True. They have no right.
But they have managed to get 8m+ to GIVE them the right. And that makes it difficult because only the individuals can take that right back.
so, it seems that the only basis for the governing body / organization's claim to have divine backing and therefore control and power is based on the scripture at matthew :.
"who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"....
if that is correct, and this scripture has been thoroughly de-bunked in many other threads, then the fact is the emporer has no clothes on!.
True. They have no right.
But they have managed to get 8m+ to GIVE them the right. And that makes it difficult because only the individuals can take that right back.
according the watchtower study of may 10th, it has been made clear no prophetic meaning should be given to a a scripture or passage unless the bible itself gives clear interpretation of it.
therefore daniel 7 especially gives it's fulfillment to nebuchadnezzar only.
no future kingdom or 2520year wait til 1914. no gentile times or "this generation".
I'm sure someone must have mentioned this .....
Isn't the faithful and discreet slave an anti type?
stephen lett about 33 minutes in to may's "liar liar" episode of the monthly worship broadcast said "jehovah's witnesses have the most multilingual speakers of any organization in the world!".
the catholic church has the most people i thought, do you think he's telling the truth and where is he getting these facts?
i finally broke down and decided to watch this in order to work on my reverse witnessing skills, lots of ammunition for anyone needing fuel to extinguish their dirty flames of lies!.
not a full critique but some points astounded me .
after decades of hearing them say how terrible the "critical times" are that we live in today.
i now hear :.
didn't the judge rule in the candace conte trial that wts did not have a responsibility to notify the congregation only to protect them?
i think this is hugely missing the point.
other churches and organisations have strict policies to protect members from sex offenders but they do not 'notify' in the sense that i think these people want.. so the wt response to that particular question will be 'no.
didn't the judge rule in the candace conte trial that wts did not have a responsibility to notify the congregation only to protect them?
i think this is hugely missing the point.
other churches and organisations have strict policies to protect members from sex offenders but they do not 'notify' in the sense that i think these people want.. so the wt response to that particular question will be 'no.
didn't the judge rule in the candace conte trial that wts did not have a responsibility to notify the congregation only to protect them?
i think this is hugely missing the point.
other churches and organisations have strict policies to protect members from sex offenders but they do not 'notify' in the sense that i think these people want.. so the wt response to that particular question will be 'no.
Didn't the Judge rule in the Candace Conte trial that WTS did not have a responsibility to notify the congregation only to protect them?
I think this is hugely missing the point. Other churches and organisations have strict policies to protect members from sex offenders but they do not 'notify' in the sense that I think these people want.
So the WT response to that particular question will be 'No. We're not required to and neither would anyone else.'
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736.
i've not bothered to read anything on this for years as i addressed it personally years ago.
but in this official article they appear to be focusing all their argument on the '70 years' part of the debate.
Read 'Reconsidered' 15 years ago. I know all about the 607 myth.
What I am asking is: are they no longer tying 607 to the 2520 years ending in 1914? And just using the 'signs of the times' to support 1914?
If they are then 607 no longer matters and this whole article is just to save face and make them appear scholarly.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736.
i've not bothered to read anything on this for years as i addressed it personally years ago.
but in this official article they appear to be focusing all their argument on the '70 years' part of the debate.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
I've not bothered to read anything on this for years as I addressed it personally years ago. But in this official article they appear to be focusing all their argument on the '70 years' part of the debate. There appears to be no mention at all of the small detail of them needing it to be 607 for them to arrive at 1914 for the end of the Gentile Times.
Have they scrapped the 2520 years stuff?
the latest phase of the uk charity commission case included this:.
subsequent to the opening of the inquiry, in a letter dated 10 july 2014, mr cook of the watchtower informed the respondent that the disfellowshipping hearing for mr rose had in fact been carried out by the elders of a different congregation, so the charity had played no role in that process.
mr cook (who is the in-house solicitor at the watchtower) later elaborated on his own letter in a witness statement for the tribunal.