Download this. Then look at the page index on the left. About the fourth one down (which starts with the number 38) is the Oral Review answer sheet.
Posts by Bobcat
-
24This week's Oral Review
by Quarterback ingasp....i hate this part on the meeting, and i don't feel like studying for it.. has anyone done it already, and want to share it with me?
i feel like cheating this week..
-
-
-
25
"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ
by pixel ini've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.
why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?
(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.
-
-
Bobcat
Just as an additional to my above comment:
I wonder if Jesus' baptism might be another indication of the "Jerusalem above" being his "mother" also. Baptism could rightly be called an 'initiation rite' for Christians. And Jesus saw a need for himself to also get baptized. Although in his case, the symbology wasn't entirely the same. There would have been no 'baptism in symbol of repentence' involved. On the other hand, after his baptism he 'received the spirit,' which was something associated by Paul with being in the New Covenant. (Gal 3:14)
In connection with the woman of Rev 12, I have to agree with the Society that it does represent the same thing as the "Jerusalem above" from Galatians. But I do not agree with the how the Society defines this symbol. In the RC book (p.178, par.5) they define it as "Jehovah's universal organization of spirit creatures that acts as his wife, both in serving him and in producing offspring." They never say anything about how Paul defined it in Galatians. And their view is skewed by limiting those in the New Covenant to 144,000. Compare this with Paul's application of Isa 54:1 in Gal 4:27 where the 'woman's' children become more numerous than those of the slave girl (Hagar).
At any rate, just more musings from someone waking up from many years in the matrix, sent out into the internet 'ether.'
-
55
The CO asked for money tonight at the meeting.
by life is to short ini was shocked i do not know why as i have read that the co's were doing this but to hear it with my own ears was unbelievable.
i do not go to the meetings but my husband still does and this week is the co's visit.
i decided that i would listen in to his talk; i swear i have lost some brain cells by doing it but anywho.. he started out by talking about the old story that has been in the wt many times about a little boy who was seven and raised a chicken and gave the money to the society.
-
-
Bobcat
CptKirk:
I've never seen an actual list of illustrations from the Society unless he meant going to the WT Libary as a source of illustrations. That would be interesting to find out that some had something like that was available to some.
But in fact, in religious bookstores, back in the section where 'pastor' supplies/books are located, you can usually find books full of illustrations for use in talks or sermons.
-
25
"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ
by pixel ini've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.
why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?
(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.
-
-
Bobcat
Londo:
I was having second thoughts about my comment. I'm still thinking thru it. But my second thought was that Moses was the mediator of the Law covenant. (Gal 3:19) Yet he would have been counted as a member of that covenant. His being mediator did not rule out his being under the Law.
Just musing here, but in Moses' case an animal was needed to validate the covenant. In Jesus' case, he was both the mediator and the validating sacrifice.
Jesus would be different from Moses in that Moses needed the sacrifices provided in the Law to cover his own sins. Whereas, Jesus would not need the sacrifice provided for the New Covenant in his own case, he being sinless. Thus, Moses also had to eat from the Passover meal, but Jesus had no need to partake of the emblems at the Last Supper, since the emblems represent provisions for sinners.
Like I said, I was just musing, and hoping someone might point out a problem with this view, if there is one. Otherwise, it would allow for Jesus to be a son to the "Jerusalem above." Or conversely, for the Jerusalem above to be his "mother" also.
This is how my mind works. Something new or some new aspect of a thing comes in and it starts churning away and won't let me rest.
Take Care
-
25
"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ
by pixel ini've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.
why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?
(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.
-
-
Bobcat
Good answer Londo! I was formulating the same answer from what I remembered of Galatians until I scrolled down to your answer.
Question:
Something I haven't got around to considering yet, but would the woman pictured in Rev 12 be this same "mother" of Galatians? I note the crown of 12 stars (possibly the 12 apostles?). She gets persecuted by the dragon (perhaps thru her "children"?).
-
14
Old Time Anointed?
by Bob_NC inwondering here and would like to get your thoughts.
how do the old-time anointed feel about the new light that they are no longer the fds and only the gb is the fds.
that's quite a change in concept, right?
-
-
Bobcat
Bob_NC:
This is not directly on the your topic, but indirect. Below are some links to research on the topic of being anointed. See my post 474 and 475 on this thread:
And here is further research on the topic of "anointed Christians":
Here, and here (see my posts 384 and 385 for numerous sub-links on the subject)
Take Care
-
27
IS THERE PROOF THE GOVERNING BODY PREACH DOOR TO DOOR? Real Proof Please!
by ÁrbolesdeArabia ini heard very few if any, of the new members on the governing body actually go out in field service more than three hours a month.
is there a reason why the governing body would excuse themselves from the master's commandments?
jesus christ never said "spending time writing rules and regulations" was part of matthew 28. .
-
-
Bobcat
Splash:
Was looking back at previous threads and saw that I missed your post asking about the vertical line on the left man's face.
If you are speaking of the vertical line running down his cheek, it looks like a combination of the way the sun/shading is mixed on his face and the limitations imposed by the resolution of the photo. The sun is hitting on the side of the face, but as the face curves around towards the front, the sun is blocked . Somewhat similar to the terminator effect on the earth as you reach the boundry between day and night. It appears to me that the digital limitations of the photo itself create what appears to be a distinct break between light and dark areas, something that in real life would be a much smoother transition.
Take Care
-
17
144,000 Ain't Going to Heaven!!!
by The Searcher indon't take my word for it, the gb (d.c.of c.) inadvertantly let's the cat out of the bag with the inspired statements found in these publications.. in these, they categorically claim that "the meek who inherit the earth" are none other than 144,000 + 1.
(christ).
w09 2/15 p. 7 par.
-
-
Bobcat
Note how even Jesus, according to Psalm 2:8, will gain "the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as [his] own possession." Yet, after the 1000 years will 'hand over the kingdom to his God and Father.' (1 Cor 15:24)
So as a "meek" one ("mild tempered" of Mt 11:29 NWT, but same Greek word as "meek" in Mt 5:5), Jesus also "inherits the earth." Yet, it is not as permanent as a literal understanding of "inherit" might convey. Similarly for any who might live on the earth during the 1000 years, there is no reason that it has to involve "forever" on earth. The language allows for "forever," but does not require it, based on how 'inheriting the earth' is used with regard to others.
Thus, the Society's insistence that everyone will live forever either in heaven or on planet earth, is somewhat presumptuous.
-
17
144,000 Ain't Going to Heaven!!!
by The Searcher indon't take my word for it, the gb (d.c.of c.) inadvertantly let's the cat out of the bag with the inspired statements found in these publications.. in these, they categorically claim that "the meek who inherit the earth" are none other than 144,000 + 1.
(christ).
w09 2/15 p. 7 par.
-
-
Bobcat
Searcher: (greetings)
R. T. France makes an interesting comment about Matthew 5:5 ("the meek will inherit the land/earth") that, according to him, is also held by some other commentators. Writing in the NICNT-Matthew volume (p.166-167) he says:
In echoing this psalm [37:11] so closely, Jesus clearly intended to promise a reversal of fortunes such as the psalm envisages, but whereas the "inheriting of the land" in the psalm seems to be understood in terms of earthly reversal, the overal tone of these beatitudes does not encourage us to interpret his words quite so literally. Cf. Isa. 61:7, where the "poor" and "mourning" of 61:1-3 are promised inheritance of the land; if the promises to them in the first two beatitudes apply to the kingdom of heaven, the same should presumably apply to their inheritance. There is a general tendency in the NT to treat OT promises about "the land" as finding fulfillment in nonterritorial ways, and such an orientation seems required here too. The focus is on the principle of reversal of fortunes rather than on a specific "inheritance."
[end of quote]
For example, consider how towards the end of Matthew (who presumably tried to maintain a consistant flow of thought and belief in his book), Christians who meet the Lord's approval in the parable of the sheep and goats, these "inherit the kingdom."
Just as an aside, but showing a consistancy of thought in Matthew, Those meriting the Lord's favor are 'collected'/'gathered'/'told to come in'; in contrast to those rejected; they are 'thrown out'/'cast out'/'told to leave' or some similar idea of being 'put out.'
Another point to note is that in Matthew, "the kingdom of heaven" is often paralleled in other places (or in the other synoptics) as "the kingdom of God" or as "life" or "everlasting life." (For example, compare Matt 19:16-26 with the discussion with the "rich young ruler", where 'getting life' (vs 16), 'having treasure in heaven' (vs 21), 'getting into the kingdom of the heavens' (vs 23), 'getting into the kingdom of God' (vs 24), and 'being saved' (vs 25), are all equated as being the same thing.
The Society often uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven" to refer to only the 144,000 - when it is convenient for them to do so (for example in Matthew 11:11), but you would be more accurate to consider the phrase as being equated with enjoying the blessings of the New Covenant, which is an expression of God's rulership (or "kingdom" or "kingship").
Take Care
-
25
"Foreigners" and today's Watchtower
by 88JM ini know this is true every week, and i say it all the time, and i know blondie will be doing her review later, but.... today's watchtower was bat-shit crazy!.
i knew it was going to be a bizzare one just reading it, but the comments at the meeting took it even further.
i can't post all the crazy ones, but in summary what they were saying was:.
-
-
Bobcat
88JM:
The application of Isa 61:5-7 also made me disgusted. When I get time I'm going to post some commentary from the NICOT-Isaiah volume.
(I'm also still getting to the Mark-Matthew thread. Time has been a problem of late.)
Take care