The Title Jesus Gave Himself: Lord of the Sabbath

by EverAStudent 52 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  PSacramento

  Leo make s avalid point,

  The son of man in Danile is "one like the son of man", and it can be argued that we are ( as a group) the son of man ( man being Adam perhaps?).

  In revelation Jesus is agian, "one like the(a) Son of Man", indicating that he "looks" like a son of man.

  When the pharasees criticized the discilples for picking and eating the wheat on the Sabbath, Jesus said:

  "The Sabbath was made because of the human,
  and not the human because of the Sabbath;
  so the human son is also Lord of the Sabbath."
  Mark 2:23-28
• 

  Chalam

  Exodus 20:10 (American Standard Version)

  10 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God

  ASV version used on purpose here!

  So Jesus is "Lord of the sabbath". No one Jesus and the Father are one John 10:30, Jesus is God with us Matthew 1:23, Jesus is my Lord and my God John 20:28

  Blessings,

  Stephen
• 

  EverAStudent

  PSacramento, remember, with that theory you are asking us to believe that Jesus, who named Himself "Son of Man" some eighty times in the NT, is here, for the only time ever, not referring to Himself but to the crowd and calling the crowd both "Son of Man" and "Lord of the Sabbath." That feels more like a WTS handling of biblical literature than a straight-up reading of it, knowing that the WTS is always desperately looking for creative ways to deny that Jesus ever equated Himself with YHWH.

  Leaving the realm of speculation, Jesus often referred to the humanity of His followers by referring to them with words like "people" (anthropos), "crowd" (ochlos), and "people" of this nation (laos). Yet, never did He call them "Son of Man."

  In the only instance where Jesus called the generic throng of humanity by a similar name to the one He gave Himself, He changed it from singular "Son of Man" to plural, "sons of men," making it quite obvious He was NOT speaking of Himself:

  "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;"

  (Mark 3:28)

  In the story of the Sabbath if it was Jesus' intent to tell the assembled crowd that they were the lords of the Sabbath, it would have been in character for Jesus to have said "you sons of men are lords of the Sabbath." Plural. Of course, that is not at all what He said, nor, evidently, what He meant.

  Therefore, while the theory that Jesus might have been saying that the crowd was "the Lord of the Sabbath" is a fun theory to toy with, it requires that one close one's eyes to the fact that Jesus never gave away the name "Son of Man" to any other. It is a hollow theory that does not stand up to the weight of what the rest of Scriptures say and to the known reality that Jesus called Himself by the name "Son of Man" some eighty times.
• 

  Leolaia

  That is an interesting alternative approach to the passage. I dare say, I have not encountered it before.

  It's actually quite common. I can give some detailed references in another post.

  I struggle with your comment that Jesus used "Son of Man" to refer to humanity in general instead of to Himself specifically. Of the approximately 80 times Jesus uses the term in the gospels, I have found that each one is a direct reference to Himself. Such self-references include when He refers to Himself as judge over the earth, or coming in His glory, or having authority to forgive sins.

  As mentioned above, the vast majority of the uses of the expression (something like 90-95%) refer specifically to Jesus' suffering and death on the cross (highlighting his mortal humanity) and the quite distinct apocalyptic concept of the heavenly divine judge. The use in Mark 2:28 does not belong to either of these categories and thus, since it is exceptional, may not conform to the usage of either. On the other hand, the expression occurs in the OT almost solely in reference to humanity in general (even in Daniel 7:13, where it signals the human appearance of the heavenly figure and corresponds figuratively to "the people of the Most High" in v. 27), and we know that in the Aramaic of the day, bar nash(a) was used as an idiom in the same sense, whether in the singular or the plural. So it should be taken into consideration in those cases where the usage falls outside the main categories. In determining the most likely nuance of the expression, the immediate exegetical context takes precedence.

  The exegetical indications that humanity is in view in Mark 2:28 are many: (1) The preceding verse refers specifically to the Sabbath as having a subordinate relation to "human beings" (anthrópon), paralleling the relation in v. 28 of the "son of man" as master of the Sabbath (in the OT the terms "son of man" and "human being" are used interchangeably in poetic parallelism), (2) the connective hóste "so, therefore" makes the statement about the "son of man" logically depend on the preceding context; this implies that the son of man's lordship over the Sabbath is somehow derivative of humanness (which is what v. 26 is concerned with) and not of any special divinity, (3) the passage's allusion of Genesis also has humanity in view, as it invokes the lordship that God delegated to mankind to rule over the earth and all that is in it, (4) the intensive kai "even, also" is intelligible in this context, as it extends mankind's lordship to something not previously recognized, whereas it would hardly be surprising that a unique divine "Lord" even has lordship over the Sabbath, (5) the saying is placed in a narrative context that tries to justify the behavior of persons associated with Jesus, not Jesus per se. The problem in (2) may be alleviated somewhat if one assumes that the passage is making an a fortiori argument but the text does not suggest it directly in its rhetorical structure (the wording is not in the manner of a qal wahomer like "The sabbath day was made for humankind and not humankind for the sabbath day, and so should not the Son of Man all the more be master over the sabbath day?"); this interpretation has to be read somewhat into it. One could also suppose that the "Son of Man" is here presented as a representative human being, but again this exceeds what is written and it makes the Son of Man's lordship over the Sabbath a consequence of his status as a human being. So even if "son of man" here is intended to express Jesus' own lordship over the Sabbath, it is probably a lordship that is shared with his disciples and indeed with all human beings (none of whom should be slaves to the Sabbath).

  It should not be thought that any specific interpretation is necessarily established beyond doubt, but at the same time I cannot see how the content and structure of the passage better supports a wholly non-generic reading. At the very least, taking "son of man" at least in part as generic is a view that deserves careful consideration, as that is what the immediate context more naturally implies.

  I think your difficulty was shared by many of the early readers of Mark because (1) the expression is a Semiticism that is awkward in Greek and lends itself to reanalysis as a fixed title, (2) the majority of statements using the expression "son of man" were non-generic and thus there would have been a tendency to assimilate generic statements to non-generic ones, and (3) it is more valuable to make a statement refer to Jesus Christ than to humans in general. We can see this assimilation at work in comparing Mark with the two other synoptic gospels dependent on it. In Mark 3:28-29, we have another generic use of the Semitic expression, this time in the plural:

  Mark 3:28-29: "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of the sons of men (tois huiois tón anthrópón) will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin".

  The ambiguity with the christological title encountered when the expression is in the singular is here absent on account of the use of the plural (note that this doesn't itself imply that the singular couldn't have been used in the same way, as argued above Mark 2:28 is one such example just as Mark 3:28 is the only example of the plural). And yet the later versions of this saying remove the Semiticism and replace the generic with a self-referential title. And so in Matthew 12:31-32, "the sons of men" is replaced with "men" (tois anthrópois), and the saying is doubled with the second iteration introducing a reference to the "Son of Man" (tou huiou tou anthrópou). Luke 12:10 carries this further and omits the "men"/"sons of men" in Matthew and Mark. The sons of men who are forgiven in Mark 3:28 have seemingly been replaced by the divine "Son of Man" who is spoken against in Matthew 12:32 and Luke 12:10, but in Mark the sons of men are human beings. The same process occurs with the text under consideration in Mark 2:27-28. The generic sense of "son of man" in this passage is facilitated by the connection between v. 27 and 28. So in both Matthew 12:8 and Luke 6:5, the material in Mark 2:27 is omitted entirely, and with it goes the logical connective hóste from v. 28. These two changes eliminate the generic nuance implicit in Mark, thereby turning "son of man" into a clear christological title (it is already in the singular as well). And the kai in Mark 2:28 is also omitted in the two other synoptic gospels, making the second expression (now "Lord of the Sabbath") more of an absolute title as well.

  Further, you state that Jesus borrowed the expression "Son of Man" from the extra-biblical text 1 Enoch. While I understand your enthusiasm for ancient literature, the assertion betrays a bias that an historical Jew, such as Jesus, could not have shared. If Jesus was an historical man, and if He was the "Son of God" as He claimed, then He would have more likely borrowed the "Son of Man" reference from Daniel 7:13-14.

  First of all, many first century AD historical Jews and Christians had an enthusiasm for 1 Enoch, including the author of the epistle of Jude who, if the (traditional) ascription is to be taken at face value, was Jesus' own brother. Moreover, the references to the Son of Man in the Book of Parables are themselves dependent on Daniel 7:13-14, yet they contain features not found in Daniel which then turn up in the gospels. That is why it is inadequate to point to Daniel alone; the parallels are much more robust (down to the same wording in places) between the Book of Parables and the gospels. In short, the Book of Parables attests a stage in biblical interpretation that is intermediate between Daniel 7:13-14 and what is found in the gospels.

  Finally, in considering the context of the discussion about the lawful actions on the Sabbath, Jesus mentioned that "something greater than the temple" was present.

  Indeed, but note that this statement is only in the Matthean version of the sabbath story. This is one out of several modifications made to the Markan story (the omission of the problematic reference to Abiathar is another, the citation of Hosea 6:6 is yet another), alongside the omission of the material in Mark 2:27 and the hóste and kai from v. 28. As mentioned above, the authors of Matthew and Luke do take the phrase "son of man" as a christological title; they go much further than Mark in ruling out a generic non-christological reading in this story. Possibly even Mark wanted to suggest a christological interpretation (suggested by the juxtaposition of the sabbath story with the healing story earlier in the chapter), but he left his source material unchanged nonetheless, which itself yields a generic reading more naturally. I think that each gospel should be taken on its own terms because each constructs varying portraits of Jesus and each has its own theological understanding.
• 

  lovelylil2

  What does it mean when Jesus said he was Lord of the Sabbath? Matt. 12:8 8 “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” The Jews had many traditions with respect to the Sabbath and how it was to be kept. They had many regulations restricting behavior that were not found as prohibitions in the Law of Moses. They did not allow the lighting of candles on the Sabbath. They made it unlawful to throw more grain to their poultry than could be eaten lest some of it might sprout and grow and therefore they would be guilty of sowing on the Sabbath. They taught that it was unlawful to swat a fly on the Sabbath. Jesus did not think that it was necessary to observe all of the trivial regulations that came about through the traditions of men even though it brought criticism of himself and his disciples on numerous occasions. Jesus received more criticism about what he did and did not do on the Sabbath than he got on any other matter. I think it is interesting to list some of the criticism he received. Mark 3:1-6 - He was criticized for healing a withered arm on the Sabbath. Mark 3:4 4 And He *said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. Luke 4:33-39 - Jesus cast out a demon from a man in the synagogue and then went home with Peter and healed his wife’s mother. John 5:5-18 - Jesus heals a man who had been unable to walk in thirty-eight years. He told him to “Get up, pick up your pallet and walk., ” and the man did! Verse 10 says John 5:10 10 So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet.” John 9:1-16 - Jesus heals a blind man, a man blind from birth. John 9:16 16 Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” But others were saying, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” And there was a division among them. Luke 13:10-17 10 And He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. 11 And there was a woman who for eighteen years had had a sickness caused by a spirit; and she was bent double, and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, He called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your sickness.” 13 And He laid His hands on her; and immediately she was made erect again and began glorifying God. 14 But the synagogue official, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, began saying to the crowd in response, “There are six days in which work should be done; so come during them and get healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” 15 But the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and lead him away to water him? 16 “And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?” 17 As He said this, all His opponents were being humiliated; and the entire crowd was rejoicing over all the glorious things being done by Him. Christian to the Sabbath? With that as background, lets return to our verse: Matt. 12:8 8 “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Jesus calls himself the “Son of man.” It is interesting to note that neither Mark or John calls “Jesus Son of man,” but they do record the fact that he called himself “Son of man.” The title is used in Daniel 7:13 with reference to the Messiah. It identifies the humanity of our Lord. He was Son of God and Son of Man. As the Son of God Jesus came to earth clothed with the authority of God Himself. John 8:28-29 28 So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. 29 “And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” Since Jesus had authority from God, he had the authority while on earth to forgive sins. An example of this is found in Mark 2: Mark 2 10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”--He *said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.” John 5;27 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. The Scriptures tell us that it is the “Son of Man” who will send forth the angels to gather out of His Kingdom all stumbling blocks (Matt. 13:41) It is the “Son of Man” who will come in the glory of His Father to separate the righteous from the wicked and execute the wrath of God upon the wicked (Matt. 25:31-46. It is the “Son of Man” who is our mediator, himself man, interceding at the right hand of God for us (1 Tim. 2:5). “The Son of Man” had the right to claim that he was lord of the Sabbath and therefore had the right to interpret the laws regulating the actions of his disciples on that day. Since Jesus was God in the Flesh (John 1:1-14) surely he had the right to understand the nature of the Sabbath and its purpose, as well as the law regulating its observance. He was, therefore, lord or master of the Sabbath
• 

  designs

  EAS

  The Society's view is that this refers to Jesus rule during the Millennium period, they are calling that event the 'great sabbath, Wt. 86/7/15/p.9.
• 

  EverAStudent

  Design: Thank you for the confirmation. Somehow the WTS thinks Jesus was telling the Jewish authorities He had the authority to do what He did on the basis of a future claim to someday becoming the Lord of the Sabbath. Utterly illogical, but I understand what they are saying.

  Lilly: That was an interesting quote and one that I found no real problem with after a quick read-through.

  Leolaia: Thank you for reiterating your position. I am not swayed toward it, however. While it is true that the OT uses the phrase to refer to generic humanity, it was not used as a personal name in the OT. The important consideration is that Jesus used it as His personal name 80 times, and never to refer to general humanity through it. Even when Jesus used it to refer to His apocalyptic coming, it was to Himself in the apocalypse to which he applied the name, Son of Man. As you point out yourself, though the English language does not perform this way when Greek speakers wanted to refer to a group of people it was more natural to refer to them in the plural "sons of men," and when referring to a single individual to use the singular, "Son of Man."

  Consider the following apocalyptic statements of Jesus. Here Jesus refers to Himself as both the Son of Man and the one who is the apocalyptic judge of the world. Further note that the Son of Man is also the Son of the Father, making it certain that Jesus is the Son of Man by title.

  And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me , he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me . ... "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."

  (Mark 8:34, 38)

  Since the Son of Man (singular) is always and only the name/title of Jesus in the gospels, it was to Himself that Jesus was referring when He said, "The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath."

  Blessings to all.
• 

  Leolaia

  While it is true that the OT uses the phrase to refer to generic humanity, it was not used as a personal name in the OT. The important consideration is that Jesus used it as His personal name 80 times, and never to refer to general humanity through it. Even when Jesus used it to refer to His apocalyptic coming, it was to Himself in the apocalypse to which he applied the name, Son of Man.

  The titular use developed later than the OT (particularly in the Enochic tradition), but the generic use persisted as well. Both were available for Jesus to draw on and most scholars do recognize that Jesus as represented in the gospels used the expression "son of man" in different shaded ways. The apocalyptic "son of man" sayings represent a special group that is shaped by eschatological judge figure in Daniel 7 and in the Book of Parables, a usage that ultimately is derivable from the generic but which developed on its own trajectory. The non-apocalyptic uses of the expression in the gospels that reference Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection, on the other hand, do not derive from this apocalyptic trajectory. They instead are a new special use of the generic "human being" deployed circumlocutionarily in self-reference to highlight his own human mortality. The question then is, if Jesus could use the generic in a special personal sense, could he have used it in its ordinary, biblical sense? Mark presents Jesus as using the generic sense of the expression, both in the singular (2:28) and in the plural (3:38). My basic point in this thread is that interpretation should not simply be a "majority rules" determination of what is the most common usage. Common usages, on account of their frequency, are an important criterion, but the local context of each use of the expression must take precedence. This is particularly the case when the majority of examples of the expression belong to quite a different usage, and when there were strong motivations for assimilating the exceptions to the general pattern (I have three possible motives for this in my last post and we can see this assimilation process at work in the redaction of Mark 2:28 and 3:38 in the other two synoptics). So the focus should be on the actual rhetorical construction and whether the generic or non-generic nuance makes the most sense of it. The non-generic reading appears to produce a non sequitur in the passage that would not otherwise exist.

  As you point out yourself, though the English language does not perform this way when Greek speakers wanted to refer to a group of people it was more natural to refer to them in the plural "sons of men," and when referring to a single individual to use the singular, "Son of Man."

  No, native Greeks did not use the term "son of man"/"sons of men"; this is a Semiticism in the Greek that imperfectly expresses the idiom. The usage between the singular and plural also did not divide along the lines you've specified; both the singular and the plural could refer to humanity or human beings in general (whether in the generic "man, humankind" or in the indefinite "any person"). Some examples in Aramaic, Hebrew, and in Septuagintal Greek:

  Sefire Inscription III.16-17: "If the idea comes to the heart of the kings of Arpad, in whatever way a son of man (br 'nsh, singular indefinite) dies, you are forsworn to all the gods of the treaty which is in this inscription".

  Daniel 7:13: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man (br 'nsh, singular indefinite; huios anthrópou in the LXX), coming with the clouds of heaven".

  4Q201 3:17: (= 1 Enoch 7:3): "Giants were born upon the earth in keeping with their infancy and grew at the rate of their growth and consumed the work of all the sons of men (bny 'nsh', plural generic, rendered as anthrópón in the Greek translation), but not were the men able to supply them".

  4Q209 23:8: "And I saw three sections of the world: one for the sons of men (bny 'nsh', plural generic) to live in it; another for all the seas and the rivers, and another for the deserts".

  Numbers 23:19 LXX (quoted in Philo of Alexandria, Vita Mosis 1.283): "God is not able to speak falsely as if he were a man (anthrópos, singular indefinite; 'ysh "man" in Hebrew), nor does he change his purpose like a son of man (huios anthrópou, singular indefinite; bn 'dm in Hebrew).

  Job 25:6 (via Q11TgJob 9:9): "How much less man (= 'dm in the Hebrew, singular but with generic reference to humanity), who is but a maggot — a son of man (br 'nsh, singular generic), who is only a worm!"

  Job 25:6 LXX: "But alas man (anthrópos) is but filth, and the son of man (huios anthrópou, singular generic) is but a maggot!"

  1QapGen 21:13: "I shall make your descendants as numerous as the dust of the earth which no son of man (br 'nsh, singular indefinite) can number, so will your descendents be without number".

  Psalm 8:4-5 LXX (quoted in Hebrews 2:6-7): "What is man (anthrópos, singular generic; = 'nsh in the Hebrew), that you think of him? The son of man (huios anthrópou, singular generic; = bn 'dm, singular generic) that you care for him? For you have made him a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor".

  Psalm 144:3-4 LXX: "What is man (anthrópos, singular generic; = 'dm in the Hebrew), that you care for him? The son of man (huios anthrópou, singular generic; = bn 'nsh, singular generic) that you think of him? Man (anthrópos, singular generic; = 'dm in the Hebrew) is like a breath, his days are like a shadow that passes away".

  Isaiah 51:12 LXX: "I, even I, am he who comforts you. Who are you that you fear mortal man (anthrópou thnétou, singular generic; = 'nwsh in Hebrew), the son of man (huios anthrópou, singular generic; = bn 'dm, singular generic), the ones (hoi, plural) who are but grass?"

  4Q418 55:11: "Are they like a man ('nwsh, singular generic)? For he is lazy. And a son of man (bn 'dm, singular generic)? For he sits still".

  1QS 3:13: "The Instructor should instruct and teach all the sons of light about the nature of all the sons of man (bny 'nsh, plural generic)".

  Armazi Bilingual Inscription, lines 19-20: "Woe, woe to she who did not reach full age, incomplete, and so good and beautiful that no son of man (br 'ynsh, singular indefinite) was like her in goodness".

  Tatian, Diatessaron (utilizing John 5:34-36 and via Ephraem, Commentary on the Diatessaron 13.10.3-5): " 'Now I do not accept testimony from the son of man (br nsh', singular generic, rendering the anthrópou in John 5:34-36) because I have a witness which is greater than that of John'. And if he did not receive witness from the son of man (br nsh', singular generic), why did John come first?"

  Bardaisan, Liber Legum Regiorum 559.11-14: "This is the nature of the son of man (br nsh', singular generic), that he should be born and grow up and reach his peak and reproduce and grow old, while eating and drinking and sleeping and waking, and that he should die".

  y. Shebbat 38d: "Nor even a bird perishes without the will of heaven. How much less the son of man (br nsh', singular generic; notice the qal wahomer argument)".

  Genesis Rabbah 79:6: "Not even a bird is caught without the will of heaven. How much less the soul of the son of man (br nsh', singular generic)".

  The generic usage of singular "son of man" in Mark 2:27-28 compares well with texts like Q11TgJob 9:9, Job 25:6 LXX, Psalm 8:4-5 LXX, Psalm 144:3-4 LXX, Isaiah 51:12 LXX, 4Q418 55:11, Tatian's Diatessaron (which occasionally translates anthrópos "human being" into Aramaic with the expression "son of man"), Bardaisan, y. Shebbat 38d, Genesis Rabbah 79:6, etc. The generic usage of the plural "sons of men" in Mark 3:28 compares well with texts like 4Q201 3:17, 4Q209 23:8, 1QS 3:13, and so forth. And the other examples here are of the indefinite "any (individual) human being", which while individuated doesn't refer to any person in particular (cf. the Sefire Inscription, Daniel 7:13, Numbers 23:19 LXX, 1QapGen 21:13, the Armazi Inscription, etc.).

  Since the Son of Man (singular) is always and only the name/title of Jesus in the gospels, it was to Himself that Jesus was referring when He said, "The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath."

  It is precisely this claim that is questionable in light of Mark 2:27-28, if we take the exegetical concerns into account. The expression is titular in the Matthean and Lukan versions of this saying, but only because these versions have eschewed all the elements that make the Markan version generic. That doesn't exclude a self-reference in Mark 2:27-28 (as Jesus was a human being too), btw, but it also doesn't make the expression necessarily titular there.
• 

  lost but now found

  Brian O’Donnell’s Testimony
  
  Hi just to let you know the back round on how I got involved with Jehovah witness
  I was brought up a Roman Catholic, I remember when I made my confirmation I was
  given a Gideon New Testament and in it there was a quote from Romans 10:13 that
  if we call on the name of the Lord we will be saved and Acts 4:12 says that there is
  no other name given to man to be saved other than the name of Jesus.
  I believed that in my heart and had a great respect for the Bible, so when the
  Witnesses called to my home they seemed to have a good knowledge of scripture
  so I was interested in studying with them assuming they had similar views.
  I studied with them for about 2 years using various books in conjunction with the Bible,
  but is was more of a study of their doctrines as opposed to a study of scripture.
  When I look back on it, a lot of Scripture they were showing me was taken out of context.
  I made swift progress in the organisation and I was baptised in 1990.
  I then went to the ministerial school and was made a Representative of the
  Watchtower Organisation. I then was made an elder in 1995/96.
  As a result of this I was now and insider and this is when I really noticed that
  the organisation was put before the bible and Jesus Christ. This is the position
  of the Jehovah’s witnesses who in their November edition, of the Watchtower
  Magazine, November 1981 page 21 state that, “one must come to Jehovah’s
  organisation for salvation, and you have to be a part of it to get everlasting life.”
  Also you can live for ever on Paradise Earth, as unfortunately all the places have
  gone for those who are going to live in heaven, they number 144,000.
  See their “Proclaimers” book page 255 which shows how they have revised their history.
  This book came out in 1993/4 and tries to deal with some of their problems like the
  dates for Armageddon, why 1914 did not work out.
  Also why those living then did not see Armageddon before they died as they were told?
  
  My own study showed me the contradictions in their position.
  The bible says that Jesus is the foundation and he is the same yesterday,
  today and forever Hebrews 13:8, 1 Corinthians 3:11.
  I remembered when I quoted Jesus a lot of the members of the congregation
  were not very happy and especially the elders.
  They tend to read their organisations documents first, and consequently they
  read the bible through rose tinted glasses.
  They do not feel comfortable around Jesus,
  and they like to hide behind Jehovah.
  He always comes second as the Organisation always comes first.
  They are not keen on statements made by Jesus like,
  “if the son set you free you are free indeed, John 8:31.
  Their internal publication “Kingdom Ministry,”
  in the September 2007 edition says, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses should
  not be having Private Bible study groups and they should not look at
  Internet sites or Christian sites for information. However, the biggest
  enemy of the Watchtower Organisation are their own books which
  can be examined on line. However, a lot of their earlier books have been changed.
  An example of how they put the organisation before the bible is when I
  was asked to go before the elders. The elder in the congregation is really the god figure
  from an authority perspective. I requested an independent witness with me in line
  with Matthew 9:16 which suggests that 2 or 3 witness should be allowed to deal with an issue.
  Just as the elders can have witnesses present, so the same should apply to the person
  coming before them. However, they refused my request.
  I requested that they put in writing what they wanted to discuss with me but again they refused.
  Consequently, I was disfellowshipped in abstencia and was not told the reason why.
  Paul in 1Corinthians 5:11, writes that drunkards, fornicators etc. should be removed
  from the congregation and that we should not even greet them.
  This is also amplified in 2 John where the apostle writes that if one does not
  adhere to Christ he is the anti Christ and that these scriptures applied to me or
  anyone who does not agree with the Watchtower Organisation who claims he is a Jehovah’s Witness.
  The congregation will be instructed to shun you= disfellowshipping,
  a very controlling methodology which affects relationships.
  Finally the blood issue they have completely twisted the Scriptures
  out of context for details in on this see www.ajwlb.org
  There are various sites that are well documented.
  If you want to know more about this you can contact me you
  can email me at [email protected]
  By the way just a note to any Jehovah’s Witnesses I don’t hold any grudges. wish you all God’s blessing and to let you know that I am at peace because
  I have accepted Jesus as my lord and saviour. John 20:28, Acts 4:12.
  Finally you can ask Jesus for anything and call on his name John 14:14, 1 Corinthians 1:2.
  I tell you more next time……….
• 

  villabolo

  Leolaia: The sabbath isn't "lord" over humankind demanding people to observe it at any cost (even if life is at stake); the sabbath is for man's benefit, not a cause for detriment."

  I assume that your arguments indicate that a liberal stance was to be taken concerning the Sabbath and that the Pharisees were in error in their conservative interpretations. How can one reconcile this in view of Number 15:32-36 which states:

  32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

  villabolo

  PS: I apologize if I missed anything in this post that would answer my question.