thirdwitness—Can you Scripturally support JW dogma?

by AuldSoul 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AuldSoul

  I disagree, OnTheWayOut.

  There are many examples in the Bible of people getting baptized as Christians who did not do ANY of the steps JWs say a person "must" take to be baptized as a Christian except for repentance and conversion.

  There are ZERO examples of any person taking ANY of the steps JWs say are required, except repentance and conversion. They CANNOT support the doctrine Scripturally, as shown by the fact that they donot even attempt to support the doctrine Scripturally in the book What Does the Bible Really Teach?

  Respectfully,.
  AuldSoul
• 

  I_am_an_idiot

  Finally-Free: No, not a coincidence. Give yourself an applause.

  AuldSoul: Somethings might not be in the scriptures but they are common sence. For example: having accurate knowledge before baptism is just common sence. How can you make such an important and spiritual decision without having knowledge?
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  having accurate knowledge before baptism is just common sence. How can you make such an important and spiritual decision without having knowledge?

  I can do this the JW way. They did not have a series of questions in Paul's day because they had holy spirit poured out upon them. Christianity was being established, so it was necessary for people to see that those who became Christians were filled with understanding. Today, we are not instantly filled with understanding, so it is now necessary to gather in knowledge through a study with Jehovah's Witnesses and 5 weekly meetings. The scriptures clearly show that 1st sentury Christians went out proclaiming the Good News. In order to do that today, Jehovah's Witnesses must make sure that a new proclaimer has a basic understanding of the Good News before he is labeled as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore, a series of questions is used, with scriptural references to each one (well, virtually each one).

  DO I BELIEVE ANY OF THIS STUFF, NO. BUT I COULD CONTINUE TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE I BELIEVE I AM ANSWERING WITH SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. ALL I HAVE TO DO IS MENTION A SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLE ONCE-IN-A-WHILE. (which I did not do here, but could have.)

  Does a faithful JW believe this stuff, you bet.
• 

  sir82

  Somethings might not be in the scriptures but they are common sence.

  And thus it starts...

  It "makes sense" to define judicial committees as consisting of 3 elders, although it is "not scriptural"...it "makes sense" to always apply restrictions to someone who is reinstated, although it is "not scriptural"...it "makes sense" that congregations should be hit up for $8 per publisher per year to cover insurance and car leasing for circuit overseers, even though having a paid clergy is "not scriptural"...it "makes sense" that accepting a transfusion of red blood cells is an automatic excuse to be removed from the congregation 100% of the time, but accepting mere hemoglobin results in judicial action 0% of the time, even though blood fractions are not mentioned in scripture at all...

  That's the problem I have. Year over year, you keep adding new "makes sense, but isn't scriptural" regulations, and next thing you know, 125 years have passed and you have a Jehovah's Witness Talmud.
• 

  Lo-ru-hamah

  Sir82:

  That was beautiful. Some of you are able to arrange your words so perfectly.

  Loruhamah
• 

  AuldSoul

  I_am_an_idiot: How can you make such an important and spiritual decision without having knowledge?

  The same way Cornelius and his whole household did after hearing less than 200 Greek words from Peter. (Acts 10)

  The same way Lydia and her entire household did after one discussion with some disciples. (Acts 16)

  The same way the Philippian jailor and his entire household did after one late night discussion with Paul and Silas. (Acts 16)

  The same way the Ethiopian eunuch did after one brief conversation about Jesus, and the way in which Jesus fulfilled prophecy, with Philip. (Acts 8)

  The same way the 3,000 on ONE DAY did after Penetcost 33 CE. (Acts 2)

  And exactly NOT the way Jehovah's Witnesses do it.

  Aren't you glad you asked? There is an ACTUAL Scriptural method and Scriptural requirements for baptism. And it doesn't match the JW method. At all.

  WHAT in the Bible could possibly give someone the idea that a person could be qualified to preach PRIOR to baptism? I notice you did NOT try to defend their doctrine Scripturally. That is because it is Scripturally indefensible. I invite you to try. Please.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  I_am_an_idiot

  I do see your point. I think there is a problem with the "if it's not in the scriptures you can't tell us to do it" reasoning. In the first century, the elders and apostles did or added certain things that were not previously in the scriptures. The letters from Paul are an example. I know you don't believe in it any longer, but reasoning that from a JW perspective, Jehovah has assigned the Faithful and Discreet Slave over all his interests on earth, then he would logically permit them or allow them the power to giver direction on things not exactly touched on by the scriptures.

  That being said, I do see how it could get out of hand and how you could reason the way you do when you don't agree with their instructions.
• 

  AuldSoul

  I_am_an_idiot,

  What we are talking about here is the ability to demonstrate a direct DIFFERENCE between the way the Bible says to do something and the way the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" class directs. I put that in quotes because EVEN according to JW dogma the FDS has no authority over anything more complex than how many squares of toilet paper they will use to wipe. And they only have THAT much by GB permission. The GOVERNING BODY has all the authority over the entire organization, including over the Faithful and DIscreet Slave.

  But when an organization sets out criteria for determining which organization God is using and the third criterion is that ALL the doctrine would be based on the Scripture, they'd better measure up to their own judgment standards ... that IS the measure by which they are judged by me. That IS the measure by which they fail utterly to prove they are God's organization.

  The criteria is found in the Reasoning book under organization. Go look it up. Read it. Then show whether you are capable of defending their doctrine according to that third criterion. Do so on eiether this thread of the one on sophistry.

  Thanks.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  jayhawk1

  I_am_an_idiot, why do you also have an account by the name of "SwordofJah?" Did Jehovah reclassify you from "Sword of Jehovah" status to "Idiot" instead?

  Humor is the best medicine.
• 

  AuldSoul

  IP addresses are not necessarily specific to a machine. Large ISPs often funnel all their users through only a very few IP addresses. Or perhaps that is SwordOfJah, Take 2.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul