Posts by Jeffro

169

Are the statistics out yet?

by slimboyfat in

isn’t it about time they released the report for the service year?

or have they stopped publishing it?

did they released selected figures at the annual meeting as they usually do, such as the memorial attendance or record number of pioneers?

Jeffro

slimboyfat:

Thanks, but from my reading of that announcement it sounds like the 2022 report will be published as normal.

Yes, which will likely be “in the last week of December or first week of January”.

169

Are the statistics out yet?

by slimboyfat in

isn’t it about time they released the report for the service year?

or have they stopped publishing it?

did they released selected figures at the annual meeting as they usually do, such as the memorial attendance or record number of pioneers?

Jeffro

It is generally released in the last week of December or first week of January.

In the January 2023 Watchtower they boast about the attendance of the 2021 Memorial but there has been no mention so far of the 2022 attendance, suggesting the 2022 attendance was less impressive.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

Blotty:

burden of proof lies on atheist's to disprove majority of scholars on Jesus never existing
the "never left any writings argument" is extremely weak

Is that meant to be satire? Whether Jesus existed isn’t relevant to atheism, so atheists obviously have no burden of proof to ‘disprove Jesus’ existence’. The broad scholarly consensus is that Jesus likely existed but was not magical (though this is usually dressed up with loaded words like ‘divine’, which doesn’t have any actual clear meaning) . Though some atheists might also hold a view that Jesus didn’t exist at all, that isn’t a majority view or one that is specific to atheism. It is entirely mundane that there may have been an itinerant rabbi in the first century who was executed by the Romans about whom stories were later embellished.

My great grandmother never left any writings (nothing for that matter) are you going to dispute she existed?

🤦‍♂️ That is an especially poor analogy since your great grandmother necessarily existed in order to have descendants. Are you suggesting Jesus had children? Talk about ‘burden of proof’! 😂 Seriously, this is meant to be satire, right?!

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

Disillusioned JW:

As a result of the above evidence and analysis, I see no need to invoke a supernaturalistic explanation (such as spirit souls) to explain terminal lucidity in humans with minimal intact brain tissue.

Good research too. But somehow I doubt this will be accepted by Sea Breeze. Because, as long as there are any ‘unexplained’ medical conditions, they will be chalked up as a caveat that ‘naturalism can’t explain everything’, with the tediously fallacious ‘conclusion’ that this somehow lends support to stories about ‘souls’. Sea Breeze has grossly disproportionate expectations regarding standard of evidence for naturalistic explanations compared to their own entirely baseless conclusions about ‘souls’ that can’t be properly defined, verified, or distinguished from any other real or imagined explanation. And this is why I have not made the effort to accede to their demands for ‘explanations’ for ‘terminal lucidity’, instances of which have declined greatly since the 19th century as understanding of neurology and related physiology has increased.

30

What really is UN doing with religions?

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

occult un forces seek to hijack religion for globalism.

https://thenewamerican.com/occult-un-forces-seek-to-hijack-religion-for-globalism/it does not look like religions dominate un but the other way around.

journalist alex newman gives a totally different picture about the real state of affairs.

Jeffro

Beth Sarim:

That's why the Borg is/was part of the UN for 9 years, and got caught.

The JWs were never ‘part of the UN”, and it is important to get these details right because JWs will be quick to say ‘apostates are lying’. They were associated with the UN’s Department of Public Information as an NGO, which is not at all ‘membership’. However, it was hypocritical because one of the requirements of the NGO association is to promote the UN’s activities and goals, examples of which they had to provide to the DPI. There were various Awake! articles to that effect during the 1990s. Obviously, being recognised as a valid religious denomination by the UN DPI would have its advantages particularly when dealing with other government bodies. (Also, the Watch Tower Society claim, after being caught out, that this status was required to get access to the UN library is a lie.)

7

Will 2022 Service Year Report of Jehovah’s Witnesses Worldwide include Data on Miscarriages and Reports of Menstrual Hemorrhages?

by was a new boy in

was watchtower given $$$ for their pro vaccine stance?

and how much?.

shocking vaers data reveals 4070% increase in miscarriages — naomi wolf interview - graph at 6:10. https://rumble.com/v21t1em-shocking-vaers-data-reveals-4070-increase-in-miscarriages-naomi-wolf-interv.html?mref=9qiox&mrefc=2.

Jeffro

🤦‍♂️

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

Sea Breeze:

If I give you a memory stick full of information, it weighes exactly the same as an empty memory stick doesn't it? It has no mass. Yet it is very real.

This statement well illustrates Sea Breeze’s general irrationality. People assign meaning to certain configurations of matter. It is plainly stupid to expect that a memory stick ‘containing’ information that people consider useful would weigh more than one that has no meaningful data. Of course, a ‘blank’ memory stick contains the same number of bits as a ‘full’ one but more meaning is assigned to certain configurations.

This type of stupidity is also used by creationists who propose astronomical odds for life forming ‘randomly’. Aside from the fact that chemicals behave in ways that is not random, actually random outcomes that people consider meaningful are just as likely as any specific equally unlikely outcomes that aren’t useful. For example, the odds of dealing a randomised deck of playing cards in the right order is about 8*10^67. Impossible, someone might claim. But the odds of the cards being in any order (not just the ones deemed meaningful for the rules of any particular game) is exactly the same. Every single time that a deck of cards has been properly shuffled, the order it has been in has been a 1 in 8*10^67 event. By creationists’ logic, dealing a deck of cards is impossible.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

Sea Breeze seems to imagine I’m obligated to provide explanations for anecdotes. Despite the fact that 1) the cases are anecdotal, 2) the absence of a known naturalistic explanation (especially by a layman) is not evidence of a supernatural explanation, and 3) Disillusioned JW has already provided information that includes plausible naturalistic explanations, Sea Breeze wants to keep going round in circles. But See Breeze continues to ignore their own inconsistency, refusing to provide any evidence at all for their own position. I won’t be responding further to the repetitive nonsense.

349

Who really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Godlyman in

if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.

estephan.

Jeffro

Above:

2. Such decrees were generally made around the time of a king’s accession, in this case Nisan of 539 BCE, allowing 6 months for the 4-month journey.

Obviously an inadvertent typo, that should say Nisan of 538 BCE.

349

Who really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Godlyman in

if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.

estephan.

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

Nope The following factors mitigate against the Return of the Exiles in 538 BCE;
1. Chronology of Darius the Mede
2.. Timing of the Decree ?
3. Proclamation of the Decree throughout Empire
4. Preparations by the Exiles prior to their Journey
5. Return trip home- route and time of Journey?
6. Resettlement home in their cities ?
7.. Timing of Altar Inauguration - Cyrus. 1st to 2nd year?
8. Calendrical reckoning used by Ezra?

Just for completeness… 😂

1. There was no ‘Darius the Mede’ per se but the character can be identified with the general who governed in Babylon until Cyrus’ arrival a few weeks after capturing the city. His tenure as ‘king’ (actually governor) would therefore be a period during October of 539 BCE, which has no bearing on the Jews’ return to Judea in 538 BCE. (As he was not actually a king, he has no accession period.)

2. Such decrees were generally made around the time of a king’s accession, in this case Nisan of 539 BCE, allowing 6 months for the 4-month journey. (There wasn’t actually a special decree just for the Jews but actually a more general policy of allowing conquered people to practise their native religious beliefs in order to help quell civil unrest among the conquered people.)

3. Not all of the Jews returned to Jerusalem after the initial ‘decree’, (and many never left Babylon at all) so it was not necessary for the ‘decree’ to have reached everywhere in the empire for the initial contingent to make the journey.

4. Not all of the Jews returned, and those who wanted to could reasonably make preparations within two months allowing a full 4 months for the 4-month journey. Knowledge of Cyrus’ reputation may also have allowed people to anticipate the return prior to the official ‘decree’ allowing additional time to prepare, though this is not essential.

5. It is not necessary to speculate about the specific route of the journey. Ezra provides 4 months as the duration of the journey from Babylon to Jerusalem.

6. Because not all of the Jews returned, it is not necessary that all Jewish cities were repopulated at that time, so it is not necessary to speculate about the details. They were in their cities by October 538 BCE, giving ample time to resettle before gathering in Jerusalem the following year.

7. Iyyar (May) 537 BCE, during Cyrus’ 2nd regnal year.

8. As with other post-exilic Jewish writings in the Persian period generally, Ezra used Nisan/accession dating.

Thus, any chronology for the Return must fully account for these factors and shows that to cram all of these in one year - 538 BCE is impossible but the following year- 537 BCE makes the impossible now possible and highly probable.

Every ‘element’ has been accounted for sufficiently to show that the Jews who returned to Judea arrived by Tishri (October) 538 BCE, with temple work commencing May 537 BCE. (The claim about ‘cramming everything into 538 BCE’ is also demonstrated to be a lie.)