From: news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 26 Aug 92 05:54:57 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


        At the risk of opening up another long multi-threaded discussion
    about Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd like to make a few remarks (hopefully
    some of them clarifiying :-) in reply to article 
    <Aug.17.03.36.23.1992.18168@athos.rutgers.edu> by
     diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott), addressing remarks made
    by Diarmuid and by CLH (the moderator) in his postscript.

        Probably e-mail followups would be best, but yes, I know, postings
    are fair game [except for those which don't get past the moderator
    :-)].

In article <Aug.17.03.36.23.1992.18168@athos.rutgers.edu>, diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes...
>I have a friend who became a member of the Watchtower Society, which as
>I am sure you are aware of has some very odd ideas indeed.
> 
>(ie blood transfusions are bad, Jesus was actually the archangel
>Michael, God gets upset when we don't call him by his first name, only
>144,000 people can be redeemed, the end of the world is nigh (and Christ
>returned in 1870,71,72,73,85,93,1913,1914,1925,1975...) )

        Regarding blood, to make a long story short, we believe that the
    modern practice of transfusing blood violates the command to Christians
    to "abstain ... from blood" (Acts 15:20,29 RSV).  Our view is primarily
    religious.  Whether blood is "good" or "bad" from a medical standpoint
    is not really a major part of the issue.  [This latter aspect has been
    thrashed out in talk.religion.misc recently, and isn't one that I
    personally am too interested in rehashing.  Again, send me mail if you
    want to talk about the subject from a Biblical standpoint.]

        ==*==

        As a point of information, I've recently embarked on a long-term
    project of reading the works of the 'anti-Nicene fathers' (which I'm
    borrowing one volume at a time from a friend).  So far, I've come
    across passages in both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in which they call
    Jesus God's "angel" and/or "archangel."  [I've haven't yet come across
    any passages which specifically call him "Michael" by name, though.]

        ==*==

        The moderator has already made a few clarifying remarks (which I
    think are sufficient) about our view on how many people "can be
    redeemed."

        ==*==

        As to whether God is "upset" because people don't call him by his
    name (he really doesn't have a "first name"; his proper name is
    representated by a single word, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton
    [YHWH/YHVH/JHVH, depending on how you transliterate it]; all other
    'names' are actually titles), God once said to Jeremiah in complaint
    about his ancient people and their not using his name:

                    "How long shall there be lies in the heart
                    of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who
                    prophesy the deceit of their own heart, who
                    think to make my people *forget my name* by
                    their dreams which they tell one another,
                    even as their fathers forgot my name for Baal?"
                    (Jer 23:26,27 RSV)

    Do you suppose that God feels any differently today, given that people
    have once again 'forgotten his name,' and are even encouraged not to
    use it (by, for instance, Bible translations which do not even include
    it even once)?

        ==*==

        Regarding "the end of the world is nigh" ... Just before Jesus
    ascended to heaven, Peter asked him,

                "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom
                to Israel?"  (Act 1:6 RSV)

    He was obviously anxious for the 'end of the world' to be near, for
    that meant the establishment of "the kingdom" and the blessings that
    would follow.  Although Jesus didn't restore the kingdom at that time, 
    years later Peter wrote:

                "The end of all things is at hand; therefore keep
                sane and sober for your prayers."  (1Pet 4:7 RSV)

    To him, the establishment of "the kingdom" (by Christ's return) was
    still "at hand."

        Paul wrote:

                "For while your obedience is known to all, so
                that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as
                to what is good and guileless as to what is evil;
                then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under
                your feet." (Romans 16:19,20 RSV)

    and

                "Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is
                full time now for you to wake from sleep.  For
                salvation is nearer to us now than when we first
                believed;  the night is far gone, the day is at
                hand. ..." (Rom 13:11,12a RSV)

    Again, in Paul's mind, "the end" was "soon" and "at hand."

        Jesus himself said:

                "I am coming soon" (Rev 22:7,12,20 RSV)

    thus creating a frame of mind of expectation in his followers, which
    perhaps encouraged them to consider his earlier words:


                "Watch therefore, for you do not konw on what
                day your Lord is coming.  But know this, that if
                the householder had known in what part of the 
                night the thief was coming, he would have watched
                and would not have let his house be broken into.
                Therefore *you must also be ready*; for the Son
                of man is coming at an hour you do not expect."
                (Matt 24:42,43 RSV)

    The frame of mind that Christ's faithful followers "must also be ready"
    and be on the "watch" is the one which Jehovah's Witnesses have done
    their best to acquire and maintain.

        Now yes, I know all about Jesus' words that no one can 'know the
    day and hour,' so setting dates for "the end" is impossible; but the
    point of our faith *isn't* one of living for specific dates, but rather
    living for the promised "coming" (RSV) and "salvation" that God
    promised, which Jesus said we should "watch at all times" for (Luke
    22:36 RSV), that we and all who join us will "have strength to escape
    all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of
    man" (Luke 21:36 RSV).

        Since everyone has 20/20 hindsight, fingerpointing at failed
    expectations and dates is easy; but what these dates prove is that
    a kernel element to the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses has been to do
    what Jesus said, which was to keep 'watching' for the Lord so as to "be
    ready."  Surely, all who profess true faith ought to do no less, no?

        ==*==

>I know they have dubious theology, and a murky past, but these things
>don't seem to matter to him. My problem is that information about the
>JW's is mostly written by ex-JW's, and so is inadmissable as evidence
>since they are not allowed to "converse with apostates".

        Rather than turning to 3rd party historians about what Jehovah's
    Witnesses are all about, why not simply have an in-depth discussion of
    the Scriptures with your friend?  Dwelling on past history isn't as
    important as dwelling on the present, and on his (and your) current 
    understanding of the Bible.

        As was mentioned, many religions have problems (or "murk") in their
    past -- probably yours does too.  Even Peter had a little problem with
    "dubious" views at one time, early on [ref. Mark 8:33]; but that didn't
    stop God and Christ from using him in a mighty way (once those views
    got straightened out).

        Again, your best bet would be to simply stick to the Bible and see
    what happens from there.

>I would like some form of history of the JW's written by someone
>mainstream and unimpeachable. Are there any suggestions? Also I would
>like a lsit of the twistings of truth in their rather unusual
>translation of the bible. 

        You probably won't find one that is "mainstream AND unimpeachable,"
    unless you feel that as long as it "impeaches" Jehovah's Witnesses,
    it's OK.

        Also, taking the tack, from the outset, that the differences in the
    NWT are "twistings of truth" is probably going to do little in helping
    you really acquire a truly objective understanding of your friend's
    religion.  If you're REALLY going to compare the NWT with what is
    'orthodox,' you ought to compare it with many other translations (and
    NOT just one), for many of the allegedly "twisted" renderings in the
    NWT are actually quite acceptable [and quite unchallenged] in other
    translations.  Translation 'tunnel vision' (which Witnesses are often
    accused of having) is a trap that works both ways.

        ==*==

    Now, regarding the remarks by the moderator ...

>It's very common to see exaggerated claims about JW's.  Their actual
>beliefs are far enough out.  They do not believe that only 144,000
>will be saved.  The 144,000 have a special role, and will be the only
>ones in the heavenly kingdom.  

        What you say about our view of the 144,000 is correct.

>                               However the JW's believe that the earth
>will be transformed and that the rest of the saved will live in this
>transformed earthly kingdom.  

        Also correct.

>                              What I find more disturbing is that (at
>least as of 1983) they seem to believe that Christ is the mediator
>only for the 144,000.  He is mediator for the others only in an
>indirect sense.  Much of what the NT says about Christians applies
>directly only to the 144,000.  This view upsets a number of JW's, so
>it's possible that it will change.  I'm reporting the situation as of
>about 1983, which is when Franz wrote his book.

        I haven't read Franz's book, but I don't personally know of any
    Witnesses who are "upset" about the published view on Christ being
    "mediator" only for the 144,000 (at this time).  If any *are* upset,
    perhaps their feelings are due to misconstruing the import of what this
    means (like people became "upset" over something Jesus once said; John
    6:52-69; the problem being that they didn't get the true sense of what
    he meant).

        The Bible calls Jesus the "mediator" of the "new covenant"; and
    it's our view that this "new coventant" applies only to the 144,000, it
    being the legal means by which Jehovah personally selects people to be
    part of the "elect" who will eventually rule as "kings and priests"
    with Christ during the millenium.  Since most Jehovah's Witnesses
    realize that they are NOT party to the heavenly calling (just like most
    people on earth today are not legal participants in the governments
    that rule them; and like most ancient Israelites were not priests or
    kings -- in fact, one couldn't be a priest without being a Levite, and
    almost no one got to be king) we accept the fact that at present, Jesus
    is only 'mediating' the new coventant between the 144,000 and God
    because the 144,000 will, essentially, make up the 'heavenly cabinet'
    of Christ's Messianic Kingdom.

        In the 'new world' over which they will rule -- Jesus as King and
    High Priest; the 144,000 as subordinate kings and priests -- Jesus will
    further "mediate" between God and man in order to finally eliminate sin
    from the human family; but today, Jesus also "mediates" between God and
    men in ordinary matters that are not related to the New Covenant (for
    everyone must approach God through Christ, right?), but just not in the
    sense in which he "mediates" the legal stipulations of the New
    Coventant (between God and 'spiritual Israel').

        I hope this posting sheds some light (and attracts little heat).

        It's hard for me to keep up with lots of followup postings; so I'd
    appreciate follow-ups by e-mail.

                                                            -mark sornson.