shadow

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 540 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by shadow

• 
  12

  QFR: New light on Annointed? No more Holy Spirit than the rest of us?

  by WingCommander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  question for all of those in the know:.

  i've been getting snipits of info on some threads concerning some possible "new light" that was supposedly in a recent questions from readers.

  from what i could briefly gather, it states that the annointed don't have any more "holy spirit" inside them than do the great crowd.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  scan is found here and preceding post

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/130668/2319639/post.ashx#2319639
• 
  44

  Question: Why was it ok to sell unbled meat to a foriegner for them to eat?

  by Lady Liberty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hello all... ok, i have a question for any takers: deuteronomy 14:21 says this:.

  21 "you must not eat any body [already] dead.

  so, it is obvious that this is why they could not eat a animal that they found that had died, say from natural causes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  kicky,
  

  Question:
  I am trying to understand Deut 14:21 and Lev 17:15.
  It seems to me Lev 17:15 is referring to a case where someone (Jew or alien) in hunting finds an already dead animal...is this correct? His eating in this case merely resulted in uncleanness.?

  (Leviticus 17:13-16) “‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.’”

  Correct

  Deut is talking about simply an animal that dies of natural courses- not in the course of hunting but perhaps an animal owned by a resident. In this case the Jew can not eat it but can sell it. Is this correct?

  (Deuteronomy 14:21) “YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God

  No, it’s the same scenario you suggested above about hunting. The Jew was not supposed to eat an animal that he owned if he discovered it had died. However, the penalty was to wash his garments and be unclean for the day. See Lev 11:39,40 below (a scripture that WT really does not like). Incidentally, this is the same requirement as for married couples having sex.

  (Leviticus 11:39-40) “‘Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.

  Here is one of the direct more WT answers on this scripture.

  *** w54 4/1 223 Questions from Readers ***Questions from Readers
  ? How can we harmonize Deuteronomy 14:21 (NW), “You must not eat any dead body,” and Leviticus 11:40 (NW), “And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments and he must be unclean until the evening”?—D. H., Eire.
  Actually, there is no disharmony between these two texts. One prohibits eating an animal that died of itself or was found dead, and the other shows the penalty for eating in violation of the prohibition. The mere fact that the eating of a dead body is forbidden does not mean that will never take place. The Law contained prohibitions of many things, but it also contained penalties for violating those prohibitions. The mere fact that a thing was prohibited did not of itself mean it would never be indulged in; hence penalties were set up to give force to the prohibitions. There were prohibitions against stealing, talebearing, adultery, murder, and many other sins of varying magnitude, and penalties of varying severity were fixed by the Law to guide Israel in dealing with violators. So it was in the matter of eating a dead body.

  One month later they try to confuse the issue by saying eating the dead animal was done accidentally.

  *** w54 5/1 286-7 Questions from Readers ***
  If the hunter failed to bleed his game properly he was put to death, or “cut off.” To eat unbled game not only was prohibited to Israelites under the Law, but also is forbidden for Christians: “Keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication.” (Acts 15:29; 21:25, NW) Immediately following the instruction to hunters to bleed their game and that to eat blood will mean their death, we read: “As for any soul that eats a dead body or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a temporary resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening. Then he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, then he must answer for his iniquity.” (Lev. 17:15, 16, NW) A body that dies of itself or of wounds inflicted by another animal would not be properly drained of blood, and hence was not to be eaten. Penalty for deliberate violation of the commandment to eat no blood is death, but in the last-mentioned case guilt could be erased by a ceremony of purification, which indicates it was a case where the commandment was violated innocently, unknowingly, as might happen when someone purchased or bartered for meat, or when eating as a guest of someone else. Now, as in Israel’s day, one who violates the command concerning blood accidentally, without knowing it, not doing so deliberately, can gain forgiveness by repentance and avoiding a recurrence of the trespass.

  Here are more recent comments from the Insight book.

  *** it-2 217-9 Law ***
  DIETARY AND SANITARY LAWS
  No animal dying of itself or found dead could be eaten (because it was unclean and had not been properly bled) (De 14:21)
  The body of a clean animal that died of itself made the one who carried it, touched it, or ate it unclean; the dead body of any unclean animal made the one who touched it unclean. Cleansing was required (Le 11:8, 11, 24-31, 36, 39, 40; 17:15, 16)
• 
  44

  Question: Why was it ok to sell unbled meat to a foriegner for them to eat?

  by Lady Liberty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hello all... ok, i have a question for any takers: deuteronomy 14:21 says this:.

  21 "you must not eat any body [already] dead.

  so, it is obvious that this is why they could not eat a animal that they found that had died, say from natural causes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  A post I made on another forum:
  
  (Deuteronomy 14:21) “YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God

  OK, this is clear enough. Sell it to a Gentile, but Jews must not eat it. Of course, such an animal would be full of blood that would now be impossible to remove. Is Jehovah violating the law that he gave to Noah?

  (Genesis 9:3-4) Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat. . .

  We know the penalty for eating blood as shown here:

  (Leviticus 7:26-27) “‘And YOU must not eat any blood in any places where YOU dwell, whether that of fowl or that of beast. Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people.’”

  Obviously then any Jew eating a dead animal full of blood should be executed. Wait, here is something odd:

  (Leviticus 7:22-25) And Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘YOU must not eat any fat of a bull or a young ram or a goat. Now the fat of a body [already] dead and the fat of an animal torn to pieces may be used for anything elseconceivable, but YOU must not eat it at all. For anyone eating fat from the beast from which he presents it as an offering made by fire to Jehovah, the soul that eats must be cut off from his people.

  If a Jew could not eat such an animal and would face the death penalty for doing so, then why is there some distinction made here about eating the fat of a dead animal? Also note that while EATING the fat was strictly forbidden, the fat could be used for “ANYTHING ELSE CONCEIVABLE”. Perhaps there is something more.

  (Leviticus 17:13-16) “‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.’”

  Ahhhh! Here we find an Israelite out hunting. If he fails to properly drain the blood, he is subject to the death penalty. However, if the Israelite eats a body already dead, he must then wash his garments and be unclean until evening. This is exactly the same procedure that a married Israelite would follow after having intercourse. He would only face the death penalty if he refused to follow this procedure. However, the death penalty would still apply if he ate the fat of this dead body. The WT claims that within these few verses there was a drastic change in the scenario being presented. The claim is made that the washing of garments rather than the death penalty would only apply if the act were done in ignorance. The suggested scenario being that perhaps verses 15 and 16 apply when an Israelite was a guest at someone’s house and unknowingly ate the unbled flesh of an animal found dead. Hmmmmmmm, I’m having just a bit of difficulty swallowing that and even more so in the case of the next scripture.

  (Leviticus 11:39-40) “‘Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.

  Somehow the WT overlooked this particular scripture when they made their assertions about Lev 17. Is there any doubt that the Israelite was fully aware that he was eating a dead, unbled body in these verses?

  Also curious is the fact that an action that carried the death penalty under the Law is now a conscience matter, while an action that only required the washing of garments under the Law is now forbidden under WT policy. Even more amazing is the fact that the WT has reasoned that it is more acceptable to be a cannibal than to eat the body of a dead animal, but that is a story for another time.

  Much later we find the council in Jerusalem where the issue arose again.

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

  What an odd choice of language! “Keep abstaining from . . . blood and from things strangled.” Now if there is a blanket prohibition to keep away from blood in any way, shape or form, why not just say blood and leave it at that? Why add things strangled? Could it be that the whole prohibition on blood has something to do with the fact that it symbolizes life and that man only takes the lives of animals with divine permission? Perhaps blood, like fat, is not to be used for food?

  Since they did choose to include the expression “things strangled”, did they make a mistake and forget to include “animals found dead”? Since some of those present were very well versed in the Law, it would take quite an imagination to believe that. On what scriptural basis would we now go beyond the laws God gave in the days of Noah, Moses and the apostles and impose this prohibition?

  Now would you still say that the scriptures clearly indicate that it is wrong for Christians to eat the body of an animal found dead?
• 
  17

  "Faithful" and "Discreet" ???

  by AuldSoul in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  main entry: faithful.

  function: adjective.

  1 obsolete : full of faith.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  *** w97 6/1 13-14 A Secret Christians Dare Not Keep! ***
  7 In contrast with humans, who have a limited life span, Jehovah never feels pressured by time to reveal his secrets prematurely. This fact should prevent us from becoming impatient when certain Bible questions cannot presently be explained to our satisfaction. Modesty on the part of the faithful and discreet slave class, commissioned to provide the Christian household with food at the proper time, prevents it from presumptuously running ahead and wildly speculating about things that are still unclear. The slave class strives to avoid being dogmatic. It is not too proud to admit that as of now it cannot answer every question, keeping Proverbs 4:18 clearly in mind. But how thrilling to know that Jehovah, in his own due time and in his own way, will continue to reveal his secrets as to his purposes! Never should we become impatient with Jehovah’s arrangement, indiscreetly trying to rush ahead of the Revealer of secrets. How reassuring it is to know that the channel Jehovah is using today does not do so! It is both faithful and discreet.—Matthew 24:45; 1 Corinthians 4:6.

  (Proverbs 26:12) Have you seen a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for the stupid one than for him.

  Enough said.
• 
  13

  Why was instruction given to "abstain...from things strangled?"

  by M.J. in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  what was the reasoning behind that instruction in acts 15:20,29?.

  was it simply due to the fact that an animal dying by strangulation would retain more blood than various forms of slaughter?.

  was it in reaction to a ritual or practice that had connections to idolatry at the time?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  my 2 cents:

  Jehovah chose to use blood as a symbol of life. Humans are to recognize their subjection to the giver of life when they kill an animal by pouring out the blood. This is not done when an animal is strangled.

  This is in contrast to unbled meat that is not provided through the action of a human (killed by another animal or dies from some other cause). Conspicuously absent from the prohibition in Acts is any comment on this type of meat. The WTS has gone beyond both the Law and the statements in Acts by claiming that such meat (roadkill) is not fit for Christians.

  So I believe Acts is saying to not drink blood nor to eat animals slaughtered in a way (strangulation) that is disrespecting God. It focuses on the use of blood as a symbol more than blood as a substance, which has always been evident by the regulations pertaining to eating unbled meat.
• 
  85

  Ban on Jeans , T-Shirts & Shorts after the Convention

  by dozy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  apr km insert.

  "even during leisure time , such as when going out to eat after the programme , we should dress as befits ministers... and should not wear such clothing as jeans , shorts or t-shirts.

  what a witness this will give to the community.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  Anyone recall the story about Franz and the "Where in the hell is McCook Nebraska?" shirt??
• 
  31

  My Bethel Experience Part 18

  by new boy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is the fun one......... health, dismemberment, death (natural and unnatural) murder and suicide.. well its sunday afternoon, portland oregon, february 18, 2007.........its been 34 years,.......i 'm just drunk enough, excuse me,.....i mean "self medicated"enough (p.s.

  juni sweet heart.... i love you), to start writing this chapter.........the people at bethel were killing us spiritually!.......and sometimes they killed us physically too.....i'm not letting myself of the hook...i was there and i was as bad them..............no, i'm sorry i was worst then them......and why?.....because i knew better....those bastards didn't know any better .......we need to send them some love........the thing they can't give us ................we need to give them......... love............. "thats all you need" .

  first off....... when you go to bethel, you sign a document stating that if you die while you are at bethel, the society has "the right" to keep your body.........most people, just sign it and forget about it, but don't you think that is just a little strange?..........i did.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  Enjoying your stories, but a little confused on one point. I think you said you were there from 70-74 but also said you were there when Margaret burned down??
• 
  23

  Hemodilution: A new secret change in blood Policy ?

  by chasson in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  take a look at the forum of noblood.org, a website maintaining by some jw like larry eitel and jan b. wade (this last is a founder of sabm too).

  jan b. wade made here a curious remark concerning hemodilution:.

  "there has been some refinement in what a jehovah's witness patient may or may not accept.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  A similar topic that may be of interest.

  http://www.noblood.org/general-discussions/697-cell-salvage-irradiation-jehovahs-witnesses.html
• 
  32

  They make mistakes just like 1st century christians did.

  by GBSJG in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  when i'm discussing problems i have with the wts with my family they often say well they make mistakes just like the early christians did, they are not perfect.. i try to argue that if you think that way you can go to any christian church and say the same.

  but usually they say that compared to other religions the wts makes less mistakes so you should go there.. i know that such reasoning doesn't make sense to me but what is a good response to this?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  I have pasted a good article on this that is easy to show the parallels between what it discusses and the WTS (e.g. blood transfusions).

  *** g70 4/22 8-10 Changes That Disturb People ***
  Changes That Disturb People

  THE churches are in rapid decline. Even in the United States, where religion still enjoys perhaps the greatest popularity, nearly three out of four persons polled said that it is losing influence. Why is there this decline in religion?
  One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement, or even despair, because of what is happening in your church? A businessman in Medellín, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many.
  “Tell me,” he asked, “how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe ‘new things.’ How do I know the ‘new things’ will be the truth in five years?”What are some of these changes that disturb people?

  Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
  FOR centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. But now this has changed.
  The fact is that the meatless-Friday rule was made an obligation only some 1,100 years ago. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) was the one who put it into effect. And how vital was it considered that Catholics abide by this rule?
  A publication that bears the Catholic imprimatur, indicating approval, states: “The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason.” It adds: The “Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.”—Radio Replies, Rumble and Carty (1938).
  Thus the devout carefully avoided eating meat on Fridays. They sincerely believed that failure to obey could lead to their eternal punishment in a fiery hell.
  But then, early in 1966, Pope Paul VI authorized local Church officials to modify this abstinence requirement in their countries as they saw fit. The pope was acting in line with recommendations made at the recently completed Second Vatican Council. Thus, in one country after another, meatless Fridays were virtually abolished—in France, Canada, Italy, Mexico, the United States, and so on.

  The Effect
  The effect upon many devout Catholics has been devastating. “All these years I thought it was a sin to eat meat,” explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. “Now I suddenly find out it isn’t a sin. That’s hard to understand.”
  If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Church a “mortal sin” can suddenly be approved? if it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand.
  When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her church, she replied: “I don’t know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?”Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?The Catholic Church, however, has not completely changed its position on Friday meat abstinence. Even now Catholics are still required to abstain from eating meat on “Good Friday.” Also, in some places they must not eat meat on Fridays during the Lenten season.
  But why is it considered wrong to eat meat on “Good Friday,” but permissible to do so on other Fridays of the year? It has caused thinking persons to wonder.
  Many persons have begun to ask questions regarding the basis for this teaching, as well as about other Church teachings. And what especially disturbs them is that they have not received satisfying answers.

  What Becomes EvidentThe inability of the Church to explain its position Scripturally makes evident an important fact: The Catholic Church has not based its teachings upon what God’s Word says. Rather, it has founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men.This is obviously true with regard to Friday meat abstinence. For, look as you may, nowhere in the Bible will you find that Christians were ever instructed to refrain from eating meat on any Friday of the year, or on any other day. It is not a requirement of God. In fact, the Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible says that enjoining or commanding “abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving” is an evidence of a departure from the faith.—1 Tim. 4:1-4.
  Thus, many truth-seekers are having their eyes opened to see that the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to God’s Word. And they are wondering whether any religion that does not do so is worthy of their confidence and support.
• 
  37

  PROVE ME WRONG! JW's were the only religion to oppose Hitler

  by truthsearcher in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this statement was made to me and i want to refute it with verifiable information on other denominations.

  anyone with ideas?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shadow

  This thread is a joke. There are lots of things to attack JW’s on, but this isn’t one of them. As for Niemoller and the Confessing Church, they did not object to serving in the German military (see below).

  http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm

  In that same book, on. p. 43, Niemöller explained in an interview with a US army chaplain why, while he was in Dachau, he offered to serve in the German navy. You can take his explanation or leave it - it sounds apologetic to me! Here it is:
  " Niemöller said he saw three possibilities: 1) if Germany lost the war, it would have been very bad for the country; 2) if the Nazis had won the war, it would have been even worse for Germany; 3) if fighting continued in the hope of pushing the Nazis out of the government and a negotiated peace might have come about. If that last possibility came true, he didn't want to be in prison, but wanted to contribute to the future of his country in freedom. also, his three sons had been drafted into the army, and he felt that in those circumstances a father's place was with his sons. "

  http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/Niem1946GuiltHope13-16.htm

  Of Guilt and Hope, by Martin Niemöller

  New York: Philosophical Library, 1947 [79 pp. 21 cm.]
  translation by Renee Spodheim of:
  Die deutsche Schuld, Not und Hoffnung,
  Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1946.

  Document and analysis by Harold Marcuse, Professor of History at UCSB,
  page created May 2003, uploaded 9/17/04
  (part of my Martin Niemöller Quotation page)

  According to a short announcement in the New York Times on Aug. 5, 1947, this translation was withdrawn from circulation by the Philosophical Society after it became known that Niemoeller may have supported the Nazis as early as 1924.