Posts by Jeffro

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Jeffro

The meaning of malkut is very important as it means that where it appears in the OT and in particular its use in Daniel can alter the interpretation and history of that book, Daniel. You apparently fail to recognize that this Aramaic word means more than 'reign' and is a descriptor of that reign. Tradition by as shown by the commentaries, biblical and Josephus all place Jehoiakim's third year not at the beginning as the apostates claim but in fact at the end which led to the death of Jehoiakim replaced by Jehoiachin and the first siege of Jerusalem with the first deportattion of Jewry to Babylon.

You keep trying to assert that malkut carries more meaning than 'duration', but it makes absolutely no difference to your argument. Jehoiakim's malkut still started at the same point regardless of what meaning you are assigning to it (since it doesn't mean 'paying tribute to some other guy'), and there is nothing in Daniel to suggest that he was malkutting in some other sense further down the track.

So it seems that your entire argument relies completely on Jewish 'traditions of men'.

Josephus makes no actual reference to say that this third year was actually Jehoiakim's third-last.

90

This past sunday's wt had a hilarious paragraph...

by Check_Your_Premises in

jw
friends

i think it was paragraph 18 or right around there.. the gist of ithe paragraph was, "some will lose faith because our predictions failed, some of our stuff doesn't make sense, or someone treats us like crap".. the answers were just a riot.

i couldn't help but wonder if some weren't faders.. "i remember when i started in the truth, i thought, this stuff is crazy, but i just knew it was the truth because where else could i go".

"where else can we go" (i would like to point out that this is hardly a ringing endorsement).

Jeffro

defd, you are being selective in your interpretation. The article is quite clear in its intention that a good little Witness shouldn't be accepting the initial invitation from the 'seemingly innocent person' to even go for lunch, a drink after work, or some recreation on the weekend. It doesn't say that those things would be okay so long as they didn't prevent you going to the meetings - it tries to suggest that accepting these small invitations is sure to lead you away from the 'Truth™'.

Of course, if these meetings were really so important to individual Witnesses, and they weren't just going out of a sense of obligation reinforeced by guilt, then they wouldn't skip the precious 'spiritual food', would they?

90

This past sunday's wt had a hilarious paragraph...

by Check_Your_Premises in

jw
friends

i think it was paragraph 18 or right around there.. the gist of ithe paragraph was, "some will lose faith because our predictions failed, some of our stuff doesn't make sense, or someone treats us like crap".. the answers were just a riot.

i couldn't help but wonder if some weren't faders.. "i remember when i started in the truth, i thought, this stuff is crazy, but i just knew it was the truth because where else could i go".

"where else can we go" (i would like to point out that this is hardly a ringing endorsement).

Jeffro

ozziepost

So the WT stated:
This person might appear kind and clean-cut,
How odd that I couldn't find in the Bible any reference to Christ's followers being "clean cut"??

Indeed, though you might like to note that "clean-cut" does not mean the same as "clean-shaven".

90

This past sunday's wt had a hilarious paragraph...

by Check_Your_Premises in

jw
friends

i think it was paragraph 18 or right around there.. the gist of ithe paragraph was, "some will lose faith because our predictions failed, some of our stuff doesn't make sense, or someone treats us like crap".. the answers were just a riot.

i couldn't help but wonder if some weren't faders.. "i remember when i started in the truth, i thought, this stuff is crazy, but i just knew it was the truth because where else could i go".

"where else can we go" (i would like to point out that this is hardly a ringing endorsement).

Jeffro

if you were to follow the Society's direction to the letter, you would not have any close association with any of those "good people", except if they seem willing to accept your beliefs.

Jeffro, I do not get that notion from the pages of the WT.

defd, what impression do you get from the following, from a 1993 1 August Watchtower? Would you not agree that the general gist is that 'Christians', (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses) should not have close association with non-Witnesses unless they seem receptive to a 'witness'?

13 Christians want to be friendly with workmates, and many experiences bear out how effective this can be in opening the way for giving a witness. A fellow worker could misinterpret friendliness, however, as inviting association in order to have a good time together. He or she might extend a casual invitation to lunch, to a brief stop after work for a drink, or to some recreation on the weekend. This person might appear kind and clean-cut, and the invitation might seem innocent. Yet, Paul advises us: “Do not be misled.”

14 Some Christians have been. They gradually developed a relaxed attitude toward association with workmates. Maybe it grew out of a common interest in a sport or a hobby. Or a non-Christian on the job might be exceptionally kind and thoughtful, which led to spending increasing amounts of time with that one, even preferring such company to that of some in the congregation. Then the association might lead to missing just one meeting. It could mean being out late one evening and breaking the pattern of sharing in the field ministry in the morning. It could result in watching a film or a video of a type that the Christian normally would refuse. ‘Oh, that would never happen to me,’ we might think. But most of those who have been misled may first have responded that way. We need to ask ourselves, ‘Just how determined am I to apply Paul’s counsel?’

15 What we just considered as to the workplace applies also to our association with neighbors. Certainly, the Christians in ancient Corinth had neighbors. In some communities it is normal to be quite friendly and supportive of neighbors. In rural areas neighbors may rely on one another because of isolation. Family ties are particularly strong in some cultures, giving rise to many invitations to meals. Obviously, a balanced view is important, as Jesus manifested. (Luke 8:20, 21; John 2:12) In our dealings with neighbors and relatives, are we inclined to carry on as we did before we became Christians? Rather, should we not now review such dealings and consciously determine what limits are appropriate?

90

This past sunday's wt had a hilarious paragraph...

by Check_Your_Premises in

jw
friends

i think it was paragraph 18 or right around there.. the gist of ithe paragraph was, "some will lose faith because our predictions failed, some of our stuff doesn't make sense, or someone treats us like crap".. the answers were just a riot.

i couldn't help but wonder if some weren't faders.. "i remember when i started in the truth, i thought, this stuff is crazy, but i just knew it was the truth because where else could i go".

"where else can we go" (i would like to point out that this is hardly a ringing endorsement).

Jeffro

If you look at my post again I NEVER mention PEOPLE. I said the WORLDS influence, there is a difference. I know there are MANY good people out there who are not JWS.

And what is it about the "world's" influence is it that you could possibly mean if not the people?? You are just toying with semantics.

You claim to acknowledge that there are "MANY good people", but you are also forced to acknowledge that if you were to follow the Society's direction to the letter, you would not have any close association with any of those "good people", except if they seem willing to accept your beliefs.

90

This past sunday's wt had a hilarious paragraph...

by Check_Your_Premises in

jw
friends

i think it was paragraph 18 or right around there.. the gist of ithe paragraph was, "some will lose faith because our predictions failed, some of our stuff doesn't make sense, or someone treats us like crap".. the answers were just a riot.

i couldn't help but wonder if some weren't faders.. "i remember when i started in the truth, i thought, this stuff is crazy, but i just knew it was the truth because where else could i go".

"where else can we go" (i would like to point out that this is hardly a ringing endorsement).

Jeffro

defd:

We are out in the world EVERYDAY ALL day. You have to admit that there are ALOT of negative and bad influences in this world. I believe they use those meetings to counter that.

This is of course a very simplistic, and with some Witnesses even delusional, viewpoint of anything non-JW being 'wordly' and therefore have some negative connotation that needs to counteracted by JW dogma, and that the 'meetings' are a haven where there are never bad influences.

Even those 'worldly' people who live clean lives by JW standards are still viewed in this same negative way simply because they do not share Witness beliefs.

Enforcing such a negative, xenophobic view of outsiders, independent of any other issues, is a negative and bad influence on its own.

21

1914How Is It Arrived At? (Daniel 4)

by AuldSoul in

the only chronology in the bible tying anything to 1914, according to jehovah's witnesses, is found in daniel 4.. 1914how is it arrived at?.

assumption #1: luke 21:24 is referring to nebuchadnezzars dream as related in daniel 4, and that indicates a future fulfillment of daniel 4.. assumption #2: the second fulfillment of nebuchadnezzars dream relates to something entirely different than the initial fulfillment.. assumption #3: the seven times of daniel 4 means seven years.. assumption #4: the seven years dont mean seven years, they mean seven years of years, where each day of each year equals one year.. assumption #5: the seven years of years dont mean seven years of years, they mean seven years of prophetic years, where each day equals 360 days.. assumption #6: jerusalem was destroyed in 607 b.c.e.. assumption #7: we should add (7 times x 360 years of 365 (or 366) days each) 2,520 years to 607 b.c.e.

to arrive at 1914 c.e.

Jeffro

Hellrider,

Also, the "celebrated WT scholars" seem to have forgotten that the Temple was rebuild after the return of the exiles from Babylon.

Shhhhhh.... you'll attract 'scholar'.

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Jeffro

Yes, that is truly my real intent. The fact of the matter is that malkut means much more than 'reign' referring to royal power, dominion, royal dignity, kingdom, royal etc. This term describes principally the activity of rulership which is best represented by the rendering 'kingship'. I have never implied that this word describes as you claim starting to rule in some capacity but simply to note that this word is descriptive of the reign of Jehoiakim as a ruler of the Judaic line representing Jehovah's throne at Jerusalem. What is at issue is not the meaning of this word but what that 'third year of Jehoiakim' is related in a historic or chronological sense and the evidence proves that the third year relates to the last three years of his reign rather than the early years of his reign as apostartes try to argue.

So you admit that your emphasis of the definition of the word is not relevant to your argument regarding the alleged start of Jehoiakim's reign in some different capacity, and then you go on to restate, without basis, your presumption that Jehoiakim's third year started from some other point. It has already been indicated that your supposed evidence for the third year being the last three years is simply boulderdash, and yet again you provide no actual evidence to support your claims.

90

This past sunday's wt had a hilarious paragraph...

by Check_Your_Premises in

jw
friends

i think it was paragraph 18 or right around there.. the gist of ithe paragraph was, "some will lose faith because our predictions failed, some of our stuff doesn't make sense, or someone treats us like crap".. the answers were just a riot.

i couldn't help but wonder if some weren't faders.. "i remember when i started in the truth, i thought, this stuff is crazy, but i just knew it was the truth because where else could i go".

"where else can we go" (i would like to point out that this is hardly a ringing endorsement).

Jeffro

Some here have been a little harsh on 'defd'. Really, sometimes if someone gives someone a book, it doesn't mean they're being prideful or superior, even for a second... sometimes they really are just being courteous. It is arrogant, presumptuous, and unfair to automatically impute bad motives to people.

However, defd:

And yes my desire is that ANY visitor would show interest in Jehovah God and Jesus, like me.

You do know the Witnesses' beliefs are wrong, don't you??

349

The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 in

could the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?

the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.

for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.

Jeffro

All that I am interested in is to notify interested parties that malkut indeed has a wide semantic range and means much more than the common rendering 'reign'. I chose simply to focus on the fact that this word describes the activity of ruling rather than the rather ordinary sense of duration. I gave the reference to the material so any interested party could reserarch the matter further and see the much broader context. I believe I have been faithful with the context.

If this really was your true intent, you therefore acknoledge that malkut does nothing to support the allusion (yes, I mean allusion, though 'illusion' would work equally well) that the word refers to some starting point for Jehoiakim's kingship other than its obvious beginning. Those of us who have looked into the word already knew that malkut refers to the position or duration of rulership, and the word on its own implies nothing regarding starting to rule in some other capacity during such period.