1914

[Arauna]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

She seems to be looking for a sign when as already mentioned there will be no sign.  We do not know the day or

I saw your application of the scripture you chose - it was taken out of context...... but I did not want to waste my eyes to answer you.  Signs of the times are here like blossoms on the fig tree. .... whether you believe in signs or not. 

I see them and my faith is stronger for it. I also appreciate how the GB has identified the UN, beast and image of the beast correctly even though many here view them as bumbling old men. 

 

 

9 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Do you think women cannot be of the Anointed then ? 

The bible indicates that women must wear a head covering when they teach and if brothers are available to step back. This was in the congregation back in time of Paul when all were anointed.

Women who are anointed know what jehovah expects and will not push themselves forward.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, Anna said:

That is why G. Jackson said anyone who has the Bible would be able to do so, and would be able to see if certain direction (from the GB) measured up, and would see if it was right or wrong direction. If we discern it’s wrong direction then we act on our own behalf, and not tell others what to do, because everyone else has a Bible too.

Do you recommending "silence"? Silently disagree with some official teachings and stay (or go out) without warning others about dangerous of such teachings? That is against principles WT Society use itself,  to warn people about some dangerous that you see it exist and can harm people. (Ezekiel book)

[Witness]

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

I also appreciate how the GB has identified the UN, beast and image of the beast correctly even though many here view them as bumbling old men. 

I had to read this twice, since I kept seeing "identified with the UN".  Which in their various ways, they certainly have.  It was another stumbling block for me, to find out about their NGO membership  in the '90's.  Although this topic has been hashed and rehashed here, it's not something many who see the WT's hypocrisy, can easily drop.  

Wikipedia:

In February 1992, Jehovah's Witnesses' New York corporation, the Watchtower Society, was granted association as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) of the United Nations Department of Public Information (UN/DPI). The Watchtower Society requested termination of the association in October 2001, and the DPI disassociated the NGO on 9 October^[12] after the matter was reported in The Guardian.^[13][14] A UN/DPI letter dated March 4, 2004, states, "The principal purpose of association of non-governmental organizations with the United Nations Department of Public Information is the redissemination of information in order to increase public understanding of the principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies."^[15] The letter explained that " by accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities."^[15] The official site further notes that association with the UN/DPI "does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status."^[16]

Jehovah's Witnesses have appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Committee about sanctions against their members' activities. Between April 2013 and early April 2016, Jehovah's Witnesses submitted 48 appeals to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, complaining that punishments for sharing faith violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.^[17]

I think it’s very possible, that the WT does not believe the UN is the Beast of Revelation 13:1,2.   Why utilize the power of the "Beast" to save their organization,  when God's power is almighty?  

“Woe to the rebellious children,” says the Lord,
“Who take counsel, but not of Me,
And who devise plans, but not of My Spirit,
That they may add sin to sin;
² Who walk to go down to Egypt,
And have not asked My advice,
To strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,
And to trust in the shadow of Egypt!  Isa 30:1,2

15 hours ago, Arauna said:

Someone has to delegate the work.  The GB do not do the work but give oversight.  So you think women should be doing this work when bible clearly says that overseers must be men?

Rom 16:1,2  - I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea,  that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.

"servant", from the Greek word, διάκονος diákonos, dee-ak'-on-os; probably from an obsolete διάκω diákō (to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess):—deacon, minister, servant.

 

 

[Witness]

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

The bible indicates that women must wear a head covering when they teach and if brothers are available to step back. This was in the congregation back in time of Paul when all were anointed.

 

 

Because of this, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, on account of the angels. 

What is that “symbol”?

¹¹ Nevertheless, neither is woman anything apart from man, nor is man anything apart from woman in the Lord. ¹² For just as the woman is from the man, thus also the man is through the woman. But all things are from God.

 ¹³ You judge for yourselves: is it fitting for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ And does not nature itself  teach you that a man, if he wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him? ¹⁵ But a woman, if she wears long hair, it is her glory, because her hair is given for a covering. ¹⁶ But if anyone is disposed to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. 1 Cor 11:10-16

What custom?  The custom of the Jews in 1 Cor 11:3-10

  

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

To access the full range of these facilities you need a DPI NGO pass

Yes, yes I know.  Is that the reason the organization is an NGO a member in other countries?

[Arauna]

5 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Allen Smith” gave a detailed

Actually, the festival of Akito was left out and no-one wrote about it.  Mr Allen was not as thorough as he thinks he is. 

Try not to be so dismissive. Did you not read in 1 cor 8 that knowledge puffs up?  Or have you also thrown God out with the bathwater like Allan has ?  A lot of knowledge without insight does that to people......

6 minutes ago, Witness said:

NGO a member in other countries?

I have not researched this but I believe one cannot do hurricane relief work or other disaster relief without such a membership.  The org.  needs to register as a non-governmental organization because access will be restricted. 

Knowing some people who are quick to judge our org, this membership will stumble them as well -  just as the library facilities membership  did.  

35 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

because they have allowed the devil to influence others within the organization.

People allow themselves to be influenced by the devil and it shows in their attitudes.  I have done my personal research - I believe the biblical time line is extremely important as in any project that is managed. Jehovah is administering his universal project perfectly Eph 1:9. 

One can  intrinsically prove that the bible is the word of God by the logic, continuity and consistency of its main theme and the time-line of the kingdom that is given.  

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes, you have looked for it here on JWI’s thread.

’Tell me more, JWI. Explain this point about 1914 again, JWI. These are things all over my head, JWI. Please run that by me again, JWI. Thank you for helping me, JWI’

And what is JWI’s reward for this helpfulness, when it becomes clear that he is not throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

It is too stupid to be wicked.

I don't know if you are having a nervous breakdown, or if you are deliberately trying to cause trouble on here but what you seem to imply was that I was saying that to JWI, which of course i wasn't.

If you had read it properly you would have noticed i was quoting what Jesus had said to the Pharisees. 

As for me following what JWI had said, do you have a problem with that ? If so make in known and plainly.  I have  realised for a long time that YOU like to be the centre of attention, well tough luck because you are not, so just live with it. JWI writes things that i find sensible, where as you, Mr storyteller, write utter rubbish. 

What I actually wanted from @JW Insider was simple statements that the GB / JW Org were getting it wrong, and therefore teaching false teachings. Why ? Well one reason is to answer you when you boast about your ministry. Serving your GB and its Org, whilst telling lies to people in the world. 

Have a wonderful day Mr Harley. 

[Witness]

30 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I have not researched this but I believe one cannot do hurricane relief work or other disaster relief without such a membership.  The org.  needs to register as a non-governmental organization because access will be restricted. 

Knowing some people who are quick to judge our org, this membership will stumble them as well -  just as the library facilities membership  did.  

Does this mean that the stipulation outlined here, doesn’t apply to the organization?

A UN/DPI letter dated March 4, 2004, states, "The principal purpose of association of non-governmental organizations with the United Nations Department of Public Information is the redissemination of information in order to increase public understanding of the principles, activities and achievements of the United Nations and its Agencies."[15] The letter explained that " by accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities.

How, does the organization increase the understanding of, and support the UN Charter, and condemn them at the same time as the Wild Beast from the Sea who conquers God’s “saints”?  Rev 13:16,17   That is lying in bed with the enemy, unless it really isn’t the enemy.   

 

[JW Insider]

On 1/3/2020 at 11:38 AM, Arauna said:

Actually, the festival of Akito was left out and no-one wrote about it.  Mr Allen was not as thorough as he thinks he is. Try not to be so dismissive. Did you not read in 1 cor 8 that knowledge puffs up?  Or have you also thrown God out with the bathwater like Allan has ?  A lot of knowledge without insight does that to people......

You are treading on dangerous ground, even if you have already considered that Cesar, is Allen, is . . . . etc. Expect a lot of diversions -- and insults if you don't let the diversions work.

On 1/3/2020 at 1:56 AM, Arauna said:

I read the 607 discussion on this forum a while back ..... I saw that no-one mentioned the festival of Akitu which took place in 538 BCE. Cyrus was appointed king of kings on Nissan 1-14 in 14 day festival. It was then when he gave decree that all could go back.

Actually you, Arauna, definitely did mention it during that discussion, and the comments you made about it there indicated that you were NOT aware that it doesn't change a thing. (Assuming you go along with the rest of the WTS assumptions about 538/537.)

The festival of Akitu was not just celebrated in 538 BCE, but EACH and EVERY year for centuries prior and centuries afterwards. I know you already knew that, but the way you worded it above could have implied to others that this festival took place only in 538. (The WTS evidently believes there was another Akitu/NewYear's celebration in 537 and this would have been just as possible.) Or at least you were implying that there was some special evidence that only allowed for this particular year 538 to be the time when Cyrus declared the Jews to be free to go home.

Turns out this is just a guess with no real evidence behind it, if you think it forces the decree to be only possible in 538. But I agree that it's possible (though a little less likely if the WTS is right about 537). You might recall from the other discussion, I didn't care whether your preferred SECULAR date was 539 or 538 or 537 for the declaration/release because any of of those dates is a close enough fit for the Bible record, and any of those dates supports the historical facts surrounding the prophecies of Jeremiah. Any of those dates would be a fair fit for the dominance of Babylon for 70 years. (A dominance and servitude that led to a very greatest level of desolation Israel had ever seen, associated directly with those same 70 years given to Babylon for domination as a "World Empire.")

Apparently you also didn't realize that you were using it in a way to push the first regnal "year" of Cyrus to a date that even the Watchtower doesn't necessarily push for. The Watchtower would have loved to move the decree as late as possible after 539 because of the 3 year gap between 539 and the 536 date that Russell had used for Cyrus overtaking Babylon. Changing 606 to 607 back in 1943 had only bought them 1 of those 3 years, but that still left 2 years to account for. Russell/Barbour had not really accounted for communication time, preparation time and travel time back to Judea, so adding a year for this bought the Watchtower 1 more of those 2 years, still unaccounted for. So to get that extra year they also needed to push the decree of Cyrus (freeing the Jews) to a time that was a year or even more than a year after Babylon was overtaken.

So, to that end, the Insight book hints that it is possible, and that some commentators have inserted Darius for that first year without Cyrus, but continues to use a date that shows it's more likely they were co-rulers. You are pushing for an idea that would put Cyrus' accession year and first full regnal year (Nisannu to Nisannu) to a point one year later than the Watchtower admits.

*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.

But making such a big deal out of the importance of the Akitu (New Year's celebration) did not help your claim in the slightest.

The Akitu celebration was indeed at least a week-long celebration that was officially ran from Nisannu 4^th through the 11^th. With preparation and travel to the two main temples and back, it's probably fine to count it from the 1^st to the 14^th as you did above.

But, as stated, it was not just celebrated in 538 of course. It was celebrated in 540, 539, 538, 537, 536, 535, etc., not just in 538.

I do agree that this New Year's celebration was probably considered an appropriate time for a king like Cyrus to make that kind of legal announcement to free the Jews from exile. I'm fine with your date, but it has no real solid evidence, only conjecture, and the declaration might have even been even more likely in 539. Either way it plays no part in 1914. Even if 607 had been correct, it would have nothing to do with 1914, from a scriptural perspective. You are only arguing from a secular perspective.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Then you of all people trying disparately to argue against't it with Allen smith in the past, he did make that connection you continue to dismiss.

Just go back and look. You'll see that I never did argue against it. I've always said that I'm perfectly fine with the 70 years running from 607 to 537, or 608 to 538, or 609 to 539. I even said I was OK with the idea that the 70 years was a rounded off figure, in the same way that the Watchtower publications treated the 70 years of Babylonian domination over Tyre. I have also said that rounded numbers are not a problem in the same way that the time Jesus spent in the tomb was designated by "THREE days and three nights," when the actual time in the tomb was only ONE full day and night, along with a part of the preceding day and a part of the next day. According to the Bible record it turned out to be only  parts of three days, perhaps not much more than 36 hours, or even less, when "three days and three nights" would have meant 72 hours.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

A period of mourning for his wife that you also dismissed.

Never dismissed this either. Go back and check.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You also dismiss the fact that secular history is referring to OCT of 539 BC, toward the end of the year. Therefore, everything else would have taken place in 538/537 BC just like scholars now estimate.

Nope. I still agree that secular history is referring to October of 539, not necessarily toward the end of the year, if we are counting Nisannu to Nisannu.

Of course, I still don't think any of this discussion is necessary. It's all secular. I believe the Bible with or without all this secular reasoning. The only value to knowing it is hopefully to help some of us from making false or dishonest statements that will embarrass the brotherhood unnecessarily. Not only can some of our statements be dishonest which is bad enough, they might also display a haughtiness that gives an impression like: "Ha ha! Look at all this esoteric stuff we know about secular reasoning and archaeology that you don't, and this secular stuff makes our interpretations of the Bible are so much better than yours!"

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Quote @Anna But you still didn't answer my question. Bible in hand, what have you found that the GB are doing wrong?

I think this question has been answered many times before on this forum and it seems you are just going around in circles. Not only me but others also have made mention of the faults of the GB. Besides which you and other JWs will only make excuses for the GB and the Writing Dept and the Elders at al. 

Quote "Blaming the GB et al for not using our brains is just another example of not using our brains. Each person is responsible for their own spirituality." 

Didn't one of the GB say 'God and Jesus Christ trusts us, so do you trust us?'  Wasn't that a sly way of the GB saying to JWs 'You have to believe what we say'.

Hebrews 13 v 17

 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among youz and be submissive,a for they are keeping watch over you* as those who will render an account,b so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.

Quote "When we stand in front of the judgment seat of God, there isn’t going to be an elder holding our hand, or telling us how to think... "          No not then but there are NOW. 

The GB say they are the F&DS and have said in W/t that they are the ONE channel that God is using (although denying it at ARC) and that congregants should trust THEM. The GB give 'authority' through the ranks, down to the Elders. Then the scripture at Hebrews mentioned above is used to enforce the Elders 'authority'. 

So, if a person is an obedient JW, they cannot choose to be responsible for their own spirituality if it goes against serving the GB and the JW Org.  You and others cannot get this through your heads. 

If a congregant has thoughts that the GB and JW Org are wrong, and if they prove to themselves from scripture, they have to make a choice. Stay in the ORG, in which case then they are serving the GB / Org, or, leave.  

I think you suggested that a person should do their own research but keep quiet about it. 

Quote " If we discern it’s wrong direction then we act on our own behalf, and not tell others what to do, because everyone else has a Bible too."

Now this is where @Arauna will start to say that i 'misuse' scripture. BUT you @Anna are saying use the Bible myself. And thereby lies a contradiction. I can pray for spiritual help and read my bible and come to a decision as to what a scripture means to me. BUT @Arauna will tell me I am misusing the scriptures. Hence, I've said on here so many times before that ONLY the true Anointed will  know truth from the scriptures. Why ? Obviously because we can all have our own opinions as to what each scripture means. 

We can take for example @JW Insider 's explanation about the NON 'sign of the times'.  Which @Arauna seems to totally disagree with. 

Quote " We already talked about why there is no need for the anointed to form some kind of special club, just for the anointed. "

I think you've been listening to / reading toooooo much from @Arauna . This seems to be her crazy excuse.  NO ONE is suggesting a 'special club' for the true Anointed. What i did suggest is that they could be in contact with each other Earthwide, which the GB do not want. My suggestion would NOT take those Anointed ones out of their congregations. 

Quote " The reason for that is because we are all one flock "

New International Version  John 10 v 16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

The Anointed are not the same as the Earthly Class. The sooner people get this through their heads the better for everyone. The Anointed are the BODY OF CHRIST. Do you not understand that God has a special use for them even now. Otherwise God could anoint a person when they were on their deathbed. That Body of Christ has a right to communicate with each other.  Your GB wants to stop that happening. 

This is enough for one comment. So ill stop here. If you insist on an answer to your original question @Anna I'm sure I could waste half an hour giving you answers that you already know. 

 

[JW Insider]

On 1/1/2020 at 12:00 PM, César Chávez said:

Seems certain people have been corrupted here enough not to know better about the word LORD!
The distention made in Psalms is the same distention made in Matthew. YHWH is one, the son is another. Unfortunately, some lexicons use the same meaning for both (Kurios).
Therefore, there needs to be a separation between κυρίῳ noun dative masculine singular from κύριος.

What sounds to me like haughty bluster is often so far off, that it's hard to know whether to bother responding at all. But this one seems important to correct since you are merely adding to the confusion some people might already have.

Two things wrong here:

1. No, the distinction made in Psalms is NOT the same distinction made in Matthew.  (Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44)
2. No, it is NOT unfortunate that some lexicons use the same meaning for both "Kurios" here because they are in fact the same word in different cases.
3. This is really the same as "2" above. There does not need to be a separation between κυρίῳ noun dative masculine singular from κύριος, because they are in fact the same word just with different "case" endings because of how they are used in the sentence.

Here's why. It's explained pretty well in many commentaries. Also here: https://christswords.com/content/matthew-2244 -lord-said-unto-my-lord

Note the meaning of κύριος:

Κύριος (noun sg masc nom) "Lord" is kyrios (kurios), which means "having power", "being in authority" and "being in possession of." It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." -- The word translated as "master" is the same word that is often translated as "Lord" or "the Lord" in the NT. It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." It is the specific terms for the master of slaves or servants, but it was a common term of respect both for those in authority and who were honored. It was the term people used to address Christ, even though he had no formal authority. Today, we would say "boss" or "chief".

Note the meaning given for κυρίῳ

κυρίῳ (noun sg masc dat) "Lord" is kyrios (kurios), which means "having power", "being in authority" and "being in possession of." It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." -- The word translated as "master" is the same word that is often translated as "Lord" or "the Lord" in the NT. It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." It is the specific terms for the master of slaves or servants, but it was a common term of respect both for those in authority and who were honored. It was the term people used to address Christ, even though he had no formal authority. Today, we would say "boss" or "chief".

Either form can refer to God. Either form can refer to Christ. Either form can refer to a human master.

I mention this one because it is so typical of you to bluster some irrelevant (and sometimes irreverent) information that you apparently think you understood from book searches or Google searches. That part can be fine, but you seem to have a need to often insult the people you are trying to bluster with incorrect or poorly understood information.

[TrueTomHarley]

32 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I'm sure I could waste half an hour

I’m sure of that, too.