Jump to content
The World News Media

The Sacred Field Ministry Stopped by a Bad Flu?


Jack Ryan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member
14 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Anyways, my question to you see, do you believe Jesus really saved an adulterous woman, even though it was never recorded in the earliest available mss sources we have come to know?

There are two points here. ( although I never use that 'scripture' as I'm not sure eather way but )

1. Jesus allowed an immoral woman to wash His feet with her tears, then wipre His feet with her hair, then she anointed His feet with oil. Then Jesus said to her "Your sins are forgiven you "  

2.  The Jewish way of life, The Law, demanded death.  However the New way, through Christ, demanded mercy and forgiveness. Jesus and the disciples never punished anyone by killing them. 

So Jesus could have saved an adulterous woman. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.9k
  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Did it ever occur to you that the early scribes may be have been at fault for leaving out this passage, and that God made sure it was replaced, especially for our sake in the last days?  Read it, and notice what Jesus was speaking about in the temple before the event with the adulterous woman took place.  "On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rive

Not a misstep, they actually tried to change Gods “times and laws”. It finishes in Acts 1:7 when “He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” That being said, these men believed they can “calculate” when the kingdom would be restored, they actually thought they had knowledge superior to the original disciples to know these “times and dates” by twisting Daniels 7 times to equate 2520 physical years, changing “times and laws”:

Can someone explain to me, to whom would it have been advantageous to insert that piece of writing ? 'Religions' have always been about control. That piece of writing was concerning forgiveness. Therefore whoever wanted that piece of writing included, wanted forgiveness of sins, as opposed to punishment (by death).  Matthew 9 : 13  The words of Jesus  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy,

Posted Images

  • Member

I believe the story of Jesus forgiving the adulterous woman to be entirely consistent with everything else in the New Testament, without exception, and that is why when I go out in Service, use a Bible with those scriptures included.

I used to make rough drafts of essays on index cards, before my first drafts, and later final working transcripts, and then final edits ..... I used to use 3"x5" index cards.

I suspect back in the Apostle's days it was even more important as they were writing on leather with ink. (Think about THAT, willya?). Not just the final Epistle, but outlines and notes.

(Visualizes a small leather "Post-It Note"stuck to the wall with diluted boiled sinew glue, and it fell off, and slipped behind the writing table ...)

I consider the "deleted" scriptures to have possibly been on one of the Apostle's notes, found later, and inserted at a reasonable location, because the copiest made the same determination I did.

Further, I believe that the REAL reason the NWT leaves it out is that it would erode the authority of the GB and Elders, who constantly need to reinforce their management authority.

Like the story of the Quantum Physicist at the Bar, buying drinks for himself and the empty seat beside him, in any analysis of ANYTHING ... I try to ask "What is the most PROBABLE scenario?"

Opinions and results may differ ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

.... I do however, draw the line at the supposed "New Scrolls", as reported by the "Babylon Bee" ....

 

" WASHINGTON, D.C.—Donald J. Trump was seen riding what appeared to be a donkey in the slow lane of Interstate 95 before taking the 395 North then exiting into downtown Washington, D.C., thus fulfilling the prophecy, “Behold, thy Orange King cometh unto thee, meek, meeker than all others, the meekest maybe, and sitting upon an ass, that he kicketh ass and draineth swamps.”

 

President Trump was welcomed by patriots of all creeds, races, and religions, who lay before him palm fronds from Mar-a-Lago, tattered Trump 2020 flags, and MyPillows®, guaranteed the most comfortable pillows you’ll ever own™. The multitude then followed Trump, crying “Hosanna to the son of Fred,” which rolled off the tongue as if sung by angels.

Trump gladly spoke to the press, which the humbled journalists found refreshing. “You would not believe how I got this donkey, which I’ve named ‘Rigged Election,’ by the way,” said the 45th and 47th President. “I just sent Giuliani to the neighboring village, where he saw an ass tied alongside a colt, to bring it to me. Today is probably the most prophetic day in history, as far as I know.”

When President Trump entered the White House to kick the interloper to the curb, Biden was nowhere to be found. They did find Kamala Harris locked in her soundproof office, and a naked, dazed Hunter Biden smearing fingerpaint on one of the priceless historical paintings. A silver alert has been issued for the former president, who was last seen in the National Mall talking to the trees.

Trump autographed the donkey and plans to sell it to the highest bidder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

There are two points here. ( although I never use that 'scripture' as I'm not sure eather way but )

1. Jesus allowed an immoral woman to wash His feet with her tears, then wipre His feet with her hair, then she anointed His feet with oil. Then Jesus said to her "Your sins are forgiven you "  

2.  The Jewish way of life, The Law, demanded death.  However the New way, through Christ, demanded mercy and forgiveness. Jesus and the disciples never punished anyone by killing them. 

So Jesus could have saved an adulterous woman. 

That does not answer the question - you are just giving somewhat of a miniature summary of the passage.

I said [Anyways, my question to you see, do you believe Jesus really saved an adulterous woman, even though it was never recorded in the earliest available mss sources we have come to know?]

If Jesus really saved an adulterous woman as seen in John 7:53-8:11, why is it this passage came much, much later when the Book of John was essentially completed? If this passage was canon, it would not have been a later addition, and ALL Bibles would have this passage. I pointed out that nearly 267 early mss does not have those verses about the adulterous woman, so it is a spurious passage, false.

This was my comment, if you haven't read it - 

5 hours ago, Equivocation said:

 isn’t inspired text - The Adulterous Woman (Pericope de Adultera) - John7:53–8:11 isn't Bible Canon/ is unauthentic, making it, viewed by most, as spurious and false; an exaggerated story. From what I’ve gathered, there are 267 Greek manuscripts, which are the earliest versions, and are considered the most important by Textual Analysts and or those who follow and are well-versed in Textual Criticism, would point out that none of those 267 contain this passage about the Adulterous Woman. Newer Bible translations that were compiled, and wrote after the more ancient manuscripts were discovered, either omit/remove the passage or add a note or reference along with the passage, stating it was not found in the more ancient manuscripts.

 

He didn't save an adulterous woman because the passage was never canon. If it was canon, then an explanation could have been given the day the question about the passage was first mentioned.

If Apostle John, who was an inspired person, didn't write the passage, then who are we to assume, or confirm that he did when the mss is available to us?

The only people who consider it as true are those who constantly affirm that the KJV is the one and only true Bible. This passage is also in the same light as Acts 8:37, and the other verses mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

I believe the story of Jesus forgiving the adulterous woman to be entirely consistent with everything else in the New Testament, without exception, and that is why when I go out in Service, use a Bible with those scriptures included.

I used to make rough drafts of essays on index cards, before my first drafts, and later final working transcripts, and then final edits ..... I used to use 3"x5" index cards.

I suspect back in the Apostle's days it was even more important as they were writing on leather with ink. (Think about THAT, willya?). Not just the final Epistle, but outlines and notes.

(Visualizes a small leather "Post-It Note"stuck to the wall with diluted boiled sinew glue, and it fell off, and slipped behind the writing table ...)

I consider the "deleted" scriptures to have possibly been on one of the Apostle's notes, found later, and inserted at a reasonable location, because the copiest made the same determination I did.

Further, I believe that the REAL reason the NWT leaves it out is that it would erode the authority of the GB and Elders, who constantly need to reinforce their management authority.

Like the story of the Quantum Physicist at the Bar, buying drinks for himself and the empty seat beside him, in any analysis of ANYTHING ... I try to ask "What is the most PROBABLE scenario?"

Opinions and results may differ ....

They left it out just like the rest of those who understand textual Analytics. If The Book of John was completed, and centuries later, out of nowhere the passage was added just like that, then that is a problem, and that is what caused people to make a note as to why it was removed.

Therefore, The story of the adulterous woman was inserted into The Book of John too late to be a genuine record of Jesus’ dealings with this woman. It may be one of the most charitable stories in the entire Bible, which it looks to be just by reading it, worthy of reflection, however, and sadly, it is not a true story, and anything spurious, be it verse or passage is noted as an exaggerated story (or unauthentic). Likewise with other verses mentioned.

On the JW Library, it states the following -

The earliest authoritative manuscripts do not have the passage from Joh 7:53 to 8:11. These 12 verses were obviously added to the original text of John’s Gospel. (See App. A3.) They are not found in the two earliest available papyri containing the Gospel of John, Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66) and Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15 (P75), both from the second century C.E., nor are they found in the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus, both from the fourth century C.E. They first appear in a Greek manuscript from the fifth century (Codex Bezae) but are not found in any other Greek manuscripts until the ninth century C.E. They are omitted by most of the early translations into other languages. One group of Greek manuscripts places the added words at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts them after Lu 21:38. That this portion appears at different places in different manuscripts supports the conclusion that it is a spurious text. Scholars overwhelmingly agree that these verses were not part of the original text of John.

A3 - Greek Text: In the late 19th century, scholars B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort compared existing Bible manuscripts and fragments as they prepared the Greek master text that they felt most closely reflected the original writings. In the mid-20th century, the New World Bible Translation Committee used that master text as the basis for its translation. Other early papyri, thought to date back to the second and third centuries C.E., were also used. Since then, more papyri have become available. In addition, master texts such as those by Nestle and Aland and by the United Bible Societies reflect recent scholarly studies. Some of the findings of this research were incorporated into this present revision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

But of course it was ok for the Watchtower / JW org / GB to misuse the scripture at Romans 13

Quite interesting, but I believe someone has addressed how Christians are to operate in the face of superior authorities, more so, I hope you realize their is a distinction between the usage of the term. Granted the distinction and the already professed explanation of Romans 13, you'd have to do more than that to rely on such.

17 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Then we have the Locusts. (Copied from a quote by @Witness back 2019 )

“The locusts of Joel Chapter 2 no longer refer to Jehovah's Witnesses and events surrounding 1919. The locusts in Revelation chapter 22 however still do refer to the anointed, but are now no longer connected with the prophecy on Joel. Joel 2 now refers to the "Babylonians", the coalition of nations that will try to destroy God's people. The context of Joel chapter 2 points the time period of fulfilment to Jehovah's Day in the Great Tribulation and how God will save his people.”

 

This was address a while back, so what is the point to bring this up now? Witness was debated on this in 2018, and in the reputation, she was confused on who the angel of the abyss was and did not connect who the locust were properly, likewise with The Destroyer, and the misuse of Greek Strong's, as shown here:

Also, references were ignored, therefore, it was amissed that  Revelation 9:7 is symbolic, thus pointing to to Joel 2:4, 5.

That being said, it is also noted Locust is used as a representation several times, figuratively.

17 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

That is just two examples of MISUSE of scripture (or lies) from the Watchtower / JW Org / GB / Leaders.

Where is the evidence of misuse? Because you seem to even miss the context and references of the latter itself. In regards to Locust, I can easily make quotations to a few pieces of commentary. Likewise with Romans 13, and how Christians operate in this sense, which is no different from the early era of Christians.

17 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

So, if you condemn other religions for misuse of scripture, why do you not also condemn JWs ?

Emerging Faiths, not Religions. There is a difference. As was addressed omitted verses and the like have not been used by the latter.

That being said, I find it humorous that the 2 questions addressed was in relation to JWfacts, however, you allowed a JW to answer them.

This essentially proves the point of what Christians and Muslims speak of concerning Former JWs, most of them are lost, as is, misguided.

John 7:53-8:11 and Acts 7:59 were very easy, this is why I used those verses on purpose due to the fact JWfacts deem these are legitimate verses, but the evidence say otherwise.

That being said, the attempt you made with Luke 17:36, shows the lack of knowing history of Scripture. You are free to make some spontaneous reaction if you wish, but the facts still stand as tall as a skyscraper.

9 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I'm sure you have made a Storm Trooper very happy today :) but you don't seem to understand that from my viewpoint I didn't need to answer his questions.  SM was also pushing me to answer questons about homosexuality and immorality.  He was getting very domineering about it all..... Now if I had suffered from anxiety or depression i would have been very upset by SM's continuous pushing of questions. I don't think he knows how much harm he could do. But I was laughing at SM because i could not tkae him seriously. You seem to take SM very seriously. That is your choice. 

You don't need to answer them, but you attempt with, again, Luke 17:36, which tells already, and it proves my point 100%. Not all men who leave their former faiths are that knowing despite the fact they claim to be. The do not dwell on research, in so much of a way, to an extent, build their faith.

That being said, it is funny how your own weapon of choice, JWfacts, ultimately resulted on you falling on your sword. If you actually lived up to your new name, you should know that if one actual sought truth, they'd understand as to why verses are removed/changed, for what reason, as is knowing what is inspired and what is not.

@Srecko Sostar A shame. And before you spoke a lot about Bible errors committed by JWs, yet the deviation of 2 elementary questions that were Textual Analytics focused spun you around. If you want another one, there's 1 John 5:7,8. More so you brought this up in the discussion regarding women leading churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, Equivocation said:

@Space Merchant I got to say, that was a wild setup to entrap  people about Bible Errors questions. This is why when I found out about missing verses, I was not all-knowing about the omitted verses when I was challenged at one time. It took my a while to learn these things and understand why those verses were not found in the NWT and some other bibles.

I did this on purpose concerning the notation of Translation Errors, and for reason.

That being said

This:

9 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Bans issued, be it temporary or permanent always have a reason behind that, and only Admins and Co-Admins know the reason. And I doubt it may have been an IP ban. If I recall, Admin is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Admin runs an forum, and anything that violates guidelines, the Admin deals with and or if someone reports it. In a situation like that you can't real defend yourself unless it is a temp ban and you can be given the opportunity to write an appeal. If Admin was a JW Elder, people like Witness and Srecko would not be here, even Space Merchant, and the other clubs would not exist.

If he is here, there won't be any problem against him if he says his name. But from what I have been reading a lot of people think you are him, I mean, @JW Insider comment was very compelling and those screenshots, even Tom and Anna were compelling in their comments, but you being John doesn't really matter. I was only reminded of the Admin deleting John's Ebonics thread, and Admin explained why the thread was closed; parts of what was said in that thread can be searched.

But like I said, it doesn't matter anymore.

From there information I posted before, @JOHN BUTLER was banned, and the culprit of the ban was @BillyTheKid46, for there was some sort of interaction between the two that got heated, which was no different from your interaction with Butler with the Ebonics rant, which can be seen a bit racist to some. It also seems John tried allegedly to come back as @John Butler-2, to what transpired resulted in Jah4me2 or something to that degree. The mannerism and the constant talk of himself in 3rd person resulted in some of us making the connection, even made a reference, so much so at times his reactions are spontaneous. keywords used can show that the two are one in the same, so when @Srecko Sostar called him out, the case just closed right then and there.

He is here again, but out of fear cannot invoke his name although it would not do anything for it is only the main account of his that took the hit. As for an appeal, he may have not known that to be a possibility within the 24 hour window of said ban.

You can always denounce someone by their mannerism, even in text form, mainly to know intent, or if they are okay or not, etc. Not related, but it is a skill learnt from Former FBI agent and body language expert Joe Navarro.

That being said, as the topic stands, as you pointed out, the pandemic has not stopped you although the Atheist thinks so. Jehovah's Witnesses are not immune to the fatigue that comes from the pandemic, what of you or anyone else? And of course, I ask for a reason, since @Witness coined Matthew 10:23.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 hours ago, Equivocation said:

The illustration/parables

 

8 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Buddy, about Jesus, you seem to be applying elements that counter the story Jesus was telling to push a lesson.

As far as I could notice regarding other Jesus stories (chapters of Luke before and after the story of Lazarus), illustrations, parables, and similar descriptions, one could say that they have elements that were real (that happened to someone, somewhere), or would could be real in everyday life (which will happen, they could happen to someone, somewhere). If Jesus did not believe in an immortal soul and hell, and neither did the Jews who listened to him, then I do not see real need, why Jesus would use “pagan” motives to give lessons to the Jews. 

8 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Anyways, my question to you see, do you believe Jesus really saved an adulterous woman, even though it was never recorded in the earliest available mss sources we have come to know?

I can answer, at least, on two ways on this. 

A) If Jesus was brave enough to tear down the tables of the merchants in the Temple and make them flee, then I see why it would not be possible for him to deal diplomatically with a multitude of hypocrites, fanatics, seduced believers, self-proclaimed righteous and influential religious leaders.

B) There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written. - Lk 21:25

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, Equivocation said:

They are not found in the two earliest available papyri containing the Gospel of John, Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66)

They are not found in the two earliest available papyri ....

This sentence does not claim that it will not be found one day. This sentence does not claim that subsequently found text will not be considered “inspired text”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
22 hours ago, Equivocation said:

He didn't save an adulterous woman because the passage was never canon

My point was that Jesus could have done so. I never said Jesus did so in that scripture. 

But i see you are treating this all as a game. Trying to score points for SM.  So be it. 

Yes this forum is probably a game, but serving God through Christ is not a game. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
19 hours ago, Equivocation said:

So Jesus was very clear in his words, in fact, we even see similar examples that we can learn from from our early Christian counterparts.

I don't think you are clearly seeing what Jesus is saying in Matt 10:23.   

I’m sure you agree that “good news of the Kingdom” has been spread throughout the earth since the early apostles’ day.  But Jesus is telling his future anointed disciples about a direct preaching work to the “towns of Israel” – to the Israel of God This message cannot reach all before the return of Christ, because of resistance against it.  There is a lockdown of the flow of spiritual food.  There is a warning given by your leaders that any message that comes from outside the organization, is false. Listening to such a message can result in one's condemnation contrived by men.  Dan 11:36; Rev 13:5-7; 11:1,2   Rev 13:15-17

Who is “Israel” today?  Rom 9:6-8; Gal 4:26,28;1 Pet 2:5,9,10; Gal 6:15,16; Heb 8:10; Rev 7:4

Why do they receive the message?  Matt 24:9-12, 15,16,23-24; Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim 4:1,2; 2 Thess 2:1-4;9-12; Rev 13:5-7,18; 16:13-16; 20:7-9  (Rev 17:1,2,5,6,18;18:3-8)

Why are those of Christ’s disciples who are preaching this “good news”, persecuted for their message they bring to the “towns of Israel”?  Matt 10:16-23,39; John 15:20; Matt 24:48-51; John 16:2; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 13:1,2,11,12,15; 11:1-3,7

God’s Temple in the anointed ones - those “living stones” and dwelling of God’s spirit – has been trampled by your elder body/Beast/organization at the direction of false teachers/prophets.  The anointed have allowed “foreigners” to “enter” God’s sanctuary.  This is why “Israel” receives the “good news” of the restoration of “Jacob”/Israel  in the last days.  Ezek 44:6-9,10,12,15; 20:30,31; Num.18:7; Mal 3:1-5; 4:5,6; Matt 17:11; Rev 11:1-3 (1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Rom 15:16; Eph 2:20-22) (Isa 43:1,10-12; 48:20; Rev 18:4)

 

Has God ever condoned the replacement of His royal priesthood as your GB has?  Is there anywhere in the scriptures that tells us a “Gentile” can “represent the royal priesthood”?  2 Chron 13:9  This is a choice every JW must make, to either listen carefully to the word of God, or choose to listen to the words of men.   Isa 2:17,22; Joel 3:14

 

    Hello guest!


 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 hours ago, Equivocation said:

He didn't save an adulterous woman because the passage was never canon.

Did it ever occur to you that the early scribes may be have been at fault for leaving out this passage, and that God made sure it was replaced, especially for our sake in the last days?  Read it, and notice what Jesus was speaking about in the temple before the event with the adulterous woman took place. 

"On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."  John 7:37,38

At dawn of the very next day, he was teaching in the temple courts. The Pharisees brought in the woman, attempting to trap him with their questions. Notice, Jesus bent over and wrote in the dust. (John 8:6) We have a reference of another writing in the dust, and the connection to "living water".  

"Lord, you are the hope of Israel;
    all who forsake you will be put to shame.
Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust
    because they have forsaken the Lord,
    the spring of living water."  Jer 17:13

The majority of the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as the source of living water.  They preferred the "yeast of the Pharisees".  (Matt 16:11,12)  Today, the same is happening in your organization.  "Living water" in Jesus Christ is polluted by doctrines of men.  (2 Thess 9:9-12; Heb 12:15; Rev 8:10,11)  Judgment is made against individuals by your laws in a book compiled by men.  Do they dare cast the first stone, these men who have trampled down the Temple of God, assuming God has assigned them to shepherd the people above and beyond His priesthood?  (Mark 13:14) (Mal 2:7; 1 Cor 6:1,2)

Do you prefer the "yeast' of the GB over the living water in Jesus Christ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share





×
×
  • 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.