Posts by Fisherman

114

"The G.B. is neither inspired nor infallible"

by smiddy in

that admission in the feb.17 ,study edition of the watchtower , " who is leading gods people today ?

" "the governing body is neither inspired, nor infallible, therefore it (they/we) can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction .".

have the many jehovahs witnesses past and present who have lost their lives by refusing blood transfusions due to the prohibition on blood tranfusions by jehovahs witnesses really got the sense of this statement ?.

Fisherman

I got 4 dislikes for asking a question. I did not make a statement. That is not fair.

Malawi JWs beaten to death for not having political cards, Mexican JWs allowed to have them (conscience matter).

There is a difference between buying a political card and everything that it involves by doing that and paying government officials instead of having to serve in the military and getting a military service satisfaction card -which is what happened with the brothers in Mexico.

Also, your ignorance over the vastly improved safety of blood transfusions is staggering......

That is not fair steve. You don't know what I know.

OC posts articles and references and essays and links and photos and news on the subject and people read her posts on this Forum. Marvin Shilmer also posted evidence and argumentation and TD posts his arguments and analysis and views on WT doctrines and it would be unfair to to intentionally resort to fallacious logic or lies with the intent to discredit them or to obfuscate valid evidence or arguments. I have never done that on this Forum -but I have my view and that is what I post.

114

"The G.B. is neither inspired nor infallible"

by smiddy in

that admission in the feb.17 ,study edition of the watchtower , " who is leading gods people today ?

" "the governing body is neither inspired, nor infallible, therefore it (they/we) can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction .".

have the many jehovahs witnesses past and present who have lost their lives by refusing blood transfusions due to the prohibition on blood tranfusions by jehovahs witnesses really got the sense of this statement ?.

Fisherman

whose responsible for the deaths and abuses of innocent sheep when they flip flop on doctrinal matters?

When has WT doctrinal errors resulted in deaths and abuse of JW?

114

"The G.B. is neither inspired nor infallible"

by smiddy in

that admission in the feb.17 ,study edition of the watchtower , " who is leading gods people today ?

" "the governing body is neither inspired, nor infallible, therefore it (they/we) can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction .".

have the many jehovahs witnesses past and present who have lost their lives by refusing blood transfusions due to the prohibition on blood tranfusions by jehovahs witnesses really got the sense of this statement ?.

Fisherman

NIce post Smiddy. The post alludes to the gb being guided by God's Holy Spirit while the WT admits it concurrently errs on doctrine. But are people to conclude that Wt has erred in the BT doctrine? That remains to be seen. Whatever happens, I do not see much hope in the future of Blood transfusions, I think that they will complete be replaced with non blood methods of the future and other non blood substitutes of the future. Only because of risk of dying do people even ever consider accepting blood after the awareness of its medical risk. Before the awareness, people accepted blood without thinking, they just figured that JW were fanatics -until the AIDS scare of the 1980's! Just heard on the news yesterday that they recently found that HIV infected blood was in the US blood supplies as far back as 1967, absolving patient zero (tm Data Dog, don't wish to infringe.) the male airline steward, from being responsible of spreading the virus in the US.

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

1st corinthians 15 12-17. but if it is preached that christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even christ has been raised.

and if christ has not been raised, your faith is futile... .

Fisherman

So you did say it, but you also didn't?

Neither did I say it nor did I also didn't say it. I simply did not say it. Let me make it simple for you: You said that I said that Being convinced of something makes that thing a fact.... In fact this is what you said about what I posted: "Being convinced of something doesn't make that thing a fact, nor is it proof of anything" -and I already told you that I did not say that - but you insist that I did.

That makes about as much sense as your interpretations of the Bible or Donald Trump when he talks.

You can conclude what you like, "I don't care." -to quote Marvin Shilmer

Look, you said it. It's plain to see. Why are you also trying to claim the opposite?

Again, you insist and make claims about what I posted after clearly telling you that that's not what I said. Let me make it easy for you (if you like.) Your conclusions about what I posted is not what I posted -but you can believe them if you like.

15

Do Orthodox Jews reject blood transfusions ? because of the scriptures, they strictly believe ?

by smiddy in

this thought occured to me that orthodox jews take the bible/old testament scriptures very seriously regarding the blood issue raised in scripture .. and this is certainly borne out in regard to the bleeding of animals before eating them ,kosher food.. the orthodox jews are far more stricter than jehovah`s witnesses in this application / interpretation of scripture ,and i am curious as to how they interpret and understand these scriptures.. how do they view blood transfusions in the medical world.?.

and is it only the orthodox jews that are expected to only eat kosher food ?

how about the ordinary believing jew with their religion.do they also only eat kosher food ?

Fisherman

On the other hand, although the Mishnah (see reference in the linked essay) forbids Jews from working on the Sabbath for the purpose of saving an avodah sarah, a Jew is required to violate the Sabbath anyway for the purpose of saving a human (idolatrous Jews -compare shituf with avodah zarah- are also viewed as Gentiles) life (see Rambam commentaries) and it all works out. So in this case involving Jewish "oral law" it can be noted that Jewish selfishness results in benefit to the non-Jew (actually to all humans since Noachide are not -or should not be- idolatrous. (-But then again since Noachide are not required to keep the Sabbath neither should they benefit from Jewish laws that honor the Sabbath and that is one reason why "idolatrous" in Yoma refers to all Gentiles including Noachide.)

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

1st corinthians 15 12-17. but if it is preached that christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even christ has been raised.

and if christ has not been raised, your faith is futile... .

Fisherman

Uh, yeah you did -viv

No I didn't

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

1st corinthians 15 12-17. but if it is preached that christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even christ has been raised.

and if christ has not been raised, your faith is futile... .

Fisherman

You said "they knew for a fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead". -viv

Right. That, I posted.

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

1st corinthians 15 12-17. but if it is preached that christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even christ has been raised.

and if christ has not been raised, your faith is futile... .

Fisherman

Being convinced of something doesn't make that thing a fact, nor is it proof of anything

I never said that. Read the related chapter. Conclude what you like..

7

Oldest Hebrew mention of Jerusalem from 7th century BCE

by Earnest in

the oldest hebrew mention of jerusalem has been found on a rare papyrus from the 7th century bce, as reported in the times of israel of october 26, 2016.. a reference to a consignment of wineskins 'to jerusalem' appears on a 2,700-year-old first temple-era scrap believed to have been plundered from a judean desert cave..

Fisherman

thanks fulltime!

78

A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul

by nicolaou in

1st corinthians 15 12-17. but if it is preached that christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even christ has been raised.

and if christ has not been raised, your faith is futile... .

Fisherman

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead

All Paul is doing is debunking the belief that sprouted up among the Christians back then that there is no resurrection of the dead with the logic that they already knew for a fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and that was a basis for faith in the resurrection of others too. In fact, the resurrection of Jesus is what they were preaching about.

(These guys back then weren't teaching from some book they read which was written some thousands of years ago. ( The Bible so states that:) This is something that they saw; they saw the resurrected Jesus; they saw Jesus ascend into heaven and Paul saw and communicated with Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus was proven conclusively to those witnesses and that is what these guys back then were witnessing and preaching about all over the place.)

They were testifying about what they saw and heard-not hearsay or something that they read off some book, and that is what being a witness is all about. The subject matter in the related "logic" is about debunking an erroneous conclusion that some had come to back then; Paul's logic is not about invalidating the resurrection, something proven (to them) to be true. Facts cannot be invalidated; neither with logic, not with arguments, not with other facts. Facts stand on their own and everyone back then was convinced for a fact that Jesus rose from the dead and no one could prove to them otherwise. And that proof was a basis for faith in the resurrection -not of Jesus- but of everybody else.