An example of what Alan said about the WT hedging their bets: Here.
Posts by Bobcat
-
28JW's Never Closed the Door On A Russian King of the North
by scotoma inking of the north.
union, the "king of the south" can be none other than the rival non-communist bloc, under the .
so who is the king of the north now?
-
-
-
33
Letting JESUS refute the Watch Tower blood policies
by Terry inletting 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.
-
-
Bobcat
The following is from the NAC-Acts commentary (John B. Polhill, p.330-31). So as to fill out the discussion of this thread and give a little background to the development of the "Western Text" tradition:
When looked at closely, all four of these [decrees of Acts 15:19, 20] belong to the ritual sphere. Meat offered to idols was an abomination to Jews, who avoided any and everything associated with idolatry. "Strangled meat" referred to animals that had been slaughtered in a manner that left the blood in it. Blood was considered sacred to the Jews , and all meat was to be drained of blood before consuming it. The prohibition of "blood" came under the same requirement, referring to the consumption of the blood of animals in any form. These three requirements were all ritual, dealing with matters of clean and unclean foods. The fourth catagory seems somewhat less ritual and more moral: sexual immorality (porneia). It is possible that this catagory was also originally intended in a mainly ritual sense, referring to those "defiling" sexual relationships the Old Testament condemns, such as incest, marriage outside the covenant community, marriage with a close relative, bestiality, homosexuality, and the like. It is also possible that a broader meaning was intended including all illicit "natural" relationships as well, such as fornication, concubinage, and adultery. Gentile sexual mores were lax compared to Jewish standards, and it was one of the areas where Jews saw themselves most radically differentiated from Gentiles. The boundary between ritual and ethical law is not always distinct, and sexual morality is one of those areas where it is most blurred. For the Jew sexual misbehavior was both immoral and impure. A Jew would find it difficult indeed to consort with a Gentile who did not live by his own standards of sexual morality.
The four requirements [of Acts 15:19, 20] suggested by James were thus all basically ritual requirements aimed at making fellowship possible between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Often referred to as "the apostolic decrees," they belonged to a period in the life of the church when there was close contact between Jewish and Gentile Christians, when table fellowship especially was common between them. In a later day, by the end of the first century, Jewish Christianity became isolated into small sects and separated from Gentile Christianity. There no longer existed any real fellowship between them. The original function of the decrees no longer had any force, and they tended to be viewed in wholly moral terms. This tendency is very much reflected in the textual tradition of Acts 15:20, 29 and 21:25, particularly in the Western text, which omits "strangled meat," adds the negative form of the golden rule, and reads "idolatry" rather than idol meat. There are thus four moral prohibitions: no idolatry, no sexual immorality, no murder ("blood" now viewed as the shedding - not consuming - of blood), and "do not do to another what you wouldn't wish done to yourself."[End quote. Material in "[ ]" is Bobcat's for clarity.]
-
49
Head covering for women--how did you feel about this? Men? Women?
by humbled inthinking about how this felt awkward to some of us women when a bible student noticed something was "up" if a baptised brother sat in on a study.
had to reference 1 cor.
11:1-16.. i wonder if this irked any while you were still in?.
-
-
Bobcat
In Paul's day a woman's wearing/not wearing a head covering had social meaning for people inside and outside of the congregation. In most western lands today (the main realm of Christendom) it has no meaning except to JWs. In fact, to see a woman suddenly put on a head covering for no apparent weather-related or fashion-related reason might seem a bit irratonal.
-
49
Head covering for women--how did you feel about this? Men? Women?
by humbled inthinking about how this felt awkward to some of us women when a bible student noticed something was "up" if a baptised brother sat in on a study.
had to reference 1 cor.
11:1-16.. i wonder if this irked any while you were still in?.
-
-
-
13
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 02-23-2014 WT Study (MEMORIAL1)
by blondie incomments you will not hear at the 02-23-2014 wt study (december 15, 2013, pages 17-26)(memorial).
refer to the above sites to see full articles.
review comments will be headed by comments.
-
-
Bobcat
By the way, it is not too hard to establish this:
- 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 refers to the Corinthians meeting schedule - "On the first day of every week." Note that the rNWT takes out the phrase "at his own house" which is in the old NWT and makes nonsense of the verse. (Other translations here.) If you were setting something aside "in your own house," you would not need anyone to tell you which day of the week to do it. The Corinthians were to set a contribution aside "on the first day of every week" because that was the day they met together.
- 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 describes "divisions" that exist among the Corinthians when they "meet together." Thus, due to these "divisions," Paul says in verse 20, 21: "When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21 For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated." (See here for alternate renderings.) Paul is saying, in effect, that their divisions negate their eating of the Lord's Evening Meal, since the Lord's Evening Meal represents something completely contrary to the "divisions" and lack of concern for each other among them at their meetings.
- Paul's explanation of the LEM in verses 23-32 is to remind them of how the symbols of Jesus' body and blood, given "in your behalf" and "on the night he was handed over," represent the antithesis of their divisions among themselves. And to eat the LEM while showing such unconcern for their brothers will bring "judgment" upon themselves.
- Paul concludes the discussion in verse 33 by again showing that this was something they were doing regularly: "Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another." "When you come together" refers back to when "you meet together" (verse 17), "when you come together in a congregation" (verse 18) and "when you come together in one place" (verse 20).
I used this same reasoning on an elder. All I got was silence. But it turns all the hair splitting of the WT study article (regarding Nisan 14 or 15) into nonsense. Not only did Gentiles for many centuries (and especially during the dark ages) have no way of establishing which day of the Jewish month it was (such as is discussed in the article), but they had no need to do so in the first place.
-
13
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 02-23-2014 WT Study (MEMORIAL1)
by blondie incomments you will not hear at the 02-23-2014 wt study (december 15, 2013, pages 17-26)(memorial).
refer to the above sites to see full articles.
review comments will be headed by comments.
-
-
-
22
What was your mild superpower?
by sparrowdown ini am in awe of the level of intelligence, wit and funnybones that alot of you posess.. which made me wonder, did you have a mild superpower while you were in?
for instance was it giving talks, commenting, research?
maybe it was pissing people off (a much underated skill).
-
-
Bobcat
LoisLane:
I feel for you. I also learned that as far as the WT goes, you are only as good as your last deed, your last comment, your last talk, your last opinion. Whatever you did/say/think last is how the WT views you. Many years of past loyalty, good deeds, etc, mean nothing if your most recent one does not conform to the party line.
Take Care
-
33
Letting JESUS refute the Watch Tower blood policies
by Terry inletting 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.
-
-
Bobcat
Eden:
As for sources, heres one:
The Psuedo-Clementines and the Apostolic Decree, A. F. J. Klinj, Novum Testamentum 10 (1968): 305-12.
Here is what I could find available on Google Books for starters.
The BECNT-Acts commentary (Darrell L. Bock, p.509 has this textual note for Acts 15:20:
- Codex D lacks the reference to things strangled, possibly because it was redundant to a degree with animals not drained of blood. Codex D also adds a negatively expressed version of the Golden Rule - "Whatsoever things they do not wish for themselves, do not do to others." (in Judaism, b. Sabb. 31a and Tob. 4:15). This move to have the decree be more ethical than ritual may reflect a shift of concern at the time of the Western text (Bruce 1988a: 296). Yet another, earlier MS, p45, lacks any reference to immorality, making the decree almost exclusively ritualistic.
Take Care
-
33
Letting JESUS refute the Watch Tower blood policies
by Terry inletting 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.
-
-
Bobcat
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
-
22
The Annual Meeting Quote
by confusedandalone insomeone 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?.
-
-
Bobcat
". . . 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