EdenOne

Joined

• started 155 topics
• posted 2,912 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by EdenOne

• 
  20

  A NEW NAME

  by EdenOne in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wish to communicate that there has been a change in the name that identifies the community that i'm rousing.

  it used to be called "christian fraternity of jehovah's people".

  from now on it will be called "christian fraternity of god's people".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  You see, God's name *is* important, but not all-important. What is important is his reputation - and yes, the name can also imply reputation - but also his sovereignity, his dignity, his rule and his fatherhood. And all of these - including reputation - are better expressed by the term "God".

  After studying how the modern form of "Jehovah" came to be; How we, JW's have adopted it, and WHY, this change became mandatory. You will read it differently on the "Publishers" book, no doubt. But, as Winston Churchill said: "HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE WINNERS". Rutherford won his battle for control over the Bible Students and he shaped the Jehovah's Witnesses to his iron will, under his iron fist. The name "Jehovah" was but a marketing tool for him in the broader strategy to DIFFERENTIATE his religious group from others and give him exposure in the public eye, and propel the printing of more and more publications distributed by enthusiastic, unpaid volunteering publishers and pioneers. The Watchtower Society grew to become the publishing giant he envisioned.
  
  It was then easy to reason: Since we're JEHOVAH's WITNESSES, and Jehovah said he would have a people for his name, that means that we are the "chosen ones". "We are the SOLE CHANNEL of God's communication with mankind. Whatever we do or say is sanctioned by God. We have a most relevant role in prophecy. Whatever twist and turn, whatever failure, or whacky doctrine, we have God on our side, because "we carry his name" and we are accountable before no one else but Jehovah. If we're right, Jehovah is blessing us. If we're wrong, Jehovah is refining us. If we grow, it's Jehovah blessing his people. If we decrease, it's Jehovah Day right around the corner". In Rutherford / Franz theology, Jehovah's chosen people can never lose. And the leadership cannot be questioned because they speak in Jehovah's name. And right there is the SUPERSTITION, the MYTH surrounding the use of God's name.

  As much respect the holy name of God deserves, it doesn't deserve to be treated like a commercial brand or trademark.

  Eden
• 
  22

  The "Sign of the last days" and 2 Timothy 3:1-5

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've just published on my website a new article: the "sign of the last days" and 2 timothy 3:1-5 (click to visit).

  it contains a critical analysis of the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5 and a refutation of the connection with matthew 24:3, and therefore, of the expression "sign" + "last days".. the article is divided in the following parts:.

  introductionthe composite nature of the expression "sign of the last days"the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5the message of 2 timothy 3:1-5two fallacies about the "last days"conclusiondue to its lenght, i won't post it in full here, only the introduction:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Bobcat,

  So in essence, we are now in the last days, but they have been running for a while, thus the counsel to be ready, for we can't know the day and hour.

  Something for you to ponder. According to the Bible cronology, we are now on the 6038th year since the creation of Adam, give or take.

  If the "last days" started on 33 CE and stretch to present time, then the "last days" are 1980 years old.

  That corresponds to 32,8% of the total human history, nearly 1/3.

  Now, even assuming that Armageddon would come tomorrow, do you think it's REASONABLE to think that God would call "last days" to 1/3 of the TOTAL TIME of mankind's existence since Adam?

  I don't. The explanation lies elsewhere.

  Eden
• 
  22

  The "Sign of the last days" and 2 Timothy 3:1-5

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've just published on my website a new article: the "sign of the last days" and 2 timothy 3:1-5 (click to visit).

  it contains a critical analysis of the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5 and a refutation of the connection with matthew 24:3, and therefore, of the expression "sign" + "last days".. the article is divided in the following parts:.

  introductionthe composite nature of the expression "sign of the last days"the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5the message of 2 timothy 3:1-5two fallacies about the "last days"conclusiondue to its lenght, i won't post it in full here, only the introduction:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Except for the part about Revelation being written prior to Jerusalem's destruction in 70 C.E., the article has many good points. I have 96 C.E. burned in my brain for this (thanks WTS) and it will take a bit of research to shake that loose. I can see from just some surface research that there are both the "early date" and "late date" theories as to when it was written. WTS can be (no, not can be... IS) dogmatic about many things, including dates. So, please excuse me for not accepting right away anything regarding the date of the writing of Revelation at the moment.

  Leaving_Quietly

  I wrote (not here) already about this subject and I think it can be demonstrated, simply based on internal evidence, that Revelation was written before 70 CE. I'll get back to this subject soon.

  Eden
• 
  20

  A NEW NAME

  by EdenOne in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wish to communicate that there has been a change in the name that identifies the community that i'm rousing.

  it used to be called "christian fraternity of jehovah's people".

  from now on it will be called "christian fraternity of god's people".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  You seem to moving in the right direction. Before we know it, you will reject the idea of god altogether.

  LOL. Before you know it, you'll be paying me that black stout ;)

  Eden
• 
  20

  A NEW NAME

  by EdenOne in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wish to communicate that there has been a change in the name that identifies the community that i'm rousing.

  it used to be called "christian fraternity of jehovah's people".

  from now on it will be called "christian fraternity of god's people".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Good point, Searcher

  Eden
• 
  20

  A NEW NAME

  by EdenOne in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wish to communicate that there has been a change in the name that identifies the community that i'm rousing.

  it used to be called "christian fraternity of jehovah's people".

  from now on it will be called "christian fraternity of god's people".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Hello all.
  
  I wish to communicate that there has been a change in the name that identifies the community that I'm rousing. It used to be called "Christian Fraternity of Jehovah's People". From now on it will be called "Christian Fraternity of God's People". While I understand that, from the point of view of a Jehovah's Witness this may sound somewhat shocking, please hear my argument, that I've posted in a new paragraph within the "Mission Statement" section of the website:
  
  ---
  
  The name of God in our worship
  
  
  In the early days of this website, the name chosen was "Christian Fraternity of Jehovah's People". Why replace now Jehovah by God? Naturally, we're not replacing the person in question. Nor are we rejecting God's holy name, Jehovah, nor rejecting its use in worship. (Leviticus 11:44; Matthew 6:9) God's name and reputation should be esteemed and defended. Back in 1931, the Jehovah's Witnesses drew their name from Isaiah 43:10 - "You are my witnesses, is the utterance of Jehovah". However, the same passage says: "You are my witnesses, is the utterance of Jehovah, and I am God " (Isaiah 43:12) While "Jehovah" refers to the personal name, the persona , of our Creator, "God" is the total expression of his role. Our mission is not to uphold his personal name, but to uphold his sovereignty, his dignity, his rule, his fatherhood. Our Creator could have chosen any name for himself - Jehovah or other name - but there is no other term to describe his ranking or status. Only he is God, the One and only Most High, Almighty God. (Psalm 83:18) However, despite the great honor that unquestionably the Witnesses give to God's name - which we agree with - we too observe the Witnesses using God's name as if it were a brand, a trademark; as if the superstitious use of His name would grant a definitive seal of approval on everything they teach and do, thus exempting them from error or acknowledgment thereof. This, obviously, isn't true. Also, Jehovah is God "over all the earth." This means that he is God over every living thing, even those who do not acknowledge or respect his Name. (James 2:19) Therefore, by using the term "God" within the name we wish our fellowship to be identified by, we expresses a much more universal approach to the persona of Jehovah. We aren't confused about His distinct nature and superiority over Jesus Christ, although we recognize Christ's divine substance as Son of God, and that God has temporarily delegated in him "all authority in heaven and on the earth". (Matthew 28:18) However, we aren't "God's People Christian Fraternists" or anything like that. In compliance with God's word, we wish to simply be called Christians. - Acts 11:26
  
  ---
  
  Eden
• 
  33

  2013 MEMORIAL ATTENDANCE & DC BAPTISM NUMBERS SOUGHT

  by steve2 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  are the numbers available for either the 2013 memorial attendance or baptisms at the current round of district conventions in the usa or any other countries?

  thanks.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  How about observing the trends in the evolution of the ratio publishers / population ?

  Eden
• 
  22

  The "Sign of the last days" and 2 Timothy 3:1-5

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've just published on my website a new article: the "sign of the last days" and 2 timothy 3:1-5 (click to visit).

  it contains a critical analysis of the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5 and a refutation of the connection with matthew 24:3, and therefore, of the expression "sign" + "last days".. the article is divided in the following parts:.

  introductionthe composite nature of the expression "sign of the last days"the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5the message of 2 timothy 3:1-5two fallacies about the "last days"conclusiondue to its lenght, i won't post it in full here, only the introduction:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  I wonder if when the disciples asked Jesus for a sign (Matt 24) his reply was meant to describe the everyday living conditions of mankind and the normality of life as we know it.

  I don't think that was his intention, but I've been wondering how much of his words regarding the "end" were entirely fulfilled in the 1st century. I'm getting near a critical review of Matthew 24 ...

  Eden
• 
  82

  I have a girlfriend now and "me so happy"

  by RayPublisher in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  here is my sweet survival plan, post jw life!

  ...yet another part of my healing process...yes healing is g o o d.... .

  btw, it feels so great to not have to hide and to able to put my picture up anywhere i feel like!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Be happy, Eric!

  Eden
• 
  22

  The "Sign of the last days" and 2 Timothy 3:1-5

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've just published on my website a new article: the "sign of the last days" and 2 timothy 3:1-5 (click to visit).

  it contains a critical analysis of the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5 and a refutation of the connection with matthew 24:3, and therefore, of the expression "sign" + "last days".. the article is divided in the following parts:.

  introductionthe composite nature of the expression "sign of the last days"the context of 2 timothy 3:1-5the message of 2 timothy 3:1-5two fallacies about the "last days"conclusiondue to its lenght, i won't post it in full here, only the introduction:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  EdenOne

  Paul provides a list of traits of men who Timothy should turn away from, which includes not just those who have a form of godly devotion, but all the rest within that list, hose who are "lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty...", etc. I don't think "these" is only referring to the latter portion of that list. Just my two cents.

  I think I'm clear that the message to "turn away from" includes all the men whose traits are listed on 3:1-5.

  Edit: I made a small edit to make it clearer. Thanks.

  Eden