Evacuated

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

All these things are but a beginning of the birth pains, [not the end of all things that you are asking about].

The beginning and end of birth pangs are not remotely situated. Excuse me if I miss your point here? 

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(Luke 21:34; 1 Thess 5:3

same words, different circumstance. In one case self indulgence dulls awareness. |n the other case,  deceptive propaganda.

20 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

normal signs

What are these? It seems to be down to individual experience. 

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Special pleading

Nonsense. This is a ploy to avoid the issue I am afraid. Kingdom birth illustrations are not the same as matters related to the last days as the the birth of the kingdom precedes the last days....in my universe anyway. ?

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus, and once by Paul, were for two different purposes even thought the subject matter was exactly the same.

Not so as explained in the post.

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

intense pain

Let mother be the witness to intensity. Certainly, there is an escalation from intense to very intense, in my experience as an observer.

I think also that it is not about when they start, it is more about that they occur as an indicator of the start of a process that leads to an inevitable conclusion.

By the the way, Kingdom birth illustrations are another subject altogether.

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

Pangs of distress usually come instantly and unexpectedly at the end of the last trimester - a day or two  before or a few hours before. 

 "the contractions in the uterus start sometime near the start of the final month" https://baby-pedia.com

1 Thess. 5:2, 3 appears to be applying a pregnancy metaphor differently to the way Jesus did at , for example Matt.24:8.

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

The scripture above is more true to life.

I have only been present for 5 pregnancies and births, but the mother tells me that while the contractions certainly increased in intensity quite close to the delivery, they started much earlier in the final month, though at different times for each child. (not to be confused of course with the Braxton Hicks variety). Others indicate that these pangs of distress can indeed occur weeks before the birth, or days before. The difference seems to add weight to the metaphor.

From what I can glean then, both are true to life descriptions of the occurence of labor contractions. Jesus uses the aspect of their heralding the start of a period or stage leading to an inevitable conclusion. Paul uses the suddeness of their occurence to relate to the manner in which a prophesied event takes place.

In answer to @JWInsider who posted whilst I was writing, I would suggest that trying too hard see some sort of specific time element as having any significance here would be a mistake. ?

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

they shouldn't get all excited and think this was a sign that the end must be close.

I find this a bit difficult to rationalise against a statement that uses an apparent pregnancy metaphor: "For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress."

A woman is pregnant for 9 months, but pangs of distress or contractions usually start occurring during the last 3months. The reaction to the pregnancy announcement is not quite the same as the reaction to the onset of contractions although the anticipated end result is the same.

Are we to understand Jesus's illustration differently? 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

the whole scenario should be questioned.

Which scenario do you refer to here as needing to be questioned?

• the scriptural picture as portrayed in Rev. 17?
• the interpreted understanding and application that Jehovah's Witnesses currently hold in connection with Rev.17?
• the suggestion that UN preparation for an attack on religion could be discerned from current political and ideological developments? And by extension, where we are in the stream of time relative to the start of the great tribulation?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I come at this issue from the perspective that Jesus warned us against trying to look at signs of the times to divine the closeness of the end.

This is quite right as the several uses of the thief and unknown hour metaphors in Scripture confirm.

However, why do you think that Jesus outlined detailed events in prophecy relating to end times?

Is the UN preparing to attack Religion?

Just getting back to the main topic. The most relevant  prophetic statement I am aware of relating to this question is here:  

"And the ten horns that you saw and the wild beast, these will hate the prostitute and will make her devastated and naked, and they will eat up her flesh and completely burn her with fire.
For God put it into their hearts to carry out his thought, yes, to carry out their one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast, until the words of God will have been accomplished." Revelation 17:16-17.

Leaving aside extensive argumentation on the interpretation of these two verses, Jehovah's Witnesses understand this to be describing the destruction of false religion at the hands of its long-time partner, the political element of human society.

• "The ten horns" = those "movers and shakers" within the political set up (as opposed to "vassal" states) at the time these events occur.
• "The wild beast" = the earlier referred to "was but is not" conglomeration of nations we currently know as the United Nations of which the "ten horns" are a prominent part.
• "The prostitute" = said "Babylon the Great", the world empire of false religion, destined for complete destruction at the hands of the political powers.
• "Their one thought" = preservation of national sovereignty at all costs. There has always been a rather tenuous balance in this element of the religion/politics relationship. In fact, the false charge of "sedition" constitutes a prime weapon in the anti-Jehohvah's Witness strategy employed by false religion. It has been a main component of it's murderous schemes to eliminate servants of Jehovah with the enlistment of political muscle.(Compare John 19:15: "We have no king but Caesar") However, in striking similarity to the failure of Haman's schemes at the time of King Ahasuerus as described in the Bible book of Esther, false religion is "hoist on it's own petar", (to borrow a Shakesperean idiom). This will involve a remarkable feature in that the political elements (particularly those dominant UN partners, more inclined to veto than agree) participate in an unreserved delegation of authority to their political figurehead, currently identified as the UN.
• "God put it into their hearts to carry out his thought" = the crux of this whole matter. Observers today may well detect evidence to support their view of a rising anti-religious trend in UN attitudes to religion. But there may equally be those who would choose to argue a completely opposite view. Not to be overlooked is the view held by false religion itself at the time of it's destruction. This is indicated at Rev:18:7 "I sit as queen, and I am not a widow, and I will never see mourning". Rev18:8 adds "That is why in one day her plagues will come".

The destruction of false religion at the hands of it's one time political allies will be something to shock this system of things to it's very foundations. It will open the world stage for "a tribulation such as has not occurred from the beginning of the creation that God created until that time" Mark 13:19. Those blessed with the 'abundant true knowledge' characterising these" last days" have a comprehension of the world scene that is very different from the many who remain in "darkness mentally and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensitivity of their hearts." Eph 4:19.

So in answer to the question, probably not, as a body, although godless elements have been in it's composition since it's origin. This event will come "as a thief in the night", a development indeed, but something precipitated by Jehovah, at a time of His choosing, once the "good news of the kingdom" has been preached in all the inhabited earth, for a witness. Then the end will come.

Now is not the time to bite the hand that feeds us!

On 11/30/2017 at 8:57 AM, Queen Esther said:

GB  Brother  Barba

Hmm. I thought that was Ernie Beavor? Armageddon Ernie we called him??

The whole beard thing is weird. Especially as they just grow without concious effort.

Ancient peoples mostly loved them, just check the British Museum. However, Egyptians at some point didn't, apart from their gods, so high officials, particularly rulers (Pharoahs), had false beards as they were viewed as incarnations of gods. Even women rulers could have them as well (false ones).

Jews liked them, and Jehovah certainly appears to have with Law Covenant instruction on their management. Also, beards appear on visionary spirit persons. In fact, no beard to Israel was a sign of grief, shame, humiliation, or (ahem) loss of male equipment/functionality.

1st Century Jews, including Jesus, certainly had them a) because they were mandated by the Law Covenant, and b)as Romans had abandoned them, (not wanting to appear Greek, Macedonians excepted), the Jews didn't want to be seen as Roman sympathisers.

In and out of fashion since the 1st Century, beards (and their size and length) seem to have been governed by a variety of influences. These included the styles set by prominent people, notions of virility (courage, masculinity etc.), and, of course, religious dictates. Interestingly, the closer to Bible fundamentalism men have got , the bushier they became! Victorian beards, in all stratas, appear legendary!

20th Century Western cultural attitudes to beards, particularly in the secular and non-military realm, appear to have been dictated by corporations such as The Gillette Company and the American Safety Razor Company, with the assistance of Madison Avenue. The consequent influence of Hollywood, with it's portrayal of close-cropped, clean-cut heroes and bearded, foreign-accented villians, contributed. Latterly, the negative images of bearded bikers, anarchists, socialists, students, hippies, and the like, did little to enhance the image of facially hirsute men.

But, things have changed. Hollywood sports any number of bearded stars, although the rather sparce (Deppesque) beards of many would not likely make a dent in any heat of the world beard-mustache championships. More historically focussed beardy programs about Vikings and other medieval groups might make a better showing, as would the facial ornaments of virile, sporting figures such as Beckham and Cantona. Hipsters (whoever they are) seem to be making a play as well. But an ever more powerful driver may also be in the burgeoning cosmetics industry. Beard care forms a sizeable element of the global male grooming market which some estimate to be worth about USD 21.4 billion in total annually. With 17% of men estimated to have beards, and individuals paying up to £14,500 for a beard transplant!!... go figure!

This brings us to Jehovah's Witnesses. In more modern times, (IBSA times for them), beards were often magnificent (depending on your preferences), with Bro. Russell himself a serious contender for the championships mentioned earlier. But....where did they go? Likely the desire of (clean-cheeked) Bro. Rutherford to separate from Russellite influence brought an element of beardism to the fore, and for many years this prevailed. (@JWInsider may have a contribution here).

More recently, global expansion, the embracing of uncontroversial cultural diversity, reasonableness, and ever-growing spritual maturity with its emphasis on principal rather than regulation, has softened attitudes to bearded chins and their owners. Other postings refer to GB direction on such matters.

But of course, human juggernautical gymnastics are slower to execute than heavenly chariotesque manoevres, and it will take some time for a uniform and consistent approach to this matter, which, incidentally, does NOT constitute one of the "more important things" (Ph.1:10) that bearded Paul referred to.

Meanwhile, principles such as the following will help any reasonable person to handle beard control without unecessary bristling:

Ps119:135: "Abundant peace belongs to those who love your law; nothing can make them stumble."

All things considered, however, it will be some time before we see anything like this on a Kingdom Hall platform, if indeed we ever do: 

15 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

WHACK-A-MOLE!

No way to treat an avocado!

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

for example, one liked blue and one liked beige? both of them would want to given in to the choice of the other person out of love and humility,

Come on, surely they would just find a compromise.......

On 5/13/2018 at 5:19 AM, Jack Ryan said:

let these people walk by you while you are counting time for preaching without saying a word to them?

Is that how you do it?

On 5/13/2018 at 4:37 AM, The Librarian said:

Graph in article:

Interesting. I'd like to see it for "read the Bible daily..."

On 5/12/2018 at 6:39 PM, Witness said:

Dear Eoin, You are speaking of the Watchtower article, then.  If so, I am pleasantly gobsmacked.  Just want to verify. 

"Let the reader use discernment....."

Oh dear! More butchers in the operating theatre!

This is the WT 15 May 2015 quote referenced above.

"But who is referred to as “Gog and Magog” at Revelation 20:8? During the final test at the end of the 1,000 years, those who rebel against Jehovah will manifest the same murderous attitude as ‘Gog of Magog,’ those nations that attack God’s people at the end of the great tribulation. And the outcome for both groups will be exactly the same—everlasting death! (Rev. 19:20, 21; 20:9) It seems fitting, then, that all those rebels at the end of the Millennium be called “Gog and Magog.”"

It fails to support the allegations made. Not worth reading the rest then, as it will only display the same level of competency in argument.

I am afraid that this is a case of what Solomon described:

"What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot possibly be counted." Ecc.1:15.

10 hours ago, Cos said:

the last time I checked the Watchtower website they say that the Holy Spirit is “God’s power”. 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006245

The quote referenced above reads: "In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action. Hence, an accurate translation of the Bible’s Hebrew text refers to God’s spirit as “God’s active force.” (Genesis 1:2) This concept is well supported throughout the Bible.—Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35;Acts 10:38."

Unfortunately, the inadequate and  bludgeoning reference to this quote in the opening remarks of the argument above displays a level of competency that calls into question the entire succeeding discussion. To enter into debate on the matters raised on the basis of the level of spiritual comprehension displayed in this opening gambit would be akin to a surgeon discussing the finer points of a heart transplant procedure with a meat butcher who prefers using a meat cleaver to a scalpel.

On 5/9/2018 at 3:05 AM, Nicole said:

Islamophobically-inspired withdrawal

Everything seems to be going ...phobic these days. Narcissistic anthropophobia seems to be where we are heading with all of this.

On 5/5/2018 at 9:56 PM, Gone Away said:

Romans 6:7 "For the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin."

A consideration of the context of this expression shows that the apostle Paul was discussing spirit-anointed Christians alive at that time. While still alive, they had been baptized into Christ Jesus and received the valid prospect of heavenly life. In order to be anointed with holy spirit and accepted as spiritual sons of God, they had to die to their former course in life as imperfect humans, have their sins forgiven by God and have human perfection imputed to them.

However, in view of the words at Romans 6:23 "For the wages sin pays is death", it is clear that Paul's use of a natural and actual illustration (in v7) in connection with the consequence of sin would enable it to correctly be said that "one who has died has been acquitted from his sin".

It may well be that some today still think that punishing someone twice for the same crime is an acceptable carriage of justice. They are in company with those who feel that God is justified in keeping alive and punishing forever in literal fire those who have sinned no more than a human lifetime (just a few minutes in Jehovah's timescale).

Such fleshly viewpoints confirm the apostle's words at 2 Cor.14-15.

On 5/5/2018 at 10:00 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

How about if the circumstances were exactly as I outlined, above ..... ?

As for extreme case scenario funerals, these would have to be subject to the consideration of those locally in consultation with the relevant Branch office. The circumstances outlined would be have to be relevant to the locality at the time they occur, in respect of the individuals involved. Hence, the only ones who could realistically respond on that would be the local Service Committee, and in view of the hypothetical nature of the question, I would highly suspect the response would be......................................................Silence!!
 

When Jehovah outlined the consequence of her sin to Eve in the Garden of Eden, He said: "I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy" Genesis 3:16.

So childbirth would have been physically painful for perfect women, the possibility of that pain having existed prior to the sin of Eve. There is nothing to indicate that the case will be otherwise in the future. 

Of course the eventual absence of the effects of Adamic sin on the health of mothers, resulting in inherited and/or acquired factors causing  complications effecting childbirth will likely see that Jehovah, through the admistration of the benefits of Christ's ransom, will "greatly decrease the pain of...pregnancy".

On 5/3/2018 at 2:28 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

can they be disfellowshipped post mortem

Romans 6:7 "For the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin."

The use of a Kingdom Hall for a funeral would depend on circumstance so there isn't a blanket rule.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

response of Jesus to the Jews

The response of Jesus to the Jews in quoting from Ps 8:2 is no more an assertion that he is God than the words of the original Psalm itself are written to encourage the viewing of the moon and stars, or even mortal man, to be God. The praise of the children in both cases is a reflection of their appreciation for the wonderful works of Jehovah. Thus, the prophetically indicated presentation of Jesus as God's means of salvation and all that the arrangement encompassed on that occasion, was indeed a reason for all to give praise to God. The children on that occasion shamed the chief priests and scribes in this respect. This is the picture presented at Matt. 21:15-16.

As for "the inner thoughts of the scribes", their "heart's abundance" was reflected in their own words later on: 

"He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’”" Matt.27:43  and

"The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son" John 19:7

6 hours ago, Cos said:

Well, to Matthew 10:37 could be added John 21:15

Looking for an indication of "supreme" there but without success.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

by all means show me

I don't see a reason for doing this yet, as the arguments I have considered appear to be rather porous so far. I will continue to keep an eye on the thread however.

On 4/27/2018 at 10:43 AM, Cos said:

Jesus said, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) while David’s clearly was.

Now this is interesting, but seems a little off target. Jesus's reference to Pilate surely has a connection with Luke 4:6 in view of Pilate's fear that he could be supporting Jesus in fronting a rival to Roman authority,  see Luke 23:14. That Roman authority was currently an expression of God's permission human rulership incidentally, compare Romans 13:1-4, something neither Pilate nor Ceasar would have discerned.. Pilate's fear was further stoked by the later chanting of the Jews: John 19:12; and the chief priests John 19:15.

As for the source of David's kingship, the Scripture indicates clearly: "And Solʹo·mon sat on Jehovah’s throne as king in place of David his father, and he was successful, and all the Israelites were obedient to him." 1Chr.29:23.

The other responses you made do not stand up under scrutiny either.

On 4/27/2018 at 10:43 AM, Cos said:

Jesus requires us to love Him over and above (supremely) even our immediate family

Supreme love for Jesus is not a Scriptural teaching

On 4/27/2018 at 10:43 AM, Cos said:

Psalm 8:2, which speaks of children praising God. Jesus justifies the praise of the children by applying to Himself a passage of Scripture applicable only to God.

The action of the children does not prove Jesus to be God, any more than Jesus would see their praise of His heavenly Father to be a expresssion that he would misappropriate, compare Luke 4:7-8.