Posts by vienne

9

Financial Wizards & Wealthy Cults The Rothschild Bloodline AND Connection to JW's.

by JakeM2012 in

i was doing research on the political powers in the u.s. and what exactly was the drive, goals, and ambitions between the different parties.

i stumbled upon information regarding the illuminati/rothchild family having great power throughout the world with different parties and the rothchild's goal to have a new world order from hundreds of years back and how they were involved in satanic worship.

it was interesting to see that c.t.

vienne

Open accounts are 'lines of credit." Lines of credit are similar to checking accounts, but if the owner draws more than the balance the overage becomes a short-term LOAN. This is a business practice. The banks were not financing the Watchtower.

I haven't had time to drag it out yet, but the original Russell letter is in Zion's Watch Tower for 1895. It wasn't to Rothschild, though it referenced him. It was about Jewish settlement in Palestine. Russell was a Zionist; he believed as his Literalist predecessors did that the Jews would be resettled in a reconstituted Israel. Rothschild was financing resettlement of European Jews in Palestine. Hence, Russell's interest.

Just writing to someone does not mean they support you. I've written many letters to people I would not associate with socially simply for information or to express my opinion. The "rule of thumb" behind my history writing is: "If it seems improbable, it probably is." Confirm before you believe.

I've just gotten out of the hospital, and I'm more than a little sick. Be patient, and as I can I will copy out the original letter and post it.

7

Lost history found ...

by vienne in

one of our research helpers, an expert on watchtower history, located the original of smyth's letter that appears in studies volume 3. he's prepared an illustrated article for our history blog entitled "william morris wright and charles piazzi smyth.

" [you probably know smyth as royal astronomer for scotland and a pyramidologist.. a few of you follow our research.

i think those interested in watchtower history in the russell era will find this interesting:.

vienne

One of our research helpers, an expert on Watchtower history, located the original of Smyth's letter that appears in Studies volume 3. He's prepared an illustrated article for our history blog entitled "William Morris Wright and Charles Piazzi Smyth." [You probably know Smyth as Royal Astronomer for Scotland and a Pyramidologist.

A few of you follow our research. I think those interested in Watchtower history in the Russell era will find this interesting:

https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/11/william-morris-wright-and-charles.html

64

HYMNS you will never hear at the Kingdom Hall

by Vanderhoven7 in

do you have examples of hymns you will never hear in kingdom halls in any country.. here are a few of my favorites:.

https://youtu.be/cjivdc-_njs.

https://youtu.be/7gfvl0ef-be .

vienne

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b9KBA7V98E

101

Who is the mediator for jehovahs witnesses?

by atomant in

lm getting conflicting advice.ls it the 144000 or jesus.l was always under the impression it was jesus.lf its the 144000 then when they pray the jw;s should be praying through the remnant not in jesus christs name but in the 144000;s name..

vienne

You still miss the point. In Witness theology and in the New Testament Jesus is mediator of the new covenant. Nothing in what you quoted shows that the 'anointed' or the governing body are mediators. You still confuse Jesus' office as propitiator with his office as mediator. Your quotation does show that Witnesses believe they are the one true religion. They believe that if you leave their religion - since it is the one true religion in their belief - then you reject Jesus' ransom. Nonsense of course. But the WT does not teach that they are mediators.

They teach, and this much is biblical, that Jesus fills two offices. Jesus is a covenant mediator. He is the high priest, who propitiates God in behalf of all men. [1 Jn 2:2; 4:10] You are right in rejecting Witness theology. You are wrong in your terminology, in your definition of Witness doctrine. Witnesses see Christ as the propitiator between God and all men.

Most who object to Witness mediator doctrine think that the mediator represents them to God and covers their sins. That's not the mediatorial office. Jesus' mediation was of the New Covenant. The Bible says this. Witnesses believe that only a few are in that covenant. Even if so, all men benefit by Jesus' office as propitator. Witnesses do not teach that salvation comes by others than Christ. They do teach that they have the one true faith. That's improbable, but other religions see themselves as the one true faith too. They're not exceptional in this.

Broken down into its components, Witness doctrine does not deny salvation to some 'great crowd'. They deny that these are in the New Covenant. As I see it, all Christians are in the New Covenant and Witness doctrine comes not from the Bible but from mid 19th Century teaching by an Anglican and by a Brethren preacher. I oppose their doctrine. But if we wish to refute it, we must be exact in our terminology or we persuade no one but those who already reject their doctrine.

101

Who is the mediator for jehovahs witnesses?

by atomant in

lm getting conflicting advice.ls it the 144000 or jesus.l was always under the impression it was jesus.lf its the 144000 then when they pray the jw;s should be praying through the remnant not in jesus christs name but in the 144000;s name..

vienne

Listener, If you read what I wrote. you see I am not approving of the WT. All I am saying is that words matter and that they have been miss-defined in this thread. If we wish to refute the WT then we must do it accurately. That means defining mediator and propitiate as the Bible does. That's not been done here.

Some posters have confused the two. I do not suggest that Watchtower soteriology is correct. I do suggest that the bible defines jesus as mediator of a covenant. That's separate from his work as priestly intercessor or as John as it as propitiating priest.

I do not disagree that Witnesses believe they have the one true faith. I do not assert that they do. We will not get any sort of apology from someone we misrepresent. We need to state their doctrine faithfully to refute it. Confusing Jesus two offices does not do that.

101

Who is the mediator for jehovahs witnesses?

by atomant in

lm getting conflicting advice.ls it the 144000 or jesus.l was always under the impression it was jesus.lf its the 144000 then when they pray the jw;s should be praying through the remnant not in jesus christs name but in the 144000;s name..

vienne

dear 2

I'm not a witness. But I have attended many meetings and have relatives who are witnesses. My first meeting was with my mother when I was 11. The last was about a month ago when one of my nephews gave a talk. I don't think we're far apart except in the matter of 'terms used.'

GND

I gave you links to my published works, at least some of them. You're still ranting. I don't have an agenda beyond being exact with definitions and terms. You are not. You provided no proof. Sorry you can't do anything but be vulgar and throw temper tantrums. But that's probably why you are no longer a Witness. You certainly did not learn anything about the religion while you were associated with it.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

101

Who is the mediator for jehovahs witnesses?

by atomant in

lm getting conflicting advice.ls it the 144000 or jesus.l was always under the impression it was jesus.lf its the 144000 then when they pray the jw;s should be praying through the remnant not in jesus christs name but in the 144000;s name..

vienne

you've presented NO evidence. That's the point. You miss-define terms, you insult, but you do not present anything to support your point beyond mere assertion. There is no point in arguing with you. You'd need some sort of rationality, and you lack it.

Claiming authorship?

https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401 by Schulz and de Vienne

http://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/nelson-barbour-the-millenniums-forgotten-prophet/paperback/product-5424152.html by Schulz and de Vienne

You can also download an article by us entitled Nelson Barbour: The Time-ists last Breath. Google it.

I've also written things not related to Witnesses. eg http://wardancingpixie.blogspot.com/2009/12/it-was-best-seller.html

101

Who is the mediator for jehovahs witnesses?

by atomant in

lm getting conflicting advice.ls it the 144000 or jesus.l was always under the impression it was jesus.lf its the 144000 then when they pray the jw;s should be praying through the remnant not in jesus christs name but in the 144000;s name..

vienne

misogynistic pig? You missed the point that I'm a woman, didn't you. I'm not surprised. Your temper tantrum got the better of you. Requiring you to prove your point is not misogynistic. Proof is not mere assertion. It seems that assertion is all you have.

101

Who is the mediator for jehovahs witnesses?

by atomant in

lm getting conflicting advice.ls it the 144000 or jesus.l was always under the impression it was jesus.lf its the 144000 then when they pray the jw;s should be praying through the remnant not in jesus christs name but in the 144000;s name..

vienne

Learn in my lifetime? I'm a long term educator a retired professor of history. I write Witness history, and have studied it at greater depth than you have. You've retreated to ad hominem because you're unable to address the facts of the case. What you have that I do not is a huge store of anger and an equally large feeling of inadequacy.

Don't call names. It dossn't suit you.

101

Who is the mediator for jehovahs witnesses?

by atomant in

lm getting conflicting advice.ls it the 144000 or jesus.l was always under the impression it was jesus.lf its the 144000 then when they pray the jw;s should be praying through the remnant not in jesus christs name but in the 144000;s name..

vienne

Your answers are not specific. They're your beliefs and suppositions, but you do not present solid evidence. You miss-define terms. Our arguments become ineffective when we do that. I understand you do not like the Watchtower. If you wish to express your distaste in effective terms then be exact with definitions and present some evidence, say in the form of a quotation from an original Watchtower source that says what you claim it does.

If you were one of my students, I'd return your work and suggest that you improve it. Do not make claims that cannot be sustained. You have complaints? Don't most of us here? yet to be effective we should be accurate, exacting in claims. And we should back up what we say with some sort of proof. Or we're just yelling up our sleeve. Our words come back to ridicule us. Don't do that.

I'm not moving the goal posts. I just expect a respect for language and a respect for proof.