yesterday i was visited by 2 witnesses, and we had a long chat about lots of things!
one of them named claire took the lead and i instantly felt some sort of connection to her, after we had spoken and they had left i started to have this overwhelming feeling to research her and what she had spoken about but i couldn’t find her anywhere on any website or social media, so i left it and thought nothing more of it all day….
however the strange thing is i had a dream that night and claire was in it, many things happened in this dream that i was told i was only allowed to speak about with claire, i can speak of the dream to others but the details only me and claire can know!
@a watcher
He should pray that she doesn't come, or that it's made clear that Claire got the wrong door. Claire, in his dream, returns with a baby in her arms. In this regard, Stan's advice (not to talk to his wife about it) is probably not the best, because Claire will probably want some child support...
so, the famous 607 calculation to 1914 involves the above prophecy.
the common explanation is that time is one unit, times is an unsubstantiated number of units.. to prove you can make it say any date, we must write it as a formula:.
date = t + nt + 0.5t where n >= 2. so simplified:.
@Stan
Good point, Stan! I'll just tweak it a bit: how many jars of beans, and several jars of beans and half a jar of beans, do I need to have to have 3.5 kg of beans? If a jar will hold 1 kg, it's easy. But, what if it doesn't? And what if those "several jars" of beans, may not be just two, but may be more?
so, the famous 607 calculation to 1914 involves the above prophecy.
the common explanation is that time is one unit, times is an unsubstantiated number of units.. to prove you can make it say any date, we must write it as a formula:.
date = t + nt + 0.5t where n >= 2. so simplified:.
@EasyPrompt
I think that the interpretation of "time, times, and half a time" to be a 3 ½ year stretch (according to the parallel texts in Revelation) says nothing about why the writer of Revelation used the term in the first place and whether the unit of time "time" (καιρος) means "year".
All that is certain is that the term "time and times and half a time" does not exceed 3.5 years. Whether "times and times and half a time" is also exactly 3.5 years or a shorter period is not yet refuted/confirmed.
If he wanted to write of the woman in Rev 12:14 as being in an eschatological "wilderness" somewhere for 3.5 years, then he would have directly used that time span - cf. Rev. 11:9 where it says that the dead bodies of the two prophets lay literally "three and a half days", so he could just as easily have written "three and a half years" - or he could have chosen a unit of time, perhaps 1260 days or 42 months. But he deliberately and relatively lengthily writes out a "banal" time figure, and in a few words. He must have had some special reason for doing so. But the interpretation that it is 3.5 years does not explain that reason. From my point of view, he was referring to the same passages in Daniel - which is obvious - but as to the interpretation of what these complicated time figures mean, that interpretation, there in Daniel, is also not to be found. I am offered the hypothesis that "time and times and half a time", is a shortened expression of "a week and 62 weeks and half a week", but since the interpretation of Daniel is, in my opinion, extremely demanding, I evaluate it for myself only as a working hypothesis...
Another way of describing the 3.5 year problem is to convert "time, times and half a time" into 3.5 years, and to retroactively derive a length for "time" from this time "transaction". This is prone to error.
Granted that it may be a year, but it may just as well be a week or a month: if the interpretation of "times and times and half a time" works with the time period "year", then it is equally permissible to interpret that another unit of time can be used - derived from astrophysical phenomena (week, month) or even from other domains. If the NT writers applied the term (καιρος), for example, to the period of Elizabeth's pregnancy (Lk 1:20) or to the time period of the grain "harvest" (Mt 13:30), then the time unit "time" (καιρος) must be evaluated in this respect as well. And no one has done that yet and neither have I 😊 . Yet for centuries we have all, out of convenience, copied from one another. It will be necessary to step out of our comfort zone (yuck, what a disgusting expression) in order to move on (yuck, yuck, that's the other disgusting word cliché 😊 ). It's time for a change, EasyPrompt!
how many remember when the wts changed their policy on alternative service; changed it to alternative civilian service so jw men could choose it because it was not supervised by the military.
shows how the wts quibbles with words to advance a "new teaching.
" flag salute, voting, civilian service p. 212. civilian service.
@Journeyman
Regarding military service today, bear in mind that Christians are prohibited from deliberately killing others. This rules out serving in a modern-day military, since being trained and used to kill others is a key part of the role. In contrast, roles like riot control, investigating crimes such as theft, murder, and other civilian duties do not require the need to kill, so a role in a civilian police force or civil/home guard is potentially more acceptable.
In Bible times, all these civilian duties were also performed by elements of the military as there was no such thing as a formal civilian police force, so at that time there would have been no distinction. So with regard to someone like Cornelius, once converted to Christianity, he could have transferred to (or perhaps was already serving in) a more 'civil' capacity as a guard or administrator/trainer/etc, but still retain his rank and position in the Roman military.
So today, I would draw the distinction between serving in the military (where a willingness to kill is essential) and serving in a civil guard or police role (where it is not), in terms of your likely exposure to behaviour that could violate Christian standards.
***
I agree with your opinion. If I just look a little at the area of soldiering and how the NT refers to it, I observe that the NT-text approach is very ambivalent: John the Baptist tells (Luke 3:14) soldiers that they are not to abuse anyone. There is nothing there about them necessarily having to end their military career. According to Matt 8:10, Jesus values the faith of the officer.
But the soldiers of Herod (Lk 23:11), as with Pilate (Mt 27:30), mocked or beat Jesus. The case of Cornelius, an active officer, has been described.
Paul is indeed arrested by the officers and soldiers (Acts 21:32), but this saves him - prolongs his life. They respect his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:26) and respond with further increased protection for Paul when they learn that the Jews want to kill Paul (Acts 23:23). Before the shipwreck, the soldiers want to kill Paul, along with the other prisoners. It is again the commanding officer who prevents this and again prolongs Paul's life (Acts 27:43).
From this brief analysis, it seems to me that the NT-text does not in any way invalidate the position of the soldiers. The context shows that the term "soldier" in our day and "soldier" in the NT-period do not exactly overlap. A soldier/officer, in addition to being part of the military structure of the Roman army, often acts in the role of a modern-day policeman or prison officer...
On the other hand, it is also true that the little boys in Bethlehem, were murdered directly by Herod's soldiers/police (although this is not directly in the text) or it can be assumed that they assisted in such an action, which was probably some sort of a cover-up to separate the parents from the little children... The soldiers/police who were supposed to guard the tomb, were put in a very precarious situation when they left their posts out of fear (Mt 28:4). They had to be bribed to testify that the body had been stolen, and in case of further inconvenience, they were given a promise that it would not affect their military career (Matt. 28:11-15).
A difficult question arises: Can a Christian be a soldier? Or a policeman? Or a prison guard?
I answer it this way:
I do not decide whether it is wrong or right. This statement is a latent criticism of globally operating churches like the JWs who centrally decide on a one-size-fits-all doctrine, even though it is clear that the military, police, or prison ministries in different countries are different. Is military submarine service permissible (see Jonah 😊 )? But what about states that don't have submarines?
If centrally led churches decide what is or is not permissible, or globally prohibit/permit it and don't respect regional specifics, then the result is similar to JWs with the issue of blood, blood fractions and platelets, autotransfusion, etc. etc. ... an absurd ban with even more absurd exceptions...
So I am not saying whether it is wrong or right, and which kinds of troops or services are or are not allowed, but rather I am focusing on the answer: if one is a soldier or a police officer and wants to be a Christian, one must be aware of the increased risk of being in a counter-ethical situation with one's own conscience. He may serve his entire service on a military submarine as a cook, opening cans and cooking delicious meals out of them 😊, he probably won't do anything more sinful than working as a taxi driver or a shop assistant or a school teacher, but the situation can change quickly...
But he can encounter counter-ethical issues just like a doctor (abortion, sex change...) or any other profession. Not something more or less sinful per se, but there are professions that are simply more risky than the other. And that is for each person to judge in their own time, in their own region, in their own conscience, and in their own relationship with God... global, there is no one answer in my opinion. That's my global answer 😊.
i see this phrase a lot: "the indication of a cult is what happens when you leave.
" i'm not sure where that originated, but it is a faulty categorization.
"cult" is almost always used in a derogatory way.
@resolute
Islam... but, for example, the Malleus Maleficarum (first edition of 1486) or the Code Noir (decree of French King Louis XIV of 1685) is also a "quality" perversion of Christianity.
Because Christianity also - more than once - failed totally, it was sometimes better for e.g. Protestants (in the aftermath of the Thirty Years' War) to flee to areas of the Ottoman Empire to avoid persecution from Roman Catholics. Islam, in my opinion, is neither better nor worse than Christianity, according to this assessment. One might even say that Islam does not even hide its dislike of "dissenters". The same actions by Christians are then accompanied, in my opinion, by greater hypocrisy and a more pronounced disconnect between the code of ethics and reality.
The question would be rather: why - despite good intentions - does it always fail like this?
Leaving aside the theological answer, I think the example of C.T. Russell is one answer. Notwithstanding his - not defective Christian ideas - he was guilty of taking his ideas as the "measure of all things". His individual beliefs, became a religion for others and a "measure" of right/wrong for others. Clearly others had a part in this as well, but the defining moment was sometime when he began to think he was an instrument of God. That he was - with all humility, which I do not deny - the chosen one, to proclaim his "truths" and pass them off as God's. This process was not an overnight thing, and if it occurred, then I think he also had plenty of time to "come back". At some point when his views began to be criticized (false prophecy, absurd exegesis of biblical texts, etc.). he should have "stepped on the brake" and tried to change/correct. But, I guess that couldn't be done. He had too much social "capital" invested in it and would have had to deny himself. But this completed his "turn" away from Christianity; in doing so, he laid the foundation for another religion that enslaved millions more (but it must be said here that despite the corruption of the gospel, the gospel still reached others; all is not lost! ).
once when jehovah turned him into a sperm and once when the romans crucified him.. technically sperm is still alive when used for invitro fertilization.
then again is sleeping in a tomb for a few hours really dead ?.
forget it, no one died for jw's sins.
@moomanchu
Right after I solve the mystery of turning water into wine and learn to walk on water like Peter, I'll start thinking about the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary...
More seriously: this is just my rationalization, and as stated above, it's more of an academic debate. Jesus was born of a woman (Gal 4:4) because it fits biblical anthropology. A man is defined as one who is born of a woman (outside of the first pair).
In the context of Jesus, the bigger question is really why was he born a man? Why didn't he come as an angel? The answers then go more into the realm of (first Adam - last Adam) divine justice and theodicea explanation. I mean, the explanation of very difficult questions...
For a faith without difficulties, it is sometimes good to accept the claims, especially if they are (historical) facts, and not to speculate too much on the variants. I don't mean to shy away from the answer! It's just that I think it's really quite a difficult topic and I'd have to write several pages of text here (about theodicy). And only the conclusion would be easy...
"the generally accepted definition of propaganda is this: an organization for the propagation of a doctrine or system, the purpose of which is to cause the membership of the system or organization to increase or enlarge.
religious organizations engage in propaganda, because each system of religion tries to increase its membership.
the work of jehovah’s witnesses for his kingdom is entirely a different matter.
1935?... and propaganda? I would be cautious here: perhaps it was more a reaction to the "propaganda" of Hitler's Germany and fascist Italy, or we could talk about Bolshevik Russia (there was communist "agitation" in Russia).
once when jehovah turned him into a sperm and once when the romans crucified him.. technically sperm is still alive when used for invitro fertilization.
then again is sleeping in a tomb for a few hours really dead ?.
forget it, no one died for jw's sins.
@moomanchu
Technically sperm is still alive when used for invitro fertilization. Then again is sleeping in a tomb for a few hours really dead ?
***
Technically...Mary could have been - in modern terms - a surrogate mother. Something about this is suggested by the text John 1:13, where it is written that he was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh or of man. We don't know at what stage of development this embryo was "inserted" into the body, and we don't know exactly if Mary contributed her genetic "material" to the development of the fetus. We only know that she is designated as the mother.
hey, this community was so helpful last time i didnt know how to handle a situation years ago, and here i am all theae years later back on here asking for some advice again on how to handle a certain situation with my kids.
little bit of backstory.. i'm an non jw, been divorced from my ex wife (practicing jw) for about 6 years now.
have 3 kids 7, 10, 13. .
I think it's difficult to give you advice. I only know about your children's situation in your ex-wife's new family from your description. Your children would also have to express themselves directly, as well as the new partner and his children. This is all important information that is missing.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's wrong. Children can temporarily experience discomfort and still be happy. It really depends on what the actual situation is in getting the six children together. And there are bound to be problems, even if they live in a big house.
I would maintain contact, but I would encourage your own children to acknowledge the new reality, rather than you - well-meaning - comforting your children, undermining the authority of your ex-wife's new partner. He will also have to raise his voice to your children at some point, to decide that this or that ends or begins. And your children may not like that and will complain to you. But he may have been right at the time, which again, you don't know. Or he could have made a parenting mistake, just like you, but he'd be doubly responsible for one mistake...
That's why I think Sue was right: focus on your new family. Maintain good, trusting relationships with your children, but don't undermine the authority of the new parents. You need help, I think, because this is a very sensitive area.
After all, imagine the same interference in your new relationship, from your wife's ex-partner - if he were to send a lawyer to yours - as others advise you. It only exacerbates the situation...
"What you want people to do to you, you do to them", said a famous ancient philosopher.
It has almost nothing to do with JWs. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Chinese Communists or atheists deal with the same family constellation.
the brics summit was big this year.
new member states were added.
interesting that they call themselves the global south.
@EP
EP: If Josephus recorded some of those events correctly in his histories after they happened, what of it? Does that negate that the prophecies were recorded in Daniel chapter 11? Not at all.
PW: The problem I see is that we rely on extra-biblical commentaries. It's the same as in another discussion when you deny the possibility of drawing from extra-biblical sources that Noah & Co. didn't live for hundreds of years.
I don't underestimate those sources, but I don't overestimate them either. I think your biblical thinking, unnecessarily heavily influenced by human traditions.
