Who was John Aquila Brown?

[JW Insider]

36 minutes ago, Moise Racette said:

You made your calculation and somehow came up with 1866.

True. I used your number. Makes me wonder what date you thought your number would lead you? You might be able to see your mistake for yourself if you could answer that. Where did you think your 653 date would lead? 

 

36 minutes ago, Moise Racette said:

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. 

It just means that either you can't see it yet, or if you can, you prefer to pretend that you can't see it so that you don't have to admit a mistake. You would probably get a better understanding of Brown's theory if you would try to answer any of the questions that have been raised. For example, try these three questions that can now be put in a simple YES or NO format:

• 1. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were of a length different from 1,260? Yes or No.
• 2. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were 2,520 years in length? Yes or No.
• 3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No.

If you think the answer is YES to any question, then simply quote the reference.

I suspect that you know the answer but will dodge the question and, if past is prologue, you might even claim that I'm the one dodging the question. Still, they are simple questions, and if you can't or won't answer, people can just make a note of that and move on. Perhaps more serious persons would be interested in the topic.

[ComfortMyPeople]

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I suspect that you know the answer but will dodge the question and, if past is prologue, you might even claim that I'm the one dodging the question. Still, they are simple questions, and if you can't or won't answer, people can just make a note of that and move on. Perhaps more serious persons would be interested in the topic.

Not sure, but this kind of reasoning remember me to another person very tidy [not sure if this is a correct word] you used to have long talks with him

[JW Insider]

56 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Not sure, but this kind of reasoning remember me to another person very tidy [not sure if this is a correct word] you used to have long talks with him

Yes. I don't think anyone else (who has watched multiple-page discussions with him) really doubts that they know him from previous accounts. But not me.  I won't make a big deal about that any more. I told him I wouldn't. He has just as much right to post as anyone, under whatever account name he chooses. It's not like he's really fooling anyone anyway.

[Moise Racette]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Where did you think your 653 date would lead? 

This is an assumption of a missing jubilee. Did I mention, I accept J.A. Brown's calculations? That's your inference, not mine. But if you would use that date, then it really has nothing to do with Muhammad as indicated. More to what was doing on with the Byzantine Empire. So, 622 is irrelevant. Muhammad was born in 570. What could be relevant is, the publishing of the Quran.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No.

What does the word "terminate" to you? Yes or No.

Will terminate, January 1, 1917

There's a difference between dodging a question and answering a question correctly with knowledge. Something that is not found in this forum.

Now, are you saying the word terminate means something else?

Standard dictionary:

bring to an end: "he was advised to terminate the contract"

So, without dodging the question, what does terminate mean to you?

[Moise Racette]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. I don't think anyone else (who has watched multiple-page discussions with him) really doubts that they know him from previous accounts. But not me.  I won't make a big deal about that any more. I told him I wouldn't. He has just as much right to post as anyone, under whatever account name he chooses. It's not like he's really fooling anyone anyway.

How would the poster justify the banning of others just to keep your group intact?  Can a person regain their old identity? If not, then why speak of something that's out of someone's control. Yet, the anonymity is high in forums. It would appear, it's not like this group is fooling anyone by their protection. They are allowed to speak their minds in any manner and retain their original accounts. This smells of hypocrisy.

[Moise Racette]

It escapes people on the fundamental knowledge of these independent researchers, scholars, theologians, historians or whatever people wish to call them. Those people have at least contributed to an undisputable event in man's history. 

1812-War

1865- Civil war coming to an end

1866- Proclamation on the End of the Confederate Insurrection

1914-War

1917-Belfour Declaration

Another researcher in 1834 commented on 2000AD. What happened in 2000? Y2K

 

[Pudgy]

On 12/18/2022 at 11:15 AM, Pudgy said:

August 20, 1866 the American Civil War officially ended. If you add one “week of years” (=7) to 1859 to Harper’s Ferry raid on the Armory, you get 1866, and add 100 years, that puts you in 1966, into the Hippie Years, if you had not died or gone senile.

At any rate, you would be so old your wrinkles would cast shadows!

Of course 1866 was important in the defeat of the Confederate States of America.

What significance does that have in Bible prophesy?

Nothing whatsoever.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

How would the poster justify the banning of others just to keep your group intact?

Exactly. I don't think that can be justified unless the behavior is so outrageous that even you would want someone banned for unjustifiable personal attacks on yourself or calls for violence against your religion's leading representatives or some other outrageous forms of speech, imagery, etc. I don't think we should be dishing it out, but I think all of us should learn to handle some name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It's the nature of religious, political and otherwise ideological discussion these days. If we can't handle it, it's something we should discuss with others, because we're just going to see more and more of it in this world.  

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

Can a person regain their old identity? If not, then why speak of something that's out of someone's control. Yet, the anonymity is high in forums.

I agree with this too. Although I would hate to be the one involved in meting out warnings and suspensions, I think that the worse that should happen is a temporary suspension for those who have OBVIOUSLY broken the rules. Perhaps the suspensions should get a bit longer if a person breaks the rules more often. But the problem is about being fair, because two people may cause just as must dissension and disruption, but one might be more liked or disliked and people would be quicker to suspend the one they dislike. I don't like the fact that a person who is banned forever can't get their posts back, and most of those posts just disappear. If only a couple of posts deserved warnings and suspensions, that's no reason to destroy a history of work by that person.

The only kinds of accounts I would like to see banned are those that come on here like "bots" just to sell a product, where you can't interact with the person about their product. Some software bans them automatically, but a few have slipped onto this forum just to spam with links to advertisements of products.

There's also the idea of private sub-groups. I like these, but they can be overused. I belong to a couple of small mostly JW Biblical discussion forums where you have to be invited. This is fine as far as it goes, and if someone could just come on there to disrupt it would make no sense to invite them. Like having a discussion forum about cats where someone comes on there just to talk about how they hate cats.

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Where did you think your 653 date would lead? 

This is an assumption of a missing jubilee.

I had understood that you meant for 653 AC to be a missing Jubliee, because it was 49 years earlier than the 604 AC date that Brown uses. But that's why I asked how you know a Jubilee is missing, where is it missing from, why is it missing, and if it is missing, where would you put it back? You placed another Jubilee starting 49 years earlier than Brown's starting date. But that just makes Brown's end date (1917) end 49 years earlier: 1866.

18 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

But if you would use that date, then it really has nothing to do with Muhammad as indicated. More to what was doing on with the Byzantine Empire. So, 622 is irrelevant. Muhammad was born in 570. What could be relevant is, the publishing of the Quran.

I highlighted your phrase above where you said "as indicated." This is why I said you made a mistake in the way you went about assuming a missing Jubilee. The 604 AC date you corrected to 653 AC does NOT indicate Muhammad. You might have misunderstood the term AC that Brown was using. It's just another term for BC. Therefore 604 AC had nothing to do with Muhammad; it's equal to 604 BC: the first regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar II.

18 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

Did I mention, I accept J.A. Brown's calculations? That's your inference, not mine.

Not mine either. I never thought you accepted Brown's calculations. I always thought you were treating them as if they were examples of stepping stones that got closer and closer to what we accept today as the correct Watchtower teaching about the 2,520 years, the Gentile Times, and 1914. In this, we both agree (that this is what Brown did). His work was a stepping stone to where we are today on those topics. That's why we find the development of this teaching interesting, and why he is mentioned in the "Proclaimers" book.

18 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No.

What does the word "terminate" to you? Yes or No.

I see you have responded to part of question 3 but you are still dodging questions 1 and 2.

In this context, "terminate" means "to end" or "bring to an end" and Brown definitely said the 4 Monarchies (4 Tyrannies) would end in 1917. But that wasn't the question. The question was: Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No.

The answer to that is a definite "NO!" Of course he couldn't say they ended in 1844, and also ended again in 1917. 

If you had not dodged Questions 1 and 2, you would have noticed this yourself. Go back and try those two questions, and if you see the answer that Brown gave, you will then understand where all the confusion has come about. The quickest way, I think, is to search on the term "times of the Gentiles" since Brown does not use the shorter expression "Gentile Times."

[Moise Racette]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

What significance does that have in Bible prophesy?

Nothing whatsoever.

To some, it did. If it doesn't appeal to the poster, then that's the poster's prerogative. That doesn't make it any less true to someone making sense of prophecy. Therefore, the poster's opinion doesn't matter.

[Moise Racette]

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In this context, "terminate" means "to end" or "bring to an end" and Brown definitely said the 4 Monarchies (4 Tyrannies) would end in 1917. But that wasn't the question. The question was: Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No.

You have not answered your own question by dodging the obvious. What was Brown discussing world events, and how it would end? The article you seem to forget is "The Gentile Times."

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I highlighted your phrase above where you said "as indicated." This is why I said you made a mistake in the way you went about assuming a missing Jubilee. The 604 AC date you corrected to 653 AC does NOT indicate Muhammad.

B.C. Before Christ, A.D. Anno Domini, A.C. After Christ, C.E. Common Era. What's the point you're trying to make?

[Moise Racette]

Mohammedan (also spelled Muhammadan, Mahommedan, Mahomedan or Mahometan) is a term for a follower of Muhammad, the Islamic prophet. It is used as both a noun and an adjective, meaning belonging or relating to, either Muhammad or the religion, doctrines, institutions and practices that he established. The word was formerly common in usage, but the terms Muslim and Islamic are more common today.

Once again, it can't be applied in his argument. Therefore, 1844 is inconsequential. I tire easily. Review your post, and find where it makes sense to you. 

I have more important things to do, now. A reinstatement and a funeral.