I_love_Jeff
JoinedTopics Started by I_love_Jeff
-
Regarding Revelations 3:12:Will the new name be called Jesus the Archangel, perhaps?
by I_love_Jeff inif jesus is michael the archangel then who is this in reference to "and i will write upon him my new name"?..
revelation 3:12 >>.
him that overcometh will i make a pillar in the temple of my god, and he shall go no more out: and i will write upon him the name of my god, and the name of the city of my god, which is new jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my god: and i will write upon him my new name..
-
50
If solid proof were suddenly found that the Book of Enoch should be included in the standard Bible, would that pose a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to Michael the Archangel as Jesus?
by I_love_Jeff inif the book of enoch (elaborates and gives mention to 6 more archangels) suddenly became part of the bible due to solid evidence, how would this effect the shakey jw doctrine of michael the archangel as being jesus?
there are six other archangels mentioned in this book; could it be possible, if included in the jw bible, that one of the other archangels could be jesus?
would they excuse it somehow and simply stick with their implicit understanding of jesus=michael?.
-
-
14
Daniel 10:13 "....Michael one of the chief princes."
by I_love_Jeff indaniel 10:13 describes michael as "one of the chief princes.
" this possibly indicates that there is more than one archangel, because it places michael on the same level as the other "chief princes.
jehovah's witnesses state, "well, the prefix "arch," meaning "chief" or "principal," implies that there is only one archangel.
-
-
13
Did Jesus insult the Pharisees?
by I_love_Jeff inthis question not only aplies to jehovah's witnesses but to christians as well.
any one have a clear answer for me?
did jesus revile?
-
-
5
Could someone please explain this self contradiction made by Dr. Furuli?
by I_love_Jeff in"furuli's hypothesis is self-contradictory.
if it were true that the planetary positions "represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of nebuchadnezzar ii," and if it were true that "the original tablet that was copied in seleucid times was made in 588/87," which furuli argues was the 37th year of nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37th year of nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning!
no modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary"..
-
-
5
VAT 4956 question: What is Dr. Furuli talking about? "backward calculations"?
by I_love_Jeff in"the following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of vat 4956: the diary is most likely a genuine tablet made in seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs.
because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original tablet that was copied in seleucid times was made in 588/87.
because so many of the planetary positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of nebuchadnezzar ii.
-
-
-
-
-
-
26
Occupy Watchtower
by OnTheWayOut ini stole the idea from a fb friend.
just like occupy wallstreet (and the spread to various cities), imagine people without a single voice picketing wt at brooklyn and having warming barrels loaded with burning watchtower literature.
if you did, what would your sign say?
-
-
42
LeavingWT's DA letter
by irondork inthe blood issue has been an ongoing arguement between the roomie and me.
not heated, by any means, but she keeps qouting back established wts reasoning on the subject.
"it's feeding, jason.
-