JW Insider

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?

I am so sorry @bruceq if you think such experiences would need turn someone sour and bitter. I am happy for all the experiences I've had in the organization, and a few eye-opening experiences can enhance our appreciation. A look at our history might cause some embarrassment now and then, but look what Jehovah has been able to accomplish. We look at the history of God's people in the Scriptures the same way. There is no reason for responding the way you describe. Such things are easily dismissed by those who focus on the more important things. There were legalistic men leading the Jewish religion in Jesus' day, and they bound heavy burdens on people, telling them that they must follow them. But Jesus said to go ahead and do whatever they tell you to do. (Matthew 23:3-4) 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say. 4 They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, . . . We don't "grouse" about such burdens but come to love and respect all our brothers, because none of us expect perfection from each other. Besides, such burdens are to be considered as "nothing" among the true Christian congregation. Activity properly motivated is a joy. Our load is light and we find daily refreshment in spiritual things. Do you ever see someone read about David and Uriah, and say, "Oh No! Now I'm bitter and sour"? Instead it makes us all the more aware that Jehovah can allow grave imperfections and still love us, and all the injustice that goes on in this life is easily made up for in Jehovah's timetable. Anything happening to us now can be overcome with Jehovah's help. Everything that ever happened to us, happened to us in the past. We should not be so self-centered as to think that we need to carry issues from the past and pretend that we still need to carry them today. (Matthew 6:34) . . .So, never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Sufficient for each day is its own badness. We can certainly LEARN from past problems, and we should. All things can be for our instruction and discipline. If we see lessons in these experiences, we can help others learn from those experiences and lessons. On your points about doctrine, well that is just a philosophy that works for you. There are certain traditions that are strongly entrenched, and some of these can make the word of God invalid. If you lived in a congregation in the first century and the the body of elders taught that the resurrection had already occurred, you really think you would be obligated to believe it, just because the Bible said that you must be obedient to those taking the lead among you? Following the lead referred to imitating the faith of those whose examples strengthened faith. It meant following the instructions of those who took the lead in good works. When it comes to doctrine, we are required to use our powers of reason, we are required to test it, we are required to question, if we wish to be noble-minded. We have the Bible itself to speak in agreement about, not someone's specific or current interpretation. One of the reasons I bring up past issues with doctrines is so that we can remember the lessons learned. For example, you can replace the date 1914 with the date 1925, since the Governing Body taught that as an undeniable truth, even more sure than 1914. During those years are you really saying it was your obligation to believe and teach and promote 1925, or was it your obligation to "make sure of all things"? I'm really interested in your answer to that question. Are you willing to respond to it?

This is interesting. What publication before Russell specified 1914AD? show the reference publications, please! You and I have already shared photocopies on this forum showing how John A Brown pointed to the 1914 period as a potentially significant time. What I said above is based on the Proclaimer's book: *** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth *** As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel Those were the two sources from Christendom where Nelson Barbour would have picked up on 1914, at least indirectly for the first, and evidently directly for the second. I think you already know that John A Brown said that the Mohammedan Imposture started in 622 and ends 1,260 "days" later in 1844. The 1,290 ending in 1873, and that the 1,335 days ending in 1917. Therefore the three-and-one-half Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. ended in 1844, per Brown. (For these he used "lunar" years.) But the 7 times of Daniel 4 (not the Gentile Times) would run from 604 BC to 1917 AD. (Starting at approximately the beginning of the Babylonian empire, 18 years before Jerusalem was burned, and claiming that the "destruction or first captivity of the Jewish nation" started even before Nebuchadnezzar became king, back in 606, the same year that Russell mistakenly took for the destruction of the Temple. Brown said: "This second judgment synchronises with the war of Gog of Magog, at the close of the 1290 years, and extends until the close of the 1,335 years of Daniel. This attended by the general judgment . . . " (page xxxvii). In other words the prophecy for this war ran from 1873 until 1917, not only including 1914, but covering almost the exact time period of Nelson Barbour's harvest, in this case 1873-1917. × Page 130 and 131 mention that this is the time for the sitting in judgment of the beasts, especially "Rome," and the period of gradual decay and burial of Gog of Magog. As you must be aware, it was not Miller but E. B. Elliott in Horae Apocalypticae, who first in the 1844 edition, and also in the 1847 edition, included the following: (text version here: http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/05 Horae Third Edition Chronology.htm ) And, 1st, on the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and state of bestialism: {1} These calculated after the year-day system, on the hypothesis of the Babylonish king's insanity figuring that of the great empires which he then headed, in their state of heathen aberration from God, (an hypothesis on the truth of which I do not myself entertain much doubt,) terminate, -- if dated from the time, B.C. 727, . . . -about the year 1793; . . . Of course if calculated from Nebuchadnezzar's own accession and invasion of Judah, B.C. 606, the end is much later, being A.D. 1914;

Thanks for showing such true concern. It's deeply appreciated. Those old posts are still in this thread. The ones that were moved to a separate thread (so far) made up 6 or 7 of the 20 pages of this thread. So those posts are still here, and in the same order, but by moving so many near-adjacent posts, they fall on different pages now. Regarding Bethel experiences, I look back on all of it overall with fond and happy memories. I know there was an initial shock, not so much at the existence of cursing and abusive behavior, but at the pervasiveness and acceptance of it among those with high levels of responsibility. I just typed up two cases that I thought were informative to your point but removed them to avoid raising new topics. The point was that I sometimes mistook mildness and meekness for humility, when it could also be paired with the height of egotism. And in another case where a brother ranted loudly and even slammed a newly published book across the room, I came to appreciate that he really thought he was protecting the worldwide congregation from error. As a young person, I didn't have the tools to understand people very well, and for many years still we continue to learn from new experiences that shed light on old ones. But when we realize and accept that some negative type of behavior is widespread, we also tend to accept it ourselves too easily, I think. And I'm sure the level of privilege has something to do with that. I had excellent and wonderful assignments, and I wouldn't have risked them to give any kind of feedback to someone who could control my assignments. I would expect an argument here and there in the bindery or pressroom, and yet I heard they were rare. I wondered if they were worse among persons of greater responsibility. These weren't daily occurrences, of course, because we always tend to remember and highlight the exceptions. Even if those exceptions are negative. Obviously, when it comes to doctrinal questions, I do the same thing here on the forum. I could go on and on about why our stance on war, hell and Trinity, for example, is such a good thing in that doesn't just set us apart, but also produces a much healthier Christianity than we could expect from those who see things differently. But instead, I assume we all know that alrady and try to share something that I think we probably do wrong, and which I believe can hurt our Christianity and spirituality unless we look into it. (By the way, I mostly push the idea that we look into something even if my reasons appear too strongly promoted. I don't usually have a specific solution about exactly what we must do to resolve the issues that arise. I think that's what a Governing Body is for. I might have ideas but don't think it's my place to push a specific solution when there are multiple choices of solutions. However, I always think that discussions can help prepare us for change, and will promote less dogmatism, and therefore more humility in the meantime. This helps us empathize with those we meet in field service and other interested persons.) On the issue of false rumors starting from nothing, I know it doesn't make much sense. We'd rather believe there was a kernel of truth to them. But in this case, I think I was there to watch the germination of a different kind of phenomenon. I saw brothers and sisters change from being loving to almost literally "spitting" in a split second when they heard about the "apostasy" charges that several persons received. It was the incongruent variety of extra charges that were heaped upon some of the brothers and sisters that got to me. Within days, these might have coalesced into only one or two charges that were finally settled upon, but even these were clearly far-fetched and sometimes contradictory. I think it's more of a matter of our own minds not being able to manage the "justice" of casting out brothers and sisters that were so loving and kind and would do anything for you yesterday, but were called a disgusting cancer today. I think the mind just needs to create a story to solve the dissonance. Your point about looking forward instead of back is so apt. I have three children, and in raising them, we often made the mistake of trying to draw out every detail of a conflict between any two of them. We wanted the whole story each time. Each person's version, and then as parents we know doubt imposed on our own compromised versions on top of it to make it coherent. What a waste of time! Your counsel to look forward, and focus on what we'll all do in the future to help each other avoid conflict creates on-going trust and therefore misconceptions and imputed bad motives don't have so much "breeding" room. I have a feeling that the current GB get along many times better than the 17 at once during my tour of duty. I hear from a friend that these kinds of issues are more likely only from the more competitive among the "helpers." I visited Patterson early last year (and Brooklyn Bethel, too, but it doesn't tell you as much any more) and I see a much more professional group who appear less likely to let education levels, class differences, and various insecurities get in the way.

It's back on your post in this thread from Monday, 8/21/2017 time-stamped at 5:20pm in my time zone (EST). In that post you asked: " Should "series" always be in quotes, when referring to these clay tabs of Babs?" You can tell from the context (of your original post) that she is discussing the fact that Grayson calls ALL of them a part of the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" which she sees as appropriate only up to a point, but does not see the same continuity especially between certain of the chronicles and major eras represented in the "Series" with such a long gap in between. Grayson almost always refers to the entire set of chronicles as the "Babylonian Chronicle Series:" And Grayson defends the use of the term "series." So, you are right. And I did not catch the full gist of your question. I thought you were asking about the grammar of requiring quotation marks when referring to the "Babylonian Chronicle Series." You can see that the answer to the grammar question is 'NO' by her use of quotation marks only in the capitalized word, and comparing it with his use, without quotation marks, in the non-capitalized word. But if you were referring to the point of her argument itself, then it's obvious you already know that she takes exception his continued use of the term "Babylonian Chronicle Series" because she thinks the word "Series" connotes too much continuity. Â Â

Of course that could be part of what he has in mind, but Russell never predicted the start of the Great War we now call World War I.

Really? And what was that spot-on prediction that Russell made? Please provide a reference if you have it.

Not to worry. This isn't a real thread. Not exactly anyway. I was asked to try my hand at splitting off some of the diversionary topics from the thread called: Perhaps you heard of it. Well, as you can tell from the image attached to the link, above, it quickly turned into thread about buzzards and elephants and even took a detour down Broadway. So I did a quick review of the thread and decided that it might be good to just see if I can split off only several of the side topics, so that this new thread becomes a place for the obvious side topics that always come up in a 1914 discussion, such as: You have no right to discuss this because it's apostasy even to bring it up! You must be a follower of Carl Olof Jonsson You must be a follower of Raymond Franz You are not being loyal and faithful to the Governing Body You must have bad motives, ego issues, etc. etc. In addition since that other thread is at least 15 pages too long, this new one will likely have a lot of free space, comparatively. So we might also just move over a few of the posts that weren't directly responding to the subject, although they might make interesting side topics, which could even be broken off of this thread someday. Feel free to make suggestions. I wouldn't worry about this too much. In a few days, probably both of these threads could move to the back of the line. For anyone who worries about such things I won't move posts if I find out that it loses any reactions it had. Wouldn't want to change that. But I'm also worried about the chronological order of the posts and continuity of comments. So if it's not working out, then most things will just stay where they were.

You think I can control this thing? I'm at least half the problem! [edited to add:] Notice: Since this thread is so long. I might be splitting off some of the unrelated topics to other threads. I just learned that I can do this, so I will only move my own at first to get used to this awesome power. Also, I have no interest in moving around every little comment that people make just because it's off topic. There would be no point to breaking off to a musical-themed thread, for example, because I don't think anyone expected to start a full-blown discussion on that topic. But there have been a few topics that might be interesting as stand-alone topics.

Spiritism and astrology have had in influence on a lot of our words. Speaking of "influence," consider how the word "influenza" was also a reference to how a certain illness was due to the "influence" of bad stars. And speaking of "consider," the word comes from Latin for concerning oneself "with the stars" con=with + siderial=star, although that one could have been made up by some "lunatic" (influenced by the moon). And even "chronology" is from the god Saturn who was "Chronos" in Greek, the god of time. Ultimately we even get words like martial from Mars, and more obvious ones like mercurial, saturnine, capricious (Capricorn), jovial (Jove/Jupiter), venerial (Venus) Love your library.