The Sacred Field Ministry Stopped by a Bad Flu?

[Equivocation]

15 minutes ago, Witness said:

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel Matt 10:23 before the Son of Man comes."  Matt 10:23

I think it is pretty obvious, that around the world, different towns, cities, etc. there will be some minor instances of persecution, mainly from people who holds aggression when it comes to the Bible. For example, if we are preaching in a small town in Florida, in that small town we may face persecution, but at the same time, in that town, there are those wanting to know, even learn about the good news.

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.

Jesus already knows what the future holds. The very reason why he said what he said to the apostles, which we can learn from today. Jesus is indicating that his disciples will not complete the preaching about God’s Kingdom before the glorified King Jesus Christ arrives as God’s judge. So we have a long way to go.

So as followers of his, we are to carry out this work.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

13 hours ago, Equivocation said:

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".

John Butler was removed and BANNED from this forum. He wa not able to return as john Butler because he was blocked completely. His name and his email were both blocked. He was never given a fair hearing, he was just disfellowshipped from this forum. That is how he knows this forum is run by JW Elders. Why else would he have been unfairly removed ?

So, John Butler had to return under a different name, not by choice. And he had to refuse to say if he was john Butler under fear that he would be removed again. So, it was not John butler's choice and not his fault, it was the Elders that run this forum that were totally unfair. Now you decide if i am John Butler, for your own satisfaction. 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

13 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I don't believe we've taken Romans 13 out of context,

The JW Org took that scripture out of context from 1929 until 1962.  The proof of it was shown in my comment. 

 

[Equivocation]

4 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

John Butler was removed and BANNED from this forum. He wa not able to return as john Butler because he was blocked completely. His name and his email were both blocked. He was never given a fair hearing, he was just disfellowshipped from this forum. That is how he knows this forum is run by JW Elders. Why else would he have been unfairly removed ?

So, John Butler had to return under a different name, not by choice. And he had to refuse to say if he was john Butler under fear that he would be removed again. So, it was not John butler's choice and not his fault, it was the Elders that run this forum that were totally unfair. Now you decide if i am John Butler, for your own satisfaction. 

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.

[Equivocation]

8 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

The JW Org took that scripture out of context from 1929 until 1962.  The proof of it was shown in my comment. 

 

I read both, but I don't see as to what was taken out of context, especially with my comment of Roman 13 which solidifies the view of superior authorities be it rulers in the world, or that of Jehovah and Jesus, who are of the highest authority.

You can see the distinction between both comments, more information if you read the full pages:

[Equivocation]

@Srecko Sostar @Patiently waiting for Truth I figured this might help you out a little. It isn't much, but you can start from there - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations

@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.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

13 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Those 2 questions were relatively easy. Seeing that no one was going to answer that, I just decided to say something. I guess you can say I did a solid for both of you.

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. 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

13 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I read both, but I don't see as to what was taken out of context

From 1929 to 1962 the Leaders of the Watchtower / JW org took control of the consciences of the congregation members.

They used the excuse that being the leaders of the org, God had given those leaders control over people. 

In WW2 JWs could have done other work in the comunity but the Watchtower Leaders told the JWs they had to go to prison and not do any work at all.  Sorry that is just a quick explanation, back later. 

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

@Srecko Sostar I see why he asked you both those questions, it was based on not why us Jehovah's Witnesses use a translation that omits the verses in question, but rather, to make a distinction between people who knows about what is in the inspired text and what is not in the inspired text.

 

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

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.

After this explanation (thank you) I have to ask at least two questions, or more than two:
1) Who decides what an inspired biblical text is ? (Space Merhant, WTJWorg, experts, translators, archaeologists ..., '')
2) Is it crucial for the canonization of a biblical text that:                                                                                A) "the text is inspired" or
  B) that the text can be found in "old manuscripts"?
3) Who can claim that "manuscripts" are completely reliable?

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

John 7:53-8:11 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.

About "an exaggerated story" issue. 

Questions:

Was the story about the Rich Man and Lazarus, an exaggeration of Jesus? Let's read which elements are mentioned here:
1) a poor man, after death, is carried by angels (to Heaven, Paradise ??) to be with Abraham who also died a long time ago
2) The dead rich man is in the Tomb (Grave), but he is in fiery torment
3) the rich man is looking for water on Lazarus' finger to cool his tongue
4) there is a big chasm between the three of them

What is so exaggerated in the story of Adulterous Woman in comparison to story about Rich Man and Lazarus? Why does Jesus use ideological / religious elements of the immortal soul, hellfire, torture of sinners ...,? 

[Equivocation]

49 minutes 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. 

Well you did respond to it with Luke 17:36. I read the one about homosexuality, he challenged you on Romans 12:9 "cling to what is good/abhor what is bad" since you took his comment out of context to Tom he trapped you with the obvious homosexuality question. I notice if someone takes something out of context, he enables the other person to push the point, so I can see how he got you. His point to Tom was people who often are in apostasy will do bad things.

There are some points to his comments if you really read them, it isn't choice, often times he is right, mainly when lines people up into their own understanding uses it to his advantage.

So to what he said to Tom, Christians need to cling to what is good, and not what is bad.

46 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

From 1929 to 1962 the Leaders of the Watchtower / JW org took control of the consciences of the congregation members.

They used the excuse that being the leaders of the org, God had given those leaders control over people. 

In WW2 JWs could have done other work in the comunity but the Watchtower Leaders told the JWs they had to go to prison and not do any work at all.  Sorry that is just a quick explanation, back later. 

But you were confused on superior authority, you said to look at what you quoted and I did. I still don't see what was taken out of context from the images. And I don't see the misuse of Scripture for Romans 13.

Telling people although worldly authority are superior and that God is superior isn't taking control or confusing people in the congregation. As to what I made comment to, we understand there are people of authority in the world, and there is Jehovah and Jesus who has authority as well.

 

Nah, you're good, nothing to be sorry about, you can add on anything at anytime.

[Equivocation]

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

After this explanation (thank you) I have to ask at least two questions, or more than two:
1) Who decides what an inspired biblical text is ? (Space Merhant, WTJWorg, experts, translators, archaeologists ..., '')
2) Is it crucial for the canonization of a biblical text that:                                                                                A) "the text is inspired" or
  B) that the text can be found in "old manuscripts"?
3) Who can claim that "manuscripts" are completely reliable?

1. Any available early source. The NWT follows this, and the same thing for some other Bible Translations

1a. He is mostly a Textual Analyst and or studies it, and Hermeneutics, so people like that should know what early mss are used, and why the later ones are often not used. If I am not mistaken, Bible Unitarians take that seriously.

1b. Since the JWs were referred to as Restorationist, Restorationists usually follow the earliest sources, likewise, the mention of other Bible translations besides the NWT that does the same thing, for example Acts 8:37 being in the KJV Bible, but not in the NIV Bible.

1c. Expert Translators who are aware of Textual Analytics or experts of Hermeneutics.

2a. The Scriptures are inspired, that is the reason why 2 Timothy 3:16 was mentioned. God's Word is inspired.

2b. Yes, that is why we have modern Bible translations in a readable language.

3. Any expert or people who study Textual Analysts or Hermeneutics. For example, knowing the original version of Revelation 1:11 compared to the later one. Likewise with Acts 7:59, the original did not say "God" in the text.

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

About "an exaggerated story" issue. 

Exaggerated because it is spurious and a not inspired text. This is why I mentioned how it is not found in the earliest mss.

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Was the story about the Rich Man and Lazarus, an exaggeration of Jesus? Let's read which elements are mentioned here:
1) a poor man, after death, is carried by angels (to Heaven, Paradise ??) to be with Abraham who also died a long time ago
2) The dead rich man is in the Tomb (Grave), but he is in fiery torment
3) the rich man is looking for water on Lazarus' finger to cool his tongue
4) there is a big chasm between the three of them

The illustration/parables were found in the earliest mss. Srecko, I think you are getting confused as to what an exaggerated story/narrative is. My last comment explained everything.

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What is so exaggerated in the story of Adulterous Woman in comparison to story about Rich Man and Lazarus? Why does Jesus use ideological / religious elements of the immortal soul, hellfire, torture of sinners ...,? 

Because the illustration/parable was found in the earliest sources and was part of the inspired text.

The Adulterous Woman passage was never in the earliest sources at all, and was added much later on from an unauthentic source.

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

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?

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

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.