God. Even many of the so-called holy books rarely make this explicit claim. The writings of Hindu Vedic , for example, is essentially a collention of ritualistic commentaries about t hymns, philosophical treatises called the Upanishads, and the epic stories known as Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Buddha did not claim to be a god, and he actually said very little about God. The texts of Confucianism are an amalgam of records of events, moral rules, magical formulas, and songs. With the exception of the Quran, the holy book of Islam, surprisingly few religious make the unique claim of contain the words, thoughts, prophecies and instructions of Almighty God Himself.

This is false. There is nowhere in the Bible where you can find a claim that the Bible is the word of God. Some, but not all of the writers of the Bible make that claim for themselves. But there is nothing about the Bible in the Bible because the Bible did not exist when any of the individual books of the Bible were being written. Even as the last books of the Bible were composed, the authors didn't feel the compunction to list which books to include and which to exclude. If God was the author, don't you think that he would have had better foresight than that? He could have easily prevented much confusion, debate, conflict and bloodshed.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 346 by McCulloch]

True in the sense that "the bible" ie the 66 books of the sacred scriptures was compiled progressively, but the bible writers directly or indirectly attributed much of their writing to God, many claiming they communicated with with God (either directly or by means of angels) and were told to write down specific words or ideas orginating from Almighty God the Creator of the universe. As a compiled collection of books, other than the Quaran, I do not know of any other sacred books that even come close to making such specific claims of content.






JW

[McCulloch]

The post you point to only really demonstrates the antiquity of the Canon, not it's validity as the "Word of God".

QUESTION How do we know the bible (canon) is the word of God?

The contents of the bible present convincing evidence of its Divine origin.

[…]

#2 It contains information that would not have been available to the writers at the time.

The bible contains scientific detail that would not have been readily available to the writers and implies authorship from a higher source. For example, at a time when it was generally believe that the earth was flat and must have had visible means of support the bible describes the earth as a "globe" (sphere) that is suspended in space ie has not visible means of support. The bible also describes earth's water cycle, contains laws of quaranteen and other détails that the writers at the time would not have known (see Is 40:22; Job 26:7; Lev13, 14, 22, Num 19:20; Ecc 1:7)

Actually, as you yourself have pointed out, the writers of the Bible use a Hebrew word which is ambiguous meaning either circle or globe.

For every detail that the writers of the Bible got right against what might have been known at the time, there is at least one where they got it wrong. The order of creation, menstruation requiring quarantine, bats as birds, habits of ostriches, hares chewing cud, stationary earth, etc.

[JehovahsWitness]

For every detail that the writers of the Bible got right against what might have been known at the time...

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that there are indeed details that the bible writers "got something right" despite the constraints of the knowledge of their day? Can you provide evidence of this? It seems to me you are contrasting what they got right with what they got wrong, please prove your the premise by providing evidence of what they got right.

JW