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.

[shnarkle]

There are numerous examples of the early church keeping and Sabbath observance. Paul even points out that the church should observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Would you be so kind as to provide some scriptural support for the above two statements?

JW

Acts 13:14,15,42-45;
15:21;
17:2;
18:4,21;
20:6,16;
21:20-25;
1Cor. 5:7-8

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 472 by JehovahsWitness]

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

[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.

[JehovahsWitness]

There are numerous examples of the early church keeping and Sabbath observance. Paul even points out that the church should observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Would you be so kind as to provide some scriptural support for the above two statements?

JW

Acts 13:14,15,42-45;
15:21;
17:2;
18:4,21;
20:6,16;
21:20-25;
1Cor. 5:7-8

Could you give a summary of your interpretation of those verses?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 474 by JehovahsWitness]

shnarkle wrote:


Quote:

EPHESIANS 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances


I'm finding your argumentation a little hard to follow, can you tell me what exactly is Paul referring to by "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" ?

The context establishes the subject in the first sentence of the chapter. It is those laws that deal with trespasses.

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins

Notice that they are being brought "night" to the covenants that were given to Israel. One can't be brought near to a covenant that is no longer valid or in force. You have a serious problem of how to reconcile these blatantly contradictory statements if you're going to keep this interpretation. It is completely incoherent to think the law is done away with and simultaneously in effect and "established".

You can't eat your cake and have it too. You don't get to talk about sin when there's no law to sin against anymore.

remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh,...at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

How do you explain these gentiles being far from these Jewish covenants, and aliens being 'made night' by the sacrifice? What's the point of bringing them close, and making these promises available to them when you're just going to make them null and void?

[JehovahsWitness]

[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.

[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?

[shnarkle]

There are numerous examples of the early church keeping and Sabbath observance. Paul even points out that the church should observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Would you be so kind as to provide some scriptural support for the above two statements?

JW

Acts 13:14,15,42-45;
15:21;
17:2;
18:4,21;
20:6,16;
21:20-25;
1Cor. 5:7-8

Could you give a summary of your interpretation of those verses?

With the exception of Acts 21:20-25, they are showing that the gentile converts are not only going into the synagogues on the Sabbath, but instructed to by the church e.g. 15:21. Paul is still quite religiously observing Jehovah's Feasts as well, and the quote from his letter to the Corinthians is an instruction to keep the feast because of the sacrifice of Christ. "Christ is out Passover, therefore let us keep the feast". Contrary to popular opinion, Passover is not a feast of Jehovah, but the preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. There is no point to having the lamb free one from the bondage of sin if one doesn't follow up and remove the sin from their lives as well. "That's the whole point of Jehovah's Feast Day. Christianity has quite simply dropped the ball, and chosen to remain in their sin despite Christ's sacrifice

Acts 21:20-25 is showing not only that Paul is observing a feast day, but observing a ceremonial vow as well.

There are no scriptures which indicate that any of these Sabbaths or feast days are to be left to one's personal opinion or inclination.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 484 by shnarkle]

Interesting point of view, well we will have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for a lively discussion,

JW

[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.

[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?

No, it sums up yours. Christ kept the law, but you have claimed that your law supercedes the Mosaic law that Christ kept. There is no other law, I was simply pointing out the contradiction in your argument.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 484 by shnarkle]

Interesting point of view, well we will have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for a lively discussion,

JW

There was no discussion; lively or otherwise. This has always been the case with Jehovah's Witnesses I have encountered. JW's quite simply have no interest in discussing their assertions. They simply feel the need to share them, initially with a few biblical references for support, but when those verses are shown to be referring to the law that was "against" us rather than the law that is "for" us, they bow out. At least you're honest enough to know you have no argument against the biblical texts I've provided. Some don't give up so easily. Unlike you, they don't seem to know much about the texts to begin with. You know better.