The scriptures say not to forsake the gatherings. The Greek word used for forsake here means completely turning one's back on, to disown. Missing meetings here and there is not forsaking them. Also, that scripture says "the gathering of yourselves"; this could also include Christians informally getting together for association and a meal, which early Christians did often.
Chris Tann
JoinedPosts by Chris Tann
-
38
Did it bother you that they taught, "miss a meeting and you'll fall away?"
by Wasanelder Once inhow many times did we hear that if we dont attend meetings we will leave the truth because satan will get ahold of us?
that always bothered me.
i thought, "if my faith isn't able to stand alone what good is it?
-
-
-
207
Is the AGM today?
by hamsterbait inanybody going or who can give us the noolite hot from the gb a$$?.
.
.
-
-
Chris Tann
Nice job Absalom. Tell us of any jolt changing doctrines or procedures.
-
24
To Transfuse or Not To Transfuse
by Chris Tann inwhen my son became baptized as a witness at age nine, it worried me that he could now get a no blood card.
i wanted to make sure if blood transfusions were really as disgusting to "jehovah" as i was taught.
i already found out some things about my beliefs that were not true, so it wasn't hard for me to be questionable about this.. i first looked in the reasoning book under blood as to why we don't accept transfusions.
-
-
Chris Tann
Sorry, forgot to title this
-
24
To Transfuse or Not To Transfuse
by Chris Tann inwhen my son became baptized as a witness at age nine, it worried me that he could now get a no blood card.
i wanted to make sure if blood transfusions were really as disgusting to "jehovah" as i was taught.
i already found out some things about my beliefs that were not true, so it wasn't hard for me to be questionable about this.. i first looked in the reasoning book under blood as to why we don't accept transfusions.
-
-
Chris Tann
When my son became baptized as a Witness at age nine, It worried me that he could now get a no blood card. I wanted to make sure if blood transfusions were really as disgusting to "Jehovah" as I was taught. I already found out some things about my beliefs that were not true, so it wasn't hard for me to be questionable about this.
I first looked in the Reasoning book under blood as to why we don't accept transfusions. The classic illustration that witnesses prize themselves on concerning the verse in acts 15 about abstaining from blood is; if a doctor told a patient to abstain from alcohol, could he then take it intravenously? The answer they give is no, which then would also apply to blood. But at this time(2009) I had learned to carry the illustration all the way through. I reasoned if we are to be fair in this illustration then alcohol had to be equivalent to blood. That would mean if blood is being used to save someone's life in this illustration,then alcohol would also have the same purpose in being infused intravenously; to save someone's life.
Now,if a doctor told a patient to abstain from alcohol for health reasons (meaning taking it in orally) that's one thing. However, would that doctor not use it intravenously on the patient if doing so would save his life? The answer, of course is he would use it. Therefore this would have to also apply to blood, in the illustration.
Another reason Witnesses say they do not accept a life saving blood transfusion is because blood is sacred to God because it symbolizes life. A web site I went on reasoned about that with this illustration: If a man and his wife were being mugged at gunpoint and the mugger demanded the man give him his expensive wedding ring or he would kill his wife, would the husband say; "I can't do that because this ring symbolizes our sacred marriage and our love for eachother". If the answer is no, why would God cherish what symbolizes life rather than life itself?
I also looked into the Witnesses blood brochure( How Can Blood Save Your Life) and found a couple of disturbing things written. On page four par. 2, it states:"The Law repeatedly stated the Creator's ban on taking in blood to sustain life." This simply is not true! The reason God gives for not EATING blood is found at Leviticus 17:11,12: " for the life of the flesh is in the blood...it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it". As paragraph one says on page 4 , blood had a special meaning to God, it stood for life provided by the Creator. It never says don't try to sustain your life by eating blood; this is a deceiving phrase to make the reader think of blood transfusions.
They use this same tactic in par. 3 when referring to the situation during a wartime crisis when some Iraelite soldiers killed animals and " fell to eating along with the blood." They go on to write: "In view of the emergency, was it permissible for them to SUSTAIN THEIR LIVES with blood?" Hold on a minute! These soldiers did not eat blood because they were dying and they thought eating animal blood would save them! No, the king made a stupid oath that no one should eat until Saul took vengeance on his enemies. The soldiers were "so tired" (1 Sam. 14:28) from not Eating, they eventually gave in and slaughtered animals to eat the meat, not the blood; yes, they were protein defficiant. They were not trying to eat blood, but they were so weak from not Eating that they could not wait to drain the blood, which could take some time. The writers of the brochure are using selective phrases related to blood transfusions to make the reader equate this account with transfusions. This, however, is deceptive and not scriptural
I then reasoned from this account in first Samuel, that it is true that God does not want us to eat blood. However in a health threatening situation he allowed it, because, these soldiers were not killed as the law prescribed of those eating blood. Therefore, if God allowed these men to eat meat along with the blood, because their bodies desperately needed the nourishment from the meat, would he not also allow his precious servant to prolong his life by a blood transfusion, especially if their life is on the line from no fault of their own? Ie. Car accident, inherited disease,etc...
There are several other reasons why blood transfusions may not be what the Apostles were talking about in Acts. The order of actions to abstain from in their decree is the same order in the law of Leviticus. The law had to do with what is and what is not acceptable worship. Could it be that the Apostles were reiterating what non jewish converts should abstain from when it came to worship,like in Leviticus? Think about it, this decree was to be read to non Jewish converts. These ones just came out of pagan religions that may have used fornication, eating blood and sacrificing to idols in their worship. This decree may just be referring to what a Christian should not take from their pagan religion and use it in the Christian faith. If this is true, then a life saving blood transfusion would not apply here.
Now to be certain, I'm not saying Christians can do whatever they want when it comes to blood. Eating blood ,or misusing it definitely should be avoided by a Christian. However one must ask, is a skilled professional doctor administering blood to a dying patient misusing blood? On the contrary, I think it glorifies the Creator of blood. By the way, it is proven that eating blood( which is wrong) and a blood transfusion are not the same. The body rejects blood taken orally, but accepts it taken intravenously.
One more thing. Witnesses say a transfusion does not always work, and the blood may be tainted with a virus. However ,if your life is on the line and a doctor prescribed a non blood medication, would you not take it if he said it may not work, or it may be tainted? Wouldn't we chance it and take it anyway? Remember,the alternative of not taking it is death. Each of us must ask ourselves this.
So in conclusion, I'm not saying it is biblically okay for a Christian to take a blood transfusion. We should look into non blood surgery first. However, if such is not possible I feel the scriptures are not conclusive enough, as the witnesses say they are, regarding that blood transfusions are wrong. It then should be up to each and every Christian to make a mature and informed decision if they should allow a transfusion. No one thereafter should judge them as disloyal to God, and definitely should not be dis fellowshiped as the Jehovah's Witnesses will,and have done. Imagine being shunned because you survived a life threatening situation and are not dead, or your innocent child not dead. That is very disturbing in my opinion.
-
-
-
Chris Tann
No, I can't agree with that. Christian believers have been suffering and dieing since Jesus' death. Regardless if they are going to live in heaven after death, they still have to suffer violence, injustice, disease, misery, deep emotional pain, so on and so forth. Jesus said that those who believe will NEVER have to die AT ALL. also he would eliminate death. If this just means some spiritual sickness and death then that's a pretty sad hope.
-
-
-
Chris Tann
Give me just a little more time (lol) I agree with what you are saying about the sign, the tribulation and Revelation. I tend to think that a preterist understanding of the greek scriptures is accurate. Also, designs, I see where you are coming from. Jesus has been ruling since around 70c.e , why has he not eliminated war ,death,violence...etc. However, the scriptures do imply that the Kingdom will gradually take over the earth. But I don't know if that's really the truth or not about the matter.
-
-
-
Chris Tann
Fact finder, you make valid points for consideration. Unfortunately you have deviated from my theme; identifying the 144,000, not that the Jewish understanding of the Messiah is different from the Christians understanding. Simply put, some from among the Jews were the first believers in Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies in the first century, this group may be the first fruits (144,000) of Revelation.
However, with regard to the listing of the tribes are different ,pro logos, than that of the Hebrew scriptures, there may be an answer to that. There are good websites to check out explaining that some tribes were rejected for unfaithfulness and replaced by others. Symbolic or not, the description of the 144,000 in verse seven is very Jewish in identification in comparison with the great crowd who are from the nation's; which I may suggest as many have, are simply those of the nations accepting the good news. They have the same hope and destination as the 144,000.
-
42
2014 AGM announcement rumour
by yadda yadda 2 infrom barbara anderson, former watchtower headquarters researcher and writer, on another recent thread:.
it is expected that at the 2014 annual meeting, usually held the first saturday in october, will serve watchtower leaders well to cover-up all the 100-years of prophetic nonsense.
rumor has it they are going to celebrate their 100-years of announcing the kingdom in an adroit way by featuring a move of "great" significance to do with the expansion of the governing body to an "apostolic" 12 or some other fantasy idea.. .
-
-
Chris Tann
Hmm... so do you know what the original source is?
-
-
-
Chris Tann
I understand. I guess my label " Jewish Christian" is not accurate. I was referring to Jews, such as the apostles, who accepted Jesus. In the very early stages these Jews still practiced much of Judaism while believing in Jesus sacrifice. It was individuals such as Paul and Peter who started to reason that these first believers did not HAVE to continue practicing certain Jewish commands under the law( ie. Circumcision, sacrifices ). This, they claimed they received from the spirit and reasoning on the Hebrew scriptures ( the book of Hebrews is a good example).
However, the only point I was trying to make is that it is possible that the first Jews who believed in Jesus were the remnant of Israel that would not be destroyed in the Jewish Roman war of 70c.e.. Thus the labeling of them in Revelation 14 as FIRST FRUITS to God, aka the 144,000. Whether future generations of that first group evolved into a totally different religion than the Jews is irrelevant to my point.
p.s., if God's plan was for the next phase,if you will, of his religion to totally change after the revealing of the Messiah.. so be it.
-
74
7 Reasons Why “Babylon the Great” was Jerusalem
by Tiresias inauthors david chilton (1987) and james stuart russell (1878) propose that the revelation is primarily a prophecy of the destruction of ancient jerusalem by the roman armies.
the revelation is jerusalem's armageddon (mountain of assembled roman troops).
i see the revelation as a war siren warning the first century christians of the imminent destruction of the city.
-
-
Chris Tann
I agree completely with this evaluation Tire. Nice job!