i got an invite from some none j bud family members to go to my little cousins 1 year old birthday party.
this is going to sound weird but in my 40 years of living this is the 1st birthday i've ever attended.
i thoroughly enjoyed it.
To be honest i really didn't think it was a birthday. Just lots of little kids running around, a barbecue and pleasant conversation with the adults.
(North Dakota accent) Oh now, it's not a real birthday party if someone isn't beheaded, dontcha know.
i've never seen this discussed here, so thought i'd bring it up:.
as far as i can figure, jehovah's witnesses no longer teach that black skin is the result of a curse from god.
instead, they seem to teach that canaan was already dark skinned when his father, ham, brought the curse of servitude upon their family.
Ha, I've never seen them actually put a visual to it before, that is really funny. But yes, this has been the teaching for a while -- Shem was the first Jewish man, Japheth the first Caucasian, and Ham the first black man. Don't ask about the Asians.
look up in the right-hand corner of this page.. find where it says welcome (name).. did you locate that?.
now click on your name and observe the new page loading takes you to a top blue bar with a menu.. it should read:.
active topics search members topics started .
Just saw your post, Simon. I'm looking forward to it!
if you are/were an active jw, you are now here on jwn so, for whatever your reasons, you woke up to some degree- hopefully a great degree.
so what i am saying may not apply to you.. i know that if i had not already left, i would have stormed out on the day they studied "overlapping generation.
" i am quite confident i couldn't have stayed for such an obvious switcharoo just to make the end seem imminent and try to explain how wts was wrong, but not entirely wrong in the past.. but i had to wonder how that change (or others) didn't cause most jw's to walk out.
I hadn't thought about it this way before. Now that you bring up the analogy of a card trick, isn't that especially what happens at step C?
C. The God of the Bible is "Jehovah."
Psalms 83:18, bam! Or whatever verse in their Bible has the Name. It's like saying to a kid, "But, oh, what's this?!" and pulling a quarter out of their ear. "Wow, how long has that been there?!"
It puts the householder in awe of the JW for their superior Bible knowledge -- "Wow, these people knew the name of God, and I didn't ever know it was right here in my Bible! What else must they know?"
As a prerequisite, the person should be easily impressed (poor education) or prone to conspiratorial thinking ("There must be a whole world of secret knowledge that's been hidden from me all this time!").
Then we come to step D:
D. To be serving God "right," you must recognize Jehovah.
The reasoning point "How can you have a relationship with someone without knowing their name?" usually is all that needs to be said at this point.
http://imgur.com/a/e6dos.
.
.
Okay, I think the way they worded that statement confused me. Reading it again, it maks more sense to me.
Anyway, this doesn't really torpedo any of their antitypical teachings. They're not making any hard-and-fast rules here, they're simply saying they are "reluctant" to make antitypical applications. So for the teachings they need to preserve, like Daniel 4 which ties into 1914, they will simply say that the evidence for certain antitypical interpretations is overwhelming.
Personally I think this whole study lesson is much ado about nothing, because they haven't been writing articles about detailed typology for years now. It's more like a declaration of the current GB's feelings on the matter than any sort of notable doctrinal change.
rnwt "but i want you to know that the head of every man is the christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the christ is god.".
sexism aside, how does the wt/gb explain their absolute power over the sheeples based on this scripture?
where are they located in the model listed in that scrtipture?
Well, they're the bride of Christ, remember? So that means they're the neck that turns the head
http://imgur.com/a/e6dos.
.
.
They should have added on the cover: "The Faithful And Discreet Slave: Now 25% Discreeter"
AnnOMaly: Actually I don't think this would affect their interpretation of Daniel 4. I haven't read the articles, but based on what I've read here, they are only disparaging the approach to antitypes where an additional future meaning is inserted into a literal account, like the example of Jacob's red stew prefiguring Jesus' blood, or assigning meaning to aspects of a parable which Jesus did not probably intend to be significant. Read this again:
Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.
So because Daniel 4's dream is interpreted by Daniel to be typical of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the Society can also assign an antitype to that dream to represent the Gentile times. Does that make sense?
i have only come across this term very recently on jwn and in an "apostate" video i watched yesterday.
never have i heard anyone refer to jw's as "the friends" here in the uk.
is it just used in america?.
I don't really see the big deal here. It just like saying "folks". What word would you suggest in its place?
i think its pretty clear that the gb are power hungry.
you cannot listen to the branch visit and not see clear as day that there are some of them that are loving the power.
it showed the clearest with anthony morris.. now all these sex abuse scandals and news media are taking their power away.
Like _Morpheus, I can't really get behind the premise of the thread.
just got back from a cruise and dubs were walking around the boat faithfully wearing their jw.bore pins smdh.
than at cozumel i saw these lovely sisters.
.
I am embarrassed for my gender
