Posts by NewWay

45

".......... but are as angels in heaven"

by Ice Blue in

one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?

does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?

surely then they will not be the same person that they were?

NewWay

IceBlue:

As you suggested I looked at the "Insight Book" under Marriage>Celebration. It may not be obvious on first reading, but under the heading "Proof of Virginity", it says:

"After the supper the husband took his bride into the nuptial chamber. (Ps 19:5; Joe 2:16) On the wedding night a cloth or garment was used and then kept or given to the wife's parents so that the marks of the blood of the girl's virginity would constitute legal protection for her in the event she was later charged with lack of virginity or of having been a prostitute prior to her marriage. Otherwise, she could be stoned to death for having presented herself in marriage as a spotless virgin and for bringing great reproach on her father's house. (De 22:13-21) This practice of keeping the cloth has continued among some peoples in the Middle East until recent times." - Page 341, para. 7.

As the 'blood' is surely not that from a menstruating woman (that is not proof of virginity), then it seems to me that sexual intercourse was a necessary part of this 'security', as the act would break the hymen and cause some bleeding. If I have the wrong understanding of this then I would be pleased to hear why.

Obviously, in the case of Mary and Joseph we have a unique situation! In Matthew 1:18 Mary is spoken of as being "betrothed" (NJB) to Joseph. In verse 19, the word rendered "husband" is translated from the Greek word "aner" which basically means "a man (prop. as an indiv. male)" (Strong's Greek entry 435). So, at this time they were engaged to be married, but not married in the sense of being 'man and wife'. Going back to the Insight book, on page 727, it says: "The Hebrews viewed an engaged couple as bound as if already married, though cohabitation did not take place until the formalities of the wedding were completed." It appears to me that the engaged state was considered so serious because a vow had been made that the couple would eventually get married. Joseph was told specifically by the angel Gabriel not to be afraid "to take Mary home as your wife". She was pregnant before they had gone through with the actual 'marriage', because Joseph had not as yet taken Mary 'home'. It is stated, no doubt because of the unique state of affairs, that by the time Jesus was born he had had no intercourse with her (which would have been the usual thing after taking her 'home' as his wife).

Now, on the point about what make us 'us', I think we may have to agree to disagree, since your perception of what makes you 'you' is probably a lot different from my perception. However, I will give the subject a final consideration. I do agree with you on the fact that our physical-world personality is changing all the time, no doubt in some ways we do not understand. My problem is this. If our personality (qualities/traits) is, as I currently believe, based on a physical 'etching' of the brain, then it would be quite possible for another body to have its brain 'etched' with that same pattern. Rather like a computer program that is copied from one computer to another. Imagine if that were possible while you were alive. Would you consider that clone to be you? That is why I believe there is something beyond physical personality (as found in the brain) which constitutes the essence of us. When God breathed into Adam the breath of life, I believe it was something more that went into his body than just a blast of air. If there were not some 'inner' not-physical self that differentiated us from one another in God's eyes, then how would it be possible for a Christian to be 'converted' to life in a heavenly body?

At the end of the day, though, it is faith in God as knowing what is best and happiest for us that will act a comforter when we contemplate our future life. Of course we each are expert at seeing things from our own frame of reference. Please be assured that I'm not trying to contend with you or put down your view of things, for you may well be right and I wrong, and I would indeed be happy if this had a bearing on your happiness in the new system of things.

I wanted to make some comments on points raised by other posters, but this will have to await a more convenient time.

Kind regards.

PS: Sorry for the long post(s), but a long time ago I learned to touch-type, so I can get quite a bit of data from my brain to the 'page' in a short period of time. But if I've rambled, I do apologise!

48

Does Ray Franz owe us an apology?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

(not, ray franz owes us an apology) .

(ok lets add this on)do those who are or were governing body members have a greater amount of responsability than witnesses in general?at what point do we stop being victims and become instigaters?

this may have been discussed before but i'm not sure.so sorry if it has.

NewWay

It is obvious from the question asked and from what I've read in other posts that there are some who are not content with what Ray has done so far. I may have been in two minds about this had Ray written only "Crisis of Conscience". Not only did it seem that Ray felt responsibility for the knowledge he had about the inner workings of the society, but he also, via his book "In Search Of Christian Freedom" appeared to want to help those who still had a Christian spiritual need. It is one thing to simply expose error and leave people fuming, but to actually do something to help people move on with their lives is, to my mind, a noble thing to do. As has been pointed out, he did not have to write any books. But, because he has a conscience and a sense of responsibility he did what he could according to his abilities.

Let's not forget his age, nor what it takes to compose books and get them published. I'm persuaded by what I've read on different web sites and forums that he spends much time in conversing with individuals who have responded in a positive way to what he has written. It seems appropriate here to cite the example of the Apostle Paul, whose way of life once resulted in great persecution (and death in the case of Stephen) for the early Christians. How did God deal with him? Paul, after having his eyes opened to the truth, used his life henceforth according to God's will for him. Let's just be thankful for what he has done in that without his publishing efforts it would have been much harder for some of us to have escaped from the strangle-hold of servitude that the WTS had on us.

Lastly, I agree with Jan, and others here who made it clear that actions speak louder than words. I know that if Ray had simply made a public announcement to say, "Sorry", it would be a matter of personal opinion as to whether or not he really meant it. However, his publishing efforts, and continued interest in helping people spiritually represent, to me anyway, good evidence of repentance.

However, sleepy, I personally was not offended by your asking the question, as I am interested in knowing what more he could have done - or even should be doing, according to the opinion of some people.

Edited by - NewWay on 1 August 2002 15:18:57

89

Why do so many people believe that jesus is god?

by Legendary U.2.K. in

i still say that, christiaity is f--- up in these last days.. christianity teaches that the messiah is god, when the bible clearly points out that jesus is a prophet sent by god... jesus prayed to god<----that's the biggest proof... so i think if anybody believe that jesus is god, is not only an'-ti-christ(not accepting) but also a liar, foolish, and you knoweth nothing, and you are not close to god or christ, you are closer to that devil which we call satan....

NewWay

This is something that I've spent a lot of independent research over, and I've come to the conclusion that in this instance the WTS have got it right. Many people don't get much of a chance to challenge the trinity doctrine, as they stand in awe of Christendom's scholars, who by and large are products of institutions and courses run by Christendom. I have already had John 1:1 answered to my satisfaction from an expert witness (Origen) who actually spoke Koine Greek while it was still a living language, someone who obviously knew what he was talking about. Like the WTS, Christendom has for a very long time perpetuated various doctrines, so to expect it to suddenly change its view would be expecting too much I think. Unfortunately, individual thinkers have a huge amount of literature written by people who are attached in some way to the religions of 'orthodox' Christianity, so the odds of their coming across a legitimately alternative view of who Jesus Christ is, is quite low. For anyone who is open-minded enough to consider an answer to the 'proof' texts that trinitarians often use, please take a look at the articles (under Scripture Notes) at this web site: http://www.semachiah.fsnet.co.uk

3

Hippocratic Oath

by NewWay in

hippocratic oath.

to reckon him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to regard his offspring in the same footing with my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they should wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, i will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath, according to the law of medicine, but to none others.. .

i will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, i consider for the benefits of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.

NewWay

The reason for the above post is because I, like many others, had always heard about the oath but had never seen it in writing. My wife has a number of health publications, so when we were talking today about something I'd read about first-century (C.E.) practises, she showed me a reproduction of the oath in one of her books. So, I've provided a copy here for anyone who might be interested.

3

Hippocratic Oath

by NewWay in

hippocratic oath.

to reckon him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to regard his offspring in the same footing with my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they should wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, i will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath, according to the law of medicine, but to none others.. .

i will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, i consider for the benefits of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.

NewWay

HIPPOCRATIC OATH

To reckon him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to regard his offspring in the same footing with my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they should wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath, according to the law of medicine, but to none others.

I will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefits of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give a woman an instrument to produce abortion.

With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practise my art. I will not cut a person who is suffering from a stone, but will leave this to be done by practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of bond or free.

Whatever, in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I may see or hear in the lives of men which ought not to be spoken abroad I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

While I continue to keep this oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by men at all times but should I trespass and violate this oath, may the reverse be my lot. (Hippocrates was born on the Greek island of Cos in about 400 BC and regarded as the father of modern medicine. This quote is an extract from an article appearing in a publication called "MediQuest".)

45

".......... but are as angels in heaven"

by Ice Blue in

one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?

does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?

surely then they will not be the same person that they were?

NewWay

BlueIce: I understand the point you made about changes emotionally, but I don't think that that changes who we are essentially. For instance, the relative I mentioned earlier is essentially the same person she was before she was widowed, but with a new experience of living without her husband. Her widowhood has not made her someone else. Her essential self has unravelled and manifested itself according to her genes and her environment as she grew up, but had her life taken a different turn from babyhood upwards, she would still be essentially the same person. It is the essence of the person that I'm talking about, "the spirit that goes back to" God (under his care, in other words). It is that part of the whole that differentiates us from the next person. Unfortunately we could go on and on in the vein of Greek philosophers arguing what constitutes us, the world around us, is life an illusion, etc, etc, but that would be profitless. Suffice to say that if we believe in the resurrection of the dead, then we must accept that God has some means of identifying 'us'.

(Edited to change 'molded' to 'manifested', which better conveys my point)

Edited by - NewWay on 30 July 2002 18:16:22

45

".......... but are as angels in heaven"

by Ice Blue in

one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?

does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?

surely then they will not be the same person that they were?

NewWay

Sorry, another thought came to me. You mentioned the word 'marriage'. Now I know in our modern world we tend to think about a certificate, but what does the word marriage actually mean? It is a joining together, and more specifically sexual union. As far as I can remember, the Israelites judged whether or not two people were 'married' on the basis of physical evidence of the breaking of the woman's hymen (i.e. blood on cloth). An Israelite man would take the woman to his house and it would be expected that he had intercourse with her. When this had been done the physical evidence (as mentioned previously) was presented and it was then accepted that they were married. That is why it could be said that the first person (willingly of course) that a person has intercourse with constitutes their marriage mate, because they have 'joined together.' I do apologise to anyone viewing these posts who may find the discussion of these things a little offensive, but I am trying to be as 'clinical' and matter-of-fact as I can.

45

".......... but are as angels in heaven"

by Ice Blue in

one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?

does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?

surely then they will not be the same person that they were?

NewWay

Stealth: Just saw your other post. I am not suggesting that the Sadducees definitely had an earthly resurrection in mind, or even that Jesus did. I was just pointing out that this is what some may say on the basis of the historically religious backdrop of the day. If it were not for this argument, then it would be easy and most logical to believe that Jesus was speaking about the heavenly resurrection. In fact he may well have been talking about the heavenly resurrection, for reasons not evidently apparent. But as you will notice from my comments above, trying to set a solution in 'concrete' to satisfy my previous concerns doesn't bother me. I am indeed content to leave the matter in the hands of the Almighty.

45

".......... but are as angels in heaven"

by Ice Blue in

one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?

does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?

surely then they will not be the same person that they were?

NewWay

Stealth: I agree that a relationship based on sex alone is not necessarily going to last, but in a marriage it is very important, even as the apostle says: "Do not be depriving each other of it." People's sex drive differs from person to person, so there may be problems within this area. It is not without good reason that we find in the Bible different types of 'love'. For instance, the love that parents have for their children is different from what they have for each other. The physical act between marriage mates can build up deep affection, simply because you are in a sense exposing your very soul. You can be at your most vulnerable, therefore if you truly have affection for your mate in the first place, you can achieve a greater depth of trust and 'integration' of the two souls.

On the matter of having two 'classes', I see that there could be a problem based on our current frame of reference, but I am not shy of using the term 'wait on Jehovah', for what else can one do. Part of faith in God is 'trust'. In fact the very word faith is synonymous with trust. So a Christian does well not to worry about things like this, because they are beyond his/her control anyway. Just trying to be encouraging to anyone who is concerned about this. I left off worrying about this many years ago - and it did concern me very much I can assure you!

45

".......... but are as angels in heaven"

by Ice Blue in

one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?

does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?

surely then they will not be the same person that they were?

NewWay

blueice: I was talking sometime ago to a JW relative of mine who had been widowed for a few years. In the course of the conversation, I explained to her my understanding of what constitutes a person. Like you I believe that a person (as in who s/he is) is made up of a number of things. By the time we die we are a whole different 'person' from who we started out in life being. My belief is that when we die, whatever makes us 'us' according to the intangible, 'non-physical' is 'deep frozen' and put into a divine 'fridge' awaiting the resurrection - sorry for the crude illustration. Since it has been demonstrated by science that our physical bodies are essentially manifestations of our DNA, then whatever part of us has been 'put on ice' can at a later date be united with a physically DNA-compatible body that represents a 'snap-shot' of a perfect representation of the body we died in (minus disease, old age, physical defects, etc). Just my personal view though.