Jump to content
The World News Media

Graphic: Anointed Remnant Partakers at the memorial celebrations since 1938


Queen Esther

Recommended Posts


  • Views 5.7k
  • Replies 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This  graphic  is  showing  the  number of partaking anointed remnant at the  MEMORIAL  since  1938.... What  a  big  surprise  is  this  curious  curve ! Many  years  of  lessening # of par

Knock knock knockin' on heaven's door........ It is aways interesting (for me) to look at the partakers graph against the average publishers graph as shown here. (They will be included in these f

Jehovah doesn't  make  any  mistake !!  ONLY  humans...

Posted Images

  • Member
On 10/14/2016 at 9:09 AM, tromboneck said:

Anyone who was anointed after the death of the last of the anointed ones in the first group—that is, after those who witnessed the “beginning of pangs of distress” in 1914—would not be part of “this generation.”Matt. 24:8.

No one can or should try to judge the claim of any specific individual. However the current teaching is only saying that if any persons claim to have become "of the anointed" after the first group died out, then the length of their life doesn't matter anyway in trying to determine the length (or makeup) of the generation. The point has nothing to do with whether their claim has any "merit." 

The first generation is assumed to have died out already, although who could say for sure if there was not a 120 year old brother or sister somewhere who was of the anointed at age 16?  If so, that first group has not died out yet, but will likely die out in the next year or so. If we assume that the last member of group one died on January 1, 2000 at 12:01 am EST, then it is quite possible that two brothers who were twins, born in say, 1980, could both be of the anointed. If one of the twins (let's say, the younger one) started professing to be of the anointed at three minutes before 12:01 am EST on January 1, 2000 then he would be part of the "generation" that would not pass away. If the other one (let's say, the older one) started professing to be of the anointed at three minutes after his twin brother, then he would not be part of that generation.

So it's even very possible for a younger person to be a part of the generation where his older brother is not part of it.

Hope that makes sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
57 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

@Queen Esther don't discourage commenting on this topic. I feel it is important for everyone to understand.  There is obviously a lot of confusion out there.  

You can unfollow the topic replies above if you don't want to be notified. :-)

thanks for the great post.  

I will find a good way...  Thank you !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Knock knock knockin' on heaven's door........

It is aways interesting (for me) to look at the partakers graph against the average publishers graph as shown here. (They will be included in these figures).

I mean, why shouldn't this number increase? I know we have put date limiters on it in the past, but surely we have become less rigid about this in more recent years? (@Melinda Mills could substantiate this with numerous WT references!)

Anointed ones answer only to Jehovah as to the genuineness of their claim (1Cor 11:27-29).

We are rejoicing at the increase, if we show the same spirit that the angels do when sinners repent:

Luke 15:10:  "I tell you, joy arises among the angels of God over one sinner who repents"

AV Pubs.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

    • kiy

      kiy 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,680
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Col310
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.