just saw the following you tube video.
it’s 3 hours long, but thoroughly interesting.
if you want to save yourself 3 hours, basically the active mormon church is about 3 million.
LV101:
It's impressive but as far as I know some strange beliefs - probably not more so than WT but I don't know. I'd assumed they were similar to JW religion
JWs is an offshoot from Adventism (parallel development to the SDAs in the late 19th century, both based on Millerism). Though their beliefs have diverged in various areas, their core eschatology, including their interpretations of Daniel, is Adventism.
just saw the following you tube video.
it’s 3 hours long, but thoroughly interesting.
if you want to save yourself 3 hours, basically the active mormon church is about 3 million.
LV101:
SDA's have been leading the pack for few yrs. now.
More than a few. The memberships were similar until something happened to the JW membership around 1975. I wonder what that could have been? 😂
just saw the following you tube video.
it’s 3 hours long, but thoroughly interesting.
if you want to save yourself 3 hours, basically the active mormon church is about 3 million.
Slimboyfat:
Even with that, JW Memorial attendance is similar to Adventist membership numbers at around the 20 million mark, which may be a fairer comparison than the stricter JW “publisher” count.
JW memorial attendance includes people who go along to be polite, to avoid being shunned, or to otherwise keep the peace, so I’m not sure it’s necessarily a great comparison with the ostensibly similar figures for SDAs, where the 20 million refers to baptised members.
just saw the following you tube video.
it’s 3 hours long, but thoroughly interesting.
if you want to save yourself 3 hours, basically the active mormon church is about 3 million.
And JWs are significantly smaller than Seventh day Adventists
5:27; 9:59; 18:22; jn.
9:48; [21:8]; 24:47; jn.
21:12, 17;] jn.
Scholarly consensus around the life of Jesus is fairly thin, and the only strong scholarly agreement is that he was baptised by John, was an itinerant preacher of some description, and was executed by the Romans. There is no broad scholarly agreement for the 'resurrection' or any other of the anecdotes about Jesus in the 'gospels'.
Proponents of stories about Jesus (and other biblical tales) like to cite things like 'the criterion of embarrassment' - the idea that stories that include negative details are more likely to be true because invented stories would (supposedly) paint characters in the best possible light. However, this fails because it is readily apparent that a writer could include such details in their stories for exactly that reason.
5:27; 9:59; 18:22; jn.
9:48; [21:8]; 24:47; jn.
21:12, 17;] jn.
5:27; 9:59; 18:22; jn.
9:48; [21:8]; 24:47; jn.
21:12, 17;] jn.
Maybe start with the 'holy spirit'...
JW: The holy spirit is God's active force, his power in action.
Non-JW: Would Jews and early Christians know about God's power?
JW: Of course!
Non-JW: [Acts 19:2]
JW: Oh... um....
Non-JW: Paul also said that the holy spirit isn't the same thing as God's power: [2 Corinthians 6:6, 7]
5:27; 9:59; 18:22; jn.
9:48; [21:8]; 24:47; jn.
21:12, 17;] jn.
Or a delusion of grandeur. But I’m guessing that isn’t a viable alternative for JWs either.
firstly i appreciate the work mark o’donnell does for the xjw community.
no doubt this has also been discussed numerous times before.
but with regard to those documents that were illegally stolen in that vice documentary.
the old elder's manual (I think these were published in the 70s and 80s) only had a publisher and no copyright notice (this was when copyright still had to be established by sending a copy into the LOC)
The original 1977 version gives publisher information but not a copyright notice (for the reason given), however they acknowledged that they published it. The 1991 version also includes the copyright mark.
firstly i appreciate the work mark o’donnell does for the xjw community.
no doubt this has also been discussed numerous times before.
but with regard to those documents that were illegally stolen in that vice documentary.
Anony Mous:
Using copyrightable material in a lawsuit is fair use. Requesting those legal documents for any reason, even if you want to sell the result, is also fair use and is required to be allowed by law.
You are referring to a court using materials or a third party making derivative works from such sources. The court may have an exemption to copyright to provide the entire work (or it may be reduced or redacted). However, the sources themselves do not fall into the public domain and a third party can’t just re-publish the entire source (not a derivative work) and sell it.
