コンテンツにスキップ

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

エホバの証人に関する論争

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』

これはこのページの過去の版です。125.193.23.145 (会話) による 2007年12月19日 (水) 02:57 （個人設定で未設定ならUTC）時点の版であり、現在の版とは大きく異なる場合があります。

エホバの証人は、一般に物議をかもすとみなされる信念や習慣を持つと言われる。その理由には主流のキリスト教徒により、それら教理が主流のキリスト教と異なる点。政府により、愛国的な活動を拒否する点。そして一般大衆により、輸血およびメンバーの一部を「切り離す」処遇の信念という点があげられる。

教理上の相違

エホバの証人は、主流のキリスト教（カトリック教会、東方正教会、プロテスタント）と異なる多くの教理を持つ。そのうちの幾つかの相違は主要なポイントであると考えられ、他は幾分か重要性が劣る。下に示された比較表は、エホバの証人の教理と、対応する(en:Vis-à-vis)主流のキリスト教のそれであり、物議をかもすと同時に主要であると考えられるものである。

主流のキリスト教徒の教え（カトリック教会、東方正教会、プロテスタント）[1] 対応するエホバの証人の教え
神の本質
神は自身を「父」、「子」、「聖霊」として明らかにし、それらは一つの神である（三位一体参照）。 唯一「父」（エホバ）のみが神である[2]（ユニテリアン主義参照）。
イエス（「子」）は受肉された神である。その地上における生活の期間、彼は完全な神であり、完全な人であった。 イエスは「神の子」であるが、神ではない[3]。
「聖霊」は三位一体の一位格である。聖霊は不変であり、力の点で神に等しい。 聖霊[4]は神の人格ではなく、「活動する力」[5]。
イエス
イエスは「神の子」である。彼は受肉した神である。 イエスは「神の子」であり、神（a god、または divine being（神性を備えた存在））であるが、神自身ではない。イエスはみ使いの頭ミカエルとして人類の創造以前から存在し[6]、啓示の書 9章11節で言及された、アポルオン/アバドンでもある[7]。
イエスは十字架に磔にされた。 イエスは苦しみの杭に釘で打ちつけられた[8]。
イエスの肉体は復活した。 イエスの肉体は復活せず、彼は霊において復活した[9]。
地に対するキリストの再臨は物理的なものであり、それは未だ訪れていない。 キリストの再来は1914年に目に見えない所で起こった[10]。
死/死後の生活
人の魂は永遠であって、いかなる時にも存在が終わりを迎えることはない。 魂は身体の死と共にその存在を終え、再び生きるためには復活が必要とされる[11]。
死の直後から、天国、地獄、（カトリック教会の）煉獄において、全人類に対する死後の生活が始まる。 すぐに天へと連れ去られる14万4千人以外については、死の直後から霊的な生活が始まるのではない[12]。煉獄もない[13]。地獄は人類共通の墓である[14]。
罪深い者は地獄で永遠に苦悩するであろう。 永遠の苦痛はない。（ユダのような）許されざる罪を犯した者は、死に際して「ゲヘナ」（永遠の破滅、あるいは滅び）の裁きを経験する[15]。
裁きと救い
復活の際、人々は、彼らが地上で生活した間に行った事柄によって裁かれる。 復活させられた人々は、彼らの復活後になされた活動を元に裁かれるであろう[16]。
救われた（生まれ変わる）人々は、神と共に、天国で永遠に過ごすであろう。 ただ14万4千人だけが生まれ変わり、キリストと共に地上を支配し、天で永遠に過ごすであろう[17]。ゲヘナの裁きを受ける者達を除き、死んだ全ての者（義者・不義者、共に）は、地上の楽園で永遠に生きる可能性がある者として復活させられるであろう[18]。
救われるためには、人はイエス・キリストを信じなければならない。多くのキリスト教教派が、救いにはバプテスマが不可欠であると信じる。多くのクリスチャン（特にカトリック教会）は、良い業が重要であると信じる。 義のために、人はイエスの命令に従わなければならず[19]、エホバに献身し[20]、エホバの証人の一人として神に仕える[21]。

これら証人の信念は、大抵のクリスチャンによって、冒涜的、もしくは異端的であると考えられている。こうした理由により、多くのキリスト教教派が、これらの信念を持つエホバの証人がクリスチャンのカテゴリー外にあると考え、しばしばカルトや非キリスト教宗教といったレッテルを彼らに貼る。

新世界訳

→「新世界訳聖書」も参照

翻訳委員会

新世界訳を翻訳した委員会のメンバーは匿名であることを望み、栄光が人ではなく神に向けられることを確実にする目的であることが述べられた[22]。この方法は、翻訳者の適性が検査出来なかった、などのように批判される。1950年に、新世界訳翻訳委員会は語る、「新世界訳の背景にある真の学識は、翻訳した委員会の氏名が公表されることによってではなく、ギリシア語本文に対する翻訳の正確さと、神の、記された人への啓示を理解するために提供されている、信頼の置けるヘルプとによって、それ自身が知らせるであろう」[23]。統治体の以前のメンバー、レイモンド・フランズは、翻訳委員会がフレデリック・ウィリアム・フランズ、ジョージ・ギャンギャス、カール・クライン、ネイサン・ノア、アルバート・シュローダーから成ると述べた。

神学上の偏見

新世界訳は、聖書の特定の部分をエホバの証人の教理に沿うように、あるいは加筆し、または選別して翻訳する、などのように批判された。「神学上の偏見」の批判はほとんどの場合、キリストの神性（すなわち、イエスは神である。en:Trinitarianism#Jesus_as_God）の問題に関連するが、他にも、永遠の魂やイエスの地上への帰還など、他の問題にも関連する[24]。一部の学者達は、その翻訳をある程度弁護した[25]。

最も頻繁に批判された訳出は、ヨハネによる福音書の最初の節である：

ヨハネ1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." （ほとんどの英語訳、例えばKJV、NIV、NASB）

ヨハネ1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."（NWT、強調を加える）

ものみの塔聖書冊子協会は、後者の訳出が、その節の字義通りの翻訳であり、さらに、原文はイエス（「言葉」）が「神」（"God"）ではなく、彼が「神のような」、「神性を備えた」、あるいは「神」（"a god"）であることを示唆すると述べる[26][27]。一部の学者達は、"a god" が、その節の字義通りの翻訳である可能性があると述べる[28]、もっとも、彼らはそのように見なすことを好む者ではないであろうが[29]。一部の学者達は同様に、字義通りの翻訳では位格は等しくないと述べ、特質（神のような性質、もしくは本質）をイエスに割り当てる[30]。

多くの学者達は、しかしながら、この節の証人による翻訳に反対し[31]、後者の訳出を、「不愉快な誤訳」、「けしからぬ」、「識者に不誠実である」、「まったく擁護できない」、「ギリシア語文法の基本原理について、酷く無知である証拠」と言い表した[32]。

他の新世界訳の訳出で、論争の主要なポイントとなるのは、エレミヤ29:10、ルカ23:43、ヨハネ8:58、使徒20:28、コロサイ1:15-20、テトス2:13、ヘブライ1:8、黙示録3:14が含まれる。

新世界訳のギリシア単語プロスキュネオーの訳出は、同様に批判の源となった。この語は新世界訳のほぼ全ての箇所で「崇拝」と訳出される。しかしながら、この語がイエスに対して用いられる場合、例外なく「敬意をささげる」と翻訳された[33]。ものみの塔協会は、その訳出を『聖書に対する洞察』の出版物中で説明した[34]。

「エホバ」の使用

→詳細は「New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures § Jehovah in the New Testament」を参照

新世界訳は、新約聖書中に「エホバ」の名を237回含む。新約聖書が翻訳された、ギリシア語写本には「エホバ」の名は含まれない（NWTの旧約聖書が「エホバ」の名を含む対応箇所は145の事例であるため、これは旧約聖書が翻訳された、現存するヘブライ語写本に含まれる事例より多い）。

エホバの証人は、新約聖書中で「エホバ」を用いる根拠として、新約聖書のオリジナル作品中にはそれが存在し、その後、4世紀ごろにギリシア語の「神」や「主」に置き換えられたと信じる。これは討論の主題に対する証拠である（en:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament参照）。

血液

→詳細は「Jehovah's Witnesses and blood」を参照

Jehovah’s Witnesses reject transfusions of whole blood and its primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma). This is due to the belief that blood is sacred and represents life in God’s eyes. Jehovah’s Witnesses understand scriptures such as Leviticus 17:10-14 (which speaks of not partaking in any blood) to include taking blood into the body via a transfusion.[35] Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood.

Fractions and components

In the case of minor fractions derived from blood, each individual is directed to follow their own conscience on whether these are acceptable.[36][37] This is because it is difficult to define at what point blood is no longer blood. As a substance is broken down into smaller and smaller parts it may or may not be considered the original substance. Therefore some Jehovah's Witnesses personally choose to accept the use of blood fractions and some do not.

Such a stance of dividing blood into major components and minor fractions rather than either accepting all blood or requiring all blood components to be poured out onto the ground has led to criticism from organizations such as the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood.[38] Witnesses respond that blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue. They say the real issue is respect and obedience for God’s personal property- blood.[39][40] That the matter blood is not at stake, is seen in the fact that members are allowed to eat meat which will still have some blood left in it. As soon as blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat even though it will contain a small amount of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood thus is different than the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove any little trace of blood.[41]

According to author Kerry Louderback-Wood, the Watchtower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from".[42] An example of this can be seen in blood plasma, which consists of 90-96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Critics have likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.[43] When considering such an analogy it is important to keep in mind that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the whole blood or any of its major components. And if a fraction, “makes up a significant portion of that component” or "carries out the key function of a primary component" it may be objectionable to them.[44]

The human body contains between 2-3kg of leukocytes (white blood cells), but only about 3% of these are in the blood. White blood cells are considered a major component of blood and therefore forbidden. Human breast milk contains about 500,000 - 5 million white blood cells per millilitre,[45] however this is not forbidden.

Storing and donation

Jehovah’s Witnesses strictly reject the storage of blood as being against the direction from the Bible to pour blood out onto the ground. It is due to this understanding that the use of autologous blood is prohibited – that is the storage of one’s own blood before surgery in the case of an emergency. They do on the other hand accept blood components from blood that has been donated and stored by blood clinics. Factor VIII is a clotting factor used in haemophiliac preparations that is acceptable under the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's guidelines. Critics say that over a lifetime an average haemophiliac would require extractions from over 100,000 litres of stored blood.

In a similar fashion Jehovah’s Witnesses accept blood fractions from donated blood but view the donation of blood to be unbiblical. This has led to criticism of perceived contradictory and inconsistent policies.[46]

Regardless of the medical considerations, Jehovah Witnesses advocate that physicians should uphold the right of a patient to choose what treatments they accept or do not accept (though a Witness is subject to religious sanctions if they exercise their right to choose a blood transfusion).[47] Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his or her own requests.[48] However, the point of view that physicians must, in all circumstances, abide by the religious wishes of the patients is not acknowledged by all jurisdictions (for one example, see France).

The situation has been controversial, particularly in the case of minor children. In the United States, many physicians will agree to explore and exhaust all non-blood alternatives in the treatment of children at the request of their legal guardians. However, some state laws require physicians to administer blood-based treatment to minors if it is their professional opinion that it is necessary to prevent immediate death or severe permanent damage.

An essay entitled, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," found in the Autumn issue of Baylor University’s Journal of Church and State, published December 13, 2005, discusses the potential vulnerability of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ legal corporations to significant claims for compensation because of the religion’s possible misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions. According to the essay, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact.

動物の血液

The Watchtower has stated that “Various medical products have been obtained from biological sources, either animal or human ... Such commercialization of ... blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God's perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life ... blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of.”[49] Despite this stance, the use of Hemopure, which is a blood substitute solution of chemically stabilized bovine haemoglobin, may be acceptable to some Witnesses.

他の宗教に対する態度

It has been suggested that “one of the more common criticisms of Jehovah’s Witnesses over the years has dealt with their outspoken denunciations of other faiths, religious leaders and clergymen.”[50] In the 1930s and 1940s, the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses were described as “notoriously anti-Catholic”,[51] including such images as a semiclad harlot (the Roman Catholic Church) reeling drunkenly into fire and brimstone. Witnesses during the time were openly critical of churches and clergy who they deemed were coconspirators in the war effort. Many highly critical pamphlets were written at the time.

The book entitled Enemies, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1938, included some of the more direct denunciations of primarily the Catholic Church but also the Protestants and the Jews. It includes references to the Catholic Church as "the old harlot" who has a "bloody record… many crimes… a filthy record". The same book is quoted as saying, "Today the so-called 'Protestants' and the Yiddish clergy openly co-operate with and play into the hands of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy like foolish simpletons and thereby aid the Hierarchy to carry on her commercial, religious traffic and increase her revenue… the hierarchy takes the lead, and the simpletons follow… poor simpletons.”[52]

Since World War II, publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses have not included the same level of attack against the church but do continue to view all religions except Jehovah’s Witnesses as being included in “Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion” and are represented as the harlot riding the wild beast in Revelation 13. Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to denounce other religions and refuse to participate in any interfaith relations. Publications continue to contain elements of what the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights consider to be anti-Catholic sentiments. An example cited by the 1998 Report on Anti-Catholicism included a publication depicting a person kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the caption, "Some worship idols. God says you must not use idols or images in worship...”[53]

ものみの塔協会の声明

The Watchtower Society has made a number of statements in its publications since its inception that have resulted in criticism, particularly from mainstream Christians and former Jehovah's Witnesses. These critics have highlighted a number of controversial statements, changes of doctrine, and failed predictions made by the Watchtower Society. Lists of controversial statements, such as those found below, are found in a number of books[54] and on numerous websites.[55]

外れた予測

Predictions such as the following have appeared in various Watchtower publications:[56]

  • 1907: Armageddon will culminate in the year 1914.[57]
  • 1917: In 1918, God would begin to destroy churches "wholesale" and church members by the millions. [58]
  • 1922-1923: The resurrection of the dead would occur in 1925.[59] In preparation for the 1925 date, the Watchtower Society acquired a property in California, and built a mansion on it. The property was to house people such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Samuel, whom they thought would be resurrected to life in 1925.
  • 1938: In 1938, Armaggedon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[60]
  • 1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[61]
  • 1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us." [62]
  • 1969: Human existence would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years". Young Witnesses were encouraged not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.[63]
  • 1969: Christ's thousand-year reign would begin in 1975.[64] There was a considerable amount of related speculation in Watchtower publications in the decade or so leading up to 1975.[65]
  • 1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.[66]

A number of Christian apologists have argued that in making predictions about the future, the Watchtower Society have acted as a prophet,[67] often citing Watchtower Society publications that use the word "prophet" in referring to the organization.[68][69] The Watchtower Society itself has condemned others for making false predictions about the future, stating that such people were "guilty of false prophesying".[70] The apologists argue, based on Deuteronomy 18:22:

「 When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (ESV) 」

that the Watchtower Society does not represent God.

The Watchtower Society has stated as early as 1908, "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises....We do not even [assert] that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them."[71] They have also stated that they do not have the gift of prophecy.[72] More recently they have defended themselves against claims of "false prophesying", by saying that they do not claim to be inspired prophets,[73] and that their predictions have never been made "in the name of Jehovah" but rather are given only as an interpretation of Scripture.[74]

However, the Watchtower Society has also made contradictory statements asserting their predictions to be definite. "The date of the close of that ‘battle’ is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874."[75]; "Surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of God that the Lord Jesus is present and has been since 1874"[76] (notably, this was written in 1923, indicating that 1914 was not taught as the beginning of Christ's presence until a later period, despite contrary claims by Jehovah's Witnesses that "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence to honesthearted students of Bible prophecy that Jesus’ presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914"[77]); "We see no reason for changing the figures — nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."[78].

教理の変更

History of Eschatological Doctrine
Last Days Begin Christ's Return Christ as King Resurrection of Anointed Judgment of Religion Great Tribulation
1879-1920 1799 1874 1878 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920
1920-1925 1925
1925-1927 1914 1878 1878 within generation of 1914
1927-1930 1914
1930-1933 1919
1933-1966 1914
1966-1975 1975?
1975-1995 within generation of 1914
1995-2007 imminent
2007-2024 1918[79]

The Watchtower Society has made a number of changes to its doctrines since its inception. The controversy surrounding this issue is that the Watchtower Society has said that:

  • People can only fully and accurately understand the Bible and God's purposes through their association with the religion.[80]
  • Witnesses are encouraged to attain to “oneness”[81] and thus not to “harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding,”[82] or be suspicious of their teachings, but rather to have confidence in what they print.[83]

A number of changes in chronology have occurred, particularly in regards to dates for important events such as Armaggedon, and the return of Jesus to the Earth (see table, right). For example, prior to 1914, it was said that Armageddon would end in 1914. In a 1915 edition of the same book, it was said that Armaggedon would end that year. Today, Witnesses are taught to expect Armageddon imminently.

Other changes in interpretation of the Bible have been noted by critics. These have included statements about the Bible itself;[84] identification of persons in the Bible;[85] whether or not people receive a second chance after death;[86] and perhaps most controversially, their standing on blood transfusions.[87] The standing of the Watchtower Society on other matters such as the acceptability of vaccinations[88] or tertiary education[89] has also changed over time.

→「Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses」も参照

これらへの声明

Critics of the Watchtower Society (or of Jehovah's Witnesses generally) often cite statements such as those listed above alongside other published statements that the Watchtower Society has made about itself; namely that:

  • The Watchtower Society is the "one and only channel" used by God to continually to dispense truth[90]
  • The Watchtower Society is "directed by Jehovah" and "under the direct supervision of Christ Jesus"[91] and that it "alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or force"[92]

These critics have used such statements to question the credibility of the Watchtower Society.

Family integrity & freedom of mind

Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses (e.g., Randall Watters, Timothy Campbell, David Grosshoeme, Kaynor Weishaupt, Jan Groenveld) object to Witness policy and behavior where, in their view, the integrity of family relationships and the capacity of members to exercise freedom of mind is impacted.

Others believe that some members of anti-cult movements have impinged on the religious freedom of Jehovah’s Witnesses through coercive deprogramming and discrimination.[93]

Witnesses teach that "freedom to make decisions [is] to be exercised within the boundaries of God’s laws and principles," [94] and that "only Jehovah [is] free to set the standard of what is good and bad."[95] As mentioned above, however, it is believed that such principles can only be understood through association with Jehovah's Witnesses.[96] In practice, members may face sanctions if they do not abide by regulations set forth by the leadership, which presents itself as the channel through which God instructs members about "what is good and bad."

Religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko stated, "It would be a serious mistake to represent the Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion whose leadership forces its rank and file believers to engage in one form of activity or another, or place upon them strict restrictions or directives. Jehovah's Witnesses strive to live in accord with Bible principles on the basis of an individual, voluntary choice. . . . This also applies in full measure to preaching." [97] James Beckford, an expert of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and a professor at the University of Warwick, England, mentioned, "It is important for each of them to exercise free moral agency in choosing to study the Bible and to live in accordance with their interpretation of its message." [98]

メンバーを切り離す処遇

→詳細は「Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline」を参照

If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses does not comply with the organisation's interpretations, they can be excommunicated, termed disfellowshipping. This involves being shunned by all members of the religion, including any family members that do not live under the same roof. Due to the social nature of the religion, being shunned can isolate a member in a very powerful way and can be devastating if everyone in a member's social circle participates in the shunning. Jehovah's Witnesses say that disfellowshipping is a scripturally-documented method to protect the congregation from the influence of those who practice serious wrongdoing. [6] The Encyclopedia of Religion notes: “Any community claims the right to protect itself against nonconforming members who may threaten the common welfare. In a religious setting this right has often been reinforced by the belief that the sanction [of excommunication] affects one’s standing before God.” [99]

Prior to 1981, if a member disassociated from the religion but was not disfellowshipped, the practice of shunning was not required and normal contact could be maintained. A policy change in 1981 required that all who were considered to have disassociated by their actions were to be treated in the same way as a member who had been disfellowshipped for gross wrongdoing. The new policy meant that congregation members are not informed whether a person was being shunned due to "disfellowshipping" or "disassociation", or on what grounds. Many of these changes were precipitated by events surrounding Raymond Franz, a former governing body member.

Critics state that fear of being shunned and family break-up causes people to stay who might otherwise freely leave the religion.[要出典] The only way to officially leave the religion is to write a letter requesting to be disassociated or to be disfellowshipped, but both entail the same set of prohibitions and penalties. Critics contend the judicial process involved, due to its private and nearly autonomous nature, contradicts the precedent found in the Bible and the organizations' own teachings[100] and can be used in an arbitrary manner if there is consensus among just a few to so use their authority.[101]

性的虐待の報告

→詳細は「Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse」を参照

Critics have accused Jehovah's Witnesses of employing organizational policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse difficult for members. For a report of abuse to be considered "proven" (to the degree that would merit congregational judicial discipline), there needs to be two witnesses or a confession by the accused (only in cases where there is no physical evidence of the abuse).[102][103]

Some victims of sexual abuse also assert that when reporting abuse they have been directed to maintain silence to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization.[104][105]

The official policy on child protection for Jehovah’s Witnesses, which discusses the procedures for reporting child sexual abuse, states that elders obey all legal requirements for reporting sex offenders, including reporting uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations where required by law and that they are to discipline pedophiles. It also emphasizes the right of the victim to notify the authorities if they wish to do so.[106] A Religious Tolerance.org website article on the handling of child sexual abuse cases acknowledges this, stating, "[T]he WTS recommends that the victim's parent or guardian — or even the accused person themselves — report the abuse to the police."

インターネットの使用

The Watchtower Society has instructed Witnesses to be careful in the use of the Internet because of the availability of what Witnesses consider "harmful" information. This can include information that is objectionable on moral grounds such as pornography, but also information considered to be 'apostate'. The word 'apostate' is assigned special meaning by Witnesses, to refer to individuals who leave their religion over doctrinal matters rather than the broader sense of any person who changes religious or political alliance.[107]

A 2000 issue of The Watchtower stated, "Some apostates are increasingly using the internet to spread false information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking."[108] While Witnesses define the existence of "harmful" information, critics define all accurate information valid. What Witnesses consider "apostate propaganda", critics consider merely an alternative viewpoint, which must be considered in order to claim one has a rounded viewpoint. Witnesses teach that Scriptures such as 2 John 8-11 apply to such "apostates" and thus they must, "look out" for themselves and never "receive" such teachings in any form.[109]

Critics have stated that this warning against Internet use is an example of "milieu control"[110] in which the society controls its members by restricting negative information regarding the society.[111] Jehovah's Witnesses respond to such criticism by stating that branch libraries, accessible by thousands of Witnesses and visitors, include books that speak negatively about Jehovah's Witnesses.[112]

国際連合との関与

→詳細は「Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations」を参照

On October 8 2001, a newspaper article was published in the British Guardian newspaper questioning the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's registration as a non-governmental organisation NGO with the United Nations Department of Public Information and accusing the Watchtower Society of hypocrisy.[113] The reason for this criticism is that Jehovah’s Witnesses have long taught that the United Nations is the “image of the wild beast” referred to in Revelation 13:1-18 and the second fulfillment of the "abominable thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15.[114][115] The doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly expresses the need to be wary of forming voluntary attachments to organizations that have objectives contrary to the Bible.[116]

Within days the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society submitted a formal request for disassociation removing all association with the United Nations,[117] and released a letter stating that the reason for becoming associated with the United Nations Department of Information (DPI) was to access library resources, and that they had not been aware of the change in language contained in the criteria for NGO association.[118] Membership as an NGO is not necessary in order to access the United Nations' DPI libraries[119], while the purpose of membership is to "promote knowledge of the principles and activities of the United Nations." However, association with the DPI as an NGO does not constitute an incorporation to the United Nations[120].

脚注

  1. ^ See this page for a general overview of the beliefs of various mainstream Christian denominations.
  2. ^ Official linkAid to Bible Understanding, p.894
  3. ^ Official link Reasoning From the Scriptures, pp. 136-137, 282-283;
  4. ^ "holy spirit"。エホバの証人は "Holy Spirit" と大文字化しない。
  5. ^ Official link Reasoning From the Scriptures, pp. 136-137, 361;
  6. ^ Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 919, 1152
  7. ^ 『啓示の書 - その壮大な最高潮は近い！』148ページ
  8. ^ Official link。新世界訳聖書#特徴参照
  9. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 334
  10. ^ "The year 1914, therefore, marks the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of glory." Watchtower, Dec. 1, 1933, p. 362; "...Bible evidence shows that in the year 1914 C.E. God's time arrived for Christ to return and begin ruling...Christ's return invisible..." You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth"
  11. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, pp. 136-137, 382
  12. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 30; Make Sure of All Things, p. 143
  13. ^ Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 103; Make Sure of All Things, p. 231
  14. ^ Reasoning From the Scriptures 1981, p. 170.
  15. ^ Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.1 pp. 905-6
  16. ^ “Insight on the Scriptures” 1988, p. 138 | “Judgment Day”. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
  17. ^ The Watchtower, 2/1/1986, p. 17, ¶ 17
  18. ^ What Does the Bible Really Teach? 2005 Appendix Hades and Sheol
  19. ^ Reasoning From the Scriptures 1981, p. 216. Watchtower, 12/1/85, p. 9
  20. ^ What does the Bible Really Teach? 2005, p. 178-179.
  21. ^ The Watchtower, Feb. 15, 1983: "A third requirement is that we be associated with God's channel, his organization... To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it"; You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, 1990, p. 255: "You must be part of Jehovah's organization...in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life..."
  22. ^ Proclaimers, p. 608
  23. ^ The Watchtower December 1,1950 p. 474 An Open Letter to the Catholic Monsignor
  24. ^ Robert M. Bowman Jr, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses, (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Book House, 1992); Ankerberg, John and John Weldon, 2003, The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, accessible from this site, which quotes a number of scholars regarding theological bias of the New World Translation; Samuel Hass stated: "While this work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship, it is to be regretted that religious bias was allowed to colour many passages." Journal of Biblical Literature, December 1955, p. 283
  25. ^ Alan S. Duthie stated that the "Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT, which is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines' ...even though a few aberrations can be found. ...Some have to condemn out of hand any version made by Jehovah's Witnesses...because they must be full of heresies...It is true that there are some heretical doctrines to be found in NWT (eg. the incoherent polytheism in Jn.1:1,... but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected... does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'. How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, Alan S. Duthie. pp. 30, 216. Jason BeDuhn stated "While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NW[T] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2004 p.163; J. D Phillips stated, “You have done a marvelous work...”; Allen Wikgren referred to it as “Independent reading of merit”; Benjamin Kedar , “ I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that [the OT] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible....Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language ... I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”; S. Maclean Gilmore, “The New Testament edition was made by a committee....that possessed an unusual competence in Greek.” The Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966 Vol. 7, #1 p. 25,26; C. Houtman , in discussing translator bias stated “the [NWT] of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift #38 1984 p.279-280; William Carey Taylor stated the NT of the NWT contains “considerable scholarship” The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 p.75; Edgar Goodspeed, Robert M. McCoy, Steven T. Byington, Alexander Thompson, James Parkinson, and Thomas N. Winter also give favorable mention of the NWT.
  26. ^ "Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singluar anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a qualilty about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whome he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word" New World Translation w/ References App. 6A, pg. 1579.
  27. ^ "At John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: "The Word was a god." In many translations this expression simply reads: "The Word was God" and is used to support the Trinity doctrine. Not surprisingly, Trinitarians dislike the rendering in the New World Translation. But John 1:1 was not falsified in order to prove that Jesus is not Almighty God. Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of "god" long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language. Five German Bible translators likewise use the term "a god" in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as "of divine kind" or "godlike kind." These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine. But Jehovah and Jesus are not the same being, the same God.—John 14:28; 20:17." Watchtower, 1991 March 1 pg. 28.
  28. ^ Murray J. Harris: "from the point of view of grammar alone, [it] could be rendered 'the Word was a god'..." Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus 1992 p.60; C.H. Dodd: "As a word-for-word translation ['the Word was a God'] cannot be faulted..." New Testament Translation Problems II BT 28, 1977, p.101-2; Jason BeDuhn: "A lexical ("interlinear") translation of the controversial clause would read: 'And a god was the Word.' A minimal literal ("formal equivalence") translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: "And the Word was a god." The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation" Truth in Translation 2004, p. 132,
  29. ^ C.H. Dodd: "The reason why [the Word was a god] is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole." Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No. 1, January 1977; Jason BeDuhn: "The NWT translation of John 1:1 is superior to that of the other eight translation we are comparing. I do not think it is the best possible translation for a modern English reader; but at least it breaks with the KJV tradition followed by all the others, and it does so in the right direction by paying attention to how Greek grammar and syntax actually work." ibid, p. 133
  30. ^ "and godlike sort was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, Johannes Schneider.
  31. ^ Examples include Mantey, Julius, Depth Exploration in the New Testament (NY: Vantage Press, 1980): "The apostle John, in the context of the introduction to his Gospel, is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ, but also his equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God..."; Metzger, Bruce M., "Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April, 1953), p. 75: "As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering [the Word was a god] is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, "…and the Word was God.""; Ankerberg, John & Weldon, John, Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1 (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, 2005); Bruce, F.F. "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible. " See this page or this page for a more complete listing.
  32. ^ "a frightful mistranslation" - Bruce M. Metzger; "monstrous" - Samuel J. Mikolaski; "intellectually dishonest" - William Barclay; "totally indefensible" - F. F. Bruce; "an abysmal ignorance..." - Paul L. Kaufman. See this page for a more complete listing.
  33. ^ For a comparative table see [1]
  34. ^ "While some translators use the word “worship” in the majority of cases where pro·sky·ne′o describes persons’ actions toward Jesus, the evidence does not warrant one’s reading too much into this rendering. Rather, the circumstances that evoked the obeisance correspond very closely to those producing obeisance to the earlier prophets and kings. (Compare Mt 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20 with 1Sa 25:23, 24; 2Sa 14:4-7; 1Ki 1:16; 2Ki 4:36, 37.) The very expressions of those involved often reveal that, while they clearly recognized Jesus as God’s representative, they rendered obeisance to him, not as to God or a deity, but as "God’s Son", the foretold "Son of man", the Messiah with divine authority. On many occasions their obeisance expressed a gratitude for divine revelation or evidence of favor like that expressed in earlier times.—Mt 14:32, 33; 28:5-10, 16-18; Lu 24:50-52; Joh 9:35, 38." Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, pg. 524
  35. ^ "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" (1990). Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
  36. ^ "Be guided by the Living God" (Jun. 15, 2004). The Watchtower
  37. ^ "Questions from readers: Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood?" (Jun. 15, 2000). The Watchtower
  38. ^ Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood
  39. ^ The Watchtower November 1, 1961 p. 669 Questions From Readers
  40. ^ What Does The Bible Really Teach? 2005 P.128
  41. ^ [2] [3]
  42. ^ Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation, Journal of Church and State Vol 47, Autumn 2005 p. 815
  43. ^ Franz, Raymond. "In Search of Christian Freedom" - Chapter Nine. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991. ISBN 0-914675-16-8. p.732.
  44. ^ Awake! August 2006 box on P. 11
  45. ^ Jackson, K. & Nazar, A. "Breastfeeding, the Immune Response and Long-term Health", Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 106(4), 2006. Available online.
  46. ^ Franz, Raymond. "In Search of Christian Freedom" - Chapter Nine. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991. Pbk. ISBN 0-914675-16-8. pp.732.
  47. ^ http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=10342
  48. ^ http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm?article=article_07.htm
  49. ^ The Watchtower (Feb. 1, 1997) p30
  50. ^ Penton, James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-7973-3
  51. ^ United States Congress (1943). Declaring Certain Papers, Pamphlets, Books, Pictures and Writings Nonmailable. Hearings Before a Subcommittee.
  52. ^ Penton, James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-7973-3
  53. ^ http://www.catholicleague.org/1998report/miscellaneous1998.htm
  54. ^ e.g., Watters, Randall (2004) Thus Saith Jehovah's Witnesses, Common Sense Publications; Gruss, Edmond (2001) Jehovah's Witnesses: Their Claims, Doctrinal Changes, and Prophetic Speculation. What Does the Record Show?, Xulon Press; Reed, David A. (1990) Index of Watchtower Errors, 1879 to 1989, Baker Books
  55. ^ e.g., The Watchtower Information Service; Quotes-Watchtower.co.uk; Reexamine.Quotes. See also [4]
  56. ^ See this page for a more complete listing
  57. ^ Russell, C.T, The Time is At Hand, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., 1907 p. 101
  58. ^ Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 7, 1917, p. 485.
  59. ^ Watchtower, May 15, 1922; Sep. 1, 1922; Apr. 1, 1923; Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1925, p. 110
  60. ^ Face the Facts, 1938, pp. 46-50
  61. ^ Watchtower, Sep. 15, 1941, p. 288
  62. ^ Watchtower, May 1, 1942, p. 139
  63. ^ Awake!, May 22, 1969, p. 15
  64. ^ The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years (1969) (Watchtower publication) Available online; see also [5]
  65. ^ See, for example, Awake!, Oct. 8, 1966, pp. 19-20; Watchtower, Oct. 15, 1966, pp. 628-631; May 1, 1967 p. 262; May 1, 1968, p. 271; Aug. 15, 1968, p. 494; Oct. 15, 1974, p. 635; May 1, 1975, p. 285. See this page (starting about half-way down the page, beginning with "How Much Longer Will It Be?") for full quotes.
  66. ^ Watchtower, Mar 1, 1984, pp. 18-19
  67. ^ Waldeck, Val Jehovah’s Witnesses: What do they believe?. Pilgrim Publications SA. ISBN 1-920092-08-0; Buttrey, John M (2004). Let No One Mislead You. iUniverse. ISBN 0-595-30710-8; see also some of the books referenced at the start of this section, and the end of the article.
  68. ^ "This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women… Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses… Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?" The Watchtower, 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them', Apr. 1, 1972, p.197
  69. ^ "Whom has God actually used as his prophet?... Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them. ... It has been because Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths..." The Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1959, pp.39-41
  70. ^ From Awake! Magazine: True, there have been those in times past who predicted an 'end to the world,' even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The 'end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them. (Awake!, Oct. 8, 1968, p. 23, emphasis added)
  71. ^ Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence January 1908 "Views From the Watchtower"
  72. ^ The Watchtower Jan. 1883, p. 425
  73. ^ Watchtower, May 15, 1976, p. 297; Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, p. 136
  74. ^ Awake! Mar. 22, 1993, pp. 3-4
  75. ^ The Watchtower, 15 January, 1892, page 1355
  76. ^ The Watchtower, 1 March, 1923, p 67
  77. ^ The Watchtower, 15 January, 1993, page 5
  78. ^ The Watchtower, 15 July, 1894, page 1677
  79. ^ Watchtower 2007, January, 1, First Study Article, Paragraphs 6-18
  80. ^ Watchtower, Sep. 1, 1954, p. 529; Oct. 1, 1967, p. 587; Dec. 1, 1981, p.27; Feb 15, 1981, p.19
  81. ^ Ephesians 4:13 The Watchtower, Aug 1, 2001 p. 13
  82. ^ Watchtower, Aug. 1, 2001
  83. ^ Qualified, 1955, p. 156
  84. ^ e.g., 1902: The Book of Ruth is not prophetic. (Watchtower Reprints IV, p. 3110, Nov 15, 1902); 1932: The Book of Ruth is prophetic. (Preservation, 1932, pp. 169, 175, 176)
  85. ^ e.g., 1917: Apollyon is Satan (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 7, 1917) 1969: Apollyon is Jesus (Then Is Finished the Mystery of God, p. 232)
  86. ^ See this page
  87. ^ See this page
  88. ^ See this site
  89. ^ See this site
  90. ^ Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1919; also Watchtower, May 15, 1933, pp. 154-155; Jul. 15, 1960, pp. 438-439; Our Kingdom Ministry, Sep. 2002, p. 8
  91. ^ Watchtower, Nov. 1, 1956, p. 666; Watchtower, Jun. 1, 1955, p. 333
  92. ^ Watchtower, Jul. 1, 1973, p. 402
  93. ^ CESNUR
  94. ^ Worship the Only True God chap. 5 p . 43 par. 4 Freedom Enjoyed by Worshipers of Jehovah
  95. ^ The Watchtower June 1 p. 11 par. 7 A Free People but Accountable
  96. ^ Watchtower, Sep. 1, 1954, p. 529; Oct. 1, 1967, p. 587; Dec. 1, 1981, p.27; Feb 15, 1981, p.19
  97. ^ Expert Opinion, S. I. Ivanenko, p. 10 Golovinsky Intermunicipal Court. Link to full Rebuttal JW-MEDIA
  98. ^ Sworn Expert Opinion, prepared by Professor James Beckford, University of Warwick, Coventry, England, November 1998, p. 2
  99. ^ Encyclopedia of religion ed. Eliade M, New York Macmillan, 1987
  100. ^ Matthew 18:17, "The local court was situated at the gate of a city. (De 16:18; 21:19; 22:15, 24; 25:7; Ru 4:1) By "gate" is meant the open space inside the city near the gate... as most persons would go in and out of the gate during the day. Also, the publicity that would be afforded any trial at the gate would tend to influence the judges toward care and justice in the trial proceedings and in their decisions. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 1, p. 518)
  101. ^ In Search Of Christian Freedom by Raymond Franz, 2002, and In Search of Christian Freedom, pp.374–390 'The Misuse of Disfellowshipping', by Raymond Franz
  102. ^ Robinson, B.A (2005). “Jehovah’s Witnesses (WTS) Handling of Child Sexual Abuse Cases”, Religious Tolerance.org Retrieved Mar 3, 2006.
  103. ^ Tubbs, Sharon (Aug. 22, 2002), "Spiritual shunning", St. Petersburg Times.
  104. ^ "Another Church Sex Scandal" (Apr. 29, 2003). CBS News.
  105. ^ Cutrer, Corrie (Mar. 5, 2001). "Witness Leaders Accused of Shielding Molesters", Christianity Today.
  106. ^ “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Child Protection” (2003). Jehovah’s Witnesses Office of Public Information.
  107. ^ "apostates have stopped feeding at Jehovah’s table"; "To what have the apostates returned? In many cases, they have reentered the darkness of Christendom and its doctrines, such as the belief that all Christians go to heaven. Moreover, most no longer take a firm Scriptural stand regarding blood, neutrality, and the need to witness about God’s Kingdom.", The Watchtower, 1 July 1994, pp.10-12; also Reasoning from the Scriptures, p.36
  108. ^ May 1 2000 Watchtower p.10.
  109. ^ The Watchtower May 1, 2000 p.10 par. 10
  110. ^ http://www.freeminds.org/psych/lifton2.htm David Grossoehme on Lifton
  111. ^ Cameron, Don (2005). Captives of a Concept pg 112-113. ISBN 1-4116-2210-3
  112. ^ Bethel catalogue 2000 Jehovah's Witnesses For example: The Chaos of Cults by VanBaalen, Jan Karel and God is a Millionaire by Mathison, Richard
  113. ^ Bates, Stephen (Oct. 8, 2001) "Jehovah's Witnesses link to UN queried", The Guardian
  114. ^ "No Calamity Will Befall Us" (Subheading). (Nov. 15, 2001). The Watchtower, p.19
  115. ^ "Let the Reader Use Discernment", (Subheading "A Modern-Day 'Disgusting Thing'"). (May 1, 1999). The Watchtower, p 14
  116. ^ "Benefiting From Your God-given Conscience" (Subheading "Employment Factors to Consider). (Jul. 15, 1982). The Watchtower pg 26
  117. ^ Bates, Stephen (Oct. 15, 2001) "'Hypocrite' Jehovah's Witnesses abandon secret link with UN", The Guardian
  118. ^ Letter to Editor - The Guardian" (Oct. 22, 2001) Office of Pulic Information
  119. ^ http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/about-ngo-assoc.asp
  120. ^ http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/ngo-partnership.asp

外部リンク

肯定的、もしくは中立的情報源

批判的情報源

「https://ja-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=エホバの証人に関する論争&oldid=16813779」から取得