Evacuated

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

@Outta Here still doesn't want to see truth.  but I've said it above for all to see. 

If you are referring to yourself as a source of spiritual truth, well yes indeed, I cannot see it.

However, the fact you have had a pretty miserable experience early on in your life does come across pretty truthfully, and I feel sorry that you have had that.  ?

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You and Anna say that it is not important 'what shape instrument was used' when Jesus was killed. However your GB must think it is important enough because they show a whole page picture of it, and even then they get it wrong.

I fail to see the relevance of your GB jibes in this.They are like a sort of phonic tic that keeps appearing in your postings, regardless of subject matter.

Anyway, what has been said is that the shape of the instrument used to torture and kill Jesus Christ is of insignificance in that it was not deemed necessary by Jehovah to have this detail preserved in his word. The account in the gospels is very particular on certain details, but this I am afraid is just not one of them. So, to say that the illustrations in various WT publications are "wrong" is just not sensible unless you can indicate with certainty what is "right " so as to draw the distinction.This has not been done as far as I can see, although there are many interesting (and uninteresting) hypotheses on the matter.

As the world is awash with depictions of Jesus nailed to a two stave instrument of execution (almost 16 million Google results on crucifixion will yield untold numbers of images), I cannot presently see a problem with presenting an alternative view. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

There is some evidence of these changes in one of my "Fat Boy" Bibles where you can see that certain pages were updated, and these resulted in a brighter light-green edging on the updated pages (which includes Psalm 17, of course)

This is fascinating stuff. Thanks for all the work it must have taken.

Did you ever catch this NWT version?

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and for you to act on your own opinion is right. For what human has a right to judge you  ? None.

Thanks. That attitude saves a lot of pointless jousting.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Acts 15 was written at a time when people literally drank the blood of dead gladiators. That is context.

That is certainly a bit of historical context, but not the main context for the decree.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you wanting the Watchtower and JW organisation to go out of business soon ? 

Is that what you want?

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Please talk to the Governing Body and tell them your exact words as written here, as the GB sure do a lot of bluster on many issues, by your standards it seems. 

Blustering is a common fault among humans unfortunately. Each man will answer for his own bluster. 

40 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

here is the lie that picture tells

"Evil be to him that evil thinks"

As the single stake is a possibility as to the method of execution Jesus experienced, we prefer to illustrate thus. Mainstream Chistendom prefers its own version. Jehovah is a pronunciation of the name of God that is widely recognised and appropriately associated. We are happy using this alternative, especially as it provides a convenient separation of the Father from the Son, something NOT preferred by mainstream Christendom.

The significance of both (far more importantly) is appropriately summed up in the commonly quoted words:

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life" John 3:16

"This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." John 17:3

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

That would put most clergy, including ours, completely out of business.

The sooner, the better!

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I really don't think its important to know exactly what shape the instrument of Jesus' death was.

Nor does Jehovah it would seem.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please give us Context.

I am answering this out of courtesy, as the point has been raised here, also,  the topic can soon be lost in the proliferation of posting. Also I note you have already started a thread on this topic elsewhere, so I will limit my responses in future to that thread to avoid disorder.

With respect, I have made my own decision on how to apply the words of Acts 15:20; 29, considering the context within which this instruction was given.

You are at liberty to make your decision on whatever basis you choose. I have no objection to sharing the contextual setting which provides the basis for my decision, and I consider with interest the basis that others choose, should they choose to share it. But I do not seek to impose my will on others, and neither do I tolerate any attempt by others to impose their will on mine. 

In answer to your (and the "us" you refer to) question, the immediate context for the Christian prohibition on the misuse of blood is Acts Chapter 15.  Make of it what you will. I have.  ?

13 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I do not perceive anything about my contribution to this thread as being any form of bluster.

Bluster is rarely self assessed.

The simple fact of the matter is: make your own decision, and stick to it. And accept the consequence.

Excercise your own conscience and let others excercise theirs. Anything designed to impinge on that freedom can only be......bluster.

PS. I mean "your" in a collective, not personal sense, rather than the rather archaic "one's". I could substitute "my" if the "your" offends or incites. ?

The Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

• (John 7:15) 15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (pre-2013 NWT)

• (John 7:15) 15 And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” (2013 NWT)

Good example of how NWT 2013 is a reading Bible and  NWT 1984 is a study Bible.The cross reference in both editions to Luke 4:16 indicates that the (literal) literacy of Jesus was not the question here.

Marcus Dods (The Expositors Greek Testament p 763) has a relevant comment on this: "His teaching astonished the Jews, and they asked [the question cited] It is not His wisdom that astonishes them, for even uneducated men are often wise ; but His learning or knowledge, (Comp.Acts 26:24 where the Greek word, grammata, rendered as "knowledge of letters" at Jn.7:15, is "learning" at Acts 26:24) included the whole circle of rabbinical training, the sacred Scriptures, and the comments and traditions which were afterwards elaborated into the Mishna and Gemara " (Plumptre, Christ and Christendom). But it cannot be supposed that Jesus made Himself acquainted with these comments. His skill in interpreting Scripture and His knowledge of it is what is referred to. What the scribes considered their prerogative, He, without their teaching, excelled them in.—Ver. 16. But though not received from them, it was a derived teaching. He is not self-taught. "The teaching which I give has not its source in my knowledge but in Him that sent me." (John 7:16).

Thanks for referring back to that point.  ?

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

For this command you not need any other verse from Bible for purpose of some so called Context. Is this OK with you?

No not at all. Context is everything.

12 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Feynman's statement should be taken in the context of what he was discussing at the time .... which was NOT Quantum Electrodynamics ( QED) ... but likely (?) the philosophy of how to think about Quantum Electrodynamics, and most other things ... most of the time.

that seems to be the "never definitely right bit"

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Question is, in what context GB put, push verses

I do not understand this question at all.

Anyway, on the subject of truth, If you want to get down to basics that is, 

John 8:26: "As a matter of fact, the One who sent me is true,"

John 8:31-32 “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Romans 3:4 "But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar"

So really what Jehovah tells us, through Christ, is true.  (2Tim3:16-17)

Other than that, (and there are many of these), our position is neatly summed up by Richard Feynman who I will quote again:  

" We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong."

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

and a good example is taking an unborn human baby, and aborting it by killing and cutting it into 13 separate parts ... is no longer human, or a baby.

You make your choice....accept the consequence. No amount of bluster will blow that away.

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Does God consider fractionated blood, made from whole blood .... still blood?

The answer to that is indeterminable so.............................. you must make your choice on the matter.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, VS Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man,

for they are keeping watch over your souls VS who cannot bring salvation

Your ability to quote such scriptures would seem to indicate your ability to understand them in context and correctly. Otherwise, you would just be demonstrating an ignorance  of God's word.

I will quote a child's scripture for you that should resolve your dilemna as expressed. "Children be obedient to your parents in union with the Lord, for this is righteous" Eph 6:1.

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

For which I am deeply ashamed, and would have been deeply ashamed to relate to Richard Feynman, who would have considered me a complete fool ... which I was.

You are completely honest about your own position, and I respect this greatly as it is quite a rare quality amongst men in general.

I agree that unfulfilled expectations as a result of believing human speculation is indeed far from encouraging. Yet the Scriptures, (true prophecy), long counselled against this tendency and warned of it's results: "Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation" Ps.146:3; "Expectation postponed makes the heart sick" Pro.13:12.

I don't really know what it was like to have been sucked along in that '75 fad, having been warned off by brothers I respected at the time. I am sure I would have waved my arms with all the others if it hadn't been for them. I know even less what it must be like for someone who was an avid supporter of that trend and then, as that time came and went without the expected taking place, feels rather red-faced over the issue, "suckered" rather than "sucked" along.

At what point did you realise this was actually a false expectation? 

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

the WTB&TS has always been wrong about everything they have ever tried to prophesy

This statement, and indeed the thread itself, seems to depend on the rather narrow view that prophecy is solely limited to fortelling future events, in other words, history written in advance.

This is an unecessary limitation, as the word in a biblical context refers to an inspired message as a revelation of divine will and purpose or the proclamation thereof. Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come.

Paul's words on prophecy make clear that "the one who prophesies builds up and encourages and consoles men by his speech." 1Cor.14:3. He does not say "foretells future events".

Adam served as God's initial "prophet" in that he would have made known Jehovah's requirements to Eve   He did not remain faithful to Jehovah. Others "prophesied" later, such as Lamech, and Noah. Abraham, the first one referred to as a "prophet" is not noted for foretelling the future specifically, although the promise of the "seed" is recorded as having been spoken to him.

Whilst it is clear then, that the term "prophet" refers to a specific role for a human, the specific fortelling of events is not intrinsic. Neither is it so that every utterance from a prophet, whether written, spoken, or mimed, (as in the case of Ezekiel), would be moved by God's spirit or "inspired", or, indeed, could not be subject to error.

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness" 2Tim.3:16. This message alone is a prophecy in itself. The commission of Jesus at Matt.28:18-20 in itself is an appointment of all true Christians to a prophet-like role with regard to all nations , and Jehovah will hold all truly dedicated servants accountable on that.

Anointed Christians serve in a "prophet-like" role in their commission outlined by Peter at 1Peter 2:9. Their governing body serves similarly, Matt.24:45-47. But in that role, it is not incumbent that any utter what could be described as "inspired utterences", or that ANY of their "forecasts" or predictions on world events should specifically come true in all detail. Even those that do would not evidence divine "inspiration".

All that is necessary is for them to proclaim Jehovah's inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come, as found in "All Scripture", and to hold faithfully to it as far as humanly possible, admitting mistakes, adjusting and correcting error when found. And as in the past, they answer to Jehovah and not to men in the faithful discharge of their responsibilities.

One thing for sure is that "the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets" Amos 3:7. So it is in our interests to listen to those who serve as Jehovah's prophets, (in the correct understanding of the term).

I like the observation of Richard Feynman on this: " We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong." But I think this statement needs a little modification in the words of Jesus at Matt.11:19: "All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works." ?

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So the same point made by the blogger could be taken as evidence against the literacy of the common man.

Good point, along with the second quote.

But I can't think of a single instance where Jesus "walked into one" when dealing with the Pharisees and scribes, or anyone else for that matter.

So I think I'll stick with the view that Jesus argued from safe ground here, and that the apostles were sufficiently numerate to at least count to 50 (Mk.6:20), and had enough of a grasp of letters to carry out something of the advice of Ps.1:2.

So the patronisingly arrogant and self-agrandising view of the apostles, as held by the Pharisees and scribes, remains .....just that........ for now, anyway.?

35 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Made in America - Sold to the World

Oh dear. Reminds of an Album from the 70s...............

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But illiteracy was very common in the first century,

Somebody blogged a few points on this which I found quite thought-provoking. "

 "...the Bible expected the common people to be able to read and write. For example, when Moses led Israel out of Egypt, they were told to write the laws upon their door posts (Deuteronomy 6:6-9; 11:18-20). Isaiah predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the land to such a degree that a child could write the number of the trees left standing (Isaiah 10:19). This Scripture would make no sense at all unless children were customarily educated by either their parents (implying family literacy) or through an organized school presumably conducted through the Levitical ministry.

Concerning the 1^st century, one of the favorite sayings of Jesus in rebuttal to his accusers was: “Have you not read…” This not only implied literacy to his opponents, but also to himself and to his apostles whom he taught, for why would he use the phrase against his accusers, if they could turn around and cast his own words in his teeth to point out the illiteracy of his followers?

Jesus’ parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:6-7) also implies literacy in the normal course of business in the Jewish society. This is also borne out in some archeological finds dating to the 12th century BC where Israelite inscriptions are found on pottery and artifacts showing literacy was not exclusive to the elite. Moreover, just before the Jewish revolt, the high priest Joshua ben Gamala (cir. 64 AD) declared that teachers would be appointed in every town of every province throughout Palestine. Their purpose was to provide an education for every male of the age of six or seven and upward. One teacher would serve a community of up to 25 students. A teacher’s assistant would be added for communities having up to 50 students and for communities having more than 50 students two teachers would be provided.

All of our modern opinions, scholarly or otherwise, concerning the low literacy rate of the Jews of the 1^st century AD, are based upon subjective guesswork. There is not an ounce of hard evidence to support their conclusions."

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

How many JW's ever think of the fact that Paul wrote that information before the other scriptures were written and long before a Bible was composed ? 

Further to all the earlier postings and your original point. 

Yes, I can see what you mean. In the context of Paul's words having been written prior to John's writings, and to the consensus on what constituted the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures, then, yes, Paul's statement might be viewed as a mini-prophecy as you state.

However, it is entirely unlikely that Paul meant specifically that his words should be understood that way. Rather, the purpose of his writing  was to instruct Timothy in what should form the basis for his own faith and that which he would teach to others, namely "the holy writings", or "All Scripture", as opposed to the ear-tickling teachings he refers to at 2 Tim.4:3.

He may well have had in mind at this time the coming conclusions to be made regarding his own writings, as well as the other completed letters and gospels, especially in view of the spiritual gifts he undoubtedly enjoyed. Also, as the book of Revelation confirms, further written communication is to be expected from Jehovah, so it seems unlikely that Paul felt the "All" was done in his day. In fact more likely that what was to be termed "All" would be expanded.

There is prudence in terming the holy writings as "All Scripture". If he had said the "Jewish Scriptures", or some other time-rooted descriptor, then there would have been room for dispute over what constituted those writings, perhaps falling into the hands of the Judaizers, or some other apostatisers and their time-wasting definition debates. This is, however a hindsight observation of practicality of expression, not unlike the embedded wisdom we can now see in the injunction to "cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit", which circumvents the need for listing every possible combination of the same.  ?