Posts by TheWonderofYou

20

news... From ITALY

by biblexaminer in

an old friend, a "brother" called from italy.

updated on a few things.. most interestingly, he said they just had their final assembly at their "beautiful assembly hall".. why would it be the final assembly?

because it's sold!.

TheWonderofYou

Yesterday we watched the italian film "the wordly girl" presented at the Italian film festival 2016.

https://www.italianfilmfestival.com.au/films/the-worldly-girl

the film which plays in Italia and shows the daily life of JW, a family with daugthers, a love story with a wordly man, the judicial commitee meetings after her "adultery" of the young woman, how she becomes a "worldly girl", what the elders tell her when they disfellowshipped her, the privat questions about sexual details of her first sexual experiences, the interrogations, the tears, how she gets over the relationship with the guy who was really a bad society, he pulled her to deal with drugs hided in watchtower literature and disguised as JW-girl. But lately she broke with him and she lately gets free from everything also from the cult. The film ends with the scene when she meets another former JW girlfriend and now EX-JW, whom she didnt greet in the past because whe was also disfellowshipped. But after the excommunation and the disastrous failed relationship with the guy they now become friends and help each other. FINE

182

Words for the Day; please share

by compound complex in

jw
friends

greetings, word lovers:.

in my job, i work with words and wrangle them into shape, well, in a manner of speaking.

one word might be mistaken for another, a word with either a similar or identical sound.

TheWonderofYou

Adult comes from the Latin word adultus, which is the past participle of adolere (to make grow) see adolescent.
Adultery can be traced back to the Latin verb adulterare (to mix, to adulterate). The root of the former verb is -ol, and the root of the latter one is -ulter.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/adult-adolescent-and-adultery

63

We Pass the Bread and the Wine Just like in the Bible! But, why is forbidden to eat?

by lusitano o tuga in

see what bridget azaz did!.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzbe5yo7uq4.

TheWonderofYou

In the church it was originally usual for all christians to drink consecrated sacramental wine / Altar wine not only for the priests!

In the Early Church both clergy and laity received the consecrated wine by drinking from the chalice, after receiving a portion of the consecrated bread.
Due to many factors, including the difficulty of obtaining wine in Northern European countries where the climate was unsuitable for growing grapes, drinking from the chalice became largely restricted in the West to the celebrating priest, while others received communion in the form of bread only. This also reduced the symbolic importance of choosing wine of red colour.[2]
read further in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_wine

The church had special wine cultivated in special vineyards! And it was perhaps expensive to serve wine for all churchmembers at each church service.

So it is not true that wine is only drunk by priests to show that they have a special relationship with god as some may argue.!

63

We Pass the Bread and the Wine Just like in the Bible! But, why is forbidden to eat?

by lusitano o tuga in

see what bridget azaz did!.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzbe5yo7uq4.

TheWonderofYou

myelain - your comment arouses my interest in this subject.

182

Words for the Day; please share

by compound complex in

jw
friends

greetings, word lovers:.

in my job, i work with words and wrangle them into shape, well, in a manner of speaking.

one word might be mistaken for another, a word with either a similar or identical sound.

TheWonderofYou

I subsbriced last year word of the day http://www.dictionary.com/wordoftheday/

Today its "aginner". Each word can be adopted to JW. I have become an aginner of all cults and JW through life experience.

The renascent religion that is now taking shape, it seems, had no founder; itpoints to no origins.
God The Invisible King Herbert George Wells
Wells wrote in his book God the Invisible King (1917) that his idea of God did not draw upon the traditional religions of the world:
"This book sets out as forcibly and exactly as possible the religious belief of the writer. [Which] is a profound belief in a personal and intimate God. ... Putting the leading idea of this book very roughly, these two antagonistic typical conceptions of God may be best contrasted by speaking of one of them as God-as-Nature or the Creator, and of the other as God-as-Christ or the Redeemer. One is the great Outward God; the other is the Inmost God. The first idea was perhaps developed most highly and completely in the God of Spinoza. It is a conception of God tending to pantheism, to an idea of a comprehensive God as ruling with justice rather than affection, to a conception of aloofness and awestriking worshipfulness. The second idea, which is opposed to this idea of an absolute God, is the God of the human heart. The writer would suggest that the great outline of the theological struggles of that phase of civilisation and world unity which produced Christianity, was a persistent but unsuccessful attempt to get these two different ideas of God into one focus."[96]
Later in the work he aligns himself with a "renascent or modern religion ... neither atheist nor Buddhist nor Mohammedan nor Christian ... [that] he has found growing up in himself".[97]

Some fearful Faustian compact had taken place.
-- Lawrence Durrell, "The Unspeakable Attaché," Stiff Upper Lip, 1958

Word of the day 31.3.2017
I feel the Weltschmerz about Jehovahs witnesses,
... i dont footle at all guys my word is not a platitude or plisky.

The species of this genus may be better known by the margaritaceous or pearly hues of their delicate mostly yellow, or pale straw-colored wings, which are in general rather faintly streaked with transverse lines ...
-- James Francis Stephens, Illustrations of British Entomology, 1834

20

Interesting take on John 3:16

by NikL in

the superstar of all scriptures.

for god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.. .

but i just learned something about it.. i try to look at different translations of the bible and the lexham english bible words it a bit different.... 16 for in this way god loved the world, so that he gave his one and only son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

TheWonderofYou

or "and just as Moses lifted up" ...thus it is necessary that" --- the consequence of a strict analogy

____________

VERSES 16-17

____________

Interesting is also the ending Verses 16-17

According to the testimony of verses 16-17, the merciful, graceful God wants the good, indeed the best, the salvation for all men through Jesus (δι 'αὐτοῦ).

The intention for the classical mission and judgment terminology is emphaysized by the rhetorical stylistic means of correction μὴ / οὐ - ἀλλά, in verses 16c-d.17a.c:

not should perish -- but might have eternal life;

Not sent the Son of God into the world to judge ---- but to save them.

Because of the [...] loving act of God, the above mentioned reason, conceived as a mission of the Son, the traditional balance of perish and life, from judgment and rescue comes out of balance" (Kohler, 260).

20

Interesting take on John 3:16

by NikL in

the superstar of all scriptures.

for god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.. .

but i just learned something about it.. i try to look at different translations of the bible and the lexham english bible words it a bit different.... 16 for in this way god loved the world, so that he gave his one and only son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

TheWonderofYou

The love of God to mankind / to the world is the reason (vv. 16a: γὰρ) for God to give his .... unique son, the Son of man, Jesus for man - pro nobis (V. 16b: ἔδωκεν, see also the verbum compositum παραδίδωμι in the context of Jesus handing over to Judas Iscariot in 6:44, 71; 12.4; 13.2.11.21; 18.2.5; 21,20).
(Source: perikopen.de)

16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον

Its indeed this manner of love which is given here as the reason for the act of giving his son.

The uplifted snake is only used as intentional typological analogy it is not the reason that jesus had to be lifted up. There the gospelwriter used the term "even as" or "thus"

Verse 14 recites Num 21,8-9.11 in the sense of a typological comparison
(V. 14a: καθὼς - v. 14b: οὕτως). This is "not a Moses-typology" (Sabbe,166), but by the parallel verb ὑψόω in v. 14a.b is the act of elevation is an intentional allusion by the fourth evangelist.

Once upon a time the bronze serpent for the salvation of the people in the desert of Moses was attached to a stake and erected. This act corresponds to the Son of Man (vv. 13c.14b) Jesus by being fixed and erected on the cross (cf. 19, 16-38). The auxiliary verb δεῖ in verse 14b (see also 12,34; 20,8) also underlines this to elevate / elevate as a "divine activity" within the framework of God's planful action." Just God can be the subject of an elevation process "(Sabbe, 167). The one elevated by God is thus the crucified.

The action of God in the Verses 14.16a-b.17a intend the (eternal) life (vv. 15.16d) for all who believe in Jesus (vv. 15.16c).

The action of God is called threefold:

1 . as the elevation of man and God , Analogy to the brazen serpent (v. 14),

2. as an act of love for men / to the world (vv 16a.17a.b.c) because of the gift of his Son (v. 16b) and

3. the sending of the Son of God into the world (v. 17a).

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

TheWonderofYou

stavro.
... "But Jesus still had to die before God would accept his blood "...

Did all the animals and Jesus really have to die in order to get to the gem - the blood of dying and slaughtered (not dead) bodies?

Had blood of dying+slaughtered bodies actually to be collected to serve in an act of divine vicarious punishment or was it in an act of korban (coming closer to god)?

Was the death of Jesus body itself actually meaningless and worthless and was it only the fresh pouring out uncovered blood of his dying (slaughtered) body [not yet dead but in the moment of slaughter] which saves and redeems ?

Was it the blood after the occured death of Jesus that redeems or was it the fresh pouring out blood in the moment of Jesus slaughter death (like at slaughter of animals)?

Or doesnt "blood" stand after all for "life" or "value of life" or yet better doesnt blood mean ourself or Jesus whole person, the value and worth of our/his person standing in front of the altar?

3

Blood as the seat of life: The blood paradox among Afro-christians.

by TheWonderofYou in

i find this an interesting read.. https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/perc.2016.14.issue-1/perc-2016-0003/perc-2016-0003.pdf.

TheWonderofYou

I find this an interesting read.

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/perc.2016.14.issue-1/perc-2016-0003/perc-2016-0003.pdf

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

TheWonderofYou

Behind the ethical message of blood in the jewish notion and in the law of holiness in Leviticus we have the ancient, archaic idea that blood is seat of the human soul or life force.

The core ethical message of blood was that blood was the essence of life, its vitality and energy, which has to be devoted to serving as offering (korban) under the altar to God (Hashem as they call God) and its consequence that under this leading sign the best of human life, its vitality and energy, should be also devoted in humilty into the right direction, namely to god (life belongs only under the altar, namely as offering for god).

This ethical core thought is an interesting though and acceptable moral idea per se. Also because blood is not seen under the altar as "sacrifice", "ransom", or "payment for guilts" although it might have been used in such circumstances, but only as "offering"/"gift". Therefore the human blood of Jesus could in jewish notion never pay for adamic sins in a real "ransom" scenario, but only serve as "offering" at most. Paul must have been used the word "ransom" as metaphor i think.

This ethical core thought that blood is lifeforce could however lead to the conclusion that in jewish eyes "blood was" always "sacred" and not only in the moment of killing an animal.

These notions developped on the basis of the jewish shy from contact with blood. Blood was for the Israelites not merely used as a methaphor or symbol of life but they had ...brrrr.... great shy of contacting it. This is the archaic story behind blood with the blood rites uuuuh and menstruation blood uuuuuhhhh, today we know that not everything what the old folks spoke is to hold and search for a double meaning, deeper sense, namely also for the idea that life or lifeforce or the divine principle is actually seated in the blood, a lifeforce which is of divine origin and therefore belonged to God.

Today the JW are confused and trouble their head about this old idea and make of it a STARK NONSENSE.