Jeffro

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 6,784 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jeffro

• 
  16

  How many JW in the 1920's

  by xaminewt in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  I would like to know how many baptized JW there were globally in 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928

  0
• 
  16

  How many JW in the 1920's

  by xaminewt in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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.
• 
  152

  Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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.
• 
  26

  Atlantis- Devastating News

  by Newly Enlightened in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://youtu.be/k2hwesvuddq?si=7g6pvmqvcfh-cke4.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  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.
• 
  38

  "A Jehovah's Witness"

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a very certain distinctive of jws is how they refer to themselves.

  "one of jehovah's witnesses".

  it's one of those coded jargon thingies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Rattigan350:

  I am not 'a' anything. Israel was a people, Christians are a people. not 'a' anything.

  Wow 🤦‍♂️

  Cult mindset overrides basic grammar rules.
• 
  14

  Cedar Point Ohio 🙄🙄🤦🏻‍♂️

  by xaminewt in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i started doubting the organization when i was 15. i spent the next 12 years doing in-depth research involving numerous emails with bible scholars and scientists.

  i finally left the organisation 3 years ago.

  technically i was never actually a jw as i was never baptised, so i’m not being shunned.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  It’s just a plain old ‘Texas Sharp shooter’ fallacy. And not a very good one because the League of Nations was founded in January 1920 anyway, not 1919.
• 
  38

  "A Jehovah's Witness"

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a very certain distinctive of jws is how they refer to themselves.

  "one of jehovah's witnesses".

  it's one of those coded jargon thingies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  blondie:

  It is an unwritten rule that it is proper per the WTS to use "one of Jehovah's witnesses" rather than "A Jehovah's Witness."

  Yep. They do love their jargon. Within the denomination they like to pretend that it’s just individuals with personal conviction about ‘the truth’ that they’ve found through ‘personal Bible study’ and not micromanaged by a corporation. Which is of course a farce. But when legally registering a denomination, it doesn’t work to say they’re just individual ‘witnesses of Jehovah’ (an unverifiable superstition rather than a coherent group). There’d be nothing to register.
• 
  38

  "A Jehovah's Witness"

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a very certain distinctive of jws is how they refer to themselves.

  "one of jehovah's witnesses".

  it's one of those coded jargon thingies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Rattigan350:

  Everyone says 'One of Jehovah's Witnesses' because it sounds right.

  This suggests you live in a JW bubble.

  NotFormer:

  While writing this the thought came to me about when that self-descriptor first came into being: was it part of the initial name change by Rutherford, or was it a later development?

  It was Rutherford’s intention that JWs be seen as ‘witnesses of Jehovah’ (I.e., ‘Jehovah’s witnesses’) rather than simply naming his group in the typical sense. The name change was primarily to distinguish his group of Bible Students from the various Bible Students groups that had separated from the Watch Tower Society’s control after 1917. The ‘w’ was not capitalised in JW literature until the 1970s (except in headings). Hence the term ‘one of Jehovah’s witnesses’ is jargon intended to convey that they ‘really’ are ‘witnesses of Jehovah’ (in an outdated legalistic sense tied to Rutherford’s background as a lawyer).

  Outside of that superstitious usage, it is correct and common for the term ‘Jehovah’s Witness’ to function as a singular noun in reference to an individual member or as an adjectival modifier in reference to the denomination.

  ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ is the plural form for a group of members, and saying ‘they’re Jehovah’s Witnesses’ is analogous to ‘they’re Catholics’. Somewhat ambiguously (likely intentionally), the singular form of the denomination name is also ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, and saying ‘they’re members of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ is analogous to saying ‘they’re members of the Catholic Church’.

  The ambiguity arising from the same term used for both the denomination and its members occasionally results in tedious disputes about incorrectly assumed ‘correct grammar’ (but ignores correct verb-noun agreement and the function of compound proper nouns).
• 
  38

  "A Jehovah's Witness"

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a very certain distinctive of jws is how they refer to themselves.

  "one of jehovah's witnesses".

  it's one of those coded jargon thingies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  
  

  🤦‍♂️
• 
  38

  "A Jehovah's Witness"

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a very certain distinctive of jws is how they refer to themselves.

  "one of jehovah's witnesses".

  it's one of those coded jargon thingies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jeffro

  Vidiot:

  the first is technically more correct from a grammatical POV

  No, it’s not. Would you say “Bob’s Burgers are a tv series” just because ‘burgers’ is a plural? The correct verb is is when referring to a compound proper noun as the name of a singular entity, in this case a religious denomination.

  It is only technically correct to say “Jehovah’s Witnesses are…” when referring to a group of JW members rather than the denomination itself.