Evacuated

Like this point and also the picture of Jesus as the rider of the White Horse in Rev. 6:2 "And I saw, and look! a white horse, and the one seated on it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went out conquering and to complete his conquest" Haven't so far seen any conflict with the WT application of Heb 10:12-13 initiating this discussion. There is no doubt that Jesus was Jehovah's anointed king as soon as he returned to the heavens having completed his earthly mission. @JWInsider has already cited Phillipians 2:9 on this "For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name". But I am pretty sure that neither Dan 7:14 or 27 were fulfilled at that point. I mean, let's face it, I am sure some believed that Cassius Clay was the heavyweight champion of the world on Feb 24 1964, but what took place on Feb 25 1964 altered the perspective entirely.

These kind of sad tales always bring to mind Paul's words at 1Cor.15:19.

I'll try a naive take on this in view of all the "wiseguy" comments above. We have an anxious man in the foreground. In addition to his own personal anxieties, he could be beleaguered by worries regarding sickness, disasters, breakdown of law and order (speaker guy), whether situations are real or imagined, and regardless of whether they are personally experienced or the general experience of others. This relates to the climate of "the last days" described in the Bible at, for example, 2Tim.3:1-5; Luke 21:9-28; Rev.12:9-12, and experienced by all mankind. In the midst of these "critical times", those seeking to serve the true God acceptably experience many anxiety-inducing pressures. The WT article accompanying the illustration presents a range of strategies that God's servants might employ in managing the situation .

Thats why I like @Queen Esther's approach. What matters is contained in Scripture. (2 Tim 3:16). We are then equipped to deal with questions that relate specifically to our times, excercising conscience. I won't always feel the same way as Queen Esther or others do about trivial matters such as those you list, but we will be agreed on what Paul says are "the more important things". Ph.1:10.

With respect, this will always be "may have lived" and it will always be the underlying medical problem that caused their death. (Discounting sin of course). Getting this right in no way minimises the stand these courageous and loyal brothers and sisters take.

Appears to be a photo in India, not Russia.

(My bold above) "rules" I suppose I mean in the sense of legislating specific circumstances. These to me are more guidelines than rules. As for your expanded scenario, once again it demostrates why there are no rules to govern that situation because there are too many variables unmentioned. However, as you have quoted, there is a clear rule to govern what happens when a serious sinner is unrepentant and that is described at 1 Cor.5:11. Now, how individuals are to balance the respecting of a judicial decision with the aim of gaining a brother against any scriptural requirements to discharge familial responsibility is definitely for those individuals to decide. There are guidelines on specific situations, as per km 8/02. Other balancing factors not included in your listing are provided by Jesus at Matt.10:37 and Lu.14:26. Considered counsel from competent older men might be helpful. Careful weighing of effects on the conscience of others in the congregation, mature or otherwise, would also need to be factored in of course. But in the end, the decisions on specific situations rest with the individuals involved. Regarding the effectiveness of such a disciplinary measure, let us not forget that in respect of the actual case prompting Paul's instruction to the Corinthians, the necessary reaction in the case of the sinner was produced in that repentance was demonstrated and restoration accomplished. (2Cor.2:6-11). This I find a bit confusing. Are you saying you have never been involved in a reinstatement?

Jesus helps us to get a balance on fleshly relationships in his handling of the incident recorded at Matt.12:46-50; Mr.3:31-35; Lu.8:19-21. My understanding of this sets spritual bonds at a higher priority to fleshly bonds without negating the latter. Jesus words at Mr.10:29-30 have a relevance here also. Those who are unrepentant regarding a practice of serious sin resulting in disfellowshipping action bring great heartache and difficulty into the lives of their Christian relatives, both fleshly AND spiritual, such is their selfishness. In effect, the spiritual bond they enjoyed with their family in the truth, (which includes any dedicated, fleshly relatives), is broken. However, fleshly relationships are not necessarily broken. (Grand)parent-grandchild, sibling, husband-wife (unless an optional divorce results), degrees of kinship, human to human. All these fleshy bonds remain. They may be modified by variables relating to health, age, even economic or some other acute circumstance. But, nevertheless, they remain, and scripturally so. Dealing with a multitude of circumstance resulting from many variable factors in the case of a disfellowshipped relative involves the excercise of personal conscience. The various scenarios described above, imagined or real, all involve the excercise of conscience on the part of those relatives serving Jehovah. As such, no rules can be made. One has to act as one feels conscientiously is right. But, as with all matters involving excercise of conscience, the effect on onlookers is a consideration. (Rom.14:14). Consider Rom.14:21 "It is best not....to do anything over which your brother stumbles". Those onlookers include the congregation elders. And the reaction of onlookers will differ from place to place, circumstance to circumstance. Many may feel too conflicted to decide what to do for the best when emotions cloud clear judgement and may seek counsel from trusted elders. Others may let their hearts rule, others act legalistically and unmercifully. Still others may feel they can make balanced decisions. Elders have an additional burden in upholding Jehovah's standards and protecting the flock from spiritually weakening or contaminating influences. Individuals may make conscientous decisions in dealing with disfellowshipped relatives which then alarm elders in the discharge of their shepherding responsibility to ALL the flock. Elders may have to restrict privileges for those who in their conscientous view are setting an unwise example as a result. Each one will have to bear the consequence of decisions that they make and the manner in which those decisions effect the conscience of others. This all underlines a number of factors for me: the far reaching consequences of sin : Rom.5:12 the exceeding selfishness of those who unrepentantly violate Jehovah's standards and consequently the rights of all their relatives, spritual and fleshly the need for discretion in the excercise of kindness and mercy. Comp Matt 6:3 the need for congregation elders to "carry on in a manly way" 1Cor. 16:13

I was thinking that, but you know it doesn't seem that far from Brooklyn and there a lot of people in between. Check Google map: Warwick Headquarters

This is a very prudent approach advised by Ann O'Maly, and I would hasten to add that even relatively modern, purely secular scholarship should be treated with caution also. After all, the term "modern" (as opposed to "antiquarian") is just a relative concept. Everything modern becomes antiquarian eventually. But as for researching and verifying historical information on Babylonish religion to the level similar to that in the document linked below? Well, this is not for the regular amateur, and whilst I have no criticism taking an interest in such matters (as I do myself), I suggest that most true Christians, with other priorities, might find an alternative approach more effective, one based on 2Tim 3:16. Why not save the embarrassment of arguing ineffectively on secular terms? I like Queen Esther's approach: Daniel chapter 1 provides an interesting snapshot of life in ancient Babylon for worshippers of Jehovah. I am sure Daniel and his friends were exposed to all manner of festivities, holidays etc., both secular and religious, during their 3-year training course in Babylonian culture. Dan 1:5. (We could all do with something similar really if we want to argue origins with secular authorities). But we have no reason to believe Daniel and co treated these Babylonian customs any differently than they did the dietary practices common to the level of society to which they were exposed. Comp Dan.1:8. In fact, in view of the words at De 8:3 (quoted later by Jesus), I suspect their attention to the avoidence of spritual defilement would have been even more diligent. And as they were living in the actual Babylonian environment that we seek to associate with more recent customs, there was surely no need for them to grapple with the arguments of academics to define what was or was not acceptable to Jehovah. And in view of the inherehent dangers to their spirituality in that environment, they would surely have just avoided whatever Jehovah had not commanded, would they not?.

https://visualhumor.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/her-goatee.jpg

Interesting turn on the slang use of the term 'snowflake'. In Missouri in the early 1860s, a 'snowflake' was a person who was opposed to the abolition of slavery—the implication of the name being that such people valued white people over black people. In the 1970s, 'snowflake' was a disparaging term for a white man, or for a black man who was seen as acting white. (Courtesy Mirriam-Webster)

I can see similarities in the use of jw.org logos as trinkets or ornaments or badges in the way that others might use crosses without religious significance. However, I can't really see a similarity between the way many witnesses view trinkets and cakes etc. bearing the jw.org symbol and the way in which the cross is treated religiously by diverse members of Christendom. The links below might illustrate my point: http://www.latitudenews.com/story/faithful-in-philippines-embrace-christ-and-his-crucifixion/ http://blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/2016/01/kissing-the-cross/ http://catholicphilly.com/2016/03/think-tank/catholic-spirituality/salvation-comes-through-the-cross-not-a-magic-wand-pope-says/ Anyway, I apologise for deviating a bit from your topic which I note is about the quality of research in the 1985 Reasoning Book article on the Cross. I am sure this line of discussion will come up more appropriately somewhere else so will leave it until then.

Thanks for the interesting research which is very relevant, particularly on cherry picking of quotes., However, there's nothing here to say that Jesus was not nailed to an upright stake, or that the symbol does not have pre-christian, pagan association. Although the Society's illustrations still depict Jesus death on an upright stake, our current view is this: "However, the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death, so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty." I'm not sure how this correlates to Christendoms veneration of the cross no matter how tacky the uses of what is simply part of a url.

Well...we won't find fanaticism listed in Gal 5:22-24, although fanatics might say zeal is not there either.

Interesting reference

@JWInsider Don't misunderstand me either. My apparent escape from "1975-ism" does not mean I see it as a minority fad amongst more irrational eccentrics in the congregation. Not at all. Your description of your own experience shows how one could be "embedded" in a "world" governed by this particular attitude. In your case, it appears all-encompassing, with ancestry, family, peers and role models, religious environment, career and education path, all governed by this thinking on the end time. It also illustrates to me also the world of difference in experience between those who are born into the world of Jehovah's Witness and those, like myself, who have sought out the movement as an adult. Something like the difference between the man and the travelling merchant at Matt.13:44-45. I am well aware of the tendency among many brothers to sensationalise endtime speculation. This is reflected in the rather clumsily constructed 1968 WT expression you quoted above "one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end." I can almost hear the accompanying table thump! Even lately I have encountered responsible brothers who press for my agreement with the view that we will be unlikely to have our next Regional Convention in this system of things. And this in the face of the fact that the Society is already arranging the bookings for those delegates attending the 2017 Special Coventions abroad! This 1974 article was not specific on a "1975" reason for postponing child rearing and showed that many had made such a decision for secular reasons. However, there will of course be those who did let a date unduly factor in their life strategy and who may well have made sacrifices on the basis of a faulty criteria. But there are also those who made, and still make, similar sacrifices without undue influence from a distorted view of "times and seasons". There are still others who chose not to make such sacrifices but who continue to serve Jehovah acceptably. Jepthah had not considered the full implications of his vow had he? And as for his daughter? (Judges 11:30-40). Notwithstanding the reasons any have for serving Jehovah to whatever extent they do, surely Solomon's words hold true, and this is how we should encourage our brothers: *** Ec 8:12-13 *** I am aware that it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him. 13 But it will not turn out well for the wicked one, nor will he prolong his days that are like a shadow, because he does not fear God. Hmm. "Incited" or "inflamed" more like. Perhaps a new topic could be "What is the difference between zeal and fanaticism. Illustrate."

I find this experience regarding the 1975 furore quite intriguing. Although I did pick up on excitement about the end of 6000 years earlier, (probably 1972 was my first encounter with a brother who had cancelled his life insurance on that basis), this kind of thinking I found to be the exception rather than the rule in my (possibly) narrow field of experience. Of course there were those who expressed their conviction centred on that date. In fact, there was one prominent brother, know affectionately as "Armageddon Ernie", who had made very strong statements about the proximity of the end for years, earning that nick-name. But these type of views were seen rather as eccentricities than doctorine in my circle. I was aware of the statements that are now collected as lists by those who still harp on about the Society making false prophecies about 1975. My first encounter with that date was the chart in the ‘Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God,’ book which, apparently, when released by Bro. Knorr at an assembly in Toronto caused discussion of 1975 to overshadow just about everything else. Bro Franz views about the same time were published in the WT: *** w66 10/15 p. 631 Rejoicing over “God’s Sons of Liberty” Spiritual Feast *** ‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that. Later though, there was this comment: *** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” James put it plainly in his letter when he said at 3:8 that "no human can tame the tongue". And Pro.10:19 states the simple truth that "When words are many, transgression cannot be avoided". And it cannot be successfully argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are short on words in any respect, official or otherwise! So there are bound to be mistakes, over-emphasis, etc. Add to that the tendency of humans to hear what they want to hear, and to seek "official" confrimation for "pet" theories! So it seems to me there are those who became unecessarily frothed up over the prospect of a date for the end of the system, and there are those who did not. And all sorts of in-betweens. And that on the basis of the same information. We are all feeding at the same spiritual table, and that includes the WT writers and GB members. And are we not all agreed that, despite adjustments and changes and developments related to the spiritual food served at that table, it still constitutes: "a banquet of rich dishes, a banquet of fine wine, of rich dishes filled with marrow, of fine, filtered wine." Is 25:6. But regardless of clever argument, fascinating detail etc., it is only the word of God that is alive and exerting power in all that spiritual food. (Heb 4:12). Concentrating on anything else would be like eating the icing and ignoring the cake, drinking the gravy and leaving the meat, lapping up the dressing and leaving the salad! Bit like children (compare Heb 5:14).

2017 Special Conventions Even if you are not attending, this website link gives interesting information, particularly the photos and history of the development of Jehovah's Witnesses' activity in each of the host countries. https://jw2017.org/

Sad and misleading headline again! Surely there was a clear reason for the death of this lovely woman? What caused the "excess bleeding"? Many casual readers of this type of report will draw the incorrect conclusion that it was the refusal of blood that caused her death. The additional association with her religious belief provides more emotive irrelevancy Pat Hagan, for the UK's Daily Mail on line, said in 2010 "incredibly, there has never been any major research into the effectiveness or safety of blood transfusions. There are also no clear guidelines on when surgeons should administer donated blood, which may have caused widespread overuse". Why would this be "incredible" to the journalist unless they had been misinformed by assumption? I have no objection to citing and linking to such reports, but it wouldn't it be better if the forum's headlines set a more objective and rational tone?

Good question but a Yes/No answer would simply be too simple. Firstly, archaelogical findings will aways require some level of interpretation. Even the Bibles we possess today are copies of archaelogical findings and some view the writings simply as that. For those who have accepted the current Bible Canon to be the "All Scripture" (literally writing) that Paul (2Tim 3:16) referred to as "inspired of God", and therefore a principal authority, then the answer would be that interpretations of other archaelogical findings not harmonizing with one's "interpretations/ understandings of Bible accounts" would need careful scrutiny and possible rejection. There is always the possibility of revising one's understanding of Scriptural detail of course. It certainly could, but not successfully. As has been pointed out by others, confidence based solely on the human interpretation of crumbling artifacts would be eroding as they did. And indeed, such a confidence would seem to be solely an intellectual conviction that the Bible was a true record, like an attested historical document, it's authority based only on a human judgement of it's authenticity. The acceptance of the Thessalonian Christians described at 1Thess.2:13 was not based on archaeological findings and interpretations but other factors as Paul listed in 1Thess.1:5. (Notwithstanding a lack of noble-mindedness amongst some in that city). Just musings as stated. Further discussion is better placed in the Biblical Archaeology section on this forum I realise.

This movie was part of the evening entertainment program for the delegates attending the 2014 International Convention at Atlanta Georgia. It is about 58 minutes into the program. Generous brothers and sisters sharing their many talents, including film making. http://www.channelmovie.online/watch/evening-program-entertainment-atlanta-international-convention.dDckqFEwRSx/ http://www.atlantadelegates.com/

Let's not overlook the fact that the timeless lesson on the result of faithful stewardship bound up in these verses at Matt 24:45-47 holds up regardless of the specific application to the Governing Body's role in modern times as part of the sign of the last days. It would be a highly myopic application here that ignored the necessity for ALL Christians to faifhfully discharge their responsibilities as stewards of Jehovah's undeserved kindness (compare 1Cor 9:17; 1Pet. 4:10). On the other hand, I see no reason to doubt that the oversight of spiritual shepherding that we currently see in the congregation has been assigned to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (regardless of membership number or place of domicile), in fulfillment of Jesus words at Matt 24:45. The outcome of faithfully discharging that responsibility is described at vs 46-47.

I confirm this. For me it certainly does. Comparing the parable of the Good Samaritan with the prophecy of the faithful and discreet slave and extrapolating on this with the aim of dismantling the current explanation provided in the Watchtower is, for me, a fruitless, (pardon!), "apples and oranges" type excercise, (idiomatic use regardless of Smithsonian debate). I have stated my position on this matter above. I think that the position you appear to be stating measures up quite comparatively to that described at Numbers 16:3. I do not see the behaviour of those rebels at that time as a "picture" or "prophetc type" working out here. But I do see quite simply a similar circumstance in that an arrangement made by Jehovah to lead his people at a particular time (i.e. The Governing Body), is disputed internally and made out, subtly, to be a self-appointment on the part of participants, rather than a divine provision. Pardon if I misunderstand. I am sure clarification will be forthcoming if this is the case.

Phew!!! (Don't know why this Anna field is here???