Revelation 13

Derek wrote:

Hi Brendan,
Your pulling my leg!
It was in book 1 of her Latin course when she went to
the senior school. I hope it's not rude, I could have got the spelling
wrong .
Doesn't it mean, Caecilius was in the garden?

Hi Derek,

I had to look the meaning up, but yes, it does mean Caecilius was in the garden. The description reminded me of the youknowwho and Jane school books. When I searched to make sure it was that book series, I was asked did I want the adult section of the search engine. youknowwho and Jane must have made a name for themselves in more than one educational field!

I wonder did I go into admin at some stage and put in a few words that were no-nos. I don't remember. It would be tiresome if the forum had auto software that made our decisions for us.

Regards,
Brendan.

Talk about short attention spans. .

You old guys need ADD meds!!!

Ok, we may be getting old, but you're getting cranky!!!

Back to the topic, I guess...

oops, I need to see where we're at.

brendan wrote:

Ok, we may be getting old, but you're getting cranky!!!

Back to the topic, I guess...

oops, I need to see where we're at.

"getting"???? I was BORN 'cranky' .

Hi Guys,
This post by Rud Persson on Channel C regarding Clement's view of the resurrection being future is interesting and relevant to the exegesis of Revelation.

There is no writing in the early church that is aware of the
resurrection
having already taken place. There is no early writing
showing that
Jesus returend in AD 70. All early Christians who wrote
before or
after AD 70 were looking forward to the Coming of Jesus, thus
in
effect denying that the event had already taken place. I am not going
to be involved in a detailed discussion of this here and now, but for a
number of strong reasons it is impossible for me to believe that the
parousia
and the first resurrection took place in AD 70 or in any other
year
in the first century. And it is also impossible for to believe that
the devil was abyssed back then. We are still living in the evil old
age
mentioned by Paul in Ga. 1:4, an age very much influenced by Satan.

Hi Brenden,
A good point you make about failing to recognize the significance of 70AD at the time but the converse can be equally true, that it may not have been the earth shattering pivotal segment of time preterists believed it was and the early church got it right.

I was never convinced by Donboy's certainty...I find certainty a little worrying.

It is comforting not to know...one cannot be wrong!
best regards
Derek

Ps C has it good points, but there is too much witnessy stuff for me nowadays.

I never cared to go to Channel C. "Academics" and their approach to spiritual matters is just not something I have a tolerance for.

Hi Matt,
You are like the Royal Albert Hall!

The curious pattern I see over at Channel C is that the Watchtower can be criticised, but the inner academic circle decides what, how, and how far - that type of thing. Cross where they decide the line is and boom, you get a broadside from the clique. The ones outside the circle are much more obsequious to the hierarchy than we see on the PC. Authors would turn up on the PC but their word wasn't gospel. And if you criticised the argument of one author, you didn't have every other author on the forum pounce on you to defend him.

Hi Brendan,
I wouldn't hesitate to put my two pennyworth in if I felt strongly enough. I've had a go at Jim's arguments at times.
I do try to lighten it up with a little wit as well.

The witnessy stuff leaves me cold, I couldn't care less what Russell said in the 1910 Watch Tower. But I do tend to switch on with the science stuff.
regards
Derek

brendan wrote:

The curious pattern I see over at Channel C is that the Watchtower can be criticised, but the inner academic circle decides what, how, and how far - that type of thing. Cross where they decide the line is and boom, you get a broadside from the clique. The ones outside the circle are much more obsequious to the hierarchy than we see on the PC. Authors would turn up on the PC but their word wasn't gospel. And if you criticised the argument of one author, you didn't have every other author on the forum pounce on you to defend him.

Derek wrote:

Hi Matt,
You are like the Royal Albert Hall!

I assume that this is good, as I have a DVD of THE WHO at the Royal Albert Hall, but other than that, the reference is lost on me.

Love to you, sir-

M

Derek wrote:

Hi Matt,
You are like the Royal Albert Hall!

I assume that this is good, as I have a DVD of THE WHO at the Royal Albert Hall, but other than that, the reference is lost on me.

Love to you, sir-

M

Heh heh. I didn't get that reference to the Albert Hall either.

Tangling with the great Jim P, huh?

True, but he is rarely challenged, and i when he is, he takes it very badly and NEVER forgets the perceived attack on his greatness. A bit like the Watchtower ladies; no need to wonder why. None of them are challenged really, and its not because of their great individual skills at discussion, its because of how they make it into an insult to their group. One for all, and all for one!

Hi Brendan,
Jim has a rough time of late with his health and his wife's cancer.

Derek, we all have tough times. We commiserate with each other. Times like these, though, are no excuse for a general pattern of arrogance and bullying in discussions.

Here is a sample YouTube video added using the 'Video' link on the reply page. It is 5th from the left on the second line and looks like a strip of film.

This one may not be so relevant to the discussion but perhaps better ones can be found.

Im still waiting for an explanation on the Royal Albert Hall bit.

Hi Matt,
I love you too man. We can debate stuff and enjoy our differences and not feel threatened.

The RAH line was just a silly throw away line...a tease that I missed out developing due to other stuff on PC.

I used to be a lot like you...I suspect life at times has not been easy for you, or Brendan or I.

The RAH line was an allusion to what I used to say about myself as a result of my background.

I reckoned I was like the cloakroom at the RAH...I had a lot hooks to hang my various bits of stuff that ruffled me.

A bit like the Earth Pope and academics etc bit, does to you..they get up your nose. Rather like conspiracy theorists, but particular the oppressors of the innocent and marginalized, get up mine.

But in all of this, we are what we are...thankfully we can be free to be ourselves
and develop in diverse ways.....not like the carbon copies we were
supposed to be as J.W.'s. God loves diversity.

God bless you brother
Derek

Propmin wrote:

Im still waiting for an explanation on the Royal Albert Hall bit.

I appreciate that, sir. I really do.

Experience has taught me to use the word "brother" very carefully. The PC lushes that float that word around as if it were as common as the word "the" tend to turn my stomach just a bit. Im not interested in those flatteries or dilutions. When I use the word I want it to mean something. Im concerned with what is real.

Basically, for me, it breaks down like this; I have physical brothers, aged 19 & 23, then I have spiritual brothers----those I have met and broke bread and shared wine with in the name of Christ. After having been through all of our ups and downs and differences, yet we still settle on the same Rock of Jesus Christ, I can gladly refer to you and Brendan as my Brothers as well. (Once Brendan and I spoke on skype and I could see him; it was great. I couldnt figure out how to make my video work, maybe Lynn has figured that one out.)

Much love to you and your family, sir.

Matt

Hi Matt,
You are right about the promiscuous use of brother. I must admit, on occasions, I have used it, and, unlike in the above, I don't really know why. Of course it can used in in a kind of remote way, to address someone on an XJW site who not really a friend.

I do believe all those who truly love Jesus as Lord, Saviour and Friend are my brothers and sisters but one has to be circumspect in reaching out to others. It is dangerous to treat everyone as a friend...particularly on the net.
One is not drawn to those who hide their natures...after years on forums with some, one still doesn't know whether or not they have a spouse.

Whilst we protect our privacy we Christians are not playing mind games with others, we hope we all have eternal futures.

True shalom to you and yours
Derek

Hi Derek,

I love that ‘promiscuous use of brother’ term. It brings to mind fornication, a false love. I wonder if it is sometimes used to allow us to back up a bit in discussion when a situation if failing in terms of friendship. I mean it in the sense of appealing to philadephia (loving brother) when natural affection is seen to be absent. With the appeal to brotherhood in faith, perhaps the discussion can be recovered and continue.

I think I must have used it in a smart alec way too, a sarcastic way of telling someone they are losing the war even if they are wining a battle, because the spirit is all wrong. This is, of course, very subjective.

I really would have hoped that we could love first and reassess the situation over time if necessary but there are so many who don’t seem to want to walk the long road with other people, genuinely getting into the cut and thrust of human interaction but still recognising the common bond and goals, that perhaps it is wishful thinking.

In recent times, I have felt brotherhood is severely threatened by all the self-appointed teachers on the forums. I like the idea of brothers discussing topics. I hate the way some adopt a teaching role and create the annoying illusion that the other posters are their students. This mind game needs to be addressed and dealt with for any hope of a proper discussion but it rarely is.

I remember one self-appointed forum teacher (who I think you have in mind) who offered no glimpse of his personality on the forum. For his sake, I hope it wasn’t because this was all there was to him. But brothers are basically people. Discussion in itself doesn’t need brotherly connection, I suppose, but I don’t think we should separate ‘Christian’ and ‘discussion’ when we post on these boards.

As for playing false with other Christians, well that’s just low.

Regards,
Brendan.

I couldnt agree more Mr. B.

I'll just toss it out on the table, but the reason 'scholar Donny' never did catch on with anyone is that he was continually talking to people as if they were HIS students, and that comes across as egoistic, condescending, sanctimonious. The same is true for gail, and sometime Vicki. Jim WHeeler does that allot too. I remember a "study" session", when I was an approved PC-paltalker, in which I had put together allot of research on a topic from Ezekiel 38, and gail simply dimmissed the entire thing with one sentence; no conversation took place, no "discussion", no back and forth drawing out of the relevant points, she simply declared it a certain way and that was that. It was the first time I really recall feeling like I was back in the KH. As this type of attitude seemed to come to the surface more and more it struck me that all the people I was 'paltalking' with were still JW's teaching people that they should REMAIN JW's, and this seemed to be, and still is, the constant thread for those folks (except for 'scholar donny'; he walked out of the WT and right into academia---into another rigid system of thought disguising itself as "open"). Maybe they felt threatened, I dont know. Either way, I dont need that, thats for sure.

I certainly dont view anyone as my "student" that needs my guidance. This is what Christ the Lord through the Holy Ghost provides us when our spirit is aligned with his.