Posts by Rattigan350

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Rattigan350

Why would you want to debunk 1914?

I thought the objective was to set them straight that Jerusalem wasn't destroyed in 607 but in 587.

That is not debunking 1914, because while Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, Jesus still became king in 1914.

29

Passport to Heaven

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses believe that only 144,000 go to heaven, where as the bible teaches us that all who come to jesus can!

nothing in the bible for 144,000.. the bible teaches that salvation is not through religion, works, self righteousness or human effort.

but salvation is only through the person of the lord jesus christ.. feel free to watch below.

Rattigan350

"What did God accomplish by wiping out the entire earth? God's solution failed!"

That wasn't God's solution. The flood was to clear out the waters in the heavens covering the earth.

Thousands of years later, the population is close to 8 billion and the violence is a million times worse.

So he needs to get rid of the people and the violence.

29

Passport to Heaven

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses believe that only 144,000 go to heaven, where as the bible teaches us that all who come to jesus can!

nothing in the bible for 144,000.. the bible teaches that salvation is not through religion, works, self righteousness or human effort.

but salvation is only through the person of the lord jesus christ.. feel free to watch below.

Rattigan350

NO, the Bible does not teach us that all who come to Jesus can get to heaven.

It teaches the KINGDOM of the heavens. Heavenly Jerusalem.

Those two terms, Kingdom and Jerusalem should teach enough. That heaven is what Jerusalem was meant to be. God's throne and those serving there are serving with the throne and at his pleasure.

Thus, those going to heaven will serve as God's administrators. So you are to ask whom are they administering over?

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

Rattigan350

The prohibition against eating blood was first given to Noah and his descendants. Then to Israel in the Law.

So what of Noah's other descendants not of Israel, what of them? Not a word from them about not eating blood from a command. Did they forget? Did it not get transmitted through them? Since many of them consumed it and then transfused, because they didn't know, what will become of them?

61

Why are so many Jehovah’s Witnesses Angry and Rude?

by Vanderhoven7 in

why do you think many jws are hostile and rude?

or is that just my imagination?.

mark jones writes: the vast majority of jehovah’s witnesses are nice people.

Rattigan350

They are tired and frustrated of how exjws lie and misrepresent the religion.

69

Did Jesus COME with the clouds of heaven in 1914?

by Fisherman in

take for example revelation 21: 10. .

“….and he showed me the holy city jerusalem coming down out of heaven from god.

here john sees something happening, action.

Rattigan350

He came in a BMW.

43

Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

basic blood questions for jehovah's witnesses.

where does the bible outlaw blood transfusions?

(acts 15:29 gen.9:4) .

Rattigan350

The Governing Bodies overstepped on blood

What the Bible says about blood:

Genesis 9:4

Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat

Levitcus 17:10-14

‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.”

13 “‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”

In government there is a legislative branch, executive branch and judicial branch. Jehovah plays all 3 roles. But we were only given the Legislation in Genesis and Leviticus and his enforcement of them.

Act 15:20 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:28,29 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

Jesus gave much criticism to the Pharisees for their taking of the Laws and adding more restrictions to them beyond what was given. They made them a burden.

The first two scriptures were direct from God. But notice in Acts, the apostles acting as a Supreme Court deciding a matter altered the words in the law in their restatement of it. They used a more general ‘abstain from’ along with several prohibitions, idolatry, fornication and blood. The Greek word apechomai, which means “to hold one's self off, refrain, abstain” widens the scope of the prohibition. But I don't believe that their intent was to widen the scope of the law. They used the word ‘abstain’ with several other actions just to show a general prohibition.

Then the modern day governing body acting as a Supreme Court further expanded the law to include blood transfusions, the donating of blood or blood plasmas or the storage of blood.

The governing bodies are not lawmakers or enforcers. They just decide matters or interpret the law like courts.

I was reading a case from the Michigan Supreme Court, People v Gilbert 414 Mich 191 (1982) about the principal issue of whether a radar detector is a "radio receiving set" within the meaning of the statute prohibiting vehicles with a radio receiving set. I thought that this issue and discussion applies to the blood issue because when the law was made there was no technology of radar detectors like when the law on blood was given, there were no transfusions. But should the law be expanded to include technology?

The court stated:

“Words do not stand outside their history. They draw their meaning from it. The plain-meaning rule of statutory construction assumes that the words of a statute have the same meaning to those who authored it and to those who read it. This assumption might be accurate if linguistic usage remained static. But usage and meanings may change considerably over time, and the semantic identity between author and reader which the plain-meaning rule presupposes may be severed. A succeeding generation of readers may read meanings into a text which were never intended. Words chosen to deal with a specific problem may, as a result, be given meanings that could extend their field of application well beyond anything the author could have envisioned

“A court's responsibility when it construes a statute is to implement the purpose and intent of those who enact it. A failure to consider whether the Legislature understood the meaning of a term quite differently when a statute was enacted than it is understood today would allow a statute to be construed in a manner which extends its intended scope. The proper inquiry is not whether the term "radio receiving set" would be understood by a modern reader to include the use of radar but whether at the time the phrase was used the Legislature provided for this technological development.

“Technological innovation may not be an obstacle to the application of a statute where the new technology facilitates the achievement of ends which the Legislature clearly meant to encourage or discourage. But this is not such a case. Here the new technology is itself responsible for generating issues of public policy which the Legislature could not have foreseen or dealt with.

“In states where the Legislature has specifically addressed the problem by prohibiting the use of radar detection devices, the statutory language is clear and unambiguous. Where, as here, the enactment of the statute preceded any possible legislative consideration of the public policy issues, the proper course of action is to await legislative judgment, not to engage in an uncertain attempt to anticipate it”

“The lodestar of statutory construction is legislative purpose or intent."

“Radar had yet to be developed when the Legislature enacted this statute in 1929. During the 1930's, under the veil of military secrecy, scientists were still seeking to develop a method for producing radio signals with short wavelength characteristics so that the speed and position of an object travelling through space could be monitored. Although the term "radar" was not coined until 1942, by 1936 the United States military had successfully developed a radar system for target tracking and navigation. It was only after the Second World War that highway police began to use a simple radar transmitter for the detection of speeding vehicles, the shifting reflections from moving vehicles enabling instant and direct measurement of their velocity. Thus, at the time this statute was enacted, the Legislature was not in a position to realize that radar would come to be used as a means for detecting speeding motorists, much less to assess the defensive measures motorists would take to avoid surveillance.”

“Because courts are wary of creating crimes, penal statutes are to be strictly construed and any ambiguity is to be resolved in favor of lenity:

"`When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. And this not out of any sentimental consideration, or for want of sympathy with the purpose of Congress in proscribing evil or antisocial conduct. It may fairly be said to be a presupposition of our law to resolve doubts in the enforcement of a penal code against the imposition of a harsher punishment.'" Bell v United States, 349 U.S. 81, 83; 75 S.Ct. 620; 99 L Ed 905 (1955), quoted approvingly in People v Bergevin, 406 Mich. 307, 312; 279 N.W.2d 528 (1979)."

“The scope of this statute is at least uncertain; it should be applied only to those acts which the Legislature clearly meant to proscribe. Far from resolving doubts in favor of the accused, the dissenting opinion would stretch the wording of the statute to encompass acts the Legislature not only failed to consider, but was in no position to foresee.”

To translate what was stated above to this issue:

Blood transfusions or any other modern use of blood did not exist in Bible times. But yet Jehovah could foresee their development. It is up to him to make and communicate the application of any law applying to it. When the law maker, Jehovah, left to the apostles and the Governing Body the task of imputing to Jehovah his undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. That is in agreement with Jesus’ teachings in this not out of any sentimental consideration, or for want of sympathy with the purpose of God's law in proscribing evil. Courts can not expand the scope of laws, but yet the Governing Bodies expanded the scope of God’s Law. It may fairly be said to be a presupposition of our law to resolve doubts in the enforcement of a penal code against the imposition of a harsher punishment as that was the teachings of Jesus in speaking against the Pharisees. Also Jehovah was called merciful, that would harmonize with resolving ambiguity in favor of lenity, where as the Governing Body would have you dead and buried forever.

5

Exercise Patience Regional Convention

by Rattigan350 in

the theme of the in person convention this year is "exercise patience".

looking at the convention map, they are really using their assembly halls and they are using smaller civic centers or city arena.

no more huge stadiums.. are they not expecting a great crowd?

Rattigan350

The theme of the in person convention this year is "Exercise Patience"

Looking at the Convention map, they are really using their assembly halls and they are using smaller civic centers or city arena. No more huge stadiums.

Are they not expecting a great crowd? Keeping their expenses low?

24

Exercise Patience Regional Convention

by Rattigan350 in

the theme of the in person convention this year is "exercise patience".

looking at the convention map, they are really using their assembly halls and they are using smaller civic centers or city arena.

no more huge stadiums.. are they not expecting a great crowd?

Rattigan350

There shouldn't be any Regional Convention accounting scams. People put cash or checks in the box or they now use credit cards and then they total it up at the end of the 3 days and that money goes to the WTBTS and the WTBTS pays the expenses involved.

There is no convention accounting report given.

2

Exercise Patience Regional Convention

by Rattigan350 in

the theme of the in person convention this year is "exercise patience".

looking at the convention map, they are really using their assembly halls and they are using smaller civic centers or city arena.

no more huge stadiums.. are they not expecting a great crowd?

Rattigan350

Simon, you can delete this. Two days ago I posted this and then it was stuck in the queued for processing for a couple of minutes and I just closed this out. Then later I tried it again and it works. Now for some reason this posted two days later.