Jesus had a far more merciful way of showing compassion and justice. To the woman caught in the act he said "Go your way; from now on practice sin no more." Let the one who is sinless be first to cast a stone. And isn't disfellowshipping a form of stoning without stones? It's still ostracism. Here was a woman who was a KNOWN UNREPENTANT adultress, even Jesus knew that because he told her to practice sin NO MORE (meaning he knew her to be a practicer of sin). But Jesus didn't cast her away at all. He embraced her lovingly and showed her the way to God's open arms. There's also the story of the Prodigal Son who left his Father's house to squander his money and live a debauched life. He came to his senses later, and went home. When he got there, his Father ran to him before he even got through the gate. Now, in the JW congregation, the "father" doesn't run after you when you come home. No, you have to PROVE YOURSELF before they even welcome you back. Usually it takes a year. Instead, the JWs would rewrite the parable like this: "And when the son approached, the father first warned all the children not to associate with him. Then, with caution and seriousness, he tells his son that he must sleep in the basement until the father is convinced he's "clean" enough to be permitted access to the rest of the house. A year later, the son was allowed access to the rest of the house, but the father and the rest of the children were still suspicious of him for a while. So for several more months his father reminded him that he was spiritually weak, and still needed time before he was given any privileges in the house. In this way, my shed blood is not enough to cover his sins. He must work his way to acceptance." THAT is how the JWs behave. There is no mercy. Only a sad, institutionalized legalism. It doesn't reflect Christ's mercy, no matter how the Witnesses dress it up as "loving discipline."
pralis
JoinedPosts by pralis
-
26
The dreaded disfellowshiping
by link in.
i have been informed on good authority (a dub for 27 years) that you cannot get disfelowshiped for committing a wrongdoing, only for being unrepentant.. can anyone tell me if this is true or not, and if it is not where the misunderstanding comes from?
link
-
-
-
7
Why do JW cringe at certain words?
by TR infor example: bulletin board.
(from cambridge international dictionary of english).
(british and australian) a notice board (am bulletin board) is a board on a wall on which notices can be fixed.
-
-
pralis
JWs are so concerned about the ROOTS of certain items, such as birthday celebrations, Christmas, Easter, saying "God bless you" when you sneeze, refraining from saying "good luck", etc. I'm surprised American Witnesses are still using the names for the days of the week, since they're mostly based on Norse gods and goddesses. For example, Wednesday is "Woden's Day". Thursday is "Thor's Day". Friday is "Freya's Day". Saturday is "Saturn's Day". And so on. Can any JW own a Ford "Taurus"? Can they drink Welch's grape juice, since Mr. Welch's ORIGINAL purpose for the Welch's company was to make and supply sacramental wine (which JWs believe is part of pagan worship)?
Yes, it all sounds silly. But that's the whole point.
Pralis
-
12
Did God Change?
by tdogg ini had a discussion with some greek orthodox members recently.
i was pointing out the disparity between the brutal behavior of "gods people in the o.t.
and the pacifistic way in which jesus was to have behaved in the n.t.. they accounted for this by explaining that god changed during that time.
-
-
pralis
Remember that Israel was bound to the provisions of the Law Covenant inaugurated at Sinai. A covenant is essentially a contract -- if you do a-b-c then I'll provide x-y-z. One of the clauses of the Law Covenant was that if Israel disobeyed God, began worhsipping other gods, and became involved in the practices the Law strictly prohibited, then Jehovah would punish them accordingly. So in other words, God was simply keeping His end of the contract when He behaved in a brutal way toward His people (who were not keeping their part of the contract).
And remember that after each time He disciplined His people, He ALWAYS implored them to return to Him. His brutal behavior was the prescribed disipline, but it was always with the purpose of turning them back around. In this way He showed an astounding love for Israel, even after all that nation had done.
And no, God does not change. The only thing that changed was the covenant arrangement. Christians are now under the New Covenant, which basically teaches that fellowship with God is through obedience to Christ's teachings and faith in his ransom sacrifice, not through the observance of law codes. The result is everlasting life. In the Old Covenant Jehovah acted immediately when His people were disobedient. Under the New Covenant, there is one day which Jehovah reserves to exact justice and judgment for those who responded favorably or unfavorably to the New Covenant.
Pralis
-
8
1914 - on the way out?
by PopeOfEruke inas i haven't read any jw literature some 10 years or more now, can anyone tell me when was the last time that 1914 was seriously mentioned or discussed in a wt or book or whatever?.
and when was the last time the calculation of the "7 times" which leads to 1914 was actually put down in writing in jw lit?
has it been in a wt study article recently?.
-
-
pralis
And of course there was that November 1995 Watchtower that seriously changed their thinking on the bogus 1914 doctrine. In that issue they stated that "this generation" no longer really means the generation alive since 1914, but now simply means the generation that will be living at the time of those signs mentioned in Matthew.
There are tremendous and far reaching implications that this change had on many of their other doctrines, such as the Anointed Class doctrine. I remember even in 1991 private discussions in my congregation that since "this generation" will by no means pass away before all these things occur (i.e., the signs of the end), then Armageddon must be coming withing ten or so years, 20 tops. Why did we believe that? Because the WT taught that some anointed would still be alive when Christ came. So we reasoned that since they're so old, and that they'd almost certainly be dead within 10 or 20 years, that Armageddon was imminent.
Of course that all changed in 1995.
However, what troubles me the most is that when they change their teachings they say it is Jehovah who is "stirring" the congregation of His people. That's a rather dangerous assertion. I'm reminded of something from Jeremiah. Jehovah was instructing Jeremiah to expose the error of Israel and Judah, and in so doing went on to say about their prophets: "Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied. Yes," declares the Lord, "I am against the prophets who wag their own tongues and yet declare, 'The Lord declares.'" (Jeremiah 23:16, 21, 31) Sound familiar? I wonder why they have never asked for forgiveness for the error of their teachings. Jehovah would certainly forgive. Sadly, though, that's not the case.
And it's interesting to imagine that if some Witnesses started teaching at the doors something the GB threw out because of "new light", would they be disfellowshiped for teaching something now considered incorrect?
Pralis
-
12
Partaking of the emblems
by pralis ini've always been curious as to the reasons why only "the anointed" were permitted to partake of the emblems at the memorial.
we all know that the wtbts says the "other sheep" are the non-anointed christians who merely observe the memorial (by the way, by "other sheep" jesus was talking about the gentiles that would become part of the new covenant; he wasn't referring to some strange class of non-anointed christians).
they've often compared the situation to the foreigners in the congregation of israel who were not permitted to observe the passover (see exodus 12:38, 43 -- they draw this correlation because the memorial is the replacement for the passover observance).
-
-
pralis
Hi Justin.
Thanks for those insights.
It's interesting you mentioned the Laymens Home Missionary Movement. That they permit their earthly class to partake of the emblems so as to at least receive the benefits of the ransom seems to have a very Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox flavor (i.e., that the bread and wine somehow truly impart the benefits of the ransom).
I also don't buy the WT arguments as to why the "other sheep" shouldn't partake of the emblems (especially since in the Old Covenant foreigners who became circumcised and gave their oath to obey the Law were considered Israelites, just as much as the fleshly descendants of Isaac...see my notes above). And yes, it does appear that for some reason the GB/WTBTS has this compulsion to promote this "elitist" doctrine, especially when Paul said there is neither Jew nor Greek, freeman nor slave, etc etc.
As for what the truth is . . . well, suffice it to say I'm sure Jesus would tell us it's so much simpler than what so many churches try to push. Immortal soul, going to heaven, slave class/heavenly class, rapture, hellfire, millennium, born again, bla bla bla. As for me, I keep it simple: follow Christ's explicit teachings, continue in love, and wait for him. Plain and simple. Oh, and of course encourage and invite others to do the same. A lot of it has to do with me being convinced to stop worrying about details I needn't be worried about, and let Jehovah take charge of matters. He knows better anyway.
I suppose that's what faith is.
Pralis
-
13
Spoke with a dub on ever changing doctrine...
by stocwach ini asked him how could it be the true religion with all the numerous doctrinal changes.
this is how he replied to me in an email:.
" another thing mentioned was the apostles (known as the governing body).
-
-
pralis
Oops!!
Sorry . . . [:|]
-
13
Spoke with a dub on ever changing doctrine...
by stocwach ini asked him how could it be the true religion with all the numerous doctrinal changes.
this is how he replied to me in an email:.
" another thing mentioned was the apostles (known as the governing body).
-
-
pralis
Hi NeonMadman.
You mentioned something in your post that I wanted to respond to. It was this:
"Also another thing that is confusing is that for 4000 years, non jews had no opportunity to be god's covenant people since God made this covenant exclusive to the jewish nation."
This isn't entirely correct. Non-Jews certainly had opportunity to become His covenant people. Read Exodus 12:48, 49; Leviticus 19:33. Those foreigners and alien residents who wished to become FULL members of the congregation of Israel had to be circumcised and dedicate themselves to full obedience to the Law Covenant. One such example is Ruth, who married Boaz, the grandfather of King David. Why is this significant? Because Ruth was a Moabite. She also became a full-fledged adherent to the Law Covenant, as is seen in her statement to Naomi (a Jew) that "your people will be my people, and your God my God." (Ruth 1:16). She was a full convert. And interestingly the Law Covenant specifically stipulated against Moabites entering the assembly of Israel (see Deuteronomy 23:3, 4). Ruth's coversion would appear to be evidence that non-Israelites were indeed permitted to become full members of the nation, via the initiation requirements (of course, in her case, circumcision was obviously not possible). Ultimately, she would become an ancestor of Jesus of Nazareth.
Pralis
-
12
Partaking of the emblems
by pralis ini've always been curious as to the reasons why only "the anointed" were permitted to partake of the emblems at the memorial.
we all know that the wtbts says the "other sheep" are the non-anointed christians who merely observe the memorial (by the way, by "other sheep" jesus was talking about the gentiles that would become part of the new covenant; he wasn't referring to some strange class of non-anointed christians).
they've often compared the situation to the foreigners in the congregation of israel who were not permitted to observe the passover (see exodus 12:38, 43 -- they draw this correlation because the memorial is the replacement for the passover observance).
-
-
pralis
Hi puzzled.
I'm sure that's also one of the ways the GB would interpret the matter. However, that there is an Earthly class and a Heavenly class does not hold up to Scriptural scrutiny. In other words, there's no such thing. And the major source of the WTBTS teaching on two separate classes is their interpretation of the Book of Revelation, along with other verses of scipture here and there thrown about as if the Bible were a recipe book. Further, I'm astonished that the writings of the Greek Scriptures are considered inspired and self-validating. They aren't. Jesus himself CONSTANTLY called people's minds back to the Prophets in order to show that their writings foretold his coming as Messiah. In other words, he promoted seeking the Hebrew Scriptures to validate any claims made in regards to the Messiah. Further, the Bereans examined the Scriptures (i.e., Hebrew Scriptures) in order to determine whether the things Paul said held up to srutiny. Is that not also our responsibility before God, to seek the evidence in the Hebrew Scriptures to see if what we are being taught holds up to prophetic scrutiny? Yes. This also pertains to Paul's letters, and all that is contained in the writings of the Greek Scriptures.
As regards the GB interpretation of Revelation, they themselves wrote in the very beginning of the "Revelation Book" that they are not infallible. In other words, their interpretations could very well be wrong. It's a dangerous position they put themselves in. Here's an example: one of the reasons why we don't subscribe to the formulation of the teaching of the trinity is because it is not explicitly taught in Scripture. People use spatterings of verses which may perhaps only HINT at a possible support for their assertions about the trinity. What IS explicitly taught is that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God. However, this same "scripture recipe" argument also rules out the WTBTS doctrine of the anointed class of Christians. There is no explicit teaching in Scripture which reveals this teaching as true. Actually there's more support for a trinty doctrine than there is for some anointed class.
Consider this: the only way to become one of God's people in the ancient nation of Israel was to become circumcised and become a dedicated adherent of the law. If you were an alien RESIDENT in Israel without having been circumcised, you were simply NOT one of God's people and did not have access to the full benefits of the Law, such as the privilege of observing the Passover. This was reserved only for God's people, the circumcised adherents to the Law Covenant.
The New Covenant came, nullifying the Old via the sacrifice of Christ. He instituted the Memorial as the "Passover" celebration of the New Covenant. Never did he say there were those who were NOT to partake of the emblems (even the "other sheep"). Like those who became God's people in the Old Covenant, so we who are God's people in the New Covenant are to partake of the emblems as a sign of our committment to the New Covenant in Christ.
And we are still God's people, His Israel. Although we have no dedicated territory, we are still His nation. The only change is a change in covenants (see Romans 9:6-8 and compare Hosea 2:23, Isaiah 55:5, 56:3, 6-8). Where the Old Covenant did not fully provide for the forgiveness of sins, the New Covenant now does through Christ's perfect ransom sacrifice. We who seek such forgiveness and become God's people are welcomed into this New Covenant. Therefore ALL those who are baptised and seek forgiveness of sins through the New Covenant arrangement should partake of the emblems at the Memorial celebration.
-
12
Partaking of the emblems
by pralis ini've always been curious as to the reasons why only "the anointed" were permitted to partake of the emblems at the memorial.
we all know that the wtbts says the "other sheep" are the non-anointed christians who merely observe the memorial (by the way, by "other sheep" jesus was talking about the gentiles that would become part of the new covenant; he wasn't referring to some strange class of non-anointed christians).
they've often compared the situation to the foreigners in the congregation of israel who were not permitted to observe the passover (see exodus 12:38, 43 -- they draw this correlation because the memorial is the replacement for the passover observance).
-
-
pralis
I've always been curious as to the reasons why only "the anointed" were permitted to partake of the emblems at the Memorial. We all know that the WTBTS says the "other sheep" are the non-anointed Christians who merely observe the Memorial (by the way, by "other sheep" Jesus was talking about the Gentiles that would become part of the New Covenant; he wasn't referring to some strange class of non-anointed Christians). They've often compared the situation to the foreigners in the congregation of Israel who were not permitted to observe the Passover (see Exodus 12:38, 43 -- they draw this correlation because the Memorial is the replacement for the Passover observance). HOWEVER, what we were taught by the Governing Body is severely skewed, and incomplete. Look at Exodus 12:48 (and Numbers 9:14) and you will discover that foreigners WERE permitted to observe the Passover PROVIDED they underwent initiation (i.e., circumcision) to become FULL members under the Covenant. Exodus 12:49 (NIV) states: "The SAME law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you." (see also Leviticus 19:33, 34) Obviously, then, the Covenantr relationship in the nation of Israel was open to ALL who desired to abide by its principles and laws, whether natural Israelite or not. SO if the Old Covenant was a pattern, is it not reasonable to conclude that we "alien residents" of the "vast mixed company" class (I really hate that word; compare James 2:4) also are FULL members of the New Covenant, and therefore should partake of the emblems? YES!! And what is OUR initiation into the New Covenant? Baptism.
-
13
Eternal Life on Earth?
by Flaming Seraphim inhey do you guys really believe that we are going to live on a paradise earth forever and ever?
if so, count me out.
there is no way i want to spend the rest of eternity confined in physical body on this planet!
-
-
pralis
If there will be a new heavens AND a "new earth" (Isaiah 65:17), this new earth must have a purpose. It makes sense that in the "restoration" (see Acts 3:21, Matthew 19:28) humans will live on earth. Besides, isn't earth where Adam and Eve were designed for anyway? This is our home.
But to simplify all of this, even if the Scriptures weren't clear (and they are) as to where we were to spend eternity after our resurrection "at the end of the days" (see Daniel 12:2, 13, John 11:24), the location isn't of PRIMARY importance or consequence. What IS important is that we have the gift of eternal life. That alone is just fine with me, and frankly I wouldn't care where God wished to have me spend it. It's life without end!!
Pralis