Posts by AGuest

19

Headcoverings, Goals & Women's Roles

by Black Man in

jw
friends

i have always felt that requiring sisters to wear headcoverings was assinine.

jehovah won't strike you down for not wearing a headcovering".

word gets back to the co on his next visit that i don't let sisters wear headcoverings at the bookstudy when they read and he reams me out for it.

AGuest

Dearest Black Man... may you have peace!

You said:

"He states that there are more parties involved. The sisters teach the angels submissive respect for the organization by wearing a headcovering."

I have never heard such... well, as you called it... 'utter BS' (ya'll know what I mean; I don't have to say it...).

The purpose of a 'head covering' is a sign TO THE ANGELS... who are a bit 'higher' than 'earthling man'... that when prophesying, such woman is, in fact, raised HIGHER than men... AND angels. For prophesying is a DIRECT speech from God, through Christ, by means of holy spirit. Thus, when an angel sees a woman in a 'headdress' for the purpose of prophesying... they, too, are 'in subjection' to such one, as are the men to whom she is prophesying... and so must take note. (Why angels, too? Because they, too, are 'desiring to peer into' the 'sacred' things of God. Like 'earthling' man, they don't just have automatic understanding, either.)

SOME men, however, particularly those who consider themselves religious 'leaders' and thus makers and enforcers of 'law'... have taken this sign of AUTHORITY granted to a woman by God... and turned into a means to 'honor' them! To wit: 'Sisters HAVE to cover their heads to show respect for the BROTHER(S) present.' What haughtiness! What 'raising of oneself up'!

My Father pours out His spirit on all sorts of flesh... male AND female. However, because HISTORICALLY among Israel, women were not listened to or taken seriously, they have a means to put a 'sign' upon their heads to show when they have been granted speech and are speaking by the authority of God, through Christ.

Does a woman ALWAYS have to cover her head? No, she does not, for having her head 'shaved' is no longer a 'disgraceful' thing in our times. In addition, there are at least two (2) incidents when such covering is not required:

1. When all are willing to listen... in FAITH... and therefore do not NEED such 'sign'...

2. And when the spirit forbids it, so as to bring a judgment upon the head of the one not listening anyway. Such one would no more listen if a headcovering was produced and worn, than if one were not.

When Paul, et al., saw a woman cover her head in preparation for prophesying, I PROMISE you... they 'took note'. They understood who was REALLY speaking, and did not 'test' the spirit, but listened and accepted the 'source', rather than scrutinizing the messenger.

In the same light, women who claim the gift of prophesying must take that gift quite seriously. It is NOT to be 'played' with or misused. If such one has NOT been told to speak but does so anyway... out of her OWN 'initiative'... she bears a 'greater judgment'. Can she make a mistake? Yes, of course she can. For as a 'chosen' one, she, too, can be 'misled'. For not every inspired expression originates with God. Satan, afterall, 'keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.'

But the 'basis' of her 'judgment'... will be her INTENT. If her intent WAS to mislead, then she will held accountable for any and all that she 'stumble'. If her intent, however, was to be obedient to the inspired expression, but she failed to TEST that expression, she will be 'beaten'... with a 'few strokes'. Such 'beating' is not physically literally, but comes in the form of spiritual 'discipline' and correction. Which, on its own, is 'grievous'.

Hebrews 12:4-13

And after she has received such 'discipline' (if indeed, she willingly receives it), she then must pick up her 'torture stake' and continue to follow the Lamb. 'Discipline' is not judgment; it is a refining, a 'skimming off' of dross or 'error'. The same applies to the intent and motive of men who prophesy as well.

In truth, when a MAN sees a woman with her head covered for the purposes of prophesying and/or praying... it is HE... and the angels... that are in subjection and HE and them... that had better start listening.

I, myself, SJ, have spoken it to you just as I have heard it from my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, the Son of the Holy One of Israel, JAH OF ARMIES.

I bid you peace, Black Man... and thank you on behalf of my 'sisters' from whom you personally sought no honor for yourself. You truly 'lightened' their 'load'.

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SJ

27

TRUE Christian Ex-negro Ministry!

by Kent in

jw
friends

we(tm)re standing for the truth that negroes can change.

a recent gathering of christians invoking god(tm)s old testament standards, a nationwide ex-negro ministry, drew more than 850 people to london, england, to proclaim that hope for change is possible for those still struggling with acting like a negro.

thousands of former colored people can celebrate a new life because someone cared enough to share with them the truth of god's healing love.

AGuest

Dearest Kent... may you have peace!

First, let me say that I did know your post was satire... I read it in its entirety. My point is that you can't really 'decry' the hypocrisy of 'christianity' if you do the same hypocritical thing you accuse them of. And, dear one, you did.

Your point is that although they SAY they do, 'christianity' has no love. But your intention to provoke in a negative way, shows that you don't either in this particular matter. I can read your postings, and many others can, too, and get your point. But we both know that not all can do that, nor will they, because the way it was set up was an enticement to provocation. C'mon, Kent... YOU'RE A SMART MAN. You know what you did and what you intended it to do. It doesn't take an exceptional IQ to 'see' that.

As for you 'signing' it 'George Bush', I retract that. I know that you did not 'sign' it, but merely copied and posted it, but what I meant is that some would wonder just where YOUR feelings truly fit in this and yes, they would have to read all the way to the bottom to determine it. And, Kent, you knew... just at the WTBTS knows... that many folks don't LIKE to read and so would not get all the way to the bottom without becoming inflamed. And since your intent WAS to inflame (you're not that 'obscure', though I know you would like to be), such an intent was not 'honorable'.

I am not disagreeing with you on your position of 'christianity', as you perceive it, for I understand the foundation for that perception... 'false' christianity. People who SAY they are 'christians' simply because they claim to be disciples of Christ and 'live by the Bible'. That, however, is not true 'christianity'. A true christian does not live by the Bible, but by the spirit. Most who claim to BE christians do not possess such spirit; that is why my Lord says of them, "Get away from me... I never KNEW you". For it is by that spirit that such ones ARE 'known'.

The 'christian' god that YOU refer to, as many have PAINTED him, is truly undesirable. But how would YOU feel if everyone based their determination of YOU... and their perceived KNOWLEDGE of you... on what is 'written'. Before you answer, think about the perception of you that I got, just based on this post... and your response to it. To wit:

"You THINK you know me."

I 'think I know you' (actually, I don't; I just responded to what you posted and how...) based on what? If what you say is true, then on what I read, yes? And yet, what you posted in its entirety is NOT 'you', yes? But some will think it is. And yet, you base YOUR knowledge and perception of my Lord... on what YOU read, yes? And what others have told you certain things 'written' MEAN, yes? Thus, you said:

"Naturally I know that everyone won't read everything.

Hmmmmmm...

"So what? If someone takes offence of some statements without reading the full statement, that person is an idiot.

Hmmmmmm...

"This has nothing to do with me being 'honorable' or not.

And yet, you have in essence accused my Father of being 'disgusting'. Tell me, have YOU read everything about HIM? Have you not 'taken offence' without reading 'the full statement' as well? No, for even if you read the Bible from cover to cover, it doesn not CONTAIN the 'full statement' of my Father and my Lord. And such 'full statement' has not been made available to you... partly because all of it could not be contained in mere books, partly because of the 'false stylus' of the scribes, partly because some men took it upon theirselves to decide what was appropriate to be included and what was not... and partly because you have not 'asked' for it.

My point is that we all have to take care with regard to 'leaven', Kent. We can go around decrying the hypocrisy of others, but in truth, to not examine ourselves FIRST... is folly. We must FIRST... extract the 'rafter' from our OWN eye; THEN, we can 'see' how to extract the 'straw' from our brothers.

I wish you NOTHING but peace... and I am truly sorry if I 'inflamed' you by my response. That was not my intent at all, in all sincerity.

I remain...

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SJ

27

TRUE Christian Ex-negro Ministry!

by Kent in

jw
friends

we(tm)re standing for the truth that negroes can change.

a recent gathering of christians invoking god(tm)s old testament standards, a nationwide ex-negro ministry, drew more than 850 people to london, england, to proclaim that hope for change is possible for those still struggling with acting like a negro.

thousands of former colored people can celebrate a new life because someone cared enough to share with them the truth of god's healing love.

AGuest

Hi, dear 'Sun... and may you have peace!

I got Kent's 'satire' as well... But not all will, and while all things are lawful, not all things are advantageous. Does that mean we should stop speaking simply because folks won't... or don't... understand? Now, think... who's speaking here - LOL! But in truth, Kent most probably should have a put a disclaimer... out of love. Why? Because not doing so makes him a hypocrite. How so? Because he is attempting to 'reveal' 'true' 'christianity'... and it's hatred and hypocrisy... but by not taking into account the feelings of ALL others, he kinda did the same thing.

Did I take offense? No, for I know Kent meant none. But I truthfully think he should have thought carefully about the item and, as I said, put a disclaimer for those he KNEW would take it the wrong way (yes, you DID know, Kent, and that's why it's hypocrisy).

As for Lisa's comments and yours about blacks and homosexuality, I think Lisa MEANT that if you WANTED to hide your orientation (not necessarily would or needed to, but WANTED to), you could. However, unless one is extremely pale, one cannot 'hide' being black.

Does that make discrimination of either groups right? Absolutely not. Does that make acceptance of one more than the other 'righteous'? Nope. I know some VERY loving homosexual people, some who helped me greatly before I was 'assimilated' by the borg. Hearts of gold. And I know some blacks who I wouldn't be caught in a dark alley with. And some whites, latinos, asians, etc., too.

It just seems to me that the PROBLEM is people using race as a means to 'inflame' others. On both sides. Black people saying, "Hey, let's bring the race thing out". Why? To truly discuss a peaceful resolution and give points of view that will 'enlighten'? Or to inflame and start a 'controversial' discussion. White people who post things such as Kent did, to say, "Hey, this is what OTHER people think... and it's stupid," or to say, "Hey, take a look at THIS", for purposes of throwing out 'chum' and watching the resultant 'entertainment'?

I don't understand this, truly. I mean, call me 'naive' and living in a fantasy world (some do), but I don't understand the underlying maliciousness in people and their attempts to mask it with 'What did I do wrong? I only opened up a discussion for debate." In truth, some will see it that way, but others will see it differently... for what it truly is... a provocation.

Provocation is not, of course, always a bad thing, but it depends on the INTENT, yes? If one is provoking to open a discussion that leads to enlightenment, acceptance and understanding, then, of course, that is a good thing. But if one is provoking so as to 'start something' that will lead to animosity and division... what is the 'good' in that? Truthfully, I don't 'get it'.

Kent should have stated his INTENT when posting such a provocative statement. He signed it "George Bush", but it isn't until one gets down to the end that one knows Kent is satirizing someone else. Not all will get that far, though, and Kent knows it. His intent, then, was not 'honorable', and he and others, then, can't really get upset if it's taken the wrong way.

"If in doubt, ask for clarification; If subject to being doubted, clarify."

I bid you the utmost of peace, and I remain,

Your servant, and a slave of Christ,

SJ

17

Damn! Jesus had a BEARD! What do we do now?

by JanH in

jw
friends

questions from readers (w68 5/12 p. 86-8).

* when jesus christ was a man on earth, did he wear a beard?-k.a., u.s.a.. biblical evidence is the most reliable testimony to be found on this question, and a recent careful review of what it says indicates that jesus did indeed have a beard.. jesus, born a jew, "came to be under law" and he fulfilled the law.

(gal.

AGuest

Dearest JanH... may you have peace!

"So from where do you get the idea Jesus was a Nazirite?"

I got it from my Lord when he explained to me WHY he compared himself with John the Baptist...

"John (a Nazirite) came neither eating NOR drinking
(thus, living up to his vow), yet people say 'he has
a demon'; the Son of Man did come eating AND drinking
(yet, he was a Nazirite), still people say, "Look! A
man gluttonous and given to drinking wine, a friend
of the tax collectors and sinners (thus appearing to
contradict his Naziriteship of abstaining from wine
AS WELL AS his 'separation')".

His point? It didn't MATTER whether one APPEARED to be 'righteous' or not. Those who weren't willing to accept the works of such ones, simply weren't going to accept them, no matter HOW they 'appeared'. He went on to say that BOTH had proved their 'Nazariteship', in that 'wisdom is PROVED righteous... by its works'. The main POINT of being a Nazarite, then, was a separation to do GOD'S WILL, not a separation because one was BETTER than others. The abstinence from wine was to keep a sharp mind... as well as 'ear'... and the hair thing was simply an outward 'reminder' of the vow.

That is why Samson THOUGHT he had lost his 'power' when his hair was cut. Had he 'walked by faith', though, and not by 'sight', he would have known that he had never 'lost' anything... BUT his faith. And with his faith, went his strength. For all it took was faith 'the size of a mustard seed', and he COULD have 'moved mountains'... and not just toppled a temple.

The 'works' of a Nazirite... are obedience to GOD, by means of the spirit that resides in them: John, chosen to be a Nazirite by God before his birth in the flesh, was sent to 'prepare a way' for the one coming after him. Once grown, he could have 'begged off' and said, 'But the people won't LIKE what I am sent to say.' But he didn't; he obeyed and fulfilled his commission. Even exposing the wickedness of Herod and as a result, even to his death.

My Lord, was sent to provide a 'ransom' and a 'releasing'. And he obediently did that. He, too, could have said, "The people won't LIKE it," and they didn't, but he obeyed God, rather than men. In addition, he, too, exposed the wickedness of the Pharisees, and thus, in all things (releasing, ransoming and exposing), fulfilled HIS commission, even to HIS death.

Now, did I find it 'written' specifically that my Lord was a 'Nazir'? No, but I know what a 'Nazir' truly is, and my Lord was one. In addition, I just listened to what he told me.

However, that might also account for why he was from Nazareth. Perhaps it WAS a town of Nazirites. I don't know; I have not asked, and I have not heard. I didn't think it important.

Dear, JanH, I know that walking by faith is very difficult for some people, what with being lied to and misled so horribly by 'religion'. I absolutely understand the skepticism and the need of some folks to explain away everything by means of physical logic. I have that need, too, to some degree. That is why, before writing off God altogther after coming to know the truth about the WTBTS, I ASKED... if there WAS a 'truth'... for it to be revealed to me, that if God DID exist, for Him to reveal Himself to me. Imagine my GREAT surprise, when I 'received' exactly what I asked for.

And it is why, before I 'accepted' anything, I asked my Lord to reveal the truth to me. Since he has never lied to me, however, I have learned to trust him with what he says now. But it does take faith, something I do not possess on my own. So... I ask for that, too.

As for the things I am granted to 'see' and 'hear'... I wish NOTHING else... but the same for all others who 'wish' it, too.

I bid you peace!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SJ

27

TRUE Christian Ex-negro Ministry!

by Kent in

jw
friends

we(tm)re standing for the truth that negroes can change.

a recent gathering of christians invoking god(tm)s old testament standards, a nationwide ex-negro ministry, drew more than 850 people to london, england, to proclaim that hope for change is possible for those still struggling with acting like a negro.

thousands of former colored people can celebrate a new life because someone cared enough to share with them the truth of god's healing love.

AGuest

Dearest Kent...

For once in my life... I am at a loss for words. Perhaps you should have been, too.

"There is a time to speak, and a time to remain silent."

The latter was, indeed, your 'time'.

A slave of Christ,

SJ

21

Calling all bible experts !!!

by thinker in

question:.

genesis says that on the first day god creates lightand divides the light from the dark.

then on day four he creates the sun, moon, and stars to divide the light from the dark.

AGuest

Excellent advice, 'Pom! (Peace to you!)

That is why my Lord stated the words at John 5:39, 40.

May the one that has 'ears' to hear, hear what the Spirit says to the congregation!

A slave of Christ,

SJ

10

Question

by realcourchesne in

if we read the new world translation as it is written, it is quite clear that the god to which they refer to, when using the name jehovah is not applicable to the father but would identify the son, jesus the christ instead.. is any one here reads the same thing i read?.

correct me if im wrong but i find that the new world translation tells us that jehovah (the father) is the judge.

"as for jehovah, he will sit to time indefinite.

AGuest

Hey, kes152 and 'real'... may you both have peace!

May I interject something here with regard to who does the 'judging'? Thank you.

Actually, both do... my Lord and my Father... as well as those who participate in the 'first' resurrection. Here is how it occurs:

1. My Lord 'judged' the apostles and found them worthy to 'receive the kingdom'.

2. He then gave THEM 'authority' to sit on thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel... ALONG WITH HIM... (remember, he told Peter, "I give you keys to the kingdom?"). Those 'keys' are holy spirit.

3. The 144,000 'from among the sons of Israel', are granted 'authority'... as one part of the 'nation of KINGS and priests'... to 'judge the nations'... ALONG WITH CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES... and so are also given such 'keys'... HOLY SPIRIT... and go on 'releasing' the 'nations'...

4. The 'nations' (those numbered in the 'great crowd'), as the OTHER part of the 'nation of kings and priests'... are ALSO given such 'keys'... HOLY SPIRIT... and are granted 'authority' to judge those of Israel who are NOT part of the 144,000, as well as those of the 'nations' who are not part of the 'great crowd'... ALONG WITH CHRIST, THE APOSTLES, AND 144,000 FROM AMONG THE SONS OF ISRAEL...

This latter judging is what those of Israel who 'fell' receive for their lack of faith. Rather than being among those who judge, they are judged... by the nations. Ohhh, what an 'incitement to jealousy'.

All of this takes place PRIOR to the end of the 1,000 years, as follows:

1. 12 Apostles... while my Lord was alive in the flesh;

2. 144,000 and 'great crowd' and commencing with the outpouring of holy spirit at Pentecost CE... continues 'during his presence'... until he arrives;

3. Israelites NOT part of the 144,000 and remaining 'nations' who are NOT part of the 'great crowd'... when my Lord arrives 'with all his angels' and separates the 'sheep from the goats'.

Revelation 20:2-6
Matthew 24:30, 31
Matthew 25:31-46

Some time after all of THAT judging has taken place, about 1,000 years... Satan is loosed from the abyss, goes to do his 'thing' and is cast into the Lake of Fire.

Revelation 20:7, 10

THEN...

Comes the commencement of JUDGEMENT DAY. It is at THIS point that my Father sits down on HIS throne... and my Lord turns over all things back to HIM... to be judged. Who is judged? Revelation 20:11-15 tells us that it is the 'dead'. This is when the SECOND... or general... resurrection takes place. And it is my Father who judges such ones.

Daniel 7:9, 10, 13
Revelation 20:11-15

After THIS judging has been completed, my Father gives the kingdom BACK to my Lord... who rules... forever and forever. However, the 1,000-year rule of me and my brothers... ended before my Father's judgment commenced.

I bid you both peace!

A slave of Christ,

SJ

6

More on JW "Confidential Files"

by Bendrr in

jw
friends

i had a conversation last night with an old friend (not a jw) and brought up the subject of my file.. we discussed how to obtain the file.

needless to say, over a few beers it got very interesting with drawings and maps.. when he left i phoned another old friend in the town in question and told him briefly about the discussion.. he said to hold off on any "operation" because he knew someone i could talk to.

since he was on a cell phone, he didn't want to talk much.

AGuest

Dear Bendrr...

There is always the easy (and legal) way:

1. Write a letter asking for them;
2. Tell them they have 10 days to respond... in writing;
3. Send a copy to the WTS Legal Department;
4. In 10 days... SUBPOENA them (you can file in Small Claim's court under the Freedom of Information Act and your RIGHT to see any 'confidential' file kept on YOU. ANY file... excluding, I think, FBI stuff. But then again...).

Though, for the LIFE of me, I cannot imagine what you would want with them. Most likely they are 'trumped up' anyway. I got to see my 'publisher card' a few times. The 'brothers' would get a kick out of showing it to me. Why? Who knows... power, I guess.

Always amazed me: one year their would be an 'A' (for 'anointed'); next year, the A was whited out and there was an 'O' (for 'other sheep'). I asked about this and was told it depended on the Secretary... and body of Elders. Then the next year the O was whited out and there would be an 'A'... and this went on for about five or six years... a couple times the A or O stayed awhile... until I actually partook. Then... they wouldn't LET me see the card anymore!

(I didn't partake for about 9 years because I knew my family would suffer the 'fallout'. So, I 'begged off' until I couldn't anymore and by the time I did, my family was like 'bring it on'!)

Peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SJ

17

Damn! Jesus had a BEARD! What do we do now?

by JanH in

jw
friends

questions from readers (w68 5/12 p. 86-8).

* when jesus christ was a man on earth, did he wear a beard?-k.a., u.s.a.. biblical evidence is the most reliable testimony to be found on this question, and a recent careful review of what it says indicates that jesus did indeed have a beard.. jesus, born a jew, "came to be under law" and he fulfilled the law.

(gal.

AGuest

Uh, JanH?? Did I miss something? If I did, I sincerely apologize!

Forgive me if I misunderstood you and was required to refer only to one part of the Bible. Because you referred to the Law at Leviticus 19:27, which is stated in the Hebrew text, I, too went to the Hebrew text.

Thus, with reference to the word 'Nazarite' then, the Hebrew word is 'nazir'... from the primitive root 'nazar'... and means 'consecrated, devoted, separated one'.

The word 'Nazarene', however, is, in Greek, 'Nazoraios' ('nad-zo-rah-yos') and means 'an inhabitant of Nazareth'. Now, the town of Nazareth may very well have derived its name from a bunch of Nazarites residing there (who knows?), because the word 'Nazareth' ('nad-zar-reth' or 'nad-zar-ret') means 'the guarded one', but I wasn't trying to 'go there'. For all I know, its name could have been derived from its location.

Uh, I also looked up your spelling... 'n-a-z-I-r-i-t-e'. I think it depends on which 'version' ones uses. For example, NKJV, NASB, RSV and ASV use 'Naz-I-rite'. However, the KJV, Webster's, Young's and Darby's uses 'Naz-A-rite'. And the HNV (Hebrew Names Version) simply says 'Nazir'. Since the word use is 'nazIr', but the primitive root 'nazAr', perhaps some felt it better to use one than the other.

Personally, I don't think spelling is that much of an issue in this case (in truth, I didn't even know there WAS another spelling; I only knew of the 'position'). I simply pointed out a FACTUALITY... that of my Lord having long hair and a beard... in agreement with you. And, uh, that's all.

Hmmmmm....

Is there a 'problem', JanH?

I bid you peace!

Your servant, and a slave of Christ,

SJ

17

Damn! Jesus had a BEARD! What do we do now?

by JanH in

jw
friends

questions from readers (w68 5/12 p. 86-8).

* when jesus christ was a man on earth, did he wear a beard?-k.a., u.s.a.. biblical evidence is the most reliable testimony to be found on this question, and a recent careful review of what it says indicates that jesus did indeed have a beard.. jesus, born a jew, "came to be under law" and he fulfilled the law.

(gal.

AGuest

Hey, JanH...

No, dear one, a 'Nazarene' is one who hails from Nazareth. That is an issue of geography or 'nationality'.

A 'Nazarite', however, is a special people within a special people, who have taken certain vows to God, or been 'set aside' by Him under special vows. For some, their heads had to be initially shaved, as a 'sign' of their vow; for others, it could NOT be shaved, as a 'sign' of the vow.

Matthew 2:23
Numbers 6:2-21
Judges 13:5-7
Luke 18:37
Luke 24:19

Peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SJ