What do they do with money??
Frank
where does it all go??
They do nothing to serve or improve the communites, they dont feed the
poor.. Their buildings look cheap and run down. Where does all the money go?
Is it all in a bank somewhere?
Mark Gonzales
news:3f11...@news.infowest.com...
Wouldn't ex-JW ex-Governing Body member Raymond Franz know? Would he tell if
he did?
--
Mark
* ~ XYZ ~ *
:: Im told by many of you, that the JW's rake in tons of bucks.. Im
:: curious.. where does it all go??
$$ It goes to buy bigger and better printing presses, some worth $2,000,000.
Much goes to purchase more and more high priced real estate. They also
build huge complexes like the Peterson Complex in NY.
:: They do nothing to serve or improve the communites, they dont feed
:: the poor.. Their buildings look cheap and run down.
$$ Only their regular KHs look cheap and tacky. Their other buildings can
be opulent and wasteful.
Where does all
:: the money go? Is it all in a bank somewhere?
$$ I think a lot of people wonder about that. If the lawsuits start coming
in like they did to the Catholic church the money will soon be going to
their abused members.
--
Eggplant.....
How the Governing Body spends the billions
a year their unpaid "discreet slaves" earn for them.
Note: While some JWs live in poverty those in
power live in opulent luxury. Makes you sick
doesn't it?
http://members.shaw.ca/tt3/p/p.htm
====================================
Comrade
Kingdom Halls cost money, a new hall is expensive if it is in a upscale
neighborhood
--
Comrade
see my friend Average Joe's site
http://www.mysolution.ws
the aristocracy was the problem in 1776
the aristocracy is the problem today
http://www.aclu.org/dissentreport
we must close the door by which aristocracy arises
"Does God want goodness? or the choice of goodness?
Is the man who chooses bad, somehow better,
than the man who has the good forced upon him?"
a quote from the movie, A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick
Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage.
Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding
without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when
its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution
and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude!
"Have courage to use your own reason!" - that is the motto
of enlightenment.
Kant -- What Is Enlightenment? 1784
Ayn Rand just professed laissez faire, another Jewish mysticist
of Zionist status quo social order, and aspiring to such, she
never challenged "the establishment" she was a radical crony,
not a radical individual, the very anti-thesis of individualism
Mark Sornson
>
> Im told by many of you, that the JW's rake in tons of bucks.. Im curious..
> where does it all go??
That's a question you should ask of the secular
governments which rake in "tons of bucks" of tax
money.
> They do nothing to serve or improve the communites, they dont feed the
> poor..
That would be the job of secular governments which
take money, by force of law, from people (via taxes)
in order to serve and improve the secular needs of
the communities. Right?
The money that individual JWs contribute to their
religious organization is used to further the religious
goals of the organization.
If there is a need to "serve and improve the communities",
possibly including the feeding of the poor, why is it
the job of churches (which exist on after-tax donations), rather
than the job of secular authorities, which have the power of
the law to take money through taxes to pay for the needs of
the community?
In what ways are secular authorities failing to serve and
improve the community that churches are therefore called
upon to fill?
> Their buildings look cheap and run down. Where does all the money go?
> Is it all in a bank somewhere?
Where do you live that has JW-owned buildings that
look cheap and run down? All the ones I've seen
and been in look well made (i.e., not cheap) and
well kept. Older buildings that 'look cheap and
run down' are often sold and replaced with new ones
that are (again) quite well made and well kept.
-mark.
Mark Gonzales
news:3F12D1DF...@zk3.dec.com...
> Where do you live that has JW-owned buildings that
> look cheap and run down? All the ones I've seen
> and been in look well made (i.e., not cheap) and
> well kept. Older buildings that 'look cheap and
> run down' are often sold and replaced with new ones
> that are (again) quite well made and well kept.
This reminds me. Earlier this year my wife and I went with my JW brother's
family on a 7-day Cruise and they had our taxi take us by the local KH in
Ocho Rios(?), Jamaica. It was morning and someone was just getting there to
open the doors and we walked around and talked for a minute.
It was nice but maybe a little humble by US standards. But it was by far the
nicest building on the block (and maybe the immediate area) and CERTAINLY
the most upkept, without a doubt.
We're about to book a 7-day for next year so I guess I'll be checking out
the Hall in St. Thomas and/or St. Maarten <eyes rolling>. Oh well, it only
takes a few minutes of my time and is about the only JW reference I hear the
whole cruise so I won't complain.
--
Mark
>
> -mark.
* ~ W.W.W ~ *
:: On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:49:49 -0600, Frank wrote:
::
::: Im told by many of you, that the JW's rake in tons of bucks.. Im
::: curious.. where does it all go??
::: They do nothing to serve or improve the communites, they dont
::: feed the poor.. Their buildings look cheap and run down. Where
::: does all the money go? Is it all in a bank somewhere?
::
:: Kingdom Halls cost money, a new hall is expensive if it is in a
:: upscale neighborhood
The wicked WT does not pay for the KHs to be built. They lend the money to
the cong, who then pays it back to the WT - PLUS the wicked, greedy WT gets
to *own* the land and building. Talk about sleazy, slimy dealings.
--
Brightta Nu Lyte.......
Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in
horror. "But what shall we substitute in its place?" you ask.
"What? A ferocious animal has sucked the blood of your relatives.
I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and
you ask me what you shall put in its place?" -= Voltaire =-
****************************************************************
Mark Sornson
>
> In the last chapter: Comrade picked up the keyboard and pecked out:
> :: On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:49:49 -0600, Frank wrote:
> ::
> ::: Im told by many of you, that the JW's rake in tons of bucks.. Im
> ::: curious.. where does it all go??
> ::: They do nothing to serve or improve the communites, they dont
> ::: feed the poor.. Their buildings look cheap and run down. Where
> ::: does all the money go? Is it all in a bank somewhere?
> ::
> :: Kingdom Halls cost money, a new hall is expensive if it is in a
> :: upscale neighborhood
> ====================
> The wicked WT does not pay for the KHs to be built. They lend the money to
> the cong, who then pays it back to the WT - PLUS the wicked, greedy WT gets
> to *own* the land and building. Talk about sleazy, slimy dealings.
Carol, how do you know that the WTS owns the land and building?
It doesn't own the land or building of the KH I attend. And
it didn't own the land or building of the previous KH I attended
that was sold.
When local KHs are sold, the local congregation keeps the
money, to put toward its new one. How is that possible if the
WTS owns the land and the building?
So, what's your counter proof that the WTS owns the KH land
and building of each Kingdom Hall? Where are you getting your
information from?
-mark.
* ~ Mimmi ~ *
out:
::: ====================
::: The wicked WT does not pay for the KHs to be built. They lend
::: the money to the cong, who then pays it back to the WT - PLUS the
::: wicked, greedy WT gets to *own* the land and building. Talk
::: about sleazy, slimy dealings.
::
:: Carol, how do you know that the WTS owns the land and building?
** It's been posted enough times. How did you miss it?
:: It doesn't own the land or building of the KH I attend. And
:: it didn't own the land or building of the previous KH I attended
:: that was sold.
** Who owned these places then? Whose name was on the deeds?
:: When local KHs are sold, the local congregation keeps the
:: money, to put toward its new one. How is that possible if the
:: WTS owns the land and the building?
** I don't see a connection??!?!?!
:: So, what's your counter proof that the WTS owns the KH land
:: and building of each Kingdom Hall? Where are you getting your
:: information from?
** RIGHT HERE - from the JWs themselves! Who gets to put his/her name on
the deeds?
::
:: -mark.
--
Collie Flower....
The JWs claimed Christ returned invisibly in 1914, but the Bible says
Rev. 1 "Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him,
and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat
themselves in grief because of him."
Do you believe the Bible or the men who write for the Watchtower magazine?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* ~ Mimmi ~ *
the land and buildings the JWs pay for, but do not own. Thank you for
exposing the Watchtower for the scam and sleazy business it really is.
--
Justin Kace......
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal ~ (1623-1662)
==========================================
In the last chapter: Prominent Bethelite picked up the keyboard and
pecked out:
::
:: The silly, trusting, gullible R&F continue to think "Oh, we own
:: the land / building". Nonsense. In almost all jurisdictions, a
:: loose entity like a congo is INCAPABLE (in legal terms:
:: incompetent) to own such a thing. Ownership must be by individuals
:: (as bare trustees or on their own account) or corps, period.
:: Congos have no legal status ("legal personality", not that you
:: would understand that, SoreSon) - they cannot own assets per se,
:: or sue or be sued, etc.
Mark Sornson
> In the last chapter: Mark Sornson picked up the keyboard and pecked
> out:
> ::: ====================
> ::: The wicked WT does not pay for the KHs to be built. They lend
> ::: the money to the cong, who then pays it back to the WT - PLUS the
> ::: wicked, greedy WT gets to *own* the land and building. Talk
> ::: about sleazy, slimy dealings.
> ::
> :: Carol, how do you know that the WTS owns the land and building?
>
> ** It's been posted enough times. How did you miss it?
YOU'VE posted this claim many times, and possibly some
other uninformed ex/anti-JWs have similarly picked it up
from the ether and repeated it. But nothing you or anyone
else has ever posted constitutes proof that the WTS
owns all Kingdom Halls and the land they are built on.
>
> :: It doesn't own the land or building of the KH I attend. And
> :: it didn't own the land or building of the previous KH I attended
> :: that was sold.
>
> ** Who owned these places then? Whose name was on the deeds?
The fact that you have to ask these questions
indicates that you really don't know.
I've already posted answers to these questions, but
you have ignored them or overlooked them.
To summarize the facts - each local congregation (or
group of congregations, if more than one shares the
hall), forms a non-profit religious corporation (chartered
by the state) which holds title to the land and
building. The corporation officers and directors
are picked from the local elder body or bodies.
The legal work is minimal, but those corporations
(and elders acting as corporate officers) handle the
legal aspects of building/land ownership.
The WTS doesn't typically get involved since a) there
is no need, b) it's waaaay too complicated for the
centralized WTS to have to deal with the details
of KH ownership that are relevant only at the local
level, and c) the WTS has no reason not to trust
each local congregation with KH ownership, especially
since the local congregations do actually pay for
their own buildings.
As far as I know, the ONLY way that the WTS ends
up owning a KH is under pathological circumstances,
say, if the congregation gets disbanded and the
local corporation gets dissolved. Local corporation
by-laws typically state that corporation officers
must be elders. So, if, for some reason, all of
a congregation's elders were removed, the corporation
would technically no longer exist. The by-laws also
typically contain a clause that assigns the WTS
ownership of the KH if the local holding corporation
gets dissolved. Thus, the KH remains the property
of and under control of Jehovah's Witnesses (by way
of the WTS), and cannot be stolen by private
individuals (who may have a falling out with JWs).
>
> :: When local KHs are sold, the local congregation keeps the
> :: money, to put toward its new one. How is that possible if the
> :: WTS owns the land and the building?
>
> ** I don't see a connection??!?!?!
If the WTS owned the land and building, then when
the building was sold, the money from the sale would
go to the WTS, not the local congregation.
>
> :: So, what's your counter proof that the WTS owns the KH land
> :: and building of each Kingdom Hall? Where are you getting your
> :: information from?
>
> ** RIGHT HERE - from the JWs themselves! Who gets to put his/her name on
> the deeds?
There are NO "JWs themselves" in this newsgroup who
are posting proof that the WTS owns all Kingdom Hall
land and buildings.
Locally formed holding corporations (formed by
the congregations) hold title to the deeds.
-mark.
krlll
> Locally formed holding corporations (formed by
> the congregations) hold title to the deeds.
Where does the money come from to make the original
purchase?
Frank
Ok, so if the local congregations own their own building .... (And yes,
every building that Ive ever seen, Portland oregon, Orange California, Utah,
etc. are crummy looking buildings, with cheap siding and no windows. )
How much of what is collected as donations goes to the local congregation??
Its my undertstanding that the GB gets the bulk of the donations??
Frank
congragations, and could sieze assets etc.. Why doesnt the HQ simply look at
dontations etc.. and use HQ funds to build the building?? Whats with the
loan thing? Is HQ worried that the congragation isnt a good risk? It seems
like a no loose for the HQ.. What if the congragation is a poor one? wouldnt
it make sense to use funds from HQ?? There would certainly be some
congragations that have lots of excess $ that could help another...
"Prominent Bethelite" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in
message news:ABJ6T5CC3781...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
> What do filthy Watchtower Bosses do with the money??
> ====================================================
>
> Summary:
> The Watchtower is an MLM crap litteritchah-peddling organization using
> unpaid slave labor, avoiding and evading taxes and hiding the money in
real
> estate.
>
> Proof: Below, supplied by one of the idiotic slaves (though of the Wolf
> Class, and knowingly lying and lying through his brown teeth, just might
be
> dumb enough to think he is really doing it for his nutjob "Jehoober
Gawd").
>
>
>
> In <cc283483.03071...@posting.google.com> sor...@zk3.dec.com
> (Mark Sornson, SPIRITUAL-PIMP FOR THE WATCHTOWER WHOREGANIZATION) wrote -
>
> >YOU'VE posted this claim many times, and possibly some
> >other uninformed ex/anti-JWs have similarly picked it up
> >from the ether and repeated it. But nothing you or anyone
> >else has ever posted constitutes proof that the WTS
> >owns all Kingdom Halls and the land they are built on.
> ^^^
> ^^^
> ^^^
> ^^^
> ^^^
> ^^^
> ^^^
>
> First example of theocratic war strategy (i.e., lying and deception) by
> this filthy JW swine SoreSon.
>
> He uses "argumentation a la strawman". He argues against something which
> was never contended.
>
> No one maintained that the WTS (including its numerous corporations, whose
> ownerships are cunningly devised to ensure that no legal action can get at
> most of the assets) directly owns ****** ALL ****** the Kingdom Halls.
>
> Why did you find it necessary to introduce the strawman, you despicable jW
> piece of Satanic excrement?
>
>
>
> To onlookers:
> -------------
>
> The fact that this little jW cheat finds it necessary to introduce a
> strawman is pretty conclusive in itself... ;-)
> Seems like Satan isn't directing his earthly organization (i.e. the
> Watchtower Blather & Trappem Sicksiety) too well!
>
>
> >To summarize the facts - each local congregation (or
> >group of congregations, if more than one shares the
> >hall), forms a non-profit religious corporation (chartered
> >by the state) which holds title to the land and
> >building. The corporation officers and directors
> >are picked from the local elder body or bodies.
> >The legal work is minimal, but those corporations
> >(and elders acting as corporate officers) handle the
> >legal aspects of building/land ownership.
>
>
> Strawman #2.
>
> It *IS NOT* about who the OFFICERS of the WTS corp (local or otherwise)
> are.
>
> It *IS* about who the OWNERS of the WTS corp is.
>
> Right, moronic jW Soreson?
>
>
>
> So, let us find out who are the (beneficial, if not nominal i.e. named)
> owners of a corp?
>
> The owners are the legal persona (i.e. humans and corps) to whom the final
> funds (the residue, after creditors are paid) would go to when the corp is
> dissolved or liquidated...
>
> And to find out who the owners are, just read on. <huge grin>
>
>
>
>
> >The WTS doesn't typically get involved since a) there
> >is no need, b) it's waaaay too complicated for the
> >centralized WTS to have to deal with the details
> >of KH ownership that are relevant only at the local
> >level, and c) the WTS has no reason not to trust
> >each local congregation with KH ownership, especially
> >since the local congregations do actually pay for
> >their own buildings.
>
>
>
> A mixture of lies and irrelevant commentary. In fact, the Watchtower H.Q.
> is INTIMATELY interested in the ownership of the real estate.
>
> Just read on. <huger grin>
>
>
>
> >As far as I know, the ONLY way that the WTS ends
> >up owning a KH is under pathological circumstances,
> >say, if the congregation gets disbanded and the
> >local corporation gets dissolved. Local corporation
> >by-laws typically state that corporation officers
> >must be elders. So, if, for some reason, all of
> >a congregation's elders were removed, the corporation
> >would technically no longer exist.
>
>
>
> Note that the WTS H.Q. and hierarchy rules (this is the most legalistic
> corp imaginable!) contains provisions for it, acting through say a C.O. or
> B.O., to remove "elders".
>
> So WTS H.Q. can bring about what SoreSon (technically 100% inaccurately,
> but then SoreSon is just another quasi-literate jW mongoloid: a
corporation
> does not become non-existent just because its officers, or members, die or
> are removed!) refers to as the corporation's non-existence.
>
> Therefore, by SoreSon's own admission, the WTS can engineer a liquidation
> (winding-up, termination, call it what you will) of the said KH-owning
> corp.
>
> :-)
>
> So, all we need to see is to whom will the proceeds of that liquidation of
> the corp go - i.e., who gets the $$ from the sale of the corp's assets, or
> the assets themselves.
>
> Just read on. <EVEN HUGER GRIN>
>
>
>
> >The by-laws also
> >typically contain a clause that assigns the WTS
> >ownership of the KH if the local holding corporation
> >gets dissolved. Thus, the KH remains the property
> >of and under control of Jehovah's Witnesses (by way
> >of the WTS), and cannot be stolen by private
> >individuals (who may have a falling out with JWs).
>
>
> Claps loudly!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> Claps riotously!
>
>
> And there the stupid jW nincompoop stooge and spiritual-pimp SoreSon gives
> the game away.
>
> If the KH-owning corp makes any attempt to secede from the JWs, the
> Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York (or one of its many, many
> daughter or sister harlot corporations) GETS OWNERSHIP OF THE KH (by, in
> SoreSon's own words, removing the elders and using the bye-laws i.e. the
> local corp's legal constitution and operational framework).
>
>
> SO, THERE WE HAVE IT.
>
>
>
> For non-profit corporations, where no profit is routinely distributed, the
> ONLY measure of who "owns" it is WHO GETS THE ASSETS IN THE END.
>
> And here, by SoreSon's own admission, the WTS gets the assets - and the
> main asset would be the K.H., lovely real estate, well taken care and
> maintained of by the local slaves - with all maintenance and upkeep costs
> paid by the morons who think "they" somehow own it!!
>
>
>
> Hahahahahahahaaaaa!
> Hahahahahahahaaaaa!
> Hahahahahahahaaaaa!
> Hahahahahahahaaaaa!
> Hahahahahahahaaaaa!
>
>
> Now you see the effect of the ban on higher education imposed by the WTS.
> Morons like SoreSon, who actually know some of the facts (and
incompetently
> lie about the ones they realize are damning to their shameful and
> disgraceful "rescue Mamma from the apostates" attempts), are SO STUPID AND
> UNEDUCATED as not to realize they have given the whole game away.
>
> Remember - sor...@zk3.dec.com (JW Elder Mark Sornson) himself admitted
> DIRECTLY that if there is a falling out with the JW cause, the WTS H.Q.
> gets the assets, pursuant to the bye-laws of the corps who hold the deeds.
>
> ;-)
>
> So, who is the beneficial owner?
>
> The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.
>
> PROVED, THANKS TO MARK SORNSON, JW ELDER.
>
> Q.E.D.
>
>
>
> Not only the ultimate owner - they control it too, by having powers of
> dismissal over any director, trustee or officer of the local corp.
>
> So we can see why Watchtower HQ chooses not to own so many KHs directly -
> that way they would be liable for municipal dues, have to pay for upkeep
> maintenance and the like, be unable to get interest on loans given 'for'
> the property, etc. And the assets might be seizable if the WTS gets
> successfully sued for tens of billions of dollars in a class action for
all
> the many hundreds of thousands (millions if you include loved ones) of
> lives they have blighted with their ENDLESS LIES and CHEATING and
DECEPTION
> and their cruel SHUNNING ENFORCEMENT + BLACKMAIL and their murderous blood
> & vaccination & transplant policies and... and...
>
> This way suits the wicked Watchtower Blather & Trappem Sicksiety much
> better. The local congo pays for much/all of the KH, the local congo pays
> all the running & upkeep costs and municipal dues, the local congo even
> pays interest on any borrowings from the H.Q. (and the capital back too),
> the asset is safeguarded from legal actions directed at the boss
> corporation - but H.Q. gets to own the KH at the end. And controls it
along
> the way, because it has the right to appoint and fire the directors of the
> local corp. ;-)
>
>
> The Best Of All Worlds
> for a GREEDY, DISHONEST, TRICKY REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, that is!
> Get Paid Twice and Get Something for Nothing
> and have the gullible brainwashed slaves believe the opposite!
>
>
>
>
> Well done, Bro. Sornson!!
> Thanks for your help exposing the whoredom of your Spiritual Mother!
>
>
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! HAA! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
>
>
>
> >If the WTS owned the land and building, then when
> >the building was sold, the money from the sale would
> >go to the WTS, not the local congregation.
>
>
> Sornson is an idiot or a liar, but which?
>
> The money NEVER, NEVER goes to the local congo. It goes to the local corp
> (unless the ownership was directly by the WTS, in which case the point is
> moot as nothing local sees a dime). Sornson is getting his lies muddled
> (again!).
>
> And the local corp must use the money to build more real estate for the
> WTS. If it does not obey Mamma, we already know what happens BECAUSE
> SORNSON HAS ADMITTED IT! The corp's officers get dismissed (because they
> are officers only by virtue of being Elders, and the WTS can and does
> dismiss elders), and THE ASSETS (viz. the K.H. and all the moneys realized
> from it) REVERT TO THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY ** EXACTLY AS SORNSON ALREADY
> ADMITTED ** here:
>
>
> >the WTS ends up owning a KH [..] if [..] the local corporation gets
> >dissolved. Local corporation by-laws typically state that corporation
> >officers must be elders. So, if, for some reason, all of a
congregation's
> >elders were removed [by the WTS], the corporation would technically no
> >longer exist. The by-laws also typically contain a clause that assigns
the
> >WTS ownership of the KH if the local holding corporation gets dissolved.
>
>
> And there the JW admits it.
>
>
> Q.E.D.
>
>
>
> >There are NO "JWs themselves" in this newsgroup who
> >are posting proof that the WTS owns all Kingdom Hall
> >land and buildings.
>
>
> Sure; that was a strawman you invented, you deceitful pervert.
>
>
>
> >-mark.
> (Shameful liar, cheat, swindler and spiritual-pimp for the Watchtower)
>
>
>
> For:
>
>
***************************************************************************
> The Watchtower Society and the Jehovah's Witnesses Cult is an embodiment
of
> SPIRITUAL PORNOGRAPHY, a WOLFISH TRICK, a MOST FILTHY LIE, a CHEAT, a
SCAM,
> a DISGUSTING ABOMINATION, a BLASPHEMOUS INSULT, a WICKED FRAUD, a
DISGRACE,
> a SCANDAL, a PEDOPHILE PARADISE - and a DAMNED OUTRAGE from start to
finish
>
***************************************************************************
>
> And on the third day, God said:
> "Let there be div(D)=Pf, div(B)=0, curl(E)=-dB/dt, curl(H)=jf+dD/dt."
> And there was light."
>
> Love
>
> Prominent Bethelite.
>
> Examples of FINE SPIRITUAL FOOD AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME FROM "THE SLAVE":
> "We need not here repeat the evidences that the 'seventh trump' began its
> sounding in A.D. 1840, and will continue until the end of the time of
> trouble" {WT Nov 1880 p1}; "masturbation is no mere innocent pastime but
> rather a practice that can lead to homosexual acts" {WT May 15 1970 p315;
> also WT Oct 1 1970 p604}; "If heaven were made the receptacle of the
> heathen, savages, barbarians, the idiotic, simple, insane and INFANTS, it
> would cease to be heaven to a considerable extent, and become a
pandemonium
> .. billions of ignorant, imbecile and degraded .. never formed characters
> [not] fit companions for saints" {WT Oct 15 1896 p245} Fine JW Wisdom!!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE LIST OF AMAZING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' CLAIMS, BELIEFS & PREDICTIONS
> Prepared by MYSELF may be found at the following websites:-
> http://www.freeminds.org/history/part1.htm
> http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
> http://localsonly.wilmington.net/jmalik/TheList.zip
> http://www.concordance.com/watchtower.htm
>
>
Mark Sornson
Donations by local congregation members (which
are turned into savings), loans by local congregation
members (when the Kingdom Hall I attend was built,
some individual members made personal loans to
the congregation, which were paid back, over time,
after the building was built -- I think most of those
loans were interest free), a loan by the WTS (at
a very reasonable interest rate, no more than 5%,
and I know that our own loan rate was actually cut
by the WTS at some point), and sometimes other
congregations may donate money to congregations
in need of their own Kingdom Hall.
Sometimes a congregation will receive land by a donation,
and that land is either built upon or sold to pay for
a more suitable property to build upon. (Whether a KH
can be built on a particular piece of land depends on
a variety of legal and practicle factors.)
If a congregation already owns a KH which is no longer
suitable, it will sell the existing one and put the
proceeds toward the new one.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> Ok, so if the local congregations own their own building .... (And yes,
> every building that Ive ever seen, Portland oregon, Orange California, Utah,
> etc. are crummy looking buildings, with cheap siding and no windows. )
Maybe they were buy-outs (of buildings that were
not originally built to be Kingdom Halls).
> How much of what is collected as donations goes to the local congregation??
Kingdom Halls usually maintain contribution boxes
for the following funds:
* local operating expenses
* the World Wide Work
* the Society Kingdom Hall building fund
Money put in the latter two boxes goes to the
WTS (or local branch). How much is put in each
of those boxes depends on the generousity of
the givers.
Monday put in the local operating expense box pays
for utilities and maintainance, which is handled
locally. If there is a mortgage and the mortgage
is held by the WTS, that money goes to the WTS.
[As a side note, when there is a loan by the WTS,
it may not be an actual mortgage, where the WTS holds
a legal lien on the property until the loan is paid
off, meaning, the title may be, legally, free and clear
even if a loan to the WTS is outstanding. I'd have
to check on this, however, since it never occurred to
me ask about a detail like this before now.]
> Its my undertstanding that the GB gets the bulk of the donations??
Actually, the "GB" (Governing Body) doesn't personally
get any of the donations. In fact, as of a few years
ago, Governing Body members do not even serve as members
of any of the legal corporations.
-mark.
krlll
> > Where does the money come from to make the original
> > purchase?
>
> Donations by local congregation members (which
> are turned into savings), loans by local congregation
> members (when the Kingdom Hall I attend was built,
> some individual members made personal loans to
> the congregation, which were paid back, over time,
> after the building was built -- I think most of those
> loans were interest free), a loan by the WTS (at
> a very reasonable interest rate, no more than 5%,
> and I know that our own loan rate was actually cut
> by the WTS at some point
Regardless of how reasonable the WTS's interest rates
may be, doesn't the Bible say very clearly (several times)
to charge no interest at all when loaning money?
Terry/Anti
Good point.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
Mark Sornson
The Mosaic Law said that Jews were not to charge
their fellow Jews interest when loaning them money.
Jews could charge non-Jews interest.
Since Christ's death put an end to the Law, and the
ruling at Acts 15 makes it clear that only a very
few obligations of Law were still binding upon
Gentile Christians (prohibitions against idolatry,
fornication, and consumption of blood), the law that
forbade Jews from charging fellow Jews interest wasn't
binding upon Christians.
Additionally, that particular Law had to do with
Jews making personal loans to fellow Jews. There
really was no law which covered making loans to
corporate entities, like a congregation, and neither
did the Jewish state maintain a 'central bank'
that was able to loan out money to 'local congregations'.
When the Law was written, the Jewish nation hadn't
even organized its people into congregations.
Synagogues weren't formed until (about) a 1000 years
later, during or after the Babylonian exile.
To repeat a previous point I made, the purpose of
the (modest) interest charge is that it is a hedge
against inflation, so that the money paid back to
the Kingdom Hall loan fund (over time) doesn't lose
as much of its purchase power as it becomes available
for other congregations to borrow so that they might
build. Since the point of the interest charge isn't
so that any person or persons makes a profit that
they can pocket, JWs have no objection to the interest
rate.
If the JWs who are borrowing the money have no
objection to the interest charge, why should you?
-mark.
Dizzbee59
>From: "krlll" kr...@betelgeuse.com
>Date: 07/18/2003 5:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f18a85f$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net>
>Regardless of how reasonable the WTS's interest rates
>may be, doesn't the Bible say very clearly (several times)
>to charge no interest at all when loaning money?
>
Yes, it certainly does.
Deut 23: 19-20, says, "You MUST NOT make your brother pay interest, interest on
money, interest on food,, interest on ANYTHING on which one may claim interest.
You may make foreigners pay interest, but your brother you must NOT make pay
interest."
JWs will try and sliode around this with all sorts of spurious arguments about
the "spirit" of this law, or the Jewish custom and monetary system back then,
etc. But if they're going to accept admonition from the Hebrew Scriptures
concerning one thing, they'll have to accept ALL of it as valid direction for
today.
It's the Watchtower's ongoing game of "pick-n-choose" whatever's convenient for
THEM at the time, and leaves them looking foolish to anyone BUT Jws.
So the "reasonable charge" nonsense falls flat and is clearly unscriptural.
krlll
> If the JWs who are borrowing the money have no
> objection to the interest charge, why should you?
I don't object to anything. Whatever they want to do
is fine with me (not that my opinion really matters).
I just find it odd that they will pick out certain snippets
from the scriptures and enforce them to the letter, and
then reason their way out of other things if it suits them.
Have a look at Psalm 15 ("Oh Jehovah, who will
be a guest in your tent?" etc)
"His money he has not given out on interest" is listed
there alongside such things as "he who is walking
faultlessly", "speaking the truth in his heart", "he has
not slandered with his tongue", "to his companion
he has done nothing bad", etc. Those are all very
basic principles, not specific Mosaic laws.
Mark Sornson
Most of them are basic principles. The one about
giving out on interest is specific to the Mosaic Law.
It applied to personal loans between Jews.
Kingdom Hall loans are not personal loans
between fellow Jews.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
> >Subject: Re: What do they do with money??
> >From: "krlll" kr...@betelgeuse.com
> >Date: 07/18/2003 5:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3f18a85f$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net>
>
> >Regardless of how reasonable the WTS's interest rates
> >may be, doesn't the Bible say very clearly (several times)
> >to charge no interest at all when loaning money?
> >
>
> Yes, it certainly does.
>
> Deut 23: 19-20, says, "You MUST NOT make your brother pay interest, interest on
> money, interest on food,, interest on ANYTHING on which one may claim interest.
> You may make foreigners pay interest, but your brother you must NOT make pay
> interest."
This law is about personal loans between Jews.
Acts 15 indicates that it isn't binding upon Gentile Christians.
>
> JWs will try and sliode around this with all sorts of spurious arguments about
> the "spirit" of this law, or the Jewish custom and monetary system back then,
> etc. But if they're going to accept admonition from the Hebrew Scriptures
> concerning one thing, they'll have to accept ALL of it as valid direction for
> today.
JWs don't perform the sacrifices that the OT
made mandatory for Jews, and you probably don't
either. JWs (male JWs) don't make the mandatory
pilgrimages to Jerusalem 3 times a year that OT
Jews were obligated to make, and you probably
don't either.
Do you wear a blue fringe around the edge of your
garments, or pay the temple tax, or tithe 10% to
support the Levitical priesthood? Do you celebrate
the mandatory Jewish holidays? Do you follow the
Jewish dietary laws?
None of those things were binding upon Gentile
Christians.
Not everything in the OT Law is binding upon Gentile
Christians. Your argument that JWs must follow the
whole Law if they observe any of the Law's principles
is spurious, and is repudiated by the NT, which
says which OT principles are binding upon Christians.
The law about interest free loans doesn't apply to
Christians. [The laws for Christian slave owners to
free their slaves after 7 years of servitude also
didn't apply to Gentile Christians.]
>
> It's the Watchtower's ongoing game of "pick-n-choose" whatever's convenient for
> THEM at the time, and leaves them looking foolish to anyone BUT Jws.
You are picking and choosing which laws from the OT
you think JWs (as Gentile Christians) ought to be observing.
But your choice has no support in the NT.
> So the "reasonable charge" nonsense falls flat and is clearly unscriptural.
Please show from the NT the scriptures which prove
that Gentile Christians are bound by the Mosaic Law
on the matter of personal loans between Jews.
See above for the reasons why your arguments are spurious.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
AS far as I can figure, heaven and earth haven't passed yet.
davers_dfd
Grandp...@mail.com says...
//
//"Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
//news:cc283483.0307...@posting.google.com...
//> dizz...@aol.com (Dizzbee59) wrote in message
//news:<20030719012940...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
//> > >Subject: Re: What do they do with money??
//> > >From: "krlll" kr...@betelgeuse.com
//> > >Date: 07/18/2003 5:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
//> > >Message-id: <3f18a85f$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net>
//> >
//> > >Regardless of how reasonable the WTS's interest rates
//> > >may be, doesn't the Bible say very clearly (several times)
//> > >to charge no interest at all when loaning money?
//> > >
//> >
//> > Yes, it certainly does.
//> >
//> > Deut 23: 19-20, says, "You MUST NOT make your brother pay interest,
//interest on
//> > money, interest on food,, interest on ANYTHING on which one may claim
//interest.
//> > You may make foreigners pay interest, but your brother you must NOT make
//pay
//> > interest."
//>
//> This law is about personal loans between Jews.
//>
//> Acts 15 indicates that it isn't binding upon Gentile Christians.
//>
//> >
//> > JWs will try and sliode around this with all sorts of spurious arguments
//about
//> > the "spirit" of this law, or the Jewish custom and monetary system back
//then,
//> > etc. But if they're going to accept admonition from the Hebrew
//Scriptures
//> > concerning one thing, they'll have to accept ALL of it as valid
//direction for
//> > today.
//>
//> JWs don't perform the sacrifices that the OT
//> made mandatory for Jews, and you probably don't
//> either. JWs (male JWs) don't make the mandatory
//> pilgrimages to Jerusalem 3 times a year that OT
//> Jews were obligated to make, and you probably
//> don't either.
//>
//> Do you wear a blue fringe around the edge of your
//> garments, or pay the temple tax, or tithe 10% to
//> support the Levitical priesthood? Do you celebrate
//> the mandatory Jewish holidays? Do you follow the
//> Jewish dietary laws?
//>
//> None of those things were binding upon Gentile
//> Christians.
//>
//> Not everything in the OT Law is binding upon Gentile
//> Christians. Your argument that JWs must follow the
//> whole Law if they observe any of the Law's principles
//> is spurious, and is repudiated by the NT, which
//> says which OT principles are binding upon Christians.
//>
//> The law about interest free loans doesn't apply to
//> Christians. [The laws for Christian slave owners to
//> free their slaves after 7 years of servitude also
//> didn't apply to Gentile Christians.]
//>
//> >
//> > It's the Watchtower's ongoing game of "pick-n-choose" whatever's
//convenient for
//> > THEM at the time, and leaves them looking foolish to anyone BUT Jws.
//>
//> You are picking and choosing which laws from the OT
//> you think JWs (as Gentile Christians) ought to be observing.
//>
//> But your choice has no support in the NT.
//>
//> > So the "reasonable charge" nonsense falls flat and is clearly
//unscriptural.
//>
//> Please show from the NT the scriptures which prove
//> that Gentile Christians are bound by the Mosaic Law
//> on the matter of personal loans between Jews.
//>
//> See above for the reasons why your arguments are spurious.
//>
//> -mark.
//
//Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
//one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
//AS far as I can figure, heaven and earth haven't passed yet.
//
//Gramps
//Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
And what of verse 17?
*** Rbi8 Matthew 5:17 ***
17 æ³¥o not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not
to destroy, but to fulfill;
*** Rbi8 Romans 8:1-4 ***
8 Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation. 2 For
the law of that spirit which gives life in union with Christ Jesus has
set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For, there being an
incapability on the part of the Law, while it was weak through the flesh,
God, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and
concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous
requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk, not in accord
with the flesh, but in accord with the spirit.
Mark Sornson
>
[snips on my stuff]
>
> Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
> one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> AS far as I can figure, heaven and earth haven't passed yet.
Heaven and earth aren't supposed to pass (in a literal
sense). Jesus was using a form of illustrative language
that meant, 'the law will be fulfilled as sure as heaven
and earth will always remain'.
As your quote shows, Jesus was saying that the law would
be "fulfilled", which davers pointed out is also what Jesus
said in v.17.
The writings of Paul indicate that the fulfillment of the
Law put an end to its authority over Christians. He wrote:
For Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:4 KJV)
Other translations (which are more interpretive)
say it means:
But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary
for those who become acceptable to God by faith.
(CEV)
Christ has made an end to the law as a way of
getting right with God. Everyone who believes in
him is put right with God. (World English)
Earlier in Romans (Paul was writing to the mix of Jewish
and Gentile Christians, with an emphasis on explaining to
the Jewish Christians why the Law was no longer binding
upon them, and how it was superceded by faith in Christ),
he wrote:
But now we are delivered from the law, that
being dead wherein we were held; that we should
serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness
of the letter. (KJV)
But now we have been released from the Law, having
died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve
in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the
letter. (NASB)
Jewish Christians were "delivered" or "released" from
the authority of the Mosaic Law ("the letter"), to now
serve God "in newness of spirit" (KJV). By their baptism
as Christians, they "died" to the law which once "held"
or "bound" them.
Making the same point, also in illustrative language, to
the Ephesians, Paul wrote:
When you were dead in your sins and in the
uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God
made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all
our sins, having canceled the written code,
with its regulations, that was against us and
that stood opposed to us; he took it away,
nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:13,14 NIV)
When you were dead in your transgressions
and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made
you alive together with Him, having forgiven
us all our transgressions, having canceled out
the certificate of debt consisting of decrees
against us, which was hostile to us; and He has
taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the
cross. (NASB)
With his death on the "cross", Jesus 'nailed the
Law' to it, thus taking it away, having 'canceling'
its authority over Jewish Christians. By
extention, the Law (in its entirety) never was
binding upon non-Jewish Christians, either, who
became believers after the Law was canceled (by
having been fulfilled by Christ).
So, while the regulations in the Mosiac Law about
Jews not charging interest on loans to fellow Jews
is a great idea when one Christian loans money to
another (if it is agreeable to all parties and
workable), since the Law was 'canceled' and 'taken away'
upon Christ's death, those regulations aren't binding
upon Christians.
So, when the WTS loans money to JW congregations
[which are corporation to corporation loans, not
personal loans], it is not violating any Bible
principles which are binding upon Christians.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
"davers_dfd" <daver...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1987c6e87...@news.west.cox.net...
> to destroy, but to fulfill;
>
AS far as I can figure, heaven and earth haven't passed yet. Therefore all
has not yet been fulfilled.
>
> *** Rbi8 Romans 8:1-4 ***
> 8 Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation. 2 For
> the law of that spirit which gives life in union with Christ Jesus has
> set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For, there being an
> incapability on the part of the Law, while it was weak through the flesh,
> God, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and
> concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous
> requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk, not in accord
> with the flesh, but in accord with the spirit.
>
Last I heard, people were still sinning and dying. When all is fulfilled
and heaven and earth have passed, THEN we will be set free from the law of
sin and of death.
Gramps
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
> >
> [snips on my stuff]
> >
> > Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or
> > one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> > AS far as I can figure, heaven and earth haven't passed yet.
>
> Heaven and earth aren't supposed to pass (in a literal
> sense). Jesus was using a form of illustrative language
> that meant, 'the law will be fulfilled as sure as heaven
> and earth will always remain'.
>
The WT has convinced you of that? I suppose you believe that God's kingdom
has come already too.
> As your quote shows, Jesus was saying that the law would
> be "fulfilled", which davers pointed out is also what Jesus
> said in v.17.
>
> The writings of Paul indicate that the fulfillment of the
> Law put an end to its authority over Christians. He wrote:
>
Paul exempts pagan converts from certain parts of God's laws. Not Jewish
Christians. The first instance of corrupting God's laws to recruit pagans.
> For Christ is the end of the law for
> righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:4 KJV)
>
> Other translations (which are more interpretive)
> say it means:
>
> But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary
> for those who become acceptable to God by faith.
> (CEV)
>
So they are able to take God's name in vain?
> Christ has made an end to the law as a way of
> getting right with God. Everyone who believes in
> him is put right with God. (World English)
>
> Earlier in Romans (Paul was writing to the mix of Jewish
> and Gentile Christians, with an emphasis on explaining to
> the Jewish Christians why the Law was no longer binding
> upon them, and how it was superceded by faith in Christ),
> he wrote:
>
> But now we are delivered from the law, that
> being dead wherein we were held; that we should
> serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness
> of the letter. (KJV)
>
Christ became our sacrifice. It's no longer required the make animal
sacrifices.
I guess that's one JW belief the world has taken to heart. It explains why
we have so much murder, adultery, lying, stealing, etc.
Mark Sornson
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F1EB899...@zk3.dec.com...
> > Terry/Anti wrote:
> > >
> [snips on my stuff]
> > >
> > > Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
> or
> > > one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> > > AS far as I can figure, heaven and earth haven't passed yet.
> >
> > Heaven and earth aren't supposed to pass (in a literal
> > sense). Jesus was using a form of illustrative language
> > that meant, 'the law will be fulfilled as sure as heaven
> > and earth will always remain'.
> >
>
> The WT has convinced you of that? I suppose you believe that God's kingdom
> has come already too.
Actually JWs believe (and I only state this as a
matter of belief, not as an invitation to debate it
at this point in time) that Jesus officially took
up his Messianic Kingship in heaven in 1914 and
threw Satan out of heaven (in the heavenly war
prophesied in Rev. 12), and now the angry Satan only
has a 'short time' before Jesus 'completes his
conquest' and brings the Kingdom into full sway over
the earth. The preaching work of JWs is the prelude
to that final event, to help people choose to be
loyal to that Kingdom now (which will replace all
earthly governments), to be spiritually ready for it
when it is put into full operation.
>
>
> > As your quote shows, Jesus was saying that the law would
> > be "fulfilled", which davers pointed out is also what Jesus
> > said in v.17.
> >
> > The writings of Paul indicate that the fulfillment of the
> > Law put an end to its authority over Christians. He wrote:
> >
>
> Paul exempts pagan converts from certain parts of God's laws. Not Jewish
> Christians. The first instance of corrupting God's laws to recruit pagans.
Below you admit that Jewish Christians are now
exempt from the sacrificial laws. That exemption
negates a substantial part of the Mosaic Law.
Do you personally still uphold the rest of the
Mosaic Law (keeping the Jewish festivals, a Saturday
sabbath, the dietary laws, the laws on clothing,
and etc.)?
>
>
> > For Christ is the end of the law for
> > righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:4 KJV)
> >
> > Other translations (which are more interpretive)
> > say it means:
> >
> > But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary
> > for those who become acceptable to God by faith.
> > (CEV)
> >
>
>
> So they are able to take God's name in vain?
Why would true Christians who love God and Christ
do that? Since being a Christian means being a
disciple of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ never
tooks God's name in vain, isn't it self-evident
that a true Christian would have the same love
for God's name that Jesus Christ did? They wouldn't
need a law to tell them not to take his name in
vain, would they? In fact, they'd be more likely
to use God's name prominently, wouldn't they?
Oh - and one more question, since the penalty for
taking God's name in vain was death, do you follow
that Law? [The Law also mandated death for quite
a few things, like fornication and adultery. Should
Christians put Christians to death who violate that
Law? After all, 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is
one of the 10 commandments. Why keep the commandment
and NOT the stipulated penalty?]
>
>
> > Christ has made an end to the law as a way of
> > getting right with God. Everyone who believes in
> > him is put right with God. (World English)
> >
> > Earlier in Romans (Paul was writing to the mix of Jewish
> > and Gentile Christians, with an emphasis on explaining to
> > the Jewish Christians why the Law was no longer binding
> > upon them, and how it was superceded by faith in Christ),
> > he wrote:
> >
> > But now we are delivered from the law, that
> > being dead wherein we were held; that we should
> > serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness
> > of the letter. (KJV)
> >
>
>
> Christ became our sacrifice. It's no longer required the make animal
> sacrifices.
Since the system of sacrifices were a MAJOR part of
the Mosaic Law, isn't it obvious that the Law, as
a whole, really isn't in force today?
It's a bit of a stretch to connect loaning money
at a modest interest rate with murder, adultery,
lying, and stealing, don't you think?
Have you ever borrowed money, Gramps? If so,
did you say to the bank, "since we're all Christians
here, please give me the loan interest free,
since the Bible says you are supposed to."
[Just out of curiousity, were you ever in the business
of loaning money? And if so, how much of it did you
loan out for free?]
-mark.
Terry/Anti
Even if that's true (I don't believe it) until it is put into full
operation, all has not been fulfilled.
> >
> >
> > > As your quote shows, Jesus was saying that the law would
> > > be "fulfilled", which davers pointed out is also what Jesus
> > > said in v.17.
> > >
> > > The writings of Paul indicate that the fulfillment of the
> > > Law put an end to its authority over Christians. He wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Paul exempts pagan converts from certain parts of God's laws. Not
Jewish
> > Christians. The first instance of corrupting God's laws to recruit
pagans.
>
> Below you admit that Jewish Christians are now
> exempt from the sacrificial laws. That exemption
> negates a substantial part of the Mosaic Law.
>
> Do you personally still uphold the rest of the
> Mosaic Law (keeping the Jewish festivals, a Saturday
> sabbath, the dietary laws, the laws on clothing,
> and etc.)?
>
No, what does that have to do with what the Bible says?
> >
> >
> > > For Christ is the end of the law for
> > > righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:4 KJV)
> > >
> > > Other translations (which are more interpretive)
> > > say it means:
> > >
> > > But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary
> > > for those who become acceptable to God by faith.
> > > (CEV)
> > >
> >
> >
> > So they are able to take God's name in vain?
>
> Why would true Christians who love God and Christ
> do that? Since being a Christian means being a
> disciple of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ never
> tooks God's name in vain, isn't it self-evident
> that a true Christian would have the same love
> for God's name that Jesus Christ did? They wouldn't
> need a law to tell them not to take his name in
> vain, would they? In fact, they'd be more likely
> to use God's name prominently, wouldn't they?
>
It doesn't seem that way.
> Oh - and one more question, since the penalty for
> taking God's name in vain was death, do you follow
> that Law? [The Law also mandated death for quite
> a few things, like fornication and adultery. Should
> Christians put Christians to death who violate that
> Law? After all, 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is
> one of the 10 commandments. Why keep the commandment
> and NOT the stipulated penalty?]
>
If you believe the Bible is the word of God, you should follow it. You sound
like you doubt it. I've already made my doubt known.
> >
> >
> > > Christ has made an end to the law as a way of
> > > getting right with God. Everyone who believes in
> > > him is put right with God. (World English)
> > >
> > > Earlier in Romans (Paul was writing to the mix of Jewish
> > > and Gentile Christians, with an emphasis on explaining to
> > > the Jewish Christians why the Law was no longer binding
> > > upon them, and how it was superceded by faith in Christ),
> > > he wrote:
> > >
> > > But now we are delivered from the law, that
> > > being dead wherein we were held; that we should
> > > serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness
> > > of the letter. (KJV)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Christ became our sacrifice. It's no longer required the make animal
> > sacrifices.
>
> Since the system of sacrifices were a MAJOR part of
> the Mosaic Law, isn't it obvious that the Law, as
> a whole, really isn't in force today?
>
No.
I got into the conversation to answer your request to "Please show from the
NT the scriptures which prove that Gentile Christians are bound by the
Mosaic Law on the matter of personal loans between Jews." I'm just showing
that we are still bound by the Jewish laws. The interest some orgs charge
could be considered stealing.
> Have you ever borrowed money, Gramps? If so,
> did you say to the bank, "since we're all Christians
> here, please give me the loan interest free,
> since the Bible says you are supposed to."
>
> [Just out of curiousity, were you ever in the business
> of loaning money? And if so, how much of it did you
> loan out for free?]
>
> -mark.
Yes I have borrowed money and paid interest. I haven't ever been in the
lending business.
Dizzbee59
>Date: 07/19/2003 1:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Additionally, that particular Law had to do with
>Jews making personal loans to fellow Jews.
How did you arrive at THAT conclusion?
Scriptural proof would be helpful.
Mark Sornson
All the prophesies related to the Kingdom of God
ruled by Christ have not yet been fulfilled -- but
[according to the NT] the purpose of the Mosaic Law,
which was to lead people (first the Jews, then
Gentiles) to Christ, has been fulfilled.
Are you familiar with the expression "New Covenant"?
Its existence was prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer 31:31),
Jesus indicated it was put into effect by his sacrificial
death [1Cor 11:25 -- Paul quotes Jesus], and Paul
(or whomever the writer of Hebrews was) explains at
length how the new covenant replaces the old (Heb 8:7-13).
He concluded by saying:
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made
the first old. Now that which decayeth and
waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13 KJV)
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the
first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and
aging will soon disappear. (NIV)
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made
the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming
obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."
(NASB)
The modern translations say that the new covenant
made the old covenant "obsolete", and at the time
Hebrews was written, it was "ready to vanish away".
That vanishing was accomplished when the temple
was destroyed, and Judaism was struck a blow (by the
Romans) that made it impossible to ever again
reconstitute the sacrificial system. The temple's
permanant destruction (to this day it has never
been rebuilt) is the clincher that the Mosaic Law
was done away with by God.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > As your quote shows, Jesus was saying that the law would
> > > > be "fulfilled", which davers pointed out is also what Jesus
> > > > said in v.17.
> > > >
> > > > The writings of Paul indicate that the fulfillment of the
> > > > Law put an end to its authority over Christians. He wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Paul exempts pagan converts from certain parts of God's laws. Not
> Jewish
> > > Christians. The first instance of corrupting God's laws to recruit
> pagans.
> >
> > Below you admit that Jewish Christians are now
> > exempt from the sacrificial laws. That exemption
> > negates a substantial part of the Mosaic Law.
> >
> > Do you personally still uphold the rest of the
> > Mosaic Law (keeping the Jewish festivals, a Saturday
> > sabbath, the dietary laws, the laws on clothing,
> > and etc.)?
> >
>
> No, what does that have to do with what the Bible says?
But if the Mosaic Law is binding when it says that
'brothers' should not charge interest to 'brothers',
why are these other aspects of the Law not binding upon
you?
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > For Christ is the end of the law for
> > > > righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:4 KJV)
> > > >
> > > > Other translations (which are more interpretive)
> > > > say it means:
> > > >
> > > > But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary
> > > > for those who become acceptable to God by faith.
> > > > (CEV)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So they are able to take God's name in vain?
> >
> > Why would true Christians who love God and Christ
> > do that? Since being a Christian means being a
> > disciple of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ never
> > tooks God's name in vain, isn't it self-evident
> > that a true Christian would have the same love
> > for God's name that Jesus Christ did? They wouldn't
> > need a law to tell them not to take his name in
> > vain, would they? In fact, they'd be more likely
> > to use God's name prominently, wouldn't they?
> >
>
> It doesn't seem that way.
What doesn't seem that way?
>
> > Oh - and one more question, since the penalty for
> > taking God's name in vain was death, do you follow
> > that Law? [The Law also mandated death for quite
> > a few things, like fornication and adultery. Should
> > Christians put Christians to death who violate that
> > Law? After all, 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is
> > one of the 10 commandments. Why keep the commandment
> > and NOT the stipulated penalty?]
> >
>
> If you believe the Bible is the word of God, you should follow it. You sound
> like you doubt it. I've already made my doubt known.
The command to Noah to build an ark was the "word of
God", but surely you don't believe that you and I are
under obligation to follow it and build an ark (perhaps
each of us our own), do you?
As I mentioned above, things like dietary laws, laws on
festivals, and laws on clothing (like putting a blue
fringe at the bottom of one's garments), and the laws
on sacrifices, were also "the word of God". But you don't
follow those aspects of the "word of God" yourself, do you,
because you don't believe they apply to you, right?
So, either you are also guilty of picking and choosing,
or you have to admit that at times "the word of God"
is conditional, and binding only for a set of circumstances
of a fixed duration.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Christ has made an end to the law as a way of
> > > > getting right with God. Everyone who believes in
> > > > him is put right with God. (World English)
> > > >
> > > > Earlier in Romans (Paul was writing to the mix of Jewish
> > > > and Gentile Christians, with an emphasis on explaining to
> > > > the Jewish Christians why the Law was no longer binding
> > > > upon them, and how it was superceded by faith in Christ),
> > > > he wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But now we are delivered from the law, that
> > > > being dead wherein we were held; that we should
> > > > serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness
> > > > of the letter. (KJV)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Christ became our sacrifice. It's no longer required the make animal
> > > sacrifices.
> >
> > Since the system of sacrifices were a MAJOR part of
> > the Mosaic Law, isn't it obvious that the Law, as
> > a whole, really isn't in force today?
> >
>
> No.
So, then, the entire Mosaic Law IS binding and still in
force today? Then why don't you follow all of its laws
(except for the ones on sacrifice)? There are more laws
in the Mosaic Law than just the 10 commandments. The
ancient rabbis said there were 613 laws. At a guess, if
half of them related to the sacrificial system, that would
still leave about 300 laws for you to make sure you adhered
to.
By "we" (as in "we are still bound by the Jewish laws"),
you include yourself.
So, you are bound to follow the dietary laws, the clothing
laws, the sabbath laws (there were more sabbaths than just
the 7th day -- do you observe them all?), the marriage laws,
the military laws, the health laws, and the ecclesiastical
laws which included corporal and capital punishments for certain
offenses.
Have you ever violated the sabbath (on purpose or by
accident)? If so, then why are you still alive? The
penalty for sabbath breaking was death.
>
> > Have you ever borrowed money, Gramps? If so,
> > did you say to the bank, "since we're all Christians
> > here, please give me the loan interest free,
> > since the Bible says you are supposed to."
> >
> > [Just out of curiousity, were you ever in the business
> > of loaning money? And if so, how much of it did you
> > loan out for free?]
> >
> > -mark.
>
> Yes I have borrowed money and paid interest. I haven't ever been in the
> lending business.
Did you borrow from non-Christians, then?
If you borrowed from Christians, why did you
pay them interest? Doesn't the Mosaic Law insure
your right to borrow money interest free from
such ones?
-mark.
Frank
> permanant destruction (to this day it has never
> been rebuilt) is the clincher that the Mosaic Law
> was done away with by God.
Tell that to the people of Samaria, living there today.
Mark Sornson
My answer was based on the NT perspective, that of
former Jews who believed that the Mosaic Law was no
longer binding upon them, and who not only refrained
from perpetuating the observance of Jewish laws
in their (Christian) congregations, but who established
policy (in the NT, particularly the epistles) which
eschewed making observance of the Law a requirement.
What the people of Samaria do -- I assume you mean that
people who descended from the ancient Samarians, who
still practice their ancient, modified form of Judaism --
has little bearing on NT policy for Christians.
However, if I haven't understood you correctly, feel
free to elaborate on "the people of Samaria" who
live there today.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
> >
> > "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc283483.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Terry/Anti" <Grandp...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<wfGTa.924$jW....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > > > "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3F1EB899...@zk3.dec.com...
> > > > > Terry/Anti wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > [snips on my stuff]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one
> > jot
> > > > or
> > > > > > one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
> > fulfilled.
snip
1242 diatheke {dee-ath-ay'-kay}
from 1303; TDNT - 2:106,157; n f
AV - covenant 20, testament 13; 33
1) a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid,
the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his
death, a testament or will 2) a compact, a covenant, a testament 2a) God's
covenant with Noah, etc.
I see nothing about laws in this definition. If you mean the old testament
is done away with, then do away with it totally. Can god now break his
testament with Noah?
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > As your quote shows, Jesus was saying that the law would
> > > > > be "fulfilled", which davers pointed out is also what Jesus
> > > > > said in v.17.
> > > > >
> > > > > The writings of Paul indicate that the fulfillment of the
> > > > > Law put an end to its authority over Christians. He wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul exempts pagan converts from certain parts of God's laws. Not
> > Jewish
> > > > Christians. The first instance of corrupting God's laws to recruit
> > pagans.
> > >
> > > Below you admit that Jewish Christians are now
> > > exempt from the sacrificial laws. That exemption
> > > negates a substantial part of the Mosaic Law.
> > >
> > > Do you personally still uphold the rest of the
> > > Mosaic Law (keeping the Jewish festivals, a Saturday
> > > sabbath, the dietary laws, the laws on clothing,
> > > and etc.)?
> > >
> >
> > No, what does that have to do with what the Bible says?
>
> But if the Mosaic Law is binding when it says that
> 'brothers' should not charge interest to 'brothers',
> why are these other aspects of the Law not binding upon
> you?
>
Because I'm not sure they are the word of God. If you believe they are, you
should follow them.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > For Christ is the end of the law for
> > > > > righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom 10:4 KJV)
> > > > >
> > > > > Other translations (which are more interpretive)
> > > > > say it means:
> > > > >
> > > > > But Christ makes the Law no longer necessary
> > > > > for those who become acceptable to God by faith.
> > > > > (CEV)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So they are able to take God's name in vain?
> > >
> > > Why would true Christians who love God and Christ
> > > do that? Since being a Christian means being a
> > > disciple of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ never
> > > tooks God's name in vain, isn't it self-evident
> > > that a true Christian would have the same love
> > > for God's name that Jesus Christ did? They wouldn't
> > > need a law to tell them not to take his name in
> > > vain, would they? In fact, they'd be more likely
> > > to use God's name prominently, wouldn't they?
> > >
> >
> > It doesn't seem that way.
>
> What doesn't seem that way?
>
They wouldn't need a law to tell them not to take his name in vain.
> >
> > > Oh - and one more question, since the penalty for
> > > taking God's name in vain was death, do you follow
> > > that Law? [The Law also mandated death for quite
> > > a few things, like fornication and adultery. Should
> > > Christians put Christians to death who violate that
> > > Law? After all, 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is
> > > one of the 10 commandments. Why keep the commandment
> > > and NOT the stipulated penalty?]
> > >
> >
> > If you believe the Bible is the word of God, you should follow it. You
sound
> > like you doubt it. I've already made my doubt known.
>
> The command to Noah to build an ark was the "word of
> God", but surely you don't believe that you and I are
> under obligation to follow it and build an ark (perhaps
> each of us our own), do you?
>
See above.
> As I mentioned above, things like dietary laws, laws on
> festivals, and laws on clothing (like putting a blue
> fringe at the bottom of one's garments), and the laws
> on sacrifices, were also "the word of God". But you don't
> follow those aspects of the "word of God" yourself, do you,
> because you don't believe they apply to you, right?
>
Dietary laws are not exactly laws in the sense that the ten commandments
are. They are recommendations for living a healthy life. Kind of like our
government putting out food recommendations. If you want to be healthy,
then you should follow the dietary laws.
Invite me to a fun festival and I'll attend.
I never heard this blue fringe thing. you believers must not be doing a
good job of informing the public on such laws.
Jesus has become our sacrifice. Communion is the reenactment of that. By
refusing to eat the bread and drink the wine, shed for your life, you are
insulting Jesus. You would also be insulting Jesus by offering other
sacrifices. You would be saying that you do not believe that Jesus'
sacrifice was enough to get the job done.
MY BELIEF IS do on to others as you would have them do on to you. Not
always possible. If that makes me a bad guy, then erase me from the book of
life or whatever.
Maybe I'll get my reward? in my second life.
> >
> > > Have you ever borrowed money, Gramps? If so,
> > > did you say to the bank, "since we're all Christians
> > > here, please give me the loan interest free,
> > > since the Bible says you are supposed to."
> > >
> > > [Just out of curiousity, were you ever in the business
> > > of loaning money? And if so, how much of it did you
> > > loan out for free?]
> > >
> > > -mark.
> >
> > Yes I have borrowed money and paid interest. I haven't ever been in the
> > lending business.
>
> Did you borrow from non-Christians, then?
>
> If you borrowed from Christians, why did you
> pay them interest? Doesn't the Mosaic Law insure
> your right to borrow money interest free from
> such ones?
>
> -mark.
You either pay interest or you don't get the loan. I have no idea what the
people I borrowed from were. Maybe if I had a rich daddy I could have
gotten an interest free loan. Let's think of the WT as the rich daddy of
all the JWs.
Mark Sornson
Um ... because the Law specifically says that
Israelites can charge non-Israelites interest, but
not their "brothers". So, clearly the Law applies
to Jews loaning money to fellow Jews.
I suppose we could quibble whether the loans
were business loans or personal loans, but the
context of the laws indicates that the loans
were made to those who had become poor (Ex 22:25;
Lev 25:36,37; Deut 23:19,20 -- the mention of
no interest on "food" in this last set of verses
suggests the loans were for sustanance loan, and
not for business).
Please provide scriptural proof that the laws
on interest in the Mosaic Law were not laws between
Jews making personal loans to fellow Jews.
-mark.
Frank
> Frank wrote:
> >
> > > reconstitute the sacrificial system. The temple's
> > > permanant destruction (to this day it has never
> > > been rebuilt) is the clincher that the Mosaic Law
> > > was done away with by God.
> >
> > Tell that to the people of Samaria, living there today.
>
> My answer was based on the NT perspective, that of
> former Jews who believed that the Mosaic Law was no
> longer binding upon them, and who not only refrained
> from perpetuating the observance of Jewish laws
> in their (Christian) congregations, but who established
> policy (in the NT, particularly the epistles) which
> eschewed making observance of the Law a requirement.
>
> What the people of Samaria do -- I assume you mean that
> people who descended from the ancient Samarians, who
> still practice their ancient, modified form of Judaism --
> has little bearing on NT policy for Christians.
>
You make the connection between the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
and ceasing animal sacrifice. The people of Shechem still practice
sacrifice, they themselves are also children of Israel. There has Never been
any dispute as to whether Christains should continue animal sacrifice, as
Christ/Jehovah was the fulfillment of the law.
Mark Sornson
That's interesting that they still offer sacrifices.
Are these Samaritans carrying on the religious
traditions of the people whom the Samaritan woman
at the well was from, of whom Jesus said that they
'worship what they do not know'? (Is their worship
still centered on Mt. Gerazim?)
Since the temple no longer exists, those sacrifices
really aren't in compliance with the Mosaic Law,
as the Law stipulated that they be made at the temple
(or tabernacle, which was prior to the temple), and
made by Levite priests.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
What reference are you quoting from?
The Mosaic Law was a covenant between Jehovah and the
Israelites. That your reference work doesn't mention
that is immaterial.
Like a legal contract, a covenant may have a fixed
term or an open-ended term.
God's covenant with Noah has no conditions that would
end it.
The Mosaic Law covenant did have 'end of life' conditions,
which have now been met. Ending the covenant according
to its terms isn't the same as breaking it.
> > > >
> > > > Below you admit that Jewish Christians are now
> > > > exempt from the sacrificial laws. That exemption
> > > > negates a substantial part of the Mosaic Law.
> > > >
> > > > Do you personally still uphold the rest of the
> > > > Mosaic Law (keeping the Jewish festivals, a Saturday
> > > > sabbath, the dietary laws, the laws on clothing,
> > > > and etc.)?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, what does that have to do with what the Bible says?
> >
> > But if the Mosaic Law is binding when it says that
> > 'brothers' should not charge interest to 'brothers',
> > why are these other aspects of the Law not binding upon
> > you?
> >
>
> Because I'm not sure they are the word of God. If you believe they are, you
> should follow them.
Oh, well, that's interesting.
Why is it that you aren't sure these other things are
the word of God, but you are sure that the laws on
no-interest-loans are? [The law on not charging interest
to fellow Jews isn't even one of the 10 commandments.]
> > > > > So they are able to take God's name in vain?
> > > >
> > > > Why would true Christians who love God and Christ
> > > > do that? Since being a Christian means being a
> > > > disciple of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ never
> > > > tooks God's name in vain, isn't it self-evident
> > > > that a true Christian would have the same love
> > > > for God's name that Jesus Christ did? They wouldn't
> > > > need a law to tell them not to take his name in
> > > > vain, would they? In fact, they'd be more likely
> > > > to use God's name prominently, wouldn't they?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem that way.
> >
> > What doesn't seem that way?
> >
>
> They wouldn't need a law to tell them not to take his name in vain.
The first Christians were Jews, and they were already
educated on the principle behind the law about not
taking God's name (YHWH - however it was pronounce) in
vain. Thus they didn't need another law.
And then they had Jesus' example, plus God was their
heavenly Father, who adopted them as sons with a
special manifestation (anointing) of holy spirit.
What son who loves his father needs a law to order
him not to take his father's name in vain?
Since you feel man still needs a law not to take God's
name in vain, am I correct to assume that you believe
that the penalty in the Mosaic Law (death) should also
still apply to those who do so?
> > > > Oh - and one more question, since the penalty for
> > > > taking God's name in vain was death, do you follow
> > > > that Law? [The Law also mandated death for quite
> > > > a few things, like fornication and adultery. Should
> > > > Christians put Christians to death who violate that
> > > > Law? After all, 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is
> > > > one of the 10 commandments. Why keep the commandment
> > > > and NOT the stipulated penalty?]
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you believe the Bible is the word of God, you should follow it. You
> sound
> > > like you doubt it. I've already made my doubt known.
> >
> > The command to Noah to build an ark was the "word of
> > God", but surely you don't believe that you and I are
> > under obligation to follow it and build an ark (perhaps
> > each of us our own), do you?
> >
>
> See above.
I did see it, but your answer still isn't clear to me.
Are you saying that you aren't sure if the command to
Noah to build an ark really is (or was) the word of God?
If so, is that because you believe the story of Noah
and the ark is a myth, a fiction?
If, for the sake of argument, you could be convinced
that God really did tell Noah to build an ark, would
that then mean that you have to build an ark (because
that command was the word of God)?
>
> > As I mentioned above, things like dietary laws, laws on
> > festivals, and laws on clothing (like putting a blue
> > fringe at the bottom of one's garments), and the laws
> > on sacrifices, were also "the word of God". But you don't
> > follow those aspects of the "word of God" yourself, do you,
> > because you don't believe they apply to you, right?
> >
>
> Dietary laws are not exactly laws in the sense that the ten commandments
> are.
Why not? The dietary laws were part of the body of law
given to the nation.
> They are recommendations for living a healthy life. Kind of like our
> government putting out food recommendations. If you want to be healthy,
> then you should follow the dietary laws.
The law says they "must not" eat certain animals, period.
Even if there were health benefits, the law doesn't give
health as the reason for the law. The law only said
that those animals are unclean and loathsome. There
was no "should" -- the law said 'must.'
> Invite me to a fun festival and I'll attend.
The festivals weren't mere "fun", but were aspects of
true worship. And they were mandatory (for males).
> I never heard this blue fringe thing. you believers must not be doing a
> good job of informing the public on such laws.
Your wife is a JW, and you apparantly have little interest
in listening to her (religious views -- I hope you listen to
her on all other matters). You only have yourself to blame for
refusing to listen to JWs who might be able to teach you
more about the Bible.
> Jesus has become our sacrifice. Communion is the reenactment of that. By
> refusing to eat the bread and drink the wine, shed for your life, you are
> insulting Jesus. You would also be insulting Jesus by offering other
> sacrifices. You would be saying that you do not believe that Jesus'
> sacrifice was enough to get the job done.
Setting quibbles over minor details aside, I agree with
much of this.
What you don't seem to realize is that what you say
proves my point. Jesus' sacrifice and his teachings
are enough for Christians to "get the job done".
Thus, while some aspects of the Law might still be good
or nice ideas if they are workable (such as giving
interest-free personal loans to fellow believers who fall
on hard times), the 'law of Christ' which is based on
love eliminates the need for mandatory statutes about
such things.
>
> > So, either you are also guilty of picking and choosing,
> > or you have to admit that at times "the word of God"
> > is conditional, and binding only for a set of circumstances
> > of a fixed duration.
You didn't address this ... you are picking and choosing.
> > > > Since the system of sacrifices were a MAJOR part of
> > > > the Mosaic Law, isn't it obvious that the Law, as
> > > > a whole, really isn't in force today?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > So, then, the entire Mosaic Law IS binding and still in
> > force today? Then why don't you follow all of its laws
> > (except for the ones on sacrifice)? There are more laws
> > in the Mosaic Law than just the 10 commandments. The
> > ancient rabbis said there were 613 laws. At a guess, if
> > half of them related to the sacrificial system, that would
> > still leave about 300 laws for you to make sure you adhered
> > to.
> >
> >
>
> MY BELIEF IS do on to others as you would have them do on to you. Not
> always possible. If that makes me a bad guy, then erase me from the book of
> life or whatever.
Well, there you go ... in real life certain ideal things
are "not always possible," or practical.
The WTS makes some of the funds it has received as
donations available to congregations to borrow so that
they can build Kingdom Halls. While it is possible for
the WTS not to charge any interest, in reality it is
not practical to do so, since money loaned without
interest for a long period of time (10 to 15 years)
loses some of its value due to inflation. Therefore,
the interest (which, again, is modest), protects the
value of the money which, upon being paid back, can go
out again as new loans. The WTS isn't making a profit
on the money (that ends up in any private individual's
pocket), but instead has set up a reasonable arrangement
(out of love) to help keep funds available for new
congregations to borrow from.
That makes them bad guys who deserve to be erased
from the book of life?
> > Have you ever violated the sabbath (on purpose or by
> > accident)? If so, then why are you still alive? The
> > penalty for sabbath breaking was death.
> >
>
> Maybe I'll get my reward? in my second life.
Would that be a positive or negative reward?
> > > Yes I have borrowed money and paid interest. I haven't ever been in the
> > > lending business.
> >
> > Did you borrow from non-Christians, then?
> >
> > If you borrowed from Christians, why did you
> > pay them interest? Doesn't the Mosaic Law insure
> > your right to borrow money interest free from
> > such ones?
> >
> > -mark.
>
> You either pay interest or you don't get the loan. I have no idea what the
> people I borrowed from were. Maybe if I had a rich daddy I could have
> gotten an interest free loan. Let's think of the WT as the rich daddy of
> all the JWs.
The WTS isn't the "rich daddy of all the JWs" in
a material sense. JWs donate to it to keep the
'spiritual riches' flowing. That's what the WTS
is chartered to do, and what it delivers on.
Any material benefits are simply a bonus.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
Snip
> -mark.
Strong's Concordance.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed
after thee in their generations for an EVERLASTING covenant, to be a God
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Exodus 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to
observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a Perpetual covenant.
Leviticus 24:8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD
continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an EVERLASTING
covenant.
Num 18:19 All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of
Israel offer unto the LORD, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy
daughters with thee, by a statute FOR EVER: it is a covenant of salt FOR
EVER before the LORD unto thee and to thy seed with thee.
Num 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of
an EVERLASTING priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an
atonement for the children of Israel.
Deu 4:30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon
thee, even in the LATTER DAYS, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt
be obedient unto his voice;
Deu 4:31 (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee,
neither destroy thee, nor FORGET the covenant of thy fathers which he sware
unto them.
Jud 2:1 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I
made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I
sware unto your fathers; and I said, I WILL NEVER BREAK my covenant with
you.
2Sa 23:5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an
EVERLASTING covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my
salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.
1Chronicles 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to
Israel for an EVERLASTING covenant,
There's a lot more, but I haven't time to go through the whole Bible word
search for
COVENANT. I would say God's covenants tend to have a fixed term,
EVERLASTING.
More later, Gramps
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
>
Snip
> > > > > Below you admit that Jewish Christians are now
> > > > > exempt from the sacrificial laws. That exemption
> > > > > negates a substantial part of the Mosaic Law.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you personally still uphold the rest of the
> > > > > Mosaic Law (keeping the Jewish festivals, a Saturday
> > > > > sabbath, the dietary laws, the laws on clothing,
> > > > > and etc.)?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, what does that have to do with what the Bible says?
> > >
> > > But if the Mosaic Law is binding when it says that
> > > 'brothers' should not charge interest to 'brothers',
> > > why are these other aspects of the Law not binding upon
> > > you?
> > >
> >
> > Because I'm not sure they are the word of God. If you believe they are,
you
> > should follow them.
>
> Oh, well, that's interesting.
>
> Why is it that you aren't sure these other things are
> the word of God, but you are sure that the laws on
> no-interest-loans are? [The law on not charging interest
> to fellow Jews isn't even one of the 10 commandments.]
>
I'm not sure the laws on no-interest-loans are. If you and the WT believe
they are, you should follow them.
I think, "Thus they didn't need another law" makes my point. The ten
Commandments still stand.
The command to Noah was a command to Noah.
> >
> > > As I mentioned above, things like dietary laws, laws on
> > > festivals, and laws on clothing (like putting a blue
> > > fringe at the bottom of one's garments), and the laws
> > > on sacrifices, were also "the word of God". But you don't
> > > follow those aspects of the "word of God" yourself, do you,
> > > because you don't believe they apply to you, right?
> > >
> >
> > Dietary laws are not exactly laws in the sense that the ten commandments
> > are.
>
> Why not? The dietary laws were part of the body of law
> given to the nation.
>
> > They are recommendations for living a healthy life. Kind of like
our
> > government putting out food recommendations. If you want to be healthy,
> > then you should follow the dietary laws.
>
> The law says they "must not" eat certain animals, period.
> Even if there were health benefits, the law doesn't give
> health as the reason for the law. The law only said
> that those animals are unclean and loathsome. There
> was no "should" -- the law said 'must.'
>
They are not laws. Why do you think some animals are unclean? Because they
are unhealthy.
> > Invite me to a fun festival and I'll attend.
>
> The festivals weren't mere "fun", but were aspects of
> true worship. And they were mandatory (for males).
>
> > I never heard this blue fringe thing. you believers must not be doing a
> > good job of informing the public on such laws.
>
> Your wife is a JW, and you apparantly have little interest
> in listening to her (religious views -- I hope you listen to
> her on all other matters). You only have yourself to blame for
> refusing to listen to JWs who might be able to teach you
> more about the Bible.
>
We try to stay away from discussing things that lead to dissention.
> > Jesus has become our sacrifice. Communion is the reenactment of that.
By
> > refusing to eat the bread and drink the wine, shed for your life, you
are
> > insulting Jesus. You would also be insulting Jesus by offering other
> > sacrifices. You would be saying that you do not believe that Jesus'
> > sacrifice was enough to get the job done.
>
> Setting quibbles over minor details aside, I agree with
> much of this.
>
> What you don't seem to realize is that what you say
> proves my point. Jesus' sacrifice and his teachings
> are enough for Christians to "get the job done".
>
> Thus, while some aspects of the Law might still be good
> or nice ideas if they are workable (such as giving
> interest-free personal loans to fellow believers who fall
> on hard times), the 'law of Christ' which is based on
> love eliminates the need for mandatory statutes about
> such things.
>
> >
> > > So, either you are also guilty of picking and choosing,
> > > or you have to admit that at times "the word of God"
> > > is conditional, and binding only for a set of circumstances
> > > of a fixed duration.
>
> You didn't address this ... you are picking and choosing.
>
Are you calling Jesus a Liar?
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
If a company wants to set up an area distribution center, they don't make
the employees pay for it, let alone pay interest.
But that's the least of the reasons I believe they should be erased.
> > > Have you ever violated the sabbath (on purpose or by
> > > accident)? If so, then why are you still alive? The
> > > penalty for sabbath breaking was death.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I'll get my reward? in my second life.
>
> Would that be a positive or negative reward?
>
What do YOU think?
> > > > Yes I have borrowed money and paid interest. I haven't ever been in
the
> > > > lending business.
> > >
> > > Did you borrow from non-Christians, then?
> > >
> > > If you borrowed from Christians, why did you
> > > pay them interest? Doesn't the Mosaic Law insure
> > > your right to borrow money interest free from
> > > such ones?
> > >
> > > -mark.
> >
> > You either pay interest or you don't get the loan. I have no idea what
the
> > people I borrowed from were. Maybe if I had a rich daddy I could have
> > gotten an interest free loan. Let's think of the WT as the rich daddy
of
> > all the JWs.
>
> The WTS isn't the "rich daddy of all the JWs" in
> a material sense. JWs donate to it to keep the
> 'spiritual riches' flowing. That's what the WTS
> is chartered to do, and what it delivers on.
>
> Any material benefits are simply a bonus.
>
> -mark.
Gramps
Mark Sornson
> > Why is it that you aren't sure these other things are
> > the word of God, but you are sure that the laws on
> > no-interest-loans are? [The law on not charging interest
> > to fellow Jews isn't even one of the 10 commandments.]
> >
>
>
> I'm not sure the laws on no-interest-loans are. If you and the WT believe
> they are, you should follow them.
If the laws in the Pentateuch on no-interest loans
between Jews are not the word of God, then whose word
are they?
I and other JWs believe they were the word of God
for Jews under the Law. Since we do not believe they
apply to Christians (whether Jewish or non-Jewish),
because the Mosaic Law, or 'old covenant', has been
made obsolete by the 'new covenant', I'd say that
we're just as free as you are to disregard them.
> > Since you feel man still needs a law not to take God's
> > name in vain, am I correct to assume that you believe
> > that the penalty in the Mosaic Law (death) should also
> > still apply to those who do so?
> >
>
>
> I think, "Thus they didn't need another law" makes my point. The ten
> Commandments still stand.
So, does that mean that the death penalty for
breaking a good number of the 10 commandments also
still stands? If so, who should be meting out death
to those who break the 10 commandments? [After
all, how can a law stand if the punishment for
breaking the law does not?]
> >
> > Are you saying that you aren't sure if the command to
> > Noah to build an ark really is (or was) the word of God?
> > If so, is that because you believe the story of Noah
> > and the ark is a myth, a fiction?
> >
> > If, for the sake of argument, you could be convinced
> > that God really did tell Noah to build an ark, would
> > that then mean that you have to build an ark (because
> > that command was the word of God)?
> >
>
>
> The command to Noah was a command to Noah.
Agreed.
The Mosaic Law was a set of commands for Israelites.
I'm neither an Israelite or a Jew by conversion.
Thus, why does the Mosaic Law apply to me?
> > The law says they "must not" eat certain animals, period.
> > Even if there were health benefits, the law doesn't give
> > health as the reason for the law. The law only said
> > that those animals are unclean and loathsome. There
> > was no "should" -- the law said 'must.'
> >
>
> They are not laws. Why do you think some animals are unclean? Because they
> are unhealthy.
To Jews, they were laws. In fact, to Jews, they still
are laws that they feel required to observe.
According to the vision given to Peter in Acts
10:9-16, the designation of certain animals as
being unclean has now been lifted (for Christians --
though it wasn't the major point of the vision).
> > Your wife is a JW, and you apparantly have little interest
> > in listening to her (religious views -- I hope you listen to
> > her on all other matters). You only have yourself to blame for
> > refusing to listen to JWs who might be able to teach you
> > more about the Bible.
> >
>
>
> We try to stay away from discussing things that lead to dissention.
Well, that means that you only have yourself to blame
for staying away from discussions that might increase
your knowledge of the Bible (even if is only about
relatively trivial things like the requirement for Jews
to wear a blue fringe along the bottom of their garments).
I already addressed this, but you must have missed it.
Matt 5:17 (which davers also quoted for you) says:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law,
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but
to fulfill." (KJV)
After his resurrection, he appeared to his disciples
and helped them understand how he fulfilled the law
and the prophets:
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all
things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms,
concerning me.
Then he opened their understanding, that they might
understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:44,45 KJV)
Luke then records one example of many of the things
which were written about him in the Law, the prophets,
and the psalms, which he fulfilled:
"And thus he said unto them, Thus it is written,
and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise
from the dead the third day." (v.46 KJV; v.47
summarizes the prophesies about preaching to the
nations so that all might repent, starting with
those in Jerusalem).
Jesus did, in fact, fulfill all the things written
(prophetically) about him in the Law; plus he kept
the Law perfectly as a human, right up to his last
breath.
The NT, particularly the writings of Paul (whom
Jesus Christ hand-picked) make it clear that the
Jewish Christians understood that the Mosaic Law
was no longer in force and binding upon them.
Are you calling them (such as Paul) liars?
> > The WTS makes some of the funds it has received as
> > donations available to congregations to borrow so that
> > they can build Kingdom Halls. While it is possible for
> > the WTS not to charge any interest, in reality it is
> > not practical to do so, since money loaned without
> > interest for a long period of time (10 to 15 years)
> > loses some of its value due to inflation. Therefore,
> > the interest (which, again, is modest), protects the
> > value of the money which, upon being paid back, can go
> > out again as new loans. The WTS isn't making a profit
> > on the money (that ends up in any private individual's
> > pocket), but instead has set up a reasonable arrangement
> > (out of love) to help keep funds available for new
> > congregations to borrow from.
> >
> > That makes them bad guys who deserve to be erased
> > from the book of life?
> >
>
> If a company wants to set up an area distribution center, they don't make
> the employees pay for it, let alone pay interest.
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't employees of the WTS.
It's typical for members of a church to pay for their
own church (through donations and loans).
Please give me an example of a church whose central
organzation pays for the construction of all local
churches along the same model you propose, that they
are like a company expanding their business.
[Speaking of companies, however, it's not unusual for
a subsidiary of a company to have to pay its own way
out of its independantly mananaged funds.]
> But that's the least of the reasons I believe they should be erased.
Lucky for us that Jehovah God isn't making you our
judge, then, eh?
>
>
> > > > Have you ever violated the sabbath (on purpose or by
> > > > accident)? If so, then why are you still alive? The
> > > > penalty for sabbath breaking was death.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Maybe I'll get my reward? in my second life.
> >
> > Would that be a positive or negative reward?
> >
>
> What do YOU think?
It doesn't matter what *I* think about your chances,
for what I think doesn't really affect the reality of
your spiritual standing before God and Christ. It
only matters what you think.
Basically I was trying to figure out what you were
talking about. If you don't want to tell me, however,
that's OK.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
As much as I appreciate your elaboration below
(giving more scriptures), none of them directly
address the above, that the Christian NT writers
believed that the Mosaic Law was no longer binding
upon them.
OK, thanks.
>
> Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed
> after thee in their generations for an EVERLASTING covenant, to be a God
> unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
This covenant isn't the Mosaic Law (which came later),
but is God's personal covenant with Abraham.
As a sign of being in that covenant, every male
descendent of Abraham (and every male among his
domestics) had to be circumcised (Gen 17:10-14).
The penalty for failure to be circumcised was
death ("cut off from his people" v.14 KJV).
This law was later understood to be continued in
the Mosaic Law (and was partially repeated).
Circumcision was the issue that lead to the counsel
that was recorded in Acts 15 (some Jewish Christians
believing strongly that all of the Mosaic Law,
with circumcision in particular, being a requirement
for Gentile Christians). As you can see by
reading Acts 15, the requirement for circumcision
was NOT carried over to Gentile Christians.
So, at the very least, even if the Abrahamic covenant
is truly "everlasting", it doesn't apply to those
who are not decended from Abraham.
[I'll say more about the word "everlasting" below.]
>
> Exodus 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to
> observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a Perpetual covenant.
This is part of the Mosaic Law. (Abraham didn't
observe a sabbath.) According to Ex 31:17, the
sabbath observance:
"is a sign between me and the children of
Israel for ever" (KJV).
The sabbath was NOT binding upon people of any
other nation. So, unless you are an Israelite
(or a convert to Judaism), the sabbath isn't
binding upon you, either.
Both circumcision and sabbath observation were
issues that surfaced a number of times in the
NT epistles, (mostly) with Paul arguing that since
the entire Law was no longer binding upon
Christians, neither circumcision nor sabbath
observation was.
[As a side note, early Christians in post-NT
times began to observe the first day of the week,
our Sunday, as a special observance, not because
it was their sabbath, but because it was the
first day of the week, corresponding to the
day of the week Jesus was resurrected on.]
It's probably worth mentioning that penalty
for violating the sabbath was the same as for
violating the circumcision law, death.
Are you advocating that the penalties for violating
these laws given by God be enforced? If not, then
you really aren't advocating those laws.
>
> Leviticus 24:8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD
> continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an EVERLASTING
> covenant.
See above (and note that this also says it applies
to "the children of Israel").
>
> Num 18:19 All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of
> Israel offer unto the LORD, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy
> daughters with thee, by a statute FOR EVER: it is a covenant of salt FOR
> EVER before the LORD unto thee and to thy seed with thee.
This also is part of the Mosaic Law. It is, in
fact, part of the (scattered) laws on sacrifice-
giving.
If I recall correctly, you yourself admit that Jesus'
sacrifice did away with the need to sacrifice. So,
clearly, "FOR EVER" doesn't really mean forever to you,
either.
>
> Num 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of
> an EVERLASTING priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an
> atonement for the children of Israel.
This is another interesting choice you have made,
for it is also part of the Mosaic Law, this time
dealing with the priesthood being in the line
of Aaron. As this verse you cite says, it was
(according to the KJV) for "an everlasting
priesthood." Yet, that priesthood came to an
end in 70 CE (AD), when the Romans destroyed the
temple, carried off the Jews into captivity,
and destroyed the temple records of the Levitical
families, which in turn, has made it impossible
to restore the Aaronic priesthood.
To this day there is no Aaronic priesthood. So,
"everlasting", again, apparantly doesn't really
mean lasting forever, does it?
>
> Deu 4:30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon
> thee, even in the LATTER DAYS, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt
> be obedient unto his voice;
> Deu 4:31 (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee,
> neither destroy thee, nor FORGET the covenant of thy fathers which he sware
> unto them.
The KJV does everyone the favor of making each
verse its own paragraph, but more modern versions
group verse 29-31 together. Verse 29 says:
But IF from thence thou shalt seek seek
the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if
thou seek him with all thy heart and with
all thy soul. (KJV)
The "if" of vs. 29 makes verses 30 and 31
conditional. Compare this with Deuteronomy
30:17-18. If they might turn away from Him, God
said:
"I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall
surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong
your days upon the land, whither thou passest
over Jordan to go to possess it."
If they were to "perish" due to God's wrath, his
promise not to forget his covenant with them (which
was conditional only upon their being faithful)
would be a moot point.
>
> Jud 2:1 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I
> made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I
> sware unto your fathers; and I said, I WILL NEVER BREAK my covenant with
> you.
Jehovah never broke his covenant with with the
Israelites (meaning he always upheld his end of
the covenant). But the Israelites broke the
covenant many times. Legally, the covenant could
be ended by unfaithfulness on the part of the
Israelites. Hence, God finally allowed the nation
to be destroyed by the Romans in 70CE, along with
the temple and the priesthood, which were all part
of the covenant.
[Note: Judges 2:2 indicates that God, via his
angel, was already chastizing the people for
having "not obeyed my voice" (KJV). They were
breaking the covenant already.]
> 2Sa 23:5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an
> EVERLASTING covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my
> salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.
This was part of David's "last words" before he
died. Verse 5 is a reference to another personal
covenant, this time between God and David, in
which God promised to establish the "throne" of
David "for ever" (2Sam 7:16 KJV). The line
of earthly rulers descended from David ceased with
Zedekiah, but this promise has its fulfillment
via Jesus Christ, who, being descended from David,
was given "the throne of David his father" (Luke
1:32 KJV), and will "reign over the house of Jacob
for ever" (v.33 KJV).
Exactly what that means, the future will reveal.
This covenant between God and David does not,
however, mean that the Mosaic Law will continue
forever.
> 1Chronicles 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to
> Israel for an EVERLASTING covenant,
This seems like a good place for those additional
comments on the word "everlasting".
Nearly all Bible translations render the underlying
Hebrew as "everlasting" or "eternal" in this and
similar places. Perhaps this is due, in part, to
the religious belief that the Mosaic Law covenant
will truly be everlasting and never end. Clearly
the Jews don't believe it ended, and it seems as
though some 'evangelical' theologians believe
similarly, even though the NT says pretty plainly
that it did, and those who said so were Christian Jews.
What the translations "everlasting", "eternal," and
"forever" fail to do is to convey a shade of meaning
that the Hebrew has that conveys a view of time
that is more finite (or less infinite) than these
English words convey.
The Hebrew word is _ohlam_, which Strong numbers as
5769, and transliterates as _olam_. When it is used
in a context that has reference to the future, the
KJV renders it as everlasting, for ever, and perpetual
in virtually all cases (skimming _The New Englishman's
Hebrew Concordance_ by eye). When it is used with
reference to the past, it tends to indicate something
very old, though usually not infinitely old (Deut 32:7;
Job 22:5; Ps 25:6; Eccl 1:10; Isa 51:9; Jer 2:20; Jer 28:8;
Ezek 25:15, 26:20; Am 9:11; Mal 3:4).
The sense given to the use of the word in a past context,
of ancient, indefinitely specified age (though not necessarily
infinite age) is actually the major sense of the word in
a current and future context as well. _The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-
Gesenius Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon_, pages 761-2 says the word
has the primary meaning,
"long duration, antiquity, futurity"
and then has the following specific, contextual meanings
(as a masculine noun):
1. of past time:
a. ancient time ... days of old ... ancient people ...
old waste places ... ancient gates ... from of old ...
of the fathers ... the prophets ... the ancient ...
b. the long dead ...
c. of God ...: former acts ...; as redeemer ...; of
love .., judgment ..., dominion ..., long silence ...
d. of things: ... ancient hills ...
e. pl. ... years of ancient times ...; ... in olden times.
2.
a. indef. futurity, [with] prep[osition] for ever,
always ([sometimes]=during the lifetime), ... slave for
ever ... serve forever ... may the king live always ...
I will sing forever (for as long as I live)
b.=continuous existence. (1) of things ... (2) of
nations ... (3) families ... (4) national relations ...
c. of divine existence ...
d. of God's covenant ...
e. of God's laws ...
f. of God's promises ...
g. of relationships between God and his people ...
h. of Messianic dynasty and king ...
i. =indefinite, unending future ... the prophets,
can they live forever? ..
j. after death ...
k. =age (duration) of the world ...
... (a couple more omited)
I left out a lot of Hebrew words and specific citations,
quoting the English words to give the gist of the senses
and contexts in which the word is found.
The Septuagint (LXX) often translates the word as
aion/aionios (in various grammatical forms). According
to Kittel's _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_,
the Greek word _aion_ has, in the Bible, "the Sense of
Prolonged Time or Eternity" (Vol. 1, p. 198 -- that is
the bold heading title below which the following quote
comes). Regarding LXX usage, the TDNT says:
The LXX uses aion to translate different Hebrew terms,
among which the most important are ohlam and 'ad. While
aion always contains the idea of a prolongation of time,
in the first instance ohlam means only hidden or distant
time belonging to the remote and inscrutable past or
future from the standpoint of the present. The chronological
distance is relative. ... Only at a later time (demonstrably
after Deutero-Isaiah does ohlam begin to have the sense
of endless time or eternity in the true since. (pp. 197-8)
What the above means is that the word doesn't specifically
mean eternal, or everlasting, as in never ending, but instead
that the duration is very long, and unspecified. It *could*
be forever, or it could just be a very long (long, long) time.
As I mentioned above, most translations do seem to follow
the KJV and render the word (when in a future sense) as
forever, everlasting, or perpetual, but one (19th century)
translation uses the more literal phrase
"age-abiding" (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible)
in nearly every case (and in every case of the verses
you supply).
Additionally, a modern Jewish Bible, _The Five Books of
Moses_, by E. Fox, renders _olam_ as "for the ages" in
the first 3 of your citations:
Gen 17:7 - "for the ages"
Ex 31:16 - "for the ages"
Lev 24:8 - "for the ages"
(Num 25:13 - "everlasting"; Deut 4:31-2 - not applicable.)
The NWT (which I know you automatically dismiss out of hand)
uses the phrase "to time indefinite", to capture the more
general flavor of the Hebrew word. Again, that word could,
at times, mean forever, but in many cases (most) it more
properly only means time of a long, unspecified duration,
for many "ages", perhaps.
Thus, that the Mosaic Law covenant was ohlam doesn't
specifically mean that it truly was everlasting, and
forever, but only that it was for a long duration (which
it was). The NT declares that it is now obsolete, and
was 'nailed to the cross,'and thus taken away (from
applying to Christians).
>
> There's a lot more, but I haven't time to go through the whole Bible word
> search for
> COVENANT. I would say God's covenants tend to have a fixed term,
> EVERLASTING.
Not every mention of the word covenant (even of
the ones you have cited) applies only to, or specifically
to, the Mosaic Law.
Those covenants have the fixed Hebrew term, ohlam, which,
in reality, doesn't specifically mean "everlasting" (despite
being so translated by many), but more generally means
of long, unspecified duration, particularly in writings
prior to Isaiah.
I'm sure there is more, but that's all I have time for.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
The scriptures below were meant to show that there is a pattern to God's
covenants. That they are everlasting. Now you may be able to rationalize
that everlasting doesn't mean ever lasting, I'm not convinced.
Like I said, adopting Pagan practices in order to attract Pagans started
much earlier than the WT claims. Acts 15 is a good example of that. You
can add to that, observing the first day of the week, our SUN DAY (the sun
god's day), as a special observance.
I'm saying that if you believe the Bible is the word of God, you should do
what God has commanded you to do.
You don't have boxes at the back of the hall to collect OFFERINGS?
Reading about the Pharisees earlier, I thought they were fanatics about
keeping tract of the priesthood.
It's late. Let me say this.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."
Put them together and it's obvious. Not one jot or one tittle has passed
from the law so far.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
"Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
news:cc283483.03080...@posting.google.com...
Mark Sornson
> As interesting as you explanations are, I think you missed my point, Mark.
> The scriptures below were meant to show that there is a pattern to God's
> covenants. That they are everlasting. Now you may be able to rationalize
> that everlasting doesn't mean ever lasting, I'm not convinced.
OK, I see your point, Terry. In fact, I appreciate your
effort in supplying those Scriptures (from the KJV), since
they helped me see the basis for your view. If you stick
with the KJV alone, and perhaps Strong, which doesn't give
information/explanations that departs too far from the KJV
itself, your view will stay fixed as it is.
However, my point is that the meaning of the Hebrew
which the KJV renders as "everlasting" isn't as
limited as the English word everlasting (meaning
never ending). As I showed from various sources,
while the application *may* be everlasting, in other
cases, the word only means 'of long, indefinite duration.'
Depending on the situation, indefinite could be
extended to forever, but in other cases, it could
have an end (however far off in the future that end
might be).
The first example that you cited, that of the Abrahamic
covenant, of Gen 17, is a perfect example of a covenant
that is labled as "everlasting" by the KJV (and
similarly-reading translations) which is NOT, in fact,
never ending.
The proof of that, which I already mentioned, is that
the Abrahamic covenant required those in it to be
circumcised. Official policy among Christians, however,
was that circumcision was no longer a requirement
for those who put their faith in Jesus Christ. It
was the implicit point of the ruling recorded in
Acts 15, and it was a point that Paul expounded upon
at length. Romans 2-4 is a lengthy argument with
proof that the need to be circumcised was at an end.
If the need to be circumcised was at an end, it
is implicit that the Abrahamic covenant had now
come to an end, having completed its purpose.
Hence, it wasn't an "everlasting" covenant, but an
'age-abiding' one -- one that lasted a long time,
for many 'ages' of human history.
> Like I said, adopting Pagan practices in order to attract Pagans started
> much earlier than the WT claims.
I don't know which particular claim you are
refering to. When do you say the WT says the
practice of adopting pagan practices began?
[It is clear from the OT that the Israelites
began adopting pagan practices even before
Moses finished receiving the 10 commandments.]
> Acts 15 is a good example of that. You
> can add to that, observing the first day of the week, our SUN DAY (the sun
> god's day), as a special observance.
As far as I can tell, Acts 15 doesn't say anything
about giving the OK to pagan practices. All it really
does is give the OK for Gentile Christians NOT to be
bound to the entire Mosaic Law, but only a handful of
principles that are fundamental to true worship, even
from times before the Law.
Acts 15 certainly doesn't say anything about Christians
adopting SUN DAY as a day of worship. I don't
disagree, however, that they may have adopted it because
a) they had already given up the Jewish sabbath, and
b) they felt they had to compete with or compensate for
pagan practices (such as having specific days set aside
for worship).
> I'm saying that if you believe the Bible is the word of God, you should do
> what God has commanded you to do.
OK -- I do believe I should do what God has commanded
me to do. But I believe that is is NOT commanding me
to follow all the precepts of the Mosaic Law, which he
only commanded pre-Christian Jews to follow. I believe
he is now commanding me to follow the commands and
principles of the New Testament, which both implicitly
and explicitly set aside many of the laws from the Mosaic
Law as "obsolete".
Are you saying that you know what God has commanded me
to do?
> You don't have boxes at the back of the hall to collect OFFERINGS?
What's that have to do with anything?
Even the temple had boxes for voluntary offerings
(such as the so-called "widow's mite" which Jesus
observed being dropped in by a poor widow).
> Reading about the Pharisees earlier, I thought they were fanatics about
> keeping tract of the priesthood.
The Pharisees were not priests. The Sadducees were.
The Pharisees were self-appointed leaders and teachers
(meaning their positions weren't established by the
Mosaic Law like the priesthood was).
The Pharisees also didn't see eye-to-eye with the
priests on everything.
Whether or not they were "fanatics about keeping
track of the priesthood" isn't something I'd ever
given thought to before. As far as I can tell,
Jesus usually singled them out for being fanatics
about keeping small details of the Law (such as
tithing a tenth of small herbs) while forgetting
major principles underlying the Law (like mercy and
justice).
> It's late. Let me say this.
> Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
> one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
See Matt 5:17, and Luke 24:44.
> In another tread I saw.
> Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
> heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."
> Put them together and it's obvious. Not one jot or one tittle has passed
> from the law so far.
But, according to you in another reply, the requirement
(in the Law) to give sacrifices has now passed away.
Those requirements (spelled out at considerable length)
are more than "one jot or one tittle".
-mark.
Terry/Anti
If we believe Jesus was who he claimed he was, we should believe what he
said. If Paul contradicts what Jesus said, I think any thing Paul says
should be ignored.
> > Like I said, adopting Pagan practices in order to attract Pagans started
> > much earlier than the WT claims.
>
> I don't know which particular claim you are
> refering to. When do you say the WT says the
> practice of adopting pagan practices began?
> [It is clear from the OT that the Israelites
> began adopting pagan practices even before
> Moses finished receiving the 10 commandments.]
>
I was talking about Christians. Paul's talking the original disciples into
eliminating certain laws to attract gentiles is an example.
> > Acts 15 is a good example of that.
You
> > can add to that, observing the first day of the week, our SUN DAY (the
sun
> > god's day), as a special observance.
>
> As far as I can tell, Acts 15 doesn't say anything
> about giving the OK to pagan practices.
Retaining their foreskin wasn't a pagan practice?
All it really
> does is give the OK for Gentile Christians NOT to be
> bound to the entire Mosaic Law, but only a handful of
> principles that are fundamental to true worship, even
> from times before the Law.
>
> Acts 15 certainly doesn't say anything about Christians
> adopting SUN DAY as a day of worship.
No, you did.
I don't
> disagree, however, that they may have adopted it because
> a) they had already given up the Jewish sabbath, and
> b) they felt they had to compete with or compensate for
> pagan practices (such as having specific days set aside
> for worship).
>
Did Jesus give up the Jewish Sabbath? Did he tell anyone to give up the
Jewish Sabbath?
>
> > I'm saying that if you believe the Bible is the word of God, you should
do
> > what God has commanded you to do.
>
> OK -- I do believe I should do what God has commanded
> me to do. But I believe that is is NOT commanding me
> to follow all the precepts of the Mosaic Law, which he
> only commanded pre-Christian Jews to follow. I believe
> he is now commanding me to follow the commands and
> principles of the New Testament, which both implicitly
> and explicitly set aside many of the laws from the Mosaic
> Law as "obsolete".
>
> Are you saying that you know what God has commanded me
> to do?
>
In certain cases, yes.
> > You don't have boxes at the back of the hall to collect OFFERINGS?
>
> What's that have to do with anything?
>
Heave offerings.
> Even the temple had boxes for voluntary offerings
> (such as the so-called "widow's mite" which Jesus
> observed being dropped in by a poor widow).
>
> > Reading about the Pharisees earlier, I thought they were fanatics about
> > keeping tract of the priesthood.
>
> The Pharisees were not priests. The Sadducees were.
> The Pharisees were self-appointed leaders and teachers
> (meaning their positions weren't established by the
> Mosaic Law like the priesthood was).
>
> The Pharisees also didn't see eye-to-eye with the
> priests on everything.
>
> Whether or not they were "fanatics about keeping
> track of the priesthood" isn't something I'd ever
> given thought to before. As far as I can tell,
> Jesus usually singled them out for being fanatics
> about keeping small details of the Law (such as
> tithing a tenth of small herbs) while forgetting
> major principles underlying the Law (like mercy and
> justice).
>
Well that explains allot. Wasn't Paul a Pharisee?
>
> > It's late. Let me say this.
> > Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or
> > one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
>
> See Matt 5:17, and Luke 24:44.
>
> > In another tread I saw.
> > Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
> > heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more
sea."
> > Put them together and it's obvious. Not one jot or one tittle has
passed
> > from the law so far.
>
> But, according to you in another reply, the requirement
> (in the Law) to give sacrifices has now passed away.
> Those requirements (spelled out at considerable length)
> are more than "one jot or one tittle".
>
> -mark.
Christ is sacrificed at every Catholic Mass. Heave offerings are made at
every church I know of.
Terry/Anti
> "Terry/Anti" <Grandp...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<rcqWa.1457$GN6...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>...
>
> > > Why is it that you aren't sure these other things are
> > > the word of God, but you are sure that the laws on
> > > no-interest-loans are? [The law on not charging interest
> > > to fellow Jews isn't even one of the 10 commandments.]
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure the laws on no-interest-loans are. If you and the WT
believe
> > they are, you should follow them.
>
> If the laws in the Pentateuch on no-interest loans
> between Jews are not the word of God, then whose word
> are they?
>
Whoever dreamed them up and put them in the Pentateuch.
> I and other JWs believe they were the word of God
> for Jews under the Law. Since we do not believe they
> apply to Christians (whether Jewish or non-Jewish),
> because the Mosaic Law, or 'old covenant', has been
> made obsolete by the 'new covenant', I'd say that
> we're just as free as you are to disregard them.
>
I do not believe the old covenant has been made obsolete.
> > > Since you feel man still needs a law not to take God's
> > > name in vain, am I correct to assume that you believe
> > > that the penalty in the Mosaic Law (death) should also
> > > still apply to those who do so?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I think, "Thus they didn't need another law" makes my point. The ten
> > Commandments still stand.
>
> So, does that mean that the death penalty for
> breaking a good number of the 10 commandments also
> still stands? If so, who should be meting out death
> to those who break the 10 commandments? [After
> all, how can a law stand if the punishment for
> breaking the law does not?]
>
You may get away with breaking the commandments in this life, but you will
be judged and appropriately rewarded in the next.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that you aren't sure if the command to
> > > Noah to build an ark really is (or was) the word of God?
> > > If so, is that because you believe the story of Noah
> > > and the ark is a myth, a fiction?
> > >
> > > If, for the sake of argument, you could be convinced
> > > that God really did tell Noah to build an ark, would
> > > that then mean that you have to build an ark (because
> > > that command was the word of God)?
> > >
> >
> >
> > The command to Noah was a command to Noah.
>
> Agreed.
>
> The Mosaic Law was a set of commands for Israelites.
> I'm neither an Israelite or a Jew by conversion.
> Thus, why does the Mosaic Law apply to me?
>
Are you sure that way back in you have no Jewish ancestors. Are you sure
your not from one of the lost tribes?
> > > The law says they "must not" eat certain animals, period.
> > > Even if there were health benefits, the law doesn't give
> > > health as the reason for the law. The law only said
> > > that those animals are unclean and loathsome. There
> > > was no "should" -- the law said 'must.'
> > >
> >
> > They are not laws. Why do you think some animals are unclean? Because
they
> > are unhealthy.
>
> To Jews, they were laws. In fact, to Jews, they still
> are laws that they feel required to observe.
>
> According to the vision given to Peter in Acts
> 10:9-16, the designation of certain animals as
> being unclean has now been lifted (for Christians --
> though it wasn't the major point of the vision).
>
That vision had nothing to do with Peter eating unclean animals. It was God
convincing Peter that gentiles could become Christians. Since Acts are the
work of Paul, I tend to disregard them.
>
> > > Your wife is a JW, and you apparantly have little interest
> > > in listening to her (religious views -- I hope you listen to
> > > her on all other matters). You only have yourself to blame for
> > > refusing to listen to JWs who might be able to teach you
> > > more about the Bible.
> > >
> >
> >
> > We try to stay away from discussing things that lead to dissention.
>
> Well, that means that you only have yourself to blame
> for staying away from discussions that might increase
> your knowledge of the Bible (even if is only about
> relatively trivial things like the requirement for Jews
> to wear a blue fringe along the bottom of their garments).
>
You JWs would love to have us get into a battle and get divorced, wouldn't
you?
I have in the past called Paul a con man.
First I need to know of one that uses their church as a distribution center
like the WT does.
> [Speaking of companies, however, it's not unusual for
> a subsidiary of a company to have to pay its own way
> out of its independantly mananaged funds.]
>
> > But that's the least of the reasons I believe they should be erased.
>
> Lucky for us that Jehovah God isn't making you our
> judge, then, eh?
>
> >
> >
> > > > > Have you ever violated the sabbath (on purpose or by
> > > > > accident)? If so, then why are you still alive? The
> > > > > penalty for sabbath breaking was death.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I'll get my reward? in my second life.
> > >
> > > Would that be a positive or negative reward?
> > >
> >
> > What do YOU think?
>
> It doesn't matter what *I* think about your chances,
> for what I think doesn't really affect the reality of
> your spiritual standing before God and Christ. It
> only matters what you think.
>
> Basically I was trying to figure out what you were
> talking about. If you don't want to tell me, however,
> that's OK.
>
> -mark.
You may get away with something in this life, but in the next life at final
judgment you will get your just reward.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:cc283483.0308...@posting.google.com...
> > "Terry/Anti" <Grandp...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<rcqWa.1457$GN6...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> >
> > > > Why is it that you aren't sure these other things are
> > > > the word of God, but you are sure that the laws on
> > > > no-interest-loans are? [The law on not charging interest
> > > > to fellow Jews isn't even one of the 10 commandments.]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure the laws on no-interest-loans are. If you and the WT
> believe
> > > they are, you should follow them.
> >
> > If the laws in the Pentateuch on no-interest loans
> > between Jews are not the word of God, then whose word
> > are they?
> >
>
> Whoever dreamed them up and put them in the Pentateuch.
In that case, everything in the Pentateuch could
have been simply dreamed up by men. Thus, there's
no special merit in following only the 10 Commandments,
since they too could be just as suspect as all the
other laws that you choose to disregard as having
been dreamed up.
On what basis do you decide which parts of the Pentateuch
have been "dreamed up", and which ones were truly given
by God?
>
> > I and other JWs believe they were the word of God
> > for Jews under the Law. Since we do not believe they
> > apply to Christians (whether Jewish or non-Jewish),
> > because the Mosaic Law, or 'old covenant', has been
> > made obsolete by the 'new covenant', I'd say that
> > we're just as free as you are to disregard them.
> >
>
> I do not believe the old covenant has been made obsolete.
Then you do not believe the NT.
In reality, you believe parts of the old covenant have
been made obsolete, because you have already admitted
that sacrifices are no longer required.
>
> > > > Since you feel man still needs a law not to take God's
> > > > name in vain, am I correct to assume that you believe
> > > > that the penalty in the Mosaic Law (death) should also
> > > > still apply to those who do so?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think, "Thus they didn't need another law" makes my point. The ten
> > > Commandments still stand.
> >
> > So, does that mean that the death penalty for
> > breaking a good number of the 10 commandments also
> > still stands? If so, who should be meting out death
> > to those who break the 10 commandments? [After
> > all, how can a law stand if the punishment for
> > breaking the law does not?]
> >
>
> You may get away with breaking the commandments in this life, but you will
> be judged and appropriately rewarded in the next.
But if the commandments were simply "dreamed up" by man,
there is no penalty except from man, right?
>
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that you aren't sure if the command to
> > > > Noah to build an ark really is (or was) the word of God?
> > > > If so, is that because you believe the story of Noah
> > > > and the ark is a myth, a fiction?
> > > >
> > > > If, for the sake of argument, you could be convinced
> > > > that God really did tell Noah to build an ark, would
> > > > that then mean that you have to build an ark (because
> > > > that command was the word of God)?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The command to Noah was a command to Noah.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > The Mosaic Law was a set of commands for Israelites.
> > I'm neither an Israelite or a Jew by conversion.
> > Thus, why does the Mosaic Law apply to me?
> >
>
> Are you sure that way back in you have no Jewish ancestors. Are you sure
> your not from one of the lost tribes?
Are you saying that you believe you are from one of
the lost tribes?
Is this your basis for concluding that everyone is under
the old covenant, that they might be descended from the lost
tribes, so they'd better follow the old covenant just in case?
>
> > > > The law says they "must not" eat certain animals, period.
> > > > Even if there were health benefits, the law doesn't give
> > > > health as the reason for the law. The law only said
> > > > that those animals are unclean and loathsome. There
> > > > was no "should" -- the law said 'must.'
> > > >
> > >
> > > They are not laws. Why do you think some animals are unclean? Because
> they
> > > are unhealthy.
> >
> > To Jews, they were laws. In fact, to Jews, they still
> > are laws that they feel required to observe.
> >
> > According to the vision given to Peter in Acts
> > 10:9-16, the designation of certain animals as
> > being unclean has now been lifted (for Christians --
> > though it wasn't the major point of the vision).
> >
>
> That vision had nothing to do with Peter eating unclean animals. It was God
> convincing Peter that gentiles could become Christians. Since Acts are the
> work of Paul, I tend to disregard them.
I agree that the major point was to help Peter appreciate
that Gentiles could become Christian. But the point of
the vision would have lost its significance if the restriction
on eating unclean animals had not been canceled.
To Jews, Gentiles were "unclean", which is why they
didn't share fellowship with them unless the individuals
fully converted to Judaism (as proselytes). If the
vision didn't really declare unclean animals to be clean,
then it didn't really declare unclean Gentiles to be clean.
You can't have one without the other.
The book of Acts was NOT written by Paul. It was written
by Luke.
>
> >
> > > > Your wife is a JW, and you apparantly have little interest
> > > > in listening to her (religious views -- I hope you listen to
> > > > her on all other matters). You only have yourself to blame for
> > > > refusing to listen to JWs who might be able to teach you
> > > > more about the Bible.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We try to stay away from discussing things that lead to dissention.
> >
> > Well, that means that you only have yourself to blame
> > for staying away from discussions that might increase
> > your knowledge of the Bible (even if is only about
> > relatively trivial things like the requirement for Jews
> > to wear a blue fringe along the bottom of their garments).
> >
>
> You JWs would love to have us get into a battle and get divorced, wouldn't
> you?
Terry, I'm really saddened if you truly believe this.
I won't speak for all JWs on this, but only for myself,
that I'd only love that you were able to have in-depth
conversations with your wife about spiritual things
that lead to a strengthening of your relationship, not
a dividing of it.
If JWs really would love you to get divorced, then your
own wife surely would have egged you on to such battles
so that she'd have an excuse to dump you. But she hasn't
has she?
> [big snip of quotes]
> > The NT, particularly the writings of Paul (whom
> > Jesus Christ hand-picked) make it clear that the
> > Jewish Christians understood that the Mosaic Law
> > was no longer in force and binding upon them.
> > Are you calling them (such as Paul) liars?
> >
>
> I have in the past called Paul a con man.
Now that you mention it, I recall that you have.
Just because you say it doesn't mean it is so.
Perhaps you are conning yourself instead.
> > Please give me an example of a church whose central
> > organzation pays for the construction of all local
> > churches along the same model you propose, that they
> > are like a company expanding their business.
> >
>
> First I need to know of one that uses their church as a distribution center
> like the WT does.
Kingdom Halls are education centers.
Have you ever been inside a Kingdom Hall?
> [more quote snips]
> > It doesn't matter what *I* think about your chances,
> > for what I think doesn't really affect the reality of
> > your spiritual standing before God and Christ. It
> > only matters what you think.
> >
> > Basically I was trying to figure out what you were
> > talking about. If you don't want to tell me, however,
> > that's OK.
> >
> > -mark.
>
> You may get away with something in this life, but in the next life at final
> judgment you will get your just reward.
And what is the "just reward" for those who think
they are getting away with something in this life?
-mark.
Mark Sornson
Jesus didn't say the Mosiac Law was an everlasting
covenant.
He did, however, say that he was going to fulfill
the Law, and that heaven and earth would not pass
away until he did.
Paul doesn't contradict Jesus.
You are ignoring Paul according to your personal whim.
>
> > > Like I said, adopting Pagan practices in order to attract Pagans started
> > > much earlier than the WT claims.
> >
> > I don't know which particular claim you are
> > refering to. When do you say the WT says the
> > practice of adopting pagan practices began?
> > [It is clear from the OT that the Israelites
> > began adopting pagan practices even before
> > Moses finished receiving the 10 commandments.]
> >
>
> I was talking about Christians. Paul's talking the original disciples into
> eliminating certain laws to attract gentiles is an example.
Paul didn't talk the original disciples into
anything. They met in council, and after they
made their collective decision, stated to all
that they believed that holy spirit also
backed their decision to not trouble the Gentiles
with having to observe the ceremonial features
of the Law.
Peter was the first speaker, followed by Barnabas
and Paul, which James concluding. Paul was involved,
by relating the signs and wonders performed by himself
and Barnabas among the nations, but he didn't twist
anyone's arm. Plus Paul had Barnabas with him, who
was a disciple prior to Paul becoming one.
>
> > > Acts 15 is a good example of that.
> You
> > > can add to that, observing the first day of the week, our SUN DAY (the
> sun
> > > god's day), as a special observance.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, Acts 15 doesn't say anything
> > about giving the OK to pagan practices.
>
> Retaining their foreskin wasn't a pagan practice?
Um ... in case you hadn't noticed, males are born
with a foreskin attached. Assuming that you might
happen to believe that God created man, and thus
has something to do with the state of development
of babies when they are born, unless you are saying
that God is a pagan, keeping one's foreskin is NOT
a "pagan practice" any more than keeping all of
one's other body parts are.
Abraham was a man of faith LONG before God made the
covenant with him that involved him getting circumcised.
He didn't suddenly convert from paganism at the
instant he was circumcised.
Abel, Enoch, and Noah were all men who had true faith
in God before the Abrahamic covenant was established.
They were all uncircumcised, and they were not "pagan."
[Side note: some pagans did practice circumcision.]
>
> All it really
> > does is give the OK for Gentile Christians NOT to be
> > bound to the entire Mosaic Law, but only a handful of
> > principles that are fundamental to true worship, even
> > from times before the Law.
> >
> > Acts 15 certainly doesn't say anything about Christians
> > adopting SUN DAY as a day of worship.
>
> No, you did.
I did mention SUN DAY being adopted by Christians, but
not in the context of Acts 15. As far as I know, that
was a post-Biblical change (or, at the very least, a
non-Biblical change that isn't mentioned in the NT).
Sorry if I wasn't clear, and caused you to misunderstand me.
>
> I don't
> > disagree, however, that they may have adopted it because
> > a) they had already given up the Jewish sabbath, and
> > b) they felt they had to compete with or compensate for
> > pagan practices (such as having specific days set aside
> > for worship).
> >
>
> Did Jesus give up the Jewish Sabbath? Did he tell anyone to give up the
> Jewish Sabbath?
Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew, while the Mosaic
Law was still fully binding upon all Jews.
As he said, he didn't come to destroy the Law, but
to fulfill it.
Fullfilling the Law, and thus bringing its purpose to an
end, isn't the same thing as destroying it, any more than
fullfilling the terms of a business contract (say, to
deliver on certain goods) means the contract is 'destroyed'
when all of its terms are completed.
You ask, did he tell anyone to give up the Jewish Sabbath?
Well, did he tell anyone to stop making sacrifices at the
temple? I don't see any evidence that he did. Yet you
feel that it's OK to no longer sacrifice. What's the basis
for your conclusion, since Jesus himself never explicitly
told people to stop sacrificing according to the Law?
>
> >
> > > I'm saying that if you believe the Bible is the word of God, you should
> do
> > > what God has commanded you to do.
> >
> > OK -- I do believe I should do what God has commanded
> > me to do. But I believe that is is NOT commanding me
> > to follow all the precepts of the Mosaic Law, which he
> > only commanded pre-Christian Jews to follow. I believe
> > he is now commanding me to follow the commands and
> > principles of the New Testament, which both implicitly
> > and explicitly set aside many of the laws from the Mosaic
> > Law as "obsolete".
> >
> > Are you saying that you know what God has commanded me
> > to do?
> >
>
> In certain cases, yes.
And how do you know that? What guarantees that your
opinion is right and mine is wrong?
>
> > > You don't have boxes at the back of the hall to collect OFFERINGS?
> >
> > What's that have to do with anything?
> >
>
> Heave offerings.
"Heave offerings" (KJV) were food offerings that were eaten.
The boxes at Kingdom Halls are for voluntary donations of money
that are not eaten, but which are for expenses (immediate and
future).
>
> > Even the temple had boxes for voluntary offerings
> > (such as the so-called "widow's mite" which Jesus
> > observed being dropped in by a poor widow).
> >
> > > Reading about the Pharisees earlier, I thought they were fanatics about
> > > keeping tract of the priesthood.
> >
> > The Pharisees were not priests. The Sadducees were.
> > The Pharisees were self-appointed leaders and teachers
> > (meaning their positions weren't established by the
> > Mosaic Law like the priesthood was).
> >
> > The Pharisees also didn't see eye-to-eye with the
> > priests on everything.
> >
> > Whether or not they were "fanatics about keeping
> > track of the priesthood" isn't something I'd ever
> > given thought to before. As far as I can tell,
> > Jesus usually singled them out for being fanatics
> > about keeping small details of the Law (such as
> > tithing a tenth of small herbs) while forgetting
> > major principles underlying the Law (like mercy and
> > justice).
> >
>
> Well that explains allot. Wasn't Paul a Pharisee?
At the time Jesus Christ appeared to him while he
was on the road to Damascus, yes.
Since his being a Pharisee at the time didn't bother
Jesus, why should it bother you?
Also, Paul didn't continue to practice Pharisaism
after his encounter with Jesus Christ.
>
> >
> > > It's late. Let me say this.
> > > Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
> or
> > > one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> >
> > See Matt 5:17, and Luke 24:44.
> >
> > > In another tread I saw.
> > > Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
> > > heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more
> sea."
> > > Put them together and it's obvious. Not one jot or one tittle has
> passed
> > > from the law so far.
> >
> > But, according to you in another reply, the requirement
> > (in the Law) to give sacrifices has now passed away.
> > Those requirements (spelled out at considerable length)
> > are more than "one jot or one tittle".
> >
> > -mark.
>
> Christ is sacrificed at every Catholic Mass. Heave offerings are made at
> every church I know of.
I suppose that if you are Roman Catholic, that has
meaning for you, since Roman Catholics believe that the
wine and wafer actually become Jesus' blood and body.
But in that case, you are drinking blood, and that
is against the law of Noah, against the Law of Moses,
and against the Christian law at Acts 15, which
enjoined Gentiles to observe the prohibitions on blood.
[Besides, Jesus isn't literally killed each mass, as
he was literally killed by the Romans.]
What, to you, is a "heave offering" that is made at
every church you know of. Assuming that you know of
non-Catholic churches, they don't sacrific Christ at
every mass, do they? for only the Catholic Church
teaches transubstantiation.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
You seem to be having a problem with the order of the things that are to
happen. Heaven and earth have to pass first before the law would change.
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law"
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the
first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."
The seas are still with us. Logic tells me the first heaven and the first
earth haven't passed away yet. Therefore nothing, contrary to Paul, in the
old law has changed.
> You are ignoring Paul according to your personal whim.
>
I'm ignoring Paul because he contradicts Jesus.
You don't think there was any discussion before the council?
> >
> > > > Acts 15 is a good example of that.
> > You
> > > > can add to that, observing the first day of the week, our SUN DAY
(the
> > sun
> > > > god's day), as a special observance.
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell, Acts 15 doesn't say anything
> > > about giving the OK to pagan practices.
> >
> > Retaining their foreskin wasn't a pagan practice?
>
> Um ... in case you hadn't noticed, males are born
> with a foreskin attached. Assuming that you might
> happen to believe that God created man, and thus
> has something to do with the state of development
> of babies when they are born, unless you are saying
> that God is a pagan, keeping one's foreskin is NOT
> a "pagan practice" any more than keeping all of
> one's other body parts are.
>
> Abraham was a man of faith LONG before God made the
> covenant with him that involved him getting circumcised.
> He didn't suddenly convert from paganism at the
> instant he was circumcised.
>
Retaining one's foreskin was a concession to the gentiles to induce them to
be Christians.
Right, when all of its terms are completed.
> You ask, did he tell anyone to give up the Jewish Sabbath?
> Well, did he tell anyone to stop making sacrifices at the
> temple? I don't see any evidence that he did. Yet you
> feel that it's OK to no longer sacrifice. What's the basis
> for your conclusion, since Jesus himself never explicitly
> told people to stop sacrificing according to the Law?
>
What's the difference between a sacrifice and an offering? I assume you
made a weekly offering.
> >
> > >
> > > > I'm saying that if you believe the Bible is the word of God, you
should
> > do
> > > > what God has commanded you to do.
> > >
> > > OK -- I do believe I should do what God has commanded
> > > me to do. But I believe that is is NOT commanding me
> > > to follow all the precepts of the Mosaic Law, which he
> > > only commanded pre-Christian Jews to follow. I believe
> > > he is now commanding me to follow the commands and
> > > principles of the New Testament, which both implicitly
> > > and explicitly set aside many of the laws from the Mosaic
> > > Law as "obsolete".
> > >
> > > Are you saying that you know what God has commanded me
> > > to do?
> > >
> >
> > In certain cases, yes.
>
> And how do you know that? What guarantees that your
> opinion is right and mine is wrong?
>
My abilities to read and use logic.
> >
> > > > You don't have boxes at the back of the hall to collect OFFERINGS?
> > >
> > > What's that have to do with anything?
> > >
> >
> > Heave offerings.
>
> "Heave offerings" (KJV) were food offerings that were eaten.
>
> The boxes at Kingdom Halls are for voluntary donations of money
> that are not eaten, but which are for expenses (immediate and
> future).
>
I suppose the WT could collect canned goods and such instead of cash
(Cesar's), but that would be kind of unhandy.
It appears that he did.
Drinking blood had to do with the health laws. It had nothing to do with
drinking Christ's blood or transfusions.
> What, to you, is a "heave offering" that is made at
> every church you know of. Assuming that you know of
> non-Catholic churches, they don't sacrific Christ at
> every mass, do they? for only the Catholic Church
> teaches transubstantiation.
>
> -mark.
I don't know if any other churches practice transubstantiation. How about
Greek / Eastern orthodox? I understand that there is one Protestant
denomination that is very much like Roman Catholic. I don't know if they do
either.
I feel like we are repeating ourselves over and over. I think it's silly to
go on with this. Neither of us will change our views.
Terry/Anti
On the basis that I'm agnostic, I'm not sure that any of the Bible is the
word of God.
> >
> > > I and other JWs believe they were the word of God
> > > for Jews under the Law. Since we do not believe they
> > > apply to Christians (whether Jewish or non-Jewish),
> > > because the Mosaic Law, or 'old covenant', has been
> > > made obsolete by the 'new covenant', I'd say that
> > > we're just as free as you are to disregard them.
> > >
> >
> > I do not believe the old covenant has been made obsolete.
>
> Then you do not believe the NT.
>
Especially anything from Paul.
> In reality, you believe parts of the old covenant have
> been made obsolete, because you have already admitted
> that sacrifices are no longer required.
>
What's the difference between a sacrifice and an offering?
> >
> > > > > Since you feel man still needs a law not to take God's
> > > > > name in vain, am I correct to assume that you believe
> > > > > that the penalty in the Mosaic Law (death) should also
> > > > > still apply to those who do so?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think, "Thus they didn't need another law" makes my point. The
ten
> > > > Commandments still stand.
> > >
> > > So, does that mean that the death penalty for
> > > breaking a good number of the 10 commandments also
> > > still stands? If so, who should be meting out death
> > > to those who break the 10 commandments? [After
> > > all, how can a law stand if the punishment for
> > > breaking the law does not?]
> > >
> >
> > You may get away with breaking the commandments in this life, but you
will
> > be judged and appropriately rewarded in the next.
>
> But if the commandments were simply "dreamed up" by man,
> there is no penalty except from man, right?
>
Right.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you saying that you aren't sure if the command to
> > > > > Noah to build an ark really is (or was) the word of God?
> > > > > If so, is that because you believe the story of Noah
> > > > > and the ark is a myth, a fiction?
> > > > >
> > > > > If, for the sake of argument, you could be convinced
> > > > > that God really did tell Noah to build an ark, would
> > > > > that then mean that you have to build an ark (because
> > > > > that command was the word of God)?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The command to Noah was a command to Noah.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > The Mosaic Law was a set of commands for Israelites.
> > > I'm neither an Israelite or a Jew by conversion.
> > > Thus, why does the Mosaic Law apply to me?
> > >
> >
> > Are you sure that way back in you have no Jewish ancestors. Are you
sure
> > your not from one of the lost tribes?
>
> Are you saying that you believe you are from one of
> the lost tribes?
>
No, I have no idea if I am. I could be. You could be. Any ar all of us
could be.
> Is this your basis for concluding that everyone is under
> the old covenant, that they might be descended from the lost
> tribes, so they'd better follow the old covenant just in case?
>
>
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
>
> >
Yes you can.
> The book of Acts was NOT written by Paul. It was written
> by Luke.
>
As Paul's scribe.
> >
> > >
> > > > > Your wife is a JW, and you apparantly have little interest
> > > > > in listening to her (religious views -- I hope you listen to
> > > > > her on all other matters). You only have yourself to blame for
> > > > > refusing to listen to JWs who might be able to teach you
> > > > > more about the Bible.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We try to stay away from discussing things that lead to dissention.
> > >
> > > Well, that means that you only have yourself to blame
> > > for staying away from discussions that might increase
> > > your knowledge of the Bible (even if is only about
> > > relatively trivial things like the requirement for Jews
> > > to wear a blue fringe along the bottom of their garments).
> > >
> >
> > You JWs would love to have us get into a battle and get divorced,
wouldn't
> > you?
>
> Terry, I'm really saddened if you truly believe this.
>
> I won't speak for all JWs on this, but only for myself,
> that I'd only love that you were able to have in-depth
> conversations with your wife about spiritual things
> that lead to a strengthening of your relationship, not
> a dividing of it.
>
> If JWs really would love you to get divorced, then your
> own wife surely would have egged you on to such battles
> so that she'd have an excuse to dump you. But she hasn't
> has she?
>
No, she says I don't want to talk about it at the least disagreement.
> > [big snip of quotes]
>
> > > The NT, particularly the writings of Paul (whom
> > > Jesus Christ hand-picked) make it clear that the
> > > Jewish Christians understood that the Mosaic Law
> > > was no longer in force and binding upon them.
> > > Are you calling them (such as Paul) liars?
> > >
> >
> > I have in the past called Paul a con man.
>
> Now that you mention it, I recall that you have.
>
> Just because you say it doesn't mean it is so.
> Perhaps you are conning yourself instead.
>
> > > Please give me an example of a church whose central
> > > organzation pays for the construction of all local
> > > churches along the same model you propose, that they
> > > are like a company expanding their business.
> > >
> >
> > First I need to know of one that uses their church as a distribution
center
> > like the WT does.
>
> Kingdom Halls are education centers.
>
> Have you ever been inside a Kingdom Hall?
>
YES, once.
>
> > [more quote snips]
>
> > > It doesn't matter what *I* think about your chances,
> > > for what I think doesn't really affect the reality of
> > > your spiritual standing before God and Christ. It
> > > only matters what you think.
> > >
> > > Basically I was trying to figure out what you were
> > > talking about. If you don't want to tell me, however,
> > > that's OK.
> > >
> > > -mark.
> >
> > You may get away with something in this life, but in the next life at
final
> > judgment you will get your just reward.
>
> And what is the "just reward" for those who think
> they are getting away with something in this life?
>
> -mark.
It depends. It could be the second death.
Again, I think we are repeating ourselves with no chance of changing each
others minds.
Jennifer McPherson
(vomit).
And it costs money to keep the overseers of their 'flocks' happy.
They also spend it on court cases where parents are sued by hospitals
because they let their children
die instead of receive a blood transfusion. Although now, you can let you
or your kid get one, it's just 'between you and God' to sort it out. That's
some sick shit, huh?
"Frank" <Fr...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:3f11...@news.infowest.com...
> Im told by many of you, that the JW's rake in tons of bucks.. Im curious..
> where does it all go??
> They do nothing to serve or improve the communites, they dont feed the
> poor.. Their buildings look cheap and run down. Where does all the money
go?
> Is it all in a bank somewhere?
>
>
Lupe Lu
"Jennifer McPherson" <jenlmc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:de-dnX5-DJf...@giganews.com...
: They spend it sending JW's around the world to spread "the good news"
: (vomit).
** Correction. They pay only a few, and not much. The rest go at their own
expense believing they're doing some god's work and will be rewarded. The
WT puts out as little cash as possible.
: And it costs money to keep the overseers of their 'flocks' happy.
** Correction. Those I knew who went abroad PAID their own way and had to
work once in those countries. The WT did not support them or provide FREE
literature for them to peddle.
: They also spend it on court cases where parents are sued by hospitals
: because they let their children
: die instead of receive a blood transfusion.
** Money they could be using to start free clinics and schools in poor
countries. Now you can be sure a lot of their cash will go to victims of
their pedophiles.
Although now, you can let you
: or your kid get one, it's just 'between you and God' to sort it out.
That's
: some sick shit, huh?
** Look at how many they already killed with this mindless blood issue. It
is sick, and it's very sad as many were much too young to perish.
--
Iggyman......
Numbers 23:24 Here God tells them they will not lie down until they eat the
flesh of their prey and DRINK THE BLOOD OF THE SLAIN!!!!
What a nice, loving, forgiving er,... God. It's disgusting! :ÅŸ
---<---<---<---{@ ---<---<---<---<{@ ---<---<---<---{@ ---<---<--
Mark Sornson
[snipped quotes]
> You seem to be having a problem with the order of the things that are to
> happen. Heaven and earth have to pass first before the law would change.
With all due respect, Terry, I think you're mixing
prophesy with hyperbole.
> "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
> from the law"
Matthew.
> "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the
> first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."
Revelation.
There's a wide separation of context, here.
> The seas are still with us. Logic tells me the first heaven and the first
> earth haven't passed away yet. Therefore nothing, contrary to Paul, in the
> old law has changed.
Here's how Young's Literal Translation renders the verses
from Matthew (which you always only take one of):
17 `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or
the prophets -- I did not come to throw down, but
to fulfill;
18 for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and
the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not
pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass.
(Matt 5:17,18)
The overall point is that Jesus came to "fulfill" the law.
That is what was going to "come to pass".
Since, by his life and death, he fulfilled it, the law
could then pass away.
His expression 'till that the heaven and earth may pass
away' was rather like the effect of the expression 'till
hell freezes over' -- it's something that no one expects
to happen. In fact, if he had said:
'till hell freezes over, one iota or one tittle may
not pass away from the law, till that all may come to
pass,'
our familiarity with the idiomatic expression about
hell freezing over would make it clear the perceived
impossibility of the first would assure the second.
The first time the Bible talks about a new heaven and a
new earth is in Isaiah, which was written BEFORE the
destruction and depopulation of Judah by the Babylonians,
and was a prophetic assurance that after that prophesied
calamity took place, God would restore his people,
giving them a 'new heavens and new earth' by restoring
their theocratic nation and their land.
That first fulfillment foreshadows the greater fulfillment
when Christ rules the entire earth from heaven (hence,
the "new heavens") and restores the earth from the ruinous
effect of sinful man (the "new earth").
Our planet earth will never literally pass away, for the
Bible says:
"... the earth abideth for ever." (Eccl 1:4 KJV)
and:
"... The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool ..."
(Isa 66:1 KJV)
There is nothing wrong with the literal heavens of our
material universe and our planet, or the heavens that
make up the spirit realm where God resides. Being God's
"throne", they too will exist forever, like the literal
planet earth. However, a change of rulership is needed
and prophesied for the earth, that is of divine origin.
That is the "new heavens and new earth" of Revelation.
>
> > You are ignoring Paul according to your personal whim.
> >
>
> I'm ignoring Paul because he contradicts Jesus.
Please cite a clear example.
[snipped quotes]
> > Paul didn't talk the original disciples into
> > anything. They met in council, and after they
> > made their collective decision, stated to all
> > that they believed that holy spirit also
> > backed their decision to not trouble the Gentiles
> > with having to observe the ceremonial features
> > of the Law.
> >
> > Peter was the first speaker, followed by Barnabas
> > and Paul, which James concluding. Paul was involved,
> > by relating the signs and wonders performed by himself
> > and Barnabas among the nations, but he didn't twist
> > anyone's arm. Plus Paul had Barnabas with him, who
> > was a disciple prior to Paul becoming one.
> >
>
> You don't think there was any discussion before the council?
The Bible gives no record of it, so if there was such
discussion, we can draw no sustainable conclusions from
speculating on what such discussion might have been about.
The record in Acts of the actual council gives no evidence
that Paul 'ran away with it' and forced any of his private
views on the apostles and older men in attendance.
>
> > >
> > > > > Acts 15 is a good example of that.
> > > You
> > > > > can add to that, observing the first day of the week, our SUN DAY
> (the
> > > sun
> > > > > god's day), as a special observance.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can tell, Acts 15 doesn't say anything
> > > > about giving the OK to pagan practices.
> > >
> > > Retaining their foreskin wasn't a pagan practice?
> >
> > Um ... in case you hadn't noticed, males are born
> > with a foreskin attached. Assuming that you might
> > happen to believe that God created man, and thus
> > has something to do with the state of development
> > of babies when they are born, unless you are saying
> > that God is a pagan, keeping one's foreskin is NOT
> > a "pagan practice" any more than keeping all of
> > one's other body parts are.
> >
> > Abraham was a man of faith LONG before God made the
> > covenant with him that involved him getting circumcised.
> > He didn't suddenly convert from paganism at the
> > instant he was circumcised.
> >
>
> Retaining one's foreskin was a concession to the gentiles to induce them to
> be Christians.
From Adam to Abraham, no faithful man was circumcised.
Circumcision was a sign of the covenant Jehovah God made
with Abraham and his fleshly 'seed'. Christians became
Abraham's spiritual 'seed', the seed of the promise that
was made while Abraham was still uncircumcised. (That
is my summary of Paul's dissertation on the subject.)
Hence, circumcision was not necessary any longer.
It was not a mere concession to the gentiles introduced
by man, for the circumcision covenant made by God mandated
DEATH for those who broke it. Man alone had no authority
to recind either the covenant or the penalty for breaking
it.
[snips]
> >
> > Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew, while the Mosaic
> > Law was still fully binding upon all Jews.
> >
> > As he said, he didn't come to destroy the Law, but
> > to fulfill it.
> >
> > Fullfilling the Law, and thus bringing its purpose to an
> > end, isn't the same thing as destroying it, any more than
> > fullfilling the terms of a business contract (say, to
> > deliver on certain goods) means the contract is 'destroyed'
> > when all of its terms are completed.
> >
>
> Right, when all of its terms are completed.
The Law never predicted a new heavens and new earth.
The Law is Genesis-Deuteronomy. The prophesies
about a new heavens and new earth came well after the
Law, spoken of by Isaiah, Peter, and John (in Revelation).
Thus, it was not necessary for the earth and heavens
to pass away before it could be said that Jesus
fulfilled the Law.
>
> > You ask, did he tell anyone to give up the Jewish Sabbath?
> > Well, did he tell anyone to stop making sacrifices at the
> > temple? I don't see any evidence that he did. Yet you
> > feel that it's OK to no longer sacrifice. What's the basis
> > for your conclusion, since Jesus himself never explicitly
> > told people to stop sacrificing according to the Law?
> >
>
> What's the difference between a sacrifice and an offering? I assume you
> made a weekly offering.
The majority of sacrifices mandated by the Law required
the death and burning of animals, or the burning of
wheats and grains. They were primarily stipulated to
signify a request to God for forgiveness of sins. They
also had to be offered up at a fixed location (the temple),
and were to be given to a priest to be offered up.
Jesus' sacrifice did away with the need to offer sacrifices
for those reasons under those conditions.
My monetary offerings aren't 'sacrifices for sins' -- they
are simply my offerings to provide material support for
material needs of my congregation (and its parent organization).
> > > > Are you saying that you know what God has commanded me
> > > > to do?
> > > >
> > >
> > > In certain cases, yes.
> >
> > And how do you know that? What guarantees that your
> > opinion is right and mine is wrong?
> >
>
> My abilities to read and use logic.
But since you really aren't even sure that God exists,
how can you claim to logically know for sure what he
wants me to do? The priorities which you assign to the
assuredness of your opinions are backwards.
First be sure that you know that God exists and that
you truly know him. THEN you can be sure that you
know what his standards of right and wrong are.
If you DON'T truly know that God exists and know him,
what you are probably harboring is most likely just
your own opinion, as the product of your own imagination.
>
> > >
> > > > > You don't have boxes at the back of the hall to collect OFFERINGS?
> > > >
> > > > What's that have to do with anything?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Heave offerings.
> >
> > "Heave offerings" (KJV) were food offerings that were eaten.
> >
> > The boxes at Kingdom Halls are for voluntary donations of money
> > that are not eaten, but which are for expenses (immediate and
> > future).
> >
>
> I suppose the WT could collect canned goods and such instead of cash
> (Cesar's), but that would be kind of unhandy.
This sort of thing -- collecting material goods
to pass out as material charity -- is entirely different
than the purpose of giving sacrificial offerings according
to the Mosaic Law.
[snipped quotes]
> > Also, Paul didn't continue to practice Pharisaism
> > after his encounter with Jesus Christ.
> >
>
> It appears that he did.
And what leads you to that conclusion? As I read
Phil 3:4-11, it's clear that he put his Pharisism
behind him. In fact, in v.8, he classified his
former practices as "rubbish" (NIV, NASB), or
"dung" (KJV).
[snipped quotes]
> > I suppose that if you are Roman Catholic, that has
> > meaning for you, since Roman Catholics believe that the
> > wine and wafer actually become Jesus' blood and body.
> >
> > But in that case, you are drinking blood, and that
> > is against the law of Noah, against the Law of Moses,
> > and against the Christian law at Acts 15, which
> > enjoined Gentiles to observe the prohibitions on blood.
> > [Besides, Jesus isn't literally killed each mass, as
> > he was literally killed by the Romans.]
> >
>
> Drinking blood had to do with the health laws. It had nothing to do with
> drinking Christ's blood or transfusions.
I wasn't specifically trying to drag in anything having
to do with transfusions.
The Bible says clearly that the reason blood is prohibited
is that it represents the "soul" or "life" of the person,
and that God owns all life.
>
> > What, to you, is a "heave offering" that is made at
> > every church you know of. Assuming that you know of
> > non-Catholic churches, they don't sacrific Christ at
> > every mass, do they? for only the Catholic Church
> > teaches transubstantiation.
> >
> > -mark.
>
> I don't know if any other churches practice transubstantiation. How about
> Greek / Eastern orthodox? I understand that there is one Protestant
> denomination that is very much like Roman Catholic. I don't know if they do
> either.
The above notwithstanding, what, in your mind,
is a "heave offering"?
> I feel like we are repeating ourselves over and over. I think it's silly to
> go on with this. Neither of us will change our views.
I often learn something new in lengthy discussions
about the Bible, even if it is only as a result of
my own research.
I hope you aren't saying that you are unwilling to
learn anything new.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> > On what basis do you decide which parts of the Pentateuch
> > have been "dreamed up", and which ones were truly given
> > by God?
> >
>
> On the basis that I'm agnostic, I'm not sure that any of the Bible is the
> word of God.
So, that lends credibility to your interpretations
of the Bible how?
>
> > >
> > > > I and other JWs believe they were the word of God
> > > > for Jews under the Law. Since we do not believe they
> > > > apply to Christians (whether Jewish or non-Jewish),
> > > > because the Mosaic Law, or 'old covenant', has been
> > > > made obsolete by the 'new covenant', I'd say that
> > > > we're just as free as you are to disregard them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I do not believe the old covenant has been made obsolete.
> >
> > Then you do not believe the NT.
> >
>
> Especially anything from Paul.
So ... why should I believe anything from you?
>
> > In reality, you believe parts of the old covenant have
> > been made obsolete, because you have already admitted
> > that sacrifices are no longer required.
> >
>
> What's the difference between a sacrifice and an offering?
You tell me. You seem to believe that things like
animal sacrifices are no longer required for Christians.
But aren't those sacrifices offerings?
On what basis do justify claiming some offerings are no
longer necessary but others are?
> > But if the commandments were simply "dreamed up" by man,
> > there is no penalty except from man, right?
> >
>
> Right.
So ... things like commandments about keeping the sabbath
would really be arbitrary. Therefore, the only reason to
keep them would be to avoid grief you don't think you
could avoid if you didn't observe them.
To me, that sounds "follow only the rules you can't
get away with not following."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you sure that way back in you have no Jewish ancestors. Are you
> sure
> > > your not from one of the lost tribes?
> >
> > Are you saying that you believe you are from one of
> > the lost tribes?
> >
>
> No, I have no idea if I am. I could be. You could be. Any ar all of us
> could be.
And, so this utter unsurety is a basis for making
positive declarations on spiritual and/or moral
imperitives?
>
> > Is this your basis for concluding that everyone is under
> > the old covenant, that they might be descended from the lost
> > tribes, so they'd better follow the old covenant just in case?
> >
> >
>
> For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
> shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
See the other thread for my answer to this.
> > To Jews, Gentiles were "unclean", which is why they
> > didn't share fellowship with them unless the individuals
> > fully converted to Judaism (as proselytes). If the
> > vision didn't really declare unclean animals to be clean,
> > then it didn't really declare unclean Gentiles to be clean.
> >
> > You can't have one without the other.
> >
>
> Yes you can.
Why how nice -- a completely arbitrary set of rules.
>
> > The book of Acts was NOT written by Paul. It was written
> > by Luke.
> >
>
> As Paul's scribe.
When Paul wrote, he often identified his scribe.
Luke didn't say he was acting as Paul's scribe.
> > If JWs really would love you to get divorced, then your
> > own wife surely would have egged you on to such battles
> > so that she'd have an excuse to dump you. But she hasn't
> > has she?
> >
>
> No, she says I don't want to talk about it at the least disagreement.
So, that sounds like she doesn't want to talk about
things that would lead to even the least of disagreements
because she doesn't want them to turn into BIG
disagreements that would scuttle your marriage.
In reality, no other JWs want to break up your marriage,
either.
> > >
> > > First I need to know of one that uses their church as a distribution
> center
> > > like the WT does.
> >
> > Kingdom Halls are education centers.
> >
> > Have you ever been inside a Kingdom Hall?
> >
>
> YES, once.
The circumstance being ...?
> > > You may get away with something in this life, but in the next life at
> final
> > > judgment you will get your just reward.
> >
> > And what is the "just reward" for those who think
> > they are getting away with something in this life?
> >
> > -mark.
>
> It depends. It could be the second death.
> Again, I think we are repeating ourselves with no chance of changing each
> others minds.
You may not care what is on my mind, but I am learning
about what is on (and in) yours.
-mark.
Varicose Brain
wrote:
>> On the basis that I'm agnostic, I'm not sure that any of the Bible is the
>> word of God.
>
>So, that lends credibility to your interpretations
>of the Bible how?
...and what lends credibility to an interpretation from someone that
is Protestant, Lutheran, Baptist, or any one of the dozens of other
Christian offshoots, including the WT?
>> What's the difference between a sacrifice and an offering?
>
>You tell me. You seem to believe that things like
>animal sacrifices are no longer required for Christians.
>But aren't those sacrifices offerings?
>
>On what basis do justify claiming some offerings are no
>longer necessary but others are?
It would seem that sacrifices are mandated. Offerings are not.
>So ... things like commandments about keeping the sabbath
>would really be arbitrary. Therefore, the only reason to
>keep them would be to avoid grief you don't think you
>could avoid if you didn't observe them.
>
>To me, that sounds "follow only the rules you can't
>get away with not following."
You have some sort of problem with that? Not killing, not stealing,
not Lying - these are just common sense rules on how to treat people
and live in a civilized society. Other commandments applied to a
primitive culture that was superstitious about many things.
>> No, I have no idea if I am. I could be. You could be. Any ar all of us
>> could be.
>
>And, so this utter unsurety is a basis for making
>positive declarations on spiritual and/or moral
>imperitives?
I fail to see where the uncertainty of the religious beliefs of ones
ancestors is a logical basis for making moral/spiritual decisions.
Mark Sornson
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:49:49 GMT, Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> On the basis that I'm agnostic, I'm not sure that any of the Bible is the
> >> word of God.
> >
> >So, that lends credibility to your interpretations
> >of the Bible how?
>
> ...and what lends credibility to an interpretation from someone that
> is Protestant, Lutheran, Baptist, or any one of the dozens of other
> Christian offshoots, including the WT?
It's a question of 'framing'.
Earlier I asked Terry if he knew for sure what God
wanted for me, and (to paraphrase) he said 'in some
cases.' Given that he's not sure that God exists,
that's rather like someone asking me:
Do you know anything about the opinion of person X?
and me answering,
Yes, but I'm not actually sure that he exists.
If person X is non-existent, the whole question is moot.
If person X is a fictional character, while I might then
know the 'thoughts' that the author of the fiction has
put into his 'mouth', it's superfluous to talk about
those opinions having any binding force upon other people.
And if person X exists, but I doubt his existence,
in all likelihood, I don't know anything sure about his
opinions that are meaningful.
>
> >> What's the difference between a sacrifice and an offering?
> >
> >You tell me. You seem to believe that things like
> >animal sacrifices are no longer required for Christians.
> >But aren't those sacrifices offerings?
> >
> >On what basis do justify claiming some offerings are no
> >longer necessary but others are?
>
> It would seem that sacrifices are mandated. Offerings are not.
I was more interested in Terry's answer, since he
seems to have been equating the two.
>
> >So ... things like commandments about keeping the sabbath
> >would really be arbitrary. Therefore, the only reason to
> >keep them would be to avoid grief you don't think you
> >could avoid if you didn't observe them.
> >
> >To me, that sounds "follow only the rules you can't
> >get away with not following."
>
> You have some sort of problem with that? Not killing, not stealing,
> not Lying - these are just common sense rules on how to treat people
> and live in a civilized society. Other commandments applied to a
> primitive culture that was superstitious about many things.
Not killing, not stealing, not lying, I agree that they
are common sense rules.
But things like observing the sabbath -- making it mandatory
to take a day off, and to superimpose the death penalty for
not doing so -- if it was only a man-made rule, it seems
harder to justify than rules about NOT killing or lying
or stealing.
Yet sabbath-keeping is one of the highly-revered 10
Commandments that many people believe are binding upon
all people today.
Much earlier in this topic, the Law requiring Jews to
refrain from charging interest upon fellow Jews came
up. If the law only originated with men, it's a nice
"warm and fuzzy" kind of law, but Terry seemed to have
felt that that law was actually still binding upon
(even non-Jewish) 'believers' today.
>
> >> No, I have no idea if I am. I could be. You could be. Any ar all of us
> >> could be.
> >
> >And, so this utter unsurety is a basis for making
> >positive declarations on spiritual and/or moral
> >imperitives?
>
> I fail to see where the uncertainty of the religious beliefs of ones
> ancestors is a logical basis for making moral/spiritual decisions.
Again, Terry replied to me that he felt that he knew,
to a certain degree, what 'God wanted for me'. That
suggests a degree of moral and spiritual definitiveness
to me. But since he is actually unsure that God
exists, it just seems illogical for him to know for
sure what God wants.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
> Varicose Brain wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:49:49 GMT, Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com>
> > wrote:
snip
> >
> > >> What's the difference between a sacrifice and an offering?
> > >
> > >You tell me. You seem to believe that things like
> > >animal sacrifices are no longer required for Christians.
> > >But aren't those sacrifices offerings?
> > >
> > >On what basis do justify claiming some offerings are no
> > >longer necessary but others are?
> >
> > It would seem that sacrifices are mandated. Offerings are not.
>
> I was more interested in Terry's answer, since he
> seems to have been equating the two.
>
snip
>
> -mark.
I consider the two interchangeable. I'll take a look in Strong's later.
Terry/Anti
> Varicose Brain wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:49:49 GMT, Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com>
> > wrote:
> >
snip
>
> It's a question of 'framing'.
>
> Earlier I asked Terry if he knew for sure what God
> wanted for me, and (to paraphrase) he said 'in some
> cases.' Given that he's not sure that God exists,
> that's rather like someone asking me:
>
> Do you know anything about the opinion of person X?
>
> and me answering,
>
> Yes, but I'm not actually sure that he exists.
>
> If person X is non-existent, the whole question is moot.
> If person X is a fictional character, while I might then
> know the 'thoughts' that the author of the fiction has
> put into his 'mouth', it's superfluous to talk about
> those opinions having any binding force upon other people.
>
> And if person X exists, but I doubt his existence,
> in all likelihood, I don't know anything sure about his
> opinions that are meaningful.
>
snip
> -mark.
You never mentioned meaningful. I believe that in some cases I have been
taught a truer interpretation of the Bible than the WTs. Whether it is the
word of God or not does not prevent me from understanding the meaning.
Because you believe it is the word of God, it should be meaningful to you.
I'm just trying to help, Mark.
Terry/Anti
> Varicose Brain wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:49:49 GMT, Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com>
> > wrote:
Snip
Again, I don't think that I have to be sure that he exists to be able to
interpret what this real or fictitious God wants. How could anyone enjoy
fiction without the ability to interpret what the author is trying to say?
Terry/Anti
I'm satisfied that they can mean the same thing.
02077 zebach {zeh'-bakh}
from 02076; TWOT - 525a; n m
AV - sacrifice 155, offerings 6, offer 1; 162
1) sacrifice 1a) sacrifices of righteousness 1b) sacrifices of strife 1c)
sacrifices to dead things 1d) the covenant sacrifice 1e) the passover 1f)
annual sacrifice 1g) thank offering
Mark Sornson
>
> > And if person X exists, but I doubt his existence,
> > in all likelihood, I don't know anything sure about his
> > opinions that are meaningful.
> >
>
> snip
>
> > -mark.
>
> You never mentioned meaningful. I believe that in some cases I have been
> taught a truer interpretation of the Bible than the WTs. Whether it is the
> word of God or not does not prevent me from understanding the meaning.
> Because you believe it is the word of God, it should be meaningful to you.
> I'm just trying to help, Mark.
But what would be the point about asserting a
"truer interpretation of the Bible" if it isn't
meaningful, particularly given our discussion about
what is and is not 'required by God'?
If you don't believe that God exists, what's the point
of you saying that you know better than I do what God
wants? How does that help, Terry? That's sort of like
me saying, "I don't believe the Boogeyman exists, but
I know what he wants for you, Terry."
-mark.
Mark Sornson
So, they "can" mean the same thing. But do they
always mean the same thing?
Since you believe that some sacrifices (animal) are
clearly no longer required -- quibbles of whether they
are also "offerings" aside -- what's the basis for you
deciding which "offerings" from the Mosaic Law are still
required for Christians to give, and which to ignore?
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> > Again, Terry replied to me that he felt that he knew,
> > to a certain degree, what 'God wanted for me'. That
> > suggests a degree of moral and spiritual definitiveness
> > to me. But since he is actually unsure that God
> > exists, it just seems illogical for him to know for
> > sure what God wants.
> >
> > -mark.
>
> Again, I don't think that I have to be sure that he exists to be able to
> interpret what this real or fictitious God wants. How could anyone enjoy
> fiction without the ability to interpret what the author is trying to say?
The thing about fiction (or some types of fiction) is
that it is very open to interpretation. Some authors
write fiction with a degree of ambiguity that is intended
to allow multiple interpretations by the readers. And
even accidental ambiguity is wide-open to interpetation.
If the Bible is really a bunch of fictions about a fictional
being, why is your interpretation of it more sure than mine?
I mean, I believe it in earnest, study it, and attempt to
apply it. The Bible exhorts people to put their knowledge of God
into practical use, to 'make it real' rather than treat it as
purely philosophical abstractions to keep oneself amused with on
a rainy day.
But you seem to keep it at arms length, at a 'respectible
distance', so that you don't get too involved with it, and
you purposely maintain an attitude of skepticism and disbelief.
But in your skeptical disbelief, you are sure that you have
a correct interpretation of what this "real ... God" wants?
-mark.
Terry/Anti
I never said I don't believe that God exists. I'm not sure God exists. I
believe my source of knowledge of the Bible is way more correct than your
source. If you have ANY knowledge of what the boogeyman wants for me, you
know more than I do what he wants for me.
Terry/Anti
I also study it along with a man that I have faith in his ability as a
translator of multiple ancient languages. With his help, I think I
understand what the Bible is saying. I'm just not sure that it's inspired
by God. If IT WAS inspired by God, I don't thing there would be so much
room for disagreement on what it says.
Terry/Anti
I'll have to get back to you on this later.
Terry/Anti
Jesus' words from the last supper. " I am the new testament ( covenant (
contract )). He did not come to change the law. He came to make a new
contract. Believe in him and what he came for and the old contract would be
null and void.
Mark Sornson
>
> I never said I don't believe that God exists. I'm not sure God exists. I
> believe my source of knowledge of the Bible is way more correct than your
> source.
But surely that source tells you that God exists.
Yet you don't fully believe it. You aren't sure.
Therefore, how can you really be sure that it
is more correct than my source, if you aren't
willing to commit your full belief to your source?
If you have doubts about your source, why shouldn't
I have them as well?
-mark.
Mark Sornson
> > Since you believe that some sacrifices (animal) are
> > clearly no longer required -- quibbles of whether they
> > are also "offerings" aside -- what's the basis for you
> > deciding which "offerings" from the Mosaic Law are still
> > required for Christians to give, and which to ignore?
> >
> > -mark.
>
> Jesus' words from the last supper. " I am the new testament ( covenant (
> contract )). He did not come to change the law. He came to make a new
> contract. Believe in him and what he came for and the old contract would be
> null and void.
Well, then, that almost makes the JW case for JWs.
If belief in Jesus makes the "old contract" "null
and void," the various stipulations in the "old contract",
such as the requirement to loan money to fellow
believers for free, isn't binding, is it? It also
makes requirements to give specific "offerings" null
and void as well.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
> > If the Bible is really a bunch of fictions about a fictional
> > being, why is your interpretation of it more sure than mine?
> > I mean, I believe it in earnest, study it, and attempt to
> > apply it. The Bible exhorts people to put their knowledge of God
> > into practical use, to 'make it real' rather than treat it as
> > purely philosophical abstractions to keep oneself amused with on
> > a rainy day.
> >
> > But you seem to keep it at arms length, at a 'respectible
> > distance', so that you don't get too involved with it, and
> > you purposely maintain an attitude of skepticism and disbelief.
> > But in your skeptical disbelief, you are sure that you have
> > a correct interpretation of what this "real ... God" wants?
> >
> > -mark.
>
> I also study it along with a man that I have faith in his ability as a
> translator of multiple ancient languages. With his help, I think I
> understand what the Bible is saying.
So, like JWs rely on the collective experience of
the WTS, you rely on the experience of one man.
> I'm just not sure that it's inspired
> by God. If IT WAS inspired by God, I don't thing there would be so much
> room for disagreement on what it says.
Maybe the real problem is that people don't agree
that they really have to do what the Bible says they
should. Hence, they 'interpret' the Bible in a way
that pleases themselves.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
"Mark Sornson" <Mark.S...@hp.com> wrote in message
news:3F5CC5CA...@hp.com...
I have faith in his ability to interpret what is said to be God's word. I
do not have faith in his faith do to having doubt that the Bible is the
inspired word of God. I don't see any conflict in that.
Terry/Anti
I don't believe that things other than the sacrifice are part of the
contract. Jesus' death is the substitute for all the animals that were being
put to death. In his own words, he did not come to change one speck of the
law. You either believe Jesus or you don't. If you don't, I can't see how
you can believe in him and that he is the son of God.
Terry/Anti
> Terry/Anti wrote:
>
> > > If the Bible is really a bunch of fictions about a fictional
> > > being, why is your interpretation of it more sure than mine?
> > > I mean, I believe it in earnest, study it, and attempt to
> > > apply it. The Bible exhorts people to put their knowledge of God
> > > into practical use, to 'make it real' rather than treat it as
> > > purely philosophical abstractions to keep oneself amused with on
> > > a rainy day.
> > >
> > > But you seem to keep it at arms length, at a 'respectible
> > > distance', so that you don't get too involved with it, and
> > > you purposely maintain an attitude of skepticism and disbelief.
> > > But in your skeptical disbelief, you are sure that you have
> > > a correct interpretation of what this "real ... God" wants?
> > >
> > > -mark.
> >
> > I also study it along with a man that I have faith in his ability as a
> > translator of multiple ancient languages. With his help, I think I
> > understand what the Bible is saying.
>
> So, like JWs rely on the collective experience of
> the WTS, you rely on the experience of one man.
>
I believe this one man has more knowledge of languages than all the
knowledge of the WT hierarchy combined.
> > I'm just not sure that it's
inspired
> > by God. If IT WAS inspired by God, I don't thing there would be so much
> > room for disagreement on what it says.
>
> Maybe the real problem is that people don't agree
> that they really have to do what the Bible says they
> should. Hence, they 'interpret' the Bible in a way
> that pleases themselves.
>
> -mark.
The problem is that people don't agree on what the Bible say they should do.
Hence, the many different denominations. Also the desire to dominate others
leads to new denominations, as long as you can convince enough people that
you have knowledge of what the Bible says you should do. No matter how
bizarre.
Mark Sornson
You can't eat your cake and have it too on this one.
The animal sacrifices were a MAJOR part of that "contract".
If you admit that his death did away with the need
for that part of the "contract" to be kept -- and it
really was a MAJOR part of the contract -- he certainly
did change "one speck of the law". And it was a mighty
big "speck".
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <Mark.S...@hp.com> wrote in message
> news:3F5CCE51...@hp.com...
> > Terry/Anti wrote:
> >
> > > > If the Bible is really a bunch of fictions about a fictional
> > > > being, why is your interpretation of it more sure than mine?
> > > > I mean, I believe it in earnest, study it, and attempt to
> > > > apply it. The Bible exhorts people to put their knowledge of God
> > > > into practical use, to 'make it real' rather than treat it as
> > > > purely philosophical abstractions to keep oneself amused with on
> > > > a rainy day.
> > > >
> > > > But you seem to keep it at arms length, at a 'respectible
> > > > distance', so that you don't get too involved with it, and
> > > > you purposely maintain an attitude of skepticism and disbelief.
> > > > But in your skeptical disbelief, you are sure that you have
> > > > a correct interpretation of what this "real ... God" wants?
> > > >
> > > > -mark.
> > >
> > > I also study it along with a man that I have faith in his ability as a
> > > translator of multiple ancient languages. With his help, I think I
> > > understand what the Bible is saying.
> >
> > So, like JWs rely on the collective experience of
> > the WTS, you rely on the experience of one man.
> >
>
> I believe this one man has more knowledge of languages than all the
> knowledge of the WT hierarchy combined.
Ask your wife for a recent copy of a Watchtower
or Awake!, and take a look at all the languages
each one is published in.
>
> > > I'm just not sure that it's
> inspired
> > > by God. If IT WAS inspired by God, I don't thing there would be so much
> > > room for disagreement on what it says.
> >
> > Maybe the real problem is that people don't agree
> > that they really have to do what the Bible says they
> > should. Hence, they 'interpret' the Bible in a way
> > that pleases themselves.
> >
> > -mark.
>
> The problem is that people don't agree on what the Bible say they should do.
> Hence, the many different denominations. Also the desire to dominate others
> leads to new denominations, as long as you can convince enough people that
> you have knowledge of what the Bible says you should do. No matter how
> bizarre.
But each person or group in isolation doesn't
think their teachings are bizarre. So ... you
could be just as deluded as the next bunch yourself.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
The sacrifices were the way to get off the hook for breaking one of the
laws. Jesus changed the way of getting off the hook, not the way of getting
hooked.
Terry/Anti
Is it published in ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, ancient Arabic, etc.
> >
> > > > I'm just not sure that it's
> > inspired
> > > > by God. If IT WAS inspired by God, I don't thing there would be so
much
> > > > room for disagreement on what it says.
> > >
> > > Maybe the real problem is that people don't agree
> > > that they really have to do what the Bible says they
> > > should. Hence, they 'interpret' the Bible in a way
> > > that pleases themselves.
> > >
> > > -mark.
> >
> > The problem is that people don't agree on what the Bible say they should
do.
> > Hence, the many different denominations. Also the desire to dominate
others
> > leads to new denominations, as long as you can convince enough people
that
> > you have knowledge of what the Bible says you should do. No matter how
> > bizarre.
>
> But each person or group in isolation doesn't
> think their teachings are bizarre. So ... you
> could be just as deluded as the next bunch yourself.
>
> -mark.
I could be, but I believe you and your brothers and sisters are.
Mark Sornson
>
> The sacrifices were the way to get off the hook for breaking one of the
> laws. Jesus changed the way of getting off the hook, not the way of getting
> hooked.
Well then, don't forget to keep all the laws about
Jewish festivals, dietary restrictions, dress (that
blue fringe thing), and the large assortment of laws
about what was 'clean' and 'unclean.' If you're
going to make an issue of a particular hook, make sure
you're a respecter of it, yourself.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
> > > I believe this one man has more knowledge of languages than all the
> > > knowledge of the WT hierarchy combined.
If you put on your ruby slippers and click them
three times, anything you believe will come true. :-)
> >
> > Ask your wife for a recent copy of a Watchtower
> > or Awake!, and take a look at all the languages
> > each one is published in.
> >
>
> Is it published in ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, ancient Arabic, etc.
Ancient Arabic? Hm ... I suppose the Bible could
have been translated into Arabic, but I don't
know of any major English translations that make
use of it.
> >
> > But each person or group in isolation doesn't
> > think their teachings are bizarre. So ... you
> > could be just as deluded as the next bunch yourself.
> >
> > -mark.
>
> I could be, but I believe you and your brothers and sisters are.
Clearly, the most logical counter-argument is,
"I know you are, but what am I?"
It's been 'fun'.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
There's a difference between rules and laws, but I don't think I want to get
into that now.
Terry/Anti
My point was that he is knowledgeable about translating old languages and
not just the Biblical languages. Aren't some of the manuscripts used in
making a translation of the Bible Arabic?
You are deluded.
Glad to put some fun in your life.
Mark Sornson
Anything someone thinks is safe to ignore is a rule.
Anything someone thinks is unsafe to ignore is a law.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
No. You're thinking of Aramaic. (I was just
testing to see how well your teacher taught you.)
> You are deluded.
As long as I don't have to pay your for that
opinion, it doesn't really matter to me that you
think that.
> Glad to put some fun in your life.
Fabulous.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
The ten Commandments are the law.
Things about what to eat, for instance, are rules for remaining healthy.
Terry/Anti
I got the message through to you.
Blame the student, not the teacher.
> > You are deluded.
>
> As long as I don't have to pay your for that
> opinion, it doesn't really matter to me that you
> think that.
>
> > Glad to put some fun in your life.
>
> Fabulous.
>
> -mark.
Gramps
Mark Sornson
> > >
> > > There's a difference between rules and laws, but I don't think I want to
> get
> > > into that now.
> >
> > Anything someone thinks is safe to ignore is a rule.
> > Anything someone thinks is unsafe to ignore is a law.
> >
> > -mark.
>
> The ten Commandments are the law.
> Things about what to eat, for instance, are rules for remaining healthy.
Oh, well, then, that lets the JW organization off the
hook on the matter of loaning money (at a modest interest
rate) to congregations for new Kingdom Halls, since
the 'rule' about lending without interest isn't
one of the 10 Commandments.
-mark.
Terry/Anti
If you don't follow the rules for remaining healthy, you may end up breaking
the commandment about killing. If you don't follow the rule about lending,
you may be breaking the commandment about stealing.
Mark Sornson
Therefore you are back to having to follow all the
"rules" in the OT for things like circumcision, festivals,
clothing, diet, association/marriage, cleanness/uncleaness,
&etc. Even if you factor out all the "rules" about
sacrifices, that's still a lot of "rules" to follow.
-mark.
Varicose Brain
<Grandp...@mail.com> wrote:
>If you don't follow the rules for remaining healthy, you may end up breaking
>the commandment about killing. If you don't follow the rule about lending,
>you may be breaking the commandment about stealing.
>
>Gramps
>Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
Unless, of course, Don Jehovah orders you to break the commandments,
as he did many times in the OT.
~ * ~
> Oh, well, then, that lets the JW organization off the
> hook on the matter of loaning money (at a modest interest
> rate) to congregations for new Kingdom Halls, since
> the 'rule' about lending without interest isn't
> one of the 10 Commandments.
And after they loan them the money the WT gets to KEEP the land and
buildings the cong paid for. Do the banks get to keep the homes and land
after people pay the mortgages off? They'd never get away with it.
--
Patty & Patrick.....
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for
their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
responsible;
in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
~ * ~
>
> Therefore you are back to having to follow all the
==================================
Circumcision is nothing but male genital mutilation. Why would a god demand
anyone do that to themselves or an infant?
~ * ~
"Varicose Brain" <lacr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3dnemv4suu0nf2a2m...@4ax.com...
The JWs claim he didn't really MEAN what the Bible says he said,... or
did.... their version of Jehovah is all loving, all kindness etc. etc.
They never mention the god-inspired and directed genocides, the slavery, the
capture of young virgins to force themselves on. And lets not forget the
she-bears Jehovah had slaughter the group of children who teased the bald
man.
--
Seymour Greenfields....
God likes people to drink and eat blood....
Numbers 23:24 Here God tells them they will not lie down until they eat
the flesh of their prey and DRINK THE BLOOD OF THE SLAIN!!!!
What a nice, loving, forgiving God.
---<---<---<---{@ ---<---<---<---<{@ ---<---<---<---{@ ---<---<--
-{@
Varicose Brain
<Nothi...@Watchertowerland.net> wrote:
>==============================
>The JWs claim he didn't really MEAN what the Bible says he said,... or
>did.... their version of Jehovah is all loving, all kindness etc. etc.
>They never mention the god-inspired and directed genocides, the slavery, the
>capture of young virgins to force themselves on. And lets not forget the
>she-bears Jehovah had slaughter the group of children who teased the bald
>man.
Two bears killing forty-two children...
I guess kids were too stupid to run away in those days, especially
after they saw the first couple of children killed by the bears.
Varicose Brain
<Nothi...@Watchertowerland.net> wrote:
>"Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
>news:3F675CB1...@zk3.dec.com...
>>
>> Therefore you are back to having to follow all the
>> "rules" in the OT for things like circumcision, ....
>==================================
>Circumcision is nothing but male genital mutilation. Why would a god demand
>anyone do that to themselves or an infant?
I knew a moil that made a wallet from foreskins...
...you rub it and it turns into a suitcase.<rimshot>
~ * ~
> >Circumcision is nothing but male genital mutilation. Why would a god
demand
> >anyone do that to themselves or an infant?
>
> I knew a moil that made a wallet from foreskins...
>
> ...you rub it and it turns into a suitcase.<rimshot>
A wallet turns into a suitcase? You got hold of some good stuff there......
LOL!!!
~ * ~
> >==============================
> >The JWs claim he didn't really MEAN what the Bible says he said,... or
> >did.... their version of Jehovah is all loving, all kindness etc. etc.
> >They never mention the god-inspired and directed genocides, the slavery,
the
> >capture of young virgins to force themselves on. And lets not forget the
> >she-bears Jehovah had slaughter the group of children who teased the bald
> >man.
> Two bears killing forty-two children...
>
> I guess kids were too stupid to run away in those days, especially
> after they saw the first couple of children killed by the bears.
Hey, people believe that stuff without question. They'll claim all the
children were crippled with missing legs, feet or both. Maybe the poor
things had some disease Jehovah created, like polio, making escape
impossible. Or they'll claim that god "paralyzed" them making their
slaughter easier for the bears and more terrorizing for the kids.
Then there's that one where the Hebrews are told to bash the babies heads
against the rocks because their parents weren't worshipping this ancient god
to his/her/it's satisfaction. Killing helpless infants???? But wait,...
someone here claimed the babies were sinful and would have grown up like
thier parents - some kind of barbarian pagans. Believe me, it gets
sicker.....
--
--
Winnie and Peta......
Words of Wisdom....
After many years of bashing other religions under Judge Rutherford's
rallying cry, "Religion is a snare and a racket", the Watchtower now wants
to be recognized *as* one of those religions so they can receive tax
benefits. Typical.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God
the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21 Vek
(Carol's note: The WT thinks it's above what's written in the Bible.
==================================================
Varicose Brain
<Nothi...@Watchertowerland.net> wrote:
>> Two bears killing forty-two children...
>>
>> I guess kids were too stupid to run away in those days, especially
>> after they saw the first couple of children killed by the bears.
>===============================
>Hey, people believe that stuff without question. They'll claim all the
>children were crippled with missing legs, feet or both. Maybe the poor
>things had some disease Jehovah created, like polio, making escape
>impossible. Or they'll claim that god "paralyzed" them making their
>slaughter easier for the bears and more terrorizing for the kids.
I got into this particular discussion a few months ago in another
newsgroup. The fundy moron's argument was that the numbers were
irrelevant! Typical - they believe only the parts of the bible that
they want to.
> Then there's that one where the Hebrews are told to bash the babies heads
>against the rocks because their parents weren't worshipping this ancient god
>to his/her/it's satisfaction. Killing helpless infants???? But wait,...
>someone here claimed the babies were sinful and would have grown up like
>thier parents - some kind of barbarian pagans. Believe me, it gets
>sicker.....
Yes, just because god likes to kill babies (Hosea 13:16) doesn't give
us the right to. (Sarcasm intended for the humor impaired)
Mark Sornson
~ * ~ wrote:
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F67112A...@zk3.dec.com...
> > Oh, well, then, that lets the JW organization off the
> > hook on the matter of loaning money (at a modest interest
> > rate) to congregations for new Kingdom Halls, since
> > the 'rule' about lending without interest isn't
> > one of the 10 Commandments.
> ================================
> And after they loan them the money the WT gets to KEEP the land and
> buildings the cong paid for. Do the banks get to keep the homes and land
> after people pay the mortgages off? They'd never get away with it.
Um ... nope. The congregations keep the buildings
and the land. The congregation uses the building (KH)
and the land for its stated purpose until a time comes
when the building is no longer suitable. Then the
local congregation sells the building and the land,
keeps the money under its control, and eventually uses
it to purchase another piece of land and build on it.
Each local congregation forms a non-profit corporation
or trusteeship which holds title to the land and the
building. That ownership is real.
There are rare occassions when the WTS disbands a congregation
and closes the Kingdom Hall, but I've never seen a
documented case (certainly not by any JW critic) of
the WTS taking the building and land away and keeping
the money for itself. What I suspect happens is that
if the building is sold, the proceeds are distributed
to the neighboring congregations which absorbed the
membership of the disbanded congregation.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3F675CB1...@zk3.dec.com...
> >
> > Therefore you are back to having to follow all the
> > "rules" in the OT for things like circumcision, ....
> ==================================
> Circumcision is nothing but male genital mutilation. Why would a god demand
> anyone do that to themselves or an infant?
According to the Bible account, it was a literal
sign of a special legal relationship that was
established between Jehovah God and Abraham's
family and descendents.
If the Bible is a fiction and Jehovah doesn't
exist, you'll have to come up with your own
explanation for why any people would adopt the
practice of circumcision.
-mark.