Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

whole nation was rejected by God and replaced with Christianity

Yes, that's learning at WTJWorg. But is it true?
Jesus nowhere stated that he was introducing/establishing a new religion. Jesus never called his activities and the gathering of individuals who followed him by any name, a title that would separate them from Judaism. He did not call himself and the apostles with title - "Christians". This was done by some other people who the Bible does not claim were Christians, Jesus' followers, nor were they inspired when they invented the name for Jesus' disciples.

Also we have this claim in Romans 11:

1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,[a] a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Those leaders presume to place themselves above God's law, much like many modern religions neglect to uphold God's laws. Srecko, the key is to identify religions that prioritize the preservation of God's laws and commands without distorting their narrative. Can you provide an example?

 

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Matt 23: ² “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. ³ So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

 

[Pudgy]

45 minutes ago, George88 said:

The above doesn't convey any valuable insights from a former witness's perspective.

That is because universally you see quite clearly things that do not exist.

The things which DO actually exist your stated agenda prohibits you from seeing.

Your incomprehension is self-inflicted.

[Juan Rivera]

 

On 2/7/2024 at 2:17 PM, Many Miles said:

And what is the following if not judaization?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290

It's not Judaization. If a Christian/Witness tries to use any of the Judaic/Mosaic law as the means to be declared righteous, he will be condemned. Being declared righteous does not come by observing laws but by Jehovah's undeserved kindness.

On 2/7/2024 at 2:17 PM, Many Miles said:

In relation to the question of using human donor blood for transfusion medicine, every bit of the answer given to the question asked demands acquiescence to Judaic law since nowhere else in holy script do we find anything remotely addressing human donor blood. There is no extra-Judaic scriptural text remotely addressing human donor blood, let alone allogenic transplantation of such blood. It was Judaistic teachers Paul warned about who insisted on invoking provisions of Judaic law that no worshiper of God outside Jews had ever been held to for their worship to be accepted by God. Cornelius was no more required to bow to demands of circumcision than he was required to bow to abstain from "any sort of blood" as required under Judaic law. Cornelius need only abstain from the sort of blood God had stipulated prior to Judaic law, namely the sort of blood spelled out to Noah after the flood, which was not human donor blood.

The explanation I see is very simple. The key to deciphering the whole ball of wax is understanding that whatever law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline, is cited or practiced, whether it is natural law, Judaic/Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant. Whatever is taken, is under its jurisdiction.  Under the New Covenant, the Congregation has the power to legislate/decide  based on the dictates of time and circumstance which doctrine and practices are most beneficial for the Christian community, leading her to incorporate various laws, although with her own modifications (Rom 13:1-10; Acts 15:28); while discarding others as useless (Col 2:16; Acts 15:10-12).  The only question remaining is whether changing the law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline is a wise thing to do. If the Congregation finds out it is not wise, she can restore them the way they were before.

The idea that the New Covenant would borrow principles from the Old should not be hard for us to understand. Take for example the relationship of the US Constitution and the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta had some very beneficial insights concerning law and life. These were incorporated into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Magna Carta itself became obsolete and was revoked, but whatever principles were borrowed from it, they became part of the Constitution, and it was only from the Constitution that those principles acquired legal force. In the same way, Scripture declares that the Old Covenant was legally revoked (Hebrews 7:18; 10:9) but its spiritual and moral principles were utilized in the New Covenant (Hebrews 10:16-18; Gal 5:14; 1Co 9:9; Rm 7:7-12). 

As a practical guide to life we have borrowed some ethical and worship principles from the Old Covenant. We borrowed from the Ten Commandments (although the New Covenant alters them a little to fit the Good News); we borrowed from some of the civil laws (paying just wages), and even have borrowed from some of the ceremonial laws. But whatever we borrow and practice, it is not because the Old Covenant, in whole or in part, is itself still legally valid, but because the New Covenant has the authority to incorporate any principle from the Old Covenant it wishes if it finds it helpful for Christian living. In that way, the Old Covenant laws are under the legal jurisdiction of the New Covenant, not the Old. Hence, the Congregation could legally abolish the entire Judaic/Mosaic law, but then take from the Judaic/Mosaic law those moral, civil or ceremonial principles that they saw fit for the Christian community.

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

On 2/7/2024 at 2:17 PM, Many Miles said:

And what is the following if not judaization?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290

It's not Judaization. If a Christian/Witness tries to use any of the Judaic/Mosaic law as the means to be declared righteous, he will be condemned. Being declared righteous does not come by observing laws but by Jehovah's undeserved kindness.

Well, based on what you say what do we find?

The society teaches that in order to be righteous a person must abide by its position on blood.  (Ref: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006126?q=respect+the+sanctity+of+blood+and+to+conform+themselves+to+God’s+righteous+rulings+concerning+this+vital+matter&p=par )

You can see yourself from the linked article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290) that the society wholly depends on text of Judaic Law to underpin its position against transfusion of donor blood.

If we accept what you write above, this position then stands condemned.

[Juan Rivera]

20 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Well, based on what you say what do we find?

The society teaches that in order to be righteous a person must abide by its position on blood.  (Ref: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006126?q=respect+the+sanctity+of+blood+and+to+conform+themselves+to+God’s+righteous+rulings+concerning+this+vital+matter&p=par )

You can see yourself from the linked article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290) that the society wholly depends on text of Judaic Law to underpin its position against transfusion of donor blood.

If we accept what you write above, this position then stands condemned.

There is only one covenant that has legal force, that can save and condemn. There's a difference between obeying the law within the system of undeserved kindness and system of law (Judaic Law). As a Witness I assume you believe and hold to the official position of the Congregation's understanding about faith and works and the Good News, Justification and Salvation. Do you? If not, I fail to see how you identify as a Jehovah's Witness.

I think I said that whatever law is utilized, it will be legalized and controlled by the New Covenant, not the Old. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, I fail to see based on what I have said how it stands condemned? Can you restate your point?

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

The idea that the New Covenant would borrow principles from the Old should not be hard for us to understand.

I have some trouble with your reasoning here. You can't put new wine in old wineskins. The New Covenant should not borrow principles from the Old in the creation of laws and rules. The book of Hebrews appears to me to show how there are principles that can help explain the full transition from Old to New. We can find shadows in the Old that hinted there was going to be something new and better. But the Old covenant was a matter of "do this, do that, don't touch this, don't touch that." This is precicely what the "law written on the heart" changes from the "law written on stone."

The New Covenant does not require us not to murder, for example, as part of a continued rule to follow. Christians don't follow a rule that tells us not to murder. We simply do not murder because it is not a reflection of our love for God who even extends love to enemies, and it is not loving to our neighbor. 

(1 John 3:15-20) 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him. By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.  But whoever has the material possessions of this world and sees his brother in need and yet refuses to show him compassion, in what way does the love of God remain in him?  Little children, we should love, not in word or with the tongue, but in deed and truth. By this we will know that we originate with the truth, and we will assure our hearts before him regarding whatever our hearts may condemn us in, because God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. . .
 

(1 John 4:20, 21) . . .If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother.

[Juan Rivera]

49 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I have some trouble with your reasoning here. You can't put new wine in old wineskins. The New Covenant should not borrow principles from the Old in the creation of laws and rules. The book of Hebrews appears to me to show how there are principles that can help explain the full transition from Old to New. We can find shadows in the Old that hinted there was going to be something new and better. But the Old covenant was a matter of "do this, do that, don't touch this, don't touch that." This is precisely what the law in the heart instead of on stone changes. The New Covenant does not require us not to murder, for example, as part of a continued rule to follow. Christians don't follow a rule that tells us not to murder. We simply do not murder because it is not a reflection of our love for God who even extends love to enemies, and it is not loving to our neighbor. 

I hear you. Here's where I'm coming from. In 1 Corinthians 9:9, for example, Paul says, “For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain.” Obviously, Paul is not saying that the Mosaic law concerning oxen still has legal force, rather, Paul is merely extracting the Mosaic principle of providing for the needs of the worker, in this case, the preacher of the Good News. Likewise, I'm saying that whatever law is cited or practiced today in Christianity, whether it is natural law, Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant.  At the present time, the Old Covenant’s purpose is to serve as a model, a precedent, a teacher, for the divine principles that will be needed to allow the New Covenant to function as efficiently as it possibly can. But there is only one covenant that has legal force, that can save and condemn and that Jehovah recognizes today.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

In 1 Corinthians 9:9, for example, Paul says, “For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain.”

Yes. Those principles do not become rules, however. When the Law is written on our hearts, we don't need rules of any kind.

The imposition of ANY rule is a kind of "judaizing."

There is no rule against fornication, there is no rule against eating blood. But we don't and won't do either, because we will continually want to know more about God and his love, and try to reflect it wherever possible. If we love God we would want to try to understand, as best as we are able, the Law to Noah and the Law to Moses. Even if we can't figure out all the details behind those laws, we will likely appear to be following rules to those on the outside, but our motivation will be a much higher motivation: love for God, his Son, and love for neighbor. Jesus spoke to actual Jews under Law and was already transitioning them toward this new teaching, showing them that you will never murder because you will work on removing hate, you will never commit adultery or steal because you will work on not even desiring what would take away from your neighbor/brother.  To someone on the outside you might seem like a much stricter rule-follower than they are, but you won't even be thinking about any rules.

However, you are right that a congregation is going to set rules that make sense to keeping order and making it possible for Christians to fellowship, and they are based on mutual agreement. These are mundane things, however, and have nothing to do with the New Covenant or salvation. A congregation can decide through mutual agreement to have a gathering on Sunday at 10am, or Wednesday at 8pm, or Saturday at midnight. Older men and overseers can help preside over such decisions, wisely, and their love and respect for the flock will help them avoid the decision to meet at midnight on Saturday. It would be a hardship on the congregation, and they would waste their hard work preparing to teach when there will be no one to hear. But those "rules" might even claim to be based on Mosaic principles, as we used to emphasize for our 3 conventions a year. They are still mundane, like the "widows on the list who are least 60 years old" in 1 Timothy. 

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant.  At the present time, the Old Covenant’s purpose is to serve as a model, a precedent, a teacher, for the divine principles that will be needed to allow the New Covenant to function as efficiently as it possibly can.

It's hard for me to imagine it that way. Efficiency is not any part of the purpose of the New Covenant. During a time of transition the Old Covenant served as a model, precedent, and teacher -- but it doesn't make those things a part of the New Covenant. Notice:

(Galatians 3:23-25) . . .However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed.  So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith.  But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.

[JW Insider]

By the way, we look at the decree in Acts 15 and say that because it was "guided by holy spirit" that it becomes some kind of "law" for Christians today. But don't we believe that Paul was also "guided by holy spirit" in writing Timothy?

Yet how many congregations make a list of widows 60 and over and base it on the requirements listed here?

(1 Timothy 5:9, 10) . . .A widow is to be put on the list if she is not less than 60 years old, was the wife of one husband,  having a reputation for fine works, if she raised children, if she practiced hospitality, if she washed the feet of holy ones, . . .

Was this one of those cases where you might think the Pauline decree to Timothy turned out not to be a wise thing to do?

7 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

The only question remaining is whether changing the law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline is a wise thing to do. If the Congregation finds out it is not wise, she can restore them the way they were before.

[BTK59]

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

There is no rule against fornication, there is no rule against eating blood.

I'm having a little trouble understanding this. Are there no rules against engaging in sexual relations (fornication)? In what sense are you referring to? What could possibly justify consuming rotten meat and even going so far as to ingest the blood of living or deceased animals by humans under either observation of the OT or NT?

The referenced article illustrates a particular line of thinking, showing how some might consider it, while unequivocally establishing its fallacy.

As far as I can tell by the conversation, it appears it's ok to give anyone rotten fruit. Does anyone believe that it will be accepted by everyone? 

This also raises the question of belief, pitting believers against non-believers.  In ancient times, those who rejected the laws of the Israelites freely indulged in consuming even the meat that had been offered to their gods and still had blood in it.  Did Paul claim that non-believers were free from sinning against God because they were not under any rules?

[Many Miles]

7 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

The explanation I see is very simple. The key to deciphering the whole ball of wax is understanding that whatever law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline, is cited or practiced, whether it is natural law, Judaic/Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant. Whatever is taken, is under its jurisdiction.  Under the New Covenant, the Congregation has the power to legislate/decide  based on the dictates of time and circumstance which doctrine and practices are most beneficial for the Christian community, leading her to incorporate various laws, although with her own modifications (Rom 13:1-10; Acts 15:28); while discarding others as useless (Col 2:16; Acts 15:10-12).

In very simple terms, what you write here is a permission slip for the society to teach whatever it wants to teach under the cape you call " jurisdiction". It leaves "her" to teach Judaism if she wishes, because of "her" "power to legislate/decide." Let readers make of that what they will. There is no way to falsify that, which makes it useless as premise for sake of a sound conclusion. If that's what you believe, I leave you with it. I have no need to respond to it. As a JW, or any other capacity.