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.

[JehovahsWitness]

There is nothing in the bible to suggest that the Sabbath was a matter of personal opinion.

I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Of course the observation of a weekly Sabbath was in the past, a part of the Mosaic Law given to the Nation of Israel and observation of this law was compulsory for all natural Jews at the time.

However we believe that law was abolished with the death of Christ (see above) so today Christians are under no religious contraint to keep a weekly Sabbath. Thus if a Christian wants to refrain from work one day a week or set aside a particular day of the week for study, prayer and worship that is a personal choice but doing so on a particular day in itself holds no additional religious merit (meaning worshipping on say a Sunday - or from Friday night through to Saturday sundown - is not more religiously valid for a Christian than worshipping on a Wednesday)



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Birthday traditions however are closely linked with false religous practices

So is ... worshipping on the venerable day of the sun, Sunday. This doesn't seem to stop them from doing both

WORSHIPPING ON A SUNDAY

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that worship has to be restricted to any particular day of the week. We do not observe a weekly Sabbath. That said, that doesn't mean there is a day of the week we will refrain from worshipping our God because others view that day as "sacred". This would be like not praying on a Monday because some pagans religion views monday as the best day to sacrifice puppies to their god. For Jehovah's Witnesses "worship" is not something we do one day a week, but something that is practised daily in various ways. Prayer for example is we believe part of worship and there aren''t (I hope) any Witnesses that go a day without praying. This means that naturally we will be praying or engaging in some other feature of our worship on a day pagan religions engaged (or currently engage) in their worship. We no more view this coincidence as "participating" in those practices than a groom saying "I do" to his bride is guilty of polygamy because someone else said "I do" at the same time during another ceremony. In order to be compromised he would have to engage himself as a husband *in* the alternative ceremony.

As for our public meetings, avoiding pagan worship doesn't involve avoiding meeting on a particular day, so we believe we can meet together for prayer and worship on any day of the week that is convenient and since in most western countries people are given at least one day a week (usually Sunday) off, we ususally hold at least one public meeting on the Saturday or Sunday and one in the middle of the week. Which day of the week we meet hold absolutely no religious significance for us and its not unusual for us to change days once a year for reasons of logistics

CONCLUSION For Jehovah's Witnesses, something is religiously compromising if the action itself is closely associated with pagan religious rites. We do NOT hold the view that a false religion can appropriate an entire day of the week thus rendering any pure worship on that day or date invalid.



JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[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

[JehovahsWitness]

WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE REFER TO "THE LAW"?


I think it would avoid confusion if I explain what we are referring to when we speak about "The Law". More often than not, when Jehovah's Witnesses speak about "The Law" they are in fact referring to the 613 written laws that make up what is also commonly referred to as "The Law of Moses" (or the Torah). These laws made up the national and religious law code of the Nation of Israel. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christians are not under obligation to obey these laws, not because they were "bad" but because the entire code was a temporary arrangement for one specific nation. What we do not believe is that the end of the Mosaic law meant that there are presently no laws in existence.

To do away with the law is to do away with sin, and if there is no sin, then there is no need for a savior.

QUESTION: Does the abolishment of the Mosaic Law mean that Christians are not under obligation to obey ANY laws?

• Absolutely not. While we believe Christ's death marked the end of any obligation to observe Jewish legal system, another system with another set of laws then came into place. This law is referred to in scrpture as "the law of the Christ", meaningCHRISTIAN LAW (see Galatians 6:2). "Christian law" covers all the commandements and principles based on the teachings of Christ Jesus found in the gospels and the Christian Greek Scriptures (The "New Testament"). Unlike the Jewish national law code, Christian law is entirely voluntary and no human has been given authority to impose the death penalty for those that choose not to respect it.
  
  While there are specific prohibitions and directives, some of which were previously also in the Mosaic law (such as a prohibition against murder, idolatry, fornication, the use of blood etc) Christian law is largely based on principle allowing individual to exercise their consciences in many areas of life without an endless list of "do's" and "don'ts".

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I pointed out that if the law is done away with then there is no such thing as adultery anymore.

As was pointed out in my post #471 above, when the MOSAIC law ended, Christians law went into force. Thus Christians are still under a set of "laws" just not the body of laws communicated by Moses to the nation of Israel. Christians are thus under a "new" set of laws/commandments


QUESTION: Does CHRISTIAN LAW permit adultery?

Absolutely not!

• MATTHHEW 5:32
  “I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality*, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" - JESUS CHRIST
  
  MATTHEW 5:27-28
  “You heard that it was said: ‘You must not commit adultery.’ but I say to you that everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. - JESUS CHRIST
  
  1 CORINTHIANS 6:9
  Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled.* Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality
  
  HEBREWS 13:4
  Let marriage be honorable among all, and let the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge sexually immoral people and adulterers.

*sexual immorality: The Greek word por·neiʹa is a general term for all sexual intercourse that is unlawful according to the Bible. It includes adultery, prostitution, sexual relations between unmarried individuals, homosexuality, and bestiality.​

QUESTION: Does CHRISTIAN LAW allow a person to leave their spouse on the pretext that they are "married to Jesus"?

Absolutely not!

• MATTHEW 19:4-6 (NIV)
  “Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.� - JESUS CHRIST
  
  1 CORINTHIANS 7:10, 11
  To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, that a wife should not separate from her husband. But if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife.
  
  1 CORINTHIANS 7:39 - NWT
  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.

FURTHER READING The bible's view: Adultery
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... /adultery/

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 466 by JehovahsWitness]




shnarkle wrote:


Quote:
Christians are under no obligation to either worship on a particular day of the week nor are they in our opinion, obliged to respect the restrictions imposed by the Mosaic law regarding work on a particular day since that law has been abolished.


The bible says nothing of the sort. The law is no more abolished than the faith of Christ is abolished. It is simply that Christians don't beleive what the texts plainly state.

As I pointed out previously in each and every case, what we will find is that the texts are referring to the debate going on between Paul and those who beleived the law was a means of establishing one's righteousness/justifying oneself, or an explicit reference to the laws added to deal with transgressions of the law. These laws should never be conflated with the laws that are to be obeyed and observed. So there is the law which is to be observed and the laws that were put in place to deal with those who transgressed the laws to be observed.

Let's look at your examples in their broader context to see if this is the case. Right off the bat, your first example from Paul's letter to the Ephesians, he says:

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

This establishes the subject being tresspasses which should never be conflated with obedience to the law.
He reinforces this theme with this:

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Notice the theme of disobedience, and wrath? Then there's this most favorite of verses to most Christians:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

How can one walk in good works if they're done away with? The works of the law work wrath only when one disobeys them. The child of God is a new creature ordained to good works. As he says,those who walk in them will live.

Notice this next verse where Paul points out that gentiles were strangers to the covenants God made with Israel, but are now no longer strangers to those covenents. How can that covenent be done away with when Paul is explicitly stating that they are also now brought near and part of that same covenent???

12 That 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.

Notice also that it isn't by faith here, but by his blood which is put for his sacrifice which is explicitly dealing with the sacrificial system.

Notice again, that it is through his cross that reconciliation is made. This is again an explicit reference to his sacrifice which is the only part of the law that is being done away with.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Your passage from Romans is also explicitly pointing out that the law isn't done away with at all.

The very first thing he does is to point out that you are under the obligation of the law as long as you live.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Here is where most people conflate the husband in Paul's analogy with the law, but look at what he says next:

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

It is the law that calls her an adulteress, and it is the law that allows and condones her to get married to another when her husband is dead. The law hasn't died or gone anywhere. This next verse seems to suggest that the law is done away with just because we are delivered from it, but what are we being delivered from? And who or what are we now serving in newness of spirit?

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Notice that Paul is careful to point out the disinction between the law and sin. The law points out sin, but it isn't the law that is keeping him from sinning. This doesn't do away with the law as one doesn't know sin unless there is a law to transgress in the first place.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

The next verse is usually ignored by those who would like to see God's law done away with, but the fact remains it can't be. Notice it is sin that is the problem, not the law.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

He then concludes by again pointing out the distinction between the law of God which he still serves, and the law of sin which will destroy his flesh.

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin

He then follows this up by pointing out that those who walk after the flesh serve the flesh while those who walk after the spirit serve the spirit. Here's the bottom line. If you are carnally minded you cannot serve God, and you are therefore none of his, you cannot be under his law of liberty.

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 10 is right in line with what I've already pointed out in Paul's debate with those who believe the law establishes one's righteousness. It doesn't, and this fact doesn't negate the law in the slightest.

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

Notice that those who carry out the law shall live by them? There are all sorts of things we do that are beneficial, but none of them establish our own righteousness. We bath, pay our taxes, work to support our families, but none of these establish our righteousness, and this fact doesn't suggest that we stop doing any of these things.

So let's look at what Paul says here.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Notice that we are all under sin, regardless of one's ethnic,racial, or religious affiliations. That sin is only by the law that must still exist. One cannot be convicted of transgressing laws that don't exist anymore.

Notice again that Paul makes no distinction between Jew or Gentile.

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that EVERY mouth may be stopped, and ALL the world may become guilty before God.

By what standard could Paul be referring other than the one law that judges all men? This is what he says:

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Notice that the law is witness to the righteousness of God. A law that no longer exists can't witness anything.

He then sums this up by pointing out, contrary to popular opinion; that the law is established for both Jew and Gentile.

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Again, your quote from Galatians is within the debate of righteousness as he plainly states:

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Paul then develops his doctrine showing that it is no longer the sacrificial system that keeps one from sin, but the spirit. If one is motivated by the spirit, they will not transgress the law, therefore they cannot be under the penatly of the law when they haven't transgressed the law in the first place.

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

All are examples of transgressions of the Mosaic law. It makes no sense to list the Mosaic law if it has been done away. He drives home what he's really talking about with the next verses.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

And no transgressions of the Mosaic law which is still in tact.

[JehovahsWitness]

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" ?

EPHESIANS 2v15

New International Version
by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,


Berean Study Bible
by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace

GOD'S WORD® Translation
He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace.

COMMENTARIES

Contained in ordinances - In the Mosaic commandments. The word "ordinance" means, decree, edict, law; Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4; Acts 17:7; Colossians 2:14. - Barnes notes on the bible

The Law is now introduced, and the term � νόμος is to be taken in its full sense, not the ceremonial law only, but the Mosaic Law as a whole, according to the stated use of the phrase. - Expositor's Greek Testament

"... thereby, ipso facto, brought to an end the Mosaic ordinances with their exclusions, which existed mainly to prefigure this Work, and to enforce the fact of its necessity, and incidentally to “fence in� the race through whom the Messiah, as the Worker, was to come. - Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

JW



RELATED POSTS

Does the bible actually refer to the abolishment of "laws and commandments" ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 76#p918176

[shnarkle]

ARE CHRISTIANS REQUIRED TO OBSERVE A WEEKLY SABBATH?

No. The Sabbath law applied only to the people subject to the rest of the Law given through Moses to the nation of Israel. (Deuteronomy 5:2, 3; Ezekiel 20:10-12) God never prescribed such a law to another nation.

Christ himself points out that it is for the benefit of "man". Nowhere does he say it is only for Jews or Israelites, and the dramatic fact here is that Christ is explicitly calling for the repentance of Israel and Israel alone. Even within this context, he is clearly pointing out that the law is not just for Israel.

In addition the bible explains that even the Jews were “released from the Law� of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (compare Romans 7:6, 7; 10:4; Galatians 3:24, 25; Ephesians 2:15)

You're conflating the sacrificial system which is explicitly being referred to with the Mosaic law which is the law of liberty.

[qoute] Rather than adhere to the Law of Moses, Christians follow the superior law of love.—Romans 13:9, 10; Hebrews 8:13.[/quote]

Christ sums up the Mosaic law. To sum up means to add it all together, which should never be confused with subtracting or factoring out; and therefore they are equivalent.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Notice that to resist God's ordinances is to receive damnation?

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

One cannot fulfill a law that is done away with.

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Again, Paul is quoting from the Mosaic law. He is quoting the commandments, and from within the Mosaic law itself. Nowhere does he say that these laws are done away with.

Your quote from Hebrews is also dealing with the sacrificial system.

For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

It is the sacrificial system that is being done away with, not the law that is "established".

[shnarkle]

There is nothing in the bible to suggest that the Sabbath was a matter of personal opinion.

I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Of course the observation of a weekly Sabbath was in the past, a part of the Mosaic Law given to the Nation of Israel and observation of this law was compulsory for all natural Jews at the time.

However we believe that law was abolished with the death of Christ (see above) so today Christians are under no religious contraint to keep a weekly Sabbath. Thus if a Christian wants to refrain from work one day a week or set aside a particular day of the week for study, prayer and worship that is a personal choice but doing so on a particular day in itself holds no additional religious merit (meaning worshipping on say a Sunday - or from Friday night through to Saturday sundown - is not more religiously valid for a Christian than worshipping on a Wednesday)

By the same token Christians are at liberty to walk away from their marriages as they are now married to Christ. They are no longer under the law, and therefore there is no restriction on which spouse one may choose to live with, or any requirement to live with a spouse at all.

The fact that the texts articulate that the church was in fact observing all of God's law and learning about it in the synagogues on the Sabbath is undeniable. Paul keeps the law as was his custom and effectively articulates all of them in his letter to Timothy. The apostle Paul in this passage describes persons who had committed certain sins .It is clear that Paul says those sins he mentioned were, "contrary to sound doctrine;according to the glorious gospel..."[I Timothy 1:10,11]
]
Hence these sins must not be found among Christians. Some are easily identified, but others need careful examination to discern the fault Paul is identifying. When this passage is fully understood, it will be seen that Paul is identifying persons who broke the ten commandments, up to commandment 9 and in the same order as they were given in Exodus 20.

THE LIST OF COMMANDMENT BREAKERS.
Lawless - Anomos(Gr.),without law,not having, knowing or acknowledging the law. Shows opposition to or contempt for the will of God.

Disobedient - Anupotaktos(Gr.),disobedient to authority(God's)

Ungodly - Asebes(Gr.),Godless, without fear or reverence to God,one who practices the opposite of what the fear of God demands.

Sinners - Hamartolos(Gr.),a heinous and habitual sinner.

The above persons do not recognize the true God and His laws but have gods of their own. They end up making images in honour of these gods and offer worship to them contrary to the commands of the true God.[See,Romans 1:18-25;Proverbs 16:27;Deuteronomy 13:13;II Corinthians 6:14-18;I Samuel 2:12;Galatians 4:8; N.B.,ungodly - sons of belial]

The persons above break commandments 1 & 2

Unholy - Anosios(Gr.),opposite of holy,profane.

Profane - Bebelos(Gr.),unhallowed,opposite of sacred,permitted to be trodden.

The above persons disregard or desecrate that which is holy.They take the Lord's name in vain and pollute the Sabbath.[See,Leviticus 18:21;19:12;Matthew 12:5;Nehemiah 13:17;Isaiah 58:13;56:6]

The persons above break commandments 3 & 4.

Murderers of fathers and - Dishonour parents by killing
murderers of mothers them.

The persons above break commandment 5.

Manslayers - Kill others.

The persons above break commandment 6.

Whoremongers etc. - Commit adultery and various sexual sins.

The persons above break commandment 7.

Men stealers - Steal or kidnap men.

The persons above break commandment 8.

Liars and perjured persons - These persons lie, bear false witness.

The persons above break commandment 9.

Any other thing contrary to sound doctrine would include commandment 10,which must be transgressed before any other sin is committed.[See,James 1:14,15;I Corinthians 10:6;Matthew 15:19]
Hence Paul clearly affirms that the breaking of the ten commandment law is a sin and describes those who disregard the Sabbath as unholy and profane. In this passage, Paul states plainly that it is contrary to sound Christian doctrine,contrary to the gospel, to be unholy and profane ie. to disregard the Sabbath.[I Timothy 1:10,11]

[JehovahsWitness]

By the same token Christians are at liberty to walk away from their marriages as they are now married to Christ. They are no longer under the law, and therefore there is no restriction on which spouse one may choose to live with, or any requirement to live with a spouse at all.

Did you read my post on this question? HERE is the link.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91#p918191