ComfortMyPeople

That spirit had nothing holy about it…more like a dark entity..

No nor do I…..but he keeps the forum active I suppose.

Yes yes I know..I did the maths too…I was trying to be nice…..one is dealing with “ One flew over the Cookoo’s nest”…..here…

it has always been my understanding that the elders would not disfellowship him even tho he asked to be. No matter  of the confusion …I would still talk with him as I have done previously and I wish the man well…
He fell on his sword for the sake of others and peace..

Sorry @Thinking. I was taking a guess that he was closer to age 65 than to 120. But I have now been corrected. I think he's now claiming that he is closer to 6. 
If you have followed his past claims under some of those other names, you'd know that he has a bigger and more expensive sniper rifle than @Pudgy could ever dream about, plus 2 PhD's in Theology. Quite the combination. That's quite a feat for a 6-year-old! 
I'm super impressed.

BTK can correct me if I'm wrong, but a person who remembers Russell's time in a meaningful way would have to have been born at least around 1904 just to be 12 years old when Russell died. That would make him 120 years old this year. My conversations with @BTK59, @George88, @AllenSmith35, etc., have led me to believe that he is closer to 65 years old. This might not be true, but it's based on a couple of things he has said. 
That said, he does without a doubt have knowledge about Russell and early Bible Students.

Early this morning, I recalled a thread where Anna made a comment about Catholic excommunication, and noted that the GB have moved in that same direction:

This doesn't contradict what you are saying about the updates, but I always found it interesting that Paul said "the majority" as if the entire congregation was considered in the reinstatement process. 
(2 Corinthians 2:6) This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 
 

The droves and droves of true Witnesses whom you seem to think flock to this platform, heedless of organizational counsel that they should not, should also recognize that no one (in the closed club) claims to be a stellar example of counsel to avoid any interaction at all with ‘apostates.’ But only you, not allowed in the closed club, thoroughly trash that counsel, as though contemptuous of it, and eagerly seek out people with whom to bicker with 24/7–thus enormously extending their shelf life, and all the while insisting you are the only faithful one around—and, alas, usually getting your head handed to you because of your reliance on name calling and dark condescension.
Everyone else is at least partially checked by organizational counsel, and might be far worse without it. They do try to remain in the overall spirit of it. Only one person here puts himself above it and ignores it completely.

I guess it's good to explain oneself every couple of years.
I said above that I am not trying to convince fellow Witnesses that 607 BCE is the wrong date for the destruction of Jerusalem. It might sound like it, but it would be an unreasonable goal to expect more than a small fraction of Witnesses to change their view on such a longstanding, strongly entrenched tradition. 
So here's my actual reasoning: (BTK should probably cover his eyes.)
There will always be persons who hear good things about the Witnesses and who will want to study with us. But there will be some, admittedly only a few, who will decide to look at the details for themselves. There may even be some who already knew about the details of the Babylonian chronology, and who will realize that it isn't a controversy at all, and it really isn't at all a matter of choosing Bible chronology over secular chronology.
I believe there will be more of these persons over time. No amount of bluster or false, contradictory explanations is going to convince them. (Because they have seen the details for themselves.) So what are we to do? Do we merely make sure that no one who has educated themselves about this particular topic will ever become a Witness? 
I think there should be a chance for these persons to know that a person can still be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and realize that this 607 thing was just a simple mistake that someone made back in 1873 or so, but that no one thought/sought to look into it or correct the mistake because it had apparently proven true as a prophecy about 1914.*
*I don't think anyone can blame most Witnesses for not really wanting to look into the details because we really do think something happened in 1914 that was prophetically significant. We would automatically be suspicious of anyone who had looked into the details for themselves and found an issue with them. We think that if we were to begin looking into the same, that we must be "kicking against the goads" or even "fighting against the holy spirit." We have been taught that perhaps it's controversial, but that it's just a matter of putting more faith in the Bible than in secular chronology.
That "Bible vs secular" mindset works for us, even though it's a false premise. But I'm talking about interested persons who have actually already LOOKED or who WILL LOOK into the data for themselves. Those persons will not have a choice to deny what they know. They should know that it is possible to be a Witness without having to deny something they KNOW to be true. They should also be aware that a Witness who accepts an alternative view about 607 and 1914 need not hold a very different view of the world around us and the closeness of the end of this system.

I don’t even know what you are talking about….and yes I believed James….please let’s not get antagonised with each other….your really old and I’m old….we are wasting time…

Give me PROOF of his disfellowshipping…...

I consider you and Tom superior to myself and I think he is a fantastic writer…he’s very good at his love of writing,,,,,more importantly he is a very good and trustworthy servant of Jehovah …and he’s humble and even admits he came here and was humbled….and I know him to be very gracious and kind also a little sarcastic at times,( I’m worse )
Forums can make you stronger or humbled and wiser or break you totally….they can also make one sarcastic nasty bombastic bitchy and frustrated …..( I can be guilty of all) but I’ve learnt things and got to  know some who I have affection for,,,and sure hope we meet at some time in that New World tho I think ..and I bet we wouldn’t mention anything that’s been discussed on this forum,,

Do you have PROOF of your accusations….as far as I have seen over the years you dont……I am well aware that Jehovah is a reader of our hearts and minds…in my nearly fifty years…I should have been disfellowshipped many many times…what about you brother…have you always honestly been  pure in your heart and mind…….is anyone ?

Yes I am fond of Pudgy..tho I’ve never had proof he was disfellowshipped….I would have still been especially fond of Peter even after he three times betrayed his Christ ….who as we know never disfellowshipped him…I don’t know who I’m really talking with…as to your name but your personality is familiar to me.
Actually I think you are very clever and knowledgeable with the scriptures and  Jehovah’s Witness’s and going by what you have said you must be very old. And go back a long way…I love your old historical memories and I have learnt from you a number of times and even upvoted you…..I wish I had your astute knowledge brother and your recall of scriptures…you certainly have a treasure with them.
But I do feel also sorry for you as you do not know Jesus very well..you lack the depth of his love. In our cong we had elders who said ….three strikes and your out…so many young ones were disfellowshipped . Most lost to the world but some survived it….Peter would have been disfellowshipped by them also and I have a feeling you would be like them.
You need to keep up with the new understandings and thoughts of the GB…they are teaching the real love that Jesus showed to those others considered ..good for nothing…they are really really pushing how we need to be kind to each other and even show kindness to those disfellowshipped…or did you miss that point.
Im preety sure you won’t change..but I wish you would be a little more gentle with people…I’m not an apostate and nor are the others you mentioned….but at least you and JWI and a couple of others keep this forum surviving….I would personally still love to hear about your experiences and memories of Russell’s time etc…as they are invaluable..
At least the conversation between you and JWI gives two sides to the coin….and each has good points to learn so I’ve learnt from both of you.

Actually, he expressed remorse quite clearly on the forum. But from what I understand from you, you have the ability to read hearts and therefore you can judge without being concerned about being judged with the same measure in return. 
You quoted 1 Cor 5:13 which, in context, also says:
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”
I'm sure you can easily guess who 99% of the people on this forum first think of when they hear the word "reviler." Remember that God sees and judges all actions.

Goodness. Would you have tried to stone Jesus? He asked us to love even our enemies!

Sheeesh…I didn’t even say anything 🫤

I'm surprised that you finally admitted that. Some of your confusion appears to be clearing up.
If you now admit that his 37th year was 568 BCE, then his 36th was 569 BCE, his 35th was 570, his 34th was 571, etc., etc.
Do the math. It's simple. You are finally claiming that his 19th year was 586 BCE, and his 18th year was 587 BCE.

Now you appear to be getting it.
Found it: 
(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . ., that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .
(Jeremiah 52:29)  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
(2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. 

I hope pudgy is okay but I’m fearing the worse……I really like pudgy…

I don't care. I still prefer the Bible. And if they can both be harmonized, so much the better.
Go back to your points enumerated 1, 2, 3 in your last post and note that you are still confused about interaction with Egypt and others in his 37th year, and trying to claim that this somehow proves that he couldn't have done what the Bible says he did in his 18th and/or 19th year. 
You are still showing so confusion that it looks like you have no business trying to discuss this matter right now.

You are confused again. Or you are having trouble reading and understanding. Or you are being dishonest. I said the opposite. When I say you can throw out VAT 4956 because there are other tablets, I mean it. No one needs to believe in VAT 4956 at all if they are trying to understand the absolute chronology of the period. They can use any or all of the many other astronomical records of the period.
Opposers of the astronomical evidence, like yourself, would apparently love to make it look like supporters of this evidence are all obsessed with just onw tablet, when they themselves are obsessed with trying to minimize the evidence to just one tablet. Then of course, they think that there would just be ONE tablet to dismiss or try to criticize. Of course, any criticisms they do make note of just happen to be the same criticisms that are 10 times worse for the ONE tablet that the Watchtower focuses one to get the 7th year of Cambyses. And from which the WTS will derive 539 in an unnecessarily convoluted manner, just to avoid admitting that ALL of the data for the entire period is consistent with the astronomical evidence.
Another false statement. You were and are still fixated on the dates 587 and 568 and you kept confusing which one referred to the 37th year and which one referred to the 18th and which one (or both) was being claimed as the year of Jerusalem's destruction. In fact, you show it again in your very next sentence:
This tablet, again, is about observations from the 37th year of his reign. Why would anyone think it was related to his 18th/19th? You are still showing too much confusion about the matter. Re-read the Bible accounts in Jeremiah and 2 Kings and Ezekiel, or the references in the Insight book, at least. They will all tell you which regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with the destruction.
If he was occupied in his 18th year with someone else, that's fine. But the Bible still associates the destruction of Jerusalem with the 18th year of his reign. I don't have to challenge your secular sources. But why do you feel the need to challenge the Bible, when it comes to his 18th year?
If you like your secular sources so much you also have other options which allow you to keep the Bible account along with your secular sources. For example, you can note the distinct possibility that the 18th year was still part of the siege before the wall was broken down, and that the 19th year might be the most appropriate for the final destruction. That would make it 586, which I have absolutely no problem with myself. Also, if you read the accounts carefully, you will see that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't necessarily there in person in those years, although he was stated to be there in person during his 7th/8th year. You may also read carefully enough to note that the exiles taken in the 7th/8th year focused on Judea, but the 18th/19th focused on Jerusalem itself. (Jeremiah 52). Also you might note from the Chronicles themselves that Judea and Egypt appear to have been related from Babylon's perspective and could potentially even be seen as part of the same related campaign(s). 

I’ve seen entire armies vanish. If you exercised the correct wisdom belonging to true knowledge and the correct knowledge belonging to true wisdom, you would realize this explains some missing years of Nebuchadnezzar. I banned him. He crossed a line.
It’s okay to move it back again. Once he gets an idea in his head, it’s impossible to get it out, so I corroborate it instead. It is crucial and essential that you understand this. We must not deceive the public.
 

Go back to my last post. It appears that you are the one who is continuing to disregard facts to try to vaidate your own false assumptions. 
Of course I haven't been able to show that destruction of Jerusalem is described in his 37th year. Because that's not when the Bible says it happened. See the last post. You have shown too much confusion to take this much further with you. You really seem to have no business trying to discuss Neo-Babylonian chronology. 
No. You don't. You never have. You have always claimed that you have, but no one has seen you or any of your additional accounts try to do this. You have shown too much confusion on the matter. It seems you really have no business trying to discuss it.
At least that's absolutely true!
Although that's absolutely a false and misleading statement, if you happen to believe it's true, then throw out VAT 4956. It's absolutely unnecessary to establish the absolute dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. There are about 50 other direct observations on other tablets that all happen to coincide and consistently confirm the same dates. Of course, opposers of the astronomical data would love to throw ALL of them out except for one or two that confirm the 7th year of Cambyses. But even THAT one is part of the same set of data that confirms the absolute dates for the entire period.
Again, 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, just as much (or more) than 538 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 1st year of Cyrus over Babylon.