Such a tangled web. I have much to say, but won't... not enough time... just wanted to point out that the GB is not including the great tribulation in "all these things", thus, "this generation" ends some time prior to the great tribulation, allowing for some other group of anointed. Biblically speaking, this can't be. The great tribulation is introduced in verse 20, but Jesus said "all these things" later, in verses 33 and 34. Once again, this is the GB saying that Jesus didn't really mean what he said.
leaving_quietly
JoinedPosts by leaving_quietly
-
210
TV.JW.ORG (September 2015) - Generation explained again
by Designer Stubble inguess the overlapping generation concept is difficult for most to comprehend.
david spane does his best to explain it again.
the cutoff date for this generation has now moved to 1992 (was once 1935), the year that fred franz died.
-
-
-
210
TV.JW.ORG (September 2015) - Generation explained again
by Designer Stubble inguess the overlapping generation concept is difficult for most to comprehend.
david spane does his best to explain it again.
the cutoff date for this generation has now moved to 1992 (was once 1935), the year that fred franz died.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Frederick Franz was baptized in November 1913, but was considered one of the Lord's anointed in 1914? I guess that means that newly baptized ones CAN be of the anointed. -
210
TV.JW.ORG (September 2015) - Generation explained again
by Designer Stubble inguess the overlapping generation concept is difficult for most to comprehend.
david spane does his best to explain it again.
the cutoff date for this generation has now moved to 1992 (was once 1935), the year that fred franz died.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Talk about a red herring speaking of the baby who died 10 minutes before Joseph was born or the one born 10 minutes after Joseph died. Who cares? The scripture he uses, Exodus 1:6 doesn't say anything about Joseph's generation. It says: "Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation." Just because Joseph was in the sentence doesn't mean the generation began with Joseph's birth and ended with his death.
Joseph was not the oldest of his brothers. He was the firstborn to Rachel, but Leah already had six children. So, in reality, he was the 7th son. Thus, the generation did not start with Joseph's birth as the verse includes "all his brothers". So, a person who died 10 minutes BEFORE Joseph was born WOULD still be part of that generation, and a person who was born 10 minutes AFTER Joseph died WOULD also still be part of that generation BECAUSE that generation included ALL HIS BROTHERS.
Sheesh.
-
29
They've Exposed Their Hand
by OneFingerSalute inso the wtb&t$ have either intentionally or unwittingly exposed their hand in this mornings wt indoctrination article.. this is a direct quote from par.
"regardless of how long we have been in the truth, we must tell others about jehovah's organization.
" the question is, "what obligation does psalm 48: 12-14 place on us?".
-
-
leaving_quietly
July 15, 2015, first study article in the mag... don't have the title in front of me. -
29
They've Exposed Their Hand
by OneFingerSalute inso the wtb&t$ have either intentionally or unwittingly exposed their hand in this mornings wt indoctrination article.. this is a direct quote from par.
"regardless of how long we have been in the truth, we must tell others about jehovah's organization.
" the question is, "what obligation does psalm 48: 12-14 place on us?".
-
-
leaving_quietly
My notes:
Par 4: "Unlike some religious people who mistakenly think that they will praise God once they have left the earth and gone to heaven..."
Elitism. We're better than they are. BTW, I've never heard religious people say they don't praise God now. This is just a comment to throw the audience off track.
Par 5: "earthly courtyard". No scriptural reference. The idea isn't even put forth in the Bible.
Par 5: "Although having different hopes..." Eph 4:4. 'nuff said.
Par 7: "By 1919, those approved by Jehovah and serving were clearly identified. They had been spiritually refined in order to make their service to God even more acceptable to him."
Spiritually refined? Still celebrating Christmas and birthdays, had the cross on the cover of the magazine, had many, many incorrect doctrines that were borrowed from the Adventists and Millerites...
Par 8: "The paradise that Paul spoke about would have a physicial, a spiritual and a heavenly fulfillment, all of which will coexist in the future. It can refer to the physical, earthly Paradise yet to come."
Quite an assertion since the Bible doesn't say this at all.
Par 10: "The expression "spiritual paradise" has become part of our theocratic vocabulary."Yet, not found in the Bible.
Par 13: "We must tell others about Jehovah's organization."
As the OP mentioned, this is exposing their hand. There isn't a scriptural command for this, but if they're going to use Psalm 48:12-14, then "Zion" is Jehovah's organization, and that organization is on earth. Rev 14:1 has the 144,000 standing on Mount Zion, which means that the 144,000 is ON EARTH. How's that for logic?
Par 17: "We often say that they get better every year!"
This statement is in regards to assemblies and conventions. My comment on this is that we would be hard-pressed to even REMEMBER an assembly or convention last year beyond some warm and fuzzy feelings about seeing old friends or other JWs from other countries.
Par 17: "He progressively enhances the beauty of his organization and of the spiritual paradise that we enjoy even now!"
The "He" is Jehovah. Again, they are doing an end-run around Christ, whom God made "head over all things with regard to the congregation." (Eph 1:22)
-
205
Hi Everyone. Answer to prayer countdown...
by Stumpy ini've been lurking for about 3 months now and thought i'd better finally sign up.
you have all been an immense help to me as i have come to realize that this isn't the truth so i want to say a great big thank you!
what a crazy, emotional ride it is to finally face the truth about the doubts that i have carried for many years.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Thank YOU, Stumpy, for all the research. My issues with WTBTS are mostly doctrinal. Not that I'm burying my head in the sand on other issues, such as child abuse. However, for an organization that claims to be the ONLY true religion and GOD's organization, it MUST be able to stand up to scrutiny on doctrinal points. My own research shows it does not. Not by a long shot. I look forward to reading what you put together.
I woke up when I was an elder and I resigned because I could no longer stomach teaching falsehoods. That's the bottom line for me. Sadly, my wife is very much in, and any talk of something wrong with WTBTS teachings is strictly taboo in my home. I must go it alone. I expect it will be well worth it in the long run.
~LQ
-
23
Ok called writing dept yesterday.
by poopie inask them a question can i give return to jehovah brochure to a df person.?
dead silence on other end, then he said uh hold on brother long pause music then ok bro have you discussed this with your local elders answer no.
bro what cong do you attend?
-
-
leaving_quietly
What an odd response. It was a simple question that only needed a simple answer:
Q: Can I give a df'd person the Return to Jehovah brochure?
A: Yes, and we expect you to. After all, disfellowshipping is a LOVING provision. We WANT the person to repent and ultimately return to Jehovah. There's no need for a lengthy discussion. Just hand the person the brochure and leave it at that.
Why the odd questions? It's so strange. Even Jesus didn't ask who a person was or where they were from or when their last sacrifice was before he healed them. I can't recall him ever even asking for their name before rendering assistance. Maybe he did on occasion, but that wasn't the norm.
-
12
My yoke is easy and my burden is light, unless you're a JW than you will have many strange complicated rules
by adjusted knowledge inthere is this jw husband and wife i knew from the 80's when i was a child.
they got a divorce a few years ago and never remarried.
they are older now and unable to afford to live on their own.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Sadly, before I woke up, I was a chairman on a judicial case where the woman admitted to fornication with multiple partners and smoking. Those weren't the big issues, though. The committee would have simply done private reproof because she was repentant and came forward on her own. But, because she was renting a room to her ex-husband, being that they were living under the same roof and she wasn't willing to kick him out, she was DF'd.
That was me, before waking up.
Now, however, I can see how insensitive and stupid that was. In fact, (and I've been waiting for the opportune moment to share this), there is Biblical precedence for a man and a woman, unmarried, to stay together under the same roof without any problems. In fact, there's at least two accounts of this happening:
Boaz and Ruth (Ruth 3:5-13) and Elijah and a widow from Zarephath (1 Kings 17:13-22). Ruth slept at Boaz's feet. Elijah, at God's direction, met the widow at the city gate, but since he was not a resident of Zarephath, and because the account says "she together with him and her household ate for many days" and because he was clearly inside her home when he resurrected her son, it stands to reason that he was staying with her in her home for those days.
-
4
What percent are getting baptized only at 'Regional' Conventions?
by Gayle inwhat 'percent' at circuit assemblies or special day assemblies?
are ones inclined to wait for the regionals (more exciting) or not necessarily?
these regional conventions reporting quite low numbers, averaging approx.
-
-
leaving_quietly
Any comments you get here will be purely anecdotal and would be based on what each individual observes at the RC they attend. At the one I attended, if I recall, it was at .39%. 26 or 27 (somewhere around there) out of ~7000 attendees. -
29
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why
by paradisebeauty inone of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
-
-
leaving_quietly
At 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 identifies the archangel with Michael. Michael was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor does the Bible use “archangel” in the plural. “Archangel” means “Chief of the angels.” Among God’s spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thes. 1:7; Rev. 19:11-21). Either their roles overlap or it is the same person.
1 Thess 4:16 says "an archangel's voice", not "the archangel's voice", indicating more than one exists.
Daniel 10:13 calls Michael "one of the foremost princes", again, indicating more than one exists.
But, to me, the most compelling evidence that Michael is NOT Jesus is in Daniel's description of the one who talked to him in Daniel 10:4-6:
On the 24th day of the first month, while I was on the bank of the great river, the Tiʹgris, I looked up and saw a man clothed in linen, and around his waist was a belt of gold from Uʹphaz. His body was like chrysʹo·lite, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like fiery torches, his arms and his feet looked like burnished copper, and the sound of his words was like the sound of a multitude.
This one says, in verse 13, "But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me." So, this one who was clothed in linen, had a face like lightning, eyes like fiery torches and so on, was speaking and was not himself Michael.
Notice this description in Revelation 1:12-16:
I turned to see who was speaking with me, and when I turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed in a garment that reached down to the feet and wearing a golden sash around his chest. Moreover, his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery flame, and his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp, long, two-edged sword was protruding, and his countenance was like the sun when it shines at its brightest.
WTBTS says this is Jesus. Yet, the description is very, very similar to the one speaking with Daniel who was NOT Michael. My view is that the one speaking with Daniel was Jesus, and there referred to Michael as someone else.
Noting, too, the use of "God's trumpet" in 1 Thess 4:16. Rev 1:1 says that Jesus "sent his angel" to give John the vision. Rev 1:10 says that angel's voice was "like that of a trumpet" whereas the voice of "the son of man" in verse 14 was as "the sound of many waters." Could it be that Michael is Jesus' angel? I can't see why not. Thus, when Jesus comes with a commanding call, an archangel's voice and God's trumpet, why would he not come with his angel, Michael? After all, Matt 24:31 says, "he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound" to gather his chosen ones.
Then, the strange use of Michael in Revelation 12:1 where the rest of the vision names Jesus all throughout. Why call him Michael here? Doesn't make a lot of sense.
I went back and forth on this issue for a long time, but I firmly believe now that Michael is NOT Jesus.