Posts by ros

22

Christians CAN eat blood.

by proplog2 in

there is no need to address all the knotty pharasaical arguments used by the watchtower to defend their blood policy.

mark got the point jesus was making in the 7th chapter of mark.

"thus he declared all foods clean".

ros

Hi, Proplog2:

Your insights--or should I say "progress"--are interesting. :-)

Blessings,

61

Born Again?

by IT Support in

to those who consider themselves christian.... is it possible to be a christian without being 'born again'?.

did you get baptised again after leaving jws?.

confused.... ken.

ros

Grace:

Check your message in-box. :-)

~Ros

61

Born Again?

by IT Support in

to those who consider themselves christian.... is it possible to be a christian without being 'born again'?.

did you get baptised again after leaving jws?.

confused.... ken.

LittleToe:I tend to agree in principle with just about everything you responded to my post. Very nicely stated, too. While I still think Jesus was trying to describe spirit resurrection to Nicodemus, you're right that there are some places where terms like "rebirth" etc. are applied as to the present repentant condition, though I tend to think of that as figurative. The example I have used at times is:

Suppose we were in circumstances of being stranded on a remote deserted island in the ocean. We HOPE that we will be found and saved. After some months, a ship appears on the horizon, and it becomes bigger and bigger until it is obvious that the ship is coming to the island. We shout: "We are saved! We are saved!"
Now, we have FAITH that we are found and will be saved. But in our faith we already feel saved even though the reality will be when we have been removed from the island and arrived safe and cozy at home. Is that how you might also differentiate hope and faith?

My point about "personal relationship" not being in the Bible, although I agree with the principle, is that I tend to avoid terminology not contained in Scripture that lends to being identified with certain sects of Christianity. So I don't usually use that particular phrase in defining my spiritual relationship with God--as I did with that caveat in our discussion.

Yeru:Back when I was JW-baptised, it was in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Grace:
How are you, love? I didn't get cards sent out this year, so don't think I forgot you. You wrote:

Hi ros nice to see you here.It has been a long time .

Least a year--last Xmas I think. :-)

I think Little Toe has a real handle on the word IMHO.

You mean "born again"? Yes, I understand that is the evangelical position. To be honest, I don't know anyone else in the world who has come to the conclusion that I did about the term. (How's that for an independent "personal relationship"? :-D))) However, I've presented the thought to some folks who say the idea is definitely viable. I have no idea how orthodox views the term.
I've also discovered some other very interesting points (at least I think so) by avoiding religious terminology not in Scripture. It's just my way of staving off subliminal doctrinal persuasion.

That is one of the reasons I stopped attending BRCI -They did seem to think they were Christians when they were JWs.In fact I have a tape where Ron Frye even stated this.(You can hear my response to him on it also...I dont think any JWs are Christians.)

Well, as you know, that is a reason why some of us are not excited about the Pennsylvania group. I do believe I was a Christian when I was a JW, albeit my convert perception of the whole experience was vastly different from that of people raised in the religion. I had already been taught about Christ, and the ladies who were my mentors were the same as me--out of evangelical religion before they were JWs. Early in my Bible study I was taught that Jehovah's Witnesses were progressive in their Bible study. We (converts) delved deep into the doctrine of hell first, then soul, and then trinity. I still agree with the Adventist conclusions on those doctrines. My general experience has been that most JWs didn't study doctrine to the degree that we converts out of other religions did. (I didn't want to be wrong about Hell ! That was the biggee in my day--not trinity.) The reason I was taught that we did not dwell week after week on preaching salvation through Christ over and over is stated at Hebrews 6:1:

Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And we will do this, if God permits.

Consequently, while Christ was always in my perception as the redeemer and mediator between me and Jehovah, because I had already been taught of Jesus since early childhood (been "born again" twice), it never occurred to me that people raised in JWs would not have a basis to perceive Christ as I did.

To be a Christian one must be a follower Of Christ.Obviously JW are followers of OLD MEN...I was also one of those .

I was not. And I was often criticised for it, too. I never believed the Watchtower over the Bible--ever! Many JWs did not consider me to be a real JW or a Christian. So I guess I'm really caught in between--JWs don't consider me Christian, Evangelicals don't consider me Christian, they don't consider each other Christian. . . all I've got is my "personal relationship". Well, I kinda like it that way.

I thought Jesus was Micheal the Ark Angel. NOT!!!!

To me, it's immaterial whether Jesus was Michael or not. It's whom He is raised to be after his sojourn on earth that matters. HOWEVER--I believe this firmly: That if a person with the best of intentions concludes that the Bible teaches that Jesus was Michael before He came to earth, that belief does not preclude him/her from being a Christian, or conforming to the teachings of Jesus, and I do not believe God will torture such one for eternity. Conversely, if Jesus was Michael, I do not believe it precludes trinitarians from being Christians and I do not believe God will torture them for their error--UNLESS they are to be judged as they judged. (Maybe we should pray that whomever is wrong, forgive them Lord, for they know not . . .)

I do hope your well.

Doing very well. My mom is moved here and is in assisted living. I'm her guardian, so have that added responsibility. Believe it or not, have started a new career at my age. Never would have thought, but feel really lucky.

Jim called the other day... I am still in touch with him & Dan

Is Jim in Canada now? I haven't talked with him in a while--since spring. I know he was planning a trip through Europe, but didn't know whether he made it. I've been waiting to hear about his book, whether it has been published yet. I did get a call from Richard Rawe yesterday. He's going to be hosting a conference (imagine that) in Washington where I was a JW. He said AlanF is coming to debate another fellow on creationism. They're trying to get Greg Stafford to come as well.

Will you be at the next BRCI...???

Yes. I missed it last year because I hadn't accrued vacation leave yet. But I'm planning to make it this year. I might like to try to do a graphical presentation on ancient Israel--if they might be interested. :-)

sorry to steal the thread for my questions...((HUG)))

Hey, everyone, my apologies too. Sorry for treating this like Chat. Nice diversion for us, though, huh Grace?-- since it has been a while. Hugs to you, too, love.

Blessings,
~Ros

61

Born Again?

by IT Support in

to those who consider themselves christian.... is it possible to be a christian without being 'born again'?.

did you get baptised again after leaving jws?.

confused.... ken.

ros

LittleToe:

Just to make sure I didn't give a false impression, let me quote myself:

I agree with you that Christianity is a "personal relationship" (term not in the Bible) rather than association with any organization or doctrinal beliefs.

You said:

Ros:Personal relationship:
(Jesus words - "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3 KJV)"Know" (ginosko) means more than just "Accurate Knowledge", as the JW's portray. It has a personal quality.

Here is how the Amplified Bible (AMP) renders John 17:3:

John 17
3 And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent.

I had not thought about this text in the way I think you are expressing it--that is, as meaning salvation is held now (in the past tense)? I think of the word "know" in this scripture as carrying more depth than just "I know Him." While I agree with you, as I said, that Christianity is a personal relationship with God--a spiritual one--and I agree that to know someone has a personal quality (not necessarily a personal relationship), I'm not sure I am getting the point. Does your point agree with the scriptural points I mentioned. If not, how does it differ?

Jesus and the apostles frequently used the term "inherit" or "inheritance" with reference to salvation, again usually in the future tense (e.g., "will inherit", not "have inherited." Examples:

Ephesians 1:13,14:
Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession--to the praise of his glory.
Colossians 3:24
... since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.

You said:

Salvation gained while physically alive:
There are examples of this in the Old Testament, too, such as the Psalms and the prophets (e.g. Isaiah and Jeremiah).

Maybe I'm confused by semantics. Christ was the "first fruits" of salvation. I'm distinguishing between salvation and the hope of salvation. Do you believe Christ's kingdom was established while he was on earth or after His death and resurrection?
What OT examples are you referring to?
Where does faith come in? If I own a precious treasure, knowing that I have it is not faith. What I have now does not require faith. But if I'm promised a treasure as a reward for something, and I believe the promise, then I do what is necessary on faith. It's faith because I don't have it yet, but I believe I will. This can apply to inheritance, too.

It's not just a "Fundamentalist" or "Born Again Denomination" teaching, it's pretty much mainstream, especially in Calvinist circles.
IMHO, an assurance of salvation leads one to act out of love instead of fear. It seems far more in line with the concept of a God of love, rather than one who expects us to ever live up to something we can't live up to.

I apologize if it seems my reference to "fundamentalist" or "born-again denomination" sounds critical or demeaning--I don't mean it that way. I simply don't know what would be a term that distinguishes the general group of church denominations who more or less share the same view about "born again," the experience of getting "saved" in a Holy Spirit experience by asking Jesus to come into their heart, and are similar in the way they express their faith. I consider orthodox Christianity mainstream (e.g., Catholic, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians). I think you'll agree that they differ from mainstream Baptists, Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Nazerenes, and in recent years a lot of so-called "non-denominational" churches, which are the general class of churches I refer to as "fundamentalists" or "born-again denominations" because people tend to understand those definitions. Then there are Adventist groups. And again there are the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, which are collectively another general classification. I mean no disrespect for any of these groups.

It's also not clear why you might think I'm describing a God who expects more of people than what they are capable of.
Jesus said the widow's mite was more than the treasures given by the rich. On the other hand, I don't believe God tortures people for eternity because they didn't ask Jesus to come into their heart.

Thanks for your perspective, though. I find it fascinating to see how others interpret scripture

I agree with that. I accept (dare I say that "f" word) denominations, as well as many others, even us non-church-goers, as Christian. I was impressed by a minister in the Church of the Brethren in my town. Church of the Brethren used to be much like the Quakers and Mennonites and Anabaptists. They reformed and now they promote no doctrine except Christ as Lord and pacificism. This particular minister's congregation sponsored an Islamic family to come to this country some years ago, and he was telling me how the family visited their church occasionally out of appreciation. He said, "You see, we accept them as our brothers in Christ." Now I think that is the spirit of Christianity. What Christians need to be careful about, imo, is judgmentalness.

Blessings,
~Ros

61

Born Again?

by IT Support in

to those who consider themselves christian.... is it possible to be a christian without being 'born again'?.

did you get baptised again after leaving jws?.

confused.... ken.

ros

LittleToe:One of the ways I find that the Bible speaks to me in a more revealing way, at least seems so to me, is to avoid all terminology derived from church doctrines that are not contained in the Bible itself, and which imo carry a preconceived doctrinal notion. If one believes the Bible to be inspired, then they should also believe that God stated what is necessary for salvation without added definitions not contained therein. Having said that, I agree with you that Christianity is a "personal relationship" (term not in the Bible) rather than association with any organization or doctrinal beliefs. But I also think the term "born again", which IS a term by Jesus in the Scriptures, is referring to spirit resurrection, not confession of Christ as savior and on-going relationship with Him. The term is simply not used in that way.
The cross-doctrine from two terms that are in the Bible, "born again" and "saved" in the past-tense, is fundamentalist doctrine that I find no Scriptural basis for, and which leads some to judgmental belief.

=======================

archangel01: I understand quite well the "born-again" church doctrine (not withstanding individual variations), I just don't agree with that concept; that is, being in the past tense. I'll re-quote your scripture to support my point:

2Corinthians cha 5 vs 1-10. I love the wording in vs 3 "For we will not be spirits without bodies, but we will put on new heavenly bodies.

Notice: 1) That they "...will not be spirits without bodies, but we will..." is definitely future tense.
2) what they will put on (future tense, not past) is heavenly bodies (i.e., the kind they will have when resurrected that can enter the spirit realm wherein the kingdom of God is).

=======================

ClassAvenger: Again, you have stated the doctrine very well. However, I tend to disagree with the interpretation your doctrine applies in this:

The water does not mean baptism, thats the Roman Catholic church interpretation of this passage and so they baptize all the children when they are born. To be born from water is to receive God's grace. The water symbolizes His grace for us, look at Ezekiel 36:25. It is a metaphorical sense of the word.

My interpretations do not come from Roman Catholic (a denomination I have never personally experienced). I'll simply quote some scriptural texts that seem to not support the popular "born again" doctrine imo:

20 ??In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. (1Pet.3:20-22 NIV)
Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

The "born again" doctrine goes hand-in-hand with the "have you been saved" doctrine. This use of "past tense" is what prompts the Baptist doctrine of "once saved always saved". Rarely in scripture is the term "saved" used in other than future tense (i.e., "will be saved", as opposed to "have been saved"). Example (just one of many many) is Jesus words in Matt.10:22 and 24:13: "He that endures to the end will be saved." Do a look-up on the term "saved" in the NT and you'll see what I mean. One example of "saved" in the present/passive tense ("are being saved") is Paul's words at 1Cor.1:18 and 2:15. An example of "saved" in the past tense is at Romans 8:24 where Paul says:

but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.--Romans 8:23-25 NIV

~Ros

61

Born Again?

by IT Support in

to those who consider themselves christian.... is it possible to be a christian without being 'born again'?.

did you get baptised again after leaving jws?.

confused.... ken.

ros

Greetings, all:

From my Bible study I have an entirely different perspective of "born again" than what the churches teach. Before I explain that, let me say that I was "born again" twice before becoming a Jehovah's Witness; first time at the conclusion of a summer series of Bible studies for kids sponsored by Baptists (age 10), and later in an off-shoot of the Church of Christ (age 14) which believed they were "the true religion". I later thought I was doomed for backsliding, beginning with going to a movie (Walt Disney?s Cinderella) and then later getting a job as usherette at a theater. So I came to Jehovah's Witnesses (age 18) with a concept of Christ as savior that was with me through my several years of JW experience.

JT said:

the bible teaches and its followers accept that if you don't have the classification of Born Again, God is going to Kill you-

Only certain fundamentalist denominations teach that doctrine.

You also asked how many Christians do not believe this. Well, first we should define what Jesus meant by ?born again?. In my opinion the Bible teaching is something very different from what the churches of the ?born again? doctrine teach. If you do a Bible search of the term ?born again? (exact phrase) it reports three occurrences: twice in John 3 when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, and once in 1Pet.1:3. All three occurrences appear to simply be referring to resurrection imo.

Remember, the Jewish culture uses symbolism to a great degree. (e.g., Jesus is bread and wine.) Also, the Jews were expecting the coming of Messiah to be a literal king who would conquer Rome and reestablish the throne of David to the temple in Jerusalem and the nation of Israel. That is likely what Nicodemus was inquiring about in John chapter 3. Jesus was trying to explain that his kingdom would not be of this world, so he said: ??no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.? This baffled Nicodemus, and he asked how one could be born a second time. Jesus replied: ?no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. (Remember, baptism symbolizes being put to death in flesh and coming to life in spirit?death and resurrection imo.) In fact Jesus goes on to say quite explicitly: ?What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.? Later in the conversation, Jesus referred to it as understanding ?heavenly things?. (Also noteworthy, when Jesus speaks of ?wind? in the 8 th verse, it is from the same Greek word as ?spirit?.

The only other occurrence of ?born again?: ?Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you. (1 Pet.1:3--NRSV) ("born again" in the NIV and KJ versions.)

It goes right along with ?flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God? (1Cor.15:50).

So if that be the correct understanding, then, of course, one would have to be ?born again? (i.e., resurrected a spirit) to enter the kingdom of God.

But it's not an earthly, dramatic, momentary, Holy-Spirit experience of getting "saved". I find no scriptural support for that doctrine, and it never happened to me in my preJW religious experience.

As for getting re-baptised: Some Christians feel they should be rebaptised because since 1980-something the dedication was to the Watchtower Organization. Baptism generally is understood to mean faith in Christ's redemption. If that was your understanding and intent, then why should you need to be rebaptised?

~Ros

20

Can Jesus "Save" you from Jehovah's Witnesses?

by jst2laws in

i recieved a pm from a born again christian asking how i might aid him in helping a relative excape the wt.

while i am not a born again christian, the teaching of jesus that we can remove guilt and be right with god just by believing it is done helped me out.

gal 3:11-13: consequently, it is clear that no one can ever win god's favor by trying to keep the jewish laws, because god has said that the only way we can be right in his sight is by faith.

ros

Jst2laws:

I often get requests like that from people who have never been JWs, wanting me to tell them how to prove Jehovah's Witnesses wrong, and how to help JWs get the "real Jesus."

I was "born again" twice--in both Baptist (10 years old) and Church of Christ (14 years old) denominations. I also had considerable exposure to charasmatic hell-fire-preaching religion in attending revival meetings of traveling evangelists (shades of Elmer Gantry--what we had before televangelism) when my Christian Science grandmother would visit for the summers. This was prior to my becoming a JW at the age of 18, independent of the rest of my family. Between the ages of 14 and 18, I pondered my beliefs apart from the Bible, and then when I was exposed to the teachings of the Watchtower, I studied the initial doctrines of hellfire and soul quite deeply--as I think we who were converts were much more inclined to do than people raised in the religion. After all, we were having to denounce what we had always been taught, so 'proof' was more crucial than blind acceptance. (Trinity was not the big issue in that time as it is now--hell-fire and "born again" were the biggees.) Now it's Trinity and "not by works".

Here's my perspective (which is just my opinion): There is no such thing as "unconditional love". The scriptures do not teach it imo. What there is, is unconditional forgiveness (grace) IF we acknowledge our wrong/bad/sin (confession) and repent. The reason it is grace is because the "wages of sin is death" and we have all sinned. But because of 'grace' we have the opportunity to be judged for our goodness rather than our wrongs IF we are repentant. That is the gift.

As for works, I compare it this way: We were given the gift of life (human life) at birth. We did not earn it. But it will not survive unless we eat and have shelter. And to have food and shelter we must work. Works did not give us life. Money did not buy life. It was a free gift. But life without works will die. When I think of it that way, it is easy to understand "faith without works is dead." Then, go to Gateway.com and look up every occurrence of "works" in the King James Bible (because other versions use other terms like "deeds", "actions", "what they have done", etc., depending on the version). What I found is that there are more instances of obligation for Christian to do good works by far than there is implying that 'doing' good is not necessary. The difference is what is defined as "good works". Helping the needy is right up there at the top. Love = charity.

The falicy of the Watchtower is they teach that spreading lies is good works. The more time you spend spreading their lies, instead of helping the needy, the more good works you're doing. More, more, more . . . or you will die. Lies! :-)

~Ros

11

Just wait five years

by Euphemism in

i was just reading crisis of conscience, and i was struck by something a judicial committee said to ed dunlap.the committee urged him to "wait on the organization," saying, "who knows?

perhaps five years from now many or all of these things you are saying will be published and taught.".

it struck me because when i had my meeting with the elders, one of them said almost the exact same thing.. ironic, isn't it?

ros

When I began discussing my observations in Revelation (only with "mature ones", of course) that Armageddon, the resurrection of the "rest of the dead", judgment, and the new earth did not occur until "after the end of the thousand years"--not at the beginning as the WTS teaches (Rev. 20)--and I could find no scripture basis to support our belief about the "last generation" never dying and a new earth DURING the thousand years, I was warned. After considerable effort to rationalize the WTS position to me, one of the "annointed" said "... and this is a warning: You might be right, but you could be disfellowshipped for 'getting ahead of the Organization.' "

He cited an example of a Witness brother who challenged a WT teaching. The fellow could not be persuaded, was disfellowshipped, and about 3 years later the Watchtower came out with "new light" on scripture in agreement with what the man had been disfellowshipped for professing.

Oh well, we all know that Russell and Rutherford would be disfellowshipped today for their beliefs, and quite probably Knorr and Frederick Franz as well.

Watchtower moral: It is better to have 100% blind unity in the dark than a fraction of light.

~Ros

64

Anointed Class? What Anointed Class?

by never_a_jw in

please, take the time to read this:.

the wts teaches that only the anointed 144,000 seen in revelation 7 will enter heaven (the "anointed class"), while the remainder that are not annihilated (the "other sheep") will live forever on earth in paradise.

however, the bible poses some irreconcilable difficulties with this idea.

ros

2 Corinthians 1 20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. 21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, . . ."

~Ros

40

Disassociation and Ray Franz

by greatteacher in

does anyone think that the rule which states that "associating with a disassociated person is a disfellowshipping offense" was created to disfellowship ray franz?

the reason i ask this is because i noticed that the watchtower published many articles with that rule at the same time period franz left bethal, but published nothing about it before around 1981.

ros

Prior to the time of Ray Franz's DFing, people could leave the Watchtower religion by "disassociating" themselves and avoid the ramifications of shunning. That is what Peter Gregerson did. When Ray had lunch with him (he was Ray's employer), it was not a DFing offense to associated with a DA'd person. That was the appeal of DAing in those days if one found they could no longer support JW doctrine.

Word is that the decision to DF Ray Franz had already been made prior to Ray's departure from Bethel (according to Schroeder). But the Watchtower's attorneys advised the Governing Body committee that because of Ray's status in the organization, if they booted him out at retirement age after his years of service in the organization headquarters, he might have monetary legal recourse against them. However, they advised, if they allowed him to resign, and they offered him a sum of money to re-settle, and he accepted it, he would have no further legal recourse for litigation against them. It was shortly after Ray accepted their separation "gift" that the policy toward disassociated Witnesses was changed to treat such ones the same as disfellowshipped. That is also when the word "apostate" began coming to the fore like storm into JW-speak.

Coincidence? I doubt it.
For example, prior to Ray Franz's DFing, the WTS was not paranoid about members reading literature published by former JWs. Most Witnesses I knew when I first came in had read the book "Thirty Years a Slave to the Watchtower" and other literature against their religion. In those days, they were referred to as "evil slaves," not "apostates". I remember when some of them were distributing little pamphlets around assemblies, we would take them and read them. No one was particularly worried. We knew we could refute their stuff. But when Ray Franz was DF'd, the WTS entered a new era. Now there was someone out there who could really blow the whistle on them--and they knew it.

If you'll notice, particularly in Ray's book about the upheaval against him at Brooklyn, his uncle Fred was conspicuously absent from apparent proceedings in the actions against Ray. It was almost immediately after Knorr died and Uncle Fred became president of the Society that the actions against Ray and Ed Dunlap and others emerged in full force.

Personally, I think Uncle Fred was behind most of it, staying in the background but pulling the strings, letting the other members of the GB do the dirty work. Motive? I think his uncle never forgave Ray for siding with and leading the faction of Governing Body members who wrested the organizational power from its two leaders, Nathan Knorr and himself. I also think that Fred, having long been esteemed as the Society's "scholar" extraordinaire felt this image becoming threatened by his nephew's evident emerging scholarship after Ray lead the accomplishment of the organization's central reference work, "Aid to Bible Understanding."

~Ros