Jump to content
The World News Media

The timing of Jesus' 2nd Coming


HollyW

Recommended Posts

  • Member
3 hours ago, Arauna said:

There are too many scriptures which talk of Jesus's return " in the clouds". Jesus went back to heaven in a cloud and he told his followers his return would be the same.  The whole world did not see him go back to heaven - only his followers were present.  Today his true disciples understand that he is already ruling. 

And I again quote Revelation 12: 6- 12.  Go and read it.. It is absolutely clear that Jesus would start ruling in heaven and there would still be a period of time on the earth after this.

You're speaking of Acts 1:9-11 where the disciples watched him visibly go into heaven:

Acts 1:9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

But in 1914 the Bible Students were not aware of his return at all because they were saying he had already returned in 1874. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 5.9k
  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm still stepping through some of what Arauna has said in defense of the 1914 doctrine. The appendix in the Bible Teach book is fairly short, so I think I'll comment on that first. To make it easy to

I always remind people that when Russell was studying the Bible and learning about truths such as 1914 (they did not have the 'whole' truth about 1914 but only some of it) the rest of the world was st

Isn't it more likely that just as lightning is visible from east to west, that Jesus' return WILL be visible and that's why we aren't to believe those who say, 'Look! Here is the Christ', or "There!'

Posted Images

  • Member
4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Like an idiot I have been quoting scriptures from the bible to Ann and hoping that she would think about them.... to understand the invisible coming of Christ.... but from her responses I noticed that she has not put thought in them at all.  

Actually, I provided Scriptures to help you understand 1st century Christians believed Jesus was already ruling (invisibly) amidst his enemies in their day, from as soon as Jesus ascended to heaven and sat down at his Father's right hand. - Acts 2:34-37; Eph. 1:20, 21; Heb. 10:12, 13; Rev. 3:21. Did you contemplate these cited texts? 

Quote

Now I understand why - it seems she does not really believe in the Bible as she is questioning the flood.  So to her the Bible is hocus-pocus.

I question a GLOBAL flood. You do see the nuanced distinction between questioning a GLOBAL flood and the flood per se, do you not? 

Quote

I also happened to stumble on a few good programs wherein different scientists depict an ice age and a world-wide flood after the ice age - when it melted suddenly.

Which ice age? There have been a few in Earth's 4.5 billion year history. Did the 'different scientists' date a world-wide flood to the 3rd millennium BCE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
20 minutes ago, Arauna said:

So it seems you are determined to ignore the 2 different Greek words pertaining to "coming"

I don't know who you were addressing, but can you tell me what the tangible difference is between the words 'present' (as in somebody being in another's presence) and 'coming'? Can somebody 'come' and not be 'present'?

26 minutes ago, Arauna said:

For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,  and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the 'presence' of the Son of man will be..... This is referring to Jesus's 'presence' - when he is busy ruling - before the final arrival of the destruction to come. Allan also explained this.

And I discussed that the NWT rendering 'took no note' was literally 'knew not' in the original Greek, which puts a whole new light on it, does it not?

25 minutes ago, Arauna said:

But please can you explain to me the following? Who the faithful and discreet slave is ...

Another thread.

28 minutes ago, Arauna said:

"preaching the kingdom in the entire inhabited earth" to all the tribes and nations.

Another thread.

31 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Also go on to explain to me Luke 21: 24 , "and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations* until the appointed times of the nations* are fulfilled."   What is this appointed time of the nations?

Jerusalem's trampling could only begin in Jesus' future - "will be trampled" and not "continue to be trampled."

36 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Who is Michael who "will stand up?"

Another thread.

38 minutes ago, Arauna said:

There are many people out there who want to know what these scriptures mean....

Are you one of them?

How about addressing Holly's Scriptures in the OP? What do you think? Based on the Bible texts, can the timing of Jesus' Second coming, or Presence, be calculated through Bible chronology? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
13 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The heading states” The timing of Jesus' 2nd Coming” and then the author proposes the following” Can the timing of Jesus' Second coming, or Presence, be calculated through Bible chronology?” it’s a misleading proposition. No one is talking about calculating the second coming of Christ.

Are you saying that a person can be present without coming? It's nonsense. You have to first arrive/come and, as a result of that, you are then present.

Imagine a roll call in a classroom.

The teacher calls, "Allen Smith?" No answer.

The teacher calls again. Nothing. "I'll note him down as absent ..."

A fellow student says, "Excuse me sir, Allen is present. He's here." The teacher looks around then quizzically at the student. The student continues, "He is present, it's just that he's not arrived at school yet."

Teacher and class go O.o

Besides ...

coming_advent_presence.png

So you can see the words 'coming,' 'second advent' and 'presence' are used synonymously by Russell to refer to the same event that had been calculated to have occurred in 1874.

14 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Pastor Russell interpretation of events for 1914 was of Christ enthronement in the heavens. The WTS continues to believe that assessment to be correct

No, the WTS thought Christ's enthronement was in 1878, which date was discarded back in the days of Rutherford and replaced with 1914.

Learn some Watchtower history, Allen, for Pete's sake. 9_9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Ann -- cut paste, cut paste - quoting things out of context.  It seems you get your adrenalin rush by this kind of troll behavior... Russell did not understand everything we understand today....and even if he changed it? So what?  We have proof today of the date of 1914 and guess what - the times of the nations -  it checks out!  

What Russell said was more than 130 years ago - see his work in its time context - in its historical context...  What is your interest in the 'toddler period' of this religion? .....when you do not believe in the Bible or an existing god? Why waste people's time and troll them if it is not for some ungodly purpose?....

Do not throw your pearls to pigs.. why? because they will not appreciate them...   You have no intention of evaluating any of the  "pearls' scattered in your direction....  so I think we leave this subject now..... you do as you please.  At least you will one day "know" that you had more than enough opportunities.  As Joshua said:  "as for me and my household - we will serve Jehovah..".. and he also said (an I quote from memory) "Not one of Jehovah's promises did not come true......."  I leave you with this final thought.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Pastor Russell Claim of the presence of Christ was to be felt by 1914.

That's not quite what he said in the excerpt. He said that Christ's presence will become revealed to people's 'eyes of understanding' over the next few decades, just like Christ's presence has been already been revealed to Russell and his fellow Bible Students living in 1881.

Quote

He was speaking against to the predictions others were making.

Correct. If you read the context of the excerpt (that is why I gave a full reference so you can look it up), you will see that the Watch Tower was addressing the Second Advent Church's and others' expectations, based on Mother Shipton's prediction that Jesus would visibly come back in 1881.

Quote

 

That no one could predicate Christ Second Coming. Did Pastor Russell make a prediction, NO! 

 

YES! Holly has already reproduced Russell's predictions.

But regarding Christ's second coming or presence, my excerpt shows he rejected others' calculations about an impending second coming because he (really Barbour) had already calculated that the Lord's second coming or presence had happened invisibly 7 years earlier.

Quote

... he felt that Christ would be enthroned by 1914. 

He felt that Christ had been enthroned in 1878.

"It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated." - ZWT, January 1881, p. 4 [R180]

coming_king_1878.png

As I say, learn your Watchtower history.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
14 hours ago, Arauna said:

Ann -- cut paste, cut paste - quoting things out of context.  It seems you get your adrenalin rush by this kind of troll behavior... 

I am addressing Allen's misconceptions about Russell's beliefs. That is why I am reproducing Watchtower quotations, properly referenced so that anyone can read the surrounding material and check for themselves what was being taught. You will find that Allen makes erroneous statements that are corrected by the historical literature.

Please do not confuse trolling with having an open discussion, which is what Holly and I are trying to do here. Challenging a view is not trolling. If you really want to see examples of troll-like behavior, you only need to read through Allen's posts. ;)

14 hours ago, Arauna said:

Russell did not understand everything we understand today....and even if he changed it? So what? 

So what? Well, Holly's thread is titled, 'The timing of Jesus' 2nd coming' and her OP asks whether that 2nd coming can be calculated through Bible chronology. Seeing as the Organization has a Bible-derived chronological scheme to calculate Jesus' 2nd coming or presence which was partly inherited from Russell and his friend Barbour, a discussion of Russell's beliefs are relevant to this wider topic.

15 hours ago, Arauna said:

We have proof today of the date of 1914 and guess what - the times of the nations -  it checks out!  

Allen asserted the same and I asked him to provide that 'proof.' He has yet to do so. Maybe you can give it a shot instead? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 8/30/2016 at 10:23 AM, Arauna said:

I always remind people that when Russell was studying the Bible and learning about truths such as 1914 (they did not have the 'whole' truth about 1914 but only some of it) the rest of the world was still in the time of the industrial revolution.

 

After giving this subject a lot of prayerful thought, and with a lot of guidance from several of the persons I worked with at Bethel, I personally cannot put faith in this doctrine. I don't mean to say that you should not or that anyone else should change their mind about it. Of course, I would LOVE to believe it because that would make things so much easier with the majority of my friends, relatives, and spiritual brothers and sisters.

In my own name, I must always be careful about what I say on the subject so that I personally do not offend or needlessly stumble anyone. But on forums such as this, and the Internet in general, where the subject has already come up 100's of times, I do believe it's a place where I can (and therefore should) honestly defend my faith.

My posts are generally "tldr" which is probably a good thing for those who don't wish to deal with the subject. But for this post all I wanted to say was that the scriptures that Holly quoted are, for me, a big part of my faith and the hope that is in me. For me, it could not see myself as a true Christian Witness of Jehovah if I denied what Jesus said here and tried to make those verses mean something other than what seems obvious to me. I also think they get to the very core of our Christianity which is why I also feel under an obligation to find ways to defend my faith, including my faith in Jesus' words from Matthew, Mark and Acts, quoted above:

  • (1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . .

I am also concerned that, when it comes to anything related to chronology, we are at risk of making false statements to others. This does not reflect well on our organization and brings shame even to Jehovah. While I am not asking for anyone to agree with me, I do think that in defending 1914, we should avoid statements that are false. Making false statements is not the same as making dishonest statements, and that's why I would like to respond to some of your statements. I believe they come out of a completely honest heart and mind, and I like the way you think about things from a deeper and wider perspective.

Before I get into much detail, I would like to make a few statements about where I agree:

  • We are living in the last days, and the critical times and world conditions provide the evidence and context for what we are to expect during these last days.
  • Jesus is present and has turned his attention toward the rulers of this world
  • Satan is angry and active like a roaring lion knowing his time is short
  • The final manifestation, or coming of Jesus can happen at any time now, and is much closer now than ever
  • We should be using this time period to preach the good news and help everyone we can to know the truth
  • Jesus is king, not just over his congregation, but he is enthroned as King of Kings over all the powers of heaven and earth -- he has taken his power and begun ruling as king during this same period when Satan steps up his attacks
  • We have been blessed as an organization and as a worldwide brotherhood with the ability and willingness to spread the good news, and we should appreciate the value and responsibility and realize the good we can continue to do with such an organization as a foundation to efficiently accomplish this ministry

For me, 1914 is not a necessary component to any of the points just made above. But, for me, it is also a very important point that neither 1914, nor any chronology of any kind, should be made a part of the expectations surrounding either the presence or the coming of Jesus Christ in kingly power. For me, that is clearly what Jesus meant when he said what he said about not trying to use chronology. (I'll stop saying "for me" but it should be understood that I am merely defending the thoughts based on my own prayerful and conscientious concerns about the doctrine, which is also based on the leadership of elders whose guidance I have respected, including some who continue to hold positions of responsibility in the organization. They, like me, are also concerned about their inability to speak out clearly on the subject without fear of repercussions.)

So now, just three specific points:

1. I am concerned about issues of falsehood, and honesty based on the manner in which so many Witnesses defend the 1914 doctrine through apparent evasion, misdirection and false statements instead of being concerned with actual truth

2. I am concerned with adding to and taking away from the truth of the Bible, which is also an issue of 'faithfulness and discretion.' One of the first things I was shown that disturbed me a bit was when a Bethel elder (in Writing) showed me an old Bible commentary that made the statement that it is the height of presumptuousness for Christians to continue to believe that it is only specifically their own generation that Jesus is referencing. Since then I have been concerned with the level of presumptuousness apparent in the writings of so many religions who have found "Biblical" ways to determine almost every every generation since 1260 C.E. to be the "final generation" or "the end of the Gentile Times."  In fact, I think that Jesus was giving us a warning to be humble and realize that we are trying to put ourselves in the place of God if we believe that we can work out a chronology to determine the times and seasons. I remember how haughty it sounded when one of our own "Governing Body" members (F.W.Franz) would defend his speculation and promotion of the year 1975 against those who would point out that Jesus said no one knew the day and hour. If you remember or know of people who honestly remember that time period, you will know that many Witnesses used to say: "Well Jesus said we wouldn't know the day or the hour, but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" Brother Franz himself would imply that 1975-naysayers were only amateurs who didn't know how to use Jesus'  words, and were just playing with them as with a toy.

  • *** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
  • 35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.

3. You make a common claim above that Brother Russell had "some" things right about 1914. This is very misleading. In fact, Russell had NOTHING right about 1914, not a single thing. The closest we can come to making this claim is that he said it would mark the "end of the Gentile Times" but even here he meant something completely different about the meaning of the "end of the Gentile Times." He thought it meant that the Gentile Times, their kingships and rulerships and political organizations would disintegrate in a time of trouble that would END in 1914 and they would therefore witness the collapse of all world organizations into a chaos that would prove total within a year. He used the expression to mean that there would be no more Gentiles ruling within a few months of 1914. That Gentiles could no longer trample on the chosen ones. Saying that he was right all along about the "end of the Gentile Times" is disingenuous. We can't change the whole meaning of the expression "Gentile Times" just so we can say that Russell got ONE thing right about 1914. Yet, outside of that ONE thing, the use of a term "Gentile Times" he got NOTHING else right, and yet we still say that he got "SOME THINGS" right. That only shows that we have a "desire" to believe in things that were not true.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Useless debates:  Cut and paste, cut and paste - reminds me of some of the school and adult debates I've seen here in America.  People are "trained" in this form of debate in the school system and do not know any better... and I do not say this with distain - I have noticed this in all of American society - even in the work place - it is a form of social conformity. They "expect you to conform to this way of talking about a subject...  One does not think about the positive points in the opponents discussion - one just hones in on the points that you don't like - no matter how logical they may be - because if you can score a point only for a moment - then you are a winner!!!  America is full of these winners who cannot think for themselves... The justice system is a good example.... it is not about what is justice or injustice  - it is about winning a case - even if the person really perpetrated the crime.... many examples of this.  

People each get time to give their opinions and not really consider what the opponent is really saying..  and then people get to choose.  This is why American politics is in such a mess - same system - where the louder more aggressive person (and the one who appears to win the points for the present moment) walks away with the prize.  People do not really "think" about things....it is about scoring points ... It is not about what is really right or wrong.... it is about the supremacy....   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I appreciate the sincere comment of the JW insider above and the careful way you have put down your ideas.... I however wish to mention:  My faith is NOT a blind faith because I am not just prepared to believe what the "slave" tells me.   I have looked and "thought" it through carefully and I have come to the conclusion that they are being used by Jehovah.

Each one must "identify" the slave class for themselves.  This is why the question is asked in Matt 24: "WHO is the faithful and discreet slave."  

The timelines the JWs use, is not the reason I believe that the slave is teaching the truth....there are too many other things that are absolutely correct... but the fact that Jehovah has made many timelines available throughout the Bible can strengthen our faith tremendously.  How the timeline fits in with what is happening in the world today and how the many timelines are fitting into the 'overall universal project of the restoration of peace in heaven and on earth" under the reign of Jesus - the chief agent appointed by Jehovah to do this.

The final part of the timeline will soon come - the destruction of the wicked - the marriage of the lamb - and 1000 years judgment day.  Humans have had thousands of years to rule the earth independently from God .... but Jehovah is going to restore 'everything' in only 1000 years under the reign of Jesus - to bring all his promises to a complete 'reality'.  The timelines given have made his promises a "reality" for me.... and I understand the reason why he gave them.

I urge all my fellow witnesses to study the prophecies and do the same - not just debate Matthew and Luke....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 8/30/2016 at 1:31 PM, Arauna said:

Russell's calculations were arrived at through the Bible prophecy and a secular date.  The secular date when the Jews were allowed to go back to Jerusalem is a well-established date.

Aruana, I agree that we have no need to go back to Russell and we can and should evaluate our current beliefs about chronology based on their own merit. I'd love to do that here and perhaps a new thread on Matthew 24 or Daniel 4 would be a place to start as long as the relevant supporting prophecies from elsewhere are also shown, too. 

However, as it happens I am just reading through this thread more carefully and saw a few things I wanted to respond to. I'm not planning on focusing only on things you have said, and I'm not trying to get you or anyone to respond or argue for or against Russell in the process. It's just that his ideas were made part of the topic. (As I got to your second post, I realized just now that you had already said a lot of the things I also wanted to say about Russell and the pyramids. Sorry for the overlap.)

Your comment, requoted above, about the reliance on the secular date for when the Jews were allowed to go back to Jerusalem is correct within a year or so. But one of the problems with Barbour's and then Russell's use of that date was that he admits that it was a cut-off point before which he assumed that we need not pay attention carefully to the other secular dates within this same period. What he hadn't noticed, therefore, was that the only reason this secular date was "well-established" was because the entire Neo-Babylonian period was well-established, and this included the secular date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year which therefore established the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Both dates, 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem and 539 for the conquest of Babylon, are not only well-established, both dates area established through the exact same methods. But what should be even more interesting to our own reliance on them, is that in addition to the same methods for establishing both dates, there are some additional evidences for the dates within the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which makes 587-586 even BETTER attested than 539 for the Babylonian conquest by Cyrus and BETTER attested than 537 for the return of the Jews to Jerusalem.  This, in itself, doesn't mean that the other dates might be wrong, only that 587 is even better attested. Also, of course, whenever the Bible makes mention of the destruction of Jerusalem's temple, it marks it as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th-19th year (which is 587-6 if 539 is correct). The Bible also gives us another indication in Zechariah's time (agreed to be about 519 BCE in the Watchtower) that about 70 years have passed since the destruction of Jerusalem about 68+ years earlier. We also know that Daniel started considering the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah at the time that he personally was in Babylon for 70 years. We also have the comments in Ezra that quite a large and vocal portion of the 60,000 or so in attendance for the second Temple had seen the first Temple. This was not so likely if those people were over 95 years old (current WT reckoning). But it seems a little more likely if those persons were 75 years old.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 8/30/2016 at 1:31 PM, Arauna said:

Just a  thought.... have you studied the relevant prophesies and seen where the JWs today get the dates from? It is a fascinating subject.

If you are referring to Daniel 4, the "great tree dream" prophecy, that is a good subject in its own right. In effect, we must make the rule of this vicious and presumptuous, haughty Gentile represent the rule of the Messianic kingdom through Jesus Christ, a non-Gentile, by the way. Fortunately, the passage itself does not even imply this sacrilege, because it says only that the prophecy was fulfilled in the person of Nebuchadnezzar and says nothing of a second fulfillment or a greater fulfillment. Of course, there was a time when we would have looked for a greater fulfillment of the "three Hebrew children" thrown into the fiery furnace. In fact, we used to publish the idea explicitly that "Nebuchadnezzar pictured Jesus Christ."  (We changed this, but continue to say about the same thing when we say the seven "Gentile Times" of Nebuchadnezzar pictures the seven non-Gentile times of Christ's kingdom.)

The other problems with using the passage include the problem of assuming that these particular "times" are years, assuming that these years must be turned into 360-day years, assuming that we should multiply 7 x 360 to get 2,520 years, and assuming that these 2,520 years should be years containing 365.25 days each.

The biggest problem however is the fact that the Bible itself references the same Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 and does apply a number of Biblical times to them. This is in Revelation:

  • (Revelation 11:2-3) . . . the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. . . . 1,260 days . . .

Is there any doubt, then, that these are the same Gentile Times that Jesus spoke of when he said?

  • (Luke 21:24) . . . the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

 

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

    • Miracle Pete

      Miracle Pete 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • La_Jungala

      La_Jungala 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,696

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • xero

      xero 2,295

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

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

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    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.