JW Insider

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.

I'm sure that "Indagator" has much more background to provide a better answer, but we all learn from questioning, so I will try to take up the question behind the theory: "Could 4Q120 have been written by a Christian?" First, it's a very interesting idea. To avoid a lot of separate quotes, I'll try to just re-quote a larger section and intersperse comments. These are just my opinions of course, but I'll highlight in orange-yellow if I think the evidence for the statement or implication of the question is not that good, and red if I think the evidence clearly goes against the particular idea presented, and green where the idea appears correct. My comments will be bracketed and in black. There is evidence that this fragment may have been written by a CHRISTIAN and not by Jews. [Haven't yet come across any such evidence.] Although most scholars say that this fragment was written by a Jew because it is from Leviticus and from the Qumran cav?es. [However, scholars identify it as Jewish not just because it comes from the Qumram caves but because it does not present any of the primary unique indicators of Christian documents from the first century. (see Hurtado, for example)] But did only Jews use the Qumran caves? [All the evidence indicates, Yes, only Jews. There have been several theories about the purpose of the caves and who used them. All of them point to one or more Jewish groups, and there is no evidence of any Christian group who might have used them.] {When the Christians left Jerusalem in 66 C.E. they traveled right past the Qumran cave where this scroll came from "Cave 4" on there way to the mountains of Pella north along the Jordan River}!!!? [Looking at a map of Jerusalem to Pella (see attached picture below) Cave 4 would be many miles out of the way. Jesus indicated that the Christians in Jerusalem should take the quickest route.] The Christians also made copies of the Hebrew Scriptures which they would have translated into Greek the main language of the First Century. [The evidence so far, shows that Christians did not make copies of the Hebrew Scriptures that they translated into Greek. Instead, they appear to have used the LXX which was an already existing translation. There is actually no evidence that they made any copies or translations in the first century, but this does not mean it was not done.] The main reason why this was probably written by a Christian is because the Divine Name in this fragment "IAW" {Iao} is a PRONOUNCEABLE rendering of the Tetragrammaton. [Yes, IAO is a pronounceable rendering of the Divine Name as it had been pronounced by certain groups of Jews for 100's of years. However, I believe that there is no evidence yet that indicates that any Christian in the first century C.E., or even the second century C.E., pronounced or wrote the name this way. This does not mean that they did not, and in fact, I believe that you are right that many Christians did -- but only because especially the Aramaic-speaking Christians would have been following a Jewish custom for which there is a lot of evidence.] A Jew following the custom at the time of not pronouncing the Divine Name would never have written a PRONOUNCEABLE RENDERING as that would go against their traditions. [Except that we already know from the history of the term IAO, that Jews had been using this pronounceable form of the name for hundreds of years. There is evidence that these traditions against pronouncing it were not yet consistent until after the first century C.E.] However Christians did not follow Jewish traditions as Jesus denounced such very strongly. [This statement could be right or wrong, depending on which traditions are being referred to. If we recognize that many Jews were still following the Jewish tradition of pronouncing the name, then I'm sure Jesus would not have condemned that good tradition. Jesus even said of the scribes and Pharisees in Mt 23:3: "Practice and obey whatever they tell you to do."] Jews who wrote the earliest pre-Christian LXX wrote the Tetragrammaton in HEBREW within a GREEK TEXT in most cases making it stand out in order not to pronounce it. [The earliest pre-Christian LXX translations may have initially used IAO. Based on the common use of IAO at the time it is reasonable to conclude that all original LXX translations used "IAO." There is no conclusive evidence that they did not, and no conclusive evidence that they did. But there is evidence that it was earlier than the first century C.E. when IAO was used, and of course any of the other 3 major known LXX variations for the Divine Name. It's possible that some of the LXX translators may have already used "kyrios" in their earliest copies. This means that some would have already been influenced by a tradition not to pronounce the name (in 250 BCE), whether they had used YHWH-square, YHWH-paleo, kyrios, or some other replacement for the Divine Name.] I'll stop here for now.

I have just completed a quick reading the book by Frank Shaw recommended by @indagator. I have also done the same for another book recommended to me late last year, "The Earliest Christian Artifacts" by Larry Hurtado. I hope you get a chance to read both books yourself if you have not already. From what I can see, there is no real evidence that makes this particular fragment more likely to have come from a Christian. It's not just the more likely date that would place the document about 100 years prior to the first known Christian writings, it's also the fact that there is plenty of additional evidence that Greek-speaking Jews used this pronounceable form of the name for hundreds of years prior to Christianity. They had clearly been using it in writing and also pronouncing it too. Before the Greek Scriptures were written, there is evidence that some Jews had already stopped pronouncing the name, but evidence shows that this could not have been true of all Jews all at the same time, everywhere. Perhaps that practice among the Jews had reached a pervasive saturation point some time before Origen and others remarked upon that practice. BTW, as TTH has also said, glad to see you stopping by.

The superfluous question marks are always a giveaway. Hope you didn't just ruin that "tell" by exposing it. ? I think it's a style he hadn't realized because it so often shows up in his aliases, but not with anyone else here. There's another thing he has done each time the subject of multiple accounts has come up. Which won't likely happen as much any more after exposure. Allen and his aliases, by default, tend to use more commas than most of us, but after the subject of multiple accounts comes up, he evidently makes a conscious attempt to nearly double the number of commas in his "Allen" posts to help differentiate their style from many of the other names he has used. I know he is aware of this particular one, because he has brought it up himself: That's the nature of the beast. However, When it comes to understanding scripture, there's no need to take offense, if the truth, be told. Only those here, unwilling to accept the truth to that end, are offended. That self-conscious "response" contains twice as many commas as one might expect, but it happened not just here but in a similar context at other times, too. In fact, it just happened in this topic. Note that only one of the four commas below is doing the useful and punctual work of a comma. The short, choppy sentence thing with unnecessary periods is less common, but not completely new either. Could even happen on some devices when a comma is intended, but mistyped as a period, and the next word is automatically capitalized after the spacebar. Yes. Let's! O, what a tangled web . . .

I liked that one, so I'll take the risk and link to it for you: http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/06/a-lobotomy.html (It's the least I can do after a PSA I included in one of my posts produced a page worth of comedic diversion.)

Wow! The person who sells this particular Newsweek on the account just pointed to has grossed over $345, so far, just by selling 9 copies of it. 81.00 on June 23 57.00 on June 30 28.00 on July 7 29.99 on July 17 29.99 on July 19 29.99 on July 21 29.99 on July 25 29.99 on July 27 29.99 on Aug 15 . . . and has at least 2 more to sell.

Although it's uncommon enough and controversial enough to make news when someone (with supposed authority) says it out loud, I think it's probably a more common view among psychiatrists than some will admit officially, and it may even be correct for all I know. (But I don't know, and wouldn't even want to guess.) What I was addressing in Space Merchant's posts were some apparent factual errors about LGBTQ-P, TEDx, and the DSM-5. I don't think anyone believes that no psychiatrists believe what the deleted TEDx talk said. Psychiatrists are a wide-ranging bunch who have even believed things like full-frontal lobotomies can only have a positive and never a negative effect.