Posts by Jeffro

40

Memorial compulsory for "respectful observers" ?

by sparrowdown in

maybe i am ignorant but why why why pray tell.

if i am not jewish and not of the 144k why is it necessary (compulsory even) for me to attend the memorial ?.

what is the scriptural precedent?.

Jeffro

They believe it is important to show 'respect' for the event regardless of whether the individuals are partakers. But beyond that, setting up the 'Memorial' as pseudo-'compulsory' is a mechanism intended to get 'weak' JWs 'back to meetings'.

24

is there any biblical event that has a universally accepted date on which it occurred?

by jeremiah18:5-10 in

i'm intrigued by the whole "bible chronology" topic, but have never really dug into it because to put any of it together you need a historically reliable starting point.

this wasn't a problem as a practicing jw because you just assumed their dates were right.

i would like for someone to give me one event described in the bible that is universally established and accepted historically that i can use as a reliable starting point.

Jeffro

scholar:

The only suitable candidate in answer to your question is the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. This date is well cinfirmed by secular chronology and is well documented in the Bible.

It's funny how 'scholar' is happy to agree that 539 is "well cinfirmed by secular chronology", yet he at the same time rejects other dates that are even more strongly confirmed by secular chronology, including the siege against Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar from late 598 until early 597, which is in turn inextricably linked to the overlapping periods of reign of Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian rulers.

The Bible is in complete agreement with what is known in secular history that Nebuchadnezzar demanded tribute from Jehoiakim in early 604 which he then paid for 3 years; that Nebuchadnezzar lost a battle against Necho in 601 resulting in Jehoiakim then refusing to pay tribute; that Nebuchadnezzar sent various marauder bands against Judea in 599 while he remained in Babylon to muster his own army; that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in late 598 and took most of its people into exile; and that Jerusalem was subsequently destroyed in 587.

InChristAlone:

I think 537 was an assumption that it took a couple years for the Israelites to return and is really meaningless.

It can be called an assumption. (The most definite that Insight is willing to be about 537 is that it is allegedly "very probable".) More accurately, it's a lie. The Watch Tower Society used to say the Jews returned in 536BCE. When they learned (in 1943) there was no year 0, they changed it to 537 so they could shift 606 to 607 in order to maintain their superstitious beliefs about 1914. The false claim about 537 is disproved by comparing what is stated by Josephus and Ezra. The Jews who returned were in Judea by Tishri (September/Octobe) of 538 BCE.

17

Did JWN Discredit "JehovahIsJudgeUk" website?

by RottenRiley in

they use poor reasoning, they wiggle around the question and ignore the fact the watchtower was affiliated with the united nations.

this website fails to ignore the facts that we were not allowed to join the ymca even though we did not follow the charter rules, the watchtower agreed to follow the un charter and did so from 1992 to 2001 when the scandal was exposed.. .

have any of you seen works to debunk their slanted arguments and dishonest play of words?.

Jeffro

It's pretty obvious that billythekid46 is just a plain old troll, but the saddest part is he's not even particularly good at that. He seems to be resorting to some kind of 'tactic' (using the term loosely) to 'challenge' me to rebut... 'something' (also using that term loosely)... except he hasn't actually provided any material, other than some entirely irrelevant copy-and-pastes on another thread that weren't remotely relevant to JW beliefs about 607 or 1914. (In fact, most of his content has been in defense of the Unification Church, about which he became particularly sensitive when I reported that others consider it a cult.) Meanwhile, he's destroyed any impression of credibility that he might have had by showing himself to be an insulting fool with no actual position.

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?

.

Jeffro

Oh. He's still here.

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?

.

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

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?

.

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

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?

.

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

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?

.

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

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?

.

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

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?

.

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.)