letting jesus refute the watch tower blood policies.
the watch tower bible and tract society represent itself as christian.. it represents its theology and policies as direct from jehovah god through his son, jesus christ.. further, the governing body of this corporation interposes itself between the mediator, jesus, and the rest of jehovah's (christian) witnesses for the purpose of "feeding them (spiritual) food at the proper time.. the official word of jesus christ is represented in the watch tower's policy on blood transfusions.. in 1998 this statement was made:.
jehovah's witnesses do not accept whole blood, or major components of blood, namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma.
I argued something similar here, although I didn't reference the Western Text tradition. The existence of the Western Text tradition shows that the original decree had lost its meaning as Christianity aged. The WT has tried to resurrect it and enforce it in a setting completely foreign to its original intent.
Thanks for bringing this up Terry.
Take Care
someone told me today that at the annual meeting something was said along the lines that, we do not need to be like the boreans and search that everything is true because we know we have the truth.
can anyone confirm this?.
". . . because we know we have the truth. Can anyone confirm this?"
See this thread. The Society doesn't want you confirming anything. They've already done so.
Take Care
http://www.wimp.com/mathriddle/.
i got it before they gave the answer.. how about you?.
i also thought the ending was interesting as regards the "truth"..
This really explains a lot of the WT's problem. They don't allow anyone trying to disprove the ideas they come up with.
Even before I saw the video (in the link above), I was thinking about this when I overheard my wife reading the Daily Text for today (3/5/2014) I pasted the text below, but my comments and links are interspersed in italics:
The words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end.—Dan. 12:9.
Today, we can grasp the meaning of prophecies (Confirmation bias as in the video above, but in reality, simply an assertion.) that remained a “secret” for ages but are now being fulfilled in this time of the end (They are, of course, assuming "the time of the end began in 1914, but see here and here for Bible view). These include those found throughout the Scriptures, especially in the Gospels and the book of Revelation. Jehovah has even helped us understand events that we could not see with our eyes (More confirmation bias via simple assertion based on their own opinions)—the enthronement of Jesus (The Society says in 1914, the Bible indicates sometime around Jesus ascension in 33 AD; see here for various verses concerning when Jesus began his rule, and here for how parousia or "presense" is spoken of in relation to Jesus, and here regarding the phrase "The Kingdom of God/Heaven has drawn near"), the war in heaven, and the hurling of Satan down to the earth (The Society believes sometime after 1914, but see here towards the end of this post for what Jesus indicated). (Rev. 12:7-12) God has also given us insight into the meaning of what we can see (Again, more confirmation bias, but simply asserted based on their own opinions)—wars, earthquakes, pestilences, food shortages (The Society takes these to be part of "the sign," in contradiction to what Jesus said - see here), as well as godless people who contribute to these “critical times hard to deal with.” (2 Tim. 3:1-5; Luke 21:10, 11) (The Society takes 2 Tim 3:1-5 as only being fulfilled in modern times. See here for the Society's view, but below for how the context disagrees with the WT.) How grateful we are that “the helper,” God’s holy spirit, has been sent to guide Jesus’ followers “into all the truth”! (John 16:7, 13) May we always treasure “the true knowledge” (See here for the problem with the NWT rendition of Daniel 12:4, "the true knowledge) and unselfishly share it with others!—Dan. 12:4. w12 8/15 1:7, 8
Most of the Society's effort is spent in telling others that they are right, and preventing others from analysing whether they are acually right or not.
Take care
john 13:4,5. got up from the evening meal and laid aside his outer garments.
and taking a towel, he wrapped it around his waist.. after that he put water into a basin and started to wash the feet of the disciples and to dry them off with the towel that was wrapped around him.. .
the wt "translates" himatia as outer garments but some other translations says just clothes.. if he were wearing just an underwear, why wrap a towel around the waist?
It was the outer clothing Jesus took off. The towel was for drying the disciples feet. Jesus was (perhaps intentionally) making himself look like a servant to press his point about humble service.
and they named him obed.
jesse was the father of david the king.
matthew 1:6, 7 - " and jesse the father of king david.
SAHS:
The three worship festivals held by the Jews every year under the Law were obligatory only for males. (Compare Exod 23:14-17) So in these cases the ancestry of one's wife was of little consequence. The two geneology lists in Matthew and Luke also focus on the father. I take it that as far as official descent was concerned, the Jews placed the importance on him rather than the mother.
I see your point about the particularness of the Law in other respects. Although, in the case of Ruth, I like the fact that her faith was rewarded rather than her ancestry (which she had nothing to do with) being held against her.
Take Care
why do the jw's insist that jesus was crucified on a stake??
the practice by the romans back in that time was to use a cross.
i've even heard of some witnesses say it was due to "lack of wood.
Quelly:
I agree with you. The student said nothing in the demo about giving honor to the cross she had. Instead, it was a keepsake to remember her grandmother by. (She wasn't even using to 'remember Jesus' by!) And the sister, after having Acts 19:19 read, said nothing about the cross either. She simply had the student to read the verse and, after reading it, the student quickly figured out that she needed to get rid of her keepsake.
It was totally mindless. I have a bunch of reference books in my personal library that have cross cover art on them. It's meaningless.
Many JWs still use the argument that the cross was used in pagan worship. 'That is why Jesus couldn't have died on one.' By the same logic he couldn't have died on a stake either. (e.g. Exod 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3; numerous others) Curiously, "sacred poles" are mentioned numerous times in the NWT. But crosses, as objects of worship, never are.
NeverEnding:
I appreciated your comments. They pride themselves on being the smartest people on earth. But when you try to reason with them you are only left shaking your head in disbelief.
Take Care
why do the jw's insist that jesus was crucified on a stake??
the practice by the romans back in that time was to use a cross.
i've even heard of some witnesses say it was due to "lack of wood.
At the 2 day Assembly this past week there was a demo involving a sister with her Bible student. The student had a cross which was a pricey heirloom from her grandma.
The demo consisted of two versions. One where the sister openly told her student to get rid of it. The other where the sister had Acts 19:19 read, and then asked her student what she should do with it.
As I watched it, I wondered how the demo would have looked if the student told the sister she had a pricey necklace with a watchtower symbol on it, given to her by her JW grandma.
and they named him obed.
jesse was the father of david the king.
matthew 1:6, 7 - " and jesse the father of king david.
Eden:
Regarding "forever," the NAC commentary was saying, in effect, that "to the tenth generation" shouldn't be taken in a numerically literal way. That it had an unending sense to it, or, at least as long as the covenant was in force. (The commentary actually said "basically forever.")
On the the Moabite & Ammonite question, The Bible Knowledge Commentary posits (Vol I, p. 303):
The accounts in Nehemiah and Ezra seem to focus on the fact that the "foreign wives" had taken no such stand towards Yahweh worship as Ruth had taken. And, as pagan worshipers, they and their foreign speaking children posed a threat to the future of the restored nation in connection with its standing with Yahweh. (Nehemiah compares them with Solomon taking foreign wives, which he did while they were, and remained, pagan worshipers.)
For the record (and so as not to distract the thread), I'm not commenting here on the morality of dismissing one's children and wife, as the accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah describe. But it should be noted that the law covenant made a distinction between foreigners who took up the worship of Yahweh (e.g. Ruth) and those who didn't. (Compare e.g. Exodus 12:43-49.)
One thing your thread might prompt me to do is get a copy of The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. I gained some interest in it after seeing it referred to in the WT study the other week. Reviews of it at bookseller websites seem to reccommend it as a great resource for the Jewish view of the Law.
Take Care, Eden
and they named him obed.
jesse was the father of david the king.
matthew 1:6, 7 - " and jesse the father of king david.
Eden:
The difference here is 'entering the assembly,' which is not the same as being part of the covenant community. From the NAC-Deuteronomy commentary (Eugene H. Merrill, p. 307):
With reference to "down (or "even") to the tenth generation," the NAC commentary takes that as meaning basically "forever." (In WT generational thinking it would certainly be a very long time, considering all the overlapping and so on. :)
With reference to Ruth, the commentary says:
I take it in David's case, his official ancestry was considerd to be through Boaz, not Ruth. Israelite kings had to be Israelite, not foreigners.
Edited to add:
I wonder if the addition of foreigners to the lineage of Jesus, even if only on the mother's side, presaged the fact that the Christian community (the Israel of God of Gal 6:16) would be of international makeup? I can't think of any text that presses that point, but it would certainly have been prophetically appropriate.
Take Care
i wonder, is this a new doctrine and when did "reason and scripture" take place.. .
page 25 paragraph 10 dec 15 2013 study wt.
10 the bread that the apostles could see and would soon partake of meant jesus body.
Prologos:
Jonahs:
Leaving:
Take Care
