Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Insider

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JW Insider

  1. But that's not all Jesus said about what we would know. Jesus added: (Acts 1:7) . . .He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. Being alert to the fact that the end can come at any moment is good. Always being on the watch that our conduct is proper and that our attitude is proper, and that we serve Jehovah for the right reasons and in good conscience. This is proper. (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. Also, if it were as simple as BroRando makes it out to be, don't you think at least one of the 100,000,000 angels would have figured it out from reading about "tree dream" which Daniel said was fulfilled through Nebuchadnezzar? (Matthew 24:36) . . .neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. What kind of hubris would make any of us think we could know better than the angels? Speculation can be fun and entertaining, but if we try to limit the words of Jesus, we might end up actually rejecting those words. And we can end up giving too much credence to "meaningless talk." (1 Timothy 1:4-6) . . .nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk.
  2. CSE is well-indexed by Google, but the closest comment I could find in this regard was the following on CSE: Baptist William Miller came up with calculations pointing to 1844 as the second coming of Christ Jesus. Seventh Day Adventists, along with members of the Bahai’ Faith, also point to October 1844 as being highly significant with regard to end-time prophecy. As far as I am aware, the only other group apart from Jehovah’s Witnesses who still cling to 1914 are the survivors of the original Bible Students who voted with their feet and left the organisation after the second President, Rutherford, introduced the name Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  3. [edted to add: The question implies that there were Bible Students who believed that Christ became King in 1914. As far as I know none ever dd. Not even Russell and Rutherford.] Remember, though, that most of the Bible Student groups broke off long before even the Bible Students under Russell and Rutherford believed that Christ became King in 1914. Russell believed that Jesus Christ became King in 1878, and he believed this right up until he died. Rutherford believed that Jesus became King in 1878, well into the 1920's. (Remember the famous "Advertise, Advertise, Advertise" speech at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922?) It wasn't until Rutherford died in 1942, that Fred Franz could officially change Christ's presence from 1874 until 1914. This happened in the books "The Truth Shall Make You Free" (1943) and "The Kingdom Is At Hand" (1944). As jw.org says: *** jv chap. 28 p. 632 Testing and Sifting From Within *** Based on the premise that events of the first century might find parallels in related events later, they also concluded that if Jesus’ baptism and anointing in the autumn of 29 C.E. paralleled the beginning of an invisible presence in 1874, then his riding into Jerusalem as King in the spring of 33 C.E. would point to the spring of 1878 as the time when he would assume his power as heavenly King. *** jv chap. 28 p. 632 Testing and Sifting From Within *** That 1878 was a year of significance seemed to be fortified by reference to Jeremiah 16:18 (‘Jacob’s double,’ KJ) along with calculations indicating that 1,845 years had apparently elapsed from Jacob’s death down till 33 C.E., when natural Israel was cast off, and that the double, or duplicate, of this would extend from 33 C.E. down to 1878. Extending the parallels further, it was stated that the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (37 years after Jesus was hailed as king by his disciples when he rode into Jerusalem) might point to 1915 (37 years after 1878) for a culmination of anarchistic upheaval that they thought God would permit as a means for bringing existing institutions of the world to their end. This date appeared in reprints of Studies in the Scriptures. *** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” *** In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. The millennium that was to be marked by the detaining of Satan the Devil enchained in the abyss and by the reign of the 144,000 joint heirs with Christ in heavenly glory was therefore yet in the future. What, then, about the parousia (presence) of Christ? Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.” Also, in the Watchtower issue of July 15, 1949 (page 215, paragraph 22), the statement is made: “ . . . Messiah, the Son of man, came into Kingdom power A.D. 1914 and . . . this constitutes his second coming and the beginning of his second parousía or presence.” Over the years Rutherford had made a few sometimes vague comments that the "kingdom" chronology was being adjusted, but he relied on it thoroughly for his 1925 predictions. Also, there were some more specific comments in a 1924 booklet written by Van Amburgh (not written by Rutherford) and in the Golden Age (edited by Woodworth) that made it pretty clear that this change from 1878 to 1914 was in the works. But the publications quoted on jw.org showed that the old 1874/1878 chronology was not completely removed until 1943. During those 60-some years from 1878 to 1943, all the Bible Student spin-offs and break-aways had already left. In fact most of them had left between 1917 and 1929, when apparently less than a quarter of the original Russellite Bible Students were still associated with the Watch Tower Society. Note these (generally factual) ideas from the resources quoted in the Wikipedia footnotes: The Bible Student movement is a Millennialist[1]Restorationist Christian movement that emerged from the teachings and ministry of Charles Taze Russell, also known as Pastor Russell. Members of the movement have variously referred to themselves as Bible Students, International Bible Students, Associated Bible Students, or Independent Bible Students. The origins of the movement are associated with . . .Russell's teachings. A number of schisms developed within the congregations of Bible Students associated with the Watch Tower Society between 1909 and 1932.[2][3] The most significant split began in 1917 following the election of Joseph Franklin Rutherford . . . Thousands of members left congregations of Bible Students associated with the Watch Tower Society throughout the 1920s . . . . William Schnell, author and former Jehovah's Witness, claims that three quarters of the original Bible Students who had been associating with the Watch Tower Society in 1919 had left by 1931.[4][3][a] In 1930 Rutherford stated that "the total number of those who have withdrawn from the Society... is comparatively large."[5] Between 1918 and 1929, several factions formed their own independent fellowships, including the Stand Fast Movement, the Pastoral Bible Institute, the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement founded by PSL Johnson, and the Dawn Bible Students Association. These groups range from conservative, claiming to be Russell's true followers, to more liberal, claiming that Russell's role is not as important as once believed.[6] Rutherford's faction of the movement retained control of the Watch Tower Society[6] and adopted the name Jehovah's witnesses in July 1931.[b]
  4. It will have to be "Others." I don't have a satisfactory answer. I don't know. Perhaps @bruceq has come up with something.
  5. The choice of the woolly mammoth on the cover is appropriate, as they were considered to have become mostly extinct at least 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, but nearly all scientists admit that a few survived up until about 4,000 years ago: Most woolly mammoths went extinct roughly 10,000 years ago amid a warming climate and widespread human hunting. But isolated populations survived for thousands of years after that on St. Paul Island in the Bering Sea and Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean. The Wrangel Island population was the last, disappearing roughly 4,000 years ago. --
      Hello guest!
    4,000 is much closer to the Bible's apparent timeline for Noah. And our publications have also mentioned the mammoths in the context of the Flood.
  6. I don't think anyone is supposed to believe that this is just a coincidence. Another book sitting on the shelf in the picture in Bruce's original post is "How To Be Invisible" by J J Luna, a book on protecting one's identity (among other things). It made me curious as to whether Bruce Quimby was a real name or a pen name. I've ordered items from the same ebay seller Bruce has consistently mentioned in previous posts a couple of years ago, and again in the original post above. So it is likely that I have his real name and he has mine. Also note that his other recent post sells another book by Bruce Quimby on the Trinity, which features BruceQ's avatar logo on the cover of that book: compare the two: I don't think he's trying to hide much, just trying not to call too much attention to the fact. There is a curious coincidence I noticed, which I believe must be a true coincidence and that is the fact that several other books by a Witness researcher were a collaboration between a Bruce and a Rachael: Bruce W. Schulz and Rachael De Vienne [deceased]. This struck me as odd when I learned that the above book "Progenitor" was also a collaboration between a Bruce and a Rachael: Bruce Quimby (Author), Rachael Mahaffey (Illustrator). However, I read the first several pages of the above book, and these are definitely not the same two Bruces.
  7. Thanks for posting this. On this forum one might even forget that the Catholics have a problem. Also, I've seen statistics that are surprisingly detailed for some religious organizations, reminding me that JWs aren't the only ones who keep records on such issues, including from among their congregants/laymen/parishioners.
    • Hello guest!
    I found it to be mostly accurate.
  8. It's not the same, of course, but there is one surprising group that related themselves in a curious way to the Bible Students/JWs in the 1930s. But they were also very highly divergent in most ways. It was the [mostly African-American] Nation of Islam ("Black Muslim") teachings of Elijah Muhammed. Muhammed recommended to his followers that they listen to Rutherford's radio broadcasts, and he sometimes paraphrased what was in Rutherford's books. Now and then you hear some overlap in his teachings and those of the Rutherford, with a twist: Elijah Muhammad believed that the white race was created by Yakub, a Black scientist, and that Allah had allowed this devilish race to hold power for 6,000 years. Their time was up in 1914, and the 20th century was to be the time for Black people to assert themselves. --
      Hello guest!
    He even thought that the nation's [white] kings have had their day as of 1914, and that Allah would intervene in the mid-1970s. JSTOR has a few articles discussing the doctrinal similaritles of the Black Muslims, along with chronology similarities.
      Hello guest!
  9. Actually it was very similar to the way Miller/Barbour/Russell calculated 1844/1874 and ultimately even 1914. The primary way of calculating 1914 was not the seven times of Leviticus 26 (which later became the 7 times of the Daniel 4 tree dream). That method was considered just a supportive but inferior method by Russell. One of the original "better and clearer" methods made use of that 538 date as seen in the William Miller chart that @Space Merchant showed above. We might be forgiven if we see 538 and 606 in the chart and assume that these are BCE dates such the first year of Cyrus (which was 538 BCE) after he captured Babylon. But it's not. It's 538 A.D., aka, 538 C.E. (And, for Miller, 606 A.D. was the rise of Mohammedism.) 538 A.D. is the date that the Ostrogothic Empire was supposedly overthrown, about 500 years AFTER the time of Jesus, NOT BEFORE. (For Barbour, it was 538 AD + Daniel's 1,260 days to start the "time of the end" in 1798 AD, and 538 + Daniel's 1,335 days (years) = 1873 AD, which failed for Barbour, so he had already adjusted it to 1874 when he convinced Russell. This is also why Russell started the time of the end in 1799, not 1798. (Evidenced by Papal rule being rejected then in the French Revolution.) Ultimately it was 539 AD + 1,335 + 40 years = 1914. Russell's inherited methods finally had to be dropped under Rutherford. We dropped the "Israel's doubles" method, and dropped the Leviticus 26 "seven times" method, finally leaving us with only the inferior Daniel 4 method which also referred to seven times. Newton, a brilliant man, but who also got involved in some of this nonsense, realized that people were just picking dates for the supposed beginning of Papal "political" rule, or the start of any particularly bad pope, in order to put a start date on a Babylonian Papal Antichrist and/or "Holy Roman Empire." They were picking dates just so that the end date (by adding 1260, for example) would land in their own generation. That 538/539 AD date for Miller/Barbour/Russell was considered to be useful for this kind of thing in the 1800's. But Newton said it should start in 756 AD or even 800 AD or perhaps some time in between: 756 +1260 = 2016; 772 + 1260 = 2032; 800 + 1260 = 2060. Wikipedia has it pretty close here, I think: Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060. While Newton also had many other possible dates (e.g. 2034),[39] he did not believe that the end of the world would take place specifically in 2060.[40] Like most Protestant theologians of his time, Newton believed that the Papal Office and not any one particular Pope was the fulfillment of the Biblical predictions about Antichrist, whose rule was predicted to last for 1,260 years. They applied the day-year principle (in which a day represents a year in prophecy) to certain key verses in the books of Daniel[41] and Revelation[42] (also known as the Apocalypse), and looked for significant dates in the Papacy's rise to power to begin this timeline. Newton's calculation ending in 2060 is based on the 1,260-year timeline commencing in 800 AD when Charlemagne became the first Holy Roman Emperor and reconfirmed the earlier (756 AD) Donation of Pepin to the Papacy.[35] 2016 vs. 2060 Between the time he wrote his 2060 prediction (about 1704) until his death in 1727 Newton conversed, both first hand and by correspondence, with other famous theologians of his time. Those contemporaries who knew him during the remaining 23 years of his life appear to be in agreement that Newton, and the "best interpreters" including Jonathan Edwards, Robert Fleming, Moses Lowman, Phillip Doddridge, and Bishop Thomas Newton, were eventually "pretty well agreed" that the 1,260-year timeline should be calculated from the year 756 AD.[43] F. A. Cox also confirmed that this was the view of Newton and others, including himself: Thomas Williams stated that this timeline had become the predominant view among the leading Protestant theologians of his time: In April of 756 AD, Pepin, King of France, accompanied by Pope Stephen II entered northern Italy, forcing the Lombard King Aistulf to lift his siege of Rome, and return to Pavia. Following Aistulf's capitulation, Pepin gave the newly conquered territories to the Papacy by means of the Donation of Pepin, thereby elevating the Pope from being a subject of the Byzantine Empire to head of state, with temporal power over the newly constituted Papal States. The end of the timeline is based on Daniel 8:25 which reads "he shall be broken without hand" and is understood to mean that the end of the Papacy will not be caused by any human action.[46] Volcanic activity is described as the means by which Rome will be overthrown.[47]
  10. People keep making this claim, but no one has ever seemed to come up with the evidence. Every one I have seen has always been a spin-off of Second Adventists (after William Miller) or the Bible Students (after Barbour/Russell).
  11. I thought that what @Patiently waiting for Truth did here was excellent. He didn't give a miniature summary of the passage, but he used other scriptures to show that the idea was very feasible. Also, "Patiently" (calling himself 4Jah2me at the time) had already brought up the point about this being a potentially spurious passage several months ago. SM has brought it up several times.
  12. You offered 3 scriptures so far, and you could easily find more. For every one of them, there are at least twice as many that refer to Jehovah God the Almighty Father, with the same supposedly "feminine" nouns. You are playing with the kind of Talmudic "wordplay" that Jewish rabbis got caught up in for many centuries. Whether a word ends up being masculine, feminine or neutral in a language is not part of any divine plan or purpose. In general, Hebrew and Greek and German and many other languages that split words into "genders," will tend to treat attributes, concepts, ideas, and qualities as "feminine" more often than as "masculine," but not always. As a basis for any doctrinal support, this is about as meaningless as saying that a bed or couch is "feminine," just because the Hebrew word is "feminine." Or that a table is "masculine" just because the Hebrew word is "masculine." Or that a lampstand is "feminine." Or that rain, snow, hail and cloud are "masculine." But "rainbow" and "wind" (and therefore also "spirit") is "feminine." A man's birthright (like the one Jacob wanted to buy from Esau) is "feminine." Even though a bull is obviously masculine, both male and female cattle (or beasts) are referred to with a feminine noun. That includes the great Behemoth in Job, or when Nebuchadnezzar is referred to: (Daniel 4:16) Let the heart of a beast (feminine) be given to him. And it's the same "feminine" word for beast used everywhere else, including here: (Daniel 7:19) . . . the fourth beast (feminine), which was different from all the others; it was extraordinarily fearsome, with iron teeth and copper claws, and it was devouring and crushing, and trampling down what was left with its feet; There was nothing especially "feminine" about Behemoth, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the fearsome fourth beast with iron teeth and copper claws. And there is nothing especially "feminine" about Jehovah God, even though he is described as the Creator (feminine), and in the Beginning (feminine), and a God of Salvation (feminine), and a God of Jealousy (feminine), and God of Greatness (feminine). And there is nothing especially "masculine" about the female breast or bosom, and yet the word for a female breast is masculine. (Ruth 4:16) Na·oʹmi took the child and held him to her bosom [masculine], and she cared for him. If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then he is the firstborn from the viewpoint of the father of all creation; the Creator himself; which would just as easily suggest that Jehovah is feminine. And he isn't. The Word (masculine) was in the beginning (feminine). But it wasn't just the Word associated with Creation and with the Beginning. What about Genesis 1:1? (Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The beginning is associated with whom? God. The creation is associated with whom? God. You could do this for 100 other scriptures. Jehovah's qualities are described very similarly to the qualities seen in Jesus. Think about Hebrew and Greek word genders in about the same way that you would think of German word genders. A common example is the typical set of eating utensils. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, and a knife is neuter (neutral). der Löffel (the spoon), die Gabel (the fork) das Messer (the knife) Why should a spoon be masculine, a fork feminine, and a knife neuter? ("Neuter" means neutral gender here, not the implication about knives in Galatians 5:12.)
  13. No. It's too much of a stretch to say that John 1:1c being used in a feminine sense. It's BOTH the word theos (theon) in John 1:1a AND the word theos (theos) in John 1:1 c that can be used in both a feminine and a masculine sense. Also the word "logos" (word) happens to be "masculine" in Greek (and Hebrew, too.) [Although "wisdom" in Hebrew and in Greek is a feminine noun.] It may very well be that John 1:1c intends to imply that Jesus is divine in a qualitative sense. But NOT because of any possible use of THEOS as either masculine or feminine. The Greek word THEOS can be used to refer to a female god (feminine) or a male god (masculine) or effectively, even a "neutral" god. (Philippians 3:19) Their end is destruction, and their god is their belly . . . [Although "belly" happens to be a feminine noun in Greek, and it can also mean womb.]
  14. Then you must have missed the point. Theo-n means either god, God, a god, or the God. Theo-s means either god, God, a god, or the God. It all depends on other things going on in the sentence (and sometimes context). It is NOT about whether the word theo-n or theo-s was used. To explain John 1:1, you indicated that "theo-s" means "a god" and "theo-n" means "the God." As you can see from the scriptures: this is plainly wrong. It can even be the opposite. John 3:16 (quoted) calls "The God" theo-s, and John 10:33 calls "a god" theo-n. This is the OPPOSITE of your claim about John 1:1. (John 10:33) "... for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” [theo-n] (NWT) And, it's also not true that just because the Bible writer leaves out the word "the" that it must mean "A god." Just because Luke 12:21 says "theo-n" without a THE in front of it doesn't mean it should be translated: "So it goes with the man who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich toward a god.” Οὕτως Thusὁ the (one)θησαυρίζων treasuringαὑτῷ to himselfκαὶ andμὴ notεἰς intoθεὸν Godπλουτῶν. being rich. So that supposed rule does not apply in general. In fact there are about 280 places where "the God" is meant by just the word "god," even though there is no "the" (or other form of definite article) in front of it. But there are good examples of "theos" such as in Luke 20:38 where the Greek form would be supportive of the translation "a god" in John 1:1, rather than "God" or "divine." (Luke 20:38, Kingdom Interlinear Translation) θεὸς Godδὲ butοὐκ notἔστιν isνεκρῶν of dead (ones)ἀλλὰ butζώντων, of living (ones),πάντες allγὰρ forαὐτῷ to himζῶσιν. they are living. 38 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.” (NWT)
  15. @Arauna There is a difference, of course, but you are wrong about theo-n and theo-s. Those are both the same word with different "declensions." Like German, and other languages you know about, nouns endings are changed based on case, number and gender. In fact, the cases are very much like German: nominative, dative, accusative (direct object), genitive (possession). Number is like other languages: singular and plural (and vague remnants of a "dual" number). And gender is also like German: masculine and feminine, and neutral. @Witness Thanks for showing the same thing from other scriptures. There is a sense in which the Word is God and that is the basic point of John 1:1. But it is not the point, of course, that Jesus himself is God, but that Jesus so fully represents God. It's not so strong as Trinitarians make it out to be. But the Gospel of John, in general, introduces us to the idea that Jesus is "divine" but not himself "God." We often read John 1:1 with almost all the emphasis on the word "A" as in "the Word was A god." But it's pretty obvious from the context that the emphasis should be "the Word was a GOD."
  16. As soon as I saw this on the 21st, I wrote a response that disappeared just as I was about to "Submit Reply." I figured that it was probably a bad sign that my computer touchpad was jumping the cursor all over the place, but it was probably a good sign that I shouldn't keep writing 3 page responses to a simple question. So I didn't try to rewrite it, and went on to other things. To my surprise, I came back here today and see that @Witness gave nearly the exact response that I had written. I even gave that response of hers an upvote, and I even agree with much that is in the second response she gave right after it. (Luke 3:21, 22) . . .Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus too was baptized. As he was praying, the heaven was opened up, 22 and the holy spirit in bodily form like a dove came down upon him, and a voice came out of heaven: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.” (Luke 4:1) . . .Then Jesus, full of holy spirit, turned away from the Jordan, and he was led about by the spirit in the wilderness (Luke 4:17, 18) . . .So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor.. . . Then I had added a few additional verses, starting with: (Acts 10:37, 38) . . .starting from Galʹi·lee after the baptism that John preached: 38 about Jesus who was from Nazʹa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing . . . (Hebrews 1:5-9) . . .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”? . . . 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. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.” Along with this, to help explain the context in Hebrews, I had added that the expression "You are my son, today I have become your father," was a formulaic expression for the anointing of kings like David and Solomon. This is clearly how Hebrews 1 is using it with the idea of the throne and scepter and the obeisance and "his Kingdom" -- "that is why . . . God anointed" him. @Witness had gone directly to Psalm 45:7 which Hebrews quotes from and then used some of the same additional scriptures about the anointing of kings. @Witness went a little further on this point and added the priests to the equation and therefore tied in later scriptures in Hebrews (and Revelation, etc.) about how the kingdom is also a priesthood, which I had not thought to mention. But Hebrews happens to tie the priestly appointing (anointing) as part of the same event when Jehovah said at Jesus' baptism: "You are my son, today..." (Hebrews 5:1-6) . . .For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in their behalf over the things relating to God, so that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. . . . . 4 A man does not take this honor of his own accord, but he receives it only when he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 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.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.” Also, you will notice that the article @Anna posted from the Aid book contains several of the same points that Witness made. The one point I take some exception too, @Patiently waiting for Truth, is that you have made more of the specific timing as if it is the most important thing to get out of this. And you may have "summoned" my take on this because you know that I will agree that it indicates the Kingdom did not start in 1914. I agree that it doesn't. But this doesn't mean we need to focus on exactly when Jesus was appointed as King or Priest, or when the Kingdom started, or when he was "King-Designate." Recall that David was anointed (by Samuel) before he became King, and that he was hailed as King by his early followers before he was officially made King after Saul's death. Specific timing of appointments and titles is not the importance of scripture to us today. It's the "fact" of Jesus' appointment to the "offices" of king and priest and mediator and his own sacrifice as a ransom payment for sin. Is it wrong to say Jesus was born king? Or what about the prophet Simeon? (Matthew 2:2) . . .“Where is the one born king of the Jews? . . . (Luke 2:25-32) . . .And look! there was a man in Jerusalem named Simʹe·on, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for Israel’s consolation, and holy spirit was upon him. 26 Furthermore, it had been divinely revealed to him by the holy spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Christ of Jehovah. 27 Under the power of the spirit, he now came into the temple, and as the parents brought the young child Jesus in to do for him according to the customary practice of the Law, 28 he took the child into his arms and praised God and said: 29 “Now, Sovereign Lord, you are letting your slave go in peace according to your declaration, 30 because my eyes have seen your means of salvation 31 that you have prepared in the sight of all the peoples, 32 a light for removing the veil from the nations and a glory of your people Israel.” I'll fall back on the argument that even if Jesus wasn't yet officially "anointed" ("Christ") at birth, he was designated ("appointed") to this purpose and this meant it was as good as accomplished for those who have faith in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose.
  17. I agree with you 100% that it's possible to mix them up. In fact, "@Patiently. . ." was on the right track when he asked: Specifically, when Jesus said "the harvest is great" he seems to refer to the importance and urgency of the preaching work during any time in history. There was an urgency during the first century and there is an urgency now. However, when Jesus said, "the harvest is the synteleia of the age" (NWT: "the harvest is a conclusion of the system of the things" this was specifically using the term "harvest" in the sense of a final gathering up of those "chosen" (the wheat) from among the "weeds." As you said, separate illustrations don't have to be referring to the exact same aspect of an idea, just because the subject appears to be the same. I should have acknowledged @Patiently's original question more clearly rather than by just saying ". . . this 'harvest' (or perhaps, 'a harvest') . . . " To me, and you, there is no reason to mix the meanings of the general "preaching" harvest and the "end-times" gathering of the wheat and weeds (or the gathering/harvest of the chosen ones). But this doesn't mean there is no connection. In fact, even though we've had this conversation before where this separation between two harvests has already been made, I was still acknowledging that there is a logical connection, as the Watchtower publications have also claimed. In the God's Kingdom Rules book for example, chapter 9 contains the following discussion, which also ties together these same verses (which you might claim was like mixing up Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood). *** kr chap. 9 pp. 88-95 pars. 5-21 Results of Preaching—“The Fields . . . Are White for Harvesting” *** In a vision given to the apostle John, Jehovah reveals that he assigned Jesus to take the lead in a global harvest of people. (Read Revelation 14:14-16.) In this vision, Jesus is described as having a crown and a sickle. The “golden crown on [Jesus’] head” confirms his position as ruling King. The “sharp sickle in his hand” confirms his role as Harvester. By stating through an angel that “the harvest of the earth is fully ripe,” Jehovah emphasizes that the work is urgent. Indeed, “the hour has come to reap”—there is no time for delay! In response to God’s command “put your sickle in,” Jesus thrusts in his sickle, and the earth is reaped—that is, people of the earth are reaped. This exciting vision reminds us that again “the fields . . . are white for harvesting.” Does this vision help us to determine when this global harvest began? Yes! 6 Since John’s vision in Revelation chapter 14 shows Jesus, the Harvester, wearing a crown (verse 14), his appointment as King in 1914 had already taken place. (Dan. 7:13, 14) Sometime after that, Jesus is commanded to start the harvest (verse 15). The same order of events is seen in Jesus’ parable about the harvest of the wheat, where he states: “The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things.” Thus, the harvest season and the conclusion of this system of things began at the same time—in 1914. Later “in the harvest season,” the actual harvesting began. (Matt. 13:30, 39) [Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’” . . . and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels.] Looking back from our vantage point in time, we can see that the harvest began some years after Jesus started ruling as King. First, from 1914 until the early part of 1919, Jesus carried out a cleansing work among his anointed followers. . . . Then, in 1919, “the harvest of the earth” began. Without delay, Jesus used the newly appointed faithful slave to help our brothers see the urgency of the preaching work. . . . Since 1919, zealous harvest workers have been gathered into the restored Christian congregation. . . . 20 In the first century, Jesus helped his apostles to see that the harvest work was urgent. From 1919 onward, Jesus has helped his modern-day disciples to grasp the same truth. In response, God’s people have intensified their activities. In fact, the harvest work has proved to be unstoppable. As foretold by the prophet Malachi, the preaching work is being carried out today “from the rising of the sun to its setting.” (Mal. 1:11) Yes, from sunrise to sunset—from east to west, no matter where they are on earth—sowers and reapers work and rejoice together. And from sunrise to sunset—from morning till evening, or all day long—we work with a sense of urgency. 21 As we look back today over some 100 years and see how a small group of God’s servants has grown into “a mighty nation,” our heart does indeed “throb and overflow” with joy. (Isa. 60:5, 22) May that joy and our love for Jehovah, “the Master of the harvest,” impel each one of us to keep on doing our share in completing the greatest harvest of all time!—Luke 10:2. [Then he said to them: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.] The chapter in "kr" also tried to deal with the problem of timing in order to date the harvest of the conclusion of the system of things beginning after Jesus becomes king, and showing that the harvest would begin some time later. The article times these two events at 1914 and 1919, of course.
  18. I think you asked an excellent question here. Last year, I think, you were part of the conversation where the point was made that this verse seems like an exception to the more general idea in the Bible that the end, last day, his parousia, the synteleia, end of all things, his manifestation, his appearance, his revelation, the day of the Lord, Jehovah's day, the harvest, trumpet call, judgment day, resurrection, etc. all refer (generally) to a single, great future apocalyptic event of unknown duration. While that entire apocalyptic event is still future, Christians are told to keep it in mind, and expect that it can occur suddenly, at any time, as if without warning. Yet, this verse in Matthew definitely refers to the harvest as if it can cover a long period of time. The disciples themselves were part of this "harvesting" work. The analogy here was not wheat (sheaves), but sheep, who would be gathered into the fold. (Matthew 10:5-7) These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; 6 but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 As you go, preach, saying: ‘The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’ (Matthew 10:23) . . .for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives. It would not be time to begin gathering (or bringing in) other sheep until after Jesus died. (John 10) This is just an idea, but I think the solution is related to what I said before on the issue of the kingdom, the last day, the conclusion/end (synteleia), etc. I doubt that I made the made the point very well in the post on the previous page (from 3 days ago). I'll try to make it again. Keep in mind that it will be a similar point that the Watchtower articles have grappled with when speaking about why, if Jesus came into his Kingdom in 1914, we should still pray for that Kingdom to come: *** w07 9/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** When Jesus came into his Kingdom authority in 1914, *** ws14 1/15 p. 26 par. 2 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? *** As Bible students, we know that God’s Kingdom came in 1914 when Jesus was made King in heaven. *** w14 1/15 pp. 27-28 par. 2 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? *** As Bible students, we know that in one sense God’s Kingdom came in 1914 when Jesus was installed as King in heaven. But we know that more is involved in response to the prayer “Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.” (Matt. 6:10) Clearly, that includes the end of the present wicked system. Only when that occurs can God’s will be done on earth as it is being done in heaven. In fact, with all the renewed "anniversary" emphasis on 1914 in the year 2014, the WTS decided to add a new song to the songbook, manually, that most Witnesses printed out on paper from jw.org and carried with them to the KH. The song was clearly meant to face the potential contradiction head on. As stated before, the problem is not just the "kingdom" or the "harvest." Note: The kingdom is coming, but Jesus also said it was already in their midst: (Luke 17:21) . . .For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.” The early Christians were awaiting the time to become kings and priests but were already made a kingdom of priests: (Revelation 1:6) 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father. . . (Ephesians 2:6) . . .Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus, We are awating Jesus' manifestation, yet Peter and Hebrews said he was already made manifest: (1 Peter 1:20) .20 True, he was foreknown before the founding of the world, but he was made manifest at the end of the times for the sake of YOU (Hebrews 9:26-27) . . .But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment, We expect that Satan is not completely cast down until the final battle in heaven is complete, yet: (John 12:31) . . .Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. (Luke 10:18) At that he said to them: “I see Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven. . . The day of the Lord, the day of salvation was future, yet: (2 Corinthians 6:2) . . .Look! Now is the day of salvation. We are awaiting the last day, the last hour: (John 6:54) . . .and I will resurrect him on the last day; (John 12:48) . . .The word that I have spoken is what will judge him on the last day. Yet, the "last hour" was already here in the first century: (1 John 2:18) . . .Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. Last days: (Acts 2:16, 17) . . .this is what was said through the prophet Joel: 17 ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit . . . Paul explained that it was because they were in the last days that Timothy was seeing critical times hard to deal with: (2 Timothy 3:1-14) . . .But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, . . . 8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. . . . as it was with those two men. 10 But you have closely followed my teaching,. . . 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled. 14 You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you learned them Hebrews 1:2, from the literal Greek, also says the same: (Hebrews 1:2) 2 Now [in the last days] he has spoken to us by means of a Son,. . . And it's similar with this harvest or gathering of the chosen ones, at the last trumpet: (Matthew 24:31) . . .And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. (1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) . . .we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds. . . Yet, this "harvest" (or perhaps, "a harvest") or gathering can also be spoken of as going on all along since the first century: (Matthew 9:37-10:1) . . .“Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. 38 Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.” 10:1 So he summoned his 12 disciples and gave them authority . . . (2 Corinthians 9:10) . . .Now the One who abundantly supplies seed to the sower and bread for eating will supply and multiply the seed for you to sow and will increase the harvest of your righteousness.) The explanation, I think, although it might sound a bit strained, is simply that the word about the coming parousia, synteleia, kingdom, harvest, etc., is so sure that we see should see it as if being fulfilled now. It helps us to see --through faith-- and therefore we are better prepared for the potential troubles of this system, even those which may threaten and take our lives. We may die, yet still "happily" await the harvest, because the things we do (in faith) go right with us. (Revelation 14:13-16) And I heard a voice out of heaven say, “Write: Happy are the dead who die in union with the Lord from this time onward. Yes, says the spirit, let them rest from their labors, for the things they did go right with them.” 14 Then I saw, and look! a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was someone like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Another angel emerged from the temple sanctuary, calling with a loud voice to the one seated on the cloud: “Put your sickle in and reap, because the hour has come to reap, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” 16 And the one seated on the cloud thrust his sickle into the earth, and the earth was reaped. It's about the sureness of the promise, and therefore keeping that day "close in mind." (2 Peter 1:10-21) 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and choosing sure for yourselves, for if you keep on doing these things, you will by no means ever fail. 11 In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.. . .16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. . .19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place (until day dawns and a daystar rises) in your hearts. (2 Peter 3:12) as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . .
  19. If you mean you are leaving the entire forum, I wish you weren't. I'll miss you, and so will several others, I'm sure. If you do mean the entire forum, then I hope all goes well. You've added a lot of important points over the last few years, in my opinion.
  20. I finished the entire interview. I would have had 100 questions. Then I was surprised that Barbara Anderson came on and actually asked her a lot of the questions I would have asked. I don't think this is so hard to figure out. She admits that her father probably gave her drugs, that her mother was a "weakling" who wouldn't have spoken up. She admits that her father made all the arrangements, and that it went on from the time she was about 3 until she was 15, but that this "activity" where she describes her demon as an entity that protected her, allowing her to become someone else, actually rarely happened again after she was 9. She also says that her relationship with her father deteriorated greatly at age 12. When she confronted her father, he said it was what it was. (Oddly, she also says that she must have fallen asleep right after these "sessions" and had no memory of it until waking up to go to school the next day.) The ability of a religious person to manipulate a victim often involves finding an analogy between light and darkness in scripture or "rationale" that makes them feel special or knowledgeable. In her case it was her father's "logic" about the sun and moon all being a part of the same good day. (Greater and lesser luminary, light and dark.) I don't want to judge her or her father but, unfortunately, almost every detail lends support to a theory that she was abused by her father, and needed to find a way to finally suppress the actuality of incest. Most abuse victims suppress it well enough never to feel a need to talk about it until 40 or more years later. When she was seeking out Bill Bowen and Barbara Anderson, which she had "forgotten," but Barbara remembered, this would have been around the year 2000, when she felt she was running for her life -- and admits that she began her involvement in the occult. Both of those ex-JWs specialized in sexual abuse. She remained in denial for 15 years by pioneering, but then appears to still be in denial of the purpose for which she would have sought out Bowen and Anderson. I believe that most all the details she needed to keep it suppressed under a different cover were just becoming available in 2000 when she says she was asked if she remembered this and that from other people who had been through similar experiences. She gives plenty of evidence that her "memories" are not from experience but from things she read, probably mixed them with just enough real memories. She was unaware that these tunnels hadn't been built yet, when she claimed to have seen them, and she had the tiling wrong, the color wrong, the lights wrong, etc. She claims she knew these persons well, and called them all by their names, but uses the pronunciation "Jaracks" for Jaracz (which is pronounced Jerrus). That's evidence of memories through reading. She got Sister Sydlik's description completely wrong, although I'd guess it might easily fit descriptions of her on jehovahs-witnesses.com. She finally admitted that her memory might have been based on an aunt of hers instead. I said above that, based on her timeline, she would likely have been cementing these "necessary memories" around 2000. This is also evidenced by her "memory" that Brother Swingle smelled like ink. Well, I've worked right next to him in his office, and he didn't smell like ink in 1976-1982. No one else I knew ever said they thought he did either, but curiously it was only in the year 2001, that the Watchtower first mentioned this (July 1, 2001): Lyman Swingle began his service at Jehovah’s Witnesses’ world headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, on April 5, 1930. He served there for nearly 71 years. Lyman was first assigned to the bindery, then to the pressroom, and he also helped make ink. In fact, Brother Swingle spent about 25 years in the ink room. He also served for some 20 years as a member of the headquarters’ writing staff. For the final 17 years of his life, he worked in the Treasurer’s Office. -
      Hello guest!
    Except for the first couple years, he was actually an administrator/manager in the ink room. No one I knew ever thought he smelled like ink, because he didn't. Creating a "memory" out of something one reads during a time when one needs those memories for suppressive purposes is understandable. (For similar examples, watch "Professor T," a well-written series on PBS.
      Hello guest!
    ) [The first episode, "Anatomy of a Memory" is free on the pbs site.] There are many more items like this. The blue color of her robes, seems it could have come from Clayton Woodworth's description of the blue cloth related to his own demon possession. The problematic nature of the book "Angels and Women" is something you can read about, but she had absolutely no knowledge of the inside contents of the book, except for the summary phrases using the exact expressions from Golden Age comments "about" the book. Yet she says it was read to her every night as a bedtime book by her father. There is never anything definitive about these cases, but I have to say that everything can be seen to fit the patterns of sexual abuse cases perpetrated by the father. I feel terribly for the woman.
  21. I have a set of about two dozen children's books where each book includes a child's imaginary friend and the interactions with that friend. I would never read these to my children, but psychologists say it is extremely common. I realized when talking to my 5 year old granddaughter at age 2 she was already talking a lot about an imaginary friend. When she was three and four she also gave ages ranging from 5 to 25 to her dolls and stuffed animals and tells me stories about how each of them get along with each other. I don't recall anything so creative about myself or my own three children. We had a brother from Florida/Bahamas in our congregation, the brother who handled the literature counter, and he was always telling stories about ghosts and demon possession from back home. Sometimes a crowd of young sisters would gather around the literature counter and I could correctly guess that he was telling another ghost story. But I also recognized that some of his stories were just plain old superstitions, or stories that turned out to be false, but that many people believe, such as snakes that turn themselves in a hoop and roll down hills to attack, or eat their own tails until just a snake head remains, etc. I was nearby when an elder told him to stop telling these stories, and he was defensive about how everyone should know the machinations of the Devil. My wife and I studied with a couple who both claimed to hear demons in the house breaking dishes and whatnot. They always made a big deal about how they both heard it at the same time, and it wasn't boiler pipes, or rats, etc. (or ravens: Never Morse! Never Morse!) But it caught my attention that their attempts to call out Jehovah's name would sometimes work for only one of them, not the other, and which one was helped would sometimes be reversed. They both ended up being baptized and are still doing well, but they also told me later that at the time they were experimenting with sexual aberrations, wife-swapping, etc., and now they think it was their "guilt" talking, and maybe some drugs, too.
  22. Thanks for responding. As soon as I opened "6 screens" I knew I would have trust issues with the video, because I have known completely false information in the past to come from that site on the only other video I have watched from them so far. And then I noticed that this 'tl;dw' too long ; don't watch. But I might get to it another time. I did watch 5 minutes and lost interest after the kinds of admissions made in those first few minutes. An an early mistake caught my attention. It won't mean much unless there are other similar ones, which may or may not come up later. (It was the idea that the arrangement just before the elder arrangement was the "company servant." The actual sequence was "company servant" a very long time ago, before her birth, then for many years the "congregation servant," and then the "elder arrangement" (with the "presiding overseer" and more recently "chairman of the BOE"). It's possible evidence she's confused what she's read with what she's experienced.) The potential of this resulting from CSA trauma also fits a couple of her descriptions and even a potential Freudian slip or two: For example: When she accidentally uses the the word "insect" for "incense" (at 00:05:16) she just happens to use two words that could phonetically combine to "incest." And then she relates it to a "bunch of men" in the woods watching her in "her little blue robes" which might give away more than she thinks she is giving away. And her subsequent protest that this wasn't a CSA experience rings hollow. This Freudian theory sounds like a stretch, I'm sure, but I don't know if you are aware that this exact same Freudian slip was already made to be the key to a 1995 movie about CSA called "ANGELS and INSECTS." Spoiler alert: In the move, the problem with the girl is discovered when the solver rearranges the word INSECT to spell INCEST, and the entomological and etymological conflation finally explains all her obsessions. It's almost too much that she will then, you say, go on to make use of the title "ANGELS and WOMEN" in the same video. It smacks of being a test case for Bruno Bettelheim's famous 1976 book: "The Uses of Enchantment." Anyway, as interesting as it might be, there is also the area of demon possession which I know nothing about, and don't intend to learn about either. This may mean that no matter how much I think I could learn from it, I will never wish to wrap my head around this type of experience. It just becomes a matter of prayer and supplication, and I can say no more.
  23. I assume you already know that I don't have any power to ban people from this forum. And I wouldn't ban anyone anyway, because I don't believe it's a good or useful thing to do. I think everyone comes to these forums for their own reasons. Mine are different from yours obviously. But I don't think I have any more right to be here than you do. I don't know the owner of the forum, and I'm not always happy with the way things go all the time, but it's not my forum, and he or she or they can run it as wished. I'm tired of it at times, but I still like to share what I learn, and learn if what I have shared has been thought about in a different way by others. The most important thing for me is to share things in such a way that they might attract some others who are equally willing to discuss the same issues that have caused concern for me or other WItnesses, and who have found solutions or counterpoints to the specific issues raised. I understand where you are coming from. And based on things you have said, I would agree that the easiest way to handle issues I have brought up (when you disagree) is to simply think of me as an apostate, or think of me as dishonest, or badly motivated. It's not possible for you to think of me as a brother, and I admit that it stings a bit, but I understand that I have no reason to take it personally on a forum, where I am not here in person. And I would not be able to be so honest if I were here in person, anyway. But this in no way keeps me from thinking of you as a sister, and understanding the predicament. If an apostate said any of the things I am saying, you would not need to be the least bit concerned with giving any kind of answer or response. You could merely ignore it, or simply state that you disagree. And you might even want to spit a bit of venom my way. It's probably natural. I understand that it is my own fault if I create discomfort for some, in the same way that these questions once created discomfort for me. Some still do create a lot of discomfort for me, but I will still be honest about these issues, especially if I am going to find someone else who has found a solution that works for them, and might also work better for me. The way I have come to see it is this: that in order to provoke an honest response I sometimes need to state the issue as honestly as I think it's possible to state it. There are many examples right here under this same topic. In a previous post here, I could have said, for example: I don't think that Russell should be seen as having a special part in the fulfillment of Malachi 3 because I think it's possible he lied in court and it's possible he showed himself to be hypocritical and it's possible he was presumptuous and it's possible he was dishonest in other ways. That might be a bit provocative but it would not be likely to elicit a real thought-out defense of why Russell should have a part in fulfilling Malachi 3. It just makes it more likely that someone will simply respond: OK maybe Russell did some of those things, and maybe he didn't, so let's just give him the benefit of the doubt, and go with the WTS publications that involve Russell's work in the fulfillment of Malachi 3. It's not that claim would have been dishonest, because I do believe "it's possible" when I spoke about those things I believed were possible. But it would be more honest if I stated my more honest belief that it's not only possible, but very true that Russell lied in court, for example. This way, I might elicit a solution from someone who actually also knows that it is true. Or a responder might show that they are just as concerned with the Bible issue in Malachi by asking for the reference about Russell. And if If they don't believe it, but also don't show any interest in the evidence, then I already know that they probably don't really care about the Bible problem involved, and have probably misunderstood it to be a sly way to take a "dig" at Russell, or relay some embarrassing history. And this will tell me something right away about the level of seriousness the person has about the Biblical issue. And some will be expected to simply give a downvote to the very idea, or make a judgment about me that implies bringing up an issue (honestly) makes me apostate or demon-possessed. That's another way to handle the discomfort, and I can't judge them for it. It's the same way I tried to handle the same discomfort for a while. I can't take it personally for that reason. It's my own doing, since I am not trying to couch everything in easy terms here as I would do in my congregation. And perhaps it's merely that I am the wrong kind of person to ask about such issues. Using another more common example, we would allow, or even expect an apostate to ask about the "overlapping lifespans" making up the latest definition of the generation. But if a Witness herself asks, it is considered possible evidence of apostasy, depending on how seriously they feel they need to present the question. If someone were to say, "Hey, I don't really have much of a problem with it, and I can see it going either way, but I am still a bit concerned," then we give them a pass, and say that they are probably not apostate. But what if that same person, to be more honest with others, will say, "Hey, I can't see this at all! I've looked up the Scriptures, and I think the explanation is wrong!" Now, that Witness is suspected of being or becoming an apostate merely because they are being more honest, or want their faith in things unseen to be based on evidence. And I'm not saying that any Witness needs to respond to her question about the generation, even if they might find it necessary to down-vote her, or make a simple statement to say that it makes sense to them. For certain issues, that might even seem an appropriate response. It may be all we can do.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.