Michel Vromen

Wrong Question:
Was this INSTITUTIONAL disfellowshipping against as it is practiced today ... destroying whole family relationships, up and down generational lines, and across extended families?
NO!   .... That would be as the Russians view it ... an EXTREME view ... on a slippery slope to  societal ruin.
There may be mitigating circumstances that Elders cannot even comprehend ... or wrap their minds around.
If I unrepentedly shot my mother to death , I should be disfellowshipped forever .. but by WHO?
If I unrepentedly  shot her because she was burning to death in a car fire, and there was no way to get her out ... all sane people would exonerate me ... except Pharisee types divorced from reality.
The world is full of INFINITE VARIETY, and NO ONE can evaluate it all correctly.
Justice we get from Jehovah God ... all else is due process .... ONLY!
Institutionally, we should get out of the judge, jury, and "execution" business, leaving punishment to Jehovah, and the properly trained consciences of those professing True Christianity, as individuals.
OR WHY HAVE A TRAINED CONSCIENCE AT ALL! ?
Institutional disfellowishipping only has one REAL purpose ... the way it is handled today ... to inspire fear of rebellion against the authority that has self-appointed themselves into as much ultimate power as the State will allow ... for NOW.

The general view by the Governing Body is likely that this is exactly what they have been doing for as long as possible, but I'm sure that all or most of them believe they have been doing it for the right reasons. I have no reason to believe that any of the current Governing Body doubt the general idea about 1914, whether or not all of them specifically believe in the Daniel 4 foundation or not. (For many years, Daniel 4 on its own, had nothing to do with the "foundation" for 1914, although it was considered to be a weaker, but still valid, bit of corollary evidence by Russell.)
If it were only true. What this "scholarly type," R.Furuli, had done was take the 10 pieces of independent archaeological and historical evidence and not even address 8 of them except with flippant false claims that shows he doesn't even care to research them. He pins all the importance on only ONE of those pieces of evidence, which is odd because 607 as the year when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem is falsified just as easily by the other pieces of evidence without even needing to rely at all on this one piece of evidence. But then, even at that, he comes up with the most convoluted reasons for rejecting this one item: VAT 4956.
VAT 4956 is one of several astronomical diaries that would ultimately identify Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year as the year 568/567 BCE, based on the astronomy that fits no other possible year. Of course, if the tablet is correct, then it's the same as saying Nebuchadnezzar's 36th year would be 569/8 BCE, his 35th would be 570/569 BCE on back to his 19th (or 18th) year, which would be 587/6 BCE, which is a year that Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles associate with the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, it's just another of several items of evidence that consistently fits the "secular" chronology -- which also happens to fit the Biblical chronology, even though these particular bits of Biblical evidence are not accepted by the Watch Tower Society.
But even though Furuli grasps at all kinds of straws to invalidate the tablet, most JWs don't even realize that Furuli ADMITS that most of it actually does refer to the date 567 and no other possible date. That is an admission that MOST of this tablet still invalidates the Watch Tower Society's preferred date of 607 BCE for the Temple destruction. He even says that the museum curators might have taken a grinding tool and forged the "37" onto it to look exactly like all the other cuneiform letters that were made when the clay was still wet. Since it's a two-sided piece of clay, he even thinks that one of the two sides might have been faked and didn't originally go together. This is in spite of the fact that he admits that the number 37 on the tablet (in more than one place) is the correct year for most of the readings.
He thought he could find some trouble with the lunar readings, based especially on the fact that there is a known copyist's error on the tablet. He admits that he was an amateur when it came to trying to figure out the astronomical readings, but it does not take a genius to try to duplicate his readings and see that his mistakes were worse than amateurish. They have been discussed elsewhere on the site, and so far, everyone who has tried to duplicate them has seen the errors.
But as you said: "That's all you need." Unfortunately, this is true for many persons. I think that most of us believe that if someone makes a claim that fits a preconceived notion, it must be true. It's a lot like watching CNN and MSNBC fall over themselves to find new ways to use the phrase "Russia hacked our 2016 election." Very few point out that one of the candidates failed to even visit states where she had a preconceived notion of a sure win.

Although we can be sure that Noah would have been required to explain to many persons why he was building such a huge boat, we shouldn't try to make Jesus say something in Matthew 24 that Jesus never said. Jesus never said that Noah warned anyone about the coming flood. The Bible never says that he warned people about a coming flood. So why do we add the idea that Noah WARNED them? 
It's true that some people might get the idea from the way in which the NWT adds the words "took no note:"
(Matthew 24:39) and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
But these words are not in the original Greek, so we shouldn't try to make them imply something that the Bible doesn't say. Below are all the translations, for example, that are provided at blueletterbible.org: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/24/36/t_bibles_953039
So even if there was some preaching about God's righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), which could have been through Noah's example (as implied in Hebrews 11:7), rather than any kind of warning campaign, Jesus was not making any point about a warning, because he had just spent the entire previous part of the chapter saying that there would be no warning. The disciples wanted a warning sign about the judgment event on Jerusalem and Jesus said that there would be no advance warning sign, otherwise how could the parousia come as a thief in the night. So what Jesus says about Noah, should fit what he says about the way the parousia (judgment event) came upon the generation of Noah's day.
KJV And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. © Info
NKJV “and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. © Info
NLT People didn’t realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes. © Info
NIV and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. © Info
ESV and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. © Info
HCSB They didn’t know until the flood came and swept them all away. So this is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be:
© Info
RVR60 y no entendieron hasta que vino el diluvio y se los llevó a todos, así será también la venida del Hijo del Hombre. © Info
NASB and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. © Info
NET And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away. It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man. © Info
RSV and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. © Info
ASV and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. © Info
YLT and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man. © Info
DBY and they knew not till the flood came and took all away; thus also shall be the coming of the Son of man. © Info
WEB And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away: so also will be the coming of the Son of man. © Info
HNV and they didn't know until the flood came, and took them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. © Info

How many JW's like to debate / discuss the doctrines and/or practices of the WBTS? Or is it safe to say "Sadly, most JW's do not want to hear such things"
Funny, but as it is a tradition in the JW community to be very date focused (1874, 1879, 1914, 1918/1919, 1925, 1975 etc), many JW's believe that for the outside world the date of 25 December is essential. Well, as the date was set by people who are not alive anymore, most people today either believe the date is correct and those that do not, do not really mind. In all cases, the date was not set by any of the people who live today. Therefore, the date has become more a so-called given and people just act accordingly. Compare that behaviour to JW's who act according to the dates the gb has set for the so-called invisible enthronement of Jesus in 1914. A date that is not found in the bible. As most JW's will likely say that they do not mind the accuracy of that date but more the meaning they attach to that event, so do most people who celebrate Christmas
Are the customs linked to Christmas found in the bible? No,not in the sense that it has evolved to. But then again, is that relevant? Are these people dishonoring God because they give presents? They give food to the poor? They spend time with family and friends? They think about Christ?
What is more a way to dishonor God? Impose doctrines on people in the name of talking on behalf of God and at the same time revising these doctrines many times, like the use of blood, organ transplant etc? Or is it to shun even you children because they are, according to 3 men, not repentent (enough), for which you cannot find any scripture in the bible to support that shunning practice?
My point, do not look upon people who celebrate Christmas because they like to use that even to put more effort into helping others. Yes, in many western countries it has become a commercial event. But that is the commercial world, not all who participate in Christmas would support that.
 

Seems funny or even interesting but use of the verse in 2 Peter 3 is incorrect. It is not meant to be used to calculate. It does not say 1 day IS EQUAL TO 1000 years. It gives the idea the time for humans is something completely different than for the Lord. In other words, not to be used to calculate.
Also worthi noting that with the LORD in this verse, the Geek word is κύριος, which is a reference to Jesus. Compare Matt. 7:22 where same word is used. Therefore Peter is saying that time for Jesus has a different meaning than for humans.

(Colossians 2:16) 16 Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath.
I think that this would mean that even a Christian, at least in the first century, should not feel too badly about celebrating Chanukkah with their family, assuming their family is steeped in Jewish tradition and they do not wish to offend them, or actually believe themselves that there was still some value to the Jewish tradition that should be respected.
I don't apply this to Christmas in any way, but at least I don't think it means we need to harshly judge those persons who believe Christmas is wonderful time to enjoy family, food and gifts, etc.
 

There are a couple of at least neutral examples of dogs, although the vast majority are very negative. Pigs fare a little worse.
Another example is the fact that an indoor bathroom is only mentioned as being used by a pagan, and the one time it was mentioned, someone was murdered there.
(Judges 3:20-25) 20 And Eʹhud came to him as he was sitting in his cool roof chamber that he had to himself. And Eʹhud went on to say: “A word of God I have for you.” At that he rose up from his throne. 21 Then Eʹhud thrust in his left hand and took the sword off his right thigh and plunged it into his belly. 22 And the handle kept going in also after the blade so that the fat closed in over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly, and the fecal matter began to come out. 23 And Eʹhud proceeded to go out through the air hole, but he closed the doors of the roof chamber behind him and locked them. 24 And he himself went out. And his servants came and began looking, and there the doors of the roof chamber were locked. So they said: “He is just easing nature in the cool interior room.” 25 And they kept waiting until they were ashamed, and, look! there was no one opening the doors of the roof chamber. At this they took the key and opened them, and, look! their lord was fallen to the earth dead!
Christians should therefore avoid indoor bathrooms.

So, the date of so-called invisible enthronement of Jesus is also not mentioned in the bible by JW's still think it is October 1914.
For most people who in same form participate in the Christmas celebrations do this not because of the date but because of the meaning of the event itself.
If the birthdate would be in the bible, would JW's be allowed to celebrate?

Seems funny or even interesting but use of the verse in 2 Peter 3 is incorrect. It is not meant to be used to calculate. It does not say 1 day IS EQUAL TO 1000 years. It gives the idea the time for humans is something completely different than for the Lord. In other words, not to be used to calculate.
Also worthi noting that with the LORD in this verse, the Geek word is κύριος, which is a reference to Jesus. Compare Matt. 7:22 where same word is used. Therefore Peter is saying that time for Jesus has a different meaning than for humans.

Would be good to see same tasks being done by elders, co's and gb members. In the end, did not Paul say this: 1Co 3:9 We are coworkers belonging to God. You are God’s field, God’s building.
Jesus came to serve. He gave an example by washing the feet. Just saying.