The Sacred Field Ministry Stopped by a Bad Flu?

[Space Merchant]

2 hours ago, Witness said:

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. 

 

Apostle John never wrote the passage, nor was there any fault. This is why with the earliest of manuscript evidence we have, we can see for ourselves what is true and what isn't. This is why most who dwell on Textual Analytics, scholars, even JWs, will point out that passage alone is nowhere to be found, as is early ancient witnesses regarding such, nowhere to be found.

And no, inspired ones of God wouldn't leave anything out of God's Word, this is why anything that came afterwards was deemed spurious, unauthentic and or false, granted the Scriptures was practically completed. More reasons as to why we do not have apocryphal in the text to begin with also, such as, The Book of Enoch, The Gospel of Peter, etc.

That being said, it would not make sense at all for inspired ones to purposely leave out such, granted, that Scripture, the originals, were of inspiration vs, those that are not.

Some text talks about Jesus growing into a size of a giant, it does not mean it is true. Other speak of demons giving knowledge to mankind in a way for them to be against God to some degree, also deemed untrue. Likewise, with partial edits, if a word or phrase has nothing to do with the Strong's and or any root, it is a violation of text, one of the reasons why I brought up Acts 7:59, Luke 17:36, etc.

All in all, this is basic Textual Analytics so much so if the church fathers fought against falsehood entering the text, it is no surprise people has done the same over the centuries, to present day.

If you were in Apostle John's place, and someone added to your word long after you had pass, don't you see that has a potential problem when some would claim you said this and that? This is issue concerning John stems from John 1:1 in regards to how John conveys things.

[Space Merchant]

47 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Since I am not smart enough or educated enough to intelligently evaluate all of the supposed scholars of years past the above explanation seems very reasonable to me. Especially due to the fact that’s the scripture in question it’s completely compatible with everything else in the Scriptures and I see no conflict whatsoever.

Let’s assume as a worst-case scenario that it’s not actually the words of Jesus…… Is it is to my mind a very wise example worthy of emulation, as if it were. 

This is why Textual Analysts take issue. The goal is to teach and profess inspired text, not anything added/altered, etc regardless of the narrative. So this is where one needs to be careful, for any small err can misguide and confuse people quickly.

If the Adulterous Woman passage was found in the early manuscript sources which was used to complete Scripture, then there would not have been any problem, but that is a what if scenario. The irony in all this, some who believed in the passage, later came out to address the passage isn't true.

It is also the reason as to why Restorationist themselves for a time later came to know more understanding in their Restoration trek, when it came to Scripture, they made sure to omit such things.

 

That being said, in the realm of Textual Criticism, this spawned an adversary, this false passage has generated a movement, of which is referred to as the the movement of John 7:53-8:11 (the pericope adulterae), branched from the KJV-Onlyist crowd.

Also not relevant, but notice any film or movie about Jesus Christ regardless of source, some include the passage in the film, and some do not, that should also tell you something.

[Space Merchant]

9 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

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

And Jesus could have grown into a Giant with a Wooden Cross singing praise to his name, praise be the Lord.

Some people claim Jesus did other things too, but these are unproven narratives, assumption can easily land someone in the position of Galatians 1:1-11.

That being said, as pointed out there are those who understand Textual Criticism, and those who do not. Which is evident on numerous occasion. More so, if I recall you deemed it strange.

Majority of folks, if you are a preacher of the gospel, will run into people with basic Bible knowledge who 100% know with absolute certainty that this passage, although a good deed, if it were true, but sadly, no early source of it, and I rather we do not go into the realm of Church Fathers who were against heresies or misinformation concerning the Christ - namely Irenaeus of Lyons.

The fact is - Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel.

Granted the existence of the movement, it can make a distinction of who is in mainstream Christianity and who is not, something coined a lot in CSE.

John 7:53-8:11 is can also be in comparison to that of The Quo Vadis story (Legend of the Saints).

 

[Witness]

36 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Apostle John never wrote the passage, nor was there any fault.

Are you inspired to know this?

You’re checking the hand of God.  (Isa 55:8)  If God inspired the addition of lost information in the book of John, and did this through an individual, what is it to you?

^{25 "}Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."  John 21:25

 

 

[Space Merchant]

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Are you inspired to know this?

Because it came much later AFTER the Scriptures was established. Not even 2nd century church Fathers deemed in inspired, mainly Irenaeus of Lyons. That said, I know what is spurious due to the fact of knowing Textual Criticism, this stuff isn't new.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

You’re checking the hand of God.  (Isa 55:8)  If God inspired the addition of lost information in the book of John, and did this through an individual, what is it to you?

Unfortunately this isn't lost information. The source of John 7:53-8:11 was founded among the Catholics.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

^{25 "}Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."  John 21:25

And Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken - John 10:33,34

If there is no evidence within the inspired text itself, you defending spurious text shows a big problem. You were also called out for this for justifying verses in Mark 16:9-20, also omitted from majority of Bibles.

Witness... That remark alone I recommend you look into Textual Criticism. - https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0124.xml#:~:text=Textual criticism is concerned with,other copies of the text.

Anything that came centuries after Apostle John, mainly out of the hands of Catholicism raises concern, and it violates Deut. 4:2 to which God took issue with people adding/removing from his Word. Hence why the command was professed.

Any man or woman, even a child who preaches the gospel of that is of God's Word, they can run into questions such as this. This is why it is vital to learn and understand The History of the Scriptures itself because spurious text, even forgeries, if you allude to be true is a problem.

This is what I told Cos a while back, that even Muslims know the passage is spurious, and they debated it, why deem or assume something to be true when it is not? This is the same with those who believe a piece of wood can burst and sing into song.

Hence the problem Christians and Muslims have with most former Jehovah's Witnesses, they themselves do not know the path of which they take their every step.

Indefensible.

 

This was also mentioned a long time ago to a Trinitarian who defended that passage:

On 2/2/2018 at 2:51 PM, Space Merchant said:

As for you, I know that you are in no position to defend forged and or added bible verses, but clearly, you do not know this, thus you, as majority of Trinitarians will go out of their way to defend 1 John 5:7 as it is written in the KJV or NKJV when the oldest manuscripts do not contain them, you will go out of your way to defend John 7:53-8:11 regarding Jesus saving an adulterous woman, to defend Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, Mark 15:28, etc. 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

@Equivocation please consider one important detail, because you are JW member and as such you absorb (everything) what is taught from GB. 

Dramatizations of biblical events have long been an important part of the Congress program, and many await with great anticipation and enthusiasm “biblical dramas” that are costumed and that contain a script specially prepared. As it is today, this summer.

Is every word, every sentence uttered by JW actors in any of these plays written in the Bible? It's not! I'm sure you know the same thing.
What explanation do you have for staging biblical events based on fictional dialogues attributed to historical biblical figures? Do you have to believe that real biblical characters uttered just such sentences written by screenwriters in WTJWorg?

You tend to prove that something Jesus did not say and do, and on the other hand you “swallow” fictional dialogues written by some people in Bethel, which are attributed to being spoken by people of biblical times.
Do not you see that you (and SpaceM) are supporting the absurdity, in an expanded form with respect to this form of Bible teaching (through "biblical dramas" performed by JW actors)?

 

[Space Merchant]

13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

@Equivocation please consider one important detail, because you are JW member and as such you absorb (everything) what is taught from GB. 

Dramatizations of biblical events have long been an important part of the Congress program, and many await with great anticipation and enthusiasm “biblical dramas” that are costumed and that contain a script specially prepared. As it is today, this summer.

Is every word, every sentence uttered by JW actors in any of these plays written in the Bible? It's not! I'm sure you know the same thing.
What explanation do you have for staging biblical events based on fictional dialogues attributed to historical biblical figures? Do you have to believe that real biblical characters uttered just such sentences written by screenwriters in WTJWorg?

You tend to prove that something Jesus did not say and do, and on the other hand you “swallow” fictional dialogues written by some people in Bethel, which are attributed to being spoken by people of biblical times.
Do not you see that you (and SpaceM) are supporting the absurdity, in an expanded form with respect to this form of Bible teaching (through "biblical dramas" performed by JW actors)?

Early manuscript evidence is not absurdity, granted the Bible derives from the manuscripts.

I find it funny how when you were asked to answer for John 7:53-8:11 you could not despite the fact you called out Bible Errors. Yet if a JW answers Textual questions, now you try to defense a false passage, to where as, you cannot provide evidence of it being true or not. This isn't the first time for even Judith did the same a while back. To add more salt to injury, the information provided was from JWFacts, who in turn, have little to no knowledge of the history of Scripture, and it shows that you do not even agree with what you professed a long time ago.

Textual Criticism predates anything pertaining to Bible Students, for Church Fathers of old were the ones to fight against Scripture that is deemed false, it was due to the falsehood you have Trinity-based like verses in the KJV and the like. Again, anyone error of Bible errors are aware of omitted verses. If I recall, as pointed out, you tried to profess errors via Judges of Israel.

Therefore, I recommend learning what textual Criticism is.

[Space Merchant]

I guess we can go forth with another one, also used by some via preaching during the pandemic.

Mark 16:9-20

Why is this omitted from the Greek New Testament?

[Thinking]

On 8/15/2021 at 3:08 AM, Equivocation said:

@Space Merchant Now that you said that I remember the thread where Admin did say something before the thread made by John was deleted. TBH, I was angry because back then, I loved my family and to this day I continue to love them. My late uncle was not a Jehovah’s Witness, but he was a firm believe in God and respected what we were doing, preaching the good news, even at times offered aid. In our culture, it is offence for someone to not just speak ill of something in that particular culture, but to speak ill of them as they are dead and buried in death is what angered me at the time. On top of that there was the Ebonics – that thread I believe might still be on this forum somewhere. As to all you said and imaged, I didn’t think that was John until you mentioned angered teen, and the notes you gave about racism.

What was the reason as to why John goes by a new name now? Because I still see Anna’s, Tom’s and your reply and random reactions, and you occasion keep saying "JB".

-----------

Hey good afternoon @Witness, us Jehovah’s Witnesses do follow the Commission. As Jesus commanded, we are preaching the Good News of Jehovah God’s Kingdom around the world. Although we are in the middle of the Coronavirus pandemic, we are still doing just that, as is build up not only our faith, but to those who come to know the Kingdom message, and they very much appreciated that, and what we are doing. As for Porosity preachers, they’re the opposite, for they really do not have preachers, and the heads of the mega church don’t really do anything much. An example of this is what happened in Texas, for them compared to what we did some years ago – truly a difference. This is why my last quote also make the distinction, and to what SM said. Even to this day, Charismatic Christians often speak ill of JWs and anyone who does not believe Jesus to be God. So I take it as to that being the reasoning behind the "Trinity/Commission" question that was asked and as to why Francis Chan was mentioned.

Also, that other bit was kind of weird 0_o. To revel in fleshly things or desires is to openly partake it in. That is kind of the opposite of what we do. I am morally sound.

------------------

 

@Srecko Sostar, it has nothing to do with activism tho - this is the reason I mentioned "points made in a discussion", no one was an Activist, but rather, gave their points on the issue of child abuse itself, and the visiting student was focused on those 2 points in the discussion related to child abuse. In addition to that was the very reason why I said whenever the topic of sex abuse is brought up, information is given, including insight on the Watchtowers and Awakes relating to the topic. The Bible speaks Christian principles, even going as far as to encourage and or teach others on this - in this case, morality. So, it still would not stop you from talking about it when being in multiple discussions about child abuse. For instance, just in this thread alone, it was brought up, some insight should have been given, so doing nothing could have been made into something. Like I said, our first interaction, you were very vocal about child sex abuse in some congregations.

About Activism, it is the fact of campaigning for policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about change. Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct, or intervene in social, political, economic, legal, or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society toward a perceived greater good. They can form through mandate building in the community, petitioning elected officials, running, or contributing to a political campaign, preferential patronage (or boycott) of businesses, and demonstrative forms of activism like rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, or hunger strikes.

Understandable. You don't have to be an open person in the general public. But online, you are very open, I can see that, and elsewhere. Alienation, probably not because not only we're aware of sin, we are aware many things, if we were truly "Alienation" we would be oblivious to everything taking place, this goes for problems affecting not a human society, but the general public, mankind as a whole. Reasons for not referring to human societies because every pocket of people are different, sex, race, background, etc. so to equate it to that is a little vague.

My friend, we aren't talking about Activism, or to make change. The issue of morality stems from Scripture even, for if there is a danger, counsel can be given in a discussion about the subject matter.

It does not matter if someone is young or if someone is old - you are on a platform where child abuse is openly discussion even at random, it shouldn't stop you or anyone from providing insight. Perhaps now would be the best time to do so. Like I said, there was only one thread that was Bible heavy on the matter because of discussion, if that can be done, you can do the same, after all, you can create threads as someone on this forum, since you did nothing, you can do something now.

Therefore, you can do something. Does not have to be anything major either. I say this because for some ExJWs they don’t really cover these things.

You have a lovely culture..never lose that respect it has taught you..not sure where you are from..I’ve been to South America ..and a few other places around…and when returning to Australia ..it saddened me…to have to admit ..our culture had lost what you speak of……I wonder if we ever had it in the first place…it taught me a great lesson.

[Witness]

7 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

John 7:53-8:11

For anyone interested, here is a very fair, well written article about its possible position in the scriptures, including lists of early manuscripts that included it.

https://www.notjustanotherbook.com/disputedjohn.htm

6 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Anything that came centuries after Apostle John, mainly out of the hands of Catholicism raises concern, and it violates Deut. 4:2 to which God took issue with people adding/removing from his Word. Hence why the command was professed.

From the article:

"People who make up stories tend to have too many details or are completely vague with almost no specifics. Here this passage has the details expected from an eye-witness. For example, someone on the sidelines would record Jesus writing on the ground, but not specifically what He was writing. Certainly this account is in harmony with how Jesus is characterized and acted throughout the gospels. It is most probable that this was an authentic episode in the life of Jesus.

If this passage was a forged or invented account, a huge question would be "why?" Unlike the Gnostic and heretical forgeries that arose in the time of the apostles and continued into the first centuries of the church, this account does not contain any new and aberrant doctrine, nor does it contradict any other teaching of Scriptures. In fact, if it was created by a heretic, it has never surfaced in any heretical or alternative gospel. There's no evidence it's a fraud."

[Pudgy]

I agree with the above logic and reasoning, and because it answers the question “why?”.

Yeah. 

[Space Merchant]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

From the article:

"People who make up stories tend to have too many details or are completely vague with almost no specifics. Here this passage has the details expected from an eye-witness. For example, someone on the sidelines would record Jesus writing on the ground, but not specifically what He was writing. Certainly this account is in harmony with how Jesus is characterized and acted throughout the gospels. It is most probable that this was an authentic episode in the life of Jesus.

If this passage was a forged or invented account, a huge question would be "why?" Unlike the Gnostic and heretical forgeries that arose in the time of the apostles and continued into the first centuries of the church, this account does not contain any new and aberrant doctrine, nor does it contradict any other teaching of Scriptures. In fact, if it was created by a heretic, it has never surfaced in any heretical or alternative gospel. There's no evidence it's a fraud."

Ok then show us evidence of an early source. There was an eye witness for a talking cross, doesn't deem it true.

As for your link, everything pertaining to the passage is noted later on. 3rd-4th century is late.