The Sacred Field Ministry Stopped by a Bad Flu?

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@Srecko Sostar That is a really great explanation and yes, it proves the dangers of that type of 'teaching'.

We know that people like to have their ears 'tickled', and it seems the GB have found a way of tickling people's ears.

In fact it seems a very dangerous way forward. The idea of moving away from God's written word. Replacing God's word with play acting. We know that the GB speak falsely when they give talks. How much more will these plays be false. 

[Space Merchant]

7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I can easily see that …. Perhaps …. The reason it was omitted from the earliest manuscripts is that elements of the first century “church” realized that if forgiveness was so freely given, it would subvert the authority of the rapidly developing corrupt precursor to what would become the Catholic Church. 
It is just a guess on my part, but the Scripture about Jesus forgiving the adulterous woman would subvert the grip the corrupt “Elders” were trying to establish as God’s sole representatives, in the same way that the concept of a burning “hell of torment” did, in reverse.

Perhaps (?) centuries later, this omission was corrected, when those political influences that had the scripture removed were not as strong, and immediately dangerous. 
 

For me, I believe the Scripture is the words of Jesus, because contextually, there is no reason to believe they are not the words of Jesus. 
 

The ONLY thing I can see that anybody would gain by spuriously inserting that text is ….. Nothing!

The passage only appeared in later manuscripts, not the earliest Greek ones. Reasons why the Vulgate was mentioned. John 7:53-8:11 was of oral tradition, therefore the consensus was undetermined, and later deemed spurious. The only thing we should consider inspired text is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit - 2 Peter 1:21.

Actually, those who attest to or even add spurious text do have something to gain. This is why Acts 7:59 is also mentioned. Not only were things added or omitted, there were some verses that were altered completely to the point someone reading the text would not notice it, even by a punctuations, which is why I mentioned to @BroRando if he was familiar with the Granville Sharp's Rule, something that can literally be weaponized against any new Bible reader.

 

That being said, whenever there is any form of Bible tampering, there is a gain by some, likewise, with some who alter or twist even the words of church fathers.

 

@Patiently waiting for Truth The reason for these Bible changes/errors was because there is conflict between 2 main parties in Christendom.

[TrueTomHarley]

10 hours ago, Witness said:

If this passage was a forged or invented account, a huge question would be "why?"

To prepare the way for a new age:

”In olden times a glimpse of stocking was look at as something shocking, now heaven knows, anything goes.”

All that is lacking in the spurious passage is for Jesus to say: “After all, we all know that the God of the Old Testament is mean, but truly I say unto you: the God of the New Testament is nice.”

[Space Merchant]

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, you are right. Also, many or most people don't think WTJWorg and JW people are the only true religion.   

Subordinationism is what is true.

[Space Merchant]

@Witness The WHY is due to a gain on the opponent's end. It all points back to the councils.

[TrueTomHarley]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, "Patiently" (calling himself 4Jah2me at the time) had already brought up the point about this being a potentially spurious passage several months ago.

So here we see why WItness defends the passage, despite flimsy evidence for it being genuine and strong evidence for it being spurious. She does it to undermine the provision of disfellowshipping.

7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

For me, I believe the Scripture is the words of Jesus, because contextually, there is no reason to believe they are not the words of Jesus. 
 

There is plenty of reason to not believe it. Though Jesus forgives sin frequently in scripture, there is always some evidence of repentance on the sinning one’s part. There is some basis for forgiveness. Here there is not.

All that is lacking in the spurious passage is for Jesus to say at the end: “Boy, I can’t believe what a nasty bully my dad is!” 

[Pudgy]

Faith is when you believe something that has some overall evidence but not enough to prove it with a reason and logic, or perhaps even textual dating.

I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be.

I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be. 
 

either way, I’m not up and out on much of a limb.

I would much rather err on the side of Mercy, than err  on the side of the Pharisees ….. and THAT is where the rubber meets the road !

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@Jack Ryan I'm sorry we've all stolen your topic and drastically changed it's direction. 

I get disappointed when it happens to my topics. 

There are no JWs or 'carts' around my area of England, and I haven't had a letter through my door.  

None of my local neighbours have mentioned letters either, but some nearby towns are complaining about them. 

[Witness]

10 hours ago, Equivocation said:

I mean, it would be pollution of God's Word if we were to add to it with something we cannot know for certain if it is true,

That is a good statement for JWs to ruminate on...considering all the failed dates for Armageddon, "this generation" teaching, many other doctrinal failures; and the concept of an earthly organization as the way to salvation.   

[Space Merchant]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So here we see why WItness defends the passage, despite flimsy evidence for it being genuine and strong evidence for it being spurious. She does it to undermine the provision of disfellowshipping.

The link @Witness had in her response also proves the point made earlier. No early evidence. She did this before with Mark 16:9-20, even when warned several times. As addressed, if anyone understood 2 Peter 1:21 then they would be very cautious with spurious verses, passages, and apocryphal text.

Early on, many people claim that John, Paul and Enoch wrote this and that, but there is no authorship of such to bring as evidence at all.

That being said, those who claim certain people who are aware of Textual Analytics, even going as far as to call them false for removing passages or verses, they themselves are in error, thus misleading people.

[Space Merchant]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

Faith is when you believe something that has some overall evidence but not enough to prove it with a reason and logic, or perhaps even textual dating.

I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be.

I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be. 
 

either way, I’m not up and out on much of a limb.

I would much rather err on the side of Mercy, than err  on the side of the Pharisees ….. and THAT is where the rubber meets the road !

Correct, as for what is deemed inspired, anything that is very early is what is true, for the authorship of such ones wrote what God has enabled them to write.

Things would have been much more different if there was not fighting or death taking place in the history of the Translation of the Bible.

So essentially, this long fight for the Scriptures, Christians were thrown into, Christians of both camps, so the spirit of the Council, in this sense, still remains at large today. The only difference is you have those of the Islam faith involved, and they themselves are very open about it in the EU, specifically the United Kingdom.

[Witness]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

All that is lacking in the spurious passage is for Jesus to say: “After all, we all know that the God of the Old Testament is mean, but truly I say unto you: the God of the New Testament is nice.”

 

It appears you removed part of your comment... never mind.  I found it in another comment - 

"There is plenty of reason to not believe it. Though Jesus forgives sin frequently in scripture, there is always some evidence of repentance on the sinning one’s part. There is some basis for forgiveness. Here there is not."

  Well, it is true that the Wt. cannot tolerate these "spurious" scriptures because they would diminish the power of disfellowshipping.  

Jesus knew the heart of each person that he met.  He could read the heart of the woman "who led a sinful life" in Luke 7:36-50, and he forgave her.  (Matt 12:25; Luke 6:8; John 2:25)  It is impossible for your leaders to accept the passage of "mercy" in John 7-8 as @Pudgy called it, because there was no visible evidence of remorse over the woman's sins.  Elders, as you well know, cannot read a person's heart.  So they judge in error, many times destroying the lives of the person they have judged.  Jesus could never judge a person's heart in error.   Not only have JWs checked the hand of God in HIs ability to bring this passage to light,  but also is the hand of Jesus Christ.  JWs find it impossible for Jesus to forgive the woman so easily in the account. 

"Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."   Rom 13:10

"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'”  Gal 5:14

"If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right."  James 2:8

This "law" was set up by God of the "Old Testament".  Yet, the Wt "law" that is set up through the hands of "Jehovah's organization", does not react with love.  It reacts through the power of men over others.  It reacts through selfish desires.  

"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."  Col 1:15  This means that even the God of the "Old Testament" would have forgiven and saved the woman from death, at the hands of the lying Pharisees.