vienne

Joined

• started 101 topics
• posted 1,384 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by vienne

• 
  12

  Important Question about Bible Examiner Vol. XXI No. 1 (whole No. 313), October 1876, pages 27, 28

  by Saename in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i was just comparing several quotes from different watchtower publications related to 1914. in my experience, pre–1914 publications point to this year as the end, and post–1914 publications point to this year as the start of the last days.

  so i was reading awake!

  from 1973 january 22 p. 8 where it claims that jehovah's witnesses have always pointed to year 1914 as the beginning of the last days.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  I would like to see the actual quotation. First in Studies in Plan of the Ages, later called The Divine Plan of the Ages.
  
• 
  12

  Important Question about Bible Examiner Vol. XXI No. 1 (whole No. 313), October 1876, pages 27, 28

  by Saename in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i was just comparing several quotes from different watchtower publications related to 1914. in my experience, pre–1914 publications point to this year as the end, and post–1914 publications point to this year as the start of the last days.

  so i was reading awake!

  from 1973 january 22 p. 8 where it claims that jehovah's witnesses have always pointed to year 1914 as the beginning of the last days.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  Russell's first book was the 160 page [aprox] Food for Thinking Christians, 1881. It's a small paper back book. The second was Tabernacle teachings. Then he published Millennial Dawn: Plan of the Ages. Time is at Hand is volume 2 in the Millennial Dawn, later Studies in the Scriptures, series. Russell did not teach about Armageddon as do Jehovah's Witnesses. He expected different things.He never taught end of the world doctrine. He was an age to come believer, which meant he did not believe in Adventist world-burning doctrine.
  

  The text of all his books is online.
  
• 
  12

  Important Question about Bible Examiner Vol. XXI No. 1 (whole No. 313), October 1876, pages 27, 28

  by Saename in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i was just comparing several quotes from different watchtower publications related to 1914. in my experience, pre–1914 publications point to this year as the end, and post–1914 publications point to this year as the start of the last days.

  so i was reading awake!

  from 1973 january 22 p. 8 where it claims that jehovah's witnesses have always pointed to year 1914 as the beginning of the last days.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  A partial rough draft of the introductory essay to volume 2 of Separate Identity is up on our blog. https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/

  In it Dr. Schulz, my coauthor, discusses the manipulation of Watch Tower history, including this issue. It's about ten pages long but worth a read I think.

  People always ask about publication date. To forestall that: We don't know yet. Still work to do.
  
• 
  1

  E. C. Gruss

  by vienne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is gruss still alive?

  he claimed a thd and a history degree.

  do we know the name of the university or universities from which he graduated?

  1. 
• 

  vienne

  Never mind. I have that information now.
  
• 
  1

  E. C. Gruss

  by vienne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is gruss still alive?

  he claimed a thd and a history degree.

  do we know the name of the university or universities from which he graduated?

  1. 
• 

  vienne

  Is Gruss still alive? He claimed a ThD and a history degree. Do we know the name of the university or universities from which he graduated?
  
• 
  2

  Rough draft - partial to Preface Separate Identity vol. 2

  by vienne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some of you may find this interesting.

  feel free to comment, but remember this is a history only blog.

  we do not discuss anything but history.. http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/temporary-post-for-comments.html.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  vienne

  As I said, it's a very rough draft. But certainly, your observations are welcome. You can leave them here or as a comment on the blog post.
  
• 
  2

  Rough draft - partial to Preface Separate Identity vol. 2

  by vienne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  some of you may find this interesting.

  feel free to comment, but remember this is a history only blog.

  we do not discuss anything but history.. http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/temporary-post-for-comments.html.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  vienne

  Some of you may find this interesting. Feel free to comment, but remember this is a history only blog. We do not discuss anything but history.

  http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/temporary-post-for-comments.html
  
• 
  32

  Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

  by Counter-Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

  also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  It does not take years. I cannot engage in polemical writing. It would taint what I hope is an honest and even handed approach to history.

  Thinking is physically painful. Truly. It swells your brain cells. Ever hear someone say, "This is giving me a headache"? But ... you can do this. My suggestion is that you watch some of the youtube videos on formal logic and logic flaws. They will teach you how to reason. Good writing comes from sound reasoning. It's not hard to learn but it does take persistence.

  I did not answer a previous comment. You suggested that if they were wrong in the past, might they not be now. Yes, of course. But that's the course of human reasoning, of human learning. So the issue is: are they wrong now? If so, prove it. One of the great flaws of opposition writing is that much of it simply restates 'orthodox' belief. Because it is 'orthodox', then every view in conflict must be wrong. This is one of the major logic flaws. And historically we find Jesus and the passage of time correcting the apostles' false views. Merely changing what we believe is not a sign of flawed belief; it's a sign of intellectual activity.

  You do realize that every major religion, those often seen as orthodox had a doctrinal development that included changed views, what some here call 'flip flops.' So get down to a single point. Do you object to Witness anti-Trinitarianism? Is Jesus God? Are they wrong about John 1:1? If so, say so and prove it. But be prepared for a response you may not be able to handle without solid research. For instance, Why does John say Jesus was God instead of is God? How does this connect with a later verse that says Jesus became flesh? Does the Greek word for 'flesh' identify him as a person or does it identify his nature? Witnesses will ask you these questions and rightly so because if flesh identifies his nature then so does the anarthrous theos. There ARE Witnesses competent enough to present you with this argument.

  Right now you simply believe Witness theology is wrong. Next you must prove it to yourself. Belief is not proof. Tracts such as you envision work best if they are narrowly focused. Pick an issue, explore it fully. Ask yourself if your 'proofs' could convince you. Try it out on a Witness friend, especially one well versed in their belief system.

  Do you object to the Witness concept of a Governing Body and the application of the Faithful Servant parable to it? There are a multitude of differing conclusions about the Faithful Servant parable. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, Clergy saw that as fulfilled in themselves. That's not much different than the Witness view. There are three approaches to church governance that find a home within Christian churches. Do you know what they are? Are any of them similar to Witness belief?Are any of them scriptural?
  

  You can learn grammar and spelling on the fly. But research is hard work. You must do your research if you wish to succeed. Volume 1 of our current book was written between 2007 and 2014. It required a huge amount of research. You're not writing anything like that. Not if you pick a single subject and write a pithy, well-researched rebuttal of Watchtower belief.
  
• 
  32

  Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

  by Counter-Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

  also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  I'll ignore the snide tone of your post, Counter. I write history, not polemics. And you can read my last book. https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401

  or visit my history blog

  https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/

  You really should inform yourself.
  
• 
  32

  Counter-Watchtower / Answers-in-Watchtower First Draft Issue 1

  by Counter-Watchtower in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  please proof read the draft and comment any edits, corrects or changes of any kind needed.

  also i need help with the cover page, what the title should be and plain text or whatnot, whatever would be more appealing to a jw to get them to open and read.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0b2s6sigyikwhmglhqk5fcmxwzwc/view?usp=sharing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  Not really, jaydee. The focus should be on current belief. Countering past belief is unproductive. Watch Tower adherents believe in a progressive revelation. So they're okay with changing and vacillating belief. If the idea is to persuade Witnesses that they're wrong, then one must refute current belief. They don't care that they once believed differently.