Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple...
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#39593 Mar 7, 2014
"to be incorrect" - sorry mild dyslexia
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#39594 Mar 8, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
And why do you and Liam refuse to address the verses I quote? You'll, both, continue to argue in defense of your own, personal beliefs, but you never show my error(s). That's not very edifying.
Because under the false doctrine of sola scripture, there are no errors. If I say you're wrong about Matt 16:18, and give you my proof, you can simply throw out another verse that you feel justifies your position. Yon might step in with his own verses and 'prove both us wrong'.
Really, it's Biblical anarchy. The only 'authority' is the Bible? Not so. The Bible isn't one book, its a collection of books. And inside the collection we can see that Jesus started a Church not a collection of books.

Btw, bible verses are fairly new. Since its inception by theCatholic Church in the 14th century, people made the mistake of dissecting the word of God into thousands of snippets. Often using one verse to trump another. Everything's verse verse verse. That's not how it should be read.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39595 Mar 8, 2014
yon wrote:
BLL - I see your logic but believe it to incorrect. If I may
Messiah was killed on Passover - on this there can be no question as it was Preparation Day. The following day was Shabbat on which day he could not be resurrected as it was Yahweh's sanctified day of rest. So he had to be resurrected early on the first day just before the women arrived.
Shabbat Shalom
Okay. First, please and if you will, take into consideration that each and every holy day and high holy day (weekly Sabbath included) had it's own day of preparation. At times and in scripture, the particular Sabbath observance was mentioned with it's day of preparation while at others, it was not. During the week in question, the Israelites observed three consecutive Sabbaths which, of course, had three days of preparation, as well. The first was the Passover with it's day of preparation, beginning Tuesday sundown and ending Thursday sundown. The following day was the Feast of Unleavened Bread. During the latter part of Passover (sunrise to sundown) was the day of preparation for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Observe, please and if you will.

Tuesday sundown to Wednesday sundown -
Passover's day of preparation

Wednesday sundown to Thursday sundown -
Observance of Passover and the day of preparation for the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Thursday sunrise to Thursday sundown)

Thursday sundown to Friday sundown -
First day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the day of preparation for weekly Sabbath (Friday sunrise to Friday sundown)

Friday sundown to Saturday sundown -
Weekly Sabbath

I hope I've cleared up any misunderstandings regarding this most important event. If anything and what I can say, in full confidence, is that it's impossible for our anointed Savior to have died at 3:00pm Friday afternoon and to have resurrected not even 39-hours later, before sunrise Sunday, to fulfill the prophesy of Jonah and considering that 3-days equals 72-hours.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39596 Mar 8, 2014
yon wrote:
The following day was Shabbat on which day he could not be resurrected as it was Yahweh's sanctified day of rest. So he had to be resurrected early on the first day just before the women arrived.
...and remember the times that our anointed Savor was (falsely) accused of breaking the weekly Sabbath for 1) allowing his disciples to pluck corn and eat, and 2) for healing the sick. Although misunderstood by the Pharisees and scribes, such acts were not prohibited on the Sabbath. Therefore, there's no doubt in my mind that our anointed Savior was resurrected on the Sabbath, as well. If Father Yahoweh understands and overlooks when men pull livestock from a well on the Sabbath to save it's life, of a surety He'll pull His only-begotten Son from the grips of death on the Sabbath to save his life.
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#39597 Mar 8, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Incorrect. I did not say I performed all the miracles you listed. I said I was blessed with discernment. You'll notice, though, that there exists not one verse that indicates that anyone blessed of "God" would have the ability to perform all the gifts mentioned in scriptures. There's not even an indication that one could perform more than one miracle.
I must say... and I don't mean any disrespect, whatsoever. So, if you get offended by what I'm about to tell you, I ask, humbly, that you might forgive me. Anywho... I've noticed that you seem, often, to either, misread my posts, or not read my posts fully. If that's the case, I wonder how you read the Bible?
And why do you and Liam refuse to address the verses I quote? You'll, both, continue to argue in defense of your own, personal beliefs, but you never show my error(s). That's not very edifying.
BLL......the first time you answered me on a REPLY , you threw out a scripture stating about FAITH...to do those miracles..( I did NOT mention GIFTS).....I stated to you in a REPLY about YOU... gave an answer and then run and find a scripture to FIT your answer , just like
the JW's do. They NEVER give their OWN thoughts or answers on a subject.....They can NEVER answer a YES or NO question.......NEVER

That is your ERROR with me anyways....I do not use the Bible that way. To always argue on a scripture , we could be here all day, one ONE person. You interpret your way.

This is a "JW discussion board,.... I try to stay on their religion, and ask question....but they never answer....except with " watch tower answers......

I am sure you have your OWN thoughts on a question.....and that is what I had rather be doing on a discussion board......I do have scriptures that I remember in the Bible that I base my answers on a lot of times......but I don't tell anyone on here that is the RIGHT interpretations to that scripture. I have replied with scriptures when I feel we can all see it the same way. But BLL...I wont argue scriptures.

Now...has that answered your question on why I haven't answer your ERRORS..you said?
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#39598 Mar 8, 2014
Student wrote:
Daily Text
Saturday, March 8
It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah.—1 Sam. 24:6.
After David fled from him, Saul took 3,000 chosen men out of all Israel and went looking for David in the wilderness.(1 Sam. 24:2) Eventually, Saul unknowingly went into the very cave where David and his men were. David could have used this opportunity to eliminate the king who threatened his life. After all, it was God’s will for David to replace Saul as king of Israel.(1 Sam. 16:1, 13) Indeed, if David had listened to the advice of his men, the king would have been killed.(1 Sam. 24:4-7) But Saul was still God’s anointed king. David did not want to rob Saul of the kingship, since Jehovah had not yet removed him. By only cutting off the skirt of Saul’s sleeveless coat, David showed that he had no intention of harming Saul.—1 Sam. 24:11.(Examining the Scriptures Daily 2014)
Student..... What is unthinkable on your part? Can you explain

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39599 Mar 8, 2014
Liam wrote:
Because under the false doctrine of sola scripture, there are no errors. If I say you're wrong about Matt 16:18, and give you my proof, you can simply throw out another verse that you feel justifies your position. Yon might step in with his own verses and 'prove both us wrong'.
Actually, if your evidence is another verse, or verses, that remain harmonious with your understanding of Matthew 16:18, then it becomes obvious who's correct and who's not. For instance, to prove that the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 is referring to Peter's faith and not Peter himself, I need not look any further than the context and the use of terminology within the verse itself, and other verses that prove, repeatedly and beyond the shadow of a doubt, that our anointed Savior is "the Rock".

And just for the sake of mentioning, the proverbial "keys" given to Peter were used 1) during the Feast of Pentecost and 2) when he brought the gospel to Cornelius.
Liam wrote:
Really, it's Biblical anarchy. The only 'authority' is the Bible? Not so.
The Bible, or the Word of "God," which is our anointed Savior, is the foundation. All else must coincide with what's written (that being the law and the prophets).
Liam wrote:
The Bible isn't one book, its a collection of books.
You're correct. I've been saying that for years. But, you'll notice that not one verse from one book contradicts any other verse from any other book, translations excluded.
Liam wrote:
And inside the collection we can see that Jesus started a Church not a collection of books.
Correct. The collection of books that we call "the Bible" is Father's doing.
Liam wrote:
Btw, bible verses are fairly new. Since its inception by theCatholic Church in the 14th century, people made the mistake of dissecting the word of God into thousands of snippets. Often using one verse to trump another. Everything's verse verse verse. That's not how it should be read.
I agree that the Bible should be understood as a whole, but I can't agree that we're not to use it comparatively. For instance, there's only one verse throughout the whole Bible that actually defines "repentance". Our secular world, of course, has it's own definition. If we read Proverbs 28:13, this says, "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whosoever confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." Now, we can easily accept the definition given us by our secular world, or we can accept the definition given us in the Bible. The Bible's definition will never change, but the secular definition might. In that, I prefer the Bible's definition. Without Proverbs 28:13, though, we'd have no choice but to accept not only the secular definition, but a definition that might change with time. Case in point, the term "conversation" is used in verse. By our modern, secular definition, "conversation" is an action performed verbally. When the term "conversation" was first used in our English translations, though, the term "conversation" meant "behavior."
yon

Miami Beach, FL

#39600 Mar 8, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Okay. First, please and if you will, take into consideration that each and every holy day and high holy day (weekly Sabbath included) had it's own day of preparation. At times and in scripture, the particular Sabbath observance was mentioned with it's day of preparation while at others, it was not. During the week in question, the Israelites observed three consecutive Sabbaths which, of course, had three days of preparation, as well. The first was the Passover with it's day of preparation, beginning Tuesday sundown and ending Thursday sundown. The following day was the Feast of Unleavened Bread. During the latter part of Passover (sunrise to sundown) was the day of preparation for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Observe, please and if you will.
Tuesday sundown to Wednesday sundown -
Passover's day of preparation
Wednesday sundown to Thursday sundown -
Observance of Passover and the day of preparation for the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Thursday sunrise to Thursday sundown)
Thursday sundown to Friday sundown -
First day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the day of preparation for weekly Sabbath (Friday sunrise to Friday sundown)
Friday sundown to Saturday sundown -
Weekly Sabbath
Lev 23 reads

"On the fifteenth day of that month the Lord’s Festival of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. 7 On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work."

That Messiah died on Passover which happened to precede the weekly Sabbath that also happened to coincide with FOUB cannot be disputed anywhere else that I know of in Scripture. If you can demonstrate it please do.

Shabbat Shalom

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39601 Mar 8, 2014
Before I begin my response, allow me to explain myself, please and if you will, regarding my perception of your so-called "negative" attitude.

Perhaps, you're attitude isn't as negative as perceived. But, understand please and if you will, that many times, the capitalization of a word is used to express anger and yelling. Sometimes, I forget that capitalization is also used for emphasis considering that we're unable to italicize our emphases. Of a surety, if we could italicize for emphasis, you wouldn't capitalize words so often. If this is the case, then I apologize for thinking wrongly about your attitude. Anywho...
lovewithin wrote:
BLL......the first time you answered me on a REPLY , you threw out a scripture stating about FAITH...to do those miracles..( I did NOT mention GIFTS)
First, I consider the ability to perform miracles as gifts, as well. Many times throughout scripture, the ability to discern, heal, speak and/or interpret tongues, raise the dead, so forth and so on, are called "gifts". Secondly, my reason for quoting the verses that mention the power of faith and what faith can enable us to perform was to provoke your critical thinking skills. Regardless, scriptures attest to the fact that not all believers would be blessed with such abilities, anyway.
lovewithin wrote:
.....I stated to you in a REPLY about YOU... gave an answer and then run and find a scripture to FIT your answer , just like
the JW's do.
I believe it's irrelevant if Jehovah's Witnesses and I are similar in certain aspects of faith and performance. My reason for quoting the Bible, though, is to provide evidence of the foundation of my beliefs.
lovewithin wrote:
They NEVER give their OWN thoughts or answers on a subject.....They can NEVER answer a YES or NO question.......NEVER
That is your ERROR with me anyways....
I provide Bible-quotes to answer possible, further questions. I can easily answer "Yes," or "No," but I believe an explanation is necessary, as well, just in case you, or anyone else, feels compelled to ask any further questions because "Yes,": or "No," just wasn't enough.
lovewithin wrote:
I do not use the Bible that way.
And that's your prerogative. I got into the habit, though, as people almost always follow their primary question with "Where's that in the Bible," or "Why do you believe as you do?"
lovewithin wrote:
To always argue on a scripture , we could be here all day, one ONE person. You interpret your way.
First, I prefer the term "debate," or "discuss," before "argue". Secondly, such reluctance to discuss interpretive differences is the reason there are so many schisms in what we call "Christianity". It's impossible to become "one" when we're so willing to allow each and every believer to have their own interpretation of what's written. mainly because 1) we desire that none question (and possibly correct) our own interpretation and 2) we desire to retain the personal (yet erroneous) interpretations that seemingly justify our thoughts, actions, reactions, and speech.

Continued...

“Curious about Topix”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#39602 Mar 8, 2014
Lol, so they say. It's a man made religion from New York.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39603 Mar 8, 2014
Part II
lovewithin wrote:
This is a "JW discussion board,.... I try to stay on their religion, and ask question....but they never answer....except with " watch tower answers......
Well, you might disagree, but I can only assume that each and every congregation would want their members to declare what it is they believe based on what they're taught, or what they've learned, from their shepherds. As Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their Watchtower publication provides reasonable and adequate explanations that define their beliefs, then I can't see fault in their using the Watchtower to explain their beliefs. Can you name one denomination that doesn't do the same? Does not the Catholic denomination use Matthew 16:18 as evidence that Peter is the first so-called "pope" of their organization?
lovewithin wrote:
I am sure you have your OWN thoughts on a question.....and that is what I had rather be doing on a discussion board......
I apologize if I veered from the discussion at hand. I didn't realize it.
lovewithin wrote:
I do have scriptures that I remember in the Bible that I base my answers on a lot of times......but I don't tell anyone on here that is the RIGHT interpretations to that scripture.
Well, in the end, there can exist only one "right" interpretation. And if you believe you know the "right" interpretation, then you not only have every right and allowance to share it with others, but it's expected of you, too. Our anointed Savior repeatedly corrected the Pharisees and scribes regarding their interpretation of the law. And in case you haven't noticed it, the writings of the New Testament are filled with doctrinal corrections. Consider, please and if you will, Paul's encounter with the people at Mars' Hill.
lovewithin wrote:
I have replied with scriptures when I feel we can all see it the same way.
Many would call that "fear".
lovewithin wrote:
But BLL...I wont argue scriptures.
Neither will I. I'll discuss interpretive differences. I'll debate. But, I won't argue. Arguments are only to defend personal beliefs. Discussions and debates are to defend another's.
lovewithin wrote:
Now...has that answered your question on why I haven't answer your ERRORS..you said?
Yes. But, your answer is also telling me that if I am, indeed, in error, that you're willing to allow me to continue in my error, even if it means I'll be found guilty during my judgment. That's not a pure expression of love.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39604 Mar 8, 2014
BabyBee1957 wrote:
Lol, so they say. It's a man made religion from New York.
Welcome to Topix, BabyBee1957. I hope you enjoy yourself. I'll warn you, though, and I'm sure many will agree with me, but Topix is, in more ways than many, a cesspool. Navigate with caution.

“Curious about Topix”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#39605 Mar 8, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Welcome to Topix, BabyBee1957. I hope you enjoy yourself. I'll warn you, though, and I'm sure many will agree with me, but Topix is, in more ways than many, a cesspool. Navigate with caution.
Thank you for the warning. I've just heard about this site from a coworker and wanted to see what it was about :)

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39606 Mar 8, 2014
And here's a perfect example of what I asked regarding your understanding-abilities.

[QUOTE who="First, Student"]Daily Text
Saturday, March 8
It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah.—1 Sam. 24:6.
After David fled from him, Saul took 3,000 chosen men out of all Israel and went looking for David in the wilderness.(1 Sam. 24:2) Eventually, Saul unknowingly went into the very cave where David and his men were. David could have used this opportunity to eliminate the king who threatened his life. After all, it was God’s will for David to replace Saul as king of Israel.(1 Sam. 16:1, 13) Indeed, if David had listened to the advice of his men, the king would have been killed.(1 Sam. 24:4-7) But Saul was still God’s anointed king. David did not want to rob Saul of the kingship, since Jehovah had not yet removed him. By only cutting off the skirt of Saul’s sleeveless coat, David showed that he had no intention of harming Saul.—1 Sam. 24:11.(Examining the Scriptures Daily 2014)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE who="Then, lovewithin"]Student..... What is unthinkable on your part? Can you explain[/QUOTE]Now, it's obvious, to me, that Student began their post with a quote from the Bible, namely 1Samuel 24:6. But, you, lovewithin, asked Student what was unthinkable on their part. It wasn't their "part" they were attempting to share with us. According to the quote, it was unthinkable on David's part. Then, the explanation followed just after the verse quoted. It was unthinkable on David's part to kill Father's anointed king, Saul, even though David's men thought David should.

Based on the above, too, I wonder how well you actually understand what's written in the Bible?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39607 Mar 8, 2014
And here's a perfect example of what I asked regarding your understanding-abilities.
First Student wrote:
Daily Text
Saturday, March 8
It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah.—1 Sam. 24:6.
After David fled from him, Saul took 3,000 chosen men out of all Israel and went looking for David in the wilderness.(1 Sam. 24:2) Eventually, Saul unknowingly went into the very cave where David and his men were. David could have used this opportunity to eliminate the king who threatened his life. After all, it was God’s will for David to replace Saul as king of Israel.(1 Sam. 16:1, 13) Indeed, if David had listened to the advice of his men, the king would have been killed.(1 Sam. 24:4-7) But Saul was still God’s anointed king. David did not want to rob Saul of the kingship, since Jehovah had not yet removed him. By only cutting off the skirt of Saul’s sleeveless coat, David showed that he had no intention of harming Saul.—1 Sam. 24:11.(Examining the Scriptures Daily 2014)
Then lovewithin wrote:
Student..... What is unthinkable on your part? Can you explain
Now, it's obvious, to me, that Student began their post with a quote from the Bible, namely 1Samuel 24:6. But, you, lovewithin, asked Student what was unthinkable on their part. It wasn't their "part" they were attempting to share with us. According to the quote, it was unthinkable on David's part. Then, the explanation followed just after the verse quoted. It was unthinkable on David's part to kill Father's anointed king, Saul, even though David's men thought David should.

Based on the above, too, I wonder how well you actually understand what's written in the Bible?
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#39608 Mar 8, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, if your evidence is another verse, or verses, that remain harmonious with your understanding of Matthew 16:18, then it becomes obvious who's correct and who's not. For instance, to prove that the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 is referring to Peter's faith and not Peter himself, I need not look any further than the context and the use of terminology within the verse itself, and other verses that prove, repeatedly and beyond the shadow of a doubt, that our anointed Savior is "the Rock".
And just for the sake of mentioning, the proverbial "keys" given to Peter were used 1) during the Feast of Pentecost and 2) when he brought the gospel to Cornelius.
<quoted text>The Bible, or the Word of "God," which is our anointed Savior, is the foundation. All else must coincide with what's written (that being the law and the prophets).
<quoted text>You're correct. I've been saying that for years. But, you'll notice that not one verse from one book contradicts any other verse from any other book, translations excluded.
<quoted text>Correct. The collection of books that we call "the Bible" is Father's doing.
<quoted text>I agree that the Bible should be understood as a whole, but I can't agree that we're not to use it comparatively. For instance, there's only one verse throughout the whole Bible that actually defines "repentance". Our secular world, of course, has it's own definition. If we read Proverbs 28:13, this says, "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whosoever confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." Now, we can easily accept the definition given us by our secular world, or we can accept the definition given us in the Bible. The Bible's definition will never change, but the secular definition might. In that, I prefer the Bible's definition. Without Proverbs 28:13, though, we'd have no choice but to accept not only the secular definition, but a definition that might change with time. Case in point, the term "conversation" is used in verse. By our modern, secular definition, "conversation" is an action performed verbally. When the term "conversation" was first used in our English translations, though, the term "conversation" meant "behavior."
1. I'm a bit confused. Did you say the Bible itself is your anointed savior?
2. Where does the Bible say the word of God is only what was written and not what was orally communicated by the Apostles?
3. Where does the Bible say the foundation is the Bible?

These are things that you need to explain..

also, I have a wonderful Biblical explanation on the "keys" and Davidic Kingdom Jesus was installing. Perhaps i could share it with you later when i get home. The Bible is very deep. Reading it through the eyes of the early Church is amazing. The typology of the old covenant flowing into the new is fascinating.
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#39609 Mar 8, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
Before I begin my response, allow me to explain myself, please and if you will, regarding my perception of your so-called "negative" attitude.
Perhaps, you're attitude isn't as negative as perceived. But, understand please and if you will, that many times, the capitalization of a word is used to express anger and yelling. Sometimes, I forget that capitalization is also used for emphasis considering that we're unable to italicize our emphases. Of a surety, if we could italicize for emphasis, you wouldn't capitalize words so often. If this is the case, then I apologize for thinking wrongly about your attitude. Anywho...
<quoted text>First, I consider the ability to perform miracles as gifts, as well. Many times throughout scripture, the ability to discern, heal, speak and/or interpret tongues, raise the dead, so forth and so on, are called "gifts". Secondly, my reason for quoting the verses that mention the power of faith and what faith can enable us to perform was to provoke your critical thinking skills. Regardless, scriptures attest to the fact that not all believers would be blessed with such abilities, anyway.
<quoted text>I believe it's irrelevant if Jehovah's Witnesses and I are similar in certain aspects of faith and performance. My reason for quoting the Bible, though, is to provide evidence of the foundation of my beliefs.
<quoted text>I provide Bible-quotes to answer possible, further questions. I can easily answer "Yes," or "No," but I believe an explanation is necessary, as well, just in case you, or anyone else, feels compelled to ask any further questions because "Yes,": or "No," just wasn't enough.
<quoted text>And that's your prerogative. I got into the habit, though, as people almost always follow their primary question with "Where's that in the Bible," or "Why do you believe as you do?"
<quoted text>First, I prefer the term "debate," or "discuss," before "argue". Secondly, such reluctance to discuss interpretive differences is the reason there are so many schisms in what we call "Christianity". It's impossible to become "one" when we're so willing to allow each and every believer to have their own interpretation of what's written. mainly because 1) we desire that none question (and possibly correct) our own interpretation and 2) we desire to retain the personal (yet erroneous) interpretations that seemingly justify our thoughts, actions, reactions, and speech.
Continued...
Yes...BLL ..your interpretation of my capitalization is wrong.....this is NOT anger. Do you need to be always defending yourself?

No..BLL.... their is no reason that yes or no shouldn't be the only explanation needed...anything ADDED to an answer is usually a lie or your trying to defend yourself.

To certain questions ...I feel a more detailed answer is needed...but usually we can tell if is yes or no answer ..it may be that a detailed answer is needed.

I love to debate....I know I am not always right...I love to listen to the imput of others, and express some of my info or opinions.

No, I do not feel that , that, is the reason for so many differences in Christianity (speaking of interpretations you said )(JW is a cult..I think we can all see that...can you?)
When reading the Bible , one should pray for discernment or UNDERSTANDING .

I feel , that usually , other Religions that have other BOOKS outside of the Bible are the ones that interpret the scriptures differently than intended.

JW's have the watch tower magazine ...they could NOT do service without it!

Jesus spoke in parables, so that even CHILDREN could understand. You probably know that scripture in the Bible.

No...BLL... I do not desire for my own interpretations.. to justify my answers or thoughts.

I love to hear others opinions and thoughts on a given subject.
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#39610 Mar 8, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
And here's a perfect example of what I asked regarding your understanding-abilities.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Now, it's obvious, to me, that Student began their post with a quote from the Bible, namely 1Samuel 24:6. But, you, lovewithin, asked Student what was unthinkable on their part. It wasn't their "part" they were attempting to share with us. According to the quote, it was unthinkable on David's part. Then, the explanation followed just after the verse quoted. It was unthinkable on David's part to kill Father's anointed king, Saul, even though David's men thought David should.
Based on the above, too, I wonder how well you actually understand what's written in the Bible?
I was ASKING Student what was unthinkable on HIS /HER part.

I realized that this student person was writing what was a QUOTE from watch towers daily scriptures, that HE/SHE was sharing with us ..BLL

I would like to hear HIS/HER thoughts on it, and to explain.
lovewithin

Denver, CO

#39611 Mar 8, 2014
Student wrote:
Daily Text
Saturday, March 8
It is unthinkable, on my part, from Jehovah’s standpoint, that I should do this thing to my lord, the anointed of Jehovah.—1 Sam. 24:6.
After David fled from him, Saul took 3,000 chosen men out of all Israel and went looking for David in the wilderness.(1 Sam. 24:2) Eventually, Saul unknowingly went into the very cave where David and his men were. David could have used this opportunity to eliminate the king who threatened his life. After all, it was God’s will for David to replace Saul as king of Israel.(1 Sam. 16:1, 13) Indeed, if David had listened to the advice of his men, the king would have been killed.(1 Sam. 24:4-7) But Saul was still God’s anointed king. David did not want to rob Saul of the kingship, since Jehovah had not yet removed him. By only cutting off the skirt of Saul’s sleeveless coat, David showed that he had no intention of harming Saul.—1 Sam. 24:11.(Examining the Scriptures Daily 2014)
Ok...Student could you give me YOUR thoughts on the QUOTE you made from your watch towers daily scriptures?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#39612 Mar 8, 2014
yon wrote:
Lev 23 reads
"On the fifteenth day of that month the Lord’s Festival of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. 7 On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work."
That Messiah died on Passover which happened to precede the weekly Sabbath that also happened to coincide with FOUB cannot be disputed anywhere else that I know of in Scripture. If you can demonstrate it please do.
Shabbat Shalom
Actually I believe the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, yon, to prove that the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the weekly Sabbath fell on the same day.

According to your assertions...

Passover/Day 14
Thursday sundown to Friday sundown
9th-hour, or 3:00pm, on Friday
Day and time of our anointed Savior's crucifixion and death
NOTE: Our anointed Savior would have had to have died on Friday, because scriptures attest to the fact that a solar eclipse of some sorts occurred in order for it to have become dark for any length of time. The sun, then, had to have been clearly visible.

Feast of Unleavened Bread and weekly Sabbath/Day 15 (concurrent)
Friday sundown to Saturday sundown
9th-hour, or 3:00pm, on Saturday
First day fulfilled

First Day of the Week/Day 16
Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown
9th-hour, or 3:00pm, on Sunday
Second day fulfilled

Second Day of the Week/Day 17
Sunday sundown to Monday sundown
9th-hour, or 3:00pm, on Monday
Third day fulfilled
Day and time of the resurrection of our anointed Savior

So, you see, yon, I don't believe the above is chronologically accurate. If he died at the 9th-hour, or at 3:00pm, then he would have had to have resurrected at the 9th-hour, or at 3:00pm, three days later in order to fulfill a full three days (according to the prophesy of Jonah). This would also mean that we've no reason to accept that he resurrected at any time other than at the 9th-hour, or 3:00pm, or especially just before sunrise (which would place his resurrection at the 23-hour, or before 6:00am).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min FCVK THE SNOWFLAKES 26,565
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 17 min Aerobatty 985,714
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 18 min Halle Berry Sister 4,292
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 23 min MOGA 41
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Just Think 685,835
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Jake999 619,750
Why some in the south tower got what they had c... 6 hr Doctor REALITY 2
More from around the web