Christ At Arm's Length

by metatron 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  This is the season, when due to the nearness of the
  Memorial, you'll see the Society publish nice pictures
  of Jesus...

  as if he was someone they felt close to.

  The Bible repeatedly speaks of 1st century believers
  as being "in Christ" or as Col. 1:27 says "which is Christ in
  you". These personal statements of warmth and community
  are too much for the Watchtower's love of emotional
  distance - you're just in "union with Christ."

  How technical. Nice to know you agree with Jesus.

  But the Watchtower avoids these plain translations for
  a bigger reason - it's greed for control. Only "they",
  the special few, can have such a close relationship with
  God or Jesus - only they are the "faithful and discreet
  slave" - are all other (6 million minus 8000?)Witnesses unfaithful
  and foolish in the Bible's view?

  And so we come to the Society's yearly perversion of Christ's
  Evening Meal. Does anyone really think Jesus envisioned
  this travesty of passing embelms 'round and round with
  everyone rejecting them?

  Just another sad example of an organization too stupid
  to distinguish between symbol and reality. (like life,
  which is symbolized by blood, which is more important
  than life!).

  If ordinary Witnesses have any hope of salvation
  by the ransom sacrifice, then why is using the SYMBOLS
  of that salvation wrong?

  Jesus said "He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood
  has everlasting life and I will resurrect him on the last
  day." John 6:54. The resurrection "on the last day"
  was the ordinary phrase Jews used for the GENERAL resurrection.
  (like John 11: 24). It applied broadly to all individuals
  considered righteous - like the patriarchs, etc.

  But they can't change, no matter what Jesus said or intended.

  These tired, twisted old men won't let go.
  Power and control is the whole game for them.

  and so Christ
  and his charity
  and his compassion
  and his personal example

  are safely kept at arm's length

  metatron
• 

  VioletAnai

  Ok, here's the usual response for you: Have you checked the context in which you're reading? Have you cross-referenced with all other mentions of Christ's ransom, f.d.s and our salvation.

  Things will come together if you do.

  JW's in a show of respect, remember the death of Jesus every year the same as the apostles did: without eggs, bright colours, bunnies, hot cross buns and without the bloodshed of christanity's past! The value of the ransom has been taken away by their showy display and arogant attitude - they only care about ceremony and looking good for the public, not actually in Jesus' ransom.

  That's where jw's and other christians differ in my opinion.
• 

  Satanus

  Met

  Very good. Very true.

  Here are definitions for union
  union

  \Un"ion\ (?; 277), n. [F., from L. unio oneness, union, a single large pearl, a kind of onion, fr. unus one. See One, and cf. Onion, Unit.] 1. The act of uniting or joining two or more things into one, or the state of being united or joined; junction; coalition; combination.

  Note: Union differs from connection, as it implies that the bodies are in contact, without an inter?ening body; whereas things may be connected by the in???vention of a third body, as by a cord or chain.

  2. Agreement and conjunction of mind, spirit, will, affections, or the like; harmony; concord.

  3. That which is united, or made one; something formed by a combination or coalition of parts or members; a confederation; a consolidated body; a league; as, the weavers have formed a union; trades unions have become very numerous; the United States of America are often called the Union. --A. Hamilton.

  4. A textile fabric composed of two or more materials, as cotton, silk, wool, etc., woven together.

  5. A large, fine pearl. [Obs.]

  If they [pearls] be white, great, round, smooth, and weighty . . . our dainties and delicates here at Rome . . . call them unions, as a man would say ``singular,'' and by themselves alone. --Holland.

  In the cup an union shall he throw, Richer than that which four successive kings In Denmark's crown have worn. --Shak.

  6. A device emblematic of union, used on a national flag or ensign, sometimes, as in the military standard of Great Britain, covering the whole field; sometimes, as in the flag of the United States, and the English naval and marine flag, occupying the upper inner corner, the rest of the flag being called the fly. Also, a flag having such a device; especially, the flag of Great Britain.

  And so just agreeing w jesus is a pretty crappy union. It's like a husband and wife just agreeing on things, but never having sex. And so a union w a spirit would be a literal spiritual connection that each of them would have w him. The next step would be accepting a literal spiritual connection w god, through jesus. But that would be way too spiritualist, too pentacostally, almost demonic, like eastern religion.

  SS
• 

  Adonai438

  Hi Met,
  I guess it's easier to keep Jesus far enough away so he doesn't cramp your style It's sad to see them have such a sterile and prim view of God and miss out on a loving relationship with him. I thank God he reached me and saved me out of that lonely, impersonal (not to mention unbiblical) religion.
  In remembrance of his sacrifice and victory
  and looking forward to his return,
  <>< Angie
• 

  RunningMan

  The concept of communion that is practiced in Christianity is quite interesting.

  I came accross a reference a while ago in the book "Clan of the Cave Bear". This is a book of anthropological fiction that traces the experiences of a tribe of pre-historic humanoids. Every seven years, they held a festival, where all of the tribes would meet. The host tribe would take several years to raise a cave bear to maturity in captivity. As the climax of the festival, the bravest and most skilled warriors would fight the bear, often with some casualties. In the end, the bear would be dead, and the tribe would ceremoniously drink the blood and use the meat at the feast. The brain would be used for the most sacred ritual.

  This really got me thinking, so I did some research. It turns out that the idea of the Christian communion is really an adaptation of much older pagan rituals, where tribes would eat their god and drink its blood.

  Like so many other Christian things, it comes from a much older part of humanity, and is simply adopted with a few changes.

  JW's have simply further adapted an already adapted pagan ritual, and claimed it for their own. This, in itself, is not good or bad. Critisizing the correctness of anyone's communion is like critisizing how a person watches Spiderman cartoons. Neither one is real, so how can communion rituals be considered "right" or "wrong"?

  But, just for the record, JW's are wrong and stupid.
• 

  metatron

  Complete BS, violet

  You don't even bother to answer my objections. Why should
  you? - the Society doesn't care either - it's all about power
  and control.
  I was an elder for many years and taught their nonsense despite
  my private misgivings with their twisting of scriptures.

  Does the ransom apply to all JW's ? yes or no?
  Is Christ their mediator, personally? yes or no?

  The Watchtower leadership is nothing but a bunch of hijackers,
  imposing themselves as MEDIATORS between God and man.

  metatron
• 

  Room 215

  Hi Meta,

  It's true that in current JW theology and their lip service notwithstanding, Jesus is little more than a cipher, his name an Area Code which one attaches to one's paryers in order to get them routed properly.

  For all their boasting about being the only genuiune Christians on earth, it's the most piquant of ironies that they've botched up the True Faith's only two real sacraments: The Lord's Supper, discussed herein, and Baptism (thanks to the presumptuous 1985 change in the vows.

  Their specious interpretation of Reelation 7 and 14 has corrupted, distorted and vitiated their entire concept of Crhistianity.