On 10/21/2016 at 1:42 PM, JW Insider said:

I think we ran out of room on the "God's Kingdom Rules" thread. I have tried to add a response there, but nothing happens when I click the "Submit Reply" button.

Maybe because that issue has been flogged to death . I don't know if you can "run out of room" . The same thing happened to  me on another thread, I think it might just be a glitch...

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have never seen anyone besides Brother Splane even try to explain it.

This makes it sound like it was an independent idea of Brother Splane, to decide to try and exsplane it, (excuse the pun, I think this has been done before) and I know you do not mean that. But it begs the question, since everything is discussed very carefully and meticulously in great detail by all of the GB members, and probably months ahead of the broadcast, the decision whether to try to explain it, or not to try to explain it, had to have been discussed at great length also. As I mentioned on the other thread, Brother Splane never introduced this particular segment with the idea that there was any public demand for an explanation. This is usually done if that is the case. It just appeared at random. I think the KEY is if we get an honest answer to the motive behind this, we might begin to understand what is truthfully going on. Just my thought.

P.S. Like you, I have never heard any of the friends discuss this topic. It's like it doesn't even exist.....

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The concept is not crucial to me, as "concerning that day or the hour no one knows". What I mean is that having this explanation or not having it has made no difference to my faith or sense of urgency regarding the times in which we live. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this forum, the system of things ended for me the day I learned the "truth". The information in Hebrews 11 particularly helped me to see my time of life in the context of a long line of those who have excercised faith and who have served Jehovah with a full focus on the "city having real foundations", regardless of when that hope would be realised.

I just noticed this, so forgive me for going on about this in my previous post. So by now you know these are  my sentiments too. So WHY the need for us to have to explain the generation?? The truth is simple. Jesus' illustrations were simple. That is why for example the concept of the trinity does not ring true. The overlapping generation theory is beginning to sound like what people do to try to explain it (the trinity).

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

Similarly pointless is postulating on the basis of "What happens if the 2nd group all die off and the end isn't here?" .

Unfortunately, past experience has taught us that considering this scenario is not so out of place.....

On 10/21/2016 at 4:48 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Whose problem is this? The concept is remarkably simple. Who could possibly find it a problem???

Unfortunately I find it a problem (the overlapping). I understand it, including your very good relay example, but I cannot see logically what this has to do with the word "Generation". I cannot see that this is possibly what Jesus could have had in mind. I find it a desperate stretch. I say this because as the "original" generation was running out explanations were needed. Desperate times, call for desperate measures. Of course, as JWInsider says, this could go on for a long time as we could have overlapping generations to infinity.....I hate to think what will happen IF this second generation runs out too. Basically I echo JWInsiders sentiments that: is this really what should be keeping us going? Do we really need this to stay in the truth? I am surprised that you are trying to defend this overlapping concept. I can tell you are a quick thinking, reasonable and very intelligent person. Up to now, I have had full faith in the GB, even after their 1995 explanation. But  I must admit this overlapping thing has slightly gone too far in my opinion and compromised my faith in them.This is not to say I do not appreciate what they have done in behalf of the Kingdom so far. I am grateful for all the work they have done, and I truly believe this organization does have God's backing. But this overlapping thing I just cannot buy. We just had our circuit assembly about faith. And of course there was no mention of the generation, and actually not even how close we are to the end, as this really shouldn't have anything to do with our faith. In which case I find it odd that the GB thought it necessary to try to explain it, if our faith is not (or shouldn't be !) dependent on it. The only explanation I have for it is I see them having dug themselves into a hole.......and now trying to find a way out.....

7 hours ago, HollyW said:

You sounded judgmental.  Is that mean?

Is stating ones opinion judgemental?

9 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 How would you know? Are you familiar with his daily habits, deeds, his beliefs?

 

No, of course not, but I can read the stuff he has written.

A most interesting discussion. Hoping to pipe in sometime. Busy with the assembly tomorrow though.

On 9/21/2016 at 5:13 PM, Theodore vergara said:

 This is unbelievably pathetic! The fact that a boil witness would post information from some other religion is ludicrous! I will  no longer be following this forum. 

What is wrong with that? All it was, was an illustration, and a good one at that. There was no religious doctrine involved. People like you my dear Theodore give JW's  a bad reputation of being dogmatic and cult like.

Baloney! I'm afraid this girl is going to lose a lot of money in lawyer's fees. She is wasting her and everybody else's time.

18 hours ago, HollyW said:

Is that a sneer, Anna, when you put "Christian" in quotes? I ask because that's what you said the WTS was doing when it put quotes around the "Bible reading" some JWs had said was sufficient.

I didn't want to sound to be mean, it's just that I don't think he is following in Christ's footsteps. One thing is calling yourself a Christian and another is following Christ's example. Many people call themselves Christians. I was shocked Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner calls himself a Christian. Words are cheap.

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

Sorry. I don't read long posts.

I don't either

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

Answering a question is the same as teaching in Paul's mind, which is why Paul would probably not even allow a sister to raise her hand and answer a prescribed question at a Congregation Bible Study or Watchtower Study, either. Even asking a question was showing a lack of subjection for them. Yet, a brother could do so. So clearly, we don't do everything the way Paul envisioned it in the first century. But it seems that Paul wanted a meeting in which people came to learn and be encouraged, and he appears to suggest two or three topics, one at a time that could come up, not from some central authority, but from members of the congregation who would offer a teaching (through questions, explanations, prophecy, tongues, interpretation, psalms), and then there would be time for more questions and learning. This may sound a bit like what we do now, but you rarely hear anyone, even brothers, speak up to ask their own questions.

Isn’t this similar to what Russell and his associates did? It  might sound like a good theory for our day too, but it would not work in practice. Although we try and emulate the first Christian congregations, in some areas it just isn’t feasible or practical. If this was “allowed” then we would soon find ourselves fragmented into splinter congregations moving from one to another depending on which congregation supported our idea. We would have “believers in 1914 Congregation”  (JW 1914 for short) and “ supporters of 587 congregation” ( the JW Jonsson group) etc. etc. take your pick. We would end up pretty much the same as Christendom. Isn’t that how various splinter groups of Christendom’s denominations started, from autonomous congregations? Interestingly this is how today’s  Bible Students do it too. By the way, did you know that the Chicago Bible students still exist? Albeit a small number. They have been like that since they split off from Rutherford. Not going anywhere really, and definitely not preaching the God news of the Kingdom. I have spoken to a few of them and everyone believes whatever they want to. They pride themselves with this so called “freedom in Christ”.

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

Also, more to the topic, there are a lot of people who think that questioning means we are not speaking in agreement. This is not true at all. If there are questions about a topic and someone feels they should be dogmatic about a certain interpretation, then that is what creates the conflict, because it becomes impossible to overturn a dogmatic belief - a "strongly entrenched thing" - without a certain level of dogmatism in the response to it in order to show that there are reasons to question it. Dozens of different interpretations can exist simultaneously without the least bit of conflict if we are all willing to question as the Bible encourages us to do.

And there’s the problem I think. You have hit the nail on the head - "The unavoidable dogmatism in the response" which then leads to all kinds of unpleasantness. I read your post about how apparently there is a bit of a commotion among the helpers at Bethel recently. Sounds like something like that is going on already!

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

Dozens of different interpretations can exist simultaneously without the least bit of conflict if we are all willing to question as the Bible encourages us to do. The different interpretations are merely accepted as different ways that different persons have interpreted it.

This would be great if that is how it would work in practice, but the problem I see with that concept is what I already mentioned above. It’s a nice theory!

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

t seems to be in this sense that "divisions" (to some extent) are helpful, because when people are willing to question without dogmatism, they help to reveal what is approved and what is not. When people get too dogmatic and speak out against questioning, this also becomes an indicator of what is approved.

Nice theory!

On 10/15/2016 at 10:15 AM, JW Insider said:

There was a brother in Writing when I was at Bethel who often joked: "Argument weak? Shout like hell!" (Eccl 9:17)

Hahaha, funny!

So in summary, what I think you are saying is that you believe the GB should not have the sole authority over the interpretation of scripture. Am I right?

When questioned about this topic at the ARC hearing G. Jackson admitted that he did not believe that they were the only spokespersons for God, but he did say that THEY felt responsible for dispensing the spiritual food, i.e. doctrine/interpretation. I think you are familiar with the transcript, here is the portion I am talking about:

Q. And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?

A. That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food.  So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.

This kind of arrangement would not allow for for the suggestions you make above I don't think. Another interesting statement from Br. Jackson is one I underlined below:

  ......"what you need to understand with regard to our organisation is it is a faith-driven organisation.  This is not an organisation of lawyers or those that are overly concerned with legal matters.  So our primary allegiance is to Jehovah God.  Now, the Governing Body realises that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's word, all of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide who have the Bible would notice that and they would see that it was wrong direction.  So we have responsibilities as guardians to make sure that everything is scripturally acceptable". 

Any comments on that?

17 hours ago, HollyW said:

 

Hi Anna,

You're saying then that the brochure doesn't mention anything about being disciplined after 40 years of wrong doing because waiting that long shows they must be truly repentant.

Interesting.

You totally misunderstood. That's not what I was saying. Of course she was not waiting 40 years to come back, I doubt she was waiting to come back at all, she was out, and for all intents and purposes was going to stay out permanently.  But this just goes to show that we should never judge anyone's situation, because something in the life of that woman changed, and against all odds she came back. If she wasn't truly repentant, wouldn't it have been easier for her to stay as she was?

3 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

I have of course enjoyed all things by my visits in Selters, our German Bethel !  Also I like it, watching intensive pictures, photos and other things ;-)  That picture is of sure little new, yes.  All ok,  JW Insider !  I don't want discuss under my postings, please accept that.  Thank you.

 

 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I already enjoyed the picture, and am still enjoying it.

I think you would not have enjoyed the Bethel Art Department. A "Paradise" scene had to be scrutinized in every way you could imagine. We would have looked at the picture above and asked:

Does the brother need to have the facial hair?

Do all of the sisters need to be wearing jewelry?

Are any dresses too revealing?

Is the brother too muscular, not muscular enough?

Are the sisters too overweight, too underweight? Too pretty, not pretty enough?

Is there a good ratio of brothers versus sisters?

Is there an ideal age depicted? Not too old or too young?

Are there multiple races depicted?

Are there children?

Is everyone smiling?

Are any of the birds about to eat something that might be alive?

Are there any fishing poles on the boat? A motor? Any parts requiring a technical education?

Does the drink imply alcohol?

Does the straw look like plastic?

What about swimming clothes vs. casual clothes vs. meeting clothes?

Is there any specific language or alphabet depicted anywhere?

Does anything in the picture appear derivative or distracting?

Is it too perfect? Not perfect enough?

 

This picture is actually very good, and it would mostly pass the questioning. But, even so, it would not have made it into the Watch Tower publications in 1976-1982 without several revisions. As of 2005 or so, I think it might even be acceptable as is.

 

Hahaha, hilarious discussion going on here

I know the point you were trying to make, and of course you are right because one has to consider every possible aspect so that one does not give a cause for any kind of reproach or stumbling of anyone.  I "love" the artwork where everyone goes swimming fully dressed  so as not to offend others sensibilities regarding modesty. This was solved by dressing everyone in white robes in the latest video shown at the convention. I thought it looked a little creepy and reminded me fof Mormon baptisms . We have become too obsessed with that kind of thing I think. Thankfully we are not all like that in real life. In the 30's our books contained illustrations of full frontal views of Eve, nipples and all. It just shows how innocent society was in comparison to now. The porn industry is flourishing on the one hand, and on the other hand people are uber sensitive to showing any kind of flesh....

Anyway, as an artist myself, I couldn't help thinking that this looked like a patchwork of various poses put together in one. At first I thought the sister in the middle with the hat was modeled on a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones.....Then I recognized the signature and was able to check the brother's Instagram account, and sure enough, he was commissioned by a family to paint them in a paradise setting using several different photographs.... So this painting is not going to get anywhere near Bethel, but hangs in a living room.....

On 10/14/2016 at 0:17 AM, JW Insider said:

If this sounds like letting off steam, I apologize. It's sometimes difficult to state a case against something that might be "strongly entrenched" without trying to cover a lot of details.

If it is men we are trying to please then the most prudent thing we can do is keep our mouth shut and wait. This is an interesting problem. I had started responding to a post @Eoin Joyce where I think he disagreed that it could be a sign of love to speak up against an official doctrine, because people could be stumbled or misuse our words.  Of course, I don't think that questioning doctrines is related to stumbling, because "questioning" is exactly what we are trained to do. Most of our publications teach us to answer questions about doctrines, and our primary training is for the purpose of responding to questions about doctrine. And I would agree that a format like this is conducive to any kind of doctrinal questioning, because my questions are not so different from questions I have heard asked by respectable persons at Bethel, and apostates alike. We don't interact directly with apostates, but that is no reason to avoid the same questions they have asked. Jesus answered the challenges of the greatest apostate of all.

On the question of whether it is a sign of love, we could ask if it can ever be a sign of love to be vocal about disagreements we have with the doctrines of Christendom, such as Trinity and Hell-fire? Perhaps it's not love in every context. We wouldn't want to stand out in front of churches to condemn their false doctrines, because this is probably a form of hate speech. But I think it would be proper in a context where people seek out a specific topic online where questions are brought up about those issue for discussion.

I sometimes wonder what a Christian Bible Student in Rutherford's day should have done if they began to realize that the Pyramid studies were false, and even to some extent "dishonest." Russell never stopped believing in the Pyramids for his entire life, and Rutherford spent most of his Watchtower career believing and defending these teachings, too, until he finally began to identify them as 'teachings of demons.' Would it have been right to speak up? Obviously not in every context, but there were Bible Students discussing this issue long before Rutherford made up his mind. My great grandmother and great grandfather had an argument over this very issue when they were "Chicago Bible Students" before becoming Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course, the question assumes that the question comes from the correct side of the equation. What if we are questioning something that turns out to be true, and we are trying to defend something that turns out to be false? Yet, this is exactly what the Beroeans were doing that made them more noble-minded than the Thessalonians. They were questioning what was already true. Paul later told those Thessalonians to "Make sure of all things." If we are questioning a doctrine and we receive evidence that we are questioning something that is true, then evidence will speak for itself (unless we are stubborn and haughty). But if we receive no evidence, or untrue claims instead of evidence, we will likely continue questioning. If a person receives evidence that the questions are "out of place" and persists in such questions, I think this is what causes divisions. The questioner is probably out of line and may even need discipline but this does not automatically result in "stumbling" of others, either. After all, a good question will usually result in a good answer, whether about a belief, a practice, a tradition, etc.: 

(1 Corinthians 11:17-19) . . .. 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

By the way, I never heard that the Swedish brother became an atheist. His website is still very pro-Christianity, and pro-Bible. (Although I disagree with several ideas on his site.) Also, he never published anything until after he was disfellowshipped. I might have any recent changes in his story wrong, but I had the impression he waited patiently while he assumed his manuscript was going to be responded to. When I was at Bethel no one wanted to touch it and it mostly stayed on a shelf for a couple of years. (Allen was right, by the way, the first edition of his book was not that much different from the last manuscript that Bethel had while he was still a JW.) No one wanted the assignment to respond to it. Most of the time the only concern was what to do about him in case he decided to start spreading his research around. The brother I did research for at Bethel (B.S.) wanted him disfellowshipped right away just in case. The year I traveled to Europe with this brother, B.S., (1978) he went to see about doing that very thing.  I do agree that it is very  sad, but I had the impression he would still be a Witness if he hadn't questioned, he wasn't dismissed for publishing a book, because he hadn't done that yet.

Many ex-JWs do become atheists, though, from what I have heard. That's sadder. I think it makes it much harder to come back. I was told about an ex-ex-JW who attended a small church for a while and realized it was not what he figured it would be and he came back.

I don't know if you are letting off steam, but it sounds like you are happy to be able to talk about it here

Sorry, this is going to be a long post, might even beat some of yours, hahaha.

We both know we should not be men pleasers.  I don’t think it’s prudent to keep our mouth shut if we believe that talking would be beneficial.  What is wise though is establishing when it is beneficial to talk and when not. The whole organization is dependent on the support and cooperation of its members, otherwise without them, the GB would not be able to do anything but sit in their offices and twiddle their thumbs, and Jehovah would have to employ the stones to cry out.  Evidently Jehovah has not chosen to employ stones but humans. We have to keep in mind that the sole purpose of the organization is to be organized to preach the Good News of the KINGDOM which includes educating people about what the Bible really teaches; the fundamental truths I mean. I think we both agree on the fundamental truths.  I also agree it is difficult to just “forget” about certain aspect of our doctrine when there has been evidence in the past that “we were wrong”. The problem is I am very limited in what I can discuss because in order to be able to do that, I would have to read all the pertinent material.  I do not have time to do that, which means I am taking your word for it (and others). What I can do is focus primarily on what I know from practical experience. Practical experience has shown me that we are the best Religion out there.  Nothing compares with us, despite what some post as evidence against that idea. There is no evangelical group quite like us. There is no church which keeps itself morally and spiritually clean like we do. As far as I am aware there is no other church that is entirely run on voluntary donations. And there is no church that is like a united world wide family in the same way that we are. And because there is no Church like us, other churches and their members have decided that the easiest way to explain away their evident failing in those aspects is to proclaim that the “church of Christ/God” is no organization, but it is alive in each individual who professes Jesus.

Here is an interesting excerpt from a “Christian” website which explains this reasoning under the heading: QUESTION: How does the first century church compare to the church today?

"In his letters to the first century church, the Apostle Paul commended each for excelling in the graces of God. Specifically, these first century churches were known for their faith, love, zeal, giving, knowledge, and intolerance for sin, as well as false doctrines. The first century church was united in spirit.

Today's world is characterized by the last days events foretold by the Lord Jesus Christ in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Matthew's Gospel. Specifically, we are hearing of the "wars and rumors of wars," earthquakes, famines, and pestilences of which our Lord warned. It was foretold of the church in these last days, that (among many other things):

• The "love of many" would "grow cold."
• Many in the church would be "lovers of self" rather than lovers of God.
• Many in the faith would be "offended."
• The church would "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof."
• Last day Christians would have "itching" ears, would not "endure sound doctrine" and would have "many teachers."

In other words, the end times church (the organization) will include those who profess belief in Christ but who are, in fact, children of disobedience. The Lord Jesus Christ foretold of this reality in His parable of the "wheat and the tares."
Certainly, the early church had its problems, just as the church today. However, the early church was more diligent to identify and eradicate false doctrines than today's multi-denominational church. It was easier for the early church to discipline, or rid itself of those engaged in immoral activity. This could be because the early church was not as fragmented, or divided as the church of today.

It is important to remember that, regardless of the times in which we live, every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit of God. Every true believer is God's "building." While unity of the spirit in the local church is to be desired, Christ's Church (the organism) is not a visible building. There is an unseen church, comprised of Christ's followers, who remain true to the teachings of Christ and to the leading of His Holy Spirit. The unseen or invisible church excels in the graces of God, just as the early church did, despite the physical location of its members.

Christ's Church is not a building with programs. Christ's church is comprised of those who have a vibrant relationship with our risen Lord and Savior. Though the world may not be witness to the miraculous signs and wonders, or other manifestations of the power of God that were apparent in the early church, Christ's church remains alive and well”.

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/first-century-church-faq.htm

Well, well…… WHAT A COP OUT! You can’t keep your church together like the first century Christians did and like Jehovah’s Witnesses do, so you resort to palming it off on to individuals! Very clever since it lets everyone off the hook.  Incidentally this is what Jonsson has come to believe also, and it seems @Ann O'Maly and @HollyW too.

On another website: How Did the Early Church Differ From The Church Today?

“….One of the major differences between the church of today and the beginning of the church was that the early church was much more evangelistic.

Maybe evangelism was taken more seriously because the Great Commission given by Jesus was still fresh in the minds of the apostles as Jesus commanded, “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth”

The early church did not tolerate open and unrepentant sinning as some churches do today.  Many churches today accept unrepentant homosexuals and even ordained, openly homosexual pastors and members.  This would have been inconceivable in the early church.  The early church also met and broke bread (ate) together more frequently than the churches today.  It seems that many churches have lost that “first love” that the early church had and like new Christians have today.  Sadly, that first love, that zeal for God, and that evangelistic fever has faded somewhat today, but it is still not too late for revival in the world.

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/how-did-the-early-church-differ-from-the-church-today/

And another one:

“…….The first Christians saw themselves as brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers to everyone who was part of the Christian community.
 MONEY- Many churches today spend most of their revenue on salaries, building mortgages and other material supplements to ministry. Look at any church budget and you’ll probably find 1 or 2 percent of church funds allocated to benevolence—helping poor people in need. Maybe another 5 percent, or 10 percent at best, is given to needs outside the church that on some level help the poor.

But such distribution of funds runs counter opposite to how the early church spent its money. The New Testament talks a lot about giving money, but rarely—if ever—talks about giving toward salaries, and it never mentions giving money toward a building. (For what it’s worth, it also never mentions giving 10 percent, which is still a staple value in modern churches.)

MILITARY - Another modern value that was unknown to the early church is militarism. Militarism refers to the “belief or desire that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.” There’s no doubt about it—militarism profoundly shapes American values.

But it also shapes American Christian values. Military historian Andrew Bacevich has unearthed the roots of American militarism and has discovered that the man behind the curtain has been none other than the evangelical church. After much research, Bacevich concludes: “Were it not for the support offered by several tens of millions of evangelicals, militarism in this deeply and genuinely religious country becomes inconceivable.”

But the early church was unmistakably not militaristic. Early Christians were never fascinated with the power of the Roman military; rather, they clung to the rhythm of the cross, where evil is conquered not by swords and spears but by suffering and love. In fact, the most quoted verse among early Christians was Jesus’s command that we should love our enemies…. to aggressively defend or promote national interests—we flee from our early church roots, whose allegiance to God’s Kingdom demoted their allegiance to Rome’s kingdom.
 

Bible Study-The early church also valued the corporate study of the Bible. You may think the modern church has this one down. Most Christians own several Bibles, and church programs often contain a wide array of Bible studies and spiritual classes.
Be that as it may, Christians today exhibit an unprecedented biblical illiteracy despite owning dozens of Bibles. According to one statistic, 60 percent of confessing born-again Christians can’t name five of the 10 commandments, 81 percent don’t believe (or aren’t aware of) the basic tenets of the Christian faith, and 12 percent think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife……
 The early church took seriously Jesus’s statement that people can’t live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the Lord’s mouth (Matthew 4:4). And when Jesus told His disciples to teach others “all that I command you,” they did it (Matthew 28:20).
 I fear that our desire to get back to the early church would require a rather extensive overhaul of the shape of contemporary gatherings”.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/4-ways-modern-church-looks-nothing-early-church

Why have I bothered to quote all this (as it may be off topic). Because despite our various failings in Chronology etc. We, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, can proudly say we are doing our best, AND succeeding, in being like the first Century church. The church that Christ himself established. How much closer can one get to the genuine source than that?

And all this, I believe, could not be achieved without God’s blessing, despite the mistakes we have made.....

That's my simple two cent contribution in the midst of all this deep Chronology discussion

14 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Along with JW Insider, I can also confirm that he has remained a Christian believer. And yes, he wasn't upset because he "wasn't being heard as he would have liked to have been heard," but because he had found out what the Society had been teaching was demonstrably false, because he kept getting the brush-off from HQ, and because there was an underhanded campaign to vilify him in his JW community. ...

... You know, the usual way big organizations treat dissenters and whistleblowers. 

Yes, you are correct, he claims he is a "Christian". I read so much stuff I am not sure who said what anymore. I am glad I said "I was under the impression" I knew I had no time to verify it when I was writing that post....

On 6/28/2016 at 1:40 PM, HollyW said:

I was going to post this in the Questions section, but then I thought it might become controversial.

What I found interesting about this brochure is its implication that inactive Jehovah's Witnesses can confess violating WTS rules for 40 years and not be disciplined for it, but rather will be welcomed back to each congregation with open arms.  The brochure tells of one coming back after 40 years of being inactive, who during that time had celebrated holidays, gone to other churches, been involved in politics, and probably much more. 

Has something been left out of the brochure....something like 'yes, you'll be welcomed back with open arms....as soon as the elders say you can be, but until them you'll be shunned for your 40 years of sins that you just confessed to them.' ?

I ask because the articles about inactive ones returning to the Kingdom Hall have always said something about  "Loving disciples may be required." There's even been instructions to those who may be asked to study with an inactive JW, such as this in a 2008 wt:

[w08 11/15 Help Them Return Without Delay!, p.12, par.2] If they assign a publisher to study with an inactive person desiring help, what should be done if the conductor learns that the individual has committed a serious sin? Instead of giving counsel about any judicial or confidential matter, the publisher should suggest that he speak to the elders. If he fails to do so, the publisher himself should inform the elders.

If elders can question the sincerity of someone's repentance because he or she waited a month or two before confessing it to the elders, wouldn't it be even more doubtful that a person confessing after 40 years is truly repentant?

 

Holly

 

One could also argue that on the contrary, after 40 years one could be MORE sure that the person is most likely repentant. Why else would they bother coming back if they have already done without it for so long?

I see you do not really understand the reasons behind disciplinary actions or why they are implemented. The primary reason is to GAIN our brother or sister. I know, it sounds odd, but the Bible always speaks about discipline in a positive light..."those whom Jehovah disciplines he loves" Do not forsake the discipline of your father/mother so that it may go well with you"  "Accept discipline in order to become wise in your future" "hold on to discipline....for it means your life" etc. etc.

Now looking at it from a logical perspective, what kind of discipline would this sister have benefited from? It was already too late for any discipline! The only thing she could have been is punished. And punishment is not what discipline is about. Remember discipline is positive. She had already been punished by the consequences of what she has done. Her conscience tortured her. That was punishment enough. Now the only way was up.

In contrast, someone who confesses a sin that happened only a few months ago, what kind of discipline would they benefit from? Remember discipline is a positive thing, helping someone to REGAIN their spiritual footing. The above mentioned sister had totally lost her footing, she had been on a totally different path (for 40 years). For her, she would have to start from scratch. Bible study etc. as if she was a newcomer. 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 I am concerned about the lengths that we will sometimes go to in order to defend them. This is fine, too, except if we notice that the doctrinal tradition has become so important that we are finding ourselves using dishonest or untrue methods to defend it. That's actually the ONLY thing that bothers me about it. Otherwise, chronology one way or another means nothing to me.

I agree with you there. We should not feel that we must defend "doctrinal tradition" at ALL costs, especially if we notice that some things do not add up properly. The most prudent thing to do is keep our mouth shut and wait. (or as we say wait on Jehovah)  and while we are waiting, we can perhaps let off steam in places like this.  We definitely don't want to become like the Swedish brother though, who got so upset because he wasn't being heard as he would have liked to have been heard. I am under the impression he has become an atheist now. It's sad where it took him.

Of course we should want to defend the fundamental truths, (even if the rest of so called Christianity do not agree with us, and many think we use dishonest and untrue methods to defend it) and I know you do not have a problem with that.

6 hours ago, HollyW said:

 When persons are in great danger from a source that they do not suspect or are being misled by those they consider their friends, is it an unkindness to warn them? They may prefer not to believe the warning. They may even resent it. But does that free one from the moral responsibility to give that warning?

I agree with this too

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But has it already been "brought to nothing"? (Another teaching that was assigned to the beginning of the 1914 generation, but see Revelation 18.)

I suppose because she has been judged unfavorably, she has already fallen/been brought to nothing, symbolically/ spiritually speaking. Rev 18:2 " “She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, and she has become a dwelling place of demons and a place where every unclean spirit and every unclean and hated bird lurks!" 

If this meant that Babylon the great has been literally destroyed, then she would not even be a dwelling place for demons etc. Nothing would dwell in her as she would be completely destroyed as if by fire. As it stands, Babylon the Great is presently a dwelling place of demons etc.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

concerning the time of the PAROUSIA event only the Father knows, I don't even know myself. [v. 37] Therefore, the PAROUSIA is going to come as a surprise, just the same as the judgment came in the days of Noah. [v. 38] Remember that in those days before the Flood, people were going about their daily lives eating, drinking, getting married  [doing what they had been doing since the days of their forefathers, saying, in effect that there was peace and security] right up until the very day that Noah entered into the ark. [v 39] They were completely unaware* and they knew nothing until the Flood came by surprise and swept them all away. That's exactly how the PAROUSIA judgment will take people by surprise, too. [

I feel you are forgetting one important thing. If we are going to use Jesus' example of the days of Noah, what role does Noah play in the illustration? Did it take him by surprise? Was he eating and drinking and busy with life?

Also, would Jesus disciples be taken by surprise, to the same extent as the people in Noah's day? Obviously not, as they would be keeping on the watch. This is why we use this illustration to show the importance of  GETTING  into the ark, in this case what we call Jehovah's organization and proving ourselves ready.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Here is how Luke presented the same idea in another context when Jesus made the same point. Note that the term PAROUSIA is replaced here with the term meaning "the day of the Son of man" (v.24) and in the "days of Noah" this is equated with the "days of the Son of man" until a specific time when the flood (judgment) swept them away by surprise, just like in the "days of Lot" until that "one day" when Lot left Sodom and the judgment occurred. It's that judgment that is equated with the "day that the Son of man is revealed." This final day of judgment is the portion of the time period that was equated with the PAROUSIA in Matthew.

We don't know the day, but we do get to recognize the season, and we do get to recognize Noah building the ark and Lot did leave Sodom, as did Noah enter the ark.....

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My "next post" was going to be tomorrow with specific reference to Jesus' statement that the parousia would be like the days of Noah. But this is the same basic question. Again, I don't expect that these opinions, on their own, should convince anyone one way or another. I'm trying to present a case for why it is easier to understand Matthew 24 and everything about the parousia in a way that appears more consistent with all the Bible references in context, and why our current doctrine produces some difficulties and contradictions. So here goes:

There are NO Bible references to the "parousia" that are not directly related to Jesus' coming to execute judgment. In other words, ALL Bible references to the "parousia" refer to the judgment events that we associate with the "great tribulation" and Armageddon.

In fact the 2013 Watchtower you quoted in a separate post moved several teachings from the beginning of the "1914 generation" to the end that we once assigned to the beginning of the generation. I'll highlight a few portions:

*** w13 7/15 pp. 7-8 pars. 14-19 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
Does a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy reveal that our understanding of the timing of other significant events needs to be adjusted? . . . Jesus focuses primarily on what will happen during these last days and during the coming great tribulation. There, Jesus makes eight references to his “coming,” or arrival. . . .  (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44; 25:31) Each of these four references applies to Christ’s future coming as Judge. Where in Jesus’ prophecy do we find the remaining four references?
¹⁶ Regarding the faithful and discreet slave. . . (Matt. 24:46; 25:10, 19, 27) To what time do these four instances of Jesus’ coming refer?
¹⁷ In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) . . .
¹⁸In the verses that lead up to Matthew 24:46, the word “coming” refers consistently to the time when Jesus comes to pronounce and execute judgment during the great tribulation. (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44) Also, as we considered in paragraph 12, Jesus’ ‘arriving’ mentioned at Matthew 25:31 refers to that same future time of judgment. So it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings, mentioned at Matthew 24:46, 47, also applies to his future coming, during the great tribulation. Indeed, a consideration of Jesus’ prophecy in its entirety makes it clear that each of these eight references to his coming applies to the future time of judgment during the great tribulation.
¹⁹ . . . So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles.

This had to be done, because several contradictions were being produced by our former explanations of various prophecies and parables (and also "prophetic dramas" that we were still deriving from Bible narratives at the time of this article). But this didn't get rid of all of the contradictions.

In fact, the "1914 doctrine" no longer serves any purpose except to point to a time when we assume that Satan was cast out of heaven in October, which vaguely explains the war that broke out earlier in July and which the Watchtower had said was easily predicted from the political tensions and build-up for several years prior to 1914. Casting him out is also supposed to explain Satan's anger at his short period of time, explaining his wrath in the WWI period, and which we should assume is now even a shorter period of time than it was in 1914.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 

In fact, related to that last point, note that the article points out that 1914 was no longer even the time when Jesus "sat down" on his glorious throne as we had always explained Matthew 25:31. There was a recent discussion on this forum about the "sit then stand then sit again" sequence, which has also changed a few times over the years. 

¹¹ In the mid-1990’s, The Watchtower reexamined Matthew 25:31, which states: “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne.” It was noted that Jesus became King of God’s Kingdom in 1914, but he did not “sit down on his glorious throne” as Judge of “all the nations.”

But it turns out that all these issues go away, and we no longer have to create special or "less likely" translations of various Greek words, if we just take notice of the fact that ALL the references to the parousia are about the final time of tribulation and judgment.

The reference to 2 Peter 3:12 is just one of many verses that highlights this same point. Note that this is about the "parousia of the Lord." (The NWT uses the term Jehovah here, and it might not be as clear therefore that the Greek refers to the same Parousia of Jesus.) I'll temporarily change it back to the Greek manuscript "Lord", and change "presence" to "parousia" and I think it will be clearer. 

(2 Peter 3:3-12) ³ First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come . . . saying: “Where is this promised PAROUSIA of his? . . . ⁵ For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago. . . the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. ⁷ But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. . . . ¹⁰ But the Lord's day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, . . . consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, ¹² as you await and keep close in mind the PAROUSIA of the day of the Lord, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!

In fact, our publications do not usually associate this particular "parousia" with Christ's parousia starting in 1914, but to the "end" (except that we contradict this by always using verses 3 and 4 to point to the duration from 1914 through the end). Notice this particular explanation:

*** it-1 p. 595 Day of Jehovah ***
That “day of Jehovah” came in 70 C.E., when, in fulfillment of his Word, Jehovah caused the armies of Rome to execute divine judgment upon the nation that had rejected the Son of God and defiantly shouted: “We have no king but Caesar.”—Joh 19:15; Da 9:24-27.
However, the Scriptures point forward to yet another “day of Jehovah.” After the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem following the Babylonian exile, Jehovah caused his prophet Zechariah (14:1-3) to foretell “a day . . . belonging to Jehovah” when he would gather not merely one nation but “all the nations against Jerusalem,” at the climax of which day “Jehovah will certainly go forth and war against those nations,” bringing them to their end. The apostle Paul, under inspiration, associated the coming “day of Jehovah” with the presence of Christ. (2Th 2:1, 2) And Peter spoke of it in connection with the establishment of ‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness is to dwell.’—2Pe 3:10-13.

This gives context, again, to the verses referenced from 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 where the Parousia is not a drawn-out time period of 100 to 150 or even 200 years, but a specific time of judgment.

(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah [day of the Lord] is here.

The "day of the Lord" is equated with the "parousia of the Lord." And Paul goes on to explain why: because the apostasy would come first and the Parousia would be the time of judgment against that apostasy:

(2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [Gk: GLORIOUS EPIPHANY of his PAROUSIA].

We could look at every reference to Christ's parousia, and notice that it makes much more sense to translate it as an EVENT related to the judgment. When referring to Jesus' "parousia" it is always a reference to a bright, visible, unexpected event using a term that would also remind the first Greek-speaking audience of the famous parade-like event, the "royal visitation" of an emperor:

*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) ***
pa·rou·siʹa “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.”

It is never necessary, Biblically, to think of it as a drawn-out "presence."

I do understand your reasoning and in many ways it makes sense. I have also considered what you posted before learning your view. But we should also consider another aspect I think, the time from Jehovah's perspective. To Him 100 to 200 years is just a few minutes. Also, as I mentioned before, Jesus talks about a time period which would make it evident to discerning ones (human perspective) that he was very near at the door (parable of fig tree) and it would be logical that this would be a relatively short time period (back to Jehovah's perspective). What puzzles me is why would Jesus have mentioned this parable if there would be no prior circumstances to his Judgment part of his manifestation, which would be as unmistakable as spring and the coming of summer. He mentioned the budding of the tree IN conjunction with the sign of the times, that the sign of the times would be as observable and identifiable as spring. Although his followers would not know the day or hour, they WOULD be able to recognize the season.  And where does the preaching of God's Kingdom fit into this? Is it a coincidence that the preaching work started when it did? Even if it was planned that way, it still would not nullify that statement. (of the Kingdom being preached and then the end would come.

The “new” generation of JWs, those in their 20’s and 30’s feel it won’t come for another 50 or more years, by which time they will be in their 70’s/80’s or possibly dead. But they still follow orders from Jesus and a large majority of them are full time pioneers. Others are saying “where is this promised presence of his”  “things are the same as they have always been, my parents thought I wouldn’t even go to school and now I am married and have kids myself” “where is the truth in "millions now living will never die” etc. etc. then they read R. Franz’s book which drives a nail in the coffin and they leave. Not only do they leave, but many of them become Atheists, and the few who remain “believers in Jesus”, stop following in his footsteps and just become imitation Christians.

But those who endure to the end will be saved…..Endure what? Perhaps the very things we are discussing here, the ambiguity of the times…what does Jesus' presence really mean in practice......interpretation of chronology…etc. etc. Just MY thoughts (in case I get slapped across the wrist by Eoin, just kidding Eoin ).

Here are a few more things:

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But the "1914 doctrine" does nothing to explain why the Gentile nations got much stronger, more numerous, and more effective after 1914 now that their "times had ended" and their kings had already "had their day." Somehow, this explained how Jesus had come into Kingly power in 1914.

Does sound puzzling. Perhaps this could be understood from Jehovah's perspective, their times HAVE ended as Jesus' BEGAN, and the countdown to their destruction had started. We know they are not just going to fade, and not go out without a fight as they are "being gathered" for the great war.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The "day of the Lord" is equated with the "parousia of the Lord." And Paul goes on to explain why: because the apostasy would come first and the Parousia would be the time of judgment against that apostasy:

(2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [Gk: GLORIOUS EPIPHANY of his PAROUSIA].

I would say that this fits in with the present situation, Christendom has already been judged apostate because it has been exposed by those who found the "truth", and in practice, that judgement will be carried out when they are physically brought to nothing. OR one could also say that by their exposure, they/their teachings have been brought to nothing....This was certainly not the case a 100 years or so ago.

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There are NO Bible references to the "parousia" that are not directly related to Jesus' coming to execute judgment. In other words, ALL Bible references to the "parousia" refer to the judgment events that we associate with the "great tribulation" and Armageddon.

This begs the question, what really is meant by "judgement" because judgment does not always have to be in relation to judgement being carried out/ executed,  but an evaluation of a situation over time in order to decide how to proceed, (as in the case of those who will come back to a resurrection of judgement). In the case of Christ's parousia, this judgement will culminate at Armageddon, but will be preceded by a judgment where the object of the judging is found to be lacking (in order for the adverse judgement/execution to be fair and justified). That period of judging, in MY opinion could fit into the time period from Christs supposed parousia in (or around) 1914 and culminate with the execution at Armaggeddon.....

10 hours ago, HollyW said:

Notice that is not the type of Bible reading the WTS describes that they are objecting to:

They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. 

When has the WTS adhered to the Bible, though?  Did it adhere to the Bible when it was teaching that all of the 144,000 were the faithful slave?

The article itself describes exactly what was entailed in the type of Bible study some JWs were doing:  reading the Bible without WT publications, either alone or in small groups at home.  But you then see the quote marks as negating what was just said.  I'm sure the WTS does sneer at Bible reading that is done apart from their publications that interpret it for you because that would mean their publications aren't needed any more.

The WT article expresses the same idea that Russell expressed when he said if his followers left off reading his Studies in the Scriptures they would go into darkness, which the article says is the teachings Christians have been teaching for 100 years (it's actually longer than that ;))

And, yes, reading just the Bible shows that there are three separate and distinct person who are the one true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The angels set a good example of the joyful celebration of Jesus' birth.  Christians are in good company celebrating the birth of our Savior and King.

There are plenty of examples of Godly warfare in the Bible and each Christian can exercise his or her own conscience when it comes to war.  JWs have no leg to stand on with this because the WTS itself teaches that there will be a number of JWs so large as to be uncountable who will go to war against other JWs at the end of the 1,000 years when they are supposedly perfect in every way: spiritually, physically, mentally, and morally.

The operative sentence here is "they say". They may not even have been reading the Bible, it may still have been gathering dust on the shelves

The slave adheres to the Bible in what I consider very important areas, whereas Christendom does not adhere to the Bible in those areas. You mentioned a few of them and the Praeceptor already commented on them so I won't. Whether all of the anointed are the slave or just a small group, is  a minor detail. Not important. It has not changed what the Bible says, that there IS a slave, whether that be many or a few.

P.S. The fact that those who "said" they wanted to read the Bible by itself ALREADY indicates that they are harboring some kind of animosity or unwillingness to follow the things the slave has written - which are in the Bible. This could be with respect to the preaching work, as it often is (too much bother) or Birthdays and Christmas for the kids (they are so left out) blood transfusions (I believe they will save my life, and I don't care if it's just temporary). Sitting on one's laurels because merely the belief in Jesus will guarantee salvation. What the belief in Jesus entails is conveniently left out.....

1 hour ago, Queen Esther said:

NO...  bec. Jehovah will use  HIS watching into FUTURE !  Then he will decide, which humans still would love him and they get a chance after Armageddon. So I learned it ! ❤️

PS. Thats my answer for rescue the humans...

Thanks . He will do SOMETHING for sure, because he won't let anyone die unjustly. Not only is that a promise, but it is in line with his 4 greatest attributes.

4 hours ago, WitnessConfectionProgram said:

Just getting back to the original question:

I'd say that, firstly, 'this Generation' includes the lifetime of, for example, Geoffrey Jackson, who is only 60 at the moment, not even a pensioner, so the generation wouldn't need to be 'longer than we think' to allow for a considerable amount of stuff to happen.

Also, bear in mind that Jehovah said he would 'speed it up in his own time'.  And it's easy to see how things might speed up.  In the past we've heard experiences of missionaries coming across congregations who were already practising the truth, because they'd come across some book from somewhere, and had started sharing it with each other, so that by the time the organisation found them, they were already doing more or less everything Jehovah wanted.  That happened before the internet existed, before people in China or India or anywhere else could look up information in their own language and find out the answers to existential questions everybody has about life, and which people don't stop having just because their country isn't widely Christian.

Consider the changes made in the past ten years. Apps designed to teach us foreign languages. Teaching to use videos as part of our presentations. Cart witnessing. Many ways of witnessing that were previously alien to us are now being embraced. It doesn't seem unlikely that we could be taught to witness online, in different languages, so as to reach these other countries.  That would certainly be one way of speeding it up.

Yes, it is also logical that since Jehovah can read hearts, he can tell the difference between someone who would have accepted the truth had they had the chance, and someone who wouldn't. But I think plenty has been said on that subject already. All I'd add is that given Satan's challenge in Eden, presumably what Jehovah is concerned about when deciding whether a person is suitable to live in the new world is that person's willingness to obey him rather than choosing their own path - not whether they actually got told what he wanted them to do.  That, after all, was the test that Adam and Eve failed.

Helpful observations. Thanks!

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The suggestion is that, for Jesus, the parousia appears to come at the END of the generation, not the BEGINNING.

 

If I understand the following articles in the WT correctly, there are two types of coming, the first one; presence/parousia (at the beginning of the generation) being an invisible manifestation based on surrounding circumstances i.e. the composite sign and the invisible establishment of his Kingdom, and the second one his coming/erkhomai to execute judgement (future, at the end of the generation) based on a physical manifestation like you mention. Perhaps @ the Praeceptor can confirm this as he is Greek and a linguist....

 WT July 2013

¹⁵ In the part of his prophecy that is recorded at Matthew 24:29–25:46, Jesus focuses primarily on what will happen during these last days and during the coming great tribulation. There, Jesus makes eight references to his “coming,” or arrival. * Regarding the great tribulation, he states: “They will see the Son of man coming on the clouds.” “You do not know on what day your Lord is coming.” “At an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming.” And in his parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus states: “The Son of man arrives in his glory.” (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44; 25:31) Each of these four references applies to Christ’s future coming as Judge. Where in Jesus’ prophecy do we find the remaining four references?

¹⁶ Regarding the faithful and discreet slave, Jesus says: “Happy is that slave if his master on arriving [“having come,” ftn.] finds him doing so.” In the parable of the virgins, Jesus states: “While they were going off to buy, the bridegroom arrived [“came,” Kingdom Interlinear].” In the parable of the talents, Jesus relates: “After a long time the master of those slaves came.” In the same parable, the master says: “On my arrival [“having come,” Int] I would be receiving what is mine.” (Matt. 24:46; 25:10, 19, 27) To what time do these four instances of Jesus’ coming refer?

 ¹⁷ In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) We understood that the “arriving” mentioned in verse 46 was linked to the time when Jesus came to inspect the spiritual condition of the anointed in 1918 and that the appointment of the slave over all the Master’s belongings occurred in 1919. (Mal. 3:1) However, a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy indicates that an adjustment in our understanding of the timing of certain aspects of Jesus’ prophecy is needed. Why so?

 ¹⁸ In the verses that lead up to Matthew 24:46, the word “coming” refers consistently to the time when Jesus comes to pronounce and execute judgment during the great tribulation. (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44) Also, as we considered in  paragraph 12, Jesus’ ‘arriving’ mentioned at Matthew 25:31 refers to that same future time of judgment. So it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings, mentioned at Matthew 24:46, 47, also applies to his future coming, during the great tribulation. * Indeed, a consideration of Jesus’ prophecy in its entirety makes it clear that each of these eight references to his coming applies to the future time of judgment during the great tribulation.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/jesus-prophecy-last-days/

¹⁶ When does Jesus arrive? The answer is found in the context. Remember that when the preceding verses speak of Jesus as “coming,” the word refers to the time when he comes to pronounce and execute judgment at the end of this system. * (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44) Hence, Jesus’ “arriving,” or “coming,” mentioned in the illustration of the faithful slave takes place during the great tribulation.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/