by The Searcher 59 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Lozhasleft

    You will never receive an apology from me. I find that you are very close to evil. My body is braced every time I read one of your nonsensical posts.

    Band, what is it with all your inconsistencies? One minute you're flattering Shelby, wanting to be friends, and the next issuing the above kinds of insults. Then you accuse her! If you seriously go back and read through the 11 years of her posts you will be unable to accuse Shelby of anything but loyalty to Jah and Christ, every time she shares messages she attributes the credit NOT to HERSELF but to Christ, always urging all to go directly to Christ for answers. She is SO consistent that it defies all that you accuse. I'm not saying she's perfect, for no human is, but her faith, honesty and integrity shines out on this forum, whether you and others like it or not. So many have heard her messages from The Lord and found their way to Him, or back to Him after the WTBS. She seeks NO glory for herself at all. She bats off the most intellectual minds on here as if they are mere flies. How? Because she receives her strength and Holy Spirit from Jah through Christ, and admits it freely.

    If you don't agree with her or like her posts why not avoid them, you do have that choice after all? Shelby is one of the anointed, as am I, and many others here. I accept that it isn't easy to understand the import and significance of that if you aren't, but the offer of such, as she often tells all, is open to all. These posts highlighting your bad feelings towards her are damaging only to those of you who post them.

    Loz x

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Why doesn't Shelby avoid my posts? Keeping her big mouth shut would allow Christ to shine rather than Shelby. No, I will not reject culture and tradition for pathology. The mere act of disputing what she says is wrong. It reminds me of the Inquisiton. She will ban me regardless of Simon. Please. Let us see the bill she incurs owning this site.

    By the way, who ever heard that Lazarus is Peter's son. The answers get more and more bizarre. Others may be interested that mere fire can destory a spirit. The traditional, time tested definiton of a spirit is something not of this physical world. Fire is of this world. B/c of its awesome power, fire is used symbolically even today. See Prometheus. I repeat these are ding a ling assertions.

    I am aware of references to two Lazarus. One instance is where Jesus talks of Lazarus, suffering in a place similar to hell. I don't believe Jews believed in a literal hell. The other is the man Jesus resurrected. Where does Lazareth become Peter's son?

    The primacy of Peter is a Western tradition. Other Christian churches, such as in the MIddle East, and Northern Africa, give the apostle who supposedly founded the local Christian group primacy.

  • AGuest

    Thank you, truly, dear Loz (the greatest of love and peace to you).

    No more, madam. NO more. I've PM'd you and that will be it, with this being the last thing I address to you. You and your posts will be utterly ignored from this point on. I don't care what you ask or want to know: you will have to ask someone else. Please... do NOT address me... again... on any matter, under any circumstances or for any reason. Please... just leave me be.

    A slave of Christ,

    SA, who never said Lazarus was Peter's son...

  • Lozhasleft

    Act 5:38"And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing;

    "but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it--lest you even be found to fight against God."

    Loz x

  • moshe

    JWs, look in the mirror and ask yourself- are you happy ? If truly you are, then carry on, but if not, then stop lying to yourself and start following your inner voice. Good Luck.

  • soft+gentle

    shelby, thanks for your reply but you have not said anything to make me consider a change my mind

  • AGuest

    No worries, dear S+G (peace to you, dear one!). Just puttin' it out there. Not trying to change anyone's mind. Just more information for any who want to consider it... and certainly to be passed by by anyone who doesn't, right?

    Again, peace to you!

    Your servant and a slave of Christ,


  • Bobcat

    Phew, alot of ground was covered since the opening post. But anyway, I wanted to address a thought that was made on page 1 of this thread:

    The original Greek does not have Luke saying he wrote in "logical" order but in "chronological" (successive) order. The Greek states:

    "... to write to you in order..."

    The Greek word here is "kathexes", which means:

    "one after another, successively, in order".

    That the account WAS written in successive (and thus chronological) order is important

    Here is what the Baker Exegetical Commentary on Luke (Vol I, pp.62-3) has to say in connection with "kathexes" [Strong's 2517] in Luke 1:3:

    But to what does kathexes (an orderly account) refer? Is the order (1) "broadly chronological" (2) "a literary systematic presentation" [see Acts 11:4], (3) "a salvation-historical linkage", [ it goes on to list 4 other possibilities].

    . . . The first three views all have merit; but each by itself is inadequate. Luke is broadly chronological in its flow, but there is some rearrangement of material (e.g. Luke 4:16-30 from Mark 6:1-6; Luke 4:1-13, where the order of the temptations differs from Matthew; and the placement of John the Baptist's imprisonment by Herod in Luke 3:19-20). These rearangements and others rule out a strictly chronological arrangement, though a general chronological arrangement is present . . .

    There is a geographical arrangement to the material as well. This movement is from Galilee to Samaria, Jerusalem, Judea-Samaria, and then Rome. This arrangement is not artificial, since it represents the broad geographical sweep of Jesus' ministry and the church's growth. . .

    Luke's order is also salvation-historical in that it shows the progress of salvation under God's direction. The growth starts from its founder and continues with one of the most representative messengers of the faith, Paul. It runs from Israel to the Gentiles. It moves from promise in the infancy material to fulfillment in Jesus and the church. . . Thus, the order of Luke's account works on many levels. It is broadly chronological and geographic, and deals with sacred history.

    The commentator (Darrell L. Bock) is actually commenting on the flow of both Luke and Acts. But as he points out, Luke is not strictly chronological in every detail. Nor does the Greek word kathexes demand such an understanding. BDAG defines it as, "pert[aining] to being in sequence in time, space, or logic."

    The point is that kathexes does not, by itself, have to mean chronological, especially in the strictist sense. There are other ways to order an account.

  • AGuest

    Would it not be best to look to Luke, then, to see what HE says he meant, dear BC (peace to you!)? Let's see:

    " Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants ofthe word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

    Do you see? Luke is not only telling us HOW it set it out... but WHY he did it AS he did (in order)... and for whom (Theophilus). He is saying MANY wrote an account of what occurred... these "many" doing so by means of information being given Luke the SAME way: NOT by inspiration, but handed down from eyewitnesses who were there (Luke was not). With that in mind, HE "carefully investigated" EVERYTHING... from the start of it all... and then set it down in the ORDER his investigation showed these things to occur.

    He DID it... because there were MANY accounts... most probably all having varying perceptions, viewpoints, and even timelines. (Which is interesting, is it not, because... where ARE these, the "many" accounts?? The only other account in the Bible that precedes Luke's is Matthew's. We know Mark's and "John's" came MANY years later - so where are these others, that, if MMLJ are "inspired" most assuredly are, too... as, per Luke, they were written based on the same information?).

    Having been commissioned by Theophilus to provide a report... and so being a PROFESSIONAL... Luke didn't just write his account: he personally investigated the matters these others had written about... and then wrote his own professional account... in the order the things actuallyoccurred. He did the exact same thing with account of the Apostles' and Paul's acts during the time.

    But... no one has to take my word for it, truly. I can only put it out there, dear ones. For free. You are more than welcome, though, to go and pay someone to lie to you.

    Again, peace to you!

    A slave of Christ,


  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    If anyone is interested in scholarship, it is available. I suggest that people be wary of people asserting that so and so is true. Christ or Shakespeare said tha the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose. The Bible is so broad that any one can use it as proof of anything. I suggest you ask yourself, "What do I think?" as you read the accounts yourself. You need no interpreter.

    I will post some basic research aids that helped me. Common sense goes a long way. Someone's assertion that such and such is the truth does not make it truth.

    There is such a glut of good Bible books in recent years. They are written for a mass market but based on academic work. A good scholar will state their background so you can evaluate theri bias. Most of these books are available at public libraries. They might be assigned a history category. If you have access to an academic database, there are many thousands of articles.

    I know there is some controversy about Luke and Acts. Acts does not always support Paul's theology in his genuine epistles.

    Asking questions is much more important than having glib answers.

    Another thought is to call a seminary bookstore with a good reputation. I prefer nondemoninational ones. Also, altho I am now Protestant, I try to find a source for Roman Catholic or Orthodox views. The manager of the bookstore can recommend certain texts.

    Leo's commentary on this forum is awesome. We have some excellent scholars. This is a diverse, active forum. I recommend reading many posters and then ask what makes sense to me?

Share this