Heads up, missing out on this book would be a grave mistake. š
I wonder how come the listing page gives 2021 as the publication date when itās a new book. š¤
Heads up, missing out on this book would be a grave mistake. š
I wonder how come the listing page gives 2021 as the publication date when itās a new book. š¤
susanne eigenheer is an ex-jw and suffered religious abuse in eric wilson's group.
her personal statement and experiences within the beroean pickets study groups was one of betrayal where she was taken advantage of financially.
in one text conversation, wendy wiens disfellowshiped susanne and demanded an apology from her.
others have been harmed in his group, to the point of suicide.
Really? WTH is going on? This guy was supposed to be a friend of James Penton too?
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesāall things have been created through him and for him..
In explaining why Johnās gospel presents Thomas calling Jesus āmy Lord and my Godā in John 20.28, the scholar Adela Yarbro Collins interprets it within a context in which Roman emperors were given titles such as Lord, Son of God, God, and Saviour, and the combined title āLord and Godā in particular. By applying all those titles to Jesus, the author of the gospel of John was asserting that Jesus is equal and surpasses any of the claims that could be made for Caesar. Couldnāt this inscription be saying something similar? The gospel of John, in common with the rest of the NT, also clearly shows that Jesus is distinguished from God and is subordinate to him - John 14.28, 17.3, 20.17, and many other passages. Being greater than Caesar clearly does not necessitate being the one true God.
Whatever the phrase does mean, its meaning needs to be found in its own setting, not in future understanding about the Trinity that hadnāt even been developed yet. Say we found an early modern text that used the phrase āmoon landingā. It might be a perplexing phrase, but whatever its real meaning is, it needs to be sought and found in the early modern context, not 1969.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesāall things have been created through him and for him..
I donāt understand why this inscription is thought to be significant for early Christology even if it did call Jesus āgodā. Jesus was certainly called āgodā in early Christianity, this is agreed by all scholars and by JWs. Key verses where this is certain in early Christianity include Isaiah 9.6, John 1.1, and John 20.28, and Hebrews 1.8 is likely. Far less likely are Romans 9.5 and a few others, but not impossible. Crucially, the angels were also called gods in this period, as were some historic figures such as Moses. Moses was called a god already in the Torah, in his role representing Jehovah in Exodus 4.16 and 7.1, and this sense is also crucial for understanding the sense in which Jesus was viewed as god. Justin Martyr in the second century used the titles āgodā and āangelā for Jesus side by side, and Origen in the third century described Jesus as a āsecond godā, and characterised him as subordinate to God. The issue is not whether Jesus was called god, the issue is what that means. In the context of scripture it means that he is a mighty spirit creature and that he represents Jehovah as his chief agent. This is what the Bible teaches Jesusā role is. What is also very clear is that Jesus refers to God as his God throughout scripture (John 17.3, 20.17, Revelation 3.12). It was not until later centuries that Jesusā identity was confused with God himself and his representative role was distorted and misrepresented, culminating in the church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, when the original meaning of Jesus as god was eclipsed.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authoritiesāall things have been created through him and for him..
The straightforward reading of Colossians 1:15ā20 is that Jesus is the firstborn of creation who in turn was Godās agent in creating the universe. This theme of Godās Word/Wisdom/firstborn being used by God to create everything is familiar from Jewish texts such as Proverbs, Wisdom, and the works of Philo.
Scholar Maurice Casey explains it this way:
Similar remarks may be made about Colossians 1.15-20. So much of it has static parallels from Jewish speculation about Wisdom that we must infer an author who felt that what had previously been believed of Wisdom was true of Jesus. It begins with Jesus' pre-existence and role in creation: "who is an image of the invisible God, firstbom of all creation, for through him was created everything in heaven and on earth." This description must mean that Jesus, rather than Wisdom, or as Wisdom, was the first created being (of Prov 8.22f; Philo, Qu in Gen., IV, 97). This was written centuries before Arius, when no-one believed that Jesus was the second person of the Trinity. The assertions that he was created before the world and participated in its creation were a significant advance on previous thought. They could not have been made unless it was supposed that Jesus was pre-existent, as Wisdom was perceived to have existed before the creation of the universe that she was believed to have created. Colossians 1.16-17 expands this midrashically, using Proverbs 8.22-29, and moving back from Proverbs 8.22 to Genesis 1.1.42.
Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology (1991), page 115.
interesting video connects the dots.
.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ff1ibybfe4&t=205s&pp=2ahnazacaq%3d%3d.
Which is not to say that WT might not try to effect a harder line on shunning through informal channels and verbal communications to elders. They may well try to do that, but they may find they have limited success readjusting the behaviour of JWs in general with that strategy, because, as many see it, the wording of the Watchtower has granted them permission to stop shunning if they wish.
interesting video connects the dots.
.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ff1ibybfe4&t=205s&pp=2ahnazacaq%3d%3d.
The trouble with elders being told in private that shunning should continue is that ordinary JWs, in particular sisters, wonāt get the memo. I know local sisters who paid very close attention to the wording of the recent WT on shunning and have already adjusted their behaviour toward disfellowshipped relatives and acquaintances accordingly. If in future elders come around and tell them to knock it off and resume shunning in full then I think theyāll have some difficulty because, as they see it, they have written permission in black and white in the WT itself to stop shunning. The only way to turn that around, as far as I can see, is for another WT to be published that fully reinstates the old policies and for the old shunning videos to be reposted and endorsed all over again. But the catās out the bag and I canāt see that happening now.
uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.
Well he made a pitch for 200 more suckers to send him more money. It looks like heās got about 40 - thatās around 20% of the target. Plus we will see how many drop off at the end of the month.
He said he needed 570 to be āsustainableā and not be āforcedā to issue yet more begging videos. Is that an implicit promise to pack it in if he stays well below 570? Because he doesnāt look like anywhere near that. In reality he will probably still be collecting money from any remaining donors years after heās stopped producing videos altogether.
Notice how he said that Ad revenue gets him $1200 a month but he didnāt mention how much his patron and other begging measures generate. In one sense thatās odd because it was patron numbers he was aiming to increase. On the other hand, perhaps he believes that if he revealed how much patrons already send him each month then people would be less inclined to send him any more. So itās a pretty cynical partial disclosure of his financial situation.
Whatever tricks he pulls, it seems pretty clear heās making less money out of begging this year than he did last year, and that heāll make less money from begging next year than he did this year. Thatās got to be depressing. Has he got any kind of plan to get out of this spiral? Two obvious plans would be improve his channel or else find a job instead. He doesnāt give any indication of doing either. š¤·āāļø
interesting video connects the dots.
.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3ff1ibybfe4&t=205s&pp=2ahnazacaq%3d%3d.
Seems plausible.
Itās amusing if the GB have contrived to bring about the worst of all worlds for themselves where they have failed to convince governments that their policy on shunning has actually changed (because technically it hasnāt) but ordinary JWs have perceived the new wording as permission to end shunning if they wish.
They were perhaps aiming for a formulation of words that allowed them to pretend the policy had substantially changed while keeping the practice in place, but may have ended up with the reverse.
the war in ukraine has now escalated.
europe is now talking of getting involved in the war to curb the north korean armies that are helping russia.
putin has warned that this will now give him no choice but to retaliate against nato nations.. the biden administration and the democrats in congress want to make sure that the war escalates to such a point that trump won't be able to bring peace to the war in ukraine.
Oh yeah, this is going to end well. Having a world was nice while it lasted. š