Not sure who Jethro is, but I’m not interested in the pseudo-intellectual bait-and-switch thanks.
And the JW notion that all false religion started with Babylon is not found in the Bible anyway.
Posts by Jeffro
-
78How can Babylon the Great be the WORLD of false religion?
by BoogerMan in(revelation 17:5) “babylon the great, the mother of the prostitutes (plural!
) and of the disgusting things of the earth.”.
btg is spotlighted as being the principal "disgusting thing" which affects christians & christianity, with other lesser "prostitutes" in the background... (revelation 18:4) “get out of her, my people, (christians) if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.".
-
-
-
78
How can Babylon the Great be the WORLD of false religion?
by BoogerMan in(revelation 17:5) “babylon the great, the mother of the prostitutes (plural!
) and of the disgusting things of the earth.”.
btg is spotlighted as being the principal "disgusting thing" which affects christians & christianity, with other lesser "prostitutes" in the background... (revelation 18:4) “get out of her, my people, (christians) if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.".
-
-
Jeffro
ThomasMore:
Conspicuously the writer NEVER alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem, probably because it had not happened.
Very incorrect. Revelation refers to Jerusalem being trampled by the nations for 3.5 years (66-70 CE; Revelation 11:2, compare Luke 21:24), and later indicates it being replaced by New Jerusalem, which is depicted as coming down from heaven onto the earth (an imaginary future event).
-
78
How can Babylon the Great be the WORLD of false religion?
by BoogerMan in(revelation 17:5) “babylon the great, the mother of the prostitutes (plural!
) and of the disgusting things of the earth.”.
btg is spotlighted as being the principal "disgusting thing" which affects christians & christianity, with other lesser "prostitutes" in the background... (revelation 18:4) “get out of her, my people, (christians) if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.".
-
-
Jeffro
LeeMerk:
Babylon exalted itself in place of God. There's a theme going on.
No, it didn’t. Babylonian religion exalted gods above themselves.
You do know that the ‘Tower of Babel’ story isn’t real, don’t you?
-
78
How can Babylon the Great be the WORLD of false religion?
by BoogerMan in(revelation 17:5) “babylon the great, the mother of the prostitutes (plural!
) and of the disgusting things of the earth.”.
btg is spotlighted as being the principal "disgusting thing" which affects christians & christianity, with other lesser "prostitutes" in the background... (revelation 18:4) “get out of her, my people, (christians) if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.".
-
-
Jeffro
LeeMerk:
Babylon (Babel) was the original kingdom that setup its opposition to God.
No.
-
78
How can Babylon the Great be the WORLD of false religion?
by BoogerMan in(revelation 17:5) “babylon the great, the mother of the prostitutes (plural!
) and of the disgusting things of the earth.”.
btg is spotlighted as being the principal "disgusting thing" which affects christians & christianity, with other lesser "prostitutes" in the background... (revelation 18:4) “get out of her, my people, (christians) if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.".
-
-
Jeffro
Jeffro:
‘Babylon the Great’ was Rome.
peacefulpete:
The final redactor no doubt had contemporary Roman events in mind, but theunderlying texts were thoroughly Jewish and likely predate 70CE.
The initial chapters and much of the end times elements of Revelation were almost certainly from other Jewish works, some of which could predate 70, to which references to Roman opposition and imagined divine punishment were added. The parts about ‘beasts’ (alluding to various emperors and the empire itself) and references to time periods (in reference to the tribulation from 66-70) were necessarily later additions.
In its present form, ‘Babylon the Great’ unequivocally refers to Rome (at the time of writing). Whether there was some earlier work that referred to Jerusalem as ‘Babylon the Great’ is impossible to say, but the presentation in what we have as Revelation is not about Jerusalem.
-
101
The Next Big Thing In WT World
by NotFormer inthings got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
-
-
Jeffro
😂😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂
🤦♂️
-
101
The Next Big Thing In WT World
by NotFormer inthings got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
-
-
-
101
The Next Big Thing In WT World
by NotFormer inthings got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
-
-
Jeffro
‘scholar’:
If Jeffro is so smart and is right in that 607 BCE is incorrect then how come with all his pretty blogs he is unable to provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?
Poor ‘scholar’, still beating the same tired drum. It can only be jealousy.
-
101
The Next Big Thing In WT World
by NotFormer inthings got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
-
-
Jeffro
Beth Sarim:
I quit bothering talking to people who dont use reasoning to understand logic.
Yeah, I just point out his nonsense for honest readers to see. But for now, he’s trapped in his little feedback loop, so there’s not really anything left to say. For honest readers, just go back to the links I’ve already provided earlier in the thread.
-
101
The Next Big Thing In WT World
by NotFormer inthings got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.
there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.
now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.
-
-
Jeffro
Poor ‘scholar’ keeps irrationally bleating his demands for ‘one line of evidence’, which is simply a smokescreen for the fact that his position is entirely unsupportable under the slightest scrutiny. He can’t even get past the fact that his position requires a solstice on a physically impossible date. Instead he pleads ignorance and insists no one else understands the subject because he doesn’t. Then he returns to his inane mantra about ‘one line of evidence’. Pathetic.