Ann O'Maly

No, the first full Passover day is April 11. There must be something really basic I'm overlooking ...

Yes, the Memorial is on April 11, 2017, but Passover is listed by multiple sources as beginning sunset April 10, which I can't find a reason for if the new crescent is first visible in Jerusalem on March 29.

Giannis has piqued my curiosity about the 2017 Passover. Why April 10? By my reckoning, that would be Nisan 13. Hmm.

Don't forget that the Jews are counting lunar months (29 or 30 days long each month). JWs are counting Gregorian calendar months (28/29 or 30 or 31 days long) and just pay attention to the lunar cycle for one month only - for calculating their equivalent of Nisan 14. The timing of the (approximate) full moon after the spring equinox serves to offset any major drift between the JW method and the Jewish one - about a month's difference at worst.

This interesting comment indicates that the person who is doing the shunning also feels uncomfortable doing it. Many of us know how psychologically damaging it is for the 'shunnee,' but I think we forget how damaging it also is for the 'shunner.' "If you think giving someone the cold shoulder inflicts pain only on them, beware. A new study shows that individuals who deliberately shun another person are equally distressed by the experience." - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305080452.htm This presupposes that the elders who chose to disfellowship saw into the sinner's heart perfectly and made a perfect decision. It also presupposes that a disfellowshipped person can never be redeemed. Somehow I don't think you really believe that.

Jesus taught: “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them." (Matthew 7:12). Laying aside for a moment the ethics of cutting off a child from its religious, social and wider family networks in the first place, this is where empathy comes into play. If we were that child (or if we were the parents) and we attended a meeting where, perhaps, everyone knew of our embarrassing family 'scandal,' would we want to be ignored (or our child to be ignored) and not have common courtesies or social graces extended to us? I think we we have our answer.

It's a good point that all Memorial dates are calculated in advance and are not based on actual observation ... which makes it more puzzling that the Org's choice of time for theoretical new crescent visibility is sometimes at variance with that of many (dare I say, 'most'?) other astronomical programs' calculations. And if anyone should know when the new lunar month ought to begin, it should be the Jews, right? Also, picking full moon is no guarantee of hitting on the 14th day of the lunar month. Because of the nature of the Moon's orbit, full moon can occur any time from the 13th to 16th day.

Jared Kushner, CEO of Kushner Companies, is Donald Trump's son-in-law. Five years ago, the Scientologists 'won' a Telly Award! http://www.villagevoice.com/news/scientology-wins-a-major-award-mind-power-vindicated-updated-6682199

*** w13 12/15 p. 23 ‘Do This in Remembrance of Me’ *** MEMORIAL 2014 "The moon circles our earth each month. In the course of each cycle, there is a moment when the moon lines up between the earth and the sun. This astronomical configuration is termed “new moon.” At that point, the moon is not visible from the earth nor will it be until 18 to 30 hours later. "During 2014, the new moon nearest the vernal (spring) equinox will be on March 30, at 8:45 p.m. (20:45), Jerusalem time. The following sunset in Jerusalem (March 31) will come about 21 hours later. It is doubtful that the first sliver of the moon will be visible then. More likely, the first sunset when the initial crescent of the moon can be seen in Jerusalem will be on April 1. By the method the ancient Jews used, that will be the day when the first month (Nisan 1) will start, at sunset. "Hence, congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the earth have been informed that Nisan 14 will begin at sunset on Monday, April 14, 2014. That will be about the time of the full moon.—For more details on calculating the date, see The Watchtower of June 15, 1977, pages 383-384." Part in blue: Correct date - new moon was on March 30. Wrong time - new moon was at 21:45 Jerusalem time. The researcher hadn't factored in Daylight Saving Time that came in on March 28 for Israel. Part in yellow: Miscalculation of crescent visibility. Three astronomical programs calculated that the new crescent would be visible with the naked eye from Jerusalem on March 31. Granted, the crescent would be toward the limits of visibility criteria, but still would be theoretically possible to see according to, the Planetary, Lunar and Stellar Visibility program (free download online) http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/moonwatch/index.html http://torahcalendar.com/MOON.asp?JDN=2457458&TDAY=1&MNFLG=0 Screenshots can be provided if you are that interested. The Moon's crescent was indeed sighted in the vicinity of Jerusalem on March 31 as reported by this website. Therefore, sunset March 31 was Nisan 1, and sunset April 13 (not 14) was Nisan 14. So JWs celebrated the 2014 Memorial on Nisan 15.

There's another thread here too. It may give you some pointers:

For as long as the Jews have used a lunar-based calendar (many centuries before the 4th century!), they will have had to re-calibrate it with the solar year every two to three years by adding an extra month. Yes, the Org. goes by the sighting of the new moon in Jerusalem to establish the month (in theory, anyway). But that's the same practice as the Jews. Unfortunately, sometimes the Org. calculates wrongly and JWs are a day out (case in point, the 2014 Memorial). You are absolutely correct about the Jews celebrating Passover on Nisan 15 whereas JWs commemorate the Lord's Supper and subsequent 'passover' sacrifice on their equivalent of Nisan 14. Also the Org. never takes into account lunisolar leap years but relies solely on the new moon nearest the spring equinox as the marker upon which to begin Nisan.

There was a JWTV broadcast last year (can't remember the month) that interviewed a lawyer who had been funded by the Org. to get his law degree. Anthony Morris (?) said Bethel wouldn't be sending Bethelites to College anymore because of the dangers. Also last year (1/13/15), a letter was sent out to the Bodies of Elders calling for legal experts within the congregation who might be able to volunteer their services to HQ and to quietly make enquiries. The letter said: "We trust that you will use discretion in approaching publishers regarding volunteering to assist the organization in the above way. Please note that we are not encouraging individuals to pursue higher education or university degrees to obtain skills related to legal matters. (w13 10/15 pp. 15-16 pars. 13-14) Thank you for your assistance." 3/6/12 BOE letter. "Appointed men must be exemplary in heeding the warnings given by the faithful slave and its Governing Body when it comes to education. (Matt. 24:45-47) Would an elder, a ministerial servant, or a pioneer continue to qualify to serve as such if he, his wife, or his children pursue higher education? Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. When such a situation arises, the body of elders should consider the following questions and scriptures: • Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? (Matt. 6:33) • Does he teach his family to put Kingdom interests first? • Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher education? (3 John 9) • Do his speech and conduct reveal that he is a spiritual person? (Ps. 1:2, 3; 1 Cor. 2:13-16) • How is he viewed by the congregation? • Why is he or his family pursuing higher education? • Does the family have theocratic goals? (Phil. 3:8) • Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful participation in field service, or other theocratic activities? As the body of elders prayerfully and carefully considers the matter, it may be readily apparent that the brother has a positive attitude about what the organization has published regarding higher education and still retains the respect of others in the congregation. They may also observe that he and his family are keeping Kingdom interests first if the education does not interfere with meetings and the ministry. In such a case, the elders may determine that he could continue serving.— 1 Tim. 3:2, 4-6; Heb. 13:7. On the other hand, if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring, he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation because of the effect on his and his fellow appointed brothers' freeness of speech. (1 Tim 3:13; Titus 1:9) The body of elders may therefore determine that the brother no longer qualifies to serve. In most cases, however, such a determination should be made in conjunction with the visit of the circuit overseer."

Me too. I was going to mention it in my post but, like you, I didn't keep a copy, my memory was too vague on it, and the list has gone into cyber-oblivion. Yes, signing up was a mistake in view of the Org's true opinion of the UN. Despite writing more positively about the UN's work, which was refreshing to see on the one hand, it also meant that the Org. was being two-faced. In addition, it made it appear like the 'disgusting thing' was having a say in what kind of 'spiritual food' was to be produced. I don't know why nobody at the top picked up on the inconsistency.

(Giannis, Robert King is disfellowshipped so it's unlikely that loyal JWs will read anything he says.) I remember the controversy when it broke and researched the matter for myself at the time. The issue wasn't so much that Watchtower became a NGO, but that it also became associated with the UN's Department of Public Information which required assenting to the UN Charter (read it to see what that involved) and promoting the UN's work, aims and values. Every year, as the rules stood, the Organization had to provide evidence to the DPI that it was doing that in order to continue association. This is why the articles in the Awakes during the 1990s softened their anti-UN stance and put the UN's accomplishments in a more positive light. It's easy to minimize the Watchtower's involvement as the actions of one Bethelite, but he and the other named representative were high-up Bethelites. At least one GB member was aware because he was also listed as one of the representatives on the accreditation forms (W. [Lloyd] Barry). Not only that but, "Each article in both The Watchtower and Awake! and every page, including the artwork, is scrutinized by selected members of the Governing Body before it is printed." - w87 3/1 p. 15 par. 18. So any 'spiritual food' that promoted the UN's work (in contrast to the usual contempt about it) was checked and signed off by members of the GB. It would be those kinds of articles that were provided to the DPI so the Org. could continue its association. Given that the UN has long been viewed as the 'disgusting thing' of Daniel and the 'scarlet wild beast' of Revelation, it's understandable why many would be stumbled by the Org's actions.

A knotty problem is whether religious belief should infringe on the freedoms of others, e.g. when men enjoy certain freedoms denied to women, as outlined in the article. Another problem is how animals are slaughtered and how to make this the most humane. It is alleged that Kosher and Halal methods fall short of the standards put forward by animal welfare advisory bodies. Is there any sound religious basis to insist on certain practices? Or are those practices just traditions that could be changed without compromising foundational beliefs?

But Giannis is asking why a person, who was disfellowshipped for having a kidney transplant, should repent of something that the Org. no longer believed was wrong.

OK. I notice that you do not give specific references or quotes to support your point. This makes it harder to verify your claim. Perhaps you just threw out names hoping some might stick. It's appears you didn't bother to actually check what they said. Barnes refers the reader of 2 John 7 to his notes on 1 John 4:2 where he says, "It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such sentiments as those which were held by the 'Docetae;' and that he meant to teach that it was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone came from God, that he should maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was a real incarnation of the Son of God." Alford neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists in his commentary. A.E. Brooks - The Johannine Epistles, I presume. While he questions whether John was specifically pinning down Docetism as the 'false teaching,' he does say that the "connection of the [first] Epistle with Gnostic ideas is quite apparent" (p. xliii). He also acknowledges that the recognized connection between John's First and Second Epistles with Docetism has had a long history and, while he finds it unfortunate that the term 'Docetism' has both a "wider and narrower signification," he says it can be applied in a more popular sense, "to characterize all teaching which denied the reality of the Incarnation, and therefore the reality and completeness of the Lord's humanity." (p. xliv) This application is still pretty specific and again is not meant to be a catch-all for any infraction of an ecclesiastical authority's policies and teaching. "The team at Intervarsity Press" - too vague. W Hall Harris - Are you referring to his book, 1, 2, 3 John - Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis? P.211 - "There is no indisputable evidence for docetism in the Johannine letters." Well, that's one scholar so far. The Pulpit Commentary: "These seducers deny 'Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,' or they deny 'Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.' The present participle ἐρχόμενον seems to indicate exactly the position of some of the Gnostic teachers. ... The Gnostic denied that the Incarnation could take place: no such Person as the Christ coming in the flesh was possible; that the Infinite should become finite, that the Divine Word should become flesh, was inconceivable. The teacher who brings such doctrine as this 'is the deceiver and the antichrist' about whom the elder's children had been so frequently warned." Docetism was a form of Gnosticism. FB Hole neither agrees nor disagrees with the idea that John was targeting Docetists because he doesn't mention them. He applies John's words to 'Modernism.' William Kelly - neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists but talks in generalities. J R Dummelow - his introduction to 2 John discusses the historical context of the letter and how the Docetist view, which denied Jesus' true nature, was a threat to the Christianity that John held dear. No disagreement from Drummelow. Leon Morris - did he do a discussion of John's letters? I cannot find one among his listed works. James Macknight - A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles, with a Commentary, and Notes, Philological, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical. To which is added, A History of the Life of the Apostle Paul, Vol VI - an old 18th century commentary. MacKnight says that the purpose of the 2nd epistle to John was "to confute the error of Basilides and his followers, who affirmed that Christ was not a real man, but only a man in appearance; consequently, that he neither did nor suffered what he appeared to do and suffer." (P. 134) MacKnight was mistaken in attributing the heresy to Basilides as he lived after John's letter was supposed to have been written, but it's clear that MacKnight thought John was targeting Gnostic heresy. Coffman's commentaries: "The heresy of the false deceivers was that of denying the Incarnation. Various scholars have identified such teachers as Docetists, Cerinthians, and Gnostics." Nah. Your "most scholars" that "disagree" John was targeting the Docetic heresy amount to ... let me get my calculator ... a grand total of ... one.

Many other what? Groups/people who believed Jesus was an apparition? Who? Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies? Where is there scriptural precedent for a congregational policy that has the person attending every meeting for a year or more, and all the while family and friends not conversing with him until the elders finally deem him repentant and reinstate him? How do you know that the person seeking reinstatement is not putting on an elaborate act of repentance? Maybe the person just wants to be able to talk to/associate with their family again. Maybe it's part of the plan to have a new (adulterous) marriage accepted, given enough time (I know two cases where that happened). How can an elder body really know either way before making a decision? We've been talking generally but you bring up abuse cases - crimes rather than sins. The way you framed the question suggests to me that you may not be aware of how an abuse case would be handled as a matter of course. As JW policy stands now, an alleged abuser can only be dealt with if there are two witnesses to the crime. If there aren't two witnesses to the crime, another child or young person would have to have been abused and come forward before the elders would do anything - like e.g. disfellowship the abuser. If the abuser is disfellowshipped for child abuse, one would hope that he has also faced justice in the courts. If he has faced the courts and been convicted, he would then be put on the sex offenders' registry and monitored by the authorities. If he was then reinstated into the congregation, whether he was genuinely repentant or not, the elders and congregation members would be alerted to the fact that there is a convicted sexual predator in their midst and take precautions to protect their children from becoming another victim.

... Among a few other things, including that he would be killed (Mark 10:32-34). And he was killed. That's why John found the Docetists' teaching so offensive. Returning to the wider thread theme, AnonymousBrother stated: But this Scripture is talking about after an expulsion has taken place and welcoming the man back. *** w10 6/15 p. 13 Keep Building Up the Congregation *** “Kindly Forgive and Comfort Him” 13 The first-century Corinthian congregation faced the situation of a man who unrepentantly practiced fornication. His conduct threatened the purity of the congregation and was a scandal even among nonbelievers. Hence, Paul rightly directed that the man be removed from the congregation.—1 Cor. 5:1, 7, 11-13. 14 That discipline had a good effect. The congregation was protected from a corrupting influence, and the sinner was brought to his senses and to sincere repentance. On the basis of the man’s works befitting repentance, Paul indicated in his second letter to that congregation that the man should be reinstated. This was not all that was required, however. Paul also directed that the congregation “kindly forgive and comfort [the repentant sinner], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad.”—Read 2 Corinthians 2:5-8. Again, there is no hint that the congregation's policy was (to adapt Giannis' words): "Neither we nor your family will speak to you until you prove you are remorseful and attend every congregation meeting for at least a year."

I can't make sense of your objection here, AnonymousBrother . John does not allude to the issue of circumcision in his 2nd letter. Surely we are agreed on that? I also said that John talks about staying in the teaching of Christ. So we are agreed on that. I made no interpretation regarding 'the teaching of Christ' but I did ask a question about what actually was the 'teaching of Christ.'

There are some weaknesses with the 'two destinies' idea, however. If all true Christians in the 1st century were 'anointed,' what changed? Regarding the weaknesses that center on Rev. 7 ... 1. Rev. 7's numbers 12 x 12,000 are understood to be symbolic, but it is insisted that the total number 144,000 is literal. This is inconsistent. 2. When Rev. 7 is read more closely, the 144k group are on earth; otherwise, why are the four angels told to hold back the destructive winds until the 144k are sealed? Cp. Rev. 9:4. 3. When Rev. 7 is read more closely, the envisioned 'great crowd' is seen in the same heavenly location as the four living creatures, angels and 24 elders. On what contextual basis can we argue that the 'great crowd' is in a different location to the four living creatures, angels and 24 elders? One viable interpretation is that the 144,000 and 'great crowd' is the same group seen from a different perspective. John hears a schematic number (7:4) but sees the reality (7:9). Cp. Rev 5:5, 6 (John hears a description of Jesus but sees Jesus' appearance).

I'm so glad she made it home, but it's heartbreaking to see her so ill. My thoughts are with her, her family and friends.

I can't remember Jesus teaching anything about circumcision, the question was long resolved by the time John wrote his letter, and he didn't allude to the circumcision issue here, so no, warning against the pro-circumcision lobby was not John's intent Again, banning Jews from Christianity is not the issue that John alludes to. The doctrinal threat to Christianity was more fundamental: if Jesus didn't really die, then there was no resurrection. If Jesus wasn't resurrected, Christian faith has no basis (as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15). John talks about love, warns about those who teach that Jesus didn't come in the flesh and urges Christians to remain in Christ's teaching (and what exactly was Christ's teaching?). Any other perceived target is eisegesis, pure speculation.

Lol. Absolutely! And the beans JWs have to count are getting smaller and smaller - every tract, every JW video shown, every pdf sent. I think of Matt. 23:23, 24. Enjoy your hot, sunny, late summer afternoon. Hmpf. I'm not jealous. Honest.

But the 'wicked' in this context was specifically about a kind of Gnostic Christian who taught Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood person which went against the fundamentals of the Gospel. It wasn't a generic 'any who an ecclesiastical authority deems wicked, for any number of reasons, do not speak to them at all.' If we were to shun all 'basically wicked' people we wouldn't speak to anybody at all. Cp. Luke. 11:13 (Matt. 7:11).