Was Jesus born on Christmas?

[Wharton]

Are you specifically an ex-Jehovah's Witness that I should be shunning? I already have one person on ignore so I am not tempted to reply. I have others I have nearly done so for other reasons.

Nah, I just like your fancy language: apostates, opposers and faders.

 

[Kolibri]

So why are you here, risking being disfellowshipped if found out by the faithful and discreet slave?

Being here is not a disfellowshipping offense.

I avoid those that were once Jehovah's Witnesses that are being disciplined or have made it clear that they left because they are no longer of our sort...once I am aware of their status. I am not watering down the scriptures regarding that sort of contact. While we see the churches of Christendom as apostate, the members themselves did not originate the deviation from the teachings of the apostles.

So I am not looking at you, @Wharton , as an apostate. I find your manner offensive and degrading when you ridicule, but that does not mean you personally left what we view as 'the Truth.'

"Faders" is a new term to me.

I am in a caretaking position and do not need to work a whole lot secularly besides. And yet I need to spend a lot of time a home to be available for needs. That is the reason I am here so much. A lot of downtime where I can't be anywhere else. And I am caught up on my studies and entertainment. If I could be spending my time out in the formal forms of the witnessing work that we do full time, I certainly would prefer to be there with my brothers. As it is, I am blessed with 2 progressive bible students and I am happy to have a part here when I do not inadvertently stir up controversy that has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Wharton]

So I am not looking at you, @Wharton , as an apostate. I find your manner offensive and degrading when you ridicule, but that does not mean you personally left what we view as 'the Truth.'

The truth is neither degrading nor offensive

 

[wgw]

Are you specifically an ex-Jehovah's Witness that I should be shunning? I already have one person on ignore so I am not tempted to reply. I have others I have nearly done so for other reasons.

And with that you just exposed the cult aspect of your faith that has made it so controversial. I'm an Orthodox and we don't practice shunning. Families are not required to break up if one of them leaves the church. In fact if the wife of an Orthodox priest became a Baha'i or an Atheist or whatever, but did not want to divorce him, and he divorced her over it, he would not be allowed to remarry while retaining his office.

 

[Wharton]

"Faders" is a new term to me.

"To Fade Or Not To Fade?
Before you seriously consider fading, there are a several issues to look at first. Think about other Witnesses in your congregation who have "disappeared" from the ranks. How did the congregation react? How many of them left the Watchtower Society without being disfellowshipped? Are there any Elders known for investigating ex-Witnesses without further provocation? If you're married, what will your spouse do if you leave? Do you have children?

Depending on your answers to these questions, a lengthy fade may not be necessary. You may even be able to leave your Kingdom Hall without delay, but this will always be riskier than fading. Some ex-Witnesses have quit with nary a word, but you should be cautious in your decision. It may be prudent to wait a few months to feel out the situation to see how they react. "

 

[Kolibri]

"To Fade Or Not To Fade?

I have no clue where that came from? Definitely does not sound like it came from us anywhere. Some ex-JW literature? I don't even want to know.

 

[Kolibri]

And with that you just exposed the cult aspect of your faith that has made it so controversial. I'm an Orthodox and we don't practice shunning. Families are not required to break up if one of them leaves the church. In fact if the wife of an Orthodox priest became a Baha'i or an Atheist or whatever, but did not want to divorce him, and he divorced her over it, he would not be allowed to remarry while retaining his office.

Disfellowshipping does not break the marriage bonds. The only grounds for divorce with the view to remarriage is found at Mt 19:9. All the scriptures that command us men to be loving our wife's and to show them honor still apply. It is the spiritual connection that is broken, not the marital one. Shunning is scriptural but one can not ignore other scriptures that involve marriage and minor children living at home. (1Co 5:9-13; Col 3:19,21; Eph 6:4)

"You husbands, keep on loving your wives and do not be bitterly angry (or "harsh.") with them." - Col 3:19

Any man who is harsh with his wife, regardless of her spiritual status is going to have his prayers hindered. (1Peter 3:7)

Is it a cult thing to live by all the scriptures, or is it a cult thing to pick and choose which ones we want to follow?

 

[wgw]

Disfellowshipping does not break the marriage bonds. The only grounds for divorce with the view to remarriage is found at Mt 19:9. All the scriptures that command us men to be loving our wife's and to show them honor still apply. It is the spiritual connection that is broken, not the marital one. Shunning is scriptural but one can not ignore other scriptures that involve marriage and minor children living at home. (1Co 5:9-13; Col 3:19,21; Eph 6:4)

"You husbands, keep on loving your wives and do not be bitterly angry (or "harsh.") with them." - Col 3:19

Any man who is harsh with his wife, regardless of her spiritual status is going to have his prayers hindered. (1Peter 3:7)

Is it a cult thing to live by all the scriptures, or is it a cult thing to pick and choose which ones we want to follow?

It's a cult thing when the threat of shunning is used to enforce submissiom to church authority. Tertullian actually left the Church of Rome (I.e. The actual church in Rome) and moved to a Montanist community in a remote province because he felt the Roman church was too forgiving and should be shunning people to a large extent. For this and his embrace of Montanism he is remembered as a heretic.

There is only one form of shunning the ancient church practiced. It was not excommunication, which was temporary and designed to be therapeutic, so that the excommunicate would not perish from communing unworthily (1 Cor 11:27-34). Rather it was anathematiation, delivering unrepentant heretics up to God. Strictly speaking by denying the divinity of the Son unrepentantly any member of Jehovah's Witnesses falls under the anathemas pronounced at Nicea, Constantinople, and the other Ecumenical councils. Perhaps Christians should give you a taste of your own medicine by literally applying this anathema, refusing to talk to Jwhovahs Witnesses in public and boycotting businesses you own. Would you like that? It's been a long time since JW missionaries come to my door, but next time I'll just shout "anathema maranatha!" and slams it in their face.

I did once use a Book of Mormon as fuel for my Thurible but came to regret it. The burning pages produced a foul odor that masked the incense and left a sticky residue. So I think I'll stop short of disintegrating any NWTs. Note that I retained the other freebie Book of Mormon and put it in my file for heresiology research.

The big problems I have with your faith though are your dangerous, silly and insanely literal interpretations of the text, and your modifications thereof. John 1:1 aside, do you REALLY think the Apostles in Jerusalem had blood transfusions in mind in Acts 15? The church later added to the hagiography of the Unmercenary healers Ss. Cosimas and Damian the story of them transplanting the leg of a deceased Erhiopian onto a Roman citizen whose leg had been crushed in the middle of the night, a hundred years or so after their death. While the authenticity of the account is questionable, it shows the early church in theory valued the idea of transplantation even if it believed that it could only happen through miraculous intervention.

 

[Kolibri]

It's a cult thing when the threat of shunning is used to enforce submissiom to church authority. Tertullian actually left the Church of Rome (I.e. The actual church in Rome) and moved to a Montanist community in a remote province because he felt the Roman church was too forgiving and should be shunning people to a large extent. For this and his embrace of Montanism he is remembered as a heretic.

There is only one form of shunning the ancient church practiced. It was not excommunication, which was temporary and designed to be therapeutic, so that the excommunicate would not perish from communing unworthily (1 Cor 11:27-34). Rather it was anathematiation, delivering unrepentant heretics up to God. Strictly speaking by denying the divinity of the Son unrepentantly any member of Jehovah's Witnesses falls under the anathemas pronounced at Nicea, Constantinople, and the other Ecumenical councils. Perhaps Christians should give you a taste of your own medicine by literally applying this anathema, refusing to talk to Jwhovahs Witnesses in public and boycotting businesses you own. Would you like that? It's been a long time since JW missionaries come to my door, but next time I'll just shout "anathema maranatha!" and slams it in their face.

I did once use a Book of Mormon as fuel for my Thurible but came to regret it. The burning pages produced a foul odor that masked the incense and left a sticky residue. So I think I'll stop short of disintegrating any NWTs. Note that I retained the other freebie Book of Mormon and put it in my file for heresiology research.

The big problems I have with your faith though are your dangerous, silly and insanely literal interpretations of the text, and your modifications thereof. John 1:1 aside, do you REALLY think the Apostles in Jerusalem had blood transfusions in mind in Acts 15? The church later added to the hagiography of the Unmercenary healers Ss. Cosimas and Damian the story of them transplanting the leg of a deceased Erhiopian onto a Roman citizen whose leg had been crushed in the middle of the night, a hundred years or so after their death. While the authenticity of the account is questionable, it shows the early church in theory valued the idea of transplantation even if it believed that it could only happen through miraculous intervention.

What about 1 Corinthians 5? Likely this same man repented and was restored to the congregation. (2 Co 2:5-11) Your issue is not really with us, since you did say your issue is with 'literal interpretations of the text.' I've heard of people tearing out of their KJV Bibles the page that contained Psalm 83 when they were shown God's name there. Really if you wish to pick and choose what is literal, that is your prerogative.

I suppose if you do show such hate as the Bible burners of centuries past, you'll merely remind us of Luke 6:22,23. We are to be vessels filled with the treasure of the ministry. (2 Cor 4:1,7) If we get treated as found in 2 Cor 4:8-11, while it will be uncomfortable, we will not resent you for it.

 

[Kolibri]

do you REALLY think the Apostles in Jerusalem had blood transfusions in mind in Acts 15

Acts 15:6 shows that before the decree was issued, that the apostles and elders looked into the matter. What would they have to reason on? Well the Law given through Moses was no longer binding, so what else was there? Genesis 9:4-6 gave dietary restriction to Noah, binding on all his descendents.. We were not to eat the blood, it represents life in God's eyes. The restriction at Acts 15:29 lists blood twice, as in blood itself and things killed without the blood being drained. To eat it would be a disrespect for life.

If an alcoholic was to directly inject alcohol into his veins to avoid drinking it, would that not be defeating the purpose?

If you chose to break the command, or believe that it is not relevant or binding, we won't try to force the issue on you. It is your freedom to live and believe as you wish to the extent that your conscience and/or the law of the land you live in requires.

 

[Shiranui117]

Acts 15:6 shows that before the decree was issued, that the apostles and elders looked into the matter. What would they have to reason on? Well the Law given through Moses was no longer binding, so what else was there? Genesis 9:4-6 gave dietary restriction to Noah, binding on all his descendents.. We were not to eat the blood, it represents life in God's eyes. The restriction at Acts 15:29 lists blood twice, as in blood itself and things killed without the blood being drained. To eat it would be a disrespect for life.

If an alcoholic was to directly inject alcohol into his veins to avoid drinking it, would that not be defeating the purpose?

Except for the fact that an alcohol IV is entirely different from a blood transfusion. Blood transfusions, up until recently, have been the only way to save someone from dying, to replace the copious blood lost as a result of the surgeons' work, or due to the nature of the injury. That is not at all the same as eating a blood sausage, or drinking the blood of a deer like some kind of vampire. Blood recycling technologies are still very new, and not all that widespread, so unless you want to condemn to death millions of patients, blood transfusions are necessary.

Acts 15 was all about the Law, and whether or not the Gentiles should have to follow it. The Apostles and the bishops said no; they should only have to follow a few basic rules from the Law like not eating blood, not eating strangled things, and not eating things offered to idols, so that the Gentile Christians would get along well enough with the Jewish Christians in the churches.

 

[Desert Snake]

It does also seem that the word ' pagan ' seems out of date today.
The ancient Jews did Not celebrate the day of one's birth [ Ecclesiastes 7:1 ], but non-Jews did.
The 1st-century Christians did Not set aside a day to celebrate in order to give honor to the creation [ Romans 1:25], but it was the non-Christians who did.

The ''meaning'' I'm supposed to get from this seems shadowy. First off, the Jews have ''holidays''. They always did. Xmas is a ''holiday', not a birthday party, afaik. The fact that the nativity became involved in the 'entrance' of Jesus into the world, (keep in mind, I don't even think of Jesus as fully human), is incidental to the celebration. The 'rule', biblically, would exclude many things in all denominations if you take it literally, actually.
ps back to the 'Jews' thing. We have a separation of what Xians do, and what 'Jews' do; the lowering of differentiation for certain arguments yet not others is problematic, imo.

 

[Kolibri]

Except for the fact that an alcohol IV is entirely different from a blood transfusion. Blood transfusions, up until recently, have been the only way to save someone from dying, to replace the copious blood lost as a result of the surgeons' work, or due to the nature of the injury. That is not at all the same as eating a blood sausage, or drinking the blood of a deer like some kind of vampire. Blood recycling technologies are still very new, and not all that widespread, so unless you want to condemn to death millions of patients, blood transfusions are necessary.

Acts 15 was all about the Law, and whether or not the Gentiles should have to follow it. The Apostles and the bishops said no; they should only have to follow a few basic rules from the Law like not eating blood, not eating strangled things, and not eating things offered to idols, so that the Gentile Christians would get along well enough with the Jewish Christians in the churches.

Having been around Jehovah's Witnesses since i was a small boy, in the mid 1070s, I've always been aware of Ringer's Solution being used for volume expansion. This saline solution has been around since the 1880s. I do not know when it started to be used widely nor to what extent it is used today.

There are a variety of other ways to deal with emergency/projected blood loss now. Restoring Fluid Volume was always healthier then using blood. Blood comes with unscreened for infections. It is foreign DNA that the body rejects immediately, depressing the immune system. And even within any single blood type there are compatibility issues. (Transplants of organs is a personal decision but it should be noted that those that get these have to stay on drugs to keep the body from rejecting them; likewise with the blood,the weakened body will be weakened further as it tries to reject the foreign tissue.)

None of these reasons are why we reject blood, as for us Jehovah's viewpoint is paramount. But for many hospitals non-blood management has become the 'gold standard.' and we appreciate the care given.

As regards Acts 15, all the things carried over had scriptures to back them up from times prior to the Law given to Moses. What Joseph said to Potipher's wife would have made it very clear the sexual immortality would primarily be a sin against God. (Genesis 39:9) And the restriction from things connected to idols could find a basis in Genesis 35:2-5, when Jacob cleanses his household of Idols and how it went well with him after. None of the "necessary things" had their roots in the Law. (Acts 15:20,28,29)

Jesus words found in Luke 17 33 are of great encouragement to us. Sometimes we have to risk the life now safeguard it for the "real life" to come.(1 Tim 6:19) It may not be popular, but obeying God has never been a popularity contest.

"Whoever seeks to keep his life (or "soul.") safe will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive." - Luke 17:33

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Acts 15:6 shows that before the decree was issued, that the apostles and elders looked into the matter. What would they have to reason on? Well the Law given through Moses was no longer binding, so what else was there? Genesis 9:4-6 gave dietary restriction to Noah, binding on all his descendents.. We were not to eat the blood, it represents life in God's eyes. The restriction at Acts 15:29 lists blood twice, as in blood itself and things killed without the blood being drained. To eat it would be a disrespect for life.
If an alcoholic was to directly inject alcohol into his veins to avoid drinking it, would that not be defeating the purpose?
If you chose to break the command, or believe that it is not relevant or binding, we won't try to force the issue on you. It is your freedom to live and believe as you wish to the extent that your conscience and/or the law of the land you live in requires.

If a person accepts the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, then how can they reason away what God's position was on blood before the Constitution of the Mosaic Law and is still God's same position today after the Mosaic law is No longer in effect.

Question: Since there are Catholics who say the chalice wine is actually Christ's blood, then why doesn't the priest, who finishes the wine, still feel the effects of the wine if it was actually no longer wine but the drinking of blood ?

 

[Wharton]

There are a variety of other ways to deal with emergency/projected blood loss now. Restoring Fluid Volume was always healthier then using blood. Blood comes with unscreened for infections. It is foreign DNA that the body rejects immediately, depressing the immune system. And even within any single blood type there are compatibility issues. (Transplants of organs is a personal decision but it should be noted that those that get these have to stay on drugs to keep the body from rejecting them; likewise with the blood,the weakened body will be weakened further as it tries to reject the foreign tissue.)

None of these reasons are why we reject blood, as for us Jehovah's viewpoint is paramount. But for many hospitals non-blood management has become the 'gold standard.' and we appreciate the care given.

Yet JW's can have organ transplants. I guess as the governing body got older they thought they better allow transplants, in case they might need one? BTW, how do you drain all of the blood out of the organ to make Jehovah happy?

And then there are blood factions that are acceptable to JW's. How do you ensure that there is no unacceptable blood in the faction? Do the elders examine it to make sure that it is "kosher?" Maybe, reverse transubstantiation? That would work.

 

[wgw]

If a person accepts the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, then how can they reason away what God's position was on blood before the Constitution of the Mosaic Law and is still God's same position today after the Mosaic law is No longer in effect.

Question: Since there are Catholics who say the chalice wine is actually Christ's blood, then why doesn't the priest, who finishes the wine, still feel the effects of the wine if it was actually no longer wine but the drinking of blood ?

In my experience taking the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church if actual transubstantiation occurs the effect of the elements can be radicalLy different. This is why we call them "mysteries." I've had stomach flu and other ailments cured by the Eucharist properly consecrated. You and most Protestants I suspect would dismiss this as poppycock, which is your perogative of course. The nature of private mystical experience cannot be proven empirically of course. There is a prominent member here who claims he talks to Jesus, I think he talks to someone else, some probably accept his belief, while some atheists would (wrongly in my view) question his sincerity. I as a rule never doubt the sincerity of people's religious convictions unless there is reason to suspect fraud. I will say I've never seen a priest look buzzed after finishing the chalice.

 

[Kolibri]

Yet JW's can have organ transplants. I guess as the governing body got older they thought they better allow transplants, in case they might need one? BTW, how do you drain all of the blood out of the organ to make Jehovah happy?

And then there are blood factions that are acceptable to JW's. How do you ensure that there is no unacceptable blood in the faction? Do the elders examine it to make sure that it is "kosher?" Maybe, reverse transubstantiation? That would work.

Was Noah required to squeeze every last drop out of the meat before eating it? Were the Israelites to do so? No. They were told merely to "pour its blood out." (Le 17:13) No squeezing or soaking was required. The Bible is silent when it comes to organ transplants.

At what point do the blood fractions stop being blood? Anything smaller than the 4 major components of blood becomes a conscience matter. Each Christian will have to make their own decision with regards to their conscience before God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In my experience taking the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church if actual transubstantiation occurs the effect of the elements can be radicalLy different. This is why we call them "mysteries." I've had stomach flu and other ailments cured by the Eucharist properly consecrated. You and most Protestants I suspect would dismiss this as poppycock, which is your perogative of course. The nature of private mystical experience cannot be proven empirically of course. There is a prominent member here who claims he talks to Jesus, I think he talks to someone else, some probably accept his belief, while some atheists would (wrongly in my view) question his sincerity. I as a rule never doubt the sincerity of people's religious convictions unless there is reason to suspect fraud. I will say I've never seen a priest look buzzed after finishing the chalice.

One does Not have to feel or looked ' buzzed ' to feel the effects of a drink of wine.
Wine which is No longer wine would have No effect especially on an empty stomach.
If literal blood then some people might think they are drinking their God.
As if their God is an endless supply of blood which could be tapped into like a blood bank.
Wasn't cannibalism the partaking of any blood forbidden according to Leviticus 17:10,14 ?

 

[wgw]

One does Not have to feel or looked ' buzzed ' to feel the effects of a drink of wine.
Wine which is No longer wine would have No effect especially on an empty stomach.
If literal blood then some people might think they are drinking their God.
As if their God is an endless supply of blood which could be tapped into like a blood bank.
Wasn't cannibalism the partaking of any blood forbidden according to Leviticus 17:10,14 ?

The blood and body of our Lord exist in quantities sufficient to feed his flock. When, in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, we pray the prayer known as the epiclesis we believe the bread and wine are changed into the actual body and blood of our Lord by the action of the Holy Spirit (rather than changing their substance while retaining their perceptual attributes at the Words of Institution which is the Roman Catholic belief, although Orthodox sometimes say we believe in transubstantiation for want of a word to properly express this mystical action).

Whereas it would be wrong to drink the blood of a human or an animal for that matter, it is not wrong to drink the blood of our Lord. The bread is of course an easier pill to swallow typologically and easier to distribute without spills, which are viewed by both Catholics and Orthodox as a gross impiety, which is why for some centuries the Roman church denied the chalice to the laity. The Orthodox have always distributed both in both species.

Now, having fasted since the night before, one would expect wine to upset the stomach or have a noticeable effect consumed directly (the Eastern Orthodox put the bread on a spoon with the wine, mixed with boiling water before serving it as this simulates the warmth of real blood; the other Orthodox don't do this), but this is not the case. In contrast the white wine (Orthodox church wine is always red) used in the local Episcopal church upset my stomach every time, even without Eucharistic fasting, and at the same time left that boozey aftertaste of strong wine.

Now what we're discussing is really the mystical theology of the second largest Christian denomination, the Orthodox, and to a large degree, that of the Roman Catholics, who of course retain the top spot for the moment. So while "this is a hard saying" as the masses in John 5-6 said after Jesus stated that to inherit eternal life we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and indeed most of those present left on that note, happily, the majority of Christians now alive accept that teaching (when one factors in Lutherans who largely accept it and high church Anglicans, the numbers grow a bit more). And it is indeed part of the mystery that with some rare exceptions, for most who partake the texture and taste is pleasant, like bread and wine.

Now all religions worth believing in have a mystical element that defies rational thinking. I find the rationalism of some Protestant denominations to be soul crushing.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

wgw, Please keep in mind John chapter 6 takes place one year before the Last Supper.
Who is Jesus addressing but the Jewish crowds. And according to Matthew 13:34 Jesus would Not address the crowds without an illustration. Meaning those crowds knew nothing about the coming Last Supper, nor did they know about the coming New Covenant Jesus would make with his followers.

Remember those crowds were disappointed with Jesus because [ John 6:15 ] Jesus turned down their opportunity to make Jesus their political king right then and there.

John 6:35 is where Jesus likens himself to the ' bread of life '. Bread is a blood-less eatable such as Manna was. Jesus would be Superior Manna because Jesus' flesh(bread) would have a more lasting effect than Manna ever could.

Doesn't Hebrew 9:24-26 show Jesus' ransom sacrifice is Not that Jesus offer himself often, but now once and once to die ? ______ Hebrews 10:12-14 also shows once and one sacrifice.....singular.

So, since Jesus was addressing, Not his disciples, but the Jewish crowds the verses of John 6:35,40 would be an illustration.

Why did those Jewish people find Jesus words so repulsive at verse 60 is because of Genesis 9:4 and Lev. 17:10 forbidding them to consume blood, and cannibalism consuming was repulsive to them. - 2nd Kings 6 vs 26-31

John 6:38-40 Jesus is stressing the doing of God's will. There Jesus connects the doing of God's will with believing, and belief is connected with the doing spiritual labor or works of God mentioned in verses 27-29, which is Not the first Good Friday, and that people should Not work for the food (Manna) that perishes, but for Jesus as the figurative ' bread ' of life.

Please remember: Jesus is also the figurative: vine, door, shepherd, etc.