George88

Who determines that? Is it the people around us? Because there are many dishonest individuals present who would support your theory. Paul, in his letters to the congregations, addressed the matter of avoiding the kind of people you are referring to in both public and private settings. Is it then fair for us to consider his writings as mere speculation and rigid beliefs?

What alternatives do we have to the ancient scrolls of the Bible to establish a solid biblical foundation that we can use as a building block? You seem to be the only one who truly understands your words since scripture itself contradicts these statements. Therefore, it is clear that you do oppose something biblical when you are providing the evidence, much like your friend from Bethel who shares your beliefs within their tightly-knit community. The Watchtower disseminates magazines, books, and other resources with the aim of enlightening the general public. It is ultimately upon each person to determine whether they accept the teachings of God based on those materials. You, as a critical opponent, voice your opinions here. However, what sets your words apart if you also generalize and make unfounded assumptions? At some juncture, these arguments must resonate with individuals who are earnestly studying the Bible. It is our hope that they do not perceive the comments here as anything more than a mere reflection of a disingenuous Christian spirit.

Having a healthy attitude is crucial. When individuals intentionally distort articles by misinterpreting scripture, we should have no hesitation in accepting the truth, just as Jesus taught his disciples. Therefore, it is important for us to critically evaluate our own understanding before expressing any criticisms publicly.

We can have a serious debate about the Bible and understanding chronology in modern times, once you stop misusing articles and improve your comprehension skills. In order to fully grasp the situation, it is crucial to comprehend the concept of an "association" and the historical context leading up to 1914, the events of 1914 itself, and the aftermath. This is precisely why Russell found it necessary to elucidate certain assumptions, much like the Watchtower organization, which also felt compelled to provide clarification. Regrettably, some adherents and ex-members continue to cling tightly to these assumptions, treating them as indisputable facts despite their distance from reality. You are passionately advocating for the latter position. 1914 SERMON BY PASTOR RUSSELL, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION I AM prompted in the selection of my text by reading an extract from the sermon of a Canadian minister delivered recently. In it he declared that 1914 would witness the Second Coming, etc. His statement allowed the inference that he holds the view common to nearly all the creeds; namely, that the earth is to be burned up, and the human race blotted out; and that, indentally Christ will come a second time, to see that none of the Church are included in the destruction. Mistakes of the Dark Ages Being Corrected. To my understanding, all such expections are wholly unscriptual, untrue, misleading, and hindrance to a right understanding of the bible.

I believe that would be the most enlightening part of the headline published in 1914. Nonetheless, feel free to peruse the entire front page if it appeals to those who wish to scrutinize 1914 by distorting Russell's words similar to the manipulation observed in most things Watchtower.

I understand that you're referring to individuals who deliberately manipulate the truth. I hear you. "If the ultimate goal is Armageddon as asserted by ex-members with ties to 1914, I suppose that's the reason for its inclusion." Did it need to be posted, I guess so. How many times must we post this here until people truly comprehend it?

Many, Anna and Pudgy, I fail to comprehend what aspects of these articles you all fail to grasp in regard to the application of the Mosaic laws. Before and after, there were instances where certain requirements of the law were unnecessary for Gentile Christians. This is due to the fact that the Jewish High Court extended the laws and considered themselves the ultimate authority. Regarding the matter of transfused blood, there shouldn't have been any issue since it didn't exist back then and wouldn't have been applicable based on that understanding. The only scenario where it would have been a concern is if someone chose to consume an animal without properly draining its blood or if they indulged in the gruesome practice of drinking the blood, as done by certain Roman nobility who would consume the blood of fallen gladiators. So, let me ask you all, what part of the transition do you fail to understand when a person repents? We have been presented with the following questions in those articles. Based on scripture, what biblical foundations do you oppose, under the conditions outlined in the understanding of the Word, not your personal interpretation? Nevertheless, it will undoubtedly result in an intriguing book, much like the works of Carl Olof Jonsson.

Yes! When it comes to the pursuit of truth and the preservation of its meaning, religions that uphold the teachings of first century Christianity standout as pioneers. The blood issue, which puzzles so many, would be comparable. Who should be trusted when certain individuals distort scripture? In 1917, there were individuals who recognized the distinction between animal blood, donated blood, and consequently, the matter of blood was redirected. This understanding has continued to resonate with Bible Students throughout the years, as they still hold the belief that receiving transfused blood is not a sinful act. They tell their followers in Christ that JWs are wrong in this respect, and given the potential consequences of adhering to the principle of abstaining from blood, harm is likely to occur. God's covenant with Noah was established after the flood, not before. This is evident in the Bible's reference to the writer implying that God provided green plants for Noah before the flood, indicating that meat was not yet introduced. Later on, God informed Noah that every living thing would be considered food. However, this does not fully explain what God later instructed Moses regarding the dietary restrictions for the Israelites. It is possible that certain foods became unappetizing or could cause illness or diseases over time. The conditions may have changed, but the precise reasons remain unknown. However, there were certain requirements that God had for Noah regarding the matter of blood. This is where Bible Students tend to misunderstand. God explicitly prohibited the consumption of an animal that still had blood. It may sound straightforward, but things get more complex as we delve deeper into the issue. God also mentioned the act of one human shedding the blood of another. In light of this, could a Christian possibly interpret a blood transfusion as a form of bloodshed, since the donor effectively gives up the essence of life for another? In this context, God informs Noah that a life must be exchanged for a life as the consequence. Why? Because God created mankind in his own likeness and image. The point is that the donor should sacrifice their lives for the recipient. Do Bible Student's make a mistake when it comes to the blood issue and their articles that support blood transfusion? Absolutely! Without a doubt, they are mistaken, and anyone who claims otherwise is making a false assertion. GOJ page 32 / The Grace of Jehovah"ARE BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS FORBIDDEN BY GOD? "But flesh with the life thereof, which Is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."—Ge 9:4 THIS and other similar texts of Scripture are being used by some In an effort to prove that donating blood to save another’s life, or receiving a transfusion of blood, Is forbidden by God and a sin So gross as to result In eternal death. Are we justified In placing such an interpretation upon the divine injunction against eating or drinking the blood of lower animals? The science of transferring blood from one human being to another in order to save life was not known in ancient times. Obviously, then, there is no direct reference to it in the Word of God; So our conclusions as to whether or not it can properly be placed in the same category, from God’s standpoint, as the assimilation of the blood of beasts through the digestive organs must be based wholly upon the principles involved rather than direct statements of the Bible." Biblet page 18 We digress from our theme another moment, because consideration of the important role the blood plays in supporting life brings to mind another false fear that has played havoc with a number of human lives in recent years—the false fear that blood transfusions are sinful and forbidden by God. The meaning of certain Biblical texts, forbidding the drinking of the blood of lower animals, is distorted by some sects in an effort to prove that God forbids blood transfusions. As a result, some misguided followers of these sects were denied the benefit of this modern blessing that might have saved their lives, while others, having accepted its benefit, continue to struggle with their consciences. It is true: (1) that God accepted sacrifices of lower animal blood to foreshadow the sacrifice of Christ's blood; (2) that since animal blood was used to symbolize the blood of atonement, it should be considered sacred and not common, as ordinary food; and (3) that therefore, God's ancient people were forbidden to drink the blood of lower animals. It is not true that drinking the blood of lower animals is in any way related to the transfusion of blood from one person to another to save perhaps a life. It is fundamentally flawed to exclusively associate the word "eat" with the idea they convey, as the concept of "drinking" or "transfusion" can also be applied to the manner in which the body is nourished, going beyond the literal interpretation of eating. They are solely concerned with classifying the blood of lower animals as sacrificial, using it as a mere justification. What does this imply about the purity of the Bible, regarding understanding not only the Old Testament but also the New Testament, which includes Christ's teachings and Paul's teachings meant for future relevance?

The main point is regarding the premise and who has the authority to make decisions. This applies to those who are part of the closed club. How can we establish the truth when those who bear the responsibility, as assigned by God, to preach and teach, are often mistaken about various aspects of scripture and are unwilling to correct themselves due to their arrogance? No one among you has the right or the power to question the word of God, regardless of who delivers the message. Before attempting to discuss sound doctrine in your arguments, it is essential to first reflect on your own shortcomings and criticize yourselves. The notion that secondhand or third-hand nonsense holds credibility is flawed. The true value lies in the attitude displayed here, where people can discern the dysfunctionality of so-called witnesses. Your viewpoint "Many" holds no significance as you have no power over me, assuming that is who you are referring to. Your comprehension of scripture is at a minimum, at best, and distorted, at worst. If there is anyone among you who claims to be without sin, let them invoke the teachings of John 8:7.

I am not bothered by the nonsense coming from you or the individuals in the closed club who are no better. So, feel free to persist with your deceit, lies, and falsehoods like the uneducated person you are, just like the rest of them.

Well, it's good to see that you do have some understanding of the English language, hahaha! You seem surprised that I am interested in reading books about the Bible and biblical history. However, it appears that you have made an incorrect assumption. As an intelligent individual, I was hoping for a better challenge with a knowledgeable person here. I have now added you to my list of regulars. I encourage you to continue learning, and I wish you the very best in your pursuits as well.

This signifies that your ability to perceive and possess wisdom is restricted. Once again, it is absurd to believe that one can justify acts of murder, adultery, theft, and the like simply by arguing that these actions need to be legally sanctioned or decreed. This notion is not only nonsensical, but also greatly misguided.

In order to have a deeper understanding of the teachings of the Bible, it is important to grasp the underlying principles of scripture. Jesus himself discussed this matter in Matthew 19:18. The changes that occurred were primarily related to the additional laws imposed by the Sanhedrin and other authoritative figures. Is it permissible for Christians to engage in sinful actions such as murder and adultery, since they believe that the law was fulfilled by Christ? In which scripture does it state that? What was the true fulfillment of Jesus? To me, it seems rather ordinary and straightforward what I was alluding to.

Can we conclude that you are actually JWinsider in disguise, and that you are incapable of refraining from engaging in unethical discussions like the closed club? Much of what you stated is clearly based on your personal interpretation, and misuse of the society's discussions in the matter. Just as the Mosaic Law remains, Christians were instructed in the Jewish laws, regardless of whether they were Jewish or Gentile. It is noteworthy that Jesus explicitly stated to his disciples in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, suggesting that the law concerning lineage was still relevant. That means the laws of Moses were to be followed. There is no need to revisit the time of Noah, as God's vision for humanity was being redefined after the great flood. Hence, any secondhand or thirdhand information is inconsequential. If you desire to criticize the Watchtower further, rely on scripture.

It seems that you confused my previous comment. You mentioned carrion in the other topic by which you also mentioned "biological fat" after lying about spoiled meat. I provided specific examples to clarify my point. Therefore, my answer was a clear "no" to using animal fat. Let's continue with your wordplay. "However, the notion of Seth consuming unhealthy and forbidden foods, such as fatty, decomposed carcasses, spoiled meat, and blood, not ordained by God. " As a deceitful individual, you possess the ability to manipulate facts to your advantage.

Once again, you have made a mistake. In your previous post, you were discussing carrion. Therefore, there was no need for us to delve into the topic of a mother's milk, which can also be broken down into protein. It seems clear that you could benefit from further honing your skills. Once again, you simply disregard the need to broaden your perspective, using it as a justification for your flawed position. Please provide specific details if you would like to receive a precise answer. Carrion is an unpleasant reminder of animal fat, a prime example of disappointing wordplay.

You're now using lard (pig fat) for cooking. You should be thinking more of Caine than Seth. I guess you haven't studied the book of Seth. "And the perfect Majesty is at rest in the ineffable light, in the truth of the mother of all these, and all of you that attain to me, to me alone who am perfect, because of the Word. For I exist with all the greatness of the Spirit, which is a friend to us and our kindred alike, since I brought forth a word to the glory of our Father, through his goodness, as well as an imperishable thought; that is, the Word within him - it is slavery that we shall die with Christ - and an imperishable and undefiled thought, an incomprehensible marvel, the writing of the ineffable water which is the word from us. It is I who am in you, and you are in me, just as the Father is in you in innocence." Seth's unwavering commitment to defend his father, Adam, in his pursuit of righteousness is commendable. However, the notion of Seth consuming unhealthy and forbidden foods, such as fatty, decomposed carcasses, spoiled meat, and blood not ordained by God (which were only introduced by demons mingling with earthly women before the flood), is something that I cannot condone. I haven't discovered any evidence that shows those who followed God ever consumed animal fat. Therefore, my answer remains a resounding no. The conditions put forth by God to Moses after the flood clearly outline certain dietary guidelines that they adhered to. Although this answer might contradict your perspective, it is important to remember that personal opinions and observations are subjective and can vary. Therefore, it is not crucial for an answer to be accepted. It should be noted that your authority over me is nonexistent, as I have mentioned previously. Keep in mind that we are discussing a biblical context, not the history of mankind.

It is regrettable that you do not comprehend a basic concept. Would comprehending terms like "half-blood" or "quarter-blood" enhance your grasp of common sense? It's truly disappointing that even in this modern era, people still require a specific term to grasp the concept that the substance flowing through one's veins is whole blood, which includes all essential components. However, it seems that logical thinking isn't always prevalent in this regard. According to whom, former members lacking comprehension of the concept of whole blood? Given the opposition that actually refutes the application, it is clear that this argument is baseless and silly.

Who is the source of this information? You, lol! The question remains far too broad. The term "human" can encompass a wide range of applications. Before the flood, there were Adam and Eve, earnestly striving to regain the favor of their Creator through obedience. If we adhere to the dietary guidelines outlined by God to Moses in Leviticus 7:22-27, the answer would be a resounding "no" for those virtuous individuals, including Noah and his family. Considering that you acknowledge your lack of knowledge regarding the pre-flood state of humanity, it becomes evident that we are unaware of whether the disobedient individuals, including the Nephilim, consumed fat, ate spoiled meat, dead carcass, drank blood, etc. Speculating on this matter, like you are urging me to do, is something I am unwilling to engage in.

Same here. You hold no authority over me.

Just like you, Many. Don't attempt to deceive the public with your nonsense.The main problem with your argument about carrion is the lack of evidence and your inability to support your theory, resulting in being caught in a lie. Now, you have transitioned to another topic, which is "fat," yet your response contradicts what you originally suggested. However, it is worth noting that "fat" can be divided into animal fat and vegetable fat. In particular, pre-flood humans possessed a significant amount of vegetable fat in their diets.

How can you claim to know, when you can't even provide answers to the questions you ask? Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the consumption of "whole blood," as mentioned in scripture, which entails the four essential components of blood. It is perplexing that former members, who now support blood transfusions, would attempt to argue against this. Their argument appears to lack sincerity. However, it is important to note that fractionated blood, which only carries oxygen, is not considered to be "whole" blood. This means that it does not fulfill the requirements outlined in scripture. Consequently, the Watchtower organization leaves the decision regarding the use of synthesized blood up to each individual's conscience. They do not impose or coerce anyone into accepting synthesized blood. However, the current debate focuses on donated blood rather than blood stored by the same individual, which can undergo the same process and thus invalidate the argument.

You still have unresolved matters, my dear opponent. However, I do not share the same burden. Unless you can provide tangible proof of humans consuming spoiled meat before the flood, given that your argument has transitioned from carrion to fat, and since you were unsuccessful in addressing the latter, there is no reason to engage in these ignorant mind games any further.

It's quite embarrassing when someone from a medical profession lacks a basic understanding of the breakdown of biological products into their fundamental elements and fails to distinguish between them. However, I can find no valid argument against synthetic blood, as it does not involve the transfer of any form of human blood.

Unless he is accepting the blame to protect someone else, it is clear from the video he posted that he is guilty. I won't speculate on how the punishment should be determined under secular authority, but it is safe to say that person belongs in a mental institution.