thirdwitness—Can you Scripturally support JW dogma?

by AuldSoul 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness,

  My father, who sat on his first Judicial Committee when he was 17 and has been and "elder" ever since, couldn't provide Scriptures to support some very basic teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Our current Circuit Overseer could not either. To another poster, you wrote:

  thirdwitness: If you will contact JWs in your area you can find out the answers for what you bring up. Or consult the WT publications which will explain them by means of the Bible.

  If you truly believe Jehovah's Witnesses can support their doctrine from the Bible, kindly put your posts where your pontification is. My belief is that you and your cohorts seek to discuss complicated matters of prophecy in order to avoid discussing the basic teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Hebrews 5:11-6:3 includes "the teaching on baptisms" as part of the "elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God", the "milk", and the "foundation" of Bible truth.

  I'll make a deal with you: If you can Scripturally support each JW pre-baptismal requirement as a must for Christian baptism, I will humbly return to the organization and repent, enduring whatever discipline my father and his body of elders believes I deserve. If, one the other hand, you cannot provide the Scriptural support and it turns out JWs are the true religion, you will accept my blood on your hands for failing to demonstrate Bible truth to one who asked you for it.

  Sophistry Lessons—JW Baptismal Prerequisites

  This should be easy for you, if the doctrine of pre-baptismal requirements is a Biblical teaching. If any doctrine is readily available in the Scriptures, the doctrine described as part of the "elementary things" will be. There is no sense telling me to ask local JWs, they already haven't been able to answer me. Neither have the many JWs I have asked in various forums online.

  I'll be waiting, but I won't hold my breath.

  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  I sent thirdwitness the following PM to make sure he doesn't miss this request:

  thirdwitness—Can you Scripturally support JW dogma?thirdwitness,
  In the following thread I have explained the reasons for requesting your assistance and have asked you to Scripturally explain an "elementary thing" to me, according to JW doctrine: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/118405/1.ashx
  Please don't disappoint your fans from your Web site by refusing to respond to such an elementary teaching.
  AuldSoul

  Will we see if this defender of JW doctrine can handle the basic teachings as well as he believes he can handle the tough stuff? I doubt it, because the basics have less wiggle room. But if the foundation is cracked and crumbling, can the building possibly be structurally sound?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  kls

  This i gotta see
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  He might not miss it AS, but I'd bet on him trying to ignore it for as long as he can, then trying the "ask the local congregation" trick on you. Maybe the best thing we can do is keep reminding him of your request when he makes his regular appearance to argue on the "heavy" threads.

  I'd be interested in his response to your questions, but like you, I'm not holding my breath.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Maybe thirdwitness wil change his mind now. I doubt it, though. Not a single JW has even attempted to provide the Scriptures supporting the requirments for JW baptism.

  Am I wrong in stating that the teaching on baptisms in foundational doctrine? Why doesn't their foundation have Scriptural backing?

  Because it is not from God.—1 John 4:1 The Governing Body are false prophets and, by organizational edict, they turn ALL Jehovah's Witnesses into false prophets, too. They state authoritative teachings as though the teachings are Scriptural when, in fact, they are only traditions of men.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  skeeter1

  Thirdwitness,

  Can you explain blood fraction allowance?

  Can you explain the "flip-flop" on hemoglobin. It was banned in the early 1990's, but now it's "allowed"! Don't retort that hemoglobin is "new technology" becuase it has been around for 50+ years.

  What's the Biblical difference between plasma (not allowed) and albumin (allowed)?

  Where does the Bible say that you can reuse blood once taken from the body? Is the commandment to "cover it in dust" a mistake by Jehovah? This was the cornerstone of the Watchtower blood policy when I was born in the early 1960's. Now, fractions are allowed. Go figure.

  Also, what about "current therapy" blood techniques? Where is that in the Bible that blood can be taken completely from the body (not part of a machine, but in a separate vile), taken to a far off labratory, mixed with isotopes/chemotheropy, and retransfused into the Bible? What is the difference between this and autologous blood transfusions? Quantity, perhaps? Where does the Bible say that one can "dabble" in blood? Abstain is not the same as dabble.

  Explain Lev. 17:15 allowance of eating blood, this was commanded by God.

  Explain "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" and the Bethel writers and editors who allowed this work of medical misinformation and misrepresentations of secular writers to be published for over 15 years?

  Skeeter
• 

  Rabbit

  Skeeter,

  I dared him to come play, but, I think he's smart enough to see a blood loss coming. He'd rather argue dates, instead of real life.

  Rabbit
• 

  AuldSoul

  I think it is sad that he apparently thinks the most pressing issues are those that are in dispute, and for some reason appears to believe that those doctrine which are completely baseless in Scripture should be accepted on blind faith because the WTS is correct about the disputed beliefs.

  What twisted illogic I used to have. Tsk. Carry on, thirdwitness. Wage your meaningless war in favor of a false religion, and don't dare try to support their basic doctrines Scripturally.

  AuldSoul
• 

  IP_SEC

  My belief is that you and your cohorts seek to discuss complicated matters of prophecy in order to avoid discussing the basic teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  I find this a very thought provoking and probably true statement Auld
• 

  Rabbit

  3rd Wit ...is STILL not here ? Most JW's could never understand the 1914 doctrine he wants to argue, apparently the Bible was written in code for only the most intelligent, not the commoners.

  Go figure.