Ann O'Maly
-
Posts
839 -
Joined
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by Ann O'Maly
-
-
"We estimate at about 100 billion the number of galaxies in the observable Universe, therefore there are about 100 billion stars being born and dying each year, which corresponds to about 275 million per day, in the whole observable Universe." - Source.
Wow. That'll be a lot to keep up with!
-
17 hours ago, John Lindsay Barltrop said:
I read an article on Sodom and Gomorrah........I do not have the exact quote, but, the gist of one part of the article was.........that the Bible did not supply any details of the prevalence of homosexuality within those cities..........my question would be "What Bible was the archaeologist(s) reading?"...........certainly not the Word of God.
It would've been nice to know the wording and context. Perhaps the writer was thinking that Sodom was the city (singular - not Gomorrah) that had the mob. But it doesn't say how extensive the mob was. We are also told that Sodom was a wicked city, but was homosexuality the only thing that made it wicked, or was it corrupt in other ways? That's what I'm wondering. If you come across the article again, please post a link as I'd like to read it.
17 hours ago, John Lindsay Barltrop said:Always be wary of reports of this nature........our faith is not based on archaeological finds, our faith is based on what is contained in God's Word, even though, at times, some of these finds do clearly back up Bible accounts.
It could well be that more information comes to light about Hezekiah's bullae and the reason for symbol choices.
But your comments prompt some musings:
Is it a case of only believing archaeological finds that harmonize with our interpretations/ understandings of Bible accounts while rejecting those finds that don't?
Are you thinking that the bullae might be fakes?
Also, if our confidence in the Bible isn't backed up by historical evidences, then couldn't it be argued that we might as well have faith in Aesop's fables?
-
11 hours ago, Susan Ramirez said:
I have one question. Why would King Hezekiah have a pagan symbol like the ank on his official seal?
Could it be that Hezekiah did actually form an alliance with Egypt and those symbols were a declaration of this?
Yes, Isaiah warned about making an alliance with Egypt, but apparently Hezekiah did anyway. And Rabshakeh wasn't contradicted when he talked about Judah's trust in Egypt ... just like he wasn't contradicted when he talked of Judah's trust in YHWH ... because both those statements were true.
And before anyone says, 'Oh but Hezekiah was a good king who only relied on God so he wouldn't have formed political alliances,' it's worth considering that other good kings formed political alliances with their neighboring lands - good king Solomon with Egypt (by marrying Pharaoh's daughter; note 1 Ki. 3:3); good king Jehoshaphat with wicked Ahab and Ahaziah (2 Chron. 18:1-3; 20:34-37 but cp. v. 32).
Also look at Josiah. He was a much-loved king who restored 'true worship.' He didn't make an alliance but he meddled in a political situation, i.e. he tried to prevent Pharaoh Necho and his army joining with the remaining Assyrians against the new Babylonian empire to get Harran back. Maybe he thought he was acting in line with God's purpose ('why is Egypt helping those evil Assyrians who have oppressed our people for so long?'). Whatever Josiah's motives, it was a big error of judgment that cost him his life.
So, good Judahite kings who loved and worshipped YHWH, sometimes got politically involved. Actually, it's kinda naive to think you can be a king ruling a kingdom or country without being 'political' and cutting deals with the surrounding kingdoms or countries.
If anyone is a little wary of the OP video, here is an article from the Biblical Archaeology site.
I'm sure the name Dr. Eilat Mazar will already be familiar to many of you.
-
On 1/14/2017 at 3:55 AM, Anna said:On 1/12/2017 at 6:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:
He was known as a child sexual abuser. We agree on that. Watchtower and Fremont congregation recognized it. The police recognized it. I don't know why you think quibbling over the term 'pedophile' somehow lessens the responsibility that Watchtower and Fremont congregation had toward their children.
Let me rephrase it then. Neither the elders nor the police considered Kendrick to be a predator. Both, the police and the elders, as far as they were aware, believed this was a one time occurrence. IF they had believed otherwise, then the Police would have acted further, and so would the Elders. The fact that the elders took it upon themselves to “watch” Kendrick was as an extra precaution. Although the Elders did not believe Kendrick that it was an accident, they did not believe he would do this to anyone else, OBVIOUSLY!
I don't know how you conclude that the police believed this was a one-time occurrence. Do you have documentation stating this?
I also cannot find anywhere that says the elders themselves believed it would be a one-time occurrence.
As I keep saying, if they really believed that, they would not have testified that they were keeping a close eye on him. There's no need to closely watch an individual's interactions with children if you don't think the individual poses any potential danger.See Abrahamson's and Clarke's testimonies on Day 1, May 29, 2012 transcript, pp. 114, 207-8. Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26. Their acknowledgement of Kendrick's potential to abuse again are implicit in their answers.
Lamerdin said he didn't consider Kendrick to be a danger to children in the congregation (and here comes the important bit) because they were keeping an eye on him to make sure everything was fine (Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, pp. 179, 199). He doesn't suggest that he thought Kendrick would not try it again.
So, your 'OBVIOUS' conclusion is a mistaken one.
QuoteIF they had believed otherwise, then the Police would have acted further, and so would the Elders.
The police could only act in accordance with what was then law. It was a first-time misdemeanor conviction of 'sexual battery involving a restrained person.' So he was put on probation. Had it been a felony conviction, it would have been a different story.
The elders were limited by Watchtower's policy to remove his privileges and keep a close eye on him (which they failed to do adequately).
On 1/14/2017 at 3:55 AM, Anna said:On 1/12/2017 at 6:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:And yes, upon learning about the sexual abuse of his step-daughter, they DID have a legal duty to watch him during congregation activities.
No they did not.
Page 18/19 of the court doc: ...
I think we are talking at cross-purposes. Your quote specifically addresses the issue of whether the elders had a legal duty to warn Conti's parents.
Please note the portions in red, and my comments in [ ] to provide added context.
“..counsel asked, “Did they really watch this guy like a hawk?” Conti and Congregation member Martinez testified that, at Kingdom Hall, Kendrick hugged Conti repeatedly, put his arm around her, held hands with her, had her sit on his lap, and “looked at her inappropriately”—the sort of behavior the elders said they were watching for, and if they had seen would have caused them to warn Conti’s parents about Kendrick. Thus, [the plaintiff argued] if the elders had a duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents of any child his actions might appear to threaten, there was substantial evidence from which to find that they breached the duty in Conti’s case. However, we conclude that the elders had no such legal duty."
No such legal duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents. The extract continues:
"The reasons for our conclusion are largely the same as those that led us to reject the alleged duty to warn the Congregation about Kendrick. There was no special relationship between the church and all of the children in the Congregation simply because they were members of the church. Nor did the church have a special relationship with Kendrick, for purposes of a duty to monitor his behavior toward children, by virtue of control over his conduct with them.......
[Plaintiff's argument resumes:] "Nonetheless, the Congregation elders voluntarily undertook to watch Kendrick and, if necessary, warn individual parents about him, and the “negligent undertaking” doctrine, like the special relationship doctrine, is an exception to the “no duty to aid” rule. [However, the appeals court counters, the law says ...] Under the negligent undertaking doctrine, “a volunteer who, having no initial duty to do so, undertakes to provide protective services to another, will be found to have a duty to exercise due care in the performance of that undertaking if one of two conditions is met: either (a) the volunteer’s failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm to the other person, or (b) the other person reasonably relies upon the volunteer’s undertaking and suffers injury as a result.” (Id.at p.249.) [On this point of law, the appeal court rejects the argument because ...] Neither of those conditions for liability is met here. Nine-year-old Conti was not relying on a church undertaking, and any lack of due care by the elders in monitoring Kendrick’s interactions with children did not increase the risk of harm to her, it only failed to reduce that risk.
"Therefore, defendants cannot be held liable for negligent failure by the elders to notice Kendrick’s behavior with Conti and warn her parents that he posed a danger."
QuoteBut it WAS all about field service.
... which involved what? See p. 23:
"We therefore conclude that defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to restrict and supervise Kendrick's field service to prevent him from harming children in the community and in the Congregation."
On 1/14/2017 at 3:55 AM, Anna said:On 1/12/2017 at 6:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:This was contradicted by Carolyn Martinez who said that Kendrick often had his arm around Candace on KH property and that she saw them in service together on more than one occasion. (Day 4, June 4, 2012 transcript.)
Of course we don’t know how reliable Martinez’s testimony was either, since she had a very troubled marriage with Neil Coti, before divorcing him.....
Martinez testified that she didn't get along with Candace either (Day 4, June 4, 2012, p. 35-6).
Quote[Re: Neal Conti's testimony]
I agree, it was odd, because as a father, surely he would be more concerned about this daughter’s well being, than about his embarrassment, and why would he even want to try to take the heat off the organization? All of this is mere speculation of course. In reality, it was his word against Martinez.... and Candace's. Two witnesses.
QuoteInterestingly though the court did not even factor any of this in,
The court factored in multiple lines of evidence. There was a whole picture that developed of the dynamics in Kendrick's and Conti's families, in the congregation, among mutual friends, medical professionals who treated/ counselled Candace, what society and the Society knew about how child abusers worked, etc. Upon this framework hung testimony of what was observed and said in relation to Kendrick and Candace and his other 'interests.'
QuoteSo really, my argument still stands, there was no proof that Kendrick molested Conti during field service, but it wasn’t about the proof that something did happen, but the POTENTIAL that something could have happened because there was no provision made by the congregation to the contrary. And that is why WT and the congregation were charged with negligence.
Both trial and appeal courts judged that the standard of proof required (the preponderance of the evidence) for this civil case was met, and thus they could legally conclude that Kendrick did indeed molest Candace.
On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:A few more thoughts on Irvin Zalkin
Irvin Zalkin knows that his cases involving Child Sexual Abuse of JWs are from time periods when there were no clergy mandatory reporting laws. He knows that in California, Clergy mandatory reporting laws did not come into effect until 1997. He knows the law.
I should hope so! It helps to know the law when you're a lawyer.
On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:He knows why certain things were done or not done. But he is intentionally keeping that information away from the general public because he knows that if he explained these, he would not have such a sensationalist impact on his viewers/readers.
What information has he kept from the general public so that he can maximize a sensationalist impact on them? Examples?
On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:It is very evident from what he says, especially in his partnership with Reveal reporter Trey Bundi, that he is hoping for an audience who is largely ignorant of the law, (regarding Child sexual abuse in these specific cases) and therefore he can slant his arguments in a particular way for maximum impact on the emotions. He is like a showman. He is very good at that I must admit. He cannot afford to explain things objectively.
How is he playing on people's ignorance of the law to slant arguments and whip up emotions? Examples?
On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:If you believe any different then you are being very naïve Ann O'Maly. Which is surprising for an apparently intelligent person like you. But I can understand that in this regard, it is not expected that everyone is versed in the law and legal matters. I am not an expert either, however, the difference between you and me in this case is that I have done my research, whereas you have done none or very little, as is apparent.
On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:The sad thing is, and some don't realize this: Victims who go through the grueling procedure of trying to get justice for what happened to them years ago, run a high risk of losing the case, and losing money. Of course the Lawyer will get paid regardless. We don't know if Candace Conti even got a cent, after paying off her Lawyer fees. It is quite possible she ended up with nothing.
Good lawyers will take cases they have strong chances of winning. It's poor business-sense to do otherwise. As for Candace's award, we do not know the financial arrangement between her and her legal team. Simons strikes me as a very fair-minded person, so I'd rather assume the best outcome for Candace.
-
On 1/10/2017 at 9:40 PM, Anna said:
I never disputed that. I said "The perpetrator voluntarily confessed to (the elders) having “accidentally” touched his step daughter’s breasts on one occasion" What I also said was, and this is true, that "Evidence in the Conti case shows that the perpetrator was not known as a pedophile to the elders at the time he allegedly molested Conti". In fact, he was not known as a pedophile to the police at that time either, despite the fact that they had the same information as the elders. And as you pointed out, it went on both, the elders records and the police records that Kendrick had touched his step daughter.
He was known as a child sexual abuser. We agree on that. Watchtower and Fremont congregation recognized it. The police recognized it. I don't know why you think quibbling over the term 'pedophile' somehow lessens the responsibility that Watchtower and Fremont congregation had toward their children.
QuoteDidn't make much difference to the outcome for Candace did it? This is what I meant when I said the police didn't take it further than the elders. He was charged with a misdemeanor by secular law, and taken off as min. by "spiritual law". Evidently both, the police and the elders did not view Kendrick as a predator or pedophile and a danger to other children. However, the elders did claim they took precautions by "watching Kendrick", although they had no legal duty to do so (to watch Kendrick).
If the elders did not believe Kendrick was a danger to other children, why would there have been a need to watch him? And yes, upon learning about the sexual abuse of his step-daughter, they DID have a legal duty to watch him during congregation activities. It's called a 'duty of care.' This is why Watchtower and Fremont congregation were found, under law, to have been negligent in that duty of care.
QuoteIt couldn't be proved that Kendrick molested Candace during field service
Conti did not claim he molested her 'during' field service. She claimed he molested her while they were supposed to be doing field service but really he had taken her to his home. We all know how it works: Car groups to the territory; people pair up and do a little door-to-door; then many in the group split off to do return visits. It's so easy to 'disappear' for a while without others knowing what you're doing. The preponderance of evidence was that Kendrick partnered up with Candace in service more than once, and circumstances were such that he had ample opportunity to abuse her. The elders had taken it upon themselves to monitor Kendrick, but they didn't monitor him.
Quote(In fact Conti's father testified that: "he did not see Kendrick engage in any of the inappropriate behavior described by Conti....that he was always with Conti at meetings and during field service, he did not allow Conti to leave meetings with Kendrick, and did not see Kendrick hug Conti or Conti sit on Kendrick’s lap" *)
This was contradicted by Carolyn Martinez who said that Kendrick often had his arm around Candace on KH property and that she saw them in service together on more than one occasion. (Day 4, June 4, 2012 transcript.)
Some of Neal Conti's testimony was shown to be inconsistent and at times odd. He gave the impression that he and Kendrick were just passing acquaintances and barely knew each other. Mr. Simons showed, through his questioning, that their relationship was more than that, that they were friends and hung out together on several occasions (as Candace's mother's testimony also confirms). As a serving Ministerial Servant, and having met up with Watchtower's defense team before testifying (he was actually witness for the plaintiff!), you can predict that Neal Conti would do what he could to, not only minimize his own embarrassment at being so friendly with his daughter's abuser, but also help take the heat off the organization's liability by saying he, as a parent, was with Candace all the time during congregation activities.
QuoteMost JWs know that children do not go with other adults, especially those not related to them, unless assigned to do so by the parent. I find it very odd that anyone in the congregation would allow a 9 year old girl to be alone in a car with a brother, especially when the elders knew of Kendricks past "misdemeanor" .
It was quite common for JW children to partner non-relative adults in service. Remember that Candace's parents were unaware of Kendrick having abused a child in the past, so they would not have foreseen any potential danger with him being so friendly with their daughter. Despite the elders' claim that they were 'keeping an eye' on him, they denied having witnessed anything untoward.
QuoteAs you know, the punitive charges were dropped, because it was found that WT had no duty to warn. The reason for that is described very well in the following excerpt from the final court document, p.15 and puts in a nutshell what applies to ALL such cases:
Yes, it is a pity the appeal court rejected the the 'duty to warn' argument and reversed the punitive damage judgment.
Interestingly, the latest revision of Watchtower's UK Child Safeguarding Policy stipulates that there is a 'duty to warn' in some circumstances.
"In some cases, the Service Department may specifically direct elders to inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with an individual who has engaged in child sexual abuse." - January 2017, Child Safeguarding Policy, p. 5, par. 17.
I hope the U.S. branch has followed suit. It all comes too late for Candace, of course.
Nevertheless, the appeal upheld the judgment against Watchtower for negligence. It was the organization's documented policy to supervise and restrict known child molesters' interactions with minors during congregation activities like field service, and it failed to do that, resulting in harm to a child.
QuoteP.S. I find it very curious that Conti "executed a covenant not to execute on any judgment against Kendrick, in exchange for his agreement not to participate in the case...”
Let's complete the sentence: " ... in exchange for his agreement not to participate in the case, or harass Conti or her witnesses.”
That was what the plaintiff's team were concerned about - him causing trouble with the trial. In return, Candace wouldn't pursue him for monetary compensation (money that he didn't have anyway). Besides, he'd been sloppy with filing his response to the complaint served upon him and so he had defaulted. He later tried to get that default overturned making all sorts of excuses about why he had been dilatory. He said he was eager to clear his name, blah, blah. But then ...
So that's the backstory to that.
----------On 1/10/2017 at 9:59 PM, Anna said:On 1/10/2017 at 6:04 PM, Ann O'Maly said:Oh, 10, 20 years ago, authorities and institutions knew enough to handle abuse allegations properly.
Didn't make much difference to the outcome though did it? When victims and those who knew did not report it. 20, 30 years ago it was not talked about, and not taken to the authorities. (I mean by everyone, JW or non JW). That was my point.
It was talked about and taken to the authorities 20 years ago. For instance, Megan's Law came into effect in 1994. Greater awareness and shifts in attitude toward child abuse began in the 1980s.
So which outcome are you talking about? Kendrick's then wife and step-daughter reported to the police. The police convicted Kendrick of a misdemeanor. It was the organization and its agents who, after taking it upon themselves to monitor him, failed to monitor him which meant he went on to abuse another child.
Quote.I was under the impression they already faced sanctions and were not allowed to defend themselves.
As I said, the appeal court set aside the amount for monetary sanctions against them for non-compliance. But it upheld the order that Watchtower produce their key documents relating to this case, or face other sanctions.
QuoteAnd yes, I still feel the same about Zalkin.
Pity. Thank goodness victims have advocates like him and his team.
-
13 hours ago, Anna said:
Other cases included elders being unaware of the problem in the first place, elders being presented with insufficient evidence and having to rely on ambiguous information. Much of the mishandling of individual cases was due to the naiveté and inexperience of those handling such cases. This is nothing surprising since the average person, especially 30, 20 even 10 years ago had no clue. This is why institutions such as the ARC have been put in place. To identify the problem, and educate the people.
Oh, 10, 20 years ago, authorities and institutions knew enough to handle abuse allegations properly. Much of the mishandling from this time is often due to bad policy. Seeing as elders are lay-people, all that is needed, rather than handle it in-house, is to report an allegation to the police or child protection bodies - i.e. to those professionally trained to investigate and protect.
13 hours ago, Anna said:As regards the Gonzalo Campos case, that was a fiasco, as WT were not allowed to defend themselves because they had miffed the judge by not coopering with her demands, which WT felt were unqualified.
The appeal court upheld the order that Watchtower produce their key documents relating to this case, but they did set aside the amount for monetary sanctions against them for non-compliance. But Watchtower will face sanctions if they still do not produce.
13 hours ago, Anna said:And frankly, Zalkin, the victim's defense lawyer is an egotistical attention seeker, and is only interested in exposure for his law firm and $$$$$ for himself, as most lawyers are...
I wonder: Do you feel the same about lawyers who have litigated against the Catholic Church for their child abuse cover-ups and crimes? What about those lawyers who have brought child abuse cases against the Boy Scouts of America, foster/care homes, schools? Are these lawyers self-centered, attention-seeking, money-grubbers too? When Zalkin has gone after all those non-JW sexual abusers and abuse-enabling institutions, was he doing it purely for self interest? Or do you feel differently - that other institutions are getting their just deserts and that the lawyers are trying to gain some much needed redress for the victims?
-
10 hours ago, Anna said:
Evidence in the Conti case shows that the perpetrator was not known as a pedophile to the elders at the time he allegedly molested Conti. ... The perpetrator voluntarily confessed to having “accidentally” touched his step daughter’s breasts on one occasion. This did not lead the elders into believing, rightly or wrongly, that he was a danger to other children in the congregation ...
Actually, the evidence shows the opposite - that the elders knew Kendrick had molested his step-daughter. This was why the court found Watchtower and Fremont Congregation negligent in their duty of care toward Conti.
In the November 15, 1993 letter from the congregation to Watchtower, the elders classified the Kendrick/ step-daughter 'incident' as "child abuse" which reflects what they testified to in court, i.e. that they did not believe Kendrick's claim it was 'inadvertent' or 'accidental' touching. Their disbelief of Kendrick's story is also reflected in their removal of Kendrick as a ministerial servant.
The elders also testified that they were supposed to be 'keeping an eye' on Kendrick's interactions with children during congregation activities thereafter. If this claim is true (other testimony casts doubt on it, however), then it suggests they suspected Kendrick may act inappropriately with children again.
QuoteAlso, the wife took the matter to the police shortly thereafter. So the police were just as informed as the elders and evidently saw no need to take the matter any further.
The police did take it further because Kendrick was convicted of misdemeanor child molestation as a result.
Like you, I am familiar with the case and have read all the transcripts and submitted evidence. I have it all stored on my computer, so if you need your memory refreshing on anything, just say.
-
1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:On 12/31/2016 at 3:05 PM, Ann O'Maly said:
it is I myself
These were Jesus words. The disciples present would have understood that it was indeed actually him, not a vision or some other type of manifestation. The form in which he presented himself was appropriate for the occasion.
And Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have" - how would the disciples have understood this?
QuoteWell I certainly agree with the term "Mighty God" (Is. 9:6) applying to the 'only Potentate'.
That was not what I was suggesting, of course. I had in mind the term 'Mighty God' - as in Isa. 10:21 and Jer. 32:18 - applying to the 'only Potentate.'
It looks like your next response is one of 'throwing in the towel' and pretty much saying that holy spirit will have to reveal to me the 'truth' as you see it so I can align with your, or present JW, interpretation. Yes, I understand the official JW concepts of earthly and heavenly resurrections for Christian-era Christians, but I question the validity of two separate destinies on scriptural grounds. (Acts 17:11, anyone?)
So far, the questions that are as yet left hanging in the air are:
- Given that Paul likened Abraham's being declared righteous by faith to 1st century Christians' being declared righteous by faith, on what basis is there a tangible difference between being 'declared righteous as Jehovah's friend' (understood to be one Christian group of prospective recipients of God's saving grace) and 'declared righteous for life' (understood to be another group of Christians who are recipients of God's saving grace now and into eternity)?
- If all true Christians in the 1st century had been promised one kind of everlasting reward, how and when did that change?
- And the sidebar that keeps being sidestepped: How would the disciples have understood Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have"?
Anyway, if those questions provoke further private thought, reflection and research, even if one doesn't feel like discussing them at the moment, it's all good.
-
18 hours ago, Anna said:
Really? That is news to me. So what is the final one?
The resurrected, glorified body that Paul talks about - fit to live in the 'new heavens and new earth.'
Unfortunately, some churches have over-emphasized the intermediate 'heaven' bit and parishioners have gone away with the impression that an ethereal existence in 'heaven' will be believers' final state - a concept that is more Gnostic in flavor than Christian.
These links will give you a quick overview and maybe help answer your other question about God's purpose:
https://www.gotquestions.org/intermediate-state.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/intermediate-state.html
-
On 12/27/2016 at 9:12 PM, Anna said:
So, just a few simple questions, why did God create the earth in the first place?
According to the Bible, it was to be a home for His creation and humans were to take care of it.
QuoteDo you believe what Christendom does, that the earth was created as a testing ground for mankind, before they were allowed access into heaven?
No. I don't think all 'Christendom' believes that anyway. Maybe some churches do, if they also believe heaven is believers' final destiny and the earth will be destroyed by fire. Mainstream Christianity teaches that heavenly existence is the intermediate state, not the final one. The intermediate state is a little akin to the JW concept of being 'in God's memory' - the state between physical death and resurrection.
QuoteIs heaven the place where the angels were to mingle with humans who had experienced life on earth and then were given spiritual bodies to become like the other angels, who had never been human but were created already with a spiritual body?
Sounds a bit 'gnostic' to me.
QuoteOr do you believe what the Mormons believe, that God created only angels who, in order to appreciate being an angel, were sent to the earth to experience evil?
No.
----------
(From another post.)
QuoteI am aware that the commentary of James was written by his nephew,
Ed Dunlap wrote that one, I understand.
-
On 12/18/2016 at 10:43 PM, Eoin Joyce said:On 12/18/2016 at 0:17 PM, Ann O'Maly said:
How would the disciples have understood his words in Luke 24:39
That the Jesus they knew and loved had indeed been resurrected. Jesus exhibited the same spirit that he displayed at John 16:12-13. No need to subject his already buffeted disciples to terrifying manifestations such as those experienced earlier by Daniel when confronted with a spirit being (Da.10:8-9). Jesus did not find it necessary to overwhelm them with proof that he had been resurrected in the manner required to move the insolent Saul as later recorded at Acts 9:3-9.
You've not really answered the question. How would Jesus' disciples have understood him when he said, "it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have"?
QuoteAgreed, but would qualify this with a reference to 1 Cor.15:45 which says of Jesus: "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
Well now, this presents a conundrum: How to harmonize Jesus' words with Paul's.
QuoteAgreed. However, pre-Christian believers will not enjoy a resurrection like Christ's.
But Heb. 11:16, 39, 40? In any case, we are still discussing Christian-era Christians.
Quote(Not sure why you have Mighty God in parenthesis here?)
To be clear on who 'only Potentate' refers to when writing my comment.
QuoteHowever, your proposed view does not change the understanding of 1John 3:2 where Christians who will "see him just as he is" will of necessity be unable to do so if resurrected as humans, flesh and blood.
Paul's term 'flesh and blood' is to be understood as an idiom describing man's present, corrupt-ed/-ible, mortal body, as opposed to the spirit-generated, incorruptible, immortal resurrection body. He's not saying that resurrected believers will no longer be human ... otherwise 'resurrection' (lit. 'standing up again') wouldn't be an appropriate word to describe what's supposed to happen.
But continuing this line of discussion will lead us too far off topic about whether a subset of Christian-era believers will have a different sort of everlasting reward to other Christian-era believers. If all true Christians in the 1st century had been promised one kind of everlasting reward, how and when did that change?
On 12/18/2016 at 10:43 PM, Eoin Joyce said:On 12/18/2016 at 0:17 PM, Ann O'Maly said:how did two different destinies for true Christian believers come about?
Compare Jesus words at Matt.16:17:
"flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did"
How does Jesus' response to Peter's conclusion about Jesus being the Christ help answer my question? Or are you suggesting there was some divine revelation in post-biblical times?
-
18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Well then, Jesus appearances in an apparently human form were "positive proofs" to his disciples of the fact of his resurrection and not the nature of his resurrection. There are a number of examples in scripture of spirits (angels) appearing in a tangible human form in order to carry out assignments. (And apparently unauthorised examples of the same).
How would the disciples have understood his words in Luke 24:39, then?
Quote... Job spoke of the possibility of a man living again after "compulsory service" in the grave at the call of God. (Job 14:15).
Jesus was a man who, by the call of God, lived again - Acts 2:22-24, 1 Tim. 2:5.
As for all the other examples in the Bible of resurrections and the conclusions you draw from these: As you know, these people did not enjoy a resurrection like Christ's. His resurrection was something new, and Christian believers who died before his Presence would have to wait until his Presence before they could enjoy a resurrection like Christ's.
QuoteThe description of the glorified Jesus in the heavens at 1Tim.6:16 indicates that "no man can see" him and this is appropriate for one who "is the image of the invisible God" Col.1:15. ...
I question whether the subject to whom "the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see," refers is Jesus, but rather to the "only Potentate" (Mighty God) because Jesus has been seen by man and the only one inherently immortal is God. The passage doesn't make sense otherwise.
QuoteIt is obvious from all that is discussed in the Scriptures that a heavenly resurrection hope is held out to some of those Christians. It is also clear that "the inhabited earth to come" that is subject to Jesus will be inhabited in part by humans like Job who looked forward to an end to their compulsory service in the grave (or Sheol), and this by means of a physical, earthly resurrection.
It is not obvious or clear to me from scripture that there are two sets of true Christian believers in this 'Gospel Age' that have different destinies. Again, if all true Christian believers in the first century had one destiny, and this was when the inspired Bible canon was closed, how did two different destinies for true Christian believers come about?
-
Quote
As astrologers, they were servants of false gods and were, wittingly or unwittingly, led by what appeared to them as a moving “star.” They alerted Herod to the fact that the “king of the Jews” had been born, and Herod, in turn, sought to have Jesus killed. The plot, however, failed. Jehovah intervened and proved superior to the demon gods of the astrologers, so instead of returning to Herod, the astrologers headed home another way after being given “divine warning in a dream.”—Mt 2:2, 12.
http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000448#h=9:0-10:218Daniel was made the chief of the Magians (Dan. 2:48) but he isn't considered worshipper of false gods. The motive of the 'wise men' was a benevolent one - to pay homage to the new Jewish king and give him valuable gifts fit for his royal status (which evidently helped save Jesus' life later on). One of the points of Matthew's account is to contrast the attitude of prominent Gentiles (who may have had little knowledge of God's ways but went to great effort and expense to show their respects and generosity toward God's son) with that of the hostile Jewish establishment.
To attribute the appearance of the star to the Devil is jumping to conclusions - there could be various alternative explanations and many hypotheses have been offered, including one that has God being behind the star. It has to be noted that the evil in this story is placed squarely on Herod alone.
-
On 12/10/2016 at 3:31 PM, Eoin Joyce said:
Do you think this is an example of what Luke referred to later at Acts 1:3?
Of course.
-
The video gives very flimsy reasons for JWs avoiding Christmas celebrations.
A more scholarly analysis of the historical and biblical reasoning used to support December 25th as a possible date for Christ's birth can be found here:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/58/58-2/JETS_58-2_299-324_Simmons.pdf
The author concludes:
"Neither the History of Religions Theory nor the Calculation Theory can adequately account for the origin of the Christmas date. Therefore, transmission of the date of Christ’s birth by tradition from the apostles and holy family cannot logically be ruled out. Moreover, since the traditional date of the nativity is fully consistent with various chronological indicators left for us in history and the Gospels, we have every reason to accept it as the true source and origin of the Christmas date."
22 hours ago, David Normand said:However, we do have two accounts where birthdays were celebrated and in both instances it was only non Israelite who celebrated them and in both instances people were murdered.
Both celebrations were for wealthy rulers who saw themselves as divine so people would be celebrating the birthday of a god. 99.9% of those today who celebrate a birthday do not think they are a god. (OTOH, the Bible teaches that Jesus is divine.)
Pharaoh's birthday was recorded because it was integral to the outworking of Jehovah's purpose regarding Joseph. Herod's birthday was recorded because it tells us how an innocent man was unjustly executed because a woman held a bitter grudge, and it just so happened to be on that day that she took the opportunity to do away with him.
Jehovah does not make any comment or instruction against birthdays. The recorded accounts are separated by hundreds of years and were incidental to the bigger stories.
22 hours ago, David Normand said:but that birthday celebrations were never mentioned in a positive manner could cause one to wonder if is something to get involved with.
Dogs are never mentioned in the Bible in a positive manner either. Do JWs avoid dogs?
22 hours ago, David Normand said:Also, there is no mention of birthday celebrations among the ancient Hebrews or even the first century Christians.
There is no mention of ancient Hebrews and early Christians celebrating wedding anniversaries either. Moreover, the Bible never commanded that wedding anniversaries should be celebrated, although there are instances in the Bible where weddings themselves are celebrated. Logically, then, we are not meant to observe wedding anniversaries. Therefore, do JWs avoid celebrating wedding anniversaries?
22 hours ago, David Normand said:In fact, in the first century the Christians of that era considered birthday celebrations as pagan.
Wedding rings, the days of the week and many months of the year are of pagan or 'false religious' origin. And piñatas.
*** g03 9/22 p. 23-4 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
"We found that for many people in Mexico, the piñata has lost its religious significance and is considered by most to be just harmless fun. ...
"... A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. Understandably, opinions may vary from one place to another. Hence, it is wise to avoid turning such matters into big issues." -
13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Don't be silly Ann. You know this was done for the benefit of the disciples. They were not in the heavenly realm at the time.
Neither was he (John 20:17).
13 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:This is interesting. Are you referring to Gen 6:2?
I was thinking more of Luke 24:36-43.
-
24 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Yes. 1Cor 14:44;49;50;53.
You meant 1 Cor. 15, of course.
One can have a 'heavenly' (heaven-sourced, spirit-generated) body without having to be in the location of heaven to enjoy it.
Besides, Jesus said his post-resurrection body was, in some way, material (Luke 24:39; cp. 1 Cor. 15:50).
-
The illustration of the tourists is not really analogous.
"IMAGINE that an experienced guide is leading you on a tour of a wondrous and beautiful city"
Jesus. Fine.
"Would the premature ideas and eager questions of the tourists cast doubt on the reliability of their guide? Hardly! Similarly, although God’s people sometimes try to work out details of Jehovah’s purpose before it is time for the holy spirit to guide them to such truths, it is clear that Jesus is leading them."
That's not quite how it's been in the Organization, though, has it? I suggest that it has been more like a scenario where some of the more dominant tourists start guiding the other tourists, loudly and authoritatively explaining details about the city's features that are a mishmash of fact and falsehood. The experienced guide is shaking his head, trying to speak above the few dominant tourists and waving the group back on track but they're all wandering off after the loud, 'knowledgeable' ones.
Eph. 4:14, 15.
-
On 12/5/2016 at 1:03 AM, Eoin Joyce said:
This is an interesting discussion, but I think it is going off topic and seems to be veering into a debate on whether the resurrection hope includes two destinies. Whilst the distinction regarding the various statements regarding God declaring men righteous has a bearing on this, I feel the link is getting tenuous and we are venturing into @The Librarian nudge territory.
Tenuous? Hardly. The whole (alleged) distinction between being 'declared righteous for life' versus being 'declared righteous as Jehovah's friend' is centered on the two destiny concept. Given that the vast majority of Christian believers over the past (nearly) 2000 years are dead and awaiting resurrection ... somewhere - some to 'heavenly' immortality and others to 'earthly' probation-pending-permanence (as WT teaching goes) ... the discussion about resurrection is very much on topic.
QuoteMuch of Paul's discussion in this chapter appears to be dealing with a lack of understanding and faith on the part of those who at least were contemplating the prospect of a heavenly resurrection.
Are they contemplating a resurrection to heaven? Or just the resurrection per se?
-
"A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. Understandably, opinions may vary from one place to another. Hence, it is wise to avoid turning such matters into big issues." - g03 9/22 p. 24
-
On 12/3/2016 at 1:36 AM, Eoin Joyce said:
I'd see it as a call from heaven to go to heaven. 1 Cor 15:48-49 etc.
How does 1 Cor. 15 support the idea of two different destinies for Christians? Why would one, who is rewarded with a 'heavenly' body, only be able to enjoy their new life in heaven? The point Paul was making was that the present body is corruptible and perishable, whereas the resurrection body will endowed with incorruptibility and immortality.
--------------
23 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:As Eion said in a recent post, one has to pray for understanding and insight.
That's a given. Earnest and prayerful scriptural research may lead to new perspectives that are at odds with one's previous understanding.
23 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:Seat of God's Kingdom is in heaven, since Jesus went back to heaven, is of spirit nature, has immortality and is living in unapproachable light. ( 1 Tim 6:16) Those who partake of his nature would also be resurrected to heaven. So they acquire the glory of Jesus. (2 Thess 2:13,14) Jesus frequently used the term the "kingdom of the heavens".
The question still remains: on what scriptural basis is the idea that Christian believers have two different destinies. If all first century Christians were (for the sake of argument) heaven-bound, where does the idea come from that there would be a subset of Christian believers who were not heaven-bound? After the 'inspired' Bible books were written, finalized and canonized, what changed?
23 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:Eph 1:10 reaffirms one flock, one shepherd; but two folds: Earthly and heavenly. Therefore it agrees with John 10:16.
There is nothing there that even hints there will one set of Christian believers being rewarded in heaven while another set of Christian believers get rewarded someplace else. All the Ephesian believers were called heirs in Christ (1:11) and given the holy spirit as a token of that future inheritance (1:13,14).
23 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:Little flock in heaven; great flock on earth where humans were placed originally.
Again, how do you come to that assumption?
23 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:One could be in presence of God and not necessarily be in heaven. When God acknowledged his Son on earth he was in his presence. (See my research given to Shiwii.)
Sure. But we are talking about the vision given to John. To be faithful to the vision's details at Rev. 7, the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the angels, four living creatures and elders. What textual warrant is there to arbitrarily remove them to somewhere different?
23 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:Can't fault your logic but you have to see the whole picture, the overall purpose of God to understand it.
I agree you have to see the whole picture. The thing is, we are seeing different pictures - or rather, yours has some pieces of the puzzle jammed into the wrong places, imho
-
5 hours ago, John Lindsay Barltrop said:
Origin of Christmas and Its Spirit ... The Two Babylons, pages 97, 98.
Oh for goodness' sake!
It's bunkum!
-
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:
Ps 37:11,29 Righteous to live one earth forever - original purpose – God put Adam on earth
Matt 5:5 Meek shall inherit the earth – Jesus
The ones who inherit the earth are the same ones to whom "the Kingdom of the heavens" belong, who will "see God" and "will be called sons of God," surely (Matt. 5:3, 8-10). Or was Jesus addressing two classes of people in the audience listening to him that day? (Eoin, this was the reason for that question.)
Also, to be able to inherit something, doesn't one have to be an heir?
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:Rev 7: 9 After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.
Contextually, according to the vision, the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the angels, elders and four living creatures. So where would that be?
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:No tribulation in heaven. (Matthew 24:21)
The tribulation was on earth. The 'great crowd' has come out of it and taken their place in the peaceful presence of God and the heavenly court - according to the details of the vision.
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:John 10:16 Other sheep not of this (heavenly) fold - earthly
You've read different destinies into the text. There is nothing in Jesus' words that suggests two destinies. Two groups, yes, but cp. Eph. 2:11-18, especially noting v. 14.
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:(Luke 12:32) “Have no fear, little flock, for your Father has approved of giving you the Kingdom.
(Luke 22:28-29) 28 “However, you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; 29 and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom,…
No mention of whether the destiny is heaven or earth here.
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:(Revelation 14:3) And they are singing what seems to be a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders, and no one was able to master that song except the 144,000, who have been bought from the earth.
Where else would humans have been bought from, irrespective of final destiny?
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:(Revelation 5:9) And they sing a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
But Rev. 7:9 has the 'great crowd' being comprised of people "out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues" too, and yet you used this to argue for an earthly group. How does Rev. 5:9 argue for a heaven-bound group?
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:(Revelation 5:10) and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”
Can one not rule 'over the earth' while on the earth? Cp. Gen. 1:28.
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:(Hebrews 3:1) Consequently, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge — Jesus.
Please see my and Eoin's exchange(s). I've yet to reply to his latest post.
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:(2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14) ... 14 He called you to this through the good news we declare, so that you may acquire the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The scripture says nothing of the location here.
20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:Ephesians 1: 10… It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, ...
The following verses (as you quoted) have heaven and earth being gathered together in Christ. It doesn't indicate that some Christian believers will have their everlasting reward in one or the other location.
-
16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Obviously, a heavenly hope is held out in the Scripture also (Heb.3:1), so this relates to the other destiny.
"Consequently, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling [or 'invitation'], consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge—Jesus." - Heb. 3:1
Is this a call/ invitation to heaven, or a call/ invitation from heaven?
When Jesus gave his Sermon on the Mount, was his believing audience composed of those who had two different destinies or just one destiny?
Pity. Thank goodness victims have advocates like him and his team.
It's bunkum!
Biblical King Hezekiah Official Seal Found in Ancient Trash Dump - 2,700-year-old... (video)
in Topics
Posted
Man's interpretations and understandings of Bible accounts are likewise imperfect. So, we have a Bible account about good king Hezekiah and the events in his life, and we have seals with his name and some Egyptian symbols on them. The puzzle about those symbols arises due an assumption that Hezekiah did not form an alliance with Egypt when both the Bible and the seals suggest otherwise.