Such an established date provides a sound basis for calculating the prophetic year of 1914.
Neil, so what does that prove. From Brooklyn publications they in 1914 did not recongnize what 1914 meant.
here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.
they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.
to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?
Such an established date provides a sound basis for calculating the prophetic year of 1914.
Neil, so what does that prove. From Brooklyn publications they in 1914 did not recongnize what 1914 meant.
here are a few facts that i have recently discovered by doing some research.. the watchtower society uses the date of 539 b.c.e as the date that cyrus took over babylon.
they use the term "absolute date" to define this as an unquestionable point in time.
to do this they had to ignore 586 b.c.e which is the real date for the destruction of jerusalem.. therefore, if jerusalem never lay desolate for 70 years, when does this desolation and fulfillment of this prophecy take place?
Bluegrass Tom,
Welcome to the forum. 607 is very problematic for the Jw. Any Jw who is sincere about neo-Babylonian rule and who ruled when, will come to the conclusion that 607 is merely smoke and mirror for 1914... period.
my 20 year old son has joined this church with a friend and i don't know anything about it.
i know i can look it up on the web but i am wondering if anyone here knows of the church personally.
i am very leery of any organized religion i am sure because of the jws crap and am worried what my son is getting into.
Ive been going to an Alliance Church for about four years, very lively worship music, about 20 minutes in all then anouncments about 10 min. then a sermon. Ive engaged the head pastor on issues I dont agree with and thats fine with him.
Ive never once seen or heard anything that would be cultic. I feel its a good place to worship.
a good lesson for all:.
learn to put away all badness of this old world, and make the necessary changes to prepare for the kingdom of god.
pay back caesar's things to caesar, but god's things to god, especially god, because he owns all things, and will ask for an accounting from everyone.
Give free what you received free, as it is written.
Like what?
brownboy: (of the hit and run class)
i know that many here would place jehovah's witnesses on a list of 'cults'.
personally i don't think they meet all the standard definition - but would class them as an 'authoritarian sectarian movement'.
at any rate, most of us would not want our neighbors to get caught up in the mind-twisting that we endured and from which we finally removed ourselves.. that said - have any engaged in successfull enterprises to counter the movement?
by your definition the writer of "james" was member of a cult too.
I disagree. Your making this statement based on your rendering of James' illustration of works/faith??
This might be another thread in and of itself.
edited to add:
but the list you offered is surprisingly similar to WTO argumentation: they are wrong, so we must be right.You lost me here. Explain?
i was reading a book on early church fathers and early christian doctrines.
i could not put the book down.
i noticed that some of the early church fathers "denounced" war frowned upon celebrating holidays and also "birthdays" some of their arguments sounded exactly like jw's and if you did not know you would have thought you were talking to some jw's.
I've heard W.Martin in a mock discussion with Bill Cetner in which he uses arguments that are weak with regards to scriptures dealing with the trinity that were not strong arguments....
Thats classic stuff, eh gumbed-againer
i know that many here would place jehovah's witnesses on a list of 'cults'.
personally i don't think they meet all the standard definition - but would class them as an 'authoritarian sectarian movement'.
at any rate, most of us would not want our neighbors to get caught up in the mind-twisting that we endured and from which we finally removed ourselves.. that said - have any engaged in successfull enterprises to counter the movement?
those items don't identify a cult, they simply identify another religious belief..
Then by your standards there is nothing that would identify a cult.
it's like saying: one mark of a cult is claiming the trinity to be a false teaching.
As a member of that particular belief system, could that member question that doctrine and not be excommunicated?
"cults deny salvation by faith alone"
If you belong to an Org that teaches works for salvation, could a member question that doctrine and stay in good standing?
makes it obvious that this list is not about marking cults, but leading the reader simply to a different belief system
How so?
i know that many here would place jehovah's witnesses on a list of 'cults'.
personally i don't think they meet all the standard definition - but would class them as an 'authoritarian sectarian movement'.
at any rate, most of us would not want our neighbors to get caught up in the mind-twisting that we endured and from which we finally removed ourselves.. that said - have any engaged in successfull enterprises to counter the movement?
Above list is from "Approaching Witnesses in Love" Wilbur Lingleyou can make anything meet the requirements if you make the list of requirements yourself. that's the very same thing the WTS does: the true religion must include this, this and that - we do this, this and that, so we are the true religion. The quoted "list" are seven marks of a cult. To consider them as requirements is irrelevent. The witnesses do the cited items that identify a cult. The simple fact the WT uses the Bible-plus is a huge red flag. The WT mag. has just as much authority as the NWT Bible. (or any Bible) And it is proclaimed by the WT the only way the Bible is understood is by their interpretation. Memebers have to acknowledge the complete authority of Brooklyn or be thrown out of the group. Memebers cannot converse with outsiders about their group or discuss Biblical issues without first looking to the WT for a correct response.
i was reading a book on early church fathers and early christian doctrines.
i could not put the book down.
i noticed that some of the early church fathers "denounced" war frowned upon celebrating holidays and also "birthdays" some of their arguments sounded exactly like jw's and if you did not know you would have thought you were talking to some jw's.
LT: I don't think there's any intentional lying going about, that I'm aware of.
There's enough bad light (I like that expression, in this context - new light, old light, bad light!) without making stuff up.
Agreed, that best sums it up.
One really doesnt need to "make anything up" or "lie on" theres a wealth of Jw writings that contradict themselves into a group that cannot be taken seriously. (theologically)
i know that many here would place jehovah's witnesses on a list of 'cults'.
personally i don't think they meet all the standard definition - but would class them as an 'authoritarian sectarian movement'.
at any rate, most of us would not want our neighbors to get caught up in the mind-twisting that we endured and from which we finally removed ourselves.. that said - have any engaged in successfull enterprises to counter the movement?
Ak Jeff: I know that many here would place Jehovah's witnesses on a list of 'cults'. Personally I don't think they meet all the standard definition - but would class them as an 'authoritarian sectarian movement'.
I disagree.
The JWs are the epitomy of a cult.
Above list is from "Approaching Witnesses in Love" Wilbur Lingle
I personally witness to as many Jws as possible, however its my belief Jws really do not want to study. Much like the Mormons if they sense any "Biblical knowledge" or a threat to counter their presentation they will cut short the Bible er, um, book study.