Posts by aqwsed12345

21

What does this even mean?

by Blotty in

"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.

the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.

so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".

By the way, it's somewhat ironic that Nicene theology is accused of having been created under the influence of "Greek philosophy", when in reality, the CONTENT of Nicene theology was not influenced by any philosophy. They only utilized concepts found in philosophy to ARTICULATE the revealed truth. In contrast, subordinationism, and especially Arianism, had its specific content influenced by Greek philosophy.

Subordinationism is a speculative idea about the doctrine of the Trinity by some 2nd-3rd century Christian writers, and it is still closer to Nicene theology than to Arianism. They conceived of the Son and the Holy Spirit in some subordinate degree to the Father. They imagined the origin of the Son as the Father having eternally conceived His Word (Logos), but only pronounced it in creation (this is the so-called two-stage Logos theory). They were influenced by Greek philosophy in their speculation, which talked about different degrees of emanation from the divine. We must also consider that these pre-Arian theologians viewed the Son's subordination more from a soteriological-grace perspective, not on the plane of existence, meaning it only manifests in the created world, our world. Internal Trinitarian origins probably influenced them too. Anyone who is born or originates can somehow be considered lesser than the one from whom they originate. The clarification of concepts and theology only took place in debates with monarchians, Marcionites, and Arians when the Church Fathers recognized and articulated that the divine persons differ only in their relations to each other, not in their possession of existence.

Arius, moreover, mainly taught in Antioch, one of the contemporary centers of Aristotelian philosophy: Arius learned from Aristotle that a difference in name implies a difference in subject. The apple is not the tree, so the Father is not the Son. If the distinction between the apple and the tree were not real, both could be given the same name. On the other hand, if the Father and the Son must be distinguished by name from each other, it is obvious that they are not the same. For Arius, this meant that if the Father is God, then the Son cannot be God in the same sense. He can be divine, but his divinity is either partial or derived. (See Gerald Bray: Creeds, Councils and Christ—Did the early Christians misrepresent Jesus?, Rossshire, England, Mentor Books, 1997, p. 106)

Interestingly, Jehovah's Witnesses still argue against the Trinity using Aristotle's logic applicable to the natural world. The early church fathers, in any case, fought against polytheism just as strongly as they did against Arianism, seeing it as a variant of polytheism. Surprisingly, despite claims to the contrary, Arianism was closer to the philosophy of Plato and Gnostic speculations, not to Trinitarianism. The Platonic and Gnostic view does not tolerate the idea of God becoming man because they don't believe He can be related to the created material world. They believed that the "demiurge", a being between God and man, the first created "divine" being, created the material world which they deemed inherently evil. Against this, it was the Trinitarians who defended the ancient Biblical belief that only God Himself is the creator. It's also no coincidence that the late Roman emperors leaned towards Arianism, traditionally considering themselves semi-divine. It was much harder for them to accept Trinitarianism, which sharply separated the sole Creator from all other creatures.

Hence Arius' starting point was rationalist philosophy and speculation. The Antiochenes were followers of Aristotelian wisdom, mainly focusing on the interpretation of writings and preferring the literal meaning; they leaned towards rationalism. The founder of the school was Lucian of Antioch, a disciple of Paul of Samosata, and the teacher of Arius. Arius was an Alexandrian presbyter who, following in the footsteps of his teacher Lucian, the founder of the Antiochene catechetical school, forcefully asserted the unity of God in his work "Thalia" around 318.

According to him, the one true God (ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεός) cannot share His nature because He is simple; nor can He beget, because a begotten God is a contradiction. Consequently, the Son, who is a different person from the Father, was not born of the Father's essence but was made (γενητός, not γεννητός) by Him, a creation (κτίσμα) and came into existence from nonexistence (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐστίν); there was a time when He did not exist (ἧν ποτε, ὃτε οὐκ ἧν). But He was created before all "other" creatures, and God created through Him; thus, He is an intermediate and mediating being between God and the world; like the aeons that emanate from divinity according to the Gnostics, but Arius believed the Logos encompasses these non-worldly, non-divine aeons, the pleroma (cf. Col. 1:19).

So it was from this speculation that Arius derived his teaching, and only afterwards did he look for "evidence" from the Scriptures, such as Proverbs 8:22, ambiguously translated in the Septuagint.

Arius had two particular followers who sought to set up a theological system using Aristotelian dialectics: Aetius of Antioch and Eunomius of Cyzicus. They regarded being unoriginate as a divine basic property and applied it only to the Father. This implied that the Son and the Holy Spirit, having their origin in the Father, could not be coequal with Him, but are mere creatures. They didn't consider what the Western fathers emphasized from the beginning: that being unoriginate refers to the divine essence itself, which all three persons equally possess, and are one with it. The difference is only in the relations between the persons. The Son is begotten of the Father in such a way that the Father communicates his entire essence to him, not in time or sequentially, but in eternal existence.

The Father is the originless (unbegotten) primal principle in divine life; the Son is born from Him. But this begetting and birth should be conceived in the eternal, unchanging spirit. Insofar as the Son is also the Word, the Logos, His birth from the Father should be thought of in the image of expressing a word. The Father has known Himself eternally; there is nothing in His essence that He does not grasp, hence He can express Himself in a single, eternal Word such that the Word remains in Him and fully reflects Him. Yet He is the expresser, and the Son is the expressed Word. But because this expressed Word is the perfect image of the Father and contains the entire divine essence, its derivation can be called birth. Since cognition is the work of the intellect, we can say that the birth of the Son comes about through intellectual activity.

God Himself is life and activity, but nothing new arises in Him; He cannot change. But if the Son is His Word, coeternal with Him, then He surely expressed Himself in Him. He encapsulated His entire essence in this word, for as an infinite spirit, He fully knows and can express Himself. The expressed word, therefore, is consubstantial with Him, remains in Him, yet stands opposed to Him, like the expressed stands against the expresser, like the Son stands against the Father. Thus, the persons are distinguished only by their opposition in origin, but the divine nature or essence is not divided by this. The Father thus begets the Son, sharing His entire essence with Him, rather than giving something of Himself.

To understand the reality of the persons, attention must also be paid to the relation, the relationship between them. In created things, relationships arise subsequently: a man becomes a father when he has a son, and this fatherhood is accidental, not identical with essence. However, God did not first exist and then subsequently beget the Son; instead, He has from eternity, as He necessarily knows and expresses Himself. In the Trinity, the real mystery is that in the Father, the relation referring to the Son is not accidental, but intrinsically identical with the essence. Here we encounter an "existing relation," and in this lies the reality of the persons. Fatherhood as a relation faces sonship, therefore differs from it, yet neither differs from the divine essence itself, so the distinctness of the persons does not divide the unity of the Godhead. Thus, we encounter the wonderful unity and richness of absolute existence and relative existence, which does not occur in the created world.

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

aqwsed12345

Jehovah's Witnesses not only avoid the consumption of blood (such as blood sausage) but also blood transfusions—even in life-threatening situations. In specific cases, this can go so far as to rather let a person die who could be saved with a blood transfusion than to revive them with what they consider “sinful” and “spiritually impure” foreign blood (The Watchtower Society also rejects the use of one's own blood). Jehovah's Witnesses carry written "authorization" for doctors in case of emergency. Such religious convictions, referring to the right of self-determination, can push doctors and nurses into moral conflicts in specific cases. The question arises whether religious conviction or the life of the patient should take precedence, and whether treatment (or rather non-treatment) can be prescribed in such cases. The Vienna Institute of Medical Anthropology and Bioethics dealt with the problems of “Jehovah's Witness as a patient” and pointed out the difficulties of clear decision-making. Enrique H. Prat, the head of the institute, considers two possibilities:

"... from an ethical point of view, two types of behavior are acceptable in an emergency during surgery: once the behavior of the doctor who "secured himself” before the operation, meaning that the patient knows what he is relying on, and therefore consistently performs the surgery without blood transfusions until the unfortunate outcome. However, the behavior of a doctor who decides to give blood transfusions in an emergency, driven by the deep anthropological belief that the patient would otherwise approve the use of blood products before the unstoppable end" (Imago Hominis II/Nr 1, 1995, p. 66).

Setting aside these ethical considerations, a deeper and more practical question arises: How do Jehovah's Witnesses come to this conviction? Are the cited scriptures really to be understood this way?

Certainly, blood occupies an important place not only in the Old and New Testament scriptures but also in the books and rituals of many world religions. In ancient cultures, including Israel, blood was considered a particularly sacred element. Because both humans and animals can bleed, blood is seen as the very substance of life; the soul/life force (nefes) that makes animals living beings resides in blood (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11; Deut 12:23). Religions and cults often associate blood with contradictory notions: it carries spirits or protects against demons, contaminates or purifies, harms or benefits. In Israel's pagan surroundings, the consumption of blood (both animal and human) was widespread and related to magical beliefs (i.e., wanting to acquire the life force of the particular animal or person). Such practices were detestable to God and His people. Therefore, Jews still adhere to strict slaughtering guidelines that ensure an animal is thoroughly bled. The early Christians, stemming from their Jewish parent religion, also shared this revulsion towards consuming blood. Because Jewish Christians naturally feared the blood found in meat not properly bled, as enjoyed by pagans, the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25) regulated the concessions demanded by Gentile Christians against the rejection of improperly bled meat by Jewish Christians. Of the four requirements, three relate to the rejection of blood: "Abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from strangled animals, and from blood!"

Theodor Zahn points out, based on Acts 15, the concessions made for the coexistence of Jewish and Gentile Christians:

"It is not the Mosaic law that needs to be imposed on the Gentile Christian congregations but something entirely different, i.e., they should abstain from things that, in James' judgment, are partly dangerous and partly repulsive... This dual warning, expressed in general (haima) and specific (pniktou) terms against enjoying animal blood, was not directly related to Christian faith and Christian ethical teaching as proclaimed by Jesus. It was much more about the inherited revulsion of Jewish Christians, ingrained by the Mosaic law, against all kinds of enjoyment of blood, considering it a pagan immorality".

This historical religious background raises the question: Does the consumption of blood pudding, condemned today by Jehovah's Witnesses, truly correspond to "pagan immorality"? Specifically, does anyone eating such a product today expect a transfer of life force, as was the case with pagan ritual blood consumption (or as is the case in modern-day Satanic communities)? Or is there anyone who would expect something similar in a blood transfusion? It seems to me that today, very few would entertain such notions. If behaviors related to pagan magical associations with blood are no longer present, then what is the purpose of such prohibitions? Acts 15 is understandable only in the context of the early Christian church, comprised of Jewish and Gentile Christians who positioned themselves against the surrounding pagan-magical world. The abhorred bloody rituals were common at that time. However, this is no longer the case today (except for secret Satanic cults).

We must start by considering what the context of Acts 15 is. There, of course, a debate emerged between Jewish and Gentile Christians about how much the Old Testament Law obligates Christians of non-Jewish descent. Here, the apostles make the doctrinal decision not to burden ("not to trouble") the Gentiles, since the Mosaic law is such a burden - according to Peter's testimony - that even the Jews themselves were not able to bear. Thus, the apostolic council pinpointed the eternally valid dogmatic truth that salvation for every person on Earth is solely through the sacrfice of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament was merely a precursor that has now come to fruition.

On the other hand, they specify four things that Gentile Christians should abstain from. These are:

Impurity caused by idols,
Fornication,
Strangled animals, and
Blood.

These are the fundamental rules of living that enable Jewish and non-Jewish Christians to coexist within the congregations. But why specifically these four? Belonging to the chosen people was either something innate or it was possible through conversion (turning from pagan to Jew). The first step of this was that the converted proselyte was circumcised. From this point on, they were seen as an integral part of the chosen people, and could, for instance, take part in the Passover dinner.

But how could Jewish Christian siblings know that Christians who were previously pagans had truly separated from pagan rituals if they weren't circumcised? From the fact that they met the aforementioned four criteria by not participating in:

Idol sacrifices (almost every false deity had its own),
Ritualistic sexual unions (certain fertility rituals, religious prostitution),
Also in the ritualistic consumption of strangled animals, and
The ritualistic use of blood (Mithras cult).

If they refrained from these, they weren't partaking in the false worship practices of paganism. Thus, the Christian siblings who were Jews could confidently fellowship with them. From a pastoral viewpoint, Jews could still uphold (now not mandatorily) the ritualistic and disciplinary rules of the Old Testament (based on the 613 prescriptions in the Torah), while the incoming multitude (goyim) had an obligation "for the sake of peace" (!) to uphold the 7 Noachide laws, which not the pagan "converts" to Judaism were obliged to keep, but rather those who had become "proselytes" through the pre-existing "Noachide" pagan mission in Israel's messianic anticipation. Among these was, for example, the prohibition of consuming blood. These are the pastoral, disciplinary resolutions of the apostolic council. Therefore, the prohibition found in Acts 15:20,29 seems at first glance to be a reinforcement of the old law. But here, the apostles are referencing the law pertaining to foreigners in the land of Israel (Lev 17:8-9, 10-12, 15; 18:6-18). On one hand, the converted pagans (or Christians in general) were granted admission to the "land of Israel", but on the other, they didn't want to cause offense among the old "natives" (see 1 Cor 10:28-33).

If you read further after 15:20, it explains this:

"...for from ancient generations Moses has had those who proclaim him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

These were the proselytes who lived in the territory of Israel, and for the sake of peace, they had to adhere to those customs that particularly offended Jewish sensitivities. Therefore, based on the historical context, it is known that the primary reason for the prohibition here was the ritualistic use of blood, which was practiced during certain pagan cults.

The Watchtower Society's biblical explanation tends to make a secondary issue (adiaforon) a main one, potentially thrusting its followers into the most severe conscientious conflicts. However, the New Testament deals differently with such topics. For example, Rom 14 and 1Cor 8 leave the consumption of meat sacrificed to idols, which appears in Acts 15 alongside "blood" and "strangled", and itself contains blood, to individual conscience:

"One person believes they may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables... Whoever eats, does so for the Lord, giving thanks to God. And whoever abstains does so for the Lord and gives thanks to God... For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Rom 14:2,6,17).

"...Not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food, they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled... Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do" (1Cor 8:7-8).

Jesus himself spoke against the magical notions of "contamination" due to certain foods (certainly including the consumption of blood) when he said:

"There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him... Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" With this, Jesus declared all foods clean, but added, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person" (Mark 7:15,18-23).

The first letter to Timothy specifically warns against those false teachings that inundate people with rules about food and convince them that their salvation depends on such things:

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:1-5).

With all that I have said, I am in no way trying to promote the consumption of blood sausage or the like, but rather to put the issue in its place: it's a matter of individual conscience. If someone has a concern - for example, due to the aforementioned Old Testament passages or Acts 15 - they should abstain. However, those who do consume it should know that their salvation doesn't depend on it. This is especially true for blood transfusion. Anyone who allows themselves to receive foreign blood will not perish. They don't receive a foreign soul from others (in my opinion, this magical notion is ultimately behind the ban of the Watchtower Society). It has nothing to do with abominable pagan customs; it's about saving lives. Here clearly applies God's call already present in the Old Testament: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice!" (Hosea 6:6), which Jesus also refers to and confirms (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).

God's prohibition on blood emphasized the sanctity of life. Consuming animal blood, therefore, signifies the belittling of the sanctity of life. In contrast, blood donation and transfusion testify that we can appreciate and distinguish the sanctity of life. Equating these two fundamentally different things is akin to contempt and wickedness.

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

aqwsed12345

From 1931, when the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was adopted, Watch Tower Society publications still maintained the view of Society founder Charles Taze Russell that the reference to abstaining from the eating of blood in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19–29 was a "suggestion" to be given to Gentile converts.

"The Apostolic Council". Zion's Watch Tower. November 15, 1892. It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the ten commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was evidently taken for granted that having received the spirit of Christ the new law of love would be a general regulation for them. The things mentioned were merely to guard against stumbling themselves or becoming stumbling blocks to others.

"Settling Doctrinal Differences". The Watchtower. April 15, 1909. pp. 116–117. These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the Church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also ... these items thus superadded to the Law of Love should be observed by all spiritual Israelites as representing the Divine will.

Watch Tower publications during the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford commended the commercial and emergency uses of blood.

"Manufacturing and Mining". The Golden Age. October 15, 1919. p. 47. A serious difficulty which has been overcome in the use of plywood for airplanes construction was the making from blood of a glue that will stand any quantity of moisture without letting go…. In this plywood, stronger than steel, we have an illustration of how the Lord can take characters, weak in themselves, and surround them with such influence and so fortify them by his promises as to make them "mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds" of error and sin.

"Here and There Over the Planet". The Golden Age. December 17, 1924. p. 163. Fearing the death of the child, the woman deliberately cut her arms and breast with glass from the windshield to provide blood to keep the child alive during the cold nights. The child will recover, but the heroine is expected to die.

A 1925 issue of The Golden Age commended a man for donating blood 45 times without payment ("Flotsam and Jetsam". The Golden Age. July 29, 1925. p. 683.). In 1940, Consolation magazine reported on a woman who accidentally shot herself with a revolver in her heart and survived a major surgical procedure during which an attending physician donated a quart of his own blood for transfusion.

"Surgery". Consolation. December 25, 1940. p. 19. one of the attending physicians in the great emergency gave a quart of his own blood for transfusion, and today the woman lives and smiles gaily over what happened to her in the busiest 23 minutes of her life.

Behind all of this, the organization believes in the biblical prohibition of "abstaining from blood" (Acts 15:29). While this originally referred to the consumption of blood from sacrificed, fallen, and dead animals (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 7:26-27, Deuteronomy 12:27), the WTS believes that with this command, God also forbids the medical use of human blood for lifesaving purposes. However, this is the case only today. The Watchtower's attitude has changed multiple times, both in terms of evaluating the method and defining the concept of "blood," and it will undoubtedly change in the future.
To begin with, "blood" consists of "formed" cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets) and plasma (primarily a liquid containing proteins). If you keep this in mind, you can easily see the contradictions in the Watchtower's teachings.

1940 act of heroism
1945 not right but not forbidden
1958 condemnable, but no disfellowshipping
1961 forbidden and disfellowshipping for it
1961 accepting any blood component is forbidden
1975 hemophiliacs cannot receive plasma factors
1978 hemophiliacs can receive certain plasma factors
1982 acceptable blood components: immunoglobulin, albumin, Factor VIII, and IX
1984 bone marrow transplant is permissible

In 1940, the publication titled "Comfort" presented a doctor as a hero who, in an emergency, gave a quarter of his own blood to an injured person. In 1945, the first Watchtower article criticizing the practice of blood transfusion was published but did not prohibit its acceptance. A 1958 Watchtower article explicitly condemned it, but acceptance was not punished. Only three years later, the WTS decided that those accepting blood transfusion would be excommunicated for violating the biblical command.
Under the new arrangement, even a Witness's puppy (or other pet) could not receive blood from the vet. Still, like wolves, dogs are predators, and God created them to immediately devour their prey without kosher bleeding...
Many professions had to detail what was and wasn't allowed. Certain types of manure contained animal blood from slaughterhouses; therefore, Witness farmers couldn't use it unless their boss wasn't a Witness. Witness doctors could give blood to their non-Witness patients, and Witness butchers could sell blood sausages to non-Witness customers. This double standard may have evoked resentment because, ten years later, in 1975, Witness doctors were forbidden to give blood to non-Witness patients. Witness butchers and restaurateurs were also not allowed to sell blood sausages to non-Witnesses – except if they were employees and had to obey.
In the early 60s, the WTS believed that if one should "abstain from blood," this meant abstaining from all blood components. Accordingly, for a long time, hemophiliac Witnesses were also forbidden to accept plasma factor preparations. However, in 1978, they decided that certain plasma proteins were permissible! Finally, in 1982, more blood components (immunoglobulin, albumin) were allowed.
The Watchtower in 1984 allowed bone marrow transplants, which is peculiar since red blood cells are formed in the bone marrow! They made no distinction between autologous (with one's marrow) and allogenic (from another person) procedures.
The WTS justified lifting the ban by citing Isaiah 25:6, where God prepares a feast of rich food for his people. Since then, the acceptance of bone marrow transplants has been left to the conscience of the Witnesses.
Imagine the position of a Witness living between two "new lights" and having to make a decision on this issue! From 1961 to 1978, every loyal Witness with hemophilia had to die earlier due to a lack of healthy blood plasma. Who is responsible for them? And if the WTS has made so many concessions over time, how much more will they backtrack in the future?
It is true that contaminated blood has caused many people to fall ill with AIDS and other viruses and bacteria. However, the risk of such infections has been minimized today due to checks. While the organization financially supports the development of "bloodless" surgical procedures with less risk, there are still plenty of cases where only blood transfusion can save a person's life.
Do you think the Watchtowre's reference to the prohibition of eating the blood of dead animals when discussing transfusions is justified? Will you consistently apply the biblical text referred to by their own interpretation?

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

aqwsed12345

Critique of Jehovah's Witnesses' blood policy by Raymond Franz, a former member of Jehovah' Witnesses' Governing Body

81

Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"

by aqwsed12345 in

for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.

this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.

for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.

aqwsed12345

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

Somehow the Jewish religious principle of 'Pikuach nefesh' is always left out of these matters, the stipulation that most prohibitions are null if it can save a human life. For example, this includes the consumption of blood, because all non-kosher food is consumable for a Jew if it can save his life, but even a pregnant woman can eat pork if she desires it, even on Yom Kippur. And we saw that Jesus himself respected this when he healed on the Sabbath ... so I don't understand the Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses can defend their organization's special teachings with intense passion. Their teaching related to blood is deeply shocking to non-religious critics of the JW, as well as to public witnesses who have been raised with an attitude like: "It doesn't matter if I die because Jehovah will resurrect me anyway" - which is essentially the same "logic" as the mantra of Islamist terrorists piloting the planes into the World Trade Center or committing other suicide terrorist actions: "It doesn't matter if I die because Allah will accept me into paradise for my heroic act." Of course, I'm not saying that the teaching about blood is the same as terrorism, but in terms of being a totally unnecessary sacrifice of life, ideologized with a completely distorted, god-defying logic, the parallel is valid.

Of course, many Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they don't really have to risk their lives due to the Watchtower's "light" on blood, and they start listing blood-substitute tools they read about in their denomination's publications, ignorant of the fact that just because something is available in America, it doesn't necessarily work the same way on the other side of the world. We've written about several examples where people, even children, have died here. Of course, a Witness may argue that since it didn't come through the official “channel,” Satan wrote it, and it doesn't exist. But do their own publications also refer to the fact that these things have indeed happened, that people, even children, have died because of the “light” invented by the Watchtower in the 20th century? The answer is yes, and everyone can find it in the Awake! May 22, 1994 issue, on pages 3-15 under "Youths Who Put God First." Of course, they claim that it's about God, but God didn't issue the 1961 dogma, and if these young people hadn't read about God in the Society's publications, it would never have occurred to them to ask such things from God. The article seeks to give the impression that it was the children's decision, their faith, etc. But why exactly was this their faith? Just by chance, or because the Organization taught them this? And if the organization were to teach differently, they would no longer believe this, interesting.

The authors of the emotionally appealing article also made sure to include someone who did not die, just as well, so gamble freely, after all, the odds are fifty-fifty that the doctors will be right, right?

And this is written by a person who is a Witness but has a more critical perspective, thus proving that EVEN WITH WITNESS LOGIC, children should not be encouraged to do what they do here: "if you find yourself in this situation, accept death because otherwise, you won't be resurrected."

If we start from the JW (Jehovah's Witnesses) logic that "abstaining" from blood is a clear Biblical command, then it is at most the same command as abstaining from fornication, but by no means a greater command. According to this, JWs do not make the mistake of adhering to this command, but rather in viewing the failure to adhere to it as a greater sin than anything else. Therefore, this is also an imbalance, even a satanic influence – as Satan's tactic is always not to lie consistently, but to corrupt the Truth in such a way that it creates an imbalance within the truth's structure, among its various parts. An example of this is how ordinary members feel if someone allows their child to receive blood.

They argue this way: it might be possible that a blood transfusion temporarily saves the child's life, but on the other hand, they lose eternal life. This is simply not true. If a child is raped, they essentially commit fornication, but since they did not do this of their own will, they cannot be guilty before God. Therefore, if a child has a car accident and the parents allow the doctor to give blood, the child's eternal life is not endangered. The question after this is only whether the parents have committed an unforgivable sin? Take fornication again. There are many cases where someone knowingly fornicates, they are excommunicated, and then after a while, when they repent of their sins, they are accepted back. So these knowingly fornicating individuals could not have committed an unforgivable sin, because if this were the case and they had sinned against the Holy Spirit, they could not be accepted back, as the Biblical statement holds that what the elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what they loose is loosed in heaven. Therefore, it's not even certain that conscious fornicators have committed an unforgivable sin. Furthermore, there are other cases. There is a case where a married man cheats on his wife, then takes his lover as his wife, and divorces his wife. Even such an individual can be accepted back into the congregation after some time (along with the new wife). If we cannot say for sure, even in such glaring cases, that they have lost eternal life, then how the heck can we say this for a parent who, out of natural weakness, allows their injured child to receive blood?

die rather than compromise. This is true. However, Daniel or Abraham is an example that should be followed voluntarily. Voluntarily, from an inner conviction. Daniel-like behavior should not be forced by any sanctions or intimidation. Especially not by psychologically terrorizing people.

A person thinking with normal reason cannot ignore God (if they believe in Him). In this case, the question is not whether God knows about it or not, but whether a Witness who accepts blood can avoid sanctioning by the humiliating human leaders (= elders). The question is not what God thinks about things - because we know what He thinks - but whether one who commits this sin out of weakness commits an unforgivable sin. To decide this, the following things must be realized: it is true that abstaining from blood is indeed a clear biblical command, but it is not a stricter command than abstaining from fornication. The leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not err in their logic by trying to enforce this command, but by considering its violation a greater sin than anything else, and thus creating an imbalance in justice. Concrete evidence for this is how most ordinary members explain a hypothetical situation where the outside world holds them accountable for how they would deny blood to their child if they were to have an accident. They argue: "It might be possible that a blood transfusion temporarily saves the child's life, but on the other hand, they lose eternal life." - This is simply not true. If a child is raped, they formally commit fornication, but since they did not do this of their own will, they cannot be guilty before God. Therefore, if a child has a car accident and the parents allow the doctor to give blood, the child's eternal life is not endangered. The next question can only be whether the parents have committed an unforgivable sin? Take fornication again. There are many cases where someone knowingly fornicates, they are excommunicated, and then after a while, when they repent of their sins, they are accepted back. So these knowingly fornicating individuals could not have committed an unforgivable sin, because if this were the case and they had sinned against the Holy Spirit, they could not be accepted back; the Biblical rule must be valid that what the elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what they loose is loosed in heaven.

Therefore, it's not even certain that conscious fornicators have committed an unforgivable sin. Furthermore, there are more severe cases. There is a case where a married man (Witness) cheats on his wife, then takes his "lover" as his wife, and officially divorces his wife. Even such an individual can be accepted back into the congregation after some time (along with the new wife!!). If we cannot say for sure, even in such glaring cases, that they have lost eternal life, then how the heck can we say this for a parent who, out of natural weakness, allows their injured child to receive blood? Of course - one might say - there's still the example of Daniel, who would have been willing to die rather than compromise. This is true. But the behavior like Daniel or Abraham's should not be forcibly instilled with any sanctions or intimidation, especially not by psychologically terrorizing people.

The alcohol is a bad example, because many people, for example, "abstain" from alcohol, but of course, they disinfect their wounds with it and use it for cleaning.

The situation is the same with blood. The abstaining clearly refers to consumption and not blood used for medical purposes, since when the apostles made this rule, blood was not yet used for such purposes.

With blood donation and transfusion, you save people's lives. If you remove yourself from this, you fulfill the previously written rule: "If someone knows how to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."

The eating of the flesh of strangled animals, since the blood is still in it. Being the main element of animal life, it had to be offered as a sacrifice (man must sacrifice the whole of God's will, all the feelings and desires of the heart; being one of the main factors of animal life, blood, God demands it), and was considered unclean. At Christ's death, blood was also shed, since in his death our animal, sinful life had to cease; but through that, the blood ceased to be unclean, since everything became pure (see Acts 10:15), which was unclean because of the sin, which Christ took away. If the eating of blood is still forbidden here, it is not because blood is considered unclean, but out of consideration for the Jews, to ease their conversion, and for the sake of the Jewish converts to Christianity, who were scandalized over this, and perhaps would have even fallen away if their wish in this respect were not fulfilled. Later, when the pure understanding of the Christian religion became general, the Church also allowed the eating of blood.

Abstaining can encompass many things, but let me show you a logic from Jesus: "And he answered them, saying, 'Which of you shall have a donkey or an ox fall into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day?'" (Luke 14:5). I think the same applies to the question of blood: if your child's life depends on whether they receive blood, will you give it to them (allow it to be given to them)? I think the answer should be clear: life is more important than this rule.

And yes, I believe that the Scripture described in the Acts of the Apostles concerning blood: "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 21:25) - applies ONLY to eating, and not to blood transfusion, with which a person's life can be saved.

18

The Messianic Prophecies and Their Fulfillment in Jesus

by aqwsed12345 in

the belief in the messiah, which has lived in the collective consciousness of humanity since ancient times, became completely obscured among the gentiles, and only remained with the jewish people, who were later chosen by god, as the prophecies of the prophets kept it alive.

there was only one great promise in the old testament from god, which awaited fulfillment!

only one great desire was there in the old testament on the part of man, longing for satisfaction.

aqwsed12345

The belief in the Messiah, which has lived in the collective consciousness of humanity since ancient times, became completely obscured among the Gentiles, and only remained with the Jewish people, who were later chosen by God, as the prophecies of the prophets kept it alive. There was only one great promise in the Old Testament from God, which awaited fulfillment! Only one great desire was there in the Old Testament on the part of man, longing for satisfaction. Christ, Χριστός, the Mashiach, lived in the ancient narratives and songs of humanity, but his figure and role appeared before our eyes in all its dazzling beauty only in the inspired visions, fervent words, and promising prophecies of Israel's prophets. He truly lived vividly only in the collective consciousness of the Old Testament people, and there is no book of this covenant – whether it be Moses's or the other prophets' – that would speak only to its own people, which would not promise, not encourage, and at the people's joyous days as well as in their bloody stormy minutes, would not at least momentarily lift the curtain of a happier future, the tapestry of Messianic times, to further increase the joy or to lift from the dust of dejection and encourage the disheartened soul of the people.

And the Old Testament messianic prophecies concerning the promised Savior's person, work, and the kingdom to be established were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Their significance lies in being powerful evidence of Jesus' divine mission and motives of the Christian faith (motiva credibilitatis).

The series of messianic prophecies is opened by the so-called protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15), immediately after the Fall of the first parents. The last messianic prophecies were uttered in the 4th century BC when the prophetic institution ceased, and with it the messianic prophecies.

The main prophecies about the Messiah relate to:

The Savior's Descent: the Messiah will come from a sinless woman's offspring (protoevangelium, Gen. 1:3, 15); Shem (Gen. 1:9, 19-29), Abraham (Gen. 1:22, 18), Jacob (Gen. 1:28, 13. 14) will be his ancestor, specifically from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 1:49, 8-10), and the line of David.
The Time of His Appearance and Death: He will establish His kingdom when the princely scepter (religious and legislative autonomy) is taken from Judah (Gen. 1:49, 10); He will appear when the rebuilt, or second Jerusalem temple, the Zerubbabel, which Herod restored, still stands, whose glory will be much greater than the first, for it will not be gold and silver, but His glory that fills it, whom all peoples desire and who restores peace between heaven and earth (Hag. 2:7-9). He will publicly appear, precisely 69 weeks of years (69 x 7) or 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem; and in the middle of the 70th week, He will be killed after having already led many to God (Dan. 9:24).
Place and Circumstances of His Birth: He will be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5, 2); wondrously from a virgin (Isa. 7:14-18); at the time of His birth, children will be killed in Bethlehem (Jer. 31:15); His public work will be preceded by a herald, who will prepare His ways by preaching in the wilderness (Mal. 3:1; Isa. 40:3-5).
His Dual Nature (Human Nature and Divine Dignity): He will be not only a true man (the “son of man” Dan. 7:13) but also a true God: He will be the wondrously born “Immanuel” = “God with us,” or the one through whom and in whom God will be with us (Isa. 7:14); the Holy Spirit's every gift will pour upon Him, He will be the holiest, the most righteous (Isa. 11:1-5); indeed, He will be the son of God from eternity (Ps. 2, 7), Himself the mighty God, the everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6).
His Triple Office, Person, Redemptive Work, and Kingdom: He will be a prophet, teacher (Deut. 18:18); king, prince of peace, to whom the whole of humanity will pay homage (Ps. 2:6; 72, Zech. 9:9; Isa. 9:6; Num. 24:17-19), and will be a high priest forever (Ps. 110:4; Zech. 6:12), who frees people from sin (Isa. 61:1-3); performs many miracles (Isa. 35:4, etc.); establishes a new covenant between God and man (Jer. 31:31-33; 33:34); will be the teacher and legislator of all peoples (Isa. 60:2, etc.); who will gently lead sinners and sufferers to salvation (Isa. 42:1-7); His words will irresistibly penetrate people's souls; among the people of Israel, however, His success will be small, but all the greater among the Gentiles (Isa. 49:1-9).
Concerning his suffering, death, and exaltation: as the Prince of Peace, he will modestly enter Jerusalem, seated on a donkey (Zech. 9:9); but the people's leaders (chief priests and scribes) will reject him (Ps. 118:22-23); one of his table companions will betray him (Ps. 41:9) and deliver him to his enemies for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12), but the money will be thrown into the house of the Lord “to the potter” (Zech. 11:13); his disciples will abandon him at his arrest (Zech. 13:7); as “the man of sorrows,” he will suffer, be scorned, mocked, beaten, spat upon, tortured, given gall and vinegar to drink, his hands and feet pierced; killed; his garments divided and lots cast for his robe (Ps. 22:69; Isa. 50:6; 52:14-15; 53:1-3; Zech. 12:10); he, however, as “the servant of the Lord” (Isa. 49; 50; 53) will patiently suffer for the sins of men and willingly sacrifice his life to save them (Isa. 53:4-8). His grave will be assigned with the wicked, but he will be buried with the rich (Isa. 53:9); his soul will not be left in the underworld, nor his body see decay; his tomb will be glorious, for he will rise from the dead and sit at God's right hand (Ps. 16:9-11; Isa. 11:10) and from there he will pour out the Holy Spirit (Joel 2:28-29).
Concerning the effects, consequences, and eternal dominion of his appearance: the Jewish people will cease to be the chosen people, for they will kill the Messiah; Jerusalem and the Jewish temple will be destroyed, and the latter will never be rebuilt (Dan. 9:26); in place of the Old Testament sacrifices, a new food offering will be presented all over the world (Mal. 1:11); the Messiah's proclamation of peace will spread throughout the world, enlightening and transforming people; all Gentiles will enter the spiritual kingdom established by the Messiah, which will endure forever (Mic. 4:1-3; Isa. 2:2-4; 4:2-6; 66:1; Ps. 72; Isa. 9:1-7; 11:1-10; Dan. 7:14).

These prophecies all came true in Jesus and were fulfilled only in him:

The fulfillment of the prophecy concerning his descent is shown in the genealogy of Jesus provided in Mt. 1:1-17 and Lk. 3:23-38. The former traces from Abraham to Joseph, the latter from Heli (= Joakim), the father of the Virgin Mary, to Adam, revealing Jesus' human ancestors. The differences in the two genealogies can be explained in several ways. Matthew probably provides the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke provides that of the Virgin Mary.
The fulfillment of the prophecies concerning his appearance and the time of his death is proven by history. Jesus' earthly life falls exactly within the time when the prophecies said the Messiah must come. Jesus appeared when the scepter was taken from Judah (which first ruled as a tribe, then as kings from David, and after the captivity, as a people), as the Jewish people (Judah) lost their religious and legislative autonomy, with the foreign Idumean Herod sitting on the Jewish royal throne (Lk. 2:1-3; Jn. 19:15). Jesus indeed visited the Second Temple and glorified it with his presence (Lk. 2:22-52; Jn. 2:20). Jesus appeared 69 weeks or 483 years after the publicly issued decree. This decree was issued by Artaxerxes I Longimanus in 299 BC; Jesus' public appearance was in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign, AUC 782, exactly 483 years after the decree; his death occurred in the middle of the 70th week (AUC 783-789), in AUC 786, after 3 and a half years of public ministry.
The prophecies concerning the place and circumstances of the Messiah's birth were also fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mt. 1:1-11; Lk. 2:4, 15) to the Virgin Mary, who conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:18-25; Lk. 1:26-38). Herod, fearing for his throne, sought to kill Jesus and slaughtered the infants in Bethlehem (Mt. 2:16-18). John the Baptist, preaching repentance on the banks of the Jordan and pointing to the already arrived and soon to publicly appear Jesus and his kingdom, was Jesus' forerunner (Mt. 3:1ff; Mk. 1:2-8; Lk. 3:2-18).
The prophecies concerning his dual (human and divine) nature were also fulfilled in Jesus. Christ repeatedly emphasized his humanity as the "Son of Man" (various references provided). That he is also true God is testified by the heavenly Father, who declared Him as His Son at Christ's baptism in the Jordan (Mt. 3:17; Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22) and at His Transfiguration on Mount Tabor (Mt. 17:5). Christ Himself repeatedly stated that He is the Son of God, not in a metaphorical sense but in a literal one (various references provided).
The fulfillment of prophecies concerning Jesus' threefold office, His redemptive work, and His kingdom is shown in the story of Jesus' life, His actions, and His religion. His entire teaching activity refers to His prophetic office, where He declared and portrayed Himself as the authorized proclaimer of great divine mysteries, particularly future things (Jn. 1:45; 5:45; 6:14; 13:13; Mt. 23:10; Acts 3:22). His priestly dignity is evidenced by the fact that He is the only natural mediator between God and man, mediating truth and grace on the one hand, and priestly prayer and sacrifice on the other (Mt. 22:44, and Paul the apostle's letter to the Hebrews, which deals with this issue from 4:14 to 10:29). His royal dignity is already heralded by the angel to the Blessed Virgin (Lk. 1:32), the Magi pay homage to Him as king (Mt. 2:2); in His public work, the people want to make Him king (Jn. 6:15), He Himself admits being a king before Pilate (Jn. 18:37); even His crucifixion inscription proclaimed Him king of the Jews (Mt. 27:37; 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:23-25; Rev. 19:16). The Gospels also bear witness to Jesus' great miracles, His founding of a new covenant (Mt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20), as He proclaimed a new law (Mt. 5:3-7:29), new priesthood (Lk. 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24.25), and a new sacrifice (Lk. 22:19; Mt. 26:28; Lk. 22:20), and established a Church (Mt. 16:18) for the salvation of all (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15.16), to spread and endure until the end of time (Mt. 28:20; 16:18). Most Jews turned away from Him, but the Gentiles accepted Him. The fact that His work in Israel, to whom He was primarily sent, had so little success, is well known.
The prophecies regarding His suffering, death, and glorification were fulfilled in Jesus to the last letter. The Gospels and Acts of the Apostles classically prove this, detailing Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the behavior of the Jews towards Him; Judas, who betrayed His Master for 30 pieces of silver, and then threw the money at the chief priests' feet in remorse; the disciples fleeing at Jesus' arrest; Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 26-28; Mk. 14-16; Lk. 22-24; Jn. 18-21; Acts 1, etc.).
The fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the effects and consequences of His appearance is brilliantly corroborated by history. Shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, in AUC 823 (70 A.D.), the Roman soldiers under the command of Titus destroyed Jerusalem and reduced its temple to ashes forever; the Jewish priesthood and the Old Testament sacrifices ceased (see Mt. 27:51), making way for the New Testament's new, universal, bloodless sacrifice in the Mass; the Jewish people were scattered throughout the world; the Gentiles entered Jesus' kingdom, the Church, which spread throughout the whole world, blessing all its adherent peoples with the fruits of redemption.

That the prophecies concerning the Messiah were precisely fulfilled in Jesus is a clear and irrefutable proof that Jesus is indeed the Messiah promised by God, but also that Jesus is God. Jesus himself referred to these Old Testament prophecies as evidence of his divinity when he spoke to the Jews, saying: “Search the Scriptures, for... they testify of me” (Jn. 5:39); “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me” (Jn. 5:45-46).

A striking phenomenon is that although the prophecies were fulfilled precisely in Jesus, the majority of the Jews still did not believe in him and did not recognize him as the redeeming Messiah.

The explanation for this is primarily that the Jewish community of Jesus' time had morally decayed; this was brought about by their adherence to the letter of the Mosaic ceremonial law, the so-called tradition, and generally the excessive attachment to mere externalities (of which the Mishnah is an astounding proof). Furthermore, the clear vision of the Jews during Christ's time was hindered by the fact that the people were under the influence of the worldly and corrupt clergy, particularly the Pharisees, who were so enraged by Jesus' relentless condemnation of their hypocrisy that they decided to destroy this hated and despised moral judge in their wounded pride.

However, the main reason for Israel's bias against Messiah-belief was the distortion of the Messiah-idea, a fatal misunderstanding and misinterpretation that shrunk the spiritual and universal messianism of the prophets into political and narrow-minded national messianism. This was exacerbated by the fact that Jesus appeared in a time filled with political tension, in an atmosphere heated by constant Roman tyranny, when the Jews expected a powerful and invincible national freedom-fighter, a glorious earthly king, who would liberate the oppressed and humiliated people of Israel from the hated Roman rule, and even make the Romans, along with other pagan nations, obedient slaves to the Jews, or annihilate them, restoring the national kingdom and realizing the Jews' world domination.

Those who dreamt of such a Messiah naturally had no need for the Nazarene Jesus Messiah, who appeared in holy simplicity, not dealing with politics, but preaching repentance and conversion, self-denial and humble faith, meekness, peace, and love extending to all people, liberating the whole of humanity from the power of the evil spirit, founding a spiritual kingdom and a religious association that welcomed both Jews and non-Jews, and who suffered and sacrificed himself on the cross. In fact, with such great contradictions, the Jews necessarily clashed with Jesus... yet, the rejection of the Messiah (Dan. 9:26) and the stubbornness of the Jews (Isa. 49:4) were also prophesied, and thus, this circumstance, having been fulfilled in Jesus, argues for, not against him.

This fatal misinterpretation of the prophets' Messiah-idea was the cause of Israel's shocking tragedy, rejection, and national downfall... And since then, wherever they have wandered on the globe, both in the past and the present – despite all emancipation and acceptance – the social position of the Jewish people is everywhere awkward, feeling like an unwelcome foreign element among the nations, unable to adapt inwardly due to a completely different mentality; their soul, despite all economic success, is constantly restless, fluctuating, never finding true peace; and this will continue as long as they oppose Him, or until they lift Him up, humbling themselves, repenting, and returning to Him whom their blinded ancestors rejected, cursed, and crucified two millennia ago – Jesus of Nazareth, the redeeming and saving Messiah-King.

The Pharisees and scribes considered themselves perfect; Jesus lovingly but openly exposed their sins. The Pharisees and scribes were convinced that they – and only they – as descendants of Abraham, naturally deserved all the glory and privileges of the Messianic kingdom; Jesus told them that due to their blindness, the repentant tax collectors and sinful women would precede them in the Kingdom of God, for being descendants of Abraham alone does not give one the right to be citizens of the Messianic kingdom. The Pharisees and scribes eagerly awaited the moment that would free them from Roman rule; Jesus did not want to be a leader of political change and even openly said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Jesus so avoided anything that could promote the overheated national desires of the Jews that he did not even use the name “Messiah” for himself but called himself “the Son of Man,” which was also a messianic name but without any political undertones. According to the Pharisees, the Gentiles would either become slaves to the Jews or perish; according to Jesus, every person is called to the Kingdom of God.

The hatred of the Jewish people's spiritual leaders gradually grew against Jesus, eventually leading to Jesus' arrest, condemnation to death, and crucifixion.

55

If JW is not the truth, then what is the true religion?

by TxNVSue2023 in

even though i'm disfellowshiped ( & i belive wrongfully so).

i still belive this is the truth.

i have been d'f for about 8 months now and working on reinstatement.

aqwsed12345

I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, you may read THIS, and my commets in THIS topic. And THIS is also a good book to read.

14

"Outside the realms" of the words meaning?

by Blotty in

i was recently doing some research and came across this curious quite from dr beduhn - i can't say how valid it is or if he actually said it (source linked).

but this got me thinking i don't think there is anything in any bible where it is a "deliberate" distortion or the words go against the "possible range of meanings the greek" could have.

i know beduhn is not considered an authority however he does have a point - if its in the range of meanings it is by no means a mistranslation & cannot be pointed out as such.

aqwsed12345

Truth in Translation, Jason BeDuhn

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

aqwsed12345

@EasyPrompt

I see that my request to you to avoid the many unnecessary line breaks, "joking" comments and the insertion of unnecessary videos is in vain.

"Father means procreator. The children of the Father are His creation."

And yet the Scriptures still clearly distinguish the birth of the only-begotten Son from the making of creatures, and the Scipture never calls the Son a creature. It is just WTS theology. The Son/Logos is the "only-begotten" Son of the Father, so He is unique in his kind, His sonship to the Father is qualitatively different, superior from that of the angels, since He alone is said to have been born / begotten by the Father, while the angels were created.

"When there was nobody else in existence besides God, God fathered Jesus."

The actions that take place (with)in God do not take place in time, since God is not subject to temporality, and obviously the imperfect human language can only speak about God in an analogical way, cf. Isaiah 55:8-9, Acts 17:29. It is clear from Hebrews 1:5 that the birth of the Son from the Father took place in the "today" of God. Hebrews 1:5 does not refer to the birth of Jesus as a human from Mary, but to his birth from the Father in the aions before "the beginning". Especially since it is clear from John 1:1a that he "was" already "in the beginning".

"After that, Jesus helped God make everything else. "

The Son has not merely "helped", cf. Hebrews 1:10. God created all creatures exclusively and directly ("alone," "by himself," "with his own hands"), there is no such thing as "indirect creation" by using a creature, the idea that a creature, a "lesser god", other than YHWH God, also participates in creation, is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; 45:12, 48:13, Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6, Neh 9:6. If God created by actually doing it through an "agent", who is not one God with him, then he did not create "alone". If I build my house through an "agent", then I did not build my house "alone". And the Scripture itself uses the analogy of building a house for creation: Hebrews 3:4.

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

aqwsed12345

@EasyPrompt
Use less line spacing, clown comments, and redundant, absolutely unnecessary funny pictures and videos.

“”Begotten" means created.”

Ah…. and should I just believe this on your mere statement? I don't even understand why the theologians argued so much about this, if it would have been enough to throw in 3 (!) words. What kind of intellectual pretentiousness is this?

Well, nope. Since the Holy Scriptures clearly state many times that the Son was begotten / born of the Father, but never that he was created, there is therefore no reason to assume that he was a creature.
Just answer the rhetorical question at Hebrews 1:5:

"For which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?"

Doesn't this just prove that his origin from the Father is qualitatively different (superior) from that of the creatures? That he was born is not the same as creation? We know well that Jesus is the only-begotten God (μονογενης θεος), and not a created angel.
The Word is the real Son of the Father, and not His crearure. Birth, indeed, is not creation. For man, animal, and stone were created, but they were not begotten from the essence of God, etc. Begetting or giving birth is not creation, because by it a being of the same nature is born (begotten), whereas in creation it is not.