by AGuest 121 Replies latest jw friends
To the Household of God, Israel , and all who go with… may you all have peace!
Why would any one be apart of worshiping a god who was notably one the most murderous , cruel,
unjust, unloving god in human history ?
Peace has nothing to do with this god but murder certainly does.
AGuest, what do people need to be saved from?
AGuest, can a person be assured of their salvation?
AGuest, what do people need to be saved from?
From death, dear Honesty (peace to you!). What else is there to be saved FROM?
AGuest, can a person be assured of their salvation?
Yes; however, just because one says... or believes... they're saved does not mean it's true. The Apostles were assured, totally. As were others. Specifically, those who have received the "token" of sonship, and thus, the "assurance" of salvation... through union with Christ. Such ones have no condemnation (Romans 8:1). That "token" is the outpouring of holy spirit... the anointing... which one who has received it can EXPLAIN, if not, demonstrate (by one or more of the gifts granted through "oil").
Not everyone saying, "Lord, Lord..." fits into this group, though. It is those who KNOW Christ, by means of a UNION with him (so that HE acknowledged that HE knows THEM)... and not just knowing OF him. As most do. Not the same thing, dear one.
I hope this helps.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
BTW, dear Strym (the greatest of love and peace to you!), I was speaking with a dear one and he said he received the following:
As to the many painting, drawings, and other depictions of the "serpent" in the tree in Eden, they are inaccurate. In the account, the "serpent" (which was actually a seraph - a "fiery, flying serpent" - and here, specifically, a cherub) asked Eve about a Tree that was situated "in the middle of the garden." A review of the conversation, however, will reveal that neither could the serpent be IN the Tree at the time, nor could Eve have been hear it. There, Eve responded:
"We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
She did NOT say, "God said, 'You must not eat fruit from THIS tree..." indicating a tree that she was standing before or the serpent was entwined in at the time. In addition, the words "when" or "consequently", etc., were added to support the false theories that it WAS this tree. There are no such words in the Hebrew; they are purely speculative and so were subject to the whim of the particular scribe. The discussion actually took place some distance from the Tree [of Knowledge of Good and Bad].
This resounded with me because I received from my Lord that (1) the "serpent" wasn't (and isn't) a snake, as man would have you believe; and (2) "he" wasn't IN... ANY tree; he was STANDING before Eve. Literally. On his own two legs. This is corroborated by the "curse" that was placed on him as a result of his deceit and slander (which is why he is CALLED "devil" (deceiver) and "satan" (slanderer))... which curse resulted in him having the crawl "upon his belly." Because a snake slithers... some assumed this to be the animal in question. It was not; I posted what I was shown about that event, when he lost his ability to stand, elsewhere.
Also, per my Lord, the words depicting this being as an earthly animal was added because the scribes didn't understand what... or, rather, WHO... was being spoken of here (the covering cherub - Ezekiel 28:11-19). They thought "Serpent? Okay, must be a snake. If a snake, then a beast." However, the words are inaccurate. I will show you. The account states, in some form or another, depending on the Bible version you're reading, in two places:
"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made."
and...
"JaHVeH God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."
However, the TRUE words of the verses were:
"Now the serpent was more sly than any JaHVeH God had made."
Meaning, more sly than any serpent JAH had made. And this is true. The "serpent" was, again, a seraph (flying, fiery, serpent)... as all spirit beings are, including angels (of which "cherubs" are "princes)... and he was more sly than any of the OTHER seraphs/serpents JAH had made. But there were no words indicating more sly/crafty/cunning than all of the wild beasts/animals. That simply was not the case, and I will explain in a moment.
The other verse stated:
"So JaHVeH God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."
Meaning, cursed he was above ALL... seraphs, humans, AND animals... which he IS... and to SHOW this, his ability to STAND... and FLY... was removed. As a result, he became restricted... not only as to where he could go... but in STANDING BEFORE THE MOST HOLY. As a result of his deceit and slander, he, for a great long time... had to CRAWL in when taking his "station" before God and making his report. (Job 1:6, 7; 2:1, 2). This is the OUTWARD "branding" of his curse and debasement. He is now counting among the "disgusting things"... and so must "creep" about.
We can know this because... apparently only that creature could talk. But is that true? It is true that only that creature could communicate with Adham/Eve... in the way that it did. But why would only ONE animal be able to speak? Either they ALL could... or they were ALL cursed as a result of this one animal's conduct. Well, Adham could certainly communicate with all of the animals - he called them to him. But that doesn't mean he spoke to them in the language of man (or God)... or that even if he did, they spoke back in the same manner. According to my Lord, they readily communicated, but not as we speak [to one another]. So, that this one creature could... and did... as an animal... is illogical.
On the other hand, say they all COULD speak as we do - what did the others do so as to lose that capability? Nothing is stated. For them to lose it because of this one "animal's" conduct, then, would be an unrighteous act on the part of the Most Holy One of Israel... unless there was some attachment/connection between it and all the other animals. There was not.
The truth is that it wasn't an animal. He was/is a serpent, yes, but a [formerly] fiery, flying serpent... which is a seraph... a spirit being.
The second thing this dear one shared with me is that our Lord told him that Mark (the co-writer of the account of "Mark", which was actually more of Peter's recollection with input from Mark... who was his son - 1 Peter 5:13), literally heard the prayer in Gethsemane... because he had been secretly following our Lord and his disciples for some time. This night, although the disciples kept falling asleep, he did not and followed further so as to hear the prayer. Because of this, he was able to corroborate what his father (Peter) and Matthew were TOLD as to what the prayer's contents were.
Why isn't Peter identified as the writer? I asked that and apparently it was same as for Lazarus; by this time it was too dangerous for him to do so. Luke was never in danger because he was commissioned by a man in some kind of power (Theophilus) to write; he was not around before my Lord was impaled, so he had nothing to fear as being one of "his" (Christ's) disciples (such ones were taken more seriously than those who came later, excluding Paul, because they were believed to be the "leaders" of the "movement", along WITH Christ, who was THEIR leader). Luke, however, was only writing an account for another, based on other's recollections (Luke 1:2-4; Acts 1:1). Although Matthew WAS around, remember, he was formerly a tax collector and so still had some "friends" on the "other" side, so that his association with my Lord wasn't as dangerous for him. Also, he wasn't as visible and outspoken as some of the others so there was always some question as to whether he was [a disciple] or wasn't.
Peter, however, was literally identified as a disciple by the woman who recognized him. AND, he was vocal, along with Paul, James, John, and others. All of these were either imprisoned, exiled, and/or eventually killed.
There were MANY accounts written, however, by many others (Luke 1:1); these are the only ones "allowed" into the canon.
Anyway, I was compelled to share all of this with you, again, in an effort to give you the most complete picture of the events as I can. Of course, you know I'm going to say that there is One who can lead you into ALL truth... including the truth about these matters... and all you truly need to do is go to him... because THAT is the ultimate truth. And so, since I'm sharing truth... (smile).
I will leave you with that thought (smile, again)... and, again, I wish you peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
BTW - I see somone let the "dogs" out -
SA, on her own...
Dear PSacto... the greatest of love and peace to you! Yes, language is "funny" and the scribes, scholars, theologians, etc., KNOW this. They realize that most of the "amhararets" don't get etymology or even the subtle differences and nuances between different languages, dialects, tongues, and words. As a "regular" person, I didn't either... until our Lord started teaching me ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Not such that I can converse with others but so that I know what the words meant, the contexts they were used it, etc. So that I can hear HIM better, at times.
Spanish is like that for me: I can read it on an intermediate/advanced level. I can speak it on a beginning/intermediate level. I can hear it, though, when another's speaking... sometimes on a very beginning level... because of the nuances and words used, and the SPEED at which the person is speaking. I always have to say, "Mas despacio, por favor!"
Peace to you, dear one, and thank you for that corroboration!
YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,
SA
Re: Satan being a snake as by what Shelby wrote.
Shel is quite correct.
Satan was indeed One of God's priced Cherubims (SP?) and , from what I gather, was THE Cherub that was in charge of the Garden, untill he, well, as we know.
The fact that God cursed him to crawl on his belly and eat dust AFTER his temptation shows that he didn't do that before.
But of course this is mere "poetic licences" as we know that Satan did not become a snake as we know them and that the "crawl on his belly and eat dust" was a metphore for the fallen state he would have forever.
RE: the GOM, again Shel is correct that Mark basically wrote down what Peter told him to and the GOM is a collection of those writings but that is pretty common knowledge as it was mentioned in some early christian writings:
From Papias as per Eusebius:
"And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."
Yes, dear PSacto (again, peace to you, dear one!) BUT... which "Mark" is Eusebius speaking of? "John" Mark? Mark the Evangelist? Many confuse the two...
Anyway, THANK you for your comments - I truly didn't know it was "common knowledge" that Mark wrote FOR Peter; I only shared what was told to me. I've never read Eusebius, or Josephus, or Tertullina, etc., mainly because of the contradictions (that I perceived from others' references to these). Who is one to believe? Having been misled by "man" and their "take" before, I completely shied away. And... I didn't know enough Greek to even begin to understand what these wrote (and as you know, I don't rely on the English).
Again, thank you! It's so nice to know that yet another one gets the "technical" parts of these matters, too.
BTW - I went to the grocery store today and when I got out of my car I noticed a sign on a small bridal shop across the street. The shop tailors to the hispanic community and so the sign listed a few services one of which was... "limosinas"! I laughed to myself because, as you know, it's a car, a limosine. BUT... the word is feminine! As if the car is female!
Perhaps that's why men refer to their cars, boats, etc., as "she"... and often give them feminine names? I know you know what I mean...
Words are a TRIP, aren't they?
Peace, by dear one!
YOUR servant, sister, and a fellow slave of Christ,
SA
Yes, dear PSacto (again, peace to you, dear one!) BUT... which "Mark" is Eusebius speaking of? "John" Mark? Mark the Evangelist? Many confuse the two...
Excellent point.
Anyway, THANK you for your comments - I truly didn't know it was "common knowledge" that Mark wrote FOR Peter; I only shared what was told to me. I've never read Eusebius, or Josephus, or Tertullina, etc., mainly because of the contradictions (that I perceived from others' references to these). Who is one to believe? Having been misled by "man" and their "take" before, I completely shied away. And... I didn't know enough Greek to even begin to understand what these wrote (and as you know, I don't rely on the English).
I liking reading, I just remind myself to put my trust in the Lord and not the "works or words of Man".
Again, thank you! It's so nice to know that yet another one gets the "technical" parts of these matters, too.
Everything matters, but the degree depends on what stage of the journey we are at.
BTW - I went to the grocery store today and when I got out of my car I noticed a sign on a small bridal shop across the street. The shop tailors to the hispanic community and so the sign listed a few services one of which was... "limosinas"! I laughed to myself because, as you know, it's a car, a limosine. BUT... the word is feminine! As if the car is female!
Perhaps that's why men refer to their cars, boats, etc., as "she"... and often give them feminine names? I know you know what I mean...
In Latin based languages sometimes a word is "feminine" because of "fits" into the language, but I agree that Men tend to make the things they care about "femine".
Words are a TRIP, aren't they?
And all the good AND bad that goes with them.
Peace, by dear one!
YOUR servant, sister, and a fellow slave of Christ,
SA
Blessings and love on you and your family always, My Dear Sister :)
