Evangelicals vs. Jehovah's Witnesses

[Elijah John]

Evangelicals often call Jehovah's Witnesses, a "cult" and not Christian.

Jehovah's Witnesses, seem to consider Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox etc, "not-Christian" (JWs please correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Question for debate, why can't all of these groups rightly be considered "Christian"?

And part two of this OP question is directed primarily to Evangelicals, why don't you consider JWs to be Christian?

[Claire Evans]

Just so we are clear, by the comment above you agree there are those where 2 John 9-11 should be enforced? It also seems you agree that, like I have been saying this whole time, this 'rejecting' of a person is for more than just making a mistake. It's for serious practiced sin. 2 John 9-11 is not to be applied to those that make a mistake and repent, but must be applied to those that knowingly and willfully go against the example Jesus set without repentance. Don't you agree?

I don't agree nor does Jesus.

Then let this be an example of where Jehovah's Witnesses know and follow the Bible were others don't. Jesus said that those that don't know the scriptures would be in error. Not only that, they don't know the power of God in the scriptures.

"Jesus said to them: “Is not this why you are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?" - Mark 12:24

Also, don't be so quick to speak for Jesus. "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." John 5:22, 23.

Oh, don't JWs judge by shunning?

Just who do you think told John to write what he did? Jesus is charge of the congregation. John was simply following Jesus' command to write what he was told to write. The same person that followed Jesus and was God-Inspired to write the Gospel of John also wrote 2 John 9-11.

"Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers." 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

Now for the question of Evangelicals vs JWs. Shouldn't the true religion follow the commands in the Bible? Like 2 John 9-11.

The problem is that you refuse to see the context of John. John said to close the doors to anti-Christs but JWS close to the door to disfellowshipped people who must be deemed anti-Christs.

So don't ask me again the question about John again. I don't think you can bear the thought that you may be wrong about the context.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 543 by Claire Evans]

Quite the slippery answer. It is not what asked for.

Context doesn't change the fact that "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." - 2 John 9-11

I will ask once more. Do you agree that the above should be enforced? Only yes or no answers, anything else will be considered evading the question.

Mark 2:13-17New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Calls Levi and Eats With Sinners
13 Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,� Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?�

17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.�

If you context is correct, then Paul is contradicting Jesus.

Now stop evading the empty tomb question, please!

Your example isn't appropriate to the discussion. Why? Because disfellowshipped people DID KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT GOD. The tax collectors and sinners that Jesus ate with had not been taught the truth about God. That is what Jesus was there for---to tell them.

Paul did not contradict Jesus.

No, the disfellowshipped people broke the rules of the WTS. Even though we may know God, it does not mean we won't sin again. And doesn't mean one truly knows God if one belongs to the Christian religion. And this is what Jesus said about brothers in Christ:

Matthew 18:15-17:

"Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."

Where's the part about shunning?

The part about shunning is right there in the last sentence of the Scripture you quoted above. "If he [the one who committed a serious sin] does not listen even to the congregation [the elders who spoke with him and tried to reason with him to stop practicing the sin], let him be to you as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."

Now, what did the Jews at that time think of non-Jews and tax collectors? They shunned them. Jesus did not say to shun tax collectors, or even the Gentiles, but he was bringing up what the whole nation thought of those people. He said, "let him be to you AS you people view the Gentiles and tax collectors." The deliberate practicer of serious sins should be shunned by the congregation.





Come Lord Jesus

.

Treating them as tax collectors and pagans mean treating them as a candidate for evangelism. If this context if wrong, then Jesus would have had nothing to do with Matthew.

"One day Jesus was walking and saw a tax collector named Matthew sitting at a tax collection post, and said to him, "Follow me." And Matthew stood up and followed Him, and became one of His twelve apostles. (See M 9:9-13 = P 2:13-17 = L 5:27-32) Tax collectors in those days were social outcasts. Devout Jews avoided them because they were usually dishonest (the job carried no salary, and they were expected to make their profits by cheating the people from whom they collected taxes). Patriotic and nationalistic Jews hated them because they were agents of the Roman government, the conquerors, and hated them with a double hatred if (like Matthew) they were Jews, because they had gone over to the enemy, had betrayed their own people for money. Thus, throughout the Gospels, we find tax collectors (publicans) mentioned as a stadard type of sinful and despised outcast. Matthew brought many of his former associates to meet Jesus, and social outcasts in general were shown that the love of Jesus extended even to them."

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-tax-collectors.html

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/56.html

[2timothy316]

You reject some of the Bible!

That's so odd another poster said the following of JWs.

"Sola Scriptura" like the Evangelicals.

Sola scriptura is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

So which is it? How can a group be called both? It is what happens when both accusers don't have faith in scriptures like 2 Timothy 3:16. Yet the accused does.

Do JWs reject parts of the Bible or do they "hold that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice"? Please post all the scriptures that JWs reject.

(This should be interesting)

[2timothy316]

The problem is that you refuse to see the context of John. John said to close the doors to anti-Christs but JWS close to the door to disfellowshipped people who must be deemed anti-Christs.

So don't ask me again the question about John again. I don't think you can bear the thought that you may be wrong about the context.

Because you're stuck in a loop and you are not reading what every JW has been typing. You keep making false accusations over and over. Someone being disfellowshipped doesn't make them an anti-christ but they are headed that way by refusing to follow Jesus Christ. One doesn't discipline someone after they have become an anti-christ. No, you hope they will come to their sense way before that.

Let's break this down step by step. I keep addressing the context but you keep ignoring my questions. Because even though you don't believe me, the context has already be taken into account. There are other scriptures that explain your concern. (1 Cor. 5:6, 11-13, 1 Cor. 6:9, 10, Acts 3:19, 1 Pet. 1:14-16, Heb. 12:7-11)

What makes a person an anti-christ?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 600 by onewithhim]

Odd? Didn't Paul explain that the physical body CHANGES after one of the anointed dies?

Yes, Paul did explain that the body changes. (your definition and application of the word anointed is unique to jws, however.)


Christ rose with the glorified body - the spirit body - one that is capable of eating, being touched and seen, walking upon the earth, etc (physical), and one that is also capable of appearing and disappearing; moving through walls; ascending to the spiritual realm.

Moving from matter to energy (and vice versa), so to speak.

Same as the angels can do. Just as we will be able do when given the white robe (the spirit body).


Remember that Christ said He was going to return, that every eye would see Him; and Revelation also says that the Bride, the New Jerusalem, comes down out of heaven.



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

You are saying exactly what I have been saying all along. I agree with your post here, up to the point where you indicate that all Christians will be given a spirit body.

Yes, Christ said that "every eye would see him," but how can humans look at the sun? When he ascended back to heaven he was caught up in the clouds and the angels nearby said that he would return exactly the way he went up---he was out of sight in the clouds. (Acts 1:9) He now lives in "unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see." (I Timothy 6:16, NASB) No one NEEDS to be able to literally see him. When he comes back, everyone will "see" him with the eyes of understanding, or, "the eyes of the heart" (Ephesians 1:18) Everyone will know that Jesus is responsible for what happens on the earth.

In view of the fact that Jesus said "the world would behold him no more" (John 14:19), the statement at Revelation 1:7 ("every eye will see him") must have reference , not to the literal eye, but, rather, to the effect upon the mind of human observers of the EVIDENCE that they can see with their literal eyes when he goes to destroy his enemies.


.

[onewithhim]

And 144 000 is an occult number.

No it's not. That number can be found in the book of Revelation. It was the number given to John by Jesus Christ through an angel. John then wrote it down in what we know as the book of Revelation.

It appears way before that.

In Tutankhamen's sun necklace, the numbers 144 000 and 666 are encoded.
The carving of Lord Pacal had 144 000 on his forehead encoded also.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=D3F ... 00&f=false




The book of Revelation starts this way...

"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John." - Revelation 1:1.

Do you disagree that John was writing down a 'revelation by Jesus Christ'?

I believe there are some parts in Revelation is from God but I believe there are some parts that are from Gnostics.

I do not agree with your 'sources' and the Bible is not up for debate. This subfourm is about doctrine based on the Bible not the Bible itself. However there are those that claim that JWs don't follow the Bible. I would like to point out that this is further evidence that Jehovah's Witnesses do in fact follow the Bible where others do not for whatever their reason. When debating with a JW you will find yourself face to face with the choice between a doctrine and the Bible. When a person tosses out the Bible as true and pursues their own doctrine over the Bible, JWs have nothing else debate about. From our point of view, Jehovah's Word the Bible has revealed the person's desire to follow themselves and not His Word the Bible.

You must admit, the origins of the 144 000 is curious. JWs do not agree with the most important part of Christianity and that is the resurrection of Jesus' physical body. You cannot possibly agree with the empty tomb account. Why do JWs disregard that? Can you explain this part of the Bible in Matthew 28:

…12After the chief priests had met with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money 13and instructed them: “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole His body while we were asleep. 14If this report reaches the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.�…

What happened to Jesus' body?

The WTS makes up its own rules ironically. They promote shunning when Jesus did not.

Since this is the case, Claire your first issue is with the Bible. Your issues with JWs are secondary because you don't like that we follow the Bible. Because as we just read, you reject some of the Bible. Since JWs base all doctrine on the Bible to the best of our ability, you will never agree with us. So when you accept the whole Bible as God's Word, then we will have something to talk about. Until then, I wish you well.

You reject some of the Bible!

You said that you believe that some parts of Revelation are from God, but other parts are from Gnostics. The parts you don't accept are the Gnostic parts. I see. There is no point in discussing this further, because you admit that you just flat-out don't accept part of the book of Revelation.

I lost count of how many times I have told you what we believe about Jesus' body being changed when he was resurrected, and we believe in the empty tomb.. Nobody knows just HOW Jehovah does that, but we know that Jesus' body was not in the tomb after he was resurrected, and it wasn't stolen.

You just admitted that you don't believe parts of the Bible. That helps me to understand why you refuse to accept the scriptural instructions to shun people if they are unrepentent (and continue to practice serious sin).


.

[onewithhim]

Just so we are clear, by the comment above you agree there are those where 2 John 9-11 should be enforced? It also seems you agree that, like I have been saying this whole time, this 'rejecting' of a person is for more than just making a mistake. It's for serious practiced sin. 2 John 9-11 is not to be applied to those that make a mistake and repent, but must be applied to those that knowingly and willfully go against the example Jesus set without repentance. Don't you agree?

I don't agree nor does Jesus.

Then let this be an example of where Jehovah's Witnesses know and follow the Bible were others don't. Jesus said that those that don't know the scriptures would be in error. Not only that, they don't know the power of God in the scriptures.

"Jesus said to them: “Is not this why you are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?" - Mark 12:24

Also, don't be so quick to speak for Jesus. "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." John 5:22, 23.

Just who do you think told John to write what he did? Jesus is charge of the congregation. John was simply following Jesus' command to write what he was told to write. The same person that followed Jesus and was God-Inspired to write the Gospel of John also wrote 2 John 9-11.

"Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers." 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

Now for the question of Evangelicals vs JWs. Shouldn't the true religion follow the commands in the Bible? Like 2 John 9-11.

Shouldn't those belonging to the true religion believe in the empty tomb resurrection account?

JWs do believe in the empty tomb account, and you haven't substantiated your claim that we don't.

Also, we follow the commands in the Bible and you do not. I can say that because you dismiss out-of-hand the admonishment from the Scriptures to disfellowship anyone who practices serious sins.

.

Truly odd. If you believe in the empty tomb account, then you believe Jesus' physical body rose from the dead. What is it now? Just a spiritual resurrection or the resurrection of the body?

Odd? Didn't Paul explain that the physical body CHANGES after one of the anointed dies? Couldn't it very well be that that is what happened to Jesus's physical body?(I Corinthians 15:42-51) I'm sorry, but you always seem to forget what Paul said about bodies in I Corinth. chapter 15. What Paul says there does not agree with what you say about Jesus being resurrected with a physical body. I don't know how it can be explained any better.

.

So now you are back to the spiritual body resurrection and again reject the empty tomb account. Just answer the question yes or no. Do you believe in the empty tomb account which says Jesus' body was missing?

Yes.


.

[Claire Evans]

Claire Evans posted:

They do not believe that Jesus' physical body resurrected. Is this your belief?

____________________________________________________________________

ONEWITHHIM RESPONDS:

(1) We believe that Jesus was not resurrected in a physical body. That is correct. If the Gnostics happen to believe that too, that's OK with us. JWs do NOT believe the following, which Gnostics believe:

(a) That all of mankind will be resurrected to life in spirit bodies.
(b) That most of the canonical Scriptures are not really the Word of God.
(c) That the earth was created in a flawed manner.
(d) That the blame for the world's failings lies with the Creator.
(e) That the True God did not actually create anything but he "emanated" it from within himself, bringing forth the substance of all there is; ALL is God, for all consists of the substance of God.
(f) That "Sophia," one of the "aeonial beings," is of any importance, and that from her own being came a being that imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God, with his minions the Archons.
(g) That it is not salvation from sin that we aspire to, but salvation from ignorance. It is not by Christ's suffering and death that he has performed his work of salvation, but by his life of teaching and his "establishing of mysteries."


There is much more, and most of it is very complicated and convoluted. From what I have listed here, I think it is plain to see that JWs do not agree with Gnostics on most things.

Agreed but should Gnostic and JWs believe the same empty tomb resurrection account?

(2) I don't quite get your discussion of "quickening." I Peter 3:18 says that Christ was put to death in the flesh and "quickened" in the spirit. He was made alive in the spirit. He had a spirit body, upon being resurrected. You didn't answer my question: "What spirit entered into Christ's glorified body?"

He was made alive by the Holy Spirit, hence quickening which means make alive.


Other versions of the Bible corroborate this:

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.� (NIV)

1 Peter 3:18-20King James Version (KJV)

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

(3) Jesus became a human when he came to Earth. He was not a spirit any longer, the way he had been in heaven (just as the Father, God, is [John 4:24]). So when he died, it wasn't a spirit being that died. It was his physical body---which he GAVE UP for our salvation. The scripture about "quickening" does not say that Jesus' physical body was made alive. Another version of the Bible says: "...having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit." (NASB) Pretty clear.

Then the empty tomb story is a farce.

(5) Jesus didn't have to rise in a physical body to give us the assurance that there will be a resurrection of "both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15) The fact that he was resurrected AT ALL shows us that the dead will rise.

What about the accounts in the Bible when Jesus appeared to hundreds after His death? Was He an apparition?

(7) God does NOT "favor the 144,000 over the rest of us." President Obama's cabinet isn't made up of superior human beings. They are all regular humans. In like manner, Jesus' "cabinet" of 144,000 are not special superior persons. They are all just like regular people. They just have been given a great assignment, to serve and guide the billions of people on the earth during Christ's Millennial Reign.

(8) Your understanding of Revelation 21 needs a bit of help. Why would it be literal when most of Revelation is SYMBOLIC? For arguments' sake, let's just say for a moment that the number 144,000 is not literal. Let's set it on the shelf and not pay any attention to it. Does that change anything? No, because we know that Jesus will have many of his followers in heaven with him to rule over the earth. He said so a number of times. (Matt.19:28; Matt.20:21-23) In Revelation 7 there are two groups portrayed, the "12 tribes of Israel" and then a great crowd which has no number. So whether or not there are LITERALLY 144,000 in heaven, we have a situation where some are ruling with Jesus and some who are not. So, we have taken out the most agitating point, to you, of 144,000 literal persons. Now the whole book of Revelation is SYMBOLIC, right?

Matthew 19:28 and 20, when referring to the thrones, means just receiving eternal salvation.

"Judging the twelve tribes - From the parallel place, Luke 22:28-30, it is evident that sitting on thrones, and judging the twelve tribes, means simply obtaining eternal salvation, and the distinguishing privileges of the kingdom of glory, by those who continued faithful to Christ in his sufferings and death."


Judging, κ�ινοντες . Kypke has shown that κ�ινεσθαι is to be understood in the sense of governing, presiding, holding the first or most distinguished place. Thus, Genesis 49:16, Dan shall Judge his people, i.e. shall preside in, or rule over them; shall occupy a chief place among the tribes. It is well known that the Judges among the Jews were moderators, captains, chief, or head men. The sense therefore of our Lord's words appears to be, that these disciples should have those distinguished seats in glory which seem to belong peculiarly to the first confessors and martyrs. See 1 Thessalonians 4:14, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, and particularly Revelation 20:4-6.

http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/4-16.htm

Therefore, if we accept this, this passage refers to the after-life. We know nobody can stay on earth forever. The old earth will pass away.


Is the whole of Revelation symbolic? I don't think so.

Why do you take chapter 21, verses 1-3, as literal? New Jerusalem is coming down out of heaven. What exactly IS the New Jerusalem? It's not even a literal city! New Jerusalem is the Bride of Christ....it is made up of Jesus' anointed co-rulers. What has "passed away" in verse 1? The former heaven and the former earth. Could this mean that the former governments of earth are gone, and the former world of wicked mankind is gone? "The sea is no more"....could that mean that the roiling, disgruntled masses of people that inhabited the earth are gone? Revelation itself defined "the sea" as people. (Rev.17:15) No one will be disgruntled in the new system of things. The planet will always be here:

"A generation is going, and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing forever." (Ecclesiastes 1:4)

"Those hoping in Jehovah will possess the earth....They will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace....The righteous will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it." (Psalm 37:9b,11b,29)

Well, Jesus said there would be no more death and as long as we have this earth, there will always be death. Mortal bodies live on this earth. What is the old order that has passed away? A place where this is no death? That is what it is saying.



We believe that only a certain number will be raised in the spirit, and MOST people that have died will be raised back to physical bodies.

As I said, not everything Gnostics believe match the JWs but the most important one and that there Christ's resurrection was just spiritual.

You try to equate JWs with what the RCC has done, and that is erroneous. JWs discipline the pedophiles and the adulterers, etc. The RCC doesn't. JWs do have the "two witness" rule, gotten from the Bible. It protects a person from being accused unfairly. And I have NEVER heard of the "three year rule" for sins of elders.

What? Are you serious? You are defending the WTS? Paedophilia is a criminal offence. Paedophiles belong in jail. To put paedophiles and adulterers in the same category is wrong. Adulterers don't go to jail. The WTS is obstructing justice. In fact, that in itself is a criminal offence.

How do you know that the WTS disciplines paedophiles?

We have never said that just a few will inherit eternal life. You are making that up.


[/u][/b]

Remaining on earth forever and ever in our mortal bodies is not inheriting eternal life.

(1) Do JWs believe the same resurrection account as the Gnostics? I actually don't remember off-hand what the Gnostics believe; I'd have to go back and look. What I can say is what JWs believe: Jesus was raised back to life in a spirit body, and AS SUCH went and talked with the demons in the spirit realm. (I Peter 3:18-20, NASB) A couple of versions say that Jesus was "made alive BY the Spirit," which is actually true, but the reason we know that other versions that say "Made alive IN THE SPIRIT" are more correct is because it is contrasting his death IN THE FLESH with the manner in which he was raised---IN THE SPIRIT. (NASB; NAB; New Catholic Edition; Moffatt Translation; Young's Literal Translation) And I could go on, but I've got to get ready for an appointment.

(2) Later

You say that as long as we have the earth there will be death. Could you support that statement with Scripture? Do you not agree that when Adam was created he was created to live forever on the earth, provided he didn't choose to disobey God? If he had respected Jehovah and obeyed Him, Adam would still be here. As long as humans would've obeyed God, there would have been no death. All humans would still be here on Earth. So why do you say as long as we have the earth there will be death?

The Adam and Eve story is pagan. It's not Hebrew but Sumerian. So as long as we have mortal bodies, which is bound to this earth, we shall have death.

The old "earth" or the old order that will pass away is not the physical planet. It is the old society of people alienated from God. That is what will pass away. Can you honestly imagine this beautiful planet being destroyed because of what man has done to it? Uh-uh. The earth can re-invigorate itself, with some help from people being guided by Jesus and his co-rulers.

I think the earth is beyond repair. Revelation says a third of the oceans will die (Revelation 8:9).

Peter 3:10 tells us: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.�

Matthew 24:3 - And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

So in Matthew 19 when Jesus mentions "thrones," that just means "eternal salvation"? Do you mean that EVERYONE will rule from a throne? BILLIONS of people will rule from their own throne? Can you explain that please, exactly how that will work?

The throne is symbolic.



Matthew 19:28-39
And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.�

This is the passage you are referring to? But the parallel passage of Daniel 7:13-14 suggests it has to be with the Ascension.

Daniel 7:13-14New International Version (NIV)

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

This has nothing to do with the millennial reign.

What justice is the WTS obstructing? What if your father or your brother was accused of molestation and he was innocent? What if it was a trumped-up charge? The "two or three witnesses" rule might just exonerate his innocence. That is why the Bible gives us this rule, so that an innocent person could not be condemned by just one person.

But is it up to the WTS to legally exonerate anyone especially since it has been proven that the WTS stance on paedophiles in position of power is disturbing:

"Watchtower is facing and losing a rising number of court cases, due to its policies and protection of pedophiles within its congregations. This article discusses some prominent cases and the reasoning courts give for judgements against Watchtower.
For detail regarding how Jehovah's Witnesses are instructed to deal with child abusers see Watchtower Pedophile Policy, which discusses how these policies have facilitated the operation of pedophiles within congregations.

The ongoing settlement of cases by the Watchtower Society is highly condemning. Most of these are settled out of court with "gag" clauses, so that the public is unable to obtain full details. More recently, some victims have decided to pursue their cases through the courts, so that people are able to become aware of what is happening within the Watchtower Organisation, and understand how dangerous their policies on child abuse have been.

The Watchtower has accepted culpability when settling cases out of court. The settled cases are generally in situations where known child predators continued to be re-appointed into positions of authority by the Brooklyn headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses. Elders, the equivalent of priests, are appointed after recommendation by congregation elders, approval of the circuit overseer, and acceptance by the Bethel. Elders are said to be placed in their position of authority by the active guidance of holy spirit; as such they hold considerable influence over congregation members."

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/child ... ements.php

Do you believe that it is right for the WTS to not warn the congregation that an elder, for example, is a paedophile?

You ask "how do you know that the WTS disciplines pedophiles?" I have been with the organization for over 42 years. I have seen everything that has gone on within my own congregations (I've been in 5 different ones and have been privy to what goes on in others by close proximity). I have never seen a pedophile protected or shielded from being arrested. One man who was a close family friend spent years in jail, and when he got out he was sorry and got accepted back, but he could never hold any privileges in the congregation, and you'd better believe he would never be allowed to be alone with children any more, not even his own. The only times I have known pedophiles to get away with anything is if either the victims didn't say anything and/or the parents didn't do anything about it and didn't bring it to anyone's attention. A close family member was molested by his JW babysitter when he was little but he never told his parents. He's 46 now and still holds all that inside, no matter that people have told him to tell someone. The only people that know who it could have been are his mother and stepfather, and he never told them. That's really sad, and justice wan't served, but you know?---justice is not served either when a man is disciplined by the congregation and yet other people want to lynch him. He is not getting away with anything.


.

The court cases suggest otherwise.

"It seems that a ministerial servant by the name of Gordon Leighton – in the Lampton congregation, in Washington, in the Northeast of England – was accused of sexually assaulting a child in the congregation on multiple occasions. He confessed to a judicial committee. That ought to be the end of the story. But it is not.

Apparently, the parents of the victim contacted the police and informed them of the crime and Leighton was arrested and charged. However, on being charged with a criminal offense he pleaded not guilty. But during the investigation it came to their attention that Mr. Leighton had previously confessed to the elders. So, the police requested the testimony of the three elders involved. However, all three refused to cooperate with the investigation. They were issued summons to appear in court as witnesses. Still they refused. The elders launched a court battle that lasted for months (three years actually) in order to avoid giving their testimony against the admitted pedophile."

https://e-watchman.com/the-watchtower-s ... edophiles/

http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/elders- ... e-cover-up

[Claire Evans]

three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."

Where's the part about shunning?

And your question about the empty tomb was answered by me quite awhile ago.


.

Please post again because I did not see it. Please comment on this:

Matthew 28:13


…12After the chief priests had met with the elders and formed a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money 13and instructed them: “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole His body while we were asleep. 14If this report reaches the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.�…

If His physical body remained and was still there then why suggest the disciples stole it?

It is in my post #549. (Three sentences up from the bottom.) I'll bump it up here after I respond to Matthew 28:13. JWs have never said that Jesus' body was still in the tomb. Please don't post things about somebody that you can't substantiate.


.

If not in the tomb, where was it??

Didn't you read my post that I bumped up just for you?

.

You didn't bump it up from what I can see but I have already answered that post.

[Claire Evans]

You reject some of the Bible!

That's so odd another poster said the following of JWs.

"Sola Scriptura" like the Evangelicals.

Sola scriptura is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

So which is it? How can a group be called both? It is what happens when both accusers don't have faith in scriptures like 2 Timothy 3:16. Yet the accused does.

Do JWs reject parts of the Bible or do they "hold that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice"? Please post all the scriptures that JWs reject.

(This should be interesting)

I'm sounding like a stuck record: You do not believe in the empty tomb account which contradicts the gospels!