the may 2011 km has an article on page 2 entitled, "could you share in the ministry on sundays?
1. it was the sabbath, a day when most jews in philippi rested.
paul and his companions were visiting the city during one of their missionary tours.
Many were arrested in the United States for violating Sunday Sabbath laws, disturbing the peace, and selling without a license.
They proudly admit to breaking the law, which wasn't at all necessary. They could have preached without 'selling' but that would not have served their own purposes at that time (as opposed to God's).
They way I see it is they were sacrificing themselves only for the society and in order to do this they broke God's law who directed them to pay ceaser's things to ceaser.
djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.
his objection was my statement,.
"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
Is it correct that the GB is able to determine that each of the four components of blood seperately hold the life giving properties that are held sacred but none of the fractions do?
djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.
his objection was my statement,.
"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
His post number 287
No, I'm an educated person, highly educated. A Bible scholar; also a genius.
djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.
his objection was my statement,.
"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
His major problem is that he is constrained by the latest determinations made by the GB. As a highly intelligent person (or genius I think he said) there are probably things he does not agree with that the GB presents but is patient enough to wait for 'new light'. If there is any credit to be given to him it would be trying to work around the obstacles that the GB's opinions impose.
been baptised for 15 years and it still same crap.
my wife who takes notes and thinks she pays attention when the brother says jesus is our meadiator and doesn't pay attention that the watchtower just stated he is the mediator for the anointed.
oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh thats right we do benifit but rank an file dont catch the confusing statements.
There is this WT article 2008 12/15
It explains how Jesus is mediator only to the annointed and only they are part of the new covenant. It would appear that they believe the new covenant is only in regards to the heavenly kingdom where Jesus is ruling and will soon reign for 1,000 years with the annointed joining him as kings and priests.
.
Mediator of a New Covenant”
11 Read1 Timothy2:5, 6. Jesus is the “one mediator between God and men.” He is “the mediator of a new covenant.” (Heb. 9:15; 12:24) However, Moses is also spoken of as a mediator—the mediator of the Law covenant. (Gal. 3:19) How, then, is Jesus’ role as Mediator unique?
The original-language word translated “mediator” is a legal term. It refers to Jesus as a legal Mediator (or, in a sense, an attorney) of the new covenant that made possible the birth of a new nation, “the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:16) This nation is composed of spirit-anointed Christians, who form a heavenly “royal priesthood.” (1 Pet. 2:9; Ex. 19:6) The Law covenant, with Moses as mediator, was not able to produce a nation like that. What does Jesus’ role as Mediator involve? Well, Jehovah applies the value of Jesus’ blood to those being brought into the new covenant. In this way, Jehovah legally credits them with righteousness. (Rom. 3:24; Heb. 9:15) God can then take them into the new covenant with the prospect of their becoming heavenly king-priests! As their Mediator, Jesus assists them in maintaining a clean standing before God.—Heb. 2:16. What about those who are not in the new covenant, those who hope to live forever on earth, not in heaven? While not participants in the new covenant, these are beneficiaries of it. They receive forgiveness of their sins and are declared righteous as God’s friends. (Jas. 2:23; 1 John 2:1, 2) Whether we have a heavenly hope or an earthly hope, each one of us has good reason to appreciate Jesus’ role as the Mediator of the new covenant.
djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.
his objection was my statement,.
"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
DJ - 'I trust that the illustration I provide above regarding samples from a music CD will sufficiently answer your question and put the matter to rest.'
JW Gone Bad - "Talk about rest, I think @djeggnog needs some 'rest'!
As OUTLAW says.... @djeggnog sounds Watchtarded."
It did put the matter of fractions to rest as he was quite clear. He showed how the GB has chosen at its own direction to permit accepting fractions as a conscience matter and components as a sin and then goes further to attribute this interpretation as being God's law, not the GB's (and this must be because he believes the GB has this authority). What is being accepted here is blood, although just part of it. It makes no logical sense and there is no scriptural basis for this otherwise it would have been quoted but the matter was sufficiently 'laid to rest' regardless.
This is a matter where the GB has control of life and death. Not accepting either whole blood, components and even fractions can and does result in death. Then to point out that what is and what is not acceptable in the breakdown of blood matter as being according to God's law is obviously a wrong conclusion. There is no bible basis for this other than believing the GB has this power/authority but even then, neither Jesus or God gave them such authority over an individuals life.
What is not so clear is DJ's ulterior motives. He has explained before how the GB are just men and get things wrong. If accepting their viewpoint on this blood fraction issue is the same as accepting God's viewpoint then one must conclude that they are very much misguided. Why would DJ do this?
djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.
his objection was my statement,.
"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
"DJ - Jehovah God says "abstain ... from blood" (Acts 15:20). Jehovah says you may not use whole blood. By this command, He also prohibits the use of any of the four components of whole blood. But Jehovah has no policy against your using fractions from any of these four components. These fractions constitute neither whole blood nor any of the four components of whole blood."
Your illustration is very clear and it comes down to the laws that are laid out by the owner of the music, those laws are also very specific and allow the consumer to know when they are breaking the law. The owner has also provided some limited useage of that music at no cost.
The bible, God's word announces only one rule - 'abstain from blood' (as to whether this means eating or injecting is another matter), there is no leeway, it doesn't provide for extractions from blood, that is what parts can be used and what can't be used. So the owner has been quite clear. But according to the JWs he has passed some authority to the F& DS and a select few from that group have decided that they have the authority to fine tune that law of abstaining from blood.
You say that it is Jehovah that has no policy against using any of the fractions of the blood but I strongly argue that if this is the case then there is also no policy against the use of any of the four components.
To take this further, in theory a scientist could estract fractions from all four components and come up with quite a powerful 'nutrient' rich agent and in doing so may prove much more beneficial than just injecting one component for certain medical conditions. He would even be able to target the fractions that are the only parts necessary for the medical condition without the need to use the whole blood. Although he hasn't created a new component he has created something better than one individual component.
In your example of the music this can also be done by compiling the samples together in such a way that it becomes a medley and is marketed as a new track and possibly has the same laws applied to it.
I guess it all comes down to the fact that the GB have made their own decisions on this matter. However, if they feel that using fractions are up to a persons conscience then for the same reasons that they come to this conclusion can be used to say the same for components. The difference is that you can just accept what the GB says, without question but non JWs can stand back and see that there is no logical cohesion with their conclusion.
The example of the coffee is interesting because I would consider why the mother has forbidden the child to have coffee. It could be that they react very badly to consuming caffeine. Even that minute amount that the child ended up comnsuming may cause a reaction. In that case she would likely throw out the coffee machine and because she could not trust her child to understand that he must avoid any amount of coffee also takes the step of eliminating all coffee from the house. Unfortunately there are still circumstances outside her house where she has no control and she can only teach her child how to avoid coffee (and anything else that may contain caffeine).
One might consider that the GB is simply training the conscience of the JW in abstaining from blood but what they have done is say that some parts of it are okay (if the individual feels such) but major parts of it are not. That is not what God said and no amount of fine tuning that law would bring one to that conclusion.
What the individual can do (or the GB) when considering the issue of abstaining from blood is to look at the principles and circumstances behind the law and that will help determine whether injecting blood (from another human who has not died and life is still in him) is the same as eating blood from a dead animal.
djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.
his objection was my statement,.
"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
From what I can understand you have whole blood which can be broken down to four components, from this each component can be further broken down into fractions.
It is not acceptable for a JW to accept either whole blood or any of the four components but as for the fractions, it is up to their own conscience.
Unfortunately, medical science is not advanced enough to manufacture some of these fractions by any other means other than extracting them from blood and therefore makes these fractions unique to blood.
If all these fractions together make whole blood, or a number of them make one component, why is the line drawn as being a conscience matter in relation to fractions and not to the components?
this text is from the wtb&ts publication gods kingdom of a thousand years has approached- 1973, pages 206-207.. .
the correcting of a misunderstanding.
48 it is true that the editor and publisher of zion's watch tower and herald of corpses presence calculated that the "presence" or parousia of the heavenly bridegroom began in the year 1874 c.e.
......"This resulted in their calculating six thousand years of sin as ending in 1874 C.E., in which year also, in the autumn, the seventh millennium began, for the instigator of sin, Satan the Devil, to be bound and cast into the bottomless pit and for Christ to start reigning for the foretold thousand years. This meant that the year of the start of Christ's reign was also the year of his return and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia."
This would seem to indicate that they were saying that the Jesus' reign of 1,000 years would begin at the start of his presence. This presence occurred in 1914 according to them.
It is really hard to get any certainty on whether they believe his 1,000 year reign begins at the end of armageddon or from 1914 but it would seem they changed that above beief to say that his millenial rule doesn't start until the end of Armageddon even though he has been ruling since 1914.
djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.
his objection was my statement,.
"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
DG -- but it must be understood that none of these processed fractions that are derived from the four blood components constitute whole blood.
Does this mean that each of the four blood components seperately constitute whole blood?
