former jehovah's witness elder committed to stand trial accused of sunshine coast rapes, sexual abuse.
a former jehovah's witness elder has been committed to stand trial for raping and sexually abusing young men on the sunshine coast over a 10-year period.police arrested 62-year-old mooloolaba man peter mitchelson in august 2022 and charged him with more than 50 sexual offences, including 21 counts of rape that allegedly occurred at various locations on the sunshine coast and in brisbane from 2008 to 2018.. the charges relate to five adult male complainants known to mr mitchelson through the jehovah's witness faith.. a committal hearing at maroochydore today heard mr mitchelson allegedly used his seniority as a former congregation elder to coerce the younger men to perform sexual acts for his gratification.. police said the acts were non-consensual and made the alleged victims feel "used, controlled, and lied to".. mr mitchelson was committed to stand trial in the district court on 53 charges, while charges of incest and torture were dismissed due to a lack of evidence.. 'positive affirmations' allegedly escalated.
the court heard the majority of alleged offending started with mr mitchelson advising alleged victims on how to use '"positive affirmations" to improve their confidence.. police said initial meetings with mr mitchelson involved alleged victims standing in front of a mirror repeating the phrase: "i'm strong.
This was already discussed here as well as ...
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5071208429649920/senior-jw-member-australia-charged-sex-crimes-torture
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5138666075193344/another-bad-egg
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6247931447869440/sunshine-coast-evil-elder
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
Do I imagine it or did I detect a shadow of a doubt?
aqwsed1234 : The fact that "theos" lacks the article in John 1:1c does not automatically make it indefinite.
aqwsed1234 : In this context, the absence of the article does not necessarily mean that "theos" should be indefinite.
aqwsed1234 : Even scholars like Murray Harris acknowledge that “a god” would be grammatically possible but theologically inappropriate ...
aqwsed1234 : Even Jason BeDuhn, while sympathetic to the NWT in some respects, acknowledges that the Word was divine (not “a god”) better captures the original Greek intent...
but
Jason BeDuhn : "The meaning is the same in either case ..." (Truth in Translation, 2003, p.124)
Philip B. Harner : At a number of
points in this study we have seen that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the
verb may be primarily qualitative in force yet may also have some connotation
of definiteness. The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is,
are not mutually exclusive, and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue
for the interpreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind...In
John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent
that the noun cannot be regarded as definite. ("Qualitative Anarthrous
Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1", Journal of Biblical Literature,
Vol. 92, No.1, p.87)
So, in fact, you agree that John 1:1c can be translated as "the Word was a god" but it doesn't fit your theology.
the jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.
even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.
yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.
A Separate Identity [Schulz and Vienne, 2020], volume two, page 34 :
This view [that if the Father was in heaven and Jesus was to receive his disciples home to himself, then they would join him in heaven] became an issue for [George] Stetson [1814-1879] in 1875, and it is likely that it was also the topic of discussion among the Allegheny Bible Study Group. Stetson wrote a lengthy article for The Restitution defending the traditional Age-to-Come belief system which taught that the earth was man's proper home. ...
Another probable route to Russell and Barbour's belief that a little flock would be called to heaven while a remainder of mankind would find blessings in an earthly paradise is Dunbar Isidore Heath's [1816-1888] The Future Human Kingdom of Christ which profoundly influenced Henry Dunn [1801-1878] and, we think, through the Storrs-Dunn connection it influenced Russell.
My Note : In a supplement to the first edition of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, Russell writes :
“Bros. George Storrs, Henry Dunn and others were preaching and writing of ‘the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy Prophets’ (Acts 3:21) and that ‘In the ages to come, God would show the exceeding riches of his grace.’ (Ephesians 2:7)”
It should also be noted that Storrs started a magazine entitled The Bible Examiner [1843-1880] and Russell wrote articles for this magazine in the 1870s until Storr's death in 1879.
anybody heard of this?
a lot on social media are saying she was jw.. https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213113850013380&id=1007975796&set=p.10213113850013380.
http://leftmeltdowns.blogspot.com/2018/11/missing-teen-linda-marie-sex-trafficking.html?m=1.
SheEatsDragons, I notice you joined the forum an hour ago and have already posted three times. You don't happen to be a poster that was recently deleted by any chance, do you? Especially reposting Take the Money and Run!!
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345 : As you rightly noted, Justin says that Christ is "not the God above whom there is no other god" (Dialogue with Trypho 56), but this does not imply subordination in essence.
This is what Justin writes :
I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another god and lord subject [hupo] to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God [huper hon allos theos ouk esti] — wishes to announce to them.
To be clear, hupo means "under" and when used of a person it expresses subjection or dependence. The similar word, huper (used in "above [huper] whom there is no other god"), means "over" and in this context it expresses superiority.
So Justin says that there is a god and lord subject to the Maker of all things (who is not subject to any other god). To say that this does not imply subordination is to ignore the meaning of plain Greek.
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
LV101 : Was the non-trinity belief handed down to JWs (Russell) via 2nd Day Adventism/England?
One of the most thorough publications on the early history of JWs, A Separate Identity, Volume 2, by Schulz and Vienne (who was the original poster known as Vienne and the mother of Annie, the current incumbent) says (p.xiv) :
[Russell's] rejection of the Trinity connects directly to the Colonial Era and early Republic Era belief of non-Trinitarian Congregational churches in New England and anti-Trinitarian agitation among British clergy...
Samuel Clarke's Boyle lecture on the Trinity found a place in American libraries; Priestley's multivolume work on the Trinity was circulated in America ... In America, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, many of those influenced by it rejected Trinitarian doctrine, some becoming Socinian and others adopted Sebalianism [sic] or Arianism. New Light rejection of Trinitarianism was still an issue in the 1820s, and the issue persisted into the 1840s. Grew and Storrs both rejected the Trinity. We cannot suggest that Russell derived his Subordination doctrine (a non-Trinitarian belief system similar to Arianism) from Adventism. When some Adventists entered the discussion, they did so as part of a larger trend.
The Proclaimers book (p.44) also lists truth lovers throughout the centuries, such as Thomas Emlyn (1663-c.1741), who
accepted the Bible as God's Word and rejected the Trinity. Henry Grew (1781-1862) and George Storrs (1796-1879) not only accepted the Bible and rejected the Trinity but also expressed appreciation for the ransom sacrifice of Christ.
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
peacefulpete : Justin never mentions the Gospel John or for that matter any Gospel. (apart from an interpolation). He, like the writer of John, draws from a deep tradition of second power theology.
He doesn't mention the Gospel of John. I thought he did as I read an article some time ago on Christians According to Second Century Philosophers, but I see I was wrong.
Having looked into it a bit further, I suggest it is probable he knew of the gospel because, firstly, Justin lived in Ephesus during his Dialogue with Trypho which was traditionally John's former residence. Further, Justin was the teacher and mentor of Tatian, who produced a harmony of the four gospels known as the Diatessaron. But, primarily, his Logos Christology and his reference to monogenes (only-begotten), "he was monogenes to the Father of all things ... as we have learned from the memoirs". (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 105) suggests he had access to the Prologue of John, which probably existed independently amongst Christians before the gospel gained widespread acceptance.
But even if he did not, my point remains that Justin had no problem with the concept of "another god", "a second god", who was not the God "above whom there is no other god".
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
peacefulpete : If you read a little further, he makes clear he understands that Angel is the "God of Abraham" but not the Maker/Father of all things (aka the Most High)
Yes. My primary reason for quoting Justin was to show that when he read John 1:1, he understood that "the Word was god" referred to "another god" subject to ton theon, the Maker of all things.
Quite clearly, when Justin was writing (second century), they had not yet received the clarification that we do not take the type-antitype approach except where the Bible provides a clear basis for doing so. So they saw Jesus wherever God intervened in some way. They thought he was one of the three "men" that visited Abraham at Mamre shortly before the destruction of Sodom, the angel who wrestled with Jacob, the voice from the burning bush which spoke to Moses, "the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night" which led the Israelites through the wilderness, the fourth man in the burning fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and so on. As you note he was prefigured by Joshua (Greek/Latin : Jesus) and was even the very name of God.
Justin clearly understands this. He says (chapter 59) :
Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same one, who is also an angel (kai angelos), and a god (kai theos), and a lord (kai kurios), and a man (kai aner) and a human (kai anthropos), and who appeared to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses.
But he always made clear, as you note, that he was not the God "above whom there is no other god".
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
@ peacefulpete
ho ho
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
aqwsed12345 : While the uncial manuscripts do indeed capitalize all instances of the word "god" (ΘΕΟΣ) or "lord" (ΚΥΡΙΟΣ) due to the nature of their script, context and meaning determine how the word should be understood and translated in modern languages.
aqwsed12345 : Thus the use of nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts reflects reverence for divine names, but it does not imply that every use of the term "god" should be capitalized in modern translations.
I am pleased to see you agree on this. My point regarding nomina sacra was specifically that they do not imply every use of the term "god" should be capitalized in modern translations. And that applies to John 1:1 as much as any other scripture. Context and meaning should determine how the word is translated in modern languages.
aqwsed12345 : The traditional translation ("the Word was God") does not confuse the Word with the [God] ... The Greek construction makes this clear...
You have to be joking. Certainly the Greek construction makes the distinction clear, but we are talking about the English translation. You refuse to address the fact that most English readers do confuse the Word with the God. This is well known to all JWs who get to discuss the trinity from door to door. The first scripture the person will point to, and usually the only scripture, is John 1:1 and will say that proves that Jesus is God. In fact, you say the same thing (to peacefulpete) : "the New Testament's portrayal of the Logos (John 1:1) presents the Logos as not only preexistent but as God Himself". And then you don't think people confuse the Word with ton theon (God Himself).
aqwsed12345 : The claim that John's audience, particularly the Jews of the time, were henotheists is historically inaccurate.
Of course it is accurate. Archaeological finds in the form of oil lamps, coins and mosaics show there were other gods alongside the Jewish god, although most Jews did not worship them. Amazingly, there is a synagogue built in the first half of the third century, in Tiberias, which include the zodiac and sun god. The Dura-Europos synagogue which also dates to the third century includes a number of Greek gods as well as biblical scenes.
To refer to a second god would not be strange to John's audience. In Margaret Barker's book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, she argues that prior to the rabbinic Judaism that emerged after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the Jewish concept of God was not as monolithic as is understood today. Many in first century Palestine retained a world view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel, in which there was a High God and several Sons of God.
In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Trypho first asks "show us that the spirit of prophecy admits another god besides the Maker of all things", and Justin answers "there is, and that there is said to be, another god and lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things (above whom there is no other god) wishes to announce to them.". Whatever you may argue about Justin, he is answering a question about another god.
The first century audience of John's prologue would have had no problem with the concept that the Word was with God and also had his qualities, who was by nature a god. Indeed, this has always been a Jewish understanding since God said "let us make man in our image", although it was often attributed to an angel (or angels).
