someone needs to get the word out that the only reason blood was banned was to incite persecution against jehovah's witnesses.
after the end of world war ii did not bring armageddon.
the book four presidents of the watchtower society says that individuals were considering banning blood transfusions but that rutherford was against it.. jehovah's witnesses say that abortion is wrong, that even if life is just a few cells, it's worth protecting and would be murder if someone aborted it yet.
Bull$hit. Abortion is considered murder by the wts, and had their parents done this and the news got back to their congregation elders, I suspect they would have been in serious trouble, maybe even df'd or considered da'd by their actions.
I was referring to you guys and the Canadian media. You really have no qualms with freedom of choice at the risk of death, but you do have problems with JWs having freedom of medical treatment for their children.
someone needs to get the word out that the only reason blood was banned was to incite persecution against jehovah's witnesses.
after the end of world war ii did not bring armageddon.
the book four presidents of the watchtower society says that individuals were considering banning blood transfusions but that rutherford was against it.. jehovah's witnesses say that abortion is wrong, that even if life is just a few cells, it's worth protecting and would be murder if someone aborted it yet.
The other side of that coin is, how can the Hospital support aborting the BC babies (not sure if all of them, but I heard that it was mentioned) but not support the parents right to choose for themselves the treatment. The parents could have decided to abort and no-one would have been up in arms.
can someone tell me what the wts' belief is re: the resurrection of christ, or send me a link to their publication which elaborates on it (preferred).. thank you,.
evette.
This non-orthodox belief of a noncorporeal post-resurrection Christ was known in the early Church as docetism.
Are you sure "docetism" was Post-resurrection?
i wonder what was your reaction when reading these two scriptures, especially when you were a witness?
have you ever met and had chance to talk to someone "famous"?
maybe an actor, politician, musician?
if you have were they different from their public persona?
Eddie Vedder (drunk and jovial),Q-tip (nice), Rasheed Wallace, Scully from X-files can't think of her real name and not a fan of the show or her, A few other musicians but these are the only notable ones.
grissom,.
on another thread, you wrote of jehovah's witnesses and the publications produced by the watchtower bible and tract society (presumably of new york, inc.):.
grissom: the beliefs are from the bible.. prove it.
Of course, his avoidance of the forum is patently silly on that score. I have reams of inalterable text from him, plenty to hang him with, but I have such a dim view of the organization he supports that even for purposes of silencing one of their least well armed champions I will not ever reveal him.
That cult he's in has sapped his mind. I feel sorry for him. He would not hold back from outing me if I were still in and he knew who I was, but I bet he is earnestly hopefully I will not out him.
So much for following even the most basic of Christ's counsel: "Do unto others..."
He'd better be glad I actually apply the counsel he actively seeks to ignore. If he harms anyone I call friend, however, even by accident or without knowing that such a person is my friend, grissom's congregation will receive a nice fat packet of information from somewhere.
Then he will be able to post here in the open, under his real name, and no JW will care one whit. He'll be DF'd and they don't much care what a DF'd person thinks about anything. Won't that be nice?
Why the melodrama bro.? I feel like I am watching a bad episode of 24.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7-i7xqqdhq.
found this on another board.
it's about 10 minutes...and o so sickening!.
Kinda cute actually, plus getting Michael Caine to narrate is a feather in their cap..
help needed.
i believe that in one of the oldest watchtower issues someone asked ct russell whether praying to jesus was allowed and russell published his response to the effect that it was ok and russell said he sometimes prayed to jesus.
i'd just love it if someone could dig up the actual article for me as i want to show it to someone who doesn't believe me.
Can you back that up with scholarly support? There are various Greek words used by the NT writers to signify mere gestures of respect and acknowledge of superiority, but proskuneo in relation to Jesus connotes something more: reverence and worship of a divine being. In the book of Matthew in particular this comes through. "Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held concluded from their analysis of scenes where Jesus is the recipient of the gesture in Matthew, 'proskuneo' is used "only in the sense of genuine worship of God".
BAGD lists as it's primary defintion:worship, do obesiance to, prostrate oneself, welcome respectfully...to human beings belonging to a superhuman realm... to a king...to the Church at Philadelphia. They have Jesus not being worshiped as God, but as "Messianic King and Divine Helper". Either way, it is the very word used to decribe a gesture of respect to a King or a representative of God. This I have documented from the NT and the the LXX (1 Chron. 29:20, 1 Kings 2:15).. So we do not need "scholarly opinion" as this is verifiable from scripture. The idea of "worship" (how a modern reader interprets that phrase anyhow) meaning an act to God alone, is strictly commentary and contextual, not derived from the word itself. As far as the analysis of the men you provided, I gave an example which shows that invalid, Matthew 28:16-17. It is a gesture, nothing more can be gathered from it in that instance
Any "worship" of Christ cannot be independent of the Father anyhow, so this does not demand a binitarian interpretation as Hurtado has done. Christ being "God" functionally does not change that fact. (Phil. 2)
help needed.
i believe that in one of the oldest watchtower issues someone asked ct russell whether praying to jesus was allowed and russell published his response to the effect that it was ok and russell said he sometimes prayed to jesus.
i'd just love it if someone could dig up the actual article for me as i want to show it to someone who doesn't believe me.
Hi Jwfacts,
Would you say there is any functional difference between the Wts doctrine of Jesus? That is by the use of the word "worship" as compared to their use of "obesiance"? After reading on this issue it just seems to be a needed change in semantics. Also you did not give the "facts" below, in regards the NWT use of "worship" when giving to "angels" "satan".. etc..
This is despite the fact that in almost every other place the New World Translation translates proskuneo as worship when used in reference to angels, Satan, humans and Jehovah. Why this unusual stance in connection with Jesus? This is because the teaching about Jesus was to change.
There is no "unusual" stance, when given to Jesus. Do not those other references where "worship" is applied to "angels" "Humans" and others have a negative application? You are aware that when it is done positivley (ie, to to the honor of Jehovah) the NWT translates it as "obesiance" like they do in Rev 3:7-9, but you do not give these facts. Fact is the NWT uses "obesiance" when done positively, consistently for Gods representatives regardless if it is Jesus. You give a misleading presentation IMO. (see Rev 3:9, 1 Chron 29:20, 1 Kings 2:15..etc) I think you should amend your page to include these thoughts..
As far as the actual issue itself, one only has to turn to Matthew 28:16-17 to see that "worship" is not always the most accurate english translation. It says "When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted"(NAB) Obviously if they "doubted" they could not have been giving "worship", but merely an act of prostration. "proskyneo" is at it's core an act of honor to an authority, or just a gesture of respect.
i just watched it and there was a non baptised jw on there.
she had apparently left and married a luthern....but than felt that only jw's were the true religion and was seemingly torn between going back or not.
it is so sad and her husband realized she was being brainwashed, which she (of course) denied.
Her husband was a typical K-fed... Stay out with his "boyz" and then cuss (F-bombs) out his wife for not coming home from Church on time. Yep, he, not the wife studying with the JWs, is the good guy here. She is "brainwashed" and doing the wrong thing.. Only in JWD land..
