Posts by Fisherman

33

The Second Coming of Christ

by maccauk in

the second coming of christ was in the 1st century at the destruction of jerusalem the temple the law and the old covenants.

so the new eternal covenant came into force in which people of every tribe tongue and naation would enter into.

the new jerusalem not built by human hands nor with bricks and mortar its spiritual cannot be seen but people will stream to it the sin issue is done there is no more judgment for those in christ .

Fisherman

This isn't your thread. You don't make the rules

@ DJ I never said it was my thread and I am not making rules and I cannot stop you from posting about why you like peanut butter sandwiches, but you addressed your related posts to me and I was only explaining my question as it relates to this Topic in my posts to you; anyway, you have diverted the Topic and have not answered my question, and haven't shown how peanut butter has any relevance to this discussion. Nothing wrong with peanut butter sandwiches if that is what you like to talk about.

33

The Second Coming of Christ

by maccauk in

the second coming of christ was in the 1st century at the destruction of jerusalem the temple the law and the old covenants.

so the new eternal covenant came into force in which people of every tribe tongue and naation would enter into.

the new jerusalem not built by human hands nor with bricks and mortar its spiritual cannot be seen but people will stream to it the sin issue is done there is no more judgment for those in christ .

Fisherman

DJ: My only point is that your related post is not relevant to the topic or to my question. ( Not debating if it is true or false.) I was not saying that your post is trash or judging the vaue of your information. I only meant to say that if the gospels are not prophetic, I have no interest. My question considers the gospels and by extension the NT as prophetic. If you can't think in those terms, you should recuse yourself from trying to answer my question.

33

The Second Coming of Christ

by maccauk in

the second coming of christ was in the 1st century at the destruction of jerusalem the temple the law and the old covenants.

so the new eternal covenant came into force in which people of every tribe tongue and naation would enter into.

the new jerusalem not built by human hands nor with bricks and mortar its spiritual cannot be seen but people will stream to it the sin issue is done there is no more judgment for those in christ .

Fisherman

Remember, the writer is trying to make Jesus sound like he is foretelling the destruction of the Second Temple, an event that happened before the gospels were composed. --DJ

Then throw the NT in the garbage. -Who has time? This thread and my question assumes the NT is from God.

33

The Second Coming of Christ

by maccauk in

the second coming of christ was in the 1st century at the destruction of jerusalem the temple the law and the old covenants.

so the new eternal covenant came into force in which people of every tribe tongue and naation would enter into.

the new jerusalem not built by human hands nor with bricks and mortar its spiritual cannot be seen but people will stream to it the sin issue is done there is no more judgment for those in christ .

Fisherman

But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed. 31 “On that day let the person who is on the housetop but whose belongings are in the house not come down to pick these up, and likewise, the person out in the field must not return to the things behind.

If the above verses are future, why do the verses use language directed at the people listening to Jesus if God had no intention whatsoever to fulfill any part of the prophecy in the first century?

42

U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety

by BluesBrother in

while visiting someone at the local hospital i saw this leaflet " will i need a blood transfusion ?

- patient information" .

now i was raised in the belief that doctors are transfusion-happy and just give you one willy nilly if they operate , further that a trans.

Fisherman

Because the organization tries to enforce compliance via undue influence, i.e. coercion, manipulation, implanting of phobias, publishing of old and misleading data, shunning, etc, etc. -Lee

I think that you are misrepresenting WT on this thread. WT does not coerces any JW, not to commit adultery, apostasy, etc. nor coerces JW not to accept BT.

More than one loved one besides many friends are physicians. They receive special training on how to handle JW patients that need BT. Not every doctor understands JW theology on blood but it doesn't matter, they are very prepared to give blood to any person that wants it. Even after all papers are signed, a doctor may go up to a patient right before anesthesia and ask again his wishes and do everything in his power to convince a JW to accept blood - after all it is a doctor's job to help the patient.

A JW doesn't have to sign the card, doesn't have to carry it and can do whatever he wishes. It is between him and God. As I have pointed out numerous times, accepting BT is a sin according to wt teaching. According to wt doctrine, it is not up to personal conscience to commit idolatry, sexual immorality or accept a BT. But a person can commit these sins and repent. People can live a lie also if they want to or choose whatever they like to do. God is the final judge.

43

How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?

by minimus in

jw
friends

up until the very end, my mother refused blood.

it didn't matter if it was a blurred line or not, the bible says "no blood"!

i wonder if she was in the minority, in her thinking.

Fisherman

would change their view of what is acceptable and not acceptable on the whim of the GB and not their own conscience.

I replied to this previously on this thread and have tried to make a point numerous times:

What does the Bible say? What a JW likes it to say or believes it says or what apostates says it says? There is part of the human conscience that does things instinctively and you don't need to open up the Bible -namely empathy towards other conscious creatures and personal conduct. There is another part of conscience that is subjective, referred to by the wt as "Christian trained concience" and for this a JW has to open up the Bible and figure out what the Bible says, for example, the base scripture. JW base their conciences on what the WT says the Bible says. JW understand that a JW conscience will change based on what the wt says the Bible says. You call that a whim of the gb. JW see it as FDS, albeit JW conscience is affected.

43

How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?

by minimus in

jw
friends

up until the very end, my mother refused blood.

it didn't matter if it was a blurred line or not, the bible says "no blood"!

i wonder if she was in the minority, in her thinking.

Fisherman

helping those who have questions examine the answers.

Well, the majority of people that leave JW is because they got angry at something or they rather be doing something else. Later on they look for ways and examine the answers after they already decided for themselves. But there are also those that are curious about what the apostates are thinking.

Getting back to the base scripture, there are 3 points of argument 1. Blood is being used medicinally to save a human life. 2. Blood is being used from a donor and not at the expense of someone that was killed. 3. A blood transfusion is not food to be eaten.

GB understands all of these arguments and so does JW. However, the direction coming from FDS at this time is that the transfusion of whole blood or any of its major components violates the base scripture.

And the JW minority that winds up accepting BT is out of fear -they don't want to die even if they also believe in the FDS, others that also make up that minority when faced with death rationalize and don't believe the gb is correct on this one. The rest of JW will face death putting faith in the gb decision.

43

How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?

by minimus in

jw
friends

up until the very end, my mother refused blood.

it didn't matter if it was a blurred line or not, the bible says "no blood"!

i wonder if she was in the minority, in her thinking.

Fisherman

Where you seem unable to grasp the point is that even taking the above into account, should the GB change their mind on the interpretation of the Bible command then the conscience and decision tree of an individual Witness will change to match the will of the GB.

JW know that wt doctrine has changed and can change but also believe that gb is the FDS and as such GB decide doctrine and lead JW and JW follow.

If a JW believes that the gb are only a bunch of men dictating policy as you say, then why should he continue to be a JW?

42

U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety

by BluesBrother in

while visiting someone at the local hospital i saw this leaflet " will i need a blood transfusion ?

- patient information" .

now i was raised in the belief that doctors are transfusion-happy and just give you one willy nilly if they operate , further that a trans.

Fisherman

Lee:

Fact: Medical authorities and government know that wt decides doctrine on blood not individual JW. What in the world do they need to learn from you about that? You are entitled to believe your commentary about "control", etc., but that is all it is and it is also a different subject. WT leaders also keep abstaining from blood. What are you directing the GB to do?

43

How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?

by minimus in

jw
friends

up until the very end, my mother refused blood.

it didn't matter if it was a blurred line or not, the bible says "no blood"!

i wonder if she was in the minority, in her thinking.

Fisherman

K99, you are mistaken to proclaim your commentary as reality. Why are you willfully misunderstanding what I post ?