When I wrote "Daniel wrote the prophecy" I don't necessarily mean it is an actual prophecy, But part of it is a prophecy in the sense it makes predictions (claiming to come from God) about the future, such as about God's kingdom becoming established and the resurrection of the dead, whether those predictions whether come true or not.] I was just referring to it as it is described. It is like saying "Spock said" or "Captain Kirk said" in reference to an episode of Star Trek. It is also like saying the "Gospel of Matthew" instead of the cumbersome wording of the "Gospel which is attributed as being according to Matthew". It also like saying "Jesus said" instead of saying "the biblical Jesus said" or "according to the Bible Jesus said".
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
540
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast inwt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!
and the end times.
a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
540
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast inwt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!
and the end times.
a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Hi Jeffro. I thought of saying "Persia" instead of "Media-Persia" but I said the latter for the following reasons. (1) I think that a number of Christian books I've seen say "Media-Persia" (or Medo-Persia). (2) The book of Daniel says "the Medes and the Persians" and that wording made me wonder if a confederation (or alliance) of two countries were spoken of, namely of Media and Persia. However I think my wording might also be a holdover from the influence of WT literature I read since before age 10 which say "Medo-Persia". You are right though in saying that I should have said "Persia" instead. Daniel was probably speaking of ethic groups rather than kingdoms when he said "the Medes and the Persians".
Regarding your claim that "there is no reason the author of Daniel would refer to the fall of the ‘Roman empire’ that didn’t even exist yet", it depends upon the purpose of of why Daniel wrote the prophecy (or hypothetically why God gave him the vision and an angel interpreted it for him). If it were partly to convince people over the centuries (including those who would live in the time of the end) that that Jehovah God exists, that God influences world events, and that God foresees the future, then it would make sense to include a prediction about the Roman Empire. However if the prophecy was given to give hope to Jewish people living in 2nd century B.C.E., that harsh gentile domination over the Jews would very soon end, and that God would soon (in the 2nd century B.C.E.) establish a kingdom of his own over the world, then it wouldn't make sense to refer to the Roman Empire and to times centuries beyond 164 B.C.E..
Regarding your question of "Did you read the article I linked a few days ago?" in response to what I wrote (in the words which you quoted), the answer is as follows. When I made my comment I had stopped being confident that some Jews were using Daniel to calculate the arrival of the messiah in 26 C.E., 29 C.E., 30 C.E. or any similar year. Note that I included the phrase of "(assuming the WT's claim was correct)". As a result of what you had told me I had lost my confidence (in the idea of Jews making the calculation), but I said what I said so you would know why in an earlier post I said "about the year 30 C.E." instead of precisely "in the year 30 C.E.". I thought my post might give the wrong impression, so I tried to prevent that wrong impression from happening by also saying "(assuming the WT's claim was correct)".
I have not yet downloaded the PDF of the article you linked to about the 70 weeks prophecy. That is because when I went to the download site I noticed that it required me to provide my email address (or access with a Facebook sign in or a Google sign in), but I am hesitant to provide such information to that site. However, at some point I probably will do so, after I evaluate the site and/or read some agreement form (if any) pertaining to accessing the file from the site, in order to determine how the site will use my personal information. Update: Today I discovered it can be read it online if I click on the link which expands the document to show all of the pages online. But, I noticed it is many pages long and I am not yet interested in reading all of the pages. However, I intend to at least browse the pages when I have more free time. -
41
Fascinating Quotations of The Faithful Slave
by Vanderhoven7 indo you have any amazing quotations that have been produced by the faithful slave over the years?.
remember it's important that we should learn to love and value truth for it’s own sake; to respect and honor it by owning and acknowledging it wherever we find it and by whomever presented.
a truth presented by the faithful slave himself is just as true as a truth stated by god.. share some of those amazing quotations that have fascinated you.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
You are exactly right ozziepost. I remember thinking when I was young that if the WT reasoning about certain things (such as being persecuted, or rapid growth in numbers, being proof of God's blessing) were applied to the Mormons, then it would mean the Mormon religion was chosen by God. I think that even before I got baptized I often noticed the illogical thinking of the WT. I wish I had used that realization of the WT to decide not to become baptized as a JW.
-
540
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast inwt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!
and the end times.
a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Jeffro, I like your explanation, especially that you brought in verse 39 and that you say it shows that "the parousia is likened to the flood itself". But how can we get Fisherman and others to interpret/understand that way? Is what we said enough, or is more needed?
Br. Charles Taze Russell and thus his WT organization got it wrong. How sad. Their influence also caused me to have it wrong for so long.
-
540
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast inwt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!
and the end times.
a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Jeffro, how do you explain the wording of "so the parousia of the Son of man will be ... as they were in those days before the flood" in the quote Fisherman made of Matthew 24:37-38? Perhaps we should focus on the "as they were" part to say it is about how the timing will be unexpected. Perhaps we should also emphasize that in the 1st century the word parousia also had the technical meaning of the coming/arrival or visit of a king or emperor (a meaning which the WT has acknowledged did exist). Most words have more than one meaning, and the context needs to be considered to determine what the meaning is in a specific incidence.
The technical meaning also includes what takes place visually when the king arrives, and the biblical Jesus said people will see "the sign of the Son of man appear in heaven" and that people "will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of Heaven" [Matthew 24:30 (1984 NWT)]. Furthermore, the disciples asked what would would be the "sign of your [Jesus'] parousia" [see Matthew 24:3] and thus they might have meant parousia in the technical sense (including what people will see when they look at what is around Jesus), instead of in the sense that the WT uses it.
For documentation, see the posts made by Leolaia 14 years ago at https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/156634/watchtower-comments-generation-change-featuring-leolaia?page=19 . See also page 1577 in the first sentence of the last paragraph of section 5B of the Appendix of the 1984 Reference edition of the NWT.
-
41
Fascinating Quotations of The Faithful Slave
by Vanderhoven7 indo you have any amazing quotations that have been produced by the faithful slave over the years?.
remember it's important that we should learn to love and value truth for it’s own sake; to respect and honor it by owning and acknowledging it wherever we find it and by whomever presented.
a truth presented by the faithful slave himself is just as true as a truth stated by god.. share some of those amazing quotations that have fascinated you.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Vanderhoven7, I think that the words "To do so would bring" and "disfellowship" should also be underlined, for emphasis.
-
540
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast inwt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!
and the end times.
a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Oops. You are right Jeffro, I should have address the comment to scholar instead. I am glad though that you got a good laugh. -
540
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast inwt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!
and the end times.
a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Hi Jeffro. I intend to reply to your most recent post to me on another day.
-
540
Simple Question Re 1914
by Slidin Fast inwt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!
and the end times.
a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Jeffro regarding your advice to me that I "... should consider carefully the scholarship of Jehovah's Witnesses by means of their publication", I have studied many of their publications. I was raised as a JW from infancy, enrolled in the Theocratic Ministry School at age 8, became baptized at age 15, became a ministerial servant at age 19 (shortly after I began attending college), became a regular pioneer at just before age 22 (a few months before receiving my Bachelor Science of Degree in Business Administration), and eventually gave some public talks. But during that long time period I did not "... find Bible Study a joyful experience". Furthermore, from teen years onward I noticed that the WT on numerous times changed their teachings, resulting in them declaring their abandoned teachings as false, though previously saying that JWs could not speak against those teachings without being considered an apostate and thus shunned by JWs.
A number of times while I was an JW I noticed that some of WT's then current teachings were problematic and that much of their reasoning is illogical, misleading, and highly manipulative, but because I was baptized by them and felt pressured to remain an active JW, I pushed to the back of my mind the problems I saw regarding some WT teachings. Instead of Bible study, I wanted to spend my time in secular pursuits, such as studying science and inventions and trying to invent something myself, and trying to make a lot of money in the stock market. Eventually starting in 1995 I started seeing major problems with some core teachings of the WT (including their claim of the governing body being anointed by Jehovah and God) and thus in about 2001 I stopped being active as a JW and began independent study of the Bible. I also began collecting very old WT books (including ones by Rutherford an Russell) and began seeing to a great extent what they reveal about the degree of credibility of the WT's claim of being chosen by Jehovah God as his instrument and his channel of communication.
During my independent study I started enjoying Bible study because I was free to study about the Bible what I wanted, and the way I wanted, and was free to reject teachings which seemed false to me. But after I started seeing numerous major problems with even the Bible, after I discovered that biological evolution is true and that there never was a global flood on Earth, and after I discovered that Jehovah God and a supernatural Jesus Christ are both unreal, I began loosing my joy in studying the Bible. I am thus now at the point where I consider ceasing all study of the Bible, but my desire to convince others to become atheistic naturalists compels me to continuing studying the Bible (so I can reveal problems of the Bible effectively to others). I am trying to ween myself from studying the Bible, much as I have mostly weened myself from studying WT literature.
However, very recently by studying some old WT very carefully I can now see and understand why the WT's major writers (including Rutherford and Franz) concluded what they did on certain matters. As a result some of what they wrote seem much more strongly supported than what I had concluded before, but those teachings still seem to have major problems. For example, the idea that Christ is has been king (invisibly) since 1914 C.E. still seems to be false.
-
103
Jesus is Michael the Archangel
by Fisherman inonly jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.
“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
An influential commentary agrees with something I said on pages two and three of this topic thread. On page two I said "... Jesus (by way of his angel?) delivered God's message of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" to John." Sea Breeze on the same page quoted my words as 'Jesus delivered God's message of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" to John', leaving out the portion which said "(by way of his angel?)". He then said "How could you possibly come up with that conclusion with a plain literal reading of scripture?" In reply I said on page three of this topic thread that Revelation 1:1-2 say "... that God (the Father) sent a revelation about Jesus to Jesus, that Jesus in turn sent it "by His angel" to John the servant of Jesus." Today I learned that both the "Augmented Third Edition" and the "Fully Revised Fourth Edition" of The New Oxford Annotated Bible edition of the NRSV with the Apocrypha (the latter being copyright 2010), very influential commentaries, agree with what I said. Regarding Revelation 1:1-2 they both say the following.
"This revelation came from God through Jesus Christ and was communicated to John by an angel (referred to again in 22.16)." That is the same point I made, except the commentary uses the phrase "through Jesus" instead of "Jesus delivered" or "Jesus sent". Revelation 22:16 (NRSV) says "It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches."