Moise Racette

Is that where the humanitarian aid was being warehoused? I don't recall, the government having individual warehouses for different NGOs. They were stockpiled in several distribution centers. So, the Org shouldn't have given aid if that distribution center was housed in a Military base.

The double standard you are alluding to is, man-made. It has nothing to do with God. God allowed certain things to be known in bible time, in order for society to learn. What can we possibly learn by being noisy at someone else's pain? Therefore, that power assertion is in an individual's mind. However, truth be told, one of the commandments is thou shall not kill. A commandment the murderer will now be judged for.

Since each congregation handles their own internal problems, I don't believe anyone here will have access to the circumstance. It would be simpler to view the news if it's an interest. It has nothing to do with congregational facts, but with decency and privacy. I'm sure, no one here has aired their dirty laundry over the internet, their personal congregation, or made their personal issues known to the Org, on how they really view the Org. It wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to contact one of their family member to ask, what happen, without someone replying, go jump in the lake, or worse.

We can view humanities imperfection in many ways. It won't change the outcome. Imperfection cannot be cured in this old system. Therefore, whatever the motive, it remains a human tragedy. It is compounded since the murderer decided to act at a kingdom hall. This incident is not the first time, a male shot a female at a Kingdom Hall. People are losing "reasoning" as we get closer to judgment day. Awareness and preparedness is something each individual needs to consider. The Org is making it very evident how we need to be cautious with our surrounding. Regardless how the media places the circumstance, they want to see American outrage. Who among humanity can tame Satan? This depends on how we each view the reporting. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/25/us/colorado-jehovahs-witnesses-homicide-investigation-dead/index.html The individuals were married and former members of the congregation, police said. To me, this doesn't indicate if they were or weren't. Doesn't it really matter? A couple went to a Kingdom Hall. Someone lost her life, the other ended his life. One life will be redeemed, while the other will be judged. Now the other reporting about incendiary devises. There are many common items that can be considered incendiary. Gasoline can, Ammo Box, flares, etc. Can any of those media outlets see the future? https://news.yahoo.com/multiple-incendiary-devices-found-christmas-182628560.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall An investigator will have to determine if such devises were part of a plot or were they just simple, there in the vehicle before the incident. The fact, the shooter ended his life without further incident, can mean, that person was only interested in hurting one person. The message about the usage of the KH is to be determined. Did that person have a grudge against the Org, or the individual that was part of the Org, or was at one point a member, then left, and decided to return, thus angering the other. This tragedy has too many unknowns, other than it being a tragedy. Without speculating, prayers are needed for our worldwide brotherhood.

I think the point the media is trying to accomplish is, it's another dark day for shootings in America. That apparent murder-suicide of "former" members of that congregation, doesn't necessarily detail if they were active or former members. The politics of this world is, should Americans be allowed to carry guns in a house of worship. In some States, that's already allowed. Will a good guy with a gun be helpful in a shooting? That depends on the circumstance. There was a couple trying to make a point about guns in a church in 2017, the fool shot himself by accident inside the church. There was a shooting in a Texas church and a person with a gun shoot the suspect. A shooter in California was subdued by church members, no guns. One size doesn't fit all. People that look at scripture in Jesus time might say, Some apostles carried swords. Yes! They did, but how many apostles involved themselves with Roman politics or an incursion in a synagogue. I recall, when Jesus was jailed, tried, and killed without so much as 1 apostle doing anything about it. I believe Christ words were, if my kingdom was part of this world, my servants would fight for me. John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is not of this realm." Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. It is a tragedy, we should just leave it at that.

Since Jesus was long gone when Christmas was made into a tradition by Constantine's gimmick to play it both ways, historical facts are stilling lacking.

You should not just pick and choose what will give you a win. That will never happen.

Wrong again. I'm not making any distinction. You are. The fact, there are past historians that use AC to mean something to them, doesn't mean, I agree with it. Apparently, it means more to you, than it does me. It can very well mean Air Condition for all I care. You're losing your objectivity by sticking to the same old standards. Nothing new. Give yourself a fresh start. Forget about all the apostate literature you have read. That only leads to an endless rabbit hole. Overthinking is not wise. Thanks for the sentiment.

Mohammedan (also spelled Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan or Mahometan) is a term for a follower of Muhammad, the Islamic prophet. It is used as both a noun and an adjective, meaning belonging or relating to, either Muhammad or the religion, doctrines, institutions and practices that he established. The word was formerly common in usage, but the terms Muslim and Islamic are more common today. Once again, it can't be applied in his argument. Therefore, 1844 is inconsequential. I tire easily. Review your post, and find where it makes sense to you. I have more important things to do, now. A reinstatement and a funeral.

You have not answered your own question by dodging the obvious. What was Brown discussing world events, and how it would end? The article you seem to forget is "The Gentile Times." B.C. Before Christ, A.D. Anno Domini, A.C. After Christ, C.E. Common Era. What's the point you're trying to make?

To some, it did. If it doesn't appeal to the poster, then that's the poster's prerogative. That doesn't make it any less true to someone making sense of prophecy. Therefore, the poster's opinion doesn't matter.

It escapes people on the fundamental knowledge of these independent researchers, scholars, theologians, historians or whatever people wish to call them. Those people have at least contributed to an undisputable event in man's history. 1812-War 1865- Civil war coming to an end 1866- Proclamation on the End of the Confederate Insurrection 1914-War 1917-Belfour Declaration Another researcher in 1834 commented on 2000AD. What happened in 2000? Y2K

How would the poster justify the banning of others just to keep your group intact? Can a person regain their old identity? If not, then why speak of something that's out of someone's control. Yet, the anonymity is high in forums. It would appear, it's not like this group is fooling anyone by their protection. They are allowed to speak their minds in any manner and retain their original accounts. This smells of hypocrisy.

This is an assumption of a missing jubilee. Did I mention, I accept J.A. Brown's calculations? That's your inference, not mine. But if you would use that date, then it really has nothing to do with Muhammad as indicated. More to what was doing on with the Byzantine Empire. So, 622 is irrelevant. Muhammad was born in 570. What could be relevant is, the publishing of the Quran. What does the word "terminate" to you? Yes or No. Will terminate, January 1, 1917 There's a difference between dodging a question and answering a question correctly with knowledge. Something that is not found in this forum. Now, are you saying the word terminate means something else? Standard dictionary: bring to an end: "he was advised to terminate the contract" So, without dodging the question, what does terminate mean to you?

It's not fudging is the poster is honest with the different calendars used. If you want an exact make that can never be delivered, only by belief, then the poster is considering the poster perfect. I happen to find that hilarious. Just because things are written in stone, doesn't mean, what was written in that stone is accurate or the truth. I believe there are plenty example in this open forum, and equally in the closed forum.

Wrong again. I didn't mention 1866, you did. You made your calculation and somehow came up with 1866. If I had, I would have used 606AD. I don't call fake news here from a group of fake members good enough. Especially those that favor and association with posters like @Witness and others like that poster. Wrong again. I mentioned what I posted. If the poster used the first volume to make an erred argument, then that's the poster's problem. This group will never convince anyone of their seriousness to view prophecy correctly.

This doesn't prove you mislead with 1917AD. I believe that was the point. Anything else is just meaningless gaff for your fellow readers that deny. Like I said, you will not convince anyone, just like no one will convince the poster. There's no need to waste time on someone like the poster and his group of followers here. Especially when they just want to find fault and disprove. No real heart in wanting to see the truth. That would mean "accepting" the things @Witness is posting. However, in order for prophecy to work with secular history, you have to have the correct starting point. Deniers stick to the same mindless conditions given by past ignorant people. I prefer to combine both to come to a single point where bible and secular history intersect. You are correct. I don't need J.A. Brown's calculations, just like I don't need other distorted publications. If I did, I would have to accept what was written in 1689 about 1811. 1 or 2 at play. If you add 1, what do you get? 1812. What is significant about 1812 in secular history. Yet, the poster can't find an interest about 1865 and1866? Didn't you bring up 1866?

Since there is always a 1-2 year play when calculating time, the question is not on 1866, but instead in 1865. The usage of 49 or 50 jubilees makes a difference if a historian continues secular history. Does this mean 1866 had no significance? I can at least recall one U.S. declaration. Therefore, to those historians, the 1915-1917 is still in play, unless anyone uses 49. Then the game changes.

It doesn't explain, why you don't see the missing jubilee, either. The poster brought up 1866. The poster should be the one to explain 1866. The poster made that mistake, not me. I just proved you were wrong about it. Now, if you wish to turn your mistake around to me, like most immoral people do, that's your prerogative. Only those wanting to understand prophecy correctly will consider all avenues. No one should want to add anything that is beyond their comprehension. The difference between biblical and secular history is on who is telling the story.

I agree, your previous post does indicate, how posters here are inherently wrong about everything they post. Reminds me of the poster @Witness in so many ways.

Then you don't accept what he wrote in his own book. I have posted it twice already. That means you are in denial. What people shouldn't be confused on is on how the poster views the information it rejects. Perhaps, it would be wise for you and your followers to read the even-tide again. This time, with a correct perspective in understanding.

Interesting that you mark this for the viewer, when you just denied J.A. Brown terminating the 2520 0n 1917 as described in his book. However, you seem to follow Brown's impression, while others prefer to add the missing jubilee. Either 49 or 50. If one can't make their own calculations and submit to others, that person cannot be trusted to have sound judgment or be reliable. Then you have by their calculations: 1915-1917=2 606-604=2 539-537=2

For the record, what I posted about 1917CE is also mentioned in that book, Even-Tide you are quoting from. That's undisputable, so don't make a big deal about his first figures. Everyone looking into prophetic signs correctly can make up their own minds. Then you dispute J A Brown's own words. From the rise of the four monarchies, commencing 604 A.C., to their final dissolution, there will be a grand week of years, or 2520 years, and will terminate, January 1, 1917. You are not a theorist that should be trusted.

Although J A Brown did mention 1917CE, which is more inline with the Jewish perception of Prophecy with the Balfour Declaration. Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War So, anyone viewing the prophetic signs "correctly" can go either or. From the rise of the four monarchies, commencing 604 A.C., to their final dissolution, there will be a grand week of years, or 2520 years, and will terminate, January 1, 1917. How he arrived at, 1917 is to be considered. It should have started in 653AC.

This can be applied to so many things here and with most people that surrender to do his bidding.