by KerryKing 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
In order to understand what is going on with and within this group named Jws/WTS we should believe God and His word, He foreknew the things and has prophesied about it - it is part of "truth" ...
It is named the Song of Moses , a prophecy which is understood (and sung) by the "conquers of the beast" - Rev.15:2,3.
An input of study on this may be found here - clickon it.
wantingtruth.
Jew is usually someone born of a Jewish mother (but in very liberal cases, a paternal line is sometimes acknowledged today).
Interestingly enough, in Bible times a Jewish identity was reckoned from the male line and only after the founding of Rabbinic Judaism did it change to the maternal line (it's thought around the 4th or 5th century C.E. although no one knows for sure). It's funny because I always assumed it had always been through the female line, since back then it was the only provable line.
" consider the balance of teaching time spent between talking about OT topics and characters and NT topics and characters. What do we see? It is obvious that the ratio is at least a 75/25 split, in favor of Jewish themes."
"Simply said, people in a rule based religion are easier to control, it demands unity of thought and purpose ... and in our case, it was important that the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, looked drastically different to the classic Christian faiths "
I'm with No Zombie on this one.
They focus almost exclusively on Jewish "principals" to the exclusion of the loving and forgiving message of Jesus, only visiting the NT in order to twist Paul's words on shunning and deprive witnesses back in the day of children and a happy family life.
Don’t go back, Kerry King. Btw, I know a woman who has this exact name. Spelled the same way, too. 🤷♀️ She is not a JW.
Diogenesister: It's funny because I always assumed it had always been through the female line, since back then it was the only provable line.
Keep in mind that, back then, a wife was considered a man's property. I suppose that, even in the event of infidelity, the child could be considered part of the line of the man who owned the child's mother. Would be interesting to see if this was the case. It wouldn't surprise me that they did not want to give the woman any sort of value aside from being chattel.
Diogenesister:
Interestingly enough, in Bible times a Jewish identity was reckoned from the male line and only after the founding of Rabbinic Judaism did it change to the maternal line...
Actually it was likely in the time of Ezra, which was in Biblical times, that matrilineality in Judaism, was likely set, around 460 BCE, due to Jewish men taking on foreign wives. But it could have been set as late as the period of the Tannaim (10-70 CE) who were Jewish sages contemporary with Jesus and the Apostles that recorded the Mishnah.
Either way, it was likely set prior to the so-called "Rabbinical" period that Watchtower teaches JWs to look down upon so heavily. The reason why it is usually attributed to Ezra (at least traditionally so) is because of the Torah's narrative of the Patriarchs and the Book of Ruth (which is believed to come from the time of Ezra as well).
For instance: Abraham's son Isaac is Jewish because Sarah is Abraham's half-sister, who according to tradition, makes her Jewish. But Abraham's other son, Ishmael is not a Jew because his mother, Hagar is not Jewish--get it? Issac had two Jewish sons: Jacob and Esau. Jacob's sons were Jewish because he married wives who were Jewish relatives but Esau's son's were not Jewish because his wives were Canaanites. Get the picture? And it goes on and on throughout the Torah this way.
You are Jewish, but only if your mother is Jewish "according to what is written in the Torah," because it is just not a book of stories to Jews, but because this it is the Mosaic Law we are taking about.
In the Book of Ruth, the Moabite Ruth converts to worship the God of Abraham, making her a Jew. So when she is married by a "redeemer," she legally becomes the Jewish mother of Obed, the forefather of King David. Why? Because your mother makes you a Jew. This is even mentioned in the geneologies of Jesus.
In fact, the apostle Paul says Gentiles become spiritual Jews, or a spiritual "son" through the martilineality clause at Galatians 4:4-5 due to the fact that Jesus was born via Mary:
But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
So if you are a Christian and believe you have a spiritual "sonship" it is because of this ancient belief system in Judaism that comes from being "born of a worman, born under the law." That is what Paul was talking about.
As a sidepoint, in the New Testament, no where can you find "witnesses of Jehovah" "Jehovah's witnesses" but you will find "witnesses of Jesus" and "witness to Jesus" all over. The WTS in the past has said that in Isaiah 43:10-12, literal jews were being talked about, but that it "foreshadowed" the anointed members of the WTS, as spiritual Israelites.
1950 At this time there is only a small remnant of spiritual Israelites (that only they are of the "Israel of God."
1950 He is not only preparing his remnant of spiritual Israelites for membership in the heavenly kingdom of the new heavens. He is also preparing, the great crowd of “other sheep”, for the visible society of the new earth.
Gradually, the WTS started calling the non-spiritual Israelites (or the great crowd of other sheep) Jehovah's witnesses, and left out the part that there were no witnesses of Jehovah in the New Testament, only witnesses of Jesus. The WTS has gradually put "Jehovah" to the forefront and made Jesus only an object used for the ransom sacrifice. I compared how often the name of Jesus appears in WTS publications compared to using Jehovah, and it was amazing, about 20 to 1 difference, especially in their "kingdom" songs. Even in Acts it says that Jesus' followers came to be known as "Christians" not Jehovah's witnesses. (Acts 11:26) After he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year they assembled with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.
Pioneer schmioneer Actually it was likely in the time of Ezra, which was in Biblical times, that matrilineality in Judaism, was likely set, around 460 BCE, due to Jewish men taking on foreign wives. But it could have been set as late as the period of the Tannaim (10-70 CE) who were Jewish sages contemporary with Jesus and the Apostles that recorded the Mishnah.
Makes sense. Dont the JW's claim it runs through the male line? I was aware of Abraham, Issac, Ishmael etc In fact its why I assumed it ran through the female line. So where does this idea of it's still running through the male line come in, then, do you know? Im sure Watchtower used to talk about Jesus being of the line of David through Joseph originally(?)
the period of the Tannaim (10-70 CE) who were Jewish sages contemporary with Jesus and the Apostles that recorded the Mishnah.
wow.....i didnt know the Mishnah wascwritten so early!
Blondie As a sidepoint, in the New Testament, no where can you find "witnesses of Jehovah" "Jehovah's witnesses" but you will find "witnesses of Jesus" and "witness to Jesus" all over. The WTS in the past has said that in Isaiah 43:10-12, literal jews were being talked about, but that it "foreshadowed" the anointed members of the WTS, as spiritual Israelites.
yes, that one always stumps JW's when people do street epistomology/apologetics with them!
I don't know where most people get their wrong ideas from. I think Watchtower gets it from where most other people generally do, namely from not getting a formal education and thinking they don't need one. The "you're Jewish if your mother is Jewish" thing is very old. Either lack of exposure or outright fraud is the only thing I can say here. The Jews have always been here to ask. If you didn't ask a Jew, then you made up the answer. And if you made up the answer, then you should be ashamed.
Joseph is supposed to be the father of Jesus, even though Mary is fully Jewish. Both, according to Scriptural tradition, are of the line of David.
But this is not the teaching in the earliest gospel, namely Mark, which according to Church Tradition is supposed to be Petrine in origin. This would suggest that as time went on, people began to question Jesus' origin as it was not originally established in Mark's gospel. If it had been, especially if it was supernatural and this was important to the Gospel (and I mean, the Good News that "saves"), it would have been included by Peter in the account he had given. Oddly, there is nothing about this in Mark (no virgin birth, no pre-existence, zip).
As for the two geneologies in Matthew and Luke, neither are historical in nature. So it is hard to establish why this data would be missing from Mark if this was to be a salvific teaching.
While it is not hard to fathom that Jesus of Nazareth could be of the line of David, I am not sure why the argument is made so late and in the fashion that it is in the New Testament. It is curious to me, but not impossible.
