Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,804 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  EdenOne:

  a) The prophecy of Daniel chapter 4 applies solely to Nabuchadnezzar; therefore, the "seven times" are seven years, the exact time that lasted the insanity of the Babylonian king. Daniel chapter 4 contains in itself the prophecy and the narrative of its fulfillment.

  That is a logical objection to the claims JWs make about Nebuchadnezzar's supposed 'prophetic' dream.

  But it's not the most reasonable conclusion. Since the book of Daniel was actually written in the 2nd century BCE, it's entirely probable that the stories were only loosely based on a 'Daniel' living in the 6th & 7th centuries BCE, and it's possible that the character didn't actually exist at all but was merely representative of some of the captives taken by Nebuchadnezzar as a narrative device.

  It's more likely that the story about the dream about '7 times' is really a cryptic reference to the 49 (seven times seven) years from the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 587 BCE until Cyrus' decree to rebuild it in 538 BCE. That is much more plausible than a magical man in Babylon revealing a secret dream to Nebuchadnezzar that later came true, without any reliable corroboration whatsoever. This more reasonable conclusion is also consistent with first 7 'weeks' of the '70 weeks' 'prophecy', which apply to same period (despite being later co-opted by Christians with a different starting point), which was the arrival of 'Messiah' (literally 'anointed one'), which Isaiah (more accurately, a later writer under the Isaiah pseudonym) explicitly states was Cyrus.

  Whatever the case, neither scenario lends any weight at all to the JW belief.
• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Apognophos:

  I think you're wasting your time, Jeffro.

  I enjoyed laughing at his stupidity. That can't be a waste of time.
• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  billythekid46:

  People like Jeffro make a mockery of intelligent people, that’s why I knew he would disagree spoken like a true apostate.

  I have never been a member of the Unification Church, and by definition cannot be considered an 'apostate' for pointing out that they are broadly considered to be a cult.

  Yes everyone is a cult that can prove you wrong, except you being a perfect man as you have proven today.

  I didn't say the Moonies are a cult. I said they are broadly considered to be a cult. That is a plain statement of fact. Included among the sources considering it to be a cult include the books, Kingdom of the Cults and Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History, as well as the governments of France and Germany.

  All bow to Jeffro son of Satan

  Idiot.

  First you clearly denounce the teaching of Jw’s.

  I have pointed out where JW doctrines are clearly wrong, even from the position of Bible-believing Christians.

  Now Advents, Protestants

  I have correctly pointed out the historical origins of JWs, and that chronology presented by those groups has been adapted by JWs. However, those groups do not say the same outlandish things about 607 that JWs do, and they don't say anything about 1914.

  Universal Peace Federation you call Moonies when it’s a coalition.

  I pointed out that the Unification Church is often called the Moonies. It's not some label I made up, or one that I habitually use. (I don't habitually talk about the group at all.)

  I've seen no compelling evidence that the Unification Church can 'prove me wrong', and they don't make the same claims as JWs about 607 or 1914 anyway.

  UPF is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
  So the U.N. is a cult now. That makes most of your friends in these websites cults too.

  You clearly don't understand what an NGO is.
• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Now he's just randomly copy-and-pasting things, some of which he's copied from me (including the timeline, which he's 'kindly' attributed to as "The most Chronological order embedded with historian, theologians, and archeologist is this"; however, he has also made some edits to the timeline without marking them as his changes), randomly interspersed with detail from other sources. Oh dear.

  The New World Encyclopedia, which billythekid46 cites and quotes, is produced by the Unification Church, a new religious movement based in Korea, aka the 'Moonies'. The group is broadly considered to be a cult. Since Sun Kyung Moon was raised as a Presbyterian, it's unsurprising that the Moonie's beliefs share some similarities with other Adventist groups diverged from Protestantism.
• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  It's pretty funny how billythekid46 claims that he has researched the subject of 607 for 'many years', yet apart from a copy-and-paste of someone else's work, he has presented zero research, and instead resorted to insulting everyone else who disagrees with his unstated opinions.
• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  billythekid46:

  Please people get new material.

  I already have correct material. Why would I need something different?

  The apostate writings of Raymond Franz, Carl Olof Jonsson, W.T. Stevenson and others are old, like Russell, and Rutherford.

  I see you still cling to the JW's pejorative and incorrect use of the word 'apostate'.

  I have not read any books written by Franz, Jonsson, Stevenson or any other so-called 'apostates'. (I have read Jonsson's online reponse to the Watch Tower Society's 2011 attempt to defend 607, but not before writing my own response.)
• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  MissMyHarley:

  Billythekid46 and Jeffro- Way to scare the hell out of someone new and hyjack a simple question thread.

  I have done nothing wrong by pointing out Billythekid46's lies.

  There hasn't actually been any recent 'new light' about 1914. This has already been answered early in the thread by myself and others.

  The 'new light' most likely alluded to is more about 1918-1919.
• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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?

  Unable to actually provide any facts, he resorts to childish insults based on nothing.

  And it's you're, not your.
• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Your lengthy rant has absolutely no information in support of your claims about when the Bible Students abandoned their beliefs about 1874 and 1878, and I've already provided specific details in this thread about when they were abandoned. You try to focus a great deal on Russell's split with Barbour, as a result of some changes in Russell's views. However, it has absolutely no bearing on the Bible Student's beliefs about 1914 after the split.
• 
  122

  Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

  by Skeptical78 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Jeffro, isn't billy mixing up Storrs with Barbour too? It's hard to get the sense of what he was saying.

  He also mixed up Barbour with Russell earlier in this thread too (when he claimed, "1878 was under Barbour bible students that later became Jehovah Witness under Rutherford"). In fact, his claims about when their beliefs about 1874 and 1878 were abandonded were out by a few decades.

  I really don't think he knows much of the actual history at all.