Gnosis Pithos

I know who you're talking about as I saw their remark too. I would like to believe though it was made because the person lacked maturity and said it in more of a "cut my nose off to spite my face" manner. But I could be wrong. As Fishing says, some people have all the fun But not me, I have not met anyone in real life who says that, but who knows, they might be thinking it!

Maybe. But I would expect things like this to be mentioned in a "history" book, such as the Proclaimers book, even if no one had a notion about it in the first place...

A few years ago we were visiting my husband's relatives in Pittsburgh and also went to their congregation in Allegheny. In conversation with one of the elders there about Russell, I mentioned how funny it was that he believed the great pyramid was God's witness in stone. He frowned and said "yeah....but we don't talk about that" (as in DON'T talk about it). Later on that afternoon we went to see Russell's grave site there up on the hill, and as you probably know, there is a big tombstone in the shape of a pyramid, (including the engraved names of the anointed at the time, and the "all seeing eye") even visible from the road below..... thinking about it now....well, there's a witness "in stone" right there And what's even funnier is that the elder who "chastised" me, regularly takes visitors up there....
To be fair though, the Proclaimers book and probably other newer publications do mention this unusual belief that Russell had. But usually you have to be aware of  it in the first place to go digging for it. I remember reading about Beth-Sarim, the house of the Princes that Rutherford built to receive the resurrected ancient worthies in the Proclaimers book too. But I first found out about it from, yes you've guessed it, the internet.

Ummmm...something tells me this is not the correct Christian attitude

Great charts. Thanks a lot. Can't upvote due to COS-bashing unfortunately. 

I disagree with your doctrinal conclusions, but I have to admit that you have been treated unfairly in this thread. My impression is that @J.R. Ewing is not trying very hard to be coherent, and might just be playing a kind of game with absurd evidence to get you to say something just as absurd in return. I don't speak or study Latin very much, but from what I can tell that entire argument was wrong both linguistically and logically.
This so called "steady relationship" and "how often" they cite occult sources is clearly exaggerated, as it has been pointed out. If you were to read all of Luther's writings you might think (from things he admits) that he was also demon possessed. It's true that Clayton Woodworth took a very strong interest in the idea of demon influence, and he admitted in a documented speech at a Bible Student convention that he suffered from demon-possession for a time. He also claims that the demons while trying to fool him actually did reveal one true doctrine (about how Russell's "Vow" was foretold and through an Old Testament type/antitype representation).
Woodworth, I think, was the primary driver behind the reprinting and republishing of Seola, which he believed was inspired by one of the fallen angels of Noah's day. (A "demon," but one who was looking for redemption.) Woodworth was also the primary driver behind the promotion of the magnetic and radio wave healing devices. When I was at Bethel there was a room down at  the "Squibb" buildings (30 CH) kept locked away from Bethelites where artifacts were stored from the estates of long time Bible Students and Witnesses who had bequeathed everything to the Watchtower Society. This started some time during the Knorr presidency. Previously, Arthur Worsely, a long time Bethelite, recalled that whenever calls went out to donate Russell's publications for the Bethel libraries, that he was tasked with burning cartons upon cartons of them in the coal furnace.
Locked at Squbb, were shelves upon shelves of of hundreds of copies of the old publications, often extremely rare. And there were several versions of the Photo-Drama slides, old phonograph players, Rutherford's 78s,  and several of the E.R.A. machines advertised in the Golden Age. The E.R.A. machines were NEVER to be owned by Bethelites. (I don't think this problem would have ever come up except for one caught being smuggled through. And there was still at least one Bethelite I knew who bragged about owning one for himself.)
So there is some truth to these early problems, but it was mostly the editor of the Golden Age (Woodworth) who seemed ever-intrigued with the "demonic" aspect of things. Although Rutherford had agreed with the idea about Russell still communicating from beyond the grave in 1917 and a little beyond, it was Woodworth who continued repeating this idea in the Golden Age for many years afterward, and who may have even seen himself as being guided by Russell when he spoke of the Seventh Volume (mostly written by Woodworth) as the posthumous work of Russell. (In effect, written by Russell in 1917 even after he died.)
But you are mostly concerned with the Greber translation problem. I think that this has already been answered. Greber translated several verses in exactly the way you understand them, too, and this doesn't bother you or anyone else. I would have to agree that it was no doubt his own biases and belief system that influenced him to translate a few verses in ways that differed from the standard understanding of koine Greek. Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence when demons "correctly" taught him how Russell's "Vow" had been indicated in Scripture. Or that Russell himself, as a spirit, had guided every aspect of the Watchtower after his death in 1916, including the book that Woodworth himself wrote.
But the most important thing is that the use of Greber's translation as a support was discovered to be a mistake. It was not chosen because Greber claimed spiritistic influence. His translation remained in the Bethel library, just as a couple copies of "Angels and Women" (Seola) remained in the Bethel library. When I see a new Bible translation, the first thing I go to is John 1:1, then Psalm 83:18 and a few other favorites. I'm sure that writers at Bethel still do the same thing. So, no doubt, the claim that Greber made about his method had been lost sight of and was used again by another writer at Bethel, even after others had previously noted the problem.
But it doesn't matter because Greber is not the place where support of our particular translation of John 1:1 comes from. It just happened to agree with an idea that the Watchtower had been promoting long before Greber's translation had ever been found. And we had mostly been using Benjamin Wilson's literal Greek to English portion of his "Diaglott" to make that point.
John 1:1 is still controversial, which is even admitted by some Trinitarians. We shouldn't rely on it for a specific doctrine, but it should be a part of all the evidence related to the Trinity doctrine. John was no doubt trying to convince Christians about how great and mighty and divine Jesus was and is. So this verse is part of a context that includes the entire book of John and then the rest of the Bible. After I left Bethel, there was a new writer in the Writing Department at Bethel who understood Greek as a scholar. He was asked to do a full study of the John 1:1 issue and his article was unusable because it showed there was just about equal weight to both sides of the controversy. This actually surprised a lot of his colleagues, who wished for a more clear-cut winner. But Trinitarians, I believe, are in the same position, which is why some also admit that there is no clear-cut winner, based on this one verse.

Mr. Ewing,
 
I really donÂ’t know what it is you are talking about for you make no sense. My guess is you are irritate because you donÂ’t like it when someone questions your wild ideas and by pointing out the absurdity of them. <><

Mr. Ewing,
 
At least I acknowledge to Mr. Rook my reason and apologized…you on the other hand make excuses and change the allegation to “I was only referring to the ‘mental’ state”.
 
Wow I would have to be a mind reader to have known that that was what you meant, since you specifically said “you or your alter ego Shiwiii”.
 
Google and others, according to you, are in cahoots with “publisher’s” (who are these “publisher’s” you refer to, and who you claim “get the results they wish”?). Now if that were even true, and it’s not, then they could have programmed translate to do both, that is with, and without the period, wow maybe these “publishers” never thought of that! That by the way is me being sarcastic to the claims you make.
 
And you know why this wild theory of yours fails? Because of those of us who have taken the time to learn Latin, maybe that is something you should do.
And you not bias?
 
By the way, I do not adhere to “oneness” theology. So you got that wrong as well!
 
As I showed the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns. When translated to English this article is not required. You JW’s want to ignore the linguistic of the Coptic so that it fits in with your erroneous rendering, that’s not “sound judgment” now is it? Why didn’t I bring up the Coptic version, because there is no problem with it, only the wild misconception some have!
 
The rest of what you say is a mix of disjointed sentences which would require me to use my powers of mind reading to know what you even mean, the only bit that is a bit coherent  is the quotes you use at the end which mean absolutely zilch! <><

Mr. Ewing,
 
You accusation that in some way Shiwiii and I are the same person just proves to me how irrational your judgments are.
 
To date all the things you say are fake and that’s not a mockery, it’s the plain truth!
 
Let me ask you, for what reason do you think I lack “understanding of the Greek Language” are you just making up another false accusation to accommodate with your previous claims?
 
And it would only have been a matter of time till one of you JW’s brought up the Coptic version of John’s Gospel, mistakenly thinking that that this ancient version support’s the JW’s rendering.
 
My interest in this version was initiated when I was first shown the November 2008 Watchtower article “Was the Word ‘God’ or ‘a god’”, where the Watchtower appeals to the rendering in this version of John 1:1 as support of their own rendering. So I started by looking at “The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect” by George Horner, and what I found did not support the Watchtower’s claim.
 
Now the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof”, while ignoring everything else. What was interesting is that George Horner explains in his critical apparatus for his translation that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”
 
Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.”
 
Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does.
 
“because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16)
 
“…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26)
 
“That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5)
 
“…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39)
 
“. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34)
 
Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. The claims made by the Watchtower and by others who follow their teaching are unfounded and deceptive. <><

Mr. Ewing,
 
You like to accuse a lot of people on nothing but your own misguided assumptions.
 
What a load of rubbish, go learn Latin before you make absurd claims!
 
Answer me this, is the Father a divine person? Of course He is! If you can say that the Father is a divine person without that demising His deity, then your employ of Edward Harwood translation is totally void. <><

How dare J.R. Ewing bring Latin into this, oh yes, it was OK then because you JW’s erroneously agreed with him…<><

see previous post about where satan quotes scripture. Also, there are a plethora of scholars who do not, most of which are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and Latin. 
This is because it NEVER occurred in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the new testament.
Again, the Septuagint is the greek old testament, not the new testament. So it is of course likely that it was in the Septuagint because the old testament is where we find YHWH and the like.
   
who can say ANY of it was? There is a reason why the translators remained anonymous, so they didn't get laughed at. This is a classic attempt at humble-bragging by the wt. 
 
you're right, why do we need to know if someone if qualified to do anything? I mean it doesn't matter if elders are qualified to counsel people on things that they know nothing about, like PTSD from child sexual abuse, right? It must be a good thing to have a 6 year old questioned by their accuser and other men with whom everyone that child knows bows down to......err does obeisance.   

Can you show me where I said he was a scholar?
You must think two years of Greek is all it takes to become a scholar. So that means, to you anyway, that 'sufficient' and 'scholar' are synonyms. And you were going to guide us through the translations from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English? lol

wrong, I was asking what did they believe not what language they wrote in or how many languages they played "telephone" in. 
What I choose not to do it allow you to try and create a convoluted mess to try and distort what is written. 
 
You like the nwt because the wt said so. You know as well as I that there was never a true scholar on the translation dept to create the nwt. It has been admitted by the gb as well as proven in court. 

Mr. Ewing
 
When studying Latin, I was struck with the directness of the language.
 
Google translate is good only to a point, not something I would use or rely upon.
 
You cannot translate the Latin of John 1:1 with “a” at the end as you suggest.
 
“Deus erat Verbum” translates directly to, “Word was God”
 
It cannot in anyway translate to “Word was [a] God”. <><

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.
I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.
What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.
I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 
So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

I'm assuming that the question is "Would you consider the entire State of New York destroyed if only the Watchtower buildings were destroyed along with all the elite houses in New York? (Either New York City or New York State, not sure it matters to your point.) By analogy would we consider the entire city of Jerusalem destroyed if only the Temple and the elite houses were destroyed?
This is a question that gets asked fairly often by those who would propose that the "destruction" and "desolation" was upon the land-owning elite of Judea, and it was less important whether every poor person of the land was literally taken or fled. The numbers of the exiles in Jeremiah 52 and 2 Kings 25 has also led people to conclude this. Some would even claim that this emphasis on the desolation of the rich elites was a kind of propaganda to make it easier to reclaim their old lands after the return from Babylon, rather than giving it up permanently to squatters and carpet-baggers and immigrants who took advantage of the "porous borders" over those years from when the desolations first began. I have my doubts that anyone could figure this out through archaeology, and this specific history is not in the Bible, so I take no sides on it except to give the Bible the credit for giving us all the important parts of the history that we need to know. If other things happened, they are not of much concern to the prophecies or lessons we are expected to derive from their experience during this period.
But, for me, and for the same reasons, I treat that question as rather moot. That's because I have no particular stake in the specific chronology or politics of this period other than to recognize that the Bible places about 4 important events in the same short span of less than two years, and to note that the Bible again proves to be an accurate book of history and can even be supported by the evidence from archaeology during this period. There are four new fast days, evidently related to the the siege, the breaching of the wall, the burning of the Temple, and the death of the Governor (who was their "last hope of independent rule"). These events are all placed in the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, give or take a few months. 
So the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is still the primary key for the important events based on the Biblical account.
Did you have another idea or proposal? 
One thing that might be important is to note that "Jerusalem" is destroyed in the sense of being the seat of God's Messianic kingdom. It's a judgment event of paramount importance because of what it represented and why it had been protected for so long in spite of wicked kings and corrupt religious practices. Even without the elite, the institutions fail, the economy fails; it is no longer a functioning nation without a capital. This is similar to why Tyre is forgotten for the entire 70 years of Babylonian power. It's a trading center that must plan imports and exports and prices. All that goes out the window if all the nations all around are threatened at any moment. Even if Tyre wasn't out of commission for 20% of that time period, it could no longer rise and function as a nation.

Thanks for making it so clear. I love it when someone can say in just a couple paragraphs what it takes me 15 pages to say.

You should still be able to find at least one quotation that indicates this. You shouldn't say "done already" if it wasn't done. And as I explained above, I do already know that it isn't true. Russell did not predict any kind of war resembling WWI in 1914. This must be one of the reasons that Russell (after 1914 came and went) began using the year 1915 as the date for the end of the Gentile Times.
That doesn't say a lot for whether there were any anointed in 1914 who were truly able to discern the sign in 1914, does it? Yet, that's how we define the beginning of the "two-group generation." In fact, the Watch Tower continued saying that Jesus' Parousia had begun in 1874 all the way up until the formal change in 1943/4, nearly 100 years after Barbour first started promoting 1874 as the date for Jesus' Parousia. It might even be why it wasn't until the 1920's that the Watch Tower ran the story of Russell announcing the End of the Gentile Times in early October 1914 (Can't give the exact day when that announcement happened, because it's also changed 3 different times.)
As I said, I don't receive "special interpretation." I was referring to the way YOU defended a "special interpretation" by claiming that it was OK to use the least likely definitions of someone's words. The analogy I used was probably confusing. Sorry.
By the way, these topics that reverted back to 1914-related subjects will probably go back to their respective topics where they started from.

OK. This line of discussion has been left unfinished ...
... so it's probably time to wrap it up.
@Arauna had expressed her belief that the date 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon was "truly verified." However, she indicated mistrust of Babylonian sources because "their dates are all over the place - not reliable," the reigns are "impossible to correlate," and that the "Persian and Greek sources gets (sic) us to the truth." She cited the battle of Opis as an example of how the date 539 BCE is verified, apparently unaware that the battle was primarily recorded in a Babylonian source. So I was curious to know if she knew how the relative chronologies of the ancient near eastern world were fixed to BCE dating.
The only answer she could provide were reiterations of what scholarship had already concluded (that Babylon fell in 539 BCE), that Cyrus reigned 9 years and she cited the Olympiad counting system used in some Greek sources. But how do we nail down this data onto a BCE calendar time-line? I asked.
Maybe Arauna doesn't know, or doesn't care, or knows and won't say. So this is the point I've been leading to:
We nail down 'floating chronologies' like Babylonian kings' regnal years and Olympiads to the BCE/CE calendar by means of numerous dated Babylonian astronomical observations. The sky is the 'universal clock' I was hinting at. Babylonians were excellent sky-watchers and wanted to understand the motions of celestial objects, so they observed and measured distances and times, and they recorded what they saw. It was vital that they noted down the date for the observations otherwise their records would be useless for researching and calculating periodicities and so on. The year date would be their king's regnal year. Therefore, these dated astronomical tablets are snapshots of time, with celestial configurations often unique to that time period. So, when we combine the data from known kings regnal years with dated astronomical records from the same era, we can derive the BCE years the kings reigned.
This is the method by which it was deduced that 539 BCE was Nabonidus' 17th year, when the battle of Opis happened, and when Babylon fell to the Persians.
The same method and same Babylonian astronomical sources yield,
605 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar II's accession 597 BCE as the siege of Jerusalem and Jehoiachin's surrender and exile 587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and Jerusalem's destruction We cannot accept 539 BCE as being verified for certain events, while rejecting the dates for other events that have been verified by using the exact same methods and sources that were used to confirm 539 BCE. This would be an intellectually dishonest approach. Counter to what Arauna stated about the unreliability of Babylonian sources to get at the truth about dating Babylon's fall to 539 BCE, we cannot get to the truth about 539 BCE (or the year of Jerusalem's destruction) without Babylonian sources.
 
 

I agree with all your prior thoughts except this one.
Jehovah promised he will have a people (a group, not individuals scattered throughout the world) who will be united in worship of him. These peoples will beat their swords into plowshares and will not learn war anymore. They will have love among themselves, and they will follow in his son's footsteps. Whatever Jesus did, and told his followers to do, they will do to their utmost ability. This includes preaching the Kingdom as the only solution to mankind's problems. I do not see that this will ever stop until Jehovah says it is done. These peoples as a group, a great crowd, are the ones to inherit the earth.
"In the final part of the days,*The mountain of the house of Jehovah+Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,And it will be raised up above the hills,And to it peoples will stream.+  2  And many nations will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah And to the house of the God of Jacob.+ He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law* will go out of Zion,And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.......
 5  For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god,But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God+ forever and ever". - Micah ch. 4
 

   No they are not. You have to look at this from a spiritual way not a physical way. JESUS is in control of the Chariot NOT any humans. We do not have ANY control over it including any movements or "bumps". Jesus IS the head of the Congregation and Jehovah's Witnesses is the true religion. Therefore we must have exclusive LOYALTY to Jesus as head and obey everything that comes from JEHOVAH"S ORGANIZATION because it is the TRUE religion from JEHOVAH. We just had a Convention about Loyalty and talk #3 outline is all about the things I have just gone over.
https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=loyalty
Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you+and be submissive,+ for they are keeping watch over you* as those who will render an account,+ so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you. Heb. 13:17. Jesus is the Head and we must follow him wherever he goes even if you do not like it your life is at stake as it was with Satan and other disloyal ones in the past. 
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/organized-religion/
 I believe that JESUS is our head and we should follow him no matter where he goes.  Eph. 1:22.
 Jesus is head of the Congregation Mt 28:18; Eph. 5:23; Heb. 2:8.
“These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes.”—REV. 14:4.
Loyalty to the Head of the Congregation is a given. Should not even be questioned as Jesus IS our Lord and Master. Therefore he is in control of all teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses IF you believe Jehovah's Witnesses is the true faith. To do things on your own like Adam, Eve, Satan, and other presumptuous ones tried is disloyalty. And shows great disrespect for our Head as he is in control of the Chariot. To do your own thing as you state is no different than Christendom and is like using a taxi instead of letting Jesus drive the Chariot. In a taxi you pay someone to go where YOU want. Just like Christendom pays its clergy to go where the people want. Ez. Cpt. 1
https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=true+religion
From this weekends Watchtower Study: Para 15:
 What is our response to divinely authorized headship? By our respectful cooperation, we show our support for Jehovah’s sovereignty. Even if we do not fully understand or agree with a decision, we will still want to support theocratic  order. That is quite different from the way of the world, but it is the way of life under Jehovah’s rulership. (Eph. 5:22, 23; 6:1-3; Heb. 13:17) We benefit from doing so, for God has our interests at heart.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-june-2017/uphold-jehovah-gods-sovereignty/
 

I don't quite understand what you mean by this
I agree with you
I don't really see that when Jesus told people to drink his blood and eat his flesh is an example of something that wasn't true but later was. This is just a case of interpretation. The people interpreted that to be taken literally (false premise), but Jesus meant it symbolically (correct understanding). Using your example of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh, it's like if we had taught that this was literal, but later, we correctly discerned it was symbolic. According to your argument Jesus would be guiding this thinking when we thought it literal?
The thing is, these bumps in the road are our own making. We create the bumps.They are nothing to do with Jesus. The changes made by the Chariot are because WE had got thing wrong. If we had got them right the Chariot wouldn't need to change at all. It shows Jesus' and Jehovah's purpose does not change but sometimes has to take a detour to go around a wrong teaching (the bump) and get back on the correct path (when we finally get it right). Who knows, the chariot might be taking a big detour right now around 1914. It had to take that detour several times because of a wrong date. It took one around the 1925 teaching until 1925 passed, and the Chariot could get back on track....

I don’t think you realize what Phil 4:8 is telling you.  What is of serious concern, righteous, chaste, lovable, well-spoken of, virtuous and praise-worthy  to God, appears to be off the table; that being,  God’s justice and righteousness.  ? 
 
That this is a rebellious people,
Lying children,
Children who will not hear the law of the Lord;
 Who say to the seers, “Do not see,”
And to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things;
Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits.
1 Get out of the way,
Turn aside from the path,
Cause the Holy One of Israel
To cease from before us.”  Isa 30:9,10
 

@JW Insider please do some splitting off of separate yet interesting topics.... your thread has been hijacked. ;-)