JW Insider

Christians, too, but without physical weapons: (Ephesians 6:10-13) 10 Finally, go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness of his strength. 11 Put on the complete suit of armor from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil; 12 because we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places. 13 For this reason take up the complete suit of armor from God, so that you may be able to resist in the wicked day and, after you have accomplished everything, to stand firm. And of course, the next verses go on to prove that our weapons and armor, etc., are not physical weapons: 14 Stand firm, therefore, with the belt of truth fastened around your waist, wearing the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having your feet shod in readiness to declare the good news of peace. 16 Besides all of this, take up the large shield of faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the wicked one’s burning arrows. 17 Also, accept the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word, 18 while with every form of prayer and supplication you carry on prayer on every occasion in spirit.

I agree with everything you said in your post. I think you understood the film perfectly. The film works very well. Some see the theme as fear and some see it as courage. It is mostly about courage, of course, but the backdrop of courage is always fear. That's why the song opens up with the words "Doubt and fear surround me." And the word "fear" is repeated in the song. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but we have to be careful about the overall impression given when we discuss the context of the great tribulation. This particular film is fine, but we sometimes add the impression that the WTS will still be in full control and have all the right directives that we will need to obey, whether they sound right or not. It dredges up the "Old Testament" context of military authority, and -- just my opinion, of course -- this doesn't seem to be the same context that the Greek Scriptures prepare us for. [It makes the modern-day "ark of salvation" something more physical and material than spiritual.]

Speaking of a low sink of debauchery, and/or Hillary Clinton, I just decided to check up on this "fact" I had vaguely recalled about the "TEN Benghazis" under G.W.Bush. I didn't click on the links (nor do I think any of them are without bias) but the first three items that came up in my Google search tend to confirm the "fact" and even add a few more details: ----------top three results of Google Search for "Benghazis under Bush" Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths ...https://www.politifact.com/.../prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/ Claim: "During the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." Fact check by PolitiFact: Mostly True FACT CHECK: More U.S. Embassy Attacks Under Bush and Reagan ...https://www.snopes.com › Fact Check › Politics Claim: More attacks on U.S. embassies, with more people killed, occurred during the G.W. Bush and Reagan administrations than under Obama. Fact check by Snopes.com: Mixture Before Benghazi: 20 fatal U.S. embassy attacks during the Bush ...https://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/07/before_benghazi_20_fatal_us_em.html Jul 18, 2016 - Some 87 people were killed during the 20 attacks, and 24 of them were either U.S. ... and embassy staff during the George W. Bush administration, with 13 of the attacks ... 17, 2008 - 10 killed ... --------

I'll link to it in the next couple days. Sounds like no one is really pushing for it at the moment, and that's not why I brought it up. I brought it up to show the kind of story that can be exaggerated too far on one side and minimized to the point of dishonesty on the other side. And of course, the exaggeration through a form of reductio ad absurdum is just another form of minimization. (e.g. "shoving aside the Vatican" or Chris Christie's "[yeah right] I actually was the guy working the cones out there." But you are basically right that it started out as nearly nothing (information access), except that it got out of control pretty quickly. And when the folks in Writing who were in on it saw some potential future advantages, they didn't back down, but just dug in their heels a bit harder and kept up with the requirements for their particular NGO membership. (The requirement that Writing could most easily meet was publishing an article in Awake! once or twice a year to give publicity to various U.N. initiatives, like UNICEF, for example.)

Yes. There are contradictory motives for apologies, and contradictory reactions to apologies. We need to consider what is the right thing to do in each case. Some people apologize without apologizing as in "I take full responsibility for the failures (or a particular failure) that occurred during my time in office." But just don't try to make them accountable in any way. I'm reminded of H.Clinton's Benghazi, or the TEN different "Benghazis," some much larger and more deadly, at various U.S. embassies under G.W.Bush. Depends on many factors: the mood, the Zeitgeist, the economy, the efficacy of the corporate propaganda machine (aka "the news"), etc. For example, Pope Francis is visiting Ireland in the middle of the worst mood of Catholics in Ireland ever. Ireland is still majority Catholic, yet a majority of Catholics in places are now voting for same-sex marriage, abortion, divorce law changes, etc. And attendance at churches has fallen precipitously. Media outlets that used to be supportive of the Church are saying out loud that they are waiting for more than the usual apologies and prayers offered up in an attempt to heal the mood. It's not just sexual abuse, which was rampant in Ireland and was covered up through the Vatican, too. It was forcing unwed women to give up their babies, violence against women at "nunneries" and other abuse issues which keep getting turned up. Some say (NPR yesterday, for example) that every single family in Ireland has been affected in some way. It's a good thing it happened during a time when the U.S. and other Western European powers were salivating to find civil rights abuses in Russia. The world hardly gives a second look when things like this happen to groups and religions in Africa, India, Indonesia, etc. Things have to become very deadly to get attention elsewhere (as in Myanmar/Burma) You have a point, but I think those that kick up the biggest fuss about shunning around here, at least, are those who were shunned by their families over doctrinal disagreements. Moral issues are not such a big deal, when a person has chosen a lifestyle that keeps them away from natural and free association with relatives. Some fade into a separate life after a non-scriptural divorce, for example. Some give some evidence that they know better, might return someday, or even wish they could associate but just keep too many worldly associations and habits. After some length of time, I've seen these persons visit their Witness relatives and associate at weddings and funerals and large family gatherings as if nothing happened. But it's not that often, and the Witnesses aren't going out of their way to associate. But I do see a bigger difference when the reason was doctrinal. Even bringing up the name of the person is rare or hushed or forbidden. They are still treated worse than those who left for moral reasons. And the feelings on the side of the person who is shunned for "apostasy" must hurt them much worse than we can imagine, if they believe they were only standing up for truth, or left for the "right reasons." When they still want to show love to their families, see their children, grandchildren or parents or grandparents, but their families don't want to see them it is the Witness who has "no natural affection." To them, the only reason they are treated badly and without any respect, in their opinion, is sometimes because they stopped believing something that was wrong anyway, and there was probably a time when they were too vocal about it, or too invested in the "truth" of what could turn out to be a minor issue. But even if they don't feel strongly any more about the particular issue, they can't conscientiously recant what they think is a Bible teaching. And if they have become atheists, they can't very well answer any of the questions correctly that could bring them back into association. I think this is the kind of "violence" that JTR is sometimes referring to, and it's something about which we should have more sympathy and empathy.

Back when the TMS instructor spent a lot more time on stage giving speech counsel between TMS talks, we had one (Brother Johnson) who showed us the importance of modulation, pauses, and emphasis by putting up the following on a chalkboard U.C.D.B's L.M.N.O.B's O.S.A.R.B's He read it blandly and it meant nothing. Then he read it again with new modulation, pauses and emphasis:, and it was easily understood to mean: You! See dee bees? 'ell, 'em ain' no bees. [H*ll, them ain't no bees!] Oh [y]es [th]ey are bees! Some audible gasps were heard as they understood that he had just said "Hell" from the platform, but, somehow, it proved that you can get stung if you don't understand modulation, pauses and emphasis.

The best way to pick up on some additional historical background pertinent to the situation in Judea and Galilee is to read Josephus, especially "Wars of the Jews." Whiston's translation is free here, and in a well organized PDF with TOC and navigation links: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0037-0103,_Flavius_Josephus,_De_Bello_Judaico,_EN.pdf Although I hesitate to be seen as promoting it, I also thought that the writers and producers of A.D.-Kingdom and Empire (2015), now on Netflix, did one of the better jobs in depicting the book of Acts in an easy to watch, professional "drama." It's not hard to mentally filter out some of the extra-Biblical interpretations. But even some of what we might tend to filter out gives us some material to think about. They did the entire thing without reference to trinity, hellfire although they probably pushed a bit too far the relationship between the Zealots and one or more apostles chosen from among Zealots. There are 12 episodes and I would recommend all except the very last episode which takes a bit too much from Josephus, adds a bit more non-history for drama, and then puts the Christians in the middle of a political situation that was not possible from a Biblical perspective. (Also #7 has a very unlikely visit from Tiberius to Pilate in Jerusalem, which, if it happened at all, would have taken place in the port city, Caesarea.) It's primary characters are Pilate & wife, Caiaphas & wife, Herod & wife, Peter, John, Thomas, Saul/Paul, Simon the Zealot, Stephen, Simon the Magician, Ethiopian Eunuch, Philip the Evangelizer, James the brother of Jesus, with some short cameos by Jesus, Emperor Tiberius, Caligula, a couple of Marys and the occasional angel here and there, too. I haven't watched the part-documentary, part-drama called "Roman Empire" now in its second season, nor much of HBO's "Rome," but I did see all episodes of "I, Claudius" several years ago, and I have the book(s) it was based on. Those would probably be useful supplements to "A.D." (As long as none of these are taken as pure history, but only general ideas about the historical setting and perspectives of various classes of people during that time.)

I think your astute encapsulation of my modus operandi is just about right when you include my bracketed edit. I suppose one could make a semi-scriptural case for holding back and another for not holding back. My conscience tells me to not hold back, but I still hold back on some topics, and only "spill the beans" where those topics have already been brought up by others elsewhere. I'm sure I've said it before, but one of my primary concerns is the natural tendency to defend what we don't really know. This can end up making the defender ultimately look like a fool to someone who knows better, or has seen the strength of the evidence. But worse, it can lead someone to engage in dishonest dialogue. If I don't know something about a topic, I am very grateful for those who have tried to tell what they have learned publicly, even if it is difficult to find. But there are several topics about which our natural tendencies have already made some of us look like we don't care about truth as much as sustaining an assumed reputation. Some of the same "defenders" don't realize they are creating a reputation of caring more about reputation than about truth. This affects discussions of WTS history, chronology, child abuse, and a host of other topics, most of which get blown out of proportion by opposers. But some get blown out of proportion by JW defenders. Why choose an "obscure" Internet outpost such as this? My own parents, for example, learned about the "U.N." fiasco and said they talked to a friend about it who said that it never happened, nothing like it ever happened, and it was all apostate lies. Well, for many, my parents included, they could manage to go from here to the new system and they need never know any better, and it's unlikely they will spread what they think they know beyond a very small circle of friends. And if they do, it will be in good conscience. I have personally spoken to the embarrassed and penitent brother initially behind the fiasco, along with a couple of his friends, and I think I know something about this situation which should also mitigate some of the embarrassment, but can also honestly admit what happened. I don't need to look for the largest audience. I only need to do just enough to clear my conscience in "not holding back."

We'll be going through Acts in the assigned Bible reading and I thought I'd share some online resources that are quite interesting and apparently accurate enough for their purposes. Hopefully, others here will share a few of their favorite resources, too. http://pelagios.org/maps/greco-roman/ is a very detailed map of the Roman Empire with all cities referred to in ancient sources near the time of the Greek Scriptures. "This map features details such as major and minor roads, aqueducts, temples, cemeteries and quarries." Similar things have been done on other sites ( https://omnesviae.org/ ) but my absolute favorite is a kind of Google Maps for the Ancient World: http://orbis.stanford.edu/# It lets you choose if you are traveling between any two places by ship, boat, military speed, civilian speed, foot, horse, donkey, chariot, etc. It lets you choose a common coastal navigation system that "hugs the coast" which was a common method of navigation. It also calculates the cost of various modes of transportation, not just in time, but in money.

Speaking of SNL, this reminds me, did A.S. ever find that SNL skit of Chevy Chase making reference to our 1970s-related eschatology?

Not funny! (Just my personal opinion and judgment call.) Have you read the new book about JWs and the Watchtower Society called "Ellen's Song"? It seems to have derived almost entirely from Internet discussions and rumors. And yes, I could write a real review. I read the whole thing, Amazon Kindle version, in about 6 hours, taking plenty of notes. I don't recommend it. But it shows that a non-ex-Witness (my opinion) has access to all the same material that we could discuss here, and therefore so-called "apostate" material need not come from apostates to be relevant for public discussion.

I think this is very true of ordinary people, as you say. It's enough to know that Jehovah has an administration which is organized to accomplish what it needs to accomplish, both in heaven and on earth. The ones who would nit-pick are not the average persons we are aiming these studies at, but persons who are obsessed over Biblical interpretation and accurate knowledge. I have to admit to being obsessed about such things, but I was raised to be that way, and I am not the "target" audience we are looking for these days.

It's one of the best things on the site. I would give high marks for the simplicity, and I think that all 8 out of the 8 lessons are well-chosen and ideal for their purpose. They truly highlight the most important themes of the Bible. But I agree with the sentiment that we have painted ourselves into a corner with a doctrine that will hopefully become less important over time, even as the end gets closer. The only specific signs that we are in the "last days" is not taken from Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, but from the place where Paul warns Timothy that he is already seeing evidence of living in the last days back in the first century. There is no talk of great wars, great earthquakes, or great famines and pestilence. (You have to go the extra links outside the lessons to find this.) Even when Luke 21:29-31 is mentioned it is only a very general idea that one can tell that summer is near when trees are budding, therefore one can tell their deliverance is near when they see all these things. Of course, that was also primarily about a first-century fulfillment, since "these things" in context included Luke 21:20-24: “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. Luke was even clearer than Matthew, here, that "all the things written" about meting out justice to Jerusalem were to be fulfilled with this event upon physical Jerusalem in 70 C.E, as highlighted above. Of course, the lesson is applicable, in principle, to our future expectations, but it can mean that "all things," here, was literally referring to those events of the first century, not the twentieth and twenty-first. On another topic, I liked the following as a non-confrontational introduction to the topic of the 144,000 and other sheep: Instead of mentioning the 144,000 the lesson merely says of God's kingdom with Christ as King: "God also selects others to be associate rulers with Jesus" and adds that "anyone who obeys its laws can be a citizen."

I agree with this. I also thought it was refreshingly closer to the idea when the Ethiopian eunuch says: "Look, Here is [a body of] water; what prevents me from getting baptized?" His entire Bible study was finished in the space of a short chariot ride. Belly-acher! Until now maybe we have shown too much patience and long-suffering with our students.

Most of us have probably already worked through the online Bible Study course on jw.org.This was an excellent idea. Although others sites have done it, too, it was especially good to see it on the jw.org site. It has some unique features here and is, of course, geared toward a Witness viewpoint. Yet there are very few lessons that contain a lot of unique doctrinal material, even though Trinity, Soul/Hell are presented. It's very simplified and has some nice features that would work well for non-readers. It's all finished in 8 lessons. Each lesson may have only a few questions or sections and a quick reader can get through all the content of all the lessons, including short videos, in about 15 minutes. You could even click all the footnotes and links and read the scripture links and still finish the entire course in under a half-hour. There are links at the end of each lesson which point to website articles (usually original or slightly modified Watchtower and Awake! articles that have their own pages on the jw.org site). Comparing this to several of our our books geared toward those who would study the Bible with us in person (for several months) one could more easily customize a Bible study where extra links were only looked up in the event the student had additional questions or concerns about a topic, and a sufficient study could be completed in a matter of days, or even hours. Notice too that there are no direct links to anything about 1914, 1919, 1922, etc. Nothing about blood transfusions, birthdays, etc. The very first lesson does contain a 53 second video where the very first and only secular dates are mentioned: they are 732 B.C.E., then 539 B.C.E., then 614 B.C.E. Someone might wonder why 539 is used as an accurate secular date and yet there is no explanation as to why the other two secular dates differ from the same secular evidence by 20 years. I don't suppose anyone expects the student to question this. A sense of accuracy is offered by the statement immediately following the video which says: "Each detail is confirmed by historical records, including the Nabonidus Chronicle and the history of Herodotus." Of course, the only reason we keep one of the secular dates (539), but change the prior secular dates by 20 years is so that the 1914 date can be "supported." But, as stated, 1914 is not mentioned directly in the lessons, unless you include two of the six extra links to articles for further information (at the end of the very last lesson, 3.3). These are the lessons: Unit 1 | The Bible and Its Author Lesson 1.1 | About the Bible—Can the Bible Help You? Lesson 1.2 | Who Is God, the Creator? Unit 2 | The Bible’s Main Characters Lesson 2.1 | Who Is Jesus? Lesson 2.2 | Who Are the Angels? Lesson 2.3 | Why Did God Create Humans? Unit 3 | The Bible’s Message of Hope Lesson 3.1 | Why Do Suffering and Evil Exist? Lesson 3.2 | How Does God Save Us From Death? Lesson 3.3 | How Will God End Suffering and Evil?

LOL. For a few minutes there, I thought you were misspelling it on purpose, to emphasize the "stench" in ab-stench-ia. But the rest of your post was too serious, so I assume you already picked up on the funny typo, and on GA's correction. I would also say, similar to GA, that even if our protocol is always to allow a person to hear the charges against him and even face an accuser where necessary, etc., there is probably nothing wrong with "disfellowshipping" in absentia. A person can make it clear they want nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses by their actions, it doesn't always need to be formalized.

Old Smothers Brothers joke went something like this: Tom: My uncle died of natural causes. Dick: Oh really? When, where, tell me more? Tom: Yep. He got hit by a truck. Dick: Got hit by a truck? I thought you said it was natural causes. Tom: Well . . . . It was a dirt road.

Which outcome? WTS running out of money? Lack of baptismal candidates? WTS desire to have DF'd children not allow grandparents to see their grandchildren? Grandparents desire never to see any grandchildren who are children of their own DF'd sons and daughters?

In case you actually did forget, it was the infamous @James Thomas Rook Jr.. Go back to page 9 of this thread: In my response to him, on the top of page 10, I never mentioned the TOR browser. No harm; no foul. I'm sure you are right, and the TOR browser may be perfectly safe on its own. But those who use the TOR browser might even find that they are making themselves targeted for surveillance or potential exposure, assuming someone has other reasons to take an interest in them. There is a good book called "Surveillance Valley" by Yasha Levine that traces the military history of the Internet, and surprising current findings about military and NSA utilization. I based what I said on evidence exposed in that book, and knowing the admitted military history and development of the original TOR browser. (See, for example: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-TOR-browser-was-actually-made-by-the-CIA .) Precautions are useful under certain legitimate circumstances, but I just think people should be careful about thinking that they will always remain perfectly anonymous by relying on a specific piece of technology. I'm happy with quasi-anonymity, and would not be terribly upset for myself if all my anonymity were gone.

A little off-topic, but I noticed this (for what it's worth) in the Wikipedia article under "Flight to Pella:" The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been miraculously warned to flee to Pella (Tabaquat Fahil) in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River. The authenticity of this tradition has been a much debated question since 1951 when S. G. F. Brandon in his work The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church provided strong arguments against it, arguing that the Jewish Christians would have been allied to their compatriots, the Zealots; only after the destruction of the Jewish Christian community would Christianity have emerged as a universalist religion.[1] The Christian-Zealot alliance has hardly been taken seriously in theology, but the historicity of the flight to Pella has been controversial ever since.[1] I'm a little surprised that we would have no evidence of this tradition until quotes from nearly 300 years after it would have happened.

Perhaps. But telling all the people of Pennsylvania to flee to the mountains would not mean leaving Pennsylvania, but would mean leaving the cities and going up into the hills. (In Judea, the cities were, of course, the focus of Rome's armies, including Masada for example). Surely you didn't think Jesus meant that all the people on the southern borders of Judea near Idumaea would begin heading toward Jerusalem (the quickest route) on their way to Samaria and the mountains of Pella.

I understand what you are saying. I, for one, appreciate the theory because it takes some good independent thinking to come up with a theory that is outside the norm. I like testing theories along with available evidence because it helps to either confirm or weaken the prevailing theories. In this case, I wasn't saying it was impossible that some Christians might have gone a few miles out their way to visit the caves of the Dead Sea, but I was commenting on the "sureness" of the statement about what the Christians, in fact, did. You didn't say that they might have, or that they probably did. You just said that they did travel right past, not just the caves in general, but Cave 4 specifically. This is therefore used as if it is solid evidence to feed a theory, when it is conjecture utilized to feed a theory. For that matter, there was a road to Jericho from Jerusalem and we do not know that it touched the Dead Sea and Jordan, even if it might have. Also, it is only extra-Biblical conjecture that the Christians generally fled to Pella. When Jesus said to flee to the mountains, there were actually hills all around Jerusalem, and one of the few directions they could travel "away" from mountains would have been toward the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea. You can see that by looking at the terrain relief map you provided. It seems that someone could have just as easily used Jesus' words as evidence that Christians, in general, would not have immediately traveled to the valley, but would have headed toward mountains and hills instead. These are interesting ideas about Christians using Qumram and the vicinity, or the date of this particular scroll (4Q120), or the value of the evidence that Church Fathers knew about IAO. The strength and value of such ideas is always worth considering but from what I've seen so far, none of it helps your overall theory. But again, all of the things we state are just opinions here, so I hope you will feel welcome to put any ideas here that you want to consider.

That wasn't me. It was someone else who gave the tip about the TOR browser. Also, it's much better to just recognize that there is no such thing as perfect anonymity. The TOR browser, for all we know, is promoted surreptitiously by government agencies because of their own ability to exploit weaknesses in it while tempting people to use it for dishonest and nefarious purposes. Better to just be honest and know that all things hidden can easily come to light.

These are exactly the kinds of situations where the protocol can go out the window. I don't know the status of this person, but you could probably call the WTS/CCJW and find out. Anecdotally, going back about 40 years and another situation going back 5 years, I know about a couple cases where the congregation was asked to DF someone "in absentia" to mitigate a possible crime scandal. Also, in effect, all Witnesses who had previously disassociated were disfellowshipped "in absentia" in the early 1980's. This was a necessary change in order to be able to create protocol for disfellowshipping R.Franz. He was caught eating a meal with his employer who had previously disassociated himself. Making the two different statuses equal would mean that he was now eating a meal with someone who had been disfellowshipped which therefore made R.Franz subject to disfellowshipping.

No, not really. Under the former owner, through 2016, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philly.com still had journalistic integrity. (200-plus journalists are expensive, though.) They were known to emphasize "bad news," but they were never known for sensationalism without verification. You describe it the way people describe the National Enquirer (which is often confused with the Philadelphia Inquirer). You seem to have implied that those provided links to Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) and Wikipedia would have supported your claim but they didn't. CJR did discuss the faults and business mistakes of the previous ownership and the typical lurid links of their online outlet, Philly.com. Still nothing about sensationalism without verification, however. Of course, the writer of the CJR article admits that he is a friend of the current managing editor for digital content at Philadelphia Media Network (PMN), so this whole article reads like a cautious advertisement for his friend, but nevertheless quotes someone there about their current situation, since 2017: “Our job is to make sure that the best journalism gets as many eyes as possible … It’s really easy to throw up links all day long, but we’re starting to think about making sure that we’re sharing our best journalism at the best times with the best people in a more focused way.” Whether PMN got the article right about the Witnesses or not is another question, but trying to tarnish the credibility of a paper because it had a prior history of mistakes is like those people who point out historical mistakes of the WTS in order to tarnish its current credibility.