Jump to content
The World News Media

Furuli's new book: Is any of it right? Useful? Like Franz?


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This Bible verse (even in nwt translation too) confirm only one fact: Jesus delegated task, service, obligation about feeding to only one person, Peter.

This verse does not say that ONLY Peter should feed, it just says that Peter should feed the little sheep. it does not logically follow that no one else should imitate the good example that Peter was to give us. It's the job of a shepherd to feed his sheep by guiding them to pastures where they feed.

Look what Paul says:

(Acts 20:26-28) 26 So I call you to witness this very day that I am clean from the blood of all men, 27 for I have not held back from telling you all the counsel of God. 28 Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, . . .

(1 Peter 5:1-4) 5 Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

(Ephesians 4:11, 12) . . .And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 2.6k
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The first thread started on this topic, and the topic has already garnered hundreds of responses. But it hasn't dealt much with Rolf Furuli's own theme. His real topic is about how the JW religion is

Okay, JWI has posted a new topic. I don’t want to catch any of you saying irrelevant things. I don’t want 4Jah talking about CSA. I don’t want Allen talking about Zondervan. I can post some of my vaca

I hate to say it, but you are quite right on this one. I knew that these time periods were always subject to change any time something better comes along. And I was actually very surprised we held ont

Posted Images

  • Member
7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What is your understanding about the apostles having to go before the "governing council" that you call the Jerusalem council? The same structure the Watchtower is using now is framed from the first century concept.

I already gave my opinion that there is nothing wrong with the structure the Watchtower is using in the attempt to imitate the first century. There was a similar congregational structure in terms of their bodies of elders/overseers. And I don't see a problem with trying to imitate the body of elders at Jerusalem, which does appear to be a respected council of elders. Up to a point, this is a very good thing.

It seems fairly clear from what Paul said to the Galatians that, to them, Jerusalem seemed to have a lot of respect for having some of the most famous "pillars," James, Peter and John. So there was no doubt a tendency to give extra credence to what came from Jerusalem's body of elders. No doubt it would be a great privilege to actually visit the congregation(s) in Jerusalem and hear eyewitnesses of Jesus speak and teach.

But I don't think the letter of Galatians would be included in the Scriptures if there was not also a limit to the respect given to imperfect humans, even apostles. We know that in Galatians Paul accused at least one apostle and other persons of hypocrisy. But he went much further on what he thought of the concept of treating that body of elders at Jerusalem as a "Governing Body." He directly answers your question about whether apostles should feel that they had some obligation to go before them in the sense of a "governing council."

Paul showed that there was no reason for an apostle to feel obligated to go before such a "governing council."

(Galatians 1:16-20 to 2:6) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. . . . But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.

So, apparently, Paul never had to go to the see the council of elders in Jerusalem until some of those elders from there began causing problems. Because some of those elders in Jerusalem needed to be set straight, Paul received a revelation that he should go there. So he went, even though he previously had only one short visit in the last 14 years or more. Paul knew that he needed to help set things straight with them or else they could ruin all the progress he had made, and he would therefore be be running in vain against that body of elders. Paul had to go to great lengths to explain why, if they were pushing a different gospel, then they meant nothing to him even if they were apostles, or even if they had been angels!

I think the point was that, of course there was a body of elders in Jerusalem, it was natural that there would be, and it was natural that people would think of them as highly regarded, and that they would seem to be pillars for all the congregations. But this was dangerous for people to have that kind of respect for humans, because, in reality, that Jerusalem council should not have tried to push its influence on the congregations around Antioch, which teachings had now reached all the way to Galatia. Because of Paul's visit, the body of elders in Jerusalem issued a statement showing that it was their fault, and that they had gone too far in trying to encroach on the consciences of Christians in other places.

Instead, evidently, each congregation should have been more like those 7 congregations in Asia Minor that we find in Revelation 2 & 3. Whatever contact they had with each other was not important to mention here. So they are shown (symbolically) to be held before Christ himself as judge of their actions. Each of them were praised for taking their own action against false teachings and those who called themselves apostles. The counsel from Christ Jesus is never about the idea that they had not listened to this Jerusalem Council, or a group of apostles, or even an elder/overseer like John who may have known those seven congregations of Asia Minor through some kind of shepherding or circuit work for many years.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with having councils of elders in our twenty-first century world, which should include a variety of "gifts in men" including those who claim and show evidence of being anointed. And I think the most "gifted" in teaching, would be appropriate. They would be elders of course with appropriate experience in taking the lead, and as elders they would deserve an extra measure of respect. It appears to me that we have already have the right idea, but if we listen to Paul's letter to the Galatians, we can also see the dangers of giving such a group of men too much credence, respect and authority.

The end result of having the apostles stay in Jerusalem together, for a time after the holy spirit anointed them in 33 CE, was no doubt to help them straighten out necessary scriptural questions and provide that "holy spirit" for us today through the inspiration to produce the Christian Scriptures.

We know there would be a natural human tendency for such a body of elders to want to impose their conscience on others, as they might feel it was more experienced, and a more Christian-trained conscience. With good intentions, they might wish to be the governors of another person's faith. All of these natural tendencies are already counseled against in scripture:

(1 Corinthians 10:29) . . .For why should my freedom be judged by another person’s conscience?

(1 Corinthians 4:3) . . .Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . .

(2 Corinthians 1:24) . . .Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Stick to the time frame. I said nothing about Russell's time. I commented in Rutherford time since he did place a board of directors which you are well aware of.

That was the point. He followed in the steps of Russell who made no use at all of the board of directors who were only there for legal reasons and possible continuity of the Society if something were to happen to Russell. When people in Rutherford's day compared him to Russell, they said that Rutherford was even more autocratic/dictatorial/monarchial. So I included Russell as a means of comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I have moved a repeated topic by 4J to a hidden place because it was nearly an exact repeat of an earlier post, and also the post where he makes a point that it had been 9 hours and no one answered him yet, which caused a couple of responses that were unnecessary.

Is his post still up where he said my remark was obvious click bait and I said ‘how can that be, you dodo, since there is nothing to click on?‘

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 6/5/2020 at 10:20 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Is his post still up where he said my remark was obvious click bait and I said ‘how can that be, you dodo, since there is nothing to click on?‘

I didn't see that one, but I would have left it there for entertainment value.

[PS: I found the one you were looking for in the first Furuli topic topic, not this one.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
24 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Compared to what. Russell was the only one that could be seen as the owner of the organization through the eyes of secular law. That was the reason to incorporate. Rutherford as his attorney was not even a Bible Student at that point, just his lawyer. Therefore, those are the steps taken to meet the demand of secular authority. Russell's nondenominational church continued as a vote in structure for Elders. That doesn't mean, by Rutherford's time and unrest with the other Bible Student factions, the "board of directors" went on to seen as "responsible men" of a corporation by secular authority. Hence, a governing body.

There are so many things historically wrong with your assessment that I won't even start on it. Fortunately these facts are not critical to understanding the Governing Body today, although it might have helped to highlight the actual situation in 1919 and to compare it with some of the implied claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This verse does not say that ONLY Peter should feed

I made comment on WT article that @4Jah2me put in his comment, and of course on many other WT article that making statements how Jesus gave task of feeding only to 1919 small group of people inside WT.

Also, if we going into searching to whom specific words was addressed by Jesus, about feeding,i found only this specific verse that can be connected with "spiritual food". I must tell, also, how i am not reading Bible as many of you does regular or every day. This is from memory and than go to search where some verse is in the book. Because that, it can be how i missed some other verse which confirm other conclusion. 

In verses you offer it is notable how other people, not Jesus, encouraged fellow brothers and elders to be in service of helping/feeding people in congregations. Nothing wrong with that, of course. 

What is of concern is stubborn claims made by WT and GB how only few people inside JW Church are delegated/appointed, not by Peter or Paul, nor by Russel and Rutherford, but by JHVH and Jesus themselves, to be FDS Class. And much more - How no other individual, or group of people/elders, no one of Anointed as individual or group is/are allowed to do this feeding.

I agree how you are right in conclusion how "this verse not say that ONLY Peter should feed", and i hope you will agree how Jesus or any Bible verse not say how ONLY governing body in NY HQ should feed, too.  :))

Paul is example of individual, very much independent in actions and words. And he was not part of any sort of GB that is promoted today. 

 

@César Chávez put this interesting verse in comment:

 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” - Act 6

1st century brothers and sisters (anointed or not)  had spiritual ability to recognize who among Men are full of Spirit. I suppose how you need Spirit for doing this? Can we say they were "inspired"? At least for this particular moment and particular task?

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is a time period when you see a lot of statements in the literature that obedience to Rutherford is the same as obedience to the Lord.

History repeats. WT study magazine and TV Broadcasting doing same thing to JW people today.....with some other methods and words: Trust in Us because Jesus also trust in Us. If Jesus trust in Us, shouldn't you do the same?

Do not forget, Jesus not say that only (Peter) GB will feed people. GB ask people to trust ONLY to them because they claim how ONLY they have spiritual food to share. 

Where we are now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Furuli's Introduction and Chapter 1 are important as a foundation to the topic, but we can skip them for the purpose of a discussion. We'll go straight to Chapter 2 which starts out with a summary "review" that I have copied below.

Furuli opens up the discussion with the words I put on the left, and I'll add some comments on the right. They are color-coded to match up which paragraphs are being commented upon.

THE FAITHFUL AND DISCREET SLAVE -REVIEW

In Matthew, chapters 24 and 25, the presence (parousia) of Jesus from 1914 to the great tribulation is mentioned four times, and his coming (erkhomai) as the judge in the great tribulation, at the end of his presence, is mentioned eight times.

 

The faithful and discreet slave is mentioned in Matthew 24:45-47. The previous view of the GB was that the coming of the master (v. 46) occurred in 1918, and the slave was appointed over all his belongings in 1919. These belongings included the branch offices, the Kingdom Halls, and the preaching work.

The present view is that the coming (v. 46) is future and will happen in the great tribulation. Then the slave will be appointed over all the belongings by receiving a heavenly resurrection. This new view excludes any connection between the coming (v.46) and the presence of Jesus.

Nevertheless, The Watchtower of 2017 says that the slave was appointed in 1919 to give God's servants spiritual food at the proper time during the presence of Jesus. But no evidence has been given for this claim.

Luke 12:35-44 discusses the faithful steward, the discreet one, which, according to the context, is the same as the faithful and discreet slave in Matt 24:45. One slave was put in charge of a master's household to give the other slaves literal food at the appointed time. Such a slave is mentioned in Luke chapter 12, and when he faithfully is giving the other slaves food when the master returns, thus doing his job, he will be appointed over all the belongings of the master.

The situation is the same in Matthew 24:45-47. That the slave gives literal food to the other slaves is his job. When he is doing this job faithfully when the Lord arrives in the great tribulation, he will be appointed over all the master's belongings. The focus is on literal food and not on spiritual food. Thus, "the slave" refers to individual Christians who are faithful when the master arrives and not to a class of persons.

In Matthew 24:48-51, the wicked slave is mentioned. The GB says that Jesus is not saying that a wicked slave will come, but points to the possibility; this is correct. However, neither in Luke 12:42 nor in Matthew 24:45 is Jesus saying that the faithful and discreet slave will come. But Jesus asks who the faithful and discreet slave will be. In other words: "Who will fill the role of the faithful and discreet  slave in the illustration of Jesus when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation?" The whole setting in Luke 12 and Matthew 24 is:"Who will be on the watch when Jesus comes as the judge"?

Furuli still supports the idea that the "parousia" began in 1914 and goes on  until the "erchomai" (Judgment Day). Most Bible scholars believe that the "parousia/ synteleia/ telos/ erchomai" are all nearly synonymous, which coincidentally results in the same outcome as Furuli sees here. That's because the FDS illustration is specifically tied to the erchomai and there is no specific to to the beginning of the parousia.

Furuli is setting up to show how the doctrine got "confused" over time, and pieces of the interpretation are still based on older versions of the doctrine which are no longer consistent with parts of the new version. That's because the doctrine began when the erchomai was not "Judgment Day" but a judgment based on Jesus "coming in 1918 to inspect the temple." After the FDS passed the test in 1918, they were then appointed over all his belongings in 1919. Those belongings were said to be the properties and purview of the WTS. (I think that Kingdom Halls weren't added to this list until around 2006.)

It's not like the GB hadn't thought if this, because (as Anna pointed out in the other thread) they are now only supposed to be appointed as FDS prior to the "full reward" which allows for an appointment in 1919, it's just that there is no specific scriptural reason any more to place this appointment anywhere between 1914 and the future erchomai (Judgment).

Furuli's logic has started to weaken. He's right, of course, that there are no longer any scriptural reasons here to point to 1919, except to fit the GB's own view of themselves. There is no more reason to pick 1919 than 1915, 1935, 1972, or maybe even 33 CE. But nothing excludes a 1919 date either, even if one doesn't believe an invisible presence and kingship started in 1914. However, if Furuli really still believes in 1914 as he says he does, and he expects a single generation in which a preaching work occurs in the midst of trials and tribulations, then why not provide an FDS specifically or that special generation? If 1914 works for Furuli, then there is some logic to appoint an FDS shortly after that generation begins.

Nothing to see here. This is fairly obvious that Luke 12 gives the same illustration with exact same idea and only a few words added or changed.

I personally agree with this. Jesus was talking about persons who have a responsibility to do a job, that of giving literal food to the rest of the slaves in a household when the master is gone. A slave who is handles such a responsibility faithfully can expect a reward. Especially because it would be so easy to slack off and take advantage while the master is away. It doesn't have to be a prophecy about "spiritual" food  It's not a prophecy. It's an illustration just like others Jesus made about readiness.

Furuli is not giving credence to the WT idea that this must be a prophecy because it's found in Matthew 24 and Luke 12. Also, it starts out with a "who is" which has been taken to be a command of sorts to go out and identify who is meant here. Furuli seems to treat it like any other illustration, as if reminding us that we don't automatically create a type/antitype out of the carcass and the eagles in verse 28. We don't automatically look for a pregnant woman class and the nursing baby class from verse 18.  Who really is a householder that will know in advance when a thief is coming to break into his house? (v44)

At first it appeared that Furuli was agreeing with a linguistic reason from Greek that the WT uses to downplay the possibility of an evil slave coming. But this is really just agreeing that there is nothing definite here about a wicked slave coming. And this is paralleled with his view that this illustration is also not saying anything definite about a faithful slave coming, either. That's a surprising turn, but I suppose it's really like Luke 11:11 saying "Who really is the father who will hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish?" It makes a teaching lesson, not a prophecy about when such a situation will prove true. Furuli treats it as if Jesus is saying what he said in Luke 18: 

(Luke 18:8) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
27 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I agree how you are right in conclusion how "this verse not say that ONLY Peter should feed", and i hope you will agree how Jesus or any Bible verse not say how ONLY governing body in NY HQ should feed, too.  :))

Of course. I agree that the Bible says nothing about 1919, NY, or the Governing Body. But it's a belief based on the supposed fulfillment of prophecies as these same persons understand the prophecies. I didn't respond to 4J because he had to turn this into a "lie" instead of an "interpretation." I agree, though, that the interpretation is so ingrained that they weren't careful with the wording at all. Also, as I've said before, just because Matthew 24:45 isn't a source that "prophesies" such a work as is taken on by the GB, it doesn't mean it isn't a "fine work." Or that it should not be appreciated. It's just that we have to be alert to always remember that all of us stumble many times, including the GB, so we should always do our Christian duty and test anything and everything they say, and if our consciences differ, to always obey God as ruler rather than men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Billy the Kid it becomes impossible to talk to you as you seem to deliberately twist everything I write.

Quote :-

 Keep in mind, Paul was a prosecutor of Christians. When do you believe, Apostle Paul never received God’s Holy Spirit since the majority of the NT was written by Paul to the congregations. Are you now suggesting the Bible is just a fabrication and a story for children? Is Paul evil in your mind?

It was I that wrote that the Apostle Paul was inspired by Holy Spirit and guided personally by Jesus Christ.

It was I that wrote that Paul was not one of the twelve and that HE wrote all those letter to the congregations. 

But you now twist it all to pretend that i said the opposite. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

 

Does he mention CSA? Ray thought it was an overblown concoction of media. What say Rolf?

Quote @JW Insider

Barely mentioned. Not even in a much too long dissertation on porneia and similar words. But he does have one point about it here in one of the footnotes:

P.S. One of Furuli's typos is the spelling of "Sexual Immortality" with the extra T. It sounded like a good name for one of those "male supplement" drugs that spammed my email account in the days before spam filters.

Um, I wonder what a psychologist would make of that 'typo'. A man denying CSA in his 'Beloved Religion' then typing Sexual Immortality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I [RF] would like to add that several accusations against the GB on the Internet and other places are not true. For example, in connection with child molestation...So this accusation is wrong!

Ah. So the real headline to be taken from the Rolf book, obscured by 50,000 wet dream malcontent internet  pages, is 

Top Norwegian Awesome Scholar Proves that CSA Hysteria Against Jehovah’s Witnesses Is Bogus

In writing this headline, I hesitated to use the word ‘proved.’ Had he really done that? But then I deferred to the words of the other scholar on this forum, 4Jah, who said of Rolf’s book (without reading it): “I think this gentleman and his book proves the point I'm making here.”

In fact, it ‘proves’ just the opposite.

In a roundabout way, Rolf brings his gift to the altar. Are legal machinations against the WT on account of how they viewed elders in the 1940s? Or are they about sensationalized investigations of CSA? Put Rolf on the stand as star ‘expert’ witness for the defense—after lauding him as Moses descending with the tablets, opposers can hardly say that he is delusional—and knock the legal ball out of the park.

In view of this service, compromise with Rolf. Appoint a panel to look at the GB’s doings. Get a few of the helpers. And, for balance, an impartial outsider or two like myself or @Arauna (you keep out of it JWI) We’ll have this ship righted again in no time.

 

 

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.