César Chávez

Wow, this sums up the Watchtower and CCJW / JW Org all in one. 

I listen to all three of these guys.
 
I have non-JW relatives in Portlandia so I have to deal w/the leftist-postmodernist garbage all the time when I visit. It infects everyone's thinking.

@xero Good call on the Vox Day SJW book. The idea that "SJWs always lie" isn't exactly true, but when they do, they seem to have no choice but to double-down if called out (as Vox Day says) and I've never seen such projection and blame-shifting (as Vox Day says). My son's most recent college experience found that SJWs are pretty much able to ruin any discussion about anything, and they'll feel proud of themselves in so doing.

The total self-absorbtion is a tip-off, too. If his self-importance is pricked in any way, he goes into search-and-destroy mode, and nobody gets even the tiniest bit of credit for anything.
@Arauna is case-in-point and it pains me to see her so abused. She has her point of view, of course, like anyone. Still, Cesar was routinely upvoting her posts. Then she made the mistake of mildly contradicting him on an inconsequential point. Even though she clarified, mollified, partially backtracked, and even apologized, it did no good. Jezebel is more noble in his eyes now. 
For the life of me, I don’t know why anyone gets into long exchanges with him. Have they nothing at all to do with their time? Plainly, he is deranged.

I keep trying to tell you; he is a troll

There's a brother I used to do a lot of early morning work with. Let's call him Troy. Troy was quite outspoken, he was also pretty extreme. He was dropping acid and sky diving with a bunch of guys when one of them started to study. That guy eventually dropped, but Troy picked it up and ran with it. Anyway, that's his personality. So I'm taking him on this RV and the guy I'm calling on is a super-catholic and apparently wasn't too happy w/it's take on the church. So Troy butts in and starts trashing the catholic church really hard. The other guy mentioned some priest's name and Troy said "he's probably got some altar boy bent over backwards while we're talking!"
So we got kicked out. Unsurprisingly.
Then Troy looks at me, grins and says "Got any more calls you want to get rid of?"
So we both started saying "Who ya gonna call!" "Call Busters!"
Of course that's not an experience that's likely to be shared on an assembly, but anyway C reminds me of that (except he doesn't appear to have a sense of humor about himself which is always a big fat mistake)

There were actually four types. From where did you derive two? Jesus describes them in the illustration of the sower and the seed at Matthew 13:
“Look! A sower went out to sow;  and as he was sowing, some [seeds] fell alongside the road, [1] and the birds came and ate them up.   Others fell upon the rocky places where they did not have much soil, and at once they sprang up because of not having depth of soil.  [2] But when the sun rose they were scorched, and because of not having root they withered.  Others, too, fell among the thorns, [3] and the thorns came up and choked them.  Still others fell upon the fine soil [4] and they began to yield fruit, this one a hundredfold, that one sixty, the other thirty.”
Tommy, don’t do it! Don’t!! You’ve got a nice comment going here—respectful and all—don’t screw it up! Remember what Srecko said. We must disagree with those who loathe the Christian organization without being disagreeable. End your comment right here, TrueTom. Say no more, and you’re golden.
Sigh...ye of little willpower:
[5] still others sat on their duffs, lapped up dirt about God’s organization from the internet, and figured that the True Anointed would be released any second now from the abyss where they are not permitted to speak with one another!!! (led by a cackingly exuberant Witness) but upon their escape will save the day.

Yep. Seriously. Are you saying that God through Christ made the Watchtower leaders deliberately tell lies to test people's faith in ???? whom ?  
So what exactly were JWs to think about ALL the failures ?  You are just having a laugh here.  You know it was the Watchtower leaders that were just putting their own interpretation on scripture because they were not, and are not, inspired by God's Holy Spirit. 
 

What gross misuse of scripture. You are here pretending that the whole CCJW / JW Org ARE the Body of Christ by deliberately misusing scripture.   That is sick in the worse possible way. 
You people really do not understand that the scriptures were written for the True Anointed. 
This means the Body of Christ, NOT the Organisation.  No division in Christ's body of 144,000. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-9406081/Why-choose-family-Jehovahs-Witness.html
 Raised a Jehovah’s Witness, a prohibition on birthday parties was the tip of the iceberg when it came to the strict beliefs that governed every aspect of my life until I made the decision to step back from the religion a few years ago.   It’s one that has cost me dearly. Some members of my family no longer speak to me, and I’m now an outsider in the only community I’ve ever known. 
Behind closed doors, however, our family life was very different to most people’s. As Jehovah’s Witnesses, every moment of every day was governed by the rules of the faith. And they were endless. Witnesses are Christians who believe the Bible is historically accurate and interpret much of it literally as the basis for how they live their life. They believe the end of the world is coming and only they will survive Armageddon, passing into Paradise, while everyone else is killed.
Something I never enjoyed was ‘ministry’ – going with my parents every weekend from house to house, trying to convert others. Standing in the cold, while one door after another was closed in our faces, I just wanted to be at home.
As I became a teenager, my outlook began to change. I started to look at my life with more mature eyes and I saw so many paths closed to me. Friends from school were planning gap years abroad but I couldn’t do that because I’d miss weekly meetings and ministry. University was also discouraged because it’s seen as an improper use of time in the last days before Armageddon.
In 2015, the church was plunged into a child sex abuse scandal after an investigation in Australia revealed over 1,000 allegations had been reported to elders there since 1950 but not one passed on to the police. This didn’t surprise me, as Witnesses believe the authorities are controlled by Satan. But the idea that children had endured such horrors because members chose to protect one another made me feel sick.
I don’t wish I hadn’t been raised a Witness. Like every religion, there is good and bad in it, and I did have happy times among many good people. But it’s a religion that demands all of you, that generally favours obedience over truth, and I struggled with its lack of flexibility. Ironically, being taught I was different gave me the self-belief to take a step back and put myself and my family first.
I think this is a fabulous article and so true to life for many people. I don't care if she is trying to promote her book, some on this forum are doing likewise. 
The article is well worth a complete read. I've only quoted bits here. 
 
 

There is something rather distasteful when one tries to apply the expression about Jehovah allowing an "operation of error" being allowed for anyone's benefit.
(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) . . .But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents 10 and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. 11 So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.
(James 1:13-15) . . .let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. 14 But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death.
I know that sincere Watchtower writers have written that it was a good thing that the Watchtower made the past mistake about Romans 13. Because it supposedly made us less respectful of secular authorities at a time when we needed to be less respectful, or it made it easier for us to stand up to draft issues, or something like that. And, of course, similar rationales were claimed for the failures of 1914, 1918, 1925 and have been tried for the 1975 issues, too: that it was a test and a filter, etc. We can probably expect similar things to be said about the overlapping groups in "this generation," too, if time allows.
That's clearly correct. When I was first introduced to the problems of our chronology, this is one of the first things impressed upon me by a member of the GB and by a couple members of the Writing Dept. Daniel Sydlik was the most outspoken about the need to just scrap everything about our chronology to start from scratch. But he also spoke to me about how the tongue is a fire and it can set a whole woodland on fire. Although I couldn't verify it until months later, a couple of brothers in the Writing Department told me that Sydlik wasn't the only member of the GB who felt this way. But at the time, I thought the chronology was so important that I asked how they could stay if they believed the chronology was wrong. Later when I looked at the Bible evidence myself, my question changed to: "Well, why don't they just make the change?" Of course, the answer was that proposing such a change could get you DF'd. But they also said that because many Witnesses think of the chronology as a "core" doctrine, as a foundation, that it's too big of a change. One brother always said that if you pull this out from under them, they don't have enough to fall back upon. They assumed that by continuing to write articles that tried to build faith in other core teachings, that they could do much more good inside the organization than outside. So they were careful to keep relatively quiet unless asked directly.
In the congregation, I try to take that same counsel to heart. We can always do more good from inside than from outside, even if we never talk about these specific doctrines at all. But for the sake of my own conscience, I think it's good to try to prepare ourselves for a significant change when more people realize that the chronology is not something we will always be able to fall back on. So I think it's also a good idea to bring it up now and then, but not in a way that makes waves.
My guess is that this is true. Ones who leave and don't come back seem quite likely to lose spirituality, although I'd also guess that any exceptions are likely not the ones who try to make their voice shout back to us. (Witness thinks that most all the good/true anointed must come through the WTS organization as their test.)
A bit disturbing, again, in the face of scripture:
(Romans 8:14, 15) 14 For all who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again. . .

Good suggestions.
Of course, without getting into any of the specific details of those topics here, I think those suggestions can be properly discussed under this heading about individual and collective conscience.
Let's say that after consideration of the Bible principles involved along with prayer and meditation, a Witness conscientiously believes that he should speak up about a potentially wrong teaching.
Let's say, for example, it was anywhere from 1966 through 1973, and the Witness saw too much improper speculation about the end of 6000 years of human existence in 1975, or the length of a generation after 1914. Or let's say it was 1919 through 1925 and the Witness/BibleStudent saw too much improper speculation about 1925. Or anywhere from 1878 through 1914, when he or she saw too much improper speculation about what would happen in 1914. Or let's say it was 1929 through 1962 and the Witness saw that there was too much emphasis on the misapplication of Romans 13:1-7.
The conscience of an individual Witness might tell him he must speak up whenever he sees brothers going astray.
(Romans 15:14) . . .Now I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are also full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and that you are able to admonish one another.
But there is also a "collective" conscience, or at least the "sense of what's right and what's wrong" held by the majority within a group. If we've been in business or corporate settings, we know that we are often just playing our parts as rank-and-file employees, not "partners." Therefore, our own sense of what's right and what's wrong is something we will often keep to ourselves. But the company might allow an anonymous "suggestion box" where comments and criticisms are supposedly welcomed. But there are still potential repercussions for speaking up even in a supposedly anonymous format. When the company CIO comes to you and says: "We know that had to be you who made that comment" we must always be prepared to give a reason for the hope within us, even in a secular setting.
Rather than speak up in a congregational setting, I prefer for now to just get my thoughts spelled out on a semi-anonymous forum. A forum where I can be dismissed easily as a crackpot by those who need that kind of protection for themselves. Being too clear can be seen as too pushy, too proud, too presumptuous. And accepting the inevitable wild chaos and mudslinging by those who are afraid of the criticism is another protection for those other readers who are not ready or willing to think about a doctrine.
But most Witnesses, I think, will be quick to think (or say) that anyone who thinks they can "admonish one another" when not bureaucratically assigned to make such admonishments is doing the wrong thing, not waiting on Jehovah, not being a good "corporate" citizen. He or she is being presumptuous even though every one of the wrong teachings I mentioned above was a case of the corporation speaking presumptuously. In retrospect, the corporation took passengers on an uncomfortable "trip to Abilene."
Immediately, many Witnesses will start making analogies to Uzzah, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and compare to David's attitude about Saul.
But in the Christian setting we have a different analogy before us. There is no more organization in the seat of Moses where criticisms of that organization should remind us of Korah, for example. Effectively, all of us now make up the household of faith, as brothers. It's Jesus, not the organization, that is now in the place of Moses.
(Hebrews 3:5, 6) . . .Now Moses was faithful as an attendant in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech . . .
Effectively, we are all the corporation, the body. Even the least among us. As a body, or organization, we belong to one another.
(Romans 12:3-5)  so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another.
(1 Corinthians 12:22-27) . . .On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 . . . 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; . . .
I think some will jump on the phrase "no division in the body" and think this means "groupthink" is OK. But it's obvious, in context, that it really means there should be no specific members of the body who divide themselves off to give the impression they are superior to the others. Practically this means that in some ways, Brother Lett should see "Brother Cesar Chavez" as superior to himself, and vice versa. Sister Anna should see you as superior, and you should see Anna as superior to you. It also means that you should be able to criticize Anna and Brother Lett and CC, just as they should be able to criticize you. Then we all accept each other's criticism and admonishment to the extent that it fits scripture and conscience.

There are at least nine types of people in the world.
Those who can't connect the dots.
Those who can but won't connect the dots.
Those who connect the dots, but connect the wrong dots.
Those who can't even see the dots to bother with the question of connecting them.
Those who can and do connect the dots.
Those who imagine there are dots to connect and connect these.
Those who imagine there are dots, but perversely refuse to connect the dots in their imagination.
Those who imagine there are dots, but connect the wrong ones in their imagination.

Would that discussion include that 'new book' mentioned on this forum about The Sealing of the 144,000.  

I prefer not to compare people or things. I don't compare myself to others.  If I'm going to compare myself it will be to Bible standards.  Xero seems to be pointing people toward being competitive, which i don't think is good.  I think Jesus told the disciples not to do it. 

...and if you could think "Let me do it Hemingway-style while I do it. Better yet, in the form of a short equation, like E = MC**2."
Remember Paul said "if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready...?"
Also you have to steel-man your opponent. If you can't do that, you're less convincing as you appear to not understand the opposition.

I could be wrong, but I think what you're trying to say is that I should start a discussion about 1914, the Kingdom, and 607 BCE, and the parousia.

It's all about being politically correct. Some nations are more sensitive to justified criticism than others. In some European countries it's ok to tell your best friend she's fat and needs to lose weight.. in other countries that would be called fat shaming and is a no no. The other thing is than some people think that "false humility" is ok. It's nice to be honest, but many people can't take it. Today's society has become a bunch of snowflakes as JTR  (a former  member of the forum)  used to call them. And he was right. 

Obviously, Jesus could not use discernment therefore when it came to understanding the book of Daniel. [sarcasm] I guess that's because the last days hadn't begun. That understanding of Daniel could only be understood, I suppose, after 1914 when the Last Days were supposedly upon us. But wait! It was understood exactly this way by Nelson Barbour in 1872 and seen as a possibility by "Reverend" Elliott even in 1844. That must be because the "Last Days" for Barbour and Russell started in 1799.
1914 was NOT embedded in the book of Daniel. Daniel says nothing about the Gentile Times. Therefore, Daniel never says anything about "7 times of the Gentiles."  Daniel never even alludes to a day for a year. The closest that Daniel comes to doing so is when Daniel changes 70 years to 490 years by making 1 year become 7 years (a week of years), which is the same as "1 day = 7 days." But Daniel would have been using 365.25 day years there according to the Watchtower, where these 70 years (*7=490 years) run from 455 BCE to 36 CE.
But even though Daniel never tries to put a "timing" on the "times of the Gentiles" another apocalypse does put a timing on the times of the Gentiles. That's Revelation 11:2,3
(Luke 21:24) . . .the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
(Revelation 11:2, 3) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. 3 I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.”
It's easy to see that the appointed times are given as 42 months, or 1,260 days (which is 3.5 times). You'll notice that the NWT references this verse in Luke back to Daniel 4 in the cross-references even though Daniel 4 never alludes to Jerusalem, or the nations, or trampling. But the NWT will not dare to cross-reference this verse to or from this verse in Revelation, a verse that definitely does allude to it:
-------------
BTW, if anyone wants to see a technical mistake/change/anomaly in the Watchtower CD, search on the word Jerusalem and notice that it comes up 4 times in Revelation. But one of those verses never uses the word Jerusalem. It highlights the word "Zion" in Revelation 14:1. If you search every instance of Jerusalem you will not only get Jerusalem, but also every instance of Zion and Salem, too. (Zion in Mt 21:5; Jn 12:15; Rm 9:33; 11:26; Hb 12:22 1Pt 2:6; Rv 14:1 and Salem in Hebrews 7:1,2). Unfortunately, you can't search on just Salem or Zion without all 1,400 instances of Jerusalem coming up.

Don't forget the apostle John and the apostle Paul and Matthew:
(Revelation 1:5) 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”. . .
(1 Timothy 6:14, 15) . . .until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords. . .
(1 Corinthians 15:24-27) . . .. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.
(Ephesians 1:20, 21) . . .which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.
Also the writer of Hebrews, possibly also Paul:
(Hebrews 1:3) . . .and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. . .
(Hebrews 1:8) . . .But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. . .
(Hebrews 2:7-9) . . .you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, . . .
And Matthew:
(Matthew 28:18) . . .Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
And Hebrews again:
(Hebrews 6:20-7:3) . . .in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek forever. 7 For this Mel·chizʹe·dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, . . . First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 . . . but being made like the Son of God. . .
I have seen you flail and sling mud and try to cause chaos rather than attempt to answer these questions:
When Jesus received all authority in the first century, when did he receive more authority?
What made Jesus a priest like Melchizedek if he was not also a king and priest at the same time?
 

From what the owner has actually said, he (or she?) claims NOT to be a JW.

Always, Wt provides a hint, a taste of truth, followed with a cupful of lies to mask it:
 
"Starting at that time, in 33 C.E., Christ began ruling over the Christian congregation, and his followers happily acknowledged his lordship and heavenly position. (Colossians 1:13, 14) Yet it was not God’s purpose for Jesus to begin ruling over the world of mankind and the universe then.  hp chap. 16 pp. 151-160
 
 
Jesus is the King of God's Kingdom in heaven. He began ruling in 1914.—Revelation 11:15. ijwfq article 44
 
 
 
 

Absolute lie.
King David and Solomon:
1 Kings 1:30 - “I will surely carry out this very day what I swore to you by the Lord, the God of Israel: Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne in my place.”
1 Chron 29:23 – “So Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king in place of his father David. He prospered and all Israel obeyed him.”
Prov 20:8 – “When a king sits on his throne to judge, he winnows out all evil with his eyes.”
Jesus Christ:
Ps 110:1,2 The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
    until I make your enemies
    a footstool for your feet.”
2 The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
    “Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
Sitting on a throne = ruling/judging/reigning as a king.
Jesus Christ:
1 Cor 15:25-27 – “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”
Heb 8:1 – “Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven”
Heb 12:2 – “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
King Herod:
Acts 12:21 – “On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people.”
Here, Jesus is standing, well before 1914!:
Acts 7:55,56 - But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
 
Jesus and his faithful ruling priests/kings:
Rev 3:21 - “To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.”
The Heavenly Father also “sits” on His throne.  Are you saying He is not reigning as King? Dan 7:9;Rev 4:1-3
The scriptures cannot be refuted.  The doctrine of 1914 is blasphemy.   To assume that Christ was not ruling since the first century is the result of Satan's deceit.  Satan "rules" over his kingdom on earth and doesn't want to lose it.  Jesus Christ is his enemy.  Who would tell lies about Jesus' authority to rule since the first century?  Men, who preach "another Jesus" and who are influenced by demonic spirits. (2 Cor 11:1-4,13-15; 1 Tim 4:1; Rev 16:13-16)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Cor+11%3A1-4%2C13-15%3B+1+Tim+4%3A1%3B+Rev+16%3A13-16)&version=NIV
 
 
 

Matthew 28 from verse 18.
Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19  Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20  teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”
Jesus was resurrected by his Father, Almighty God. That in itself proves Jesus had God's complete approval....  So you can see that when Jesus was resurrected as a spirit he was also given ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH. 
Your leaders the GB just cannot accept that Jesus received the authority immediately after his resurrection. But then your leaders the GB cannot even obey the words of Jesus about baptism either. 
Your GB prove to be false or dishonest anointed but still you JWs follow them 
 

It is true that Satan is on the warpath because he is soon to lose his kingdom. (Rev 20:7-9)  But what happened in 1914 was not because Jesus became King.  Satan was accommodating a false prophesy. Jesus became king in the first century.  
(John 18:33,36,37; Matt 21:1-5; Luke 17:21; 1 Pet 3:22; Matt 28:18; Eph 1:20; Ps 110:1; 1 Cor 15:25; 2 Pet 3:8; Mat 12:8; Isa 60:22)
The literal signs of the end times that you and Wt state are the result of Jesus’ kingship, happened in Satan’s realm. Jesus said his kingdom is no part of this world. (John 18:36) Why then, would the signs of his kingdom in power show literal signs in the world?  The “war” is not fought on the ground, but as     Eph 6:12 says, it is fought in the heavenly realms, unseen to the physical eye. That is where the “signs” take on a symbolic meaning.  Satan is the author of deceit and confusion, just as the historic teaching of 1914 has proven to be.  If we look for literal signs of worldly havoc on the earth, then who’s to say another point in history could have been chosen otherwise, as a sign of Jesus’ “invisible” reign?  WWII was the deadliest war in history.  Why not chose 1939 as the date Jesus became a reigning king?  
The organization is no different than the early Jews, who expected Jesus to provide them with literal signs.
Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said to them, “When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red’; 3 and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” And He left them and departed. Matt 16:1-4
Do you see?  We are not to look at the literal “face of the sky” to observe when Jesus began ruling, or a specific date for the end of the world.  But, whatever JWs want to see, Satan will provide it.
 When Jesus said,
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”  Matt 24:29
…is he meaning literal signs on the face of the sky? What are the “heavens” that will be shaken?  The “moon” is the promised “woman” New Covenant, her seed are the anointed heavenly “stars”.  Do you see how they can be “heavenly” even though they are on the earth? (Gal 4:26; Heb 12:22; Rev 12:1,2;1:20; Dan 12:3) It is through them, through their “tribulation” that the Kingdom of God will be ushered in. It is THEY, who are “shaken”.   (Heb 12:25-29; Rev 6:13; Dan 8:10)  These “earthquakes” that Jesus speaks of in Matt 24:7, this shaking, is the harvest of the “sons of the kingdom”, of “Israel”.  (Matt 13:37-43)
Amos 9:9 – “For I will give the command, and I will shake the people of Israel among all the nations as grain is shaken in a sieve, and not a pebble will reach the ground. All the sinners among My people
    will die by the sword,
all those who say,
    ‘Disaster will not overtake or meet us.’”  ( 1 Thess 5:3)  (Do you believe you will be saved from disaster as a member of the organization?)
Be assured, Satan is quite capable of throwing you a curve ball to draw you away from the true “war” at hand. The tribulation has to do with those under covenant, accepting lies that Satan and his agents put before them, or defending truth that must be received by rejecting the lies, at the cost of the life they once enjoyed. (Rev 3:18) They must follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and not the teachings of men who devise their own doctrine.  (Rev 13:1,2,5-7,11,12,15; 16:13-16) (Matt 10:18,22,39; John 16:2)
Yet, JWs seem to love “new” doctrine.  Jer 2:31,35,36; 5:31
By taking 1914, a date said to be the “birth” of Kingdom, that the “day of the lord” has come, your whole premise of calculating when the world will end, has no meaning.  Do you also believe that labor pains follow a birth as your leaders do? 
w53 12/15 p. 756-757 - The kingdoms of this world had their death warrant sealed when the “appointed times of the nations” expired in 1914. They cannot stand up against the kingdom that was then born in the heavens. 
ws13 7/15 p. 4-5 - So the war that began in 1914 was not the beginning of the great tribulation. It was the “beginning of pangs of distress.” (Matthew 24:8) 
The accurate translation for “pangs of distress” in Matt 24:8:
ὠδίν ōdín, o-deen'; akin to G3601; a pang or throe, especially of childbirth:—pain, sorrow, travail.
Check the rendition for this scripture in various translations. You will find that the general use is “birth pangs”. 
The same word is found in 1 Thess 5:3 – “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail G5604 upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”
You are believing that a kingdom was “born”, and its evidence is the “birth pangs” that follow the birth.  Does this make sense?  The Kingdom that will be “born”, is God’s Kingdom, and this is through the fulfillment of the “woman” New Covenant – the Temple of “living stones” reaching completion, when the capstone is sealed.  Zech 4:7-9
How is it you can quote scriptures guarding against false predictions, but then decide it is okay to calculate a year when the world will end?  Isn’t this showing disrespect for caution outlined in the God's word?  Although the apostles spoke of the day being close, they never set a date.  Are you greater than these men, the foundation stones of truth? (Eph 2:20-22) Have you been told by God through a vision to provide us with a date?  Or, did you get out your calculator and put numbers together, just as all the leaders of the Wt have done?  I know I’m blunt, but please, think about the ramifications of going against the admonition outlined in the Word of God.
"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the Day of the Lord  has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." 2 Thess 2:1-4
 
https://pearl-thewoman.blogspot.com/