"Questions for Jehovah Witnesses"

[Hiroshi]

And now a series of questions:


Do JWs believe that circumcision was ever required of God's people?
Do JWs believe that circumcision is now required of God's people?

If the answer is not the same to both questions, please, account for the change.

I am sure that you and I do not disagree here.

Circumcision was once required for God's people from the time of Abraham. This requirement was later included as part of the Law of Moses. But after Jesus provided the ransom sacrifice, Christians were no longer obligated to follow the Law of Moses or be circumcised. However, on one occasion Paul circumcised Timothy, not because it was a requirement of God, but in order not to offend the Jews that they were preaching among.

Circumcision was once required. But according to the Bble, now it is not required. Nevertheless Muslims, of course, still hold circumcision to be a requirement.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I am sure that you and I do not disagree here.

Circumcision was once required for God's people from the time of Abraham. This requirement was later included as part of the Law of Moses. But after Jesus provided the ransom sacrifice, Christians were no longer obligated to follow the Law of Moses or be circumcised.

Are there any items from the Law of Moses that JWs have nevertheless retained? If so, why?

 

[IAmZamzam]

Hiroshi, I don't remember hearing an answer as to why God would ever need or want some kind of cosmic viceroy to essentially do His own job for Him. Besides, doesn't he already have angels?

 

[Hiroshi]

Are there any items from the Law of Moses that JWs have nevertheless retained? If so, why?

I can't think of anything like that. Many churches still seem to observe a weekly sabbath (part of the ten commandments) but we don't.

 

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, I don't remember hearing an answer as to why God would ever need or want some kind of cosmic viceroy to essentially do His own job for Him. Besides, doesn't he already have angels?

I guess God doesn't need anybody. But he loves His faithful creatures and often delegates (sometimes weighty) responsibility to them. We believe that Jesus was an angel before coming to earth as a man.

 

[Hiroshi]

is this kingdom the paradise?

This is when the righteous ones inherit the earth (Psalms 37:29) as also the Qur'an says (Surah 21:105; Sura 39:74).

 

[Grace Seeker]

Are there any items from the Law of Moses that JWs have nevertheless retained? If so, why?

I can't think of anything like that. Many churches still seem to observe a weekly sabbath (part of the ten commandments) but we don't.

So, no dietary restrictions? Nothing that is based on OT passages alone?

We believe that Jesus was an angel before coming to earth as a man.

What substantiates this JW belief?

 

[Hiroshi]

So, no dietary restrictions? Nothing that is based on OT passages alone?

Oh I see. The Law of Moses stated that it was forbidden to eat blood (Leviticus 17:14). But this command had also already been given to Noah (Genesis 9:4) and after the Mosaic Law came to an end the command was also given to Christians not to eat blood (Acts 15:29). So even though we are not under the Law of Moses, JWs believe that it is still wrong to eat food containing blood as, for example, black pudding.

What substantiates this JW belief?

Mainly texts that connect Jesus with the archangel Michael (Jude 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16).

 

[Grace Seeker]

So even though we are not under the Law of Moses, JWs believe that it is still wrong to eat food containing blood as, for example, black pudding.

But you can eat a piece of beefsteak that hasn't had all the blood drained out of it before cooking, you just can't eat something in which blood is one of the actual ingredients?

Mainly texts that connect Jesus with the archangel Michael (Jude 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16).

I don't see the connection that you do in these passages.
With regard to 1 Thessalonians, we have the shout of an archangel at the time that Christ returns, but I don't see this implying that Christ is one with the archangel:

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

if that fact that the Lord comes "with the voice of the archangel" makes him the archangel, then the fact that the Lord comes "with the trumpet call of God" would also make him the trumpet. For me, the common sense of the passage rules out the identification you have made.

With regard to Jude:

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

I don't see any mention of Christ in it at all, so it is hard for me to understand how this makes any identification of Jesus as the archangel Michael.

BTW, you had expressed surprise in another post when I made reference to the Gospel of Thomas that I might make use of non-canonical books. As I said, I don't view them as scripture, but do find that they can help us to sometimes have a better understanding of some of what we see in scripture. This is a case in point. The story that the archangel Michael disputed with the devil over the body of Moses is not found in scripture, but it is found in the apochyphal Jewish Testament of Moses, a work that dates to the first century AD, but whose stories we might suppose were in circulation prior to that and known by the author of Jude.

 

[Insaanah]

On the topic of blood, why do Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions?

Also, referring specifically to life or death situations, Wikipedia says:

Watch Tower Society literature directs Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even in "a life-or-death situation"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses#Rejection_of_blood_transfusions
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

Is that true? That if a blood transfusion is the only thing available to save your life, without which you will die, you have to die and are not allowed to preserve your life?

If life is a gift from God, then, in a situation where a blood transfusion is the only thing available to save your life, you have to throw away that gift?

If so, does the act of throwing away the gift, show respect towards the gift itself, and the Giver of the gift? If yes, how?

And, what is the Biblical justification for this stance, especially with respect to the life or death situation?

Peace.

 

[Hiroshi]

On the topic of blood, why do Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions?

Also, referring specifically to life or death situations, Wikipedia says:



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses#Rejection_of_blood_transfusions
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

Is that true? That if a blood transfusion is the only thing available to save your life, without which you will die, you have to die and are not allowed to preserve your life?

If life is a gift from God, then, in a situation where a blood transfusion is the only thing available to save your life, you have to throw away that gift?

If so, does the act of throwing away the gift, show respect towards the gift itself, and the Giver of the gift? If yes, how?

And, what is the Biblical justification for this stance, especially with respect to the life or death situation?

Peace.

The Qur'an forbids the eating of blood. Let me ask you, would you eat pork or blood yourself if you were in a life or death situation? Persecuted early century Christians were on occasion threatened with death if they refused to eat blood sausage (as proof that they were prepared to deny their faith).

 

[Hiroshi]

But you can eat a piece of beefsteak that hasn't had all the blood drained out of it before cooking, you just can't eat something in which blood is one of the actual ingredients?

[/I]

Meat that you buy in the shop generally has had the blood drained from it in the manner required by the scriptures. But there are some exceptions. Some game birds that are killed by being shot with pellets are not bled properly. My father (not a JW) once brought home some chickens that he had strangled. We couldn't eat them because the Bible command is to abstain from things strangled (Acts 15:29). If the animal has been strangled then the blood is still in the meat.

 

[Hiroshi]

I don't see the connection that you do in these passages.
With regard to 1 Thessalonians, we have the shout of an archangel at the time that Christ returns, but I don't see this implying that Christ is one with the archangel:
if that fact that the Lord comes "with the voice of the archangel" makes him the archangel, then the fact that the Lord comes "with the trumpet call of God" would also make him the trumpet. For me, the common sense of the passage rules out the identification you have made.

With regard to Jude:
I don't see any mention of Christ in it at all, so it is hard for me to understand how this makes any identification of Jesus as the archangel Michael.

Jude identifies Michael as the archangel. There is only one. The word never appears in the plural. And Thessalonians surely speaks of the voice of Jesus himself. It doesn't seem reasonable that one of lesser authority would be giving the call at such a momentous event.

 

[Insaanah]

The Qur'an forbids the eating of blood. Let me ask you, would you eat pork or blood yourself if you were in a life or death situation?

While we would naturally find it repulsive, where that is the only thing available to us to save our life, not only are we allowed to do so, but also it would be required of us, because the preservation of life in such a dire life or death situation takes precedence:

"He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 2:173)

Peace.

 

[جوري]

While we would naturally find it repulsive, where that is the only thing available to us to save our life, not only are we allowed to do so, but also it would be required of us, because the preservation of life in such a dire life or death situation takes precedence:

"He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 2:173)

Peace.

Indeed Jazaki Allah khyran for elucidating the point of necessity overriding prohibition .. and please let me add that my ''Jehovah's witness'' patient who was adamant against blood transfusions received several units on two separate occasions -- not very practical when they're put to the test with the question of their own mortality.. you'd be surprised how many people allege these self-made virtues and when push comes to shove throw it all out the window ...

 

[IAmZamzam]

Jude identifies Michael as the archangel. There is only one. The word never appears in the plural. And Thessalonians surely speaks of the voice of Jesus himself. It doesn't seem reasonable that one of lesser authority would be giving the call at such a momentous event.

For whatever it's worth, he's right--I think. As far as anyone knows, the idea of plural archangels (which doesn't even make any linguistic sense) wasn't around until the Middle Ages.

 

[Grace Seeker]

It doesn't seem reasonable that one of lesser authority would be giving the call at such a momentous event.

I disagree. Kings often send heralds to make their announcements for them, even for the most momentous events. Since we're in an Islamic forum, a good example would be that Muhammad is not reported to have given the call to prayer, but another follower of Islam. As a watcher of the occassional western, the leader of the calvary doesn't issue the call to charge, he has the bugler do it. Having been in the Navy, the captain gives the order to his exec, the OOW, or whoever is appropriate and then that message is relayed to those who have responsibilty to carry it out by those persons, not the captain himself.

I seems very reasonable to me that Christ would issue the order and have Michael announce it as he comes. It is the scenario you set forth that seems unreasonable to me.

 

[Hiroshi]

While we would naturally find it repulsive, where that is the only thing available to us to save our life, not only are we allowed to do so, but also it would be required of us, because the preservation of life in such a dire life or death situation takes precedence:

"He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 2:173)

Peace.

Acts 15:29 commands Christians to abstain from: "things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication." The eating of blood is viewed as being as serious a sin as fornication and idolatry. We could not violate God's law here even in life-threatening situations. And the historical record shows that the early Christians also would rather be persecuted to death than deny their faith.

 

[Hiroshi]

For whatever it's worth, he's right--I think. As far as anyone knows, the idea of plural archangels (which doesn't even make any linguistic sense) wasn't around until the Middle Ages.

Thanks. You are quite right.

 

[Hiroshi]

I disagree. Kings often send heralds to make their announcements for them, even for the most momentous events. Since we're in an Islamic forum, a good example would be that Muhammad is not reported to have given the call to prayer, but another follower of Islam. As a watcher of the occassional western, the leader of the calvary doesn't issue the call to charge, he has the bugler do it. Having been in the Navy, the captain gives the order to his exec, the OOW, or whoever is appropriate and then that message is relayed to those who have responsibilty to carry it out by those persons, not the captain himself.

I seems very reasonable to me that Christ would issue the order and have Michael announce it as he comes. It is the scenario you set forth that seems unreasonable to me.

There is only one voice shouting and it must be that of Jesus. Green's Literal Translation reads: "Because the Lord Himself shall come down from Heaven with a commanding shout of an archangel's voice". The verse says that at this time the dead will rise. Whose voice are they hearing? John 5:25 says: "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."