t33ap80c

Joined

• started 12 topics
• posted 103 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by t33ap80c

• 
  31

  If you STILL believe in GOD, what do you believe is the RIGHT way?

  by Bourne in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i should preface this by saying that this is generally directed towards the premise of still believing in the christian god, the bible as the inspired word of god, and the desire to worship him in spite of the disillusionment of the jw "take" on "true" christianity.. i am left with many unanswered questions, but don't get me wrong, i don't have "having all answers" listed as a prerequisite to worship god, because even the bible doesnt list all answers, ......faith is expected in at least some areas.

  so........that said....... please grace little ol' me with your sincere answers to the following questions:.

  1. is this the last days?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  I kinda like the way Russell expressed it in 1895 when he said...
  "Believe and obey so far as you understand God’s Word today."

  Don Cameron
• 
  16

  What is the "Good News" Magazine being advertized???

  by slmdf in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  have you seen the ads for the "good news" magazine?

  it looks suspiciously like the wt.

  same type of photography and layout... anyone know if this is an offshoot of wt or a copycat or something?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  Hi RR,

  You said, "Armstrong taught that Jehovah and Jesus were co-eternal."

  Unfortunately I no longer have Armstrong's "The World Tomorrow" magazine but it seems to me that a couple of his articles went something like this:

  "Jehovah is not the Father of Jesus"

  Somewhere he made the statement: "It is commonly believed the Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ. This is not true."

  "Who was the LORD of the Old Testament"

  As I recall he taught that Jesus was in fact the LORD (i.e. Jehovah) of the Old testament. I wrote several letters dealing with Psalm 110:1 which seems to indicate that Jehovah and Jesus are not the same person. Again, unfortunately I am unable to find my notebook with all his stuff in it.

  I remember how he explained that "Elohim" is "a uni-plural noun" meaning that therefore God was a family of more than one person.

  I've been receiving the magazine "Triumph" which is put out by the church of Philadelphia (or something like that).

  Don Cameron
• 
  10

  Is there new information coming out on the generation?

  by okiesooner1966 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey,.

  i was talking to my mom the other day and she said they have new information the generation topic.

  i asked her if it was about the 1914 fiasco and all she said was she had something for me to read next time i see her.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  Someone over at Paradise Cafe said that their October Awake! hasn't changed the Society's "the Creator's promise" statement as it has been written since 11/95.

  I wonder why the Governing Body changed the statement on their website but left it the same in their magazine.

  Don Cameron
• 
  10

  Is there new information coming out on the generation?

  by okiesooner1966 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey,.

  i was talking to my mom the other day and she said they have new information the generation topic.

  i asked her if it was about the 1914 fiasco and all she said was she had something for me to read next time i see her.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  Has the Awake! Masthead Statement Changed Again?

  Since November of 1995 the Awake! statement has looked like this:

  "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things."

  But I notice on the Society's website that they have removed the underlined part of the above statement...

  "The Watchtower and Awake! both build confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world." - http://www.watchtower.org/e/publications/index.htm

  Does anyone know how this statement is currently worded in the Awake magazine?

  Jim Penton over on Channel C said that his November Awake! doesn't have any version of the above statement at all.

  If the Governing Body has removed it entirely that would seem to indicate that even they have finally recognized that what they have been saying all these decades was not "the Creator's promise" after all.

  Don Cameron
• 
  82

  January 15, 2008 Watchtower & The One Mistake We All Made:

  by t33ap80c in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the one mistake we all made.

  and the january 15, 2008 watchtower.

  page 24 the governing body makes the following statement: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  Oompa,

  You said, "The 1878 date for Christ's entronement was moved foreward to 1914 in the year 1920.. The Watch Tower July 1, 1920 p.196). I have not read it yet though. Is that the first you know of?........thanks oompa"

  If there is an earlier date I would think that TD has it.

  Don
• 
  13

  Now it is real! Generation U-turn: New Light coming in February Watchtower!

  by pElE the King in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hello folks, .

  just to let you know that jaracz had a 1 day visit this week to london bethel to explain the brother there is a new understanding coming on the fig tree illustration that will clarify our view on the generation that will not pass.

  he haven't told anything else, but the point will be on the study watchtower of february.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  Does the masthead page of the Awake! magazine still say...

  "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things."

  I notice on their website they have removed the underlined part of the above statement...

  "The Watchtower and Awake! both build confidence in the Creator’s promise of a peaceful and secure new world." - http://www.watchtower.org/e/publications/index.htm

  Don Cameron
• 
  82

  January 15, 2008 Watchtower & The One Mistake We All Made:

  by t33ap80c in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the one mistake we all made.

  and the january 15, 2008 watchtower.

  page 24 the governing body makes the following statement: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  Oompa,

  You had asked me "When/where exactly did WT change the date of Christ’s presence (from 1874 to 1914)?"

  I answered:

  "According to the 'Proclaimers' book the date was changed to 1914 in 1943. The footnote on page 133 explains that the change is found in their 1943 book ‘The Truth Will Make You Free.’ – See also the footnote 38 on page 22 of "Captives of a Concept."

  You said, "The footnote in the Proclaimers book does not state 1943 is when the change took place."

  Although your are correct that the footnote doesn’t state that the change of date to 1914 was made in 1943, I know that this is what the footnote means. Here is why I say this:

  The footnote is a specific reference the statement that "Russell came to be persuaded that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874." After explaining some of the reasons for Russell’s flawed chronology that misled him to 1874, the footnote then says, "A clearer understanding of Biblical chronology was published in 1943, in the book, "The Truth Shall Make You Free."

  What was the "clearer understanding" about the beginning of Christ’s invisible presence that was published in that book? The footnote doesn’t tell us. But that 1943 book it refers to does. The 1973 book, "God’s’ Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached" refers to that same book and says this: "In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book ‘The Truth Shall Make You Free.’ It then explained how the Society’s better understanding of chronology "moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia." pp.209, 210

  Unfortunately the Proclaimers footnote is written in such a way that what it is saying will not be noticed by most Witnesses. And that is that the Society didn’t change the date of Jesus’ "invisible presence" from 1874 to 1914 until 1943.

  You made the point that that 1943 book is not the first time 1914 was identified as the change from 1874 to 1914. The point I make in the book is that "according to the Proclaimers book" that’s when the change was made. The Proclaimers book doesn't offer any other date earlier than 1943. And so that's the one I use in my book while acknowledging that this is "according to the Proclaimers book."

  You went on to provide evidence indicating that Rutherford first began to connect 1914 with Jesus’ presence in the 1930’s. TD has provided several references, which seem to support your contention. I tried to cover that possibility in my footnote #38 when I acknowledged the following under a special NOTE:

  NOTE: There is some evidence that Rutherford first mentioned 1914 as the beginning of Christ’s Second Coming in the 1930s. But the Proclaimers book doesn’t mention any date prior to 1943. Either way it wouldn’t make any difference because the change of date was made long after Jesus’ examination was over.

  As far as the point I'm trying to make in the book is concerned it doesn't matter if the date was changed in the 1930's or 1940's. It was changed too late. They say Jesus' exam was over in 1919. The time to pass an exam is when it is given, not 10-20 years after it is over.

  Let me know your thoughts on this.

  Don
• 
  82

  January 15, 2008 Watchtower & The One Mistake We All Made:

  by t33ap80c in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the one mistake we all made.

  and the january 15, 2008 watchtower.

  page 24 the governing body makes the following statement: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  TD,

  Thank you once again for the details.

  Don
• 
  82

  January 15, 2008 Watchtower & The One Mistake We All Made:

  by t33ap80c in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the one mistake we all made.

  and the january 15, 2008 watchtower.

  page 24 the governing body makes the following statement: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  TD,

  Thanks for the additional information about that three-year period of confusion between 1930 and 1933 about what the Society's official teaching was about Jesus' "advent," "presence" and "second coming" actually was.

  I think I will leave my footnote on page 22 as it originally was when I said that there is some evidence that Rutherford first mentioned 1914 as the beginning of Christ's Second Coming in the 1930s.

  Don
• 
  82

  January 15, 2008 Watchtower & The One Mistake We All Made:

  by t33ap80c in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the one mistake we all made.

  and the january 15, 2008 watchtower.

  page 24 the governing body makes the following statement: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  t33ap80c

  Hi M.J.,

  NOTE: I finished this post before I saW your last post. _________________________

  At the end of your post you said, "It's my impression from going over the text of the yearbooks from 1933-1942, that 1914 was connected with Christ ascendancy to the throne, but not explicitly identified as the beginning of his ‘presence’."

  On page 37 of TD’s PDF is a photo copy of page 362 of the December 1, 1933 Watchtower. Here is what Rutherford said…

  "The year 1914, therefore, marks the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of glory."

  Since "invisible presence" is the Society’s version of everyone else’s "second coming" then it looks like Rutherford did in fact associate 1914 with the beginning of Jesus’ "presence."

  What do you think?

  Don