Jump to content
The World News Media

Srecko Sostar

Member
  • Posts

    4,585
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from George88 in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    "Technically speaking", we can still use Satan as a fashion designer, because he is a "murderer from the beginning", so what would be a problem for him to kill an animal for its skin? 
    Figuratively, wearing leather clothing would mean that it was a specific "sign of Satan" characteristic for all those who rebel against God. lol
    ....,  but "we don't know". lol 
  2. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to George88 in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    @Srecko Sostar
    Srecko, the link is working. The observation about the people of Sodom and Gomorra is uncertain. Will those individuals be resurrected? The GB has indeed made an accurate assessment. However, can we anticipate the inclusion of individuals who have shown nothing but contempt for God's laws? I understand how someone who was misled by circumstances might be judged for their actions. In such cases, we must follow the pattern set for "repentance." Is it possible that someone there might have had a last-minute change of heart? Unfortunately, we do not have that information.
    Now, can we say the same thing about people pre-flood?
    If we consider the phrase "we just don't know" regarding the argument about Adam and Eve's clothing, we should focus on how soon after their expulsion from the garden God clothed them. If they were clothed as they were forced to leave, it might be argued that they were not technically inside the garden at that moment. This suggests that God's angel may have been clothing them as they were escorted out the gate. So, should we make an issue out of something difficult to determine?
  3. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    I only meant that for those of us who have watched this phenomenon for years, we can easily spot it. 
    Then again, when someone needs you to explain something a dozen times over the course of several months, and several threads (like your use of the term "carrion") but they still come back with the exact same retort . . . well sometimes you can just 'smell' it:
  4. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    Wait. What? BTK59 is a troll? I've been engaging with a troll for a few days? Guess I don't get out enough.
  5. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    Trolls-R-Us: @BTK59 @BillyTheKid-55 @George88 @Allen Smith @AllenSmith35 @Alphonse and many more.
    What would this forum be like without them?
  6. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    Decay begins at death. Decay escalates to a point where flesh becomes inedible for humans yet still edible for other creatures. Some animals, like maggots, thrive on putrified flesh. Eating flesh is a sort of food from creation.
  7. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    No. When I've spoken of carrion I've used the term in reference to edible flesh of a dead animal.
  8. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    There is a word in Hebrew that's used in Genesis 1:28 that might have a bearing on the argument about whether Jehovah may have always had in mind that humans could eat meat, just as many animals had apparently been doing for thousands or years. 
    (Genesis 1:28) . . .Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
     
    The word for subdue in Hebrew is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3533/kjv/wlc/0-1/
    כָּבַשׁ kâbash, kaw-bash'; a primitive root; to tread down; hence, negatively, to disregard; positively, to conquer, subjugate, violate:—bring into bondage, force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection.
    Other examples are here translating exactly the same word in the New World Translation:
    It can even indicate "devour"
    (Zechariah 9:15) Jehovah of armies will defend them, And they will devour and subdue the slingstones. They will drink and be boisterous, as if with wine; And they will be filled like the bowl . . ,
    Or ravage, rape:
    (Esther 7:8) 8 The king returned from the palace garden to the house of the wine banquet and saw that Haʹman had thrown himself on the couch where Esther was. The king exclaimed: “Is he also going to rape the queen in my own house?” . . .
    Other ideas, are put into bondage, conquer, etc.
    Therefore, a basic idea behind subduing the earth, could include "devouring" it. How would one go about conquering the fish, putting the flying creatures into bondage? For what purpose would one subjugate sheep and oxen, if not to also make use of them as resources? 
     
  9. Thanks
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    This is completely wrong, Billy. Before I realized how you might have made the mistake, I thought you were attempting satire, @BTK59, but that would be quite a stretch from the @BillyTheKid-55  and previous B.T.K.s we've all come to know and love on this forum. 
    First, you say:
    I'm assuming this could have been an innocent mistake, probably because you saw: "(Genesis 3:21) . . .And Jehovah God made long garments from skins . . ." and you looked up the wrong word. You appear to have looked up the Bible lexicon word(s) for "garment[s]" instead of "skin[s]."
    What seemed odd though is that in other forum topics you have praised the scholarly abilities and translation abilities of the GB and the WTS, yet here you simply reject the Watchtower's view:
    *** w54 7/15 p. 427 May Christians Eat Meat? ***
    Nor can Jesus’ words, “Happy are the merciful,” be used to advocate vegetarianism, for then Jesus himself would have been unmerciful, for he certainly ate flesh, as we have seen. Jehovah glories in the fact that he is merciful, kind and loving, and in view of all his commands, to eat the passover lamb and to offer animal sacrifices, and his own use of the skins of animals to clothe Adam and Eve, it must be apparent that being merciful does not require man to refrain from using lower animals for his benefit.—Matt. 5:7, NW.
    As an aside, and in line with the Watchtower's comments just quoted, how "savage" do you think it would have been for God to clothe them with animal skins, and yet the same God, who does not change, demanded that if His priests were vegetarian, they would have to be disfellowshipped or perhaps even put to death. In fact, even for the average Hebrew, they MUST eat meat by God's command:
    (Exodus 12:8-14) . . .“‘They must eat the meat on this night. . . . “‘This day will serve as a memorial for you, and you must celebrate it as a festival to Jehovah throughout your generations. 
    (Leviticus 8:31-35) . . .: “Boil the flesh at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and you will eat it there . . . just as I was commanded, ‘Aaron and his sons will eat it.’ . . . Jehovah commanded that we do what we have done today in order to make atonement for you. . . . and carry out your obligation to Jehovah, so that you may not die; for so I have been commanded.”
    However it happened, your argument as quoted above, ends up talking about the word "garment" and then takes a turn to tunics and linen, and argues that the word had a different meaning from the one it later came to be used for. And you have also diverted to fig leaves in Genesis 3:7 instead of the question about the "skins" in Genesis 3:21.
    Because Friberg said a "garment" could be made not necessarily of linen but also of skins, you are apparently concluding that these particular garments in Genesis 3 must not have been from skin but could have been from linen. By that fallacious reasoning, if Friberg had said that garments were not necessarily made from frilly lace but also from skin, you could have concluded that Jehovah made those garments from frilly lace. 
    Actually, it's pretty simple when you look up the corerct word used in Genesis 3:21:
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5785/kjv/wlc/0-1/
    Outline of Biblical Usage [?] skin, hide
    skin (of men)
    hide (of animals)
    Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend) עוֹר ʻôwr, ore; from H5783; skin (as naked); by implication, hide, leather:—hide, leather, skin. Here's how it's used elsewhere in Genesis, Exodus and I stopped in the middle of Leviticus, but you can get the picture:
    TOOLS
     Gen 27:16
    And she put the skins H5785 of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck: TOOLS
     Exo 22:27
    For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: H5785 wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. TOOLS
     Exo 25:5
    And rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and badgers' skins, H5785 and shittim wood, TOOLS
     Exo 26:14
    And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and a covering above of badgers' skins. H5785 TOOLS
     Exo 29:14
    But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, H5785 and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering. TOOLS
     Exo 34:29
    And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin H5785 of his face shone while he talked with him. TOOLS
     Exo 34:30
    And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin H5785 of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. TOOLS
     Exo 34:35
    And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin H5785 of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him. TOOLS
     Exo 35:7
    And rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and badgers' skins, H5785 and shittim wood, TOOLS
     Exo 35:23
    And every man, with whom was found blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair, and red skins H5785 of rams, and badgers' skins, H5785 brought them. TOOLS
     Exo 36:19
    And he made a covering for the tent of rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and a covering of badgers' skins H5785 above that. TOOLS
     Exo 39:34
    And the covering of rams' skins H5785 dyed red, and the covering of badgers' skins, H5785 and the vail of the covering, TOOLS
     Lev 4:11
    And the skin H5785 of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, TOOLS
     Lev 7:8
    And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin H5785 of the burnt offering which he hath offered. TOOLS
     Lev 8:17
    But the bullock, and his hide, H5785 his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses. TOOLS
     Lev 9:11
    And the flesh and the hide H5785 he burnt with fire without the camp. TOOLS
     Lev 11:32
    And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, H5785 or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. TOOLS
     Lev 13:2
    When a man shall have in the skin H5785 of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin H5785 of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests: TOOLS
     Lev 13:3
    And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin H5785 of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin H5785 of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. TOOLS
     Lev 13:4
    If the bright spot be white in the skin H5785 of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, H5785 and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days: TOOLS
     Lev 13:5
    And the priest shall look on him the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague spread not in the skin; H5785 then the priest shall shut him up seven days more: TOOLS
     Lev 13:6
    And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhat dark, and the plague spread not in the skin, H5785 the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. TOOLS
     Lev 13:7
    But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin, H5785 after that he hath been seen of the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen of the priest again:
     
  10. Downvote
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Alphonse in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    Let's keep in mind that the whole episode of sinning and talking and getting leather clothing takes place within the confines of the Garden of Eden. Only when God had finished talking with them and provided them with adequate clothing did He drive them out of the Garden.
    So the fact that they sinned within the confines of the Garden and were given leather clothing within the confines/boundaries of the Garden speaks for itself and disproves your remark to Many Miles.
    The assumption you made that getting clothes is related to the act of sin is only partially acceptable. Because nowhere is it explicitly said that people will remain naked forever or that they will dig in the garden with fingers instead of hoes. Because how will you spread the garden, and that was God's intention, without tools? Plants should be planted, sown, but also uprooted and cut. Unless they were to use beavers, giraffes, goats and elephants for such jobs? lol
    Climate change is also certain. So they would need clothes and a roof over their heads, and that again changes the way of life and has nothing to do with the status of perfection. Because both snow and ice is perfection that comes from God, too.
  11. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    Edible meat is the appropriate description for biological food, just as edible fruit or vegetation is the appropriate depiction of botanical food. I've not suggested eating inedible meat.
    I have no concrete evidence confirming Adam and Eve consumed water in the garden. Does this mean Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating water? The means of concluding they did eat water is because, though not vegetation, humans were given dominion of "all the earth" which gave them permission to eat water unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
    I have no concrete evidence confirming Eve was created with the capability to feed her offspring breast milk. Does this mean offspring of Eve did not eat milk? The means of concluding they did eat milk is because, though not vegetation, creation demonstrates that eating a mother's milk is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
    Like humans were given dominion over all the earth, they were also given dominion of all the animals hence, though not vegetation, this dominion is what gave them permission to eat meat unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could. Moreover, creation through its natural ecosystem teaches us that, though not vegetation, eating edible meat is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
    "And Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." (Ref: Genesis) 
    "...like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed..." (Ref: Peter)
    Animals were created to live and die. Dead animal carcasses don't just disappear. Dead animal carcasses are decomposed, metabolized and thus returned to the earth. This is a vital part of earth's created ecosystem. Natural decomposition after death includes other creatures eating the bodily components of that dead flesh resulting in its metabolism. Animal flesh was always a food in Eden and outside Eden.
    Genesis 6:21 says what it says. I can't change that. Meat of animals has been a sort of food since creation of animals. The text of Genesis 1:29 does not present a prohibition against eating things that are edible other than vegetation. It only states a permission to eat vegetation. Lack of a specific permission does not present a prohibition. Genesis 1:29 is no more a prohibition against eating meat than it is a prohibition against eating milk or water.
    Maybe the question you should ask and answer is: Why would God have specifically given Noah permission to kill and eat animals as food after the flood when animal flesh had been a sort of food eaten since creation? There is an answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward.
  12. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Pudgy in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    Steamboat Willie, featuring Mickey Mouse, was first shown on November 18, 1928. It's considered a significant moment in animation history as it was one of the first synchronized sound cartoons.
    A bleeding liberal snowflake lawyer for the Society saw it and the idea of happy animals, all living in peace, eating grass (or smokin’ it), already “up the flag pole”,  was set in stone.
      The Watchtower magazine began teaching about a paradise earth with vegetarian animals in the late 1920s, specifically in the 1927 edition of "The Way to Paradise" book by J.F. Rutherford, the second president of the Watch Tower Society
    The cartoon validated it.
    Compared to today, EVERYBODY was ignorant, and it caught on…. seemingly with Scriptural support. . This teaching later became a central doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    Meanwhile, in the REAL WORLD,  all chlorophyl based vegetable life on Earth ate sunlight, and half the animal life on Earth ate the vegetable life, and the second half of all animal life ate the first half.
    This is how, EVERYWHERE ON EARTH, for at least THREE Billion years, it worked EVERY DAY. 
    EVERY DAY !
    Even when at least four times, 95% of all life was extinguished through Mass Extinctions … it came back each time working EXACTLY the same way.
    There have been five major mass extinctions in Earth's history: the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, the Late Devonian extinction, the Permian-Triassic extinction, the Triassic-Jurassic extinction, and the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction.
    EVERY TIME life found a way back.  The exact same way back.
    That’ how the REAL WORLD WORKS!
    I am mortified that I once believed in the “Disneyland Fantasy” …. but that’s the way agenda driven thinking works.
    …… sigh …..
     

  13. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    That link begins with the false premise "Scriptures consistently teach that blood is a sacred substance, and one that he has withheld for Himself." No argument with a false premise results in a sound conclusion.
    No pre-Judaic Law text teaches that the substance of blood is sacred and withheld for God alone. For example, aside from eating blood of animals he killed to eat, Noah was free to do with blood whatever he wanted to do with it. Also, if Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat blood it sure is news to me. Insofar as I can see, the only thing God withheld from Adam and Eve was eating from the tree of knowledge.
  14. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    But you said:
    Both can't be true.
    Terms like "whatever," "under its jurisdiction," and "has the power to legislate/decide" are sweeping. Either they are true as stated or they are false. You've found yourself trying to justify something with rationalization. I see no need to keep responding to this, and I won't. I've also given up on your teacher in California responding on the life and death issue of the society's position on blood that is equally inexplicable. It is no wonder that since it's first mention in 1944 active JWs have fought against it, even admittedly so as witnessed in the society's own publications and letters to elders.
  15. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Many Miles in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    In very simple terms, what you write here is a permission slip for the society to teach whatever it wants to teach under the cape you call " jurisdiction". It leaves "her" to teach Judaism if she wishes, because of "her" "power to legislate/decide." Let readers make of that what they will. There is no way to falsify that, which makes it useless as premise for sake of a sound conclusion. If that's what you believe, I leave you with it. I have no need to respond to it. As a JW, or any other capacity.
  16. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    By the way, we look at the decree in Acts 15 and say that because it was "guided by holy spirit" that it becomes some kind of "law" for Christians today. But don't we believe that Paul was also "guided by holy spirit" in writing Timothy?
    Yet how many congregations make a list of widows 60 and over and base it on the requirements listed here?
    (1 Timothy 5:9, 10) . . .A widow is to be put on the list if she is not less than 60 years old, was the wife of one husband,  having a reputation for fine works, if she raised children, if she practiced hospitality, if she washed the feet of holy ones, . . .
    Was this one of those cases where you might think the Pauline decree to Timothy turned out not to be a wise thing to do?
  17. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    Yes. Those principles do not become rules, however. When the Law is written on our hearts, we don't need rules of any kind.
    The imposition of ANY rule is a kind of "judaizing."
    There is no rule against fornication, there is no rule against eating blood. But we don't and won't do either, because we will continually want to know more about God and his love, and try to reflect it wherever possible. If we love God we would want to try to understand, as best as we are able, the Law to Noah and the Law to Moses. Even if we can't figure out all the details behind those laws, we will likely appear to be following rules to those on the outside, but our motivation will be a much higher motivation: love for God, his Son, and love for neighbor. Jesus spoke to actual Jews under Law and was already transitioning them toward this new teaching, showing them that you will never murder because you will work on removing hate, you will never commit adultery or steal because you will work on not even desiring what would take away from your neighbor/brother.  To someone on the outside you might seem like a much stricter rule-follower than they are, but you won't even be thinking about any rules.
    However, you are right that a congregation is going to set rules that make sense to keeping order and making it possible for Christians to fellowship, and they are based on mutual agreement. These are mundane things, however, and have nothing to do with the New Covenant or salvation. A congregation can decide through mutual agreement to have a gathering on Sunday at 10am, or Wednesday at 8pm, or Saturday at midnight. Older men and overseers can help preside over such decisions, wisely, and their love and respect for the flock will help them avoid the decision to meet at midnight on Saturday. It would be a hardship on the congregation, and they would waste their hard work preparing to teach when there will be no one to hear. But those "rules" might even claim to be based on Mosaic principles, as we used to emphasize for our 3 conventions a year. They are still mundane, like the "widows on the list who are least 60 years old" in 1 Timothy. 
    It's hard for me to imagine it that way. Efficiency is not any part of the purpose of the New Covenant. During a time of transition the Old Covenant served as a model, precedent, and teacher -- but it doesn't make those things a part of the New Covenant. Notice:
    (Galatians 3:23-25) . . .However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed.  So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith.  But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.
  18. Like
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity   
    I have some trouble with your reasoning here. You can't put new wine in old wineskins. The New Covenant should not borrow principles from the Old in the creation of laws and rules. The book of Hebrews appears to me to show how there are principles that can help explain the full transition from Old to New. We can find shadows in the Old that hinted there was going to be something new and better. But the Old covenant was a matter of "do this, do that, don't touch this, don't touch that." This is precicely what the "law written on the heart" changes from the "law written on stone."
    The New Covenant does not require us not to murder, for example, as part of a continued rule to follow. Christians don't follow a rule that tells us not to murder. We simply do not murder because it is not a reflection of our love for God who even extends love to enemies, and it is not loving to our neighbor. 
    (1 John 3:15-20) 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him. By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.  But whoever has the material possessions of this world and sees his brother in need and yet refuses to show him compassion, in what way does the love of God remain in him?  Little children, we should love, not in word or with the tongue, but in deed and truth. By this we will know that we originate with the truth, and we will assure our hearts before him regarding whatever our hearts may condemn us in, because God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. . .
     
    (1 John 4:20, 21) . . .If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother.
  19. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to George88 in Pennsylvania Court VS Ivy Hill Congregation of JWs, 2024   
    According to the rules set by the courts. What part of that don't you understand? You are providing the evidence on that code. What part of your post do you not comprehend?
    The assessment of what is considered unconstitutional in the US will now be conducted by higher courts, which has led to the overturning of my decisions based on this. As a foreigner from the US, I am interested to know which other laws you believe should be changed to accommodate your specific needs and circumstances. By the way, who are you exactly, to make such demands?
  20. Haha
    Srecko Sostar got a reaction from George88 in Pennsylvania Court VS Ivy Hill Congregation of JWs, 2024   
    JWs insist, for a very long time, on being treated as "clergy" before the courts. Or in a some wider context known only to WTJWorg' "creators of future". Reference has already been made in previous CSA cases to the Catholic clergy, and their (JWs) status as a clergy inside JWs Congregations.
    "Catholic type of confession" is in a form in which one priest and one person who "confesses his sin" have a special relationship.
    Of course, this is nothing like the JWs elders who examine the "sinner" in a three-member commission ( Judicial Committee) and determine the "guilt or innocence" of the sinner.
    As far as can be seen, the purpose of the "Catholic confession" is to forgive the sinner and to appease him and lead him on the right path without "sanction" of excommunication.
    With "JWs confession" one tries to determine whether there is guilt on the part of the one who is "confessing".
    Different forms of "confessions" are here in question and different methods and processes through which the "sinner" is guided.
    Also, there is a huge difference between becoming a "priest" in the Catholic Church and becoming an "elder" in the JWs Church.
    If JWs want to be like the "clergy" in the Catholic Church, judging by their demands to be treated in court the same as the Catholic clergy, then we wonder; do JWs elders want to go through the same requirements as candidates for the Catholic Priesthood? To finish college, not to get married and the like?
    Controversial demands of JWs will mean controversial solutions in WTJWorg theology and practice. It remains to be seen how the courts will view and resolve this, and how the WTJWorg Administration (read, GB) will adapt to it.
    Articles:
    Pa. courts weigh whether Jehovah's Witnesses elders must report confessed child abuse
    - https://pennrecord.com/stories/654791353-pa-courts-weigh-whether-jehovah-s-witnesses-elders-must-report-confessed-child-abuse
    PROCEDURE-COORDINATE JURISDICTION RULE-JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
    - https://www.riederstravis.com/procedure-coordinate-jurisdiction-rule-jehovahs-witnesses/
    7 Steps to Become a Catholic Priest
    - https://catholicworldmission.org/how-to-become-a-priest/
     
     
     
  21. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to George88 in Pennsylvania Court VS Ivy Hill Congregation of JWs, 2024   
    This is completely inaccurate. The determination is made by "secular" courts, not the Watchtower, depending on the court. By requesting special treatment as an apostate, you would be asking the courts to treat the Watchtower differently.
    This is a misconception. The Watchtower does not dictate how the court will assess that privilege. It is not your place to instruct the court on what to do.
    This observation lacks logic as, under Catholic rule, a confession is meant to obtain absolution from clergy who do not possess the authority to forgive sins, as they are not God.
    There seems to be some confusion between "sin" and "obligation." Elders play a crucial role in guiding sinners towards repentance, emphasizing the principle of forgiveness. However, they do not possess the authority to forgive "murders" – that power lies solely with God. Additionally, elders are obligated to report any grave concerns to secular authorities under a court order, demonstrating a contrast to how clergy in other religions may defy secular authority, even in the face of a court order regarding clergy confession.
    Before you and others jump to conclusions and "twist" my words as usual, it's important to recognize that these are two separate situations.
    Can you offer evidence of Jesus attending a school of thought to become a Rabbi, according to the understanding of priestly qualities in Judaism?
    This exclusive opportunity is dedicated to former members who seek to create confusion by advocating for different treatment of the Watchtower by secular courts, labeling them as "haters".
  22. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Pudgy in Do-Jehovahs-Witnesses-have-humanitarian-aid-programs-in-addition-to-their-door-to-door-ministry?   
    Having a “bad hair day” is ok occasionally, if you still have hair.

  23. Upvote
  24. Haha
    Srecko Sostar reacted to Pudgy in Do-Jehovahs-Witnesses-have-humanitarian-aid-programs-in-addition-to-their-door-to-door-ministry?   
    GB Bro. David Splane’s step-brother Ron explains about fishing …,



  25. Upvote
    Srecko Sostar reacted to JW Insider in The Watchtower's 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology   
    Thanks @scholar JW for a succinct and clear summary of your position on the 20-year gap (several pages back).
    MY SUMMARY below adds 4 or 5 items that I didn't spell out in posts yet, but the rest are a subset of the points from posts already in this thread.
    The Watchtower publications depend on SECULAR chronology to be able to attach a BCE date to any Bible event. There are no BCE or CE (AD) dates in the Bible anywhere. Per the current Watchtower Library going back to 1950 for the Watchtower and the 1970's for other publications: there are 11,857 separate references to BCE dates in the current "Watchtower Library" and the MAJORITY of them are for the three dates: 539, 537 and 607.  Every time we ever read in a WTS publication the term "B.C.E." it means the WTS has depended on SECULAR chronology.
    The WTS fully accepts the SECULAR chronology indicating Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. The exact same SECULAR chronology indicates that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE. The exact same SECULAR Chronology indicates that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587 BCE. The Bible associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible also associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar The Bible associates both years with this event, so SECULAR scholars must choose between 587 and 586 The Bible's ambiguity here is "cleverly" reassigned from the Bible to SECULAR scholars so that it can repeatedly be used as a means to discredit scholars -- so that both dates can be dismissed Discrediting scholars feeds into the repeated idea that 539 is now part of Bible chronology but 587/586 is only SECULAR chronology This allows the WTS to keep the original theory promoted by Barbour and Russell that all one has to do is go back 70 years from 536 (now 539*/538/537) to get the destruction of Jerusalem in 606 (now 607) and both of these dates can be promoted as BIBLE chronology. Any attempt to show the fallacy of the argument, or the evidence against the interpretation, can now be associated with choosing SECULAR experts over the BIBLE, and not recognizing that the SECULAR "wisdom of the world is foolishness with God" This tradition/theory/interpretation that we now call "BIBLE chronology" now requires that ALL the evidence for the SECULAR chronology that we accept for 539 must otherwise be rejected in order to support 607. Therefore the WTS must add 20 years to ALL the chronology evidence BEFORE 539 and not touch any dates from the same evidence AFTER 539. Unfortunately for the WTS theory, the Bible locks in the length of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar to 43 years, and in support of external evidence for 539, the WTS is partially reliant on SECULAR inscriptions referring to the length of the reign of the last king conquered by Cyrus in 539 (the 17 years of Nabonidus) That would mean that the 20-year gap must be theorized to fit within a period known to be only 6 years long according to ALL the existing chronological evidence of the period (from the exact same set of evidence accepted for 539) The need to turn that 6-year period into a 24-year period becomes an awkward quest because of the inscriptions, kings lists, and astronomy tablets that give consistent evidence that there is not even a one-year gap anywhere in the period. NOT PRESENTED YET: The evidence from the TENS of THOUSANDS of mundane business documents is just as damaging to the WTS theory. These small clay tablets are spread throughout EACH and EVERY year of the entire documented period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Nabonidus, Cyrus, etc. They even exist for EACH and EVERY year for the short reign of the two kings in those 6 years where the WTS needs to place the 20-year gap. NOT PRESENTED YET: There are business tablets for EVERY year of the known reigns of EACH king, and sometimes thousands of tablets for some of those years, but still absolutely NONE to show evidence for any of the theorized gap of 20 years. (Out of say 50,000 existing tablets, we should therefore expect about 20,000 additional tablets to cover those years, yet not one of those "20,000" missing tablets has shown up. (The WTS has proposed that evidence may exist but has just not been discovered yet.) Therefore, while 100% of the tablet evidence supports the known chronology, there is still ZERO tablet evidence for any possible longer reigns or additional reigns for anyone during the period. Worse yet for the WTS theory, there are even connecting tablets that give us the transition between each king and the next king which makes the gap theory impossible, according to all the evidence. NOT PRESENTED YET: There is even a subset of these business documents all related to the same "banking institution" that provides a separate chronology of transitioning "bank presidents" throughout the same entire period. They provide the exact same connected, relative chronology as the Babylonian king lists, the astronomy tablets, the official Babylonian chronicles, and other inscriptions. NOT PRESENTED YET: The WTS admits that the Babylonians were able to predict eclipses based on various nearly-18-year lunar cycles. If they weren't using an extremely accurate calendar they couldn't have done this. Any currently undocumented gap in the chronology would have completely thrown off their ability to predict eclipses. To add "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS quotes from experts about evidence from astronomy and inscriptions and often adds (with no explanation) the WTS chronology in parentheses or brackets in very close context to the quotations from experts and scholarly references and encyclopedias. Sometimes even adding the bracketed WTS chronology within the quotation marks from the expert sources, giving the impression that there is expert scholarly support for WTS chronology. To add further "support" for the 20-year gap, the ACTUAL evidence that has been consistently supported and presented for the last 150 plus years by HUNDREDS of other scholars, is often simply called to "Carl Olof Jonsson's evidence" or "COJ's evidence." Because COJ was disfellowshipped for presenting the evidence already supported by hundreds of others, it "cleverly" leads the average JW to believe that SECULAR evidence is apostate evidence. (Except when the WTS uses the same set of evidence for 539.)  To add further "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS made use of Rolf Furuli's book in two articles in the Watchtower in 2011  (*** w11 11/1 p. 25) claiming that some of the lunar data on a tablet dated to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is a better fit for a different year of his reign, 20 years earlier. (Same idea had been tried for a different reign in a 1969 Watchtower, *** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186) Furuli's ideas about this tablet and the WTS focus on it has tended to imply to that this tablet (VAT 4956) is somehow all-important to the secular chronology. But it is only one piece of many that consistently point EXACTLY to the 587 date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar and EXACTLY to the 586 date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. NOT PRESENTED YET: Furuli's ideas about the tablet have been thoroughly debunked and shown to contain numerous amateurish errors. Furthermore the book inadvertently contains evidence against itself which indicates the real strength of the evidence against the WTS use of "607." Russell did not directly use the 7 times of Daniel 4 to prove 606 (now 607) and indicated that methods using the 7 times (based more on Leviticus, not Daniel) were inferior methods to the use of "God's dates" (meaning counting forward 40 years from 1874). The use of (and definition of) what happened in 1914 changed after 1914, and the predicted fulfillments were moved to 1915, then 1918, then 1925. The Watchtower even temporarily used the expression "End of the Gentile Times in 1915." After the slippage and failures of expectations, the only useful prediction that remained was that the "Gentile Times Ended in 1914." But this was not about Jesus' invisible parousia (still 1874) or Jesus' invisible enthronement as King (still 1878) but was an expression directly related to the visible Zionist movement in Palestine. After an adjusted emphasis on Zionism AFTER 1914, along with a new emphasis on on Jesus' coming/arriving/returning to his temple for judgment in 1918, Rutherford finally dropped the Zionist connection to the "End of the Gentile Times" around 1929, and 1874/1878 was also soon dropped so that both the parousia and the kingship both were now associated with 1914. And the Gentile nations merely lost their "lease" to rule, even though they were now ruling more powerfully than ever.
×
×
  • 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.