JW Insider

The Librarian I just noticed the new addition to your first response, beginning with the point about Melchizedek and the notes on Psalm 110, that will provide a couple more counterpoints to the initial proposition. (Now we are getting somewhere!) I'll try to flesh out what your arguments might be, based on the words you highlighted in bold text, and the events marked in the margin, and your final question. You also quoted Psalm 110 in its entirety, with some commentary, applying different verses to different points and events. Before discussing the commentary and question, below, let's point out something that is "admitted" in your opening comments above about Jesus being the high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek. The book of Hebrews discusses the point that Jesus would not have been a priest according to the Law of Moses, yet there was a precedent prior to Moses under which Jesus would qualify to bless the nation promised to Abraham, and all the nations of the earth. Melchizedek, was not just a priest, but a king and priest simultaneously. Will Jesus become such a priest who is king and priest simultaneously? Or could it be said that we already had such a priest who is king and priest simultaneoulsy? Obviously, Hebrews, written between 33 C.E. and 70 C.E. says we already have such a priest. Hebrews is our best commentary on the meaning of Psalm 110. Recall, too, that the book was written to the Hebrews, and therefore they could not hear the name Melchizedek without hearing "KING of righteousness." M-L-CH unambiguously meant "king" and Z-D-K unambiguously meant "righteousness." ("Salem" like "shalom" means "peace") I already quoted portions of the first two chapters of Hebrews which presents a powerful image of royalty, where Jesus is sitting on the throne of Majesty, with the scepter of his Kingdom. He already has angels as servants and ministers. The very words of the kingly appointment have already been stated on his behalf from Jehovah himself. In no particular order, I'll highlight some of these verses: (Hebrews 8:1) 8 Now this is the main point of what we are saying: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, (Hebrews 7:26) 26 For it is fitting for us to have such a high priest who is loyal, innocent, undefiled, separated from the sinners, and exalted above the heavens. (Hebrews 7:14-17) 14 For it is clear that our Lord has descended from Judah [tribe of the KINGLY line], yet Moses said nothing about priests coming from that tribe. 15 And this becomes even clearer when another priest arises who is like Mel·chizʹe·dek [KING of righteousness], 16 who has become such, not by the legal requirement that depends on fleshly descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is said in witness of him: “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek [KING of righteousness].” (Hebrews 6:20-7:2) . . .Jesus, who has become a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek forever. 7 For this Mel·chizʹe·dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham . . . First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” (Hebrews 5:5) 5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” [This was the "formula" for anointing kings in the Bible. see: (Psalm 2:6, 7) 6 Saying: “I myself have installed my king On Zion, my holy mountain.” 7 Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah; He said to me: “You are my son; Today I have become your father. (Hebrews 1:8) 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. Then you asked if it would be proposed that the events of vss. 1-4 happen at the same time. Yes. Absolutely. All of these events must have happened just when the Bible says they happened. Jesus was appointed at the beginning of his ministry around 29 C.E., and was made a high priest and king according to the manner of Melchizedek, when he was raised to God's right hand. "Sit at my right hand" was unquestionably when he was raised to heaven. You may have placed this closer to Pentecost, although the Watchtower usually has placed this at the time of Jesus' ascension. "Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet" has been understood as if Jesus was sitting and waiting inactively until 1914. Paul understood it differently, and the context of Hebrews and many other scriptures indicates this. Remember, of course, that a king can actually "sit" on a throne and be king, he doesn't have to "stand up" to be king. It is highly disrespectful to claim that someone who Jehovah has raised up to sit upon the throne of Majesty is not fully a king, or even to claim that he had waited inactively for 1,881 years. It is just as disrespectful to say that the time when he ended the times of the nations started only in 1914, at a time when more nations and more national groups, and more national rulers became more powerful than ever before. How does that reflect on Jesus as a "newly installed King" in 1914? How does it show respect for the same person who told us that the final judgment on the nations would come without warning, if we insert a doctrine that indiscreetly claims that there is now a specific generation of warning that started in 1914? Remember that Jesus, in this context, said not to follow anyone who says "the due time has approached," yet this is still a primary focus of our ministry. But I digress: The Biblical way to understand the expression "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet" was already given by Paul when he says that this means that Jesus must "rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet." (1 Corinthians 15:25) That's the same as saying that Jesus must "rule as king" in the midst of his enemies until all these enemies are subdued. In other words, Jesus has been ruling in the midst of his enemies since 33 C.E., while Satan is still the "god of this system of things," while death still rules, while famine and war and pestilence have continued through the centuries, and Jesus, in effect, rides on a white horse conquering right alongside them. The evidence that this is the Biblical understanding is given in several verses that indicate that Jesus was already given all authority in heaven and on earth. So he can't really get more authority. Gaining a kingship 1,881 years later is therefore nonsensical. All things were made subject in terms of his authority. The fact that a long time period is involved is part of Jehovah's purpose to maximize the salvation offered, yet display his power and kingship for all time through his Son. All things were made subject, but from a human standpoint, we won't yet see all things in subjection until final action is taken. We see this my combining the ideas in a few different passages: (1 Cor. 15:24) Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. (1 Corinthians 15:26-28) 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. (Ephesians 1:20-23) 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come. 22 He also subjected all things under his feet and made him head over all things with regard to the congregation, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all. (Hebrews 2:7, 8) . . .you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. (Hebrews 2:14, 15) . . .so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, 15 and that he might set free all those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death. Jehovah will extend the scepter of your power out of Zion, saying: “Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.” This was marked as an event tied to 1914. As already shown, the Bible indicates that the the scepter of his power had already been extended out of Zion. That Christians have gone on conquering under the scepter of Christ's power is a theme of dozens of Scriptures: (Hebrews 1:8) ". . .and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." (Hebrews 12:22, 23) 22 But you have approached a Mount Zion and a city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels 23 in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens, and God the Judge of all, and the spiritual lives of righteous ones who have been made perfect, (1 Peter 2:6-9) 6 For it says in Scripture: “Look! I am laying in Zion a chosen stone, a precious foundation cornerstone, and no one exercising faith in it will ever be disappointed.” 7 It is to you, therefore, that he is precious, because you are believers;. . . 9 But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession. 3 "Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force. In splendid holiness, from the womb of the dawn, You have your company of young men just like dewdrops." This verse was tied to 1914 and the "birth of a nation" which has been tied more closely to 1919. However, the verses already quoted from 1 Peter 2, above, show that the "holy nation" already existed. Paul says the same in identifying Jerusalem "today" where that "today" was less than 20 years from 33 C.E. The idea in Matthew 28 is that Jesus is already a king with full authority who can "command" a company, a military force. And Jesus sets that time period from the time of this statement, in 33 C.E. when he was given "all authority" right up until the conclusion. (Technically this would mean only until 1914, per the Watchtower's definition of "until the synteleia," but the Watchtower makes an exception here, and considers the bulk of this work to start after the conclusion has begun.) (Galatians 4:25, 26) . . .Siʹnai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. (Matthew 28:17-20) 17 When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted. 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” 4 Jehovah has sworn an oath, and he will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek!” You tied this to 29 B.C.E. By that, I assume that you mean Jesus baptism in 29 C.E. This appears to be Scriptural, so I have no additional response on this point. This is the "anointing" of a special kind of King and "High Priest" simultaneously. The actual words used at the baptismal anointing, were the same as the words used to anoint a King. Taking the office of King or Priest, just as with David, was not simultaneous with the appointment that designated him. During Jesus ministry it was important that his disciples, at least, began to understand both these roles: the forgiveness of sins, and the Kingdom's power. It was a glimpse of things to come. The Kingdom was already in their midst, if they had faith to see it: (Matthew 8:7-11) 7 He said to him: “When I get there, I will cure him.” 8 The army officer replied: “Sir, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but just say the word and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard that, he was amazed and said to those following him: “I tell you the truth, with no one in Israel have I found so great a faith. 11 But I tell you that many from east and west will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of the heavens; (Matthew 3:1, 2) . . .In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Ju·deʹa, 2 saying: “Repent, for the Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” [And many more...] Of course, we already saw from Hebrews that we already have a king-priest like Melchizedek since 33 C.E., so we don't need to repeat all that. The rest of the verses are not part of the current question, and I see no Biblical issues with those comments.

If I were the householder with this proposal as an objection and you were the Witness, then I guess you just offered the initial line of defense. Maybe two lines of defense. COUNTERPOINT #1: I think the first line of defense is that "to secure a kingdom" implies a process. COUNTERPOINT #2: The second line of defense is in the wording of the version of the "royal procession" found in Luke 19:38 says: “Blessed is the One coming as the King in Jehovah’s name!" Response to COUNTERPOINT #1: So let's take them one at a time. Does "to secure a kingdom" imply a process? Maybe. It doesn't say. If you secure your house it might be locking the door. If you secure a title or office, and you were already someone of royal lineage, then it may be because it was now time, and you merely accepted the title offered. So yes, it may be a process. But how long does that process take? 3 days? 10 seconds? 40 days? The Watchtower says that it took 1881 years. (That's 1,881 years from 33 C.E. to 1914 C.E.) At a minimum, it was the amount of time it took from the time Jesus died, was resurrected, and possibly counted only from his ascension 40 days after his resurrection. At any rate, according to the Scriptures quoted in the first post and several others, it was when he was raised to sit at the right hand of God. Paul says "sit at the right hand of God" is the equivalent of "rule as king." This is obvious, not just from the verses quoted but from the contexts of entire paragraphs in the Scriptures: I'm thinking of the speeches in Acts 2, the discussion in Hebrews 5-8 about Melchizedek "King of Righteousness" and "King of Peace," etc. Even the opening of Hebrews offers a view of the current royal power of Jesus Christ. Let's go ahead and add that to the list of passages to overcome. A close look at the context shows that it already answers the question about when Jesus "secured" the kingdom. It's the equivalent of being "appointed heir of all things" using similar language to that which Jesus used in the parable: (Hebrews 1:2-2:14) 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. 5 For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” 7 Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. . . . 13 But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all spirits for holy service, sent out to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation? . . . 5 For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. . . . 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone. . . . 14 Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly shared in the same things, so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil. So, even if we accept that "securing" is a process -- and we have no real Scriptural or linguistic reason to do so -- then we still have to attempt to overcome the many Scriptures that state that Jesus was already the King, king of kings, sitting on a throne of royal power, with a kingly scepter, with all things already subjected to him, where all authority had already been granted to him in heaven and on earth, where Jehovah left nothing that is not subject to him. But we have a bigger problem if we claim that when Jesus returns with royal power that this is a long period of time. In fact, the long passage that you quoted from Luke gives us the Scriptural view that Jesus returns to judge and appoint his slaves over his belongings. Even the parable of the "faithful and unfaithful slaves" in Matthew 24:45 which is actually quite similar, is no longer considered to be a viable parable about appointing the faithful slave in 1919 as the Watchtower once did. That appointment over all his belongings is still future, right? Response to COUNTERPOINT #2 It's not very useful to point out that Luke's version uses the term "as the King" instead of "as King." I assume that the argument intended to compare the phrase "as the King" instead of saying "the King" so that the word "as" implies someone who is not yet fully King. This particular scene was repeated in all four of the gospel accounts, and I'd say each one of them actually points to something that's potentially a bit future. So the term King-designate is just fine for describing the situation during the processions to Jerusalem. But pay special attention to the final one in John, where the point was made specifically that it didn't fully make sense until Jesus was glorified. Luke 19:37, 38) . . ., 38 saying: “Blessed is the one coming as the King in Jehovah’s name!. . . (Mark 11:9, 10) . . .Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! 10 Blessed is the coming Kingdom of our father David!. . . (Matthew 21:5-9) . . .‘Look! Your king is coming to you, . . . Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! . . . (John 12:13-16) . . .“Save, we pray you! Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name, the King of Israel!” . . . Look! Your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.” 16 These things his disciples did not understand at first, but when Jesus was glorified, they recalled that these things were written about him and that they did these things to him. It should be pretty clear, even from this set of Scriptures, that Jesus actually was the King-designate, until his glorification in 33 C.E. So now we have the timing that makes sense in all of the other verses mentioned in the first post. Thanks for engaging. Good practice! (1 Peter 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.

In the next room, I can hear that political news from CNN is on the television, and various presidential candidates are bragging about their propositions and their positions on various issues. Even though they try to sound "seasoned with salt" during these speeches, they are still trying to dig at opponents, aggrandize themselves, brag about their resumes, and spin their failures as if they were accomplishments. There is a big difference between speaking words "seasoned with salt" and those who try to get under each others' skin and then rub salt in the wounds. It's times like this when we especially love the up-building speech of our brothers and sisters, and enjoy the preview of paradise. I like the NWT cross references that show that the real context of the verse is about how we respond to others. Something to always improve in, especially in contexts such as these kinds of forums: (Colossians 4:6) 6 Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person. (1 Peter 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. (2 Timothy 2:23-25) 23 Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. 24 For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.. . .

Conversation started from this daily text: ------ Let me take a big risk here and propose a "debate" position for anyone who might wish to play either Devil's advocate, Watchtower's advocate or Bible's advocate. I am suggesting that the Bible disagrees with the Watchtower on this particular point. So I'll play "Bible's advocate." Any takers? Point 1: The Bible never actually says that Jesus did not immediately secure full Kingdom power when he got back to heaven. Just because a king doesn't accomplish everything he finally plans to accomplish by the end of his very first year doesn't mean that he wasn't already a king in that first year. Point 2: In fact, the Apostle Paul disagreed wholeheartedly with this idea, too. When Paul paraphrases Psalm 110 in 1 Corinthians 15:25, he doesn't say that Jesus sat down at the right hand of God waiting until he became king. Paul replaces the words of Psalm 110:1 as follows: (Psalm 110:1) “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” (1 Cor. 15:25) "For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet." So we know that Paul believed that "sitting at God's right hand" was the equivalent of "ruling as king." Therefore, Jesus did not wait until he secured full Kingdom power at a later date, he secured it immediately. Point 3: The rest of the Bible provides evidence that Jesus received full kingly power at the time of his resurrection, not at some future time: (Matthew 28:17, 18) 17 When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted. 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. (Philippians 2:9, 10) 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground. . . (1 Timothy 6:14, 15) . . .our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, (Revelation 17:14) 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings,. . . (Revelation 1:5) 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”. . . (Colossians 1:13) 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, (Colossians 1:15, 16) 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. . . . (Ephesians 1:19-22) . . .. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come. 22 He also subjected all things under his feet. . . (Philippians 2:8-10) . . .death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— (2 Timothy 4:1) . . .I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom: (Acts 17:7) . . .All these men act in opposition to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.” (Acts 7:55, 56) 55 But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.”

Here is a final part ("part three") of the comments mostly taken from the site I cited in the previous post. That site isn't the most organized, but I chose it due to the way it presents an interesting parallel that so many Christian denominations have faced when they consider whether they should follow the Jewish customs that informed the Memorial or follow the traditions that won out over the next two hundred years. In fact, here is something the Watchtower mentioned when they accidentally announced an "Easter" season date instead of the "Passover" season date in the April 1913 Watchtower: MEMORIAL CELEBRATION APRIL 20th In our issue of February 1st the Memorial Celebration was noted for March 20th, after 6 P.M. This was an error. It should have been April 20th. The March date would have been right according to the Episcopalian and Catholic reckonings of the first full moon after the Spring Equinox marking the Passover. However, it has been our custom to follow the Jewish reckoning, which makes it, this year, Sunday evening, April 20th, after 6 P.M. If any thereby memorialized a month in advance they will have a good opportunity to celebrate a second time, if they choose. In an article on this same subject in the 1908 Watchtower, Smith's Bible Dictionary was quoted where it gave one of the historical reasons not to follow the Jewish reckoning: "Although the Gregorian calculations have been made with great nicety they are still imperfect, and other alterations must take place in future ages. As a proof the Council of Nice ordered that Easter should not be kept on the same day as the first day of Passover, in order that there might be no appearance of Judaism in it; 'Ne videantur Judaizare,' to prevent which they ordered its observance on the Sunday after the full moon, Passover being always kept on the day of the full moon; and yet in 1825 both were kept on the same day." Yet in this same article, Brother Russell, voted for changing it to always land on the Thursday closest to the Passover date, for similar reasons: (Watchtower, February 1908, p.37): The writer and many others would incline to celebrate the Memorial Supper annually on the Thursday night most closely corresponding to the original celebration, for several reasons. (1) That would bring the celebration into its proper relationship to Sunday, which is the remembrancer of our Lord's resurrection. (2) At that season Easter Sunday is quite generally celebrated as a special memorial of our Lord's resurrection. (3) The celebration of the Memorial Supper on the evening of what is by many styled "Holy Thursday" would of itself be a powerful lesson to many of our dear Christian friends who now think us "odd," or "followers of a Jewish custom," because, without study, which they will not give, they cannot understand our position For this reason it is curious that up until 1925 when Brother Rutherford wrote the book "Comfort for the Jews" he still believed in the Jewish restoration of Palestine, and was therefore a Zionist, although not as strongly and actively as Russell had been. Yet in 1927, the Watchtower publications first started printing anti-Semitic statements, and by 1930 Rutherford abolished the Zionists views of Russell. He replaced them officially with a series of books in 1931. Here is one of those quotes from the 2/23/1927 Golden Age:. "Be it known once and for all that those profiteering, conscienceless, selfish men who call themselves Jews, and who control the greater portion of the finances of the world and the business of the world, will never be the rulers in this new earth. God would not risk such selfish men with such an important position" p.343 - [1927] Here's one from 1932 (Vindication, Book 2): "The Jews were evicted from Palestine and ‘their house left unto them desolate’ because they rejected Christ Jesus, the beloved and anointed King of Jehovah. To this day the Jews have not repented of this wrongful act committed by their forefathers. … In 1917 the Balfour Declaration, sponsored by the heathen governments of Satan's organization, came forth, recognized the Jews, and bestowed upon them great favors. ... The Jews have received more attention at their hands than they really deserved." p.257-8 [1932] Those types of quotes became more frequent and more and more anti-Semitic through the 1930's, so I don't think it was an accident therefore that we began choosing the "Easter" season calculation over the Jewish "Passover" season calculation in 1929, and have never gone back to the Jewish "Passover" season calculation since. This makes an interesting comparison to the following points from the page I quoted from earlier. Again most of the capitalization and highlighting was on the original page although I will highlight some points in yellow and with underlining, here and there: Anti-Semitism in the Roman Empire The first non-observer of the 14th Nisan Passover, Irenaeus indicates, was actually bishop Sixtus of Rome (ca. 116-125 A.D.). But the 14th Nisan Passover was even observed in Rome by some churches prior to Pope Victor's time. Apparently it was under bishop Sotus, the successor to Anicetus, that relations became "more tense" between the advocates of Easter-Sunday versus the Jewish Quartodeciman Passover. Says Bacchiocchi of this issue: "The conflict and tension between Judaism and the Empire, which became particularly acute under Hadrian, may well have induced Bishop Sixtus to take steps to SUBSTITUTE those distinctive JEWISH FESTIVITIES AS THE PASSOVER AND THE SABBATH with new dates and theologican motivations IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY SEMBLANCE OF JUDAISM" (p.203). Rome and Alexandria, after having "eliminated the Judaizing Quartodeciinan tradition, REPUDIATED EVEN THE JEWISH COMPUTATIONS, MAKING THEIR OWN TIME CALCULATIONS, since such a dependence on the Jews must have appeared humiliating" (M. Righetti, quoted by Bacchiocchi in From Sabbath to Sunday, p.206). By the time of the Nicaean Council, in 325 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Constantine, the hatred of everything "Jewish" had reached a peak in the Roman Empire. Constantine, desiring that Christianity be completely free from any and all Jewish influence, wrote: "It appears an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul . . . Let us then have NOTHING IN COMMON with the detestable Jewish crowd. . . . All should UNITE in desiring that which sound reason appears to demand, and in AVOIDING ALL PARTICI- PATION IN THE PERJURED CONDUCT OF THE JEWS" (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3,18-19; NPNF 2nd, 1, pp.524-525, quoted in Bacchiocchi, p.206). This same anti-Jewish resentment and hostility is revealed in an even earlier document, dated to circa A.D. 243, where a certain Pseudo-Cyprian in De Pascha computus says: "we desire to show . . . that Christians need at no time . . . to walk in blindness and stupidity behind the Jews as though they did not know what was the day of Passover . . . " (quoted by Bacchiocchi, p.206).. . . The Nicean Council At the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, during the reign of Emperor Constantine, the bishops of the Catholic Church decreed concerning the Passover that: "All the brethren in the East who formerly celebrated Easter WITH THE JEWS, will henceforth keep it at the SAME TIME AS THE ROMANS, with us and with all those who from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time with us.". . The long struggle between Passover and Easter was finally decided -- by the power of Rome -- in favor of Easter! Passover observance, by Christians, was halted, ended, by the force and power of Imperial edict and decree of the brother Church. By 364 A.D., at the Council of Laodicea, both the Passover and the Sabbath were completely abolished by the Roman state. The new state religion, a bizarre blending and amalgamation of paganism and Christianity, devoid of any remaining "Jewish" influences, became the dominant religious power in Europe for over one thousand years.

So here's a kind of "part two" on the choice of an annual Memorial. I'm not going to try to write up something completely fresh and new on this. I believe the Watchtower publications have done an excellent job researching this particular issue. I have a feeling that you would prefer to see non-Watchtower sources, so I'll pick and choose from some sources as I have found them through Internet searches. Normally, I'd try to do a more thorough job of explaining and defending. Making use of extra-Biblical quotations is a tricky business. Some give Eusebius a lot of credit, but he is evidently not credible in everything he says, and is three centuries removed. Yet, some of the early "second century" "Church Fathers" get a lot more credit than they deserve, too. Some of the later ones had more credibility in terms of scholarship and collected libraries for comparison. I tend to give more credit when two writers who are on opposite sides of an issue both admit to the same fact even where it doesn't help their argument. I can ignore their argument but accept the facts they agree on. If multiple early writers agree on something, and only later writers tend to disagree, this is important. But even here we have to be careful. So I'm not saying I agree completely with any of the non-Biblical sources I will quote. I'm only saying that they can add or subtract from supportive evidence to the proposal that the Memorial was more often done annually. Some of the practices of the early Christian congregation were the direct result of the fact that most of the first Christians were Jewish Christians, including the apostles. Also, the initial "headquarters" of the first congregation was at Jerusalem. So we can't always tell from the Bible accounts whether we are looking at a reference to a practice of Christians in general, Jewish Christians, or the Jewish nation around them. That's why it's interesting to see how matter-of-factly the Passover season was mentioned in Acts, for example, but we can't know if these festivals were expected to die out or not based on this alone: (Acts 12:1-4) 12 About that time Herod the king began mistreating some of those of the congregation. 2 He put James the brother of John to death by the sword. 3 When he saw that it was pleasing to the Jews, he also went on to arrest Peter. (This was during the days of the Unleavened Bread.) 4 He seized him and put him in prison, turning him over to four shifts of four soldiers each to guard him, intending to bring him out before the people after the Passover. (Acts 20:5-7) 5 These men went on ahead and were waiting for us in Troʹas; 6 but we put out to sea from Phi·lipʹpi after the days of the Unleavened Bread, and within five days we came to them in Troʹas, and there we spent seven days. 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal, Paul began addressing them, as he was going to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. . . . 16 Paul had decided to sail past Ephʹe·sus so as not to spend any time in the province of Asia, for he was hurrying to get to Jerusalem on the day of the Festival of Pentecost if he possibly could. Compare: (1 Corinthians 16:7, 8) . . .. 8 But I am remaining in Ephʹe·sus until the Festival of Pentecost, The second example above (Acts 20:6) indicates a strong possibility that Paul himself observed the entire seven-day festival of the Passover season. But this could have been due to his Jewish background not his Christianity: (1 Corinthians 9:20, 21) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law,. . . So we need to move to the history of the early Christian congregations, especially after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 C.E. to get a better sense of what the Christians thought was proper after most of the Jewish references could have been considered obsolete. If you look up QUARTODECIMAN in the Oxford English Dictionary, you find the following: A.A n. One of those early Christians who celebrated Easter on the day of the Jewish Passover (the 14th of Nisan), whether this was a Sunday or not. The practice (chiefly observed in Proconsular Asia) was condemned by the Council of Nice, a.d. 325. The word means "FOURTEENTH" in Latin, and the same dictionary (OED unabridged volumes) shows that the Latin form of the word has been carried over into more recent English discussions of the same problem discussed in A.D. 325. 1624 Darcie Birth of Heresies viii. 31 The Phrygian Montanists condemne the Quartodecumans. 1642 Hales Schism 7 Why might not it be lawful‥to celebrate Easter with the Quartodeciman. 1709 J. Johnson Clergym. Vade M. ii. p. cxv, When Austin came first to this island, the Christians he found here were Quartodecimans. 1883 P. Schaff Hist. Church II. xii. lxxxiii. 706 There is no evidence at all that the apostle John celebrated Easter with the Quarto-decimans. The very fact that there could have been such an important long-standing discussion of the issue of an annual date related to Easter/Passover tells us that the original season for "Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday" was annual. Here is one of many sites that discusses this: http://www.triumphpro.com/pas-early-church.htm I assume it's from an Adventist perspective. The problems about the date in the early congregations included whether to have Passover on Nisan 15 or Nisan 14, and whether they make sure that Easter would fall a certain number of days after Nisan 14, or if it should fall on the SUNDAY after Nisan 14. This was an issue that would have been resolved in 70 A.D. if it were purely from the Jewish-Christian perspective. Copying from the site I mentioned I will also be copying some of the emphasis and highlighting (and mistakes) from that same site, but the main points will get through: Bacchiocchi asserts: "Moreover we know from the Quartodeciman's sources (i.e. those who kept Passover on Nisan 14 according to the Jewish reckoning), which APPARENTLY REPRESENT A DIRECT CONTINUATION OF THE CUSTOM OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, that the PASCHAL FE4ST WAS INDEED OBSERVED BY CHRISTIANS. Its celebration, however, did not take place on Sunday . . . but rather, as well stated by J. Jeremias, 'at the SAME TIME AS THE JEWISH PASSOVER, that is, on the night of the 15th of Nisan, and by the date rather than the day'" (From Sabbath to Sunday, p.81). Notice these incredible words! The Christians observed Passover at the very same night as the Jewish people -- that is, on the night of the 15th of Nisan! This is the record of scholarly research. This constitutes a powerful answer to those who attempt to observe Passover on the previous evening of the 14th of Nisan, that is, at the beginning of the 14th! Bacchiocchi adds to this statement, by J. Jeremias: "In a passage we shall later examine, Epiphanius (ca. A.D. 315-403) suggests that until A.D. 135 CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE OBSERVED PASSOVER ON THE JEWISH DATE, NAMELY, ON NISAN 15, irrespective of the day of the week" (ibid). Three pages later in his book, Samuele Bacchiocchi asserts, "The . . . Passover . . . initially celebrated Christ's passion and was observed by the FIXED DATE OF NISAN 15 rather than on Sunday . . ." (p.84). The book is referring to Epiphanius who wrote the following in his book Against Heresies. He spoke of these "Nazarenes" who had outlived Jerusalem's destruction and, although he calls them heretics, it shows what some Christians believed was required of them: “The Nazarenes do not differ in any essential thing from them (meaning the Orthodox Jews), since they practice the customs and doctrines prescribed by Jewish Law; except that they believe in Christ. They believe in the resurrection of the dead, and that the universe was created by God. They preach that God is One, and that Jesus Christ is His Son. They are very learned in the Hebrew language. They read the Law (meaning the Law of Moses)…. Therefore they differ…from the true Christians because they fulfill until now [such] Jewish rites as the circumcision, Sabbath and others.” [Epiphanius, “Against Heresies,” Panarion 29, 7, pp. 41, 402] The site quoted makes more of this by merging something that Eusebius said to indicate that these Nazarenes had followed an unbroken version of their Jewish-Christian faith that had been based at Jerusalem up until 135 A.D.: The early Church historian Eusebius writes of this period: "And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Aelia, in honor of the emperor Aelius Adrian. And as the Church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus" (NPNF 2nd, I, pp.177-178). It was at this time, says Epiphanius, that the controversy over the correct date of the Passover, first arose. He wrote, "The controversy arose [literally, "was stirred up"] after the exodus of the bishops of the circumcision [A.D. 135] and it has continued until our time." According to Epiphanius, the fifteen Judaeo-Christian bishops who had administered the Church in Jerusalem up to 135 A.D. had, up to that time, practiced the Quartodeciman Passover -- the Jewisb Passover. They based this observance on a document known as the "Apostolic Constitutions." According to that document, the following commandment is given: "You shall not change the calculation of time, but you shall CELEBRATE IT AT THE SAME TIME AS YOUR BRETHREN who came out from the circumcision. WITH THEM OBSERVE THE PASSOVER." The author of the page seems to forget that it was possible to remain TOO attached to Judaism during this period where the destruction of Jerusalem was an "end of a system of things" a "judgment" against that system, according to Jesus in Matthew 23 and 24. Read the counsel to the 7 congregations in Revelation 2 and 3 very carefully, and you can see that we shouldn't just accept this particular group of "Nazarenes" as the purest form of Christianity. The site also makes too much of traditions that have passed through the writings of the early "church fathers" although the following several paragraphs do cite some relevant information about the Passover/Easter controversy. Eusebius relates that Polycarp, a disciple of John, who had known several of the original apostles, strongly resisted the introduction of Easter in the place of Passover. He visited Rome in 154 A.D. to discuss the growing heated controversy with Anicetus, the Roman bishop. Polycarp was bishop of the Church of God at Smyrna. He was baptized by John, the brother of James. He held to the Passover as an institution handed down by John, the last living original apostle of Christ. At the meeting nothing was resolved. Eusebius records: "For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it [the Passover] because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated; and neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it who said that he was bound to follow the customs of the presbyters before him." Eusebius relates that Polycarp was later taken and executed "on a great sabbath day." T'he marginal note explains that the 'GREAT SABBATH DAY" was the Feast of Unleavened Bread! Controversy Explodes Again The controversy flared up again toward the end of the second century. The two major protagonists of the controversy were Victor of Rome (A.D. 189-199) who championed the Easter-Sunday tradition, on one side, and Polycrates, the disciple of Polycarp, who was the bishop of Ephesus and representative of the Asian Churches, who strongly advocated the traditional Passover date of Nisan 14. Victor attempted to "cut off whole cburches of God, who observed the tradition of an ancient custom," the true Passover, says Eusebius. According to Eusebius (ca. 260-340 A.D.), Polycrates, claiming to possess the genuine apostolic tradition transmitted to him by the apostles Philip and John, refused to be frightened into submission by Victor's threats. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon from about 176 A.D., tried to intervene as peacemaker in the controversy. He warned Pope Victor not to break the unity with "the many bishops of Asia and the East, who WITH THE JEWS CELEBRATED THE PASSOVER on the fourteenth day of the new moon" (NPNF, 2nd, III, p.370). In addition, Apollinarius, bishop of Hierapolis (ca. A.D. 170), declared: "The 14th Nisan is the TRUE PASSOVER OF OUR LORD, the great Sacrifice; instead of the lamb, we have the Lamb of God" (Bacchiocchi, p.199, footnote). However, around 400 A.D. those Christians who maintained the Jewish Passover ritual were strongly attacked by Severian, bishop of Gabala. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis (ca. A.D. 315-403) declares that the "heresy," as he called it, of the Quartodeciman Passover was still rising up in the world in his own time. Notice the words of Eusebius in his Church history: "A question of no small importance arose at that time [the close of the second century]. For the parishes of Asia, as from an OLDER TRADITION, held that the FOURTEENTH DAY OF THE MOON, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, SHOULD BE OBSERVED AS THE FEAST OF THE SAVIOUR'S PASSOVER . . . the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to HOLD TO THE OLD CUSTOM handed down to them. He himself in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the Church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him. 'We observe the FXACT DA Y, neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out,all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles . . . and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined on the bosom of the Lord . . . and Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr . . . Those observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the gospel, DEVIATING IN NO RESPECT,' but following the rule of faith" (Ante-Nicean Fathers, vol. 8, pp.773-774). Notice! They observed scrupulously the EXACT DAY of the PASSOVER. This means they observed it at the end of the 14th of Nisan, as all the Jews had for centuries. They did not "add" to it by observing it a night early, or take away from it In fact, they deviated from the Jewish Passover time, calculation and date "in NO respect"! There were probably better places to get all this information. Someday, I'll try to sort through it myself a little better. But the main point is that there were hundreds of years when even the totally Gentile congregations continued to try to sort through the controversy over the proper choice of ANNUAL dates for the observance of the Passover (Paschal) season.

There are apparently only one scriptural and one traditional reason that many hold it weekly, but there are about ten reasons why others would choose annually instead. Some of these points were noted in the very earliest Watchtower magazines. Here's an example from 1894 (reprints, page 1624-5): Some dear Christian people have even fallen into the error of commemorating this feast every first day of the week; because they have not noticed what the supper means in connection with the type which it displaces; and because they erroneously think that they find a precedent for their course in the expression of the New Testament, "On the first day of the week, when the disciples were come together to break bread." This does indeed show that breaking of bread every first day was the custom of the early disciples; but it does not prove that the Memorial Supper is meant. Another reason is the confusion that had spread to other early forms of Christianity caused by the overlapping use of the bread and wine symbols into the weekly and additional ad hoc times for Mass in early Roman Catholic tradition. There are no "solid" proofs that it was held annually, and some religions do this weekly or even quarterly. But there is more evidence that favors annually in early Christian tradition. Before I quote evidence from outside the Bible (in another post) there are some relevant Biblical references. I'll take some time here because I think it's relevant to why Paul would use the expression, "as often as you eat" with reference to the Memorial in Corinthians. (1 Corinthians 5:7, 8) 7 Clear away the old leaven so that you may be a new batch, inasmuch as you are free from ferment. For, indeed, Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed. 8 So, then, let us keep the festival, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of badness and wickedness, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. This is one of those passages that might use the idea to "keep the festival" in a completely allegorical sense. The seven-day festival of unleavened bread immediately followed Passover and the idea is apparently that: now that Jesus is sacrificed "once for all time" as Hebrews says, we keep the festival "once for all time" too. (Hebrews 7:27) 27 Unlike those high priests, he does not need to offer up sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, because he did this once for all time when he offered himself up. This is completely in line with Pau's words about the meaning of that sacrifice in our lives. Here, Paul speaks not of Jesus in particular but of a kind of spiritual death of his followers. (Romans 6:6-10) 6 For we know that our old personality was nailed to the stake along with him in order for our sinful body to be made powerless, so that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin. 7 For the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin. 8 Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. 10 For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. So, someone could get the idea that Paul was only concerned about how we lived our life why all these scriptures that make it look like Paul didn't care so much for the out (Romans 14:5) 5 One man judges one day as above another; another judges one day the same as all others; let each one be fully convinced in his own mind. (Galatians 4:4-11) 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 . . . . 9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? 10 You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. Yet, although Paul often referred to walking by faith not by sight, and how our actions, conduct and life were much more important than symbols, he still supported the symbols. He supported the symbol of baptism right there in the same context as 1 Cor 5 quoted above, and we all know Paul promoted the repetition of the symbols of the Memorial. Jesus didn't just say "do this," he said "keep doing this." Likewise, Paul didn't just say "do this," he said "as often as you do it." Baptism was not a symbol we would keep repeating; we'd do it once for all time. Memorial would be repeated often. (1 Corinthians 11:26) 26 For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives. Changed in the NWT, 2013: (1 Corinthians 11:26) 26 For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes. So it doesn't say annually, it doesn't even hint at it. Perhaps Paul didn't care how scrupulously it was observed, and only wanted it done orderly, or else he could have easily given more instructions. One of the arguments against using the scripture that where Paul said they broke bread weekly, is that there is no mention of wine in that passage: (Acts 20:7) 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal, Paul began addressing them, as he was going to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. . . . 11 He then went upstairs and began the meal and ate. He continued conversing for quite a while, until daybreak, and then he departed. In addition it showed that Paul ate his meal that same night after he finished with the speech, after midnight, so it wasn't part of a formal ceremony. It was just a common practice for Christians to combine a meal with their meetings. So much, in fact that some were confusing the Lord's Evening Meal commemoration with meals that they should be having at home on that particular day. (Acts 2:42) 42 And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together, to the taking of meals, and to prayers. (1 Corinthians 11:20-34) 20 When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal. 21 For when you eat it, each one takes his own evening meal beforehand, so that one is hungry but another is intoxicated. 22 Do you not have houses for eating and drinking?. . . 33 Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment.. . .

Just thought I'd weigh in. I read through the entire exchange on Saturnalia with Ann as it was happening, before and after various edits and deletions and commentary about those edits and deletions. I believe that Ann is being very accurate in the way she described it when she says: You rehashed Hislopian misconceptions, tried to pass off fiction and fable as historical fact, and copy-pasted any old bits of nonsense off the internet in a vain attempt to add weight to sensationalist, unverified claims about ancient Christmas practice. In fact, she might be being just a bit too generous and kind with that characterization. Other than that, I agree that the date is not as important as the Memorial itself. The scriptures speak about passing and partaking of the bread and wine, but they are quite vague even about how often. The evidence shows that many early Christians preferred yearly, and this makes the most sense. Even the original Passover could be celebrated a month late according to the Mosaic Law.

Yes. I'm pretty sure the point I was making can still come out in 2016. It's related to another member of the Governing Body, not Leo Greenlees, or Ewart Chitty. If not publicly, it still can affect WTS lawyers.

Ann, That's a very powerful combination of points. I remember when Brother Schroeder at Bethel was getting himself involved in the "generation" debate. He needed to look at all uses of "generation" in contexts that implied a time-frame. He was willing to go to Josephus, Philo, the Pseudepigrapha. He was not really satisfied with any of the solutions that went beyond 40 years. He was willing to go with either the solution that it meant the "wicked" generation or the "anointed" generation but, either way,he still wanted it to be within 40 years. So it shouldn't have been surprising that he came up with the idea that, because of Sputnik, October 4, 1957 was the new, updated start of the generation that saw the full sign, because it had to include the "signs in the 'heavens'" including the idea that men would become 'faint out of fear.' It's also interesting that even though we have never claimed that Jerusalem fell in October, or that Zedekiah was removed from his throne in October, we still love the idea of October as the start of the Gentile Times. Not just October, but October 4th. *** w79 9/15 p. 24 par. 11 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand *** [1979] But the reason simply is that about October 4/5, 1914, or 2,520 years from the desolating of Judah and Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest, the Gentile Times of uninterrupted world domination ended. Note the wording of the very first line on http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/ "History changed on October 4, 1957, when the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I.". 1957 + 40 = 1997, and he was also sure that the end would come before the end of the 20th century. The proposal was in 1980, and therefore he was sure that we had less than 17 years left in this old system. *** w80 7/1 p. 3 Keep Watching! *** [1980] Truly, the possibility that the “unthinkable” could happen provides good reason for thinking about the world situation. And many people are thinking. A special report in the February 11, 1980, issue of U.S. News & World Report analyzed the military might of the leading nations on earth, with these opening words: “To a fearfully watching world, the Soviet Union today looks like a military juggernaut, driving relentlessly toward global domination.” This is indeed a fearfully watching world, for the kind of holocaust that would accompany a nuclear war simply beggars the imagination. And there is no question that global domination has in fact become a major issue of our times. Is there any solution to this doomsday situation? Many persons watch in despair. They see the nations ‘beefing it up’ in terms of rockets, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, long-range bombers, nuclear warheads and the like. As they watch, they become painfully aware that fearful dangers now threaten from the heavens and the sea, even as the Master, Jesus, foretold for the final days of the wicked system of things on this earth. Jesus said: “There will be fearful sights and from heaven great signs. Also, there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation, while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”—Luke 21:11, 25, 26. In this context, it's easier to understand why Brother Schroeder was able to propose the following, with the approval of two other members of the Governing Body and propose it to the entire Governing Body.on March 5 of the same year, 1980:

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them. But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor. I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.

The above, from near the end of my last post should have started out, "From the time of the first Watchtower in 1879 until 1929, the only possible exceptions . . . . " (The other possible exceptions from 1929 until now had already been mentioned just above that.) Just one more point to add is the fact that either method "Passover" or "Easter/Memorial" is consistent enough that you can always get the right date (within a day) by remembering that both methods "align" again every 19 years (Due to those 7 intercalary leap-months added every 19 years.) It's really amazing just how closely lunar 19 "lunar years" made up of 19 time 12 lunar months + 7 extra lunar months is almost exactly the same as 19 solar years. You can check this by taking any year that we have had the memorial and dividing it by 19. If it divides evenly and the remainder is zero, then you can test every one of those years with the zero remainder and we will have the Memorial on that same day for each of those years. In fact it works for every possible remainder after dividing the year by 19. For example, 2016 divided by 19 will have a remainder of 2. 19 years prior to that (1997 / 19) also has a remainder of 2, as does 1978 divided by 19, etc, etc. Look at the Memorial dates as announced in the Watchtower for each of these years: 1940: 3/23 1959 3/23 1978 3/23 1997 3/23 2016 3/23 You can almost always tell exactly what day the Memorial will be on by looking at what day it was on 19 years ago.

I agree. I still suspect there had to be a leap day adjustment especially since the "empty" moon was astronomically tied to March 28, 2017 in Jerusalem, so there is no way the first crescent would not be seen by March 29th. The full moon is on April 11th. Note the article on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_week_on_Hebrew_calendar Finally, in a regular year the month of Adar has 29 days, while in a leap year Adar I of 30 days is added before the regular Adar, which becomes Adar II of 29 days. The result is that the period from 1 Tevet to 29 Cheshvan is fixed, except that in a leap year Adar one of 30 days is added; and all adjustments are made using 30 Cheshvan and/or 30 Kislev. The period from 1 Adar (or Adar II, in leap years) to 29 Cheshvan contains all of the festivals specified in the Bible - Purim(14 Adar), Pesach (15 Nisan), Shavuot (6 Sivan), Rosh Hashanah (1 Tishrei), Yom Kippur (10 Tishrei), Sukkot (15 Tishrei), and Shemini Atzeret (22 Tishrei). This period is fixed, during which no adjustments are made. The result is that all dates from 1 Nisan through 29 (or 30) Cheshvan can each fall on one of four days of the week. Dates during Kislev can fall on any of six days of the week; during Tevet and Shevat, five days; and dates during Adar (or Adar I and II, in leap years) can each fall on one of four days of the week.

I see it now. They are listing the first full day, not starting from the evening before which would make our date on the equivalent of the start of Nisan 13. Probably the difference is because of the leap day adjustment so that Passover doesn't start on one of the three "forbidden" days of the week.

The 2017 Memorial is on April 11 not 10th. This is another year when our Nisan 14 is the Jewish Nisan 15. See http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=2017&country=34 Don't know why chabad.org appears to be off by a day, perhaps it's not set for the time in Israel/Jerusalem.

There are lots of better places to get the full explanation, but here goes another attempt. Here's our typical expectation of the range of dates involved. *** km 12/76 p. 3 Announcements *** For future reference, you may wish to keep a record of local sunset times for the period of March 22 through April 19, 1977, since Memorial always falls within this period. It's actually possible for this range to be expanded from March 21 through April 21 (although the one time we celebrated on March 20, 1932 we were not using our own criteria correctly). The Watchtower has determined dates outside of the range (1976 km) on five different occasions. In 1948, the Watchtower said: "1948 Memorial Date - The date for celebrating the annual Memorial of Christ's death . . . is Nisan 14. . . . The Watch Tower Society calculates this according to the first new moon that falls nearest to the spring equinox, whether before it or after it. We do not follow strictly the fixed Jewish schedule of 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period." In reality, this is about the same thing as saying the first FULL moon AFTER the vernal equinox, because the closest new moon to March 20/21 will result in a full moon observed about 13 to 15 days later. Therefore, we use the following method: *** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” *** According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. For easy calculation, let's say the equinox is always on 3/20 or 3/21, and you are looking for the nearest NEW moon before or after. You could get a new moon on 3/7 it could be slightly closer to 3/20 (13 days) than if the new moon was on 4/3 (14 days) after the equinox. Therefore, adding about 14 days to 3/7 gives us the earliest possible Memorial 3/21. For the latest possible Memorial, let's assume the equinox is on 3/21 that year, and the nearest new moon was determined to be 4/5. Adding 15 days to 4/5 could result in about the latest Memorial on 4/20. Although our range for Nisan 14 is therefore 3/21 to 4/20, the Jewish Passover (Nisan 15) is celebrated between 3/26 and 4/30. Adjusting the Jewish calendar's range to Nisan 14 would mean 3/25 to 4/29. But that is still a range of about 35 days instead of 30 days. The reason is the timing of the leap-month, Adar II, (second Adar or Ve-Adar). The 1948 Watchtower said that we do not strictly follow the fixed Jewish schedule of 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period. Of course, we actually do add 7 intercalary months for every 19 year period, but we don't do it on the same schedule the Jewish calendar uses. We did this until 1929, not necessarily by calculating it ourselves, but by watching what they used and subtracting a day or two for Nisan 14. But since 1929, we follow the same schedule that is used for determining the Easter season. Easter Sunday generally falls on the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon (i.e., the first full moon of Spring in the northern hemisphere, or the first full moon occurring after the date of the vernal equinox). In 1929, 1932, 1948, 1951, 1959, 1967, 1970, 1978, 1986, 1989, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2016 this method would result in being about 30 days ahead of the Jewish Passover season in each of those years. That's because the Jewish calendar added the leap-month in that very year, but we, in effect, followed a calendar that added it in the next year. This means that each of the years mentioned were the only years in that period where Easter and Passover were not aligned. Nisan 14 was 30 days earlier using the "Easter" calendar. In every case, we followed the "Easter" calendar. (Not because it was "Easter" but because we use the same method.) From the time of the first Watchtower in 1879, the only possible exceptions between Easter season and Passover season were in 1883, 1894, 1902, 1910, 1913, and 1921. (Easter and Passover were also about 30 days apart in those years.) In every one of those cases we did exactly the opposite. We always chose to follow the Jewish calendar for Passover. In other words, in every year from 1880 to 1928 we always held Memorial within 3 days of the Jewish Passover. In every year from 1929 until now, including 2016 we have always held Memorial within the 8 day period prior to Easter.

I see that the link was already shared. So as not to be misunderstood, contributions to that topic, including my own post, were not stating anything about how the "Society" calculates the the date of the Memorial. Most of the responses on that post dealt with the issue of being within one or two days in front of the Jewish Passover, and a discussion of whether or not Memorial could be scripturally interpreted as Nisan 15 instead of Nisan 14. There were some speculatory reasons that one might consider as to why the date for the Memorial could be a day or two off, but I don't think such reasons were ever taken into account by the "Society." Those speculations are implied by some of the statements made in the Watchtower, but I don't believe they have ever been invoked -- especially not weather related visibility issues for the "new moon." This was not well explained, and if I still can, I might go back and edit that old post to make it clearer. This question being discussed now is a bit different, anyway. It is about being one MONTH off from the Jewish Passover. Here, again, I think I was just throwing out some general ideas to offer a background to the reasons the lunar calendar needs adjustment to the solar calendar. The exact adjustments that are usually made, and formalized, include different methods from the ones I mentioned. I was speaking of the kinds of adjustments that we might make to the lunar calendar, including some leap days and leap months, that we, as JWs, could make, because we are not under the same constraints as the Jews are. (For example, certain months are sometimes given a leap day (or not) just so that the Passover can only fall on only one of 4 different options for allowable days of the week. (This is because there are certain activities within the several days of the Passover holiday season that can't fall on a Sabbath.) As JWs we could ignore some of these restrictions and make a much simpler determination of Nisan 14 through observation of the solar March equinox, and the determination of either the first full moon after that equinox or the one closest to that equinox. In fact, however, even though the Watch Tower publications have mentioned some of the ideas I mentioned, they have never been factored in like that. If you were to look at the longest explanations about calculating the date (i.e., 1909, 1929, 1948, 1976, 2014, etc) you might think that observation had something to do with the date. In fact the dates were determined MONTHS in advance. Even the April 1976 date was already determined in print, and rolling off the presses in December 1975 (in the January 1976 km). Since the 1930's, the Watchtower usually printed the date 3 or 4 months in advance. The 2014 date, even though it was wrong, had already been determined in December 2012 in the Kingdom Ministry announcements. *** km 12/12 p. 8 Announcements *** [2012] The Memorial for 2014 will be on Monday, April 14. *** w76 2/1 p. 73 “Keep Doing This in Remembrance of Me” *** The modern Jewish calendar determines the beginning of their month of Nisan by the astronomical new moon. However, usually it is eighteen hours or more later when the first sliver of the crescent of the new moon becomes visible in Jerusalem. Each year, in recent times, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses has determined the actual new moon that becomes visible in Jerusalem, which is the way the first of Nisan was determined in Biblical times. For this reason often there has been a difference of a day or two between the Memorial date of Jehovah’s witnesses and the Nisan 14 date according to the modern Jewish calendar. According to our present method of calculation, the Memorial date approximates the nearest full moon after the spring equinox. . . . .The date for Memorial in 1976, calculated by our present method, falls on Wednesday, April 14, after sundown. The issue in this question is about when it might be appropriate to add the "leap-month" to a different year than the Jewish custom might have chosen, either through an adjustment to the metonic cycle, or a calculation that makes sure Nisan 14/15 is either the first full moon after the spring equinox (or one that makes sure it is the one closest to the spring equinox. The only thing I believe we have ever done in this regard is, since 1929, to accept the earlier adjustment to the metonic cycle than the one that Jewish custom accepts. Most of the time "Easter season" is within a week (between 1 and 8 days) of "Passover season." This might surprise everyone, but as it turns out, we (WTS) ALWAYS accept an early "leap-month" when it will put our Memorial back in line with the Easter season and therefore a month prior to the Passover season. We ALWAYS reject the timing of the Jewish "leap-month" when it would put our Memorial in line ONLY with the Jewish Passover season. In other words, whenever Easter and Passover are NOT within a week of each other, they are about one month apart. Our calculation method means that we have NEVER missed putting our Memorial in the Easter season since 1929. Furthermore, prior to 1929, we ALWAYS matched Memorial to the Jewish Passover, 100% of the time, INSTEAD of choosing the Easter season, when Easter and Passover were not the same. There was ALMOST one exception. In 1913 (prior to 1929) we accidentally made a big mistake, where I think it's fairly obvious that we intended to match the date to the Jewish Passover season. We never matched it to Easter, instead, when we had the chance to choose. That which was our custom every year for the prior 30 years. But we got the month wrong in 1913, and ended up having a Memorial that was even outside of the possible range of either Easter or Passover. 1913 was one of the earliest possible Easter dates that only comes around every hundred years or so, and we chose a date even prior to that. It apparently fell on about Adar 12, instead of Nisan 14. The next month, the Watchtower printed a new date for the Memorial -- April 20, instead of March 20. The article said that if you already celebrated last month, you can go ahead and celebrate it again.

Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης, I believe that Ann O'maly has stated the truth about the U.N. involvement about as well as anyone can. I know the brother who got the Society involved with the UN DPI/NGO, and have spoken to him several times since I left Bethel in the 1980's. I know that the paperwork was approved by others including a member of the GB (mentioned by Ann). It was definitely a mistake. And it has definitely stumbled people. I'm not here to defend it, and I'm not here as one of those Witnesses who will claim that Jehovah has allowed certain mistakes just to filter out those who are disloyal, or those who are looking for an excuse to leave the Organization. People still say this about some of the mistakes of the past, and will likely say such things about mistakes made in the future. I just searched through the jw-archive site, because I know that we have discussed this before, and I didn't want to just keep re-writing things "from scratch" over and over again -- which is something I have a tendency to always do. In fact, this is the very first time I will be quoting myself from a previous post: I'm no expert on this, and perhaps I don't have all the facts either, but the information is from people I trust. A portion of the discussion from https://disqus.com/home/discussion/jwarchive/jw_archiveorg_by_the_jw_comic_strip_52/#comment-2009424381 (I made the UN joke because the timing was close to "Sternstorm." The WTS applied for the NGO status through their DPI (Dept of Public Info.) in 1991 and received it in 1992. I believe we requested disassociation in 2001, just after an investigative journalist exposed the NGO/DPI connection.) If you are asking about the UN, then unfortunately, the answer is Yes. The Watchtower joined the UN as an NGO. I know the brother who spearheaded the effort, still in Writing (last I spoke to him), and also knew others who approved it at the time (now deceased). They meant no harm, but it proved to be an embarrassment. They didn't really need the NGO status, for the original purpose -- access to informational materials, but the status seems to have given them quicker information about conferences and events that could have even helped the Watchtower Society learn more about the behind-the-scenes political circumstances of our brothers in various countries. The most embarrassing part, of course, was getting "disfellowshipped" by the UN. (That really happened, but it happened just after the WTS requested it.) Also, for a while, the Watchtower Society was supposed to write one informational article per year that informed our audience of some of the work the UN was doing. (That's one of the ways the DPI works.) So while the Watchtower magazine bashed them negatively, a small piece here and there in the Awake! magazine was doing articles on UNICEF etc that were between neutral and positive. ... I should also say that I don't think this started out as anything very big. But those who got involved should have realized that almost everything goes public and becomes searchable. For a while you could even search the U.N.'s site and see which Awake! articles had been submitted for NGO/DPI compliance. My motto: If you think you'll have trouble defending it, just don't! (Don't start something you might have to defend later.) But I have to say that even in 1976, I was doing some follow-up research on Mr. Banda, the president of Malawi who had allowed widespread persecution of the Witnesses for several years just prior. And it turns out that he made some anti-JW statements that blamed the Witnesses for their own troubles -- saying that the problem was not just the 25 cent political party card. I only found this info in some heavy encyclopedic U.N. publications that no one in Writing had seen or heard of -- although these publications were at a large university library. It's quite possible that, 15 years later, a couple brothers were convinced that this type of information, although available without the NGO/DPI connection, would become more accessible. (I don't know if that would really be true.) Or, even more likely, that if we could gain a respectable status with THEIR researchers, we could merely request things to be xeroxed and mailed to the WTS, rather than traveling over to DPI repositories, and hardly knowing where to start. ----- and in another place on jw-archive, it came up again ------ There is additional evidence or information that I'm sure you can find from others, but what I write below is based mostly on what I know personally and have seen with my own eyes. It is mixed with a few things I have learned from other trusted and current Witnesses. A very interesting man in Bethel's Writing Department is best known for some of his non-outline talks that he has given in hundreds of congregations. You can find many of his recorded talks on the Internet. He is a good speaker with a "dramatic" personality. I know the man well, and still count him as a friend although we rarely speak. I have seen him outside Bethel, in NY, NJ, even PA, oddly enough, buying books for his own library and for the Bethel libraries. (I have been a book collector for 30 years, and still take on research work for authors, so we have often frequented the same places.) From the time I first knew him, 1976, this brother was in the Service Department and finally moved to the Writing Department. He was quickly given a lot of autonomy under the supervision of Lloyd Barry because he did more research and book purchasing than pure Writing compared with most others in Writing. The brother I am speaking about was very highly embarrassed over the fact that it was mostly his own idea that got this thing started. I have not talked about it with him. He began using the UN library regularly in 1990, then weekly in 1991, and initially signed up with the UN's "Department of Public Information" (DPI) in 1991 (and officially accepted 1992) for easier access to library materials, but in the process of accessing those materials he learned a lot about different types of access to conferences and areas of interest that aligned with the Society's interests outside of just the library resources. (It was thought that association might have made it easier to publicize JW human rights violations, learn more about what other religions were doing when they had similar issues with religious persecution in many countries. It made it easier to get information about international religious taxation issues, and Holocaust publicity, etc.) Brother Barry agreed with him that these other areas of access were also valuable, and they continued the association as an "NGO" (non-governmental organization). The names of both of these brothers, including the GB member, and another direct report to a GB member from the Service Dept are still on some forms at the UN. They also had to agree to produce articles that helped to promote the work of United Nations' initiatives. The first one was the September 8, 1991 Awake! One initiative that the WTS could most easily agree with was UNICEF. The December 8, 2000 Awake! for example prints out the entire UN Declaration of the Rights of a Child in a single issue that mentions UNICEF 10 times (in a positive context). I'll quote it below. But first notice by using the 2014 Watchtower Library CD for example that in the 10 years that the WTS was associated with the UN it mentioned UNICEF about 75 times (from 1991-2001). After a leak by the Guardian, the WTS was disassociated from the UN in 2001 when it was exposed to the UN that the Watchtower was simultaneously speaking out AGAINST the UN at the same time the Awake! was speaking positively about it. (UNICEF has been mentioned just 11 times in the much longer time period since 2001, and always just to quote negative statistics.) I have seen a list that included articles that were presented to the UN/DPI as proof that the WTS was keeping it's agreement by publishing at least one positive article per year. I don't have a copy of it, and don't know if anyone else does. I forget whether it included the issue below from 2000. I wish I had kept a copy. As I recall, it had references to about 10 different issues of the Awake! over a period of several years. *** g00 12/8 p. 5 An Ongoing Search for Solutions *** The UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child: ● The right to a name and nationality. ● The right to affection, love, and understanding and to material security. ● The right to adequate nutrition, housing, and medical services. ● The right to special care if disabled, be it physically, mentally, or socially. ● The right to be among the first to receive protection and relief in all circumstances. ● The right to be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty, and exploitation. ● The right to full opportunity for play and recreation and equal opportunity to free and compulsory education, to enable the child to develop his individual abilities and to become a useful member of society. ● The right to develop his full potential in conditions of freedom and dignity. ● The right to be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace, and universal brotherhood. ● The right to enjoy these rights regardless of race, color, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, and property, birth, or other status. -------------- Back to your current post. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think we need to cover up anything. A mistake was made, and we ultimately resolved it. I don't see what it proves to keep bringing it up. It does not show that we supported the U.N. It shows that we found areas of agreement. We used the relationship to our advantage and the "cost" to us was the need to write about ways in which another organization was also trying to resolve world problems. For all we know, we would have been writing about such things anyway. Personally, I think we ended up looking more reasonable by discussing what the world was trying to do, and how it was at times making progress. Even their limited progress still highlighted the need for a more comprehensive solution. So it's not like any JWs really needed to take their focus off the Scriptural reasoning for resolving the world's problems. Perhaps it made us more sympathetic and knowledgeable about the viewpoint of others. In the more distant past, we often did nothing but show derision for such efforts. Surely we are better off now for such research. I don't see this whole thing as a one-sided proof of hypocrisy with no up-side. I believe the posts also show that (through the mistake) we discovered avenues and venues for involvement in human rights awareness that we were not aware of previously.

When this came up elsewhere on jw-archive someone quoted the Watchtower article on Valentine's Day. I won't do that here, but I'm sure you know the information. Valentine's Day is still tied, in name at least, to a "saint." That ties it a little too close for comfort to a religious celebration, no matter how non-religious it is. Anyway, that wasn't even your question, since it was about birthdays. And there is nothing "religious" about birthdays. I have an old talk outline where celebrating a child's birthday was tied to "creature worship" by giving too much undue attention to the child who had not really accomplished anything more than surviving for another year. Of course, the primary reason we give is that the Bible only mentions two birthday celebrations and they were both by wicked pagans who also happened to suborn a murder on their birthday. At the meeting last night, it occurred to me that we are often asked to make assumptions and treat them as "gospel." One of these assumptions ties directly to our main public reason for avoiding birthdays. I'll just give a few examples so you can understand what I was thinking. 1. They played the introduction to Esther video that makes very bold and direct statements and gives dates with a high degree of authority in the voice. Nowhere do we ever admit that these dates are assumed dates, and that we often use dates that we KNOW are 10 to 20 years off the dates that ALL the evidence points to, just because we need to make those dates fit another preconceived assumption. 2. The Imitate book (ia) says that "Ahasuerus is widely thought to have been Xerxes I" and later it says that Xerxes I (per Herodotus) did the following: "when a wealthy man begged that his son be excused from joining the army, Xerxes had the son cut in half, his body displayed as a warning." Yet, per the CLAM workbook (Christian Life and Ministry) it says "Once, he ordered a man to be cut in half and displayed as a warning." There is barely even a hint that this is from a source OUTSIDE the Bible. Yet, of course, the comment at the meeting turned this into a FACT, not about Xerxes I, but about Ahasuerus. 3. The meeting also made a special point to say that Esther was modest because she didn't ask for extra jewelry. (2006 Watchtower) Really? Does the Bible even mention as a FACT that extra jewelry was an option? Could she have asked for LESS jewelry, or only six months of those spa treatments she was given instead of the full year? Again, the speaker turned this assumption about jewelry into a FACT. 4. The other assumption was not at first turned into a fact by the speaker, but by an answer given in audience, and the speaker then agreed 100% and made a point to say how thankful we should be for KNOWING these things. (That Mordechai refused to bow to Haman for historical reasons, but forgetting that the CLAM workbook said "Why MIGHT Mordechai have refused...?") These were still good points to think about, and there are good reasons to discuss what MIGHT have been going through the minds of these Bible characters. My only point is that we have trouble seeing what MIGHT be true when it goes against a view we hold, but we turn the "MIGHT" into "FACT" when it supports a view. Even a point or two in the book study on Elijah went in this direction, but the main point is about the banquets of Ahasuerus: At the first banquet, there was drunkenness apparently, and this may have been the reason Vashti was summoned, perhaps even summoned immodestly by the king. Yet at the second banquet, ("THE BANQUET OF ESTHER") the king did this: (Esther 2:18) . . .And the king held a great banquet for all his princes and his servants, the banquet of Esther. He then proclaimed an amnesty for the provinces, and he kept giving gifts according to the means of the king. What occurred to me is why we never look at the differences between those two banquets and make an assumption from this about celebrations. Here we have a celebration by a pagan that did NOT end up in a murder, but in just the opposite. So we MIGHT decide that there is a lesson here about parties and celebrations. Bad things happen when there is drunkenness and abuse of power at birthdays (or licentious dancing, too, in the case of Herod). Yet, we also have a lesson about GOOD that can come of birthdays when modesty and proper influences abound.

I just found this, and I feel like I'm losing a friend. A friend I never met, that is, and a friend with whom I probably disagree with on more subjects than I can remember right now Forums aren't the same as "real-life" congregations, and friends on forums aren't the same as friends in "real life" either. Still, it's a bit like when one of your favorite elders steps down or moves away. There is something liberating about being free to speak about whatever we find interesting. The freedom of speech that you, JTR, have enjoyed here was a true achievement. I'm sure it turned away a lot of friends here (I know the feeling) but it also made some points that will forever be remembered for good. Thanks for what you've done. I hope I'm still here when and if you decide to find your way back for some additional rounds. I doubt you've run out of ammunition.

Thanks, Anke. My first post over here. I like the idea of being able to highlight and use formatting. I didn't quite get it right, but I'll get better, I hope.

This was a demonstration of how to use the phonographs. It was at the Columbus, Ohio convention in 1937. That's Grant Suiter in the center, who was the Secretary Treasurer. He was a member of the Governing Body, probably started at Bethel around 1928. Brother Suiter joined the administrative offices in Brooklyn in 1928, became a director in 1938 (the year after this picture) and became Secretary-Treasurer of the Watch Tower Society (PA & NY) in 1947.

*** w09 12/15 p. 24 par. 20 The Messiah! God’s Means of Salvation *** Since 1914 we have been living in the period of Christ’s pa·rou·siʹa, or presence. Although his presence as King of God’s Kingdom is invisible, it is obvious from the fulfillment of prophecies. (Rev. 6:2-8) *** end of quote *** The most complete official explanation was in the February 15, 2008 Watchtower, where it is also presented as the equivalent of the "synteleia" (conclusion), the "generation" that sees the sign, the "last days," etc.. Portions of that article are re-quoted here. This was written before the single life-time "generation" was recently extended so that it could mean TWO overlapping lifetimes: *** w08 2/15 pp. 21-25 Christ’s Presence—What Does It Mean to You? *** NEARLY two thousand years ago, a question was raised by four of Jesus’ apostles in a private conversation with their Master on the Mount of Olives. They asked: “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” (Matt. 24:3) In that question, the apostles used two very interesting expressions, “your presence” and “the conclusion of the system of things.” To what do those expressions refer? 2 To take the second expression first, consider the term “conclusion,” the translation of the Greek word syn·teʹlei·a. In the New World Translation, this word is consistently rendered “conclusion,” whereas a related Greek word, te’los, is translated “end.” The difference in the meaning of these two words can be illustrated by describing a talk given at the Kingdom Hall. The conclusion of the talk is the last section, in which the speaker spends a little time reminding the audience of what he has been discussing and then shows how that information applies to them. The end of the talk is when the speaker walks off the platform. In a similar way, Biblically speaking, the term “the conclusion of the system of things” refers to the period of time leading up to and including its end. 3 What of the “presence” that the apostles asked about? This is the translation of the Greek word pa·rou·siʹa. Christ’s pa·rou·siʹa, or presence, started with Jesus’ installation as King in heaven in 1914 and continues on to include the “great tribulation,” during which he comes to destroy the wicked. (Matt. 24:21) Many different things, including “the last days” of this wicked system of things, the gathering of the chosen ones, and their resurrection to heavenly life, occur during this presence of Jesus. (2 Tim. 3:1; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 2 Thess. 2:1) It could be said that the period constituting “the conclusion of the system of things” (syn·teʹlei·a) corresponds to or runs parallel with the period called Christ’s presence (pa·rou·siʹa). An Extended Period of Time 4 The fact that the word pa·rou·siʹa refers to an extended period of time harmonizes with what Jesus said with regard to his presence. (Read Matthew 24:37-39.) Notice that Jesus did not liken his presence to the relatively short period of time during which the Flood occurred in Noah’s day. Rather, he compared his presence to the much longer period of time that led up to the Flood. Included therein were Noah’s building of the ark and his preaching work, right up until the time that the Flood finally arrived. Those events occurred over many decades. In a similar way, Christ’s presence includes the events leading up to and including the great tribulation.—2 Thess. 1:6-9. 5 Other Bible prophecies make it evident that Christ’s presence refers to an extended period of time and not merely to his coming to destroy the wicked. The book of Revelation portrays Jesus as riding on a white horse and being given a crown. (Read Revelation 6:1-8.) After being crowned as King in 1914, Jesus is pictured as going “forth conquering and to complete his conquest.” The account then shows that he is followed by riders seated on different-colored horses. These prophetically represent war, food shortages, and pestilence, all of which have occurred over the extended period of time that is referred to as “the last days.” We are seeing the fulfillment of this prophecy in our lifetime. ... 9 Jesus went on to say that his disciples would see the sign just as clearly as they would see “lightning, by its flashing, [which] shines from one part under heaven to another part.” (Read Luke 17:24-29.) It is of interest to note that Matthew 24:23-27 directly links the same point with the sign of Christ’s presence. The Generation Seeing the Sign 10 Previously, this journal has explained that in the first century, “this generation” mentioned at Matthew 24:34 meant . . . . the wicked “generation” of unbelievers who would see both the features that would characterize “the conclusion of the system of things” (syn·teʹlei·a) and the system’s end (teʹlos). 11 . . . Since Jesus did not use negative qualifiers when speaking to them about “this generation,” the apostles would no doubt have understood that they and their fellow disciples were to be part of the “generation” that would not pass away “until all these things [would] occur.” . . . 13 . . . . So Jesus must have been referring to his disciples when he made the statement: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” 14 Unlike unbelievers, Jesus’ disciples would not only see the sign but also understand its significance. They would “learn” from the features of that sign and “know” their true meaning. . . . 15 . . . As a class, these anointed ones make up the modern-day “generation” of contemporaries that will not pass away “until all these things occur.” . . . “Keep on the Watch” 16 More is needed, though, than merely recognizing the sign. Jesus went on to say: “What I say to you I say to all, Keep on the watch.” (Mark 13:37) This is of utmost importance to all of us today whether of the anointed or of the great crowd. Nine decades have passed since Jesus was installed as King in heaven in 1914. As challenging as it may be, we must prove ourselves ready and keep on the watch. Understanding that Christ is present invisibly in Kingdom power helps us to do that. It also alerts us to the fact that soon he will come to destroy his enemies “at an hour that [we] do not think likely.”—Luke 12:40. 17 Our understanding of the meaning of Christ’s presence helps to intensify our feelings of urgency. We know that Jesus is already present and has been reigning invisibly as King in heaven since 1914. Soon he will come to destroy the wicked and bring about vast changes to this entire globe. . . . [Footnotes] The meaning of pa·rou·siʹa is seen from the contrast that is made between the “presence” and “absence” of the apostle Paul both at 2 Corinthians 10:10, 11 and at Philippians 2:12. For a detailed discussion, see Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, pages 676-9. See The Watchtower, November 1, 1995, pages 11-15, 19, 30, 31. The time period during which “this generation” lives seems to correspond to the period covered by the first vision in the book of Revelation. (Rev. 1:10–3:22) This feature of the Lord’s day extends from 1914 until the last of the faithful anointed ones dies and is resurrected.—See Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand! page 24, paragraph 4. . . . *** end of quote *** In the above we can see the beginning of the reasoning that would finally require the changing of the definition of the generation that corresponded to the time of the parousia. The logic was that the time was urgent because 9 decades had passed. This was already pushing the limits of what Jesus might have meant by a reasonable generation length, or lifespan. This "generation" change was one of the biggest shifts in doctrine about the parousia since the first time that it was first determined that the parousia must have started in 1914. Fortunately, we are able to find and compare the logic and reasoning that provided the basis for that particular shift in definition, too: The latest 2015 Watchtower Library CD, gives the reference in the Scripture Index for Matthew 24:27 *** dx30-85 Matthew *** 24:27 w75 275; w74 750; ka 320; ad 1068, 1336; g63 6/22 27; g62 5/8 8; nh 258; w50 239; el 222; w49 217-218; w40 253; g34 3/14 381-382 Looking up that reference we find the following: *** quoting Watch Tower's reference in g34, p.381-382 *** "Prior to 1914 and years thereafter we thought that our Lord's return dated from 1874; and we took it for granted that the parousia or presence dated from that time. . . . For some time now many have believed that the things mentioned in the great prophecy of Matthew twenty-four have application since 1914 and not before. It necessarily follows, then, that the presence or parousia of Christ, the "nobleman", could not be before 1914." *** end of quote ***