QC:
Since you said that, it might just be my mouse. I think it is nearing its life span, 150,000 clicks or something like that (without an oil change!).
i'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.
QC:
Since you said that, it might just be my mouse. I think it is nearing its life span, 150,000 clicks or something like that (without an oil change!).
i'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.
QC:
Thanks! Learn something new each day.
|
i'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.
For some reason I'm causing double posts. Not sure why. I click submit and suddently there are two copies of what I submitted.
i was reading john 10:16. this scirpture ends with the statement.
one shepherd.
never put much thought into it.
It helps to see thru the WT slight-of-hand if one understands the shepherding 'culture,' as it were from back then. And you might, but for the sake of those who might not . . .
Multiple flocks of sheep might be kept in town in a "courtyard" or "sheepfold" (John 10:1, 16 NWT, Greek aule, Strong's # 833). The "courtyard" would have a "door" as well as a "doorkeeper" (John 10:3), someone who guards entry to the courtyard. Of course, the doorkeeper would know the shepherds whose flocks were housed there. Each flock of sheep would also know their own shepherd by voice quality and respond to him when he calls for them to go out grazing (John 10:2-5).
The shepherd would take his flock out of town to pasturage in the fields. Where they pasture, there might be another enclosure for the sheep, but it would not have a door. It would have an opening to allow the sheep to freely go in to find rest and protection, and to freely go out of the enclosure to feed. The shepherd might sit in the open doorway to act as a protective "door" for the sheep inside the wilderness enclosure (John 10:7-9). This wilderness enclosure was NOT what was referred to as a "courtyard" or "sheepfold" (Greek aule, see above) That term referred to the in-town housing for the sheep.
When John 10:16 says, "And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold," "fold" is the same Greek word aule (see above), which in verse 1 the NWT renders "sheepfold" (which also means "courtyard"), but here in verse 16 the NWT renders as "fold." That difference in rendering is not, in itself, unusual (The NRSV renders similarly). BUT the WT wants it's readers to think that these "other sheep" are not in the same wilderness enclosure as is mentioned in verses 7 thru 9. This is how they create the two seperate flocks, the earlier ones mentioned in verses 1-3, and the later ones mentioned in verse 16.
But what Jesus is really saying is that these "other sheep" are not from the same in-town "courtyard" from which the earlier mentioned sheep come from (John 10:1-3). But once they are gathered, they are brought together and become just one flock of sheep.
Incidentally, some (not just the Society) contend that John the Baptist is the "doorkeeper" mentioned in verse three, that opens to the shepherd that portrays Jesus. This is debatable since, technically, the parable implies that there are several flocks in the "courtyard" to which the "doorkeeper" would be responsible for their security also. And, naturally, he would also open the door to the shepherds of their respective flocks.
i can't scan the memorial invitation for 2013, but i was looking at it today and noticed something curious on the front drawing.. we have jesus as the central figure of the composition.
to his right and bottom, a large crown, in colour, of shiny happy people of diverse origins.. separated from this by the figure of jesus, is another group, a much smaller one, on the left and as if ascending to the top, and grayed.. clearly portrayed in this group is the face of ct russell and apparently william tyndale.
but then, also sarah and abraham and other personalities of the ot seem to be represented there.
Another curiosity is that the invitation only invites people to a "talk" that happens to be on the same date that Jesus died. There is no connection made on the invite that this has anything thing to do with the Lord's Evening Meal or 'Last Supper' Memorial or Communion, as it is often called in non-Jw circles.
Unless a visitor has contact with a JW to explain what will be going on, he will visit a meeting with a 'talk' and then he will suddenly have bread and wine passed his way, all the while seeing everyone else (or nearly so) turning the supposed invite to partake down.
jehovah in the new world translation of the christian greek scriptures is now free at smashwords:.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/170997.
.
Rob:
Thanks from me too!
so a question i always wondered about growing up was how do the annointed know that they are annointed and how does that conversation go down when you approach the elders about "being chosen".
how do they prove that they get to taste the wine and eat the bread?
i knew two sisters who were "annointed" and now that i've been out for quite a while i look back and think, did they know that they were lying or did they truly believe?
How do you know you're anointed?
As I pointed out on this thread (post # 474), the real question is: What would make a Christian think they are NOT anointed.
Every reference to anointed/anointing in the NT that is in reference to Jesus' disciples assumes that all of them are. 2 Cor 1:21; 1 Jn 2:20, 27 (x2) are the only four places anointing is directly spoken of in connection with Christians. All four occurrances assume that the entire audience being written to were anointed. In 1 John, it is implied that 'those who left' were not anointed. But the NT NEVER speaks of a class of non-anointed Christians. This is a WT fiction- or more likely, a very good lie.
The initial 'batch' of Christians had an unusual experience when they were anointed. But there is no evidence that every Christian since had some unusual experience. JWs have "experiences" to tell about how they were 'anointed' because they are under the impression that that is the way it is supposed to be. And they are under that impression because the WT lyingly maintains that most Christians are not supposed to be anointed. The 'experiences' are, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Galatians chapter 3 points out that Christians 'receive the promised spirit' as a result of their faith in Christ, not some fanciful selection process.
so a question i always wondered about growing up was how do the annointed know that they are annointed and how does that conversation go down when you approach the elders about "being chosen".
how do they prove that they get to taste the wine and eat the bread?
i knew two sisters who were "annointed" and now that i've been out for quite a while i look back and think, did they know that they were lying or did they truly believe?
Earthfire:
For some research on what the NT says about "anointed/anointing" see the following posts:
Here (my post #490), and
Here (my post #519)
Here (post 619 and 622 - with regard to the "great crowd and being "anointed")
You'll be surprised how much the NT doesn't say about this topic. Needless to say, the WT is using this topic to maintain their power structure.
One day I'm going to collect all my research on this topic and post it on a single thread for reference.
so a question i always wondered about growing up was how do the annointed know that they are annointed and how does that conversation go down when you approach the elders about "being chosen".
how do they prove that they get to taste the wine and eat the bread?
i knew two sisters who were "annointed" and now that i've been out for quite a while i look back and think, did they know that they were lying or did they truly believe?
Sorry about the double post -not exactly sure how it happened.
there was a thread here months ago about the 2 jacob-to-israel stories -- can't find it.
anyway, thought this might be of interest:.
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/penuel-or-bethel/.
Here is what the NAC-Genesis commentary has to say about the duplicate naming (Vol. II p.621)
The significance of the redundancy in v. 10 is to reinforce the message of the new name but with a different emphasis. 581 In the first naming [Gen 32:28], the context of chaps. 32-33 focused the reader on the patriarch's transformation, from "Jacob" the trickster to "Israel" the one blessed of God. Here [chap. 35] the context highlights the national and royal importance of the name, shown by the new character of the promises in v. 11 and the first formal listing of his twelve tribal descendants (vv. 23-26).
The footnote numbered 581 says:
Sarna observes that the second naming in Canaan matches up with the first naming on the transjordan side (32:28[29]; Genesis, 242).