Charles Taze Russell - The Truth!

[Krusader]

Now, ask yourselves this: would God choose a man with occult beliefs, whose wife accused him of illicit sexual activity with other women (and who undoubtedly had questionable relationships with women to whom he was not married), to be the founder of God's organization on earth? The Watchtower is quick to condemn "religionists," is it not? Remember it was Rutherford who taught that "religion was a snare." Well, don't you think the Witnesses have gotten snared in Russell's theological trap? Today, the Society actively promotes Russell's teachings (however much they wish to distance themselves from him). My question: why not just put a big old pyramid as the logo for the Watchtower? Or, if Russell was wrong about the pyramid, could he have been wrong about a whole bunch of other things? Such as, Christ's invisible "return" in 1914?

Here's some info on the false teacher, C.T. Russell:

http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/russell.html

[Meh_Gerbil]

Now, ask yourselves this: would God choose a man with occult beliefs, whose wife accused him of adultery, and who had questionable relationships with women, to be the founder of God's organization on earth? The Watchtower is quick to condemn "religionists," is it not? Remember it was Rutherford who taught that "religion was a snare." Well, don't you think the Witnesses have gotten snared in Russell's theological trap? Today, the Society actively promotes Russell's teachings (however much they wish to distance themselves from him). My question: why not just put a big old pyramid as the logo for the Watchtower? Or, if Russell was wrong about the pyramid, could he have been wrong about a whole bunch of other things? Such as, Christ's invisible "return" in 1914?

Here's some info on the false teacher, C.T. Russell:

http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/russell.html

I'm not a JW, but based on G_d's actions in the past I'd have to say that CT Russell is exactly the sort of person G_d would pick.

See:
Jacob
Jonah
Saul
David
etc.

[Krusader]

I'm not a JW, but based on G_d's actions in the past I'd have to say that CT Russell is exactly the sort of person G_d would pick.

See:
Jacob
Jonah
Saul
David
etc.

I understand what you're saying, but we are not talking about Old Testament leaders here. This is a man who was claiming to be setting up God's mouthpiece on earth, and at the SAME time, sharing the bed of women to whom he was not married.

If you accept this, then please apologize to Joseph Smith.

[technomage]

I'm not a JW, but based on G_d's actions in the past I'd have to say that CT Russell is exactly the sort of person G_d would pick.

See:
Jacob
Jonah
Saul
David
etc.
MG's got a point, Crusader: God seems to have a penchant for using people, and people are imperfect.

[Krusader]

MG's got a point, Crusader: God seems to have a penchant for using people, and people are imperfect.

Well, Cup, we are all totally imperfect. However, when you are claiming that the magazine you are editing is the mouthpiece of God - wouldn't you expect the editor to be living in God's will? Doesn't the NT instruct us that the elders must be the husbands of one wife (this would exclude going to bed with other women, I think)? Also, please read the link I provided, especially the testimony of Russell's wife. It's very sad.

Most Christians do not call their denominations the ONLY group on earth doing God's will. The Jehovah's Witnesses, however, make this claim. When one considers the fact that Russell was a member of the "anointed remnant," and, in fact, was initially thought to be the Faithful Servant giving "meat in due season" to the flock, one can see that his lifestyle didn't measure up to the claim.

The Watchtower stakes its claims on Russell being right - but he had feet of clay, as do all false prophets. Christians base their claims on Jesus Christ, whose feet have stomped the serpent's head!

[technomage]

Well, Cup, we are all totally imperfect. However, when you are claiming that the magazine you are editing is the mouthpiece of God - wouldn't you expect the editor to be living in God's will?

*shrug* I certainly would ... but too close an insistance will reduce the number of Psalms severalfold, if we allow the traditional attributions for those Psalms. David was certainly not "living in God's will" during large chunks of his life.

Most Christians do not call their denominations the ONLY group on earth doing God's will.

Eh ... that's an easy claim to make, but hard to actually establish. The JWs do not claim to be a "denomination"--they claim to be the Church, the Body of Christ. You certainly make a distinction between those whom you consider to be outside the Body and those who are within It ... it is only logical that they would, too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the JWs are right and you're wrong. But this is not the best framework for your argument, because the (small "o") orthodox Church can also be condemned by the same accusations.

[Krusader]

*shrug* I certainly would ... but too close an insistance will reduce the number of Psalms severalfold, if we allow the traditional attributions for those Psalms. David was certainly not "living in God's will" during large chunks of his life.



Eh ... that's an easy claim to make, but hard to actually establish. The JWs do not claim to be a "denomination"--they claim to be the Church, the Body of Christ. You certainly make a distinction between those whom you consider to be outside the Body and those who are within It ... it is only logical that they would, too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the JWs are right and you're wrong. But this is not the best framework for your argument, because the (small "o") orthodox Church can also be condemned by the same accusations.

I'd agree with you, many Christian leaders not only don't meet the mark, but don't even know where the mark is. Especially among the Shepherding sects, where the leaders have often fallen into sexual misconduct because of the high esteem paid them by their female followers (doctors sometimes have the same problems). But, these fallen leaders aren't making the huge claims made by the Watchtower! And these guys sure aren't claiming to be our Mediators (see below).

Technically, the JWs state that only 144,000 anointed followers of Christ are the Body of Christ, which will eventually be made up of 144,001 anointed, transformed spirit-creatures (Christ accounting for that extra one). The 144,001 are the mediators for the Great Crowd, who are not part of the Body of Christ.

Anyway, I think the information on Russell is revealing, and I would recommend anybody thinking of joining up with the Watchtower crowd to carefully look at the leaders of that group, and its origin. Its origin is found in Mr. Russell and his claims. It is, Russell's theology which laid the foundation for the cult. His near deification by his followers (as the faithful servant dispensing meat in due season) was later played down by the Society's leadership - they knew his shortcomings! And, after Russell we have Rutherford who had a whole lot of other issues! That's for another thread!

[Oldmonk]

I'd agree with you, many Christian leaders not only don't meet the mark, but don't even know where the mark is. Especially among the Shepherding sects, where the leaders have often fallen into sexual misconduct because of the high esteem paid them by their female followers (doctors sometimes have the same problems). But, these fallen leaders aren't making the huge claims made by the Watchtower! And these guys sure aren't claiming to be our Mediators (see below).

Technically, the JWs state that only 144,000 anointed followers of Christ are the Body of Christ, which will eventually be made up of 144,001 anointed, transformed spirit-creatures (Christ accounting for that extra one). The 144,001 are the mediators for the Great Crowd, who are not part of the Body of Christ.

Anyway, I think the information on Russell is revealing, and I would recommend anybody thinking of joining up with the Watchtower crowd to carefully look at the leaders of that group, and its origin. Its origin is found in Mr. Russell and his claims. It is, Russell's theology which laid the foundation for the cult. His near deification by his followers (as the faithful servant dispensing meat in due season) was later played down by the Society's leadership - they knew his shortcomings! And, after Russell we have Rutherford who had a whole lot of other issues! That's for another thread!


Well actually a LOT of Russell's theology came from the Ädventist movement started by William Miller. Miller calculated that the world would end in 1844. Of course he was wrong. After another date William Miller admited he was wrong... Unfortunately people like George Storrs , and Ellen G. White couldn't let those dates go so they came up with the expaination that the dates were right just what they perdicted was wrong ( sound a bit familiar??) ! Investigative judgment followed from that.
Russell actually co-authored a book with the wrll known Adventist N.H. Barbour called ;"The Three Worlds" and helped George Storrs with an Adventist magazine.
Actually in all honesty the JW's have held to historic Adventist doctrine while Adventists have made some move towards orthodoxy. :teeth:

[Krusader]

Well actually a LOT of Russell's theology came from the Ädventist movement started by William Miller. Miller calculated that the world would end in 1844. Of course he was wrong. After another date William Miller admited he was wrong... Unfortunately people like George Storrs , and Ellen G. White couldn't let those dates go so they came up with the expaination that the dates were right just what they perdicted was wrong ( sound a bit familiar??) ! Investigative judgment followed from that.
Russell actually co-authored a book with the wrll known Adventist N.H. Barbour called ;"The Three Worlds" and helped George Storrs with an Adventist magazine.
Actually in all honesty the JW's have held to historic Adventist doctrine while Adventists have made some move towards orthodoxy. :teeth:

Yes, Adventists played midwife to Russell's heresies.

[Oldmonk]

Yes, Adventists played midwife to Russell's heresies.
What is your take on the Adventists??? Cult or on the fring??? I know a lot of Adventists that have made deep commitments to Christ but still hold on to that false prophet Ellen G. White.
It seems to me that they have reverted back to some old ways theologically speaking and have isolated themselves from the rest of the body. There is more and more emphases on E.G. White as time goes on. Their whole view of "Ïnvestigative judgment " seems to me to take much away from faith as well as their unhistorical view of the Sabbath day.

[Super Cow]

Actually, it is not important what someone did before they started to serve God. (Regardless of whether their method is right or wrong) What is important is how they behave afterwards. If you can demonstrate that C.T. Russell did these things after he founded his organization (which was not called "Jehovah's Witnesses" until the 1930s after his death), and if retained as head after this time, then you can justifiably discredit the entire movement.

Perhaps some forget here that the entire Roman Catholic church in it's present incarnation was founded by Constantine, a Roman emperor who would probably be considered anything but righteous when he created the church. He didn't even consider himself to be upright enough to be officially converted until his deathbed, so that he could continue doing whatever he needed to maintain his empire without having to literally abide by church principles.

[IncRus]

The JWs do not claim to be a "denomination"--they claim to be the Church, the Body of Christ. You certainly make a distinction between those whom you consider to be outside the Body and those who are within It ... it is only logical that they would, too.

According to barryrob, ONLY 144,000 JWs who will go the heaven are the "BODY of Christ." The rest of the JWs who belong to the "great crowd" are NOT the "BODY of Christ." Hence, they will live forever ON EARTH.

[superdan54]

I'm not a JW, but based on G_d's actions in the past I'd have to say that CT Russell is exactly the sort of person G_d would pick.

See:
Jacob
Jonah
Saul
David
etc.

On one hand, I can certainly see your point that God uses "imperfect vessels" to further his kingdom. However, the characters viewed as righteous were always characterized with redemption and devotion to God (cf Psalm 51, Jonah 2, etc..).

While false prophets were used by God, they were never used to bring teaching and instruction to his chosen people. Yes Balaam prophesied in favor of Israel to a pagan king, however he also led Israel astray with his wicked behavior. And as 2 Peter 2 says below, we are NOT to follow the Balaams of the world.

2 Peter 2
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

...

14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children;

15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

16 but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.

17 These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved.

18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error,

19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.

Can you really fit Moses, David, Abraham & others in this category? Now how about Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and Charles Russel? The shoe fits perfectly. Why in the world should we give ear to these Balaams?

[mellentos]

I think it is far better when religions are created my people like John Calvin who just had those who disagreed with him killed... Far better choice of character and integrity on God's part.

The reality is that is if perfection is a requirement to be used of God, then how could any of us do anything useful in the Kingdom of God

[IncRus]

Actually, it is not important what someone did before they started to serve God. (Regardless of whether their method is right or wrong) What is important is how they behave afterwards.
I agree with your first sentence.

However, I don't believe that "how they behave afterwards" is as important as to whether or not they are SENT by God to PREACH the gospel and WHAT they PREACH. You will note that God SENT Jesus (John 3:17) and what Jesus PREACHED were doctrines of God (John 7:16). Doctrines of God are found ONLY in the Bible.

If you can demonstrate that C.T. Russell did these things after he founded his organization (which was not called "Jehovah's Witnesses" until the 1930s after his death), and if retained as head after this time, then you can justifiably discredit the entire movement.
To evaluate objectively whether C T Rusell was truly chosen by God and the Jehovah's Witnesses which Russell founded is TRULY the "church of God" which Jesus PURCHASED with his own blood" (Acts 20:28), we must take into consideration what the Bible teaches, thus:

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak NOT according to this word, it is because there is NO light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

And: "And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spiit of prophecy" (REv. 19:10).

Does C T Russell have the "testimony of Jesus" which is the "spirit of prophecy?" Jesus testified of his having been SENT by God when he read Isaiah's prophecy about him in Luke 4:21, 17-20).

Did C T Russell PREACH doctrines of God that are found WRITTEN in the Bible? Jesus said, "My doctrine is not mine but His who SENT me" (John 7:16).

Perhaps some forget here that the entire Roman Catholic church in it's present incarnation was founded by Constantine, a Roman emperor who would probably be considered anything but righteous when he created the church. He didn't even consider himself to be upright enough to be officially converted until his deathbed, so that he could continue doing whatever he needed to maintain his empire without having to literally abide by church principles.
I'm glad you pointed this out because this proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the "Church of God that Christ PURCHASED with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). In fact, God said, and I belierve strongly that God was referring to the Roman Catholic Church: "Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues" (Rev. 18:4).

[OldShepherd]

[ . . . ]Perhaps some forget here that the entire Roman Catholic church in it's present incarnation was founded by Constantine, a Roman emperor who would probably be considered anything but righteous when he created the church. He didn't even consider himself to be upright enough to be officially converted until his deathbed, so that he could continue doing whatever he needed to maintain his empire without having to literally abide by church principles.

Can we get serious here. First Constantine was an Arian, 4th century JW. He had nothing to do with the creation of the Catholic church. Constantine delayed baptism because wanted to be baptized in the Jordan. When he became too ill to travel to Israel he requested to be baptized. There was no RCC with a pope at its head until the 11lth century when the bishop of Rome Nicholas, decreed that he alone was to use the title pope. Until that time all bishops called themselves pope. At that time he also decreed that the church at Rome was the supreme authority for all matters religious.

[Super Cow]

However, I don't believe that "how they behave afterwards" is as important as to whether or not they are SENT by God to PREACH the gospel and WHAT they PREACH. You will note that God SENT Jesus (John 3:17) and what Jesus PREACHED were doctrines of God (John 7:16). Doctrines of God are found ONLY in the Bible.

I don't disagree with you here, but I was not evaluating whether C T Russell was actually sent by God, only that you cannot discredit the actions of a man before they claimed to follow God.

The Apostle Paul was busy trying to stamp out and murder Christians before he accepted Christ, but made a complete reversal when confronted on the road to Damascus.

To evaluate objectively whether C T Rusell was truly chosen by God and the Jehovah's Witnesses which Russell founded is TRULY the "church of God" which Jesus PURCHASED with his own blood" (Acts 20:28), we must take into consideration what the Bible teaches,

It is impossible to determine whether even the purest of men was chosen by God. You can only negate the likelihood of such by actions that are against God's teachings.


"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak NOT according to this word, it is because there is NO light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

And: "And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spiit of prophecy" (REv. 19:10).

Does C T Russell have the "testimony of Jesus" which is the "spirit of prophecy?" Jesus testified of his having been SENT by God when he read Isaiah's prophecy about him in Luke 4:21, 17-20).

Did C T Russell PREACH doctrines of God that are found WRITTEN in the Bible? Jesus said, "My doctrine is not mine but His who SENT me" (John 7:16).


Anyone can quote scriptures, but to prove your point you have to match those scriptures with actions by the man that are contrary to the scripture.

Personally, I do not believe CT Russell was actually sent by God. I think he was just someone who was searching for the truth and eventually built a movement around it. From my own experience growing up in that church I have determined some basic problems with their teachings, though as a whole I don't think anyone in that group is setting out on a purpose to mislead people, nor do I think the early leaders like Russell and Rutherford were purposefully trying to mislead people.

There certainly was not a great profit in the way they did their ministry like many of the T.V. evangelists you see Sunday mornings.

Yes, they believe they are part of the anointed sub-group, and that their church is the manifestation of Christ's teachings on earth, but never personally claimed to be called out by God in a manner like the Old Testament prophets or the first disciples.

[Super Cow]

Can we get serious here. First Constantine was an Arian, 4th century JW. He had nothing to do with the creation of the Catholic church. Constantine delayed baptism because wanted to be baptized in the Jordan. When he became too ill to travel to Israel he requested to be baptized. There was no RCC with a pope at its head until the 11lth century when the bishop of Rome Nicholas, decreed that he alone was to use the title pope. Until that time all bishops called themselves pope. At that time he also decreed that the church at Rome was the supreme authority for all matters religious.

He called on the Bishops to unify. He demanded that they agree on a set of books that would be part of the Canon. He did not pick the books himself, nor did he do anything regarding doctrine other than force bishops to follow the majority for unification sake. Nevertheless, it was under his rule and supervision that the Catholic church was formed.

And regarding being too ill to travel, he had two decades to travel before he got ill if and when he wanted to be baptized. He waited until he was ill because he knew he could not live the full sacrifice of a Christian as a Roman emperor.

[IncRus]

However, I don't believe that "how they behave afterwards" is as important as to whether or not they are SENT by God to PREACH the gospel and WHAT they PREACH. You will note that God SENT Jesus (John 3:17) and what Jesus PREACHED were doctrines of God (John 7:16). Doctrines of God are found ONLY in the Bible.
I don't disagree with you here, but I was not evaluating whether C T Russell was actually sent by God, only that you cannot discredit the actions of a man before they claimed to follow God.

The Apostle Paul was busy trying to stamp out and murder Christians before he accepted Christ, but made a complete reversal when confronted on the road to Damascus.
Have you ever heard of Tony Alamo? He was a convicted felon and was jailed for his crimes. When he came out of prison, he made a "complete reversal" like apostle Paul, and established his evangelical ministyry. If you were to meet and talk to him now or read what he publishes, you would not even have an inkling that he was once a convicted and jailed felon.

I don't discredit the actions of Tony Alamo. I don't even question his motives for preaching what he thinks are the words of God. But I have no doubt at all that he is not a messenger sent from God to preach true doctrines of God.

To evaluate objectively whether C T Rusell was truly chosen by God and the Jehovah's Witnesses which Russell founded is TRULY the "church of God" which Jesus PURCHASED with his own blood" (Acts 20:28), we must take into consideration what the Bible teaches,
It is impossible to determine whether even the purest of men was chosen by God. You can only negate the likelihood of such by actions that are against God's teachings.
Jesus warned to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. These people's actions are not against God's teachings that people are aware of. They don't kill, they don'y steal, they don't commit adultery nor fornication. But they teach falsehood instead of truth, which is found only in the Bible, which is the word of God. Ths is the fruit by which Jesus said we can know these wolves in sheep's clothing.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak NOT according to this word, it is because there is NO light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

And: "And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spiit of prophecy" (REv. 19:10).

Does C T Russell have the "testimony of Jesus" which is the "spirit of prophecy?" Jesus testified of his having been SENT by God when he read Isaiah's prophecy about him in Luke 4:21, 17-20).

Did C T Russell PREACH doctrines of God that are found WRITTEN in the Bible? Jesus said, "My doctrine is not mine but His who SENT me" (John 7:16).
Anyone can quote scriptures, but to prove your point you have to match those scriptures with actions by the man that are contrary to the scripture.

Personally, I do not believe CT Russell was actually sent by God. I think he was just someone who was searching for the truth and eventually built a movement around it. From my own experience growing up in that church I have determined some basic problems with their teachings, though as a whole I don't think anyone in that group is setting out on a purpose to mislead people, nor do I think the early leaders like Russell and Rutherford were purposefully trying to mislead people.

There certainly was not a great profit in the way they did their ministry like many of the T.V. evangelists you see Sunday mornings.

Yes, they believe they are part of the anointed sub-group, and that their church is the manifestation of Christ's teachings on earth, but never personally claimed to be called out by God in a manner like the Old Testament prophets or the first disciples.
As I said earlier, I don't question the motives of Russell or any evangelist and I am not one to say that they purposely mislead people. I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they truly were sincere in searching the truth and sharing these with others.

Unfortunately, people are unwittingly misled into believing something that leads them farther away from the true path that leads them to their salvation.

The fact that these people do not personally claim to have been called out by God to preach the true gospel should make people wary of their teachings. Jesus and apostle John proved to their audience that they were sent from God by quoting prophecies from the Old Testament pertaining to their mission.

God's messengers in these last days can do no less.

John said that he who is from God speaks God's words. Therefore, it follows that a messenger from God speaks only the wortds of God written in the Bible. As Jesus himself said, his doctrines are not his but God's who sent him.

[apostoli]

Have you ever heard of Tony Alamo? He was a convicted felon and was jailed for his crimes. When he came out of prison, he made a "complete reversal" like apostle Paul, and established his evangelical ministyry. If you were to meet and talk to him now or read what he publishes, you would not even have an inkling that he was once a convicted and jailed felon.

I don't discredit the actions of Tony Alamo. I don't even question his motives for preaching what he thinks are the words of God. But I have no doubt at all that he is not a messenger sent from God to preach true doctrines of God.


Jesus warned to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. These people's actions are not against God's teachings that people are aware of. They don't kill, they don'y steal, they don't commit adultery nor fornication. But they teach falsehood instead of truth, which is found only in the Bible, which is the word of God. Ths is the fruit by which Jesus said we can know these wolves in sheep's clothing.


As I said earlier, I don't question the motives of Russell or any evangelist and I am not one to say that they purposely mislead people. I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they truly were sincere in searching the truth and sharing these with others.

Unfortunately, people are unwittingly misled into believing something that leads them farther away from the true path that leads them to their salvation.

The fact that these people do not personally claim to have been called out by God to preach the true gospel should make people wary of their teachings. Jesus and apostle John proved to their audience that they were sent from God by quoting prophecies from the Old Testament pertaining to their mission.

God's messengers in these last days can do no less.

John said that he who is from God speaks God's words. Therefore, it follows that a messenger from God speaks only the wortds of God written in the Bible. As Jesus himself said, his doctrines are not his but God's who sent him.IncRus, I applaud your testimony.

However, I question whether or not you hear the words of Jesus or the interpretation of his words that your teachers give him, just as I question the meaning of his words that my teachers give him. Imo, the arbitrator is the words themselves!

Peace

[IncRus]

IncRus, I applaud your testimony.

However, I question whether or not you hear the words of Jesus or the interpretation of his words that your teachers give him, just as I question the meaning of his words that my teachers give him. Imo, the arbitrator is the words themselves!

Peace
Of course, the arbitrator are the words of Jesus themselves. But it is up to us to use our God-given intellect to evaluate whether the interpretation that our teachers give us conform with what Jesus actually says or not.

For example, Jesus says in John 8:40 that he is a man who is telling the truth that he heard from God, and says to the Father in John 17:3, "....that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God..."

These are the words that I hear Jesus said as written in the Holy Bible. What is Jesus actually telling me? I don't believe I need anyone to interpret for me what Jesus was actually telling me.

From what I learned since grade school, the word "only" means ALONE and nobody else. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that Jesus is telling me that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God.

And since Jesus is the Son - NOT the Father, and he himself said that he is a MAN, then Jesus is also telling me that he is NOT God NOR God/Man as my previous religious teachers taught me.

If anyone believes me, that's fine. If not, that's fine as well. As the saying goes, I can only lead the horse to the water but I cannot force it to drink.

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

IncRus, I applaud your testimony [at post #19].

However, I question whether or not you hear the words of Jesus or the interpretation of his words that your teachers give him, just as I question the meaning of his words that my teachers give him. Imo, the arbitrator is the words themselves!Of course, the arbitrator are the words of Jesus themselves.I'm glad you agree in principle but on the basis of your posts elsewhere and below, apparently not in practice!

But it is up to us to use our God-given intellect to evaluate whether the interpretation that our teachers give us conform with what Jesus actually says or not.Very true. However, I'd add that most of Jesus' words do not require interpretation, merely an understanding of scripture. John 8:40, and 17:3 being very good examples.

For example, Jesus says in John 8:40 that he is a man who is telling the truth that he heard from God...While this is true, his emphasis is not that he is merely a man! Jesus continued, saying "Abraham did not do this." If we isolate text as you seem prone to do, then we'd understand Jesus as saying that Abraham being a man did not tell the truth that he heard from God (cp. Num 23:19). However, if we read Jesus' words in full, this is not what Jesus says: What Abraham did not do, was seek to kill him, though he had appeared to Abraham as a man (cp. Gen 18). in answer to the Jews query "Who do you claim to be?" Jesus reinforces his having appeared to Abraham at verses 56-58. And for this the Jews picked up stones

"But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this." (NKJV)


The TEV renders verses 37 thru 41 as...

"I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are trying to kill me, because you will not accept my teaching. I talk about what my Father has shown me, but you do what your father has told you. They answered him, "Our father is Abraham".

"If you really were Abraham's children", Jesus replied, “you would do the same things that he did. All I have ever done is to tell you the truth I heard from God, yet you are trying to kill me. Abraham did nothing like this! You are doing what your father did."

To find out what Abraham did, when YHWH came to him as a man have a read of Genesis 18.

and says to the Father in John 17:3, "....that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God..."Jesus continues "and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." From 17:1, this knowing includes knowing that Jesus is the Son of the Father. But more importantly the word rendered "know" in English is deceiving, the original Greek does not have "gnosis" nor "epignosis" which refer to intellectualism but "ginōskō" which refers to perception = knowledge acquired via an intimate relationship.

These are the words that I hear Jesus said as written in the Holy Bible.As Jesus said at John 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word."

In other threads you deny the Son's pre-existence in actuality, even though Jesus regularly refers to it. So it seems you are selective in what you want to hear.

What is Jesus actually telling me?If you read what he says in full, you'd know!

I don't believe I need anyone to interpret for me what Jesus was actually telling me.However, you do need someone to encourage you to read the full testimony of scripture and especially all that a verse says. Then you would understand what Jesus at John 8:40 & 17:3 is telling you!

From what I learned since grade school, the word "only" means ALONE and nobody else. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that Jesus is telling me that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God.Yep! Thats what the Nicene creed and all churches that conform to it teach.

And scripture tells us that "God sent his only Son into the world"! Jesus is the monogenēs of God - the only begotten - begotten not made! huios, rendered Son, generally refers to the offspring of someone, or in a wider sense the descendant of someone. Hence A.John says at the end of his Gospel "These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31) and in his first letter he says "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." (1 John 4:15).

And since Jesus is the Son - NOT the Father, and he himself said that he is a MAN, then Jesus is also telling me that he is NOT God NOR God/Man as my previous religious teachers taught me.If Jesus is truely the Son of the Father, then it is a logical conclusion (and what is taught in scripture) that he is what his Father is ie: we perceive the Father in the Son (cp. John 12:45; 14:9).

Scripture and all churches that adhere to the Nicene creed teach the Son, became materially exactly like us = the Logos made flesh = became truely man. However, unlike other men he had the power to give eternal life to us, something the OT tells us only God can do. Hence, the Nicene creed does not proclaim the Son as God of himself, but God from God, true God from true God...

At 1 John 4:2 we read "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God". The word rendered "come" in the original Greek is "erchomai" which means "to come from one place to another". So we learn that Jesus Christ came from one place to another. Just as Jesus regularly says of himself (eg: John 3:13).

As A.John says at John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

If anyone believes me, that's fine. If not, that's fine as well. As the saying goes, I can only lead the horse to the water but I cannot force it to drink.As scripture says...

"My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the Spirit, but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know whether it is God's Spirit: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus Christ came as a human being has the Spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the Spirit from God. Those false prophets speak about matters of the world, and the world listens to them because they belong to the world. But we belong to God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever does not belong to God does not listen to us. This, then, is how we can tell the difference between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error...

...God showed his love for us by sending his only Son into the world, so that we might have life through him...we have seen and tell others that the Father sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. If anyone declares that Jesus is the Son of God, he lives in union with God and God lives in union with him. And we ourselves know and believe the love which God has for us." (TEV, 1 John 4)

It should be noted that A.John is not refering to Jesus as the Son in a metaphorical sense, nor using allegory or analogy! So according to A.John we and especially our teachers must affirm Jesus is monogenēs=only true offspring, and that God sent him, so he erchomai=came from one place to another, in the flesh. According to A.John, if someone teaches differently then they bear false witness.

Peace

[IncRus]

For example, Jesus says in John 8:40 that he is a man who is telling the truth that he heard from God...
While this is true, his emphasis is not that he is merely a man!

It is enough for me that you agree that Jesus said he is a MAN - not God. His emphasis is not important to me as it does NOT change the TRUTH that Jesus is a MAN.

and says to the Father in John 17:3, "....that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God..."
Jesus continues "and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." From 17:1, this knowing includes knowing that Jesus is the Son of the Father. But more importantly the word rendered "know" in English is deceiving, the original Greek does not have "gnosis" nor "epignosis" which refer to intellectualism but "ginōskō" which refers to perception = knowledge acquired via an intimate relationship.

Knowing that Jesus is the Son of the Father does NOT change the TRUTH that the Father is the ONLY true God. And whether this knowledge is acquired via an intimate relationship or not does NOT change the TRUTH that the Father is the ONLY true God.

These are the words that I hear Jesus said as written in the Holy Bible.
As Jesus said at John 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word."

In other threads you deny the Son's pre-existence in actuality, even though Jesus regularly refers to it. So it seems you are selective in what you want to hear.

I hear John 8:40 and John 17:3 loud and clear. These sayings of Jesus clearly tell me that he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God and have nothing to do with whether Jesus pre-existed in actuality or not.
What is Jesus actually telling me?
If you read what he says in full, you'd know!

I don't have to read John 8:40 and John 17:3 in full to understand what Jesus is telling me about himself being a MAN and the Father being the ONLY true God.
I don't believe I need anyone to interpret for me what Jesus was actually telling me.
However, you do need someone to encourage you to read the full testimony of scripture and especially all that a verse says. Then you would understand what Jesus at John 8:40 & 17:3 is telling you!
I repeat, I don't have to read John 8:40 and John 17:3 in full to understand what Jesus is telling me about himself being a MAN and the Father being the ONLY true God.

From what I learned since grade school, the word "only" means ALONE and nobody else. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that Jesus is telling me that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God.
Yep! Thats what the Nicene creed and all churches that conform to it teach.
This is an hypocritical statement and a lie! The Nicene Creed and all churches that say they conform to the Biblical teaching that the Father is the ONLY true God ALSO teach that the Son is ALSO true God and the Holy Spirit is ALSO true God. For this reason, any rational thinking person can readily see that Trinitarians do NOT believe that the Father is the ONLY true God.

And since Jesus is the Son - NOT the Father, and he himself said that he is a MAN, then Jesus is also telling me that he is NOT God NOR God/Man as my previous religious teachers taught me.
If Jesus is truely the Son of the Father, then it is a logical conclusion (and what is taught in scripture) that he is what his Father is ie: we perceive the Father in the Son (cp. John 12:45; 14:9).
Jesus said he is the Son of God and we know that what Jesus says is true. But your "logical conclusion" is NOT what Jesus ACTUALLY says. Despite his being truly the Son of God, Jesus says he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God. Yet you DON'T hear Jesus, don't you?

If anyone believes me, that's fine. If not, that's fine as well. As the saying goes, I can only lead the horse to the water but I cannot force it to drink.
As scripture says...

"My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the Spirit, but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know whether it is God's Spirit: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus Christ came as a human being has the Spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the Spirit from God. Those false prophets speak about matters of the world, and the world listens to them because they belong to the world. But we belong to God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever does not belong to God does not listen to us. This, then, is how we can tell the difference between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error...

...God showed his love for us by sending his only Son into the world, so that we might have life through him...we have seen and tell others that the Father sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. If anyone declares that Jesus is the Son of God, he lives in union with God and God lives in union with him. And we ourselves know and believe the love which God has for us." (TEV, 1 John 4)

It should be noted that A.John is not refering to Jesus as the Son in a metaphorical sense, nor using allegory or analogy! So according to A.John we and especially our teachers must affirm Jesus is monogenēs=only true offspring, and that God sent him, so he erchomai=came from one place to another, in the flesh. According to A.John, if someone teaches differently then they bear false witness.

As I said, if anyone believes me, that's fine. If not, that's fine as well. As the saying goes, I can only lead the horse to the water but I cannot force it to drink. However, I want you to use your God-given intellect and think about this:

Jesus said, "He who believes in him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already..." (John 3:18). And apostle John clarified this when he wrote: "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him" (John 3:34).

Jesus said he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God. What does it profit a man who believes that Jesus is the Son of God but does NOT believe what Jesus said about himself being a MAN and the Father being the ONLY true God? The wrath of God abides in him!

[Super Cow]

Have you ever heard of Tony Alamo? He was a convicted felon and was jailed for his crimes. When he came out of prison, he made a "complete reversal" like apostle Paul, and established his evangelical ministyry. If you were to meet and talk to him now or read what he publishes, you would not even have an inkling that he was once a convicted and jailed felon.

I don't discredit the actions of Tony Alamo. I don't even question his motives for preaching what he thinks are the words of God. But I have no doubt at all that he is not a messenger sent from God to preach true doctrines of God.

I guess what I'm not clear on is what you expect people to do? If they believe something, is it not their duty to inform others? Or should they withhold their viewpoints on the chance that it could be wrong? I know nothing of Tony Alamo, but if C T Russell believes what he preaches is from the Bible, then he is obligated to inform people. It is the whole message of the New Testament. If he is wrong, but sincere, then God would guide his actions to the correct course.

Jesus warned to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. These people's actions are not against God's teachings that people are aware of. They don't kill, they don'y steal, they don't commit adultery nor fornication. But they teach falsehood instead of truth, which is found only in the Bible, which is the word of God. Ths is the fruit by which Jesus said we can know these wolves in sheep's clothing.

I have seen falsehoods of one kind or another in every church I have ever visited. People and organizations of people (even those trying to worship God) are prone to error. If I started my own church based on my own beliefs, I would have errors as well.

Again, I have seen no specifics about what you claim the falsehoods are; only accusations to this point. I would suspect what I think are falsehoods and what you think are falsehoods could be dramatically different.

As I said earlier, I don't question the motives of Russell or any evangelist and I am not one to say that they purposely mislead people. I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt that they truly were sincere in searching the truth and sharing these with others.

Then again, what is it their responsibility to do? They can't become Catholic or Protestant or Lutheran or (...insert sect here...), because they believe that those churches carry falsehoods as well, and it would be hypocrytical of them to serve these churches if they do not believe what they do. (Even if it did turn out in the end to be correct)

Unfortunately, people are unwittingly misled into believing something that leads them farther away from the true path that leads them to their salvation.

The fact that these people do not personally claim to have been called out by God to preach the true gospel should make people wary of their teachings. Jesus and apostle John proved to their audience that they were sent from God by quoting prophecies from the Old Testament pertaining to their mission.

God's messengers in these last days can do no less.


So who, in your opinion are God's true messengers in these last days?

John said that he who is from God speaks God's words. Therefore, it follows that a messenger from God speaks only the wortds of God written in the Bible. As Jesus himself said, his doctrines are not his but God's who sent him.

I agree. So what makes your interpretation of God's words correct?

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

As I said, if anyone believes me, that's fine. If not, that's fine as well. As the saying goes, I can only lead the horse to the water but I cannot force it to drink.The horse may detect the well is poisoned, and so, is disinclined to drink the water!

However, I want you to use your God-given intellect and think about this:

Jesus said, "He who believes in him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already..." (John 3:18).You would have a better appreciation of what is being said if you read the text fully.

"He who believes in Him [the Son] is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18 NKJV)

This is said in the context of Jesus previous explanation to Nicodemus...

"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven [that is] the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." (John 3:12-17)

And apostle John clarified this when he wrote: "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him" (John 3:34).Its worth noting all of A.John's testimony to understand the condemnation of disbelief...

"He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.

Jesus said he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.Jesus also says "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" and A.John remarks "he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth."

Jesus says "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God. I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father. His disciples said to Him, "See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech! Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You. By this we believe that You came forth from God. Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe?" (John 16:27-31)

The words rendered "came" and "come" in the original Greek are "exerchomai" and "erchomai". "exerchomai"=to leave a place of one's own accord. And "erchomai" =to come from one place to another.


What does it profit a man who believes that Jesus is the Son of God but does NOT believe what Jesus said about himself being a MAN and the Father being the ONLY true God? The wrath of God abides in him!Jesus says "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the [age] to come." (Mt 12:32)

As is obvious, Jesus did not consider his humanity as relevant to his personal identity. And as John 3:13-16 makes clear the belief required is that Son came down from heaven, and was sent into the world by his Father, so that whoever believes in the Son should have eternal life.

Jesus also says "Believe Me that I [am] in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater [works] than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

And A.John testifies at John 3:33 "He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true."

Peace

[IncRus]

Unfortunately, people are unwittingly misled into believing something that leads them farther away from the true path that leads them to their salvation.

The fact that these people do not personally claim to have been called out by God to preach the true gospel should make people wary of their teachings. Jesus and apostle John proved to their audience that they were sent from God by quoting prophecies from the Old Testament pertaining to their mission.

God's messengers in these last days can do no less.
So who, in your opinion are God's true messengers in these last days?
True servants of God are those who have the testimony of Jesus. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10). Therefore, God's true mesengers in these last days must show proof that they have the testimony of Jesus which is the spirit of prophecy by doing exactly what Jesus did as recorded in Luke 4:17-21 and what John the Baptist did as recorded in Mtthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4-5.

John said that he who is from God speaks God's words. Therefore, it follows that a messenger from God speaks only the words of God written in the Bible. As Jesus himself said, his doctrines are not his but God's who sent him.
I agree. So what makes your interpretation of God's words correct?

Apostle Paul wrote: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:12-13).

The JWs teach that eating blood DEFILES a man before the eyes of God. Hence, the JW expels any JW member who eats blood. In fact, it is for this reason that JW forbids blood transfusion. Is this JW doctrine concerning blood in conformity with the teachings of Jesus?

Jesus said, "There is NOTHING that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that WHATEVER enters a man from outside CANNOT defile him..." (Mark 7:15, 18).

What Jesus said is self-explanatory and does not need any further interpretation. But the JW teaches otherwise. Why? It is because the JW leadership had NOT received the Spirit which is from God!

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

True servants of God are those who have the testimony of Jesus...

Apostle Paul wrote: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:12-13).Because of your constant need to censor Jesus' words to suit your views, I have a suspicion about the spirit you follow. Case in point...

Below, you say "What Jesus said [at Mark 17:15,18] is self-explanatory and does not need any further interpretation" and yet Jesus himself explained and interpreted his parable in the two verses that follow vs18 (vs 19-20). A little detail you appear to omit to give credence to your misrepresentation of the JW view on blood.

"So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods? And He said, What comes out of a man, that defiles a man." (Mark 7:18-20)

NB: As a Jew obedient to Moses' law, Jesus would not have considered blood to be food, as his Father made a direct command to Noah prohibiting all mankind from eating it. Hence, the Mosiac law's prohibition. And the apostles prohibition.

The JWs teach that eating blood DEFILES a man before the eyes of God.The JWs I know don't see it as a bodily pollution but a spiritual one, a defiance of a direct command of God. Imu, they see it as a sin against the Spirit = it is a person's heart condition and thus outward actions which defile him/her in the eyes of God = the guiding principle of Jesus' words at Mark 17:18-20.

In respect to eating blood the JWs have a lot of company eg: Iglesia ni Cristo (ie: the prohibtion on Dinuguan, blood stew), Jews and a lot of other churches that apply scripture in their lives = as it is a direct prohibition that God gave to all mankind via Noah, reinforced by Moses and for those that follow the NT, enforced by the apostles (Acts 15:20,28-29;21:25).


Hence, the JW expels any JW member who eats blood.Only baptised members, as imu they are perceived as sining against the Holy Spirit. Same goes for fornicators, drug adicts etc = disassociation is a valid NT perspective.

Non baptised members are reminded of the apostles commandments and left to their conscience. Of course many in the congregations, if in the know (non baptised members are not declared), won't associate with them except for bible study = which is also a valid NT perspective. In anycase, imu, violatars are not prohibited from attending public services.

In fact, it is for this reason that JW forbids blood transfusion.Not any JW I know. Their reasons are all justified by taking scripture literally. Particularly the edict of the apostles that directly ordered abstaining from blood

In any case: only baptised JWs are obligated to observe the rule, as otherwise they a sin against the Holy Spirit. Others in the congregation are left to their conscience. My ex-wife was a baptised JW, and when my unbaptised son (17yo) developed Leukemia, basically the elder he talked with was non-commital.

The JWs take a strict view of the apostles decree to abstain from blood. To them "abstain" = "prohibited in all ways". They have the same view for all the apostle's decreed prohibitions eg: abstinence from fornication is not rationalised, allowing for exceptions.

I've encountered people who, to justify eating blood sausage etc, rationalise that scripture means fresh blood not cooked blood.

Is this JW doctrine concerning blood in conformity with the teachings of Jesus?Yep! Jesus parable and explaination at Mark 7:18-20 provides the guiding principles, which are considered to support the apostles decree.

Is it your opinion that the apostles doctrine concerning blood was not in conformity with the teachings of Jesus?


Jesus said, "There is NOTHING that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that WHATEVER enters a man from outside CANNOT defile him..." (Mark 7:15, 18).

What Jesus said is self-explanatory and does not need any further interpretation.I hope your insight accords with that given by Jesus in the next two verses. The very fact that Jesus needed to explain his parable to the apostles indicates that Mark 7:15,18 are not self-explanatory and require explanation.

"When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods? And He said, What comes out of a man, that defiles a man." (Mark 7:17-20)

But the JW teaches otherwise. Why? It is because the JW leadership had NOT received the Spirit which is from God!In which case, I have to assume that you hold that, the apostles "had NOT received the Spirit which is from God" either though scripture tells us...

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." (Acts 15:28-29)

______________________

There are plenty of things I contest with JWs, but from a scriptural viewpoint they are on solid ground in their attitude to the apotolic guidence. Albeit, it might be argued that the apostles didn't give a command, merely a guidance note to the Gentile Christians in an effort to avoid conflict with the Jewish Christians. If so, it seems there are lots of things we can do with immunity, guided only by conscience or more scripturally the law of love.

Peace

[apostoli]

Now, ask yourselves this: would God choose a man with occult beliefs, whose wife accused him of illicit sexual activity with other women (and who undoubtedly had questionable relationships with women to whom he was not married), to be the founder of God's organization on earth? The Watchtower is quick to condemn "religionists," is it not? Remember it was Rutherford who taught that "religion was a snare." Well, don't you think the Witnesses have gotten snared in Russell's theological trap? Today, the Society actively promotes Russell's teachings (however much they wish to distance themselves from him). My question: why not just put a big old pyramid as the logo for the Watchtower? Or, if Russell was wrong about the pyramid, could he have been wrong about a whole bunch of other things? Such as, Christ's invisible "return" in 1914?

Here's some info on the false teacher, C.T. Russell:

http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/russell.htmlFYI, geocities.com (free websites) will close later this year (as I recall around July, 2009). So all links to geocities.com websites will fail from then. Suggest you contact the web master to make sure he is aware and get him to move his pages else where.
_________________

I've yet to encounter any religion where its opponents haven't accused its founder and leaders of some perceived moral failure eg: Jesus. So, such attacks are pointless, having no influence on those that adhere to the attacked ideology.

For instance, Inglesia ni Christos is numerically a larger sect than JWs albeit being almost exclusively ethnic (Philipino), and as is predictable there is a wealth of attack material concerning its founder and leaders. None of which has an influence on its believing members.

Peace

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,
True servants of God are those who have the testimony of Jesus...

Apostle Paul wrote: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:12-13).
Because of your constant need to censor Jesus' words to suit your views, I have a suspicion about the spirit you follow. Case in point...

Below, you say "What Jesus said [at Mark 17:15,18] is self-explanatory and does not need any further interpretation" and yet Jesus himself explained and interpreted his parable in the two verses that follow vs18 (vs 19-20). A little detail you appear to omit to give credence to your misrepresentation of the JW view on blood.

"So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods? And He said, What comes out of a man, that defiles a man." (Mark 7:18-20)
Mark 7:18 reiterates verse 15 and verse 19 explains the reason why ANYTHING that enters a man from outside CANNOT defile him before the eyes of God. This reinforces my belief that the JW's view on blood is FALSE.

NB: As a Jew obedient to Moses' law, Jesus would not have considered blood to be food, as his Father made a direct command to Noah prohibiting all mankind from eating it. Hence, the Mosiac law's prohibition. And the apostles prohibition.
You are speculating that Jesus was obedient to Moses' law and would not have considered blood to be food. But Jesus was not talking only of food. Jesus said "NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile a man." Whether blood is food or not is immaterial. If it enters a mn from outside, it cannot defile him before God. This fact was lost on the apostles and this is also lost on JWs and the like who CANNOT understand Jesus.

And as far as obedience to Moses' law is concerned, Jesus broke the Sabbath, didn't he?

The JWs teach that eating blood DEFILES a man before the eyes of God.
The JWs I know don't see it as a bodily pollution but a spiritual one, a defiance of a direct command of God. Imu, they see it as a sin against the Spirit = it is a person's heart condition and thus outward actions which defile him/her in the eyes of God = the guiding principle of Jesus' words at Mark 17:18-20.
What the JWs believe is FALSE. A man is "defiled" when he sins. Jesus said NOTHING that enters a man from outside makes him sin. Mark 7:20-23 explains what defiles a man before the eyes of God. Therefore, eating blood in the Christian era is NOT a defiance to a direct command of God.

The command not to eat blood with its corresponding penalty was given to the Israelites whom Moses led out of Egypt. The command to abstain from blood was given only to the first-century Gentile converts to appease the Jewish converts. Note that the command did not carry any penalty with it.
In respect to eating blood the JWs have a lot of company eg: Iglesia ni Cristo (ie: the prohibtion on Dinuguan, blood stew), Jews and a lot of other churches that apply scripture in their lives = as it is a direct prohibition that God gave to all mankind via Noah, reinforced by Moses and for those that follow the NT, enforced by the apostles (Acts 15:20,28-29;21:25).
Just because JWs, INCs and Jews apply Old TEstament scriptures in their lives does not mean they will be saved on judgment day. People who do NOT believe what Jesus says will not be saved (John 3:16, 34). The words that Jesus had spoken will judge them in the last days(John 12:48).

Hence, the JW expels any JW member who eats blood.
Only baptised members, as imu they are perceived as sining against the Holy Spirit. Same goes for fornicators, drug adicts etc = disassociation is a valid NT perspective.

Non baptised members are reminded of the apostles commandments and left to their conscience. Of course many in the congregations, if in the know (non baptised members are not declared), won't associate with them except for bible study = which is also a valid NT perspective. In anycase, imu, violatars are not prohibited from attending public services.
The teaching that baptized members are perceived as sinning against the Holy Spirit is AGAINST Jesus' teaching that NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile a man. Of course, nonbaptized members are not JWs yet and should not be subject to JW doctrines unless that is a requirement for their baptism.

In fact, it is for this reason that JW forbids blood transfusion.
Not any JW I know. Their reasons are all justified by taking scripture literally. Particularly the edict of the apostles that directly ordered abstaining from blood

In any case: only baptised JWs are obligated to observe the rule, as otherwise they a sin against the Holy Spirit. Others in the congregation are left to their conscience. My ex-wife was a baptised JW, and when my unbaptised son (17yo) developed Leukemia, basically the elder he talked with was non-commital.

The JWs take a strict view of the apostles decree to abstain from blood. To them "abstain" = "prohibited in all ways". They have the same view for all the apostle's decreed prohibitions eg: abstinence from fornication is not rationalised, allowing for exceptions.

I've encountered people who, to justify eating blood sausage etc, rationalise that scripture means fresh blood not cooked blood.
True Christians are guided by what Christ preached - NOT on what other religions practice. Anyone can "abstain" from any food they don't like for one reason or another. But to expel anyone from a religion because of eating blood or blood transfusion is tantamount to overriding Jesus and declaring that Jesus was WRONG in saying that NOTHING that enters a man from outside can DEFILE him before the eyes of God.

Is this JW doctrine concerning blood in conformity with the teachings of Jesus?
Yep! Jesus parable and explaination at Mark 7:18-20 provides the guiding principles, which are considered to support the apostles decree.

Is it your opinion that the apostles doctrine concerning blood was not in conformity with the teachings of Jesus?
Did the apostles EXPEL from among them those who ate blood? Apostle Paul listed those whom they should expel in 1 Cor. 5:13. Eating blood is NOT among these reasons.

As I said, prohibiting the eating of anything including blood for whatever reason is NOT against the teachings of Jesus. But declaring that eating blood is SINNING against God or being DEFILED before the eyes of God, is AGAINST the doctrine of Christ recorded in Mark 7:15, 18-23.
Jesus said, "There is NOTHING that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that WHATEVER enters a man from outside CANNOT defile him..." (Mark 7:15, 18).

What Jesus said is self-explanatory and does not need any further interpretation.
I hope your insight accords with that given by Jesus in the next two verses. The very fact that Jesus needed to explain his parable to the apostles indicates that Mark 7:15,18 are not self-explanatory and require explanation.

"When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods? And He said, What comes out of a man, that defiles a man." (Mark 7:17-20)
Well, maybe Mark 7:15 and 18 are not self-explanatory after all. But my mistake in saying that what Jesus said is self-explanatory does not make my view contradictory to what Jesus said.

What Jesus said in Mark 7:19-20 is the reason Jesus gave his apostles why eating blood CANNOT defile a man before God. It is what comes out of a man that defiles him - NOT what enters a man.

But the JW teaches otherwise. Why? It is because the JW leadership had NOT received the Spirit which is from God!
In which case, I have to assume that you hold that, the apostles "had NOT received the Spirit which is from God" either though scripture tells us...

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." (Acts 15:28-29)
The BIG difference between the JW and the apostle is their perception about eating blood. While the apostles did NOT think that eating blood CAN defile a man before God, the JWs think otherwise. Hence, the apostles did NOT impose any penalty for violating their letter while the JW consider eating blood as a SIN against the Holy Spirit and EXPELS any JW member who eats blood.

There are plenty of things I contest with JWs, but from a scriptural viewpoint they are on solid ground in their attitude to the apotolic guidence. Albeit, it might be argued that the apostles didn't give a command, merely a guidance note to the Gentile Christians in an effort to avoid conflict with the Jewish Christians. If so, it seems there are lots of things we can do with immunity, guided only by conscience or more scripturally the law of love.
You are correct about the apostles' command concerning eating blood. But we can do without a lot of Old Testanment laws by following the law of Christ.

[apostoli]

Mark 7:18 reiterates verse 15 and verse 19 explains the reason why ANYTHING that enters a man from outside CANNOT defile him before the eyes of God. This reinforces my belief that the JW's view on blood is FALSE.Jesus specifies the heart. So if someone does something in defiance of a direct command of Jesus' Father, I would assume it indicates a bad heart.

You are speculating that Jesus was obedient to Moses' law and would not have considered blood to be food..Nope! All Moses did was reinforce the decree over blood that YHWH gave Noah and is obligated on all mankind!

But Jesus was not talking only of food.Read his explanation again. He specified food!

Jesus said "NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile a man." Whether blood is food or not is immaterial. If it enters a man from outside, it cannot defile him before God.Is it your opinion that sodomy, illicit sex and fornication are permitted by Jesus?

This fact was lost on the apostles and this is also lost on JWs and the like who CANNOT understand Jesus.I can't speak for the apostles but JWs relate to the heart condition that someone demonstrates = Jesus' explanation.

And as far as obedience to Moses' law is concerned, Jesus broke the Sabbath, didn't he?Nope! Though he did break the Pharisees rules.

What the JWs believe is FALSE. A man is "defiled" when he sins.And what is sin?

Jesus said NOTHING that enters a man from outside makes him sin.Jesus did not refer to sin. But defilement.

Mark 7:20-23 explains what defiles a man before the eyes of God. Therefore, eating blood in the Christian era is NOT a defiance to a direct command of God.Sure is! Genesis 9:4.

The command not to eat blood with its corresponding penalty was given to the Israelites whom Moses led out of Egypt.Nope! it was given to Noah.

The command to abstain from blood was given only to the first-century Gentile converts to appease the Jewish converts. Note that the command did not carry any penalty with it.Valid point. Albeit do you think that the apostles would associate with idolators and fornicators. They included prohibitions against such in their decree.

Just because JWs, INCs and Jews apply Old TEstament scriptures in their lives does not mean they will be saved on judgment day. People who do NOT believe what Jesus says will not be saved (John 3:16, 34). The words that Jesus had spoken will judge them in the last days(John 12:48). Even obedience to Jesus' words won't save them if the have the wrong heart condition.

The teaching that baptized members are perceived as sinning against the Holy Spirit is AGAINST Jesus' teaching that NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile a man.Again is Sodomy and Fornication permissable?

Of course, nonbaptized members are not JWs yet and should not be subject to JW doctrines unless that is a requirement for their baptism.Many unbaptised JWs are encouraged to witness about YHWH. So baptised or not they are JWs!

True Christians are guided by what Christ preached - NOT on what other religions practice.Agreed.

Anyone can "abstain" from any food they don't like for one reason or another.According to Gen 9:4 blood is not allowable. Prior to Gen 9:4 the meat of breathing creatures wasn't consumed only things growing on plants, afterward the meat of breathing creatures was allowed, but eating their blood was directly prohibited.

But to expel anyone from a religion because of eating blood or blood transfusion is tantamount to overriding Jesus and declaring that Jesus was WRONG in saying that NOTHING that enters a man from outside can DEFILE him before the eyes of God.Ah! But jesus refers to the heart. If a person does something in direct revolt against the Father's wishes then he defiles his heart - albeit not his body.

Did the apostles EXPEL from among them those who ate blood? Apostle Paul listed those whom they should expel in 1 Cor. 5:13. Eating blood is NOT among these reasons.If you have a read of the history of the first few centuries of Christianity, yes they did! In fact they disassociated themselves from people who attended the gladiatorial games and all blood sports!

As I said, prohibiting the eating of anything including blood for whatever reason is NOT against the teachings of Jesus.Actually, you can eat anything beneficial to you, as long as you exclude its blood in your diet.

But declaring that eating blood is SINNING against God or being DEFILED before the eyes of God, is AGAINST the doctrine of Christ recorded in Mark 7:15, 18-23JWs don't say it is directly a sin against God. Those ignorant of God's instructions to Noah cannot be condemned until they are reproved!

Well, maybe Mark 7:15 and 18 are not self-explanatory after all. But my mistake in saying that what Jesus said is self-explanatory does not make my view contradictory to what Jesus said.fair enough! Albeit Jesus restricted his explanation to food, but made particular reference to the heart condition.

What Jesus said in Mark 7:19-20 is the reason Jesus gave his apostles why eating blood CANNOT defile a man before God. It is what comes out of a man that defiles him - NOT what enters a man.As we say in the computer world - rubbish in, rubbish out.

The BIG difference between the JW and the apostle is their perception about eating blood. While the apostles did NOT think that eating blood CAN defile a man before God, the JWs think otherwise. Hence, the apostles did NOT impose any penalty for violating their letter while the JW consider eating blood as a SIN against the Holy Spirit and EXPELS any JW member who eats blood.The Inglesia ni Christos persecutes any follower who disagrees with the teaching of their church and they are severe in their teaching about Fillipinos eating blood stew. At least JWs are more Christian than they in their treatment of their members, to be disfellowshipped is a very long process - the last resort.

You are correct about the apostles' command concerning eating blood. But we can do without a lot of Old Testanment laws by following the law of Christ.Its not a law but a direct pre-requisite of the permission to eat animals given by YHWH to Noah!

Peace

[IncRus]

Mark 7:18 reiterates verse 15 and verse 19 explains the reason why ANYTHING that enters a man from outside CANNOT defile him before the eyes of God. This reinforces my belief that the JW's view on blood is FALSE.
Jesus specifies the heart. So if someone does something in defiance of a direct command of Jesus' Father, I would assume it indicates a bad heart.
Your assumption is wrong.

What Jesus specifies is something that comes out of the mouth or WITHIN (verse 23) - NOT something that ENTERS the mouth. Read Mark 7:20-23, open your mind and try to understand.

Eaten blood is something that ENTERS a man FROM outside. This does NOT defile a man before God. What comes OUT of a man, that defiles a man:

"From WITHIN, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, DECEIT (lying, misrepresentation, deception, misleading, etc), licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness, all these things come FROM within and defile a man" (Mark 7:21-22).

All these EVIL things come FROM within and defile a man.

You are speculating that Jesus was obedient to Moses' law and would not have considered blood to be food..
Nope! All Moses did was reinforce the decree over blood that YHWH gave Noah and is obligated on all mankind!
The commands that God gave Moses is NOT similar to the commands that God gave Jesus (Heb. 1:1-2).

But Jesus was not talking only of food.
Read his explanation again. He specified food!
Doesn't blood that is eaten ENTER a man FROM outside, goes to the stomach and is then eliminated, as Jesus said in Mark 7:18-19? Are you thus without understanding also?

Jesus said "NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile a man." Whether blood is food or not is immaterial. If it enters a man from outside, it cannot defile him before God.
Is it your opinion that sodomy, illicit sex and fornication are permitted by Jesus?
Don't change the topic. We are talking about eating blood. Concerning EVIL things like illicit sex and fornication, read Jesus' teaching in Mark 7:21-23

This fact was lost on the apostles and this is also lost on JWs and the like who CANNOT understand Jesus.
I can't speak for the apostles but JWs relate to the heart condition that someone demonstrates = Jesus' explanation.
JWs CANNOT undertand what Jesus as well.

And as far as obedience to Moses' law is concerned, Jesus broke the Sabbath, didn't he?
Nope! Though he did break the Pharisees rules.
Again, you are wrong. Read John 5:18. The Jews said he broke the Sabbath. You pretend to know more than the Jews don't you?

What the JWs believe is FALSE. A man is "defiled" when he sins.
And what is sin?
Sin is transgression of the law. And the words of Jesus are commands from God, what to say and what to speak (John 12:49). Thus, obeying Jesus is tantamount to obeying God's commands.

Jesus said NOTHING that enters a man from outside makes him sin.
Jesus did not refer to sin. But defilement.
You really don't understand, right? Only sin can defile a man before God.

Mark 7:20-23 explains what defiles a man before the eyes of God. Therefore, eating blood in the Christian era is NOT a defiance to a direct command of God.
Sure is! Genesis 9:4.
Read Heb. 1:1-2 a try to understand why Jesus' statement carries more weight than Gen. 9:4.

The command not to eat blood with its corresponding penalty was given to the Israelites whom Moses led out of Egypt.
Nope! it was given to Noah.
Whether the command was given to Noah or Mose, it does not mater. Jesus' words carry more weight than God's commands to either Moses or Noah (Heb. 1:1-2).

The command to abstain from blood was given only to the first-century Gentile converts to appease the Jewish converts. Note that the command did not carry any penalty with it.
Valid point. Albeit do you think that the apostles would associate with idolators and fornicators. They included prohibitions against such in their decree.
We are talking specifically about eating blood, aren't we?

Just because JWs, INCs and Jews apply Old Testament scriptures in their lives does not mean they will be saved on judgment day. People who do NOT believe what Jesus says will not be saved (John 3:16, 34). The words that Jesus had spoken will judge them in the last days(John 12:48).
Even obedience to Jesus' words won't save them if the have the wrong heart condition.
Again you are wrong. Anyone who BELIEVES Jesus and OBEYS what he says, does NOT have a bad heart condition. How can one who truly believes Jesus and obeys his words have illicit relations or fornicate when Jesus says these are EVIL things that DEFILE him befoire God (Mark 7:21-23).

The teaching that baptized members are perceived as sinning against the Holy Spirit is AGAINST Jesus' teaching that NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile a man.
Again is Sodomy and Fornication permissable?
Read Mark 7:15-23).

Of course, nonbaptized members are not JWs yet and should not be subject to JW doctrines unless that is a requirement for their baptism.
Many unbaptised JWs are encouraged to witness about YHWH. So baptised or not they are JWs!
Encouragement to witness for YHWH does NOT make anyone a JW.

True Christians are guided by what Christ preached - NOT on what other religions practice.
Agreed.
You agree yet you DON'T believe what Jesus says. What hypocrisy!

Anyone can "abstain" from any food they don't like for one reason or another.
According to Gen 9:4 blood is not allowable. Prior to Gen 9:4 the meat of breathing creatures wasn't consumed only things growing on plants, afterward the meat of breathing creatures was allowed, but eating their blood was directly prohibited.
If you are NOT a follower of Christ, admit it so we can stop communicating about the teachings of Jesus.

But to expel anyone from a religion because of eating blood or blood transfusion is tantamount to overriding Jesus and declaring that Jesus was WRONG in saying that NOTHING that enters a man from outside can DEFILE him before the eyes of God.
Ah! But jesus refers to the heart. If a person does something in direct revolt against the Father's wishes then he defiles his heart - albeit not his body.
You really don't know what you are talking about.

Did the apostles EXPEL from among them those who ate blood? Apostle Paul listed those whom they should expel in 1 Cor. 5:13. Eating blood is NOT among these reasons.
If you have a read of the history of the first few centuries of Christianity, yes they did! In fact they disassociated themselves from people who attended the gladiatorial games and all blood sports!
I'm talking about eating blood.

As I said, prohibiting the eating of anything including blood for whatever reason is NOT against the teachings of Jesus.
Actually, you can eat anything beneficial to you, as long as you exclude its blood in your diet.
You can exclude blood from your diet for any reason other than spiritual. If you exclude blood because you fear that it would defile you before God, that's HERESY and heretics cannot enter heaven.

But declaring that eating blood is SINNING against God or being DEFILED before the eyes of God, is AGAINST the doctrine of Christ recorded in Mark 7:15, 18-23
JWs don't say it is directly a sin against God. Those ignorant of God's instructions to Noah cannot be condemned until they are reproved!
True Christians are concerned ONLY of what Jesus and the apostles preached.

Well, maybe Mark 7:15 and 18 are not self-explanatory after all. But my mistake in saying that what Jesus said is self-explanatory does not make my view contradictory to what Jesus said.
fair enough! Albeit Jesus restricted his explanation to food, but made particular reference to the heart condition.
As I said you are wrong. Read Mark 7:21-23 slowly and understand that Jesus was talking of EVIL that come from WITHIN.

What Jesus said in Mark 7:19-20 is the reason Jesus gave his apostles why eating blood CANNOT defile a man before God. It is what comes out of a man that defiles him - NOT what enters a man.
As we say in the computer world - rubbish in, rubbish out.I agree. What you learned from false teachers is what you are spewing out in this forum.

The BIG difference between the JW and the apostle is their perception about eating blood. While the apostles did NOT think that eating blood CAN defile a man before God, the JWs think otherwise. Hence, the apostles did NOT impose any penalty for violating their letter while the JW consider eating blood as a SIN against the Holy Spirit and EXPELS any JW member who eats blood.
The Inglesia ni Christos persecutes any follower who disagrees with the teaching of their church and they are severe in their teaching about Fillipinos eating blood stew. At least JWs are more Christian than they in their treatment of their members, to be disfellowshipped is a very long process - the last resort.
I don't really agree with everything the INC teaches.

You are correct about the apostles' command concerning eating blood. But we can do without a lot of Old Testanment laws by following the law of Christ.
Its not a law but a direct pre-requisite of the permission to eat animals given by YHWH to Noah!
Whatever. The law of Christ prevails in this Christian era.

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

True Christians are guided by what Christ preached - NOT on what other religions practice.Agreed.You agree yet you DON'T believe what Jesus says. What hypocrisy!Jesus made no mention of blood in his witness, but the apostles under the guidence of the holy Spirit did! Thus it seems it is you who is intent on denying Jesus' spirit...

John 20:21-23 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on [them], and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the [sins] of any, they are retained."

Anyone can "abstain" from any food they don't like for one reason or another.According to Gen 9:4 blood is not allowable. Prior to Gen 9:4 the meat of breathing creatures wasn't consumed only things growing on plants, afterward the meat of breathing creatures was allowed, but eating their blood was directly prohibited.If you are NOT a follower of Christ, admit it so we can stop communicating about the teachings of Jesus.I follow Jesus but it seems you are deaf to him. For instance: you appeal to Mark 7:21-22 and miss the very point Jesus makes about the heart...

The parallel account to Mark 7:21-22 is at Mt 15:18-19 "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

In both Matthew and Mark, the context of Jesus' words were a reponse to the Pharisees concerning the apostles not washing their hands before eating. In both accounts the pharisees ask "Why do you not walk your disciples according to the tradition of the elders?" To which Jesus replied "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. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching [as] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men--the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do...[All too] well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition."

Jesus then gave a direct example of how the Jews had ignored a direct command of God and replaced it by a man made tradition. see Mark 7:10-12.

Jesus nowhere in his preaching makes reference to blood!

Though in many instances he upheld his Father's direct commandments that the Jews had modified. He didn't have to do such with blood, as the prohibition against eating it was a direct command of his Father to all mankind, that was observed at least by his audience!

There are lots of things Jesus doesn't directly address but he provided guiding principles. The common view concerning eating blood, is that it indicates a disrespect for life. Respect for life, as life is in the blood, is the reason YHWH made his exclusion, making not eating it a pre-requisite, to his allowing flesh to be eaten.

Two of Jesus' guiding principles are...

Luke 6:45 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks..."

Mt 6:22-23 "The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great [is] that darkness!"

The way I see it, as a sign of appreciation and respect for all life the Father has caused, but especially as a sign of respect for Jesus' blood, through which we are redeemed (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1 John 1:7; Mk 14:24; Acts 20:28; Rom 3:25), I won't intentionally eat blood, no matter what certain ethnic traditions might want of me. But that is my heart, as guided by the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

Mark 7:18 reiterates verse 15 and verse 19 explains the reason why ANYTHING that enters a man from outside CANNOT defile him before the eyes of God. This reinforces my belief that the JW's view on blood is FALSE.Jesus specifies the heart. So if someone does something in defiance of a direct command of Jesus' Father, I would assume it indicates a bad heart.Your assumption is wrong. What Jesus specifies is something that comes out of the mouth or WITHIN (verse 23) - NOT something that ENTERS the mouth. Read Mark 7:20-23, open your mind and try to understand.Suggest you reread the text...

Mar 7:19-21 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, [thus] purifying all foods? And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Eaten blood is something that ENTERS a man FROM outside. This does NOT defile a man before God. What comes OUT of a man, that defiles a man:

"From WITHIN, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, DECEIT (lying, misrepresentation, deception, misleading, etc), licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness, all these things come FROM within and defile a man" (Mark 7:21-22).

All these EVIL things come FROM within and defile a man.It is the heart that defiles the individual according to Jesus! And it is out of that heart condition that he does all that is good and all that is bad (cp. Lk 6:45-47).

A.Paul remarks "For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." gal 6:7

The commands that God gave Moses is NOT similar to the commands that God gave Jesus (Heb. 1:1-2).Heb 1:1-2 doesn't say Jesus replaced his Father's direct commands. Can you show me a single instance? To the contrary. There are several instances where the Jews had replaced a command with one of their traditions and Jesus upheld his Father's original command (eg: Mk 7:9-10). And lets not forget Jesus words at Mt 5:17-18.

Don't change the topic. We are talking about eating blood. Concerning EVIL things like illicit sex and fornication, read Jesus' teaching in Mark 7:21-23No change of topic. The apostles didn't differentiate saying "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." Acts 15:28.

And as far as obedience to Moses' law is concerned, Jesus broke the Sabbath, didn't he?Nope! Though he did break the Pharisees rules.Again, you are wrong. Read John 5:18. The Jews said he broke the Sabbath. You pretend to know more than the Jews don't you?As I said Jesus broke the Pharisees' rules not Moses'. Pointedly, the priests did God's work on the sabbath! Jesus was doing no less (cp. vs19).

You really don't understand, right? Only sin can defile a man before God.And how does a man sin? Is it by his actions or according to his heart condition. consider...

Mat 5:28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Even obedience to Jesus' words won't save them if the have the wrong heart condition.Again you are wrong.Nope! Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

Anyone who BELIEVES Jesus and OBEYS what he says, does NOT have a bad heart condition. How can one who truly believes Jesus and obeys his words have illicit relations or fornicate when Jesus says these are EVIL things that DEFILE him before God (Mark 7:21-23).Jesus doesn't say these things defile a man before God, merely that they defile a man, and A.paul suggests that which has been defiled cannot enter the kingdom. I agree a true believer would abstain from all these things, assuming they knew they were prohibited. Thus the apostles edict which included blood amongst the things that were to be abstained.

You can exclude blood from your diet for any reason other than spiritual. If you exclude blood because you fear that it would defile you before God, that's HERESY and heretics cannot enter heaven.Obviously you missed Jesus repeatedly saying all things come out of the heart. So the decision of whether to do or not do anything is not intellectually decided! JWs simply follow what the apostles commanded, to do otherwise is herecy - especially as Jesus had given them all authority to forgive or bind sin.

Peace

[Super Cow]

True servants of God are those who have the testimony of Jesus. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10). Therefore, God's true mesengers in these last days must show proof that they have the testimony of Jesus which is the spirit of prophecy by doing exactly what Jesus did as recorded in Luke 4:17-21 and what John the Baptist did as recorded in Mtthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4-5.

You totally missed the point of my question (...and ignored my first three questions as well). What group is doing what you say here, thereby being a witness to me that they are true servants of God and their interpretations should be followed?

Apostle Paul wrote: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:12-13).

Not sure how that scripture is relevant.

The JWs teach that eating blood DEFILES a man before the eyes of God. Hence, the JW expels any JW member who eats blood. In fact, it is for this reason that JW forbids blood transfusion. Is this JW doctrine concerning blood in conformity with the teachings of Jesus?

Jesus said, "There is NOTHING that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that WHATEVER enters a man from outside CANNOT defile him..." (Mark 7:15, 18).

What Jesus said is self-explanatory and does not need any further interpretation. But the JW teaches otherwise. Why? It is because the JW leadership had NOT received the Spirit which is from God!

I understand you don't like some of the teachings of the JW movement, but that doesn't tell me as a whole why your interpretation of scripture is better.

And regarding blood, the JW's do not say that blood defiles a man. The scripture that the JW's use is just as valid as yours:

Acts 15:29- You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality...

The point is not whether you are being defiled. It is just whether it is against God's commandments. I think you and the JW's are both basing your arguments on a limited scope of criteria and miss the real meaning of blood.

[IncRus]

True servants of God are those who have the testimony of Jesus. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10). Therefore, God's true mesengers in these last days must show proof that they have the testimony of Jesus which is the spirit of prophecy by doing exactly what Jesus did as recorded in Luke 4:17-21 and what John the Baptist did as recorded in Mtthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4-5.
You totally missed the point of my question (...and ignored my first three questions as well). What group is doing what you say here, thereby being a witness to me that they are true servants of God and their interpretations should be followed?
It's up to you to discover for yourself. There are literally thousands of denominations and professing messengers of God out there, preaching what they believe are the words of God.

The Bible says, "to the law and testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20).

Hence, ask them for their "testimony of Jesus which is the Spirit of prophecy." Let them show you, like John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul, where in the Bible are they prophesied as messengers of God. Next, test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out of the world" (1 John 4:1). "For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God..." (John 3:34).

Apostle Paul wrote: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:12-13).
Not sure how that scripture is relevant.
This scripture is very relevant in "testing the spirits." If the professing messenger of God "speaks in words which man's wisdom teaches" instead of "comparing spiritual things with spiritual as the Holy Spirit teaches." then you can be sure that what the preacher received is the "spirit of the world" - NOT the "Spirit who is from God."

The JWs teach that eating blood DEFILES a man before the eyes of God. Hence, the JW expels any JW member who eats blood. In fact, it is for this reason that JW forbids blood transfusion. Is this JW doctrine concerning blood in conformity with the teachings of Jesus?

Jesus said, "There is NOTHING that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that WHATEVER enters a man from outside CANNOT defile him..." (Mark 7:15, 18).

What Jesus said is self-explanatory and does not need any further interpretation. But the JW teaches otherwise. Why? It is because the JW leadership had NOT received the Spirit which is from God!
I understand you don't like some of the teachings of the JW movement, but that doesn't tell me as a whole why your interpretation of scripture is better.

And regarding blood, the JW's do not say that blood defiles a man. The scripture that the JW's use is just as valid as yours:

Acts 15:29- You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality...

The point is not whether you are being defiled. It is just whether it is against God's commandments. I think you and the JW's are both basing your arguments on a limited scope of criteria and miss the real meaning of blood.
First, it is not true that JWs do not say that blood defiles a man. Of course, they do! Why would a member be expelled for eating blood unless the JWs teach that eating blood is sin?
Second, the point of eating blood is whether you are defiled before the eyes of God or not. Jesus declared in no uncertain terms that NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile him before the eyes of God. This, by the way, is God's command to Jesus for him to say or to speak (John 12:49).

Hence, the apostles' letter to the Gentile converts to "abstain from blood," among other things, is simply an admonition that, if violated, CANNOT defile them before the eyes of God, in conformity with Jesus' teaching..

Therefore, any religion that declares "eating blood" as a serious transgression of God's law that deserves expulsion, goes AGAINST the doctrine of Christ.

[Super Cow]

It's up to you to discover for yourself. There are literally thousands of denominations and professing messengers of God out there, preaching what they believe are the words of God.

The Bible says, "to the law and testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20).

Hence, ask them for their "testimony of Jesus which is the Spirit of prophecy." Let them show you, like John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul, where in the Bible are they prophesied as messengers of God. Next, test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out of the world" (1 John 4:1). "For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God..." (John 3:34).

So, basically you are saying that you don't know either. I can accept that. Otherwise you would be certain to help me find the true path to Christ as it is the whole purpose of Christianity to help others.

First, it is not true that JWs do not say that blood defiles a man. Of course, they do! Why would a member be expelled for eating blood unless the JWs teach that eating blood is sin?
Second, the point of eating blood is whether you are defiled before the eyes of God or not. Jesus declared in no uncertain terms that NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile him before the eyes of God. This, by the way, is God's command to Jesus for him to say or to speak (John 12:49).
Hence, the apostles' letter to the Gentile converts to "abstain from blood," among other things, is simply an admonition that, if violated, CANNOT defile them before the eyes of God, in conformity with Jesus' teaching..

Therefore, any religion that declares "eating blood" as a serious transgression of God's law that deserves expulsion, goes AGAINST the doctrine of Christ.

You are incorrect on two accounts. First of all, nobody can be expelled from a JW church. They have a practice called disfellowshipping, which is strictly limited to personal contacts and relationships outside of basic immediate families and possibly necessary business transactions. In other words, this person would be treated like an unbeliever with the exception that they stop making attempts to convert such a person. A disfellowshipped person can always still attend church, obtain and read church literature, and is actually encouraged to do so, as it is one requirement for reinstatement.

What they are restricted from is preaching in the church's name, and other congregation members are instructed not to associate with individuals other than common courtesies in life or "good samaritan" assistance that you might give a stranger.

Secondly, you misunderstand the basis of defilement. The dictionary defines it as:

| to make unclean or impure: as | to corrupt the purity or perfection of | debase <the countryside defiled by billboards> | to violate the chastity of : deflower | to make physically unclean especially with something unpleasant or contaminating <boots defiled with blood> | to violate the sanctity of

When the scripture says "NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile him", it is in context to the old law code of the Jews and the practice of calling some foods unclean. (Pork for instance) It was also a retribution on the Pharisees enforcing traditions instead of biblical principles. This is clear if you read the whole chapter in context.

Jesus came to replace the old law code with a new covenant. Whereas the rules uncleanness of certain foods were no longer necessary to protect the people, the command to abstain from blood was reiterated. The sabbath was another command that was no longer required. Much of this was to allow for the coming inclusion of gentiles into the faith.

Where it becomes a debatable point is whether the rule is expanded to actual blood transfusions and this is where the watchtower society indirectly admits that they are extending this rule based on their own interpretation and logical progression of principles. This could be going too far in the case of blood transfusions, because using your own blood to save another's life could easily be considered to be the highest order of maintaining the sanctity of life, but this is not their viewpoint.

[Super Cow]

In any event, I don't think the blood issue was even a doctrine until Rutherford's time as the leader, in which case it is irrelevant to the question about C T Russell.

[apostoli]

In any event, I don't think the blood issue was even a doctrine until Rutherford's time as the leader, in which case it is irrelevant to the question about C T Russell.I did some research. As far as blood transfusions are concerned, the policy was adopted under Knor in 1946 (before then blood transfusions weren't common medical practice so not a major issue for them). And it was a conscience matter until 1961. For a while there was a lot of silliness on their teaching on blood, going as far as being applied to pet food, fertilizers and anything that might contain blood. Then in the 1970s they seem to have moderated the extreme views...

Imu, the WT&TS' objection has always been in respect to whole blood. At least since the 1970s they have allowed blood fractions - accepting these or body parts is left upto individual conscience.

In 2000 they spelt this out, and what current blood products are considered conscience matters and what aren't. Apparently that clarification has caused some friction within their church. Some think the society has compromised and demand full abstinence, others think that the society should butt out completely and the sheep just follow the society's guidance, which is "don't force your conscience on others".

Peace

[apostoli]

I don't really agree with everything the INC teaches.And so we now know where you stand.

Alone!
_______________

In your posts you seem more inclined to the Quran. In respect of eating blood even it condemns you. A pro-Quran cite notes...

"blood is not suitable for use as a food product. The level of digestible proteins such as albumin, globulin and fibrinogen is low; just 8 grams in 100 ml. of blood. The same applies to fats. In addition, blood contains a high level of hemoglobin, a complex protein that is very difficult to digest and is unacceptable to the stomach. When blood clots, the protein fibrinogen gives rise to a plate containing erythrocytes (red blood corpuscles) by turning into fibrin. Fibrin is one of the hardest proteins to digest, thus making blood even more difficult to digest. In conclusion, health experts agree that blood is unfit for human consumption in any form.

After saying: “Unlawful for you are carrion, blood and pork, and what has been consecrated to other than Allah, and animals which have been strangled, and animals which have been killed by a blow, and animals which have fallen to their death, and animals which have been gored, and animals which wild beasts have eaten – except those you are able to slaughter properly – and animals which have been sacrificed on altars, and deciding things by means of divining arrows – that is deviance….” Almighty Allah goes on to say…” But if anyone is forced by hunger, not intending any wrongdoing, Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (meaning that an exception can be made.) (Surat al-Ma’ida, 3) People of the time were unaware of the wisdom behind it, but were protected by abiding by Allah’s prohibition. Those who believe and trust in Allah and comply with His commandments and prohibitions will enjoy auspicious lives in terms of the Hereafter and also live under Allah’s protection and infinite mercy."
http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/12575/THE_WISDOM_BEHIND_THE_PROHIBITION_OF_BLOOD_IN_THE_QUR_AN

[apostoli]

I don't really agree with everything the INC teaches.And so, we now know where you stand.

Alone!
_______________

In your posts you seem more inclined to the Quran. In respect of eating blood even it condemns those who habitully eat blood. A pro-Quran site notes...

"blood is not suitable for use as a food product. The level of digestible proteins such as albumin, globulin and fibrinogen is low; just 8 grams in 100 ml. of blood. The same applies to fats. In addition, blood contains a high level of hemoglobin, a complex protein that is very difficult to digest and is unacceptable to the stomach. When blood clots, the protein fibrinogen gives rise to a plate containing erythrocytes (red blood corpuscles) by turning into fibrin. Fibrin is one of the hardest proteins to digest, thus making blood even more difficult to digest. In conclusion, health experts agree that blood is unfit for human consumption in any form.

After saying: “Unlawful for you are carrion, blood and pork, and what has been consecrated to other than Allah, and animals which have been strangled, and animals which have been killed by a blow, and animals which have fallen to their death, and animals which have been gored, and animals which wild beasts have eaten – except those you are able to slaughter properly – and animals which have been sacrificed on altars, and deciding things by means of divining arrows – that is deviance….” Almighty Allah goes on to say…” But if anyone is forced by hunger, not intending any wrongdoing, Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (meaning that an exception can be made.) (Surat al-Ma’ida, 3) People of the time were unaware of the wisdom behind it, but were protected by abiding by Allah’s prohibition. Those who believe and trust in Allah and comply with His commandments and prohibitions will enjoy auspicious lives in terms of the Hereafter and also live under Allah’s protection and infinite mercy."
http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/12575/THE_WISDOM_BEHIND_THE_PROHIBITION_OF_BLOOD_IN_THE_QUR_AN

Peace

[IncRus]

First, it is not true that JWs do not say that blood defiles a man. Of course, they do! Why would a member be expelled for eating blood unless the JWs teach that eating blood is sin?
Second, the point of eating blood is whether you are defiled before the eyes of God or not. Jesus declared in no uncertain terms that NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile him before the eyes of God. This, by the way, is God's command to Jesus for him to say or to speak (John 12:49).
Hence, the apostles' letter to the Gentile converts to "abstain from blood," among other things, is simply an admonition that, if violated, CANNOT defile them before the eyes of God, in conformity with Jesus' teaching..

Therefore, any religion that declares "eating blood" as a serious transgression of God's law that deserves expulsion, goes AGAINST the doctrine of Christ.
You are incorrect on two accounts. First of all, nobody can be expelled from a JW church. They have a practice called disfellowshipping, which is strictly limited to personal contacts and relationships outside of basic immediate families and possibly necessary business transactions. In other words, this person would be treated like an unbeliever with the exception that they stop making attempts to convert such a person. A disfellowshipped person can always still attend church, obtain and read church literature, and is actually encouraged to do so, as it is one requirement for reinstatement.

What they are restricted from is preaching in the church's name, and other congregation members are instructed not to associate with individuals other than common courtesies in life or "good samaritan" assistance that you might give a stranger.[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, JW members are "disfellowshiped" for a variety of reasons, among these are: murder, eating blood, committing adultery, sexual immorality and fornication, the conclusion being that one is "disfellowshiped" for committing sin. Since eating blood is among the reasons for having a JW member "disfellowshiped," then it is safe to assume that JWs "disfellowship" a member who commits sin by eating blood.

Therefore, the JW doctrine to "disfellowship" a member who eats blood is AGAINST Jesus' doctrine that "NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile a man."

Secondly, you misunderstand the basis of defilement. The dictionary defines it as:

| to make unclean or impure: as | to corrupt the purity or perfection of | debase <the countryside defiled by billboards> | to violate the chastity of : deflower | to make physically unclean especially with something unpleasant or contaminating <boots defiled with blood> | to violate the sanctity of
Tell me supercow, how can any man be "made unclean or impure" before the eyes of God? How can one's "sanctity be violated" before the eyes of God? As far as the Bible is concerned, only SIN, can make one "unclean or impure" before the eyes of God. Therefore, when Jesus said that "NOTHING that enters a man can defile him before the eyes of God," he meant that NOTHING a man eats can make him unclean or impure before the eyes of God.

When the scripture says "NOTHING that enters a man from outside can defile him", it is in context to the old law code of the Jews and the practice of calling some foods unclean. (Pork for instance) It was also a retribution on the Pharisees enforcing traditions instead of biblical principles. This is clear if you read the whole chapter in context.
Context cannot chage what Jesus was actually saying. No man knows what was in Jesus' mind except by what he actually said, as written in the Bible. And no man has been given the authority to speak for Jesus nor assume that Jesus said something that he had BOT said.

Jesus came to replace the old law code with a new covenant. Whereas the rules uncleanness of certain foods were no longer necessary to protect the people, the command to abstain from blood was reiterated. The sabbath was another command that was no longer required. Much of this was to allow for the coming inclusion of gentiles into the faith.
Jesus NEVER reiterated the command to abstain from eating blood. Instead, Jesus said that NOTHING that enters from outside (and that includes eating blood) can defole a man before the eyes of God.

Where it becomes a debatable point is whether the rule is expanded to actual blood transfusions and this is where the watchtower society indirectly admits that they are extending this rule based on their own interpretation and logical progression of principles. This could be going too far in the case of blood transfusions, because using your own blood to save another's life could easily be considered to be the highest order of maintaining the sanctity of life, but this is not their viewpoint.
This proves that the JWs use man's wisdom in the teaching of God's word instead of comparing spiritual things with spiritual as the HolySpirit teaches (1 Cor. 2:13).