Questions (page 2)

thinkers wife

Leave it to Larc to turn it into a lark!
Some interesting thoughts though Larc and Prisa. Ones I too have wondered about!
TW

Prisca

Hey Larc - I like men that like women! Cos I REALLY like men, though I don't like women - I only like women in a platonic, non-sexual way

And yes, we have possums too. So how did they get from America to Australia? Or vice versa? Maybe Noah had so many of the little critters running around, he couldn't drop them all off at once!

Wouldn't be surprised what turns up in the Awake. I'm sure they scrounge around looking for answers, just like the rest of us. The difference is, we don't force others to believe our opinions as fact.

Frenchy

Cleo:
1. Eph 4:4
2. Jesus came in the role of not only messiah but also as the sacrificial offering. To be the sacrifice he had to be perfect. (See Romans, chapter 5) In order to be perfect he could not have a human father inasmuch as all humans pass on imperfection. It is interesting that both his mother and foster father were of David's line but his messiahship does not rest on that basis. (Hebrews 5:6)
3. Iano gave a good reply to that. One will invariably get into semantics when discussing this.
4. The Mosaic Law was specific to the Jews. Those laws are no longer binding. It should come as no surprise that many of those laws (specifically and in principle) would be carried over into Christianity.
5. Dealt with.
If you would like to discuss any of these questions in detail please don't hesitate to start a thread on it.

Prisca
Are you making a pass at larc?!?

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

cleojones

Thanks for the replies. I have read the lineage of Jesus in the Book of Matthew, which is why calling him a descendent of David makes no sense to me. The Bible clearly states that Joseph is a descendent of David, but since Jesus is in no way biologically related to Joseph how can he possibly be considered to be a descendent of David. To me it would make sense only if it was Mary who was a descendent of David. I find this point especially interesting because so much in the Bible does stand up to modern day scientific testing, but this very important detail, to me anyway, clearly would not stand up to a DNA or blood test.

Frenchy- So if human imperfections would be passed on through a human father, why not a human mother? Even though Mary might have been a virgin, there is no way she could have been perfect.

Lastly, could someone please answer the question that RedHorseWoman posed about why certain pagan practices such as holidays are condemned, but others like wedding rings, etc are ok. Thanks

Seven

Cleo, I always wondered about the lineage of Jesus also. It is traced through Solomon in MT and through David's son Nathan in LK. Both agree that Joseph was Jesus' father so they're not talking about Mary.
There are other inconsistancies such as, who Joseph's father was. Jacob or Heli? How many generations from David to Jesus? 28 or 43?

Btw, welcome to the board. Nice to have you here.
Seven

Simon

How could they claim that Jesus was a descendant of David via Joseph if he wasn't his father?
Who would attempt to make such a rediculous claim unless he was - the whole idea of the virgin birth being based on a mistranslation of 'almah' meaning 'young woman' instead of the hebrew term for physical virgin.

Frenchy

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this... I did not get online yesterday.

Frenchy- So if human imperfections would be passed on through a human father, why not a human mother? Even though Mary might have been a virgin, there is no way she could have been perfect.

I'm surprised none of you ladies has jumped on this yet. Here is an excellent opportunity to PROVE from Scripture that MEN are the cause of all the problems and virgins ARE perfect according to this reasoning therefore it is MEN who are the perpetrators of sin upon our world, the corrupters of humankind! It's in the Bible!

Seriously though, sin is apparently not something that is genetically transmitted (although WTBS literature leans toward this) like blue eyes and curly hair. Interestingly Paul lays the blame on Adam for bringing sin into the world. (Ro 5:12) As the head of the household he would justly bear that blame. Inasmuch as women die right along with men (even virgins, if there is any such thing anymore!) it is obvious that women also sin and are consequently imperfect as well. (With the exception of the girls on this board!) All human births (as it stands now) are the result of a union of male and female reproductive material (natural and in-vitro). Therefore no human is without a human father. Since the man/father/husband/head of the house/ bears responsibility for sin, he can be said to pass it on. But that is only in that sense.
Jesus came into existence by other than ordinary reasons. Mary's egg may not have been involved at all and thusly Jesus may have not had any fleshly relation to her at all. She may merely have served as the surrogate mother.
It was appropriate that Joseph/adopted father/husband/head of the house should be of the royal lineage. Joseph had the responsibility, morally and legally, to take care of his stepson and it appears that he did do so. Legally, Jesus would be Joseph's son and legally he would have a claim to the throne of David.

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Frenchy

Lastly, could someone please answer the question that RedHorseWoman posed about why certain pagan practices such as holidays are condemned, but others like wedding rings, etc are ok. Thanks

"The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in most holiday observances and other celebrations can be somewhat perplexing to a teacher. We hope the following helps you to understand why we take the matter so seriously.
Perhaps to a greater extent than you may have realized, many holidays and the customs associated with them have a non-Christian religious background. It is this that makes them objectionable to Jehovah's Witnesses. We try to follow the principle stated by the Christian apostle Paul:
"What fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Belial [a false god]? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? . . . ‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,' says Jehovah."—2 Corinthians 6:14-17.
So if a holiday or a celebration is in some way linked to other gods or goddesses, or if observing it is contrary to our understanding of Biblical principles, we do not take part."–The school brochure 1983

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

RedhorseWoman

I'm surprised none of you ladies has jumped on this yet. Here is an excellent opportunity to PROVE from Scripture that MEN are the cause of all the problems and virgins ARE perfect according to this reasoning therefore it is MEN who are the perpetrators of sin upon our world, the corrupters of humankind! It's in the Bible!

Frenchy, this is common knowledge. We wimminz don't need to bring it up again. I'm surprised that YOU didn't realize this....oh, wait, being male and all....well, that explains it then.

So if a holiday or a celebration is in some way linked to other gods or goddesses, or if observing it is contrary to our understanding of Biblical principles, we do not take part."–The school brochure 1983

The point that I brought up, and that Cleo asked about, was the reason why SOME pagan practices are tolerated...even encouraged....while others are condemned and could result in disfellowshipping.

While researching some info on the pagan origins of wedding rings, I came across a lot of information concerning the pagan origins of pretty much every wedding tradition used today.

For instance, the wedding bouquet was originally used to keep evil spirits at bay. The wedding cake is linked to pagan fertility rituals. And the list goes on.

I certainly don't know the answer, and so far I've never gotten a logical answer as to WHY the Society allows certain things of this nature, and yet condemns others.

The only logical explanation as far as I can tell is that they prohibit enough pagan practices to make JW's unique and to maintain the control (forbidding any celebration that might cause a person to feel somewhat special), but refrain from prohibiting those practices that would cause people to label JW's as REALLY freaky. Imagine a Witness wedding without wedding gowns, veils, rings, flowers, or a cake.

Frenchy

Red:
Perhaps a differentiation is being made between CUSTOMS associated with certain events and CELEBRATIONS that FOCUS on the aforementioned.

Questions

Share this