by minimus 231 Replies latest jw friends
wedding anniversaries have pagan origins, as do wedding rings. Same logic- witnesses should not have.
The true reason they can not do holidays is to make children not fit in with schoolmates and give them only one support system- other witnesses. Wedding anniversaires do not involve school/workmates...just friend- presumably other captives
Water purification existed before the Hebrew Mikvah (SP?) or at the very least, a long side it to a point that one can't say which was First.
As Paul often mentioned, one can not jusge others because they keep a day more special than another.
As long as the days are for God.
One thing that I have been struggling to make sense of is how JW's say that Jesus is Michael based on the interpretation of somepassages, for it is not stated PLAINLY anywhere, yet go after Trinitarians for doing the same thing to justify the Trinity.
Both are not scriptural ( stated plainly), both are based on interpretation of various passages.
hi chalam
you are doing the typical trinitarian mind-shuffle, confusing the one sent with the sender...Jesus represents Jehovah he is Gods mediator so he does the things that are on Jehovah's behalf.
23 "From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised.
Jesus's name having power to save is on his father behalf again because God gave him that
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
but I know now many will well that just confirms Jesus's name is above Jehovah's but trinity itself does not allow for this since it would mean putting the son person above the father person and that it says Jesus is one part of YHWH s so how can a third of yhwh have a higher name?. but the principle of giving Jesus position and power but that obviously not including the giver God himself is elsewhere clearly described by the bible
1 Corinthians 15:27
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
the problem is understanding how like his father a son actually can be and one that represents his father so closely he can exactly do his father's will but again the bible explains this.
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
this is why I goto the bible for answers rather than men's reasonings that make God into an IT sliced into 3 people to explain what they think is insumountable contradictions yet the bible explains them simply.
Jesus's name has power because he comes on behalf of God and so Jehovah gave Jesus his name and allowed Jesus to be the saviour on behalf of God.
Reniaa
Jesus's name has power because he comes on behalf of God and so Jehovah gave Jesus his name and allowed Jesus to be the saviour on behalf of God.
If Jehovah is so thrilled and happy that people use his mistranslated name, why would Jesus/Michael/Abbadon not be just as pleased to get it right and since the resurrected Jesus is Michael, just use the name Michael........?
you are doing the typical trinitarian mind-shuffle, confusing the one sent with the sender...Jesus represents Jehovah he is Gods mediator so he does the things that are on Jehovah's behalf.
Acts 13:23 (New International Version)
23 "From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised.
Jesus's name having power to save is on his father behalf again because God gave him that
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
but I know now many will well that just confirms Jesus's name is above Jehovah's but trinity itself does not allow for this since it would mean putting the son person above the father person and that it says Jesus is one part of YHWH s so how can a third of yhwh have a higher name?. but the principle of giving Jesus position and power but that obviously not including the giver God himself is elsewhere clearly described by the bible
MY reply: You are right Reniaa....no name can be above the name of Jehovah...yet Jesus was given the highest name...equating his name to Jehovah. Of course the Father has a higher postion than the Son..all that is acknowledged. However, their opeation is as one- they are one spiritual flesh sharing the same divine nature.
1 Corinthians 15:27
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
the problem is understanding how like his father a son actually can be and one that represents his father so closely he can exactly do his father's will but again the bible explains this.
My reply: Of course the Father is not put below the SOn's feet.
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
My reply: Already been expained to you....Lord and God are used interchangebly here, not as distinguishing titles....the world has many lords and gods...while to Christians there is one Lord and God....using the logic you are trying to use to make these distinguishing title- then there is only one lord....yet both the Fath and the Son are called Lord.
this is why I goto the bible for answers rather than men's reasonings that make God into an IT sliced into 3 people to explain what they think is insumountable contradictions yet the bible explains them simply.
My reply: You may in fact go to the Bible but do not understand it, or know the person of Jesus from it. There are no contradiction except when you try to deny the operation of the Father and Son as one flesh.
Jesus's name has power because he comes on behalf of God and so Jehovah gave Jesus his name and allowed Jesus to be the saviour on behalf of God.
Reniaa
My reply: This is fully compatible with the trinity
Jesus's name has power because he comes on behalf of God and so Jehovah gave Jesus his name and allowed Jesus to be the saviour on behalf of God.
If Jehovah is so thrilled and happy that people use his mistranslated name, why would Jesus/Michael/Abbadon not be just as pleased to get it right and since the resurrected Jesus is Michael, just use the name Michael........?
And if you feel God is so happy to just have his name used, even if mistranslated why are you so sure he is not happy to be honored on a day that once had a pagan origin, or on a day thaat likely is not the true date of his birth?
Hi reniaa,
Thanks for your reply.
So in answer to my question Who is the name by which we are saved? Jehovah or Jesus? I assume from your reply you answer Jesus right?
If so, why does the NWT change the kurios i.e. Greek for Lord to "Jehovah"? See here, of the Lord
Isn't this wrong? Clearly, Act 4 says Jesus is the ONLY name by which we can be saved.
They have exalted the wrong name and it is NOT the one by which we can be saved. That is falsehood.
They need to leave it as "Lord", as every Christian knows "Jesus is Lord" and He is THE way, THE truth and THE life.
All the best,
Stephen
What cannot be change is first century christians were familier with birthdays, The gospel writers clearly knew it was a birthday that Herod was celebrating, but then surely they would have done birthdays because they saw the people doing them around them? romans thoroughly enjoyed birthdays and many jews like herod followed suit. But it is clear christians didn't want anything to do with these false celebrations.
I'm sure leolaia can confirm that birthdays were not celebrated by first century christians, that they adopted them later and Jesus's false birthday was also adopted later when the roman links caused absorbtion of roman celebrations etc
There is a good chance the Gospel writers (as Jesus's companions) actually knew the date of Jesus's birth but they certainly didn't write it and made no mention of celebrating it. they would never have considered celebrating Jesus with the rituals of satanalia. but we do not because unlike wedding rings and days of the weeks which are just things likes roads, Celebration rituals are still in use as they originally were and still for original worship.
I meant earlier when people having to decide for themselves. We go into witnesses knowing they want to keep away from pagan celebrations so you decide if you also agree with this before becoming one. I do not admire christmas I think the paganess is reclaiming it's own as it already has easter and halloween but the shopkeepers would weep and wail if it was removed from them.
11 "The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more—
Reniaa
Reniaa said: the scriptures I showed clearly establish that pagan celebrations are a no go, because the christians saw them ALL as promoting gluttony, drunkeness and over indulgences etc.
Ever been to a Witness wedding? Gluttony, drunkeness and overindulgences are routine at these events. Guess that makes them all 'pagan' eh?
Uh huh. Ditto for post-funeral affairs.
At my sister's in 2006, the "friends" jammed into her place so much that the porch fell in!
They were eating everything that looked edible.
Sylvia
What cannot be change is first century christians were familier with birthdays,
My reply: True
The gospel writers clearly knew it was a birthday that Herod was celebrating, but then surely they would have done birthdays because they saw the people doing them around them? romans thoroughly enjoyed birthdays and many jews like herod followed suit. But it is clear christians didn't want anything to do with these false celebrations.
My reply: Baseless assertion by you like usual. Just because sometihng was not observed because it was not a part of a culture does not make it wrong. In Enlgand as well as other countries in the Commonwealth of Nations they celebrate Boxing Day, which is a day to give gifts to the less fortunate. Americans do not observe this day. Why? Not because we consider it wrong or immoral...it simply is not a part of our culture. Your last sentence of Christians not wanting to have anything to do with b-days because they are false celebrations is simply a WT opinion you have regurgitated with no foundation whatsoever.
I'm sure leolaia can confirm that birthdays were not celebrated by first century christians, that they adopted them later and Jesus's false birthday was also adopted later when the roman links caused absorbtion of roman celebrations etc
My reply: Irrelevant.
There is a good chance the Gospel writers (as Jesus's companions) actually knew the date of Jesus's birth but they certainly didn't write it and made no mention of celebrating it. they would never have considered celebrating Jesus with the rituals of satanalia. but we do because unlike wedding rings and days of the weeks which are just things likes roads, Celebration rituals are still in use as they originally were and still for original worship.
My reply: More assertions and speculations with no basis. Ridiculous and oncoherent attempt by you to excuse rings and days of the weeks yet demonise b-days and holidays. If those are just things, these are just days. Can't have it both ways.
I meant earlier when people having to decide for themselves. We go into witnesses knowing they want to keep away from pagan celebrations so you decide if you also agree with this before becoming one. I do not admire christmas I think the paganess is reclaiming it's own as it already has easter and halloween but the shopkeepers would weep and wail if it was removed from them.
11 "The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more—
Reniaa
My reply: Not speaking of Christmas or holidays here. Ridiculous.
