https://youtu.be/k2hwesvuddq?si=7g6pvmqvcfh-cke4.
I was going to do another video talking about his position in Watchtower years ago, but not if I'm going to be called a liar
Who called you a liar? You were only lying if you knew it wasn’t true. Otherwise it’s just irresponsible rather than dishonest. And it would have nothing to do with the other video you were thinking of making anyway. So that just sounds like a ploy to make people angry at me if they miss out on other content from you.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
The verse from Malachi (whose name means angel or messenger, though no one says the book was written by an angel) doesn’t mention Christ or an anointed person, and obviously doesn’t mention Jesus.
https://youtu.be/k2hwesvuddq?si=7g6pvmqvcfh-cke4.
Newly Enlightened:
I never mentioned a blood vessel erupting in my video. I never mentioned anything about blood coming out his eyes & nose YOU are the one disrespecting Atlantis & us.
Also Atlantis was the one that told me it was from scanning. I don't know because I'm not a doctor.
The type of non-ionising radiation from standard computer equipment does not cause tumours. It is speculative and sensationalist to publicly attribute scanning Watch Tower Society literature as the cause of a brain tumour..That was the misinformation you reported. Because you’re not a doctor, you shouldn’t be publishing speculation (even if from the unwell person) about the cause of a serious condition.
I didn’t say that you mentioned a blood vessel. I correctly and quite clearly added that the other misinformation in another thread was also wrong
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Rattigan350:
Gen 3:15 says the seed will crush the serpent which is the devil. The seed is Jesus.
Entirely wrong. The story in Genesis doesn’t say anything at all about the snake being Satan, and doesn’t mention Jesus at all. Christian retcons of the story don’t actually reflect the original content or intent of the borrowed creation myth.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Rattigan350:
It's that simple. Angels are messengers.
Don’t pull at that thread too much. 😂 If you start recognising that the original Hebrew term for ‘angel’ just means ‘messenger’, you (well, not you, because you’re deep in a cult mindset, but others) might realise that ‘messengers’ can ‘also’ just be people. 🙄 Attempting to claim that Jesus is an ‘angel’ just because he’s purportedly a ‘messenger’ leads to the conclusion that the postman is an angel.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
slimboyfat:
Yes Jeffro it matters to people who think it matters, to state the obvious. You’re entitled to your opinion, as are others.
🤦♂️
You’ve missed the point. JWs could say Jesus is a blurgit, where blurgits are a set of things that they define as including Jesus (even if a particular blurgit is unique in some way). It’s just circular reasoning that employs a term that you think should be defined differently. Your question about their belief that Jesus is an angel is a thinly veiled judgement of their opinion on the subject. So why get all high and mighty about my ‘opinion’?
i'm trying to find out how many jw there were globally in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928. the watchtower of 1926 says that there were 25,000 in attendance at the magdeburg convention for the public address, but the same watchtower say that one the last day of the convention there were 15,000 present, so i assume at least 10,000 were interested persons - non jw.
the watchtower 1955 says: "for this year of 1927 the number in attendance at the spring memorial internationally was 88,544, yet of these only some 18,602 were active as house-to-house kingdom announcers".
these statistics would seem to imply that the majority of jw in 1926 were at the magdeburg convention.
I would like to know how many baptized JW there were globally in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928
0
i'm trying to find out how many jw there were globally in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928. the watchtower of 1926 says that there were 25,000 in attendance at the magdeburg convention for the public address, but the same watchtower say that one the last day of the convention there were 15,000 present, so i assume at least 10,000 were interested persons - non jw.
the watchtower 1955 says: "for this year of 1927 the number in attendance at the spring memorial internationally was 88,544, yet of these only some 18,602 were active as house-to-house kingdom announcers".
these statistics would seem to imply that the majority of jw in 1926 were at the magdeburg convention.
The denomination Jehovah’s Witnesses was named in 1931 to distinguish Rutherford’s branch of the Bible Student movement from other Bible Student sects. So there were 0 JWs in the 1920s. See also “… As Jehovah’s Witnesses Were Then Known” (part of review of Pure Worship book).
Aside from the semantic distinction, by the late 1920s many of the original Bible Students from Russell’s time had left for other groups, but there was also an influx of new members from the late 1920s into the 1930s.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Yes, JWs consider Jesus to be ‘the foremost angel’, to the extent that it matters.
Angels can’t be demonstrated to actually exist so as a fictionalised trope, there is a fair amount of latitude for ‘defining’ what can be classified as an angel.
As such, it is entirely trivial that JWs consider Jesus to be an angel independent of other denominations’ characterisations of what it means to be an angel.
https://youtu.be/k2hwesvuddq?si=7g6pvmqvcfh-cke4.
Assuming he wasn’t x-raying the documents, there is no plausible direct link between scanning documents using standard computer equipment and developing brain cancer. This message also isn’t consistent with the other recent medically inaccurate message on the forum about ‘Brain Damage from an eruption of blood from his liver that went straight to his brain and then out of his eyes, nose, and mouth’.
It’s highly disrespectful to Atlantis’ dedication to accurate dissemination of information to spread misinformation about his condition.
