Jump to content
The World News Media

ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
4 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

A reason the Jewish chronology is not worshiped?:

"How Accurate Is the Jewish Calendar?

What's with the red herring?

Your entire post was completely unrelated to what you were saying and asking before. It's as if I responded to what you said here by quoting a long treatise about how Rolex watches are made.

Yes, the Jewish calendar is based on the idea that the "world" including Adam, was created in 3761 BCE. We say it was 4026 BCE, which is only different by 265 years. It's surprisingly close. And yes, some Jewish Bible traditions are based on interpretations that are different form ours.

But it doesn't matter, because none of the dates mentioned in the Soncino commentaries are related in any way to the A.M. system of Jewish dating. You must have recognized that when you saw that the 13th year of Josiah was given in BCE dating, not A.M., and it was only 21 years different from the Watchtower's.

4 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Once again, I've left out the attribution of this article and will go retrieve that and post it. 

I'm sure you had your reasons. But if you intended to correct this deficiency, I'm interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 44.3k
  • Replies 487
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period.

WAITING… AND FIGHTING ARchiv@L, I appreciate your advice. Very laconic, but appropriate. Only to develop a little further my attitude, let me mention David example in, perhaps, the most difficult pa

(Luke 12:47, 48) . . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did t

Posted Images

  • Member

Apologies if I sounded sexist..... but for a woman in a man's world I saw the male ego in action too often. So I learnt to distinguish its manifestations very quickly..... having the word of Jehovah to measure it by....

After working as a reporter for many years I worked in PR and publicity for many years.  1) For an umbrella organization which managed 9 museums: Board meetings and PHDs doing research in various fields.  I saw the infighting, the egos and the academic "integrity" first hand. So this is why I am skeptical of academics ..... just as our dear friend is skeptical about the "slave." History is always written by the victors - remember that.  After the infighting ends - it is the view of the victors that are presented....

2) After this I worked for an umbrella organization which managed 15 technical universities.   Learnt a tremendous amount there and could put my hands on rare books from the library.

So what has this to do with our thread?  The male ego-itis  (females also have this sickness but is displays in other ways)  unexpectedly rears its ugly head ... as I said earlier.  I have seen individual brothers display this quality (not often - but it is often those with high secular positions/education who have the boardroom skills to play good servers in meetings) because they are still imperfect human beings. It will not be stamped out completely until the end of 1000 years... and all too often witnesses still respect people too much who have worldly skills instead of the humble spiritual brothers . People are people..... and hopefully they gradually put on the new personality and learn to distinguish godly qualities. 

I can see a good dose of male - ego-itis and OCD here in this thread and the fact that only SECULAR dates are accepted by certain bloggers.... and this takes precedence over the Bible and the slave.

I happen to know the history of Archeology as a science.  It started exactly 200 years ago when Napoleon went into Egypt and the entire world "woke up" to the fact that there are cities under mounds which can prove the Bible correct.  Unfortunately the "science" was not there and for many years they damaged the "basis of the history" by their unscientific methods.  They also made very UNscientific 'assumptions' about dates.  One mistake is the Egyptology dating - which is contested heavily today by "renegade" scientists with the result: they are not allowed on digs in Egypt because there are powers/academics in control that do not allow this. So much for the "science" of it.

Contrary to assurances that Babylonian chronology is accurate - it is NOT.  Babylonian chronology has to fit in with Pharaoh Necho's dates among others - so this is corroborated (they know the dynasty lines and years of rule) but the dates fit in with Egyptology........ this is why the dates do not give a full 70 year period for the exiled Jews. (the bible says 70 years).  

However! The ONE secular date which is scientifically agreed upon by most scholars is the date of the announcement for the return of the Jews from Babylon (give a year) as discussed above.

To my mind - if you are a good scientist and you are a good Biblical scholar - you would adjust all Biblical dates according to THIS date because it is the MOST accurate ancient secular date.... and this is what the organization has done!   So - to continually go back to the maze of OTHER secular dates and the slave's "incompetence" ? .......this is someone who does not accept the slave and does not really want to adjust their thinking and accept there is dodgy secular evidence out there.  

If we accept the secular date of 538 BCE (give one or two years for them getting ready and travel to return to Jerusalem) then the 70th year before this falls on 607 BCE and also gives one 1914 - which is proved by undeniable evidence on the ground.  

If you want to put your faith in secular dates and in their processes and in this action deny the invisible KINGdom establishment in 1914 - do so.  The analysis of 'words' to try to fit another theory is interesting - but it is merely a major hurricane in a tea-cup- because it has not convincing at all! .... especially because the real evidence is already on ground zero!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Just would like to mention:  

"The Soncino Press also published the Soncino Talmud (1935–1952), the Soncino Midrash Rabbah and the Soncino Zohar (1934) all of which were translations of the Talmud, Midrash Rabbah, and Zohar, respectively. Another publication is the Soncino Haggadah, a translation and commentary on the Haggadah by Cecil Roth."

 

While it is good to look at Josephus and other historians when one looks at Jewish tradition - be very careful of the Talmud, Kabbalah and Zohar and people who associate these rabbinical writings with the Torah (books of Moses).

Just type into Google "Talmud and Jesus" and you will get the shock of your life.  The Kabbalah and Zohar in my mind is pure spiritism.

Today the Talmud is called the 'holy book' and the kabbalah the most holy book. Most Rabbis study the kabbalah.   I understand why the Quran is so hateful to all non-believers because the Jews were believing in the 'oral tradition' which Jesusrejected. These were first written down in the Mishnah and further in the Talmud which has commentaries on the commentaries. Muhammad stole his ideas from these extreme laws.

After the temple was destroyed the Jews had no temple to worship at.  The Rabbis devised a system of traditions, rituals and superiority teachings which keep the Jewish nation separate from all other nations.  Ever tried to talk to a Jew about the Truth? You will see how quickly you are rebuffed.  The Muslims have a similar system whereby the leaders have total control over the people and their word is like the word of God.

Be careful of the mindset of these books!  That is all I have to say.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Arauna said:

but for a woman in a man's world I saw the male ego in action too often. So I learnt to distinguish its manifestations very quickly..... having the word of Jehovah to measure it by..

I like the bunker video in which the elder reflects at home how he groused at counsel from another elder. His wife says: "please tell me that you didn't argue with him."   (perhaps not a direct quote due to memory, but very close)

It's a little like when we decided to home-school our children and decided the question "you think you can do better than the professional educators?" was not the correct one to ask. "How can we do worse?" fit better. (city schools then, as now, were absolutely dismal in performance, despite non-stop declarations of 'reform' - each one of which is taken as a fait accompli) So it is with women. The question is not: "How can they do better than the men?" It is "how can they do worse?"

I also like (this time it is an exact quote) this statement from the August broadcast: "Right down to our day, rarely have women been afforded the dignity that God wants them to receive. However, Jehovah makes clear in his word the Bible that women and men have equal standing before him. In fact, he indicated that women would play a vital role in the outworking of his purpose."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest J.R. Ewing
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You are talking about Nebuchadnezzar I, II, III, and IV. These are well understood. Also, any kings that ruled less than a year have no effect on the timeline. That's the beauty of having half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence that also interact smoothly and support each other.

I believe this is what COJ did. Are you suggesting that an” uneducated” person has more insight than scholars?

You seem to dismiss that Nebuchadnezzar 3 and 4 were “perceived” to reign in 522BC or their whereabouts. Your argument is baseless to think everything is centered on 587/6BC. Only staunch supporters of COJ’s work would give such a general response.

So, until you can provide a “good” response to my question or anyone else about this

Now according to some 19th century and early 20th century historians

1.      Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar l)

2.      Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll) Book of Judith

3.      Nabopolassar ll ?

4.      Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) House of Igibi

I won’t engage! Since this is relevant to a Neo-Babylonian timeline that affects those questions raised by COJ that you now defend.

 

 

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The other points you enumerated are not valid because you have no right to use any BCE dates for comparison if you don't accept the dates of the Neo-Babylonian period. You should never even use the date 539 or 538, if you don't really accept the chronology evidence that got you there. Just throwing out some questions, and claiming things are "perceived" when they really aren't perceived the way you say is a good way to try to poke holes. But it's meaningless unless you have an alternative theory that fits ALL the evidence, or at least tries to fit all the evidence. Then, to really test if that theory works with ALL the evidence, you put it out there and see if someone can find any contradictions in your proposal. I'm sure you have heard the expression "blowing smoke." It refers to the tactic of just throwing anything out there and hoping that it will stick. [It's not really a mixed metaphor, it just looks like one.] It's done without a concern about what it does to the rest of the evidence, or if it creates impossible contradictions. That's why you haven't really poked holes until you can hypothesize what it would mean as an alternative.

 

 

 

It seems to me the one trying to punch holes with academic dishonesty is yourself. I relate the “fact” that from Nebuchadnezzar 1 to his son “Belibni” by “HISTORICAL FACT” has a 440-year difference, and you say I’m “blowing smoke” when the answer was given is full of “hot air”. I’m referring to the timeline between “historical facts”. Meaning, not always reliable. Therefore, the impossible contradictions were lead out by COJ trying to “poke holes” against a well-researched chronology by the Watchtower.

So, your “ad hominem” attack bears no reliance since I’m seeking an answer to a simple question that distracted you enough to behave with contemptible answers. And here I thought I was engaging with intelligence, and it turns out to be a testy individual, that has an agenda to defend COJ's work at all cost. What a surprise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 hours ago, Arauna said:

While it is good to look at Josephus and other historians when one looks at Jewish tradition

In the last book, Josephus wrote on the subject, he said that the time from the destruction of Jerusalem up to the release of the Jews from Babylon was 50 years not 70. But no one is relying on Josephus for the final say on this. He was not a contemporary even if he had access to some of the contemporary records. There is far too much evidence on the ground. We don't need Josephus even though he also ended up agreeing with the Biblical and secular evidence about this period.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Just type into Google "Talmud and Jesus" and you will get the shock of your life.  The Kabbalah and Zohar in my mind is pure spiritism.

You should expect a lot of polemical material as Judaism saw itself  competing with Christianity during the periods in which the Talmud was written. I agree about the Kabbalah and Zohar. In fact, most religious Jews would agree, too. Parts of it remind me of the Pyramidology which was gaining widespread popularity in Russell's day. Rutherford finally associated Pyramidology with Satanism (saying that Satan was behind the building of the Great Pyramid in order to fool Jehovah's people).

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Today the Talmud is called the 'holy book' and the kabbalah the most holy book. Most Rabbis study the kabbalah.

I believe that all three of these ideas are mistaken. There are different forms of Judaism, but I have never known even one to call the Talmud the 'holy book.' The kabbalah is most definitely not thought of as the "most holy book" by religious Jews. I took 7 semesters of Hebrew in college and most of them were taught by reformed rabbis. All of them dismissed the kabbalah as foolishness. I hired an orthodox rabbi for six months as a programmer and we often spoke about these topics. He says that no one in his branch of Judaism pays any attention to the kabbalah.

If you look up 'holy books' 'Judaism' on Google the Talmud does not show up in the lists on all the major Judaism sites. If you look up 'most holy book' 'kabbalah' you will find a few books antagonistic to Judaism that make this fake claim. The closest you might get is the idea that the Zohar is considered the most holy book of some who believe in Kabbalah as a kind of religion. But it's a study of mysticism that most Jews reject, or at least don't take seriously.

It's a lot like saying that most Christians believe that their daily horoscope is the most holy book of the Christian religion.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Ever tried to talk to a Jew about the Truth? You will see how quickly you are rebuffed.

Yes, and usually it's a quick rebuff, but not always. My brother went to a Brooklyn congregation while at Bethel, and they do not even try to work their Jewish territories the way you seem to work seriously with persons of Muslim faith. It is usually just a matter of looking for non-Jews. But some are very receptive. I personally have never been able to do more than just talk, but I have even seen experiences of more than one who have become Witnesses.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Be careful of the mindset of these books!  That is all I have to say.... 

The Soncino commentaries are in the Bethel Library and were the favorite of people in the Writing Department who had tried to study some Hebrew. Different authors were responsible for different translations and commentaries, a bit like the Anchor Bible commentaries. Of course, the writers are only interested in their take on the Torah and Haftorahs, not any of the other books that Soncino commentaries can cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

However, I promised the man I would look into the matter.

What preaching campaign did he or the other man go on to found?

Look, I understand that the above question could be seen as blowing off research and reveling in ignorance. But as @Arauna has helped us to see, 'scientific research' in this system of things is no more than the children's game 'King of the Mountain' to prove "who's da man?" - not unlike those big, stupid, (blush) male animals ramming each other with their horns. The victors shove everyone else off the field. It happens everywhere in science. The fault does not lie in science, but in those who put slavish faith in it. Today's science is trumped by human politics - call it 'male ego' if you must - every time, so that it must be taken with a grain of salt.

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

One mistake is the Egyptology dating - which is contested heavily today by "renegade" scientists with the result: they are not allowed on digs in Egypt because there are powers/academics in control that do not allow this. So much for the "science" of it.

How is anybody like me ever going to know this? They are not. They are safeguarded only when they assume that 'science,' like everything else in this system of things, is contaminated, and must not be relied upon as an absolute.

So it goes back to 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 dissing those who rely on their education and 'facts.' Other verses expand upon it. Jesus says "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life." What a stupid thing to say IF his main concern is to persuade devotees of 'facts!'  But if his prime concern is, not heads, but hearts, then it is flawless.

So you put your efforts into the preaching work and trust in God, who does not appear overly concerned that his people are RIGHT in the eyes of contemporary scholarship. Sometimes that stuff changes, even though it be a tsunami. it reverses course and goes right back into the hole from which it came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, I can just imagine even some of the personalities that show up on this forum and imagine what they would be like if they thought they had the actual power to cast someone into Gehenna, for example.

Hahaha, I was thinking that too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I believe this is what COJ did. Are you suggesting that an” uneducated” person has more insight than scholars?

What you quoted above your question has nothing to do with COJ. I don't even know what you mean by "this is what COJ" did. Did what?

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

You seem to dismiss that Nebuchadnezzar 3 and 4 were “perceived” to reign in 522BC or their whereabouts. Your argument is baseless to think everything is centered on 587/6BC.

I don't dismiss it at all. All I am saying is that I have looked at the evidence. And of course I don't think ANYTHING is centered on 587/6. It just happens to coincide with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year based on the same evidence you use for saying that Cyrus captured Babylon in 539. The evidence makes me think both these dates are correct, but nothing is "centered" on either of them.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Only staunch supporters of COJ’s work would give such a general response.

There has been a kind of obsession with COJ here. I would guess that most of the persons who have studied the evidence never heard of COJ. I certainly don't need to rely on anything he said to understand the evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline.

 

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

So, until you can provide a “good” response to my question or anyone else about this

What you list here are not questions. They are not even attached to any ideas. Going back to questions that people in the 1800's and early 1900's had is like saying we should ignore all the new and updated doctrines of the Watch Tower Society and just focus on things that Russell didn't understand. You remind me here of those JW opposers who just throw things out there like:

  • Pyramidology.
  • Miracle Wheat?
  • The Solon Society.
  • 1844?
  • Rose Ball.
  • Russell's father married Russell's wife's mother? 

There is no burden on any of us to get into those topics unless they are being used to make an actual point related to the topic.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Now according to some 19th century and early 20th century historians

1.      Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar l)

2.      Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll) Book of Judith

3.      Nabopolassar ll ?

4.      Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) House of Igibi

So if you would like to ask a real question, or show what the evidence was and how the question from the 1800's was already resolved and why you think that the resolution isn't good enough, then we have something to discuss. But you seem unwilling to do anything more than tack up some cryptic pseudo-questions. I'm more concerned with why anyone would need to fall back on such weak tactics. I'm guessing that you already know the answer to that.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I won’t engage! Since this is relevant to a Neo-Babylonian timeline that affects those questions raised by COJ that you now defend.

We will certainly miss you. I don't care about defending COJ or concerning myself with anyone's obsession about him. Pretending that these questions center around COJ seems disingenuous unless you truly don't know any better. 

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

It seems to me the one trying to punch holes with academic dishonesty is yourself. I relate the “fact” that from Nebuchadnezzar 1 to his son “Belibni” by “HISTORICAL FACT” has a 440-year difference, and you say I’m “blowing smoke” when the answer was given is full of “hot air”. I’m referring to the timeline between “historical facts”. Meaning, not always reliable. Therefore, the impossible contradictions were lead out by COJ trying to “poke holes” against a well-researched chronology by the Watchtower.

I believe that you are aware than most all of the questions that early writers had on the subject have already been resolved. You probably know about books such as  Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Albert Kirk Grayson, so I am sure you already know the answer. Still, if you really have a question, form it as one. Ask it! Say what you believe it would do to the timeline of the Neo-Babylonians. Show the evidence for it. No one can discuss a question that has no evidence for it. Or perhaps you are aware that the evidence is not valid.

That's why I gave that ridiculous analogy to what kind of proposal one can make with tablet data - assuming no one will check it against other evidence. I literally could propose that absurd theory that the Neo-Babylonian timeline is 40,000 years long. I can show some evidence for it, too. I could start with a tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and I can show another tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year. Then I merely assume that these were two different Nebuchadnezzar's and we therefore "know" that these two different kings must have reigned at least 37+17 years = 54 years. Then I find another tablet for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year and assume that this is another Nebuchadnezzar and know that these three different Nebuchadnezzars ruled for at least a total of 37+17+17 = 71 years, and so on, ad infinitum, or at least until I've done this with 2,000 different tablets until I reach 40,000 years. Of course, we know that the Egibi data on many of these very same tablets will contradict all my supposed evidence.

This is why you have to show your question and/or your proposal and/or your evidence, or else people will know that you don't have anything serious.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

So, your “ad hominem” attack bears no reliance since I’m seeking an answer to a simple question

Then ask it; no one is stopping you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest J.R. Ewing

I suspected as much. Deflecting, from a simple question by giving “ad hominem” answers. I guess these are the “differences” between witnesses. Laughable! For one, I wasn’t referring to you defending COJ, but rather his findings, that by enlarge have been a focus by other scholarly intellects that you don't focus on since other scholars can come and have come to a different conclusion. If no one knows of COJ’s work, then why do you persist in “applying” his ideology to your own.

How about owning what you write for once!

So, don’t evade the question with nonsensical parlay.

The QUESTION still stands. How can you justify this historical discrepancy of Nebuchadnezzar 1 with his son Belbini 440 years later, since you keep insisting the chronology mentioned in COJ’s book is FACT? I’m noting suggesting he mentioned Nebuchadnezzar 1. That’s the point, he only used evidence that would agree with his outcome, NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What preaching campaign did he or the other man go on to found?

Look, I understand that the above question could be seen as blowing off research and reveling in ignorance. But as @Arauna has helped us to see, 'scientific research' in this system of things is no more than the children's game 'King of the Mountain' to prove "who's da man?" - not unlike those big, stupid, (blush) male animals ramming each other with their horns. The victors shove everyone else off the field. It happens everywhere in science. The fault does not lie in science, but in those who put slavish faith in it. Today's science is trumped by human politics - call it 'male ego' if you must - every time, so that it must be taken with a grain of salt.

Your last paragraph there is preaching to the choir. I agreed 100% with @Arauna on those sentiments. But I disagree that we, (in representing and promoting the Watchtower's doctrines), should so slavishly put faith in the secular date 539/8 as if it is some holy grail that stands by itself. In truth, the evidence for 539/8 is excellent, but it really is NOT as good as the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's "18th/19th" corresponds to 587/6. (Sorry about the slashes.) I like something that @Gone Fishing said, about how we rely on secular chronology for a doctrine that seems so important to a lot of us here. What you said about 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 is actually what opened my eyes to finally look at the evidence myself. And that's why I blame-shifted and projected the same useful counsel right back onto Russell himself. Why would any doctrine for Christians need to be based on a secular date like 539/8? Our 1914 doctrine REQUIRES that we put slavish faith in this secular date, in spite of everything we are willing to denigrate about secular dates, scientists, archaeologists.

I have no problem at all pointing to the times we have been living in since 1914 as evidence that we need God's Kingdom to be manifested for all mankind. It's the only solution, and it is all the more proved to be the only solution, as man gets himself further and further into trouble. The more advantages and knowledge we have for solving problems, the worse things get, based on greed and the human condition. Sorry . . . .now who's preaching to the choir?

You also asked that question about "What preaching campaign did he . . . found?"

I don't think he would have had patience to work on this from 1968 to 1975 if he was really looking to start something himself. Of course, I can see how ego might have come into play, but I don't know him, and I've heard that he was one of those who likes a low profile. It's easier for me to picture someone who likes to do research as a person who wants to keep a low profile, because that's also the way I am in front of people in the congregation. Probably true of most nerdy types. He must have respected the brothers in Brooklyn enough to want to ask the full question correctly, dotting all the i's and crossing all t's (assuming they have those letters in cuneiform). I'm sure he thought the brothers would be interested because it was obvious that what he was learning was very relevant to the 1914 doctrine. I talked to two brothers on the Aid Book project who said they already knew what was coming even before they had seen what  COJ had sent. They said they could guess what was in it, and had known themselves since the 1960's. But both of these brothers thought it better to just discuss it only with trusted friends.

By 1980 every researcher associated with the 1969 "Chronology" article in the Aid Book was under suspicion, and most were dismissed from Bethel before the end of 1980. But they remained elders and special pioneers because this is what they really wanted. It wasn't until someone came around to disfellowship one of them that he was forced out, not because he wanted to be disfellowshipped. From what I have read, it's the same with R.Franz. He wanted to stay in the brotherhood, and in his congregation, and had nothing against any and nothing against the Society, and no reason to "badmouth" it. It seems that in both cases, the books they wrote were published only after they believed there was false information being spread. In a related case, when I was at Bethel, I knew a few of the proofreaders especially because they often needed reference books to look up exact quotes, even for translating to other languages. When I heard that 4 of them were under questioning, 2 married couples, I saw one brother's wife trying to hide tears at lunchtime. When I told the brother that I heard the rumor, he said it was tough but, fortunately, Brother Sydlik had said he thought it would be OK for them because as he supposedly said "I can tell that you and your wife really love Jehovah, and that's why you don't really have anything to worry about." By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread. Later we discovered that one of the wives was not disfellowshipped, but somehow that didn't stop the ugly rumors from being stated as solid facts by then. My point is that none of the brothers I knew who had been either involved or semi-involved in this apostasy had really wanted to leave and start anything on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Apolos2000
    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.