🤦♂️
Posts by Jeffro
-
98Who raised Jesus from the dead?
by Blotty ini have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
-
-
-
98
Who raised Jesus from the dead?
by Blotty ini have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.
(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.
galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.
-
-
Jeffro
Blotty:
Punk of nice (& Jeffro)
The question of whether there was an itinerant preacher named Yeshua in the first century is entirely mundane and quite separate to the many religious superstitions about Jesus. Even the term ‘Christ myth theory’ is misleading, as the fact that Christ is a myth has much wider acceptance among scholars than the separate unremarkable likelihood that Jesus existed. Those who agree that a man named Jesus existed but was not magical are properly using the term ‘Christ myth’, but those who oppose the ‘theory’ are also happy to use the term ‘Christ myth theory’ because it allows them to smuggle their religious superstitions in with the broader rejection of the notion that the man didn’t exist.
consider this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Christ_myth_theory -
50
Are the teachings of JW—consistent?
by Fisherman ini would belief so but if you can point something out, it can be discussed.. i don’t mean what jw taught in the past that they later realized was not correct and amended.
—unless you think and can show something like that is relevant.. i’ve spoken to a lot of believers from different religions.
i don’t want to bash any religion here under this topic but their beliefs are inconsistent and their reasons are sophistry and made up and grounded on circular reasoning.
-
-
Jeffro
JWs aren't allowed to accept blood transfusions, including white blood cells, but breast milk contains a significant number of white blood cells.
-
50
Are the teachings of JW—consistent?
by Fisherman ini would belief so but if you can point something out, it can be discussed.. i don’t mean what jw taught in the past that they later realized was not correct and amended.
—unless you think and can show something like that is relevant.. i’ve spoken to a lot of believers from different religions.
i don’t want to bash any religion here under this topic but their beliefs are inconsistent and their reasons are sophistry and made up and grounded on circular reasoning.
-
-
Jeffro
JW literature says that very specific traits of narrow species must have been 'designed'. For example, Awake!, No. 1, 2017, p. 16:
Did the compound heat shield of the Saharan silver ant come about by evolution? Or was it designed?
However, this would require that at least pairs (though for many species, entire colonies) would be required on the 'ark' of all of those specific species with unique traits. But because this would be physically impossible, they inconsistently say that only a few - poorly defined - 'kinds' would be needed. (And anyone who has kept an aquarium would realise the problems the 'flood' would pose for the majority of fish species.)
Other 'was it designed' gaffes inherently require that the 'design' was required from the outset because of predation. 🤦♂️ For example, Awake!, 8 December 2008, p. 18:
Though less than an inch in length [2 cm], the bombardier beetle is noted for its unique defense mechanism. When threatened, the insect sprays boiling, foul-smelling liquid and steam from its posterior, warding off spiders, birds, and even frogs.
-
50
Are the teachings of JW—consistent?
by Fisherman ini would belief so but if you can point something out, it can be discussed.. i don’t mean what jw taught in the past that they later realized was not correct and amended.
—unless you think and can show something like that is relevant.. i’ve spoken to a lot of believers from different religions.
i don’t want to bash any religion here under this topic but their beliefs are inconsistent and their reasons are sophistry and made up and grounded on circular reasoning.
-
-
Jeffro
Also, JWs insist that they are 'no part of the world', and that people should 'pay Cesar's things to Caesar' but they accept and expect tax concessions from 'worldly' governments. When Norway determines that the denomination does not meet its requirements for government subsidies (due to their draconian shunning policies), JWs complain that it is 'an attack on their freedom of worship', though JW activities in Norway are not curtailed in any way. And threat to their tax-free status in Australia was the only thing that could get them to sign up to the redress scheme for child sexual abuse there.
-
50
Are the teachings of JW—consistent?
by Fisherman ini would belief so but if you can point something out, it can be discussed.. i don’t mean what jw taught in the past that they later realized was not correct and amended.
—unless you think and can show something like that is relevant.. i’ve spoken to a lot of believers from different religions.
i don’t want to bash any religion here under this topic but their beliefs are inconsistent and their reasons are sophistry and made up and grounded on circular reasoning.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
Not so with JW. The JW teachings are supported by scripture, add up, are consistent, and” jive” like the 4 gospels, logical, reasonable, plausible and just make sense and appeal to the mind and heart.
🤣
JW teachings are 'supported by scripture' in that they cherry pick the ones they like, spamming those over and over again usually without regard to context, and ignoring the inconvenient ones (for example, when was the last time the Watch Tower Society quoted Jeremiah 27:11 which shows that exile explicitly is not the same as 'serving Babylon'? 🙄)
The Bible’s use of the term “holy spirit” (or ‘Holy Ghost’) is vague, but whatever it is supposed to be, 2 Corinthians 6:6-7 explicitly indicates that it is something distinct from “God’s power”.
The order of events associated with the 'end times' according to JW beliefs is entirely different to that given in the Bible. Motifs such as 'separating the sheep and goats' and the meaning of the 'generation' are arbitrarily changed at whim (but have all been wrong since their inception).
The Governing Body is supposedly made up of members who are defintiely anointed, though there is no way of substantiating their claim, and the Watch Tower Society explicitly states that claiming to be anointed may be the result of emotional or mental imbalance.
JWs won't allow women to be elders because they aren't allowed to 'judge', but Deborah was a judge.
That's just off the top of my head.
-
89
Myth of 1914
by peacefulpete inthe wt engages in history revisionism when insisting the world changed overnight in 1914. in fact the european power struggles that came to a head were centuries old.
millions of lives had been lost in the wars of the 19th century, with the world a powder keg the years prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand in june 1914 which is often said, albeit rather arbitrarily, as the start of the war that escalated over the next 4 years into the great war.
take a look at these two pages and ask if the wt's interpretation of history seems accurate to you.
-
-
Jeffro
God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached (1973), pages 209-210:
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. The millennium that was to be marked by the detaining of Satan the Devil enchained in the abyss and by the reign of the 144,000 joint heirs with Christ in heavenly glory was therefore yet in the future. What, then, about the parousia (presence) of Christ? Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.” Also, in the Watchtower issue of July 15, 1949 (page 215, paragraph 22), the statement is made: “ . . . Messiah, the Son of man, came into Kingdom power A.D. 1914 and . . . this constitutes his second coming and the beginning of his second parousía or presence.”
The Watchtower, 15 August 1974 page 507:
In 1943 the Watch Tower Society’s book “The Truth Shall Make You Free” did away with the nonexistent extra 100 years in the period of the Judges and placed the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence in the 1970’s. It also fixed the beginning of Christ’s presence, not in 1874, but in 1914 C.E.
These claims, both in the lead-up to 1975, associated the change from 1874 to 1914 for Jesus' 'presence' with a mistaken view that the 6th millennium ended in 1874, replacing it with an equally wrong 'correction' that instead focussed on 1975 (essentially a red herring intended to add weight to their 1975 nonsense). This lie completely conceals the reason, the timing, and the individual responsible for shifting Jesus' parousia from 1874 to 1914 (which has already been demonstrated to have been made by Rutherford in the early 1930s). There is actually no 'natural' (i.e, obvious) reason that changing some other interpretation about 1874 necessarily meant Jesus 'presence' also had to be changed to 1914 (especially since their beliefs about 1874 and 1914 are nonsense anyway, but even if they weren't).
Though the cited 1943 book did update their nutty chronology, it didn't actually make any special point about 'removing 100 years' from their previous chronology nor did it specifically mention the 1970s (though it does say the total time for all the creative 'days' was exactly 42,000 years 🤣). Worse still, the 1943 book placed the 'creation of Adam' in 4028 BCE, so by 1974, the 1943 claim about what was to happen after 6,000 years had already failed. Little wonder they were so selective about quoting from that book.
-
89
Myth of 1914
by peacefulpete inthe wt engages in history revisionism when insisting the world changed overnight in 1914. in fact the european power struggles that came to a head were centuries old.
millions of lives had been lost in the wars of the 19th century, with the world a powder keg the years prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand in june 1914 which is often said, albeit rather arbitrarily, as the start of the war that escalated over the next 4 years into the great war.
take a look at these two pages and ask if the wt's interpretation of history seems accurate to you.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
You don’t get it. If JW claim a sign validates 1914. It is written in stone. And that’s that.
😂 it’s hard to satirise these guys when they say things like that themselves. All of their nutty beliefs are ‘set in stone’ only until they arbitrarily change it to something completely different. And then the fact that what they previously taught as ‘truth’ was never actually true is conveniently ignored.
-
89
Myth of 1914
by peacefulpete inthe wt engages in history revisionism when insisting the world changed overnight in 1914. in fact the european power struggles that came to a head were centuries old.
millions of lives had been lost in the wars of the 19th century, with the world a powder keg the years prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand in june 1914 which is often said, albeit rather arbitrarily, as the start of the war that escalated over the next 4 years into the great war.
take a look at these two pages and ask if the wt's interpretation of history seems accurate to you.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
The great tribulation must now come and validate JW.
😂 The ‘great tribulation’ came and went in 66-70 CE. JWs can’t even get right the basic sequence that Jesus’ ‘presence’ is explicitly described as happening after the ‘great tribulation’. So there is no hope for them, in every sense of the word.
-
89
Myth of 1914
by peacefulpete inthe wt engages in history revisionism when insisting the world changed overnight in 1914. in fact the european power struggles that came to a head were centuries old.
millions of lives had been lost in the wars of the 19th century, with the world a powder keg the years prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand in june 1914 which is often said, albeit rather arbitrarily, as the start of the war that escalated over the next 4 years into the great war.
take a look at these two pages and ask if the wt's interpretation of history seems accurate to you.
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
Generation is still tethered to 1914 and and so is the climax of Jesus’s presence, the GT, and the preaching work. And most important, the kingdom is in place since 1914.
Aside from the fact their beliefs are entirely wrong, Fishermen is, for once, correct in that the JWs are as stuck with 1914 as they ever were. 1914 has been spruiked right up until 2022 in their literature.