JW organization.

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

[onewithhim]

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.

Do you read other people's posts? Apparently you haven't read mine or JehovahsWitness's. We have repeatedly stated that Jesus didn't destroy the Law but he FULFILLED the Law. You have to ignore many scriptures if you insist on saying that people should follow the Law today. Jesus' blood REPLACED the blood of the animals that the Law required. I see that you have not commented on those facts.

You are confused about much. If you would consider some posts that you now avoid, you might begin to understand many things.

[onewithhim]

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.

Yes, Christ followed the Law---until he died on the tree and fulfilled it! After he died for the salvation of mankind, the Law was made obsolete because it had been fulfilled. Animal sacrifices were no longer required. The whole Law was foreshadowing Christ, "the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world."

[shnarkle]

Do you read other people's posts? Apparently you haven't read mine or JehovahsWitness's. We have repeatedly stated that Jesus didn't destroy the Law but he FULFILLED the Law. You have to ignore many scriptures if you insist on saying that people should follow the Law today. Jesus' blood REPLACED the blood of the animals that the Law required. I see that you have not commented on those facts.

Evidently, you haven't read any of my posts either. However, I have consulted with a number of JW's and already am well acquainted with their teachings. You're propagating them right in this post. You're conflating God's commandments with the law that "was added because of transgressions" of God's commandments. You're also concluding that just because a law is done away with "for righteousness" or for "justification" that is must be done away with; it isn't. What is added doesn't take away from what it was added to. One + One = Two. When you subtract ONE from ONE, you still have the ONE you started with. Get it?

Here's a great way to see the error of your ways. Christ sums up the law with love of God and love of neighbor. This makes it really easy to see what Paul means when he says that no one will be justified by the works of the law. So if someone says that one must love God and love their neighbor to be saved, Paul would deny that as a false gospel, and he'd be correct. No one is justified by the works of the law. That's Old Testament methodology. However it isn't what Moses taught. It's how the cult of Israel understood it though. God told them that their obedience to the law would be for righteousness, which doesn't do away with the law when that is no longer necessary. It just means that you must repent from your damnable righteous works. You aren't justified by posting here on this debate site, yet this doesn't stop you from posting here. By the same token no one is justified by being faithful to their spouse, refraining from murder, keeping the Sabbath, sanctifying Jehovah's name, or proclaiming the gospel message. This doesn't negate the fact that one should do all of these things. Do you see the difference? What you'll find if you dare to supply any passages from scripture is that they will all be dealing with either the sacrificial system or the issue of righteousness. Paul is quite clear that the law is NOT done away with. Romans 3:31 clearly states that the law is "established". Pray tell, did Paul establish the law only to do away with it, or did he do away with it only to establish it? Doing away with the law does away with sin, and sin is the transgression of the law. No law = no sin. You can't transgress a law that doesn't exist. No sin means we don't need a savior to save us from sins we will never commit. Your doctrine is incoherent. I have the brochures right here in front of me. Just for fun, here's a doozy:

"...after 33 C.E. it was not necessary to keep the Law; we can see this from the question brought to the governing body in 49C.E. (Acts 15:1,2) The complete abandonment of the Law was proved undeniably in 70 C.E., when the temple and genealogical records related to the Law vanished, destroyed by the Romans." from w89 2/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers"

Of course this is all patent nonsense as I've already proven with verse 21 from chapter 15 of Acts where they give the reason why they're going to leave them to learn the law while they're in the synagogues on the Sabbath. This claim that the destruction of the law does away with the law is ridiculous on the face of it. Again, we can distill this down to no law =no sin and no need for a savior.

You are confused about much. If you would consider some posts that you now avoid, you might begin to understand many things.

I've never avoided your posts. Whenever I refute what you've posted, you simply state that we'll just "have to agree to disagree". There's nothing further to post on the subject is there?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 538 by shnarkle]

I don't say "we'll just have to agree to disagree" because you have refuted what I have said or because I have nothing to say to refute you. I say it because you disagree with whatever I say. So why continue? I feel that I give you solid reasons to re-think your position, but you don't accept anything I post. I also do not keep a conversation going with people who label what the Watchtower teaches as "nonsense" or "in error." That smacks of apostasy and I don't communicate with apostates, as Jesus and his Apostles instructed us not to do. So I will not respond any further to your destructive posts.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 538 by shnarkle]

Let's all be positive and up-build each other. What the Watchtower says is only what God says in His Word the Bible. And it is encouraging.

www.jw.org

[shnarkle]

Yes, Christ followed the Law---until he died on the tree and fulfilled it! After he died for the salvation of mankind, the Law was made obsolete because it had been fulfilled. Animal sacrifices were no longer required. The whole Law was foreshadowing Christ, "the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world."

I'm not denying the sacrificial system was done away with. I'm pointing out that the commandments aren't done away with. The sacrificial system was in place to deal with transgressions of the law. You don't seem to understand the difference between keeping the law and transgressing the law. When one doesn't transgress the law, there is no need for a sacrificial system. Get it? When one transgresses the law by inadvertently doing damage to someone else's property, the law requires that they make restitution and offer a sacrifice. That sacrifice is no longer necessary, but the law that states one should not commit adultery hasn't been done away with, nor is one no longer required to make restitution. You're conflating the two. When one transgressed the law during the Old Testament, one didn't then consult the ten commandments to see what to do to make restitution. They weren't required to keep the 7th commandment if they violated the 4th. They were required to keep all the commandments, and Christ, Paul, Peter, john etc. all uphold that principle while you believe that keeping the commandments is no longer binding upon Christians

Here again is what your pamphlets state:

the Ten Words (i.e. the Ten Commandments) are not legally binding on Christians w89 11/15

And what is Paul's response to this claim?

The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Rom. 8:7

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 537 by onewithhim]

You're conflating the moral law with the ceremonial law which creates blatant contradictions. Here's the difference between the two.


THE GREAT MORAL LAW
1. Called the "Law of the Lord" (Isa. 5:24).
2. Called "the Royal Law" (James 2:8,10-12).
(At the time James was writing, the Old Testament was considered the only Scripture.)
3. Will be the standard in the Judgment (Ja. 2:10-12; Rom. 2:12,13; Eccl. 12:13,14).
4. Written with the finger of God, on stone (Deut. 4:13; Ex. 31:18; Ex. 32:16).
5. Placed inside of the Ark in the Sanctuary (Ex. 40:20).
6. Points out sin (Romans 7:7). A mirror (James 1:23).
7. Where there is no law, there is no sin therefore the law existed before sin. (1 John. 3:4; Rom. 4:15). Lucifer sinned when he broke God’s law.
8. Is not burdensome (1 John 5:3). Called "the law of liberty" (James 2:12).
9. Is "holy, just and good" (Rom. 7:12).
10. "Till heaven and earth pass away, no part will be done away with or changed (Matt. 5:18)
11. Is perfect (Psalm 19:7; Romans 7:12).
12. Is "established" (Romans 3:31).
13. Is "the whole duty of man" (Eccl. 12:13; John 15:10.
14. Is built upon principles of supreme love for God and love for our fellow man (Ja. 2:8-12; Matt. 22:36-40; Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18).
15. Is written in our hearts by the Spirit of Christ when we accept Him by faith as our Saviour (Heb. 8:8-10; Rom. 2:15; 2 Cor. 3:3; Jer. 31:33,34).
16. Carries a promise ( Jer. 31:33,34; Gal. 3:29).
17. Converts the soul (Psalm 19:7).

THE CEREMONIAL LAW
1. Was called the "law of offerings and sacrifices." (Heb 9:9, Lev. 7:37-38).
2.
3. Judges no man (Col. 2:14-16).
4. Written by Moses in a book (2 Chron 35:12).
5. Placed in a pocket on the outside of the Ark (Deut. 31:24-26).
6. Symbolized Christ’s Act of sacrifice, and work of atonement (John 1 29,36).
7. Was added "because of sin" (Gal. 3:19).
8. Was a "yoke of bondage". (Gal. 5:1, Acts 15:10).
9. Was "carnal" or "fleshly". (Heb. 7:16).
10. Was taken away (Heb. 10:9), annulled (Heb. 7:18), abolished (Eph. 2:15), made obsolete (Heb. 8:13), changed (Heb. 7:12).
11. Was a "shadow" of the real "things to come" (Col. 2:17, Heb. 8:6, Heb. 9:9).
12. Is "obsolete" (Heb. 8:13).
13."Let no man judge you in regard to ... a festival or a new moon or (ceremonial) sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ" (Col. 2:16-17).
14.Is a beautiful prophecy of Christ’s death, resurrection, and Heavenly mediation.
15.
16.
17. "Made nothing perfect" (Heb. 7:19; Heb. 9:9).

If you don't see these as different, then the burden of proof is upon you to reconcile these blatant contradictions.

If you do see and admit these distinctions, you must then admit that God's commandments aren't done away with at all.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 538 by shnarkle]

Let's all be positive and up-build each other. What the Watchtower says is only what God says in His Word the Bible. And it is encouraging.

www.jw.org

Nice try, but I've posted scripture and what the Watchtower produces to show that they don't agree with each other. Thanks for proving my claims once again. Again, I dare you to refute the passages from the bible I"ve supplied you with. You're free to use your publications all you wish to defend your faith. I have no problem looking at both. When you shrink from looking at passages from the bible, it doesn't look like I'm the apostate anymore.

[onewithhim]

One final reply to you, Shnarkle: God's law is not the same thing as the Law given to Moses. The Law to Moses spelled out many things that Jehovah requires and that he condemns, and these things we respect today. We know that all the things God spelled out in the Law are laws and principles we will apply today, because we love God with all our heart (Matthew 22:37-40). When we do love God and our neighbor we will not do the bad things that God spells out in the Law, though the Law itself has been made obsolete because it pointed the way to the Lamb of God, and once the Lamb of God was sacrificed, the Law itself was no longer needed. It was taken out of the way, as a means of redemption or forgiveness, but replaced by something better, which the book of Hebrews explains in chapters 7 through 9.

[shnarkle]

One final reply to you, Shnarkle: God's law is not the same thing as the Law given to Moses.

I dare you to back up this baseless claim with scripture.

The Law to Moses spelled out many things that Jehovah requires and that he condemns, and these things we respect today.

No, you don't. You don't observe or keep the Sabbath holy. You don't observe the dietary laws, nor do you observe the laws against usury which are now done away with in Christ. In other words, the law forbade usury to a fellow Jew or kinsmen, but Christ taught to treat your enemy as your kinsmen or yourself, therefore no need or purpose for usury anymore. Usury was an instrument of war used by God to take over the Promised Land. It is every bit as effective today as our flailing economy is a potent testimony.

We know that all the things God spelled out in the Law are laws and principles we will apply today, because we love God with all our heart (Matthew 22:37-40).

Except the 4th commandment, the law against usury, and the dietary laws. I dare you to deny your open defiant rebellion against these laws of God. These laws are all for your benefit, and yet you trample on them as if they were nothing.

When we do love God and our neighbor we will not do the bad things that God spells out in the Law, though the Law itself has been made obsolete because it pointed the way to the Lamb of God, and once the Lamb of God was sacrificed, the Law itself was no longer needed.

So, evidently you have once aqain ignored my post showing that the moral law is not the ceremonial law. There was never a sacrifice made to keep any of the commandments. If so, where? Where is it required to offere sacrifice when one is faithful to their spouse? Where is there a sacrifice required in order to tell the truth? Where are the sacrifices necessary when refraining from murder, theft, or covetessness?

It was taken out of the way,

Why don't you ever post a single passage from scripture? I'll tell you why, because when the whole passage is seen in context it reveals the truth.

Here it is in context:

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Nailed to the cross should be your first clue that he's talking about the sacrifical system, but let's not stop there. Let's look at what Paul is referring to with this law that was "against us". He's certainly not referring to the commandments as Christ himself has already pointed out that the commandments are "FOR" us as with his example of the 4th commandment:

The Sabbath was made FOR man not man for the Sabbath

It can't be stressed enough that Christ points out that the Sabbath wasn't made for just Jews, it was created long before there ever was a Jew.

But I digress, Paul is referring to Deuteronomy 31:25,26 where Moses says,

That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 26Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for A WITNESS AGIANST THEE.

Again, Moses is pointing out the distinction between the STONE TABLETS written with the finger of God (and "FOR" our benefit) verses this "BOOK" (some translations use the word "scroll") placed on the side. Why? Because it is there as a witness to their transgressions of his law.

Let's look further:

For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death? 28Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. 29For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Paul also points out that through their disobedience they were cut off, and you too will suffer the same fate by your own unbelief of God's word.

they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Rom. 11:20,21

Notice also that it is 'by faith" which is contrary to your doctrine. As I've already pointed out from your brochures which aren't going to be changed any time soon, they state:

"All who exercise faith in Jesus BY OBEYING him..." p. 9 Good News From God

This is the exact opposite of what Christ and Paul preach.

For it is BY grace you have been saved,THROUGH faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s handiwork, created IN Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Ephesians 2:8-10

Notice that we were created in Christ for the purpose of good works, not the other way around, i.e. to do good works to produce faith. All the good works of the Old Testament never produced any faith, and neither will your doctrine of works either. You've placed the cart before the horse.

No one is claiming that there are no good works here so you can save that straw man argument for someone else. There are good works, but the fact is that the gospel message is that it is BY FAITH that the good works are produced, not the other way around.

The reason you have it backwards it because you've been ignoring what the bible actually states in favor of reading from liturature that states the opposite. I'll stick with the bible's version, and let given that you have no defense for your faith, I'll let you have the last word.