Looking After Widows and Orphans... and Spending One's "Riches"

by AGuest 136 Replies latest jw friends

  • ziddina
    ziddina
    "...but paganism, as the Latin root word paganus suggests: folks [usually from more rural areas] whose gods/deities are closely related to nature and the earth. ..." AGuest, page 5

    And AGain you're basing your opinion on modern pseudo-information without doing the RESEARCH into the historical realities.

    Just like your ABYSMAL mis-interpretation of the "seraphim" as "dragons".

    The term "pagan" was an insult - and was NEVER used in the period of Imperial Rome to describe the various pre-Christian religions practiced in the Mediterranean area...

    In fact, the early Christians came far closer to a common interpretation of the term "pagan" - country rube, ill-educated buffoon - than the many well-educated so-called HEATHEN philosophers of the time.

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    In fact, since we're on the subject of "dragons" and "seraphim", here are a FEW Byzantine illustrations of "seraphim".

    The Byzantines may not have had "Jeheshua" whispering into THEIR ears, but at around 300 - 500 A.D., they were a LOT closer to the actual origins of Christianity than YOU...

    So, here is how the BYZANTINE Christians represented "seraphim":

    http://classicalchristianity.com/category/bysaint/st-gregory-the-dialogist-ca-540-604/

    seraphim

    http://www.williamhenry.net/art_gentleheart.html

    No snakes or dragons THERE...

    Must be because THEY understood the CORRECT interpretation of the term "seraphim"....

  • Lozhasleft
    Lozhasleft

    So many posts about words, words, words. Picking and picking. Can't anyone contribute by staying with the topic?

    Loz x

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    Language and communication are useless if words are not used properly, within the framework of their universally-accepted definitions.

    Some on-board want to re-define words to suit THEIR arguments, and then complain about "posts about words" when their mis-use of terms and lack of research is pointed out.

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Did you not get???

    Prolly the same part as "I'm not speaking of neopaganism" that you didn't get, dear Zid (peace to you!). And I in NO way asserted that pagans (as that term originally connotated) did not believe in an afterlife. For the LIFE of me, I can't understand where you got that I did. But let me ask you: an afterlife... where? In what form? Take your time, now...

    Jeheshua must be on the toilet, eh?

    That one might. I wouldn't know. Perhaps you would, seeing as you are turning out to be an expert on all things toilet-related...

    Not whispering the correct answers in your ear right now?

    I am not aware that such a person ever whispered anything in my ear; however, as you might know, there are many gods/spirits... and I don't ask them all their names, so... I mean, could well be a toilet-god. Not one that I'm aware of, though...

    Christianity in ALL of its various forms - even, or more accurately, especially your version - is rife with paganism; pagan symbols and beliefs.

    Sigh. Yes, they are. Never said different. Indeed, I said I could relate to/understand/accept pagans MORE... that many who profess to be believers. Of course, you didn't get that, nope. No, all YOU got is that "AGuest has said"... and regardless of what it was you were going to take issue with it. But, goodness, girl... go ahead. I don't mind. But you should take care. Because next you'll be telling us that the Jews didn't have/use/know how to use swords... and the Maasai never kill lions, and certainly not man-eating ones.

    Please, if you've a mind to... do us... and yourself... a favor and research the origin of the word "pagan." Please.

    Again, peace to you.

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA, who wonders if any of you usual suspects know how to do anything other than follow around those you consider to a "common enemy" and cannot, for the LIFE of her, understand why topics... and PEOPLE... that you REPEATEDLY state are of absolutley NO interest to you... seem, to the contrary, to be of GREAT interest. A little honesty is all we ask. A modicum. Smidge. Size of a mustard seed... Then perhaps you can work on that whole "faith the size of a mustard seed" thing, too. I mean, if you've a mind... and heart... to do so.

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Sigh. Okay, then, dear Zid (peace to you!)... your turn (I mean, since the games are stilling played):

    And AGain you're basing your opinion on modern pseudo-information without doing the RESEARCH into the historical realities .

    Actually, that's what you're doing. And you know it. Now, others here might not be up on such things and so may not know which of us is accurate here... in which case I would exhort them to listen to NEITHER of us... and look it up for themselves. Or... ask. (On a side note: while we're on the subject of opinions versus facts... where is your indictment of EE for his huge error regarding the we-don't-kill-no-lions-oh-wait-unless-we-do-it-six-at-a-time Maasai? Oh, wait... he "saved" himself on that one, did he not, with some off-the-wall and off-topic mumbling about "capital punishment". And where were your accusations as to very erroneous opinion by BOTR that there was so much peace going on in 1st century Jerusalem due to the Pax Romana that the FACT that Jews owning, carrying, and knowing how to use swords was "Bull"? I have never taken YOU to be a hypocrite, dear Zid... or maybe I have, I can't remember. You might.).

    Just like your ABYSMAL mis-interpretation of the "seraphim" as "dragons".

    A seraph (saraph)... is a fiery, flying, flesh-eating serpent. What, pray tell... is a dragon? Look at your pictures, girlfriend.

    The term "pagan" was an insult -

    Ummmm... I never stated that it wasn't. However, initially, it wasn't even related to good or bad (so as to be an insult), but merely an term to describe an agricultural people (who were "earthy" and passive, farmers and peaceable people, for the most part. It came to denote an insult later, first when applied to christians by Roman soldiers, then by so-called "christians" when these agricultural people were less open to what they were being told as to "Christ" and the related new form of worship than those in the more urban areas. Similar to the meaning (and underlying contempt) by the Jews speaking of those they called "amhararets".

    and was NEVER used in the period of Imperial Rome to describe the various pre-Christian religions practiced in the Mediterranean area...

    Ummmm... I never stated that, either. The terms "Imperial Rome" and "various pre-christian religions" never came up in my comments. Indeed, my understanding is that it was a word that originated AFTER the initial establishment of the Body... which I believe I stated. By the Roman soldiers to describe the passivity of the Body (which they likened to that of the rural farmers, etc.).

    In fact, the early Christians came far closer to a common interpretation of the term "pagan" - country rube, ill-educated buffoon - than the many well-educated so-called HEATHEN philosophers of the time.

    Not exactly. Paul's reference to the Cretan's notwithstanding, the early body wouldn't have used the term thus because, negatively, it was a term used as to THEM. From about the 2nd-3rd century, however, when the "apostasy" started... and imposters started rising up, the term was used as an insult and denigration of the more simple country people who didn't just fall down and worship at the feet of those who claimed to be bringing them "good news." Some rejected this "news" altogether (and given the falsehoods running rampant by this time), did a GOOD thing. Some formed a hybrid kind of religious system, one that encompassed their previous worship (including of deities they believed directly involved in and responsible for the physical realm) AND the new teachings.

    I realize that some of you thing I'm totally uneducated, but really, I'm not, Zid. I attended university. And, as I have shared, doing so did not undermine my faith; to the contrary, it helped build it. Because in addition to what I heard and hear from my Lord, I learned things like this, like what "pagan" meant, about whom, by whom, and when. So that when HE speaks of it, I understand the BASIS. My minor was philosophy, dear one (because I was preparing for law studies), so I took quite a few classes in that area. Not just the usual undergrad Philosophy 101.

    So, I repeat: YOU are thinking of neopaganism... or paganism as such came to be used AFTER the 2nd-3rd century. About the same time that the understanding of "dragons" that YOU have originated. Which I will address next.

    Again, peace to you!

    A slave of Christ,

    SA, who says that just a person can post pictures of a mythical beast they believe is a dragon... doesn't mean they actually know what one is...

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    In fact, since we're on the subject of "dragons" and "seraphim", here are a FEW Byzantine illustrations of "seraphim".

    Yes. And your next comment is my point (emphases are mine):

    The Byzantines may not have had "Jeheshua" whispering into THEIR ears

    You will absolutely get NO argument or disagreement from me on this. Although, I THINK the One you mean is JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah). Funny, isn't it, though... how you folks can't state it? Can't even write it?

    , but at around 300 - 500 A.D.,

    YES! And by THAT time, the Body of Christ barely resembled what he started. He never instituted any Council... or established any "creeds." Yet, those existed. Not only existed, but when to all kinds of extents to FORCE people to accept [their version of] "Christ" and things related. But this was prophesied: the "restraint" would be removed and wicked men would arise from with the Body itself. And the world would once again plunge into darkness. The "Dark Ages" started long, long before the western world's written history states. With the exception of a very few... a VERY few... there was no faith in the earth. As is almost always the case. Yes, there were... and are... those who have "a FORM of godly devotion." A buttload of these. Then... and now. But just as then, now too... such ones "prove FALSE" to the power of that "devotion."

    they were a LOT closer to the actual origins of Christianity than YOU...

    I have to disagree, dear one - the closest one can get to the origin... is the Source. When one is a member of the BODY of Christ, one is in union with HIM... THE Source. The Byzantine's, as a people, were not a part of that Body, not even close to it and thus, nowhere near the Source. Those who were... either hid... or were martyred. In EACH generation, however, there are a few who come forth and declare the truth. For millenia great campaigns have been undertaken to silence such ones. Started with Abel... and continues down to today. Today, such ones are necessarily murdered (depends on where they are)... but the efforts to silence them never cease.

    This campaign is and has always been the vocation of the ADVERSARY of the Christ and his Body (the seed of the Woman)... the "enmity" between him and Christ. Since he is now the ruler of THIS world he has vast resources at his disposal. Because we are IN the world. And the most prevalent... yet obscure... resource... his MOST handy "tool"... is folks like you. You all have no idea how you are ALLOWING yourselves to be used. No more than those who had my Lord put to death... those who killed the Prophets... those who persecuted and killed the early Body... those who killed some during campaigns like the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem witch hunts, etc., did. And the attempts to denigrate those by calling them apostates, heretics, sorcerers, witches, demonized, charlatans, zealots, insane, delusional, mentally diseased, etc. Using this terms, they have been able to convince the masses and gather followers in THEIR endeavors to silence the Body. And if that didn't work, if turning the PEOPLE against them didn't work... then, they killed them. Look at man's HISTORY - it's all there.

    And you, some of you here, are among them. But, just as my Lord said of those who opposed and silenced HIM... I say of you, "Forgive them, Father, because they truly DON'T know what they're doing... how they're being used... and for whose purpose."

    Think of it: you think me an imposter, yet you consider me more dangerous than, say, the WTBTS. Such ones have misled MILLIONS... some even to their physical death. They have lied, cheated, stolen, and murdered. Openly. And you all KNOW this. Yet, some of you are still a part of her regardless of what you wish us to believe the reason is... and all of you have now turned to excusing her... in exchange for opposing me and those like me. We, who've lied to no one, cheated no one, stolen from no one... indeed, have asked NOTHING of ANYONE... and certainly have murdered no one. To the contrary, I just recently posted information that can help some SAVE their mortal lives... and/or that of others... and look what was taken from that. NOT that such ones could be FREE from the burden erroneously and wickedly placed on them as to this matter... but, OMG, someone might actually LISTEN. NOT that the mortal life of anyone listening might be SAVED... no. Rather, some of you consider it better that they... or their loved one(s)... DIE... than listen to something YOU don't like, agree with, or recall having ever heard before.

    If THAT isn't WTBTS indoctrination and baggage at its best... I don't know what is!

    So, here is how the BYZANTINE Christians represented "seraphim"

    Yes. Which is how one would know that they had NO clue, but were only depicting what others told them... or they THOUGHT... seraphs appeared like. Because if one bothered to look up the WORDS... including their Latin, Greek, Hebrew/Aramaic forms, means, and etymologies, one would KNOW this. Or... even easier... if one just asked.

    I have the courage to ask. That you DON'T... is your deficiency, not mine.

    Now, I can cut you some slack and we can leave it here, dear Zid... or you can tell me if you want me to continue and SHOW you... from the Bible (which is where the Byzantine's would have looked, right?)... what seraphs look like. In the meantime, we can start with the simple truths, which you perhaps already know, that one spirit being is a seraph (saraph) while the GROUP (which includes them all, even the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies)... are "seraphim". Same for cherubs - "cherub" denotes one, while "cherubim" denote more than one. Same with "Nephi" - they are a particular rank of spirit beings - "the Nephilim."

    So, YOU choose whether you wish to contine this... contest. I'm certainly "game", if you are.

    Again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I NEVER said Jews did not have swords. What I did say was that what was Peter doing with a sword when Jesus expressly said to "turn the other cheek." Jesus' statement ended up in the gospels. Not everything he said did. The OP stated the problem Peter's not only possessing a sword, but using it presented. The gospel account has been widely debated throughout Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church and the Quakers' views are in sharp contrast.

    Despite your efforts, thought can be used on this forum. Your desperate search for bizarre answers does not mean we all should bow down to your siliness.

    The Bible presents hard questions. Ancient people were not stupid. They may lack technology but they were wise. Bible authors knew they were in conflict. The early church canonized the books of the Bible with complete knowledge that the Bible presented challenges. It is notable that of all Jesus' sayings in the four gospels, and all noncanonical books found so, the name of Shelby as channel is never mentioned.

    You lack heft. Shelby does not control this forum. Never. No one would be here if you did.

  • perfect1
    perfect1

    I sense an impending epic battle

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    I NEVER said Jews did not have swords. What I did say was that what was Peter doing with a sword when Jesus expressly said to "turn the other cheek." Jesus' statement ended up in the gospels. Not everything he said did. The OP stated the problem Peter's not only possessing a sword, but using it presented. The gospel account has been widely debated throughout Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church and the Quakers' views are in sharp contrast.

    Yes, I agree, the discussion started OUT that way... but it's there, if anyone wants to review what you "said."

    Despite your efforts, thought can be used on this forum. Your desperate search for bizarre answers does not mean we all should bow down to your siliness.

    You SHOULDN'T, I absolutely agree (and have said such many... many... many times, here). But the way you follow me around, begging for some kind of attention from ME... one would think that YOU think you should. Let me reiterate, in case you didn't understand: you SHOULDN'T. NO ONE should. Not even my fellow slaves (Revelation 19:10;22:9). And THEY know this, contrary to what some suggest. Not sure "YOU" do, though...

    The Bible presents hard questions.

    To those without understanding (which they receive by means of holy spirit), yes. To those in union with Christ, not so much. Well, at least, they know where to find the answers. Rather, from whom to receive them.

    Ancient people were not stupid.

    Okaaayyyyy??? AND... they knew how to use swords!! Expertly, even! To the point of being able to cut off just an ear... rather than an entire head!

    They may lack technology but they were wise.

    You won't find ME disagreeing with that. Although, I'm not sure I would say they lacked "technology". I mean, holy spirit is as state-of-the-art as anyone can get during any given era...

    Bible authors knew they were in conflict.

    This is not true. THEY were not in conflict, nor was what they penned. Conflicts occurred due to the "false stylus" of the secretaries. Hence, my Lord's words, "WOE, to you... scribes!" But then, you knew what that was all about, right? Because your tenured professors explained it to you... and without holy spirit! Right? So you can KNOW what THEY explained was accurate! Right?

    The early church canonized the books of the Bible with complete knowledge that the Bible presented challenges.

    Oh, they even contributed to some of those "challenges." For example, by deciding which writings would be included, which wouldn't, the order in which the writings were canonized... the name of the writing's author... etc., etc., etc.,...

    It is notable that of all Jesus' sayings in the four gospels, and all noncanonical books found so, the name of Shelby as channel is never mentioned.

    Well, now why would it be? That's not MY name, actually. It's just what folks call me. Now, I could tell you that my name IS in there... but you wouldn't believe it. Even if I showed it to you. It is, actually... but I would never even deign to say that it's being there means me, personally and specifically...

    You lack heft.

    Indeed, I'm about 107-108 lbs today (it fluctuates). Rumor has it that you're not lacking in heft, though...

    Shelby does not control this forum.

    No, that would be Simon, Angharad, and the various mods...

    Never.

    Well, never say never, luv...

    No one would be here if you did.

    Perhaps. They would probably be over at another site I could control if I wanted to, though. I'm not much into controlling anything or anyone other than myself, though, so...

    Really, Band... you really want to move on from me, now. Really. You're going to embarrass yourself even more if you don't. It's wet, rainy, and cold here... and I'm am tired of you usual suspects... and I get cranky when I get cold... and tired... sorry to say (and you don't want to add in hungry, 'cause lawd, girl!). I mean, I won't let you provoke me into calling down evil on you or anything like that (where is the love in such a thing?? Nor could I even expect my Lord to respond to such a thing - I truly would not WANT him to, so...)... and so I would not "sin" against you with my tongue... but I would absolutely further expose your hypocrisy, ignorance, and darkness... more than already has been... and I truly don't think you want that to occur. Truly.

    So, let's you and me put it on a shelf for a bit, okay? We can pick it back up in another day or so... if you are still inclined to. But today is probably not a good day for this. For you.

    A slave of Christ,

    SA

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit