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.

[brianbbs67]

The dietary can be argued with the latitude given to Peter to Bind and Loose(see Acts).

What are you referring to in Acts? Peter's vision? I don't recall anything about binding and loosening in the book of Acts. I recall something similar in Matthew's gospel, but even there they aren't being given Celestial approval to bind and loosen. Instead they are being informed that what is bound or loosened in heaven will be bound or loosened on earth. In any case, there is nothing about loosening the dietary laws.

The Sabbath and God's 7 feasts are set in stone. They all followed these and the early church was Sabbath keeping. The law was not nailed to the tree with Christ. He came to complete it, not usurp it.

I agree, but you gave nothing to support these claims. In Paul's letter to the Collosians, he points out that those handwritten ordinances that "were against us" were nailed to the cross. Of course this can't be refering to God's commandments as they were "FOR" our benefit as in "The Sabbath was made FOR man, not man for the Sabbath", or as Paul points out that those who walk in God's commandments will live.

As right as JW's are about somethings, they adopt the tradtions of Rome in many more.

Good luck getting anyone to defend their position with anything from scripture. If they do provide anything they will immediately decline to continue once they've been refuted. This is the only proper thing to do, but it doesn't negate the fact that even though they, i.e. all mainstream Christian denominations; can't provide a defense for their faith, they will continue to openly violate God's commandments.

Its Mat 16:18-19, what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what ever he loosens on earth will be loosened in heaven.

The follow up is in acts after Peter's dream. His instructions to the new converts.

Acts 15:25-29

I don't always quote scripture here, because i assume most here recognize the verse without the quote. But, if asked I will supply it.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 524 by onewithhim]

So, are you saying from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, you do no work? If yes, then , good for you. That is the commandment.

As to God's name, I think(personal opinion), God wishes us to call on Him however we say His name. The only reason I dispute certain claims , is, they claim to know the TRUE NAME and pronunciation. The OT says we will all forget. So, its like the second coming of Christ. " if someone says christ is here or christ is there" do not believe them.

[shnarkle]

Its Mat 16:18-19, what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what ever he loosens on earth will be loosened in heaven.

Bad translation. Within the future periphrastic it is past preterite. In the Greek it is whatever you loosen on earth will be having been loosened in heaven etc. Christ didn't have the power you seem to think he's giving to his disciples. Christ plainly pointed out that he only did what he saw the father doing. He says, "thy will be done on earth as it IS in heaven". Moses is given the plans to build the temple in the desert after the pattern in heaven.

The follow up is in acts after Peter's dream. His instructions to the new converts.
Acts 15:25-29

Here's a more complete version of the story:

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

The reference to "strangled and from blood" are direct references to the dietary laws. What people really need to notice here is that these are what the converts are actually doing. In other words, they are eating food offered to idols, they're fornicating, and not following these particular aspects of the dietary laws. These are the most egregious problems with these new converts. They wouldn't just launch into the whole law of Moses, nor would they mention things that they weren't doing in the first place. This is why there is no mention of necrophilia or bestiality. But the text tells us the reason why they don't provide them with an exhaustive list of the Mosaic law

21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

They don't have to give them the Mosaic law because they're already going into the synagogues on the Sabbath.

We also know that Peter's dream has nothing to do with the dietary laws being done away with as Peter gives the interpretation to Cornelius' household,

" Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28

He doesn't say anything about eating garbage so there is no reason to assume the dietary laws are done away with. We might just as easily assume that the aforementioned unclean things in his dream which represent Gentiles should now be killed and eaten

[shnarkle]

they claim to know the TRUE NAME and pronunciation.

They've never told me that they know the true pronunciation. I always point out to them that there is no hard "J" sound in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that to use the hard J sound is considered derisive as in "Jezreel" for Israel or "Jezebel" for Isabel". It's ironic that these most sacred names are all pronounced with these derisive mocking sounds now, e.g. Jehovah, Jesus, Jerusalem etc.

[brianbbs67]

Its Mat 16:18-19, what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what ever he loosens on earth will be loosened in heaven.

Bad translation. Within the future periphrastic it is past preterite. In the Greek it is whatever you loosen on earth will be having been loosened in heaven etc. Christ didn't have the power you seem to think he's giving to his disciples. Christ plainly pointed out that he only did what he saw the father doing. He says, "thy will be done on earth as it IS in heaven". Moses is given the plans to build the temple in the desert after the pattern in heaven.

The follow up is in acts after Peter's dream. His instructions to the new converts.
Acts 15:25-29

Here's a more complete version of the story:

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

The reference to "strangled and from blood" are direct references to the dietary laws. What people really need to notice here is that these are what the converts are actually doing. In other words, they are eating food offered to idols, they're fornicating, and not following these particular aspects of the dietary laws. These are the most egregious problems with these new converts. They wouldn't just launch into the whole law of Moses, nor would they mention things that they weren't doing in the first place. This is why there is no mention of necrophilia or bestiality. But the text tells us the reason why they don't provide them with an exhaustive list of the Mosaic law

21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

They don't have to give them the Mosaic law because they're already going into the synagogues on the Sabbath.

We also know that Peter's dream has nothing to do with the dietary laws being done away with as Peter gives the interpretation to Cornelius' household,

" Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28

He doesn't say anything about eating garbage so there is no reason to assume the dietary laws are done away with. We might just as easily assume that the aforementioned unclean things in his dream which represent Gentiles should now be killed and eaten

Not a bad translation, it was my paraphrase. But, go back to 15:1 and read thru the NKJ or KJ. They either assumed too much or had authority.

[shnarkle]

Its Mat 16:18-19, what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what ever he loosens on earth will be loosened in heaven.

Bad translation. Within the future periphrastic it is past preterite. In the Greek it is whatever you loosen on earth will be having been loosened in heaven etc. Christ didn't have the power you seem to think he's giving to his disciples. Christ plainly pointed out that he only did what he saw the father doing. He says, "thy will be done on earth as it IS in heaven". Moses is given the plans to build the temple in the desert after the pattern in heaven.

The follow up is in acts after Peter's dream. His instructions to the new converts.
Acts 15:25-29

Here's a more complete version of the story:

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

The reference to "strangled and from blood" are direct references to the dietary laws. What people really need to notice here is that these are what the converts are actually doing. In other words, they are eating food offered to idols, they're fornicating, and not following these particular aspects of the dietary laws. These are the most egregious problems with these new converts. They wouldn't just launch into the whole law of Moses, nor would they mention things that they weren't doing in the first place. This is why there is no mention of necrophilia or bestiality. But the text tells us the reason why they don't provide them with an exhaustive list of the Mosaic law

21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

They don't have to give them the Mosaic law because they're already going into the synagogues on the Sabbath.

We also know that Peter's dream has nothing to do with the dietary laws being done away with as Peter gives the interpretation to Cornelius' household,

" Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28

He doesn't say anything about eating garbage so there is no reason to assume the dietary laws are done away with. We might just as easily assume that the aforementioned unclean things in his dream which represent Gentiles should now be killed and eaten

Not a bad translation, it was my paraphrase. But, go back to 15:1 and read thru the NKJ or KJ. They either assumed too much or had authority.

So do you think they assumeed too much or had authority? Why?

[brianbbs67]

Its Mat 16:18-19, what Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what ever he loosens on earth will be loosened in heaven.

Bad translation. Within the future periphrastic it is past preterite. In the Greek it is whatever you loosen on earth will be having been loosened in heaven etc. Christ didn't have the power you seem to think he's giving to his disciples. Christ plainly pointed out that he only did what he saw the father doing. He says, "thy will be done on earth as it IS in heaven". Moses is given the plans to build the temple in the desert after the pattern in heaven.

The follow up is in acts after Peter's dream. His instructions to the new converts.
Acts 15:25-29

Here's a more complete version of the story:

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

The reference to "strangled and from blood" are direct references to the dietary laws. What people really need to notice here is that these are what the converts are actually doing. In other words, they are eating food offered to idols, they're fornicating, and not following these particular aspects of the dietary laws. These are the most egregious problems with these new converts. They wouldn't just launch into the whole law of Moses, nor would they mention things that they weren't doing in the first place. This is why there is no mention of necrophilia or bestiality. But the text tells us the reason why they don't provide them with an exhaustive list of the Mosaic law

21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

They don't have to give them the Mosaic law because they're already going into the synagogues on the Sabbath.

We also know that Peter's dream has nothing to do with the dietary laws being done away with as Peter gives the interpretation to Cornelius' household,

" Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28

He doesn't say anything about eating garbage so there is no reason to assume the dietary laws are done away with. We might just as easily assume that the aforementioned unclean things in his dream which represent Gentiles should now be killed and eaten

Not a bad translation, it was my paraphrase. But, go back to 15:1 and read thru the NKJ or KJ. They either assumed too much or had authority.

So do you think they assumeed too much or had authority? Why?

I do not know that. Which is why I search. And why everyone should search. Seek ye first the kingdom of God. And in the OT, pray for wisdom first, for it will be like a tree of life unto you...

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/31-31.htm

Otherwise, IDK, this piece I am still putting together. They seem to speak with authority. The NT is tenuous. It was not written by any apostle, except maybe John. There many things written left out but the RCC that put it together(the bible). Why throw it all out unless it pleases you? The gospel of Peter and Thomas seem in accordance. Seems like every day, new scrolls are unveiled.

[shnarkle]

Not a bad translation, it was my paraphrase. But, go back to 15:1 and read thru the NKJ or KJ. They either assumed too much or had authority.

So do you think they assumeed too much or had authority? Why?

I do not know that.

Then why are you suggesting that I read chapter 15? I'm familiar with the text which is why I'm asking you why you came to the conclusion that they either assumed too much or had authority. Now you don't know what?

Which is why I search. And why everyone should search. Seek ye first the kingdom of God. And in the OT, pray for wisdom first, for it will be like a tree of life unto you...

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/31-31.htm

Yep, which is why I have taken the position I have today. Pretending God's laws have been done away with makes God capricious. Is it an abomination or isn't it? Has God become a respecter of persons? Does God believe it is an abomination for a Jewish memeber of the Church of God to eat garbage while condoning it in a gentile convert? It's an interpretation that makes no sense whatsoever. How are people able to make sense from this?

The gospels that aren't included don't seem to fit with what is included. Even what is included causes people to get completely sidetracked and confused. To add more would only compound the problem. I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't read what isn't included; only that one should understand what is included before going off and thinking that they can understand what isn't.

[brianbbs67]

Not a bad translation, it was my paraphrase. But, go back to 15:1 and read thru the NKJ or KJ. They either assumed too much or had authority.

So do you think they assumeed too much or had authority? Why?

I do not know that.

Then why are you suggesting that I read chapter 15? I'm familiar with the text which is why I'm asking you why you came to the conclusion that they either assumed too much or had authority. Now you don't know what?

I don't know a lot of things. One of which is whether the dietary is still required. I believe it is, but the apostles seem to change that and then give no further instruction that is different. That's why I asked you. I wanted your take on these verses.

IMG_0947 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

I have heard from many it means all food is clean. I have heard from another many, this was just the beginning requirements of new coverts. However , no further instructions are written, post christ, that I can seem to find to contradict this. I lean to err on the side of caution. If unsure, do what Christ did. He followed the law.

[shnarkle]

Not a bad translation, it was my paraphrase. But, go back to 15:1 and read thru the NKJ or KJ. They either assumed too much or had authority.

So do you think they assumeed too much or had authority? Why?

I do not know that.

Then why are you suggesting that I read chapter 15? I'm familiar with the text which is why I'm asking you why you came to the conclusion that they either assumed too much or had authority. Now you don't know what?

I don't know a lot of things. One of which is whether the dietary is still required. I believe it is, but the apostles seem to change that and then give no further instruction that is different. That's why I asked you. I wanted your take on these verses.

IMG_0947 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

I have heard from many it means all food is clean. I have heard from another many, this was just the beginning requirements of new coverts. However , no further instructions are written, post christ, that I can seem to find to contradict this. I lean to err on the side of caution. If unsure, do what Christ did. He followed the law.

I answered this already. Here's what I posted:

Here's a more complete version of the story:

Quote:
“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.


The reference to "strangled and from blood" are direct references to the dietary laws. What people really need to notice here is that these are what the converts are actually doing. In other words, they are eating food offered to idols, they're fornicating, and not following these particular aspects of the dietary laws. These are the most egregious problems with these new converts. They wouldn't just launch into the whole law of Moses, nor would they mention things that they weren't doing in the first place. This is why there is no mention of necrophilia or bestiality. But the text tells us the reason why they don't provide them with an exhaustive list of the Mosaic law
Quote:
21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

They wouldn't mention this if they weren't going into the synagogues on the Sabbath.

Moreover, nowhere anywhere in scripture will you find anywhere this idea that swine, shellfish, etc. are food. This is completely unbiblical. We just naturally think of pork or shellfish as food because we've grown up eating it, but this isn't the case in the bible or by anyone who is an observant Jew. This idea that all food is clean is incoherent. Food only becomes unclean when it goes bad. Rotten food is unclean so no one even adheres to this theory anyways. You are referring to Mark 7:19 which is a parenthetical comment made by a scribe on the Codex Bezai sometime after 400 AD this marginal note migrated into the translations. It is nowhere to be found an in any of the manuscripts. You can google the interlinear and will find it nowhere as well. . Most translations present it in parenthesis. (Thus he declared all food clean).

This parenthetical remark is a non sequitur because the subject of Jesus' discourse isn't about food to begin with. He's talking about washing as a means of establishing one's righteousness, or as he points out that eating with unwahsed hands doesn't defile anyone because defilement comes from within and no amount of washing can remove one's ontological state of defilement.

The whole passage is worthy of study in that one can just as easily substitute any of the other cleanliness laws to see that the paranthetical remark is a non sequitur, and ridiculous Pharisaic legalism. Here's an example to show you what I mean.

"Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they heard of his disciple whom had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?". He answered and said to them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This People honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Hobeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men"... "Hearken unto Me every one of you and understand; There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile. Because it entereth not into one's heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)
For from within out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile, but to neglect washing does not defile." Mark chapter 7 NIPV (New Improved Pharisaic Version)

All I've done here is to substitute the menstrual process for the digestive process. The doctrine does away with the standard by which one determines what is clean and unclean, therefore the cleanliness laws are done away with. My example proves this to be blatantly false.