George88

Exactly. If Paul was in the wrong and deserving of condemnation, and if the GB is also wrong and deserving of condemnation, then it is only fair to also condemn those who manipulate or distort scripture. However, the crucial question we should be asking is: who has the authority to pass judgment on Paul and the GB in the first place? In Galatians 1:8, Paul's message to the Galatians carries a significant meaning that is well expressed in this statement. This verse reads, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." Here, Paul is emphasizing the importance of gospel authenticity and imparting a warning against false teachings or distorted versions of the gospel. The statement captures Paul's strong conviction that any deviation from the true gospel, regardless of the source, should be unequivocally rejected and condemned. The Galatians were being influenced by false teachers who were attempting to impose legalistic requirements on them, questioning the sufficiency of faith in Christ alone for salvation. Paul adamantly opposes these teachings and seeks to reinforce the purity of the gospel message he initially proclaimed to the Galatians. By asserting that even if he or anyone else, including celestial beings, were to contradict the true gospel, they should be considered accursed, Paul leaves no room for compromise. This powerful statement underscores the urgency of sticking to the authentic gospel, shedding light on the importance of preserving its integrity and safeguarding the Galatians' faith. In conclusion, this statement effectively captures the essence of Paul's message in Galatians 1:8, conveying his unwavering stance on the need to defend and uphold the true gospel while utterly rejecting any form of deviation or distortion. Who, then, is the "false teacher"? Is it Paul, the Governing Body, or those who interpret scripture for personal gain, much like the Pharisees?

The question can be posed in multiple ways but ultimately leads to the same outcome. Paul wasn't only talking about himself; he was also referring to those who are ready to manipulate scripture for their own benefit. This aligns with the stance that the GB take when it comes to biblical subjects. If you carefully analyze the majority of the Watchtower articles, you'll find that this implication is apparent. They are just as resolute as Paul was in their commitment.

Did he make a verbal mistake? Isn't there some implication in scripture regarding that matter? Should Jesus have altered the doctrine of appointing responsible men to oversee the flock in order to please a select few individuals? https://lifeofthesynagogue.cofc.edu/section-7-women-in-the-synagogue/ https://www.bible.ca/synagogues/Government-organization-Elders-officials-attendants-Synagogue-Independent-overseer-shepherd-first-century-early-Christian-Church-New-Testament-prototype-ancient.htm I'm curious if that aspect is somehow related to Eve. Should Jesus have chosen a woman as one of his apostles, and thereby challenging societal norms of the ancient Levites?

He meant that anyone who wanted to depart from Christ's teachings and the commands in the scrolls, not only himself, would be included. This group would also consist of members of the Galatian congregation or any outside sources. If we are going to examine the GB, we should also examine the Bible, as the GB follows the same principle as Paul did. I am of the opinion that this falls within the scope of the same result. The standard is based on the consistent structure of the apostolic creed. Printed documentation is not essential for comprehending this guidance. Similar to how we can grasp the implicit meaning behind certain actions or misleading behaviors without specific words in the Bible, this aligns with Paul's intentions. Should we, therefore, collectively represent the entire brotherhood and embrace this assessment, as Paul stated in Galatians 1:8? I firmly believe that this should serve as the ultimate criterion for certain members.

It appears from the description that numerous departments hold authority over the Watchtower. Thus, it can be inferred that the Governing Body lacks any financial interest in the organization, apart from the spiritual well-being of its members.

Did Jesus ever tell the Jews not to contribute to God's house while the Romans were persecuting Christians? I wonder how much it cost back then, in terms of gold and silver, for the temple of God in today's market and the sacrifice a little old lady with just two cents that she gave to the temple that put the wealthy Jews to shame. I hope this truth doesn't upset you. However, I recall that the investment portfolio belongs to the Watchtower corporation and not to the GB themselves. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the Governing Body owns the Watchtower?

The answer is satisfactory for both Paul and the GB. We cannot separate one from the other.

Was Paul driven by a personal political agenda when he wrote to the Galatians in Galatians 1:8? Should we not be concerned with such assumptions in modern times? What conclusions have been drawn about the GB that contradict scripture? It is important to distinguish between following Christ's teachings like Paul did and entertaining independent thoughts that do not align with scripture. This issue seems to be appearing more and more often. NAS Galatians 1:8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8 NAS) NLT Galatians 1:8 Let God's curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you. (Gal. 1:8 NLT) In Galatians 1:8, Paul expresses his concern about false teachings being propagated among the Galatians. He vehemently affirms that anyone who preaches a different gospel should be accursed. It is evident that Paul was motivated by a desire to protect the purity of the gospel message rather than any personal political agenda. Should we hold Paul's words to the same level of critical examination as we do with the GB?

I completely agree that individuals should substantiate their claims in their posts. However, the challenge lies in fostering a culture of embracing this practice. The concept of synthetic blood and fractured blood is not new; it has been studied for quite some time. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29580857/

I firmly believe that they practice this on a daily basis. Just as witnesses are held responsible for their actions according to God's law, so are they. I don't think it is necessary for them to show more to their fellow brothers than what the brothers are inclined to show them. The elevated standard they demonstrate is ultimately intended to earn God's approval. The separation between doctrine between the Bible students and within the Jehovah's Witnesses is an ongoing divergence of interpretation. Nowadays, Bible student groups that are still rooted in Russell's teachings have differing opinions on certain aspects. It's important to note that even in the past, not all Bible student associations aligned with Russell's views.

Maybe, how can that be possible if Christianity is founded on the ancient teachings that Christ and the apostles embraced? If this were true, it would suggest that there is no necessity for the Christian faith. My belief is that this conclusion has been repeated in various manners throughout history, particularly during the pre-flood era, and there are numerous other instances of rebellion against God's authority. We can draw a parallel to the Israelites who challenged the prophets because they did not wish to hear about impending doom and judgment; similar attitudes exist to this day. Isn't the Bible a collection of ancient books that continue to shape our present? Shouldn't we consider that a library or an archive of books?

Possibly. However, standing up for a position or principle can be as simple as this. Although the business is not covered by New Zealand laws, the inquiry has taken the bold step of expanding its scope to include institutions that were not originally considered. This move seems highly unconventional and may not be legal. Also, If it were a matter of assets, the organization would undoubtedly be vigorously pursuing the return of its property from Russia. However, it appears unlikely those efforts are being made.

I found your submission quite intriguing. Matthew Henry once said: The apostles were not guided by worldly principles. They had the revelation of these things from the Spirit of God, and the saving impression of them from the same Spirit. These things they declared in plain, simple language, taught by the Holy Spirit, totally different from the affected oratory or enticing words of man's wisdom. The foundation of his wisdom was 1 Corinthians. NAS 1 Corinthians 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. (1 Cor. 2:10 NAS) It appears that you doubt God's ability to bestow his Holy Spirit upon faithful individuals, as well as questioning the guidance that the apostles received from it. Allow me to clarify: Were the apostles truly infallible in their actions?

I have a growing sense of concern regarding the fact that the organization in question does not fall within the purview of institutions or religions that truly provide a secular education to the youth. It will be interesting to see how the assertion is addressed by the high court of NZ. However, like everything else in this ancient system controlled by the god of this world, it simply poses another challenge to the ultimate authority of the True God. The Vatican seems to have no concerns, which likely explains why they did not contest the investigation. They achieved victory when the Australian Supreme Court overturned the Cardinal's case on the accusations of CSA.

Slaughterhouses nowadays have a significant capacity, making it unnecessary to have a rabbi present to ensure the meat is kosher. That's part of their process as well, to pray over the meats. However, this also means that an equal amount of cow blood is left in both kosher and non-kosher meat, as well as in any meat containing blood. Given this, one might consider whether we should all become vegetarians, including those of Jewish faith. Your assessment is indeed accurate, as it is impossible to completely drain meat of blood. Therefore, an individual with a moral conscience can make an informed decision about consuming meat that may contain traces of blood, which aligns with your previously mentioned point. How else can we apply your view?

Your cynicism intrigues me. Could you please clarify your statement about GB's claim that "Jesus did not promise perfect spiritual food"? I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide evidence supporting this assertion. I am eager to read it myself and form an informed opinion, ensuring that there are no misunderstandings regarding the intended meaning of their words. It seems you missed some important points in my post. I want to emphasize that ex-witnesses are part of our community. Although I may have been overlooked as a poster, I believe my words deserve recognition. Putting that aside, Jesus made an insightful comparison between those who had the chance to "repent" like a tax-collector and those who had already repented but had sinned against God. Here's a scenario: If an atheist were to come to your home and, in an attempt to show that person the Bible, that person forcefully takes it from you and strikes you with it, would you still regard that person as your neighbor? Would you consider calling the authorities and subsequently distancing yourself from them, even going as far as shunning them for their aggressive behavior? Unless that person sincerely apologizes, repents for their behavior, and asks for forgiveness, it is doubtful that they would be warmly received into your house. Matthew 9 reveals Jesus' powerful message that anyone, including tax collectors, can find redemption through repentance. On the other hand, Matthew 18 teaches us that Christians who have strayed from their commitment to God must seek his guidance and forgiveness. In this regard, it is important to recognize that we should not judge or criticize those who faithfully adhere to God's commandments, no matter how much we may disagree with the methods described in scripture. As followers of Christ, we cannot selectively accept or reject parts of the Bible based on personal preference.

As humanity continues to deplete and harm the ecosystem, it becomes increasingly important for people to learn the essential skill of fish bleeding. In the future, it is quite possible that individuals will need to rely on fishing to sustain themselves. In this scenario, I envision two possibilities in the Northwestern region: either fish will miraculously approach humans, offering themselves to be consumed with a small amount of blood, or alternatively, individuals will need to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, akin to the harmony observed in the Garden of Eden. Regardless, the urgency of educating ourselves about these matters cannot be overstated. It is imperative that we prioritize learning and awareness now, without delay. What is the difference between whole blood and fractured blood? Would former members object to a procedure that involves a drop or two of cow blood for transfusion purposes, even though there are numerous ex-witnesses who consider the blood issue to be repugnant, and object to it not being used, even whole blood? At this moment, I came face to face with a cannibal who stared at me hungrily, envisioning me as a delectable feast. He sternly informed me of his intent to suspend me upside down, and let every drop of blood drain from my body, as an act of obedience to God's will.

Mr. Srecko, the authority of God surpasses all other authorities. When God allows governments to rule over us, it is our moral duty to submit ourselves to that authority. If God permits spiritual leaders to oversee his flock, then according to the same interpretation of scripture, it is our moral duty to wholeheartedly follow that authority, particularly if that authority has been chosen by God Himself. During Jesus' time, the prevailing authority among the Jews were the Pharisees. However, did Jesus instruct the people to defy them? No! This is clearly stated in Matthew 23:3. Does this imply that a spiritual leader cannot be questioned? Absolutely not. The role of a spiritual leader is to validate scripture through their actions and by embracing the will of God in their words. If a leader fails to do so, it is God who will reveal it. It is God who will pass judgment, not the congregation or any individual who disapproves of how the spiritual leader is overseeing God's house. Spiritual leaders are called to lead by example and guide others in their spiritual journey. (Ephesians 4:14). However, if a leader fails to uphold the principles they preach, it is God who ultimately reveals the truth. The congregation or individuals may express their disapproval, but it is important to remember that the final judgment lies with God. It is God's role to pass judgment, not ours. In this case, one could argue that you are mistaken. However, the truth is different. The congregation should not be seen as a body of Elders, as it has not been given such a role. It is important to note that during Jesus' trial, it was the Pharisees and high priests who brought him before Pilate, not the people. These were individuals in positions of authority. When Pilate gave the people the opportunity to choose who should be freed, and they selected Barabbas instead of Jesus, it was not an act of passing judgement on Christ. It is crucial for spiritual leaders and their followers to continually seek alignment with God's will, practicing discernment and holding each other accountable. However, it is God who has the final say and who will ultimately reveal any discrepancies between a leader's words and actions. Those who claim to be Christians but do not adhere to the principles established by God and Christ are disregarding the solemn oath they make after being baptized. Baptism represents a deeply personal commitment to God, promising to obey him and submit their lives to his authority, following His commands faithfully. In this scenario, the concept of authority and authenticity can be subjective and based on personal interpretation. Each individual may have their own criteria for determining the legitimacy of an authority figure. However, the idea of unity often transcends the individual, as it involves aligning with a collective purpose or goal. When we strive for unity, the focus shifts from 'I' to 'we'. It emphasizes the importance of collaboration, cooperation, and mutual understanding among individuals. Unity acknowledges the interconnectedness of all members within a group or society, irrespective of their personal beliefs or differences. Unity can promote solidarity, harmony, and common purpose. It encourages individuals to set aside personal agendas and work together towards shared objectives. Unity refers to the oneness and harmony between individuals who choose to submit to God's authority. The notion of "I" or individual autonomy becomes subordinate to the higher authority of God. When one recognizes God's authority, they willingly surrender their own desires and preferences in order to align with his will. Obedience to God's authority is not a matter of personal choice or subjective authenticity. Rather, it is a fundamental belief that God's authority is absolute and infallible, and therefore, worthy of complete obedience and submission. It goes beyond individual perspectives and preferences. Unity in obedience to God's authority is founded on the premise that God's wisdom and guidance surpass human understanding and judgment. It acknowledges that God's authority is inherently authentic and divine, and therefore, supersedes any other humanly-constructed authority. This unity brings together individuals who share a common understanding and acceptance of God's authority, creating a collective synergy driven by a shared commitment to follow His teachings and commands. By recognizing the greater good and finding common ground, unity promotes inclusivity and collective progress. However, it is crucial to maintain a balance between unity and personal autonomy. While unity encourages collaboration and consensus-building, it should also allow space for individuality, free-thinking, and diverse perspectives. The idea of unity should not suppress or silence individual voices, but rather foster an environment where individuals are respected and their views are valued. It does not mean that we lose our individuality. Quite the contrary. Embracing spiritual maturity is crucial if we want to recognize when our spiritual leaders are adhering to the principles of scripture, just as the congregation does. Romans 13:1-2 Romans 13:1-2 states, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." When looking at the context of these verses, we understand that Paul is addressing the believers in Rome and their relationship with the governing authorities. He emphasizes the importance of respecting and submitting to the authorities that God has established. Embracing spiritual maturity does not mean that we lose our individuality. It means understanding that our faith and personal beliefs should guide us in recognizing and respecting the authorities that God has placed in our lives. It means growing in our ability to discern whether the actions of our spiritual leaders align with the principles of scripture. Spiritual maturity brings a deeper understanding of God's Word and enables us to make wise and discerning choices. It allows us to hold our spiritual leaders accountable to the teachings of scripture while still respecting their authority. We are called to be individuals who think critically, seek truth, and ensure that our actions align with the principles of our faith. Finally, the concept of unity in this scenario arises when individuals relinquish their personal autonomy and align themselves with God's authority, recognizing it as the ultimate truth and source of wisdom. In doing so, they prioritize obedience to God's authority above all other forms of authority and work towards a harmonious collective that is guided by His principles.

Where's the dancing frog when you need him, lol! https://www.wikihow.com/Bleed-a-Fish

Yes, check out what's on the right side! It will surely bring a smile to your face!

As passionate meat enthusiasts, we relish in the carnivorous pleasure every time we savor a juicy bite. Removing that is unfathomable to us, as the advantages of being vegetarian seem elusive. lol! https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/In-a-package-of-fresh-beef-is-the-red-liquid-blood KNOWLEDGE ARTICLE Blood is removed from beef during slaughter and only a small amount remains within the muscle tissue. Since beef is about 3/4 water, this natural moisture combined with protein is the source of the liquid in the package.

This might help your research. *** g95 3/22 p. 20 Seminars to Improve Relations Between Doctors and Jehovah’s Witnesses *** “The liaison committee members have been trained to handle many common questions raised by both hospitals and physicians, occasionally even Witnesses themselves. This might include issues like the acceptability of immunoglobulins or albumin, the use of cryoprecipitate or medical techniques such as hemodilution, extracorporeal circulation, the cell saver, or hemodialysis *** g 8/06 p. 9 Transfusion Medicine—Is Its Future Secure? *** As part of a treatment or therapy, a doctor might recommend concentrated amounts of a plasma fraction. An example of such is protein-rich cryoprecipitate, which is obtained by freezing and then thawing plasma. *** km 11/06 p. 5 How Do I View Blood Fractions and Medical Procedures Involving My Own Blood? *** CLOTTING FACTORS—LESS THAN 1% OF PLASMA There are various proteins that help blood to clot in order to stop bleeding. Some are given to patients who tend to bleed easily. They are also used in medical glues to seal wounds and to stop bleeding after surgery. One combination of clotting factors is known as cryoprecipitate. Note: Some clotting factors are now made from nonblood sources.

Not every argument or debate always follows a logical structure. Our personal biases can often cloud our judgment and lead us to try and impose our views on others, especially when it comes to matters of interpretation. In my experience, I have observed that those who dedicate themselves to studying ancient scripture are often the ones who best understand it, especially if their inspiration comes from a divine source like God. Whenever new discoveries or revelations come to light, I firmly believe that God plays a significant role in their unveiling. While scholars, historians, archaeologists, linguists, and theologians all play essential roles, not every subgroup is dedicated solely to preserving the sacred language of God's inspired words. As you mentioned, copyists have transmitted the ancient script throughout history. However, a thought-provoking question arises: did Jesus himself accept the words of these copyists during his time? This question has immense significance for those engaged in biblical debates and religious organizations responsible for interpreting it. Are there organizations that remain fixated on the ancient scrolls, much like the Pharisees? Do they rely on their own understanding and elevate their own authority rather than that of God? This raises an intriguing debate that calls for careful consideration. Matthew 18 raises a thought-provoking question that demands our attention. How do we decipher the meaning behind this significant chapter? The initial segment emphatically portrays Christ's disapproval towards those who manipulate and mislead the innocents who have just embarked on their journey of discovering and embracing the gospel of Christ. The message is crystal clear for those who cause others to stumble through their actions and behavior, and the conclusion is metaphorically intense. I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes when God passes judgment. NAS Matthew 18:7 "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! (Matt. 18:7 NAS) The middle part expresses the notion that when a certain aspect of oneself leads to the stumble of other parts of oneself, it should be severed. Therefore, if a thief commits theft, their hands should be amputated. In the case of an insatiable desire, one ponders whether the brain, eyes or a specific organ should be removed. I hate to think about it. NAS Matthew 18:8 "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. (Matt. 18:8 NAS) NAS Matthew 18:9 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell. (Matt. 18:9 NAS) Afterward, Jesus proceeds to discuss a segment concerning lost sheep. This concept is also exemplified in Luke 15:24 with a similar parable. NAS Matthew 18:13 "And if it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone (Matt. 18:13 NAS) Jesus now directs his attention towards those who sow division, conflict, obstacles, transgressions, and any other harmful actions against their fellow spiritual brothers. The Bible provides a comprehensive list of immoral behaviors that encompasses not only explicitly mentioned wrongdoings, but also those that are implied under the broad scope of its moral principles.Christians should refrain from engaging in immoral behavior as outlined in the Bible. NAS Matthew 18:15 "And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. (Matt. 18:15 NAS) NAS Matthew 18:16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. (Matt. 18:16 NAS) The assumption is often made that only members of the congregation can serve as witnesses. However, this belief is far from the truth. In fact, outside sources, such as government entities, can also fulfill this important role. NAS Matthew 18:17 "And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (Matt. 18:17 NAS) We are now approaching the heart of the matter, where interpretation and confusion arise among those who reject the result. Have an individual return to their initial state as nonbelievers, pagans, or tax collectors. What was the greatest source of hatred for the Jews? John MacArthur explains that tax collectors frequently resorted to brute force to extort money from people, making them incredibly detestable and morally bankrupt individuals. As a Jewish tax collector, despite the personal financial gains, one would face ostracism and become a social outcast. Additionally, due to their notorious reputation, tax collectors were explicitly banned from entering synagogues, thus effectively alienated from both the Jewish community and their places of worship. It is safe to assume that no one would willingly come forward to converse with a tax collector, avoiding such individuals at all costs, as the modern interpretation of being an outcast suggests. Jesus concluded that grave matters concerning the church and his followers were at hand. Only Christ himself asserted this in accordance with the immoral commandment. As followers of Christ, should we adhere to his conclusion written in the Bible, which Jesus accepted as an accurate representation of his father's word in the ancient scrolls, or rather, will we refuse to accept it and instead manipulate its meaning to rationalize our negative actions? NAS Matthew 9:12 But when He heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. (Matt. 9:12 NAS) NAS Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matt. 9:13 NAS) We often come across numerous confusions in the book of Matthew. Specifically, Matthew 9 raises a significant point regarding the argument of separation. In this chapter, we witness Jesus dining with tax collectors and sinners. The question arises: why should individuals who have fallen from grace not be treated with the same compassion as the individuals mentioned in Matthew 9? It is important to note that Jesus was reaching out to nonbelievers who had not yet repented, rather than addressing his followers who had already repented and should have had a greater understanding of his teachings. Jesus' behavior and words do not contradict each other; rather, they unequivocally illustrate the transformative power that impacts an individual's life. Matthew 9 is before, Matthew 18 is after.

Ever pondered on the strategies employed by other religious organizations? I vividly remember when the Australian Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a Cardinal who had been accused of sexual child abuse.

I strongly believe that Jesus was incredibly open-minded. The contrast lies in the disparity between perfection and imperfection. Despite Jesus' flawless teachings, they did not resonate with the pharisees. On the other hand, imperfect beings like the pharisees were plotting to kill him. Therefore, it is only logical to question the source of spiritual food. What sort of spiritual leader desires to eradicate their opponent solely based on their beliefs? We need to further ponder why anyone would wish to hinder others from knowing the Bible and God the right way?