JW Insider

Clever wordplay. I see how you worked in the words "intellectual dishonesty" without having to give an example, or mention any evidence. For a few hours, this thread had one of your comments at the top of it, and I thought it wasn't fair to you because you didn't request that such a topic be "started" by you. And it would also have given the impression that you had created the topic title. (Or maybe it was J.R.Ewing, although it was a silicon copy of your sentiments.) But once the first post is there at the top, I can't move that post back again, or anywhere else. (just the nature of the software) After trying several things that didn't work, I noticed that the solution was easier than I thought. Just find an earlier post on the topic and it sorts to the top. When the new older post pushes the original post down out of the top position then I can move it back to the original thread or move it to another topic altogether. I say all that because I finally figured it out, and if you have a suggestion for another post to be at the top of this thread, I can make it happen. If you want one of your own at the top, that would be great, I could always put the one I quoted from in the new top position. Thanks. I'm glad you see that was written is in harmony with scripture. You obviously don't know what my experience at Bethel makes me believe. Because it definitely does NOT make me believe that I have "power" and "authority" to question the dispensation of spiritual food by God. If you "knew" of course, your guess could not have been so wrong. On the use of a straightforward style that obviously angers so many people, I can only say that it sometimes feels a bit hypocritical to appear less assured if I really am assured that the evidence is on the side of the argument that I agree with. And another thing is that, during the years when I hadn't looked into enough of the evidence, I would not have felt that it was right to try to present so much of it on a public forum. I don't think it does much good to present evidence about such a longstanding and widespread doctrine (as 1914) if I still had all the doubts I had about it a few years ago. I knew it would be best to wait until I had prayerfully considered it, compared all the scriptures I could find on the subject, and study the history of the doctrine throughout all the publications to see if I had missed something. It was only after I was convinced personally that the Bible evidence was consistent, that I decided to look into whether the secular evidence supported the Bible evidence. It would not have made a difference at that point, because the secular evidence is not as important as the Bible evidence. But it turned out that the Bible is supported quite well from the secular evidence. The two recent threads that I started on 1914 however, were never about the secular evidence. They were about the wording of the scriptures. Someone else asked about the 70 years and 539 and it became the big talking point. There is also a verse that may or may not apply about the confidence we should have in what we are proposing with respect to presenting evidence for a teaching from the Bible: (1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. The glory and the might are his forever and ever. . . . There could be any number of ways to misinterpret this scripture, and I'm not saying it applies to me in any way more than it applies to you or anyone else here. And perhaps it applies to none of us. But there is still a principle buried in the verse about confidence through strength that God supplies. (Ephesians 3:11, 12) . . .Christ, Jesus our Lord, 12 by means of whom we have this freeness of speech and free access with confidence through our faith in him. So I can apologize that I likely sound too sure of myself. I can start changing that right now. Of course, looking at enough evidence to make oneself feel sure and confident does not make me right, anyway. But my conscience still tells me that I should share it, and not mince words about why I am sharing it, in spite of the insults and name-calling and whatever else. For me, it's a matter of following Christ wherever he goes. For me, it's a matter of paying more than the usual attention to what Jesus actually consistently said in Matthew 24, not changing a few definitions that make it seem like Jesus said something contradictory. Thanks for adding it then. I thought that verse 17 had already been included here in this thread at least twice, even before you repeated it 3 more times under the "AllenSmith" moniker. But I also see that some have apparently interpreted it to mean that the Governing Body are the equivalent of God. That would be a form of idolatry, of course, so I'm surprised that some would claim that we should practice our religion as if idolatry were nothing to be ashamed of.

True, up to a point. And because I am now retired, I also don't have much use for "exponents" any more, so I also have very little justification as mathematics goes, to claim that the solution of the square root of 432 is about 20.78, even if I add any additional information that pertains to the mathematical inaccuracy of the solution I could "dogmatically" defend. That's because if I wanted to argue for more accuracy I could have claimed it was 20.78460969, instead. This doesn't mean I can't take an interest if someone starts claiming that the square root of 432 is 10.78, though, and gets angry if I don't believe it, too. These four that I suggested are the same four that I already suggested in the post. In case you thought it was three, I will re-quote what I said and enumerate them for you here: The reason I suggested these four in particular is because they are the same four that the Insight Book suggests. Sometimes, remember, that it's OK to just accept and appreciate the excellent research provided by the Governing Body. Next to the NWT, it's my favorite publication. Note: *** it-1 p. 812 Fast *** The Jews established many fasts, and at one time had four annual ones, evidently to mark the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (Zec 8:19) The four annual fasts were: (1) “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) (3) “The fast of the seventh month” was apparently held as a sad remembrance of Gedaliah’s death or of the complete desolation of the land following Gedaliah’s assassination when the remaining Jews, out of fear of the Babylonians, went down into Egypt. (2Ki 25:22-26) (4) “The fast of the tenth month” may have been associated with the exiled Jews already in Babylon receiving the sad news that Jerusalem had fallen (compare Eze 33:21), or it may have commemorated the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar’s successful siege against Jerusalem on the tenth day of that month, in 609 B.C.E. Whoops! You made a bad guess. That wasn't the reason. I actually told you why I considered it moot. No guessing game here. I should have no need to justify it. Look at it again and you will notice that I said it was "one thing that might be important to note." I'm surprised you would even have a problem with such a suggestion. Perhaps you forgot that it comes from the Watch Tower publications. *** w83 1/1 p. 10 par. 1 The Kingdom Issue to the Fore! *** Back in the days of King David of Israel the city of Jerusalem was made the capital city of the typical kingdom of God. Thus Jerusalem became the symbol of the typical kingdom of Jehovah God by his anointed king over the independent nation of Israel. So, in harmony with this, Jesus’ words at Luke 21:24 referred to the treading or trampling down of the typical kingdom of God. *** rs p. 96 Dates *** “Jerusalem” represented the Kingdom of God because its kings were said to sit on “the throne of the kingship of Jehovah.” And, just because you call my point about a literal destruction a "failed proposition" and an "erred perception" you should remember that the Watch Tower publications must have made the same error in your judgment. Note whether this sounds like a literal destruction of Jerusalem, and this was just the first three that came up for 2016: *** w16 July p. 8 par. 6 Seek the Kingdom, Not Things *** God certainly was not going to preserve anyone’s material possessions in a city that was going to be destroyed. *** w16 June p. 16 Questions From Readers *** This prophecy was given in 612 B.C.E., and its initial fulfillment refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian army—something that was to occur just five years later. Although the pagan Babylonians were allowed to bring about that destruction, they were serving as Jehovah’s executioners. *** w16 March p. 30 par. 1 Questions From Readers *** Then, in 607 B.C.E., Jerusalem was destroyed and people of the southern kingdom of Judah were also taken into exile. You'll notice that this is also not true. I never said it "just" becomes a symbolic endeavor. You added that! If you are really interested in a serious conversation, there is no need to add words or twist words. Actually, again, if you notice I didn't "pick and choose" what I wanted. I did just the opposite. I made two suggestions, both of which have support in the Watch Tower publications. But if you have another suggestion, I'm always ready to consider it. As to "how many times" I have encouraged people to follow this valuable reminder, well, I doubt that it matters. Picking and choosing is a good thing when we are picking right from wrong, but when the whole of something is correct, we can't just accept a portion of the whole and deny another part of the same whole. So I suppose I've said that once or twice. Not as often as the Watchtower has made the same kind of recommendation: *** w06 11/1 p. 22 par. 1 Do You Share Jehovah’s View of Sacred Things? *** People pick and choose their values *** w03 4/15 p. 4 Spiritual Values—Where Are They Heading? *** in which everyone assumes the right to pick and choose his beliefs. *** w71 11/1 p. 662 Christian Maturity—an Elusive Goal? *** Or do we pick and choose *** w67 10/1 p. 586 par. 5 Finding Freedom with Jehovah’s Visible Organization *** We are not free to pick and choose according to our individual whims. *** w14 3/15 p. 13 par. 5 How to Maintain a Positive Viewpoint *** We cannot pick and choose which parts we will follow.

I'm assuming that the question is "Would you consider the entire State of New York destroyed if only the Watchtower buildings were destroyed along with all the elite houses in New York? (Either New York City or New York State, not sure it matters to your point.) By analogy would we consider the entire city of Jerusalem destroyed if only the Temple and the elite houses were destroyed? This is a question that gets asked fairly often by those who would propose that the "destruction" and "desolation" was upon the land-owning elite of Judea, and it was less important whether every poor person of the land was literally taken or fled. The numbers of the exiles in Jeremiah 52 and 2 Kings 25 has also led people to conclude this. Some would even claim that this emphasis on the desolation of the rich elites was a kind of propaganda to make it easier to reclaim their old lands after the return from Babylon, rather than giving it up permanently to squatters and carpet-baggers and immigrants who took advantage of the "porous borders" over those years from when the desolations first began. I have my doubts that anyone could figure this out through archaeology, and this specific history is not in the Bible, so I take no sides on it except to give the Bible the credit for giving us all the important parts of the history that we need to know. If other things happened, they are not of much concern to the prophecies or lessons we are expected to derive from their experience during this period. But, for me, and for the same reasons, I treat that question as rather moot. That's because I have no particular stake in the specific chronology or politics of this period other than to recognize that the Bible places about 4 important events in the same short span of less than two years, and to note that the Bible again proves to be an accurate book of history and can even be supported by the evidence from archaeology during this period. There are four new fast days, evidently related to the the siege, the breaching of the wall, the burning of the Temple, and the death of the Governor (who was their "last hope of independent rule"). These events are all placed in the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, give or take a few months. So the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is still the primary key for the important events based on the Biblical account. Did you have another idea or proposal? One thing that might be important is to note that "Jerusalem" is destroyed in the sense of being the seat of God's Messianic kingdom. It's a judgment event of paramount importance because of what it represented and why it had been protected for so long in spite of wicked kings and corrupt religious practices. Even without the elite, the institutions fail, the economy fails; it is no longer a functioning nation without a capital. This is similar to why Tyre is forgotten for the entire 70 years of Babylonian power. It's a trading center that must plan imports and exports and prices. All that goes out the window if all the nations all around are threatened at any moment. Even if Tyre wasn't out of commission for 20% of that time period, it could no longer rise and function as a nation.

Thanks for making it so clear. I love it when someone can say in just a couple paragraphs what it takes me 15 pages to say.

Done already. I don't need to prove to you, you should know already. You should still be able to find at least one quotation that indicates this. You shouldn't say "done already" if it wasn't done. And as I explained above, I do already know that it isn't true. Russell did not predict any kind of war resembling WWI in 1914. This must be one of the reasons that Russell (after 1914 came and went) began using the year 1915 as the date for the end of the Gentile Times. That doesn't say a lot for whether there were any anointed in 1914 who were truly able to discern the sign in 1914, does it? Yet, that's how we define the beginning of the "two-group generation." In fact, the Watch Tower continued saying that Jesus' Parousia had begun in 1874 all the way up until the formal change in 1943/4, nearly 100 years after Barbour first started promoting 1874 as the date for Jesus' Parousia. It might even be why it wasn't until the 1920's that the Watch Tower ran the story of Russell announcing the End of the Gentile Times in early October 1914 (Can't give the exact day when that announcement happened, because it's also changed 3 different times.) As I said, I don't receive "special interpretation." I was referring to the way YOU defended a "special interpretation" by claiming that it was OK to use the least likely definitions of someone's words. The analogy I used was probably confusing. Sorry. By the way, these topics that reverted back to 1914-related subjects will probably go back to their respective topics where they started from.

It's possible, so I'll assume you're right. I'm going to try to get in some late edits that don't cause too much confusion so that I can remove my previous assumption that he purposefully pulled it out of context. In some ways, I felt it was a different kind of insult to him to assume he hadn't really understood what he was doing. Hard to find a middle ground here. @bruceq how does this have anything to do with what JW Insider said above? All he did was indirectly quote you, and said he finds it hard to understand. You might need to read it again, several times. It's a claim you made, after all! I think I know what he misunderstood here. I've seen A.S. do the exact same thing with the exact same reaction on a similar expression. In context, of course, he said he would ALWAYS prefer the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to the Bible even if he knows that specific teachings might be different. Several times I spelled this out and was clear that it was only "specific teachings" that he might know are wrong. But because it was clear from context, I left out the idea about certain "specific teachings" and accidentally wrote "the teachings." He was able to jump on that and decide that I must have meant that ALL the teachings must be different from what the Bible teaches. Historically, most of us have a bad habit of supporting "proof texts" vs. "context," so I should have seen it coming. I got a little more careful when engaging with A.S. because I'm sure you've seen how 'black and white" thinking with no room for subtlety or "gray areas" often results in this type of misunderstanding. It seems that words get culled and re-culled to find little snippets of "proof texts" for a preconceived notion. I've purchased CD's from bruceq, one of which contained several resources we have quoted from. I realized that this is an even bigger problem than I had ever noticed before, when we look to outside sources for quotes and support. Very often we just take a "proof text" without realizing that the context says almost the opposite. Even G.S., a writer at Bethel, was infamous for this kind of misunderstanding. He would read through newspapers and magazines searching for little phrases he could pull out of context. But as smart as he is, I don't think he always noticed when the context was saying the opposite. That's approximately what happened in both of these recent misunderstandings with bruceq.

Good idea. Please note that I have begun to split off some of the posts from several recent threads (like this one) that have been attracting a lot of discussion about whether questioning a teaching of the Governing Body is disloyal. Some apparently see testing/questioning/proving as a sign LOYALTY, because in areas where we may be concerned that current teachings might differ from the Bible, we are primarily concerned with truth, honesty, reasonableness, and showing primary loyalty to Jehovah and Jesus and the teachings found in the Bible. Some apparently see ANY questioning of the Governing Body as DISLOYATY and the equivalent of returning to the teachings of Christendom. If you have made posts HERE in this topic, but they were primarily about this Loyalty/Disloyalty issue, or discussing Christendom's teachings in general, or if they discussed the propriety of questioning the Governing Body, then your post is probably going to be found in this NEW TOPIC linked here. J.R.Ewing was not the originator of the topic or the person who came up with the title for the topic, it's just that in creating a new topic, the first post you take is the top post in that new topic: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/43613-governing-body-does-it-show-loyalty-or-disloyalty-to-question-the-gb/ Â

[edited to add the words in brackets] It's easy to understand that sentiment. What's hard to understand is why you claim that you will always prefer the [certain, specific] teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses even if you are aware that the Bible teaches something different [about those certain, specific teachings]. I'm really surprised that any Witness would admit that. Seriously!

It wasn't the 70 who filled the shoes of Moses, it was Jesus. This is why the example of Korah is so important. It is a lesson about how men want their own authority over others, when it was only Jesus Christ who we should accept as Head of the congregations. There are no others who should be treated as leaders. (Acts 3:20-22) . . .and he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus. 21 Heaven must hold this one within itself until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets of old. 22 In fact, Moses said: ‘Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. (Acts 7:37) 37 “This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel: ‘God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me.’ (1 Corinthians 10:2-4) 2 and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant the Christ. (Hebrews 3:1, 2) . . .Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses also was in all the house of that One. And of course: (Matthew 23:10) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. So clearly Hebrews 13 means that we follow the lead of elders in their examples of faith and the lead they take in encouraging fine works. (Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near. (Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.

Whatever Jesus tells us through his Congregation of course...not Christendoms teachings or a blogger from the internet promoting Christendom's teachings. Actually, you already conceded that this does not necessarily mean it is more likely, only that you would accept it as what you would be required to believe, whether it was true or not. Under another topic you just recently claimed that if you were in a first century congregation that you would have gone along with the body of elders if they told you the resurrection had already occurred. Had you been in a congregation between 1919 and 1925 you are admitting that you would have gone along with 1925 and promoted it even if you knew it was wrong. Your position of removing all responsibility for carrying your own load is sad when you compare it with the counsel we get in the Bible. This completely ignores the counsel that Paul gave to the Galatians: (Galatians 1:6-9) 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from the One who called you with ChristÂ’s undeserved kindness to another sort of good news. 7 Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. Paul said it didn't matter how highly regarded the men were that were preaching another sort of good news, they could be men of high regard, they could even be pillars in the congregation. In fact, they could even be "angels." But we should not accept any good news beyond what Christ Jesus tells us to follow. And who were these men that might have even been considered by some to be on par with "angels"? Let's see. Who is it that Paul makes a point of saying that he did NOT see when he went to Jerusalem? (Galatians 1:16, 17) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. Why do you think it was important for Paul to make it so clear that he did NOT go to Jerusalem where the apostles were? (Galatians 1:18-20) 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ce?phas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. Why make it a point that it was three years before he saw Peter or James, and even then for only 2 weeks, and that he did NOT see any of the other apostles? (Galatians 2:1-5) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Bar?na·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. Why do you think Paul considers it so important to say it wasn't until 14 whole years later that he visited Jerusalem again, and this time it wasn't because they called him, it was because he had a revelation to tell them? Obviously these men who were highly regarded were the apostles, especially. But he again makes a point that they weren't able to compel his traveling companion to be circumcised. He says the whole matter wouldn't have even come up if false brothers hadn't been brought in to spy on them. But he didn't yield in submission to them. What is so important about not yielding to the apostles and older men of Jerusalem. Again, who likely sent these false brothers who were brought in? (Galatians 2:12) 12 For before certain men from James arrived,. . . So who were these ones who "seemed to be important"? Who were these ones who "seemed to be pillars"? (Galatians 2:6-9) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a manÂ’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . . 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ce?phas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars. . . Today, we would call these ones the "Governing Body," right? So why does Paul go to so much trouble to tell the Galatians that they must be senseless for having listened to them, and been influenced by them? Why does he say they are accursed if they accepted teachings from the Governing Body that were not in line with what Jesus taught them? Do you think that Paul said this only to brag? Or was he making a point about following God instead of a Governing Body when it comes to doctrine? I'm sure you know the answer, but Paul gives it, too: (Galatians 1:10) 10 . . . .Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be ChristÂ’s slave. Jesus goes through the same issues to John in Revelation when he gives counsel about the various congregations. The representative of each congregation is called an "angel" here too. (Revelation 2:1, 2) 2 “To the angel of the congregation in Eph?e·sus write: . . . ‘I know your deeds,. . . and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . . This does not mean that we expect the leadership of the congregations or the Governing Body to mislead us. They surely would never do such a thing on purpose. But the verses show that it is right for us to put to the test those who seem to be important, those who seem to be pillars, those who are highly regarded, even the very ones we would now call the "Governing Body." Even we expect 99.9% of what is taught to be correct, it is still our own responsibility to put to the test those who teach doctrinal matters, because it is much more important to follow Christ wherever he goes. (Galatians 6:5) 5 For each one will carry his own load. Â

Of course it is quite possible for spirit creatures and God himself to be present but not visible. I notice that two of the most distinct and appropriate verses to this discussion were left out: (Matthew 18:19, 20) . . .. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” (Matthew 28:20) . . .And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” Here Jesus says he will be present with us wherever two or three are gathered in his name. And after he received "all authority in heaven and on earth" he says he is present with us until the Synteleia [final conclusion]. Of course, these verses must be studiously avoided if we are trying to make a case that Jesus is not present until his Parousia in 1914. Also because we probably don't wish to remind people that this would mean that Jesus is only present UNTIL 1914 when he for some reason receives MORE authority, after he already received ALL authority. So what is the need for a "presence" after 1914 is there if he is already present up until 1914? All this makes more sense of course, when we realize that Parousia did not mean a simple presence when used with reference to a king or ruler. It referred to a special visitation event that could include a display of power and glory, and could also include displays of judgment. If Jesus was already present in 1913 according to the two verses quoted above, then what is the more likely meaning of the Parousia? Presence or Visitation/Advent?

What is most interesting is that Jesus refers to coming in great power and glory after his disciples ask for a sign. Jesus is more likely saying that they won't get a sign because he is coming to perform this judgment event in power and great glory. There is no need for a sign because it will be sudden and without warning as to the time. The coming is the same as the parousia. Remember: (2 Thessalonians 2:8) . . .whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence 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. . .

If Jesus was visible and they could see that he was raised into heaven on a visible cloud until he was gone and they could not see him any more, then this is not proof that when he returns, his Parousia will not also be visible again. If I am watching an airplane leave the airport and watch it until a cloud finally takes it from my view, and I am told that the airplane will return in the same manner, I would merely expect it to be visible again when it comes back out of the clouds on the way back down. Besides, even the Reasoning book also admits that the manifestation of his power will have to be visible when the judgment event of the Parousia takes effect, at least in terms of the effects of destruction. We even have the new understanding that a time may come when all the remaining anointed persons might be "raptured" into heaven at the same time. We avoid the use of the term "rapture" because it carries some unnecessary religious baggage with it, but we now believe that the effect will be the same as it is understood in Christendom. *** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! *** 14 What will happen after Gog of Magog starts the attack on God’s people? Both Matthew and Mark record the same event: “[The Son of man] will send out the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity.” (Mark 13:27; Matt. 24:31) T. . . So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43. 15 Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . . So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.)

Thanks again for using scripture. By the way, although many people have implied it, I don't see the scriptures saying that Jesus will be visible as a human, or even as a spirit. What Jesus says is that the Parousia will be like lighting that shines from one horizon all the way over to the other horizon. (Discussed under the "Lightning" section of this topic.) If the Lord descends in glory and the angels with him, this still does not necessarily mean that every eye will see Jesus himself in a literal sense. We know that the resurrected Jesus materialized a human body before since he as a spirit, cannot be seen, and this can be true of the angels too. But this is not an argument that he will necessarily do that. (2 Thessalonians 2:8) . . .whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. This can be translated "brightness" of his presence, but it is not necessary. The word refers to visibility, but not necessarily of Jesus himself in any kind of bodily form. It's the "Parousia" that gets manifested . (Matthew 13:39-43) . . .The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. . . 41 The Son of man will send his angels, . . . 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.

Thanks for using scripture to make your point. Yes, it is possible to see something in this verse that could imply that the parousia might be over a period of several years. But there are two periods of time mentioned here. First, is the period of years in which the people of Noah's day were eating and drinking and going on with their lives, without any concern about an impending judgment event. Second, is the "day that Noah entered into the ark." So the question is whether it can be applied to the period of years before that day, or it can be applied to that day, or it can be applied to both. It's a legitimate question which is why we should refer to other references to Christ's parousia to see if this view of several years creates any contradictions with those other places. Previously, in this thread, that was already done. And the evidence tells us that "parousia" refers to a royal visitation or judgment event that comes at a time when it is too late to prepare. So it would be very applicable to say that it comes as a surprise during a time or a generation that is not prepared for it. If it is a judgment event, we would also see how it applied during the days of Lot and Sodom or the days of the Christians waiting for the judgment event upon Jerusalem in 70 CE. But the verses that apply most directly to the question would be those that apply to the final judgment event upon the world. There are a lot of Scriptures to that effect, I think one of them that wasn't dealt with 100% is one that you brought up earlier: (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) . . .that we the living who survive to the presence 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, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. Paul addressed the concern that some Christians had already fallen asleep in death and there was a concern that these ones might have to wait for some length of time or would miss out on the glory of that parousia when Jesus descends from heaven with a commanding call and God's trumpet. So Paul says that it should be "comforting" to those who are concerned that they will all be caught up together at the very same time. (as indicated in the Greek) In other words they would all share together at the time of the Parousia, whether some died before or some survived right up to Parousia. This does not speak about another set of people who live and die after the Parousia is in progress. If the Parousia really happened that way, then the comforting message would not mean as much because whoever was born and died after the Parousia would have missed that glorious event when Jesus descends and calls all the dead in Christ to be raised, so that the survivors can all witness this at the same time. If you notice this is exactly what Paul is saying when he says that we will ALL be changed at the same time, in the blink of an eye, both the dead and those who survive to the time when that happens. (1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) . . .We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed. Notice again that all are changed at the same time, in a moment, in the blink of any eye. Paul goes on to say that this is the time when Death is swallowed up forever. That would contradict the idea that those in union with Christ would be born after this Parousia begins and then die during that Parousia. In Greek, the expression is more likely "at the last trumpet" not "during the last trumpet". As in 1 Thess 4, it "a commanding call...with God's trumpet." Not a series of calls for each person who dies over a period of 100+ years.

I never claimed to get any special interpretations. In fact, I was talking about YOUR special interpretations. I'll assume you didn't understand this. I was referring to the ridiculous kinds of special interpretations that YOU defend when you pick the most unlikely meaning of each word to fit an interpretation. You claimed that we should defend the most unlikely meanings, because our interpretation SHOULD be the most unlikley, while Christendom accepts the most likely meaning. That's why I said "SUPPOSE" that I used the same ridiculous logic in order to MISunderstand what you were saying. For anyone who might think that this really was a question about claiming that I had a "special interpretation" then it should be obvious that I don't. The particular interpretations mentioned in this thread are very common in many of the commentaries that Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted in support of other doctrines. In fact we, as Jehovah's Witnesses, agree with probably 95% of all that is written in many or even most of the major commentaries, such as Barnes Notes or Matthew Henry etc. And many people of Christendom also agree with Jehovah's Witnesses that Matthew 24 is about how we will all see worsening signs that tell us that the great tribulation is near. Earlier I explained that this particular interpretation was something I learned from many other Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't think I would have ever come up with it on my own. Those persons who brought it up to me were well respected persons with high levels of responsibility, and several of them are still at Bethel in levels of high responsibility. Two of them are actually on the video that bruceq pointed out in a recent post in another thread: https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgMovies/pub-kyc_1_VIDEO

You did not include the context, and I can see why. This comes across as just as dishonest, although I'll assume you might not have realized this. [edited to replace some earlier assumptions] I never claimed to get any special interpretations. In fact, I was talking about YOUR special interpretations. I'll assume you didn't understand this. I was referring to the ridiculous kinds of special interpretations that YOU defend when you pick the most unlikely meaning of each word to fit an interpretation. You claimed that we should defend the most unlikely meanings, because our interpretation SHOULD be the most unlikley, while Christendom accepts the most likely meaning. That's why I said "SUPPOSE" that I used the same ridiculous logic in order to MISunderstand what you were saying. So, back to the question you pretended to ask: The context was how you @bruceq, could be misinterpreted if someone were to take your words and act as if some of the most unlikely meanings of your words So, to recap, you made a statement: . . . And I said that if I took the words in it and forced unlikely meanings on them that this would force a misinterpretation. You had also argued that if Christendom doesn't agree with an interpretation that it must therefore be right, which is also ridiculous on its own. So I asked you to imagine (I used the word "suppose") that I found a way to make your words mean something ridiculous. So I was also saying that [if I were using bruceq's logic], I could even defend my special interpretation, because I'm sure I could find persons in Christendom who understood it correctly, therefore they must be wrong and this unlikely interpretation would be right, according to your way of thinking. So I showed you what a ridiculous mistake I would be making if I used the methods you had just defended to defend this "special interpretation" of your meaning based on definitions of words were that were not only unlikely, they were ridiculous. I apologize that my previous assumptions here, made it appear that you were purposefully dishonest. Even if they weren't purposeful, your assumptions, after taking those words out of context, still appear to be dishonest, so I'm just suggesting that you look at context more carefully.

I don't know who you have me confused with, but the reason I never said anything like that is because I do not receive special interpretation. When the Watchtower has made such a claim for itself I believe it is referring to the fact that prayerful and serious consideration of the meaning of the Scritpures is the basis for doctrine, not that they are claiming any kind of "inspiration." You might find that the Watchtower has made some less careful claims in the past, even claiming that it was angels or other spirit creatures that have produced these "flashes of light" in his Temple since 1918. It is indicated that these "flashes of light" have the exact same effect as "inspiration" but they are not called "inspiration." Rutherford, as you probably know, promoted the doctrines as coming directly through angels because he claimed that the holy spirit was no longer available as of 1918.

If there are really hundreds more quotations he he made saying 1914 "would be indicated with a War," then you should at least be able to find ONE, wouldn't you agree? So far, you are "batting 0." Perhaps that's why your cartoon above needed to give the appearance of a "home run"?

5 years before the outbreak of World War I, the Watch Tower publications had already begun to change their tune about the original prediction. The original prediction, of course, was that a great time of violence, chaos and upheaval would begin happening well before 1914, and that 1914 would see an outbreak of PEACE! Watch Tower (July 15, 1894, p.226) "But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. This is very different from dozens of statements being made in our publications for a 100 years after that prediction. For example: *** g73 1/22 p. 8 Who Can Accurately Predict ManÂ’s Future? *** JehovahÂ’s witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of “the conclusion of the system of things.” You will also notice that not one of your quotations of these "predictions" actually comes from more than 5 years in advance. In fact, the claim that Jehovah's witnesses pointed to 1914 as the "start" of a time of trouble "decades in advance" is a false statement, and therefore a false teaching. But what about these statements from up to 5 years in advance? At the risk of going well over 30 seconds, I'll start with the first sentence here: So the "Gentile Times" were defined as the "Gentile lease of power" that would expire in 1914. In 1914 the nations, the gentiles, would have no more "lease of power." Only the nation of Israel would now have a lease of power because God's Kingdom would be set up in Israel. These powerless nations would fall into chaos, and a great time of trouble. It will be a "collapse" of nations. Obviously they would not have the power to fight wars on the scale of World War 1. No nations could emerge victorious from such a war, because the nations, the Gentiles, would have "collapsed." The violence was a violence of anarchy and chaos, because all human institutions will also have lost their power. The collapse would be quick and would effect every nation and every "neighbor" on earth. This did not happen. There was no short, sharp, decisive calamity upon every man in that year. The nations did not all collapse into powerless beds of chaos in that year. Instead a huge 4 year war broke out with many nations coming out with even MORE power at the end of it. Oddly, the one thing Russell forgot to predict here was a war where nation would fight against nation and kingdom against kingdom. Instead, the kind of powerless chaos that his predicted collapse entailed would have been emperors against their own people, business owners against their own labor forces. These would be the only remaining bits of power conflict because nations and institutions would have all collapsed in 1914.Â

Yes he did. I have read it several times in my own Studies in the Scriptures and Watch Towers of that era He said in 1914 there would be worldwide "turmoil" "universal anarchy" "war" "time of trouble" and many other words to describe that year as different than any previous. I'll get to those references soon. The point I am making is that you can't say you predicted something for 1914 if 100% of the predictions for that year failed. Even the so-called prediction that it would see the end of the Gentile Times failed. The only way we could pretend that it worked was to redefine what the "Gentile Times" were. It's as if we had predicted that the Oakland A's would beat the Boston Braves in the 1914 World Series (baseball). But then the Boston Braves swept the Oakland A's that year by beating them in four games (4 to 0). So, to still be right, we simply redefine what we meant by the term "beat." Let's say that we choose to say that, by the word "beat," we really meant that in the long run the tide would start to change for the Boston Braves in that fateful year and that within a generation, no one would hear about the "Boston Braves" anymore but that the "Oakland A's" would go on to be a world-renowned name. We may have changed the meaning of the terms, but at least we could not say that we correctly predicted that the Oakland A's would beat the Boston Braves in 1914. In fact, we could go to the history books and prove that the Boston Braves, after sweeping Oakland 4-0 in 1914, finally lost their lease of the "South End Grounds" in 1914 and started playing at the new "Braves Field" in Boston. Then, within a generation, they became the Milwaukee Braves, and finally went to Atlanta. Yes, the Boston Braves were "beaten" in 1914, just like we predicted. How fantastic is that??!!?? With that in mind you will understand exactly why I made the point about 100% of the predictions for 1914 failing. To see what I mean, just start with your National Labor Tribune article, which carried a 1910 sermon by Russell . . . [next post]

If I remember right, is it those Bible discussions that eventually led to the "dissidency"? I don't think it was just reading and discussing the Bible, but it was coming up with another interpretation, which they liked better than the official JW teaching..... We are way off topic here (not your fault) but it's impossible to discuss a controversial topic without such subjects coming up. I think that what happened was fairly obvious only to those who watched the tension build up from about 1975 until 1979. The big blow-up actually happened internally in the late spring of 1979 but the repercussions didn't start happening until the spring of 1980, when heads first started to roll. (My work at Bethel started in 1976 and lasted until 1982.) What really happened is much more complex, and I don't think it had much of anything to do with the popularity of group Bible reading. I think the crackdown on group Bible reading was just a knee-jerk response. If I had to simplify it, I'd say . . . . . we need another topic to discuss this, because it's just not that simple.

You are right. I never tied his mindset as the cause so directly to his debating as the effect.

I think that is the job that journalists should have, to uncover issues that need to be fixed. If it's not their job to fix it, then that should be left to someone else. Of course, I don't confuse CNN, MSNBC, FOX and nightly broadcast news with journalism, either. Fuel for flamethrowers is always out there, whether some of it gets discussed here or not. But it's good for us to know what's true and what's exaggerated. When to duck and when to ignore. But we don't want to expose ourselves further by simply hiding our head in the sand. And we don't want to deny things that it is dishonest to deny. I don't know about that. We all have defense mechanisms that just seem to rise up when we feel our comfort level threatened. Among each other, here, we may act one way, but we are better prepared for what we will see more and more of outside here. We are going to face more and more people who are info-savvy, even in our own congregations. (My own children found jwfacts before I did.) They will see direct evidence that something is true, ask us about it, and hear some of us deny that there is even a grain of truth to it. They might wonder what kind of "truth" this is. (My own mother will probably instinctively deny that Brother Jackson ever testified anywhere on "that" subject, for example.) Yet, if a transition toward more openness, realism, and truth is evident anywhere, even here, then it's a start toward healing ourselves of a pervasive pride of ignorance. When we truly make the truth our own, we will be better equipped to defend and emphasize the more important things, when someone brings up details about lesser things. It's a better question that you might think. There was an "old guard" who were known to be very insular and clearly felt threatened by discussions. It's true that they literally thought that it was some kind of attack on them if groups of brothers and sisters were meeting together just to read and discuss the Bible reading without Society publications at their side at all times. I was there for the crackdown on such gatherings that had become popular from about 1975 to 1979 when the brothers handling morning worship were beginning to make statements that sounded paranoid. But most of these brothers had been life-long bureaucrats inside a Tower all their lives. But the "new crew" is mostly from circuit work, missionary work, with only a reasonable amount of branch level work. There are more married couples. We speak about how Jesus was taught by Jehovah and this includes the fact that he has lived as a natural human, has become "one of us." Compare: (Hebrews 5:1, 2) 5 For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal compassionately with the ignorant and erring ones, since he too is confronted with his own weakness, Compare: (James 5:17) 17 E·liʹjah was a man with feelings like ours. . .

Of course since Jesus is the head of the Congregation not you or any of the brothers back then. Try to look at it spiritually instead of physical. This is actually not the answer I expected. It's because Jesus is the Head of the congregation that I would think we'd know better. It's because we look to a spiritual Head of the congregation instead of physical men that we should know better. (2 Timothy 2:16-19) 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some. 19 Despite that, the solid foundation of God remains standing, having this seal, “Jehovah knows those who belong to him,” and, “Let everyone calling on the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.” How are we obligated to believe something and we are obligated to reject it at the same time? Today we also live in a time when the Governing Body has inherited a tradition that claimed that the resurrection has already occurred. You don't feel like as if you are required to test this doctrine and make sure before you begin believing it and promoting it yoursel?