- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I don't know, Pierre. Do YOU think he did? If not, then perhaps you should research into why the JWs believe it, and if they are wrong, PROVE it scripturally.
Pierre,
One question at a time. PROVE to me that the JWs are going AGAINST SCRIPTURE about 1914 first.
Hi ,
The JWs dogmas are one verse private interpretations.
They reveal the danger Peter warned us about.
The Bereans had a better wayMike, it's hard to argue with someone when you don't know what they believe. 🙂
What do you believe?
1914, Christ returned:
1. True,
2. Not true,
3. Don't knowQuote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 12 2012,11:25) I don't know, Pierre. Do YOU think he did? If not, then perhaps you should research into why the JWs believe it, and if they are wrong, PROVE it scripturally.
Mikeit seems that you know or do not know depending on what it is,
why do i have to prove anything ,I know because I was there and personally heard it with my ears
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 12 2012,04:41) Hi,
Why would we have to waste energy proving men wrong when the Word is still waiting to teach us?
Nick,does this mean you are going to stop speaking?
Quote (david @ Feb. 12 2012,11:41) Pierre, how old are you? Are we talking 1914? And where is “there”?
Davidit was related to 1975 ,but I know the teachings they give for many years and I am 72 and I learn or knew the JW sins 1959
Quote (david @ Feb. 11 2012,11:35) Mike, it's hard to argue with someone when you don't know what they believe. 🙂 What do you believe?
1914, Christ returned:
1. True,
2. Not true,
3. Don't know
David,Pierre made a claim that the JWs think Jesus' second coming was in 1914. That is not what the JWs think – as you should know. I have told him that their belief is that Jesus began to rule in heaven in 1914.
And I have read their Revelation and Daniel books. I know how they come to that conclusion. But my point here is not to defend the 1914 claim itself, but to prove that Pierre can not honestly just go around making false claims about this organization, while saying the false claim he made up about them is wrong.
Now, I have told him that the JWs don't believe 1914 was Jesus' second coming. Yet he has skimmed right over that, instead of saying, “Oops, sorry”, and moved on to another claim about 1975.
I won't let him do that. He made a false claim against the JWs concerning 1914, and he needs to own up to that action.
THEN……………. AFTER WE BOTH KNOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHRIST BEGINNING TO RULE IN HEAVEN IN 1914 (and not coming to earth), he must first show what exactly it is the JWs claim before he can show them wrong.
My guess is that he doesn't even know how they've come to that conclusion in the first place. My guess is that he is riding the bandwagon.
And it is not up to ME to show what the JWs believe, because I'm not the one claiming their belief to be false. If HE wants to claim it as false, then HE needs to show what the claim even is, and scripturally show HOW it is false.
Mike
Quote “Oops, sorry”, and moved on to another claim about 1975. this is more recent lets talk about this one ,ok
and during many years their believe as changed as well ,
Pierre
Okay Pierre. I'll assume that means I will NEVER again hear you slamming the JWs about some 1914 thing, right?
So, tell me about 1975. Tell me what your complaint is with the JWs concerning 1975.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 12 2012,17:26) Okay Pierre. I'll assume that means I will NEVER again hear you slamming the JWs about some 1914 thing, right? So, tell me about 1975. Tell me what your complaint is with the JWs concerning 1975.
MikeQuote Okay Pierre. I'll assume that means I will NEVER again hear you slamming the JWs about some 1914 thing, right? no ,that is not what I meant;it is still not true but I have thrown all my books to the garbage so you win for now ,but this does not bother me at all,
you did not answer me did you know about 1975 ??
you should have
Wakeup, I think there is one active JW in this forum, namely david.
Many of us here have seen through denominations and prefer to recognise that the Church is the Body of Christ.
It is after all better see the real Church which is the Body of Christ, rather than a Church Corporation complete with a CEO which is modeled after this world system.
Mike
this is 1914 ;
God's kingdom
Witness publications teach that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven, ruled by Jesus Christ and 144,000 Christians drawn from the earth.[174] The kingdom is viewed as the means by which God will accomplish his original purpose for the earth, transforming it into a paradise without sickness or death.[175] It is said to have been the focal point of Jesus' ministry on earth[176] and established in heaven in 1914.[177] They believe 1914 marks the restoration of God's rule over earth after being halted for 2520 years since 607 BCE, the date they uniquely assign to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.[178]this comes to the question did not God ruled before ? and if so as they say, what make it different ?? beside being that so many years have gone by???
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 12 2012,02:09) Did you not see the answer in green that I posted straight from the JW website? 
Any questions you have about the JWs can be answered on that website. Then, AFTER READING THEIR OFFICIAL ANSWERS, if you disagree with one of those answers, or think they've got something scripturally wrong, bring that ONE THING up in this thread so we can see if it is they who are wrong, or YOU.
Cant' you see what you're doing, Wakeup? You are ACCUSING the JWs of teaching that they are the only ones to inherit God's Kingdom, when right there before your own eyes are their own words saying, “NO, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT!”.
Come on Wakeup.It is much better to be fair in all things, than let your bias lead you into false accusations.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 12 2012,04:22) Hi ,
Why does anyone take any human religion seriously when they do not teach that you must be born again of water and the Spirit?
Unless you teach entry to the kingdom what is the point of the rest?
SEEK YE FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD…
Amen to that.If the teaching on salvation is wrong, then even if all the rest was right, (which it isn't), then what use is being right on theology, if you are not saved.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
