Question of the Day: Why are so very few of Jesus ACTUAL WORDS...

by Terry 88 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  dying for a belief we have guessed at is tragic. Who would do that for real today other than the JWs with the blood issue?

  Ummmmm... someone who bought into the hype of superiority of race, non-existing WMDs, and things like these, dear JO (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!)? For some, it's not even a belief THEY guessed at, but what someone ELSE guessed at.

  a misunderstanding has occurred here between Quentin and Shelby, and I can see it clearly, but I don't want to butt my nose in unwanted... So if you want me to, I will point point it out.

  Please do, dear tec (the greatest of love and peace to you, as well!). I can see where dear Q (peace to you!) may have misunderstood me... and my intent; however, I cannot fathom why if it is truly as he says (God speaks to him). Granted, I take his admission literally as I also cannot fathom someone making such a claim here (on this board)... without merit. So, I do believe he believes "God" speaks to him. In that light, however, I also think he should understand why it is that (1) I MUST state the truth about where I receive the things I share... and what it would mean were I not to do so, and (2) why I did so.

  But since it does remains with us, the Body of Christ, to be peaceable with ALL... and I do want my wish for peace toward dear Q to stand for something because it truly does come from a place of sincerity... please... help us both out.

  Again, peace to you both!

  Your servant, sister, and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  journey-on

  Hi, Shelby. I actually thought of soldiers dying for their service when I posted my thought about dying for something guessed at. But, I put THAT in a different category than what this post is about......religious guesses and beliefs (the unseen).

  I could lay out what I see as the differences, but that would be hijacking. Peace to you, my sister......journey-on
• 

  tec

  removed to take to PM.
• 

  tec

  Asking people to live by or die for a guess or an invention is heinous.

  It is a side-effect of translating from one language into another, when words don't translate directly. People are good at doing it, but sometimes the meaning does get lost, or changed a bit... so the closest approximation gets used.

  We have plenty of examples of that from just the NT. Parts that could be worded in a couple different ways, and entire theologies based around a particular wording.

  Tammy
• 

  Quentin

  Okay grils. I'm going to be busy the rest of the day. Sometime in the early evening I'll start another thread where we can carry on with this disscussion. Lets get off Terry's topic, shall we, it interferes with others who have no interest in the subject and wish to STAY ON TOPIC. Later...
• 

  AGuest

  I hear you, dear JO! Again, peace to you!

  Thank YOU, dear tec (again, peace to you, as well!) for trying to help me and dear Q (peace to you!). I think he thought I was saying that his belief that God speaks to him was his opinion. I was not. Unless dear Q openly states what "God" has said to him... and such saying goes against what the Most Holy One of Israel WOULD say (i.e., either directly, through Christ, or through a prophet, but certainly rooted in love)... I cannot say that God doesn't speak to him. As you've highlighted (or boxed - LOL!), my reference to his "opinion" was that he feels there is "no value" in interjection such into a discussion. MY opinion is that it would be something of HIGHEST value... even if it made me look foolish to interject it. I think you understood me (as you always do), and I am grateful for your attempt to help dear Q see what I meant, as well.

  BTW (for those who are interested): just before daylight this morning our Lord woke me up and said, "The writings attribute me with saying, 'You have HEARD it said, "An eye for an eye."' Yet, the earlier writings are attributed with such a law. Were it not truly the Law, would I not have said, as I did to the Opposer, 'It is WRITTEN, an eye for an eye...' if it indeed was so written in the [true] Law?" When I attempted to remind our Lord of the verses in Exodus and Leviticus HE reminded ME of "the false stylus of the secretaries" as well as his admonishment "Not all that I tell you is written and not all that is written is what I will tell you." So, I pressed a little because I knew there was a point he wanted me to get... and possibly share with you. And there was. It is that, like many, many things written "in the Bible"... the eye for an eye (and similar) "law"... was NOT part of the Law handed down to Moses. Which was THE LAW. It was added, FIRST to the law created by the priests, THEN to "Moses" to corroborate and justify its later addition BY the priests.

  The priests held a LOT of power of the people after the death of Moses, dear ones. Because they had to the power to "sanctify"... or withhold sanctification. And so the people gave them a LOT of latitude. The Most Holy One of Israel tried to warn the priests but, of course, they blew Him off. When priestly latitude began to be taken too far, the people called out for a "king"... another Moses/leader. Why? Because they walked by SIGHT... and not by FAITH. Thus, they rejected the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies Himself, as their king... and cried out for a man. They were given that request, but such king was also given great latitude, even more than the priests. Together, it was their kings (or other leaders), their priests, and the scribes that caused Israel the most harm.

  Peace to you both!

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Terry

  In the past, the Jews may have bought into promises of milk and honey and national sovereignty, if they just followed their priests and obeyed all 613 laws, but today they place their trust in secular power and human laws to provide for their needs, health and safety. Most Christians do the same, rather than trust in the claimed words of Jesus to make all things right, heal their sickness and protect their homes. Thanks for the topic, Terry.

  Moshe gives a brilliant example of a religion gaining awareness, stepping outside of areas supernatural and OWNING their own destiny. Modern Israel is a miracle of human achievement. It is in the truest sense a democracy. The deserts have been made farmland and women have equal rights. The "other" can be invested with politial power and self-empowerment breathes free. The only carry-over that threatens Israel is hardline insistance that God Gave the land directly and only to Jews! They will regret insisting on that as surely as the day dawns.
• 

  AGuest

  May you all have peace! A couple/few questions, if I may? Thank you!

  Does a question have to be responded to pursuant to the poser's specific ideals and desires, and/or comport entirely with his/her personal views/beliefs (or lack thereof) in order to be considered "answered"? What if the only "answer" a poser will accept is (a) one that so comports, or (b) the "answer" that "there is no answer"? At what point is a question (such as the one posed in the OP) considered "answered"?

  Personally, I think that if a question poser has already determined the parameters of the answers he/she will consider "acceptable", it is more fair (fairer?) to state those parameters. For example, "What Do Scholars Say is the Reason So Very Few of Jesus ACTUAL WORDS..." or "Why do You Think So Very Few of Jesus ACTUAL WORDS..." or something similar. Doesn't even have to be in the title but could be included as a disclaimer in the opening or something (i.e., "Note, all you who want to answer with something you received from the Holy Spirit might want to sit this one out because we don't believe it and/or aren't interested anyway").

  In that way, a person will know ahead of time that the answer they might proffer will not meet the parameters... whatever they may be (and they sometimes change, midstream), assisting such one in determining whether to respond or not at all. Would save a lot of folks a whole lot of time... and others a whole lot of angst, IMHO.

  It seems a bit kinder than asking a question then taking all kinds of issue with the person(s) who attempt to provide an answer.

  I mean, I'm just sayin'...

  Again, peace to you all!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  Terry

  Define: DISCUSSION

  an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic
• 

  AGuest

  Define: QUESTION [of the Day]...

  Here, I'll start:

  "1. a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply."

  And so, alrighty, then... I'm OUT (gotta go walk to "speed up the recovery process")!

  Peace to you, dear Terry. Truly!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA