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 503 by onewithhim]

Well, I don't agree with your assessment of JWs that they sprang from paganism's contributions. Jehovah's Witnesses are not a denomination of Christendom. We call "Christendom" all the denominations that have descended from the RCC (including, of course, the RCC herself). Jehovah's Witnesses are not an off-spring of any religion. We do not descend from the RCC. We follow after the earliest congregation begun by Jesus and model ourselves after that. The earliest Christians would not recognize the churches of Christendom at all.

So we do not exist "because of paganism's contributions." All the other churches do.

The flaw in that organisations theory is in trying to distance itself from Christendom whilst still calling itself 'Christian' AND promoting a book as 'the word of GOD' which is an invention of Christendom.

The organisation grew through a bible study group and essentially has tried to plug the logical gaps by interpreting the bible in a way which gives the impression it is indeed the infallible 'word of GOD' as proclaimed by Christendom. Suffice to say, the organisations roots are firmly in Christendom, and cannot be traced back to those times before Christianity became a state religion. You are being deceived and deceiving others with this proclamation that the organisation did not come from Christendom.

Simply put, if the command is 'come out of her' (get away from , distance oneself - have nothing to do with) the JW org cannot take parts of the mother-church with it and preach those as 'truth' and still claim not to have anything to do with Christendom. The claim is not truth.

You call yourselves Christians after Christendom. If your really were the doorknockers representing what Jesus represented, you would call yourselves 'disciples'.

Jesus is never recorded as calling his followers 'Christians' and never referred to his idea of GOD as 'Jehovah'.

I am not being deceived in any way. I have thoroughly researched religions and the Bible, and have discerned what has to be true and what is false. I don't take anyone's word for anything. My religion did not come from Christendom. I was raised in Christendom (Methodist, Baptist, non-denominational, fundamentalist, and more) and can see the difference between it and what JWs believe. JWs do go back to the beginning of the congregation of Christ, before the tainting of Christ's teachings by apostate men, which grew into a very large bastion of false teachings that became the most popular institution of religion for billions of people.

Jesus quoted Scripture (the Old Testament, which he himself called the Word of God) that included the name of God, and he also said that he made his Father's name known and would continue to make it known.

"The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on me, because Jehovah did anoint me to proclaim tidings to the humble, he sent me to bind the broken of heart...(etc.)" (Isaiah 61:1, Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)

Jesus applied that Scripture to himself, as we can see at Luke 4:16-21. Obviously he knew Jehovah to be God, and he spoke about his Father and his Father's name freely.

In prayer to his Father: "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world....I have made your name known to them and will make it known." (John 17:6,26)


(BTW, what "parts of Christendom" have JWs "taken with them?")

[William]

[Replying to post 508 by onewithhim]

I am not being deceived in any way.

The reader can decide for themselves.

(BTW, what "parts of Christendom" have JWs "taken with them?")

For someone who claims to carefully research, that you missed where I wrote precisely what of Christendom JW organisation retains (as the faithful daughter she really is) speaks volumes.

I have said all I need to about this.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 506 by William]

William: "Jesus is never recorded as calling his followers 'Christians' and never referred to his idea of GOD as 'Jehovah'."

Does it matter if Jesus was never recorded calling his followers 'Christians'?

"The term ['Christian'] was coined at Antioch (AA 11:26) and is used in 1 Pt 4:16. It gained wide usage early." - p. 130, Dictionary of the Bible, J.L. McKenzie, S.J.

Acts 11:26 "And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." - NKJV.

1 Peter 4:16 "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name." - NASB.

It's true that no existing NT manuscript contains the name YHWH (nor its short form, YAH). They seem to have been removed about the same time that they were also removed from ancient manuscripts of the Greek OT Septuagint. (See my 'Bar Kochba' and 'Jehovah in the NT' studies):

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... ians.html

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.co ... ment.html

Forunately, when 'Christians' of the middle second century removed the Name (YHWH - Jehovah and YH - Jah) from their new copies of both the Septuagint and the NT Greek writings, they overlooked the places where it was part of another word. These would include 'Hallelujah' and a number of personal names such as Zechariah, Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Abijah, etc.

Since all other uses of 'Jah' and 'Jehovah' as single words have been removed or changed (compare Psalm 68:4 in the Hebrew OT text with its 'translation,' at Ps. 67:4 in the Septuagint for example), we have evidence that they were removed deliberately.

We see the same thing happened about the same time in NT manuscripts. 'Hallelujah' (Ἁλληλουιά in Greek) has been left in Rev. 19 because it is combined with another word and the 'Christian' copyists were looking for the single-word forms only. But all uses of the single-word 'Jehovah' have been removed (compare Acts 2:34 with Ps. 110:1).

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 506 by William]

William: "Jesus is never recorded as calling his followers 'Christians' and never referred to his idea of GOD as 'Jehovah'."

Does it matter if Jesus was never recorded calling his followers 'Christians'?

"The term ['Christian'] was coined at Antioch (AA 11:26) and is used in 1 Pt 4:16. It gained wide usage early." - p. 130, Dictionary of the Bible, J.L. McKenzie, S.J.

Acts 11:26 "And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." - NKJV.

1 Peter 4:16 "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name." - NASB.

It's true that no existing NT manuscript contains the name YHWH (nor its short form, YAH). They seem to have been removed about the same time that they were also removed from ancient manuscripts of the Greek OT Septuagint. (See my 'Bar Kochba' and 'Jehovah in the NT' studies):

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... ians.html

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.co ... ment.html

Forunately, when 'Christians' of the middle second century removed the Name (YHWH - Jehovah and YH - Jah) from their new copies of both the Septuagint and the NT Greek writings, they overlooked the places where it was part of another word. These would include 'Hallelujah' and a number of personal names such as Zechariah, Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Abijah, etc.

Since all other uses of 'Jah' and 'Jehovah' as single words have been removed or changed (compare Psalm 68:4 in the Hebrew OT text with its 'translation,' at Ps. 67:4 in the Septuagint for example), we have evidence that they were removed deliberately.

We see the same thing happened about the same time in NT manuscripts. 'Hallelujah' (Ἁλληλουιά in Greek) has been left in Rev. 19 because it is combined with another word and the 'Christian' copyists were looking for the single-word forms only. But all uses of the single-word 'Jehovah' have been removed (compare Acts 2:34 with Ps. 110:1).

[tam]

Peace to you!

Please forgive me, I have not followed the entire conversation these last few pages. This comment caught my eye though (although more religions than just the JW religion claims to do this):

[Replying to post 508 by onewithhim]

JWs do go back to the beginning of the congregation of Christ, ...

But that falls short.


Because the (bits and pieces that we have of the) early congregation is not the SOURCE. And if we want to know what Christ and God want of us, we should be coming to the source! To the One God told us to listen to! Is that not Christ - He, Himself? Did Christ not give us the example we are to follow? Is He not the one God told us to listen to and obey?


If we want to know what JAH wants of us, if we want to know and to be led into all truth, we should be coming and listening to Christ. Drinking PURE WATER straight from the SOURCE.






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

[shnarkle]

I have thoroughly researched religions and the Bible, and have discerned what has to be true and what is false.

I have been talking with a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses in my living room for the last few months, and they have said the same thing about me. They seem to think that I have a zeal for the scriptures which I perceive to be a damning indictment of their lack of zeal. Why? Because I have no zeal whatsoever.

I don't take anyone's word for anything. My religion did not come from Christendom.

It most certainly did, and I can prove it right now. Do you keep the Sabbath? The answer to that question is a resounding NO. Yet, when one looks at scripture, what do we see the early church doing? They kept the Sabbath. Paul even indicates that the feast days be kept as well. It is the Catholic church that decided to profane the Sabbath and change God's laws; laws which you also disregard according to the dictates of the Catholic church.

Do you have a problem with usury? Christ told his disciples to treat your enemies as your self, or at least a fellow Jew. A Jew could not engage in usury with a fellow Jew, but only with a foreigner. It was originally ordained by God as an instrument of war to destroy the inhabitants of the Promised Land, but with the advent of Christ, and his injunction to treat one's enemies as one's neighbors, usury is effectively abolished for all of Christ's disciples. I could go on, but you should get the idea by now.

Jesus quoted Scripture (the Old Testament, which he himself called the Word of God) that included the name of God, and he also said that he made his Father's name known and would continue to make it known.

Jesus came to call Israel to repentance, and they could not have used God's name in vain if they didn't know the name in the first place. Even the surrounding societies knew the name of the God of Israel. Jesus was showing that his teachings had Jehovah's authority. That's what he meant by making God's name known.

[shnarkle]

The Bible says that true knowledge would re-surface at the end of days. The true followers of Christ would shine like the sun, and the ones doing God's will would be evident.

Yep, and you're still following the dictates of the Roman Catholic church by following her day, the venerable day of the sun rather than God's commandments which your own brochures claim "aren't binding on Christians". This is no different than the claims of mainstream Christianity. I pointed out to the JW's who visited me last week that the law predates the covenant with Moses at Mt. Sinai. One of the examples I gave was the deception perpetrated upon Isaac by Jacob. They claimed that Jacob's deception was legitimate because; well it doesn't matter why because there is no legitimate defense for taking one's queues from the father of lies. Their response was to simply ignore the point and go to their default response which is that they are the only one's making Jehovah's name known and preaching the gospel around the world.

Daniel chapter 12 refers to the last days, and it suggests that true knowledge has been muffled by men for a long time.

"The ones having insight will shine like the brightness of the expanse, and those who are bringing many to righteousness....Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about and the true knowledge will become abundant." (Daniel 12:3,4)

"...So it will be in the conclusion of the system of things....At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun." (Matthew 13:40-43)

Jesus' parable about the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13 helps us to understand that the true followers of Christ would be almost choked out by the "weeds" or "tares," the sons of the Devil...the "false sons of the Kingdom." But in the last days the true followers of Christ would prevail.

So Jehovah's Witnesses are not just a new religion that started up in the 1800s. They go back to the earliest followers of Christ. They do things just the way Jesus did them,

Jesus kept the Sabbath. He told his disciples to sell everything, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow him. He told them not to worry about where their next meal was going to come from, and that isn't the kind of thing one thinks about when they still have a bank account or some money in their pocket. Jesus kept the dietary laws. He and the early church both pointed out that the Mosaic law was to be learned and followed. See Acts 15:21

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 472 by JehovahsWitness]

A wife is bound as long as her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep in death, she is free to be married to whomever she wants only in the Lord.

Sorry, but he's referring to the Mosaic law which you have already claimed is no longer relevant to anyone other than Jews.

I don't believe I used the words "no longer relevant to anyone other than the Jews". I tend to be very careful about my choice of words, so I'm pretty sure that expression will not be found in anything I wrote.

I was referring to the claims of your organization. They have repeatedly pointed out to me that the Jewish covenant is of no relavence to Christians. The commandments are no longer relevant or "binding" upon Christians, etc.

[Replying to post 472 by JehovahsWitness]

We can toss the references from the gospels as none of those are addressed to Christians.

So you want to discuss the law of Christ by removing any reference to what Christ said or did? Does that about sum up your position?[/quote]

No, I'm pointing out that Christ came under the law; a law which JW's no longer see binding upon them

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 508 by onewithhim]

I am not being deceived in any way.

The reader can decide for themselves.

(BTW, what "parts of Christendom" have JWs "taken with them?")

For someone who claims to carefully research, that you missed where I wrote precisely what of Christendom JW organisation retains (as the faithful daughter she really is) speaks volumes.

I have said all I need to about this.

It would be a kindness if you would tell me again what you wrote about just what JWs have retained from Christendom.

[onewithhim]

The Bible says that true knowledge would re-surface at the end of days. The true followers of Christ would shine like the sun, and the ones doing God's will would be evident.

Yep, and you're still following the dictates of the Roman Catholic church by following her day, the venerable day of the sun rather than God's commandments which your own brochures claim "aren't binding on Christians". This is no different than the claims of mainstream Christianity. I pointed out to the JW's who visited me last week that the law predates the covenant with Moses at Mt. Sinai. One of the examples I gave was the deception perpetrated upon Isaac by Jacob. They claimed that Jacob's deception was legitimate because; well it doesn't matter why because there is no legitimate defense for taking one's queues from the father of lies. Their response was to simply ignore the point and go to their default response which is that they are the only one's making Jehovah's name known and preaching the gospel around the world.

Daniel chapter 12 refers to the last days, and it suggests that true knowledge has been muffled by men for a long time.

"The ones having insight will shine like the brightness of the expanse, and those who are bringing many to righteousness....Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about and the true knowledge will become abundant." (Daniel 12:3,4)

"...So it will be in the conclusion of the system of things....At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun." (Matthew 13:40-43)

Jesus' parable about the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13 helps us to understand that the true followers of Christ would be almost choked out by the "weeds" or "tares," the sons of the Devil...the "false sons of the Kingdom." But in the last days the true followers of Christ would prevail.

So Jehovah's Witnesses are not just a new religion that started up in the 1800s. They go back to the earliest followers of Christ. They do things just the way Jesus did them,

Jesus kept the Sabbath. He told his disciples to sell everything, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow him. He told them not to worry about where their next meal was going to come from, and that isn't the kind of thing one thinks about when they still have a bank account or some money in their pocket. Jesus kept the dietary laws. He and the early church both pointed out that the Mosaic law was to be learned and followed. See Acts 15:21

I don't think there is anything in the Scriptures that says that we have to accept what Jacob did in tricking Isaac as legitimate. I don't agree with many things that the ancients did, like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and others. Their stupidity about many things doesn't take away from the validity of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, nor the genuineness of the true Christian congregation as the special possession of God. My spiritual brothers might not agree with me (the ones who visited you), but my viewpoint is as valid as theirs on this.

When Jesus talked about not worrying where the next meal would come from, he was instructing the early brothers in how they must start up the preaching work---giving it a good solid jump-start. It is not necessary for all of his disciples to drop what they're doing and take off in the ministry, leaving everything behind, in this day and age. Drastic measures were warranted in the early first century because the organization was new and just getting started. As time went on, people didn't have to leave their jobs and their families.

I don't get out of Acts 15:21 the same as what you get out of it. I don't see that Jesus' disciples continued to follow the Law. Paul said that the Law was made obsolete when Jesus died on the stake/cross. (Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 8:13; Romans 10:4)