Posts by Jeffro

45

consequences for going against the direction.

by jehovaxx in

there are no serious consequences for doubting the gb.

there are no consequences for going against the direction.

we can now celebrate anything.. what will happen if you take blood, celebrate xmas and birthdays ect?.

Jeffro

jehovaxx:

If elders ever think someone should be DF’ed there is now an appeals process

Has the appeal process changed? There has been an appeal process since at least 1980.

Even while DF’ed JWs can still talk to you.

Well, JWs can give a brief greeting if the person attends a meeting, or to invite the person to a meeting. So, only if the person shows some interests in returning. Which is still emotional manipulation if the person wants contact with their JW ‘friends’ or relatives.

And what good is it if a circuit overseer tells elders there are some other provisions if regular members aren’t told about them?

45

consequences for going against the direction.

by jehovaxx in

there are no serious consequences for doubting the gb.

there are no consequences for going against the direction.

we can now celebrate anything.. what will happen if you take blood, celebrate xmas and birthdays ect?.

Jeffro

It’s not clear how a regular JW is supposed to know if they are allowed 🙄 to greet a ‘disfellowshipped’ person attending a meeting. Congregation members aren’t told why the person was disfellowshipped, or if the person disassociated, or if the elders decided the person disassociated. The person could be an evil apostate (not allowed to greet) or they could have just committed the lesser sin of molesting children (allowed to greet).

45

consequences for going against the direction.

by jehovaxx in

there are no serious consequences for doubting the gb.

there are no consequences for going against the direction.

we can now celebrate anything.. what will happen if you take blood, celebrate xmas and birthdays ect?.

Jeffro

All of the changes were about disfellowshipping. (And the option of an appeal committee isn’t new either.)

But elders can still decide the person has disassociated. This is often considered to refer just to someone ‘writing a letter of disassociation’, but also includes if the elders decide the person has ‘disassociated themself by their actions’ (e.g., accepting blood, attending a rival church service, promoting political opinions). No right of appeal is available if the elders decide a person has disassociated.

As was skilfully pointed out by the lawyer during the Australian Royal Commission, a JW who simply ‘fades’ is still considered (by JWs) to be subject to JW rules, which can eventually result in shunning (though ‘soft shunning’ is often already in place at that point anyway) if elders learn of the person doing something egregious like unrepentantly celebrating Christmas or sharing opinions about JWs being wrong.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in 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

This is not an apology, it's sarcastic nonsense:

And if it makes you feel better, Jeffro: I am completely wrong. I know nothing. I never have. You are 100% right about everything. Apologies. I am sorry to have ever doubted you.

And you know that. Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that was a misunderstood sincere apology due to a 'language barrier'. It seems, let's say, 'quite unlikely' that you really meant it that you 'know nothing and never have' because I was right about one tiny detail.

A more sincere person intending to actually apologise (or just wanting to defuse a tense situation) could have said something like, "Sorry, I wasn't aware that some sources did suggest different years for that period." or even "Thanks for providing the link to that article, but I wasn't referring to those scholars because xyz..." You did neither.

You said apologize and get out of here, and I did what you asked.

I did not tell you 'get of here' or anything similar.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in 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

Good grief, now he's calling me 'she' as well.

It also doesnt help that Jeffro insists on cutting and pasting things out of context.

I posted your entire comment from 2 March 2024. In what context was it a nice thing to say? Here's the link to check for full context: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/users/5070517946548224/KalebOutWest/posts?nav=next&sort=posted&posted=20240317174348#4725751702618112

Earlier that day, you said:

The dates do not fluctuate. New information has changed since that older article on MyJewishLearning you searched for to back up your insufferable need to correct everyone on this forum and belie your lack of education.

Here's the link for that statement for full context: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4915204052221952/old-greek-daniels-son-man?page=4#6244213298036736

The dates (for the period between the banning of Jewish worship by Antiochus IV and the rededication of the temple) do in fact fluctuate among various scholars, and I posted a link to an article demonstrating that to be so. I did angrily include the words 'smarmy so-and-so' in the subsequent response - which was not classy - but it was only after your condescension. Here's the link: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4915204052221952/old-greek-daniels-son-man?page=4#5148759005069312

Shall we continue?

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in 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

KalebOutWest:

You also several times called me a know-it-all.

Once, after you made extremely condescending comments. Though I never used that exact term. And it was only in response to this gutter trash remark, in which you first suggested I’m a know it all:

I would rather become one of Jehovah's Witnesses once again.
Talk to Jeffro. He apparently claims to be far more versed on any subject than me. This is what you will be left with.
And if it makes you feel better, Jeffro: I am completely wrong. I know nothing. I never have. You are 100% right about everything. Apologies. I am sorry to have ever doubted you.

In each instance of what you describe as ‘bullying’, I reacted to your initial (mis)behaviour.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in 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

KalebOutWest:

You treat me like garbage, saying I have tantrums, claiming I act like a know it all almost every time you get a chance. If you want I can cut and paste each time you did that to me. So you want to talk about frustrating?!

There have been a total of two episodes where I’ve indicated you’ve thrown tantrums. In the first case, you incorrectly said I was wrong about sources varying about the period from 168-165 BCE or 167-164 BCE. In the second case, you (prima facie if not intentionally) described my efforts at refuting a JW doctrine as a waste of time. So don’t overstate matters, and don’t pretend I’m the bad guy for not just taking crap.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in 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

KalebOutWest:

I have complimented you and applauded you.

Yes, you have complimented my refutation of jwposter’s fringe Adventist lunar sabbath nonsense. And that is appreciated. But that refutation is quite independent of my refutation of the Watch Tower Society’s 1914 doctrine. Maybe you genuinely don’t understand how your comments came across. Sorry for upsetting you.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in 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

KalebOutWest:

Or is it impossible?

Why is it so difficult for you to say something like, “yes, I can see how it could have come across that way. Sorry if it seemed that way.” Why all this doubling down and evasion of what I actually said? It doesn’t actually matter, it’s just frustrating when people don’t engage with actual content.

271

VAT4956 - 530 BC destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar

by jwposter in

in 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:

What Jeffro is trying to say is make sure you make it clear that your targeting jwposter with any criticism you have.

That’s not what I said. You do understand, I hope, that your view isn’t Watchtower’s view. Sad to say, your view is considerably more wrong than the JW view.