I hope you're right.
FatFreek 2005
JoinedPosts by FatFreek 2005
-
21
Gloom and Doom from 100 years ago -- Watch Tower 1918
by FatFreek 2005 ini thought it would be enlightening to see what jws said 100 years ago.
it's no different as we check out the jan 1, 1918 watch tower and herald of christ's presence.. .
-
21
Gloom and Doom from 100 years ago -- Watch Tower 1918
by FatFreek 2005 ini thought it would be enlightening to see what jws said 100 years ago.
it's no different as we check out the jan 1, 1918 watch tower and herald of christ's presence.. .
-
FatFreek 2005
Here's a puzzling set of numbers I found in the Jan 15 issue of WT. You will see scans of the election results for society's officers. I took the few minutes to tally the numbers of voters to the sum of 1,142,980.
Here's where my ignorance shines through. I thought WT membership was in the realm of some 25,000 to 50,000 at that time. Therefore, that sum of more than one million who voted for the officers appears strange. Any thoughts?
-
21
Gloom and Doom from 100 years ago -- Watch Tower 1918
by FatFreek 2005 ini thought it would be enlightening to see what jws said 100 years ago.
it's no different as we check out the jan 1, 1918 watch tower and herald of christ's presence.. .
-
FatFreek 2005
Two quotes within that video I would like to source.
Referring to 1925:
1. "fixed date beyond doubt"
2. "he had made with god himself"
I've googled these phrases and can find nothing but paraphrased references.
-
21
Gloom and Doom from 100 years ago -- Watch Tower 1918
by FatFreek 2005 ini thought it would be enlightening to see what jws said 100 years ago.
it's no different as we check out the jan 1, 1918 watch tower and herald of christ's presence.. .
-
FatFreek 2005
Hey, Paul Grundy (JWFacts), that was an excellent video on 1925, Million's ...
Thanks to you, TheWonderOfYou, for sharing it with us.
-
21
Gloom and Doom from 100 years ago -- Watch Tower 1918
by FatFreek 2005 ini thought it would be enlightening to see what jws said 100 years ago.
it's no different as we check out the jan 1, 1918 watch tower and herald of christ's presence.. .
-
FatFreek 2005
Oh, yes, that Bro Russell was a very special messenger.
-
21
Gloom and Doom from 100 years ago -- Watch Tower 1918
by FatFreek 2005 ini thought it would be enlightening to see what jws said 100 years ago.
it's no different as we check out the jan 1, 1918 watch tower and herald of christ's presence.. .
-
FatFreek 2005
I almost forgot, it was 1917 when they launched the Millions campaign so it's not surprising to find a reference to it in the first issue of 1918. Note, however, that they only used "may" never -- not the "will" never modifier -- like the title of the infamous book / booklet.
-
21
Gloom and Doom from 100 years ago -- Watch Tower 1918
by FatFreek 2005 ini thought it would be enlightening to see what jws said 100 years ago.
it's no different as we check out the jan 1, 1918 watch tower and herald of christ's presence.. .
-
FatFreek 2005
I thought it would be enlightening to see what JWs said 100 years ago. It's no different as we check out the Jan 1, 1918 Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence.
-
19
Summary of WT Foundation Quotes
by Vanderhoven7 inthe watchtower, november 1, 1922, pp.332-337.
do you believe that the king of glory is present, and has been since 1874?… this is the day of all days.
behold, the king reigns!
-
FatFreek 2005
Hey, Vanderhoven7:
h. Do you know why JWs were adding rooms onto their homes in the early 1920s? (because in 1926 they could call Abraham in Jerusalem and ask him to raise grandma)
What's the source for that one?
-
9
Watchtower practice of shunning relatives -- when did it begin?
by FatFreek 2005 inthe oldest reference i can find is 2012, as follows:.
"think of that if you are ever tempted to violate god’s command not to associate with your disfellowshipped relatives.
" the watchtower 2012, 4/15/ p. 12 par.
-
FatFreek 2005
You are right, Wild_Thing. I think I found it.
"The second situation that we need to consider is that involving a disfellowshiped or disassociated relative who is not in the immediate family circle or living at one’s home. Such a person is still related by blood or marriage, and so there may be some limited need to care for necessary family matters. Nonetheless, it is not as if he were living in the same home where contact and conversation could not be avoided. We should keep clearly in mind the Bible’s inspired direction: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person . . . , not even eating with such a man." -- 1 Cor. 5:11. The Watchtower, 1981, 9/15 p. 29 par. 18
Of course, they got their team of lawyers involved, making sure they didn't cross legal boundaries that would have been impossible to navigate in today's society, "necessary family matters".
Much like where the GB would love to rewrite Matt: 24:14 where Jesus simply said "this generation". Instead they want us to believe that Jesus simply forgot and left out the modifier "overlapping". A terrible oversight on Jesus' part wasn't it?
Also the Apostle Paul neglected to add a modifying phrase in the scripture above. Here, the GB rewrite would go like this -- "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person . . . , not even eating with such a man provided he is not in the immediate family circle or living at one’s home. "
Perhaps, and this is a long shot, both Jesus and Paul knew that the all-wise spirit-directed governing body would pick up the slack in these last days, bailing out those truly inspired writers of old. -
9
Watchtower practice of shunning relatives -- when did it begin?
by FatFreek 2005 inthe oldest reference i can find is 2012, as follows:.
"think of that if you are ever tempted to violate god’s command not to associate with your disfellowshipped relatives.
" the watchtower 2012, 4/15/ p. 12 par.
-
FatFreek 2005
The oldest reference I can find is 2012, as follows:
"Think of that if you are ever tempted to violate God’s command not to associate with your disfellowshipped relatives." The Watchtower 2012, 4/15/ p. 12 par. 17
Are there any earlier than that?