Srecko Sostar

If I could I would put 2 emoticons. Laughter and sadness. I can see through your comments how much information you have and "expertise" in presenting it.
I could have guessed your answer. I knew the WTJWorg "researchers" wanted to remain anonymous for the reason stated. Maybe one is trying to be more modest than the reality is. Furthermore, such an explanation could have passed some 20 years ago. Today, to say such a thing is so ridiculous and unconvincing, when we see many JWs key figures providing "spiritual guidance" and "interpretations" with head and beard, with first and last name and without any shyness, on JWTV and other digital platforms.
As a class and as individuals, they proved that they are without "leadership from above". They are at the same time subordinated to the main condition that the "company/corporation" should not fail but survive at all costs. Entangled in a series of their own nonsensical interpretations and clarifications, they prove themselves constantly incapable of providing the "truth". Because they changed "the truth" countless times.
Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, I cannot "submit" myself to your "generated" (recognizable) answer, because it looks like the use of an AI platform, which has been repeatedly exposed here, which gives wrong and misleading information.
I appreciate the possibility that you deeply believe in it, but that will not make the premise real and proven.
I remain to enjoy this academic discussion. 

As a residential and business internet installer/trouble-shooter for the past 16 years, I have heard the sentiments plenty of times that people are a bit paranoid about their cameras being on. Some even conspiratorial about the cameras on their computers.

So now you back off and tone down your previous claim. Thank you.

On all these pages where history and dates are discussed, many people are very clearly mentioned with their first and last names and with the names of books, publications, and sources from which they are quoted.
Please, who are the people, by name and surname, who are WT scholars? Let them stand behind their claims with their full name and surname.

My behavior in communication on the forum is subject to subjective (yours or someone else's) judgment because they observe my actions through their individual prism of judgment, which they acquired mainly under the influence of their religious affiliation.

If the astronomical evidence is open to interpretation why do you put faith in 539 as a "pivotal" year?
Since there is even more direct astronomical evidence for:
604 as Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, and 598 as Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, and 591 as Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, and 589 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year, and 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, and  580 as Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year, and 579 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 26th year, and 578 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 27th year, and 577 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year, and 571 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, and 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year . . . . . . then why not use the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as even more pivotal? In other words, why do you have faith that all those years are wrong and have faith that 539 for Cyrus accession is right?
How did you personally arrive at the conclusion that 539 was indeed the year of Cyrus conquering Babylon? Do you think that most Witnesses even know how one arrives at 539 for Cyrus Accession, or 538 for Cyrus 1st year, and 537 for Cyrus 2nd (including the last few months of Cyrus 1st)? Was it through your own research or was it faith in the tradition of our WT publications? If it was through your own research, then again I ask very seriously, how did you arrive at it yourself? And lastly, I think it's great that you had Professor Obed Lipschits -- although you should know that his name is NOT Obed, but Oded Lipschits. My question is:
Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE?

Again, that's a valid proposition for an interpretation. But then what do you do with the fact that you can independently calculate Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, "six ways from Sunday"  and discover that each independent way brings you to the year 586 BCE. 
Everything might have looked like a proper interpretation up to that point, but if you look at the exile and consider it to be 70 years long, you end up with a contradiction. The 70 years takes you all the way to 516 BCE. Yet, the same exact set of calculations that show Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE show the first year of Cyrus over Babylon as 538 BCE.
So, you end up with a 70-year period that looks a lot more like the one in Zechariah, which was closer to 516 BCE, as admitted by the "Insight" book:
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
*** it-2 p. 1225 Zechariah, Book of ***
The last time indicator found in the book of Zechariah is the fourth day of Chislev in the fourth year of Darius’ reign (about December 1, 518 B.C.E.). (7:1) Accordingly, this book could not have been committed to writing before the close of 518 B.C.E. 
So that' s the big question for me. What do you do when you discover that the same astronomical evidence that gives you 538 BCE for Cyrus 1st year over Babylon also gives you 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year? 
It seems to me you'd have to make another adjustment to your theory, or else you would be forced to keep sowing seeds of doubt about the Neo-Babylonian chronology. But it's the same chronology that gave you 539 and 538! So you'd merely be sowing more seeds of doubt about the whole interpretation.
To keep this theory, you have to somehow keep believers afraid to look at the astronomical and archaeological evidence for the period. I don't think that's a sustainable way to promote a traditional interpretation. People are naturally curious, and some are going to find out, no matter how much doubt is sown.

After 12 pages of discussion/argument about this,  I have lost track which side is “winning” the argument.
But either way, what is the end product of WHY this is apparently so important?
What practical value will knowing the correct answer have?
It seems to me that being able to PROVE MATHEMATICALLY that Christ began ruling in 1914 or 1918, and Armageddon occurred then is useless …. as there is not a single piece of evidence on planet Earth that supports that supposition.
None whatsoever.
World War I and 1914 was, based on everything that is real, was only a coincidence.
 

OK. I understand that. Thanks.
And I meant something more like whether the Bible ever contains statements like this:
"And Jerusalem and Judea began going into Exile in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim" "And I will bring this nation into exile starting in the 11th year Zedekiah." You will be free from this Exile when the Persians conquer the Babylonians." "And I will free you from this Exile in the first year of Cyrus" "Two years and 3 months after Cyrus conquered the King of Babylon many of the exiled Jews began returning to their homeland and the Exile was declared completed."  There is something very close to that for the end of the exile, but nothing like it for the beginning of the exile. 
So the "dates" for the start and end of the Exile become a matter of interpretation, not a matter of clear Bible declarations or statements. 
As I said before, we need not worry about the beginning and end of the exile in order to determine the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is the date for the fall of Jerusalem as far as the Bible tells us. Similarly, the 14th year of Nabopolassar is the primary date for the fall of Nineveh, if we were to return to the original topic of this thread. So whether the Exile began exactly at that time, or 20 years earlier or 20 years later, the real goal is to find a BCE date that fits the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 14th year of Nabopolassar. 
But I would like to try to think through your question anyway. It's the one question where you have pushed me to think in a different direction in the past, and I'd like to take it more seriously this time. I'll probably move this part of the discussion to a new topic/thread, so that we'll have a more serious place to discuss it.
For now, I'll start rambling off my thoughts about it. 
I think that it's best to think that the exile began when Nebuchadnezzar first began taking exiles. So we should look for the first time the Bible puts any kind of date on events related to "exiles."
The most obvious "first" verse in that regard at first might appear to be this one:
(Jeremiah 52:28) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.
I've tested about 8 different pieces of Babylonian astronomical evidence and my software programs always puts that in the year 598. The Babylonian Chronicles claim that it happened very late in that year and therefore probably included an early part of 597. So that would be 598/597 BCE.  
The next verse shows that a much smaller number of exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was the same year the city and the temple at Jerusalem was considered destroyed:
(Jeremiah 52:29) . . .In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.
All the astronomical evidence I have seen, and that I have tested myself, consistently places that 18th year as 587 BCE.
The next verse shows a smaller number of people taken as exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year:
(Jeremiah 52:30) . . .In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . .
And, of course, all the astronomical evidence places this date as 582 BCE.
But that's not the whole story, of course. The Watchtower publications show that Nebuchadnezzar was marching around Syria-Palestine, so that we know he was near the Judean nation much earlier. The Babylonian Chronicles and the Watchtower publications both agree that this was in the Accession year of Nebuchadnezzar . All the astronomical tablet evidence places that date in the year 605 BCE. The same year that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the King of Egypt (Necho) at Carchemish. The Bible dates that, too:
(Jeremiah 46:2) . . .For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharʹaoh Neʹcho the king of Egypt, who was along the Eu·phraʹtes River and was defeated at Carʹche·mish by King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon in the fourth year of Je·hoiʹa·kim son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah:
But do we have evidence that there were exiles taken from Judah this early in Nebuchadnezzar's regime? 
(Daniel 1:1-6) . . .In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2  In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, . . . Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. . . . They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. 
So the answer is apparently Yes. During that early march through the land, just as both the Watchtower publications admit and the Babylonian Chronicles also claim, there were some exiles taken at that time, too. They were even called by the term exiles.
(Daniel 2:25) . . .Arʹi·och quickly took Daniel in before the king and said to him: “I have found a man of the exiles of Judah who can make known the interpretation to the king.”
Of course, I am quite aware that the Watchtower interpretation doesn't agree with the date mentioned in Daniel 1:1. So the Watchtower changes the meaning of "third year of Jehoiakim" to mean something else.

In this "secular" report JWs volunteers say the opposite. That the people around them are nice, that they approach them and that they chat nicely with them, they say Hi to them, (this remind me on GB command how "simple Hello" is forbidden if you are ex-JW), express their appreciation for what JWs do.
Hey, nobody hates you. Here are your brothers and sisters confirming it George! Wake up!
 
 
 

This is Georg's frequent practice.

This is Georg's frequent practice.

No. That's completely false. I'm glad you admitted that this is what you were thinking, because it's easy to correct. It's not at all because it is generally accepted. Only because 100% of the Neo-Babylonian astronomical diaries that touch upon Nebuchadnezzar's reign consistently point to 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. (19th if you include counting his accession year.) There are at least EIGHT separate references to his king years. And ALL of them indicate that 587 was his 18th year -- with no exceptions and no inconsistencies.
(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . .
 

I'm surprised, but you just pretty much admitted the entire schema and methodology of the Watchtower tradition. As you say, it starts by looking at the secular NB chronology, but determines that, no matter what the NB Chronology says, the fall of Jerusalem must have happened in 607 BCE (else the 1914 prediction fails). So when they see that 607 is 20 years off from the NB Chronology they merely "fine-tune" the entire NB Chronology timeline by adding 20 years. 
This is exactly correct. Thank you.

Armageddon did not happen in 1914.
No possible way to ignore that.
THAT makes WWI ONLY A COINCIDENCE.

The Bible does not give a BCE start date or a BCE end date for the Jewish/Babylonian exile. The Bible, which I consider excellent evidence, says that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. And, fortunately, there is excellent evidence for the BCE date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You can ignore all else, even though the biblical and historical facts ALSO provide excellent and consistent support for the correct BCE dates.  
Not for me. I couldn't care less whether COJ found no evidence, 17 lines of evidence, or 100 lines. It's not about COJ. And it shouldn't be for anyone else, I'd think. Bringing him up is just a way to say that ONE of the THOUSANDS of persons who support 587/586 is an apostate for having supported it, too. So it's just an easy deflection and diversion that "poisons the well" or attempts the ad hominem. If you could provide a good ad hominem for the other THOUSANDS of people who have carefully looked at the evidence then you might be onto something. But I'd still prefer looking at the evidence and not worry about specific individuals you might like or dislike.
If you prefer 586 then say so. If you prefer 587 say so. In the past, just has you are apparently doing here, you always bring up this same argument that because it's either one or the other then it can't be either. To me, that's a very specious argument. 

All of the above discussions, and every detail of the above discussions by all sides are totally irrelevant. 
World War One and Two, remember?
Anytime you can incinerate 90,000 people in an instant by making a star over their city makes all other previous human combat irrelevant.
The fact that it was about 2600 years ago and the only evidence is a siege ramp of hand thrown stones up to the inner walls of Ninevah, or Massda, or one wall in Jerusalem makes the whole thing ONLY, and I repeat ONLY … an intellectual exercise.
Armageddon didn’t happen in 1914. WWI was a COINCIDENCE.
Nothing argued here will change that.
Nothing!

Do you know another explanation for why the Watchtower publications present the year 632 instead of 612 as the date for the fall of Nineveh? It's true that the Watchtower never admits the reason they added 20 years to the evidenced date, but they did explain the reason they add 20 years to the 587 date. It's pretty obvious to me that it's for the same reason. You can't change one date without consequences to the surrounding dates. You just have to figure out where you want to start and stop adding the 20 years. That's something the Watchtower publications have NEVER explained.
Claiming someone's explanation "lacks comprehension" without being able to say what specifically was wrong gets us nowhere. It's just an insult that might even give credence to a suspicion that the person trying that tactic can't point out where it's illogical. Until you can, I take it as a tacit admission that my explanation might just as easily be correct as incorrect. You can't say you made any point "precisely" in the past either when you never were able to even try to make a vague point, only an insult, or a false claim that someone was relying heavily on a "person." I rely absolutely ZERO on COJ. That would be stupid. I rely only on evidence.
 The Babylonian Chronicles contain only relative dates. I think we generally already agree on those relative dates. I would never try to prove a BCE date with a relative date. Also your insult about COJ being a regrettable individual for doing just that is a misdirection. I read his book and he NEVER, EVER claims that the Babylonian Chronicles validate 587 over 607. I'm sure you already agree with COJ about the relative dates presented in those Chronicles. If not, you are free to show me where you disagree with the dates provided within those Chronicles. 
Again, if you can't specifically show where, I have to assume you can't. This is why I say that empty insults don't help us make any progress on the topic.
Don't you think there is always a chance that someone might be able to come along and show why these "incorrect perceptions" are incorrect? What you said gives the impression that you are simply afraid of the evidence. If these were my own private beliefs however I would agree. But these are hardly private beliefs. They are based on the difference between what the Watchtower has publicly claimed and what literally HUNDREDS of other publications have already publicly claimed. There is nothing private about it. There should be nothing to hide.
Not only that, the Watchtower itself has encouraged the interest in this claim: 
*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
This is the first of two articles in consecutive issues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarly questions surrounding the date of the destruction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part series presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzled some readers.
“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?”
SO WROTE one of our readers. But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people.
 

No problem. I have found that to be true of most fellow Witnesses when it comes to this topic. It's not comfortable to engage when you know where the evidence is heading. 
But for others, I will still go ahead and try to respond to your comments about the evidence and questions you have already asked of me.

It absolutely WAS my intention to discuss evidence regarding the 20-year difference that the Watchtower has been forced to add to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology prior to 539 (technically 556, see below). It even goes back further to the dates given to the entire Judean and Israelite kingdom.
The most significant of the dates for the Watchtower during this period would be the change from 587 to 607, which is the entire purpose of changing all these other dates you will find specific references for in "Insight" and various other Watchtower articles:
The fall of Nineveh (from 612 to 632) The the 14th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 612 to 632) The the 17th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 609 to 629) The death of Josiah (changed from 609 to 629) The 21st year of Nabopolassar (changed from 605 to 625) The last major battle at Carchemish (changed from 605 to 625) The 1st regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 604 to 624) The 7th regnal year "ending" of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 597 to 617) The 19th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 587 to 607) The 43rd regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 562 to 582) Accession year of Evil-Merodach (changed from 562 to 582) Beginning of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 556 to 556) End of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 539 to 539) Note also that, as I mentioned before, these changed dates are directly tied to the Judean (and Israelite) kings, so that the chronology links are changed by 20 years all the way back to David. You can see this in the following Insight quote, that also makes it appear that the most prestigious reference books agree with the Watchtower chronology, even though it's false. Note how the Watchtower adds its changed dates right there within the quotes from Grayson.
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu . . .
When you add something to direct quotes and don't clarify or admit that the brackets weren't in the original, it is considered very bad form or even academic dishonesty.
The other thing to notice is that the Watchtower publications force the 20-year gap into the smallest possible reigns of only 2 kings Evil-Merodach who reigned only a few months, and Neriglissar who reigned only 4 years. Unfortunately, for the Watchtower's chronology, the greater part of the Neo-Babylonian years from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus are already ruled out by the Bible itself, forcing the Watchtower to try to squeeze that extra 20 years into the most obvious place where it could never fit and would have been the most conspicuous if it actually existed.
I think that's very relevant information to start out with for anyone who believes there is any merit to the reasons that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years. (612 to 632 BCE)
 

If you want to have a serious conversation (and not a "talk show" as a certain V.Putin might call it) then I am quite willing. As long as we continue to discuss evidence rather than personalities and faults and supposed expertise and supposed authority. I don't claim expertise or authority on this topic, but I have long been amazed now at the availability of so much consistent evidence when I used to have the impression that it was all a mess and so much of it contradicted other evidence, and was therefore useless to study. 
In response to what you say above, I did NOT intend to only mention you. In fact I said: "
Pudgy was the one who joined the conversation only to say he wasn't interested in it, and that would therefore include not being interested in facts or evidence about it, one way or another. I usually expect Pudgy to join a conversation like this mostly to make some points about the Democratic Party, and throw in a few memes or cartoons, some of which are his own making and, yes, also to trade insults with you. I have no problem with such additions to topics I have started, but it probably isn't fair to @xero to ask a question and then see most of the responses filled up with unrelated insults.
I admit I had you in mind for some of my other observations, based on some of your statements above, but I'm quite willing to start fresh if you wish.
And I don't think I am any paragon of virtue in this regard. Look at some of the old "back-and-forth"  between me and scholar_jw, or posts referring to Furuli when it comes to this particular topic. I don't control myself very well when I believe I'm seeing academic dishonesty and possibly purposeful diversions and fallacies. In this regard, I understand where you might also be coming from.

I you were directing that statement at me, I am not resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC.
It's a fact that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years from 612 to 632 for only ONE purpose: in order to support the change for the fall of Jerusalem by 20 years from 587 to 607.
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end. . . .
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) 
 
I could be wrong, but so far, every time a Witness brings up the difference between Watchtower chronology and the standard accepted chronology, they are invariably referring to the 20-year gap that the Watchtower chronology creates for itself.  @xero can correct me if this is a misconception on my part. 
Put simply, the Watchtower chronology takes every Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian-era date for which there is archaeological or historical evidence prior to 539 BCE and simply adds 20 years to it. This is only done in order to try to resolve (or even "cover up") the fact that there is excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE but the Watchtower needs it to be 607 BCE. Otherwise they would have to dismiss the idea that the Bible "predicted" 1914. I think the GB will not be able to extricate themselves very easily from this tradition. Even though the Watchtower has claimed that OTHER dates they promoted were even more sure than 1914, they have dropped those dates. Russell indicated that 1874 was more sure and anchored date than 1914 but that date was finally dropped. Rutherford claimed that there was more proof and evidence for 1925 than for 1914, but that date was also dropped. Therefore, the only "sure" date left, then, is 1914 and it would likely be too much of a disappointment for most Witnesses to have to admit we were wrong all along about this supposed "prophecy" -- the only "sure" dated prophecy we have left. 
Those with good access to that evidence often have trouble knowing what to do with it. So when the topic comes up they try to "run interference" by brining up people instead of evidence. (One person, R.Furuli, as a last resort against the evidence published by COJ, did try to run interference against the evidence itself.) But normally, from those who have tried to understand the evidence, you instantly start seeing phrases about people JWI, xero, COJ (Carl O Jonsson), apostates, rather than any real attempt to present evidence.
Did you really think people would fall for the idea that it was Carl Jonsson who "introduced" this nonsense when it was already known by the preponderance of existing evidence since the early 1800's. And now that even more consistent and corroborating evidence has been found, the chronology is now agreed upon by the scholars who have looked into that evidence for over 100 years already. The Watchtower was already commenting on people who wrote to Russell and Rutherford about this same evidence long before COJ was born.  
So it's not about people and their flaws or even scholars and experts who agree with one another. It's about the evidence. 
That said, you did make a point or two in this thread about evidence and since some of those points were directed at me personally, so I will respond. 

Was Jesus an "apostate" or a "whistleblower"?
 
apostasy- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apostasy
The act of giving up your religious or political beliefs and leaving a religion or a political party.
apostate - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/apostate
An apostate is someone who has abandoned their religious faith, political loyalties, or principles.
JWs agree with the general view that Jesus founded Christianity, thus a religion distinct from the Jewish religion. This would mean that Jesus belongs to the category of apostates and more. Not only did he abandon the religion of his fathers, but he founded another, the opposite of the one to which he belonged.
 
whistleblower - https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/
On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing. A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company “insider” is not essential to serving as a whistleblower. What matters is that the individual discloses information about wrongdoing that otherwise would not be known.  
Because of his constant criticism of the religious leaders and the revelation of their hypocrisy and the injustices they inflicted on the people, Jesus would also be included under this category because of his actions.

Was Jesus an "apostate" or a "whistleblower"?
 
apostasy- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apostasy
The act of giving up your religious or political beliefs and leaving a religion or a political party.
apostate - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/apostate
An apostate is someone who has abandoned their religious faith, political loyalties, or principles.
JWs agree with the general view that Jesus founded Christianity, thus a religion distinct from the Jewish religion. This would mean that Jesus belongs to the category of apostates and more. Not only did he abandon the religion of his fathers, but he founded another, the opposite of the one to which he belonged.
 
whistleblower - https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/
On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing. A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company “insider” is not essential to serving as a whistleblower. What matters is that the individual discloses information about wrongdoing that otherwise would not be known.  
Because of his constant criticism of the religious leaders and the revelation of their hypocrisy and the injustices they inflicted on the people, Jesus would also be included under this category because of his actions.

Who are you agreeing with?
I have NEVER opined on this issue, ever … because I don’t care at all about fuzzy stuff that may or may not have happened 2600 or so years ago.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to be wrong, because I am not promoting ANY date.
I have never “manipulated any calculations”.
It’s very, very simple.
Your agenda driven hatred of me has completely warped your thinking processes.
You see clearly things which do not exist.