Samuel Herd - Governing Body member and a member of the 144,000 Anointed Ones by Jehovah God the Almighty in heaven http://ift.tt/1QpEk8c #jworg #jehovahswitnesses #samherd #governingbody #governingbodyofjehovahswitnesses #samuelherd http://ift.tt/29FcaLG
Via
Venezuela Branch Office - members of the bethel family #jworg #jehovahswitnesses #jw #jwvenezuela #jworgvenezuela #jwsudamerica #jwsouthamerica http://ift.tt/1QpEk8c http://ift.tt/29GuLFr
Via
Spain: Brothers at an assembly. Is he touching his ear?? http://ift.tt/1QpEk8c #jw #jworg #jehovahswitnesses #jwbrothers #jwhermanos #jwespaña http://ift.tt/29GxAqg
Via
Melchizedek, Melkisetek, or Malki Tzedek (/mɛl.ˈkɪz.ə.dɪk/; Hebrew: מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶֿק malkī-ṣeḏeq; Amharic: መልከ ጼዴቅ malkī-ṣeḏeq; Armenian: Մելքիսեդեք, Melkisetek), is the king of Salem and priest of El Elyon ("God most high") mentioned in the 14th chapter of the Book of Genesis. He brings out bread and wine and blesses Abram and El Elyon
In the majority of Masoretic Hebrew texts the name is written as two words, Meleḵi-ṣedeq מלכי־צדק, rendered in one word in both the Septuagint (Μελχισεδέκ) and Vulgate (Melchisedech). The Authorised King James Version of 1611 renders the name Melchizedek when translating from the Hebrew, and Melchisedec in the New Testament.
The name is composed from the two elements melek(h) "king" and ṣedeq "righteous(ness)". With the addition of the enclitic possessive pronoun (-ī), malk-ī means "my king", so that the name literally translates to "my king is righteousness" (or "my king is Ṣedeq"). By the Hellenistic era it appears the name came to be associated with the messiah and paraphrased as "king of righteousness".
"My King is Righteousness" is interpreted as a theophoric name associating Melchizedek's god, El Elyon with the epithet Ṣedeq ("Righteousness"), which is otherwise attested as the name of Canaanite deities. Thus, Ṣedeq and El Elyon ("God most high") may have been two epithets of the same Jebusite god, identified as an astral deity, perhaps eponymous of Salem itself: Salim or Shalem (שלם) is attested as a god, presumably identified with the evening star, in Ugaritic mythology; URUŠalim in this case would be the city of Salim, the Jebusite astral deity. The theonym is also preserved in Phoenician (ṣdq; Philo: Συδυκ), a deity identified with Roman Jupiter.
The name is formed in parallel with Adoni-ṣedeq אדני־צדק, also a king of Salem, mentioned in the Book of Joshua (10:1–3), where the element malik "king" is replaced by adon "lord". Parallel theophoric names, with Sedeq replaced by Yahu, are those of Malchijah and Adonijah, both biblical characters placed in the time of David.
Psalm 110 alludes to Melchizedek as a prototype of the messiah. This led to the re-interpretation of the name as "king of righteousness" in Hellenistic Judaism. Based on evidence found in the Qumran Scrolls, it was also used as a name of the Archangel Michael, interpreted as a heavenly priest; Michael as Melchi-zedek contrast with Belial, who is given the name of Melchi-resha "king of wickedness". The text of the Epistle to the Hebrews follows this interpretation in stating explicitly that the name in Greek translation (ἑρμηνευόμενος) means βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης ("king of righteousness"), omitting translation of the possessive suffix; the same passage interprets Melchizedek's title of king of Salem as translating to βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης "king of peace", the context being the presentation of Melchizedek's as an eternal priesthood associated with Jesus Christ (ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές "made like unto the Son of God abideth a priest continually").
Melchizedek is mentioned twice in the Hebrew Bible, the first in Genesis and the second in Psalms.
Genesis 14
The narrative of Genesis 14 is part of the larger story telling how Abram returns from defeating king Chedorlaomer and meets with Bera the king of Sodom, at which point:
Some textual critics classify the narration as not being derived from any of the usual pentateuchal sources. It has been speculated that verses 18–20 (in which Melchizedek appears) are an informal insertion into the narration, as they interrupt the account of the meeting of Abraham with the king of Sodom.
Lebanese Protestant scholar Kamal Salibi (1929–2011) observes that Hebrew: ֹמַעֲשֵׂר, m'sr, which literally does mean tenth, might more loosely be used to mean portion, and Hebrew: מִכֹּל, m-kl, or from all, might refer just to food in the giver's possession, so that the whole verse might mean He gave him a portion of food..
Genesis 14:18 introduces Melchizedek a "Priest of the Most High God" (El Elyon), a term which is re-used in 14:19, 20, 22. The term "Most High" is used another twenty times of the God of the Israel in the Psalms. Giorgio Levi Della Vida (1944) suspects that this is a late development, and Joseph Fitzmyer (1962) connects Genesis 14 with the mention of a god called "Most High," who may appear according to one of three possible translations of a 750 BC inscription found at Al-Safirah in Syria. Remi Lack (1962) considers that the Genesis verses were taken over by Jewish redactor(s), for whom El was already identified with YHWH, El-Elyon became an epithet for the God of Israel.
Tithe recipient
Due to an ambiguity in the Hebrew text, it is unclear who gave tithe to whom: Abram to Melchizedek, or Melchizedek to Abram: the verse in question states simply, "And [he] gave him tithe from all" (v-yiten-lo ma'aser mekol, ויתן לו מעשר מכל ). Most translations of this verse preserve the ambiguity, as in the Septuagint, which has edōken autōi, ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ "he gave to him", but some modern translations make explicit the mainstream interpretation of Abram being the giver and Melchizedek the recipient.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Book of Jubilees, Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Rashi all read Abram as the giver of the tithe to Melchizedek. The Rogatchover Gaon, also understanding Abram to be the tithe giver, comments that the presented tithe was not a standard tithe (Maaser Rishon) as described in the Torah (given on an annual basis), but was a one-time "tribute offering" (trumat ha-mekhes, תרומת המכס), such as Moses gave to God in Numbers 31:41.
Expressing a kabbalistic point of view, the Zohar commentary to Genesis 14 cites Rabbi Yitzchak as saying that it was God who gave a tithe to Abram in the form of removing the Hebrew letter He from his own throne of glory and presenting it to the soul of Abram for his benefit.[28] Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843–1926) interprets the phrase "And he gave him tithe from all" as a verbal continuation of Melchizedek's speech, i.e., Melchizedek exclaimed that God had chosen to gift Abram a tenth of God's possession of the entire human race (consisting of seventy nations as described in Genesis) in the form of the seven nations of the land of Canaan, including the cities of Sodom that Abram succeeded in saving. Rabbi Meir Simcha argues that continued speech of this sort was a common form of prophetic expression.
Psalm 110
The second and final Hebrew Bible mention of Melchizedek is in Psalm 110:4. The many translations that follow the Septuagint translate such;
The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent: 'Thou art a priest for ever after the manner of Melchizedek.'. (JPS 1917)
Although the above is the traditional translation of the text, the Hebrew text can be interpreted in various ways, and the New Jewish Publication Society of America Version, (1985 edition), for example, has:
You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree. (JPS 1985)
Another alternative keeps Melchizedek as a personal name but changes the identity of the person addressed: "You are a priest forever by my order (or 'on my account'), O Melchizedek" – here it is Melchizedek who is being addressed throughout the psalm.
The majority of Chazalic literature attributes the primary character of the psalm as King David who was a "righteous king" (מלכי צדק) of Salem (Jerusalem) and, like Melchizedek, had certain priest-like responsibilities, while the Babylonian Talmud understands the chapter as referring to Abram who was victorious in battling to save his nephew Lot and merited priesthood.[36]The Zohar defines the noted Melchizedek as referring to Ahron the Kohen Gadol (high priest).
Psalm 110:4 is cited in the New Testament letter to the Hebrews as an indicator that Jesus, regarded in the letter as the Messiah, had a right to a priesthood pre-dating the Jewish Aaronic priesthood (Hebrews 5:5–6).
In Judaism
Hellenistic Judaism
Josephus refers to Melchizedek as a "Canaanite chief" in War of the Jews, but as a priest in Antiquities of the Jews.
Philo identifies Melchizedek with the Logos as priest of God, and honoured as an untutored priesthood.
The Second Book of Enoch (also called "Slavonic Enoch") is apparently a Jewish sectarian work of the 1st century AD. The last section of the work, the Exaltation of Melchizedek, tells how Melchizedek was born of a virgin, Sofonim (or Sopanima), the wife of Nir, a brother of Noah. The child came out from his mother after she had died and sat on the bed beside her corpse, already physically developed, clothed, speaking and blessing the Lord, and marked with the badge of priesthood. Forty days later, Melchizedek was taken by the archangel Gabriel (Michael in some manuscripts) to the Garden of Eden and was thus preserved from the Deluge without having to be in Noah's Ark.
Dead Sea Scrolls
11Q13 (11QMelch) is a fragment (that can be dated to the end of the 2nd or start of the 1st century BC) of a text about Melchizedek found in Cave 11 at Qumran in the Israeli Dead Sea area and which comprises part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this eschatological text, Melchizedek is seen as a divine being and Hebrew titles as Elohim are applied to him. According to this text Melchizedek will proclaim the "Day of Atonement" and he will atone for the people who are predestined to him. He also will judge the peoples.
The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) repeats information from Genesis.
Torah commentaries
Hebrew language Torah commentarians of the Rishonim era (11th to 15th centuries) have explained the (seemingly) abrupt intrusion of Melchizedek into the narration in various ways; Hezekiah ben Manoah (c. 1250) points out that the following verses has Abram refusing any of the king of Sodom's possessions which, if not for the insertion of Melchizedek's hospitality, would prompt the query as to where Abram and his weary men got their refreshments from. The Rashbam, Shmuel ben Meir (11th century), offers a similar explanation but varies by saying that only Abram's men partook in the booty (originally belonging to the king of Sodom) whereas the Melchizedek intrusion explains that Abram himself was sustained by Melchizedek since he refused to consume of the luxury of Sodom because his Lord was of the non-material world. Likewise, the commentary of Chaim ibn Attar (17th century) offers a three-pronged slew of reasons for the Melchizedek insertion.
In rabbinic literature
The narrative preceding Melchizedek's introduction presents a picture of Melchizedek's involvement in the events of his era. The narration details Abram's rescue of his nephew Lot and his spectacular defeat of multiple kings, and goes on to define the meeting place of Melchizedek and Abram as "Emek HaShaveh which is Emek HaMelech". The meeting site has been associated with Emek Yehoshaphat (the Valley of Josaphat).[50] Targum Onkelos describes the meeting location's size as "a plot the size of a king's Riis". Midrashic exegesis describes how a large group of governors and kings convened in unison to pay homage to the victor Abram and desired to make him a deity, at which point he declined, attributing his victory to God's might and will alone.
The chronological work Seder ha-Dorot (published 1769) quotes that Melchizedek was the first to initiate and complete a wall in circumference of the city, and had to exit Salem to reach Abram and his men. Upon exiting Salem, he presented to them "bread and wine" with the intent to refresh them from their journey. Following the premise that Melchizedek was indeed Shem, he was 465 years old at the time and Abram was 75 years of age.
Chazalic literature unanimously identify Melchizedek as Shem son of Noah (Targum Yonathan to Genesis chap. 14, Genesis Rabbah 46:7, Babylonian Talmud to Tractate Nedarim 32b). The Talmud Bavli attributes him (Shem and his beth din court of justice) as pioneers in banning prostitution (Avodah Zarah p. 36a).
Middle eastern land distribution demonstrating the land of Canaangoverned by Cham
There is, however, disagreement amongst Rishonim as to whether Salem was Melchizedek/Shem's allocated residence by his father Noah or whether he was a foreigner in Salem which was considered the rightful land of his brother Cham. The Ramban is of the opinion that the land was rightfully owned and governed by the offspring of Cham, and explains that Melchizedek/Shem left his home country and came to Salem as a foreigner wishing to serve God as a Kohen. However, Rashi maintains that the land of Canaan was initially allotted to Shem, by Noah his father, and the offspring of Cham conquered the land by forced expansion.
Transition of the Priesthood
Although Melchizedek is the first person in the Torah to be titled a Kohen (priest), the medrash records that he was preceded in priesthood (kehuna) by Adam. Rabbinic commentarians to the Torah explain that Melchizedek – essentially Shem – was given the priesthood (Hebrew; kehuna) by receipt of his father Noah's blessing "G-d beatified Yefeth and will dwell in the house of Shem"; i.e., he will merit to serve and host God as a Kohen.
Torah Laws require that the Kohen (priest) must be a patrilineal descendant of a prior Kohen. Leviticus Rabbah maintains that God intended to permanently bring forth the priesthood ("Kehuna") through Melchizedek’s patrilineal descendants, but since Melchizedek preceded Abram's blessing to that of God, God instead chose to bring the priesthood ("kehuna") forth from Abram’s descendants. ]As the text states in regard to Melchizedek; "and he is a Kohen", meaning himself in the exclusive sense and not his patrilineal descendants.
The Ohr HaChayim commentary presents that God was not angered by Melchizedek's preceding Abram's blessing to that of God, since Abram was rightfully deemed worthy of precedence for independently coming to recognize God amidst a world of Paganism, but Melchizedek willingly gave the priesthood to Abram upon recognizing his outstanding uniqueness and Godly character traits.
Rabbinic authorities defer as to whether Kehuna was given to Abram there and then or after the demise of Melchizedek.
The Midrash records that Shem functioned as kohen gadol (high priest) in that he taught Torah to the Patriarchs before it was publicly given at Mount Sinai, while the official title of High Priest was conferred upon Aaron after the erection of the Tabernacle.
Midrash text
The Midrash quotes multiple aspects of both Melchizedek and Abram; The Rabbis taught that Melchizedek acted as a priest and handed down Adam’s robes to Abram (Numbers Rabbah 4:8).
Rabbi Isaac the Babylonian said that Melchizedek was born circumcised (Genesis Rabbah 43:6). Melchizedek called Jerusalem “Salem.” (Genesis Rabbah 56:10.) The Rabbis said that Melchizedek instructed Abram in the Torah. (Genesis Rabbah 43:6.) Rabbi Eleazar said that Melchizedek’s school was one of three places where the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) manifested Himself (Babylonian Talmud Makkot 23b).
Rabbi Judah said in Rabbi Nehorai's name that Melchizedek’s blessing yielded prosperity for Abram, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis Rabbah 43:8). Ephraim Miksha'ah the disciple of Rabbi Meir said in the latter's name that Tamar descended from Melchizedek (Genesis Rabbah 85:10).
Rabbi Hana bar Bizna citing Rabbi Simeon Hasida identified Melchizedek as one of the four craftsmen of whom Zechariah wrote in Zechariah 2:3. (Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52b; see also Song of Songs Rabbah 2:33 (crediting Rabbi Berekiah in the name of Rabbi Isaac).) The Talmud teaches that David wrote the Book of Psalms, including in it the work of the elders, including Melchizedek.
Thus according to some rabbis[who?] confusion over Melchizedek being both King and Priest is solved by knowing that Shem was also a progenitor of the Davidic Monarchy, which descended from both Judah and Tamar, who was the daughter (or granddaughter by some opinions) of Shem.[original research?]
In the Zohar
The Zohar (redacted by Moses de León c. 1290s) finds in “Melchizedek king of Salem” a reference to “the King Who rules with complete sovereignty,” or according to another explanation, that “Melchizedek” alludes to the lower world and “king of Salem” to the upper world (Zohar 1:86b–87a). The Zohar's commentary on Genesis 14 cites a Rabbi Yitzchak as saying that it was God who gave tithe to Abram in the form of removing the Hebrew letter He from his throne of glory and presenting it to the soul of Abram for his benefit.[citation needed] The letter he is the letter God added to Abram's name to become "Abra-ha-m" in Genesis.
In Christianity
An image of Melchizedek painted onto the altar side near the Royal Doorsat Libotin wooden church, Maramureş County, Romania
In the New Testament, references to Melchizedek appear only in the Epistle to the Hebrews (later 1st century AD), though these are extensive (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21). Jesus Christ is there identified as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek quoting from Ps. 110:4.
In Heb. 7:3 , Melchizedek is described as an extraordinary person in ways that are unique in the biblical narrative. In Heb. 7:3, Melchizedek is depicted as being "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life"; thus giving him an almost godlike status.
Association with the Messiah
The association or identification of Melchizedek with the Messiah predates Christianity, developing in Jewish messianism of the Second Temple period.[citation needed]
A collection of early Gnostic scripts dating on or before the 4th century, discovered in 1945 and known as the Nag Hammadi library, contains a tractate pertaining to Melchizedek. Here it is proposed that Melchizedek is Jesus Christ.[70] Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ, lives, preaches, dies and is resurrected, in a gnostic perspective. The Coming of the Son of God Melchizedek speaks of his return to bring peace, supported by the gods, and he is a priest-king who dispenses justice.
The association with Christ is made explicit by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Melchizedek the "king of righteousness" and "king of peace" is explicitly associated with the "eternal priesthood" of the Son of God. The Christological interpretation of this Old Testament character being a prefiguration or prototype of the Christ has varied between Christian denominations. The Pelagians saw in Melchizedek merely a man who lived a perfect life.
Typological association of Jesus Christ with Old Testament characters occurs frequently in the New Testament; thus, Jesus Christ is also associated with Adam (as the "New Adam") and with Abraham.
Liturgical commemoration
Melchizedek is mentioned in the Roman Canon, the First Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, and also figures in the current Roman Martyrology as a commemoration on August 26.
He is commemorated in the Eastern Orthodox Church on May 22, and on the "Sunday of the Forefathers" (two Sundays before Christmas). In the Calendar of Saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church Melkisetek (Armenian: Մելքիսեդեք, Melkisetek) is commemorated as one of the Holy Forefathers on July 26.
Protestantism
Traditional Protestant Christian denominations, following Luther, teach that Melchizedek was a historical figure and an archetype of Christ.
Tremper Longman notes that a popular understanding of the relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus is that Melchizedek is an Old Testament Christophany – in other words, that Melchizedek is Jesus.
Latter Day Saint movement
In the Latter Day Saint movement, the Book of Mormon makes reference to Melchizedek (Alma 13:17–19). In Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, Melchizedek is described as "a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions." Because he was a righteous and God-fearing man, Melchizedek was "ordained a high priest" (JST Genesis 14:25–40) The Joseph Smith Translation notes that, when the Epistle to the Hebrew speaks of Melchizedek, it is the order of the priesthood named for him that is without father and mother, etc., and not Melchizedek himself (JST Bible Hebrews 7:3).
According to the Doctrine and Covenants, Melchizedek is a descendant of Noah (84:14). Latter Day Saints are unclear as to whether Melchizedek was Shem, or a descendant of Shem. The Latter Day Saint Melchizedek priesthood is named after him, so as not to over-use the name of the Son of God, after whom it was originally named.
- Wikipedia
See also:
You are a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek!—Ps. 110:4.
Why would Jesus be a priest “in the manner of Melchizedek”? Because long before any descendants of Abraham inherited the Promised Land, Melchizedek, the king of Salem, served as “priest of the Most High God.” (Heb. 7:1-3) He was directly appointed by Jehovah to do so. He is the only one mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures who served as both a king and a priest. Moreover, since he was without a recorded predecessor or successor, he can be called “a priest for all time,” or forever. Jesus is directly appointed to be a priest by means of a personal covenant that Jehovah made with him, and he will remain “a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek.” (Heb. 5:4-6) This clearly shows that Jehovah has legally bound himself to use the Messianic Kingdom to accomplish his original purpose concerning humans on earth.—Gen. 1:28. w14 10/15 1:16, 17
I want to use this post to examine a purely moral problem that pops up occasionally in discussions. Let’s take a quote from an internet forum as an example. After a long and hateful tirade on the evils of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their teachings, a Mr. Jordan ends with this line:
Do you notice the immediate problem here? Here is a man, who is trying to convince us of the truth of his own position while tearing down the truths held by his opponents. Here is a man launching moral condemnation at Jehovah’s Witnesses with no holding back. Here is a man trying to take the righteous high ground. But what does his last line really show him to be?
Nothing less than a moral coward. A hypocrite to end all hypocrites. A man who tries to pluck straws out of the eyes of Jehovah’s Witnesses while forgetting the rafter in his own eye.
Let me explain with a pair of stories:
There was recently a young man living in the Fiji islands. As the young man was sitting under a tree meditating, he was approached by one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The two had a long conversation, and by the end the young man was deeply interested in what these Witnesses had to teach. He returned to his home island and, excitedly, tried to tell his friends and family and neighbors about these wonderful new teachings, but they would have none of it. Witness teachings were contradictory to official church teachings of the village, and could not be tolerated. His friends quickly abandoned him, his family cut ties with him, and his neighbors even set fire to his crops. But the young man never relented in publicly declaring what he thought to be true, even in the face of loss and persecution. He kept pursuing truth openly and in whatever way he could, even crossing miles of open sea every week just to attend Witness meetings and learn more. He placed a very high value on truth and was not afraid to sacrifice for it.
I myself chose to pursue Witness teachings in my late teens. It brought a lot of tears and grief. My own parents turned violent against me and threatened to throw me out on the street. My grandparents turned against me and wrote me out of their will entirely. My grandfather, who was my childhood hero and best friend, went to his grave declaring disappointment in me. I had to watch my own mother break down in tears in front of me, begging me to stop my association with these people, and it felt like a knife through the heart. But I did not ever quit pursuing what I felt to be the truth just because of the fear of losing relationships. I was willing to sacrifice if it came down to it, because to me it meant intellectual integrity and the attainment of ultimately higher ends.
And if I ever come to disagree with the Witnesses enough that it merits a break, then I would not hesitation to break with them, even if it meant loss of more relationships. There are no regrets as long as one stays consistent with one's own values, and truth ought to be one of man’s very highest values.
Even the 1st century Christians understood this lesson well. Jesus himself said
The original disciples of Christ understood that they would lose much and suffer greatly if they chose to pursue what they felt to be the truth, and yet they made the choice anyways. They never hesitated to speak publicly and openly defend their beliefs. They were true examples of courage and conviction, even if one doesn't agree with Christian theology.
Now let's go back to our original quote, where we have Mr. “I hate everything that Witnesses teach yet I still pretend to be a Witness” Jordan.
Mr. Jordan keeps himself shoulders deep in what he clearly considers to be lies. He considers Witness teachings immoral, unloving, evil, a rebellion against nature itself, and yet there he is, King of Hypocrites, still pretending to be one of them and publicly associating with them.
I myself would never, under any circumstances, publicly pretend to hold values that I secretly detest, solely for the sake of maintaining relationships. It would be utter hypocrisy and moral cowardice, a violation of integrity. It would be outright lying to and deceiving those whom I sought to maintain relationships with, drawing them to myself on false pretenses and with a false face. It would be an outright rejection of truth as a value.
These types of people try to tear others down and argue truth while they themselves, through their actions, show that they despise truth and place no value on it. They try to turn Witnesses away from their faith while they themselves are too cowardly to walk away or declare their opinions in the open. In my humble opinion, ones like Mr. Jordan deserve no respect and no attention from anyone, Witness or non-Witness.
by Tears of Oberon
I want to use this post to examine a purely moral problem that pops up occasionally in discussions. Let’s take a quote from an internet forum as an example. After a long and hateful tirade on the evils of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their teachings, a Mr. Jordan ends with this line:
Do you notice the immediate problem here? Here is a man, who is trying to convince us of the truth of his own position while tearing down the truths held by his opponents. Here is a man launching moral condemnation at Jehovah’s Witnesses with no holding back. Here is a man trying to take the righteous high ground. But what does his last line really show him to be?
Nothing less than a moral coward. A hypocrite to end all hypocrites. A man who tries to pluck straws out of the eyes of Jehovah’s Witnesses while forgetting the rafter in his own eye.
Let me explain with a pair of stories:
There was recently a young man living in the Fiji islands. As the young man was sitting under a tree meditating, he was approached by one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The two had a long conversation, and by the end the young man was deeply interested in what these Witnesses had to teach. He returned to his home island and, excitedly, tried to tell his friends and family and neighbors about these wonderful new teachings, but they would have none of it. Witness teachings were contradictory to official church teachings of the village, and could not be tolerated. His friends quickly abandoned him, his family cut ties with him, and his neighbors even set fire to his crops. But the young man never relented in publicly declaring what he thought to be true, even in the face of loss and persecution. He kept pursuing truth openly and in whatever way he could, even crossing miles of open sea every week just to attend Witness meetings and learn more. He placed a very high value on truth and was not afraid to sacrifice for it.
I myself chose to pursue Witness teachings in my late teens. It brought a lot of tears and grief. My own parents turned violent against me and threatened to throw me out on the street. My grandparents turned against me and wrote me out of their will entirely. My grandfather, who was my childhood hero and best friend, went to his grave declaring disappointment in me. I had to watch my own mother break down in tears in front of me, begging me to stop my association with these people, and it felt like a knife through the heart. But I did not ever quit pursuing what I felt to be the truth just because of the fear of losing relationships. I was willing to sacrifice if it came down to it, because to me it meant intellectual integrity and the attainment of ultimately higher ends.
And if I ever come to disagree with the Witnesses enough that it merits a break, then I would not hesitation to break with them, even if it meant loss of more relationships. There are no regrets as long as one stays consistent with one's own values, and truth ought to be one of man’s very highest values.
Even the 1st century Christians understood this lesson well. Jesus himself said
The original disciples of Christ understood that they would lose much and suffer greatly if they chose to pursue what they felt to be the truth, and yet they made the choice anyways. They never hesitated to speak publicly and openly defend their beliefs. They were true examples of courage and conviction, even if one doesn't agree with Christian theology.
Now let's go back to our original quote, where we have Mr. “I hate everything that Witnesses teach yet I still pretend to be a Witness” Jordan.
Mr. Jordan keeps himself shoulders deep in what he clearly considers to be lies. He considers Witness teachings immoral, unloving, evil, a rebellion against nature itself, and yet there he is, King of Hypocrites, still pretending to be one of them and publicly associating with them.
I myself would never, under any circumstances, publicly pretend to hold values that I secretly detest, solely for the sake of maintaining relationships. It would be utter hypocrisy and moral cowardice, a violation of integrity. It would be outright lying to and deceiving those whom I sought to maintain relationships with, drawing them to myself on false pretenses and with a false face. It would be an outright rejection of truth as a value.
These types of people try to tear others down and argue truth while they themselves, through their actions, show that they despise truth and place no value on it. They try to turn Witnesses away from their faith while they themselves are too cowardly to walk away or declare their opinions in the open. In my humble opinion, ones like Mr. Jordan deserve no respect and no attention from anyone, Witness or non-Witness.
by Tears of Oberon
#prince would have loved this photo of WallKill Bethel #wallkillbethel #wallkill #jworg #jehovahswitnesses share more with us @ http://ift.tt/29com2l http://ift.tt/29kkwXk
Via
#prince would have loved this photo of WallKill Bethel #wallkillbethel #wallkill #jworg #jehovahswitnesses share more with us @ http://ift.tt/29com2l http://ift.tt/29kkwXk
Via
All the brothers and sisters who helped set up chairs for a great convention! - Ricoh Arena, Coventry, UK.
Todos los hermanos y hermanas que ayudaron a colocar las sillas para una gran asamblea! - Ricoh Arena, Coventry, Reino Unido. #jworg #jwuk #jehovahswitnesses #coventry #jwcoventry http://ift.tt/1QpEk8c http://ift.tt/29e2Evc
Via
The Librarian got a reaction from Mirta Gili in Hallazgo en Israel
The Librarian got a reaction from Michael Kwame Osei Frimpong in Sisters striking a pose at a convention in Korea...
The Librarian got a reaction from Alexa in Ich legte meine Waffen nieder
The Librarian got a reaction from Queen Esther in Samuel Herd - Governing Body member and a member of the 144,000...
The Librarian got a reaction from vandenbusschevanoostjosett in Nigerian brothers and sisters http://ift.tt/1QpEk8c #jworg #jw...
The Librarian reacted to Queen Esther in DAILY TEXT, for Saturday, July 9. 2016
The Librarian got a reaction from BTolan in Fading, Faking and Lying as an Unbelieving Jehovah’s Witness: A Moral Criticism
The Librarian got a reaction from biddy2331@gmail.com in Fading, Faking and Lying as an Unbelieving Jehovah’s Witness: A Moral Criticism
The Librarian got a reaction from Blanchie DeGrate in #prince would have loved this photo of WallKill Bethel...
The Librarian got a reaction from Sherrill Szumik in #prince would have loved this photo of WallKill Bethel...
