Posts by shepherdless

36

Anyone know what this sculpture is of the "torture stake?"

by charity7 in

hey guys!

i'm new on this site and am a non jw here married to a jw.

my husband's family are active members and they daily post articles on facebook from jw.org which i know is meant for me to see and read.

shepherdless

Well resolved, scratchme.

It appears Marsyas was a legendary Greek who was strung up and whipped to death. Looks like another pathetic JW deception effort to support Watchtower nonsense, can be dismissed.

36

Anyone know what this sculpture is of the "torture stake?"

by charity7 in

hey guys!

i'm new on this site and am a non jw here married to a jw.

my husband's family are active members and they daily post articles on facebook from jw.org which i know is meant for me to see and read.

shepherdless

Hi charity7

I am also a non-JW married to a JW.

I don't recognize that sculpture. It is either Greek or Roman, with that Corinthian column to the right.

My short answer to the whole cross/torture stake issue is to point out that JW is the only Christian religion where you are required to believe the wooden implement was a particular shape.

The long answer is set out in detail in the following old thread:

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/92381/facts-on-crucifixion-stauros-torture-stake

53

Best statement a householder made to get you to leave them alone.

by Esse quam videri in

knocked on a door on a saturday morning.

a window opened on the floor above me.

a grizzled old man stuck his head out and said, " we're all heathens here!

My wife returned from door knocking and told me a householder claimed they were Wiccans and practiced witchcraft. The householder apparently said something along the lines that it probably wasn't compatible with my wife's beliefs.

Sounds like it had the desired effect. My wife agreed and moved on to bother other households.

- - - - -

When I was a kid a couple of (I think) Mormons knocked on our door. At almost the same time, by coincidence, my uncle arrived. He summed up the situation and pretended to be a rival evangelist, stating lots of ridiculous benefits if I join his religion, not theirs.

After a bit one of the Mormons said something like, "perhaps we will return when there is a bit more maturity being shown", and they left. They didn't return, as far as I know.

3

Italy: "I, repentant Jehovah's Witness" before the Office of the Prosecutor against abuses

by sp74bb in

links: .

http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/news/home/858825/io-testimone-di-geova-pentito-esposto-in-procura-contro-gli-abusi.html.

https://abusostj.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/yo-testigo-de-jehova-arrepentido-ante-la-fiscalia-contra-los-abusos/.

shepherdless

Hi JunkYardDog,

i wouldn't equate a lack of comments with a lack of interest. I often read OP's and comments and think "excellent", without adding a comment of my own.

Also, when something is country-specific, it is harder for others to add a meaningful comment. But I wouldn't take that to mean a lack of interest or support.

102

Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver in

day two (wednesday 8 february 2017).

see also posts and threads regarding: pre-trial / day one / day one update / day five (last day, settlement).

jefferson: not totally.. zeff: okay.

shepherdless

So it looks like Thomas Jefferson was subpoenaed as a hostile witness for the plaintiff. Interesting that he was trying to argue elders were NOT clergy. Perhaps he knew something about the law in Philadelphia regarding the reporting requirements of clergy; and it differs from what a certain armchair lawyer has recently been claiming on these pages.

If the account written by John Redwood is even half-true, the jury must have thought Jefferson was deceitful scum. No wonder Watchtower settled.

14

JW Podcast About The Shenanigans of the Borg in Australia

by dubstepped in

jw
friends

so here's a link to the latest jw podcast.

in it they talk about how the organization is structuring things in australia to get out of paying money to victims of abuse.

the short version, as i remember it, is that they are making each congregation its own individual charity.

shepherdless

That is not the only thing Watchtower seems to be doing to move its assets out of reach of the victims. The following is an extract from page 16 of the 2015 accounts for IBSA (UK):

So that is about A$5 million taken out of Australia and put into UK as an interest free, unsecured loan. Note 16 over the page shows that it is not due for repayment within the next 5 years, if ever.

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

shepherdless

First of all, Fisherman, I enjoy having a good friendly debate. However, I warn in advance, I may disappear for long periods, and not respond.

Comments in response:

539-70 is very clear. Wt 607 is a valid interpretation. And that is that.

697 BC may be a valid interpretation, but not for the date of the fall of Jerusalem. That is where CT Russell stuffed up, and where Watchtower is wrong. Russell copied (via Balbour) the work of John Aquila Brown but didn't understand it, stuffed it up, and Watchtower has been trying to assert Jerusalem fell in 606 BC or 607 BC to hide Russell's stuff up, ever since.

Isaiah 50:1 is also clear:
50 This is what Jehovah says:“Where is the divorce certificate of your mother, whom I sent away?Or to which of my creditors did I sell you?Look! It was because of your own errors you were sold,And because of your own transgressions your mother was sent away.

That is as clear as mud. In contrast, the passages I have referred to are clear and unambiguous.

In the above quoted scripture, the prophet Isaiah refers to God's covenanted people as a nation, as the mother of you people, God being in a husbandly like covenant with the entire nation. But the scripture also refers to the nation as being sent away at that time before the desolation actually occured, as if it already happened and the nation was already in captivity, before the desolation. Hence this scripture is prophetic, being "sent away" was future but as certain as if it had already occurred. And so, your enterpretation of the verses you cite and the interpretation of others as to when the Bible says events actually happened versus the prophetic language of the Bible. You, yourself admitting to being confused about Isa 50:1

I am not confused about Isa 50:1. Forget my interpretation, and look at yours. Even your interpretation is consistent with, the 70 years commencing with the first captives being led from Jerusalem, not the fall of Jerusalem.

It is well established and accepted that the king of Babylon raided Jerusalem 2x. The first time taking part of the nation captive Ez1:1.

Yes, agreed.

It was to king Zedekiah that the prophet Ezeqiel said: "Remove the turban and lift of the crown..remove even the high one..a ruin I shall make it.... it shall cerainly become no one's" (the throne still having a king as Ezeqiel spoke)

So what?

The "70 years" was a future event and did not begin with the first raid. But you can believe and interpret what you like, your views not invalidating WT. I respect your views and conclusions about the verses you cite but they do not establish the date of the destruction of the first Temple and of Jerusalem.

On the contrary, I have established the sequence of events, according to the bible alone. If babylon fell on 539 BC (a date Watchtower agrees with) then Jerusalem fell on 587 BC (a date everybody agrees with, except Watchtower).

I have posted a very simple method of extrapolating the date.

...but not what happened on the date.

The desolation begins after the destruction of Jerusalem...

No biblical support for that statement. In fact it contradicts Jer 27:1-6.

...the land rests 70 years, then a remnant is to be restored. Going back in time, Babylon falls and the Jews return; subtract 70 years from the date Jewish feet trample Jerusalem ending its rest and one arrives at circa 607. That is how I see it. And I rest my case.

The bible is very clear that the 70 years ends when (or arguably before) the fall of Babylon: Jer 25:12.

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

shepherdless

Fisherman: Compare Jeremiah 29:10 with Isaiah 50:1.

Seems like you are throwing up random Bible verse to distract and obfuscate. Jeremiah 29:10 is part of a letter if instruction from Jehovah to ex-King Jeconiah and his entourage who were captive in Babylon. So it is a letter:

(a) on how to survive the 70 years of captivity, even though according to Watchtower theology they were not part of that captivity;

(b) at a time when, according to Watchtower theology, there was no captivity; and

(c) couriered by a person who was supposed to be dead (according to Watchtower) by the time captivity commenced.

Isaiah 50:1 is prophetic, the Jews not in exile yet. Your referenced scripture is about the completion of 70 and does not establish its start, and its interpretation must also reconcile with 539-70.

Isaiah 50:1 is so vague and nebulous, I can't see how it adds anything. No mention of 70 years, exile, start, finish or anything relevant. Nothing to reconcile there.

Your belief depends upon interpretation but 607 depends upon 539. So unless you can debunk 539, 607 makes sense to me.

Nobody seeks to debunk 539 BC. Everyone agrees that that is the correct date. The point is, 539 BC is NOT 536 BC, a number that would have fitted well with Balbour's milllerite numerology, and fitted with Russell's "pyramid inches".

* * * * *

There is a simple solution to all of this. The 70 years commenced when the bible says it commenced (see Jer 27:1-6), not when Watchtower® says it commenced.

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

shepherdless

Fisherman: Since the Jews returned to Jerusalem circa 537...

1. As Finkelstein mentions, there is no evidence to support that 2 year adjustment. It is a fudge by Watchtower, to make its numerology work.

2. The Bible clearly indicates 70 years ends when Babylon falls, not when Jews return to Jerusalem: see Jer 25:12.

Fisherman: ...being in captivity 70 years...

Bible does NOT say Jews would be in captivity for 70 years. Watchtower tricks you into thinking the Bible says that. See what Bible actually says at Jer 25: 8-11. Bible says the nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years (Jer 25:11). That service (and hence the 70 years) had began by the beginning of Jehoakim's reign (see Jer 27:1-6), and Judah had become a vassal state of Babylon. Jeremiah warned that rebelling against Babylon would only make the subjugation worse (Jer 27:8-22). But Jews listened to a false prophet instead (Jer 28), and as a result Jerusalem is destroyed.

If there was any doubt about the 70 years beginning before the fall of Jerusalem, I think that doubt is removed by Jeremiah 29, where a letter is sent to the earlier exiles in Babylon (ex-King Jeconiah and his entourage) by a courier under instruction of King Zedekiah. Zedekiah sending the letter indicates he must have been still alive at that point, and Jerusalem had not fallen. The letter specifically mentions the 70 years (Jer 29:10) and indicates the 70 years are already underway.

45

put youir thinking caps on.

by zeb in

this was sent to me from doug shields blog.

for those who like stats and numbers may find this of interest.. 1914 – recognizing the ”the elephant in the room”.

the problem with the date ”1914 ad” lays with the two calendars that are involved – jewish and gregorian.

shepherdless

Just for lurkers, I better add that Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (see 2 Kings 25:8). That means that the bible tells us that Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BC (depending on an interpretation issue).

i know most of you know that already, but I thought I would spell it out. Watchtower tries to argue that they don't care that secular history says Jerusalem fell in 587 BC because the bible says different. They are wrong; the bible agrees with secular history and nobody agrees with Watchtower.