This is obviously driven by the Norway court decision, especially the aspects about minors. But it's just more emotional manipulation to give 'POMI' individuals the absolute minimum of attention on the condition that they show interest in 'returning'. But those who are 'POMO' (i.e. 'apostates') are deemed too much of a threat to even greet. Pathetic.
Posts by Jeffro
-
86New light on shunning?
by Mikejw inone theory why tony was booted out was because he was a stickler for not changing the shunning doctrine.
he actually said the words we will never ever change it.. they are slowly deleting all of tony’s videos and now losing court cases and losing government hand outs in places like norway.. it’s looking very likely they will release new light on shunning policy after losing this latest one in norway.. .
what are the odds they coincidentally get new light from jehovah and lighten up their shunning policy ?.
-
-
Jeffro
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
Jeffro
It is funny that ‘the one true religion’ has:
- a god from a Canaanite pantheon
- an exodus myth from ancient Ethiopians
- cherubs from Assyrian mythology
- creation and flood myths from Babylon
- a devil from Persian mythology
- beliefs in an afterlife and the ‘Word’ from Greek Gnosticism
Not to mention a whole catalogue of misinterpretations of their own books for their end times beliefs.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
Jeffro
Early Christians were making this stuff up as they went along, largely based on merging Greek concepts into Judaism. It’s much simpler if people stop pretending the Bible is consistent on the matter.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
Jeffro
TonusOH:
I feel bad for the holy ghost. Jehovah and Jesus get all of the attention. He's like the Curly Howard of the group.
Nothing's changed. Acts 19:2:
and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
I guess that rules out it just being ‘God’s power’. See also 2 Corinthians 6:6-7.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
Jeffro
Sorry for derailing. I do like fan fiction.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
Jeffro
Do people still say that?
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
Jeffro
No, it's definitely this thread.
Unless you mean that god, one person, or three are three separate options, in which case the first option cannot be established to exist, and the second option leaves out a large number of people, but 'three' is definitely a thing.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
Jeffro
I smell a false dichotomy.
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
-
-
Jeffro
jwposter:
I think I demonstrated enough here to show that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year can not be -567 and is actually -511 (512 B.C.E)
🤦♂️🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I won't be back here for awhile
We can only hope.
-
271
VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar
by jwposter inin my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
-
-
Jeffro
jwposter:
So as you can see both text had the same problem. Since the Moon is actually BEHIND and not in FRONT of.
(Actually in this particular case the newer translation says B Virginis, and the observation is corrected by noting that the day is actually one day off, already noted in the 1915 translation. But there are similar issues for lines 11 and 14 so we’ll let it slide…)
Note the hypocritical inconsistency. For his own position with its blundering interpretations of other observations in VAT 4956 (not to mention the rest of his nonsense), he jumps through hoops to try to justify problems, or simply ignores problems altogether. From using a wrong definition of ‘in front’ or ‘behind’ as ‘closer to west on a compass’, to claiming identification of the solstice ‘really’ means ‘start looking for the solstice 3 weeks before’, to claiming ‘Mars entering Praesepe’ was backwardly identified despite the fact there is no corresponding observation in his own nutty interpretation at all, to completely ignoring most of the planetary observations altogether…
But when the tablet has some (actually a total of 3) minor inconsistencies in wording for observations among literally dozens of correct matches for 568/7 BCE? ‘568 must be wrong’. 🤦♂️ VAT 4956 is expected to be perfect when he says so, but wrong or misinterpreted when convenient.
The cognitive dissonance is beyond disgusting.