That seems a likely explanation to me, Listener!
It’s a bit late to find out now for sure, because everyone must be dead.
rutherford ruled the watchtower organization from 1916 to 1942, traveled extensively, had several residences, most notably, beth sarim.
but absent always was his wife, mary, not to mention his son, malcolm as well.. ok, rutherford was so well known, why did no one inquire about his son and wife?.
when rutherford resided at beth sarim in san diego, why was his wife not there with him?
That seems a likely explanation to me, Listener!
It’s a bit late to find out now for sure, because everyone must be dead.
according to mathew 6:9 jesus instructed his followers in, vs. 9 " you must pray, then this way "our father in the heavens,let your name be sanctified ..... which rank & file jehovah`s witnesses have been led to believe for the past 140 or so years is to make a personal name of god namely jehovah known to all of the world ,because as they have so loudly professed christendom has kept that name away from the general public.. not true ,raymundus martinus a spanish catholic monk of the 13th-14th century first coined that name for god and it has been used in and on churches throughout christendom in the world ever since.. true christendoms emphasis has been on witnessing about jesus christ which is what the new testament is all about,not jehovah god, but jesus christ .
phillipians 2 :9-11. in the new testament ,( cgs ) jesus christ is never recorded as saying the personal name of god ever.. " " none of the apostles are ever recorded as saying the personal name of god ever.. " " none of his disciples are ever recorded as saying the personal name of god ever.. the new testament ,christian greek scriptures are all about bearing witness about jesus christ and after his time of bringing back people under his kingdom will he turn then it back over to his father, a thousand years when his rule is finished.. that is the message of the"kingdom interlinear of the christian greek scriptures" published by the wtb&ts ,says..
The Watchtower has never disputed that the Greek text of Wescott and Hort doesn’t include the divine name. (Except the shortened form Jah, in Revelation) In fact they have stated this fact a number of times when discussing the topic.
Their argument is that the original NT used the divine name, and on that basis they restore it. How much clearer could they be? On this issue a number of NT scholars agree with them, that the divine name occurred in the original NT.
My point about Yaho is that there is evidence that this is how first century Jews called their God, and therefore it would not have been unusual for Jesus to have done so.
It’s like asking if President Lincoln or President Nixon used the word television, or TV. Even without direct evidence it seems reasonably likely that Nixon used this common word and that Lincoln couldn’t have used it, for obvious reasons.
Since Yaho was a common designation for the Jewish God in the first century it is on the face of it reasonable to suppose that Jesus and his contemporaries used the name. The later NT manuscripts that don’t include the divine name date from a period when the divine name had been removed from the LXX also, so are not good evidence for use in the NT period itself.
https://tinyurl.com/y2bzncu9.
Amazing, thanks for the info Dubya.
Please let us know if and when you get any further instruction on how on earth foreign language congregations are supposed to function under the new rules.
there is a controversial claim in this article, quite different to what christians usually claim.
it interested me, as i often wondered how as jws we could claim to be loving and kind (and certainly some were) yet, be quite callous about those who rejected our message.. you can find this story on this research at:.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/11/study-finds-that-children-raised-without-religion-show-more-empathy-and-kindness/?fbclid=iwar3zhgjsc_valeb8csd4usq9hyu34goemdj6s3yllnmsdvoy9pnkpzojyz0.
The question of the thread is extremely complicated, relying on definitions of religion, empathy and kindness which must be difficult to tie down. Not to mention that indoctrination is a pejorative from the start. That’s before you even get to methdology, reliability, replicability and so on.
Studies such as these are next to worthless it seems to me, being pieces of rhetoric rather than genuine contributions to knowledge. But then I consider most contributions to knowledge suspect on some level. From that perspective at least one could say that the flaws of this particular piece at least have the virtue of being readily apparent. More sophisticated kinds of evidence are often proferred but are not less faulty if one has the ability and care to take them apart. What can we really know about ourselves and the world when it comes down to it? On a practical level we take much for granted, and it is only reasonable to do so. But fundamentally, how many things do we really know for certain? Not a lot. So I think it’s incautious to make general statements on such sweeping issues as whether children of religious parents are more empathetic.
i’ve just attended a sda church service today.
i have to say the attendance was similar to what i would expect to see in a jw service.
the style and nature of the service was also very jwish (formal, drab and boring).
What was the racial mix like? In Scotland most SDA churches predominantly comprise people of African origin, with some Eastern European and Asian (Filipino). The one exception being Crieff SDA church, which is predominantly white, and has a congregation of around 70 in attendance. Crieff is also an older congregation. The churches such as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Irvine, Faifley, Paisley, Dundee, that comprise mainly immigrants, include lots of families with children and teenagers. Glasgow is the biggest with over a hundred and Faifley the smallest with around 15.
SDAs claim around 1000 members in Scotland in about 10 churches. My own observations indicate that is about right.
If you want to see an SDA get animated, ask them what works are permissible or not permissible on the Sabbath!
so, the trailer for the new batwoman series was released a few days ago.. proof positive that hollywood, cw network and other movie/tv producers live in their own bubble and are continuing to push their sjw agenda.. the trailer itself has unbelievable levels of cringe at times.. batwoman happens to be a woman (if you hadn't already guessed) and an out and proud lesbian.
of course, there's nothing wrong with any of this, it just feels so forced.
within a few seconds of the trailer you get some girl-on girl action, just to hammer home the sexuality thing.
Are we sure SJWs exist in real life? The phenomenon seems to be the product of overimagination of reactionary people who live mainly online. I guess the closest I came to seeing in real life was some of the activists during the 2014 referendum, the Radical Independence Campaign, Cat Boyd, the National Collective. I liked some of those people. That was a good summer.
Persecution of JWs in Greece made for particularly good Watchtower copy in the 1980s when they used pictures of those stern looking orthodox priests with the squarish headdresses. I always wondered why orthodox priests dress up like Pharisees from The Greatesr Man book.
very interesting, if very sad, youtube video by a young woman who grew up in a jw household.. i wonder how many more jw kids grew up in similar circumstances to this poor young lady?.
please post an encouraging comment below her video, if you have a youtube account.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-o2k7mfmbi.
Did I understand correctly? Her father was having affairs in lots of congregations and moved each time to avoid getting disfellowshipped. Yet he was used as a speaker at every summer convention. That’s got to be a pretty rare combination.
evidently they have changed their creative day from being 7000 years per day.
all blood transfusions were taboo but now blood fractions might be allowed to be taken into the body.
vaccinations were sinful at one time but not now.. can you name other views or beliefs that have changed from being considered “truth” to no longer “the truth “?.
So “soul sleep” is not a term that Adventists use either, but is popular among opponents of the idea? I did wonder if that might be the case. It does sound a bit derogatory, so that makes sense. I need to be more careful not to use it then!
According to Wikipedia “mortalism”, as it is termed, has been present throughout the Christian tradition, including the reformation and particularly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Annihilationism and conditionalism are related ideas.
evidently they have changed their creative day from being 7000 years per day.
all blood transfusions were taboo but now blood fractions might be allowed to be taken into the body.
vaccinations were sinful at one time but not now.. can you name other views or beliefs that have changed from being considered “truth” to no longer “the truth “?.
Yes “soul sleep” for example is believed by Adventists, Christadelphians, and others. In fact even the term “soup sleep” is not one JWs tend to use for their belief (Christadelpuians don’t use the term either, although they share the belief) it’s a term that Adventists promoted, I think.