i just wonder about this topic as it is now 109 years since that date and what was expected to take place has never happened ..
No, 1914 is not the cornerstone of Jw belief.
The cornerstone of Jw belief is Jesus Christ.
Jesus said that at the time of the harvest the weeds would separate from the wheat. That's what makes 1914 relevant to the religion. The Faithful slave existed since Pentecost, not 1919.
But other than that JWs are just Christians who look to the Bible.
both the 144,000 and the "great crowd") consist of members who are:.
144,000 great crowd.
a. from every kindred and nation.
There is no "the great crowd".
John sees in a vision 144,000 then he sees a large number of people that he could have described many different ways but he uses the Greek words that have been rendered 'great crowd'.
in every scripture where god & jesus appear, the holy spirit is always awol/mia.. probably explains the existence of binitarians..
Sea breeze. You list the early church teachers along with the apostles. I don't hold credibility to the apostles. That's one problem that the WTS has always done. They base doctrine and rules on what the apostles said. If the apostles were the Governing Body, why do we have letters from Peter, Paul, James, John and Jude, rather than writings from the 'Governing Body' composed of the apostles?
Rather than use any of the apostolic scriptures, I choose something that has no writing. The temple.
The Temple was given by Jehovah as a model, a shadow, a lesson, in earthly terms of what is in the heaven.
A priest offers a sacrifice to Jehovah God. All of that forshadowed Jesus being the priest and the sacrificed that was offered to Jehovah God. Thus Jesus can not be Jehovah God if he is the priest and the sacrifice.
in every scripture where god & jesus appear, the holy spirit is always awol/mia.. probably explains the existence of binitarians..
"Even many Jews prior to the birth of Jesus were expecting "God manifest in the flesh""
They were expecting a messiah. The messiah would not be an ordinary human.
God was/is spirit. Jesus was spirit, became human, then returned to be a spirit.
i just wonder about this topic as it is now 109 years since that date and what was expected to take place has never happened ..
The belief will always be there as it is Biblical. (The calculations will be argued, but the concept is totally biblical) But there is nothing to do or act on concerning it. They can't make rules about it and the GB like to make rules. If they can't make rules, what's the point of writing something?
in every scripture where god & jesus appear, the holy spirit is always awol/mia.. probably explains the existence of binitarians..
Sea Breeze, who quoted those verses?
My conclusion was that Jesus never said "baptize in the name of the father, son and holy spirit" because if he is the great teacher, why would he say something, or instruct something without explanation?
He never explained what that means. (Kind of like 'this generation' & Faithful and discreet slave)
People like to grab verses or make them up to support their positions.
in every scripture where god & jesus appear, the holy spirit is always awol/mia.. probably explains the existence of binitarians..
Relying on Matt 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 to support the trinity is like relying on Roe v Wade to support constitutional protection of abortion.
in every scripture where god & jesus appear, the holy spirit is always awol/mia.. probably explains the existence of binitarians..
F. C. Conybeare says that Matt 28:19 is not real.
This bishop writes that Matt 28:19 and 1 John 5:7 are spurious.
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/08/matthew-2819-and-1-john-57-spurious.html
Also here
https://www.apostolic.edu/the-truth-about-matthew-2819/
Why are all of the trinitarian support scriptures controversial? Why aren't there trinity support scriptures that are not controversial?
i'll start by stating the obvious... according to the watchtower, the catholic church is a huge part of babylon the great which is led by satan and his demons.
raymundus martini, a catholic monk (who "represents" babylon the great to some extent), woke up one day in the 13th century and decided to alter yhwh so it can be easily pronounced.
hence the spanish-ish version of yhwh was created... jehova... (sounds something like this in spanish: heh-o-va).
How does that even matter?
Think of that question first and then answer that before posting such a question.
in addition to the jws false and misleading denial that rebekah vardy was ever a jehovah's witness, a few other interesting developments occurred that are worth noting:.
1. an article in the last days newsletter reporting on how the jw[.
]org website scrubbed clean its jw 'news' page and produced an entire new glossary of jw terminally meaning for the media:.
"In addition to the JWs false and misleading denial that Rebekah Vardy was ever a Jehovah's Witness,"
Why would we or anyone care whether she was a JW? It's not like she has any special information.
