JW Insider

4 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Oh! I don't think Alessandro Corona reason to depart was for the uncommon traits "witnesses" are known for, but rather the common traits perceived by even our own skeptics, are known for. Doctoral errors constantly pushed by JWI, JTR, O'Maly, and their supporters that have caused many to "stumble" here, since people have a tendency of believing in their hearts, that what they read is the truth, from characteristics of people that never really understood scripture, to really make an honest assessment of what the Watchtower is really about.

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.

I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.

What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.

I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 

So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

10 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The "other Tom" was a very fine Brother, an ex-Bethelite, and a Pioneer .. but he was completely wrapped too tight, probably because of his struggle with poverty. 

The part about seeming wrapped to tight seems obvious, but he was trying to be sociable and then appears to have some kind of panic attack, perhaps not so much from the music itself but the incomprehensible sensory overload from the tapping and imperfect singing on top of the music. Not enough data to diagnose Asperger's Syndrome, but it's a possibility.

10 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

20 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

although it confuses me,

I was speaking as if I was in that time period .... not now.

Yes, I was kidding but you didn't need to edit it. It already was understood that your confusion about the right thing to do was back then, not now. That's why I joked about alcohol. It seems almost impossible, even at 3 AM, that 3 other people would not immediately realize that dropping off someone 50 miles from home at that time of night was very clearly a problem, no confusion about it.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

JWI:

It was  OF COURSE so entirely and completely absurd that it should have screamed satire!

I thought it was a topical piece of humor that would provide a little comic relief to an otherwise beat to death topic.

Alas... now I have to "let go", my last comedy writer ... the other 16 disappeared mysteriously.

I hadn't seen this one before, but I figured it was satire, or at least fake news, before I finished the first sentence. (Actually I scrolled upward to get to this post and had already seen the all-important info under "Breaking News" strategically cut off in a story that begs for validation.) Then the opening line, "in one Houston neighborhood," is another give-away, as in the more Onion-esque "area man."

My comment was just an excuse to "play" on the words "there is a time and place for everything." "Tuesday" and "one [area] neighborhood" don't really count as "time and place" for a real newspaper-styled story. And, of course, the primary "play" on the words is the reference to Ecclesiastes 3, and the fact that Alessandro had just said he left 3 days ago. The fact that this was the first response coming immediately after Alessandro's was about as unexpected as hearing a comedy message recorded by Robin Williams when one calls up a suicide hotline.

On 8/31/2017 at 4:50 PM, Alessandro Corona said:

I left 3 days ago. Even though I still have faith in Jehovah and Christ, Jesus. But there are some doctrinal errors which are too great to ignore, and because of it I have been treated like a criminal by the brothers. 

Sorry for the barrage of questions, but I'm interested in a few things. I take it you are leaving for the doctrinal reasons, and not because of how you have been treated. Do you have family among the Witnesses, any close friends still in the congregation? Are there nearby congregations meeting in the same hall or one nearby? Is it your intent to explain all of your doctrinal reasons to persons within the congregation? Have you already told the elders how you feel about "some" doctrinal errors. I mention that last one because I think you'll find that if you weigh the pros and cons you could still find more pros. I hope you will at least be willing to discuss some more of your concerns here, and directly with persons at Bethel. They will take a phone call on any subject, and although they will want to inform your local elders you can ask that they do not if you are not comfortable. Ask to speak directly with one of the GB Helpers whom you think might be receptive to a discussion. If you want to message me, I can give a couple of suggestions.

10 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Janice Wright, a forty-year resident of Houston, said this 21 foot crocodile is nearly missed her grandson as he was swimming away from the beast.

Are you even in the right thread? A person is not a JW just because they have the same initials as Janice Wright.

Besides -- (This one took exactly 30 seconds.) -- "there's a time and a place" and in this instance you got them both wrong.

• These photographs actually show a crocodile that was shot and killed on  6 July  2003 at Pointe-Noire in the Republic of Congo. According to an article in allafrica.com, the reptile was a Nile crocodile whose vital statistics fell a bit short of the claims made above: he was estimated to be  50 years  old, about  16 feet  in length, and about  1,900 lbs.  (not quite the 80-year-old,  21-foot,   4,500-pound  monster described in  e-mail).  The local mayor reportedly insisted on preserving the crocodileÂ’s carcass against the efforts of locals who wanted to eat it and arranged for it to be shipped to a taxidermist.

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

although it confuses me

Sounds like it was a gathering party. If I were a judgmental person I might even suspect alcohol, too. Although I can think of other reasons for the confusion.

Spent from July 8 to July 22 this year in Anguilla. Brothers we called there yesterday are all suffering from damage to their homes and several vehicles. No reports of loss of life that they know of on the entire island yet, although injuries reported. To get to Anguilla (three times now) we fly into St. Maarten and take a ferry (although you can also switch planes in Puerto Rico or St. Maarten for a smaller plane that is able to land in Anguilla's smaller airport). Damage at both airports, and a lot of runway debris to clean up. Most homes of Witnesses there are in very low-cost housing construction: concrete walls with metal roof. Several roofs went flying, exposing the contents of home to a lot of water damage. From St. Maarten there was no report yet about the brothers, necessarily, but there are a couple of deaths and several injuries reported in both St. Maarten and St. Martin. 

[Updated edit: 1 person dead in Anguilla, not a Witness.]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I'd be very hesitant to engage in civil disobedience to theocratic headship. If history is any guide, maybe the earth would open up.

I came late to this discussion, knowing that my viewpoint on this particular subject is based on what might seem a bit radical to some. So I apologize in advance for the opinions to follow:

I wouldn't suggest "civil disobedience" either, but to your point, the earth didn't open up when Rutherford successfully attempted his own hostile takeover of the Watch Tower Society from 1916 to 1919 (technically, until 1931). After all, he went directly against the leadership of Russell and illegally went against the leadership of the majority, physically shutting that majority out, until he could put his own majority in place. But this is another one of those potential contradictions of a similar nature to the contradiction that forms the basis for this topic. We forgive him for bending the law and for several ethics violations because we are sure that, in the long run, he had the "truer" religion compared to those he outmaneuvered.

Yet, this also suggests that the 'guide from history' has more to do with how we respond to the true Leader, the greater Moses, Jesus Christ. Thinking of men as effectively taking the place of Jesus as head is merely an expedience for modern organizational purposes, and is not related to theocracy, which is rule by God. If a doctrine shows up differently in God's Word from the way it shows up from the GB, then we surely have nothing to fear from merely obeying God as ruler rather than men. That's the true definition of theocracy.

But we don't initiate discord, either. That's for the exact same reason we accept and respect the GB in the first place. We appreciate that the role they take on is for keeping order and for efficiently carrying out our ministry in an organized manner. So we gladly subject ourselves to the decisions of an organizational Governing Body. I don't see why anyone would object to that. Besides, it's working; the worldwide ministry is becoming increasingly more organized and efficient through this arrangement.

These men also maintain "doctrinal order" by taking on the role of "guardians of the doctrine." This can be a very good thing. Teaching materials, presentation materials, publication content, dramas, videos, convention talks are coordinated and this produces less confusion. When a change is made it is often highlighted and even if not, there are usually efficient ways for us to discover and explain the change. We appreciate that the work done to find the support for these doctrines scripturally is taken very seriously and we have no major doctrines without some Biblical reason for it, even if that reason (for a former doctrine) was based on an admitted misunderstanding. 

I won't use this topic as a place to show the kind of trouble that can happen if the "guarding" part is taken more seriously than fixing any misunderstandings, but I think that should be obvious, from our own history. But the point is that it should not be difficult for any of us to rattle off anywhere from 10 to 20 doctrinal changes and changes in procedures that came about through "public pressure" even though this public pressure was not well-known to most of us, nor was it any kind of civil disobedience.

I can think of a couple cases where it really was something like civil disobedience from the rank-and-file Bethelites, for example, but I am referring primarily to the public exposure of certain embarrassing doctrines by ex-JWs, or the pressure of civil courts and tax courts (US, UK, Belgium, Australia) and scrutiny of doctrine by psychologists, surgeons and law enforcement. Add to this an unknown number of letters that came in from Witnesses whose questions and objections really have been taken seriously over the years. It must be a lot more than some Witnesses and others here would believe.

5 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

You mean...you don't?

The most recent persons I studied with who symbolized their dedication through baptism were the father and mother of two children, a pre-teen boy and a much younger girl. We absolutely discussed what baptism means in terms of their association and the potential for disfellowshipping. In fact, we spent hours on the subject, because the mother was a smoker, who needed a lot of moral support to help her quit, and she was (and still is) allowed to call the house any time day or night getting through the tough time she had in giving up the addiction. In fact, they put off baptism for at least an extra 6 months to be sure she was completely over it. But our studies also included a discussion of what can happen to children, too, and the pressure we can end up unknowingly putting on children and the emotional pain that could result if the decision of a child is not really his (or her) own decision, but primarily a way for the child to please their parents.

So up to a point, I do, but I have probably over-used or even misused this verse:

• (Matthew 10:33-37) 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me.

I'm wondering if this is really all that applicable to the variations of choices people make today. If their children grow up and become atheists, for example, are the parents really required to initiate that division? I read the verse carefully, now, and realize that we are not the ones creating this division and creating enemies. We are the ones who continue to love our enemies, the same way Jehovah continues to make it rain on both the righteous and unrighteous.

9 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

What do you think @JW Insider?

If you've seen any of the lengthy topics lately that deal with the "generation" and related issues, you'll notice that I'm probably not the right person to ask. Also, I don't want to turn this particular type of post into a doctrinal discussion that no one bargained for, based on the topic name. However, I do think it's a good question, so I'll attach some notes to one of those other recent discussions.

18 hours ago, Anna said:

I genuinely would like to know if I have missed something, or misunderstood something. So I thought someone might be able to explain it.

I'm certainly not going to claim I can explain it. But I think that TTH is accurate. He says that:

17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Probably the assumption that JWs have the truth is all one needs to know. 

This means that yes, absolutely, we have two sets of scales on this one, but only because we are sure we deserve a different set of scales. I don't think there is any other way to see it either. It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to:

• (Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame.
• (2 Peter 2:20-22) 20 Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.”

So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street. Of course, this does not mean it is ethical to imply that it would be as easy to leave the JWs as it is to become one. We do make it difficult, and we do use emotional blackmail, but we believe we are justified. We believe that the "tough love" of shunning will shame people into coming back and that if we win back a brother through shaming that we have thus protected their prospect for eternal life. But should we tell people this before they are baptized, and perhaps show them a video presentation about the worst-case scenario? Should we justify it with the fact that many other people also shun others whether for feelings of religious superiority or sometimes just feelings of cultural or supposed moral superiority -- or sometimes just purely for emotional blackmail based on rationalizing juvenile behavior? 

In my view, the answer is yes, absolutely. We should show new converts how we shame people. We should be PROUD of everything we do with respect to our preaching and practice. If we think anything we do or teach should remain in the dark, then that can only mean we are ashamed of it. We would be hypocritical not to show it and explain it. We can tell people we think that the "love" behind shunning is worth it in the long run.

• (Hebrews 12:11) True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

If we are not proud enough of a practice to explain it up front as part of the conversion process, and explained by an elder prior to baptism, then, of course, we should change the practice.

Also, you are probably aware that I don't think we handle shunning in a completely biblical way. And another way to look at the verses above (about returning to vomit, re-nailing the Son of God), is that they are not about any specific religious organization, but about a specific type of personal relationship with Jehovah that is rejected.

5 minutes ago, bruceq said:

I realize that I am not an elder or former elder such as some of you are but I know what Loyalty to Jehovah is. And since a forum such as this one it is impossible to determine who is or is not an apostate, disfellowshipped or pretending to be a brother while dispensing divisions  and we are obviously associating together here it is my decision to now leave as I wish to cherish true Loyalty to my Creator. 

Loyalty is important to me personally probably because my two previous marriages ended with my wife committing adultery although we were married for 7 and 10 years. So I can see how Jehovah must feel when someone who says they love you are disloyal to your face. I am currently married to my wife of 8 years and I believe we both must continue to develop loyalty to GOD FIRST then to each other. "Do ALL things for God's glory" 1 Cor. 10:31. And I no longer feel it is for me "God's glory" to be here. Goodbye.

I wish you the best in your endeavors. Thanks for all the input, and of course, if you decide to participate again, I'm sure you will be welcomed. Whether or not I am still here will be based on several factors. It's nice to find a place where one can show complete loyalty to the truth and still not hold back in sharing all aspects of the good news that we have found spiritually profitable. While no one can compare themselves to the Apostle Paul, we should still strive to be imitators of him. 

• (Acts 20:20) 20 while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house.

But as some have pointed out, this place, although a useful public forum for ideas to be shared, often becomes a place where opposers of scripture, and opposers of truth and evidence can become ridiculously juvenile and ill-behaved. And while joking and enjoying a laugh, and light-hearted association can be just fine, the propensity for unloving insults, sniping, and sarcasm can easily rub off on any of us. I have recently felt embarrassed at the way in which fellow brothers have claimed to proudly make a conscious decision to disregard Bible truth as long as they are generally confident that the men they choose to follow are backed by Jesus and Jehovah. This is so much like the high-control thinking that certain men have been able to achieve in several of the religious associations of Christendom, and I fear the trend of attracting more and more persons who are happy and proud not to think about scripture and evidence and truth.

24 minutes ago, bruceq said:

27 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I upvote ANYBODY when what they say is true, and/or really applicable.

We know. Satan said some things that were also true. 

But wasn't it Billy Graham or one of those preachers from a bye-gone generation who said:

"We should learn to love and value truth for its own sake. . . . A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God."

 

30 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

something unsightly.

It's always nice when people can laugh at themselves.

So, here's respect to @The Librarian

47 minutes ago, Alessandro Corona said:

Jesus never commented on Pork

I remember once when Jesus demonized some pork, but it was at their own request. (Demon's request, not the pork's.)

• (Matthew 8:31) . . .So the demons began to plead with him, saying: “If you expel us, send us into the herd of swine.”

But Jesus also gave some good dietary instructions for raising pigs. They evidently don't digest beads of calcium carbonate very well, or else perhaps it doesn't sit well with them and makes them violent.

• (Matthew 7:6) . . .“Do not . . . throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.

Just now, The Librarian said:

I wonder if Fred Franz was the influence for that? I remember he wouldn't hold back on the details.

I think everyone knew that this was one of his favorite subjects along with his favorite numerology topics. I'm sure he was the one who wrote the article in 1956. I have been assured that he was the one who often repeated the idea that 999 people out of every thousand would die at Armageddon. This was even included in assembly speeches open to the public. The 99.9% figure was also included in the Watch Tower publications a few times.

*** w58 10/15 pp. 614-615 What Will Armageddon Mean for You? ***

• Revelation 9:16 gives us an inkling of the size of Jehovah’s forces when it speaks of him as using, on a certain occasion, cavalry to the number of 200,000,000. And 2 Kings 19:35 tells of just one of these destroying a host of 185,000 warriors in one night. . . .
• On Satan’s side will be all the rest of mankind, more than 99.9 percent, even as we read: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.”

He was also the one who said that due to the current laws of the land, we aren't allowed to kill our apostate children even though they are our own children.

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***

• In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.
• We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
• Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.

That's a very useful reminder not to kill our children, based on a question probably sent in by Percy Chapman, the Branch Servant in Ontario at the time.

And of course, Fred Franz was the one who assured me that the hundreds of thousands of Christian martyrs who were willing to die for their faith in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were mostly all in Gehenna now, with no hope of a resurrection.

Yes, he had a dark side. But at least he could snicker and joke while saying such serious things. I don't know if that makes it better or worse, though.

34 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Bethel has never commented on this verse, so I am not allowed to speak of it until they tell me what to think.

*** w56 8/1 p. 465 pars. 16-17 Jehovah’s Message Against Gog of Magog ***
16 In the wake of Armageddon’s carnage, disease and pestilence from the rot and decay would plague the survivors were it not for the fact that Jehovah sends forth an invitation to the birds and beasts to attend this great slaughter. “Speak unto the birds of every sort, and to every beast of the field,” Jehovah says, and say to them, “Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, . . . Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.” This certainly shows the contempt in which Jehovah holds the proud and haughty of Gog’s system, letting the wild beasts and vultures feed upon them as worthless carrion!—Ezek. 39:17, 18, AS.
17 With such a glorious feast of victory concluded, only the bones, bones from one end of the earth to the other, will be left for burial. What a task that will be for the survivors, to cleanse the earth of every remaining evidence of Gog’s forces! Even with the work well organized it will take seven months, Jehovah says, just to bury the bones. Scouting corps will be sent out on a full-time basis to search the land thoroughly and, when bones are found, markers will be set up for those with the spades and shovels who follow. (Ezek. 39:14, 15) Those privileged to share in that cleanup work will not view it as a revolting and disgusting assignment but will rejoice to be alive when Gog’s long and oppressive rule has come to an end and when the wicked are no more. Survivors of Armageddon will be happy and will greatly rejoice to have a share in preparing the earth for a global paradise of beauty and perfection under the reign of the King Christ Jesus. But first, before that happy day, this message against Gog must be delivered in its completeness.

---------------

In 1965, or so, several congregations used to put on skits for the Circuit Overseer's visit. ("Circuit Servant" in those days.) We did one where we re-enacted this scene from Ezekiel. To prepare, we literally gathered some sun-bleached skulls and bones from long-demised cattle, always plentiful on the acres of land and farms in Missouri. Then we set up some sand-piles on the platform of the Kingdom Hall behind the back curtain, with the bones already placed there. Then, when time for the "drama" came around during the meeting, we opened the curtain, had some little kids play the scouts who put markers by the bones, and then had some more mature brothers put the bones in their large burlap sacks. In rehearsal, one brother picked up a skull and would say things like, "looks like this one died because he was too bull-headed," etc. But the conclusion of the actual drama went like this. One sack-toting brother asks the others, "Hey. Has anyone seen Brother One-hour?" After learning that no one has seen him, he then says: "You don't suppose!?!?!?!?!  . . . . . and then, of course, he gets all dramatically wide-eyed, and throws the whole sack across the stage. Lights go to dark. Applause!!

2 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Yes, of course.  Given authority to command in the name of [authority of] Father,son, and holy spirit,   over those who voluntarily submit to him as their head, his congregation, body, bride [eventually numbering 144,000] that he bought from the earth: command them to go and make disciples and baptize in the name of [authority of] Father,son, and holy spirit.  like ,"Stop! in the name of love, before you break my heart!"

You are saying that Jesus was mistaken then, because he said that "ALL authority had already been given to him in heaven and on earth." You seem to be confusing his authority with the first things that Jesus did with that authority. The first thing that Jesus did was transfer subjects from all walks of life into the Kingdom.

It's as if the King of England back in, let's say, the year 1033 CE, just gets into power and says "I am now the King of England, and I now have all authority over the land: both over peasants and land-owners alike." Then he goes on to say that the first thing he will do is accept delegates from all the peasant populations who will voluntary come to London to "bend the knee" in respect to their new king.

Based on that King-of-England scenario, you might now have a bunch of peasants saying: "Guess what? Even though the new king claims to have all authority, it's not not really true, he really only has authority over those of us peasants who voluntarily 'bend the knee' to him. We should make sure that all the land-owners are aware that it's OK not to accept him as a real king over them yet. We don't even have to call him 'king.' It's more like a mini-king over a mini-peasant-kingdom. And he really only has authority over us if we voluntarily offer it. Maybe some time near the end of his kingship over the land will we need to accept the idea that he was truly given ALL authority."
 

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

In 33 he was given authority over those who voluntarily submit themselves to his rulership, over his congregation.

So you do not believe Jesus when he said he had just been given "ALL authority in heaven and on earth"?

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

Okay, well, re that:  typos - means breath, wind, blowing-as in glassblowing?, or whatever force the causer would use to form something or express his "express image", for instance[?]

And "anti"-typos would be something striking "against" a typos.  "Anti-Christ" might be to "Christ" as "anti-matter" would be to "matter".  if So, it seems to me, that "anti-type" has been not an accurate word to use when referring to  a "prophetic pattern".

The OED has the following as the very first definitions of the noun "type." Nothing to do with breath, wind or glassblowing. The word type is probably more closely related to the word beat or strike.
 

Quote

type, n.1            (taɪp)              Also 6–7 tipe.

[ad. F. type (16th c. in Littré) or L. typus, a. Gr. τύπος impression, figure, type, f. the root of τύπτειν to beat, strike.]

1. a. That by which something is symbolized or figured; anything having a symbolical signification; a symbol, emblem; spec. in Theol. a person, object, or event of Old Testament history, prefiguring some person or thing revealed in the new dispensation; correl. to antitype. in (the) type, in symbolic representation.

   c 1470 Henryson Mor. Fab. (S.T.S.) 579 Suppose this be ane Fabill, And ouerheillit with typis figurall.    1590 ‘Hobynoll’ To Learned Sheph. v. in Spenser's F.Q. (Pref. Verses), That fare Ilands right, Which thou dost vayle in Type of Faery land, Elizas blessed field, that Albion hight.    1607 Hieron Wks. I. 104 The people of Israel were a tipe of Gods people: Canaan a tipe of heauen.    1654 Jer. Taylor Real Pres. v. 103 He offered wine not water in the type‥of his bloud.    1706 Prior Ode to Queen xxxiv, The British Rose, Type of sweet Rule, and gentle Majesty.    1781 Fletcher Lett. Wks. 1795 VII. 236 [Marriage] the most perfect type of our Lords union with his church.    1829 The Bengallee 182 The Hookah's monstrous snake.‥ That type of eastern Luxury's excess.    1851 Kingsley in Life (1878) I. 255 It is only in proportion as we appreciate and understand the types that we can understand the anti-types.    1863 M. Howitt F. Bremer's Greece II. xii. 29 A river is always the type of human life.    1875 Manning Mission H. Ghost i. 15 Ceremonial actions, and washings, and purifications, which were the types and shadows of things to come.

b.1.b An imperfect symbol or anticipation of something. nonce-use.

   1754 Foote Knights i. Wks. 1799 I. 62 The very abstract of penury! Sir John Cutler, with his transmigrated stockings, was but a type of him.

†2.2 a.2.a A figure or picture of something; a representation; an image or imitation. Obs. rare.

 

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

they changed that.

For some reason they brought one back. (Malachi 3:1)  I think after realizing that they had demoted Russell from the FDS, they realized they needed him again for some kind of continuity attached to the "Watch Tower" name.

10 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

The teaching of Christ's millennial year reign. In reality the Bible says nothing about Jesus ruling for only 1000 years. The scriptures that they point to to support this say that the ones "executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus" would come to live and rule for 1000 years. It is their rule that lasts a millennium not Jesus. Revelation 20:4

FWIW, I think you have at least a partial point on all the other pieces of the puzzle you mentioned. But I'm not sure how you manage the beliefs surrounding Armageddon and the Millennium. I know there are a lot of options, but I was wondering how you work out "next the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his Father." (1 Cor 15:24)

2 hours ago, John Houston said:

So did it take jw.org to validate it?

Not for me. For some reason, I thought this story was mostly true, right away. Not sure why you are asking, though. I'm usually very skeptical of such reports, but I jumped right in and accepted this one as likely true, based primarily on the picture of a sister who had fainted, and a few people standing nearby. This wasn't the usual set-up for a fake story. It didn't try to attach itself to something we already knew was partly true, or a famous event or person, so it didn't seem fake based on the usual reasons people create fake stories. So that's why I responded as soon as this was posted 5 days ago over at another place where this was posted https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/43655-jws-attacked-with-poison-gas-at-a-convention-400-affected/

Naturally, I'm not sure that the reason given for it makes any sense, but I figured we'd learn more.

On 8/26/2017 at 5:33 PM, JW Insider said:

That is so terrible! Blaming Jehovah's Witnesses for loss in an election in Angola is like calling us extremists in Russia.

Of course, seeing it on jw.org certainly helped to remove some of the questions, because the brothers putting up information on jw.org can get in direct contact with the brothers at the assembly, and they would want as much information as they could get to verify it.

Didn't watch the video yet, but I've heard that Houston is the worst designed large city in the United States. No planning for new housing divisions. The world's worst sprawl. No way to easily get from one side of city to the other with public transportation. Buildings built below sea level on purpose. Building too close to water and wetland. And all this is from complaints I've heard in the last few years.

JW.ORG is treating it as real news, so I'd say it's real.

https://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/angola/toxic-gas-20170829/