Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 9 - Jul 14
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
golden pothos vs neon pothos Epipremnum 'Neon'Epipremnum aureum 'Neon' ('Neon Pothos', 'Golden Pothos') Epipremnum aureum 'Neon' is a bright chartreuse pothos with glossy heart shaped leaves and flexible vining stems. New leaves often emerge in a vivid yellow green tone before settling into a clearer lime green colour across the vine. This cultivar has the same climbing aroid structure as Epipremnum aureum: nodes, aerial roots, and long stems that can trail from a pot or climb when given support.
Epipremnum aureum 'Neon' ('Neon Pothos', 'Golden Pothos')
Epipremnum aureum 'Neon' is a bright chartreuse pothos with glossy heart-shaped leaves and flexible vining stems. New leaves often emerge in a vivid yellow-green tone before settling into a clearer lime-green colour across the vine.
This cultivar has the same climbing aroid structure as Epipremnum aureum: nodes, aerial roots, and long stems that can trail from a pot or climb when given support. Indoors it usually keeps juvenile leaves, with an even, smooth leaf surface and solid chartreuse foliage.
As a selection of Epipremnum aureum, it belongs to a wet-tropical climbing species from Mo‘orea in the Society Islands, where aerial roots anchor the stems to humid forest surfaces.
Chartreuse pothos features
- Solid chartreuse to lime-green foliage with glossy heart-shaped leaves.
- Trailing or climbing vine growth from node-based stems.
- Fresh yellow-green new leaves that mature to a brighter green tone.
- Easy shaping through pruning and rooting stem cuttings.
- Warmth and bright indirect light help reduce stretched growth on the vine.
Bright leaves on a self-clinging vine
'Neon' is an evergreen self-clinging climber, with slender stems that can lengthen strongly if left unpruned. The leaves are oval to heart-shaped at the base and stay glossy in indoor culture. When grown on a support, the aerial roots can attach and the plant may produce larger leaves as the stems mature.
Yellowing, dullness, stretched stems, or soft growth usually point to changes in moisture, light, temperature, or root health. Regular pruning keeps the vine fuller and prevents long bare sections from forming.
Care for clear lime-green growth
- Light: Give bright indirect light to reduce stretched vine growth. Gentle morning or late-day sun may be tolerated after acclimation.
- Water: Water when the upper 20–30% of the mix has dried. The plant grows strongly in warm months, but the roots still need air between waterings.
- Substrate: Use a loose aroid mix with bark, perlite, coco chips, or pumice. Good drainage keeps the root system active and reduces soft-stem risk.
- Temperature: Keep between 18–28 °C. Protect from cold draughts and cold wet windowsills in winter.
- Humidity: Average indoor humidity is usually fine. Higher humidity helps new leaves expand more smoothly on climbing stems.
- Feeding: Feed lightly during active growth. Strong new vine extension responds better to regular low doses than occasional heavy feeding.
- Pruning and propagation: Cut above a node to shape the vine. Root healthy stem cuttings in water or a light propagation mix before potting them on.
Colour, stem, and root checks
- Dull or stretched growth: Move gradually into brighter indirect light and prune long sections to encourage fresh shoots.
- Yellow leaves with wet soil: Check drainage, pot size, and root condition. Let the mix dry further before watering again.
- Brown edges: Review watering gaps, dry heat, fertiliser concentration, and direct sun exposure.
- Soft lower stems: Inspect the base and roots for rot. Remove affected sections and reroot healthy vine tips if needed.
- Sticky residue or speckling: Check for scale, mealybugs, thrips, or mites along stems and leaf undersides.
Safety for this bright pothos
Epipremnum aureum 'Neon' contains insoluble calcium oxalate crystals. It is toxic if chewed by pets and can irritate the mouth, lips, tongue, and throat, so keep leaves and cuttings out of reach.
Botanical name and cultivar name
Epipremnum comes from Greek roots meaning “upon” and “trunk.” Aureum means “golden,” referring to the yellow-gold markings of the classic plant.
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
4.2 ★★★★★
Based on 785 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 5
Great, easy to understand explanations
Format: Kindle
I definitely needed this! I have been enduring a long period of spiritual attacks in the natural and physical realms. It has helped me to better understand my calling, even though I have been serving God as a spirit filled and spirit baptized follower of Yeshua.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 26, 2025
★★★★★ 5
Easy to read. Line spacing is just right! Thank you!
Format: Paperback
Michael Van Vlymen delivers the lived from experience truth once again!
Michael is down to earth and matter of fact as he writes. He is heavenly minded every day!
I've grown more in love with Jesus because of his testimony of heavenly realms operating on the earthly realm. My eyes have been opened much much more as I listen and read Mikes well illustrated books and videos!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 24, 2025
★★★★★ 5
Challenge Accepted
Format: Kindle
I liked the book. It challenged my position of focusing on the light and ignoring the darkness.
It challenges me to desire the whole experience of spiritual awareness and sight and to become adept in living as a watchman.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 11, 2025
★★★★★ 5
Outstanding, compelling, and thorough work on the historicity or non-historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus
Format: Paperback
I had been looking forward to reading this book since the first time I heard about it. I was sitting in Dr. Gary Habermas' class on miracles and he told us about Mike Licona, who was currently working on his dissertation on the Resurrection. Although it was published in 2010, I finally had the opportunity to read it over the past few months.
At over 700 pages, including an extensive bibliography and over 2,000 footnotes, this book is not a light read by any stretch of the imagination. As the subtitle states, this is a book dealing with historiography. Readers looking for a deep theological treatment on the Resurrection of Christ may want to look elsewhere since Licona's focus here is not theology, but history (although there is still a good deal of theology). Using methodological principles agreed upon by a vast number of historians from a variety of religious and philosophical backgrounds, he sets out to determine whether or not the historian "is warranted in regarding Jesus' resurrection as an event that occurred in the past" (p. 610).
Surprisingly, the book consists of only five chapters and one appendix, so each chapter averages more than 100 pages in length. Also, the second half of the book contains a significant amount of Greek, giving me a good opportunity to brush up on that. If you can't read Greek, don't worry, Dr. Licona provides an English translation throughout.
The first section deals with a significant number of preliminary considerations. There is an excellent critique of the skeptical postmodern view of history and a complete dismantling of the beliefs of Jesus "mythers" (those who claim Jesus never existed). There's also a good discussion on horizons (the presuppositions and biases we all have). While total neutrality may not be possible, Licona gives several principles historians should implement to help them transcend their horizon. Finally, he provides an honest discussion of his own biases so that readers are well aware of where he is coming from.
The second chapter focuses on whether or not miracles fall within the purview of the historian. Licona addresses the popular objections of David Hume and Bart Ehrman, as well as McCullagh, Meier, Wedderburn, and Dunn. Many skeptics simply have an a priori objection to miracles, so they aren't willing to even consider the possibility that historical evidence for a miracle may exist. There's an interesting discussion on the burden of proof as it relates to the historicity of miracle claims. I thought the following quote summarized the nature of evidence when it comes to miracle claims:
"It is the responsibility of the historian to consider what the evidence would look like if she were not wearing her metaphysical bias like a pair of sunglasses that shade the world. It is not the responsibility of the evidence to shine so brightly that they render such glasses ineffectual." (p. 196)
With all the preliminary matters out of the way, Dr. Licona gets down to the business of doing history. Chapter three examines the historical sources pertaining to Christ's Resurrection. Many Christians may object to the methodology employed in this chapter since he does not automatically accept every biblical passage on the subject as evidence, but bear in mind that Licona is doing his best to transcend his own Christian horizon to be as neutral as possible. He discusses over two dozen early sources and rates them as "unlikely, possible-minus, possible, possible-plus, highly probable, indeterminate [or] not useful" (p. 201).
The fourth chapter uncovers the historical bedrock pertaining to the fate of Jesus. This approach follows on the heels of the exhaustive work of Dr. Habermas who, since 1975, has kept track of over 3,400 academic works from scholars of various stripes on the Resurrection in English, German, and French. From this research, Dr. Habermas has shown that there are 12 facts accepted by the vast majority of scholars. He has reduced this to six best attested details in what he calls the "minimal facts" approach. Each of these facts are discussed, but Dr. Licona narrows this down to three facts that nearly all scholars agree upon: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion, 2) the disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead, and 3) Paul converted to Christianity after experiencing what he believed to be a post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus. There's also a lengthy discussion on what "resurrection" meant to Jewish and Christian audiences in the first century.
The information contained in this chapter is often completely ignored by agnostics, atheists, Muslims, and others who do not want to even consider the Resurrection as a possibility. I have had many discussions with skeptics who display naivete when they claim that there is no evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. It's one thing to disbelieve in the event, but it's an entirely different thing to completely ignore or to willingly remain ignorant of the historical bedrock pertaining to the fate of Jesus.
The fifth and final chapter of the book examines six different hypotheses that attempt to explain what happened to Jesus after being crucified. Along with the traditional Christian understanding of the Resurrection, the views promoted by Vermes, Goulder, Ludemann, Crossen, and Craffert are weighed in terms of their explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, the amount of ad hoc elements, and illumination for solving problems associated with the subject. An appendix also examines Dale Allison's work on the Resurrection according to the same criteria. The traditional Resurrection hypothesis is the only view that fulfills all five criteria, and it outdistances the other views by a wide margin. Critics can claim that Licona merely concluded what he hoped to prove, but they must be able to point out flaws in his methodology, since his conclusion most certainly follows from the data when historiographical principles are applied.
My biggest concern with the book is found in the fifth chapter. While discussing the strange events described in Matthew 27:51-53, Licona suggested that the passage was not describing historical events but employing apocalyptic language to show that a significant person had died. Such descriptions were not uncommon in the ancient world when describing the death of important people. This comment has set off a wave of criticism from conservative Christian scholars like Norman Geisler and Al Mohler. I disagree with Licona's statement and share some of the same concerns as Geisler and Mohler. But when I consider the context and methodology being used in the book, I don't find it to be quite as grievous an error as some have claimed.
Skeptics will undoubtedly continue to dismiss the Resurrection of Christ, but they must deal with the research in this book or they simply are not interacting with the latest scholarship.
Dr. Licona's work raises the bar when it comes to the most important subject we could ever study: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in this subject who is up to the task of reading an academic work. I have studied the subject for years, but I still learned a lot and will treasure this book as an extremely valuable resource.
Even though I disagree with his take on Matt. 27:51-53, I still need to give the book five stars since I don't need to agree with the author on every point for me to give a positive review and recognize the book's worth.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on December 30, 2012
★★★★★ 5
Brilliant, rigorous, balanced, and approachable
Format: Paperback
"The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach," by Michael R. Licona is an outstanding, thorough yet highly approachable assessment of the evidence, sources, and explanatory hypotheses for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As the subtitle suggests, it borrows significant methodological rigor and best practices from the field of historical analysis and applies them to biblical scholarship.
Licona begins his assessment with a meticulous discussion of his historical analysis methodology. Included in this section is his definition of five criteria he uses to assess a set of explanatory hypotheses. He then uses those assessments to weigh the hypotheses based on nine levels of certainty ranging from “certainly not historical” to “certainly historical.” The hypothesis representing the best explanation for the resurrection of Christ is the one rated highest in historical certainty based on the five criteria.
At the outset of the book, Licona also includes a robust discussion of historical analysis influences and issues because evaluating them openly is essential to his methodical approach and because they aren’t often discussed in biblical studies. It is in this section that he does something quite unique and insightful; Licona includes a full discussion of knowledge, experiences, worldviews, preferences and other influences, which he calls “horizons,” that tend to bias the assessment of history. Furthermore, he defines a set of six methods that he uses throughout the book to avoid his own biases as he strives to present outcomes based on methodical neutrality. It’s quite brilliant. Licona even includes a confession of his own “horizons” - his potential influences.
With all this foundation in place, Licona proceeds to identify all sources of evidence for the resurrection of Christ and rates each according to its likelihood of providing reliable independent testimony. Included in this assessment are sources from the Bible, early Christian writers, non-biblical Christian literature and early non-Christian writers. He then uses the most reliable sources as the basis for attesting to the reliability for all the available evidence for the resurrection. This produces three pieces of evidence that he calls “historical bedrock” because they are well attested within multiple reliable sources and are validated by a broad range of scholars.
In the final section of the book, Licona evaluates major assertions against the resurrection from skeptics and compares the results against a parallel evaluation of the resurrection hypothesis. Specifically, he uses his criteria and rating system to assess how well hypotheses from a range of skeptical scholars, like Gerd Ludemann and John Dominic Crossan, are able to explain the historical bedrock evidence. At the end of this extensive analysis, the biblical resurrection hypothesis is by far the most credible explanation for historical bedrock evidence associated with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As noted above, Michael Licona’s book is an excellent assessment of the evidence, sources and competing hypotheses associated with the resurrection of Christ. The author uniquely applies the meticulousness of best practice historical analysis methodology to arguably the most important of all biblical questions. Using rigorous criteria and rating scales, Licona delivers a fair and balanced evaluation that achieves the methodical neutrality he was striving for while minimizing, as best as possible, influences from his “horizons.” It’s also worth noting that Licona assesses a broad range of possible sources, including those classified as gnostic and pseudepigraphal, and includes viewpoints from a broad range of scholars, supportive and skeptical alike. Furthermore, the author includes a very robust set of footnotes on the various topics discussed within the book. These footnotes are helpful for both scholars and non-scholars looking for a deeper understanding or pointers for additional exploration plus they include additional explanatory comments that complement Licona’s focus on delivering a fair and balanced assessment.
The one issue I found while reading the book was its treatment of the empty tomb evidence. I was disappointed the author’s discussion was brief since I was looking forward to a robust evaluation. However, in his defense, Licona was looking for historical bedrock evidence that could be used to assess the various resurrection hypotheses. A large number of scholars are skeptical of the empty tomb so it doesn’t belong in his historical bedrock category. Beside this one brief moment of disappointment, I was greatly pleased with the totality of Licona’s analysis and outcomes.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 25, 2021
recommand products
The Best Vegetable Seeds for Your Northern Backyard Garden! – Taiga Farm & Seed
26.72
Save the Bees Flower Mix
22.68
Seed-Starting Cap Mat/ Thick Mat & top; 2 Sets – Sustainable Village
20.50
Plastic-Free Pollinator Grow Kits for Bulk Favors (12 Pack) – Buzzy Seeds
23.67
Save The Bees Pollinator Flower Grow Kits
21.00