so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
So is this guy saying he is ACTUALLY God's messenger, not just figuratively speaking?
It is TRUE, I am God's messenger. What do you think the faithful and discreet slave is? I have nothing to gain from any of you, why should I lie? For my own glory? That would never be the case. By their fruits you shall recognize them.
Tell me, any of you who claim to know the bible. Who are the Holy Ones?
so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
Mr. E,
I do not believe you have the power to make me insane, either. I didn't suggest that you have that power. However, by promoting the idea that persons should adopt a belief system characteristic of a mentally deranged person you very well could be trying to make me insane, or wanting to do so. Are you wanting to?
AuldSoul
A belief system? There is no such thing, have a great day....... The Faithful and Discreet Slave of JAH and CHRIST
so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
[I will begin this one by asking you a question. What caused you to believe that the W.T.S. was the faithful and discreet slave?]In my case, a form of insanity intentionally instilled in me by my parents. You aren't wanting to make me insane again, are you?
Why would I want to make you insane?
1. not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.
3. utterly senseless: an insane plan.
An insane person cannot think properly, not of sound mind. It is apparent that you are not insane, but of sound mind. This is determined by a persons ability to think logically. One with much faith in not insane if they believe in One who created us....... I don't believe that I have the ablity to make you, or cause you to be insane.
so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
Your posts are barely one step removed from complete gibberish, Mr. E. There's no good way to respond to such.
AlanF
You are entitled to your own views and way of thinking. Everything I have written these past years will be proven. That is all I have to say in reponse. No need for you to respond according to what you have written, have a great day. PEACE
so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
He is telling you through me, and will tell you in Person Himself, when all words have been fulfilled by the Law of the Prophets.]Are you still the fds Mr E?
The Father has not changed and neither have I, so yes I am.......
so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
Well, let's start with
> Those in the heaven are higher in intelligence so Jah had to hide the meaning of all scriptures until Jesus Christ reveals them to us all. [This on is rather simple based upon what I percieve that you already know from the scriptures. Can you defeat thousands of me alone like an angel can while remaining unseen by the human eye? Jesus stated that he was the way and the light and no one can reach the Father except through him. Christ has to bear witness for the Heavenly Father when Christ arrives in all of his glory and everyone upon the earth knows it. Every eye shall see him, or know that he is here.]
and
> He is telling you through me, and will tell you in Person Himself, when all words have been fulfilled by the Law of the Prophets. [I will begin this one by asking you a question. What caused you to believe that the W.T.S. was the faithful and discreet slave?]
I think that will illustrate my point nicely.
so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
Mr. E, your theories are interesting, but unless you can back them up with actual proof instead of mere assertion, they will simply remain interesting opinions.
Even the Watchtower Society is better at proving their claims than what you've demonstrated so far.
Which part would you like me to prove?
so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
If your father instructed you not to touch an open flame. You would not understand the meaning of being burnt until you touched it.
But if my father were the almighty, we (my father and I) wouldn't need to have that conversation. He would make me perfect so I wouldn't have to know what being burnt felt like.
[Perfection means perfect in body and creation like Adam, yet he still sinned. Once you atain perfection in body if you gain more knowledge than your brother, does that make you more perfect?]
I would never need this knowledge. Being a loving father, He wouldn't punish me and my offspring for the sin of two people whom I've never met.
[This is the True meaning of inherited sin: Those that pay for the sins of their fathers simply means that they are without proper Godly instruction. You would never faulter with pure Godly instruction. If your father teaches you to be unwise, you than suffer for your misunderstandings by making many mistakes. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit and vise versa. Sin means lacking the true Knowledge and perfect instruction of the Heavenly Father.]
He would have made that sin impossible. He wouldn't hide his self from me and make me rely on the word of man to know He exists. (The bible says it's inspired. Man wrote that it was inspired. Men say a lot of things) He, being a loving God, would, at the very least, give me 1 minute of his time and reveal himself to ME so I wouldn't have to guess. He would be so wise and powerful He wouldn't need to play "have faith" games.
[Trust in the Fathers knowledge and wisdom is all I can tell you in answer to much of your statements. Who is wiser, you or the One that created you? If it were not inspired, fulfillment of prophecy would have not taken place, as much evidence has already proven.]
So, He would not make us pick out every little verse of an ancient book and over analyze it. Look at all the long posts on 1 scripture. Why would He do this? He could open the heavens for 30 seconds and say, "Children, I am here, and my name is Jehovah." That's it, end of story. If He loves us, why not the 30 seconds. Faith? I am sure the little baby who is laying in dirt starving to death right now really appreciates 1) The point He is proving 2) The endless time and money spent to pick apart and war over parables 3) Hearing some missionary telling him, "He loves you."
[He inspired the writers of the bible with many hidden meanings. This is because everything written had to take place. Not at His own hand, but at the hands of all His unworthy creations, meaning satan and those that act in like manner to satan.]
All this blah blah blah over what He meant sickens me. If He wants to tell us something, He will.
[He is telling you through me, and will tell you in Person Himself, when all words have been fulfilled by the Law of the Prophets.]
Sorry, JMHO --mnky
so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
I will return tomorrow, have a great evening =)
so for our "congregation book study", we are still deeply mired in the bible teach book.
this week's lesson talks about the whole idea that the book of job relates the central issue of the entire cosmos, a vital issue raised by satan, where satan questions whether humans follow god because of what they are given, or because he deserves it.
i'm surprised that the book of job, obviously archetypal and figurative (for example, i doubt people back then literally spoke for hours in hebrew verse, and i doubt that four messengers showed up all in a row with stories telling that they, only they, got away to tell of a disaster) even has a place in the canon; aside from its lack of any specific historical position or accuracy, the argument it advances (especially as the society interprets it) is facile: the idea that privileged, wealthy, powerful job somehow stands as a representative for all humanity and serves as a litmus test for man's interaction with god is downright silly.
The issue of whether mankind can keep integrity to God is a huge strawman that the Watchtower Society loves to invoke. It claims that the issue had to be proved to angels by actually allowing Satan to test mankind in various ways, and that a good way of doing this was to allow Satan to test Job. That this is a ridiculous claim can be shown in several ways:
(1) If God fully knows how humans are built and all of man's parts "are down in writing", then mankind's ability to keep integrity is part of the "design specification". Since the Bible states that some angels in Noah's day sinned by creating fully human bodies for themselves, it follows that these angels fully know the "design spec". Therefore, if any such supernatural beings raised a question about mankind's abilities, God would simply have to tell them, "Read the design spec", and the issue would be settled. In particular, a claim that no man can keep integrity to God would be easy to verify. So would a claim that a specific man could not keep integrity.
[Humans are created with emotions and so are spirit entities. How can you be design specific on something that is random? In otherwords, you might like meat when another does not. This is how a person becomes a person, by their personality traits. You will react to one occurrance in disgust, while another applauds it. This is learning good and evil]
(2) Mankind is comprised of a large number of individuals with all manner of proclivities. Some are going to do bad things no matter what. Some are going to do good things no matter what. Some will go either way depending on any number of factors. Therefore, testing a single man -- Job -- gives information only about Job, not about anyone else.
[Job is an account in example. Not everything that occurred in the life of Jesus Christ was written. Did the bible tell you how many times he sat down to eat? Great examples are given as a learning tool. Jobs example applys to all that have suffered, and how they will be rewarded many times over.]
(3) The notion of testing at the hands of Satan is unfair. Satan is said to be a supernatural being with power to control natural forces, and intelligense far beyond what humans possess. To allow such a being to test any human is obviously unfair. To allow such a being to kill dozens of innocent people in an attempt to win a bet with God is extremely unfair on the part of God. Are humans mere pawns in a cosmic chess game? Were Job's children and others completely expendable and mere objects of sport? Does it make sense that Job would be ok with God allowing his children to be killed in this sport and then 'replaced' with other children, as if children were replaceable possessions? Of course not. That's why the Job myth is obviously the product of an ancient patriarchal culture in which wives and children were mere property. In such a culture it makes a certain amount of sense.
[You are correct, it is unfair for satan to use his strength against mankind, however satan had to be given free will also. Jehovah wants no offspring to parish, not even satan. Satan was one of first in creation and has great wisdom. Jah had to turn His back to allow those in the heavens to reign freely also. The war in the heavens is in retribution to all that satan and his followers have done to those upon the earth. Jehovah suffers also, so He knows our pain. It will come to an end and we will all flourish throughout the universe. Consider 6000 years or so to be a minimal amount of suffering in comparison to everlasting life. This is why JAH is the Almighty God, because He is aware of what His creation needs in order to learn great wisdom.]
AlanF
