Ann O'Maly

Allen, it's real childish to make a mistake and call the person who pointed it out 'stupid.' To further JW Insider's answer about how Nebuchadnezzar raced back home to secure the throne, here is the excerpt from Josephus' Against Apion, 1.19 (134-138): https://www.loebclassics.com/view/josephus-apion/1926/pb_LCL186.217.xml Note that Neb took a shorter route across the desert.

It's a challenging question, isn't it?

Um. Obverse side, Allen. I quoted from obverse lines 9, 10 and 11 regarding Neb's accession. You quoted from the reverse side lines 11, 12 and 13 which deals with Neb's 7th year, you doofus.

That's a terrible photoshop I'd tell them that, when the novelty wears off and they wake up one day saying to themselves 'what the heck was I thinking?', it's an expensive and painful process to remove it. Don't bother in the first place.

Haha. Really? Which business tablets pose a problem for establishing when Neb's reign began? The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 pinpoints the day Neb acceded the throne: [Obv.9] For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon, [Obv.10] when on 8 Abu [15 August 605.] he went to his destiny; in the month of Ululu Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon [Obv.11] and on 1 Ululu [7 September 605.] he sat on the royal throne in Babylon. Points to 606 BC as what? Jerusalem's destruction? Nebuchadnezzar's accession? What? And what is this information of which you speak? You're all huff and bluster, Allen. As usual.

So where does the NT teach about a non-anointed true Christian?

Have I interpreted? I have asked questions about your reasoning and the JW interpretation.

So if he put the great crowd in the same place as the Lamb, 4 living creatures, 24 elders and angels in his vision, who are we to say different? Where does the NT teach about a non-anointed true Christian? Where does the Bible say the kings and priests will be instrumental in a thousand year rehabilitation program for the 'great crowd' and resurrected? To quote you: "This to me is an uninspired interpretation and carries no more weight of itself than any other uninspired interpretation."

You're not making sense. To which Egibi tablet are you referring? Whose original translation? Nebuchadnezzar III lived in Cambyses' time, not 604 BCE. The tablet would have just said 'Nebuchadnezzar' without the 'III' bit. The tablet would have given a regnal year number, not a BC date. The Egibi archive provides watertight evidence that the conventional neo-Babylonian timeline cannot stretch by an additional 20 years. OK, now the confusion is between Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar II, not III? Are you suggesting that the bank officials didn't know the correct date when they drew up contracts? Obfuscation, you mean. The 'variables' were more often down to the Org's and Furuli's mistakes and misunderstandings, their creating problems where none existed, or manipulating data to give the appearance that the Org's alternative historical timeline was credible or better. Who knows? Archaeologists, cuneiformists, historians and archaeo-astronomers know because they have examined the available, voluminous evidence. You haven't detailed one mistake yet. (Dangit, couldn't help it in the end, JW Insider )

Maybe *you* can. But you're circumventing my point. Could John do what he liked in the vision Jesus gave him? And so we have a situation where the inspired NT indicates that all true Christians are anointed by holy spirit and share the same everlasting reward, and uninspired interpretations saying that only some true Christians are anointed by holy spirit and there are two groups of true Christians with different everlasting rewards. Which view has more weight? Would you agree, then, that using the 'no more tears' argument to try and differentiate two groups of victorious faithful dangles a red herring? The 'anointed' are no longer in tearful anguish once they get their heavenly reward and, by the same token, mankind is no longer in tearful anguish once they receive their reward. 'No more tears' applies across the board to all the rewarded faithful so cannot be used as an argument for the two destinies idea.

Well, Eoin, you are entitled to act in accord with your conscience. Quite right too. However, the original question was, 'why don't JWs celebrate Easter' so we're talking about a collective or organization's conscience rather than an individual's. If a JW researched and found the the argumentation* for not celebrating Easter as a Christian (or alternatively, a modern, secular) festival was flimsy, then he would still have to abide by the collective conscience of the Org. or risk an ecclesiastical slap. As was argued before, just because a pagan used it/ did it/ invented it/ worshipped it, it doesn't necessitate that the thing itself is inherently bad.** * Bad Company fallacy ** E.g. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102003687

The 'no tears' thing only happens when they're no longer human? How so? I thought I was demonstrating the opposite - that contextually, you can't place an event or person in a location other than where your dream (or vision) put them. If I told you the traditional version of Goldilocks and the Three Bears - which is set at a house in the middle of a forest - you can't then expound on that by claiming that, while the bears were at their house in the middle of a forest, Goldilocks was really at IKEA in the middle of a city. Paul's understanding is considered to be part of that same sacred, inspired canon. The canon is closed and inspiration ceased, did it not? If all true Christians in the 1st century were 'anointed,' how and when did true Christians divide into 2 groups - one 'anointed' and one not?

I wanted to edit and add a picture but it wouldn't let me. Try again: Picture credit: Doug Mason

The short answer is an emphatic 'No!' As has been demonstrated in this thread, there isn't good support for this date biblically either. Also, accepting 537 for a Jewish restoration on their own land relies on nothing more than the Org's speculation about when Cyrus gave his decree. *** it-1 p. 417 Captivity *** Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. (2Ch 36:20, 21; Ezr 1:1-4) *** it-1 pp. 568-569 Cyrus *** In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) This marked the end of the prophesied 70 years of Judah’s desolation that began in the same month, Tishri, of 607 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:22-26; 2Ch 36:20, 21. The reasoning behind the assumption that Cyrus gave his decree in the latter part of his first year goes like this: *** it-1 p. 800 Ezra, Book of *** Cyrus’ decree must have been issued late in 538 B.C.E. or early in 537 for two reasons. The desolation had to last until the 70th year ended, and the released Israelites would not be expected to travel in the winter rainy season, as would have been the case if the decree had been made a few months earlier. Likely it was issued in the early spring of 537 B.C.E. in order to give the Jews a chance to travel during the dry season, arrive in Jerusalem, and set up the altar on the first day of the seventh month (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E., September 29 according to the Gregorian calendar.—Ezr 3:2-6. IOW, the decree had to have been given then because of the (flawed) interpretation that 70 years must pass from Jerusalem's destruction to the Jews' repatriation. The reasoning is circular and includes a straw man (i.e. Jews not traveling in the winter rainy season). The alternative that Cyrus might have given permission early in his first year, if reckoned from Nisan 538, which would mean the captives traveled during the summer season and been back in their homeland by Tishri 538, is completely missed. Another possibility is that Ezra counted Cyrus' first year as his accession year, in which case, he had from October 539 to March/April 538 to issue the decree with the captives settled in their towns also by Fall 538. Naturally, a 538 repatriation doesn't fit neatly with the Org's preferred chronological scheme, so the Org. won't consider it. Anyway, the date of 597 BCE is a pivotal date for the siege and surrender of Jerusalem. Both the Bible and Babylonian Chronicles mention it. If one accepts 539 BCE as a true date, which derives from other dates pinpointed astronomically, one can't monkey about with the other key dates from that period since they are also astronomically nailed down from the same corpus of Babylonian texts. Some the overlapping tablets referred to in the 2011 WT were either print errors in the (source) publication and were amended long ago, or have damaged and unclear figures which have long been known about. You have far more patience with him than I have, JW Insider!

*** w70 1/15 p. 38 Which Comes First—Your Church or God? *** Notice that worship in “truth” is a must! It is therefore impossible to worship God acceptably without a deep love of the truth. The true Christian religion must be founded on the truth, not on traditions, creeds, dogmas and articles of faith that are often hard to understand because they defy all the faculties of reasoning with which God created us. Now what is the Christian standard for measuring truth? Is it not the Bible? So if there should prove to be contradiction between the tenets of a church that claims to be Christian and the plain statement of truth found in the Holy Scriptures, which should come first in your worship—your church or God’s Word, the Bible? What will be your answer if you sincerely desire to be “the kind of worshipper the Father wants” [referring to John 4:21-24]? When people of other religions stand up for what is objectively right or what they believe is right, JWs applaud them. E.g. *** w05 9/1 pp. 25-26 Mennonites Search for Bible Truth *** Facing Trials for the Truth A few days later, the church elders came to the home of Johann’s family with an ultimatum for the interested ones: “We heard that Jehovah’s Witnesses visited you. You must forbid them to return, and unless you hand over their literature to be burned, you face expulsion.” They had had just one Bible study with the Witnesses, so this presented a formidable test. “We cannot do as you ask,” replied one of the family heads. “Those people came to teach us the Bible.” How did the elders react? They expelled them for studying the Bible! This was a cruel blow indeed. The cart belonging to the colony cheese factory passed by the home of one family without collecting their milk, denying them their only source of income. One family head was dismissed from his job. Another was turned away from buying supplies at the colony store, and his ten-year-old daughter was expelled from school. Neighbors surrounded one home to take away the wife of one of the young men, asserting that she could not live with her expelled husband. Despite all of this, the families who studied the Bible did not give up their search for the truth. How can you be sure that Jehovah wasn't using a congregation member to correct the Org. or elders? There are plenty of esteemed Bible examples who did just that and bucked against so-called 'theocratic order.'

See this post: http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/5074-selection-to-heaven/?do=findComment&comment=8030

NEWSFLASH: "... it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends." - http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007327

Explain? Oh dear. Nevertheless, where does my dream place the grandchildren? Not at New York Aquarium. And there are no grandchildren in reality. So whether I have fallen asleep in my bed, at the Aquarium or on top of the Empire State Building, it doesn't alter the fact that my dream puts my dream grandchildren in a dream ocean, just as John's vision puts his visionary 'great crowd' in a visionary heavenly court with the other visionary heavenly characters. Yes, the 'great crowd' has come out of the 'great tribulation' so John sees them as a victorious, POST-tribulation group enjoying eternal peace and heavenly favor. The 144,000 are from among mankind too (Rev. 14:3, 4), so how does citing Rev. 21 help you with Rev. 7? Don't the 144,000 experience 'no tears' too? You may have no personal problem with symbolic numbers adding up to literal ones, or a two-tier salvation concept, but it doesn't mean they're harmonious with Bible teaching. Then I recommend becoming acquainted with more mainstream Christian doctrine which teaches that heaven is only the intermediate state - not the final one. Take a look at this, for example: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html

I'm saying that people see symbols and meanings in similar things. It doesn't necessarily mean that those artefacts or analogies and symbolisms are wrong. Pagans believed the stars were manifestations of the gods. Jesus ('a god') calls himself 'the bright morning star' in Revelation. Is it wrong to associate Jesus with the planet Venus, then? Pagans sometimes found religious meaning in cross shapes (e.g. the ankh which meant life). Ezekiel had a vision where a 'man' put a mark (literally a tau or cross shape) on the foreheads of those who would be spared death. Is it wrong for Bible believers to associate cross shapes with salvation? Do you get my point? Is your argument that, due to a linguistic quirk of how the English language developed so that an ancient Germanic goddess's name was retained for a Christian festival, the whole Christian festival is now bad? How do you cope with using month and day names in the Gregorian calendar?

Why do you need someone to decide for you, Eoin?

John, are you saying that a child who has made a mistake or acted out should have expressions of affection, wider familial contact, conversation and all friendship withdrawn from him long term? Seeing as we are indeed talking about a minor, do you not think that such actions would be considered abusive and psychologically damaging? Is it right to punish a child's misdemeanors in the same way as one might punish an adult's misdemeanors?

Yep, that's my question. What changed? Where, when ... and how ... if the inspired biblical canon closed nearly 2000 years ago? But how does a figurative 12 times a figurative 12,000 equal a literal 144,000? But contextually, if John was seeing everything in vision unfold from the perspective of heaven - the 'God's eye' view (Rev. 4f.), the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the Lamb, 4 living creatures, 24 elders and angels. To illustrate: I'm in bed asleep. I'm dreaming. In my dream I'm standing on a tropical beach. I see the palms swaying in the breeze and feel the warm sun on my face. Hearing excited shrieks, I turn and see my grandchildren ... in reality I don't yet have grandchildren so I sense this is an idealized representation of a desired future ... I see my grandchildren splashing about in the ocean, laughing because some fishes are tickling their legs. Further in the background, I see dolphins frantically racing each other.Am I really on a tropical beach? No, I'm sleeping in my bed.In reality, where are my grandchildren? In reality, they don't exist.But in my dream, where am I? On a tropical beach.In my dream, where are the fishes and dolphins? In the ocean.In my dream, where are my grandkids? At New York Aquarium.Huh? No that's incorrect. In my dream my grandkids are in the ocean with the fishes and dolphins.Applying this to Rev. 7 now:In vision, where is John? In heaven.In vision, where are the 24 elders, angels and four living creatures? They are around the throne which is in heaven (Rev. 4:2,4,6; 7:11).In vision, where is the great crowd? On earth.Huh?No that's incorrect. In vision, the great crowd is where the elders, angels and four living creatures are - before the throne and in front of the Lamb who is also in heaven (Rev. 7:9; 5:6).The point. Within the confines of the vision, there is no warrant to say the 'great crowd' is anywhere else - just like there is no warrant to say my grandchildren are anywhere other than where my dream put them.

"While the idea of the Easter Bunny does appear to have originated in Germany, and while, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Karl Simrock argued that 'the rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility' in his Handbuch der deutschen Mythologie, there does not seem to be any evidence specifically linking the goddess to most modern customs". - http://www.koshabq.org/2012/03/09/celebrating-eostre/ Humans find symbolisms, analogies and patterns in everything. It's part of our psychological make-up. (Typological interpretations of the Bible, anyone?) Jesus is the 'light of the world' shining in the darkness, hence perhaps one of the factors why his coming into the world is celebrated and finds meaning in the Northern Hemisphere winter. Jesus' resurrection in spring can be likened, on some levels, to new life and the hopes we see in the cycles of nature. Because 'pagans' and Christians find symbolic meanings in similar objects, it doesn't necessarily mean using those same objects as symbols is wrong.

How?

Dr. Nugent's reference to "the Easter story" is the story about Jesus' death and resurrection and he's paralleling it with the story about the death and resurrection of Tammuz. Tammuz, however, was ritually mourned in the month named after him which fell around the time of the summer solstice, not the spring equinox. Cp. Ezekiel 8:14-15. There are lots of death-resurrection stories about deities in religions and folklore. They are often tied to the changing seasons and agriculture, etc. Easter is not etymologically or religiously connected with Ishtar and Mesopotamian religion. It has a different history. The 'Easter' that Christians celebrate originates from Jewish Passover and the superlative 'Passover Lamb' that was Jesus.