xjwsforChrist

Any thoughts?

Peace to you ALL!

A slave of Christ,

Shellamar

For the dog:
The greek word is interesting (kysin, Strong's 2965), which indicates a scavenger canine, what we might today call a feral dog. It's one that would mooch food. This could refer to a spiritual predator who only wants to take, take, take and never give.

For the pigs/swine:
I've always thought these represented those who would not appreciate spiritual things, but I think there's more to it.

The latter part of the verse describes why: these (the dogs and the swine) would trample them (things that are holy and pearls) under their feet, then turn and tear you to pieces.

To me, this indicates these are one that not only don't appreciate spiritual things, but when something true is put before them, they deride it, mock it, trample it, as it were, then attack the one who gave it out, in a sort of character assassination sort of way.

"Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet and then turn and tear you to pieces."

Trampling the pearls - attacking something sacred that Christ has given you; then turning and tearing (attacking) you to pieces. As you said above, Leaving. I have seen that happen... even with an assurance from the one doing the trampling that it would not be the case.

Do don't just give something sacred that has been given to you to those who are going to (who have shown that they are going to) trample that something and then turn on you. They don't want the pearls despite their possibly coaxing requests (well, they might want the pearls... but because they don't have the pearls themselves or did not receive the pearls themselves... they won't treat them as pearls, and they don't want you or anyone else to have/benefit from them either; so they work to destroy them... as well as destroy you - and your faith - if possible. Or is that more along the lines of wolves?)



Peace,
tammy

Thank you and peace to you, both, dear LQ and tec! I don't have anything to share, per se, except perhaps what the "dogs" are and what they have in common with swine. I don't think your definition of "scavenger canines" applies to feral dogs, at least not of the domesticated kind. I think it is with reference to the "unclean" dogs... which would be the hyenas that habit that region, especially the wilderness. If it were the domesticated dogs, I don't think such would be licking "Lazarus'" wounds... or that our dear Lord would have called the Canaanite woman and her daughter "little dogs." Hyenas, on the other hand, canines... and scavengers... and unclean... because of what they EAT: rotting carcasses.

Which is why swine were considered unclean, as well: they will eat anything. Which is why we can understand how, at some point, they could BECOME clean (and so be eaten): when they are herded and cared for DOMESTICALLY... and so FED things like grain, plants, table scraps, etc. Versus where, when wild, they will even eat dead and rotting swine. Eating a truly wild pig can be deadly, given what one MAY have eaten (and so carry in IT'S flesh).

Same as with a hyena... which are never domesticated (although, some have learned to come and literally take meat out of a human hand... without taking the hand, too! LOLOL! And make NO mistake: pigs will do the SAME thing - literally bite your hand, if not your arm, off! Both of these animals will attack, in groups/herds... and tear a man to pieces and eat his flesh).

So, given that... I guess I now should share that the admonition is not to share "pearls" with anyone who is "unclean." As a "scavenger canine" or swine is/can be.

What makes a person "unclean," though? It seems that that the admonition is saying, as implied by dear tec, that it would be someone whose MOTIVE/intent is not pure (John 1:47... whose reason for WANTING a pearl is not honest or honorable ([b]Acts 8:9-25; James 4:3. Because of this they attribute no REAL/TRUE/ACCURATE value to the pearl(s)... and so will trample it... and YOU... underfoot. As a pack of hyenas... or herd of swine... would do, when attacking.

Which they will do... if you're holding out a piece of meat or in this instance... a pearl. Attack, tear off your arm, and trample you underfoot. Then turn on you... and eat you.

I hope this helps!

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

By "feral dogs", I meant something like stray dogs, free-roaming... these have a tendency to eat whatever is thrown to them, as well.

Interesting... the "little dogs" is something that came immediately to my mind when I read your question, but then the greek word shows that to properly mean "puppy", so that didn't fit. However, the same greek word for dogs is used at Rev 22:15.

Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Now, I'm not sure if this verse is saying that dogs are all those other things, or that dogs are in addition to those other things.


This is good admonition, actually. How does one go about determining who to share with and who not to? I mean, I think it becomes obvious if someone has actually received a pearl, but then turned around and attacked. But how does one know BEFORE that happens?

I'm not so sure, dear one (again, peace to you!). We tend to think of puppies as baby dogs; however, my dogs are age 3-4, 6, and 7... and I call them puppies... because they're very small. Which is where the word "puppy" actually came from - small pet dogs:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=puppy

The word breeders use for a baby dog... which is accurate (opposed to "puppy", which is kind of slang)... is "whelp":

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?ter ... in_frame=0

I need to correct something here, though: although hyenas are REFERRED to by MANY, including those in the region as "dogs"... they are not canine (or feline), but from their own family. They closely resemble the African wild dog (they look virtually alike!)... and for millenia were called "dogs." They are not canine, however, which is what we call "dogs" TODAY, but are Hyaenidae. Here is a map of the range of the striped hyena:

http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=10274

Note, it includes almost the entire Middle East, including Israel, Jordan, and the Sinai and Arabian peninsulas. Also, consider what kind of "dogs" would eat ALL... except the palms... of Jezebel.



Logic says (to me, at least) that one would KNOW before it happens, dear one (peace to you!), by such already having revealed what they "are"... by being "unclean" (on the inside) ... which they manifest by their "fruits." In which case, one should not throw one's pearls before such a one. But it doesn't make LOGICAL sense (to me, anyway) that one would FIRST THROW one's pearls, have the "dog/swine" attack/trample, etc., and THEN go, "OH! THAT was a dog/swine!".

True, WE may not know (far ahead of time) who would fulfill such roles... but surely our dear Lord does/would... and would warn us. Indeed, he did give us some warnings ahead of time: on more than one occasion he told us to "beware of"... and then what/who (the type of persons) we were to BE aware of, yes? For example, leaven... which is hypocrisy. And those who possess such. Among other things.

One interesting point, though: it doesn't seem logical, does it, that "dogs" and "swine" would include those who simply don't want to hear what you have to say... as some believe. Such people don't usually trample what you say under their feet/turn on you, etc., but just give you a fairly wide berth - LOLOL!

I meant NO offense to ANYONE with this topic (although, I do realize that that truth may not mean much to some)... but only to have an honest discussion about it. I really did want to know what others thought... and maybe I should have allowed some more time.

Again, peace to you all!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

I haven't had time to properly absorb this thread, but the first thing that came to my mind when reading this, "do not give to dogs what is sacred" was the Passover meal. I guess, normally, after meals, those people would have thrown their scraps to their dogs? But not the sacred meal whose leftovers had to be burned.

Which is why some have to go off into a room together here; I'm sure there are rooms some of us don't even know about.

Even so, the Lord did give the bread to Judas, but not before he tainted it with the juice.

In the context of "little dogs", it was the account of our Lord talking to a Grecian / Phoenician woman, and he included her among "little dogs". He said: "It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to little dogs." In this context, it would appear that since he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, the children represent those, and the little dogs appear to represent Gentiles.

This is true, yes, lol.
Someone asked me once why I was so sure... and while I didn't think I would get very far into an answer so started to respond slowly and carefully... "Well, the spirit..."
The person held out their hands, looking heavenward (think of an atheist looking heavenward for help, and you will get a sense of my amusement): "Nevermind... no... I don't want to know..."

So, um, yeah. That was more of a wide berth, and not a 'trampling of pearls'. LOL.




Peace,
tammy

GREAT thought, dear At (mornin' and peace to you, dear lady!). Kind of contrasts with what WAS given to the Canaanite woman (crumbs to the little dogs hanging around the children's table).

But I like your other comment re some of the other rooms here think your comments provide a GREAT opportunity to address that, if I may, so THANK you!

While it is true that perhaps some things shared here are "pearls" that aren't FOR everyone, some are also topics that are obviously offensive to others, for a number of reasons, perhaps even personal, and so probably SHOULD be discussed more privately (so long as they're NOT personal... which none have been, to my knowledge). When we started this forum our SINCERE hope was that private discussion areas would never be necessary. Unfortunately, that wasn't a realistic hope because, as we had seen on other forums, threads are often intentionally "derailed" by opposition. I don't mean derailment caused by sidebars, deviations, and other distractions that AREN'T intended to undermine the discussion, but those that specifically are.

We also saw (and perhaps some still see) incidences where, due to being UNABLE (more than unwilling) to RECEIVE some of the contents of a thread/discussion, offense was/is taken such to the point that outright attacks ensue. To the utter distraction of the discussion and obscuring of the point(s)... AND further offense to the one who was so unable. As the saying goes "Hurt people... hurt people," and so it's understandable, sometimes - feelings are hurt and so hurtfulness is thrown back. Because of this, though, at times it is probably BEST to keep certain conversations among those who can HANDLE them... which does NOT necessarily mean they AGREE with them... for the benefit of EVERYONE: those who WANT the information as WELL as those who (truly) do not. Especially if someone doesn't have the present of mind to either excuse themselves from or stay out of discussions in the first place that they KNOW will be offensive to them, even though they are ASSURED that no offense was INTENDED. Eleanor Roosevelt said something I often find sublime, which is something to the effect that no one can offend you WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. Too many miss the truth of this statement, though.

There are also a couple/few other reasons for private rooms, including the protection of others. While everyone here might BELIEVE themselves to be trustworthy, it would be imprudent of anyone to ASSUME that where a possible LACK of being so has already been demonstrated. While we encourage open discussion, we do place a priority of members feeling SAFE to post. And sadly, we have seen that that is not always the case; both, posters not feeling so and not actually BEING so.

Finally, we all... ALL, including myself, as I am not an Administrator/Mod... have to ACCEPT the fact that we might not be PRIVY to every discussion that might occur on this board. Indeed, that is the PURPOSE for PMs - to allow members to discuss IN PRIVATE. What, though, if one wishes to discuss the same topic with more than one member? Should they have to send out multiple PMs... as well as receive multiple PMs? And what of the others involved in the discussion; should they have to communicate through the one member? Isn't is more "user-friendly"... and EFFICIENT... for those to be able to have an inclusive discussion albeit not open to all? Of course it is. Just as it is when people have conversations in real life. None of us are privy to every conversation among everyone we know all the time. Nor should we be... nor should we take offense if we are not. People have a right to include... and exclude... from their conversations whomever they choose.

And our dear Lord, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah) did just that. We have recorded for us accounts where he did NOT tell or take all of his disciples... OR Apostles... with him/into the discussion. Of ALL of his disciples (more than 70 men, and almost double that if you include the women)... only 12 were chosen to be his Apostles and most intimate companions. NONE of these were women, although certain women proved themselves even MORE faithful than the men. Only Peter, James, and John saw the transfiguration. Only the 12 were invited to share the Passover meal with him, yet we can know there WERE others, due to the number that were present at the outpouring of holy spirit during Pentecost. After the Passover meal, when they ALL went out with him to Gethsemane, he made 8 of them stay behind, took these three further with him, then had THEM stop as HE went on further (so as to pray in private). He entrusted the care of his mother to Lazarus. He appeared first to the women who'd been with him, not the men. And he revealed sacred secrets and interpreted parables to those who had PROVEN their faith, and not to others. So, HE showed that there were times when some were more privy to things than others.

Now, while it is understandable that, given there neither male/female, Jew/Greek, slave/freeman... but that we are all equals... some might take issue when there are private discussions that include some but not others, it should not be taken offensively, anymore than a private discussion in person would/should... and PARTICULARLY if a person ALREADY knows they don't really WANT the information and/or will only ridicule (and folks know if that's their intent; at least, they do if they're HONEST with themselves).

Even more so, no one who is part of a religion should take offense... especially if they have no problem with and totally accept that such is done in their religion. For example, what laity is included in/given privy to the private councils of the clergy? Since when is a layperson allowed inside the inner chambers of, say, the Vatican? Diocese? Bethel? An LDS temple? When are such given access to the Cardinal College, GB meetings, Bishop enclaves, etc.? They are not. And so, to readily and completely accept THAT... and say it's totally fine to BE excluded by such "men" (and women, as the same applies in nunneries, etc.)... but get upset when excluded from discussions/conversations on internet forums... makes absolutely NO sense. It is contradictory... and perhaps even hypocritical as it makes allowance to be excluded by SOME groups claiming a union with Christ... but not by others. If it's wrong, then it's wrong for ALL. If it's okay for one, then it should be okay for all.

Christ himself let us know it's okay, though, to have private discussions among the Body. He has them WITH (members) of the Body. He didn't give the Revelation to all 12, but only to John. He didn't just appear to the men and all at once, but to the women first, THEN to the men... and THEN only to a couple/few, first.

Even so, IF one believes themselves to BE privy to any of these discussions... whether one believes they should be privy to, say, a Vatican "council"... or if it's only an insignificant discussion going on HERE... if one would conduct themselves a certain way (respectfully) among one group, why would one not conduct themselves similarly among the other? To do less would, again, be hypocrisy.

I hope this helps... and I thank you, again, dear Ataloa... for presenting the opportunity. I hope I've explained the matter CLEARLY... and that anyone who HAS ears will grasp the purpose... and necessity... and, if they want to be PART of any discussion that they currently are not... consider what THEY might (need to) do... which is NOT agreeing, necessarily, but tends more toward CONDUCT and REACTION... so as to be included in the future.

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

It's a pretty good topic/discussion thus far, I think, dear LQ (mornin' and peace to you, dear one!), so I would like to continue, if you don't mind? Again, I am pretty pedantic (it's kind of like an OCD for me), so please forgive me for appearing to nitpick - I'm not, really, but again, just trying to keep the topic going.

For example, did you know a Phoenician IS a Canaanite?



I learned this truth from my Lord... and he directed me to corroboration for it when I was led to research:

1. [bSimon, the Kanaen[/b]... better known to US as... Lazarus, who was the brother of Mary (the Magdalene) and Martha. The reason most don't make this connection is because Simon is referred to, in certain Bible translations as the "Canaanite" (from Canaan) OR the "Canean" (i.e., from Cana, where our dear Lord attended a wedding and turned water to wine). These are errors based on PHONETIC misunderstanding... and subsequent mistransliteration/mistranslation... of the word "kanean". The word actually means "zealot," which SOME translations get right. Simon... the Zealot. He was among those "zealots" of with whom our dear Lord associated (he also sometimes being considered a zealot). Simon Lazarus lived in Bethany with his sisters, Mary and Martha... where they MOVED to... after have fled Magdala (hence, Mary, the "Magdalene"). They had several reason to flee Magdala, including Lazarus' zealotry (which made Magdala dangerous for him)... and Mary's occupation IN Magdala (prostitute, which she undertook in order to care for her brother, who was a leper and so could not work... and sister);

2. The language of Aramaic... which is NOT a form of Hebrew-Chaldean, as taught by the WTBTS, but is actually the OLDEST form of Hebrew... was spoken by Israel long, long before they EVER ended up in Babylon... as it was a language the land of CANAAN... the land given to ABRAHAM... which land was referred to by GREEKS as... Phoenicia.



Well, sorta. The "children" would be the seed... of ABRAHAM. And so ALL of Israel, not just the Jews. The Jews only make up two tribes (Judah and Benjamin, which constitute the 2-tribe kingdom of "Judah"); there are 10 other tribes (the 10-tribe kingdom of "Israel"). Although Gentiles are those who are not JEWS (and so, accurately, would include the other 10 tribes)... the Jews arrogantly included the other 10-tribed under THEM... and so "Jews" did often refer to ALL of Israel. But to be ACCURATE, the "children" would have included those of Abraham's seed in "Judea and Samaria," as Judea was the land of Judah... and Samaria was the land of the Samaritans... or the other 10 tribes.

Thus, Cornelius, although not a JEW... WAS an Israelite. He was a Samaritan Israelite, of the town of Caesarea, the main city of Samaria. Which is why HE was the first NON-Jew/person of the "nations" brought in: he, too, was Abraham's seed, just not of JUDAH, and so not a Jew.

The assumption by many is that ALL of Israel was exiled to Babylon. And so, when the Jews returned, they referred to themselves as "Israel." But this was an error. The 10-tribe kingdom of ISRAEL ("Oholah") had been exiled to ASSYRIA, then dumped in Samaria, long, long before then. It was the 2-tribe kingdom of JUDAH that was captured by Babylon. JUDAH had Jerusalem as its capital city, and hence, the temple there. ISRAEL had BETHEL as IT's capital city, Bethel being the capital of Samaria. That the Samaritans were ALSO Israel (like the Jews) is why the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well said to our dear Lord:

"OUR forefathers used to worship in the mountains but YOU people say we are to worship at the temple in Jerusalem."

By "our"... she meant HIS forefathers AND HERS: ALL of Israel. All 12 tribes, not just two. Because that is where they worshipped... BEFORE the temple was built (by Solomon, a Jew, because he was of Judah). By "YOU people" she meant the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah (the "Yehudi" or Jews)... versus HER people (those of the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel... which worshipped in the mountains until the temple was built, and then, after Solomon's death and a split of the nation caused by his son, Rehoboam, resulting in TWO kingdoms, "Israel" then being led by Jeroboam, worshipped at Bethel, which was in the mountains... versus in Jerusalem, where the Jews worshipped).

Just some trivia... to appease my... mmmmmmm... "OCD" - LOLOL! I hope it helps!

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

I did. Believe it or not, it's in a footnote in the NWT.

Your other research / trivia is interesting, too. Thanks!




I read something interesting just yesterday, from Revelation 22:6:
The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”

This corroborates with Rev 1:1,2: The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

From this, I gather (though I don't know it for sure), that the Revelation was given to Christ by God, who in turn gave it to his servants (plural), with one special servant assigned to give it to John. We don't know if any other human servants were also given this Revelation. We are not told. What we are told is that multiple servants were given this Revelation. We simply are not privy to who they are, be it other angels or other humans.

Even more so, no one who is part of a religion should take offense... especially if they have no problem with and totally accept that such is done in their religion. For example, what laity is included in/given privy to the private councils of the clergy? Since when is a layperson allowed inside the inner chambers of, say, the Vatican? Diocese? Bethel? An LDS temple? When are such given access to the Cardinal College, GB meetings, Bishop enclaves, etc.? They are not. And so, to readily and completely accept THAT... and say it's totally fine to BE excluded by such "men" (and women, as the same applies in nunneries, etc.)... but get upset when excluded from discussions/conversations on internet forums... makes absolutely NO sense. It is contradictory... and perhaps even hypocritical as it makes allowance to be excluded by SOME groups claiming a union with Christ... but not by others. If it's wrong, then it's wrong for ALL. If it's okay for one, then it should be okay for all.

Christ himself let us know it's okay, though, to have private discussions among the Body. He has them WITH (members) of the Body. He didn't give the Revelation to all 12, but only to John. He didn't just appear to the men and all at once, but to the women first, THEN to the men... and THEN only to a couple/few, first.


Excellent points!

Thank you my sister,
Love your sister in CHRIST,
Justmom ( Kim)

I'm not so sure that's how it occurred, but let's see, dear one (again, peace to you!). According to the opening, JAH gave it to Christ, who gave to AN angel, for that one to present to John, who was to write it down FOR those servants. Who were/are those servants? John tells us. First:

"John, to the seven churches in the province of Asia:..."

and...

The seven stars are the spirits of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

...

“To the spirit of the church in Ephesus write..."

and so on, to each of the seven congregations of his Body. So, it seems that our dear Lord gave it to an angel servant, to give to John, for HIM to give to other servants (plural). Yes?



As to whether others received the Revelation itself, we ARE told, dear one. Paul addresses this, as does John. First, Paul:

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise (Revelation 4:1, 2) and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses." 2 Corinthians 12:1-4; Revelation 4

As he stated, Paul wasn't boasting about HIMSELF but about a man he knew. That man was John, who had received the FIRST part of his vision some 14 years before Paul wrote about it... and had told Paul and others ABOUT it (apparently without going into great detail) back THEN:

“Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later." Revelation 1:19;

John did not receive the Revelation all at once, but over a span of many decades. He wasn't PERMITTED to write about it (even speak about it)... until the appropriate and approved time arrived. Which did while he was confined on Patmos. So the Revelation itself wasn't given to anyone else but John. However, BY MEANS of John it was given to others. Starting with the "seven congregations":

“Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea...”

That it was ALSO for others... those who would come AFTER that time/those in such congregations is... unclear by what is WRITTEN; however, given that our dear Lord has not yet returned... and many of the prophecies have yet to be fulfilled (although many have been), it would seem that the admonition to NOT seal up what was in the revelation would apply until ALL was fulfilled. Given the understanding some of us have been given so as to have it STILL being "revealed" to us by Christ (which is why it IS a "revelation" - John only understood what he saw because he was GIVEN "eyes", "ears"... and explanations, and NOT because he could grasp ANY of it on his own), it seems that it was/is for some that would come after those addressed at that time.

I hope this helps, dear LQ, truly!

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

Hmm. Interesting. I read it differently...

Rev 1:1: The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.

In light of what you wrote, I re-read it several times and now see that the way, the method Christ chose to show his servants was:

Rev 1:2: He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

I told you I wasn't for sure on that.

You mentioned Paul's command about knowing a man taken up to paradise. I had not previously thought this to be John. I don't know if I currently agree with this, though I have no reason not to except for that it's a new thought to me. Something to ponder, at least.