just to continue my theme about religious freedom and how we approach criticizing the wts, i've also been thinking about 'shunning'.. i think shunning is the most unifying complaint that most ex-members of religious groups that practice it have in common.
it is the layer that runs under every other complaint - whatever the reason for leaving it seems "... and i was shunned" can be added to it as the final rap on the charge sheet.. of course it seems like a no-brainer to many of us and we hardly ever stop to really think about it - shunning is bad, the watchtower believes in shunning therefore the watchtower is bad.
they need to stop it.
Otherwise the distinction you attempt of shunning versus avoiding is amusing. Avoiding is an instance of shunning.
You are right. I was thinking of the WT definition of shunning which goes beyond your typical avoidance, to include not even speaking with someone.
just to continue my theme about religious freedom and how we approach criticizing the wts, i've also been thinking about 'shunning'.. i think shunning is the most unifying complaint that most ex-members of religious groups that practice it have in common.
it is the layer that runs under every other complaint - whatever the reason for leaving it seems "... and i was shunned" can be added to it as the final rap on the charge sheet.. of course it seems like a no-brainer to many of us and we hardly ever stop to really think about it - shunning is bad, the watchtower believes in shunning therefore the watchtower is bad.
they need to stop it.
By comparison, the biblical instance where Paul supposedly recommended a congregation shun an individual he went on to tell everyone the precise reason for his recommendation.
As others stated, forced shunning is the issue. But, for the record, Paul NEVER said to shun. He said to "stop keeping company" or "stop associating". There's a BIG difference in shunning and avoiding.
Something to keep in mind with regards to whether religious shunning should EVER be acceptable. Did Christ shun Satan? Did God? Or did BOTH actually have conversations with him? Shouldn't that be the measuring stick?
how many were baptized in your area, last assembly?.
santa paula, ca..........17..
a collation of statements made in the watchtower from 2000 to 2015 of "144,000" and "anointed".
http://www.jwstudies.com/wt_magazines_from_2000_to_2015_on_144000_and_the_anointed.pdf .
doug.
Someone on another thread wondered if CharlieSmith1975 was actually Larsinger58. The writing style seems similar, as does the points made. Lars used to say the same stuff as CharlieSmith1975 is posting. He used to talk about being part of the secret society know as the Knights Templar and believed some would remain alive throughout time.
In addition, a Google search for "Isa 6:13" and 144,000 brought up several posts on various forums with similar writing styles by users named Anonymous2100, Lars Wilson and Larry Wilson (from what I found with a quickie search). Makes me think whoever made the connection between CharlieSmith1975 and Larsinger58 may be right.
Charlie, if you are Lars, welcome back. But fess up.
Edit: Hadn't read to page two of this thread. Even Doug makes this connection. ;)
so im here fine tooth combing the latest [mar 15th] watchtower propaganda leaflet the last study article, finding not a scripture in its correct context, [thats for another post, lol] when i thought, hmm, how many times does it say to preach in the bible.. so i go to bible gateway, and type in 'preach'.
[ not preached] .
i got 2nd timothy.. i read the whole 2 books of timothy.. an it appears to me, that paul, wh has his own agenda, wrote those words to timothy, after all it says a letter to tim, .
I have long thought the same thing. If taken at it's face value, the charge letter is indeed to Timothy, and HE was charged to preach the word. I don't believe Paul says that to anyone else in any other letter (I could be wrong, so don't quote me on that.)
here we go again... let's study... news report... comment.... who is gog of magog mentioned in the book of ezekiel?.
for a number of years, our publications have explained that gog of magog is the name given to satan the devil after his ouster from heaven.
this explanation was based on the fact that the book of revelation identifies satan the devil as the leader of the worldwide attack on gods people.
Ok. Let me retract. I went back and read it out loud.
They are not saying "final attack" as in the 'final attack at the end of the thousand years'. My eyes were indeed deceiving me. They are still putting Armageddon before the thousand years. However, they are separating the Gogs. There are two "Gogs". One, "Gog OF Magog" from Ezekiel, which attacks BEFORE the thousand years, and "Gog AND Magog" of Revelation 20, which is AFTER the thousand years. (Yes, sir82, this is what you pointed out to me.)
I think the words "final attack" threw me. They're calling what happens at the end of the thousand years the "final test" instead of the "final attack", even though Revelation 20:8 has them gathering for the war and encircling the camp of the holy ones. That seems like an attack to me, but that's just my simple-mindedness, I guess.
I've apparently gotten all worked up over nothing. Nevermind. My apologies.
here we go again... let's study... news report... comment.... who is gog of magog mentioned in the book of ezekiel?.
for a number of years, our publications have explained that gog of magog is the name given to satan the devil after his ouster from heaven.
this explanation was based on the fact that the book of revelation identifies satan the devil as the leader of the worldwide attack on gods people.
I believe they are saying the "Gog of Magog"attack comes before the 1000 years, while the "Gog and Magog" comes afterward.
No, they're still saying this is at the end of the thousand years. From the article:
We are told that at the end of the 1,000 years, Satan will be released from the abyss, and “he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war.”
Which is why it's surprising that they'd list the great tribulation and Armageddon as "next as a result of the final attack". I've read this half a dozen times and this is the only conclusion I can come to. It may be, as you pointed out, sloppy writing. But then again, maybe not. There's plenty of people (non-JWs) who believe Armageddon comes at the end of the thousand years, not at the beginning. This may be a first move in that direction doctrinally.
here we go again... let's study... news report... comment.... who is gog of magog mentioned in the book of ezekiel?.
for a number of years, our publications have explained that gog of magog is the name given to satan the devil after his ouster from heaven.
this explanation was based on the fact that the book of revelation identifies satan the devil as the leader of the worldwide attack on gods people.
Are you saying that it appears that now they are saying that this "Gog of Magog attack on God's people" occurs prior to the "great tribulation"?
Well, that's one way to look at it. But what they are saying is that the FINAL ATTACK comes at the END of the 1000 years, and NEXT comes the great tribulation and Armageddon. This article moves Armageddon to some time AFTER the 1000 years ends.
Go back and read it again in case my eyes are deceiving me.
here we go again... let's study... news report... comment.... who is gog of magog mentioned in the book of ezekiel?.
for a number of years, our publications have explained that gog of magog is the name given to satan the devil after his ouster from heaven.
this explanation was based on the fact that the book of revelation identifies satan the devil as the leader of the worldwide attack on gods people.
Hang on here... They are sneaking in a MAJOR, MAJOR CHANGE. When is the great tribulation and Armageddon? Read VERY CAREFULLY.
We are told that at the end of the 1,000 years, Satan will be released from the abyss, and “he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war.”
Who, then, is Gog of Magog? To answer that question, we need to search the Scriptures to find out who attacks God’s people. The Bible speaks not only of the attack by ‘Gog of Magog’ but also of the attack by “the king of the north” and of the attack by “the kings of the earth.” (Ezek. 38:2, 10-13; Dan. 11:40, 44, 45; Rev. 17:14; 19:19) Do these represent separate attacks? Not likely. The Bible is no doubt referring to the same attack under different names.
When we compare all these Scriptural references about the final attack on God’s people, it becomes evident that the name Gog of Magog refers, not to Satan, but to a coalition of nations.
What occurs next as a result of this final attack? Daniel tells us: “During that time Michael [Jesus Christ] will stand up [at Armageddon], the great prince who is standing [since 1914] in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress [the great tribulation] such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.” (Dan. 12:1) This action on the part of God’s representative Jesus is also described at Revelation 19:11-21.
call me crazy, but i love to watch seminary classes when sharp teachers are in charge of the instruction.. in the following video, the teacher really nails jehovah's witnesses on john 1:1 with utter simplicity.. begin at 1 hour and 20 minutes in.. i've never seen or heard of this before.. .
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5qkj7tmbg.
I have the texts of Wescott and Hort and the Textus Receptus in PDF format. They BOTH say "God was the Word"
Wescott & Hort:
Textus Receptus:
