David2002, "Bible as the authority" thread...

by AuldSoul 16 Replies latest jw friends

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    First, I would appreciate it if we could agree on a translation other than the NWT.

    On to the doctrines; I would appreciate the full Scriptural basis for the following doctrines. You may take as much time on each point as you feel you need to and consider any information you want in arriving at an answer, but I would prefer it if the answer is from the Scriptures.

    (1) Christian Elders have a responsibility to judge wrongdoers from within the congregation, mete out sentences, and act as executioners in private trials that cannot be recorded or witnessed by others. (1 Timothy 5:20)

    (2) The Governing Body has authority over the faithful and discreet slave, instead of the other way around. (Matthew 24:45-47)

    (3) Adam and Eve were created capable of living forever without first having to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. (Genesis 3:20-24)

    (4) Jerusalem had to be destroyed for the 70 years to be fufilled. (Jeremiah 27:8-18)

    (5) A group that was actively doing what Jesus warned people away from following, is the organization Jesus would choose as his representatives. (Matthew 24:23-28; Luke 17:22-30; Mark 13:21-23)

    The importance of each of these doctrines to Jehovah's Witnesses authority structure and belief system is likely readily apparent to you. Since the importance may not be clear to others, I will provide a very brief synopsis of the impact of each.

    (1) If elders did not have closed door meetings, or made the meetings recordable, or allowed witnesses to the proceedings, they could be held legally accountable for what they say and do, or fail to say and do. In other words, they are free to break Caesar's law behind closed doors in ways they would not be able to do with witnesses present. Recording should be permitted for the exact same reason that recordings are permitted when police interrogate a prisoner, for accountability. Even the Sanhedrin did not exclude witnesses to the proceedings.

    (2) If the faithful and discreet slave has been correctly identified, then they have authority over all Christ's belongings. QED, if they do not have authority over something then that something doesn't belong to Christ. The faithful and discreet slave, as identified, has no discernible authority over anything as a class.

    (3) If Adam was not capable (as a perfect human) of living forever without eating the fruit of the tree of life, then Jesus was not. Which means their entire doctrine about Jesus death and the ransom is seriously flawed, not to mention the certainty of their doctrine regarding the "original purpose" for the earth.

    (4) Jerusalem did not need to be destroyed. The Bible directly states that the city did not have to be devastated. Reading Jeremiah 25 and 27 along with Daniel 5 gives a VERY different picture of the 70 years than that portrayed by most references from the Society.

    (5) It is obvious that Jesus would not warn people to avoid those who he would choose as his representatives, yet at the time Jesus is supposed to have chosen the Bible Students (1919) they were actively doing exactly what he told people not to believe, heralding Christ's presence, saying they knew Jesus' location, prophesying falsely about 1925 (while claiming the chronology had God's stamp of approval and claiming the dates were God's dates, not their own), and announcing that the time was at hand. The main release at the 1975 District Convention was titled "Man's Salvation Out of World Distress At Hand!" Compare Luke 21:8 in the American Standard Version (ASV) "And he said, Take heed that ye be not led astray: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and, The time is at hand: go ye not after them."

    I am hopeful that you will try to answer to these points of dogma, using only the Scriptures as your authority. In fact, if you do, I personally promise not to argue with your Scriptural responses—so long as your arguments are directly Scriptural and don't require sophistic reasoning or human interpretation to make your points. I don't think you have a great chance of being able to answer even one by using only the Scriptures, but I look forward to reading what you come up with.

    In fact, I welcome any lurkers or other posters to try Scripturally supporting these doctrines.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost

    AuldSoul:

    Only five questions??? That's making it too easy! I hope there'll be a Part 2!!

  • Undecided
    Undecided

    I'm just too lazy to read those scriptures. The bible is just too vague to try to understand it. Let the religious leaders fight over what it means to each group. I just don't care anymore.

    Ken P.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    ozziepost,

    Let's see how well five can be handled . I seriously doubt any JW can resolve these dilemmas by using only Scripture. Of course, since I am requesting active support for these I don't need an alternate explanation handy. I am not the one claiming to teach a doctrine to other people, they are. I may have personal beliefs, but I only need to support that which I teach.

    I recently got a very good example from someone else by PM that demonstrated the difference between Scriptural response and WT response. There is a HUGE difference, pull the books ("Bible" Study Aids) out of the hands of the average Witness or Witness apologist and they are suddenly dumbfounded. They don't even seem to comprehend what it means to let the Bible speak for itself; they typically think reasoning FROM the Scriptures means inventing explanations FOR the Scriptures that fit their preconceived dogma.

    I hope SOMEONE will demonstrate how the Scriptures support these doctrines. Because I can't figure out how they can be supported.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost

    The view from downunder:

    We're waiting with baited breath or should I say, great interest!

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    Glad to hear you're moving on, Ken! That is the goal, right? To become ex-ex-JWs...where they don't impact our lives anymore.

    Beyond helping lurkers and would-be WT apologists see the flaws in the doctrine, I don't really think this sort of thread is important. But I do know that when Witnesses leave off the publications and start trying to find justification in JUST the Scriptures, they start to wake up. No one can arrive at the current JW doctrine from just studying the Bible. Not even the Bible Students could do that.

    Respectfully,
    AuldSoul

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    AuldSoul, those are good questions. I like them. Very succint.

    However, perhaps each one should be examined in its own thread. Each is worthy of its own topic.

  • Finally-Free
    Finally-Free
    (3) If Adam was not capable (as a perfect human) of living forever without eating the fruit of the tree of life, then Jesus was not. Which means their entire doctrine about Jesus death and the ransom is seriously flawed, not to mention the certainty of their doctrine regarding the "original purpose" for the earth.

    As a JW I had a problem with their teaching that Jesus was equal to Adam. According to their own teachings, Jesus was far more "equal" than Adam in that Jesus had a prehuman existence as well as the ability to perform miracles. Adam did not.

    W

  • YoursChelbie
    YoursChelbie
    when Witnesses leave off the publications and start trying to find justification in JUST the Scriptures, they start to wake up

    Great starting points!

    Even if I spent a week trying, I don't think I'd find any Biblical support for any of those five JW doctrines.

    YC

  • NYCkid
    NYCkid

    Glad to hear you're moving on, Ken! That is the goal, right? To become ex-ex-JWs...where they don't impact our lives anymore.

    Hi everyone, I'm new here...but just wanted to comment...In my opinion part of the process of moving on from JWs (or deprograming if you prefer) is accepting the fact that the Bible is not meant to be read literally. I know that many fundamental religious zealots will disagree but most mainstream Christian religions agree that the Bible is not a for literal interpretation. It's hard to come to terms with that but once we do everything else seems to make sense and having to prove whether a scripture supports this doctrine or that no longer becomes important..it's like when you finally recognize that the "Society" or rather "Writing Committee" doesn't have any kind of fax machine connected to heaven...lol

    All the best for 2006!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit