Posts by David

32

Anyone else hear of this?

by Tahoe in

jw
friends

a jw family member informed me they are filling out an application to preach the truth in israel.

interested ones in the congregation were asked to start saving now, as the cost of the flights would be their own responsibility.

the time frame for this preaching work is for a couple of weeks in may/june 2017. the applications are to be turned in this sunday.

David_Jay

While I cannot confirm or deny that they are doing this (and it wouldn't surprise me), the problem of proselytizing Jews is one that groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses don't seem to comprehend.

It's not that one cannot proselytize in Israel, it is that the groups that do enforce a membership that generally demands that Jews abandon their culture. That is the real problem.

Jews differ considerably regarding convictions, even how they practice things religiously. And this is not merely from between groups of sects, mind you. Judaism at its core allows for and encourages a lot of personal autonomy...yes, even among the most Orthodox. There is no central Jewish doctrinal governing body, and adhering to particular beliefs in order to have membership in order to merely belong is not a real tenet of Judaism.

The current nation of Israel is definitely a response to what led up to the Shoah (Holocaust). Regardless of our religious affiliations, the Jews as a people were being destroyed, their culture, traditions, and even language. My mother tongue, Ladino, was the most widely spoken language among Jews in the 20th century...until the Holocaust. In about 6 or 7 years almost 100% of European Ladino speakers were simply erased from the planet. My language is practically extinct, as a result. Since my name sounds Spanish, you would be surprised how many people assume I am Mexican or Cuban and are surprised learn I am Israeli. Ladino went from everywhere to nowhere, and the world took no notice until it was gone.

Israel now exists to prevent things like Ladino disappearing from ever happening again. It's not just a religion thing we are trying to protect. We are not all members of Judaism. We are not all theists. Some of us are even Christian (Judeo-Christians, the real thing and not Messianic Jews, still exist)! Regardless of our religion, we still share a lot more in common.

When religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses come around they demand that we cut our hair and shave off our beards and abandon our dress. We have to stop praying with head coverings, stop chanting our prayers, reject our holy days, and in many cases stop using our languages or at least change the meaning behind our words to fit theirs.

You destroy a people by destroying it's culture. Sure, the Jewish culture has changed, even in Israel. Even religiously the fastest growing movement is now the post-denominational, post-rabbinical Judaism (which I belong to). The face of Jewry is changing, but on its own terms. It still preserves what we decide it must preserve. But religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses demand far more than doctrinal change. They demand we become one of them.

Ever see all those happy Jews dancing around wearing Jewish clothing and eating a traditional Jewish meal in those illustrations of Paradise in Watchtower publications? No, you don't. Because Jehovah's Witnesses teach that our culture, our Jewish world is to be destroyed at Armageddon, a culture not destined to survive into their long-preached version of the New World.

This is a problem. JWs see their conformity, their uniformity as a demand of adopting their "true religion." Jews see it as smacking too closely to the views of another group that once promised a new world order that painted similar pictures of white Gentiles in Western dress enjoying life in a paradise.

While wanting to ensure freedom of religion in Israel, at the same time the government of Israel and its people don't welcome the demands of their doctrine that demand conformity. Yes, our culture is based on Torah, so yes, it is Jewish. Even atheist Jews may light a menorah on Chanukah and celebrate Passover because it's about more than just religion. These things and customs and days are about us as a people.

Ask any Jehovah's Witness if a Jewish convert can still celebrate Chanukah or Passover and I promise you, that concert will not be as free as a Jewish atheist is to preserve and honor their rich cultural traditions.

29

When you stop & think about it ,why would Gods chosen people in the Old testament need an army ?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

as the op states why would israel /jewish nation need to have an army at all ?

if they were the chosen people as the bible states under a theocracy , why would the men of israel need an army .?

to protect them ?.

David_Jay

If it helps, Stuck,

Jews understand these details of slaughter as a narrative liberty made for dramatic effect in telling our story. You have to keep in mind that the Bible is is a liturgical text, its stories meant for a yearly reading on a specific annual date in imitation of tribal elder recollection stories of old. This is not the Watchtower 's "doctrine book."

What archeology, secular and non-biblical Jewish history ( as well as DNA studies) suggest is that we didn't conquer the so-called Canaanites, but we merged with them upon arriving in the Fertile Crescent after the Exodus from Egypt. The various peoples of the land became one, with (eventually) one religion of one God.

How did we end up telling the story for liturgical purposes, to get a moral lesson out of it? Simple. In the liturgical version we "slaughtered" all the heathens, from parents and children, till not one of these "evil, disgusting people who worshipped heathen gods" remained. So if anyone asks what happened to them, we say that God conquered them because, in a way, he did. The people of the Fertile Crescent did not originally worship YHWH but did so upon meeting with and merging with the Exodus survivors. The resulting people became the Israelites of history.

This is not say that the Jews never fought bloody wars and never did so in an unjust fashion, attributing even their acts of unjust victories to their God. It's likely not all "liberties taken for dramatic effect." Not all the original inhabitants of the land gladly merged with us.

Later successful battles under the Davidic dynasty ( which even the Bible describes as being a dynasty that spilled a lot of blood) could have possibly been transferred in narrative form to the liturgical story of the "conquest of Canaan," especially since the written versions of our oral history began to take shape from David's era onward. We were still not innocent of the injustices portrayed in Scripture as we still approved of "penciling in" this explanation and, unfortunately blamed our "bad behavior" on God.

29

When you stop & think about it ,why would Gods chosen people in the Old testament need an army ?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

as the op states why would israel /jewish nation need to have an army at all ?

if they were the chosen people as the bible states under a theocracy , why would the men of israel need an army .?

to protect them ?.

David_Jay

No, it's liturgy.

Liturgy has no shelf life. Liturgical narrative is designed to be repeated and listened to over and over again, with new lessons learned. It is a written form of the ancient practice of sitting around the fire listening to the eldest of the tribe share our most treasured stories.

I find that almost no one who was exposed only to Jehovah's Witnesses understands what "liturgy" is. Because there are no liturgical practices or liturgical cycles, liturgical celebrations, etc. in Watchtower religion, I think the term meets only with an empty space carved out by the Governing Body in many exJWs.

The Bible is not a book of history, doctrine, or theology, at least not directly. It is a library of liturgical narratives designed for and used for liturgy. It is almost a calendar of sorts, with sections designed for reading at particular times meant to aid listeners to walk each year through. Bound volumes of Watchtower magazines are not used this way. Liturgy is a worship form that is meant to mark the days and years with specific meaning. The religious movements of the Second Great Awakening are devoid of such a thing and thus turned the Bible into the ultimate Magic 8 Ball of divine revelation that JWs tell the world it is.

29

When you stop & think about it ,why would Gods chosen people in the Old testament need an army ?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

as the op states why would israel /jewish nation need to have an army at all ?

if they were the chosen people as the bible states under a theocracy , why would the men of israel need an army .?

to protect them ?.

David_Jay

Blondie has shared a perfectly great point.

Reading the Hebrew Scriptures, especially Genesis 1-11, as factual history and doctrinal theology, warps the image of God that the Jews had and have. This proves true when you read the conquering of Canaan as literal, and then justifies the Watchtower view of a "Jehovah" who slaughters even the innocent at Armageddon.

A liturgical text is not a doctrinal text. The religions which sprung from the Second Great Awakening in the United States rejected the ideas that God established the great religions personally by Theophany and (for Christianity) Epiphany. They replaced this with Marcion's view he adopted from the Gnostics, namely that written texts were the ultimate form of divine revelation, and that only a select few can understand them (and those who cling to these and accept the "gnosis" from these select). This made "the Bible" the revelation from God greater than the Theophany at Sinai and the Epiphany Christians see in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, at least for these new religious movements.

The language of the liturgical text is not the language of doctrine, but none of the religions of the Second Great Awakening adopted the liturgical traditions. The Bible was the only form of revelation in their eyes, and thus its words were truth, not the religions that wrote the texts.

Thus you end up with learning as a Watchtower-ee that God literally sent a flood to kill people, and that the Jews slaughtered the Canaanites instead of merged with them. You essentially make "Jehovah" of the Watchtower, a golden calf of a god that judges and slaughters people with the same whims of the heathen and pagan gods. In doing so, they have reversed everything Judaism has done in introducing the God they worship.

29

When you stop & think about it ,why would Gods chosen people in the Old testament need an army ?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

as the op states why would israel /jewish nation need to have an army at all ?

if they were the chosen people as the bible states under a theocracy , why would the men of israel need an army .?

to protect them ?.

David_Jay

Eyeuse2,

It is, indeed, mythology. And therein lies the rub.

The theology is in the Mishnah. The oral tradition of religious catechesis that now makes up the Mishnah came first.

Evenfually, the mishnaic traditions became "storyized," turned into narrative for liturgical purposes. This dramatization of our religion is the Bible.

Later, the mishnaic traditions got written down in the book form of the Mishnah itself. That is the theology and doctrine.

This later became codified into the Talmud because in Judaism adherence to the Mosaic Law as written is wrong. The written form in Scripture is a static snapshot, and it actually violates the Law if you apply it today as how it was understood in the past. Mishnah teaches that Torah is a living breathing thing, adjusting with the times to make "tikklun olam" or service to our neighbors possible. You cannot serve your neighbor in the here and now by forcing them to be as it was long ago.

The Bible is like the Cecil B. DeMille film "The Ten Commandments." It is a dramatization of the real thing found in Mishnah. The Bible is the dramatized, mythology version, with liberties taken for teaching purposes.

So the idea that calling the Bible a bunch of myths just makes a Jew say: "Now you're talking like a Jew!" These myths contain our religious truths, but merely the substance transferred from our religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, told you that the Cecil B. DeMille version is the historically accurate version with doctrine included, and that's just not true.

By what you said, you validate Judaism. You are finally getting it.

29

When you stop & think about it ,why would Gods chosen people in the Old testament need an army ?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

as the op states why would israel /jewish nation need to have an army at all ?

if they were the chosen people as the bible states under a theocracy , why would the men of israel need an army .?

to protect them ?.

David_Jay

The Jewish view goes even one step further, Vidiot, than that applicable Star Trek allusion: Why would humans need to read and study a story about God and his "starship"? If God is real, he should be accessible without reading the story. People who tell you to concentrate on the "detail" of the starship will lead you astray.

29

When you stop & think about it ,why would Gods chosen people in the Old testament need an army ?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

as the op states why would israel /jewish nation need to have an army at all ?

if they were the chosen people as the bible states under a theocracy , why would the men of israel need an army .?

to protect them ?.

David_Jay

The Jewish approach to this matter leaves out the need for faith, belief, and delusion. Why? Because we don't see these texts as historical reports.

They are liturgical narratives, texts designed specifically to be read aloud in formal public worship. They overlay a religious interpretation over our history in order to provide a moral lesson from reflecting on our past, but they are never understood as being either the true story or even the complete one.

Case in point: ever join any of your Jewish friends for a Passover Seder? At the dinner we retell the Exodus story from a book called the Haggadah. You might have noticed that the details of the Exodus differ not in a few ways in the Haggadah compared to the Bible book of Exodus. Why Moses himself is never even mentioned!

This is because our history and even our theology are separate from our liturgical texts, the Scriptures. While Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are the theological and historical basis for religion, Jews see things in a completely opposite way: our religion is the theological and historical basis for the Scriptures.

Our theology, doctrine, and religious practices developed separately before, during, and even after the composition of many Bible texts. The Hebrew Scriptures are the "story" of what we believe, not the basis. What we believe was carried via the ancient practice of oral transmission, and this set of beliefs, doctrine and theology became the Mishnah. The Mishnah was later codified in the Talmud. The Bible contains the stories based on the religion in the Mishnah, not the other way around.

Because of this Jehovah's Witnesses have done you a disservice by teaching you that the battles and other narratives in our Scriptures are literal reports and thus the basis for theology and doctrine. Because the intention of the narratives in Jewish Scripture are to give a setting for the lesson to be preached at the worship service, battles of the past are retold in ways that teach what happens when we obey God and what happens when we ignore God. As you have noticed, sometimes the separate stories contradict one another. This is because they are divided into liturgical portions, the divisions of which are never included into Christian translations, and you are left without realizing that what was meant to apply just to the previous portion and battle does not necessarily have anything to do with the following one.

Lastly, most of the battles and genocide didn't happen at all. Our actual history as well as archeological research and DNA studies all agree that we gradually merged with the people of Canaan. We didn't conquer them. The battles and great slaughters are often symbolic of our desire to say we rooted out all that was heathen from our midst (though we really didn't). Sometimes, however, we were just as violent to some of our neighbors as discussed in the Bible and we probably did even worse a few times and likely left that out possibly as not to make us look bad, but for the most part you have been duped by the Watchtower again. These stories are not designed to be read separate from Jewish doctrinal sources.

18

Arguing with Witnesses vs Trinitarians

by schnell in

jw
friends

i have always been told as a jw that trinitarians, particularly baptists, are just the worst people to argue with out in service.

i have always been told it was the world with a veil over their eyes.

the hypocritical irony is that so many witnesses are completely stubborn and willing to believe in magic before they believe anything against their dogma.

David_Jay

There is a new field of sociology that has been developing over the past decade. It's called "wrongology." It's the study of how people act when they are wrong.

According to "wrongologists," people like the Jehovah's Witnesses are not necessarily delusional. They are just acting the way all humans do with regards to their convictions. Part of it is a survival instinct, part of it is learned.

The instinct part involves the building blocks of experience that act as a foundation for logic. As infants and young children we learn lessons and store what we learn away to build more things upon them. In this process we don't second-guess our primary lessons. Once we learn that fire is "hot" and will "burn" us, and that getting burned "hurts," we don't have to touch fire a second time. We transfer the experience to reasoning that other "hot" things are equally "hurtful." We avoid touching radiators, hot plates, steaming water, etc., almost naturally after we learn the primary lessons. Without this instinct, not only could we not progress in learning, we would never learn to move forward.

But the learned part is what screws up people like the Jehovah's Witnesses. It can even make a stubborn ass out of Baptist, a Jew, even an agnostic and an atheist. Scientists and other critical thinkers can even get messed up because of this learned feature. What is it? It is that in society we are taught from childhood onward that being wrong is "bad."

Wrongologists have discovered that since we have given being wrong a moral label, "bad," the first instinct takes over and we avoid being wrong, believing we are wrong, and even accepting evidence that we are wrong when we are made to face it.

In reality, being mistaken or wrong has no moral value. Neither does being right. But, for instance, we reward when children bring home good grades from school and punish children when they bring home bad grades. This type of behavior in itself is part of the learned behavior that causes the problem. We don't take into consideration that a child may have cheated to get the good grades or that the bad grades are a sign that the child is still trying their best but merely incapable of doing the work assigned. We have developed a society where "gold stars" are given for success, and the whip for failure. This is why many successful people are in reality corrupt, and those who may have failed through school often very honest. Success is not a virtue, and failure is not a sin, but we have been taught this and teach this to others.

Since what we believe about ourselves and the world around us (as well as our place in it) gives us our identity, whenever these convictions are challenged by others we instinctively fight back. In most cases this is normal and necessary. If someone is trying to argue that you are a jellybean and that your life is actually the dream of a drunken frog, you can't accept that. Reality, to an extent, is based on what we believe, how we perceive it.

But if our beliefs are wrong, this instinct to protect our understanding can get in the way. Add to this that we have been taught that being wrong or mistaken is "bad," and the problem has just become like adding fuel to an already wildly burning fire.

Evidence and facts, even the best reasoning will not help. Because what you believe gives you your sense of identity, any attack on your convictions is an attack on you. And if your beliefs are like that of the Witness, where you believe your convictions come from God, being told you are "wrong" gets interpreted as being told you are evil, that your beliefs are evil. Who else but the Devil would claim that beliefs that come from God are evil? So how does the instinct of defense come back? It goes into denial. It ignores. Nothing, not even facts can get through at this point.

And Jehovah's Witnesses aren't being stubborn at this either. Scientists can hold on to theories they prefer even when the evidence is to the contrary. They have been known to bitter fight and resist new theories as they come. A person who is an agnostic or atheist can act the same way too. The Communist regimes are examples of atheists who don't want to believe they are mistaken, even when they slaughter by the millions those who bring the truth of their failings to light.

Finally (and it's even worse news), things like pride and stubbornness and anger can also come into play on top of everything else. This means that a person who is told they are wrong not only has their instincts and primary learning to overcome, their own pride and stubbornness and misbehavior can betray them even further.

So don't be too naive to think that the Witnesses are just being ignorant or stupid. They are acting just the way you do when someone tells you that you are incorrect.

Don't believe me or any of this? Then merely stop and think. If I said everything each poster on this thread wrote was wrong, wouldn't the normal response be to prove me wrong and each person to defend their view while trying to prove they are correct (even if each poster may have totally different views). Each different view cannot be right, and you, just like me, don't like to be told you might be wrong.

Add a cult into the picture that is controlling your every move, and it is just an even harder mess to untangle.

2

The "I" in Jehovah's Witness Religion

by David_Jay in

(yes, i am taking to and about you, "a believer.

ever notice how proponents of jehovah's witnesses tend to say almost the same thing when pushing their views on us?

"i have been doing this study of religion and i have come to these conclusions...".

David_Jay

(Yes, I am taking to and about you, "A Believer." )

Ever notice how proponents of Jehovah's Witnesses tend to say almost the same thing when pushing their views on us?

"I have been doing this study of religion and I have come to these conclusions..."

" I have done the research for myself, so I know... "

"I have learned these things and it was I who have seen that these things are true..."

It is as if the use of "I" guarantees they have reached accurate conclusions, that since "I" have done the research personally, "I" can attest to the accuracy of what "I" am about to tell you.

It is an earmark of JW indoctrination. We who were once Jehovah's Witnesses all spoke similarly. It is the canned "testimony" of the Watchtower inductee, taught to us by the Watchtower itself that if WE have done the research with our own eyes, then WE now have this special gift of accurate knowledge, and everyone else should somehow accept it as true because, after all, someone personally witnessed themselves looking up the verses and explanations offered them from (and approved by) the Watchtower.

"I seen it with my own eyes, from my personal point of view, and so I can testify to the truthfulness of the Watchtower gospel! Can I hear an 'Amen!'?"

Of course, all of us who have left now realize how "I did the research myself" is just a farce. While what indoctrinated drones should be saying is "I personally experienced being led by the hand by another Witness to learn how to come to the conclusions they approve of," regardless of whether it was truly something accomplished by one's own ability or not, the self-centered testimony offers nothing but a warning.

But JW religionists don't do that, do they? They instead all think it's a smart thing to say: I did all the learning myself, so I should truly be trusted.

Even an atheist will tell you: There is no "I" in religion.

Well, of course there is an "i" in the word itself, but religion--even if based on conclusions developed through personal research without outside influence--is not supposed to be an "I" experience. It is a social exercise. "Religion" is about leaving yourself behind, learning if not to adopt the ideals of a group, at least to think about more than yourself so as to transcend self to become something of use to others. It is very much NOT about "I." Religion is about "us," about " we. "

And it can't be done in a vacuum, even if your intention is to reject religion. Why not? Again, ask the atheist. You cannot accept your own personal conclusions. You need to think critically, and this requires getting outside verification that you were thinking right to begin with, reasoning correctly, and came to your conclusions without bias. What you believe is not right until you verify your conclusions with a disinterested party. It's the way of critical thinking, regardless if your intention is to reject or adopt religion.

Especially when it comes to adopting an established religion, one should not take pride in the fact that "I learned this fact by doing the research myself, personally." And why not? Because if you are doing religion right, it means adopting the views of a group and adapting your way of thinking to match theirs. Even when one believes that religion is something beneficial, that benefit is not arrived through what " I" does on its own.

The benefit comes only when the newly indoctrinated leaves "I" behind to take ownership of that which has been passed down to them, which cannot come to them by mere personal effort. Do you ever hear Jews say: "I did the research myself, and now I am Jew?" Do Catholics ever declare, "I came to all the very same conclusions found in 2000 years of doctrine by my own efforts, and now I can say for the honest truth that the Catholic Church is right?" No. Being part of a religion like these is to be entrusted with generations of instruction that transcends a mere lifetime. It is inheriting a legacy that cannot be earned or gained by personal effort. And it is only "true" when the member comes to the conclusions reached by the religious group, not when you reach your own through personal and private study.

There is no "i" in religion, not in any that is not of real of substance anyway. After all, what's the point in being religious if you came up with it all on your own? "I did the research myself, so I know what I am talking about. I know the truth." All those "I did it myself" and "reached the conclusion of having the truth by my own experience" is not the making of actual religion but of a dangerous cult. That's what people call it when you "did religion by youself." It's like the difference between masturbation and actual sex: No matter how much you do it by yourself, when you do it alone it is not the real thing.

Yet even now, supporters of the Watchtower will still join up here and start off their threads and posts with a lot of "I did this" or "I have learned this," reducing religion to a mere "I" experience.

What you are doing is no more logical than the cries of Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or David Koresh: "I've done the research that enabled life-saving truth to come to me. Now I am the one you should listen to." There's a lot of "I" in cult leaders.

19

Jesus in the old testament

by Steel in

about two years ago i was challenged by a householder to do the research on the subject.

of course thinking it was all bunk i decided to take a look off the reservation.

much to my surprise a lot of started to make sense and i started to understand the connections between the old and new testament .

David_Jay

The connection between Jesus Christ and the Sacred Scriptures of the Jewish people is not an immediate one, which is the way it has been reduced by the Jehovah's Witnesses and many literalist Christians.

For instance, there are no texts in any part of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) that speak of "the coming of the Messiah," especially in the sense advanced by Jehovah' Witness theology, namely that Jesus literally fulfilled the common expectation of the Jewish people in this regard.

In reality, not only does Judaism strongly hold that this is not true, the Roman Catholic Church (the largest and historically oldest of the Christian denominations) does not teach this idea either.

Recently the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated on this subject of the connection between the Old and New Testament regarding Christ as the link:

Christian faith [in the Catholic Church] recognises the fulfilment, in Christ, of the Scriptures and the hopes of Israel, but it does not understand this fulfilment as a literal one. Such a conception would be reductionist. In reality, in the mystery of Christ crucified and risen, fulfilment is brought about in a manner unforeseen. It includes transcendence. Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role — that of Messiah — but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance....It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the Old Testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events....The messiahship of Jesus has a meaning that is new and original.--The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.

The Jewish concept of "Messiah" is not directly found in Scripture but is, as most Jewish and Christian scholars now agree, post-Biblical or outside of the realms of Old Testament works. While there are indeed, and without reservation, prophecies about the Messianic age and messianic figures and the David dynasty being the ruling power in texts like those of the prophet Isaiah and even foreshadowed in some of the Psalms (and on this Jews definitely acknowledge), none of the same actually speak of "the Messiah."

As the document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission stated above, there are no texts that say "the Messiah will do such and such" or that "the Messiah will be this or that." The expression "the Messiah" never actually occurs in any of the Old Testament passages, even those that Jews consider to be Messianic prophecies. These texts often speak of a ruler, a king, usually "David," and speak of an era of peace, but never anything like "the Messiah will be a son of David" or "the Messiah will usher in the new world."

The expectations of the Messiah were quite limited by the time of the Second Temple era into which Jesus of Nazareth was born, and the idea was neither central to or universally accepted in Judaism. As the Catholic Church itself acknowledges, "Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role — that of Messiah — but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance."

The Messiah concept of Jesus is far greater than anything imagined or even assumed necessary by the Jews. And the popular expectations of the Jews about the Messiah's role (i.e., that he would restore the Kingdom of Israel, liberate them from foreign rule, gather all members of the Diaspora back to the soil of Israel, usher in an era of enlightenment to all nations and the physical resurrection of the dead) never happened. Like the Catholic Church admits, Jesus cannot be the great Messiah of the New Testament and yet confined to the notions of Messiah held by the Jews or so lightly touched upon in Jewish Scripture. While there is a connection, it requires placing a new hermeneutic approach over the Jewish Scriptures, one which had not existed nor was ever available to the Jews before the Church standardized its doctrine about Jesus.

Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses and their concept of the connection between the two sets of Scriptures finds no support in Judaism or the oldest and original form of Christianity. To accept Jesus as Messiah and as "the connection between the Testaments" requires reading something new into the Scriptures of the Jews, at least according to Catholicism and Judaism.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay