Matthew 24. Is the INVISIBLE PAROUSIA doctrine based on less likely, special definitions of SIGN, PAROUSIA, CONCLUSION, LIGHTNING, GENERATION, and "GENTILE TIMES"?

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Since the "librarian" doesn't allow me to confront questions given to me by the regular commentators that are defended by the moderator?  I can simply say the Watchtower is correct to suggest the disciple's interest was of establishing an earthly kingdom NOT a heavenly Kingdom. So, the suggestion of the disciples having considered an invisible kingdom or the return of Christ(Invisibly) has been distorted for that time period. Reread my post, thank you!

As far as I know, this first sentence is not true. Whenever anyone wishes to confront a question you have all the leeway you need, exactly as everyone else does. It's always been up to you if you wish to respond to a question or not. When I re-read your post, I have the same question because you didn't answer it. It's not a problem if you don't wish to or even if you have some other agenda, like the one you point out below.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

My only concern here is to allow visitors to this website NOT read here what they would normally be accustomed to reading in apostate sites. If anyone wishes to refute my comments, then do so by the grace of God, not by past understandings that have been revised to meet the needs and understanding by each generation.

I understand your concern. But if you are saying that the information I stated was a "past understanding" then I never saw or remember the place where this "past" understanding was ever corrected. I think I know of a couple of Watchtower articles that imply that there could have been a few different ideas in the minds of the disciples, but there has not been any clear statement that the disciples asked the question with the idea that these words about a parousia or a synteleia would refer to an invisible presence. Yet, we do have this clear statement that they had no idea about an invisible presence. 

If you are saying that your only concern or agenda here was some kind of obfuscation to highlight the idea that this kind of discussion reminds you of apostate content, then I can assure you that it is based solely on Biblical study, prayer, research, and reason, and a very strong attempt to give all possible "benefit of the doubt" to the Watch Tower publications first.

[Arauna]

I do not have time to respond to all comments but it is absolutely clear to me that NONE of you have taken the time to really study the entire sections on Chronology as set out in the Insight book.   And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that.  I read some of the (translated) lists and I was not impressed when I investigated these things......... .. .  The Insight book also gives good reasons WHY they are not trustworthy..... while the Bible chronology is very well set out. 

One does not need secular dates to establish bible chronology - but some people are not happy if they do not receive this. One can count the years from the date of creation of Adam until today......(go and look in the Insight book!  it is all there! ) As I said before - we do not need any secular dates to corroborate the Bible because one can pinpoint the date of the start of Jesus' baptism in the year 29 CE (because there was no year 0) and work BACK! as well -  and it still gets one to the same numbers and dates!

I think you are enamored of you own scholarly endeavors and pushing your own ideas above those of a groups of researchers from our organization who have all contributed to these articles and who have been looking at all possible evidences.  Yes they are fallible but their arguments are more acceptable to me than the ones I have seen here on these pages.

And I said before the bible chronology is part of Jehovah's PURPOSE.... see how the chronology fits in with his purpose....

 

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

I believe the Bible to be correct and I think the slave has done some excellent research.   ... Go and read  Chronology in the Insight Book and you will see the many different reasons and calculations they use for getting to the same year that most secular historians as well as the Jewish scholars reach as 539 BCE- and Jewish scholars also put the return at 537 BCE. 

The Insight book goes into the many eclipses etc..... and it also goes into the counting of the years which you refer to as 19 years ..... because there is no year 0  and also cardinal and ordinal numbers also changes the months and possibly the year....It also gives the secular sources of the year 539 etc etc... Read the entire Chronology section PLEASE!

I am sure that after you have read the evidence you will rethink some of your own ideas.... and hopefully those persons who agree with you as well!

Yes, I believe the Bible to be correct, too, of course, and I agree that in the Insight book we have a wealth of excellent research. I am re-reading the Chronology article there and am looking at ALL the different reasons and calculations they use for getting to 539 BCE. I will go ahead and read the entire Chronology section again before I hit "Submit Reply." I will give it a completely open mind, and will only make notes that are positive and supportive of the article along the way.

...

...

...

Not done yet! I have read it twice before, and very carefully at that! But I'm giving it another go and will not be done before tomorrow, perhaps noon. I did see your last post as a reminder.
 

[JW Insider]

Your style of response is not clear. I'm not sure if that was on purpose, but I will do my best to comment by including comments interspersed within the quotation of your post below. Your comments are in blue, so mine will be formatted in black, primarily. I don't know who is doing the asserting of all the dates you quote, and I assume there may at times be more than one possible reading or supposition about certain dates. If I recognize the specific secular date as one in which research provides evidence that it is correct and that it also finds support in the Bible, I will label it "Bible-supported secular date(s)." 539 for the capture of Babylon is a Bible-supported secular date which you and others have agreed with, too. 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem is a non-Bible supported, non-secular date for that event. 607 for the rebellion of Jehoiakim might come within a year or so of the Bible-supported secular date synchronized with that event. (I have never worried about arguing over +-1 or even +-2 years in some cases.)

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Example 2: The assertions with dates.

Whose assertions? Yours? Secularized? Suggested as improvements over the Watchtower's dates? Likely the presentation that both the secular and the Watchtower version of the chronology may both have enough merit to get you to the same point in 607 as a start of the downfall that brings destruction and desolation on Jerusalem. Even from two different perspectives 607 is reachable.

Appointments ran concurrently after the death of King Josiah 609BC

*** it-2 p. 118 Josiah ***
Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.)

You are using the Bible-supported secular dates here. The Insight book calls this date 629, not 609. (I know you are already aware that these dates use the secular basis, but not everyone will be aware of that.)

Egyptian appointed vessel Jehoahaz 3 months 609BC

*** it-1 p. 1265 Jehoahaz ***
Jehoahaz was 23 years old when made king, and he ruled badly for three months in the early part of the year 628 B.C.E

You are using 609; likely a Bible-supported secular date. Insight shows 628.

Babylonian appointed vessel Jehoiakim 609BC

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Jehoiakim’s bad rule of about 11 years (628-618 B.C.E.)

You are using 609; likely a Bible-supported secular date; Insight uses 628.

1.609/8BC  2.608/7BC  3.607/6BC = 3 years 2 Kings 24:1

2 Kings 24:1 Context: Babylon Controls Jehoiakim

1In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 607/6BC 

2 Kings 24:2 Context: Babylon Controls Jehoiakim 607/6BC

2The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets

Note from JWI: This is not the only way to count the years, as you know, but as I said before, this is not a place where I will quibble over 1 or even 2 years. You are still using the Biblically-supported secular years, here. Not the Watchtower's. In fact one method of counting starting from the Watchtower's date of 608/7 as year one, could also consider this to be a "0th year" so that 608/7 is the starting point of counting and 607/6 is the first year, 606/5 is the second year, and 605/4 is the third year. This is still not too far out of reach to make your point, but it does appear that the latter method might come a little closer to the Biblically-supported secular accuracy, since other evidence doesn't have Nebuchadnezzar coming up until 605 and 604 might have been his first full regnal year.

So, 2 Kings 24:2 indicates Jehoiakim rebelled after 3 years. However, it doesn’t “State” that Prince (King) Nebuchadnezzar would set out to “DESTROY” Judah. Daniel states in Daniel 1:1 that King Nebuchadnezzar “Besieged” Jerusalem. The Destruction would come from GOD through the prophets by means of “missionaries” from many nations. So, it could be said that “destruction” commenced in 607/6BC

Note from JWI: This is very close to the way I understand it. However, I also understand that Babylon (not necessarily Nebuchadnezzar specifically) was given its surest path to rising power after Assyria began to fall in 612 and therefore especially through 609. The specific actions that would start against Judah and Jerusalem need not start immediately, just as with Tyre in the prophecy of Isaiah. But I do believe that the first desolations began about when you say, within a year or so of 606. 

Now under secular history, King Nebuchadnezzar was NOT yet King until 2 years later. Then Prince Nebuchadnezzar could have been foreseen as King since the “Prince” had already started commanding his own ARMY before he became King. Another indication of the Prince being seen as King as a “General” and “Commander”, alongside King Nabopolassar.(Co-Regent)

Note from JWI: Never had a problem with that. I have suggested it as a possibility in a thread a couple years ago. Also note that in the Bible "Nebuchadnezzar" became almost synonymous with the dynasty, even to the point where his successors were spoken of as if they were his son and grandson. So it is even possible that anyone from Babylon or through Babylon's permission even, could be counted, even Nabopolassar. But I think your suggestion here is more likely.

Another thing secular history doesn’t consider is, King Nabopolassar was becoming frail and ill. Another reason why Prince Nebuchadnezzar might have stepped in for his Father to take “control” of the matters of state at that time. History does show Prince Nebuchadnezzar “racing” back” to Babylon upon hearing of his father’s death. A feat he accomplished in just 3 weeks in 605BC from Carchemish to Babylon according to history. 1,167 kilometers that would take a mere 15 hours today, but according to opposers, Nebuchadnezzar had the best of the best, top of the line super fast “horses” back then.  

Note from JWI: I don't know why you say history doesn't consider this. It's such a common historical feature of dynasties and intrigues and in the avoidance of potential coups. Also, I don't know why you need to focus on "opposers." Remember, if you are the one taking a stand against a bit of historical evidence then you are the "opposer." As I've said before, it wouldn't surprise me if there was just a bit of exaggeration here. But the main point is that he raced back in order to claim the throne within 3 weeks. So what if it took him 4 weeks? It was usual for the top horses to be assigned to the King's family, and we have no reason to doubt that he was already a wealthy prince.

Now common sense should dictate that King Nabopolassar didn’t hand over the “reign” to Prince Nebuchadnezzar? Since he was already dead, so, that last will and testament must have been given to Nebuchadnezzar earlier by “Proclamation” to all within Nabopolassar government. However, there is a suggestion in history to indicate before someone from the royal line received the royal crown? The next in line needed to be seated on the throne which gave the Prince the urgency to return home.

Reasonable.

So, could Jeremiah have seen Prince Nebuchadnezzar as King? YES! It could also be that on the 19-year indicated in scripture, it could be referring to the 19-secular year of Nabopolassar.

For the first part, Yes. For the second part, NO. I already know why you think it is possible from previous posts and hints, but I can give several good reasons why it isn't going to work out. Not yet, not now, however.

Now, apostates, skeptics, and opposers argue that 587BC is the actual destruction of Jerusalem. However, what they don’t see is their own “errors” if we use their secular history to “prove” 607/6BC to be CORRECT. If one takes Jeremiah 52:12-17 Context: The Temple and the City Burned

Again, what's all this reference to apostates, skeptics, and opposers? People who have full faith in the Bible also believe that 587 (+- 1 year) is the correct date. I believe it and I am very happy that the Bible is corroborated by secular records and archaeology. We don't need such corroboration to have faith in the Bible, but it is a good thing to remember when discussing the Bible with skeptics. Also, it might not sound right to you, but almost ALL persons who have studied the chronology of this period use the 587 +-1/yr date. That makes you and most other Witnesses, the "opposers." And while we are at it, we are all apostates from our prior beliefs. This includes yourself. If you once believed, for example, that the FDS was the entire remnant of the 144,000 at any given time on earth, and you now believe they are only the GB, that makes you an apostate from your prior belief system. The same is true of those who have made a 20 year adjustment in when they believe that Jerusalem was destroyed. That includes me.

Again, however your specific point about how their secular history can be used to "prove" 607/6 to be correct is not really a new point, is it? Anyone who ends the 70 years around 539 is probably starting it around 609/8 which is only a couple years different. You can't use the terms "errors" or "prove" in your context above, because it's not necessarily that accurate, but I agree that it's close enough to consider.

Jeremiah 52:12-17 Context: The Temple and the City Burned

¹² Nebuzaradan served the king of Babylon. In fact, he was commander of the royal guard. He came to Jerusalem. It was in the 19th year that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon. It was on the tenth day of the fifth month. ¹³ Nebuzaradan set the Lord’s temple on fire. He also set fire to the royal palace and all the houses in Jerusalem. He burned down every important building. ¹⁴ The armies of Babylon broke down all the walls around Jerusalem. That’s what the commander told them to do. ¹⁵ Some of the poorest people still remained in the city along with the others. But the commander Nebuzaradan took them away as prisoners. He also took the rest of the skilled workers. That included the people who had joined the king of Babylon. ¹⁶ But Nebuzaradan left the rest of the poorest people of the land behind. He told them to work in the vineyards and fields. ¹⁷ The armies of Babylon destroyed the Lord’s temple. They broke the bronze pillars into pieces. They broke up the bronze stands that could be moved around. And they broke up the huge bronze bowl. Then they carried away all the bronze to Babylon.

When we go backward 19 years? We end up with 606BC. An inconsistent date for the acclaimed and famous years 587BC. A one-year difference on the proposed secular enthronement of Prince Nebuchadnezzar of 605BC.

Exactly (almost). By one way of counting, at least. I'm not getting why this would be a problem for anyone.

So, here we can see that Jeremiah is correct to start Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in 607/6BC. The 19 years referred to in scripture is actually the “time” given for the destruction of Judah by many incursions(Invasions-Attacks) that were made by the Babylonians and other nations.

It doesn't bother me, either.

Even if we extrapolate the 19 years from Nabopolassar Reign 626/5BC when Nebuchadnezzar became king according to scripture, it would end up in 607/6BC, and that was the “intent” that Jeremiah proposed in 2 King 24:2 by the defiance of King Jehoiakim in 607/6BC 3 years after he was made King, and was echoed by Daniel.

if you change scripture to Watchtower or WTS, then you could say that 626/5 was when Nebuchadnezzar became king according to the WTS. But I'm not so concerned with this theory. It's not necessary, and doesn't fit the evidence. And ultimately it doesn't fit the Bible, which is the best reason to reject it.

Here, of course, opposers would suggest the Watchtower would be wrong given secular facts, however, thier secular facts are inconsistent with their own secular chronological order as well. That's why scripture is more credible without actually being there, which many secular historians thrive on.

Just a plainly false statement. The secular chronology in this case shows that the scriptures are credible.

Therefore, suggesting one shouldn’t be dogmatic about 607BC, 1914AD, should also be accepted then, about the years 587BC and 539BC, that has been a "PET" project and a theme for about 2 years now. Opposers also suggest the Watchtower makes adjustments to fit their theory, while SECULAR history by means of opposers does the same, such as in VAT4956, 568BC.

Completely agree, of course, that one shouldn't be dogmatic about 607 or 1914. Dates of any kind, but especially the uses made from 587, 607, 539 and 1914 have absolutely no effect on my faith. If the Watchtower continues to make adjustments to their theory, I'm listening closely. It takes a lot of humility to admit a mistake after 120 years, but they have already humbly admitted to literally hundreds of them, and I'm sure those won't be the last.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

My only concern here is to allow visitors to this website NOT read here what they would normally be accustomed to reading in apostate sites.

My only Bethel contact, and one I've let grow cold, as I've not kept in touch, once told me that the closer one gets to the 'inside,' the more challenge it can be perceiving God's direction. Friends will marvel at how God has supplied just the right understanding at just the right time, and he will say "yeah, it's only because so-and-so is too stubborn to...."

THIS is how God 'works in mysterious ways,' to borrow a phrase the churches use when their doctrines have painted them into corners they cannot get out of. Jehovah does use an organization - it is evident if only by its accomplishments and unity - he uses imperfect men who have differences and opinions, and somehow hammers out leadership from them. To suggest otherwise is to suggest our critics are right - that JWs are brain-controlled zombies. No, they are regular people, with differences even at 'the top' and yet somehow God makes it all work.

If there is one thing I would gingerly suggest we do wrong, it is the frequently repeated admonition to stay away from any 'apostate reasoning' because it is like poison. I see why they do it - because the scriptures state they should - and yet it leads to almost a superstition among some of us that mere ideas are poisonous. In fact, the ideas are not poisonous; what is poisonous is many of the people who are pushing them.

So when you get off-the-grid thinking from someone who is decidedly not poisonous, it is not necessarily a bad thing. Whether it's great to put such stuff out there publicly is for others to say, but since countless persons have served in capacities in which they gain a glimpse into the inner workings, and there is an internet upon which they can write, it is unavoidable that some will. Frankly, the best way to handle such writing if someone deems it objectionable is to ignore it and let it drown in the boundless sea of online verbiage. You (and I) by our frequent comments are ensuring that does not happen, somewhat to the chagrin of JWI himself, I suspect, who says he deliberately chose a obscure forum to unload without being in-your-face about it. He assists in his own mission by posting comments so long that 98.9% will pass over them. I do. That is, I skim - not because I am uninterested, but because I have too much on my plate. No one can do everything and I leave such matters to those who have more affinity for it than I. They will refine and shift and ultimately something will come down through theocratic channels and I will say: "yep, it must work, because of the '900 languages.'"

Is it possible to become full-of-oneself or proud from too much expounding? Of course. "Knowledge puffs up," Paul says. But that is a caution, not a direction to avoid thought on that account. Theocratic publications are also a product of thinking. There are other factors that serve to keep one humble, such as full participation in the ministry, the drubbing one takes from life experiences, and the recognition that we ought not get too big for our britches ever because we can all go Alzheimer's, cancer, or run over by a truck, at a moment's notice.

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

If anyone wishes to refute my comments, then do so by the grace of God, not by past understandings that have been revised to meet the needs and understanding by each generation

I like this. I have added the italics. It is the reason that John differs from Matthew, Mark and Luke - the former was written decades later and the needs of the Christian community had changed. So it is with theocratic writings.

 

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Then, as the "librarian" once told me, POST YOUR COMMENT, CALL IT GOOD, AND MOVE ON!!!!!

Sometimes you can spirit away the old hen and see if anyone will pony up to get her back. I have found she is not in such demand as she apparently thinks she is. Incidentally, humor, IMO, flavored with just the right mix of ridicule, is a great way to confront the poisonous persons I speak of, (though one must be careful with humor, especially ridicule, because it does not translate well) if you are unlucky enough to run across them. Expressing outrage and accusations - please forgive me for this because I know where you do it, it is because you are jealous for pure worship, as we should be - only makes them gleeful at getting such a rise out of us and encourages them to do more.

Again, to quote you: "My only concern here is to allow visitors to this website NOT read here what they would normally be accustomed to reading in apostate sites."

Hopefully, they don't. I don't. (Having said that, the best way to get someone to do something is to tell them they shouldn't) The one time I deliberately did as an experiment, I was met with such nastiness that I backed out after a few days. They weren't nasty at first. They were effusive in their greetings until they perceived that I was not about to jump ship.

[Arauna]

I believe I do have an open mind and I am open to new ways of looking at things but when one argues about history and dates one really has to have the expertise in the field to distinguish fact from fiction...  And unfortunately most experts will accept dodgy historians of ancient days while overriding what the bible has to say.   This is when I evaluate what the bible has to say first and look at what material the organization has looked at and evaluated before me.  In the past I used to get the books ( quoted in the Insight book) from the library  (when possible)  and look at it for myself.    

I think one should really evaluate the information which the governing body has put together as part of your decision making process and not be an expert on your own.  In collaboration with others one will reach a better conclusion.  I do not reject new thinking but I think that when someone has done the trouble to go through all the available information on the subject to assist us one should NOT be suspicious that they are pushing an agenda as though they are our enemy and wish to harm us. They truly believe they have a mission to uphold Jehovah's word - despite the fact that they are fallible and sometimes grumpy old men. 

This is why I like the idea of writing committees because this ensures that most agree with what must be written before it is published.  Yes there are always domineering individuals but I do think that this is eventually sorted out - and when it comes to history or evaluating ideas - one has to evaluate everything that is available.

One of my first test of any new information is : how does it fit in with what the rest of the Bible says about this subject.... if there are several other places which confirms a particular viewpoint - this is what I will go with.  

I believe that there will in future be wicked individual slaves - like in the past - who will sow seeds of apostasy and as part of Satans final onslaught to attack the slave --- by slanderous material (already happening) and spreading false information (already here) and sowing doubt about basic teachings.  I am vigilant to this - not to be infected by persons who are not really convinced in their heart of the time-line in the purpose of Jehovah.

I have studied this time-line before but now I have renewed vigor to look at it again!   I do look at Darwinian websites so I can think like one of them when I speak to them.  I like to see issues I have not thought of before.  I also like Physics and the new developments... to see where my faith may be challenged ; and I have always love history - ancient history and modern. 

I am NOT a scholar but an autodidact..... and the more I know the more I realize how little I know.... I had a big ego when I was younger and had a great future with a great talent but I have let all that  go and work daily to be the best I can be to the glory of Jehovah.    

Now and then I get on this site and let go - to the chagrin of my fellow witnesses....  Apologies if I hurt someone's feelings because it is arrogant to think that one can be the protector of what Jehovah has said.  He has the power and insight to do it all by himself.  But I do think that I should love my fellows enough, to tell them with honesty when I see that they do not value what has already been prepared for us and value their own ideas more - to the detriment of themselves.  

 

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I'll respond to your wordplay directly. However, the sentence is "true" since as I was "censored" by the Librarian and "blocked" until I agreed to accept the warning given in private. Perhaps it wasn't made public but the sensor was made in private just like a judicial committee.

I can't believe I am putting in a good word for that ignorant and disgusting, donut-gorging, wine imbibing, pig-headed, gouty, anal-retentive, over-promiscuous, sorry excuse for a woman known as @The Librarian, but when her cohort slapped an A on me for abuse - an A that never ever ever ever ever ever goes away (oh - I just checked my profile - it did. Rats. She told me at the time it would not),  I had to admit that I had it coming. It also helped me to improve my writing. I learned to make my points as forceful without triggering any alarms for abuse. In fact, they are more forceful, for when someone detects you have stepped over the line and 'lost it,' they will discard your entire argument on that account.

"No discipline is joyous for the present, but grievous, but it makes for fine training, and besides, you wouldn't be disciplined if you weren't loved" or something like that. Now I know that The Librarian loves me, the old hen. You never had an entire thread taken down, Allen, as I have. Benefit from the old hag. You post fine content and you put much work into it. Don't allow it to be dismissed because of a too aggressive manner. If I can stand up with a appreciation for the filthy overbearing opinionated perpetually semi-drunken wench, so can you.

But now, no more on this from me, since she is getting her hackles up, discerning someone straying from theme. Even JWI is saying - 'Oh no! TTH! He always drags that JTR along with him and then it's goodbye to decorum!' The trouble is, much as I HATE to admit it and will disagree elsewhere, JTR has a point. If my off-topic remarks are going to be consigned to some tiny backwater, I won't bother making them in the first place. Everyone's time is worth something, even mine.

......"This is why I like the idea of writing committees because this ensures that most agree with what must be written before it is published.  Yes there are always domineering individuals but I do think that this is eventually sorted out - and when it comes to history or evaluating ideas - one has to evaluate everything that is available."

I like this point, too, from @Arauna. I am a lightweight here, and I like that she brings this out for balance.

[TiagoBelager]

Jesus' apostles were undoubtedly perplexed that (earthly) Jerusalem was not to be the scene of an irruption (sic) of divine power for giving Jesus a throne in Jerusalem as manifestation that Messianic kingdom rule had begun once again in Jerusalem with Heaven's backing. And if such were not in store for Jesus in connection with Jerusalem, then exactly what should they expect--where should they look--for any visible manifestation that finally the time had come that God had given Jesus a Messianic (Davidic) throne? No, Jesus would not be holed up in some desert redoubt with an army of sword-bearing warriors, nor would he be secretly conspiring with any Jewish nationalists for subverting Roman rule by whipping up the masses for frenzied attacks against Roman soldiers in Judea. 

Now, the book of Revelation is meant to refine the thinking of Christians as to the nature of the Parousia (see Rev. 1:10, 19; 6:2). Would the Parousia involve miraculous manifestation of divine power for securement of Jesus' throne? Yes, but it should require eyes of faith to see it (compare Revelation 12:1), just as it did for anyone seeing (appreciating) "the sign of Jonah" (Jesus' resurrection), because even though one may not be able to bear eyewitness testimony that he had ever seen the resurrected Jesus, yet still by his eyes of faith he knows Jesus lives even as one made alive in a glorified, spiritual organism (see 2 Corinthians 5:16). And though the book of Revelation helps us to see that even though the Parousia involves a miraculous irruption of divine power for the enthronement of the heavenly Son of God, and that it requires eyes of faith to see it, yet should we not also see that the Parousia is not brought to an end just as soon as Jesus' heavenly throne has been secured against any further attempts by Satan and his angels to ruin the enthronement event (see Rev. 12:3-10)? Yes, we should see as much. Jesus has much to accomplish during all the time of his royal visitation (+1000 years)--much more to accomplish during all the time he has his heavenly throne for his giving special attention to what all goes on here on earth before the last enemy is brought to nothing (see Rev. 6:1, 2, 9-11; 7:9-17; 11:15; 12:10-12; 17:9-11 for some of the things that take place over an extended period of time during -- after commencement of -- the Lord's day/Parousia). 

[JW Insider]

On 8/5/2017 at 9:27 AM, AllenSmith said:

I'll bite. I'll respond to your wordplay directly. However, the sentence is "true" since as I was "censored" by the Librarian and "blocked" until I agreed to accept the warning given in private. Perhaps it wasn't made public but the sensor was made in private just like a judicial committee. A stipulation you found humorous given your comments in other threads with ANNA.

You are also aware of the many "deletions" by the librarian to protect his pet commentators, even though one is down right insulting, and is allowed to be degrading, malicious, and defamatory. While others shrug it off as humor. So, when you say "as far as I know, the first sentence is not true" we know you are being deceptive. 

I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you without all the unnecessary rhetoric. I understand your situation somewhat, if you actually believe I am espousing the equivalent of apostate ideas, and you wish to counter them, but also wish to keep reminding an "audience" somewhere that you know "from whence such ideas come from," and need to clarify your distance while still engaging in dialogue. 

And yes, I could tell that there is a bit of censorship going on here, (e.g. the "POSTER") although I figured it was self-censorship due to previous warnings about not directly calling a specific poster an "apostate" or reminding them of their "Satanic" roots, or effectively threatening people who merely "upvote" the posts of people you strongly disagree with. (I copied a few of those long topics to my hard drive, and several of them have your original posts in them, that have since been deleted from the current site. Those deletions all reflected problems like the ones I just mentioned.) Personally, I really don't care about being mislabeled as much as the site owners apparently do. I think that as long as we can share information, it's the Internet after all, and we can expect whatever gets thrown at us.  But it does get to be a time waster for anyone who wants to wade through the debris. And I always assumed that's part of the reason why you and others have done this: it puts a protective wall of debris (anti-posts), so that people don't really get into the real [perceived] pile of garbage, the topic itself. That's actually the reason I've so often just ignored what you've said in the past.

I think a lot of people confuse the meaning of ad hominem a little bit, too. If you think someone is terrible and you say why you think that they are terrible based on why their argument is bad that is NOT ad hominem. It's when you say why you think they are terrible INSTEAD of saying why their argument is bad; that is an ad hominem. It's only when calling names is merely a diversion so that you don't have to defend against the argument itself. That's why Jesus was not using ad hominem when he spoke against the Pharisees, scribes, etc. He said they are 'wicked' BECAUSE of specific things they did or practiced.

I also agree that you (in all guises and names) have been generally peaceful, reasonable, and helpful in the majority of your posts, even where I disagree with the point. I also agree that when it comes to being purposely "obnoxious" (if that's the word) there have been others here who have taken the prize in that area. Of course, the lesson appears to be that if someone is trying to be both provocative and funny at the same time, then almost anything goes. But I can see why that looks hypocritical.

On 8/5/2017 at 0:47 PM, AllenSmith said:

Even though his approach seems to have changed now to be inconsistent with previous arguments, most likely to entice a new audience, his hundreds of the previous post challenge the validity of the Watchtowers claims, about 607BC, 537BC, 1914AD, the invisible presence of Christ, Gentile Times, etc.

Sometimes, the danger of not responding to you allows ideas like this to fester, and then be used again as if they were true all along. My approach might appear more reasonable to you because I am beginning to understand your argument a bit better, but there is nothing inconsistent with previous arguments, which is why you cannot find any arguments that are inconsistent. I think you might be referring to the fact that I am not quibbling over a year or two difference, but if you go back to any of the old discussions you will find that this has always been the case. (I was the one, who agreed that the 3 weeks for Neb to get back from Hatti-land to Babylon always seemed just a bit too fast, even if Josephus is right about the short-cut.) Although I prefer 587, I can see a good reason for 586. Although the 70 years should end in 539, I can see a reason to go for 538. (The Jews could have come back in 537, but that wouldn't change when the 70 years ended a year or two prior to that.) You should be able to find all of these arguments in past discussions because they are all still around. These are not new arguments for a new audience. You might have conflated what I said with others like Ann, or ScholarJW, or others. You have done that before.

On 8/5/2017 at 0:47 PM, AllenSmith said:

He has gone far enough to support many of the arguments written by “Carl Olof Jonnson” the author of the book “Gentile Times Reconsidered”. His belief as stated in past post is, this “apostate” has more credibility than the Watchtower.

I have said that I could care less what Carl Olof Jonnson wrote. All he did is repeat the evidence that is agreed upon by nearly 100% of the experts and scholars on the subject. It has nothing to do with him. My own independent study, which I did because of a dialogue I was having with Rolf Furuli, convinced me that HUNDREDS of scholars were right and Rolf Furuli had used a lot of logical fallacies and outright intellectual and scholastic dishonesty in a book that he sent me personally (for free, at that!). So far, neither you nor ScholarJW or anyone else have been able to show otherwise. It matters not that COJ might have come to the same conclusion. I have never spoken with COJ, I have spoken with Rolf Furuli. I have never read all of COJ's book. I have read every word of the last two books by Furuli. I have not "stated" that COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower, which is why you will not find such a statement.

Your claim that I stated that "COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower" reminds me of J.F.Rutherford. Rutherford was not impugning the credibility of the Watchtower itself just because he found more evidence for a new teaching. Was Rutherford saying that his doctrine of 1925 has more credibility than Watch Tower's doctrine of 1914 just because he said: [2nd quotation corrected in late edit. Thanks Allen Smith.]

 "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ."  — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211.

"The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262.

". . . the dates impart a much greater strength than can be found in other chronologies. Some of them are of so remarkable a character as clearly to indicate that this chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct. INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED. When a  date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. . . . when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance . . . and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty. PROOF OF DIVINE ORIGIN. . . . this is proof of divine origin and that the system is not a human invention . . . — "The Strong Cable of Chronology" The Watchtower, July 15, 1922, p.217, 218.

QUESTION AND ANSWER: Have we more reason, or as much, to believe the Kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had  to believe that there would be a flood? [Answer] Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. . . we expect such a climax in the affairs of the world . . . He is already present. . . . He is dashing to pieces the nations. . . .As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had . . . upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." — The Watchtower,  April 1, 1923, p.106

"When you take up a more advanced study of the Bible, you will find that the year 1925 A. D. is particularly marked in prophecy." The Way to Paradise, p.220

No, he was not disparaging the Watchtower for having taught 1914. He was not putting one person as more credible than the Watchtower, because he obviously still accepted the Watchtower, and even though all the expectations for 1914 had failed, he still thought that there was evidence that something about 1914 was still true. Was Rutherford really saying that 1925 was more credible than 1914, or just saying that there was more evidence for 1925 than for 1914?

Similarly, I'm saying that there is more evidence against the 1914 doctrine than there is for it. Just like Rutherford, I think that multiple lines of evidence begin to make a proposition less an indication of chance, and more an indication of certainty. I am not using this to disparage the Watchtower in general which is right on many more things than it has been wrong about. Also, note that I am not even saying that the nearly 100% of experts (perhaps there are thousands) in the field of chronology need to be right. After all, Rutherford was not right about 1925 nor even about most of the other dates he referred to as "unqualifiedly correct." Nothing about my faith changes if secular experts show how  the chronology corroborates the Bible (which it does) or if it supposedly "proved" the Bible incorrect (which it doesn't). Even if all the potential thousands of experts could prove it was 607 when Jerusalem was destroyed, it still would have no effect on my faith, for Biblical reasons. I have faith that Jesus was correct when he said that no one would be able to put a date on the parousia.

On 8/5/2017 at 0:47 PM, AllenSmith said:

as someone mentioned has become a “PET” project for him. Once again, I hope is it crystal clear, I’m in FULL accord with the Watchtower for over 50 years, and as a theologian, I refute, past claims by others and Poster, as I did with “Raymond Franz” back in the day to his face. Perhaps a research on this forum from other threads will aid your candor.

I have never said it was a "PET" project. If I have a "PET" project, it has been to show that the Kingdom is one of the primary themes of the Bible, and that even the Hebrew Scriptures pointed to a Messiah who turned out to be identifiable in his day as Jesus Christ, and how this truth was revealed in such a way, even if it was a "sacred secret" that it was unavoidable and undeniable for the persons of his generation. But that is not a project that I have discussed much about yet on this forum. What I am doing here is sharing things I learned from other Witnesses years ago, didn't particularly want to believe, but which became undeniable to me after thorough study and prayerful consideration. It's not necessary that anyone follow it or believe it, but my conscience tells me that I should at least share in the things learned. New information is being found on this subject all the time, and I think some have had difficulty fitting this new cloth or new wine onto the old framework of the 1914 doctrine. I think the information shared might help these brothers and sisters. Others will have no use for it, which is OK, too:

(Matthew 9:16, 17) . . .Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment, for the new piece pulls away from the garment and the tear becomes worse. 17 Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins. If they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

(Matthew 13:52) . . .every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”

A research on this forum from other threads will definitely and consistently show this to be the case.

[TrueTomHarley]

53 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

who merely "upvote" the posts

I am reluctant to upvote or downvote anything. If I upvote, it implies I agree with everything. If I downvote, it implies I agree with nothing. That is seldom the case either way.

[Arauna]

Went to a historical Museum about the 2 world wars in Norway last week and saw the same phrase I have seen so many times -  1914 was the" year the world changed never to be the same again...."   It identified all the new kinds of weapons that had never been used in previous wars before..... so many....The battle of the Somme is still listed as one of the worst battles ever....

What we see on the ground in real life  must also reflect what is in the scriptures.... so 1925  or any other date in my book would not even get a chance to be a possibility......     I did not mean to sound rude when I said that one can get sooo scholarly and focussed on only one item that one develops a myopia .... and by the way .....  I was browsing the internet when I saw an Interlinear I had not seen before- and there it was - the word " Parousia" in chapter Matt 24.

[TrueTomHarley]

3 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Went to a historical Museum about the 2 world wars in Norway last week and saw the same phrase I have seen so many times -  1914 was the" year the world changed never to be the same again...."   It identified all the new kinds of weapons that had never been used in previous wars before..... so many....The battle of the Somme is still listed as one of the worst battles ever....

The 1914 collection