Jump to content
The World News Media

ComfortMyPeople

Member
  • Posts

    283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ComfortMyPeople last won the day on October 1 2022

ComfortMyPeople had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

5,116 profile views

ComfortMyPeople's Achievements

  1. Srecko: (2 Samuel 23:2) . . .The spirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue. (Mark 12:36) . . .By the holy spirit, David himself said, . . . (2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God . . . (1 Corinthians 7:10) . . .To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, . . . (1 Corinthians 7:40) . . .and I certainly think I also have God’s spirit. Well, not only those who wrote, but the apostles speaking of themselves or with reference to the past positively believed that Jehovah directed their writing, at least in part, of what they were writing. Concerning the modern "doctrinal guardian", nowhere in Scripture do we find support for believing that they are inspired. A separate issue are reckless or pretentious statements by themselves that they are "guided." I would like more humility on your part (their part I meant to say).
  2. Yes, I see your point, I see your point... I think that for any 1st century Christian of Gentile origin, when they learn that Jehovah from the beginning (Noah) prohibited the consumption of blood. This was later highlighted in dozens of mentions in the Mosaic Law and, finally, in the apostolic decree (with Paul present) of Acts 15. In short, I am sure that in no way would they want to consume blood. As we know, even Tertullian writes that Christians abstained from the custom of drinking blood. Yes, the Early Church held this commandment as a whole. So, from my point of view, any exegetical possibilities about some passages like the ones you mention pale next to the rest of the evidence. They are that, a possibility. For me, the certainty is that since Noah the servants of Jehovah did not drink/we don't drink/we will not drink blood.
  3. Yes, I see your point, and I agree. It could, from our point of view, have been made clearer. Could it be because they are two different contexts? Like when Paul says: (Romans 3:28) 28 For we consider that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law. . . And James mentions something apparently contradictory: (James 2:24) . . .You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.
  4. I would say that Paul, in the aforementioned texts, is alluding to eating meat previously offered to an idol in a pagan temple of worship. Meat that was sold in the temple itself, and the income from the operation financed said place. Paul says that the Christian with a weak conscience thinks that he is contributing to false worship, but the strong one only thinks that he is paying for a service: receiving food. That is, he does not make a donation to promote something idolatrous. In other words, I don't find that Paul even remotely addresses the issue of whether or not the meat was bled. That idea was not under consideration in the context we are talking about. I believe that if the Christian suspected that this was the case (that the meat contained blood), his conscience would prevent him from eating it. But that point is not discussed in those verses. (1 Corinthians 10:25-28) 25 Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. So the question was whether or not the meat was offered in a pagan sacrifice, not the blood it might contain. I think so, but I may be wrong.
  5. (1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. Well, I agree that the fault lies with the perpetrator, but the shame falls on the whole of God's people. What are we to think of what Paul mentions to the Corinthians? Well, surely the Christians of that city would be criticized, it is most likely. In fact, when we used to say to the victims something like: "don't report him so as not to bring reproach to the name of Jehovah" it was because, sadly, his name really did get dirty. I also agree with the report that our site only presents positive information: successes, victories and achievements, but not the opposite. As a politician here in Spain said (and I'm sure it's the same everywhere) "others are already there to criticize us, we don't have to do it ourselves." And I agree with the argument that we have used naivety in acknowledging the errors of the biblical writers as proof of the authenticity of the Bible. I do not think it is debatable that at the Organization level there have been very few times where we have recognized doctrinal or other errors. And I prefer not to delve into this precise subject because he is one of the ones that hurts me the most. Finally, with regard to Spain, from where I write, due to the fact that general elections have been called for next July, this tax exemption measure has been postponed, and we will see if with a new government it will be able to enter into force or not. A letter read to congregations this week acknowledged this situation.
  6. Not sure, but this kind of reasoning remember me to another person very tidy [not sure if this is a correct word] you used to have long talks with him
  7. (Daniel 11:43) . . .And he will rule over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the desirable things of Egypt. And the Libʹy·ans and the E·thi·oʹpi·ans will be at his steps. I guess this assessment is a bit controversial...
  8. You're right. Nothing in our Christian life should change if the prophecies (such as those of the KoN) were fulfilled, are being fulfilled or will be fulfilled. If we serve Jehovah out of devotion we will continue to worship him no matter what the end comes tomorrow or in a million years. In fact, not giving prophecies too much emphasis protects us from disappointment. But what happens to me is that since a good part of the Bible consists of prophecies, I can't help but "take a look". (2 Peter 1:19). . .So we have the prophetic word made more sure, and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place (until day dawns and a daystar rises) in your hearts. . By the way, I love your cartoons
  9. Yes, I see your point. And I also think that Jews and Christians thought they were seeing the fulfillment of the prophecies (and also many of us). Considering that Jesus refers to Daniel as a "prophet", and that many of his prophecies culminate in the "time of the end" (for example Daniel 2:44) it is still very interesting to investigate where, in Daniel 10 to 12, we could discover specific events of our era.
  10. Yes, at some point the character is no longer a Seleucid king, not even a Roman, because nothing of the next verses happened in past times: (Daniel 11:45-12:2) . . .And he will plant his royal tents between the grand sea and the holy mountain of Decoration; and he will come all the way to his end, and there will be no helper for him. 12 “During that time Mi'cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. 2 And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt. Evidently, at some point the prophecy abandons the past and tackles the future. The problem is knowing where to cut!
  11. Several problems arise when we approach Da 11 from a preterist or historicist perspective. First of all, I believe that the first mistake in approaching this prophecy (along with those of Revelation) is to try to apply them to events "of the present moment" as soon as we think we determine that some piece fits in the puzzle, only to discover some time later that we have to readjust (Zenobia, for example). A problem that we JW's have is that since everything pivots around 1914 we try to make the key turn in that lock, closing our eyes to any other possibility. Actually, it must be admitted that there are two possibilities. 1. Everything was fulfilled at the time of the Hellenic kings who influenced Israel, mainly Antiochus IV Epiphanes 2. Much of what we believe has already been accomplished is still in the future and must be fulfilled. I am only going to get involved at this point with point 1. DANIEL 11:25-27 Scholars mention that these passages have to do with some Syrian wars (KoN) against the Ptolemies (KoS) but they are not sure what specific events. Until recently we talked about Queen Zenobia and her generals as antagonists of Rome and KoS. Now, we see in these verses the German Empire and its defeat in the IWW ...And so on. Scholars focusing on Syria-Egypt, JW's on 20th and 21st century events. WHY ANTIOCUS IV IS NOT THE GREAT PROTAGONIST OF DANIEL 11 Daniel 11:40-45 This is in no way related to the acts of Antiochus or any other Hellenic KoN. Numerous commentators apply these words to a character related to the Antichrist. Daniel 11:45 When biblical scholars try to apply this passage to the death of the Syrian king they have to admit that Daniel (or a pseudo-Daniel) was wrong, since the king is known not to die in the Promised Land ("of Decoration") Daniel 11:31b Although many think that this refers to the desecration of the temple by this impious king, as collected in the Maccabean books, Jesus Christ himself (Mat 24:15 and Mr 13:14) applies it to the future, not to events of the 2nd century BC .
  12. Yes, yes. But... Why do we have to limit ourselves only to past events? WWI and WWII events Are we sure that the situation is not going to change? I mean, that the USA will remain relatively moderate and tolerant until the end, that it will always respect us Are we sure that the horn persecution of Daniel 7 (and 😎 has already happened? And that of Revelation 11, 12 and 13, has it already happened? Sure? Well, it could be, but it doesn't add up to me.
  13. Very interesting what you say, as always. But, look, I think there is a lot of evidence that the USA is the king of the north. I hope to have time one day to explain myself better, just to advance two things: In our explanations it has been said that Russia has worshiped the "god of fortresses" as meaning that it invests a lot in armament (more tanks and less butter), as they used to say. But according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures it turns out that the USA spends TWICE as Russia, India and China TOGETHER. And about the King of the North's mood to invade. Sure, drawn from the Western perspective Russia is the bad guy, but what if we include the US role in Afghanistan, Iraq, South America, Vietnam and many others? Well, just this that I don't have time today. But I insist, AND I MAY BE WRONG, but I think there would be grounds for thinking that the north and the south...
  14. Hello, do you have the additional highlights for midweek meeting tonight? I’m having trouble getting it. It wont download

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.