Jump to content

John Paul

Member
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About John Paul

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

37 profile views
  1. Like I said, reread those passages you try so hard to defend. It will give you evidence you are not willing to learn the truth. My excuses or yours. The only deception I see comes from people that don't educate themselves about history. Anyone can take something out of context in order to express a negative outcome. What those people can't do is teach an educated person how to lie, especially when those, lies are poorly drawn.
  2. People here should go back and reread their historical understanding of Russell. He had a wait and see attitude about 1914 while he had claimed Jesus presence was felt in 1874. That of course had nothing to do with Jesus being enthroned in 1914, nor does it revise a historical fact world war one started in 1914. “CHRONOLOGY--Beginning or End of Time of Trouble Re 1914. Q71:1: QUESTION (1905)--1--Will the time of trouble begin or end in 1914 and why? ANSWER--We answer that there have been times of trouble this good while. (You know we have a trouble corner over there, and he smiled and pointed over to his little office.) There have been and there will be times of trouble as far as the Church is concerned. Look at the persecutions. But the reference here, and properly enough, is to the "Great Time of Trouble" that is referred to in Daniel, twelfth chapter, where he says, "there shall be a time of trouble such as never was before," and our Lord adds, "No and never shall be again." Well that is the time of trouble that is in our minds, and it will not begin nor end in 1914. The time of trouble may be a beginning now, but those beginnings are only leading up to the real trouble. Oct. 15, 1913 WT p.5336 The divine plan presented in the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES. We are advised that it give's seven different corroborative proofs that the close of the year 1914--namely, about October, 1914-will mark the closing of the Times of the Gentiles, and the beginning of the masonic reign. Many of the dear friends are rejoicing in these cobnrrohon1tions. We wish still, however, to reiterate what we have said from the first respecting the date of the close of the Times of the Gentiles; namely, that the calculations as we presented them in Vol. II, STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, are the truth to the best of our knowledge and belief. Nevertheless, there is enough uncertainty about the matter of chronology to make it a matter of faith rather than of positive knowledge. We remind our readers that our consecration to the Lord is not to October, 1914, nor to any other time except that mentioned by the Savior'' Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.' '-Rev. 2:10. Therefore, Russell never implied the world would end in 1914. However, some copies of the 1913 WT omit the Morton Great Pyramid reference by some Bible Student Associations for unknown reason. Then those flat out lies that people keep telling themselves, are made by people that have inherited a bias with worthless research. What should be noted, Russell didn’t control all the independent churches, and how they viewed their own understanding of prophecy. No more than overthinking about 1975, and 2000. The Org never claimed those dates would bring the end of the world. 1975 was the 6000 years mark and the 2000 was revealed to hold significance to certain “other” religious sects and some doomsayers in which the Org spoke about. Aside from the obvious Y2K scare? https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-was-the-y2k-scare.html The Org was making sure people understood what a true apocalypse would entail. *** w99 12/1 p. 5 Why the Apocalypse Scare? *** Similarly today, there are religious and secular fears that the year 2000 or 2001 will bring with it a terrifying apocalypse. But are these fears justified? And is the message contained in the Bible book of Revelation, or Apocalypse, something to be feared or, on the contrary, is it something we should hope for? Please read on. *** g98 5/8 p. 21 How Significant Is the Year 2000? *** Granted, the Bible talks about the time when Jehovah God will intervene in human affairs by removing badness and ushering in a new world. Bible prophecy speaks of “the time of the end,” “the conclusion of the system of things,” “the last days,” and “the day of Jehovah.” (Daniel 8:17; Matthew 24:3; 2 Timothy 3:1; 2 Peter 3:12) However, the “end” prophesied in the Bible is not connected in any way to the year 2000. There is nothing in the Scriptures ascribing special significance to the end of the second millennium as calculated by the Gregorian calendar. Therefore, the Org was NOT being vague in both instances. I believe evidence was given about 1975 in a 1974 article submitted here that has been erased, that debunks that theory. I will re-post the Article from 1974. Why people keep bringing it up as though it still has conclusive evidence is beyond logic. *** w74 10/15 p. 635 Growing in Appreciation for the “Divine Purpose” *** The publications of Jehovah’s witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man’s existence will be completed in the mid-1970’s. But these publications have never said that the world’s end would come then. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation “Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour’” was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end. All we know is that the end will come within the generation that sees fulfilled on it the sign that Jesus Christ said would then be in evidence. (See Matthew chapters 24, 25.) All indications are that the fulfillment of this sign began in 1914. So we can be confident that the end is near; we do not have the slightest doubt that God will bring it about, the speaker stressed. But we have to wait and see exactly when, in the meantime keeping busy in God’s service Once again, to be clear, the Watchtower made it crystal clear in late 1974 about 1975. Therefore, it is a careless and an unconscionable act by which certain witnesses would consider a false theory by opposers.
  3. I guess it would have to depend on how the word mother is viewed. Off hand, I can’t think of one directly quoted with the word mother, but many that use an inference, like Isaiah 40:11. Who carries their babies in their arms if not a father and mother? A relative, someone in authority. A more expressive text would come from the psalmist. NAS Psalm 127:3 Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; The fruit of the womb is a reward. (Ps. 127:3 NAS) 06529 פְּרִי periy {per-ee'} Meaning: 1) fruit 1a) fruit, produce (of the ground) 1b) fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb) 1c) fruit (of actions) (fig.) Origin: from 06509; TWOT - 1809a; n m Usage: AV - fruit 113, fruitful 2, boughs 1, firstfruits + 07225 1, reward 1, fruit thereof 1; 119 There are no notes for this verse. The same expression can be found in Matthew 18:1–5 to infer to Jesus as tending to his flock like a mother would to a child. Matthew 18:1-5 New International Version (NIV) The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven 18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. Now if a child is discarded by their mother and father, Then God becomes the surrogate with both spectrum as mentioned by the psalmist. Psalms 27:10. Therefore, the inference of a “mother like” is just an expression on how the Watchtower feels like a shepherd. When I state the watchtower, I mean those anointed by God’s Holy Spirit that have undertaken that responsibility to care for God’s sheep until the master returns to reclaim his kingship on earth. When I say the “master’s return” it is a symbolic gesture since Jesus won’t be visible again. Jesus ascended as a higher being, “God Like”, “a god” not just the God. The rejection of Greek children can be seen in the works of Plato and Aristotle. To be clear, the Watchtower is not referring itself like a "mother organization" but instead as a caregiver that feeds God's children with spiritual food. To use a biblical passage with this commentary, comes from Romans 1:18. I would certainly not be that presumptive to see what judgment God and Christ will make other than what is written.
  4. Wife like organization from heavenly creatures. Does this mean the Watchtower doesn’t understand the implication of how God views his creation? Does it mean God can’t be the mother and father figure of his creation? Still, the mention continues to be applied from heaven, not from earth. However, the article is expanding on Jesus Credentials as the messiah. With it, could the foundation not then be more understood after the baptism? *** w09 12/15 p. 21 par. 9 The Messiah! God’s Means of Salvation *** 9 People’s expectations, however, needed to be adjusted. Jesus was properly hailed as King, but that his rule would be future and from heaven would only later be fully understood. I don't see where the article is proposing the angles gathered to vote Jesus in as the Messiah, but instead God was predisposed to use his first creation to accomplish, what Adam could not as sinless creatures, and it was to be coming from the linage of David. How is this working out for JTR, and AlanF so far? I think Tom called Allen Smith a loon. Wouldn't that be considered a personal attack. It would be nice to have a good understanding on the rules of this open forum. Who is allowed and who isn't allowed to be irresponsible with their comments.
  5. I agree. There is plenty of proof here, I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But I can also see an amputee walking a straight line with prosthetic's. I've seen some run a better marathon than those with real legs. Don't sell the disabled short.
  6. Same, circumstance. It's to a greater degree with God. When has god needed man for anything, yet man needs Jesus for salvation. I don't believe the watchtower is spoken as the wife of God, but rather an earthly instrument of God, which God has used from the starting of time. He gave the Holy Spirit directly to the prophets in the O.T. and he gave the Holy Spirit in the N.T. to those that would become his ambassadors by baptism. The difference is literal and spiritual. It has not stopped. Then why give access to anyone. Do opposers and witnesses receive the same consideration? Let's just drop it. It's insulting to see the justification.
  7. I don’t see the difference. It should be clear in ACTS 17, it's referring to Christ not coming to earth to be served, rather than to serve. I don’t see where that compares to Galatians unless we are willing to accept a heavenly Jerusalem that will soon be in charge of the inhabitants of this world. Do you believe in Armageddon? Do you think there are at least a few witnesses that believe in judgment day, and the persecution of faithful servants before that? Are there a few witnesses that believe, there is a gray area between tribulation and Armageddon when Jesus will separate the sheep’s from the goats? However, I was not suggesting you are the only one off topic. I think everyone is, including myself.
  8. Precisely. Aren't you the same way, isn't AlanF the same way, isn't JTR the same way. If you don't blame the librarian, then you shouldn't complain since everyone here is the same way. That is hypocritical in my opinion. Just because a person makes and effort to expose a wrong perception about an organization in which they serve God under, doesn't give anyone a right to remove someone. Especially being insulting just as you are with the label "loon". What's makes you think, you're not more mentally diseased than that person?
  9. I think the point is, why complain to the owner and librarian about certain people if you're not willing to complain about everyone that offend directly to the librarian to be removed. Then posts are made that others can't refute, because they are removed. In my opinion, that is called a cheap shot at someone else s expense. To me that seem hypocritical. That's all.
  10. That’s a big assumption since Galatians is referring to the heavenly Jerusalem, not a physical organization. So, if witnesses use that term, I suspect they are referring to the spiritual Jerusalem, not the watchtower. Do you believe there are more than 8 million witnesses that don't understand the Bible? Why not bring the post back to its original topic, instead of gathering inconclusive opinions about the Bible, earth and the heavens.
  11. Is there such a thing? or are you just making things up? Could it be he was the only true witness here trying to expose apostates that claim to be part of an organization when they aren’t? Let’s not look at how bad he was, but how bad other people were toward that person. I have been viewing this site for a long time. Some of you got nasty with Allen Smith, more than just rude. However, you're still here. Vic has been seen in JW.net is opposition to the Org in a very ugly way. What does that say about the owner of that account? Don’t use hypocrisy as an excuse not to like someone when vile people continue to post and you don’t seem to have a problem with them being insulting, rude, nasty, and extremely offensive. Have you complained to the librarian about AlanF just like others apparently have about Allen smith? You offend me sir by trying to defend the indefensible. So, don’t tell AlanF what he can or cannot say if the Librarian will not ban that person like he does with people he has grown to hate. I just hope, that person doesn’t tell others he/she is a witness to.

×
×
  • 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.