"the blood of his own", a subtle difference.
Thank you Earnest. I just put it in my own words in English. But literally, you are correct.
Fisherman
JoinedPosts by Fisherman
-
13
Acts 20:28
by Fisherman inacts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.
nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.
nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..
-
-
Fisherman
-
20
Are you convinced what the Gospels say about Jesus is true?
by Fisherman inprobably, the greatest advocacy for the gospels is the jw publication: the greatest man that ever lived.
it convinced me.. everything else that the bible says about the resurrection and eternal life logically follows.. the testimony of a “witness” in court matters only if it is observation not commentary ( expert witness is also commentary): what did you see, what did you hear, what is the magnitude of your measurement.
not, are you convinced; that is only belief.
-
-
Fisherman
Hi Smid!
I think feelings color your logic so that you conclude “no” with your feelings although the evidence may be clearly convincing to you.
-
13
Acts 20:28
by Fisherman inacts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.
nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.
nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..
-
-
Fisherman
Acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”. NWT interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”. NWT is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of Jesus and not the blood of God.
-
20
Are you convinced what the Gospels say about Jesus is true?
by Fisherman inprobably, the greatest advocacy for the gospels is the jw publication: the greatest man that ever lived.
it convinced me.. everything else that the bible says about the resurrection and eternal life logically follows.. the testimony of a “witness” in court matters only if it is observation not commentary ( expert witness is also commentary): what did you see, what did you hear, what is the magnitude of your measurement.
not, are you convinced; that is only belief.
-
-
Fisherman
When Paul wrote those words in verse 16, he was not referring to his own letters, or the recent writings of any others of his time that today make up the Greek scriptures, some of which hadn't even been written yet.
Drivel. Paul and other CGS writers were writers but God was the author. All scriptures are inspired including the Christian Greek Scriptures.
-
21
The Great Tribulation
by Fisherman inwill the great tribulation hurt individuals more than what job, jesus, roman punishment, naz&i germany, hiroshima, jail, capital punishment, disease, pain, terror, horror, soldier in the battlefield or some terrible pain people experience this very moment?
how worse can pain and suffering get.
it is very common.
-
-
Fisherman
Will the great tribulation hurt individuals more than what Job, Jesus, Roman punishment, Naz&i Germany, Hiroshima, jail, capital punishment, disease, pain, terror, horror, soldier in the battlefield or some terrible pain people experience this very moment? How worse can pain and suffering get. It is very common. It is only great tribulation when you feel it personally.
So what makes it the great tribulation is not how deadly or scary it is but because it is a world condition that everyone on the planet will experience at the same time and the threat of no flesh will be saved. So it is scary and painful and maybe humanity is facing extinction.
-
20
Are you convinced what the Gospels say about Jesus is true?
by Fisherman inprobably, the greatest advocacy for the gospels is the jw publication: the greatest man that ever lived.
it convinced me.. everything else that the bible says about the resurrection and eternal life logically follows.. the testimony of a “witness” in court matters only if it is observation not commentary ( expert witness is also commentary): what did you see, what did you hear, what is the magnitude of your measurement.
not, are you convinced; that is only belief.
-
-
Fisherman
Eye-witness" testimony has been shown to be the most erroneous evidence at a trial.
That’s why the witness is examined and cross examined and a trier of facts listens to the testimony and decides how heavy is the testimony. Also, that’s why when 4 witnesses or more testify to what they experience and everything correlates —like in the Gospels, that is a lot more than a feather of evidence.
So you are very wrong about that. Eyewitness testimony is very material evidence and important and needed.
I don't believe the gospel writers made it up. I’m convinced it is true. No doubts whatsoever.
-
50
Who will Survive Armageddon?
by Vanderhoven7 inbreaking news....there is hope for good hearted non-jws!!!.
according to sergio:.
are jehovah's witnesses the only ones to be saved during the end time?.
-
-
Fisherman
Hi Smiddy!!
Doesn`t the Roman Catholic religion apply this to themselves ?
Anybody can make that claim but it actually applies to somebody, maybe JW and that is the is the point.
And at least they have been here for the past 2000 years .
That’s a good point smid. It stands to reason that since Jesus founded the Christian congregation back in the first century, where is the true church and the anointed throughout the centuries? The crusades, the inquisition, idolatrous christendom? As SBF explains JW interpretation of things: The parable of wheat and the weeds. Jesus foresaw the destiny of Christianity, oppressive wolves, apostasy would grow side by side with real christians until the harvest aka when Pastor Russel founded the JW movement. That’s the way things worked out with Christianity. Why? That’s the way it is. I suppose Satan had the power until 1914.
-
50
Who will Survive Armageddon?
by Vanderhoven7 inbreaking news....there is hope for good hearted non-jws!!!.
according to sergio:.
are jehovah's witnesses the only ones to be saved during the end time?.
-
-
Fisherman
You may SURVIVE ARMAGEDDON into God’s New World
Does luck count because first you got to make it to the other sheep and then you got to make it to the great crowd that survives the great tribulation. If you die before the gt, you are not gc and you won’t make it alive to the new world ( This is where luck comes in ) Unfortunately we @ JW don’t believe in luck so you better follow closely to the slave and pray your flight doesn’t come on the Sabbath or winter. “ Perhaps you nay be concealed in the day of God’s fury” No guarantees though. Like you said, maybe.
-
50
Who will Survive Armageddon?
by Vanderhoven7 inbreaking news....there is hope for good hearted non-jws!!!.
according to sergio:.
are jehovah's witnesses the only ones to be saved during the end time?.
-
-
Fisherman
how is this evidence for 1919, Brooklyn, Watchtower, J. F. Rutherford and company?
Same funny question the churches asked WT after they utterly failed to stop JW movement.
It’s axiomatic. Stop the WT is proof they ain’t.
-
13
CSA and the UK Catholic Church.
by Lost in the fog inthe comments underneath the article are almost as interesting as the article.. .
https://mercatornet.com/secrecy-confession-england-wales/81615/.
-
-
Fisherman
Why are JWs trying to be judge, jury and executioner all in one?
How so?
JW are required to obey the law.That’s what the Courts are for.
Laws would need to be changed to make it compulsory in every State to report harming children, make it illegal to marriage of children, punishing severely false accusations of harming children, dangerous housing conditions affecting children, etc.
Very simple if laws specifically compelled any church official to report crimes they heard at confessions ( including Catholic priests)to the authorities nobody would confess to the church. No more problems.
Doctors put up a sign saying they report signs of abuse to authorities. What a dumb thing to do. Because that warns an abuser and “it” won’t bring the child to the doctor. —What a horrific world we live in— But that is secular law. The doctor may be liable for breach of confidentiality and may be sued by the person that brings the child to the doctor if the doctor discloses the information unless the doctor has immunity. Or puts up a warning sign. But if the person knows he will be reported, the child is not taken to school or doctors. Making it law to report children being harmed may help a little but there are harmful consequences to children too.
The way the laws are crafted, somebody calls cps to report abuse , they show up at the door maybe take custody of the kids even if it is a lie no consequences for s false report and if you penalize false reports nobody will make honest reports either afraid of being falsely accused. You always have to rely on integrity and that’s not possible because the law is not about integrity it us about being free and about winning in Court and that sums up the law. Very easy for a mother to get custody of children, accuse the father of abuse. That ruins the man’s reputation forever because who would trust such man accused by the mother of his kids. The judge will rather err on the safety of the children and bring an innocent man to ruin and separate the father from from his children. That’s child abuse too and legal. Suppose the man was exonerated or years later the child confessed mom lied. Too bad. No consequences. How about ending a child’s life in the birth canal horrifically, legal. Is that not child abuse? Not when legislation says its fine. On the one hand the law is going after a church group in a State that happens to mandate reporting but maybe says its ok to terminate a “child’s” life during birth. “Be quick about it before he is completely born.”It’s law not morality.