as many of you know, i am not a jw, nor have i ever been.
but i do have lots of questions.
perhaps there is an active jw out there that might be interested in answering this question for me.
Hi Whyizit...
The teaching is any anointed who died from the 1st century on slept in death until 1918 when the first resurrection began. (The details about this is another story). After that date any anointed are resurrected in "the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor 15:52), instantly brought to immortal heavenly life in a new 'spiritual body'.(1 Cor 15:44)
Skeptic1914
brenda lee, who has written a book about her experience, "out of the cocoon", will be speaking on the healthy life program tomorrow: sunday, april 16, 2007, 2-3 pacific time/ 5-6 eastern.. the program streams live at www.healthylife.net .. skeptic1914.
Brenda Lee, who has written a book about her experience, "Out of the Cocoon", will be speaking on the Healthy Life program tomorrow: Sunday, April 16, 2007, 2-3 Pacific Time/ 5-6 Eastern.
The program streams live at www.HealthyLife.net .
Skeptic1914
it frightens me to think there is even the slightest link.
i have doubts the society would do such a huge thing as passing the poisoned fruit juice but in many other ways they have followers ready to kill themselves for the 'cause'.. no blood etc.
then you get the explempary dubs who were killed by nazi's for their faith.
Some interesting views were exchanged in this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/131106/1.ashx
Skeptic1914
it probably was one of my few happy moments of being a jw.
my mom, dad, and i were asked to be in the modern day drama, think it was in 1988-1990 (not sure exactly).
i played a worldly girl named "dolly winters" who was considered a bold and brazon girl who eventually studied to become one of jws because of a good example jw that she went to school with.
Yes. In 1980 if memory serves. There was a drama involving Isaac young, middled-aged and dying. I played the middle-aged one. Brief part really but it was cool. What I remember is, because we did this at a race track (Belmont on Nassau-Queens border in L.I., NY), we actually had TWO separate casts, playing left and right of the stage, on the grass.
A bummer part was that the night before one the young kids in the cong, newly married, was killed in a car accident. People were crying during make-up, etc. The CO let the crowd know after the drama.
Skeptic1914
mine was a black and orange wt with the topic "will armageddon be fought in the middle east?".
1977???.
.
Around 1956. I was 4. My mother was getting baptized at a KH that had a pool. I was kicking and screaming because a sister was holding onto me and wanted to see my mother. The part I really remember was breaking free and busting into the room where the women were getting dressed. A bunch of naked ladies.
Didn't appreciate it at the time.
Skeptic1914
i was hoping to confirm something for an article i'm working on.
i was told that the only acceptable grounds for divorce are adultery and a husband failing to support his wife financially.
i don't believe apostasy counts, does it?
This 1972 QFR may be helpful:
Questions
FromReaders?
Why,accordingtoMatthew’saccounts,didJesususetwodifferentwords—"fornication"and"adultery"—indiscussingthepropergroundsfordivorce?IsnottheonlygroundforScripturaldivorce"adultery,"asthetermisgenerallyunderstood?—U.S.A.At Matthew 5:32 Jesus’ words are: "However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication [Greek, por·nei´a], makes her a subject for adultery [Greek, moi·khei´a], and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Similarly, at Matthew 19:9 we read: "I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication [por·nei´a], and marries another commits adultery [moi·khei´a]."
The account, therefore, does use two distinct words. Let us first see what they mean and then consider the significance of their use.
Moi·khei´a,
one of the terms used in Matthew’s account, is properly translated "adultery." The English word "adultery" comes from the Latin adulterare, which means, basically, "to alter" and, by extension, "to corrupt or make impure, as by the addition of a foreign or a baser substance." Thus we speak of ‘adulterating’ food, making it impure by adding foreign substances. A marriage is ‘adulterated’ when one of the parties defiles the marital relationship by having relations with someone outside that relationship. This idea of adulterating or corrupting, and of unfaithfulness to a sacred relationship, is also inherent in the Greek term moi·khei´a. Therefore, both in Greek and in English, the focus is on the effect illicit sexual relations have on the marriagerelationship, the adulterous mate being guilty of introducing someone else into that relationship, corrupting the union that should include just the husband and wife.What of the other term used? "Fornication" focuses attention, not on the effect sexual immorality may have on a marital relationship, but on the natureorqualityofthesexualactivityitself. This is true, not only of the English word "fornication," but also of the Greek word, por·nei´a, used in Matthew’s account. Our interest, of course, is primarily in the Greek term used by the Gospel writer. For, no matter what the word "fornication" may commonly be understood to mean by English-speaking people, it is what the word used in the Bible meant to the writer and the people at that time that really counts and is decisive.
When "fornication" is mentioned today, people commonly think of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex, relations carried on outside marriage yet consisting of intercourse in the ‘ordinary’ or natural way. So, many have understood that, when Jesus said that "fornication [por·nei´a]" was the only ground for divorce, he referred only to intercourse in the ordinary or natural way between a wife and a man not her husband, or, by extension, between a husband and a woman not his wife. But is that the case? Does por·nei´a, the word used in Matthew’s account, refer only to such natural sexual relations? Or did it include all forms of immoral sexual relations, including those between individuals of the same sex and also perverted forms of sexual relations between members of the opposite sex? Just what did por·nei´a mean to people in the first century when Jesus was on earth? And does a sincere and careful investigation of this meaning call for a reappraisal of our understanding as to what the Scriptural ground for divorce is?
A thorough study of the matter shows that por·nei´a refers to allformsofimmoralsexualrelations. It is a broad term, somewhat like the word "pornography," which is drawn from por·nei´a or the related verb por·neu´o. Lexicons of the Greek language clearly show this to be so.
They show that por·nei´a comes from a root word meaning "to sell," and it describes sex relations that are licentious and not restrained (as by the restraint of adherence to marriage bonds). Thus, of the use of the word in Bible times, Thayer’sGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestament states that por·nei´a described "illicit sexual intercourse in general." Moulton and Milligan’s TheVocabularyoftheGreekNewTestament says it is "unlawful sexual intercourse generally." The sixth volume of the TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament says that por·nei´a can come to mean "‘sexual intercourse’ in gen[eral] without more precise definition."
It is because of its being a broad term (broader in its scope than the word "fornication" is in the minds of many English-speaking people) that many Bible translators use expressions such as "gross immorality," "sexual immorality," "sexual sins," or similar, when translating por·nei´a.
Does this mean that unnatural and perverted sexual relations such as those engaged in by homosexuals are included in the meaning of this term used by the apostle in recording Jesus’ words? Yes, that is the case. This can be seen by the way Jesus’ half brother Jude used por·nei´a when referring to the unnatural sex acts of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Jude 7) Concerning the use of por·nei´a by Greek-speaking Jews around the start of the Common Era, the sixth volume of the TheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament says: "p???e?a [por·nei´a] can also be ‘unnatural vice,’ . . . sodomy."
What, then, is the significance of the Bible’s use of these terms and what does it reveal as to the valid Biblical grounds for divorce? It shows that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·nei´a or "fornication" intheBiblesense. Such sexual relations do not refer to minor indiscretions a person might commit, as by a kiss or caress or embrace, but refer to immoral use of the genital organs in some form of intercourse, natural or unnatural.
We find principles in the Law covenant in support of this broadened viewpoint. It is clear that under that Law marriages were dissolved when a mate committed serious sexual sins, includingunnaturalones, inasmuch as such mate was put to death according to God’s own instructions.—Compare Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:22, 23, 29; 20:10-16; Deuteronomy 22:22; as well as the words of the Christian apostle at Romans 1:24-27, 32.
Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.
This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. There is much more that can be considered on the matter and for that reason it will be discussed more completely in a coming issue of this magazine.
But check out this from Pay Attention Elders' book:
Strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evi-
dence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the
accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of
the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known
homosexual ) under improper circumstances, is acceptable.
I know at least two people who obtained Scriptural grounds on this basis.
Skeptic1914
obviously the big question we want answered is what significance does this event have in bible prophecy?.
we all know 7 symbolizes perfection or "heavenly completeness".
will the rapture all those associated with jwd begin as the enter key is depressed posting the 77,777th topic.
Obviously the BIG QUESTION we want answered is What Significance Does This Event Have in Bible Prophecy?
We all know 7 symbolizes perfection or "heavenly completeness". Will the RAPTURE all those associated with JWD begin as the ENTER KEY is depressed posting the 77,777th Topic. The Bible doesn't say.
But now that the "SEVEN JWD TIMES" have run their course (the seven full years this board has been up from 3/23/00 thru 3/22/07) we wait with hopeful anticipation to see how God's purpose unfolds.
The first two sevens in 77,777, when added, equal 14. Evidently, this foreshadows the sum of the digits in the date when the 77,777th topic is posted. Tomorrow is 04/12/07. The sum of these digits: 4+1+2+7=14. And tomorrow will be 21 days since the end of the JWD TIMES. The sum of the last three digits in 77,777? 21. A coincidence? No doubt this is in harmony with the purpose of Almighty God.
We will have to wait and see if these calculations are corroborated by a re-measuring of the Great Pyramid in Giza.
Skeptic1914
from reading people's stories and life experiences i thought i'd poll the members here for some advice.
my inlaws are extremely toxic.
i know, every person says that about their inlaws, but the way they treat their family is absolutely horrible.
Toxic Parents--Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy and Reclaiming Your Life by Dr. Susan Forward.
I remember reading that MANY years ago and I just may read it again. (Thanks, Blondie). Unfortunately I'm the one that still becomes a little child in my mother's presence. I find it's even more frustrating when you are aware it's happening but feel powerless to stop it.
I wish you well. I never cease to be amazed at what a powerful, life-shaping effect parents have on their children.
Skeptic1914
since the wt is "famous" for having a "ready answer" to every scripture that proves them wrong, what is the "official wt teaching" on 1 cor.
"14 therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry.
15 i speak as to men with discernment; judge for yourselves what i say.
Hi Abbagail...the point about the WT view that the NT was written primarily to anointed Christians and that there were ONLY anointed Christians in the 1st century has been covered.
Frankly I don't ever remember Paul being referred to as a member of the GB. Even if you accept the premise that the elders in Jerusalem formed a Governing Body, just reading thru the book of Acts makes it obvious that Paul took no direction from them. He was directed by Christ and the Holy Spirit. That's why that statement (at the Memorial) stood out to me so much. I actually wanted to ask the speaker if that specific point was in the outline but didn't.
This point is worth restating:
Not to say that it is a waste of time - some honest, sincere questions guided me to freedom. I did not listen initially, but it stuck with me until the right time
This happened to me but I'm thinking particularly of an xjw friend. Many years before she came out, someone at the door in FS said, "the other sheep are Gentiles". That stuck with her and became one of the starting points for her and later her husband to re-evaluate what they had learned thru the WT.
Skeptic1914
this statement was often echeod to me during my formative years.
i remember my very first day of elementary school (stateside) at the age of 4. my parents were flustered because they couldn't believe they actually had to start their only child into public school to begin with; after all, the end was right around the corner!
this was 1984, the year the first apple mac was introduced, 80's music was loud and in your face, the delorean was cool, and miami vice was just in production.
Just want to put my two cents in. Ironically my non-witness father always saw the value of an education as his was limited and he had to work hard early in life. It was me (with the tacit support of my witness mother) that wanted to quit high school so I could pioneer. That was in 1969 when I knew everything. The "pioneering" lasted about 2 months and soon I was working full time and inactive.
Fast forward to 1973. Get married. Become super-active in the "truth". First child due in April '75. Would this child even be born in this system? Certainly would NEVER go school...Never graduate...etc. I WAS that parent who didn't plan for the future, for college, for retirement. Fortunately 2 of my 3 kids are doing OK for themselves today.
I do not, however, hold the organization responsible for this. These were MY choices as an adult. Did the policies and published statements in the literature influence us? Absolutely. Did my father's weakly giving in to my foolish demands at 17 play a part in the direction my life took?. Much more so IMO.
Skeptic1914
