about a year ago i had an exchange of emails with an elder of a congregation where all my jw relatives attend.
i asked him all kinds of questions regarding blood, 607, shunning, evolution, higher education.
as anticipated, he either had no answer or provided an evasive one.
when you state: " But Babylon is not a person or a group of persons that individually or collectively experience personal pain and anguish. Rather Babylon represents a vast social, economic and religious system." ....certainly we can draw striking similarities can't we?
really...I've compared apples to apples...point being, where and how do you draw the line between actual and symbolic when confronted with these two "apples"?
about a year ago i had an exchange of emails with an elder of a congregation where all my jw relatives attend.
i asked him all kinds of questions regarding blood, 607, shunning, evolution, higher education.
as anticipated, he either had no answer or provided an evasive one.
dear Vanderhoven...
you said: "But Babylon is not a person or a group of persons that individually or collectively experience personal pain and anguish. Rather Babylon represents a vast social, economic and religious system."...
the WTBTS is a global social, religious system. Are you saying that none of the people exposed to "her" individually or collectively experience personal pain and anguish? That's the thing...when people HAVE emotional ties they get hurt and sometimes that hurt manifests as a physical reality. And (if you would) consider in the case of babylon that there are two beings behind the whole thing according to the workings of satan...then doesn't it stand to reason that when God passes judgement on them then that "torment" would manifest as a physical reality?
love michelle
about a year ago i had an exchange of emails with an elder of a congregation where all my jw relatives attend.
i asked him all kinds of questions regarding blood, 607, shunning, evolution, higher education.
as anticipated, he either had no answer or provided an evasive one.
dear Vanderhoven...
Based on your response I suspected you hadn't really thought about it too hard. I guess I had hoped if it IS something you truly believe, given the opportunity to defend your presupposition, you'd at least try... I noticed that in the peek at your book that you've given us you site the JW's as being erroneous in their method of coming to a biblical interpretation and then quickly move on as if somehow their error brings validity to your own interpretation. I may be wrong in my perception of your writing but, that's how I see it. You might notice that with the JW method and your method of interpreting hell you both have the error of dismissing certain scriptural passages that don't jive with your presupposition AND reference your own feelings on the subject ie: "the idea of a loving God isn't consistant with torturing individuals forever". That is indeed true and in fact scripture doesn't say God is going to torture people forever. God isn't going to be in hell to torture anyone. IN CONTEXT, the everlasting fire of hell is meant for everlasting spirits -satan and his angels- that there are humans consigned there as well isn't because of God who wants to torture them...it is because, given the opportunity, they didn't choose the means of escape fully and completely broadcast by Jesus Christ. You, yourself came to "extra-biblical" (as you call it) interpretation by the same means...by not examining ALL revealed scripture to reach your conclusion. For instance, how many times did you have to ignore specific statements by Jesus as to the duration and veracity of the actual place called hell? Isn't what He says about it worth more of your consideration? Furthermore, what method do you use when confronted with certain scriptures contrasting everlasting life with everlasting damnation? how do you conclude that one everlasting is actual and one isn't? I'm thinking that not only are you deceiving yourself with your excursion into biblical interpretation, but you're intentions are to publish a book...if you'd like to be of benefit to those who are misled...exactly how "helpful" do you think you'll be by presenting slipshod interpretation?(I'm kinda sorry if you're offended by what I've said but, frankly, my concern is more for the people who may be inclined to choose your opinion over dealing with what Jesus has to say...the implication being: NOT fully believing Him) love michelle
about a year ago i had an exchange of emails with an elder of a congregation where all my jw relatives attend.
i asked him all kinds of questions regarding blood, 607, shunning, evolution, higher education.
as anticipated, he either had no answer or provided an evasive one.
dear Vanderhoven...
do you have any comments that might shed some light on the actual questions I've raised?
love michelle
about a year ago i had an exchange of emails with an elder of a congregation where all my jw relatives attend.
i asked him all kinds of questions regarding blood, 607, shunning, evolution, higher education.
as anticipated, he either had no answer or provided an evasive one.
dear Vanderhoven...
you state that the beast and the false prophet of rev. 20:10 are symbolic. But the co-text in 2 thess. 2:8-10 states that before the day of the Lord the apostasy takes place and the lawless one and the false prophet (both lead people astray with unrighteous deception according to the working of satan) are revealed...the text in 2 thess. seems to imply that (satan)the beast and false prophet are actual entities and not symbolic of an organization. Perhaps there is organizational structure in the people who are led astray(2 thess. 2:10,12; rev 20:15).but to me the notion of specific identifiable persons is in view regarding those two who lead astray...
Would you say that 2 thess. 8-10 is speaking of some other entities besides the beast and the false prophet? And further to that question, would the symbolic nature of the beast and the false prophet in rev 20 indicate to you that satan is symbolic?(where does the symbolisim begin and end in rev. 20:10)
love michelle
had a sermon on the above today.
can i have some background and meaning to this, please?
?i'm convinced i never learnt anything at the kh!!.
dear quellycatface...
The transfiguration is a foreshadow of the millenium. The question about building the booths is one hint of this as the apostles were expecting that during the millenium God would tabernacle with men. (Zech 14:9,16) Another hint at the millenium is the mention of elijah coming first. (Mal 4:6)
love michelle
heavy, heavy upon my failing heart weighs your aching.
need for my full and loving devotion.. oh, how i spend myself willingly on your behalf as,.
truly, your desires outstrip my own.. were i but a younger and wiry man, would i scale.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G4IdNoDDXRM
love michelle
a thought came to me today: since it was only the cup of wine that jesus said represented the new covenant by virtue of his blood, could a case be made that members of the "other sheep" who aren't in the new covenant can and should partake of the bread?
it was only the cup that jesus associated with the new covenant, right?
in all the gospel accounts the cup is associated with the new covenant but the bread isn't.
dear designs...
no doubt you are well versed in the theological argument and clearly desire to talk about it so, go ahead...
love michelle
a thought came to me today: since it was only the cup of wine that jesus said represented the new covenant by virtue of his blood, could a case be made that members of the "other sheep" who aren't in the new covenant can and should partake of the bread?
it was only the cup that jesus associated with the new covenant, right?
in all the gospel accounts the cup is associated with the new covenant but the bread isn't.
dear designs...
people that want to find something nefarious or untoward in the method Jesus instituted for inclusion in the new covenant can take it up with God.
love michelle
a thought came to me today: since it was only the cup of wine that jesus said represented the new covenant by virtue of his blood, could a case be made that members of the "other sheep" who aren't in the new covenant can and should partake of the bread?
it was only the cup that jesus associated with the new covenant, right?
in all the gospel accounts the cup is associated with the new covenant but the bread isn't.
The new convenant was made with cultural jews (Jeremiah 31:31, romans 1:16) the other sheep (gentiles) are grafted in to the "olive tree". There is no biblical motivation to break the other sheep (gentiles) into two groups...one that partakes and one that doesn't. Both Jews AND gentiles have to receive the new convenant. That being signified by partaking of both the wine and the bread.
love michelle
