Posts by Bobcat

24

Regarding the permission of certain blood fractions, what is the biblical basis?

by I_love_Jeff in

with regard to the permission of certain blood fractions, what biblical basis is the watchtower's selection of approved and non-approved components or fractions made?.

two key words here: biblical basis.

one answer by a jw caught my attention: .

Bobcat

I posted here basic Christian ideas that appeared to rule out fractions, supposing one took blood for medicine as wrong.

203

My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty in

10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.

12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.

15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.

Bobcat

Same feelings as BOC about this.

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

Bobcat

WantingTruth:

A lot of interesting points that coincide with the discussion here in your linked writeup:

God telling Jesus at his baptism, "This is my Son . . ." (and later, as in Mt 17:5) ties back to Psalm 2:7. Both Psalm 2 and 110 are regarded as Davidic inauguration psalms. And thus, their application to Jesus has overtones of him having been made king. (See also here.)

Hebrews 1:1,2
(Hebrews 1:1, 2 NWT) . . .God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. . .

The NWT greatly softens the impact of what the writer of Hebrews is saying by the rendering, "at the end of these days." (See here for how others render the phrase.) The WT holds to the idea that 1914 marks the start of the "last days."

The NAC-Hebrews commentary (David L. Allen, pp. 102-03) has this to say about "in these last days" (NIV rendering):

The expression "in these last days" contrasts with "in the past" [NIV; "long ago" NWT] of v. 1 and is descriptive of the time when the readers of the epistle lived. The phrase "in these last days" (ep' eschatou ton hemeron) is found in the Septuagint (with various inflections) and translates a Hebrew temporal idiom for the future as distinct from the past. The Jewish perspective of two ages - this age and the coming eshatalogical age - is well known [except among those taught by the WT - Bobcat]. The rabbis debated in which age the Messiah would appear, finding Old Testament evidence both ways. It is probably best to link the two at the appearance of Jesus: the closing out of "this age" and the inauguration of "the coming age." The phrase had come to have a technical eschatalogical significance in Jewish thought, and this was incorporated into the New Testament. The author of Hebrews, like the other New Testament writers, viewed the life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus as the inauguration of "the last days." [See two other quoted references that have the same idea here. - Bobcat] The present time in which the readers [of Hebrews] are living is "the last days" in contrast to the palai ["long ago" NWT - Bobcat] of v. 1. It is not only that the appearance of Jesus occurred during the last days, but that his appearance initiated the last days.

Also concerning the NWT rendering "at the end of these days," a footnote in the commentary says:

Lunemann (Hebrews, 393) correctly noted that ton hemeron touton [literally "the days these" - Bobcat] should not be taken in apposition to ep eschaton with the meaning "at the period's close" ["at the end of these days" NWT - Bobcat], which these days form.

The NIGTC-Hebrews commentary (Paul Ellingworth, p. 93) also comments about "in these last days":

. . . [the phrase] is Septuagintal, used in echatalogical contexts such as Numbers 24:14 and Daniel 10:14 LXX, pasages which have other points of contact with Hebrews. Esxatou ["last"] is neuter, meaning not "on the last of the days," but "in the last days," or more idiomatically "in the end time." . . . Hebrews distinctive (not Septuagintal) addition of toutwn ["these"] indicates that the last days have begun. Toutwn should be taken with the whole phrase: "in these days which are the last days," not "at the end of these days."

It appears to me that the NWT rendering, "at the end of these days," is likely motivated by existing WT doctrine about "the last days."

I have some other comments in line with your writeup, but will stop here for the sake of brevity.

Take Care

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

Bobcat

Kaik:

Thanks much for the military and political synopsis involving WWI. Very interesting! And as you pointed out, there is no discernible turning point from those perspectives involving WWI/1914.

Take Care

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

Bobcat

Kepler:

I'm have to head off to 'make brick for the Egyptians.' But just to address a possible mis-understanding, I wasn't trying to imply that 1914 somehow marked a "turning point" in the ecology. One could point to certain aspects of the ecology and say, 'See, this is worse than it was before 1914!" And it is possible that it was true. But as you pointed out, graphing of the problem would very likely show that the year 1914 had little to do with it. In the case of the enviroment, the start of the industrial revolution might be somewhat of a marker in time, although if it were, it would be hard, if not impossible, to pinpoint an exact year.

Just supposing for a minute WWI were a "turning point" in history. The war went on from 1914 - 1918. Why would 1914 have to be the turning point? Early in the war I think Germany's side had the advantage. Yet the English side eventually came out as the winners. I think (and this is off the top of my head), but I think 1917 might possibly be considered the "turning point" in the war. So if the post-war world was dominated by the winners, then, 1917 would be better recognized as the larger historical "turning point."

In reality, the start of WWI only serves to give sanction to the Society's 607-1914 chronological calculation. (By the way, I was consulting previous posts of yours to see if you mentioned anything about a turning point in WWI. See here and several posts on down in the thread.)

Well, got a go.

Take Care till next time.

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

Bobcat

Thanks to all responders for some fascinating historical perspectives brought out vis-a-vis WWI and whether, and to what degree it was a "turning point in history" in comparison with other events.

This was an unexpected bonus from a thread simply intended to counter the February 2014 public WT cover article, and its contention that the Bible points to 1914 as "a turning point in history." My use of Acts 17:30, 31 was for the purpose of showing that the NT disagrees with this contention and points to another event as the defining "turning point" in man's relationship with God. From the perspective of Acts 17:30 and 31, 1914 is nothing more than a continuation of the time period during which God "is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent." I wanted the many silent readers of the forum to consider that.

I also find it extremely ironic that the WT, which claims itself to be the 'sole channel of enlightenment' between God and man, would miss such a basic Christian concept.

Kepler:

Thanks for this quote regarding history: "Little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind." I always enjoy your comments and perspectives.

I agree with the notion that WWI was little more than the logical result of all the events that happened prior to it. True, new weapons were introduced. But they all derived from inventions that preceded them. New tactics may have been used. But those tactics came as a result of lessons learned from previous warfare. And, of course, some things were different afterwards, as it is with all wars and events. One side has won; the other has lost. And so things have changed. And yet, bigger things continue on the course they were already on, irrespective of these human events.

"Someone in the Congregation got up to explain how the world was getting much worse all the time, reading a list of statistics."

This is another WT concept that I (via my personal study, often incited from discussions here) have broken away from. Like you said, the WT needs the world to get continuously worse in modern times in order to validate the idea that 1914 introduced the "last days." (And, to be sure, some things have arguably gotten worse: e.g. the enviroment.) I understand Matthew 24:12 to refer to the period between the Olivet Discourse (c. 33 A.D.) and Jerusalem's destruction in 70 A.D. (With no intended secondary fulfillment. See here and/or here.) And the civil problems in Jewish society leading up to the Jewish-Roman war is attested some by Josephus.

In contrast to the WT, NT writers point to Christ's sacrifice and return to heaven as introducing the "last days," a final period of human history before Christ returns and restores all things. (See here for a reference quote and here for a verse-by-verse tally. And here is the official WT view from a public talk outline.)

(I'm digesting my morning jo here, so my brain is only starting to get into gear.)

Take Care

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

Bobcat

Abe:

I just wanted people on this forum to have an opportunity to see why 1914 is a valid "turning point in history" especially in regard to both Satan and Jesus Christ.

And you arrived at your view through your own research, despite the WT efforts to thwart such research. I applaud you. And thank you for making your view available to consider.

Take Care

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

Bobcat

Abe:

Your quoting this verse above however, suggests that you think period "C" has already started as well:

(John 12:31, 32) . . . Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me.

If you don't think the judging has already started then you need to consider how you are interpreting the word "now" in the scripture.

In connection with "now" in John 12:31 -

I was taking "now" (nun, Strong's #3568) as it is normally understood. AMG's Greek WordStudy Dictionary understands it in this verse (as also with Acts 13:11; Phil 1:20; John 16:5, 32; Acts 26:17) as meaning, "In reference to future time just at hand. . . As implying what is immediately to take place." (p. 1019) Similarly, BDAG (Bauer's 3rd Edition Lexicon) defines it as "a temporal marker with focus on the moment as such, now." [Bolding & italics theirs - Bobcat] And with regard to John 12:31 (and the other pasages referenced in AMG) as "of time shortly before or shortly after the immediate pres[ent]."

I guess on the surface, that understanding of "now" in John 12:31 might suggest that I thought the 'judging of the inhabited earth' from Acts 17:31 was then to take place also. But that is not how I understand it. I take 'the judging of the world and its ruler' of John 12:31, which in the context is closely related to Jesus' death (John 12:32), as a judgment that opens the way for salvation. The power of "the world" and "Satan" to hold people in sin is broken via Jesus' sacrificial death. Whereas, Jesus' 'judging of the inhabited earth in righteousness' in Acts 17:31 is a judging of individual humans (which in the context of Acts 17:30, 31 Paul links with the need for individual repentence).

On the other hand, in connection with Revelation 12:12 - This is an interesting thought (that the "because" in the verse might place the ouster of Satan before Jesus' attains to his "authority.") This possibility would work regardless of whether this took place in the 1st century (as I contend) or near 1914 (as you contend). But I don't know if the Revelation account (in chapter 12) intends that idea.

Verse 6 describes the 'woman's child' as being 'caught away to God's throne.' If that indicates when Jesus actually received his "authority," it would rule out the idea as the sequence, as portrayed in Revelation 12, places that before the 'war in heaven.' On the other hand, if gaining "authority" were to be quickly followed by the "war" which ousts Satan, then, it might be splitting hairs wondering which came first. They could possibly be seen as a close sequence that effectively allows them to be described together; the one following immediately after the other, allowing the ones saying "now" in verse 10 to be describing the whole sequence. The account itself doesn't seem to focus on that detail (IMO), but the "because" in verse 10 would, if taken literally, allow for the sequence you expressed about it.

Take Care, Abe

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

Bobcat

Abe:

Thanks for expressing your view. I'll make time to watch the video.

Take Care

54

1914 - "A Turning Point In History"?

by Bobcat in

the february 2014 public wt has a cover series of articles dealing with world war i, and by inference 1914. the articles describe wwi as 'causing the world to be changed' and as "a turning point in history.".

setting the wt's defective 1914 chronology aside for a minute, how do these statements about wwi coincide with the view of the nt?.

certainly wwi was a big war.

Bobcat

AbleBodiedMan:

My thoughts on Psalm 110:1, 2 are partly in agreement with you.

Speaking of Jesus, the anonymous writer of Hebrews states:

(Hebrews 10:12, 13) . . .But this [man] offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. (See also Hebrews 1:3) The writer is, of course, referring to how he undrstands the fulfillment of Psalm 110:1.

He speaks of Jesus as already sitting at God's right hand and awaiting until his enemies are subdued. The writer places the "sacrifice for sins" as a past event, and the 'sitting down at God's right hand' as an already ongoing event. So we are in agreement on this much.

Here is where we differ:

(Hebrews 2:5-9) . . .For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But a certain witness has given proof somewhere, saying: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or [the] son of man that you take care of him? 7 You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; 9 but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s undeserved kindness might taste death for every [man].

The writer of Hebrews understood Jesus to be already "crowned." His 'sitting at God's right hand' is as ruler of God's Kingdom. But the writer also points out (in verse 8) that this is prior to "all things [being] in subjection to him."

Similarly, the writer of Colossians (Paul) writes:

(Colossians 1:13) . . .He [God] delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love,

Paul saw Jesus as already having a kingdom that people could be "transferred" into.

And referring again to Psalm 110, the writer of Corinthians says:

(1 Corinthians 15:24-26) . . .Next, the end, when he [Jesus] hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he [Jesus] must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing.

So compare:

(Hebrews 10:12, 13) . . .But this [man] offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet.

with

(1 Corinthians 15:25) For he [Jesus] must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet.

The 1 Corinthians text replaces "sitting at God's right hand" with "rule as king."

These lead me to believe that Jesus began ruling shortly after he returned to heaven. And that he continues to do so until sometime after the last enemy "death" is subdued, which, based on Revelation 21:1-4 and observation of the current human condition, is sometime yet in the future. Based on that, there are no "turning points" for Jesus between the start of his rule, after returning to heaven (c. 33 C.E.), and the end of it (sometime in the future), when he has conquered all his enemies, only a continuous string of victories.

The Revelation text (12:12), which refers to a time when it would be said, ". . .Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ. . .," would have to correspond with when Jesus recieved his "authority."

If I remember correctly, he told his disciples that he had received "all authority in heaven and on the earth" shortly after being resurrected. (Matthew 28:18) This would match up nicely with Paul's idea that Jesus was already 'ruling as king' while he awaits for all his enemies to be subdued.

Satan's ouster from heaven, depicted in Revelation 12, happening shortly after Jesus returned there (compare Revelation 12:5), would also correspond nicely with the fact that Jesus, while on earth, said that would be an event then soon to take place, and linked it with his death:

(John 12:31, 32) . . . Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw men of all sorts to me.

Also note that Satan's ouster from heaven is connected to his having been an "accuser of our brothers." (Revelation 12:10) This post cites several verses by Paul indicating that no one then was in a position to "accuse" Christians. This makes a lot of sense if Satan has already been cast out of heaven in the 1st century, as described in Revelation 12:7-12.

At any rate, that, and the links at the bottom of my original post, forms my current 'opinion' on this topic.

Take Care (and sorry for the length of the post)