Posts by billythekid46

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

It’s good to deal with a professor, however I never forced my views on anyone as you people have and as you eluded to, with no feelings, thanks teach you just made my day!

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

It amazes me the feeble minded will someday run this world with your doctrine, or perhaps it already started. Am I defending the WT as some of you put it? No but if I’m to believe and pick someone’s theory I would have to pick theirs. Lets face it, like *AnnoMaly* inferred about me being an idiot. Perhaps this person should go back to a theological university to find out that person’s venom means absolutely nothing to me, with an endearing mention to go back an actually understand the scripture rather than just reading it, and laugh at the distorted reasoning like *Jeffro* feeble attempts of indoctrination. But God gives us all a choice to choose whatever lies and false hope people gives us. They have the choice to abandon God and his truth within the bible as you people have. As stated before what makes your lies, false hopes, and your truth anymore tangible? The hypocrisy spoken here makes it easier to become an atheist rather than seek god. Enjoy your distorted lives!!!!!!

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

So then, people should just trust in fools like you Jeffro, your god now, your that perfect human being to enlighten the world with being the false prophet?

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

Let me start by saying, that I am grateful to have been part of this debate; it was never my intention to be drawn into one. I entered into this site to learn what you as teachers of the truth of Christ have enlighten the younger generation of people who have yet to learn the gospel of Christ. My purpose was not to critize anyone’s view points, but I quickly found out through rebukes from you that would not be possible. I found a need to correct the assumptions many of you have placed in the minds of your readers that are incorrect. I then wondered what might be the motivation behind this. By the most part, I began to understand the deep hatred you hold towards the WT. Many of you by whatever reason have been disfellowshipped, reproved, publicly or privately admonished. Your response to my rendition sparked an insight by which you hold the WT personally responsible. In my attempts to circumvent those thoughts, I posed my question to you all. The bible was inspired by God, and it is Gods means of ownership that through Christ we owe our servitude to him. The WT is a tool to fulfill that servitude. The GB is the faithful Witness the Discreet, nothing more, and we are all the slave class. From the 30 years I was a Witness, I never thought of them much more than that. The servitude was beholding to us, to gather knowledge with holy inspecation through prayer. Some of you don’t believe the GB can be such a member. However keep in mind that through holy inspiration the bible was written. What other religions hold such understanding. Islam through the works of the Prophet Muhammad has that theory. The Quran is based on the premise that Muhammad spoke directly to God, and inspired him to write it. You have the works of Joseph Smith that professed to have spoken to Jesus and inspired him to write the book of Mormon. You have the Roman Catholic Church that even today truly believe the Pope through prayer in a room laced in gold has personal conversations with God. Many Protestants sects believe that speaking in tongues give them a direct channel to God. Some of you personalized your removal. That’s understandable as it is with human nature, no one likes being kicked out of anything. Disfellowshipping, defrocking, disassociating, shunning, etc. are found in many religions. This is not unique to Jw. The Advents, Mormons, Scientologist, Amish, Evangelist, Catholics, etc. In some liberal religions they simply tell you, get out and don’t come back. Through Gods holy words it is meant to have you redeem yourself and prevent you from falling again into temptation. Did Jesus not tell Mary the prostitute sin no more? He also told the elders and people that wanted to punish her, he who is without sin cast the first stone. There are however more irrational shunning that are still practiced today. A Muslim that finds Christianity will be killed for his blasphemies conversion. These inserts were to answer some of the many questions that were posted in my behalf. Back to topic. I will bring it to you in parts.

Russell did not proclaim that 1914 was the end of the world or Armageddon as some of you foolishly indicate, he was drawing parallels on Christ Kingship in heaven verses the notion that Jewish people even today believe of an earthly New Jerusalem verses a celestial one. As stated before. George Storrs and again Nelson H Barbour were drawing their conclusion based on the Miller rendition. Russell turned it into a public debate through their respective publicans, Russell advised against making such claims of the second coming of Christ or Second Advent. Russell and Storrs had a falling out due to this, and then later Barbour resigned to pursue his own doctrine. So the inferences of those dates given by you are false. 1799 was part of the Miller movement not the Bible Students just as I included 1844. 1874-1878 were suppositions held by Storrs and Barbour on the teaching of Miller and associated them with their own publications. Russell didn’t start the ZWT until 1879 and officially in 1881 which disputes your arrogant claim that those works belonged to Russell. Since there were different association between them at that time, international bible students, Independent bible students, associated bible students, etc. Russell identified more with the bible students, not the association. Perhaps you people might study more on the origin than just looking at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or that ridiculous jwfacts.com. The original participants of the bible students were: C.T. Russell, J.L. Russell, M.F. Russell, W.H Conley, and A.H. Macmillan that’s all.

Quotes from various publicans: FACTS

George Storrs was publisher of the magazine Bible Examiner, in Brooklyn, New York. Storrs, who was born on December 13, 1796, was initially stimulated to examine what the Bible says about the condition of the dead as a result of reading something published (though at the time anonymously) by a careful student of the Bible, Henry Grew, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Storrs became a zealous advocate of what was called conditional immortality—the teaching that the soul is mortal and that immortality is a gift to be attained by faithful Christians. He also reasoned that since the wicked do not have immortality, there is no eternal torment. Storrs traveled extensively, lecturing on the subject of no immortality for the wicked. Among his published works was the Six Sermons, which eventually attained a distribution of 200,000 copies. Without a doubt, Storrs’ strong Bible-based views on the mortality of the soul as well as the atonement and restitution (restoration of what was lost due to Adamic sin; Acts 3:21) had a strong, positive influence on young Charles T. Russell.

While, as the reader will have observed, we disagree with Mr. Miller’s interpretations and deductions, on almost every point—viewing the object, as well as the manner and the time, of our Lord’s coming, in a very different light

Anxious to learn, from any quarter, whatever God had to teach, I at once wrote to Mr. Barbour, informing him of my harmony on other points and desiring to know particularly why, and upon what Scriptural evidences, he held that Christ's presence and the harvesting of the Gospel age dated from the autumn of 1874. The answer showed that my surmise had been correct, viz.: that the time arguments, chronology, etc., were the same as used by Second Adventists in 1873, and explained howMr. Barbour and Mr. J. H. Paton, of Michigan, a co-worker with him, had been regular Second Adventists up to that time; and that when the date 1874 had passed without the world being burned, and without their seeing Christ in the flesh, they were for a time dumb-founded.

Expecting the Lord Jesus to come in 1878 to catch them up miraculously to be with him in heaven, some who had been Second Adventists (including Barbour) were disappointed when that miracle did not occur

In 1878 Russell had a major disagreement with one of his collaborators, who had rejected the teaching that Christ’s death could be atonement for sinners. In his rebuttal Russell wrote: “Christ accomplished various good things for us in his death and resurrection. He was our substitute in death; he died the just for the unjust—all were unjust. Jesus Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man. . . . He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” He continued: “To redeem is to buy back. What did Christ buy back for all men? Life. We lost it by the disobedience of the first Adam. The second Adam [Christ] bought it back with his own life.”—Mark 10:45; Romans 5:7, 8; 1 John 2:2; 4:9, 10.
Paton did write the article, and it was published in the December issue. After repeated unsuccessful efforts to reason on the matter with Barbour from the Scriptures, Russell broke off association with him and withdrew support from his magazine. In July 1879, Russell began to publish a new magazine—Zion’s Watch Tower

Always a staunch advocate of the ransom doctrine, Russell severed all ties with this former collaborator. In July 1879, Russell started to publish Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, known worldwide today as The Watchtower—Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom.

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

Jeffro expects everyone to accept his rendition of about the WT by force as the only truth which is kind of ironic since that’s why these people were removed or removed themselves for... The confusion comes with his interpretation of past events and thus marks his present theory for that purpose. I myself found out in the most simplistic way that the WT was not to far off the mark about 1914. It’s a matter of what calendar system you use. Jeffro has not convinced me his TRUTH is greater than that of the WT. If your going to venture or are in a quest for knowledge, then don’t start with this forum, they’ll just confuse you with their hate, by which has been my point a along. What makes their Doctrine any more tangible since it’s obvious they have stepped away from finding the truth in God through Christ? And if your quest is just to shove a pie in someone’s face per say, then your quest will be futile, in which case just accept the incorrect rendition given to you by these humble Christians, and look no further. I’m an ex witness that doesn’t need to do Gods job by judging. Good luck on your quest.

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

In my hast, I forgot. Thank you to nswer *truwj* 1799 theory that was tied to Miller not the bible students, however when Storr started making similar attributes to miller, that’s when Storr and Russell had that falling out, because Russell was against making such predications as Miller. Since 1799 date was used I just assumed to include Miller in you rendition of your truth, just like the false application that people have about 1914, that people believe the WT predicated the end of the world in 1914 verses simply stating under biblical chronology and historical events Jesus Christ entered into Kingship on that date, did they with 100% certainty? no, because other than Christ no one in this or past life times are perfect, just like your interpretation of historical events. Does this mean people have attempted with their assertion on the end of times, yes there has been plenty of people and historians that have made such predictions most recently 2012 which the WT has only written against making such predictions?

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

First off, I like to thank you for your participation on this discussion in my behalf. You all have made my point on the fallacy and ignorance in man. First off, I stated in my first post that the WT is NOT THE ONLY RELIGION that accepts the 1914 rendering of events. *Jeffro* assumed that was my research when it was not, First mistake. Second mistake is not taking into account the differences in calendar years; Muslims themselves had different ways of counting seasons. Third the rendering or interpretation between Jubilee and Score. Finally the inference or claim that your research is the only logical truth and should be accepted because of your interpretation of facts and figures makes all of you wrong and false. When I conducted my research, I went in with an open mind, and I never claimed showing you my results as they to would be more in line with the WT, but thats for me to decide not you or the WT. You people speak of the truth, insult people that don’t agree with your truth, so that makes you people better. Like someone said in this post I pitty the fool that believes in your kind of truth. To read or hear something without misunderstanding its interpretation is human nature, you people just proved it 10 times fold because it suits you. Enjoy your life and be happy!!!!!

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

Interesting list. You didn’t mention Miller’s movement of 1844. 1874, 1878 was under Barbour bible students that later became Jehovah Witness under Rutherford. The Organization was going through better understanding as time progressed. However the date 1799 eludes me, please enlighten me on that. The understanding I took from this organization before I left, was they would seek a better understanding through God’s Spiritual help to a better understanding of the bible. Why keep the people in the dark or blind to better understanding than let’s say the Catholics faith that has been lying to their people since the 12 century or the Mormons with their story book, or Islam with their tale of the Prophet Muhammad. If you are going to criticize 1 religion, then include them all. You forgot 1913, 1917, 1929, but just like the rest. It’s a matter of interpretation of the reader, and of course let us not forget, the famous 1975 that none religious people like to throw at JW’s because people are so prefect that they cannot misunderstand the writing, but can easily crucify the messenger.

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

My point again Jeffro. I had this discussion with my brother about 10 years ago. I researched not just the works you speak of but others in connection with biblical events. You reference biblical accounts as an abstract. It’s a matter of interpretation. However your assertion that your research is better than mine would be absurd. My research was as you put it done from scratch with countless years of research and I didn’t reply on anyone’s interpretation, and I also don’t expect anyone to agree with my interpretation on historical events unless you’re claiming to have been there, then that’s another matter in which case I would take you at your word. But to say once again that some ones religion is FALSE because you don’t agree with their interpretation of bibical accounts is wrong, just as you or I don’t see eye to eye in this matter. So then we have come full circle and we are at an impasse. Your truth is your truth, and mine is mine.

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

Thats my point *Jeffro* we can go on and on, with me tilling you, your dates and events are also WRONG, and I should trust your theory because which historian explained it to you better than who or because this persons research is more credible than who? You either believe it or you don't. the choice is for whomever receives it, but to say that any one religion is false because they don't agree with your interpretation is wrong, So once again, if that’s the case, which religion is better, which historian.