The Revealing

a reply to: KKLOCO

No. Russell was not a Freemason. I know he referred to Freemasonry in early Watchtowers, basically condemning its secret nature, and its quasi religious nature, as it has indeed borrowed ceremonies that have pagan origins.

In any event all the teachings of the JW's can be found here:

JW.ORG

I encourage you to take a look at it. You will see there are no teachings of pagan origins, or of mystery religion, cult, or freemasonic origin. Take a gander.

Russell was a man. He is not Jesus Christ, or a leader of anything. Less of Jehovah's people on earth.

Ah, but since you made mention of Charles Russell, for you or anyone else here is a nice documentary on him:

Out of Darkness

Beautiful documentary, it will elucidate you on many things, and in the process put to an rest and an end many lies told about the man.

a reply to: EdgeofParadise

Right, and that’s why this was his burial capstone (with a Masonic lodge within spitting distance) which has been conveniently removed, in the last few years....

www.pinterest.com...

Along with the fact that he came up with his ‘1914’ date from doing extensive measurements on the Great pyramid in Giza.

www.neirr.org...

This is old new dude. You really should do some research.

originally posted by: SouthernGift
a reply to: EdgeofParadise

OP, I would be curious to hear you address the blood transfusion accusation/issue, if you have time:

Does it need to be the OP (it's already quite off-topic)? How about an actual Doctor (surgeon)?

Or the National Blood Authority of Australia (with statements from multiple doctors of medicine and health care, including surgeons):


More info:

Blood (playlist)

And further below are some links you can also get if you had typed in the following into your google searchbox:

blood transfusion site:jw.org

Anyone sincerely interested in the subject can do so and could have done so prior to my comment to get the answers or responses to the questions or issues one claims to be interested in having addressed, or claims to be curious about.

Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions?

Myth: Many Witnesses, including children, die each year as a result of refusing blood transfusions.

Fact: This statement is totally unfounded. ...

Do you think you know how to recognize a lie/myth/false story? A misrepresentation of the situation? Spin and propaganda intended to vilify, malign and incite disdain often followed by hatred?

2 Timothy 4:3,4 (NW)

3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.* [KJV: “myths”]

To avoid things that will lead into lying and going against the truth is wise. “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show out of his right conduct his works with a meekness that belongs to wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and contentiousness in your hearts, do not be bragging and lying against the truth.” (Jas. 3:13, 14, NW) Indeed it is as much as to say that if one has jealousy or contentiousness in his heart, if his heart is not right, it will not be very long until he is lying. One wrong leads to another; one lie covers up another. Also: “The one who conceals his hatred speaks lies, and the one spreading malicious reports is stupid.” (Pr. 10:18) “A lying tongue hates those crushed by it,” says Proverbs 26:28. A myth is a false story, a lie, in case you missed that. The myth described above, is also more specifically a “malicious report”. Go ahead, have another look at the myth described in the article above, compare with Sanitarium79's false slanderous accusation regarding blood transfusions and the actual facts concerning blood transfusions discussed by experienced doctors and surgeons in the various videos I've been sharing, or the published scientific articles and medical journals used as references in the various footnotes of the articles I've been linking. And think again about the question of who is really letting kids die, or causing kids to die, or what is causing kids to die (not to forget about the adults, but there's a clue as to why I'm focussing on the mention of "children" by Sanitarium79, an appeal to the emotions, see the article linked in my signature* for details about that technique; it further demonstrates his motives and intentions, and it gives a clue regarding the state of his heart as his figurative center of emotion; as used in the other Bible texts I've been quoting).

Blood Transfusions—How Safe?

Danish scientist Niels Jerne shared the 1984 Nobel Prize for Medicine. When asked why he refused a blood transfusion, he said: "A person's blood is like his fingerprints—there are no two types of blood that are exactly alike."

Blood Transfusions​—What Doctors Are Saying Now

And here's a link to a collection of published articles about it, which I guess would be a bit more tricky to find using google:

Blood Transfusions: Watch Tower Publications Index 1986-2019

*: actually, the technique I was talking about is described on the preceding page, not the page linked in my signature, the whole article is 2 pages. There are arrow buttons to the top right of the text for going forward and back between the pages.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Go ahead, have another look at the myth described in the article above, compare with... and the actual facts concerning blood transfusions discussed by experienced doctors and surgeons in the various videos I've been sharing, ... . And think again about the question of who is really letting kids die, or causing kids to die, or what is causing kids to die ... .

For those who will either not watch or otherwise missed the answer given by the surgeon interviewed in the first video of my previous comment, in response to a statement about the view of the general public and medical professionals that the blood used in medical procedures is "safe" as the interviewer put it:

"That is rather unfortunate, because this is what has been portrayed in movies and television and so forth and so on, because the first thing somebody screams is for blood, as the first line of defense, not recognizing, and we haven't recognized in medicine for a long period of time that blood is probably the most dangerous substance we use in medicine today, probably kills more than any other drug that we use and it should not be used as the first line of defense but rather the last."

Another thing he mentioned regarding this view and similar views about using blood in medical treatments: "It is extraordinary. The fact that you drive on a one-way street, going the wrong way at a 150 miles an hour, and don't kill anybody, doesn't make it right."

Of course, the administering of blood transfusions has killed patients that perhaps didn't need to die, or at least not as quickly. After all, regarding some of those statistics he mentions: "We now know for example that cancer patients who were transfused die quicker than those who are not." (there are some more detailed statistics regarding this subject in one of the videos in the playlist, 2nd or 3rd I think)

a reply to: whereislogic

So, nothing is perfect
Blood transfusions have issues but what doesn’t

No birthdays, at all ever, why because one bad birthday in the bible

Pity paedophiles aren’t considered evil like birthdays and blood, hay?

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I will check out all your links soon, couple of things:

Apologies for “off topic” but as you can see the thread was going no where already, just numerous attacks, and to be quite honest? I can use google just as well as anybody, it’s real people who practice a particular belief:religion and their real life honest, this is my personal view I have, not the church’s doctrine, official story; I was interested in...... but I am kind of under the impression from many of the attacks, that perhaps adhering to this specific denomination does not allow for individual opinionsF and that is what makes one a member? Partaking only of the belief stated in the doctrine and the particular interpretation of Gods word? Correct me if I’m wrong.

I think we get a lot further by discussing things in that way than by just sharing what we find certain experts have said, etc. I value the opinions of people who don’t have education behind them insisting I should, so maybe that’s a flaw others see in me where I see it as a strength. That’s fine too.

It is a curious question, no? I understand the issues with blood transfusions and I am not JW. I am of the impression that there is something very sacred about our blood that we do not have a grasp on as a society..... the truth is we trust the medical community over our own intuitions and the advice of past texts our ancestors left us, as we do not coherently understand them from our immersion in today’s confusing understanding of the language.

Also, I have a personal story, someone very, very close to me had a blood transfusion and was never the same person afterward. And I don’t mean physically. And though that’s also, off topic , I was just trying to start a discussion.

I am not interested in whether or not Jw has an official doctrine over whether or not they give permission to members to have organ transplants or use IVF as fertility alternatives when natural conception doesn’t happen; but I was interested if anyone had any PERSONAL opinions on those things and if they were in the same category as receiving a blood transfusion..... if they looked at tampering with conception in a Petri dish outside of the body as something God prohibits and if so, why? And if not, why? It’s just simple conversation.

Maybe those questions are answered in some official doctrine put out by the religion, fine; and anyone can call me lazy or hateful or whatever they believe I am being- but my true intentions were and are still just to try and have a fruitful discussion about the issues surrounding our bodies and what ways we use medical procedures to manipulate them that could be detrimental to our soul, and that God warned us about avoiding...

I used the other members quote because I wanted those reading to know that his blood comment is the thing that triggered my awareness in the first place.... otherwise I wouldn’t have commented on the thread because every word of it can be found somewhere else if I am interested.... no?

I’m just a weirdo, I think sometimes our own intuitive ways of perceiving the world are far superior to the ways in which the science and academic institutions try and indoctrinate us to trust their version of objective reality.....

If the OP wanted to use my comment to further explain some of his own views and understanding of God and the many many ways in which we can present that our body is a temple, he could have done so, beautifully; but instead I am left to feel as if I was in some manner, offensive for simply making an attempt at a deeper conversation.

Blood is a central theme to all of human history, no?

Not really off topic for any subject matter pertaining to God and the fact that Jesus blood was shed as remission for sins, I would think, also, being given such opportunities to further explain that to those curious and willing to listen would be of utmost importance to a believer wanting to work with the will of God to bring believers into the kingdom of heaven, no?

Just not sure why I caught so much heck for my comment when if you look at it right, could’ve opened up the doors to quite knowledgeable and intriguing discussion. At least for me, maybe nobody else notices the obsession with blood/dna/genetics/ in our current environment, reaching back all the way into ancient history, but maybe now they’ll take a second look...

Love to all... I hope the discussion becomes fruitful!
but if one just simply wants to drop a whole bunch of doctrine/information without offering any kind of substance.... then it probably won’t get much traction.

Remember, our own story, our own experience, and individualized understanding of things are of more value than society has led us to believe. Those that wrote the doctrines aren’t who all are interested in hearing from, sometimes it’s real people and their real thoughts and experiences that show the love and light of God to others.



a reply to: whereislogic

a reply to: SouthernGift

But it’s not just about blood transfusions, did you miss every other post in the thread

originally posted by: SouthernGift
Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I will check out all your links soon, ...

I hope you do, since it demonstrates something regarding your intentions and motives for bringing it up. If it's too much, you can focus on the facts discussed in the videos; they alone are enough to prove that Sanitarium79's remark about blood transfusions is a lie/false story/myth and a false malicious report. So you can then demonstrate both your honesty and ability to acknowledge a truth/fact about this subject, and to tell fact from fiction (or a propagandistic spin of the matter).

Without dealing with the facts/truths of the matter (acknowledging them for example), your comments about the subject are a bit hollow.

Remember, the main point of my comment is regarding the following myth:

"Many Witnesses, including children, die each year as a result of refusing blood transfusions."

Which was the point Sanitarium79 was making (more or less), which you appropiately referred to as an accusation, to be more specific, it's a false slanderous accusation. Spin, twisting the truth of the situation to be more in line with the picture one wants to present and get people to fall for with all the emotional effects that will have on the one who believes it. The fact is this statement is totally unfounded. Which is evidenced by the facts discussed in the videos. It's turning the situation upside down, presenting white as black and black as white.

Isaiah 5:20,21:

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!

You may also want to keep the following in mind:

a reply to: whereislogic

On the subject of blood transfusions. I have spoken with MANY doctors and nurses. They all said the same thing. 99% of JW’s needing blood transfusions — get them in private. Without their family or peers knowing. They know it’s a difference between life and death. That’s why you don’t here about this issue from them much anymore. They say all the right things, but when it comes to life or death — they choose life. Without anyone knowing.

Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses accept blood transfusions? This is a religious issue rather than a medical one. Both the Old and New Testaments clearly command us to abstain from blood. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28, 29) Also, God views blood as representing life. (Leviticus 17:14) So we avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of life.

a reply to: whereislogic

One small paragraph was all I could find that was in reference to my actual question. I was anticipating someone to expand on the fingerprints of the creator himself, but instead, I get defensive responses about how there’s alternatives to blood transfusions and reasoning behind why blood transfusions themselves can be considered dangerous, etc.

That’s the funny thing here, I am not advocating for or against transfusions. I was simply opening up a door to discuss the intricate fingerprints of God in our individually unique DNA, and how that revelation can open the door to a conversation about knowledge that has perhaps been lost on followers of God in modern times..... as I stated earlier.... the central theme to all of our history is wrapped around blood... dna, bloodlines, genetics, ritual sacrifices to gods through numerous cultures, evidence that it could still be happening, and our entire modern calendar is set at 0 according to the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross.... because his “blood” was shed for our sins, right? When someone mentioned the refusal of blood transfusions, even if in an accusatory way, I saw it as an opening to discuss what has been lost, our understanding of how and why the life and spirit is considered to be found coursing through our veins.

We know that things are passed down in our genetics and we know that science is tinkering with every aspect of it as if we were all just one big science experiment. Nobody bats an eye, because we have I guess decided that as long as we’re alive in this physical existence that’s all that matters..... but apparently there has been a hard to diverge from belief, passed down for thousands of years, that there’s something special about the blood of certain individuals and something corrupted about others....

I understand my interests aren’t everyone’s interests... and that many simply see it as “obey and don’t ask questions” so maybe it’s my entire concept of feeling like I am free to ask the questions that is the problem.... not the question itself. And that is why so many are turned off by the idea of an intelligent designer of our existence, because religion perverted him, by its design, which is in direct opposition to God.

I’ll play devils advocate here, and answer my own question.... I think perhaps the reason for the deluge that wiped away all but Noah (who was “pure” in his generations”) was the concept of corrupted DNA/ beings filling the earth that were no longer operating with the DNA/blood God intended us to have, because that opposition to the creator would like very much to erase Gods fingerprints from the creation, and inside our blood, our unique DNA, is where his fingerprints are found.

My mind contemplate the line and how we will know when we’ve crossed it, as it is written that “as it was in the days of Noah so then shall it be again” or something. I just wondered if perhaps this particular religion held any kind of specific beliefs about the sanctity of our unique DNA made by the God who knows the number of hairs on our head..... all the way to the epigenetic memories and generational traits passed down to us and expressed through our DNA .... or if it was simply that the religion is taking the words of the Bible and just saying “this is what we obey” without understanding the why behind it.

Nobody needs to convince me there’s an agenda to persecute religious beliefs like this from the scientific and medical community and the world at large, there is. What I did want convinced of, however, is that adherents to the belief understand why they adhere to it, and I have better articulated the way in which blood could be viewed as something to be precautious of dabbling in, because of its apparent unique fingerprint of God within each of us.

That’s a difficult thing to discuss with regard to the basic understanding that these procedures save lives, modern advancement in medicine has given the infertile ways to conceive, the broken ways to repair themselves, and the future a glimmer of hope for some that we might eventually “overcome” physical death completely....

All off topic to converting someone to JW, sure, but in the grand scheme of things- very relevant to the concept of Gods omnipotence and power, and the wisdom that can be found behind his instruction- but only if you can see it in the big picture view kind of perspective.

Again, I’m not “for” or “against” anything, but just thought the discussion itself could be of value.

I find the conversation to be of more importance sometimes than the conclusion reached.... because most people cannot do this respectfully and intelligently. It’s why subjects like this show up on an alternative website to social media and lunch break conversations.... we’ve lost our ability to reasonably discuss things.

Also, I can put anything I want into google and get anything back it wants me to have- so condescending me for asking what I’m trusting to be real humans about their real experience of things is actually smarter than letting a well scripted website answer my questions without any attached emotion to the equation. Everything is about proper presentation these days because everyone’s trying to sell something. I’m not looking to buy, I’m just here to enjoy the stories.


I remember someone I once worked with tearfully telling us her sister had died, because she had declined a blood transfusion for religious purposes. She wasn’t there to defend her beliefs, so I only got the side of the emotion filled heartbreak from her sisters viewpoint. Asking someone who adheres to that belief would give me somewhat of another side of the story, no? Maybe someone could articulate their deep faith in God and his sovereign plan for their lives, and that they trust when he calls them home it’s time to go? See I can jump around and TRY to see it from more angles than my own viewpoint, but still, I’m limited. This is where Jehovahs Witnesses and every other person who wants to use themselves as a light to guide other souls to eternal life..... could take advice...you don’t ONLY use the story that’s already written, and expect others to buy it just because you have...
You use your own story. “Testimony”
First, though, gotta write It

Everyone attacked me as if I am someone who’s going to condemn those who would object to blood transfusions as lunatics, when I was actually opening a door where someone could better explain the reasoning behind it. The beauty of Gods fingerprints in us. Weird how this worked out, though. Makes me feel as if JW aren’t interested in discussing the wonder and intricacy behind our design and the goodness of our creator, but to instill fear of disobedience without further substance or explanation. That’s where religious indoctrination has failed God, sorry to say.





a reply to: whereislogic

originally posted by: SouthernGift
a reply to: EdgeofParadise

OP, I would be curious to hear you address the blood transfusion accusation/issue, if you have time:

And it was Sanitarium79 who said something about it before you said that. That's a request specifically regarding the comment Sanitarium79 made about it, not a question. Now you switch to:

One small paragraph was all I could find that was in reference to my actual question.

What question, certainly not the request you made that I was responding to (yes there were also questions in your comment, but that wasn't what I was responding to now was it?).

It seems a bit like you're digging for dirt to see. Possibly a reason for thinking to yourself: 'there's something the matter with Jehovah's witnesses, something that needs addressing in your eyes, something to confirm to you that they have weird beliefs, even of the kind that can cause harm, i.e. something negative about their beliefs and consequent behaviour based on those beliefs, dirt.' It seems a bit like this is what you are attempting or really want (would like) to see, deep down in your figurative heart perhaps, see the footnote for the expression regarding 'having your ears tickled' in relation to this, as quoted before from 2 Timothy 4:3,4. If one cannot be honest with themselves (self-reflection is healthy), it's less likely one will be honest with others. No matter how eloquant one dresses up their commentary with nice words designed to make one's request look sincere and innocent, the truth can still be read in between the lines. For example by noticing what someone doesn't want to talk about or acknowledge (as a fact/truth/certainty, something that is factual/true/certain/absolute/correct, without error, all synonyms; by the way, this is what "acknowledge" means: "accept or admit the existence or truth of"). Something someone is demonstrating that they do not want (wouldn't like) to see as much as the other thing I described (one could prefer another description for it, and I could have described it differently as well, but that's besides this point, I doubt you agree with my description of your wants and likes anyway, but those are the signals I'm receiving from the content of your latter commentary; perhaps I have to get even deeper into it for you to notice it as well, but even if I were to do that, I have no guarantee you'll acknowledge it either to yourself or me, so no way to tell for me if what I'm pointing out is of any use, i.e. "beneficial teaching" as it's called at 2 Timothy 4:3,4; so in the end, I'll leave it at that regarding my attempt to explain the phrase: "you're digging for dirt to see." Which was also intended to avoid any offense or any of the triggered conditioned emotional responses to "reproof" as for example described at Proverbs 15:12 or the description "hates reproof" in verse 10).

I asked questions too you know. How about an answer to this question:

Can you see, how by becoming aware of the facts pointed out in the videos, one can arrive at the conclusion that Sanitarium79's accusation is false/incorrect? How it's spin? A false malicious or slanderous report of the situation?

Can or are you willing to acknowledge this truth/fact of the matter? Previously I asked these questions (or question if you want to see it as 1 question):

"Do you think you know how to recognize a lie/myth/false story? A misrepresentation of the situation? Spin and propaganda intended to vilify, malign and incite disdain often followed by hatred?"

Are you willing to acknowledge that it's a fact/truth/certainty that the statement made by Sanitarium79 (for which you requested a response) is totally unfounded? This was his statement:

But JW`s are responsible for thousands of deaths of their own members and children, just because they refuse to let member have bloodtranfusions because of some magical BS.

A statement that is false, malicious, slanderous, meant to push people's buttons to incite disdain often followed by hatred. Even the 2nd part of that sentence is a mirepresentation of the situation (see for example the way I phrased it in one of the questions below, the question that uses the word "encouraging").

Who is "responsible" for the deaths caused by administering unnecessary blood transfusions because selling blood is big business, hence the medical practice is highly marketed by those in the blood banking industry, including at the level of education? Who is saving lives by encouraging the refusal of blood transfusions when healthier alternatives are available? Which group of people were the primary cause for these healthier alternatives to become more available, more popular amongst those with a medical profession, more developed and even more healthy? Who is losing profits because of this development in the medical sciences? Who have been fighting this progress in medical science tooth and nail, even to the point of refusing alternative treatment to patients refusing blood transfusions, until the patients die, only to then have the media and the general public put the blame on the patient's supposed stubborness for refusing a medical practice that so clearly is violating the hippocratic oath when the alternatives are already available and well-established to be far superior treatments, sometimes even known by the one refusing alternative treatment and pushing his own preferred blood treatment; forcing patients to go from hospital to hospital to get the type of treatment they desire, until they run out of time? Who have really been very stubborn in not willing to listen to all the education and knowledge provided regarding alternative treatments, for decades, more and more of whom, are now finally coming around? Who has been instrumental in providing this education and knowledge? Who are or are not willing to admit that they made terrible mistakes in regards to the hippocratic oath based on financial pressures and interests of others manipulating their opinions and thoughts about the matter for their own benefit and reputation? And who are not crediting the source of their new-found 'insight' into the matter of using blood in medical treatments (a follow-up question to the question about who have been instrumental in providing this education and knowledge regarding alternative treatments as well as the dangers of using blood in medical treatments and giving false or misleading information about blood-types and compatibilities, or encouraging a false impression amongst professionals)?

No need to answer any of those, they are rhetorical to think about for a change. That is, given the facts as they have been discovered in the fields of medicine and health care first. The more I think about the actual situation, both current and historical, in comparison with the proposed picture of the situation by Sanitarium79, the more questions I can think of to wonder about. In the process of separating fact from fiction (or preferred spin, or way of phrasing things).

a reply to: whereislogic

No ones going to hear from the OP for a while. He’s ‘off the clock’.

Which proves how much fun it is for him to come on here and ‘preach’.

I come on ATS regularly, because I want to. The OP hasn’t been here in over 2 days to see his threads response. I wonder why?

I fu##ing hated preaching as well (full time pioneer). You are tied to the JW way of thinking. Without the ability to have a thought of you’re own. You’re ‘programmed’ for the proper response.

When I realized the religion was BS — it was the most LIBERATING feeling I have ever felt in my entire life! The feeling was so strong, it’s still with me today 18 years later.

Thank you for sharing your personal experiences
I scanned over the other thread of the OP too.

“Test the spirits” so to speak.... I think in all my wordiness and perhaps even miscommunication, all I’m getting at is what you concisely stated, that a lot of the presentation here is lacking in depth or seems as if it’s cookie cutter religion.... I like to dive in and really discuss the nature of God and find his goodness and love rather than simply “this is it; take it or burn” and there’s really no need to “dig” for dirt ...... the dirt is evident in the first place.... I was just digging around to see if there were any potential seeds to be sprouted down there..... ya know?

Whereislogic I appreciate the debate, and apologize that my intentions were muddied through my mistake of quoting a particularly triggering comment from another member.



a reply to: KKLOCO

a reply to: EdgeofParadise

After the world's governments and all wicked humankind in opposition to Jesus Christ are done away with a righteous rule by Jesus will begin over earth. It will be a heavenly government. And its subjects will be all those on earth. It will cleanse the earth, purify the people. Fix all problems. No more war, no more sickness, no more death.

When you say 'over earth" are you meaning this world of today or the new celestial earth which is in the third heaven?
According to the 24th chapter of Isaiah and the 3rd chapter of 2nd Peter, this universe will be clean dissolved and not simply renewed. This entire universe will be totally dissolved at the end of this creation period according to many scriptures of both the Greek and Hebrew bibles.

A righteous reign will indeed be of "The Word Of God" but only for 1,000 years on this earth. After the 1,000 years period the world inhabitants will come against "The Word Of God" and then the end of this creation will happen. All of this humanity will perish and the universe will dissolve according to the KJV bible.

According to the prophet Isaiah, the seeds of all this present creation will remain as their identification and will be the same in the spiritual body as it now is in the terrestrial body. There will continue to be nationalities and rulers in the kingdom of heaven as there are now on this present earth. The 144,000 shall be justified Hebrews who will rule their own seeds of Hebrews in the kingdom of heaven.

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

a reply to: SouthernGift

Thank you for sharing your unique perspective on the fingerprint of God. Definitely, a post that gives pause for thought and not a cookie cutter posting.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Deetermined

But this is so stupid
The 144 thousand called in the bible are all Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel and not Jehovah witness but the JWs think that it’s not Jews but JWs even though it’s simple and clear

Bible right or wrong, JWs have it all wrong

Just to clarify something that should be very obvious.The tribe of Judah was one of the 12 tribes of Israel.They are not the same.All Jews 'were" Israelites however not all Israelites are Jews.Conversely it says the children of Israel are the children of God not exclusively the Jews.That is a religious conflation.

The historical record says The Israelite nation of 12 tribes split about 3,000 years ago under the the Rule of Solomon son(who is Davids son) Rehoboam .They spilt into the northern Kingdom( tribes10 tribes) called Israel(Ephraim was one of the 10 tribes and he recieved the 1st born birthright which was the name Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah and Benjamin) named Judah.The Northern Kingdom of Isreal were captured by the Syrians and within a few hundred years they did not exist and there hasn't been a nation of Israel since.

In other words there has been no Israel for almost 3,000 years.It is not hard to figure out those that say they have a right to Israel are Jews(maybe ,but highly doubtful) not Israelites.The Jews have not been a part of Israel for 3000 years.This is very clearly documented .This is the essence of what the Palestinians are legitimately declaring.

This is the type of ignorance that is rampant.Clear information at the fingertips yet ignorance reigns and spills blood.

originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Deetermined

But this is so stupid
The 144 thousand called in the bible are all Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel and not Jehovah witness but the JWs think that it’s not Jews but JWs even though it’s simple and clear

Bible right or wrong, JWs have it all wrong

Just to clarify something that should be very obvious.The tribe of Judah was one of the 12 tribes of Israel.They are not the same.All Jews 'were" Israelites however not all Israelites are Jews.Conversely it says the children of Israel are the children of God not exclusively the Jews.That is a religious conflation.

The historical record says The Israelite nation of 12 tribes split about 3,000 years ago under the the Rule of Solomon son(who is Davids son) Rehoboam .They spilt into the northern Kingdom( tribes10 tribes) called Israel(Ephraim was one of the 10 tribes and he recieved the 1st born birthright which was the name Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah and Benjamin) named Judah.The Northern Kingdom of Isreal were captured by the Syrians and within a few hundred years they did not exist and there hasn't been a nation of Israel since.

In other words there has been no Israel for almost 3,000 years.It is not hard to figure out those that say they have a right to Israel are Jews(maybe ,but highly doubtful) not Israelites.The Jews have not been a part of Israel for 3000 years.This is very clearly documented .This is the essence of what the Palestinians are legitimately declaring.

This is the type of ignorance that is rampant.Clear information at the fingertips yet ignorance reigns and spills blood.

True but
We are dealing with revelation, not all Israel is Jewish but they could be, maybe a majority turn to Jesus, that’s a claim
Nobody really knows, including you

Yes mine is an assumption but we know the 144 000 are representatives of the 12 tribes not JW,org members

Splitting hairs and fair enough, I was wrong re the names, not that the JW organisation are blatantly lying about their members being the 144 thousand chosen.
That’s ludicrous

a reply to: EdgeofParadise

Who's Jehovah?

Do you mean Yahweh?

I am that I am.

Period.