JW Insider

I think we have always pretty much stated what the Insight Book states:

*** it-2 p. 969 Sin, I ***

• Jesus said they had “no excuse for their sin” because they were witnesses of the powerful words and works proceeding from him as the result of God’s spirit on him. (Joh 15:22-24; Lu 4:18) Those who, either in word or by their course of action, willfully and knowingly blasphemed God’s spirit thus manifested would be “guilty of everlasting sin,” with no forgiveness possible. (Mt 12:31, 32; Mr 3:28-30; compare Joh 15:26; 16:7, 8.) This could be the case with some who came to be Christians and then deliberately turned from God’s pure worship. Hebrews 10:26, 27 states that “if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and there is a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition.”

And this from the early 1950's:

*** w52 2/15 p. 126 Questions From Readers ***

• What is the unforgivable sin against the holy spirit that Jesus spoke about?—B. E., New York.
• Jesus had just cured a demon-possessed man who was blind and dumb. The crowds marveled, but the Pharisees scoffed and said Jesus did it by means of Beelzebub. Jesus refuted their claim by showing that if Satan expelled Satan he would be divided against himself and his kingdom could not stand. Also, if Jesus expelled demons by means of Beelzebub, by whose means did their sons expel them? Then he said: “Every kind of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in the present system of things nor in that to come.”—Matt. 12:22-32, NW.

Therefore, the clearest example would be seeing Jesus perform a miracle, know for sure that such a good evidence of the holy spirit could only have come from the power of God, and then claiming that his power must have come from Satan or his demons. When we think about the only possible motivations for anyone saying such a thing when they KNOW otherwise, we get a sense of how serious the "unforgivable sin" would be.

One could try to extrapolate that the GB are direct proof of the miraculous power and evidence of God's holy spirit. If someone truly believed this and then claimed that the GB's "power" actually comes from Satan or his demons, then I suppose you could stretch the analogy. But since there is no claimed miraculous power, and no claims of direct inspiration from Jehovah's holy spirit, the entire idea seems non-applicable to me. 

Still, I have heard it. It's part of fear of apostates. Some are in mortal fear of learning what an apostate might be thinking or accidentally seeing one of their publications or websites. Pretty much the Witness definition of an apostate is that they are persons who no longer accept what the GB says, and are therefore rejecting the GB as God's only appointed channel. Of course, for some reason Geoffrey Jackson himself said it would be presumptuous if the GB were to claim to be Jehovah's only channel of communication for Christians today. Similar things have been said more recently in Watchtower articles that followed up on this idea. Therefore, by that same definition, if it were true, then a current member of the GB may have just committed the unforgivable sin. The irony is that this was said under circumstances that were quite similar to the following:

• (Matthew 10:19, 20) 19 However, when they hand you over, do not become anxious about how or what you are to speak, for what you are to speak will be given you in that hour; 20 for the ones speaking are not just you, but it is the spirit of your Father that speaks by you.

So, if we believed that way, we might have to accept that it was the holy spirit that made it clear the GB are not always led by holy spirit.

10 minutes ago, Jack Ryan said:

Elders will be deleted if a family member is pursuing a university education. 2nd paragraph bullet point 3. 

Not really. It says that the question of deletion will be raised if a member of his family is pursuing a university education. The question arises as to whether the elder supported the decision emotionally or financially while the child was (or is) still under his roof. In cases where the elder makes it clear that the child will be living on their own immediately after college, and that it was their own "adult" decision, he might still be considered as not having his "household in subjection." Still, if his reputation as a family head is intact, and his counsel is still respected by other families -- because they know he himself opposes university education and did what he could, then he will not be deleted. If it is clear that others will say, "Why can't my child go to the university, after all, your child is going?" then he cannot serve as a good example. As you can imagine, this is not consistently applied, which creates further accusations of injustice.

There have been cases where the spouse of an elder goes, and the elder was not dismissed. This was more of an unwritten rule for the past several years, so it's possible that the Circuit Overseer's have stricter instructions as of 2017.

Russia Supreme Court proceedings.

Just heard it on A&E -- On Demand. Apparently it's going to be some series on "cults." Evidently there has already been an initial episode and this was the second one. If you're watching "On Demand" be prepared to have something to do after it gets half-way through. The commercials started seeming like 10 in a row back-to-back. And this happened 3 or 4 times. "Romy's" case, depicted, is a case from Fortuna, California. The producers interviewed Barbara Anderson, too, and took Romy to Tennessee to meet with her. It's a terrible case, and I think it's one of those which will happen much less often now that several of the procedures have improved.

I believe that B.Anderson was absolutely right about Leviticus 5:1. For cases like child abuse, the verse apparently says pretty much the opposite of what the WTS has tried to make it say. Many of the best Bible Commentaries would also agree with her.

They wasted their time getting all the supposed "expertise" about the JWs from a "cult expert" who seems to be a "professional" in that she can exaggerate without it sounding like she's exaggerating. I heard B.Anderson make one inaccurate statement. I heard this other "cult professional" make about 10 mistakes. The interviewer/moderator makes a few mistakes too, but it's also obvious that she was in on the agenda, to make sure that it became a supposed story about a cult where no elders can be trusted. It should have been about the common problem of abuse in religious institutions, where power and control is a common element in the crime. It should have focused on what the JWs have done to make things better. And it should have had some words of advice for people who have suffered.

The episode mentions the most recent changes, but gives no credit, as if updated procedures wouldn't change anything anyway. The episode gives the impression that there has been no improvement since the latest changes went into effect. Also contains a very unflattering view of Warwick Headquarters that was completely unfair as they tried to get some dramatic footage.

A strange mistake that "Romy" makes is memorable. She remembered as a girl, or even now, that Armageddon would be a time when people would be up to their necks in urine, out of fear. Obviously she was mis-remembering the blood up to the bridles on the horses.

I would not recommend the episode, except to Witnesses who want to know the type of things the world will be seeing, and prepare for another "ding" in our reputation.

RUSSEL SAYS HE WANTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TERM "THE CHRIST"

Russell taught a special doctrine called the Mystery Doctrine. The mystery doctrine claimed that Russell along with only a few other Christians alive in his day, were "The Christ". He said that not just Jesus, but that he, Russell, and those who strove to be on the same "higher plane," were also "The Christ," "The Messiah". He said that Jesus himself was NOT the complete Christ, just the Head, and that the Christ, the Messiah, included not just the Head but the Body. There was no complete Christ until the last member of the Church was chosen. Throughout history, Russell included the previously chosen members of the 144,000 including the apostles and early Christian martyrs, as included in "The Christ." He would include men like Waldo, Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe, etc.

A lot of people don't even know about this teaching, but it's not like they tried to hide it at the time. Here are some examples:

• It has also been shown from time to time that the Christ of scripture is a complex being, presented to our minds by the figure of a man—Head and Body— Jesus Himself being the Head and believers being the many members of the one body. This being true it follows that there is a progressive development of Christ from Jesus in the flesh, until the last member of his body is exalted to glory. (Watch Tower, November 1880, p160 R)
• Very shortly now, this mystery of God, this company of divinely-begotten sons, will be FINISHED—completed: “The church of the first born,” of which Jesus is the head. will soon cease to be, God manifest in the flesh. The entire company shall be glorified together, and “shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Malt. 13:43.) They shall arise in power and strength to bless all the nations of the earth. (Watch Tower, July 1882, p369 R)

[Yes, you heard that right, Russell and company are not just Christ, they are also "God manifest in the flesh" -- that therefore includes Russell -- God manifest in the flesh, along with other specially consecrated believers, not all Christians, of course, but those with the "higher calling."]

• Paul declares (Col. 1:27) that this mystery which hath been hid front ages and from generations, now made manifest to his saints, is “CHRIST IN YOU. THE HOPE OF GLORY.” This is the great mystery of God which has been hidden from all previous ages, and is still hidden from all except a special class—the saints, or consecrated believers. But what is meant by ‘Christ in you”? ... the Apostle John says that the anointing, which we (consecrated believers) have received abideth in us. (I John 2:27.) Thus the saints of this Gospel age are an anointed company—anointed to be kings and priests unto God (2 Cor. 1:21, 1 Peter 2:9); and together with Jesus, their chief and Lord, they constitute Jehovah’s anointed—the Christ. ( Divine Plan of the Ages, p.81-82)
• This was truly a mystery never before thought of—that God intends to raise up not only a deliverer, but a deliverer of many members. This the “high calling” to which the consecrated believers of the Gospel age are privileged to attain. (84)

[You can see that Russell never got too far away from a Trinity Doctrine, but his Trinity was that God was made of The Father, The Son and the 144,000 , the rest of God manifest in the Flesh, the consecrated anointed believers of the high calling, the 144,000.]

• "this is the mystery mentioned in the scriptures; to wit, that the great Messiah so long promised should be composed of many individuals." (Watch Tower, February 1, 1914, R p5392)
• ...that is to say, members of the Christ, the anointed, are the Christ. (Convention Report Sermons, p.460).
• THE promised Messiah, the Deliverer of the World, ...the Great Prophet, Priest and King, ...is not our Lord Jesus Christ alone...but also the little flock...these unitedly are the Christ, the Messiah. (Watch Tower, May 1903, R p.3191)

There are literally dozens of other Watchtower articles and publications to this same point, but it's curious that this made Russell claim that he, along with Jesus and the rest of the 144,000 could also go by the name "God manifest in the flesh" "partakers of divine nature" "Everlasting Father" "The Great Prophet" "Immanuel" "Lifegiver" "Gods" (with a capital "g") "The Prophet Like Unto Moses."

• We conclude then that the titles, Mighty God, and Everlasting Father, are titles which fully understood, are very appropriate to Our Lord Jesus Christ. And we might add that so perfectly is his Bride--body--church, associated with him, both in filling up the measure of the sufferings-- being joined in sacrifice and also in the Glory that shall follow, that the same titles are applicable to the Church as his body--for "He that hath freely given us Christ, shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" "Therefore all things are yours, and ye are Christ's and Christ is God's." (Watch Tower, October 1881,  R p.298)

Under the heading "YE ARE GODS" (Watch Tower, November/December 1881, p.301)

• "I have said ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes" [literally heads]. Psa. 82:6. Our high calling is so great, so much above the comprehension of men, that they feel that we are guilty of blasphemy when we speak of being "new creatures"--not any longer human, but "partakers of the divine nature." When we claim on the scriptural warrant, that we are begotten of a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus our father, it is claiming that we are divine beings--hence all such are Gods. Thus we have a family of Gods, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons being brethren and joint-heirs: Jesus being the chief, or first-born."

The Watchtower printed its last article in support of the Trinity doctrine in 1880, but here in 1881 (Nov/Dec), we have a new family of Gods, Jehovah the Father, all his sons and joint-heirs, and Jesus being the chief. Father, Son and 144,000. 144,002 Gods in one family of Gods.

If we take Luke 21:28 to mean that a person might come in Christ's name and claim that he is representing Jesus Christ then I think Russell covered that possibility. After all, as alluded to above, Russell said:

• "If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible,  topically arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes THE BIBLE IN AN ARRANGED FORM. That is to say, they are not mere comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself…Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years- if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures" (Watchtower, September 15, 1910, p.298).

Well, if you claim to be speaking for Christ, in his name, that's good start: Tell people that if you read the Bible alone, if you read what Jesus said directly, you won't get the light of the Scriptures, but if you read Russell's books (including "The Time Is At Hand!") and not read a page of the Bible, you'd have the "light of the Scriptures" by the end of two years. And even if you've studied the Bible for 10 years, you will go into darkness within 2 years if you continue to just study the Bible.

But what about taking this further. Is there any way of Russell actually coming closer to saying that he is the Christ? Doesn't seem likely, even if he set himself up as God's mouthpiece and the representative and only channel of the present truth then available to the body of Christ.

Russell made it clear he was the ONLY channel speaking for Jesus:

• The Lord at the time indicated would especially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages.” (Watchtower, April 15. 1904, p. 125.)

I AM THE CHRIST

Obviously, we aren't going to find Russell using those words, "I am the Christ." But let's look at what he does say about the Christ:

[Next post]

What would you do if you were someone who took very seriously the idea that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 were speaking about the time we are living in, especially the time surrounding the year 1914? You are someone who believes strongly that the time period you live in is the the one that will see Armageddon, and you believe it's important that others learn this truth, too. How would you go about convincing people?

We know that we, as Jehovah's Witnesses, still carry on the legacy of someone who took that idea very seriously: Charles Taze Russell. I know that his time period produced a lot of people like him, but I was thinking about the sheer unlikelihood that anyone would be able to start a following with his specific beliefs when we compare them to Matthew 24, etc. I think this is why his success is sometimes looked at as proof that God blessed his efforts in spite of his doctrines, not because of them.

• He started publishing a magazine, tracts and books that taught that some of the most important events that most Christians had been waiting and praying for, had already occurred, but that they had missed them:
  • He taught that Jesus had already returned in 1874. He taught that this long-awaited PAROUSIA, which they thought to be a bright manifestation like lightning, had actually been invisible to everyone in the world.
  • He taught that Jesus, as King of God's Kingdom, had already begun when Jesus became king and started reigning in 1878.
  • He taught that William Miller, the man who started a movement that ended in the "Great Disappointment," was actually being used by God to begin drawing attention to proper issues of chronology, and to lay a true foundation of this chronology, back in 1844.
  • He taught that since 1799 his contemporaries were in the "last days" and would remain so until the last days ended in 1914.

But there were many more specific issues with this religious movement he is credited with starting. These seem so counter-intuitive, as if they were exactly the wrong way to go about starting a following that would be focused so much on Matthew 24, etc. For example:

• We can still pray for his Kingdom to Come, but "in truth" it had just come a few years ago and they missed. (see above)
• Jesus said it would be as visible and surprising as lightning shining from one end of the heavens to the other end, but "in truth" it had been invisible. (see above)
• Jesus implied that wars, earthquakes, famines and pestilence would be seen during the final generation, but in truth Russell taught that these were not "signs" and that they had nothing to do with the final generation, but were merely the experiences of humans over the last 1,800 years.
• Jesus implied that a great witness work would lead people out of all nations but "in truth" Russell taught that all the people who would be part of Christ's Bride, the Body of Christ, the Church, the 144,000 had already been selected and the door was shut back in 1881. (Russell thought the preaching work was generally useful for witnessing to only a "lower plane" of Christians who would not serve as kings and priests with Jesus, even though they'd still make it to heaven because that's where all Christians went, according to Russell.

But, as odd as these things might have seemed, we can look at even more specific lines in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 to see a few more ways in which Russell, you might think, would have been working against getting people to listen to him. He seemed to purposely go out of his way to "do the opposite." You'd think that this might have turned more people against his teachings. For example:

• Matthew 24:45 speaks of a "faithful and discreet slave" and we usually think of someone who is discreet as not just wise, but careful never to come across as haughty or presumptuous. Yet Russell who had seen his former publishing partner try to claim that he, Barbour, was that faithful, discreet slave, Russell soon began publishing material that pointed to only himself as that "faithful and discreet slave." He began publishing letters to himself that addressed him as that faithful and discreet slave, and referred to some of his writings as "food at the proper time" (meat in due season).
  • He called himself "God's mouthpiece" and referred to his writings as more effective than the Bible itself at bringing someone into the truth of God's word, adding that someone who read his works for just a few months would learn the truth, but if a person just read the Bible for a few months they would go back into darkness.
• Matthew 24:26 said (KJV) "Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not." ASV (and NWT) used the term "inner chambers" instead of "secret chambers."
  • Jesus was evidently helping the disciples to avoid the mistake that would be made if someone said Jesus had indeed returned, but that he was currently not visible to them, yet this person claimed special knowledge about where he actually was. Russell already taught that Jesus Parousia had been invisible, so how could Russell find a further way for people to "believe it not" in this matter? Simple, Russell accepted the idea that God's supernatural witness, his prediction of Jesus' Parousia, had been found in the desert, inside the Great Pyramid. In fact, not just in the desert, but also in the secret, inner chambers of that pyramid.
• Luke 21:8 in the translations that Russell usually used, says:  "And he said, Take heed that ye be not led astray: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and, The time is at hand: go ye not after them." (ASV). 
  • It was almost like Russell said to himself, "Hmmm . . . Jesus said that no one should go after anyone who says, 'The time is at hand.' " "Hmmm... I got it!" Russell says, "I will write a book to distribute around the world and call it: 'The Time Is At Hand.' " It was one of Russell's best selling books, and it showed how chronology would let people know the times and the seasons, even the very month and year when Christ's presence and kingship began.
  • But how would Russell prove himself to be a person not to be followed based on the first part? Was there any way that Russell could come in the name of Jesus and say "I am he"? 

How close could Russell get to saying "I am he" or as the the KJV words it: "I am Christ"?  [The KJV puts the word Christ in italics to indicate that it is not in the original Greek.]

Turns out that he was able to get much closer than most people think. As I'll get to in the next post.

17 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Luciferian Arcanist . . . people like her . . .

No, never heard of her. I'd like to hear more, although I give full disclosure below about my leanings in most of these matters:

I have recently seen that a lot of fundamentalist religious groups and others, too, have had pseudo-religious conspiracy theories surrounding the League of Nations, and more recently, of course, concerning the United Nations (or both). I have become a serious doubter of most of these ideas, mostly due to the nature of conspiracy theories. There are dozens of competing theories, and none of them can ever be proven wrong, which is pretty much the nature and definition of religious conspiracy theories.

Some do, some don't. There is no prohibition against it. My guess is that, in general, most JWs drink a lot less than people of their same demographic around them. I have a big wine cellar, but I never get around to drinking anything anymore. It takes extra time to choose and serve, but the worse thing is that I end up falling asleep before 2am when I have a glass of wine.

I do, and I know many other couples who do.

Pretty much exactly what anyone else does. Listen to a talk and think about the deceased, the sadness of death in general, and the potential joy in the resurrection hope.

Yes.

54 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

‘Nobody else even attempted the job.’

The Catholic Chuch still handles several aspects of it wrong, even though they have also put in place (on paper) much better processes that are more just and proper. An ex-JW who was involved in exposing the wrong aspects of our own processes was invited to the Vatican and met with several people there who were involved in the job of fixing their broken processes. The Australian commission found the JWs to be the slowest of several religions to take action, but the JWs finally did what other religions they investigated had already begun to do. So I'd be more careful about these claims that use expressions like "nobody" and "never."

5 hours ago, Gone Away said:

But of far more significance than "someone getting something right" is what motivates God fearing ones to act in harmony with the truths they have become aware of.

Loved this. Spot on. It's the very thesis of what I am trying to say with this entire post.

Also, of course, Knorr said nothing really wrong in this talk. It was heavier on politics than we are now. And it still identified Babylon the Great with the religion of the Pope and the Vatican. Otherwise, I found the talk very interesting and informative, and perfectly situated to the conditions and interests of the time. I also believe that the idea of a UN-like organization is a pretty good solution to figuring out what a modern-day interpretation of Revelation 17 would look like. Not necessarily definitive, of course, since "new light" can come out at any time. But it's a very reasonable interpretation that has withstood the test of time for several decades.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I am not aware of the two witness rule not being applied across the board for all wrongs. it is bedrock of Western law, after all, or was until recently.

The two-witness rule is a brilliant piece of jurisprudence. It actually forms the basis for a large part of scientific inquiry, too.

Past discussions here have already brought out some of the inequities and inconsistencies in the rule's application. I won't rehash them here. Read any of the first old "Flock" books carefully, however, and you'll see it easily. I'm not against the two-witness rule. Also, some news sources who have picked up on the issue have it completely wrong and have evidently thought that there has to be two separate witnesses to the crime, not including the victim.

The two witness rule needs to be updated to consistently include the "witness" of a previous crime of the same nature, the "witness" of strong circumstantial physical evidence, even (within reason) the "witness" of professionals outside the congregation who can confiscate computers, cell-phones, clothing, and understand all the types of evidence, including the strengths and weaknesses of each.

The two-witness rule in an open congregational setting such as in the Jewish city gate would have been quite different than the secretive version of congregational justice we have now. There should still be both "clergy" discretion and the rights of congregation members to "confess" in secret. Certain crimes rise to a level that should override the secrecy however. Many cases of child abuse are actually cases of incest, and often we hear about the danger of publicizing a crime that will likely, even if inadvertently, "shame" the victim, too. Again, however, some crimes rise to a level that will necessarily override even the privacy rights of victims.

Of course, if a congregation came close to the style of an open forum like a Jewish city gate, everyone in the congregation would know the accused child abuser. All parents would be wary and protective even if there was no second witness to bring closure to the case. But the entire congregation would also openly know the accuser and might know of reasons that the accusation could be a false one. Everything is open to a court of public opinion. A second accusation in front of the entire congregation, brought by someone else with no ties or biases toward the first accuser, however, would result in everyone in the congregation being even more clear about their suspicions, even if again there was no second witness to bring closure to the case. The openness cuts both ways, but will almost always result in more eyes upon the future suspicious activities of an accused abuser, which will either make his future crimes impossible, or result in a second witness for future crimes.

The two-witness rule without an open justice system is not the same thing it was Biblically when it is ripped so far out of context.

5 hours ago, Anna said:

I am not sure I would say that "birth pangs" or going into labour, is a surprise.

LOL! I'm sure no one thinks it's ever a complete surprise. (Although that has supposedly happened, too, in rare cases.)

Jesus said that the "synteliea" [which can mean a "destructive final end"] would come upon Jerusalem within one generation, within the lifetime of some of those disciples who heard him speak. So it could not have come as a complete surprise. They knew the "season" just as anyone who sees a fig tree blossom knows that summer is near.

But apparently Jesus himself didn't know how long long this judgement event (proto-parousia) upon Jerusalem would have to wait. He only knew that the kingdom was not going to manifest itself instantly and that there would be a need for patience and endurance, that there would be a seeming delay, and that they should not be misled by great earthquakes, or international wars, or persecution, or famine. They would go through a period of time that would allow for preaching to be done all around their known world. Jesus knew that the Gentiles would be preached to during that same generation. The good news would be preached in all the known nations of their world before that end came. Paul did not declare that this had happened until the 50's or 60's when he told the Colossians:

• (Colossians 1:23; New Living Translation) But you must continue to believe this truth and stand firmly in it. Don't drift away from the assurance you received when you heard the Good News. The Good News has been preached all over the world, and I, Paul, have been appointed as God's servant to proclaim it.

Only after the actual first sign, the parousia and synteleia upon Jerusalem (the "sign" they asked about) could the parousia and synteleia for the world now occur at any time "instantly." Matthew 24:30-36, New Living Translation:

• And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.^h 31And he will send out his angels with the mighty blast of a trumpet, and they will gather his chosen ones from all over the worldⁱ—from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven.
• 32“Now learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branches bud and its leaves begin to sprout, you know that summer is near. 33In the same way, when you see all these things, you can know his return is very near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation^j will not pass from the scene until all these things take place. 35Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear.
• 36“However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself.^k Only the Father knows.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is not accurate to say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are forbidden to contact outside authorities in the event of child sexual abuse; plain statements appear on both their printed and digital literature that they are free to do so.

I think you have done some great work on the topic, which I have read in your book, and I hope you continue to share more widely. I've told you I don't agree with all your implied statistics, but I think you are on the right track and the trend of the numbers favors your ideal conclusion (about where the numbers probably point).

I think that the specific problems in this matter are being cared for as well as possible under the circumstances. Our big problem is historical. And we have to do better in justifying why we are so adamant about the two-witness rule for this crime, but not for other crimes and sins. Actually we have to work on being more just.

I have never dealt with a sexual abuse case, but know persons who have. (I have dealt with a physical abuse case and emotional abuse.) I have also spoken with a person (a circuit overseer uncle) who dealt with a few, sexual abuse cases and he admits that elders were ALWAYS told not to contact outside authorities, and ALWAYS to advise victims and their families not to go to outside authorities. But this is not the case any more. We finally have this part fixed from the perspective of policy, at least.

But the two-witness rule is still a real problem. If you have a child who is abused, and you absolutely know the child was abused, but didn't witness it, and the abuser didn't admit it, then the congregation can do nothing. But neither can you tell anyone in the congregation. (Technically, this is true even if went to the authorities and the evidence was not clear to them.) Typically, after about 10 to 15 years of living with the guilt and shame and repression and multiple psychological issues, the child will finally need to say something to someone -- and they are now guilty of slander from a congregational perspective. It's a trap that effectively pushes the victim out of the organization. It's easy to see why there are cases where it would be better for a millstone around the neck of such a person who stumbles these little ones.

16 hours ago, Anna said:

Well that solved a mystery then! There's always a simple answer ?

I referenced the idea of solving a mystery because the Revelation book includes this event under the heading (Chapter 34): "AN AWESOME MYSTERY SOLVED."

I listened to Knorr's talk recorded in Cleveland, found here (https://archive.org/details/PeaceCanItLastByNathanKnorr)while following along in the "Peace -- Can it Last?" booklet which says inside the booklet that it is a transcript of the talk. It is not actually a transcript, although it's possible that it was intended as one. The booklet states:

• The above is the text of the speech "Peace — Can It Last?" delivered by the president of the WATCH TOWER SOCIETY, Sunday, September 20, 1942, at the public meeting of the New World Theocratic Assembly. This unique Assembly included more than eighty simultaneous conventions in cities in America, British Isles, Sweden, Central and South America, West and South Africa, and Hawaii. The president spoke at the key convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and his speech was conducted by a network of telephone lines direct to like conventions in fifty-one other cities in the United States, besides being radio-east over WBBR. The combined attendance in the United States at the lecture was 126,000. The speech is here published in behalf of the millions of persons of good-will who did not hear.

But the transcript contains many items of interest that were either skipped by Knorr, or were not part of the original transcript he read from. I'll mark in red the portions that were skipped in the speech.

• But the war precedes a peace; and in a radio address at Philadelphia, broadcast around the world, concerning postwar leadership, the attorney general of the United States said (July 3, 1942): "It seems to me a wholesome thing that men are thinking in 1942 of ways to win a peace, and acting on their thoughts — yes, even now, while the war is yet to be won. It means that at last the realization has come to us that world war and world peace cannot be dissociated as parts of the same great upheaval. The problems of peace and of war are interdependent." (New York Times, July 4, 1942) Shortly thereafter the ex-president of the nation said in a broadcast from San Francisco: "Whatever the modifying views of our associates in war may be, Americans should have formulated the kind of peace that THEY want. They must make up their minds BEFORE the war ends; otherwise others will make the peace, and not us." (New York Times, July 13, 1942) And in his recent book, on "The Problems of Lasting Peace", it is written: "The purpose of this war, the most terrible of three centuries, is to make a lasting Peace. We must first win the war. But we will not win lasting peace unless we prepare for it. And we can prepare only by full and free public discussion, by the cold surgery of analysis." In May it was revealed that thirty-five government agencies were then engaged in postwar planning. (Stated by T. E. D., May 9, 1942) International discussions, and likewise public forums, are being held on postwar problems. Therefore the question is a timely and urgent one, "Peace — Can It Last?" The answer depends upon how the peace problems are solved. The greatest religious head in "Christendom" claims it his right to hold the world domination, and he is moving to exercise his power and influence in the peace conference, even offering the Vatican in which to hold it. By reason of his concordat with the Fascist dictator of Rome in 1929 he is now a temporal ruler as well as a religious one. The Hierarchy and the religious population which he rules as god declare that the Peace Treaty of 1919 failed because the pope was not in on it. He now appears in a peace role, pluming himself for a suitable place or voice in the coming Peace Conference. If he gains it, and if the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 is followed as to primacy of diplomatic representatives, then he or his official representative should preside as the "dean" of all the conferees. Says one of his American archbishops: "The only enduring peace that will restore the world to sanity and to a sense of the dignity of human personality is the peace of Pope Pius XII." And a monsignor in a radiocast from Washington, D.C., says: "He [that is, Pacelli] whose name is rooted in peace will be the one who will restore peace to the world; for when peace does come it will come, not in the way the world expects or plans it, but in an utterly unsuspected way." — Mgr. F. J. S., February 8, 1942.
• A United Press dispatch of July 15, from Vichy, France, was therefore of peculiar interest to Americans who believe only in peace by victory, and no negotiated peace with a gangster, and which dispatch reads: "Diplomatic circles said tonight that the Vatican was preparing a peace encyclical, to be published in mid-August, defining Pope Pius XII's ideas of a basis for a negotiated peace and postwar world planning." "An earlier United Press dispatch from Vichy, which apparently had some bearing on this report, was completely censored out except for the statement that 'there was a noticeable rapprochement of the Vatican and non-Catholic powers' recently." (New York Times, July 16,1942) Whom these "non-Catholic powers" include can be surmised, when this fact is remembered, that despite the break between Italy and the United States the secretary of the personal envoy of the president is meantime acting as the representative of this country to the Vatican.
• The political statesmen of the world are also looking ahead to the peace, anxiously. Some fear the peace worse than they do the war, fearing for a great postwar slump, unemployment, dislocation of industry, communications' breakdown, international debt tangle, anarchy and revolutions in various places, famine and pestilence, and other evils. They hope that the mistakes and blunders of 1919 and following years will not be repeated. A great struggle is foreseen to "lift the living standards from one end of this planet to the other". The Nazi dictator has led his hordes on in world aggression Math the promise of, to quote him, "a social state which must and shall be a model of perfection in every sphere of life"; and the pope has published to the world a five-point program for world peace. Those of a democratic mind hope for a United States of the world, a "family of nations", a "world association" based on the United Nations, including a "world legion". Says one spokesman: "An international constitution and government will be a postwar necessity." Others argue for a "World Bill of Rights". Others say the evidence shows that the hopes of the world are for the League of Nations again; and one college official says that the World Court for international arbitration must be made the key in a revived League. One of the president's own cabinet members says: 'A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers.'  Those rulers and representatives of the people charged with the task of arranging the postwar conditions have a tremendous responsibility, not only before the people, but also before the great Universal Ruler, Jehovah God.

One thing to notice, too, is that this is the part of the speech about the victor in the war. Yet, the speech itself doesn't really  come close to mentioning who will be the victor of the war. It even apparently chides the United States for thinking that a peace can only come if the Allied Powers are the victor. And he chides the harlot, Babylon the Great, whose capital is in Vatican City for being ready to ride on the back of whomever shows himself as victor. But it might not have been noticed that Knorr was merely reading various quotes about how various leaders planned to be involved in a post-war peace. Rightly, Knorr never took sides in this -- even in another spot when he mentioned the king of the north and king of the south, he didn't predict which side would come out on top.

More importantly, when Knorr uses the expression "based on the United Nations" he is referring to an existing entity, not one that only appears first in planning stages in 1944 and then shows up for real in 1945. That's why he can quote a cabinet member in the next sentence who already refers to the United Nations as an existing entity when he says: "A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers." Knorr did not predict that the allies would win; allied powers predicted (of course) that the allied powers would win. I think it's fair to say that Knorr probably thought the allied powers would win. But a "United Nations" of some kind would be the only hope of a more lasting peace no matter who won.

The United Nations was actually named by F.D.Roosevelt at the Arcadia Conference and adopted on January 1, 1942. It was already in the news, and it was obvious that the writer of this speech was well aware of these various proposals in the news. (The writer was not Knorr, apparently, as evidenced by the way Knorr reads and misreads several items which sometimes indicates a lack of understanding as to the intended meaning.) But Knorr does not commit to any particular one of these names or organizations as the particular one that would end up reviving an organization like the League of Nations after the war.

6 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

The Church, which refuses to seek state registration as is its right under international human rights law, has often been raided and its members fined

What the Baptist Church is doing here, reminds me of something similar that Jehovah's Witnesses have tried to do wherever it was possible, but on a more local level. U.S. Supreme Court cases include times when Witnesses refused to register under any local law because we wanted to assure our more universal right to go anywhere we could get to. On a nation by nation basis, however, Witnesses register in order to "legally establish" the right to preach there.

1 hour ago, Gone Away said:

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus, and once by Paul, were for two different purposes even thought the subject matter was exactly the same.

Not so as explained in the post.

Yes, I actually agree with your point here. Here is what you explained in the post:

22 hours ago, Gone Away said:

From what I can glean then, both are true to life descriptions of the occurence of labor contractions. Jesus uses the aspect of their heralding the start of a period or stage leading to an inevitable conclusion. Paul uses the suddeness of their occurence to relate to the manner in which a prophesied event takes place.

I agree with this. I was too anxious to jump off on a tangent to focus on a specific area of disagreement, so that I never even responded to what you were saying.

Jesus does indeed seem to imply a potentially longer period of time for the labor pains, and it does give the impression that there is even nothing wrong with saying that the "labor pains" he speaks of sound as if they can start even at the very beginning of a pregnancy. It's not what the word usually refers to of course.

In fact, you probably knew that the real source was the Watchtower magazine on jw.org, not just the Internet in general when I said above: 

• The original-language word rendered “pangs of distress” refers to the intense pain experienced during childbirth. [Source: Internet]

Our current doctrine puts the beginning of the labor pains at WWI, at the very beginning of the generation. Jesus implies this is possible. After all, who is to say that one of those wars or earthquakes would not occur in the year 34 CE just a year after Jesus gave the prophecy, at the very beginning of that generation? Some persons, perhaps even some apostles, were bound to be misled into thinking that a war or earthquake or some other event was a "sign" that the expected Parousia was imminent. This must be why Paul said in 2 Thess 2:1,2:

• However, brothers, concerning the presence [Parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christa and our being gathered together to him, we ask you ²  not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 

[Can't help but notice that Paul apparently equates the "Parousia" here with the "day of Jehovah." And this is not the only place.]

It's a very similar discussion of the Parousia from the end of 1 Thess 4 to the beginning of 1 Thess 5 which includes of course:

• we the living who survive to the presence [Parousia] of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; ¹⁶  because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet . . .  Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. ²  For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. ³  . . . just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape. ⁴ 

I come at this with the idea, of course, that both Paul and Jesus are dealing with the question of "When can we expect the Parousia?" and "Will there be any kind of sign, or advance warning?" Since I think that Jesus was referring more directly to the situation of the first generation of Jewish Christian disciples who would still be around Jerusalem, he knew that there would be wars and events and even teachers that might influence them to mistake the sign to get out of Jerusalem. There would be all kinds of ideas about how this or that teacher, or apostle, or another Messiah could mislead them by convincing arguments, or by saying to pay attention to this or that major earthquake, or major war. Paul was more addressing people around Greece, Macedonia and Thessalonika who would not be as much affected by the Romans trampling through Jerusalem. But the question was still the same, because it was still assumed that the same destruction of the Temple would be instantly followed by the end of all things, worldwide. 

To me of course, I think Jesus is saying that these things (wars, etc) are NOT related to the Parousia (the highly visible royal judgment event), but are things that people will easily mistake as signs of the impending judgment event. And another danger, of course, is that disciples might think it necessary to begin counting these as part of the Parousia and then wonder why the real Parousia is delayed, being thus disheartened and discouraged, as "expectation postponed is making the heart sick."

In the previous post I showed how Jesus theme was also the suddenness and unexpectedness of the end [Parousia/Synteleia]. It was primarily in this sense that I meant that Jesus and Paul were covering the same subject matter.

You say that Jesus uses the aspect of their heralding the start of a period or stage leading to an inevitable conclusion. This is true, but not necessarily so different from what Paul is talking about, although I agree that Paul focuses on the suddenness and unexpectedness (as a thief in the night). Jesus also mentions the unexpectedness and suddenness of course, but attaches the word pangs to events could occur earlier, long before the end.

[Hopefully, this covers enough of the separate questions you posted, too.]

I think there is still an important point to repeat for clarity, which is that while Jesus does indeed speak of the pangs even at the beginning instead of just at the end, Jesus does not attach these early pangs to the Parousia/Synteleia. He clearly divorces these early mistaken/misleading signs from any kind of useful sign that might answer their question about the end. I'm sure that's the specific point where we still disagree.

Sometimes, the Watchtower publications have pointed back to a time when the Watchtower predicted World War One (WWI) in 1914 and then also predicted that the United Nations would rise up to replace the League of Nations. These two "predictions" have even been paired together and presented nearly back-to-back in our publications. They were even brought up again at the 2014 convention and the 2009 convention. The reason the Watchtower has reviewed these two ideas from our history is probably already obvious and clear, and it has been clearly stated, too.

One of the most recent reviews of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses contains very similar claims, and is found in one of the videos, now also available on tv.jw.org: https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgHistory/pub-ivfa2_x_VIDEO

These online transcripts appear fairly accurate:

• Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 1 Out of Darkness.pdf
• Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 2 Let the Light Shine.pdf

Here is the relevant part about 1914:

—Geoffrey W. Jackson—

• They realized that 1914 had a significance,

—Gerrit Lösch—

• When World War I broke out in July, they felt vindicated and it strengthened their faith in the Bible, and in JehovahÂ’s prophetic Word. Also, it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others.

—Anthony Morris III—

• Just looking at the sign of the times that Jesus told us to look at is enough, but it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal.

Here is the relevant part about the UN and League of Nations:

—Narrator—

• . . . And soon, they would boldly proclaim a Bible prophecy that pointed to the outcome of that war.

——Chapter 4: "Taught By Jehovah"——

—Narrator—

• The year was 1941. Having taken the lead for 25 momentous years, J. F. Rutherford had become seriously ill and was about to make his final public appearance. . . . The second World War was raging. Some felt that these events could lead directly into Armageddon. In spite of this, in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr—the one next appointed to take the lead among Jehovah's Witnesses—spoke at a convention about a Bible prophecy that indicated that significant events had to occur first.

—Knorr (reenactment)—

• This international war is not 'the battle of the great day of God Almighty.' Before Armageddon comes, the Scriptures show, a peace must come.

—John Wischuk—

• There was no peace on the horizon, and yet we said, "Peace—Can It Last?"

—Narrator—

• Knorr centered attention on Revelation 17:8, which indicates that a figurative wild beast would come into existence, would cease to exist, but then would come back to life. Knorr then drew his listeners' attention to the defunct League of Nations.

—Knorr (reenactment)—

• The League is in effect in a state of suspended animation and needs to be revived if it is ever to live again. It has gone into the abyss of inaction and ineffectiveness. It "is not." Will the League remain in the pit? Again the Word of God gives answer: The association of worldly nations will rise again.

—Narrator—

• That association did rise again three years later as the United Nations.

—Anthony Morris III—

• They didn't know it was going to be called the United Nations, and we don't make that claim. But they knew it was coming out.

 

[Should be noted that Morris is claiming something that they "KNEW" in advance but he is also correcting a common claim that not only did Knorr predict the rise of the League of Nations three years ahead of time, but that he even used the term "United Nations." As one person writes on a website "Knorr prophesied in 1942 that the League of Nations would rise out of the abyss. Knorr used the expression 'United Nations.' How could he have known the exact name of the new incarnation, when it wasn't established until 1945?"]

Witnesses got these ideas about a correctly predicted prophecy from an article published a few years later under Knorr's administration in 1960. These quotes should be compared with the actual transcript of the speech Knorr made on September 20, 1942, which was made available as a booklet, and can be found here: http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/booklets/peace.html

The July 15, 1960 Watchtower, page 444, said this:

• "In 1942 the “faithful and discreet slave” guided by JehovahÂ’s unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up."

You can also see a reference to the 1942 event in the Revelation book (p.248) on WOL at jw.org: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034

You can also read the following about it in the April 15, 1989 Watchtower, p.14 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034

• By divine providence, JehovahÂ’s Witnesses received enlightenment on that mystery in 1942. . . . Nathan H. Knorr, president of the Watch Tower Society, gave the public talk, “Peace—Can It Last?” Therein he reviewed Revelation 17:8, . . . . Was that Bible-based forecast fulfilled? Truly it was! In 1945 the international “wild beast” emerged from its abyss of inactivity as the United Nations.

See also the Kingdom Come book  kc chap. 17 pp. 162-173 and and interesting version of events found in a 1981 Watchtower about why this "insight" was given w81 12/15 pp. 28-30

In 1993 the idea was stated as follows:

• “The Disgusting Thing”
• 12, 13. What was “the disgusting thing,” and—as foreseen by the faithful and discreet slave—when and how was it reestablished?
• ¹² When the end of the second world war was in sight, there was another development. “They will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation.” (Daniel 11:31b) This “disgusting thing,” which Jesus also mentioned, had already been recognized as the League of Nations, the scarlet-colored wild beast that according to Revelation went into the abyss. (Matthew 24:15; Revelation 17:8; see Light, Book Two, page 94.) It did this when World War II broke out. However, at the New World Theocratic Assembly of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr, third president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, discussed the prophecy of Revelation 17 and warned that the beast would rise again from the abyss.
• ¹³ History bore out the truth of his words. Between August and October 1944, at Dumbarton Oaks in the United States, work was begun on the charter of what would be called the United Nations. The charter was adopted by 51 nations, including the former Soviet Union, and when it came into force on October 24, 1945, the defunct League of Nations in effect came out of the abyss.

There are several more examples, but this should suffice. I am struck by how often the point is emphasized that these were Knorr's words, "his words" and that they were a Bible-based forecast "foreseen" and "discerned" and "known" in advance through "divine providence" and "enlightenment" and men being "guided by Jehovah's unerring spirit." This is an odd focus on the insights and discernment of men. These expressions are also dangerously presumptuous in that they are so often applied to the one or two times when it seems something was foreseen correctly, but there is no balanced way of discussing the reasons that literally dozens of predictions were made incorrectly and have been dropped as "old light."

But, as many Witnesses already know, there is something even deeper that is wrong with these claims of accuracy in discernment. The claims are inaccurate! It turns out that this was not really even predicted in advance. A close look at the original transcript of Knorr's talk actually solves the mystery of why he used the term United Nations in his speech. It's because he gave the speech AFTER official work on the United Nations had already begun.

15 hours ago, Gone Away said:

I find this a bit difficult to rationalise against a statement that uses an apparent pregnancy metaphor: "For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress."

I should add that it's very possible for the disciples in 33 CE to hear these words on their own without the context and understand them to say that wars, food shortages and earthquakes would be signs that the end would be nearly upon them. We can't be blamed for seeing them the way the Watchtower explains them, because the Watchtower has always relied on re-translations of the words in Matthew 24 which tend to remove the meaning in context. 

There is a good example of this mistranslation in the Matthew 24:8 above, where it supposedly says "All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress." The KJV is often followed as closely as possible by at least half of the modern English translations whenever the differences do not seem that important. So about half of the English translations are very similar to ours. But a little more than half, from a check of 40 translations, include a translation of the Greek particle "de" which the KJV and the NWT skips here. In other words we translate it as if it said:

• πάντα ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων

when it really says:

• πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων

Why is the word important? It changes the meaning from:

• "All these things are a beginning of birth pains"

to:

• "But all these things are but a beginning of birth pains."

In other words it emphasizes that something is missing or even wrong in the natural understanding of the previous statement about wars and earthquakes and famines. Here's why. All the Greek lexicons mention something like the following:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1161&t=KJV

• δέ dé, deh; a primary particle (adversative or continuative)
• STRONGS NT 1161: δέ
• δέ (related to δή, as μέν to μήν, cf. Klotz ad Devar. ii. 2, p. 355), a particle adversative, distinctive, disjunctive
• 1. universally, by way of opposition and distinction; it is added to statements opposed to a preceding statement: ἐάν ὀφθαλμός κτλ. Matthew 6:23; ἐλεύσονται δέ ἡμέραι, Mark 2:20; it opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned

It's true that it isn't ALWAYS translated, but when the context repeatedly refers to the possibility of a misunderstanding then it is an important part of the meaning and must be translated. (Matthew 24 repeatedly and explicitly mentions the possibility of misunderstanding or being misled.)

This is why, when we bring in the meaning of context with the original Greek meaning of the words (including: parousia, synteleia, de, etc) we would have a meaning that more likely fits the following scenario:

• Disciples: Please, can you tell us when this destruction of Jerusalem's Temple will occur? Can you tell us the sign that we should look for when we know that the final end and your final manifestation is about to happen? 
• Jesus responds: Look out that nobody misleads you. Many people will come around, even on the basis of my name, saying they represent me, yet they will mislead many. [You could easily be misled by the fact that] there will be wars, earthquakes and famines. Don't be tempted to raise the alarm based on such things, because these kinds of things will keep taking place [as they always have]. All these things are but a beginning of the birth pains, [not the end of all things that you are asking about].

The reason Jesus said this becomes clear in the rest of the chapter when he mentions the suddenness and unexpectedness of the end. It can't be predicted. It's as if two persons were going about their business grinding at a mill, and one was taken and one wasn't. It's the way it happens with most pregnancies, when the mother-to-be can be going about her business, and suddenly and unexpectedly a pain comes upon her. It's the way it happens with a bolt of bright lightning that suddenly happens. It's the way it happened in Noah's day when people didn't really believe or expect it to happen and suddenly the flood sweeps them away. It's the same way it happened in the days of Lot and Sodom when, without warning, fire came from heaven and destroyed them.

27 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Certainly, there is an escalation from intense to very intense, in my experience as an observer.

Of course there is, but this escalation usually lasts from a few hours to a few days. Remember, too, that you already had to posit that the two uses of the same word, once by Jesus, and once by Paul, were for two different purposes even thought the subject matter was exactly the same. That might be a hint that you got something wrong, based on what is sometimes called "special pleading."

If there was any question about the actual meaning we merely need to look at the way that both Jesus and Paul used the word "instantly" in this context. So even if we pleaded that the word CAN sometimes refer to the longer-term process, we have the evidence from Jesus and Paul that they were referring to something that comes "instantly" upon them. (Luke 21:34; 1 Thess 5:3 -- αἰφνίδιος, unexpected, sudden, unforeseen. [Source: Strong's; Thayer's; Vines, etc.)

27 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

By the the way, Kingdom birth illustrations are another subject altogether.

Special pleading again. Actually, this is exactly the way we speak of the labor pains in Revelation 12, and we tie this birth to 1914.

On 5/23/2018 at 7:09 PM, Gone Away said:

A woman is pregnant for 9 months, but pangs of distress or contractions usually start occurring during the last 3months.

I used to think the same thing, until after my first, second, and third child. That's when I realized that my idea about pangs of pregnancy had actually been influenced by my (our) incorrect understanding of this very scripture. I had to think that the "pangs" would be a "generation" long, in some similar way to how up to 120 years of a generation compares to the 1,881 years from 33 CE to 1914 CE. In the long run, I could rationalize that the final generation was only about 5% of the full period, and this might be considered "instantly" in some sense.

But then I realized that my wife was able to work a full-time job (high school principal) right up until the day she went to the hospital and then she always had the baby within a matter of hours. The "5% solution" implies that the pangs of distress (labor pains) last at least half-a-month. With the new definition of the 'generation that never seems to pass away' the percentage rises to 10% or nearly a whole month.

So the expression about the labor pains is really a huge hint that Jesus actually meant what he said about something coming as a surprise, as if without warning. Just like the days of Sodom would have seemed to suddenly come to an end without warning.

Just an aside, but others have already pointed out that the labor pains analogy was appropriate for the birth of the kingdom. This hardly seems to fit a birth that starts in 1914 and then the labor pains only start AFTER the birth and last for 120 to 240 years. Labor pains usually start BEFORE a birth, not AFTER.

[moved out of order with next post . . . read that one first.]

On 5/23/2018 at 9:37 PM, Gone Away said:

Others indicate that these pangs of distress can indeed occur weeks before the birth, or days before. The difference seems to add weight to the metaphor.

Actually, all we have to do is look into the meaning of the original Greek word to understand that this is not about when contractions can start:

• The original-language word rendered “pangs of distress” refers to the intense pain experienced during childbirth. [Source: Internet]

6 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Which scenario do you refer to here as needing to be questioned?

• the scriptural picture as portrayed in Rev. 17?

I don't question that Revelation 17 has an important meaning for us.

6 hours ago, Gone Away said:

• the interpreted understanding and application that Jehovah's Witnesses currently hold in connection with Rev.17?

Yes. We should always pay attention to our teaching. 1 Tim 4:16: "Pay close attention to your life and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by so doing you will save both yourself and those who hear you." [Berean]

6 hours ago, Gone Away said:

• the suggestion that UN preparation for an attack on religion cold be discerned from current political and ideological developments? 

If this Watchtower eschatological scenario could be absolutely known for sure to be correct then I would think that some hints could be discerned from political and ideological developments. Of course, I trust that Jesus' words preclude any human from knowing absolutely what the future scenario might look like. However, when the Bible says that God puts the idea in their hearts it likely means (as the Watchtower teaches) that Jehovah allows these entities to go ahead with intentions that already existed in some form. Therefore, such a future scenario could very well be discernible to some extent in advance. To the extent that anyone might feel it useful to look for such hints as a way of testing the validity of the teaching then there is a legitimate reason to "test the spirits." [1 John 4:1]. But I would think there are much more basic and important Bible principles to test against before we can get to that point.  

7 hours ago, Gone Away said:

However, why do you think that Jesus outlined detailed events in prophecy relating to end times?

I think Jesus told us why. He made it clear that the very topic of the end and the natural desire to get advance information about when it would occur would result in much confusion and persons who would end up misleading others, either on purpose or just human nature. So Jesus made it clear that there would be a lot of things happening that people would latch onto in order to claim that they KNEW more about the closeness of the end. So Jesus made it clear that wars would continue to happen, but that they shouldn't get all excited and think this was a sign that the end must be close. Jesus made the same point about earthquakes that might shake someone from their reason and make them think the due time had approached. Or pestilence, famine, persecution. All these things would go on happening, but there was no reason to become inordinately excited. In fact, Jesus added that during the period leading up to the final end [the synteleia/parousia] people would be marrying and being given in marriage, people would be eating and drinking, and the parousia would come upon most of them as if without any warning. In other words, these people would be crying out 'there is peace and security' before sudden destruction came upon them. Peter adds that scoffers could even say 'Where is this promised parousia [that will shine brightly like lightning from one part of the heavens all the way across to the other]? Things are still going on just as they always have.

So, yes, Jesus gave a lot of details about the prophecy related to the end times, but many of those details were to show that there would be NO specific details that could be seen as an advance sign of the end, but that Christians should remain active and endure patiently in spite of the lack of signs. But when the end finally came, THEN there would be an unmistakable sign that this parousia was upon us suddenly like bright visible lightning.