original reddit post (removed).
Lloyd is a glaring example of the "weak men" that Jordan Peterson warns about, totally incapable of looking inwards and instead choosing to deal with his own shortcomings by gaslighting and emotionally demolishing his loved ones.
Lloyd, you're a piece of shit.
i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
Scholar:: Scholar is big on grammar and big on exegesis but not so big on eisegesis.
i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
Scholar: The said scholar is big on grammar and he has read the verses grammatically in line with sound exegesis.
>"sound exegesis"
Lmfao!
this has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.
this is not a joke.
anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!
Make of this what you will, a post over on the jw forum .....
this has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.
this is not a joke.
anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!
Huh? That is not official doctrine, they have FDS all over the world but are represented by the GB and only the GB distribute the "food" but the GB are not the only FDS according to their doctrines.
Notsurewheretogo you need to keep up with Jehoober's chariot
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
As has happened with all previous failed JW predictions, once WT scrubs all talk about 1914, the "sheep" will simply refer to the concept with labels such as:
"our publications used to teach"
"outdated understanding"
"an adjustment"
... and JWS will, for the most part, including the Scholar, accept it, forget it, and move on to chasing whatever other carrot the GB dangles in front of them.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
Jeffro to Scholar: "Do you even listen to yourself?"
Narrator: *He did not listen to himself*
isn’t it about time they released the report for the service year?
or have they stopped publishing it?
did they released selected figures at the annual meeting as they usually do, such as the memorial attendance or record number of pioneers?
Slim: The JW numbers look “bad” … until you compare them with most other Christian groups which are in severe decline in the west. Compared with other Christian groups the growth of JWs bucks the trend of decline.
Remember that every JW is an active recruiter. They spend billions of hours collectively performing that recruiting task, and thus fruitless results inflict a bigger hit on JW morale that that of the common church pew seat occupier.
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Scholar, this is why you should listen to your buddies over at JWTalk and refrain from engaging with "apostates", for when you do, you inadvertently help reveal why WT theology is wrong.
if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.
estephan.
Scholar: "Christians submitting to baptism would most likely endorse such teaching as it is well-founded biblically so i cannot envisage this becoming an issue."
Way to answer without answering. I wonder why.
