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]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 391 by JehovahsWitness]

Since Jesus never said, "What I'm saying to you applies to all individuals throughout the rest of time that believe I'm the Messiah and i want all those people to eat and drink the bread and wine..."

Speaking to His apostles:


"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."





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

I see you have some words in bold tam, did you have a POINT to make about how you have applied each of those bolded words? If so can you make your point in a few complete sentences so that I can consider addressing them.

Sure, it shows Christ saying the very thing that you claimed He never said.


He commanded His apostles to eat and to drink the bread and wine that mean His body and blood; and to keep doing that in remembrance of Him. He later told those same apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them (those disciples) to also obey everything that He had commanded them (the apostles). Everything necessarily includes eating and drinking the bread and wine that mean His body and blood.





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

Did you read my post #404? Any comment on that POV?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 391 by JehovahsWitness]

Since Jesus never said, "What I'm saying to you applies to all individuals throughout the rest of time that believe I'm the Messiah and i want all those people to eat and drink the bread and wine..."

Speaking to His apostles:


"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."





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

Yes, and for many centuries the command would be for those hearing and obeying to partake of the emblems, because the number would not be completed until the last days. It was imperative that the people who would reign in heaven should be witnessed to and taught the truth so they could help to make up the 144,000 anointed. That was the most important thing, and what Jesus had considered of first importance. After they were chosen and anointed, then the "other sheep" would be instructed as to their position in the scheme of things. They started to realize their earthly hope in the 1930s, pretty far along into the last days.

So Jesus' command was appropriate for those who would be coming into his "little flock" (Luke 12:32) for almost 2,000 years.

The reason "they started to realise" what you say in the 1930s and not before was what exactly?

Before then most every JW had the heavenly hope. They were basically all going to heaven to rule with Jesus. Apparently the full number had just about been completed. Not many more would be needed to fill the roll-call for co-rulers with Christ.

[tam]

Peace to you JW,

Since Jesus never said, "What I'm saying to you applies to all individuals throughout the rest of time that believe I'm the Messiah and i want all those people to eat and drink the bread and wine..."

"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."

Sure, it shows Christ saying the very thing that you claimed He never said.

They are not the same words.

Do you understand the difference between "saying" (ie you can find those exact words in that order in the bible and produce them as a direct quotation from Christ) and not saying something?

Something does not have to be an exact quote to be saying the same thing. The meaning is the same.



"I took my dog to the vet this morning."

"I drove my Boston Terrier to Happy Place Veterinary Clinic at 7:50 am today."



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

[JehovahsWitness]

Something does not have to be an exact quote to be saying the same thing.

Yes well when I said "Jesus never said" I meant, there are no passages in the bible which quote Jesus pronouncing the following words in this order ( then I put the words in question in the "quotation marks" which are generally used to signal we are reproducing the exact words spoken. I can understand why you got the wrong end of the stick and I hope my explanation has clarified the point I was making ie that the words I wrote cannot be found in the bible.

[*] Although "saying" is colloquially used as a synonym for "meaning" the presence of quotation marks clearly indicates I was referring to the actual words and not any implicit sense derived from different words.[/i]


Best Regards,


JW

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 412 by JehovahsWitness]

Matthew 28:18-20 seem to say that exact thing?

IMG_0877 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 413 by brianbbs67]

I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 896#916896

Did you have a comment (that isn't inaccurate) to make about the scripture you quoted?

If so feel free to try and formulate some complete sentences in English to express them.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 412 by JehovahsWitness]

Matthew 28:18-20 seem to say that exact thing?

IMG_0877 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

RESPONSE: Was this a later addition by a copyist to Matthew's Gospel? Please note that there are five accounts of the administration of baptism in the New Testament. All are baptisms in the name of Jesus alone.

Of course the oldest surviving New Testament dates from 325. However, Eusebius had an extensive library from which in his writings he seems to refer to older copies of Matthew without mention of the Trinity.

If the Trinity was indeed in Matthew's original gospel, why was there an Arian debate disputing the divinity of Jesus in 300 AD?

[tam]

Peace to you OWH and to all,

[Replying to post 391 by JehovahsWitness]

Since Jesus never said, "What I'm saying to you applies to all individuals throughout the rest of time that believe I'm the Messiah and i want all those people to eat and drink the bread and wine..."

Speaking to His apostles:


"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."





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

Yes, and for many centuries the command would be for those hearing and obeying to partake of the emblems, because the number would not be completed until the last days.

Who taught this?

Did Christ teach this or did men teach this?

It was imperative that the people who would reign in heaven should be witnessed to and taught the truth so they could help to make up the 144,000 anointed. That was the most important thing, and what Jesus had considered of first importance.

Again, did Christ teach this or did men teach this? If Christ had considered that of first importance, why did He never mention it?

After they were chosen and anointed, then the "other sheep" would be instructed as to their position in the scheme of things.

Same question.

They started to realize their earthly hope in the 1930s, pretty far along into the last days.

You mean they were told that they were of this 'earthly hope' in the 1930's (after the number of jws had surpassed 144 000, and that did not make sense considering the original teaching that all jws were anointed and going to heaven). The people believed those men who told them that they had a different hope. And it was then that many who had been partaking of the bread and wine, stopped. On the teaching and command of men.



Instead of realizing and admitting that the teaching of the 144 000 was an error (and this seems like a relatively simple error to apologize for making and then correct), the leaders of this religion added to their error. Because this religion then told people that they could not enter the kingdom of heaven; told them that they were not part of the new covenant; that Christ was not speaking to them; told them that they could NOT eat or drink the bread and wine that mean the body and blood of Christ. (Jeremiah 5:31)


How is this not literally shutting up the kingdom of heaven before men?


If a doctrine or a teaching insists, causes, or orders us to do or believe something that is in direct contradiction with what Christ has commanded and taught, how can that doctrine or teaching be true?



May anyone who thirsts and anyone who wishes, as the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of life!"

(which water is holy spirit, poured out from Christ, as He has received without end from His Father)


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

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 415 by polonius.advice]

So what?!

It could have been written last Tuesday, that doesn't change the content and this is a discussion on content. My understanding that this forum is based on the bible canon and Mat 28 is part of the accepted bible canon.

JW

[polonius]

[Replying to post 415 by polonius.advice]

So what?!

It could have been written last Tuesday, that doesn't change the content and this is a discussion on content. My understanding that this forum is based on the bible canon and Mat 28 is part of the accepted bible canon.

JW

RESPONSE: The "Longer Ending" of Mark's gospel which has an Ascension story missing in the "Shorter Ending"is now accepted as the Bible's Canon even though it was added in the second century.

The story of the woman taken in adultery is now accepted as part of the Bible's Canon although if was added in the fourth century.