Jump to content

Ray Devereaux

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ray Devereaux

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

31 profile views
  1. That would be a hypothetical situation. I would imagine a parent would prevent a teenage child from driving if that youth is not ready to take the written and physical test just like it should be done in order to see if an individual is spiritually mature to be baptized. Spiritual maturity come to individuals by many ages in life. I will agree a “baby” should not be baptized just to satisfy a church tradition.
  2. Does this mean Jesus needed theological schooling to spread the Good news? Which school did Jesus attend to be considered a “rabbi” by the Jews? Which school did Jesus send his apostles? Where in the Bible is that written on? Is anyone aware of what “Catechesis” means? What good is a theology diploma if that person doesn’t practice or abide by scripture as taught by Jesus? Is baptism a joke or is it a very serious matter that even Jesus didn’t partake until he was 30 years old. Even as the son of God, baptism is a covenant with God. A promise not to fall into the temptations of this world by obeying God. Baptism is a literal conviction toward God’s grace. What kind of diploma is needed for that? What an Elder does need to do is observe how serious a person is in dedicating their lives in service of God by baptism just like Jesus.
  3. I must be missing something. Wouldn’t this in effect be a cause for ex-members? I don’t believe Russell had the power to replace “hell” with “death in Armageddon” as indicated. He did have the power to foresee the mistakes of other religions enough to call his group “Bible Students” to a nondenominational church of Christ. Each church ran independent of each other. The elders were voted in. That meant, any church could set its own vision of doctrine which many did to some degree not with the advent movement but it's perception of time prophecy. That Church started to bring back what was inevitable as death in Armageddon for those that rebelled against God as taught by his son Jesus. I don’t believe Jesus mixed his words to mean anything else but the survival of those loyal to God by faith and obedience. Excommunication was placed by Jesus words, not to be influenced by those that opposed God’s command and those that denied the new covenant of Christ which indeed happen in Jesus time. Can you explain yourself a little more, on what you mean by rebellious coming from an ex-member of any church?
  4. I can agree in certain aspects of this comment. The 16th century protestant reformation began a good concept to break away from the papacy and the church fathers distinct preservation of the old standard of keeping the bible from the public. It was unfortunate that the dominant church sought to execute those like Martin Luther and William Tyndale that made any attempts to have the people read and understand the bible for themselves to see for themselves the mistakes of the church. I personally respect Tyndale for that brave move that eventually got him killed by the church. Another place I can agree with tearing down the old house to build a new house is exactly what Russell did in his day. He decided to forgo his parent’s teachings and that of the ranking Christendom of his day to start from scratch to understand the bible as Jesus spoke of it to the first century Christian. A revision to the view of the reformer movement but with a better understanding that is placed before today’s society.
  5. The expectation of being spiritually uplifted here is zero. I recommend, all Jehovah witnesses that are not in conflict with themselves, not take part here. Being here only serves to rebuff those that have inherited conflict by their own initiative, or had past situations they were sanctioned for. Do not look favorably on that JW only club. It amounts to the same dissidence as it does here.
  6. This is true. No one can be held responsible for the action of another. This is why the Governing Body cannot be held responsible for the actions of individual witnesses and members who attend meetings but are not baptized. The Governing Body is held accountable by Jehovah himself. Can this not be said of other religions that condemn Jehovah witnesses for just about everything? The only thing left would be, condemn witnesses for the air they breathe. I have no doubt Jehovah witnesses consider their K.H. as a consecrated place of worship while they are worshipping Jehovah at the time of use. I can see where any place can be considered consecrated ground for the purpose of worship. When Jehovah witnesses use other building to conduct such as circuit or regional assemblies, I don’t see where they would own such property to use as consecrated ground to accommodate a larger audience of worshippers. I can relate where in California, Jehovah witnesses purchased a Baptist Church to hold their weekly meetings. Can I say because it was purchased by another religion, that building in stained? I believe the destruction of Jehovah’s House also confirms the looseness in the use of the word consecration. I also believe, when the Philistines captured the Ark, 1 Samuel 4, an instrument of Jehovah, can we say; while the ark was in the Philistine’s possession, was it held on consecrated ground? *** w51 7/15 p. 431 Expansion of Theocracy in Indonesia and Singapore *** On Sunday morning 45 turned up at the Victoria Theatre to hear a discourse on baptism, after which 5 persons symbolized their consecration to do God’s will by being immersed in a pond near the edge of the city. The question now was, How would the public respond to the advertising for the public lecture, “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land”? At 4 p.m. came the answer. We saw the ground floor of the theater filled with an audience of 307 persons, which, considering the restricted avenues of publicity available due to municipal ordinances and emergency regulations, was a splendid result. I recall, Joseph F Rutherford had to sell almost all the Watchtower assets to continue running the Watchtower, after his release from prison. I believe there is an overreach with these definitions. I don’t recall where, Jehovah witnesses are fanatics as to consider the issue of consecrated ground, they couldn’t sell the original Tower in Pennsylvania and the original Headquarter in New York. The fact that Russia confiscated all Watchtower material that includes Kingdom Halls can also be considered.
  7. Can Jehovah witnesses be held liable for the personal action of a single person? Can they be held liable for the decision the Baptist church uses the building they bought? If they decide to worship Baal in that old Kingdom Hall, it is not the Watchtower position to condemn such false teachings. For those of you that don’t understand scripture. Dedication is a personal action while consecration is a position. The difference is on the person, place or thing, a group of united followers wish to use to worship the almighty. You may wish to start with the understanding, Christ is the church. Is the Body of Christ a building? Did Jesus not use the temple? Perhaps by visiting JW.org, these questions can be made clear. I will remind the readers there is a vast difference between the Bible Student Zion Watchtower, and the Jehovah Witnesses Watchtower. Those differences must not be compared, since doctrine does differ.
  8. While there was a difference between Charles Taze Russell’s understanding of the definition of the word “dedication” and “consecration” it does not diminish todays understanding by Jehovah’s witnesses that understand what an “acceptable” dedication really means. Something the Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Governing Body have been correct to apply after 1934. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider or have considered a building as consecrated ground that it cannot be moved, just like the “ark of the covenant” was, constantly; moved. I believe Jesus action in cleansing the temple can be considered. It should be correctly understood the consecration, portion is something that should be given to any building at the time of worship. To those wanting to learn about Jehovah’s witnesses and their “dedication” to serve Jehovah no matter where they end up? There are plenty of references in JW.org. No one needs to accept the writings of individuals. They don’t need to accept the Watchtower. You only need, to compare and understand what Jehovah witnesses, teachings are based on to accept their doctrine. They accept Jehovah’s word, along with Christ instructions.
  9. The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2013 CONCUBINE A concubine is a woman whose status in relation to her sole legitimate sexual partner is less than primary wife. The Hebrew loan word pilegesh(“concubine”) is notably non-Semitic (not linguistically related to Hebrew). Its cognates appear in Latin ( paelex) and Greek (pallakis). One view is that pilegeshreferred to non-Hebrew women, while another view sees it as describing a female partner in a matrilocal marriage (contra patriarchal). Although some see the treatment of concubines addressed in the slave rules of Exod. 21:7–11, pilegeshis not used there. It is better to understand the function of concubines more broadly within marriage terminology. Following Gideon’s death, both concubines and wives laid claim to his authority (Judg. 8:30–9:2). Reference to concubines is largely found in the Pentateuch (e.g., Gen. 22:24; 36:12) and monarchial texts (e.g., 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3). The genealogies show that succession could move through concubines (Gen. 22:24; 1 Chron. 3:9). It is the kings who had concubines (1 Chron. 11:21), often guarded by eunuchs (2 Sam. 20:3; Esther 2:14). Therefore, access to the royal concubines functioned as a daring claim to the throne, exploited by interlopers (2 Sam. 12:11–12; 1 Kings 2:22–25). It took Nathan’s allegorical story to show David his own greed of stealing another’s “lamb” even though he already had many wives and concubines (2 Sam. 12:8; 16:21). While concubines did care for the household (2 Sam. 20:2), their lower status is observed when David flees into exile, leaving the concubines “to take care of the palace” (2 Sam. 15:16), a role too dangerous for the royal wives.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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