Who was John Aquila Brown?

[Anna]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

• George Santayana: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
• Karl Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."
• (Romans 15:3, 4) . . .“The reproaches of those reproaching you have fallen upon me.” ⁴ For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction,. . .

"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach".

Aldous Huxley

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

Then you don't accept what he wrote in his own book. I have posted it twice already. That means you are in denial. What people shouldn't be confused on is on how the poster views the information it rejects.

Of course I don't accept what he wrote in his book. It all turned out to be wrong. For example, here are a couple of snippets in the paragraphs just following the page you quoted.

And, as you must be aware, he interpreted dozens of political events, especially in Turkey and Europe, to be fulfillments of nearly every trumpet and vial and quake and beast and other symbol he could find in Daniel, Revelation and Ezekiel. All of them are to be rejected because none of his expectations about any of them turned out to be true.

But I'm not in denial that J A Brown actually wrote such preposterous and presumptuous interpretations. What you posted twice is still part of the same valid evidence we have that J A Brown did NOT believe the 3.5 Gentile Times ended in 1917. He ended them in 1844.

The entire history of all nations from the Head of Gold in the image of Daniel 2 down to the time when God's Kingdom would crush and put an end to all these nations would therefore start with Nebuchadnezzar's reign and end in 1917, according to Brown. Therefore, every political thing that ever happened after Nebuchadnezzar began his reign would have to fall somewhere between 604 BCE and 1917 CE.

Therefore the 1290 years falls within that range of time, but that doesn't mean that the Gentile Times are the 1290 years. The 1335 years must also fall within that range and cannot extend beyond it, but that doesn't make the 1335 years the same as the Gentile Times either. The entire range of 2520 years must fall exactly within that same range from 604 BCE to 1917 CE, but that doesn't make the 2520 years the same as the Gentile Times either, according to Brown. The 391 year period that Brown speaks about, from (1453 CE to 1844 CE) must also fall within that same range, but that doesn't mean that those 391 years are the Gentile Times either. Same goes for the 2,300 days.

In fact, only one of those periods, the 1,260 days, is the one that Brown said was the Gentile Times, because it was the 1,260 year period, he said, where the Mohammedan Abomination was standing where it ought not, around Jerusalem, and which therefore got in the way of Israel creating a nation. But there would be a first judgment upon the Mohammedan impostiture in 1844, at the end of the 1,260 "days" of the Gentile Times. (And Brown expected Jews to begin returning to Palestine in the 7 years leading up to that date, starting in 1837.) Then there would be a total extirpation of the Muslim presence in 1873, the 1290 days. Then of course, total "happiness" would come to all who are able to wait the 1,335 days to that final second judgment upon all nations.

Notice that the parts you quoted from Even-Tide above is what I had pointed out before, that Israel can finally be established when the Gentile Times end in 1844, "the RISE of the Jewish kingdom." Then they become an Empire by 1873. Then they become the transcendent Glory of Israel in the world at the time of the last judgment in 1917.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

It doesn't explain, why you don't see the missing jubilee, either. The poster brought up 1866. The poster should be the one to explain 1866.

More or less what I expected you to say based on past experience in this type of a discussion. Reminds me of a scene from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh_and_the_Blustery_Day

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

Since there is always a 1-2 year play when calculating time, the question is not on 1866, but instead in 1865.

OK, if there's a 1 to 2 year "play" then why do you prefer 1865 then? Are you able to answer that question, at least?

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

Does this mean 1866 had no significance? I can at least recall one U.S. declaration.

Why would this be about the United States?

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

Therefore, to those historians, the 1915-1917 is still in play, unless anyone uses 49. Then the game changes.

What game?

[Moise Racette]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Of course I don't accept what he wrote in his book. It all turned out to be wrong. For example, here are a couple of snippets in the paragraphs just following the page you quoted

This doesn't prove you mislead with 1917AD. I believe that was the point.

Anything else is just meaningless gaff for your fellow readers that deny. Like I said, you will not convince anyone, just like no one will convince the poster. There's no need to waste time on someone like the poster and his group of followers here. Especially when they just want to find fault and disprove. No real heart in wanting to see the truth.

That would mean "accepting" the things @Witness is posting. 

However, in order for prophecy to work with secular history, you have to have the correct starting point. Deniers stick to the same mindless conditions given by past ignorant people.

I prefer to combine both to come to a single point where bible and secular history intersect. You are correct. I don't need J.A. Brown's calculations, just like I don't need other distorted publications. If I did, I would have to accept what was written in 1689 about 1811. 1 or 2 at play. If you add 1, what do you get? 1812. What is significant about 1812 in secular history. Yet, the poster can't find an interest about 1865 and1866? Didn't you bring up 1866?

[TrueTomHarley]

13 hours ago, Pudgy said:

42

Are you crazy?!

Posting your social security number is an invitation to identity theft!

***

I demand credit for this thread! Don’t give it to Moise. How unjust!

TrueTom writes about John Brown. JWI responds with John A Brown, the chronology writer.

What’s next?

TrueTom: Robert E Lee commanded the . . .

Anna: ‘There used to be a Bob Lee as I was learning the truth. What a character he was!’

TrueTom: Jefferson Davis presided over the . . . 

Pudgy: ‘Dave Jefferson, the Presiding Overseer of the Backwoods congregation, was a . . . 

TrueTom: Frederick Douglass spoke powerfully for . . . 

Amidstheheroes: ‘Fred Douglas, our table head, back when I . . . ‘

TrueTom: Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward, was the one who . . 

JWI: ‘Brother Stewart Williams, a plumber by trade, was stuck with the task of cleaning out the sewars on one particularly . . .

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

he interpreted dozens of political events, especially in Turkey and Europe, to be fulfillments of nearly every trumpet … he could find in Daniel, Revelation and Ezekiel. All of them are to be rejected because none of his expectations about any of them turned out to be true.

Flat notes they were.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

9 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

Therefore, to those historians, the 1915-1917 is still in play, unless anyone uses 49. Then the game changes.

What game?

For me, it is the 49 round boxing match of my great uncle, Joe Jennette against Sam McVey in Paris, both of whom used to routinely fight Jack Johnson, until the latter captured with World Heavyweight title and thereafter himself refused to face Black challengers.

As the 50th round began, Sam refused to budge from his corner, moaning, “This man ain’t human!”

The date was 1909, so it more or less matches prophesy, particularly if one isn’t fussy.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

Didn't you bring up 1866?

No. That was you. Perhaps you didn't realize you had done so when you said the following which I have marked in red, after your quote of Brown:

On 12/17/2022 at 9:47 PM, Moise Racette said:

From the rise of the four monarchies, commencing 604 A.C., to their final dissolution, there will be a grand week of years, or 2520 years, and will terminate, January 1, 1917.

How he arrived at, 1917 is to be considered. It should have started in 653AC.

Considering that he got 1917 by effectively subtracting 604(-1) from 2520, I merely plugged in your "correction" to see what year you were suggesting by saying he should have subtracted 653(-1) from 2520. YOUR suggestion is the same as saying he should have arrived at 1866 instead of 1917. So I wondered why you were suggesting numbers that would result in 1866.

Then, when I asked what you thought happened of Biblical significance in 1866, you gave the following non-response:

13 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

the question is not on 1866, but instead in 1865.

Rather than answer directly about 1866 or 1865, you added the following "explanation:"

13 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

The usage of 49 or 50 jubilees makes a difference if a historian continues secular history.

Does this mean 1866 had no significance? I can at least recall one U.S. declaration. Therefore, to those historians, the 1915-1917 is still in play, unless anyone uses 49. Then the game changes.

I could tell where you were trying to go with this, but you went about it in the wrong way. In Volume 2 of Even-Tide, page 152, Brown added an idea that he hadn't included in Volume 1. I'll attach the page where he does that at the end of the post. This idea is that if you start with the first year of the image's head of gold in Daniel 2 (Nebuchadnezzar, 604 BCE) then the year 1844 should land on the end of a Jubilee year, every 49 or 50 years. Maybe even a "Grand Jubilee" which is a Jubilee of Jubilees (sometimes considered to be 50x50 years, or 2,500 years. And if one uses 49 for the Jubilee calculations, or various mixed combinations of 49 and 50, then as you say, it can "change the game." There are Bible prophecy commentators who mix and match between 49 and 50 because it gives them more flexibility to play with. For example if you used 50x50, then 2500 - 604 is 1896+1 =1897. The Jubilee before would have been about 1847, and the Jubilee after would have been about 1947. The latter year, 1947, would have made for some headlines with respect to Israel. 

Also, it's possible to see your ultimate goal in "correcting" 1917 be the same as 1915 or even 1914 if you fudge at both ends. This is based on what you wrote as the examples, just after you said that you are always able to find a one or two year "play" in secular chronology dates.

13 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

Since there is always a 1-2 year play when calculating time

This is true. Fudging any date by a year or two when it doesn't land exactly where you want it to is not a very trustworthy method. But it's so common that it's been used by almost every significant prophecy interpreter in the last 3 centuries. Miller himself did it (1843 to 1844). Barbour did it (1873 to 1874). Russell did it several times. Rutherford did it. Franz did it. Watchtower chronology history is a series of 1914 to 1915 and back, 1918 to 1919, 606 to 607, 536 to 538 to 537, no zero year to zero year to no zero year again. We all know this game too well.

gg

[Pudgy]

 

I have a very simple test to determine whether or not Moise Racette’s pseudo analysis is correct or not.

I just look out the window.

Reality is what it is.

…. and the fact remains that everyone in the history of the human race that is trying to interpret these prophecies has been wrong, and there’s no exception.

 

[Pudgy]

AND, while we wait for the New System, instead of paying some Sky Pilot good money for fake news, use that same money to buy pork chops, rub them on your clothes, lay flat on the floor, and have someone pour onto you a box full of puppies.

…….. close enough.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

AND, while we wait for the New System, instead of paying some Sky Pilot good money for fake news, use that same money to buy pork chops, rub them on your clothes, lay flat on the floor, and have someone pour onto you a box full of puppies.

Why am I reminded of a certain local sister’s remark years ago about witnessing to her own former people, the Pentecostals? ‘When they’ve got their music on, you can’t touch em.’

In the background as I write this, family members play ‘Jehovah Give Me Courage’—it’s not only music, but video. 

[Moise Racette]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No. That was you. Perhaps you didn't realize you had done so when you said the following which I have marked in red, after your quote of Brown:

Wrong again. I didn't mention 1866, you did. You made your calculation and somehow came up with 1866. If I had, I would have used 606AD.

3 hours ago, Pudgy said:

instead of paying some Sky Pilot good money for fake news

I don't call fake news here from a group of fake members good enough. Especially those that favor and association with posters like @Witness and others like that poster. 

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I could tell where you were trying to go with this, but you went about it in the wrong way.

Wrong again. I mentioned what I posted. If the poster used the first volume to make an erred argument, then that's the poster's problem. 

This group will never convince anyone of their seriousness to view prophecy correctly. 

[Moise Racette]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is true. Fudging any date by a year or two when it doesn't land exactly where you want it to is not a very trustworthy method.

It's not fudging is the poster is honest with the different calendars used. If you want an exact make that can never be delivered, only by belief, then the poster is considering the poster perfect. I happen to find that hilarious. 

Just because things are written in stone, doesn't mean, what was written in that stone is accurate or the truth. I believe there are plenty example in this open forum, and equally in the closed forum.