Jump to content
The World News Media

The Holy Spirit


Cos

Recommended Posts

  • Member
7 hours ago, Cos said:

The contradictions run thick and fast.

 

 

 

 

 

We had the claim that the passage in Luke 23:46 means that Jesus ceased to exist, but now we have this by @Gone Away that Luke 23:46 is Jesus’ “future life prospects to God as opposed to describing the death state”, Now the person who proposed Luke 23:46 as meaning Jesus ceased to exist, liked this (up voted), even though this proposal by Mr. Joyce’s, contradicts that persons earlier claim!

 

 

 

 

 

Then @sami who also "up voted" Mr. Joyce’s above comments but then does an about face by going back to the ceased existing nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

Scripture shows that when a person dies their spirit does not cease to exist but leaves the body (Psalm 146:4).

 

 

 

 

 

In Luke 8:55 we read that the spirit of Jairus’ daughter returned to her body and she rose up immediately. <><

 

 

 

**Scripture shows that when a person dies their spirit does not cease to exist but leaves the body (Psalm 146:4).
______________

sami said: The Hebrew word here is RUACH 7307 [e] rū·ḥōw ר֭וּחוֹ     its meaning is (breath). At death, the breath goes out and if a person is not revived with the administration of oxygen to prevent cell destruction, those cells die, the life force is gone. There is a limited time that one can be revived because cell destruction takes place which cannot be healed.
______________

**In Luke 8:55 we read that the spirit of Jairus’ daughter returned to her body and she rose up immediately.
______________
sami said: Here is the Koine Greek word 4151 [e] pneuma πνεῦμα spirit/ Like its Hebrew counterpart (rûach) it has the same range of meaning 4151 (pneúma), i.e. it likewise can refer to spirit/Spirit, wind, or breath.]


Jesus was not gifted with immortality until his resurrection to heaven. So what lived on? Why would he need a resurrection if he had never died?


In the account of Jarius' daughter a person from his home came and told him his daughter was dead and not to bother the teacher (Jesus) anymore, it was too late. There is only one designation for dead....that is the absence of life. It's the same with Lazarus and he had been dead for four days his flesh having begun to deteriorate.

 

When man was created Jehovah used two things to make a living creature, that being dust and breath. If it could possibly be something more than that then God would have lied when he told Adam that the punishment for disobedience would be death. Adam and Eve are not living are they? And all their generations of offspring die as their inheritance. Paul points this out very clearly "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin - thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." Romans 5:12

 

We are mortal - we are living human beings which are subject to death. Nothing lives on after death.

 

IMMORTALITY (deathlessness - the inability to die)
WHAT IS IT? 

For centuries, the fleeting and highly subjective world of feelings, emotion, and thought was the purview of philosophers and theologians. But during the past 30 years, Antonio R. Damasio has striven to show that feelings are what arise as the brain interprets emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli through use of small levels of electricity and chemical manipulation. Damasio's efforts presented some obvious and significant questions for the aforementioned philosophers and theologians

 

For example, is there really a difference between 'body' and 'mind? And if the suspicions turn proof that there is no difference, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that we have no souls, no personal spirit, which can escape our death by separation from the body? It may very well be that science soon proves that our bodies and our "minds" are one in the same biological unit – functioning as a whole – even providing us with our own sense of self. And this 'sense' itself may prove to be rooted in pure biology rather than theosophy or philosophy. Man's "consciousness" may simply prove to be no more than biological man himself. Christian de Duve states in his recent publication "Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning" from the Oxford University Press (2002, p.108) that:
"The proofs are there, indisputable, that no manifestation of consciousness is possible without the normal functioning of cerebral neurons. Let this functioning be impaired by lack of oxygen, or by a drug or trauma, and loss of consciousness inevitably follows."

 

According to the scientists – it is looking more and more like we are nothing more than the sum of our biological parts – and when these biological parts eventually quit functioning, we as a person - being a single biological entity, including our minds, thoughts, emotions, feelings, memories, and all the elements of who we are – cease to exist. Death, it appears, is not only inevitable, it appears it may also be final.

 

It is a matter of debate whether animals have an awareness of mortality or not, but it is certain that man alone among all living creatures knows that he has to die.

 

This we all seem to understand – yet – as Martin Heidegger shrewdly observed that the proposition, "all men are mortal" usually involves the deeply personal tacit reservation "but not I.

 

Even as Freud, and Schopenhauer before him pointed out, "deep down" even contemporary man does not "really" believe in his own death. This internal inconsistency is certainly not new – it is seen manifest in the earliest pages of the Hebrew Bereshit (Genesis) as Eve juggles between the two choices placed in front of her:

Genesis 3:3, "God has said, 'YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.'

Or as Satan told Eve…Genesis 3:4, "You positively will not die.

 

The implication here is quite simple – in whom do you demonstrate faith by virtue of action - either God was lying and she was immortal and could not die by definition (i.e., continued existence did not necessarily depend on obeying God), or he was not lying, and death was very much "reality" (i.e., continued existence does necessarily depend on obeying God). Not long after choosing a mark for herself - her husband, Adam, was faced with a similar choice.

 

Outside of the writings in the Hebrew Scriptures, it cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy the time nor the historical sequence of mankind's discovery of the two elements of death — its inevitability as well as its finality. But there was surely some point in time when someone first contemplated death as being inevitable and final (the natural observation) - and likewise there was also some point in time when someone imagined that what they observed was not reality – saying as suggested by Heidegger, "but not I.

 

Likely the two discoveries were closely associated. While the Hebrew Scriptures never assign "immortality" as a trait to earthly man or woman in any literal, figurative, or symbolic sense (except perhaps for the unrecorded thoughts which may have occurred to both Adam and Eve as they determined their choice)– the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic does. It offers us the first written record of mankind's thoughts regarding his immortality. It is in the Gilgamesh Epics (a written account reflecting in part long held Babylonian/Chaldean/Sumerian religious thoughts) that the realization of the inevitability of death as well as its possible finality seem to have occurred simultaneously.

 

If this is so, it is pointless to ask which of the two produced the greater shock. But again on the basis of the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh legend, there can be no doubt about its severity. It may have been this very severity which eventually gave birth to the thought of immortality.

 

While King Gilgamesh strongly suspects that death may well be total extinction, or a state of nonexistence, the predominant view of death of his contemporaries was that the dead somehow continue to exist (i.e., immortality of man). But one cannot help but be impressed by the somber and frightening nature of the afterlife as it appears in the Babylonian and the later related early Greek mythologies. Typical is Achilles' complaint in the Odyssey that it is better to be a slave on earth than a king in the realm of phantoms – but nonetheless – the immortality of mortal man took firm root and began to grow.

 

The after-life existence eventually evolved into more pleasant concepts for the good (or those pleasing to the gods), and worse concepts for the bad (or those rejected by the gods). Undoubtedly, Adam and Eve, having chosen to believe their creator a liar, likely began to entertain similar thoughts much earlier in denial of the absolute reality of death, in the hope that life would continue in some form or other after the physical body has proven its mortality by falling into the article of death and corruption. It is, after-all, what the serpent was selling, and that product which they choose to invest.

 

Nevertheless, such entertaining thoughts of immortality easily and quickly spread outward from earliest Mesopotamia through later Egypt, India, China, and Europe – just as man spread out across the land – his pleasurable ideas of immorality went with him.

 

There was one notable exception.

 

The path of immortality was basically ignored, in fact rejected, by a lesser known, lesser prominent, ancient Semitic peoples – the Hebrew. Though being of the same Semitic roots as those so eagerly embracing thoughts of immortality – history records a clear philosophical and theological separation - distancing the ancient Hebrew from the Mesopotamians in regards to thoughts on life and man's mortality. The only real difference between the two emerging cultures being their gods – the Hebrew god claiming origin over Adam and Eve (a god who we saw earlier told of death), and the Chaldeans and Sumerian gods, who offered comforting ideas of immortality.

 

As reflected in the Hebrew Scriptures, the God of the Hebrews further explained exactly what death was. The majority of the ancient Hebrew people denied thoughts that man was immortal. Such thoughts being based on what they were taught by their God – thoughts which were reflected ultimately in their historical religious texts. For the ancient Hebrew, death was a reality in every sense of the word. It is a condition or state in which the "breath of life" (ruach) the life giving force from God has been withdrawn, and the living-breathing creature (ne'phesh) dies as a result and no longer has any existence whatsoever. It means a complete and total cessation of life. For the ancient Hebrew it was clear, death was nothing more than the opposite of life – an absence of life.

 

This is clearly reflected in a plethora of passages from Hebrew Scripture (e.g., "For dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19); "The dead know nothing . . . There is no pursuit, no plan, no knowledge or intelligence, within the grave." (Eccl 9:5, 10), The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. 18:4). "his spirit (ruach – God life giving force) goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish" (Psalm 146:4)). Two out of every three occurrences of ne'phesh (that which man is – a living breathing creature) in the Hebrew Scriptures refers soberly to the mortality of the ne'phesh and ultimate liability to death.

 

According to the ancient Hebrew, the dead no longer existed, knew nothing, had no thoughts, could not see, hear, or speak. The ne'phesh dies, and the ru'ach (what we call spirit today in English) was merely God's unseen life giving force which enacted upon the ne'phesh, it itself returned to God – leaving the living breathing creature called man with nothing more.

 

He was dead.

 

The ancient Hebrew held these thoughts for hundreds of years before being reintroduced to immortality in Mesopotamia likely as a result of the Babylonian exile, combined with eventual Hellenistic and Zoroastrism influences. Many diverted away from the mortality of man concept, but many also held fast – recognizing that although death was a state of nonexistence a hope for resurrection or being remembered by God was hinted at in their same Scriptures.

 

One of the most well written and famous proponents of the immortality of man was Plato - a thinker, who was strongly influenced himself by much earlier Babylonian religious traditions. Plato, who lived about 427-347BC, and has been regarded as one of the most important thinkers and writers in the history of Western culture, expanded on the concept of man's immortality. He was a philosopher and an educator, but all his so -called "wisdom" was the product of his own mind, supported by ideas and philosophies adopted from the teachings of others. His influence on both religious and philosophical thought was considerable and widespread, even today.

 

Plato's concept of the immortal soul built upon the earlier foundations established in Mesopotamia – he taught that the soul left the body and migrated to what he termed the "realm of the pure forms" from which, after a time, the soul may even return to the earth in another form.

 

By now, nearly all the world's religious organizations subscribed to the concept of an immortal man – something which transcends the death of the man. It was these Hellenistic, Zoroastrism, and Platonic concepts which were adopted by the greater majority of the world's religious organizations. They, like Adam and Eve, choose to believe that they "would positively not die". By this point, there was no longer a single religious system which had not been infiltrated with the idea of man's immortality. But the immortality doctrine monopoly was short lived.

 

Shortly following Plato, came Epicurus. According to Epicurus the fear of death is one of the two major afflictions of mankind, the other being the fear of the gods. Accordingly, he did away with both, and is proven to have given birth to the more modern secular movements (Rationalists, Freethinkers, Agnostics, Atheists, Secularists, Humanists, et al).

 

According to Epicurus, man fears death because he erroneously believes that he will experience pain and suffer after he has died (the concept originating in Mesopotamia). But, says Epicurus, death is deprivation of sensation. As to the soul it too does not survive death because, as Democritus has taught, like all things, it too consists of atoms (albeit particularly fine ones) which will disperse at death. Consequently "Death, the most terrifying of all ills, is nothing to us, since as long as we exist, death is not with us, and when death comes, then we do not exist".

 

God was dismissed, and immortality executed.

 

The period spanning the time from Gassendi to Jefferson is called "the Enlightenment", an appropriate title for the era where political authoritarianism, faith-mongering and claims of a divinely-ordered cosmos, and the mystical doctrines of astrology and alchemy, were abandoned in favor of modern science and intellectual and political freedom. With the exception of Jefferson, Epicurus's role in providing the philosophical foundations for the Enlightenment was largely unacknowledged, as there was still considerable prejudice against non-Christians that kept Epicurus in the closet, or at least dressed up with suitably Christianized or Deistic doctrines – but it cannot be denied today, that much of our secular, scientific based communities are established in part due to Epicurus.

 

Though adequate recognition is given to the various shades of grey from a former art student, our world today consists largely of two groups - .those descendents of Mesopotamia who hold man to be immortal in one sense or another, and those descendants of Epicurus, who typically do not. And it is to that end, that, as quoted above, that Christian de Duve in his recent publication states, "The proofs are there, indisputable, that no manifestation of consciousness is possible without the normal functioning of cerebral neurons. Let this functioning be impaired by lack of oxygen, or by a drug or trauma, and loss of consciousness inevitably follows" becomes most significant.

 

It appears as though the Epicurean children may win out after all.

 

Man is not immortal, and probably is nothing more than flesh, blood, and bone, just as the ancient Hebrew once believed. It appears it may very well be quite true as modern neurologists are empirically proving - . What we "are" is "us" – a living breathing creature fully contained in flesh, and blood, and bone (i.e., ne'phesh). There is life, and there is death, and death itself may simply be just as the earliest Hebrews informed us by the Word of their God - the dead no longer exist, know nothing, have no thoughts, cannot see, hear, or speak.

 

But what I personally find so irresistibly ironic in all of this (or perhaps it is poetic justice of some sort), as a proclaimed follower of Jehovah and his son, Jesus, is that those secular and scientific communities - the offspring in part of the Epicureans - who would now be the first to deny the existence of Jehovah (or any god or gods) are the very ones who are now providing evidence in support of the truth of His original statement "You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that You do not die" and that man is not immortal.

 

While on the other hand – Those religious systems which on the whole include the majority of Christendom, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, the Great Mystery Religions, et al, who would be the first to proclaim the existence of an eternal superior being or force, are in fact the ones being proved false through their own acceptance of the words of the serpent – "You shall not positively die" – those who to this day imply by their very thought Jehovah to be a liar.

 

The godless are ultimately proving the truth spoken by a god they do not believe exists, while those claiming to be god-fearing have chosen to believe the lie made against the very god they claim to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 21k
  • Replies 387
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Cos: What you have stated is OPINION.  You have proved NOTHING, except that you can type. Both God and Christ have a personal name ... what is the Holy Spirit's name .... Casper? If so,

The quote referenced above reads: "In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action. Hence, an accurate translation of the Bible’s Hebrew text refers to God’s spirit as “God’s ac

Claims of irrationality have always been levelled against witnesses who have experienced Gods great gift. "And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to thos

Posted Images

  • Member
5 hours ago, Cos said:

We had the claim that the passage in Luke 23:46 means that Jesus ceased to exist, but now we have this by @Gone Away that Luke 23:46 is Jesus’ “future life prospects to God as opposed to describing the death state”, Now the person who proposed Luke 23:46 as meaning Jesus ceased to exist, liked this (up voted), even though this proposal by Mr. Joyce’s, contradicts that persons earlier claim!

This passage does indeed state that Jesus had expired, thus dying, which was part of prophecy regardless of how you try to change it. Luke 23:46 and both Mark 15: 37, 39 speak of Jesus' death, and every cross-reference, inducing that of which is found in the other 2 gospel accounts point to this very fact.

@Gone Away is correct, he isn't contradicting anything. Jesus' future life prospect to God began when God raised him out of death (the pangs of death if I may add), therefore we see Jesus called Risen Christ and or Risen Jesus (Lord), as well as the other title known as Firstborn out of the Dead [out of Death]. When Jesus had risen, he didn't even ascend yet until AFTER he met with his disciples and told them about the promise, once again, for months, you are evasive when Acts 1 and 2 is mentioned and or talked about because the context defeats you here and now as it did months ago.

What is contradicting is you saying this now vs. your own comment about what the Disciples did prior to Jesus ascending to Heaven.

You speak of this Mr.Joyce, does hurt to post and or link what he said?

5 hours ago, Cos said:

Then @sami who also "up voted" Mr. Joyce’s above comments but then does an about face by going back to the ceased existing nonsense.

It is not nonsense, it is a fulfilling of prophecy, the very reason why Jesus is said to be the Life and the Resurrection for he conquered Death (John 11:25, Revelation 1:18). You've yet to proven anything pertaining to anyone who has the pangs of Death on him to having been alive after ceasing, therefore your sheer denial of prophecy is visible and clear contradiction to your claims in the past.

And the response of Spirits in Prison was also incorrect for the Risen Jesus had spoken to solely evil spirits, bounded and chained for Judgement.

Again, you mention Joyce, link and or quote the response.

5 hours ago, Cos said:

Scripture shows that when a person dies their spirit does not cease to exist but leaves the body (Psalm 146:4).

The verse saying the following:

  • Psalms 146:4 - When his breath [spirit] departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.

Cross-References Below:

Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 - (5) For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. (6) Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun. (7) Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. (8) Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head. (9) Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. (10) Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

Isaiah 38:18 - For Sheol [Hades] does not thank you; death does not praise you; those who go down to the pit do not hope for your faithfulness.

It speaks of the departing of one's spirit and or breathe of the human/soul, humans are not literal spirits. God is the Life-Giver, the source of Life, clearly the story of Adam and Eve, our first parents, is basic knowledge. When we succumb to pangs of death, or rather when we die, everything about us, what we do, what we use to do under the sun - is gone, thus we - perish, cease and or expire, in the most simplest term, we die/are dead.

It would be understandable if all men were really spirits, but we are not, for we are flesh and bone.

Therefore, the Immortal Soul Doctrine is wrong. The irony of it all is you like to try and use the words of Church Fathers, what do you think they were fighting against in Asia Minor?

5 hours ago, Cos said:

In Luke 8:55 we read that the spirit of Jairus’ daughter returned to her body and she rose up immediately.

This verse is in connection with what is mentioned above as well as Genesis 2:7, Ecclesiastes 3:9, Isaiah 42:5 as well as Matthew 17:50. The life of which Jai'rus' daughter, who is 12 years of age, once had, was given back to her, for she had lost her life and her life had been returned. She didn't go into some Afterlife of which you believe in for the Jews and the people at the time never believed in such, the Immortal Soul Doctrine you attempt top defend.

We also see that anyone who had died and returned have no recollection of an Afterlife, and if they did believe in such why take their daughter away from the so called peaceful state Sorcery believers such as yourself put forth to claim?

This isn't the first time someone has been resurrected. Also, seems a bit hypocritical for you to even mention that verse because, again, you believe in the Immortal Soul Doctrine, let alone one such as yourself who revealed to be an Apollinarist.

You already shown yourself to be in denial of what the resurrection is and it's meaning, why speak of it when you believe people, of which you see as spirits, do not cease?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, Gone Away said:

No more than a fire or flame change location when doing the same surely 

And yet he mentions a verse regarding the Resurrection, thus having the audacity to speak of not ceasing, not only he adheres to the Trinity and Immortal Soul doctrines, but the doctrine Apollinarist.

He does not only contradict himself here, but Cos pretty must contradicted his own words in this regard relating to this subject elsewhere months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 8/3/2018 at 9:12 AM, Cos said:

In Luke 8:55 we read that the spirit of Jairus’ daughter returned to her body and she rose up immediately

Oh come on! Is that the best they can do? Surely when a rented house returns to its owner it doesn't change location?

This is like the other attempt in saying that a spirit "going out" means it leaves the through the door or something? (Ps146:4) when it is just as when a flame "goes out".

It just has to be accepted that on death a person would just cease to exist if it wasn't for the graciousness of the Creator who can restore a "lease on life" to anyone he wishes at less than the "flick of a switch".

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

  • 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.