Where Does Watchtower Doctrine Contradict Scripture?

by Vanderhoven7 69 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

EasyPrompt

Hi @Linda14🙂

(1) If the city isn't an empire, then why does the God's Word says she has a kingdom over the kings of the earth? Do all the kings of the earth reside in one literal city?

(2) There are other issues going on before the heavenly court that we don't have all the details about. Job, Daniel, and Revelation all depict heavenly courts. Just as we don't know all the details of the court cases in earthly courts when we are not at the hearings or in the judicial chambers, so we are not aware of all the details of what is going on in those heavenly courts.

But regardless of what Jehovah's reasons are for waiting, His ways are always righteous, and we can have confidence that He always does the right thing, and that He can and will fix everything.

(3) Amen, salvation is by Jesus. Jehovah's salvation is not dependent upon whether or not we are part of certain human institutions.

(4) Yes, God does miracles every day!🌷

@roadtonowhere...Haha! That's true, they do twist His Word and try to "put words in His mouth" that He never said!

He'll make it known how He feels about all the stuff the borg (and others) keep wrongly accusing Him of...

"Jehovah will go out like a mighty man.
He will awaken his zeal like a warrior.
He will shout, yes, he will let out a war cry;
He will show himself mightier than his enemies.
“I have kept quiet for a long time.
I remained silent and restrained myself.
Like a woman giving birth, I will groan, pant, and gasp all at once.
I will devastate mountains and hills
And dry up all their vegetation.
I will turn rivers into islands
And dry up reedy pools of water.
I will lead the blind in a way that they do not know
And cause them to tread on unfamiliar paths.
I will turn the darkness before them into light
And turn the rugged terrain into level land.
This is what I will do for them, and I will not abandon them.” (Isaiah 42:13-16)

Jehovah has been so patient. "Jehovah's Witnesses" have claimed that Jehovah supports so many things that in all actuality He hates, things He never directed to be done "in God's name". Since many Jehovah's Witnesses are blind and just following the blind, Jehovah knows which individuals to save, and He won't abandon those ones when it is the time to pass judgment on the all organizations that are reproaching His Name (starting with the ones that claim to represent Him by name, "Jehovah's Witnesses.") The angels of the congregations will help all those individuals who Jesus directs them to help, wherever they may be found. God is not partial.
EasyPrompt

Another place WTBTS contradicts scripture...

"abstain from what is strangled and from blood"

A fraction of blood is still blood.

The first century Jerusalem congregation and elders and apostles didn't make up rules about pioneering or counting time or shaving beards or demanding support for a Bethel commune; but they did make clear the holy spirit's direction regarding abstaining from both things strangled and from blood. The fact that blood is mentioned in these two different ways here shows how important it is to Jehovah. For the GB/FDS to say "fractions are okay" when God clearly condemns them is blatant disrespect for Jehovah God and the ransom blood of the Christ.

"Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20)

"As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent them our decision in writing that they should keep away from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 21:25)

Sexual immorality is not a "conscience matter". Idolatry is not a "conscience matter". Abstaining from blood is not a "conscience matter". The GB/FDS have led a lot of people to unwittingly sin against God.
Vanderhoven7

@EasyPrompt
Do you believe Jehovah is against transfusion of white blood cells?
EasyPrompt

I think you know the answer.🙂

Milk is not blood.
Blood is the stuff in your veins and arteries.

Everything in the physical universe is made up of elements, atoms, molecules, etc. They move around and an atom of hydrogen that is part of a water molecule today may be part of blood tomorrow. The cells in your marriage mate today may be part of a different person years from now. Does that mean it's okay to have relations with that other person? Nope.

Kevin McFree might reuse some of his Legos for different scenes, but the discerning viewer knows the difference between a Wolf Elder Lego character and the Brian With A Beard character.

God knows it's possible to take blood and put it in a centrifuge and separate things out, etc, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. You can drink water from the public toilet if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.

In ancient times, the requirement was to bury your feces and pour the blood back to the ground. In this culture now, we flush the feces away. Wonderful. The basic idea is still to protect people from getting sick. What's the deal with blood? If you do a blood test and then throw the blood away after, great. But to save it, separate it, sell it, stick it back in someone is obviously not "abstaining from blood." It's directly disobeying a clear command.

If the same types of cells are in milk, who cares? God said it's okay to drink milk. "The land of milk and honey." God knows the same types of cells are in a lot of things.

"Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.” Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward, she also gave some to her husband when he was with her, and he began eating it."

It didn't go well for Adam and Eve when they disobeyed a clear command. "You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it" was clear. Even a fraction of that tree was off limits.

Adam and Eve just ate from a fraction of the tree. And look where we are today.

Jehovah's fixing it, but it's through the ransom blood of the Christ. We must show respect for that blood. The way we show respect is by respecting God's right to set boundaries. He set a boundary on blood. It doesn't matter if there are some of the same types of cells in blood as in milk. There were some of the same types of cells in that one tree in the garden as the other trees in the garden. It was the attitude and obedience that Jehovah was looking for, it was a way they could show love and respect for Him, and trust.

The GB/FDS doesn't trust Jehovah, so it's no surprise they would be misleading others into disobeying Jehovah. The snake did the same thing.
Vanderhoven7

@ EasyPrompt,
You realize of course, that a mothers milk contains white blood cells that help protect their babies from infection and disease. Millions of white blood cells are passed from mother to child at every feeding.
Does God break His own rules...or are blood transfusions acceptable to him?
Do you believe God is against organ transplants?
EasyPrompt

I believe what is written in God's Word:

"Jehovah God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. And Jehovah God built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman..."

I know God transplanted Adam's rib to Eve.

I also know that milk is not blood. I have a university degree, but I don't need a university degree to know that milk is not blood. I have breast fed my children, and I have raised livestock that feed milk to their young. Milk is not blood.

There are water molecules in many of the products at the grocery store. Milk has water molecules. So does Windex. So does toothpaste. If I tell my kids to not eat household cleaners, they know I am not talking about water molecules. They know they can still drink milk even though milk has water molecules and Windex has water molecules.

Jesus said even a kid could understand the truth. It's not complicated.

If you put a cup of milk in front of a kid and a cup of blood in front of a kid and tell them they can drink the milk and but they need to dump the blood, they will know what to do. It's not complicated.
Vanderhoven7

Yes, I believe God's word as well.
Milk is not blood, but a mother's milk contains millions of white blood cells none the less.
The dietary rules found in Acts 15 were temporary and designed to facilitate fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Even Pastor Russell got that right.
Do you think if Paul were invited alone to the home of a pagan who was known to buy unbled meat from the shambles, that he would ask questions of conscience?
So what about organ transplants? Would God be against a Christian having a kidney transplant from a family member to save his or her life?
Before you answer this "trap" question, you do realize that billions of white blood cells are passed from donor to recipient with every major organ transplant.
truthlover123

Such a good discussion
TonusOH

I've got to side with EasyPrompt on this one, at least in regards to the specific point in question. The idea behind draining an animal's blood was to show reverence to the giver of life, yes? Breast-feeding is, in a world where god exists, a provision that god made for humans and thus would not be at odds with the edict against eating blood.
However, this also makes the recommendation in Acts a bit vague. Does "abstain from blood" also cover a blood transfusion in the present day? Blood collected for such uses is not (typically?) obtained by draining a corpse. And clearly the existence of blood fractions in mother's milk shows that the ban is not absolute. Would god be offended if blood were taken from one person for the purposes of saving lives?
EasyPrompt

The dietary rules found in Acts 15 were temporary and designed to facilitate fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Were the immorality rules at Acts 15 temporary and designed to facilitate fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians?

Were the idolatry rules at Acts 15 temporary and designed to facilitate fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians?

The purpose of the decree recorded at Acts 15 wasn't "to facilitate fellowship." A rave facilitates fellowship, but that doesn't mean it's approved by God.

The purpose of the decree recorded in Acts 15 was not to "facilitate fellowship". It was to glorify Jehovah with clean worship.

Where Does Watchtower Doctrine Contradict Scripture?

Share this