ecco
Veteran Member
That could apply to all manner of things. Interesting that you quote it only when it suits your purpose.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can a JW please answer this one question, pretty please?
- Thread starter SA Huguenot
- Start date
ecco
Veteran Member
In this, the JW's are correct:
https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/stop-calling-juicy-steak-bloody
Stop Calling That Juicy Steak ‘Bloody’ – Here’s What It Really Is
May 14, 2018
By
Dan Myers
The ‘juice’ in your steak isn’t blood
You can be forgiven if you think that the pinkish liquid that makes a rare steak “juicy” is blood. We tend to call a rare steak “bloody,” after all, so it’s not exactly a stretch to think that the red liquid that drips out of your steak when you cut into it is blood. It’s also a great way to make people squeamish about eating a steak that’s anything less than well-done: “I don’t want to be eating all that blood!” Well, we have news for you: Even a completely raw steak contains no blood. The “juice” in your steak looks and tastes nothing like actual blood, because it isn’t; it’s called myoglobin, and it’s a protein that’s only found in muscle tissue.
Stop Calling That Juicy Steak ‘Bloody’ – Here’s What It Really Is
May 14, 2018
By
Dan Myers
The ‘juice’ in your steak isn’t blood
You can be forgiven if you think that the pinkish liquid that makes a rare steak “juicy” is blood. We tend to call a rare steak “bloody,” after all, so it’s not exactly a stretch to think that the red liquid that drips out of your steak when you cut into it is blood. It’s also a great way to make people squeamish about eating a steak that’s anything less than well-done: “I don’t want to be eating all that blood!” Well, we have news for you: Even a completely raw steak contains no blood. The “juice” in your steak looks and tastes nothing like actual blood, because it isn’t; it’s called myoglobin, and it’s a protein that’s only found in muscle tissue.
ecco
Veteran Member
Sure you do!
Failed date predictions of Jehovah's Witnesses
"WE HAVE no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925." Watchtower 1922 May 15 p.147
Oh, maybe you don't."WE HAVE no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925." Watchtower 1922 May 15 p.147
Over time, Rutherford replaced 1874, such that his time line was as follows.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
You tell us all that God told us that the Hebrew Testament is the Old Testament, and then you show quotes from your bible that DO NOT USE the word 'testament'...... that's the problem with so many folks, they twist and turn and cherry pick as they please.
But in any case, I guesss that God was talking to the Israelites and both Covenants were thus 'Hebrew' ones. Correct?
In any event I'll bet that you cherry pick from the Hebrew Covenants to suit your comfort feelings. True? Pretty please?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hey OB...just for the record we tend to steer clear of the "old"/"new" concept of scripture because we don't see the Bible in those terms. We see all of the Bible as relevant and important. So for us its the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian Greek scriptures. All are God's word to us.
I sometimes use the old/new terminology when speaking to those who are more comfortable with it, but amongst ourselves we do not use those terms generally.
Fair enough....... As a result of a post to me from another I have already figured some of the above.
Question...... The word 'Hebrew' ..... does it refer to those who spoke that language, or does it mean 'the Israelites' or...... ??
Both I believe. "Hebrew" describes both the language and the people who spoke it....first ascribed to Abram (Genesis 14:13) who was a 10th generation descendent of Noah through Shem.
According to our beliefs, when the second rebellion occurred after the flood of Noah's day, Genesis describes a situation where God confused the language among Noah's descendants to break up their defiance of his order to spread abroad in the earth. He confused their language so that their plans to stay put and build their own empire would be thwarted, saying.... "Now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be impossible for them" (Genesis 11:6) Those who understood one another collected together and moved away to populate other parts of the earth, whilst Noah retained the original language given to Adam in Eden. This is where we believe the Hebrew language originated.
By the time of Jesus, "Hebrew" had come to include many Aramaic expressions and was the language spoken by Christ and his disciples.
We also believe that when God's kingdom begins its rule over the earth, that humans will all return to the original language, removing the language barrier for good.
The thing that I find fascinating about language is, that despite the problems created by language, (the language barrier) the existence of an international language (Esperanto) was formulated in 1887, yet we still do not see it universally adopted. If it was taught to children in infancy, then all peoples of the world could have been communicating freely all this time, yet it never was implemented in all nations. I can't imagine why, when it would have solved so many translation and communication problems....imagine if world leaders could actually speak a common language...? Or world travellers being able to read and speak a common language? Misunderstandings and misinterpretation would have been avoidable.
What is your interpretation....do you have one? Or is your only purpose here to criticise without adding anything of value to the conversation....?
I can back up my statements with scripture....can you?
You know the whole purpose of debate is to provide a counter argument...so let's hear it.....what does "none" teach on this subject?
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Can't even remember what the issue was about.
I am wary of people saying "It's in the bible" because EVERYTHING is in the bible.
So JW's believe they are the 144,000 "because it's in the bible" and of course, it's literal.
So when you say the 144,000 are 12,000 from each tribe of Israel the JW will say "But
that's not literal."
So where do you start?
Where you start is with the explicit teachings of Jesus, His Example and the practice
of his Church. So, there's no Mary worship; Vatican City or Kingdom Halls. There's no
holy days, temples, priesthood, symbolic worship (save for baptism and Eucharist)
name for the church etc.. And there's an itinerant ministry, women preachers, home
service etc.. Just go by the text - the original text, not a church-specific bible.
Well thank you for something positive to respond to...... Sorry about the length of this but for me the details are important.
It was about the responses of JW's not sitting well with the strongly held beliefs of the OP. Because we tell him things he does not want to hear, we must of necessity be wrong.
Do you think that the author of the Bible wanted us to be in confusion? Who is responsible for it IYO?
Where we start is the Bible.....where else would you start if you are talking about Biblical Christianity?
FYI, we do not believe that all of the 144,000 are Jehovah's Witnesses......
Unless of course we take that term to mean what the Bible says it means.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the noun rendered “witness” (ʽedh) is derived from a verb (ʽudh) meaning “return” or “repeat, do again.” Regarding the noun (ʽedh), the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: “A witness is one, who by reiteration, emphatically affirms his testimony."
Isaiah 43:10 calls the whole nation of Israel Jehovah's "Witnesses".....and Paul also spoke of the faithful ones of old as being a 'great cloud of witnesses'. (Hebrews 12:1) So, you see, Jehovah has always had his witnesses.
With that in mind we can see that all those whose lives accurately bear testimony to the true God are his witnesses. Its not just a label, but a description.
So how do we come to our conclusion that the 144,000 are not literal Israel but *spiritual* or figurative "Israel?
Again we turn to the apostle Paul for the answer....
In Galatians 6:16, Paul calls his Christian brothers "the Israel of God", yet these ones were made up of both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The designation "Israel" must therefore be symbolic rather than literal.
In Romans 2:28-29 Paul clarifies this...
"For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people."
This is spiritual Israel.....those who accepted a circumcision of their hearts by allowing the teachings of Jesus to replace the corrupted teachings of fleshly Israel's religious leaders. Jesus never came to teach a new religion but to clean up the old one. The Jewish leaders did not want to be corrected, so Jesus gathered the "lost sheep" and guided them into a new and spiritually clean environment. He provided uncontaminated 'water' and health giving 'pasture'. He separated them out of that incorrigible system....condemning it. (Matthew 23:37-39)
So why do we think that the number 144,000 is literal and not figurative...because of the context of the scripture that spoke about them.
Revelation 7:4 says...
"And I heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel".
This is not fleshly Israel because it is speaking about the very same ones of whom Paul wrote. It is obvious by the way that these are numbered, that it is a reflection of the order that has always existed in God's nation. Even when he was bringing them out of Egypt, in order to guide them to the Promised Land, they were in "battle formation" which probably meant like an army in five parts, with vanguard, rear guard, main body and two wings. Very organized. (Exodus 13:18)
Then after identifying these 144,000 (who were "bought from among mankind as firstfruits" - Revelation 14:1-5) John sees another "great multitude" of people which "no man was able to number". So in contrasting a numbered or finite group, chosen for a specific role, there is an unnumbered or infinite group, who also attribute salvation to God and to the Lamb. The literal number is meaningless unless comparing the two as opposites.
The second group are identified as those who "come out of the great tribulation" which we know, occurs on earth as the final episode in the destruction of this ungodly system of things. (Matthew 24:3; Revelation 7:9-10; Revelation 7:13-14; Matthew 24:21)
So scripturally, we derive our conclusions, not from men, but from the Bible itself. We also keep in mind that no one can become a genuine disciple of Christ without a direct invitation from the Father. (John 6:65) This gives us a conviction about our beliefs. A true Christian can never say "I dunno" about anything that Christ taught. His teachings are written on their hearts.
Yes! And that is exactly what we do. We have no structure in our worship that resembles Christendom in any way. Our meeting are not about meaningless rituals or repetitive prayers, they are about Bible instruction and study, as well as training for our ministry. All of Jehovah's Witnesses are Bible students. We try at all times to follow the example of our Leader who is Jesus Christ. We have those appointed to lead, but this has always been the case with God's people. (Hebrews 13:17) Sheep need shepherds. He has never left his people without guides.
I agree with no worship of Mary, (which is exclusively Catholic AFAIK) No Vatican, also because Jesus did not set up any earthly kingdom. (John 18:36) But the first Christians met as a group, initially in the porticoes of the Temple, but when hostility became an issue, they transferred their meetings to other places. Some were held in the homes of fellow believers. Our Kingdom Halls are just meeting places.
We do not observe any "holy days" because the ones observed in Christendom were never holy in the first place.
Jesus never mentioned earthly temples or even an earthly priesthood. When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70CE, it was never rebuilt. That was because there was no need. The real temple was in heaven and the priests who are to officiate there are not priests whilst they are on earth. (Revelation 20:6)
The only observance Jesus commanded for his followers was to commemorate the memorial of his death...and all his disciples had to be baptized...not as infants, but as those old enough to make a decision to live a Christian life.
If you really know anything about Jehovah's Witnesses, then you would know that we take these things very seriously.
Our name, as I have mentioned, describes who and what we are...as separate and distinct from the sects of Christendom.
We have traveling ministers who visit our congregations to strengthen and encourage them as well as to accompany the brothers and sisters out in their door to door ministry. (Acts 4:42; Acts 20:20)
We have missionaries who travel all over the world preaching about God's Kingdom to all who will listen. But more importantly we preach to our closer neighbors because their lives are precious to God too. (Matthew 10:11-15) If there is a positive response to our message, we are to stay and teach that person or even whole families....but if not, we are to move on.
All of Jehovah's Witnesses are preachers of the Kingdom just as Jesus commanded. (Matthew 24:14: Matthew 28:19-20)
I was raised in Christendom so I have been on both sides of this fence. Have you?
Sorry about the length of this but for me the details are important.It was about the responses of JW's not sitting well with the strongly held beliefs of the OP. Because we tell him things he does not want to hear, we must of necessity be wrong.
Do you think that the author of the Bible wanted us to be in confusion? Who is responsible for it IYO?
Where we start is the Bible.....where else would you start if you are talking about Biblical Christianity?
FYI, we do not believe that all of the 144,000 are Jehovah's Witnesses......
Unless of course we take that term to mean what the Bible says it means.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the noun rendered “witness” (ʽedh) is derived from a verb (ʽudh) meaning “return” or “repeat, do again.” Regarding the noun (ʽedh), the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: “A witness is one, who by reiteration, emphatically affirms his testimony."
Isaiah 43:10 calls the whole nation of Israel Jehovah's "Witnesses".....and Paul also spoke of the faithful ones of old as being a 'great cloud of witnesses'. (Hebrews 12:1) So, you see, Jehovah has always had his witnesses.
With that in mind we can see that all those whose lives accurately bear testimony to the true God are his witnesses. Its not just a label, but a description.
So how do we come to our conclusion that the 144,000 are not literal Israel but *spiritual* or figurative "Israel?
Again we turn to the apostle Paul for the answer....
In Galatians 6:16, Paul calls his Christian brothers "the Israel of God", yet these ones were made up of both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The designation "Israel" must therefore be symbolic rather than literal.
In Romans 2:28-29 Paul clarifies this...
"For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people."
This is spiritual Israel.....those who accepted a circumcision of their hearts by allowing the teachings of Jesus to replace the corrupted teachings of fleshly Israel's religious leaders. Jesus never came to teach a new religion but to clean up the old one. The Jewish leaders did not want to be corrected, so Jesus gathered the "lost sheep" and guided them into a new and spiritually clean environment. He provided uncontaminated 'water' and health giving 'pasture'. He separated them out of that incorrigible system....condemning it. (Matthew 23:37-39)
So why do we think that the number 144,000 is literal and not figurative...because of the context of the scripture that spoke about them.
Revelation 7:4 says...
"And I heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel".
This is not fleshly Israel because it is speaking about the very same ones of whom Paul wrote. It is obvious by the way that these are numbered, that it is a reflection of the order that has always existed in God's nation. Even when he was bringing them out of Egypt, in order to guide them to the Promised Land, they were in "battle formation" which probably meant like an army in five parts, with vanguard, rear guard, main body and two wings. Very organized. (Exodus 13:18)
Then after identifying these 144,000 (who were "bought from among mankind as firstfruits" - Revelation 14:1-5) John sees another "great multitude" of people which "no man was able to number". So in contrasting a numbered or finite group, chosen for a specific role, there is an unnumbered or infinite group, who also attribute salvation to God and to the Lamb. The literal number is meaningless unless comparing the two as opposites.
The second group are identified as those who "come out of the great tribulation" which we know, occurs on earth as the final episode in the destruction of this ungodly system of things. (Matthew 24:3; Revelation 7:9-10; Revelation 7:13-14; Matthew 24:21)
So scripturally, we derive our conclusions, not from men, but from the Bible itself. We also keep in mind that no one can become a genuine disciple of Christ without a direct invitation from the Father. (John 6:65) This gives us a conviction about our beliefs. A true Christian can never say "I dunno" about anything that Christ taught. His teachings are written on their hearts.
Yes! And that is exactly what we do. We have no structure in our worship that resembles Christendom in any way. Our meeting are not about meaningless rituals or repetitive prayers, they are about Bible instruction and study, as well as training for our ministry. All of Jehovah's Witnesses are Bible students. We try at all times to follow the example of our Leader who is Jesus Christ. We have those appointed to lead, but this has always been the case with God's people. (Hebrews 13:17) Sheep need shepherds. He has never left his people without guides.
I agree with no worship of Mary, (which is exclusively Catholic AFAIK) No Vatican, also because Jesus did not set up any earthly kingdom. (John 18:36) But the first Christians met as a group, initially in the porticoes of the Temple, but when hostility became an issue, they transferred their meetings to other places. Some were held in the homes of fellow believers. Our Kingdom Halls are just meeting places.
We do not observe any "holy days" because the ones observed in Christendom were never holy in the first place.
Jesus never mentioned earthly temples or even an earthly priesthood. When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70CE, it was never rebuilt. That was because there was no need. The real temple was in heaven and the priests who are to officiate there are not priests whilst they are on earth. (Revelation 20:6)
The only observance Jesus commanded for his followers was to commemorate the memorial of his death...and all his disciples had to be baptized...not as infants, but as those old enough to make a decision to live a Christian life.
If you really know anything about Jehovah's Witnesses, then you would know that we take these things very seriously.
Our name, as I have mentioned, describes who and what we are...as separate and distinct from the sects of Christendom.
We have traveling ministers who visit our congregations to strengthen and encourage them as well as to accompany the brothers and sisters out in their door to door ministry. (Acts 4:42; Acts 20:20)
We have missionaries who travel all over the world preaching about God's Kingdom to all who will listen. But more importantly we preach to our closer neighbors because their lives are precious to God too. (Matthew 10:11-15) If there is a positive response to our message, we are to stay and teach that person or even whole families....but if not, we are to move on.
All of Jehovah's Witnesses are preachers of the Kingdom just as Jesus commanded. (Matthew 24:14: Matthew 28:19-20)
I was raised in Christendom so I have been on both sides of this fence. Have you?
Last edited:
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Even this, that "God is not the author of confusion" is contradicted by God "sending strong delusion
that people might believe a lie."
That's how Jesus is supposed to be from Bethlehem yet hails from Galilee. The Jews used scripture
to "prove" Jesus couldn't be the Messiah as a Galilean (and thus of the tribe of Naphtali or Zebulon.)
We can't start in the bible if we have different bibles. And we can't argue with doctrine when there's
"New Light" all the time. I believe in the future we will see the end of the blood transfusion business
and maybe even that evil shunning doctrine.
I had an old neighborly man who believed totally in this 1914 business. He didn't live to see the end
of our argument over whether it was true. And that neighbor - I had no idea at the time he must have
been logging hours he spent with me.
And I have friends who were torn apart by the 1975 business.
Whenever I ask JW's about this they had a boiler plate response, "Some of the brothers..." and I
have my own boiler plate response, "It was in the Watch Tower..."
JW's need to take seriously that verse, "Of that hour and that day knows no man..."
Last edited:
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Too much to reply to.
I was taken back recently when a JW asked was I celebrating Easter. She said to the effect
that we should celebrate the day of His death. Yet she wouldn't celebrate her own birthday.
There was no Easter to the early Christians. Some older Jews still honored the Passover,
and Paul et al respected that. But in the New Covenant the only sacred day was the 'Lord's
Day' which we take to be the Sunday.
I have been in both JW and mainstream Christian services. I never became a JW for various
reasons, one being that I feared building a network and marriage, and then being shunned
and losing it all.
That's OK...its my way of answering questions. Details are important to me...I guess those who are interested in details will bother to read.
What a strange comparison. The memorial of Christ's death is a command not a recommendation. Like his command to preach and make disciples...it wasn't optional.
Birthdays OTOH, are steeped in pagan traditions. Why would we touch such "unclean" practices when God told us not to? (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) The customs are spiritistic which was again forbidden to God's people. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12)
That is correct...there is still no Easter to genuine Christians today. There is no Easter in the Bible....it is the name of a fertility goddess whose emblems were rabbits and eggs. They didn't even change the name of that one.
Yes, Jews could still practice the Law if they wished, but there was no need for the sacrifices anymore. It was entirely their own choice to practice circumcision or any other feature of the Law, but there was no longer a command to adhere to it. Gentiles did not need to follow the Law of Moses.
Who told you that? The "Lord's Day" was never Sunday. That is a Catholic idea transferred to the masses so that their principle deity could be honored each week. The Romans already held Sunday in honor of their sun god. The Roman Catholic religion is steeped in sun worship.
When the apostle John was transferred to the "Lord's Day" in his Revelation, it fits the description of the "time of the end"...the time when Jesus is given rulership in God's Kingdom (Daniel 7:13-14)....first only over his disciples during these last days....and then when he has cleansed the earth of all unrighteousness and those who practice it, the "Lord's Day" will continue for the 1,000 years it will take to get us back to the perfect physical and spiritual condition that Adam and his wife once enjoyed.
I see....I think that probably means that the truth never really touched your heart back then. God's truth is based on love, not fear. So if one is a true Christian, then self control is a fruit of God's spirit and can always be relied upon to strengthen our resolve to remain in God's good books. I have never worried about offending God because I love him too much to do anything that would be against his law.
The disfellowshipping arrangement is designed by God to make someone aware of what they lose when they break his laws. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) It has motivated so many to want to come back 'home'...just like the Prodigal Son. Read that account (Luke 15:11-32) and see that the father did not argue with his son but simply gave him his inheritance and let him go. After he had squandered it, he found out for himself that no one would love him or care about him, like his own family. He came home humbled and ready to serve his father with a whole new attitude. I know many who have done that today, some even in my own family. It is loving, even though on the surface of it, it doesn't appear to be. Tough love works better than overindulgence.
Those who come home, with lessons learned, are welcomed back with open arms.
This deserves a better response than I have time for right now.....so will respond later.
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
Disfellowshipping as practiced by JWs is absolutely unscriptural. The scriptures state that the process begins when someone in the congregation becomes aware of another congregation member repeatedly engaging in sin. The scriptures state that the sinner should be spoken to--one-on-one--in an attempt to help him/her repent and stop sinning.
If the one-on-one approach doesn't yield results, the scriptures then advise that two or three congregation members should meet with the sinner in order to try to help. If that still doesn't work, then the entire congregation is to be notified of the sin being committed and they are urged not to associate with the sinner as they would with a fellow congregation member. They are not instructed to shun the sinner.
NEVER do the scriptures indicate that a sinner is to be brought before a judicial committee that decides if the person is "repentant" and if deemed unrepentant, summarily disfellowshipped. Nor do the scriptures state that the congregation should not know exactly what has transpired or that anyone who associates with the "sinner" would also face being disfellowshipped simply for not shunning the sinner. In fact, shunning is totally unscriptural. The congregation members could decide for themselves if they wanted to associate with the sinner and there was never any threat of punishment for themselves if they decided to do so.
Also, JWs who simply decide to leave a man-made organization are also subject to shunning and can possibly be disfellowshipped in absentia simply because they have left the organization.
And using the example of the prodigal son is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. The scriptures note that when the prodigal son returned home, his father rushed out to greet him and ordered that a feast be prepared because his son had returned. This is absolutely contrary to what happens in the JW congregation.
If a disfellowshipped person wants to return to the JW organization, they are not immediately welcomed. Far from it. They are basically put on trial and have to meet whatever criteria the elders deem are necessary. They must attend all meetings with no one speaking to them, and most will try to arrive after the opening prayer and leave before the closing prayer so as not to "offend" the good JWs in attendance. They are still shunned by one and all and this treatment continues for months, until the judicial committee decides that the sinner has "repented" sufficiently and has been punished sufficiently.
This treatment is absolutely opposite from what the prodigal son experienced. When he returned, he was welcomed immediately. He wasn't punished further and forced to sit in the barn until his father and brother decided that he was punished enough.
Where? You mean it contradicts Psalms 146:3-4, Genesis 3:19, and Ecclesiastes 3:19-20?
No. He said the dead sleep. Now, demons (wicked spirits...'"angels that sinned") are another subject.
Last edited:
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
And then again, Jesus said this.
Luke 16:19-31 King James Version (KJV)
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
Wharrabout Mark 12?
When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.
26 Andregarding the dead rising, have you not read about the burning bush in the book of Moses, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
Wat do you say.
Was jesus badly mistaken?
When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.
26 Andregarding the dead rising, have you not read about the burning bush in the book of Moses, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
Wat do you say.
Was jesus badly mistaken?
God doesn't cause the delusion...he just permits people to keep their own deluded thinking when he knows nothing will change their mind. They love the lies.
Do you believe John 6:44 and 65?
"No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him. . . .“This is why I have said to you, no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
This is how God chooses us...we don't choose him.
He was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Galilee. He is also called Jesus the Nazarene because he also lived in Nazareth. (Matthew 2:23) Your point is?
There is one Bible but many translations....you have one and I have one. Whatever Bible one uses is a matter of personal preference. I studied my KJV when I first met JW's.....it was all I needed. The NWT wasn't even published then.
New light is not new doctrine. It is increased understanding of what is already known. I am beginning to think that you never listened at those meetings or studies. How could you get so many things wrong?
Where have you been? Its already finished. Bloodless medicine is now accepted in many countries as the medical profession realizes that JW's were right all along. Blood is not as life saving as they thought...in fact it is actually more dangerous than they ever imagined.
Here's proof....this video is on the Australian Government website warning of the dangers of blood transfusions. It has nothing to do with JW's.
For Media | National Blood Authority
"More than 100 bloodless medicine and surgery centers currently exist in the United States, and this number will surely increase. They are not just for Jehovah's Witness patients but for all patients who wish to avoid a blood transfusion.
These centers have physicians, surgeons, and nurses who are familiar with the various procedures available to minimize blood transfusions and staff who specialize in bloodless care. A coordinator meets with the patient and family preoperatively to document their wishes and helps to coordinate their postoperative care. Most important, these facilities have integrated the principles of bloodless care, for example, minimizing diagnostic blood loss, into their policies and procedures.
As patients hear more about the potential risks of blood transfusion and take an active role in their healthcare decision making, we can anticipate that an increasing number will request that they not be given allogeneic blood, otherwise known as donor blood."
Bloodless Cardiac Surgery: Not Just Possible, But Preferable
I guess the scriptures and the parable of the prodigal son fell on deaf ears then......? Oh well.
I guess we might see it for him...what do you reckon? Look at the state of the world...it looms closer every day.
You do understand that 1914 was just the start of the "last days" of this present system of things...? The end is in sight and the preaching will keep going until the end. (Matthew 24:14)
How sinister of him to keep a record of the time he spent that month in the service of his God. You do understand that we have a yearbook that is published every year that correlates all the hours spent by Jehovah's people in his service? That is all its for....for us to see what our brothers are doing all over the world...the tally is thrilling for all of us as we see the prophesy of Matthew 24:24 being fulfilled globally, and know that we had a small part in that. Are people hurt in any by that?
I am not quite sure what a "boiler plate response" is, but I was a Witness in 1975 and I can assure you that it was only pointed out that this was the year that marked 6,000 years from the creation of Adam....and wouldn't it be wonderful if this was the year we could expect the coming of the Kingdom and an end to wickedness forever? At no time were we told to sell our homes or to do anything but sit tight, and wait and see. Well we waited and we saw that it came and went. But you know what...it weeded out all those who were selfishly serving only themselves. The faithful are still here doing as Christ commanded....where are they? Where are you? Are any of you out there preaching the good news of the Kingdom as Jesus commanded? We haven't stopped.
I think we got the message because we haven't said boo about any of that for over 40 years. We just keep preaching and making disciples.....there are over 8 and a half million of us now and growing.
But just because we don't know exactly when, doesn't mean that we gave up hope.
The prophet Habakkuk was told concerning his prophesy about the coming of "Jehovah's Day"....
"For the vision is yet for its appointed time,
And it is rushing toward its end, and it will not lie.
Even if it should delay, keep in expectation of it!
For it will without fail come true.
It will not be late!" (Habakkuk 2:3)
Jesus also told us to "Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.
43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it."
So if it comes at a time when Jesus' own disciples are not expecting it...imagine how surprised the world is going to be when it comes without warning....?
We are ready....are you?
Last edited:
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The point is that Learned Jews could "prove" this Jesus wasn't the Messiah, regardless of His fame
and his healings. This Jesus came from Nazareth and not Bethlehem where scripture says the
Messiah must come. It is not recorded of Jesus saying, "Oh wait a minute! I was actually born in
Bethlehem and I am actually of the tribe of David." No, the Jews had to accept Jesus for His
message before anything else was revealed.
And... Nazareth was a bad town from a bad province. Another reason God gave the Jews to reject
Jesus. The bible caters for us all - if you want to believe you will be given something to believe in.
If you disbelieve then God will give you something to fault.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
I can pretty much back up any statement or position with scripture: Slavery? Yep; Killing? Yep; Rape? Yep; Eschewing pork? Yep; Eating pork? Yep.
What's your point?