part 2 Jehovah`s witnesses and the 1914 invisable presence of Jesus

[rootboysupreme1]

Okay, give me the references.....

So what about the other people who view this? You can't shew them off too! Just re do it, you'll get your views right back. I just think people really need to know this information. But oh well!

[arnie365]

i agree with u i must redo it,it`s just i have limited time at the moment.

[rootboysupreme1]

I'm sorry but this video is so unclear as far as the message goes! Not to mention the video quality. But as far as the 539 A.D. and 1914...., WHAT IS THE POINT HERE? Maybe you should write what you want to say down first before recording and posting!!! Don't think that I am bashing you or anything like that, because I talk to JW's as well about 1914, but what I am saying is... Be clear in your video, and be clear in what you say.

[arnie365]

sorry about the video quality bt it will make sense if u watch part 1.

the point is 1914 is invalid cos the wts has no base 4 their 606 destruction of jerusalem date cos the real date ,587 was derived the same way 539 was .the jw`s accept 539 as valid bt reject 587 cos it soes`nt fit their lie that Jesus came back in 1914 which was derived from pagan pyramidology.

[rootboysupreme1]

Why are you showing a page that people can't see?

[arnie365]

i loaded it up wrong,u can look up the references i give urself.