god did not take the lives of the wicked contemporaries of enoch, instead he took the life of enoch.
and that seems like a great injustice to deprive innocent enoch of life instead of killing the wicked.
—i said seems.. a man goes to get surgery but first they give him an opiate like narcotic and he falls asleep gladly and with pleasure and euphoria.
According to the Bible, God did not end Enoch's life. The WT is wrong
Compare Hebrews 11:5 with 11:13
I have also noticed similar coincidences in regards to other topic threads and in other experiences in my life. Such is mystifying to me.
After lighting striking multiple times on the same point, you should be able to conclude that it is no coincidence at some point.
god did not take the lives of the wicked contemporaries of enoch, instead he took the life of enoch.
and that seems like a great injustice to deprive innocent enoch of life instead of killing the wicked.
—i said seems.. a man goes to get surgery but first they give him an opiate like narcotic and he falls asleep gladly and with pleasure and euphoria.
God did not take the lives of the wicked contemporaries of Enoch, instead he took the life of Enoch. And that seems like a great injustice to deprive innocent Enoch of life instead of killing the wicked. —I said seems.
A man goes to get surgery but first they give him an opiate like narcotic and he falls asleep gladly and with pleasure and euphoria. He wakes up after a long time and didn’t even feel time pass. With Enoch it was the real thing. He saw paradise and then he died. Imagine seeing an angel or even a vision of God or God talking to you and reassuring you—the ecstasy. He will open his eyes and time did not exist.
it is a very long time since i was an elder and the elders textbooks have changed multiple times since then.
going back to when i was an elder, to the best of my knowledge the only way a spouse could divorce from his/her partner was porneia, if that person had sexual relations with a man, woman, child, or beast.
but it had to be proven and that's the dubious 2 witness rule.. in fact, if it was not proven and the innocent party divorced and married someone else, then they could be hauled up in front of a judicial committee and be charged with committing adultery and disfellowshipped!
cannot see why dating or touching someone you are not entitled to marry should be treated any differently judicially.
And you can see it that way if you wish but inside the JW community members are required to abide by JW rules. And that’s that.
Academically speaking though, scripturally married the person is viewed as married. Obviously if you are married you are not free to go around dating as I explained in my previous post.
it is a very long time since i was an elder and the elders textbooks have changed multiple times since then.
going back to when i was an elder, to the best of my knowledge the only way a spouse could divorce from his/her partner was porneia, if that person had sexual relations with a man, woman, child, or beast.
but it had to be proven and that's the dubious 2 witness rule.. in fact, if it was not proven and the innocent party divorced and married someone else, then they could be hauled up in front of a judicial committee and be charged with committing adultery and disfellowshipped!
elder's wife pinching the behind of another elder
People do seemingly wrong things but it depends on the intention and motive.
it is a very long time since i was an elder and the elders textbooks have changed multiple times since then.
going back to when i was an elder, to the best of my knowledge the only way a spouse could divorce from his/her partner was porneia, if that person had sexual relations with a man, woman, child, or beast.
but it had to be proven and that's the dubious 2 witness rule.. in fact, if it was not proven and the innocent party divorced and married someone else, then they could be hauled up in front of a judicial committee and be charged with committing adultery and disfellowshipped!
God has said
From the narrative, God said it to Adam but nothing in the narrative shows either God or Adam speaking to her telling her telling her not to eat or touch. But obviously she believed the command applied to her because Eve articulated the law to the Serpent. (Both JW and Jewish commentators write that it was Adam that told his wife and added the part about not touching.) Also, the death penalty was not pronounced upon Eve by God. But although nothing in the narrative articulates the command to Eve, it shows the consequences upon her for her eating from the tree. —Or was it because of Adam eating —because nothing happened to her until Adam ate. The animals and the entire earth did nothing wrong but suffer along too. God asked Eve: “What is it you have done” and Eve replied: “I ate.” so you can conclude that it was wrong for her to eat because God pronounced a penalty upon her even though God did not say to her what she did wrong. To Adam, however, God told him that he ate from the tree commanded by God not to eat from and then pronounced the death sentence upon Adam for listening to his wife and not obeying his command and God cursed the ground because of Adam. According to the narrative It is clear why Adam is pushing up daisies but not Eve.
If a man’s wife is brazenly going around dating and touching other men or females even though she is not having se€ual relations with them is wrong because she is married, and the congregation can sanction her.
it is a very long time since i was an elder and the elders textbooks have changed multiple times since then.
going back to when i was an elder, to the best of my knowledge the only way a spouse could divorce from his/her partner was porneia, if that person had sexual relations with a man, woman, child, or beast.
but it had to be proven and that's the dubious 2 witness rule.. in fact, if it was not proven and the innocent party divorced and married someone else, then they could be hauled up in front of a judicial committee and be charged with committing adultery and disfellowshipped!
the act of touching it, in order to decide whether to put it into the mouth, was in itself punishable by death
Does not say so in God’s Word. Adam was enjoined directly by God from eating the forbidden fruit but God did not tell Adam not to touch it. Also, the Bible does not say that God told Eve not to eat or touch the forbidden fruit. Eve wasn’t even created yet when God commanded Adam not to eat. How Eve was instructed not to eat it is interpretation, the Bible does not actually say but it seems Adam told her. Also, it was after Adam ate the forbidden fruit that the eyes of both of them were “opened” —and not at the time she touched or even ate the fruit. Bible says nothing about Hod punishing Adam or Evengor touching the fruit. The punishment was for eating the fruit not for touching it. Eve did not receive the death penalty either when God passed judgment on Eve. Death penalty was passed on Adam -returning to the dust. Eve was not created from the dust. She was formed from Adam’s rib. However, she also died and returned to the dust.
Also, JW cannot be DF for violating Bible principles such as marrying an unbeliever but for committing a DF offense and not repenting. —Although such JW would be looked down upon.
it is a very long time since i was an elder and the elders textbooks have changed multiple times since then.
going back to when i was an elder, to the best of my knowledge the only way a spouse could divorce from his/her partner was porneia, if that person had sexual relations with a man, woman, child, or beast.
but it had to be proven and that's the dubious 2 witness rule.. in fact, if it was not proven and the innocent party divorced and married someone else, then they could be hauled up in front of a judicial committee and be charged with committing adultery and disfellowshipped!
Don’t sound like an elder. Only touching the gen&telia can be poernia, and marrying someone while scripturually being married to someone else can be deemed as adultery. The only difference now is that the so viewed adulterous marriage is now viewed as valid by the cong as I understand it. I could be wrong.
if jesus is now so superpowerful that he can exist at multiple locations simultaneously (e.g., dwelling inside of a true believer and popping into all the best gatherings of two or more peeps in his name) why does jesus bother hiring angels to work gigs?
.
Well said.
examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.
know ye not your own selves, how that jesus christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
- 2 cor.
If Jesus dwells inside of people, why is he apparently not present where only ONE has gathered in his name?
I must confess, brilliant way of putting it.
examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.
know ye not your own selves, how that jesus christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
- 2 cor.
Christ lives in me
Axiomatically, this is symbolic like saying “God is my throne”.
