only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.
“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.
DJW
JW..0rg has an explanation and that is that. But Basically there are plenty of other verses showing Jesus praying and inferior to the Almighty who has never been seen, cannot be killed etc.. so I don’t want to rehash what wt has been publishing for a century.
only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.
“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.
Why doesn't the Bible just say so?
This is a recurring issue with the Bible,
I’ve made the same observation. Well thought!
For example in John 1:1: “The Word was God.” And other scriptures too, some are symbolic, Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven—which is also an allusion to the prophecy of the Messiah in Daniel which JW interpret that the return of Christ is invisible. But the Bible is left to interpretation. That’s the way the entire Bible is written-in poetic language, (even historical accounts have in addition poetic meaning for example Haagar and Sarah) except where it does define and explain meanings such as when Jesus explains who is the prophetic Elijah or clarifying the meaning of the “disgusting thing causing desolation” are the Roman Armies and then it has an additional interpretation applying to the attacker of false religion in our time.
You have to figure everything out like trying to solve a picture puzzle and crossword puzzle at the same time. And you run into major problems like with the meaning of generation which the Bible defines is 80 years the average age of a person —and then this fails when applying to Jesus’s prophecy —which leads you to doubt your other parts of the puzzle you’ve solved as certainly true. Even what happens at death and who goes to heaven are conclusions. It all makes logical sense though—JW interpretation of the Bible—to the point of being mentally and emotionally convinced to the point of dying for your beliefs such as blood and political neutrality.
only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.
“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.
Hi Smiddy!
It’s a long time. I agree. Also, right after Jesus paid the ransom, why not act back then instead of waiting 2000 years later? And still we wait. What is the legal basis to hold humanity in captivity after the ransom? Before Alan F. who recently passed away wrote his article on the ransom, JW had published the Knowledge Book and in one of the chapters it addresses that question but doesn’t answer it much by saying that God could have brought the end after Jesus paid the ransom. God could have also killed satan immediately at Eden, or even have done things differently by looking into the future and preventing evil somehow using his Almighty powers. But that is how we see it as it seems to us. It is what is is and things are the way they are. We can logically try to find logical reasons for why but we can’t know for sure like the identity of Jesus is Michael is a conclusion. It is not outright defined in the Bible. I’m convinced that Jesus is Michael but how can we know for sure same as giving reasons for the questions you raise.
only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.
“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.
Only Jesus has the power and authority to defeat Satan and kick him out of heaven:
“Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God.”
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
Hi AM!
The case you reference was not decided by SCOTUS but by California State Court . WT appealed but Appeals Court affirmed the trial Court’s judgement. The lower Court compelled WT to disclose church documents but wt refused so the Court entered a default judgement. However Scotus has not ruled on this tension and the lower Court did not rule that ecclesiastical confidentiality does not apply to WT but only in this case. From the founding of the WT back in the early 1900, wt has been sued and prosecuted for not saluting the flag, not going to the military , preaching and a lot of other things. And after doing all this harm, later the government apologized for their error. Sometimes the WT looses in Court but there is no law that disqualifies wt “methodology” of ecclesiastical communications involving penitent confessions as you assert or wrongly apply this case and saying that Scotus decided that wt dies not legally have protected communications with its congregant or because of their methodology. But any document—or evidence of a crime— is subpoenable in any church. Also at baptism the Jehovah Witness subscribes ti the whole ball of wax including church process. Tired now good night
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
This is all irrelevant because the fact is elders don't find out through 'ecclesiastical confession', they find out because a parent or child reports it to them.
You can use that argument in Court and when JW or anybody else is found in violation of the statute they are liable. IMHO it is hypocritical for a catholic priest to to close his eyes to wrongdoing whereas JW identify the sinner and adjudicates sin by df and offers spiritual help whereas the catholic church does nothing but that is irrelevant legally. You claim that by hiding behind a confessional booth and intentionally closing your eyes qualifies a priest for ecclesiastical confidentiality whereas JW sinners should not have the same confidentiality because they don’t do things the Catholic way. That is hilarious but the standard is law and that standard is ecclesiastical communications in a spiritual setting which doesn’t legally only mean a catholic booth crafted to prevent identification it also applies to the way JW adjudicates sin. Courts have upheld JW ecclesiastical communications are protected. But that’s what the Courts are for, to compel disclosure when they don’t legally meet the standard.
an elder isn't paid clergy, the circuit overseer certainly is!
Certainly not because sisters and other volunteers also get allowances like the CO. Also, there is no clergy laity distinction in the JW. There are are also other difference between the paid clergy of “christendom” and JW spiritual “shepherds” one difference is clergy privileges for parking motor vehicles and other clergy privileges. They identify themselves as clergy and they get paid. Getting an allowance does not make a person clergy. So, legally speaking, that is the tension and that is what needs to be decided legally (as I posted before,) when JW are legally considered under any law clergy and not by some catholic opinion.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
Hi LHG!
People are not taken to Court for their morality or beliefs or the way they practice their religion. But for legal reasons and for causing injury to others; that is what this is about so if your case is about how you feel JW should practice their religion that is not the jurisdiction of legal proceedings. For example, law enforcement does not enforce feelings but criminal conduct. If someone offends your feelings you can criticize them all you want but you can’t sue them for that unless they’ve broken some law. It’s tough bananas and if try to go after them some other way even legally, it is retaliation and that may be a crime.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
Fisherman: the moral thing to do would be to report abuse accusations to the authorities for investigation.
On the other hand it is not moral to violate ecclesiastical confidentiality and laws that protect it. Also, morality standards is subjective.
Also, if it is a moral issue, then secular Courts do not have subject matter. And laws should not govern morality.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
So, basically, the Org wants the court to exempt them from reporting child abuse.Hi vidiot! Long time we don't argue (lol).I have tried to answer the question in my posts on this topic: The tension is on the legal definition of the word clergy and how it applies to JW. Clergy doesn’t apply to lawyers and JW claim that because they claim they don’t have a paid clergy, some laws that use the word clergy may not apply to them either. The Courts have to rule on this and they haven’t. Another tension that I pointed out is the legal conflict between the rights people have to ecclesiastical confidentiality and the mandatory statutes. Both laws are compulsory. JW elders must comply with the reporting laws and when they are accused of not complying, they are taken to Court. They can also be sued when they disclose ecclesiastical communications to law enforcement.
this can be confusing because the wts has adjusted from not having a clergy class to not having a "paid" clergy class.. "a congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity" wt 6/1/2001 p. 12, pp 11. still same idea in 2021 wt october, p. 20, pp.
7, but 2022 in the wt publication, frequently asked questions about jehovah’s witnesses, page 13, the wts inserts "paid" in front of "clergy perhaps to shore up their current statement in secular courts they have clergy, just not paid) "following the model of first-century christianity, jehovah’s witnesses have no clergy-laity division.
all baptized witnesses are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.
Well, I don’t !
You slipped there ! 😛
Everyone in Bethel. Women and non Elders too. So the theory about wt paid clergy falls apart because the same allowance for everyone is not a paid clergy.
Keep in mind that Courts of law don’t try feelings or morality. If a person is offended by or doesn’t like somebody else’s legal conduct, too bad. The subject matter of secular courts is facts and laws. So if someone feels that JW shouldn’t be interpreting the word clergy the way they are doing, they can feel that way but feelings don’t mitigate rights and laws. I have already stated that Courts decide how to interpret the word clergy as it applies to JW and JW have the same rights as everybody else to defend their legal position particularly as the word clergy is legally being applied to them in any given case. It is not wrong and it is not illegal to do that. That is the point.
