Jump to content
The World News Media

Anna

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,679

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Anna

  1. Anna
    I don't know if anyone has read these news articles. They are pretty objective. And they are in English https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/jehovahs-witnesses-in-russia-brace-for-a-final-blow-57343 https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russian-justice-ministry-calls-for-country-wide-ban-on-jehovahs-witnesses-57458 Judging from the supreme court website, the (decisive?) court hearing will be 4th April 2017. I tried to post a link to the supreme court website with the JW case and strangely it won't let me...
  2. Anna
    That's maybe because they don't view our GB as they do the Pope, which I'm glad about! The Pope has celebrity status, I hope our GB are not viewed that way. (I just has a visual of him answering questions in his skull cap and and white cape...the Pope I mean) And also the Pope is just one, whereas we have 7 representatives and one of them was already a part of the hearing in 2015. They obviously thought it wouldn't be any trouble for him to repeat the gesture. So in other words you are saying that it's understandable that WT might be trying to safeguard assets. Which is what I said.
  3. Anna
    I agree. But the ARC were made aware in case 29 (which was the case held in 2015) that the GB have the last word in all decisions, so I guess they just wanted to cut out the middle man...
  4. Anna
    Well I didn't really want to start a new topic, and as I was typing what I posted below, I realized it was not that off topic as I thought it would be, since the manner in which Christ was nailed to the torture device might have a direct baring on what kind of torture device it was, whether it was a stake or a cross type of thing. But anyway, Admin thought it was better moved to its own thread.....not that I would really want to discuss it...
  5. Anna
    True Christians would not venerate any symbol surely would they? My thoughts are that Jehovah evidently did not interfere in his Son’s unjust trial, and He completely “forsook” him at the point of his execution, so I wonder would He then see the need to influence what torture device was used in Jesus’ execution, if for example a cross had traditionally been used by the Pagan Romans at that time? After all, it was a pagan execution. Regardless of what torture device was used it was only venerated by counterfeit Christians, and as we see, even if it had been a stake, it made no difference to them, they still like their cross. But I chose to take the attitude of Eoin and others on here:
  6. Anna
    Maybe this is not completely relevant to the discussion, but has anyone noticed in today's WT study (WT January2017 ) the illustration of Jesus on the stake, with the nails going through his wrists rather than through the palm of his hands? I haven't noticed this before, perhaps we have always drawn it this way and I just didn't pay enough attention. I remember reading somewhere some technicalities about the actual physical possibilities or impossibilities, and one argument was that the victim could not be nailed to a stake through the hands as the weight of the body would rip through the palms (sorry, this is so morbid) and the only way it could be through the palms is if the downward weight was distributed with the arms tied to a cross beam and the then the palms nailed (I guess for added anguish). In any case, when Thomas needed confirmation of Jesus' resurrection he said at John 20:25 .....“Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” Is this a case of a broad usage for "hand"? And could it mean anything from the fingers to the wrists, including the wrists? In some languages the translation of hand can be a little confusing because it can also mean the whole arm in another language. Only the context can give a clue as to what is meant, whether it is a hand, and arm, the forearm or the whole arm including the hand...This also got me to thinking about the translation of stauros, could that also encompass not just a vertical beam but some horizontal beams?
  7. Anna
    I don't see how that disqualified anything I said.....because I did also say that perhaps the stake that was carried could have been the cross piece, a smaller piece which would be nailed horizontally to the upright stake already in place...
  8. Anna
    That's why one shouldn't take anything personally and keep things merely factual, without too much emotion. These are merely discussions (or unfortunately sometimes debates) and people expressing their views and opinions and then giving reasons for their views and opinions. It we can respect that, then one can have some meaningful discussions sometimes.....Just my opinion!
  9. Anna
    Yes, that is true of course, but why do you think it mattered? I know it's a rhetorical question because I am sure you have something in mind already, but I still think it didn't necessarily mean it excluded a cross beam. It would have been perhaps unnecessarily descriptive to have to say "Accursed is every man hung upon a stake with a cross beam". But at the same time of course it could have been just that, a stake and nothing else. To be honest I would prefer it if it was that way. I don't like the idea of Christ nailed to a cross. But I just cannot make that claim a 100% as I really don't think anyone knows a 100%. Bearing in mind also the actual physics of carrying a pole thick enough in circumference to support a man and long enough to sit securely in the ground with enough height for a man to be suspended far enough above ground (JWI made a simple calculation). Would it be possible for a man to drag a pole that size quite some distance, perhaps over a kilometer? It seems to make more sense that the vertical poles were already in place, and secured in the ground. So then could a cross beam be called a torture stake? One could still be hung upon it. But then again how would the victim be hoisted up onto the vertical stake, with a cross beam having to be nailed to it. Anyone who has done a bit of carpentry knows a horizontal beam can't just be nailed to a vertical beam without it moving all over the place, it has to be secured properly. I haven't researched that....it's kind of gruesome. All in all I think history is a bit unreliable and I don't care what anyone says, but we cannot trust it 100%. That's why I don't like to be dogmatic about any topic like this. I hear you. I don't either!
  10. Anna
    Perhaps they are building giant underground bunkers to survive Armageddon? No seriously, it seems to me you are just being septical without having concrete proof for anything. Perhaps you should start another thread since it really doesn't belong here, and then we can discuss it to death.
  11. Anna
    So what are you saying? Are you saying Christ had a choice in what was used?
  12. Anna
    If I understand what you mean, then I think you are wrong. The whole abominable performance was wrong and atrocious right from the start. And Jehovah allowed it. He allowed Christ to be executed as a criminal (in the eyes of the pagans) in a most degrading way. Why would it matter that the tool of execution might have also been a pagan symbol, since it was performed by pagans?
  13. Anna
    Why should they take Bobby's word for it? What if Bobby is not the sharpest tool in the box? Or what if Bobby has raised false alarms in the past? But they should definitely encourage Bobby to go to the police and the police can start their investigative process.
  14. Anna
    That makes a lot of logical sense. So really, there could have been two stakes, the ones already in the ground, and then smaller stakes (the cross beams) which the victim carried. This would not necessarily contradict the scriptures since they do not specify WHAT stake (stauros) Jesus carried. And also by saying Jesus was hung on a stake does not necessarily exclude a cross beam either.
  15. Anna
    I would say this should be primary because it really does not matter on what type of instrument Jesus died does it? I mean it should not matter to Jehovah's Witnesses, but it might matter to Christendom since the cross is THEIR symbol. Or could it be because the cross is Christendom's symbol it became so abhorrent to Rutherford and others, so much so that they tried to find any evidence to contradict it? This is of course speculation on my part, but given the climate around that time, when the the Bible Students became increasingly aware that the cross had no place in true worship, and later, Rutherford's aggressive campaign against false religion, mainly Christendom ("religion is a snare and a racket") it would have seemed to give the right impetus to take another look at the instrument of Jesus' death and to try and find evidence against the cross. JWI mentions the book Riches by Rutherford: "On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.” The truth is that most historical paintings depict Jesus nailed to a cross. This of course does not mean that this was fact, but merely that the artists and almost everyone throughout the centuries sometime after Jesus' death believed that the cross was what Jesus died on. The question is, which came first; the belief that Jesus died on a cross, or the belief that the cross is a "Christian" symbol therefor Jesus must have died on a cross? Didn't Constantine become a believer when he supposedly had a vision of the cross? ...... Ann and Allen's research shows that really one cannot be a 100% sure of the instrument of Jesus' death. JWs of course do have to take some kind of stand but it is good if we can say we believe Jesus probably died on a stake rather than be dogmatic about it and insist he DID die on a stake. Just think how funny it will be if in the new system we get to find out he actually died on a cross. But since whether he did or didn't, shouldn't play a fundamental role in our faith, then we will not need to feel embarrassed. The opposite could be true also. As a side note, the paradoxical thing is that Rutherford mentions that "Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.” The word crucified itself means being nailed to a crux or the cross....just a silly observation ......then there is of course the crux simplex...the upright stake. Going to have to do some research on the etymology of the word crux... I thought the idea was that Jesus carried the stake and someone else carried the cross beam (or vice versa). Then these two pieces of wood were nailed together on site...
  16. Anna
    I don't know, but has it occurred to anyone that because the Romans were pagan, and it was the Romans who executed Jesus, that perhaps they may have used a pagan symbol, or at least the type of torture device that was popular in those days for THEM, and if the cross was what was popular in those days, then there is no reason why it couldn't have been a cross. Really, it is irrelevant whether it was a cross or something else since it wasn't Jesus or Jehovah who were deciding.
  17. Anna
    So in your opinion, what do you think is happening with all the stacks of money that in your opinion is surplus from estates sold etc.?
  18. Anna
    Well, not really. In this system there is very little you can do without money. Even God's word recognizes that money is for a protection. I can see why such actions you describe would be prudent. If we take it to its grass roots, and remember Satan is the ruler of this system, then he could very well be using the world's systems (legal or otherwise) to incapacitate or halt the work of the Witnesses. To survive in this system, in the sense that the Witnessing work can carry on, you have to beat the system at its own game. So what you have said about the reasons the GB perhaps not wanting to participate makes complete sense, and I never thought about it that way. The problem some have with that is that they immediately assume "following the money" means someone is lining their pockets, sipping Sangria on a private island, while others are suffering. P.S. Although brother Rook swears all the money is being pooled into HQ so that Br. Morris can buy a Rolex and Br. Herd his blingy cuff links......
  19. Anna
    Just piping in here. I have a question. It seemed to bother the ARC that the WT side was not represented by a member of the Governing Body, and that is quite understandable. To quote them: "Given that the Governing Body is based in the United States, the Royal Commission does not have the power to compel a member of the Governing Body to give evidence in this hearing. Nevertheless, on 16 January 2017, the Royal Commission wrote to Watchtower Australia requesting that a member of the Governing Body be available to give evidence at this hearing whether in person or by video link. On 31 January 2017, Watchtower Australia informed the Royal Commission that a member of the Governing Body would not be available to give evidence. That is a matter of considerable regret given the degree to which the Australia Branch is subject to the control of the Governing Body on matters of policy, procedure and practice". - page 4 of the OPENING ADDRESS BY SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTING. The only possible reason I could come up with for a member of the GB desisting from participation is that one member cannot act on behalf of the other members in that capacity. But they could all be present by video link surely? So does anyone know what the reason could be? And why did the GB think it was OK to have Tool and O'Brien again, if, as JWI mentions, their last performance was evidently not appreciated by the GB. It indeed seemed an awkward representation of the WT. If a member of the GB could not give evidence, then surely one of the GB helpers could have? With something this important.
  20. Anna
    That is scary and has crossed my mind before. However, I still think that the scriptures are pretty clear when it comes to using blood. As we know blood holds special religious and spiritual significance in the Bible, in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek scriptures. It was to be poured out onto the ground and "returned to Jehovah" only in special circumstances was it to be used any other way (painted on door posts (Egypt), and sprinkled on the altar in presenting sacrifices). What would be interesting though is to find out the reasons for WHY he apparently no longer believes in it. He must have some good arguments right?
  21. Anna
    And that's where false religion leaves you....
  22. Anna
    Also: The Royal Commission will hear evidence that of the 17 allegations of child sexual abuse that the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia have received since Case Study 29, they have reported 15 allegations to the authorities. In both cases that were not reported, the adult survivors of historical abuse elected not to report and the Jehovah’s Witness organisation abided their decisions.
  23. Anna
    Yes, true of course. But I think the point is that as JWs, the elders, (and any member of the congregation really), if they have reasonable evidence or a suspicion of child sexual abuse, they should report it to the authorities, like they would with the reasonable evidence or suspicion of any other crime..... Possible. But still doesn't change what I said above. By the way, you all might know this already, regarding today's hearing (case 54) copies of either the pdf or word docs are available for download on the ARC website. This is an extract from the opening address regarding what happened with the 1006 alleged perpetrators who were never reported to the police: Page 12-13 1. In Case Study 29, Watchtower Australia produced 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Officers at the Royal Commission reviewed these case files and as a result the Royal Commission referred information in relation to 514 alleged perpetrators to police in accordance with its power under 6P(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Of the remaining 492 alleged perpetrators identified in the case files, officers at the Royal Commission determined that there was either insufficient evidence in the case files to warrant referring matters to police or that the matters had already come to the attention of police.
  24. Anna
    No one is saying if you take an allegation of child sexual abuse to the authorities all will be solved. Of course there is no guarantee of that. Just like there are unconvicted murderers running lose, there will be unconvicted child molesters running lose. The point is, just like suspect murderers should be reported, so should suspect child sexual abusers be reported. Both are crimes.
  25. Anna
    I think it does to a point. But regardless whether it does or not, if a professional opinion finds the alleged perpetrator guilty, then he/she will be dealt with accordingly and the brothers can then also act accordingly. The problem arises when a suspect is not reported to the authorities and the brothers try and establish facts by themselves....the brothers really should not try and investigate, and should report it to relevant authorities as soon as possible. So what I want to say is that I think the two witness rule will become irrelevant and will only be used in congregational judicial settings when secular authorities find the perpetrator not guilty.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.