Jump to content
The World News Media

The Sacred Field Ministry Stopped by a Bad Flu?


Jack Ryan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member
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.

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
On 8/14/2021 at 7:17 PM, Equivocation said:

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

I thought that what @Patiently waiting for Truth did here was excellent. He didn't give a miniature summary of the passage, but he used other scriptures to show that the idea was very feasible.

Also, "Patiently" (calling himself 4Jah2me at the time) had already brought up the point about this being a potentially spurious passage several months ago. SM has brought it up several times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@JW Insider Thank you, the thread alone has more detail.

It wasn't much when @Patiently waiting for Truth said the 2 points he addresses, which didn't have that much detail as seen here -

  • 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. 

But this thread alone has more detail as to what I was asking for, not sure as to why he didn't bring that up early before his usual boxing match with SM. Although debatable, majority of people see it as spurious, even us JWs, reason why I cited JW library, and my pervious post was from a study, where I quoted my old comment about the history of that passage. Even while preaching, there are people who do not consider this as part of the Scriptures, even more when it was used much much later on in some translations.

Thanks again because you took literally a minute to do this vs someone else who took days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

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

There was the Vulgate I think, but that was later if I remember correctly, nothing early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

scriptures to show that the idea was very feasible.

An idea, yes, but all in all, such things that came forth later most of us do not consider authentic. Mainly in the realm of Deut. 4:2. One needs to be careful of thinking something is true when there is no evidence to it. 

That said, those that omitted the passage from Scripture are not in the wrong for doing so, but are often seen as an enemy when the step is taken. Likewise with Acts 7:59 when God was added to the text.

4 minutes ago, Equivocation said:

But this thread alone has more detail as to what I was asking for. Although debatable, majority of people see it as spurious. Even while preaching, there are people who do not consider this as part of the Scriptures, even more when it was used much much later on in some translations.

It is debated to this day because people see this as a worthy story to be added to the Scriptures, however until it was found out later on that the authorship was most likely not John, this brought those of Textual Criticism out of the woodworks.

4 minutes ago, Equivocation said:

There was the Vulgate I think, but that was later if I remember correctly, nothing early.

Pericope De Adultera was mostly conjured up around that time. Same cases with other things some try to add to the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours 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)?

Hey evening - Not sure what does this all have to do with Greek Scriptures. Kind of focused on the Bible itself, no dramas, so I don't see why all of a sudden we have to go there. I wouldn't call it prove or not, it is more so speculation, but most people don't think it to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Likewise with Acts 7:59 when God was added to the text.

Yes, the kjv bible - And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

 

The NWT reads - 

As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 

Other translations also left out God, and kept Lord.

Notice in all of them, only the kjv and the new kjv shows God. This is as you pointed out another verse often used by some, and we can see that there is a problem. The fact that "God" is mentioned this close with Jesus being mentioned here, some would assume Jesus to be God. This is one of those verses some people, I just the new thought crowd, trinitarians and even some former jws often attack the NWT on, not realizing that "God" isn't part of the verse. Revelation 1:11 is a conundrum on it's own, and an obvious form of forgery.

15 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

It is debated to this day because people see this as a worthy story to be added to the Scriptures, however until it was found out later on that the authorship was most likely not John, this brought those of Textual Criticism out of the woodworks.

Well I guess very true since it can be seen here lol. Although a good passage, sadly, it isn't part of Scripture.

15 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Pericope De Adultera was mostly conjured up around that time. Same cases with other things some try to add to the text.

Why would you think some people would go to great lengths to "add" or "remove" to trick many, even resulting false teachings? I mean we got the whole trinity thing squared off, and immortal soul teaching.

Even while preaching, we run into these things sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
13 hours ago, Witness said:

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

Good evening witness, I just explained to you the reasoning behind that verse, even went as far as to paraphrase the reference. So, I am not sure how you took it as a wrong response.

That other bit is kind of irrelevant. I also do not think there is a lockdown of spiritual food.

13 hours ago, Witness said:

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

Spiritual Israel?

13 hours ago, Witness said:

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)

Isn't it obvious?

13 hours ago, Witness said:

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

Ok, I think you are goin waaaaaaaaay overboard there lol

12 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.

Why would someone inspired like John ever be at fault when taking part in what Jehovah has given him to do? That does not make sense. It is a good passage, but if the story can't be 100% true in determination, why would anyone say that it is? There was most likely a good reason as to why it was not included, and that passage is not the only one.

12 hours ago, Witness said:

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)

The history of John 7:53-8:11 was always talked about for a very long time, this is nothing new to Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean, it would be pollution of God's Word if we were to add to it with something we cannot know for certain if it is true, as well as the fact that early on, there was a reason to omitted it. If one bible had the passage and later removed it, that should tell you something.

12 hours ago, Witness said:

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

You haven't explained what this has to do with the omitted verses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
10 hours 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. 

Yes some would say that, but it goes back to what was originally written and what came later. For there were reasons as to why some verses, passages and even some books were not added to Scripture.

SM mentioned something about a talking cross 0_o, which is new to me, and if that was in the bible, that would confuse me. It all comes down to the authorship of apostle John. The only people who defend this passage are often the kjv bible crowd, along with Triune believers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

Yes, the kjv bible - And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

 

The NWT reads - 

As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 

Other translations also left out God, and kept Lord.

Notice in all of them, only the kjv and the new kjv shows God. This is as you pointed out another verse often used by some, and we can see that there is a problem. The fact that "God" is mentioned this close with Jesus being mentioned here, some would assume Jesus to be God. This is one of those verses some people, I just the new thought crowd, trinitarians and even some former jws often attack the NWT on, not realizing that "God" isn't part of the verse. Revelation 1:11 is a conundrum on it's own, and an obvious form of forgery.

And that alone creates a problem, often most for the unsuspecting person who is told this verse. Trinitarians will jump to this to prove Jesus is God, likewise with the false version of Revelations 1:11.

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

Well I guess very true since it can be seen here lol. Although a good passage, sadly, it isn't part of Scripture.

Correct, but this passage alone shows a distinction between the two factions of Christianity. The prosperity preacher, Mr. Chan has often used this passage time and time again, his whole following assumes this passage to be authentic. Some Trinitarians were later called out for this, as is, with Mark 16:9-20.

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

Why would you think some people would go to great lengths to "add" or "remove" to trick many, even resulting false teachings? I mean we got the whole trinity thing squared off, and immortal soul teaching.

Even while preaching, we run into these things sometimes.

To mislead. Likewise to what the Gnostics attempt to do a long time ago. It isn't that much of a shock for people to believe such things.

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

@JW Insider Thank you, the thread alone has more detail.

It wasn't much when @Patiently waiting for Truth said the 2 points he addresses, which didn't have that much detail as seen here -

  • 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. 

But this thread alone has more detail as to what I was asking for, not sure as to why he didn't bring that up early before his usual boxing match with SM. Although debatable, majority of people see it as spurious, even us JWs, reason why I cited JW library, and my pervious post was from a study, where I quoted my old comment about the history of that passage. Even while preaching, there are people who do not consider this as part of the Scriptures, even more when it was used much much later on in some translations.

Thanks again because you took literally a minute to do this vs someone else who took days.

And you would of thought he would have addressed that since day one in regards to a spurious narrative; regardless those such as the man of Lyons, and those like him, are right concerning heresies and uninspired text.

48 minutes ago, Equivocation said:

SM mentioned something about a talking cross 0_o

Yes, Jesus also becomes a giant. This is The Gospel of Peter/Gospel according (Peterkata Petron euangelion). A major focus of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter is the passion narrative, also exaggerated, which ascribes responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate. Since the focus has shifted to late sources, 3rd century and beyond, this Gospel was most likely written in the 8th or 9th century, and just like Apostle John, some tried to, unknowingly, pin this spurious gospel on Peter.

Like the Adulterous Woman passage, this Gospel was fought against too. The earliest mention of the Gospel of Peter was made by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (c. AD 200) in a letter titled “Concerning what is known as the Gospel of Peter.” In this letter Serapion advised church leaders not to read this Gospel to their church congregations because of its Docetic content. He also condemned the Gospel of Peter as a forgery. In the gospel there is also a very different version of Mark 15:34, which mirrored that of the Qur'an's Sura 4:157-158.

  • The gospel shows this version of Mark 15:34 - The Gospel of Peter says that on the cross Jesus cried out, “My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me,” rather than “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?
  • As for the Qur'an's Sura 4:157-158 - But Allah took him up unto Himself.

Docetism is one form of Docetism (Marcionism - was an early Christian dualistic belief system) that maintains the idea that the Christ was so divine He could not have been human. I brought this up in a debate before a while back. He only appeared to be made of flesh and blood, His body being a phantasm. Some groups attested that while Jesus was a man in the flesh, Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus’ body in the form of a dove at His baptism, empowering Him to perform miracles. The Christ entity then abandoned Jesus after he dies via crucifixion. Docetic view was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 (everything apparently starts here) a heresy. Docetism largely died out during the first millennium, which left some views to survive afterwards, Gnosticism, Subordinationism which later birthed Restorationism, then you have the Trinitarians and Binitarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I can easily see that …. Perhaps …. The reason it was omitted from the earliest manuscripts is that elements of the first century “church” realized that if forgiveness was so freely given, it would subvert the authority of the rapidly developing corrupt precursor to what would become the Catholic Church. 
It is just a guess on my part, but the Scripture about Jesus forgiving the adulterous woman would subvert the grip the corrupt “Elders” were trying to establish as God’s sole representatives, in the same way that the concept of a burning “hell of torment” did, in reverse.

Perhaps (?) centuries later, this omission was corrected, when those political influences that had the scripture removed were not as strong, and immediately dangerous. 
 

For me, I believe the Scripture is the words of Jesus, because contextually, there is no reason to believe they are not the words of Jesus. 
 

The ONLY thing I can see that anybody would gain by spuriously inserting that text is ….. Nothing!

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.