Question for jehovah's witness

[Frank Goad]

In 1 Corinthians 5:5 it says our spirit can be saved.But how can our spirit be saved if it is just life force?I don't get it.

 

[PruePhillip]

Don't JW's believe in the spirit? I thought the spirit IS a "life force"?
I think they believe that only a set number of saved souls will enter heaven,
the rest of those saved will live upon a perfect earth.
My issue with the JW's is this "adventist" thing - it has repeatedly failed to
predict the Coming of Christ.

 

[nPeace]

In 1 Corinthians 5:5 it says our spirit can be saved.But how can our spirit be saved if it is just life force?I don't get it.

What do you understand by "the destruction of the flesh"?

 

[Frank Goad]

What do you understand by "the destruction of the flesh"?

What do you think it means?I don't know what it means.

 

[whirlingmerc]

In 1 Corinthians 5:5 it says our spirit can be saved.But how can our spirit be saved if it is just life force?I don't get it.

It's like the disciples thinking it was Peter's angel knocking on the door after he was thought dead in Acts. Clearly they didn't believe one ended with death or was merely held in suspense in the mind of God

Full disclosure.... Not a JW here

 

[nPeace]

Don't JW's believe in the spirit? I thought the spirit IS a "life force"?
I think they believe that only a set number of saved souls will enter heaven,
the rest of those saved will live upon a perfect earth.
My issue with the JW's is this "adventist" thing - it has repeatedly failed to
predict the Coming of Christ.

Are you referring to their setting a date for Christ's coming? Is that your only issue? What if that were no longer an issue.... is there anything else you find an issue?
The last time JWs had a date in mind with regard to Armageddon, was about 45 years ago. Since then, have you heard of a set date?
I haven't. So that's past.
In fact, millions have since become JWs, and they are not bothered by those mistaken expectations.
Moreover, they are not bothered that during those early years, the brothers had elements, within their literature that were not in line with truth.
I think JWs have come a long way, to the present. So it seems to me, the thing to do would be to examine what they teach at present, and see if it is in line with scriptural truth.
What do you think?

 

[nPeace]

What do you think it means?I don't know what it means.

Think about it. Did the man die? Was he to be killed, or was he to repent?

 

[Frank Goad]

I think he was to repent.

 

[nPeace]

It's like the disciples thinking it was Peter's angel knocking on the door after he was thought dead in Acts. Clearly they didn't believe one ended with death or was merely held in suspense in the mind of God

Full disclosure.... Not a JW here

Do you think Peters angel meant Peters spirit?
Did the disciples not know what an angel is?

Jesus’ disciples knew that angels rendered personal assistance to God’s people.
Concerning little children, Jesus said this...
Matthew 18:10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my Father who is in heaven.
It appears quite likely that when the disciples said, “It is his angel,” they were assuming that an angelic messenger representing Peter stood at the gate.

The disciples seemed really terrified to me though. So terrified they imagined that an angel needed to knock at a door.
Or maybe they didn't want to believe the woman, and spoke without thinking.

 

[nPeace]

I think he was to repent.

I think so too. Good thinking.
In verse 11, Paul continued, "But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man."

So apparently the man was to be put out of the congregation. In other words, become a man of the nations / world, until he repents, or "put away the flesh".

These texts should make it clear what is meant by "for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved".
Romans 7:5, 13, 14
5 For when we were living according to the flesh, the sinful passions that were awakened by the Law were at work in our bodies to produce fruit for death.
13 Therefore, did what is good result in my death? Certainly not! But sin did, that it might be shown to be sin working out death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin might become far more sinful.
14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin.

Romans 8:1-9
1 Therefore, those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation. 2 For the law of the spirit that gives life in union with Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 What the Law was incapable of doing because it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, condemning sin in the flesh, 4 so that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk, not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit, on the things of the spirit. 6 For setting the mind on the flesh means death, but setting the mind on the spirit means life and peace; 7 because setting the mind on the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not in subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. 8 So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in you. . . .

Consider too, what is said here...
1 Timothy 1:20 Hymenaeus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme.

 

[PruePhillip]

Are you referring to their setting a date for Christ's coming? Is that your only issue? What if that were no longer an issue.... is there anything else you find an issue?
The last time JWs had a date in mind with regard to Armageddon, was about 45 years ago. Since then, have you heard of a set date?
I haven't. So that's past.
In fact, millions have since become JWs, and they are not bothered by those mistaken expectations.
Moreover, they are not bothered that during those early years, the brothers had elements, within their literature that were not in line with truth.
I think JWs have come a long way, to the present. So it seems to me, the thing to do would be to examine what they teach at present, and see if it is in line with scriptural truth.
What do you think?

What do I think? I think JW's are among some of the nicest people I meet.
Well dressed, respectful, devoted to their beliefs. That's good, wish there
were more like them.
It's just that I don't accept this Taze Russell and blood transfusion stuff.
So I see JW's like you might see Mormons, for instance.

 

[nPeace]

What do I think? I think JW's are among some of the nicest people I meet.
Well dressed, respectful, devoted to their beliefs. That's good, wish there
were more like them.
It's just that I don't accept this Taze Russell and blood transfusion stuff.
So I see JW's like you might see Mormons, for instance.

Oh. Hi Frank.
Thanks for the observation. Only recently, I was reflecting on the view some people have - a view I agree with - that if everyone were JWs, the world would be so much better.

So your issue is the JWs view on the scriptures which highlight to them the sacredness of blood, and its value in the eyes of Jehovah God - in allowing for only one use of blood - namely atonement for sin.
This is not C.T. Russell's teaching, by the way. It's Biblical.
C.T. Russell's taught many things found in scripture, and he taught one or two things not found in scripture.
JWs are trying their best to follow scripture.
They seem to be doing well, from my point of view.

 

[PruePhillip]

Oh. Hi Frank.
Thanks for the observation. Only recently, I was reflecting on the view some people have - a view I agree with - that if everyone were JWs, the world would be so much better.

So your issue is the JWs view on the scriptures which highlight to them the sacredness of blood, and its value in the eyes of Jehovah God - in allowing for only one use of blood - namely atonement for sin.
This is not C.T. Russell's teaching, by the way. It's Biblical.
C.T. Russell's taught many things found in scripture, and he taught one or two things not found in scripture.
JWs are trying their best to follow scripture.
They seem to be doing well, from my point of view.

Frank? Are you addressing someone else?
IMO every religious group will say, obviously, they are just following scripture.
As I see it, the prohibition against blood in the OT was a prohibition against violence.
And Russell's special gift of knowing Jesus' return implied he knew something that
Jesus did not know - how to divine scripture for dates. And these dates weren't afar
off (say, centuries away) they always seem to be within people's lifetimes, as if Russell
was seeking to add urgency or immediacy to the Gospel. That's not necessary - we
need to be worried about our dates with destiny!
I get to talk to JW's every week on a bus run. Frankly it's one of the highlights of my
week as they are such lovely people. Particularly like the ladies, but the men are
interesting too.

 

[nPeace]

Frank? Are you addressing someone else?
IMO every religious group will say, obviously, they are just following scripture.
As I see it, the prohibition against blood in the OT was a prohibition against violence.
And Russell's special gift of knowing Jesus' return implied he knew something that
Jesus did not know - how to divine scripture for dates. And these dates weren't afar
off (say, centuries away) they always seem to be within people's lifetimes, as if Russell
was seeking to add urgency or immediacy to the Gospel. That's not necessary - we
need to be worried about our dates with destiny!
I get to talk to JW's every week on a bus run. Frankly it's one of the highlights of my
week as they are such lovely people. Particularly like the ladies, but the men are
interesting too.

Sorry. My eyes seem to be playing tricks on me. I seem to be seeing Frank's name in almost every post.

Leviticus 17 is not discussing violence, is it?
It's good when we can admit and correct our mistakes. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry. My eyes seem to be playing tricks on me. I seem to be seeing Frank's name in almost every post.

Leviticus 17 is not discussing violence, is it?
It's good when we can admit and correct our mistakes. Wouldn't you agree?

The "Law of Moses" was firstly composed of the Commandments, such as the
prohibition on murder, stealing and adultery. Secondly, there were the Ordinances,
such as the Tabernacle, the Holy Days, the Levitical Offerings, and role of the
priesthood. And thirdly, there were the Judgements, covering legal issues such as
slavery; taxation, divorce and inheritance.

The commandments are the ones Christians live under. And Jesus raised the bar.
There are a few symbols Jesus gave us - baptism and the so-called Eucharist.

All sorts of rites, rituals, holy days and the like were added to this by some within
the Apostolic church. These additions were not welcome. The foolish Galatians
were warned against "observing special days and months" and Peter warned of
wolves who would "make merchandise" of the church. But most of all, the warning
was about "Jews" which I take to mean people (Jew or Gentile) who resorted to the
Old Testament ordinances and judgements.

We can observe what was the intention of any Levitical law, but we don't live under
it. Under the New Testament Jesus said that what enters the body goes out of the
body. I have no compunction therefore to eat blood (though I wouldn't ordinarily do
that unless it's in that fat juicy steak.)

 

[nPeace]

The "Law of Moses" was firstly composed of the Commandments, such as the
prohibition on murder, stealing and adultery. Secondly, there were the Ordinances,
such as the Tabernacle, the Holy Days, the Levitical Offerings, and role of the
priesthood. And thirdly, there were the Judgements, covering legal issues such as
slavery; taxation, divorce and inheritance.

The commandments are the ones Christians live under. And Jesus raised the bar.
There are a few symbols Jesus gave us - baptism and the so-called Eucharist.

All sorts of rites, rituals, holy days and the like were added to this by some within
the Apostolic church. These additions were not welcome. The foolish Galatians
were warned against "observing special days and months" and Peter warned of
wolves who would "make merchandise" of the church. But most of all, the warning
was about "Jews" which I take to mean people (Jew or Gentile) who resorted to the
Old Testament ordinances and judgements.

We can observe what was the intention of any Levitical law, but we don't live under
it. Under the New Testament Jesus said that what enters the body goes out of the
body. I have no compunction therefore to eat blood (though I wouldn't ordinarily do
that unless it's in that fat juicy steak.)

JWs live by the godly principles, on which the Mosaic Law was based. So by using principles, we can understand how God views things.
For example, there is no law in the Bible, that says, "thou shall not have an abortion.", but we understand how God views life, including the life of an unborn child. We understand based on principles found in the laws given from the beginning.

Later, after the abolition of the law, certain principles were stated, or could be discerned, in admonition given by Jesus and his apostles.
For example, Jesus and his disciples showed that hating a brother in one's heart, is equivalent to murdering that brother.

There are many other principles, a Christian can get from the things written, but the apostle Paul said that babes need to be instructed, because they do not use Bible principles in their life. They seem to need to be told, "Don't, or Do".
Hebrews 5:11-14
11 We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

However, the scripture at Acts 15:29, 30, seems clear to me. I don't understand how it is that persons look at it, and read "Do not eat". The phrase "abstain from" doesn't mean "do not eat"... does it? It also says, abstain from sexual immorality, and it separates blood from things strangled.

However, JWs do not force, or try to force anyone to understand the scriptures as they do. They want persons to understand it for themselves, because each person has to decide for themselves.
Each baptized Witness has acknowledged on their own volition, that the scripture is in harmony with the one in Leviticus, and others, prohibits the use of blood apart from what God stated regarding its use

 

[PruePhillip]

...Jesus and his disciples showed that hating a brother in one's heart, is equivalent to murdering that brother....
Leviticus, and others, prohibits the use of blood apart from what God stated regarding its use

Two quick points. I am going to bed (12.30 am)
Hating a brother is like murdering a brother, yes, but on the other hand, there are degrees
to sin. I suspect that the judgement for murder will be harder than for hate.

I don't observe the ordinances in Leviticus. They are varied and many. Jesus spoke of the
laws which were for "the fathers" meaning laws given by God but at the behest of the people.
That's where the Jewish monarchy comes from - given by God, but at his pleasure.

I don't eat pork or shellfish much. Glad about that as these are prohibited. But as I said before,
Jesus rejected these dietary legalisms as they had no bearing upon a person's spirit, but
rather, spoke to symbols that Jesus did a way with.

Just looked this up

76 Things Banned in Leviticus (and their penalties) - ***Dave Does the Blog

Leviticus is a funny book for modern Christians. Along with Deuteronomy and swathes of
Exodus and Numbers, it lays out the Law for the Israelites. But it’s largely ignored by modern
Christians because it’s felt that Jesus replaced the Law (except where He didn’t) and that
Paul said a lot of it didn’t apply (except for the parts that did). And for all of that, many are
still willing to cite Leviticus for things that they think are sinful, while ignoring it for things
they don’t.

In other words, people tend to cherry-pick which of the Levitican laws (or, for that matter,
all of the Old Covenant, not to mention most of the Bible) they think still apply, and which
don’t.

 

[nPeace]

Two quick points. I am going to bed (12.30 am)
Hating a brother is like murdering a brother, yes, but on the other hand, there are degrees
to sin. I suspect that the judgement for murder will be harder than for hate.

The way I see it, not from God's standpoint.
1 John 3:14, 15
14 We know we have passed over from death to life, because we love the brothers. He who does not love remains in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a manslayer, and YOU know that no manslayer has everlasting life remaining in him.
If one hates their brother, from God's standpoint, they are dead - spiritually, and it that person does not repent... eventually physically.

This principle was stated in the Mosaic Law.
Leviticus 19:17, 18
17 “‘You must not hate your brother in your heart. You should by all means reprove your fellow man, so that you will not bear sin along with him. 18 “‘You must not take vengeance nor hold a grudge against the sons of your people, and you must love your fellow man as yourself. I am Jehovah
 .

I don't observe the ordinances in Leviticus. They are varied and many. Jesus spoke of the
laws which were for "the fathers" meaning laws given by God but at the behest of the people.
That's where the Jewish monarchy comes from - given by God, but at his pleasure.

I don't eat pork or shellfish much. Glad about that as these are prohibited. But as I said before,
Jesus rejected these dietary legalisms as they had no bearing upon a person's spirit, but
rather, spoke to symbols that Jesus did a way with.

Just looked this up

76 Things Banned in Leviticus (and their penalties) - ***Dave Does the Blog

Leviticus is a funny book for modern Christians. Along with Deuteronomy and swathes of
Exodus and Numbers, it lays out the Law for the Israelites. But it’s largely ignored by modern
Christians because it’s felt that Jesus replaced the Law (except where He didn’t) and that
Paul said a lot of it didn’t apply (except for the parts that did). And for all of that, many are
still willing to cite Leviticus for things that they think are sinful, while ignoring it for things
they don’t.

In other words, people tend to cherry-pick which of the Levitican laws (or, for that matter,
all of the Old Covenant, not to mention most of the Bible) they think still apply, and which
don’t.

Like I said.... Go with what you believe.

 

[PruePhillip]

The way I see it, not from God's standpoint.
1 John 3:14, 15
14 We know we have passed over from death to life, because we love the brothers. He who does not love remains in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a manslayer, and YOU know that no manslayer has everlasting life remaining in him.
If one hates their brother, from God's standpoint, they are dead - spiritually, and it that person does not repent... eventually physically.

This principle was stated in the Mosaic Law.
Leviticus 19:17, 18
17 “‘You must not hate your brother in your heart. You should by all means reprove your fellow man, so that you will not bear sin along with him. 18 “‘You must not take vengeance nor hold a grudge against the sons of your people, and you must love your fellow man as yourself. I am Jehovah
Like I said.... Go with what you believe.

You are conflating two principles here. John speaks of the MORAL LAW,
which is the same as the Leviticus and Deuteronomy principles.

But the blood commands in Leviticus are ORDINANCES. That is, symbols
and rituals. There's an ordinance about "body discharge" and eating fat for
instance. And, these Ordinances were for the Jews and for the Old Testament.

It gets tricky 'cos some laws appear as moral, ordinance and judgment.
Jesus clarified some in instruction, ie what enters your body and clarified
others by Example, ie the nature of the Christian Passover.

Frankly, it's a minefield. But I don't accept that blood transfusion has
anything to do with moral law or the Spirit of Grace. I have had vaccines
and penicillin (not transfusion) put into my body and it made me no different.