Belief of Jehovah's Witnesses?

[no-body]

The reference to 'washing hands' at Matthew [15v20] was in reference to the Pharisees going beyond what was required under the Constitution of the Mosaic law.
They wrongly practiced a 'ceremonial' washing of hands up to their elbows. [see also Mark 7 vs3-7,13]

Curious: What did Paul say over Jesus?

There's a lot of spinning going on here Jesus clearly says "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean"

Doesn't matter what the context is, he clearly states that anything outside of you cannot make you unclean by going in you. If it was only because of ceremonial washing why wouldn't he make that very clear and say "except for that which is forbidden; blood, etc..."

As for listening to Paul most of the things JW and most Christians follow come from people who have had visions about Jesus and not Jesus himself.

 

[Protester]

means

It is amazing how so many people can read the Bible and come away with a hundred different interpretations. You would think that the word of God would be a little more streamlined and harder to corrupt, since it is supposed to be the word of God. JW's interpretation is just one of hundreds.

When you pick up a newspaper, magazine, or a manual--that you assumed to be accurate--how do you read it? You don't read it like it has a lot of allegory, parts of speech yes, but not allegory, you take it in a historical, grammatical, and literal way of interpretation.:yes: You would certainly use, single-meaning Hermeneutic (Interpretation). Proper Biblical Interpretationmeans means that you would take a rational approach to understanding God's manual, the Bible.

This short monograph will give you various reasons why There are, so many different Christian interpretations!

 

[rusra02]

There's a lot of spinning going on here Jesus clearly says "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean"

Doesn't matter what the context is, he clearly states that anything outside of you cannot make you unclean by going in you. If it was only because of ceremonial washing why wouldn't he make that very clear and say "except for that which is forbidden; blood, etc..."

As for listening to Paul most of the things JW and most Christians follow come from people who have had visions about Jesus and not Jesus himself.

Again, as a Jew, Jesus kept the Law of Moses, which included dietary restrictions against eating 'unclean' animals and birds. Jesus was not advocating breaking God's Law. And he certainly was not advocating eating blood. (Acts 15:28,29) The complete account is found at Mark 7:1-23. Matthew adds:"to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man." (Matthew 15:20)

As to the apostle Paul, Paul always submitted himself as a slave of Christ. (Romans 1:1) His ministry and teachings were all accomplished under the direction of Jesus Christ as head of the congregation.(1 Corinthians 11:3) Paul's letters are part of the "All Scripture" that is inspired by God, and reflects the mind of God and Christ. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) Paul's fellow apostle Peter wrote this: "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote you, speaking about these things as he does also in all his letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twising, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15,16) Peter clearly considered Paul's writings part of the Scriptures.

​

​

 

[Protester]

Again, as a Jew, Jesus kept the Law of Moses, which included dietary restrictions against eating 'unclean' animals and birds. Jesus was not advocating breaking God's Law. And he certainly was not advocating eating blood. (Acts 15:28,29) The complete account is found at Mark 7:1-23. Matthew adds:"to take a meal with unwashed hands does not defile a man." (Matthew 15:20)

As to the apostle Paul, Paul always submitted himself as a slave of Christ. (Romans 1:1) His ministry and teachings were all accomplished under the direction of Jesus Christ as head of the congregation.(1 Corinthians 11:3) Paul's letters are part of the "All Scripture" that is inspired by God, and reflects the mind of God and Christ. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) Paul's fellow apostle Peter wrote this: "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote you, speaking about these things as he does also in all his letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twising, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15,16) Peter clearly considered Paul's writings part of the Scriptures.

I like your reply, I would add that Jesus may have broke pharisaical laws but not God's for example,

Mark 2:27 And He was saying to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
28 "Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Mark 3:1 And He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there with a withered hand.
2 And they were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, in order that they might accuse Him.
3 And He said to the man with the withered hand, "Rise and come forward!"
4 And He said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to kill?" But they kept silent.
5 And after looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
6 And the Pharisees went out and immediately began taking counsel with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

Mark 2:27:
23-28 The sabbath is a sacred and Divine institution; a privilege and benefit, not a task and drudgery. God never designed it to be a burden to us, therefore we must not make it so to ourselves. The sabbath was instituted for the good of mankind, as living in society, having many wants and troubles, preparing for a state of happiness or misery. Man was not made for the sabbath, as if his keeping it could be of service to God, nor was he commanded to keep it outward observances to his real hurt. Every observance respecting it, is to be interpreted by the rule of mercy

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus, as Lord of the Sabbath, ended the Sabbath keeping at Pentecost.

Christ is the end of the law.- Romans 10v4

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There's a lot of spinning going on here Jesus clearly says "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean"
Doesn't matter what the context is, he clearly states that anything outside of you cannot make you unclean by going in you. If it was only because of ceremonial washing why wouldn't he make that very clear and say "except for that which is forbidden; blood, etc..."
As for listening to Paul most of the things JW and most Christians follow come from people who have had visions about Jesus and not Jesus himself.

Isn't Luke a gospel writer?_________
What is wrong with what Luke wrote in the book of Acts ?

Isn't verse 2 of Matthew chapter 15 talking about FOOD ?
Washing hands before eating food does Not wash or cleanse the heart.
The Pharisees complaint in verse 2 is lodged on religious grounds.
Not on hygiene grounds [sanitary grounds]
Repeatedly Jesus address 'tradition' and in verse 11 adds:
Not that [food] which goes into the mouth defiles.
Eating FOOD with unwashed hands does not defile a man.

Chapter 15 of Matthew is giving attention to wrongly man-made unscriptural traditions about eating food.
In other words, weren't the Pharisees going beyond what was written in Scripture ?
-Mark 7 vs1-13

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Isn't Luke a gospel writer?_________
What is wrong with what Luke wrote in the book of Acts ?

Isn't verse 2 of Matthew chapter 15 talking about FOOD ?
Washing hands before eating food does Not wash or cleanse the heart.
The Pharisees complaint in verse 2 is lodged on religious grounds.
Not on hygiene grounds [sanitary grounds]
Repeatedly Jesus address 'tradition' and in verse 11 adds:
Not that [food] which goes into the mouth defiles.
Eating FOOD with unwashed hands does not defile a man.

Chapter 15 of Matthew is giving attention to wrongly man-made unscriptural traditions about eating food.
In other words, weren't the Pharisees going beyond what was written in Scripture ?
-Mark 7 vs1-13

Ancient assumptions that went to far.

 

[Protester]

Ancient assumptions that went to far.

The Pharisees, added restrictions that were not in the Old Testament (for a general look at Sadducees and Pharisees see, Who were the Sadducees and the Pharisees? )

Mark 7
5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?”

6 He answered them, "“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.
7 But in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’--WEB

The restrictions on food in the Old Testament was quite reasonable, considering swine carry Dangers of Pork and the one disease that was worried about I believe in the Old Testament was, Trichinosis Worm Which this article mentions with apparent obvious glee. But in spite of all the doom and gloom in this article, the Old Testament restrictions were of obvious value healthwise, If not so much of a problem with modern knowledge and practices.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

The Pharisees, added restrictions that were not in the Old Testament (for a general look at Sadducees and Pharisees see, Who were the Sadducees and the Pharisees? )

Mark 7
5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?”

6 He answered them, "“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.
7 But in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’--WEB

The restrictions on food in the Old Testament was quite reasonable, considering swine carry Dangers of Pork and the one disease that was worried about I believe in the Old Testament was, Trichinosis Worm Which this article mentions with apparent obvious glee. But in spite of all the doom and gloom in this article, the Old Testament restrictions were of obvious value healthwise, If not so much of a problem with modern knowledge and practices.

I agree

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Pharisees, added restrictions that were not in the Old Testament (for a general look at Sadducees and Pharisees see, Who were the Sadducees and the Pharisees? )
Mark 7
5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?”
6 He answered them, "“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.
7 But in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’--WEB

The restrictions on food in the Old Testament was quite reasonable, considering swine carry Dangers of Pork and the one disease that was worried about I believe in the Old Testament was, Trichinosis Worm Which this article mentions with apparent obvious glee. But in spite of all the doom and gloom in this article, the Old Testament restrictions were of obvious value healthwise, If not so much of a problem with modern knowledge and practices.

I agree

 

[4YAH80]

Their education programme and their requirement to mission is to be admired.
Their message is not.
It would probably be better to be a JW than nothing at all.

oh I beg to differ, LOL i was one for more than 10 years....it was horrible.