Some aspects of these changes such as ‘no longer using the term disfellowshipping’ might appear significant, but are just ‘smoke and mirrors’. Changing the terminology is essentially meaningless, and the term ‘disfellowshipped’ has not been included in announcements since the 1990s. Congregation members already aren’t informed whether a person is being shunned due to ‘disfellowshipping’ or ‘disassociation’, nor are they told what the person is supposed to have done.
Posts by Jeffro
-
512024-08-August-Edition-of-Watchtower!
by Atlantis init was translated so make sure everything looks ok.. 2024-08-august-edition of watchtower magazine.. .
https://smallpdf.com/result#r=c90d948913ed99d72872c0a1c609f388&t=share-document .
leopold.
-
-
-
51
2024-08-August-Edition-of-Watchtower!
by Atlantis init was translated so make sure everything looks ok.. 2024-08-august-edition of watchtower magazine.. .
https://smallpdf.com/result#r=c90d948913ed99d72872c0a1c609f388&t=share-document .
leopold.
-
-
Jeffro
It’s clear that the articles have been machine-translated back into English, but otherwise appears legitimate. The final article confirms that their ‘softer’ position on shunning is actually just more emotional manipulation of those who might want to return, and continued total shunning of those who do not want to be JWs, apparently including ‘disassociated’ individuals if they show no interest in accepting JW beliefs. So, still in violation of the right to freedom to change religion. But because it was withdrawn, it remains to be seen what will be said in the final version.
-
40
Who Are the "Other Sheep" and Jesus "Brothers" ?
by Sea Breeze inwatchtower plays lots of games with definitions.
once they change a definition then they have a false assumption to build their deception on.
then they repeat the new definition and use its new meaning thousands of times to reinforce it.
-
-
Jeffro
Sea Breeze:
My appeal was accepted, I got born again, filled with the Holy Sprit.... the whole nine yards.
It is entirely impossible to confirm that any part of that is true.
-
40
Who Are the "Other Sheep" and Jesus "Brothers" ?
by Sea Breeze inwatchtower plays lots of games with definitions.
once they change a definition then they have a false assumption to build their deception on.
then they repeat the new definition and use its new meaning thousands of times to reinforce it.
-
-
Jeffro
Sea Breeze:
Watchtower plays lots of games with definitions.
It does. But Christianity has been playing this game for centuries, and the Watch Tower Society is just another denomination with its own esoteric interpretations.
First of all, Jesus said that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel
Actually, we have no evidence that Jesus said that at all. We have no evidence that Jesus actually said anything attributed to him in the Bible. What we have is documents written by people who had access to older works, enabling them to write stories that ‘fulfilled’ supposed ‘prophecies’, usually out of context and sometimes in reference to passages that were never intended as ‘prophecy’ at all.
It’s remarkably unimpressive that someone could read what Jeremiah and Ezekiel wrote, and then write something based on that.
-
33
Stupid dumb ass changes yet blood and 1914 no change???wtfge???
by Witness 007 inyeah wow women can finally wear pants and men beards...but 1914 is still a date not accepted since charles russell times and blood fractions are evil!!.
are they crazy!!!
!.
-
-
Jeffro
Rattigan350:
The only thing that matters is when the banding of the tree ended and the kingdom was established. Russell had nothing to do with that.
The convoluted JW (Adventist) interpretation of the ‘banding of the tree’ is contrived nonsense. It is erroneous from start to finish. There was no conveniently invisible ‘kingdom established in 1914’
-
33
Stupid dumb ass changes yet blood and 1914 no change???wtfge???
by Witness 007 inyeah wow women can finally wear pants and men beards...but 1914 is still a date not accepted since charles russell times and blood fractions are evil!!.
are they crazy!!!
!.
-
-
Jeffro
Praotes1914:
I don’t have a problem with 1914. It is a fact that World War I started then. Just think where Russell would’ve been if nothing happened in 1914? He would’ve been totally washed up. All they’re going to do is drop the numerology and keep the date 1914 and I don’t have a problem with that because World War I started and it was the start of the last days. what’s wrong with keeping that theology?
Texas sharp shooter fallacy. If WWI began in a different year, one of the other nutter groups promoting a different nutter chronology would latch on to it as ‘proof’ of their slightly different nutter views. There’s barely a year in the late 19th or early 20th centuries that some nutter group didn’t say was ‘the year’. What Russell said would happen didn’t happen anyway, and Russell didn’t believe Satan was cast to earth in 1914. The fact is that apart from the Adventist core, they have completely changed the theology from what Russell believed about 1914.
Just a few of the things Russell believed that were later changed, mostly by Rutherford:
- The Great Pyramid of Giza confirms biblical chronology
- Jerusalem was destroyed in 606 BCE
- The ‘time of the end’ began in 1799
- Christ’s presence began in 1874
- Jesus was made king in 1878
- ‘Sleeping saints’ were resurrected to heaven in 1878
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
Jeffro
Rattigan350:
Jesus didn't choose a Governing body or a board of directors. He observed people back in the early 1800s that were searching for truth in the scriptures. They searched chronology. Brown, Clinton, Bowen, Elliott, Barbour and Russell, Jesus saw them going in the right direction and observed and aided them.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤦♂️
the start of the gentile times is not based on the destruction of Jerusalem, as that was in 587. It was 20 years prior, in around 607. We don't know the exact event or dated that triggered the banding of the tree,
starting your own nutty sect? you need to work on the head canon a bit more though methinks.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
Jeffro
Praotes1914:
but think about it. World War I it started then.
Texas sharp shooter fallacy. After the ‘great disappointment’ in 1844, various nutter groups posed almost every year in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as ‘the year’ (and the Bible Students weren’t even the first to suggest 1914). It is entirely unremarkable that something significant happened in one of those years. WWI didn’t just happen as some random unanticipated event in an otherwise utopian world. It isn’t a coincidence that the Watch Tower Society has not mentioned the Balkan Wars in 100 years.
But it is possible that the Watch Tower Society could try to rely more on those lies independent of the numerology anyway.
-
153
When JW.org drops 607BCE...
by Nathan Natas inprobably everyone else thought of this long ago, but i, being an "independent thunker" thunk of it just a coupla weeks ago.. we all know that since the year zero (on the fredfranzian calendar) the wtb&ts has defied archaeology and insisted that jerusalem was destroyed in 607 bce, even though the physical evidence shows that 587 bce is a more likely date.
in fact, the book "the gentile times reconsidered: have jehovah's witnesses been wrong all along about 607 bce?
" by carl olof jonsson and rud persson made this conversation public.. it is a difference of 20 years.
-
-
Jeffro
Mikejw:
Many things yes but not this, there is no way they can ever get out of the 1914 seventy weeks from 607thing.
It is true that they can’t easily abandon 1914, but not for this reason. The ‘70 weeks’ (from Daniel chapter 9) has no direct bearing on the determination of 1914. The jw interpretation of the 70 weeks (as with various other Christian denominations, particularly other Adventists) is that it began during the reign of Artaxerxes and supposedly identified Jesus as the messiah. The JW interpretation is particularly wrong because their year for the supposed beginning of the period is 10 years out.
See also Daniel's dreams and visions and What does the Bible really teach about Daniel’s 70 weeks?
-
14
Is the 1000 year reign literal?
by gavindlt into all those on this students on this forum, i would love to know what your view is?.
-
-
Jeffro
(Some of the more astute readers might note that the thousand years begins when others also rule with Jesus rather than just Jesus himself becoming king. They might then argue for a protracted period between Jesus’ presence and the start of the thousand years. However, whilst the source material allows for some amount of time between those events, everything in the New Testament indicates that the imaginary destruction of Rome (‘Babylon the Great’) and establishment of God’s kingdom after the great tribulation were expected to occur in relatively quick succession. Additionally, because Matthew and Mark explicitly place Jesus’ presence after the great tribulation, the JW belief is in any case irreconcilable.)
See also: