Evacuated

Thanks for the increased clarity on this @JW Insider and @ComfortMyPeople. Seems to be the unauthorised compiling and sharing of a sort of "best buy" consumer rating list of doctors who are 1. willing to engage in non-blood medical management. and 2. having a good "bedside manner". I don't know much about data protection laws in Spain, but it does seem in the context of the news report to have been a rather ill-advised venture.

So, the problem here is compiling a list of medical professionals sympathetic to bloodless surgery without the individual's permission for their inclusion on the list? OKAY................................................. ............?

Not really the point I was making. I advised an "ambiguity"check because I thought the abbreviation you used for this journal to be a little unfortunate given the context of the discussion. I am not going to be any more specific. ambiguity Dictionary result for ambiguity /ambɪˈɡjuːɪti/ noun the quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness. "we can detect no ambiguity in this section of the Act" synonyms: ambivalence, equivocation; More

Just a suggestion, an ambiguity check is always in order.

My cat, your cat?

Likely both....as they do all men. Interestingly, two consecutive serious programs were shown on National TV tonight. The first stated that the Bible said the earth was created 6000 years ago, the second stated that the Bible said the earth was created in 6 days. Well, the notions fly thick and fast wherever you care to turn. Here, it seems, is no exception.

It is not a lie. It is a notion. You can argue it back and forth as a preferred or not preferred idea, but not to disprove it or prove it. You are free to believe or disbelieve if you wish. People will always come unstuck of course if they stand firm on theoretical notions. This is how erroneous dogma develops.

What Bible teach not what men teach many times. Motto? Better to know what Bible teach.

All the "evidently"s, "reasoning"s, "understanding"s etc that are postulated with regard to a 49000 year creative week theory remain firmly in the realms of imagination in the light of the 1971 statement "The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods ." I don't have a problem with the idea of Jehovah' having a rest day into which we can figuratively "enter" as Paul describes. No problem either with the notion that this rest "day" commenced after the creation of Eve. And also no problem with the idea that this period will of necessity include the 1000 year millenial reign of Christ. This reign, among other things, will oversee successfully the populating of planet earth and the bringing of it into a condition that Jehovah can judge as "very good" when the seventh creative epoch ends. All the rest of the chronological surgery that goes on regarding the "time of the end" is quite simply "playing doctors" with time. Our Leader, Jesus, helped us to appreciate that when he stated clearly that "“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Matt.24:36. It seems that individuals get very "precious" about their own sepeculations about when this day or hour will be, or not be. The emotional ranting around this I do not really understand. For me it is interesting, even fascinating, to consider the many views on this matter, including the 49000 year idea, but to be honest, none of them do I loose any sleep over. In fact, since I have had it confirmed from the Holy Scriptures (or the Bible depending on your language) that we are in "the last days" and that there is something that we can do to work along with Jehovah and Jesus at this time, I have enjoyed my sleep infinitely better than ever before, knowing that my future is safely in the hands of the one who says: From the beginning I foretell the outcome, and from long ago the things that have not yet been done. I say, ‘My decision will stand, and I will do whatever I please.’ Is.46:10

Rules? What Rules? These Rules?

No I cannot do that. I will not add or take away from the original post. There is no need, as the subject has been presented clearly for comparison. All you need to do is look at the two, side by side, as presented in the original topic, for yourself. Make your own comparisons as I have done. I am not going to try and influence your opinion any further with my personal estimation of the matter other than to say that they are indeed, an excellent comparison. Come to your own conclusions.

Actually, that is what you are saying. The observation I made is posted above, conveniently quoted in full, by yourself.

They just are so similar, and the circumstances also, absolutely perfect. Whoever thought of combining them in one sentence is a genius, maybe without realising it at all. The choice may not be inspired, but the topic.....Maybe it was!

Must be the neatly trimmed beard. This is quite something for some, depending on what the practice has been in your country. We have many neat and not so neat beards, even an elder. But it isn't an issue. Might be for assembly assignments as I haven't seen many there yet.

Without getting too bogged down in this matter, I presume the discussion is around the length of the creative epoch/age/day we now find ourselves in? Discussions on this apect of speculative chronology indeed have their fascinating side, (if you are in the mood for it), and there is no shortage in the contribution made by various Bible Students to the debate, even if it does venture into realms of reminiscent a Pyramidology type mentaliity at times. But as far as JWs are concerned officially , we do not seem to have ventured very far from the statement made in the old 1971 Aid to Bible Understanding, on page 392: "The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods ."

But not David

Inspired Choices? Jesus Picked Judas; Governing Body Picked Raymond Franz; I wouldnt say either choice was inspired. But as a parrallel situation, yes this is an excellent comparison

I have no objection to someone else softening the focus of the ideas presented in my post by using the word 'might' instead of 'must'. But for me, there are only two Israels in scripture, the fleshly and the spiritual (regardless of quibbles over the chequered history of fleshly Israel). The fleshly Israel had long lost it's identity when the apostle John wrote the words referred to above. So for me, he must be referring ONLY to spiritual Israel, as international a group in a fleshly sense as the "great crowd" he later describes, but, in contrast, a specific number against the latter, which are innumerable. And as far as I can see, it is this concept alone, (a spiritual Israel), that incorporates satisfactorily the various references to the spiritual significance of terms like "Israel", "Jew", "circumcision" etc. in the Greek Scriptures. They all have their connection with the anointed or heaven-bound "firstfruits" of those responding to Jesus. Unequivocally heaven-bound I say, to serve as king-priests alongside Jesus in the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham that his offspring or seed, (Christ and these 144000 "spiritual" Israelites), would serve for the blessing of all the nations, (the international "great crowd" of Armageddon survivors along with the rest of resurrected, obedient mankind). I have yet to hear or read of a viable alternative that makes any sense overall.

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind. Jesus said to the Jews at Matt.21:43 "the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." That was pretty much confirmed by the acceptance of Cornelius into the Christian congregation in 36CE. With the rapid expansion of the congregation into non-Israelite territories and the consequent influx of non-Jews, there was an ongoing attempt to Judaize these Gentiles that was countered by many of the letters and actions of the apostle Paul. One particular letter, Galatians written about 50-52CE is relevant. One of the statements Paul made in this letter is interesting: Gal.3:28-29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." There he introduces the idea of a united body of Christians (with Christ) made up of Jews and Gentiles but disregarding their fleshly national origins. He also states that they are (by reason of their being united with Christ) included in the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, "heirs with reference to a promise". Quck flip to Genesis 22:18, "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’”. No prize for associating Israelites as the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, and the promise as relating, in part, to all (other) nations getting a blessing by means of Abraham's offspring (or seed). Now Paul has clarified the identity of this offspring as comprising Jesus, plus his congregation, amongst whom there are no fleshly, national, or religious distinctions. He tops it off by referring to this congregation at Gal.6:15-16 as having no need of fleshly circumcision, as being a new creation, and most importantly for the purpose of this discussion, terms them as "the Israel of God". Now this has a neat connection with the words of Peter about 10 years later, at 1Pet.2:9."But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." These words are written to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who are reminded of their reserved heavenly inheritance (1Pet.1:1;4). The words Peter quotes are taken from Ex.19:6 and Is.43:21 which applied directly when they were written to the fleshly nation of Israel. BUT, in the light of Jesus words about the loss of privilege on the part of fleshly Israel, Paul's words about another Israel, united spritually rather than by fleshly descent, and becoming instrumental in the blessing of all nations, coupled with Peter's application of words describing the role of fleshly Israel to this newly constituted other Israel is significant. These words fit well with Jesus' determined pronouncement that another deserving nation would become the instrument to fulfill the blessing to the nations via a spiritual rather than a fleshly offspring of promise. A spritual Israel. And this is not a figurative Israel, it is a literal, spiritual Israel. So, in view of these developments, and the late date of writing for the Revelation nearly 40 years on, it seems pretty clear that the group of 144,000 described at Rev.7:3-8 must be the same as the "Israel of God" referred to by Paul which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be comprised solely of fleshly Israelite Christians. The idea of them "following the Lamb where ever he goes" fits well with Peter's words at 1Pet.1:4 regarding their inheritance. To emphasise, the reference to Israel is actually literal, along with the complete number of 144,000. It's just that it is a spiritual, not a fleshly, nation. The tribal split of course is figurative. The location of the group, the historical loss of any genealogical records, the equal split in numbers, the difference in tribal names all lend support to this view. This , of course is only one thread of scripture that can be brought to bear on the matter. 😊

Fairly factual document, disregarding the mild journalistic sensationalism. Actual quotations from elder's procedural guidance show their scriptural basis, so any disputing will clearly be over the interpretation and application of scripture. Such arguments generally deteriorate into an assault on the validity of Biblical directive, attacking if not authenticity, then asserting antiquity as grounds for obsolescence. Once again, the fact that behaviour that is legislated as criminal by the state is handled from a spritual standpoint by the congregation is presented as if it had some significance. Case studies. No 1 presents a woman subject to domestic violence. For some reason, she married a man who had already subjected her to abuse.The catalogue of abuse that she and her children eventually brought before secular authorities was denied by the perpetrator. However he was found guilty despite his denial in the face of witnesses. The matter was handled from a spiritual standpoint by the congregation. However the approach was too lenient from the victim's standpoint, and she feels her testimony and that of her children was discounted by those who handled the case. Although eventually the abuser was disfellowshipped, his apparent reinstatement seems to have taken place rather quickly, and the unresolved issue of his continued denial of abuse in the face of his conviction on evidence remains. The case is presented as being mishandled against the congregational procedures which is unusual. The article states that the victim: "has nothing against the church itself. Yet she contributes to Fædrelandsvennens article. Her most important motive is a hope that change of internal procedures, guidelines and attitudes in her church may be possible". It is difficult to comment on the case as only one side of the matter is presented. An ARC type investigation on video would be necessary to make a judgement. Any opinions outside of that would just be prejudiced. No 2 presents a couple who decide on aborting a child due to the mother's mental state. In the ensuing judicial case within the congregation, they successfully feigned repentance in order to avoid disfellowshipping. Probably this is presented to illustrate the fact that the determining of repentance is a flawed process? In any event, the couple are now experiencing spiritual difficulties as a result, but apprently attribute this to some sort of perceived 'mind control' by the religious system rather than guilt over their terminating of the life of the foetus. No 3 presents the case of a woman who embarks on a course involving fornication on a number of occasions with more than one partner. She objected to the fact a confidant informed the elders of her conduct. She understandably did not enjoy her experiences before the resulting judicial committees, and although not disfellowshipped the first time, she was on a subsequent occasion after repeating the violation and on the grounds that she did not demonstrate a sufficient level of repentance. (This is the normal grounds for disfellowshpping). She finds her experience of being disfellowshipped as most unpleasant. No 4 presents a woman subject to sexual abuse within the marriage. Lack of suitable testimony meant her complaints to the police were dismissed. It seems (apparently) her complaints were sympathetically viewed by the elders, but their advice for her to try and resolve the matter was not satisfactory. Although she had grounds for a separation, there was no scripturural basis for divorce. She decided to divorce on secular grounds and remarried out of the religion. This scripturally constituted an adulterous marriage, and she was subsequently disfellowshipped for this violation. The agenda of the publishers of this article seems to revolve around the assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses have a "legal" system to circumvent that of the state. There is also an undertone of disapproval of the effects of the disfellowshipping arrangement. The citing of the instructions to elders and the scriptural basis for them is actually very helpful in evaluating what is presented in the article, although it is not clear if that was the publisher's intention.

You wish!!! Never mind...you're through now!!

Small.....b easts???

Since when did "being allowed" govern what people do???

Seems like??......Never mind...liquify dem assets!!!

No, it's actually the spelling that creates a bit of a problem here, but no matter, it all comes clear in the end.