by AGuest 136 Replies latest jw friends
Well, I have a house to clean and laundry to finish.
Which is FAR more significant to me than attempting to get information into extremely resistant minds...
Toodles!
And for those unfamiliar with the tenets of Christianity, this is NOT a "seraphim", by the way...
Which is FAR more significant to me than attempting to get information into extremely resistant minds...
See, this lies at the heart of the problems in my opinion. It's as if those who don't believe feel this extraordinary need to insist that believers accept their reasonings, logic, non beliefs. They can't persuade believers, they find them resistant to their non beliefs, so they argue about words and phrases used in posts instead. Then the complaint goes up that they can't get the believer to accept what they're saying and abandon beliefs. Just speaking for myself, my faith is too important, too precious, too personally well proven to reject. I would concede that non believers feel similarly about their stances. That's all as it should be. It means we can and should, live and let live, surely? By the way, it couldn't be A seraphim Zid, seraphim is plural?
Loz x
Loz said "too personally well proven to reject". That's the way I feel about my faith too. You just know it's right for you.
Lol, looking back at the pages on this thread this has to be the ultimate irony.
So glad you got that too ;)
. Ziddina... no one thinks THAT is a seraph. Can you not see that what dragons and such have evolved INTO (as to their description and imagery and attributes) is not the same thing as what is being spoken of? No one is speaking about the modern or even hollywood depiction of a dragon.my faith is too important, too precious, too personally well proven to reject.
To even be able to reject, without lying to oneself. Peace to you, tammy
Ziddina... no one thinks THAT is a seraph. Can you not see that what dragons and such have evolved INTO (as to their description and imagery and attributes) is not the same thing as what is being spoken of?
No one is speaking about the modern or even hollywood depiction of a dragon....tec
No Zid....gees...get it RIGHT...their dragons are MUCH uglier..almost too ugly to bear... That one is rather pretty.
their ones look more like this...but uglier...oh...MUCH uglier!
As Band said...
All of the following sites give a totally different meaning to the term "seraphim" than that which AGuest has fancifully cobbled together from superficial reading of 'new-agey' unfounded pseudo-mysticisms...
Well, let's see, shall we, dear Zid (again, peace to you... and I take this to me you DO wish me to further explain, so...):
ser·aph(s
n.pl.ser·a·phim (-
1. A celestial being having three pairs of wings.
2. seraphimChristianity The first of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology.[Back-formation from pl. seraphim , from Middle English seraphin , from Old English, from Late Latin seraph
Do you see the HEBREW... "fiery serpent"? Now, some might take that to mean, say, a burning snake. It is not. Neither burning nor snake. Let's continue... and notice what I've bolded:
The word seraphim, literally "burning ones", transliterates a Hebrew plural noun; translation yields seraphs. The singular, "seraph", is more properly rendered sarap. The word sarap/seraphim appears three times in the Torah (Numbers 21:6-8, Deuteronomy 8:15) and four times in the Book of Isaiah (6:2-6, 14:29, 30:6). In Numbers and Deuteronomy the "seraphim" are serpents - the association of serpents as "burning ones" is possibly due to the burning sensation of the poison.[2] Isaiah also uses the word in close association with words to describe snakes (nahash, the generic word for snakes, in 14:29, and efeh, viper, in 30:6).
Note: 1. Seraphim (Hebrew, sarap/hs)... are serpents; however, the Hebrew word for SNAKE... is "nahash." So, a sarap/h (serpent)... is NOT a nahash (snake). And if you've paid attention to anything I ever shared on this matter, I have stated many... many... MANY... times... they are NOT snakes. A serpent... is NOT a snake. A snake is a BEAST; then are MEN, albeit not of flesh with ITS blood. 2. The Wiki page states that the "association... as burning ones" is "possibly" due to the "burning sensation" of the poison. The word "possibly" means they don't KNOW, but THINK that's what it is. This is incorrect. They are "burning"... "fiery"... in their APPEARANCE. They are not ON fire... by reflect the glory of JAH: they GLOW, in a radiating kind of way, so that they glow appears "alive"... like the flames of a fire. Hence, when Moses was the angel it the bush, the only way to DESCRIBE what he saw was to say the bush [appeared to be] on fire. It was not (else, it would have burned up!). What he saw is what Daniel, Mary, and others saw: a being, glowing in light that appeared as lightening - WHITE FIRE. These beings reflect reflect the glory... the "fire"... that issues forth from JAH, the Father. Exodus 3:2, 3; Psalm 104:4; Canticles 8:6; Daniel 3:25; 7:9; 10:6; Ezekiel 1:13, 14; Matthew 28:3; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; Acts 7:30, 35; Hebrews 12:29; Revelation 1:14; 10:1 3. Serpents are not only NOT snakes, but One of them will save mankind, which a mere snake cannot do. It is Christ, the "Copper Serpent", an image of which Moses lifted up in the wilderness to save Israel when they were bitten by poisonous snakes. Just as Moses lifted up that talisman, so, too, the Son of Man, the Holy One of Israel, had to be lifted up... so that all who keep their gaze on HIM... will live (even if they die in the flesh). This because, like Israel, who were bitten, physically, by poisonous snakes and so were dying, we... mankind and Israel in particular... have ALSO been "bitten." NOT by earthly poisonous snakes (which we call "vipers")... but the by poisonous SERAPHS, Belial ("Satan")... HIS seraphs... and HIS "offspring." These "offspring" are those who show themselves to be the "children of the Devil" ("Offspring of vipers! You are from YOUR father, the Devil!"). Satan and his angels are "poisonous" seraphs... vipers... because they wrought DEATH (versus Christ, the copper seraph that grants LIFE). Numbers 21:4-9; Daniel 10:6; Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33 (Genesis 3:15); Luke 3:7; John 3:14, 15; Revelation 1:15
The Isaiah vision of seraphs in an idealised Jerusalem First Temple represents the sole instance in the Hebrew Bible of this word being used to describe celestial beings."... I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and His train filled the Hekhal (sanctuary). Above him stood the Seraphim; each had six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew." (Isaiah 6:1-3) The seraphim cry continually to each other, "Holy, holy, holy, is YHWH of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory." (verses 2-3) One seraph then carries out an act of purification for the prophet by touching his lips with a live coal from the altar (verses 6-7). The text uses the word "seraphim" but adds no adjectives or modifiers emphasising snakes ("nahash," etc.). At the same time the description gives the creatures both human and avian attributes. A strong association with fire, though, is maintained.
Note: 1. There is no quantifying word "the" before the term "Seraphim" at Isaiah 6:2. Rather than the verse reading, "Above it stood the seraphim," which attempts to distinguish these from other angels/spirit being, the accurate transliteration is "Above it stood seraphim..." This is more accurate because ALL spirit beings are seraphs - they ARE seraphim: fiery, flying, [flesh-eating] serpents. Winged beings that appear to radiate a brilliant white "fire"like light. 2. Again, seraphim, while serpents (saraphs)... are not snakes (nahash). Serpents, from the standpoint of JAH of Armies and Christ... are not snakes. 3. Seraphs have human attributes in that they are "men" (although not HUman..."earthling" man - "adham")... and so have heads, arms, legs, faces, eyes, mouths, hair, ears, feet, hands, etc. When seen by humans they can manifest the appearance of humans, either physically (i.e., put on flesh so as to appear as "able-bodied" men), or spiritually (i.e., and seen with their spirit bodies "covered", obscured... by "white" clothing. This clothing isn't flat white... it is white LIGHT). 4. They also have wings; however, the assumption that such are AVIAN is an error. This error came from the ASSUMPTION that they have wings like birds of prey... because while they not only fly... they are "flesh-eating." And the only thing the scribes could PICTURE as flying and flesh-eating... in THIS world... are BIRDS... of prey. Eagles/ospreys/falcons, etc. While seraphs DO have wings... and DO fly... they are NOT birds, or avian... in any way! And so their wings do not have feathers! Rather, they have wings that appear as I've shared here before: similar to bats/gargoyles. (Note: The dragons you often post images of don't have bird wings, either!). 5. With the exception of One, JAH of Armies, Himself, they are flesh-eating because the eat... from the Tree of Life; the bread/manna from heaven - the flesh of Christ. Genesis 2:9; 3:22; Numbers 11:7-9; Psalm 78:25; John 6:32, 33, 35, 41, 49-51, 53-58; 1 Corinthians 10:3, 4, 16, 17; Revelation 22:2
So again, what part of:
"The word seraphim, literally "burning ones", and "The text uses the word "seraphim" but adds no adjectives or modifiers emphasising snakes ("nahash," etc.). At the same time the description gives the creatures both human and avian attributes. A strong association with fire, though, is maintained."
Do you NOT get???
Zid, dear one... I have never... EVER... said that they were snakes. I have share the TRUTH... that they are dragons.
Considering that serpents and 'dragon' iconography are nearly ALWAYS considered EVIL in the bible
I am SO glad you stated it this way: NEARLY always. Because you are right. NEARLY always... but not ALWAYS. The reason for this iconography is because folks focus on the most OBVIOUS dragon in the Bible... the one depicted in John's Revelation. Why? Because there, that one is CALLED a dragon. But what you and many miss is that there are others alluded to... by the OT PROPHETS (and hence, not in the NT part of the Bible!). Let me show you: 1. The "dragons" that you and others think of are mythological BEASTS... "serpents" (snakes) from a HUMAN point of view... that fly... eat flesh... and breath fire. Now, picture if you will, a man-like being, that flies... and breaths fire: In my distress I called to JaHVeH;
I cried to my God for help.
From his temple he heard my voice;
my cry came before him, into his ears.
The earth trembled and quaked,
and the foundations of the mountains shook;
they trembled because he was angry.Smoke rose from his nostrils;
consuming fire came from his mouth,
burning coals blazed out of it.He parted the heavens and came down;
dark clouds were under his feet.He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind.
He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him—
the dark rain clouds of the sky.
Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced,
with hailstones and bolts of lightning.
JaHVeH thundered from heaven;
the voice of the Most High resounded. He shot his arrows and scattered the enemy, with great bolts of lightning he routed them. The valleys of the sea were exposed
and the foundations of the earth laid bare
at your rebuke, JaHVeH ,
at the blast of breath from your nostrils. THIS "dragon" is mentioned in the Hebrew writings. The definitions you supplied for "seraph(im)" notwithstanding, one dictionary states, as to "dragon": The word "dragon" has etymological rootsas far back as ancient Greek,in the verb meaning "to see strong." There were several similar wordsin contemporary languages of the timethat described some form ofclear sight, but at some point, theGreek verb was fused with the word for serpent,drakon (δρ?κον). From thereit worked its way to the Latin language, where it was called Draconis,meaning "snake" or "serpent."In the English language, the Latin word was splitinto several different words, all similar: Dragon became the official name for the large, mythical creatures,while variations on the root, such as "draconian," "draconic," and "draconical" all came to be adjectives describing something old, rigid, out of touch with the world, or even evil... The POINT is that THIS is where your mythical "dragons" came from: the ANGLO interpretation... of similar Latin words... that came from a couple of Greek words, one meaning "seer/see strong/clear sight" and the other meaning "serpent." The LATIN word for "serpent", however, ALSO meant "snake"... and so the ENGLISH (ANGLO) adoption was that a "dragon"... was a serpent/snake. That is not how it STARTED, however; the Hebrew and Greek "serpent" was NOT "snake" (as it is in Latin and English). What happened? The "stylus" of the scribes! People who didn't know what words meant in OTHER languages ASSUMED, due to their appearance of similarity... that they meaned the SAME thing in theirs'... when they did not. More...
Dragons generally fit into two categories in European lore: The firsthas large wings that enable the creature to fly, and it breathes firefrom its mouth. (Psalm 18:8) The othercorresponds more to the image of a giant snake, with no wings but a long, cylindrical body that enables it to slither on the ground. Both of these types arecommonly portrayed as reptilian, hatching from eggs,with scaly bodies(Acts 9:10), and occasionally large eyes. Modern depictions of dragons are very large in size, but some early European depictions of dragons were only the size of bears, or, in some cases, even smaller, around the size of a butterfly.Some dragons were personified to the point that they could speak and felt emotions, while others were merely feral beasts.
And more...
Some of the earliest references to dragons in the west come from Greece. Herodotus, often called the "father of history," visited Judeac.450 B.C.E. and wrote that he heard of dragons, described as small, flying reptile-like creatures.
Now, I don't expect you to put faith in the source I've used here. However, I don't have access to any books that expound on this and so you'll have to do further research yourself, if you care to. But you really need to research the TRUE etymology of the word "dragon."
What even occurred is that, once the Anglo definition took hold... and the "crusade" to rid the earth of "evil" started, it was only a small leap for the "dragon" of the Revelation to be the ONLY being of this type recognized in the Bible... AND for "evil" to be attributed to ALL such beings. But that is NOT how it was to begin with... because that is not the TRUTH. In order to justify "slaying" the dragon of "Revelation", man had to make it NOT a person, NOT an angel (due to the erroneous belief that all angels are "good", while only "demons" are bad. The truth is that angels and demons are one and the same: both are spirits (the real word for "daemons")... there are good angels/daemons... and bad angels/daemons).
your bizarre assertions that somehow 'snakes/draco' have suddenly become THE SAME THING AS ANGELS, is wildly out of touch with what the bible really teaches, to say the very least.
You are only partly right: snakes have NEVER been the same thing as angels (and I've never stated such); however, the word that came from "drakos/dracos"... dragon... is what angels... flying, fiery, flesh-eating seraphs (serpents) are. And the Bible corroborates that.
BUT... you do NOT have to take MY word for ANY of this. All you need do is ask to see. Keep in mind, you might not survive the image, however... which is why JAH "dwells" in such fire/light - to obscure what He truly looks like. Which is the same reason why angels appear like US... rather than as they truly appear... and why the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, sent His IMAGE, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, His Son and Christ, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah) in a body we could handle. True, we COULDN'T handle it, in the end (his disease and afflictions were too much for us)... but they tried. The next time, it WILL be as he truly is... and man will be crying out for the rocks to cover them and the mountains to fall over them (or vice versa). Because truly what has NOT been recounted to them... they WILL see. I have had a glimpse... and I can see why such ones would cry out so. I hope this helps, dear Zid, truly. Again, peace to you! A slave of Christ, SA dffafd
Dear NC... peace to you... and please re-read my statement as I think you misunderstand. Greatly.
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
OMG. She dismisses all scholarship not just relating to the Bible but all scholarsihp in general. Well, now that Shelby is active, the world can shut down all its institutions of education. Such knowledge is so amazing.
I can understand belief but how anyone who is sane can endorse this drivel is beyond me.
You aren't significant enough to be "dangerous". You're simply bloated with your own self-importance, followed around by a group of people about as delusional as you.
Folks, it's OK to to criticize Shelby over her false statements and lack of scholarship, but the above statement is a personal attack. Let's be better than this, please.
Words are important. They convey ideas. Within a group of language speakers, words convey universal meaning. We would be prehistoric without words and literacy.
Word ARE important and do convey ideas. Unfortunately, sometimes those words no longer have the intended meaning they were formulated for but have... mmmmm... "evolved"... to mean something entirely different. In addition, some words, while spelled the same, have entirely different meanings and always have. That is the NATURE of words and language. So, when one is reading words, rather than ASSUME one means a particular thing, the prudent... indeed, intelligent... thing to do would be to ask for clarification. For example:
"Did you mean to say?" or "What did you mean when you said?" or "Can you clarify what you mean by... how you're using the word/phrase...?" or "When YOU say [word/phrase] are you meaning...?"
The lack of prudence when it comes to things like this is a trait I often found fascinating among many I "associated" with as a JW. As one of my English professors advised: "If you don't know, you should find out."
Those who favor "AGuest" believe words are not important. Her language, use of putdowns such as "girl" and other crassness, do not matter.
Wait, "girl" is a putdown?! Well, then, I've been putting down a WHOLE lot of my friends... a WHOLE lot of times. Dear friends of BOTR (or not)... please tell her that "girl" is merely a cultural vernacular... like "guys" (as in "you guys," which term actually derived from a derogatory term used to describe gay men... but is now pretty common and accepted... like "girl"). Please? Someone?
And... wait (again)... "girl" is a putdown... and biatch (although that's not 'zakly how you stated it) ISN'T? Goodness, where WERE all those rebukes?? (SA turns on her computer file flashlight thing-y...
I would argue that the other side does not have clean hands.
Now, you KNOW most folks here don't have a CLUE what you mean... but I do. And with BOTH know you would lose you case.
We are forced to use words on this forum to communicate. It is strange that one follower insists on defining words to her advantage while yet another followers insists we forget words. Unless we live on Stark Trek with Troi, words matter.
Again, I agree. Ain't MY fault if ya'll don't know what some words originally meant. You probably don't know the origin of words like "picnic," either. Or the origins of children's rhymes such as "Ring-Around-A-Rosy"... or "What's Your Name"...
This is not a debate about words but world views.
Well, you might want to tell your friends, heck, yourself, that. I mean, given your opening comments, above. I mean, 'cause that's what ya'll are making it about...
The title of this thread promised a discussion of how a community cares for its own.
Er??!! Who said THAT?? Oh, wait - I shouldn't known: you judge books by their covers. Surprise, that...
Every community has this debate. Jews and Muslims do great philantrhopic works. For countless years, Christians have endevaored to follow these commands. It is about community per se,
First, that wasn't what this thread was about... and since I opened, I should know. That YOU don't know indicates... what? An empty med bottle?
not what one troubled dingaling believes.
SURELY that's intended as a personal insult (though I couldn't care less)! Now where ARE those "Mommy, she made a personal insult at me" police?
AGuest invites us to relish her words.
Read... my... fingers:...I... don't... invite... YOU... to... do... anything. Nothing... at... all. 'Cept... maybe... leave... me... the... nahhhh, I don't need to go there...
Yet her words are so inadequate.
Yet... you keep running after them. I mean, where IS your self-control, girl?? Can you really NOT control your eyes... your fingers? Your mouse???
Zid disagreed and now words are not good.
You missed the point - I had no issue with Zid disagreeing with me. What I shared wasn't necessarily for her, either (I mean, far as I know she doesn't count herself among the Household of God, Israel... or those who go with). What she disagreed WITH, however, is an error on her part.
Where is the debate about how we apply this commandment in our own lives?
First, what commandment? James made the statement. Whose Lord was he that he issued a commandment? He offered clarification... and I expounded on that clarifica... wait... you didn't even READ the post, did you? Oh, Lordy... and here you are, calling yourself "arguing" and "debating." Well no WONDER you think you can make an argument as to clean hands: you have absolutely no idea what the issue even IS!
It was a wasted opportunity.
Apparently not. I mean, you DID see the comments from those who got it... right?
Atheists also do great works.
Indeed! I know some who do personally!
Her status as divine oracle derailed yet another discussion that might have made a difference.
And so YOU didn't make that difference... here or on your own dang thread... why?
When I talked with Madeleine L'Engle after reading one of her books, The Glorious Impossible, I mentioned that everytime an angel pops up, the humans is terrified beyond belief. She said this is the actual reading. I did check the scriptures and she is correct. An angel visitng you is not comforting.
Ohhhh... 'cause Madeleine L'Engle said so. Well, girl, if that's what it takes for you to believe it... then... (goodness, you are a bit of a name-dropper, aren'cha?)
Seraphs are not cool Christmas decorations or Victorian illustrations. Their very demeanor will scare all the wits out of you.
Oh, so you've seen one, have you? Otherwise, on what do you based YOUR assertion?
Zid's illustrations are scary.
Seriously? Those depictions are not even intended to be scary. To the contrary, they attempt to "humanize" angels so that folks CAN handle the sight. Please... have yer doctor check yer meds. 'Cause I don't think you're seeing what the rest of us are in those illustrations...
A slave of Christ,
SA, who sees you decided not to take my offer... and since I'm feeling rejuvenated... and a bit "froggy"... well...
r
f)
m) or ser·aphs
n, seraph
pîm , pl. of