Evacuated

Oh yes. If only they would......

It has quite a negative association all over the world unfortunately.

That is good to change your teaching when you realise it is wrong. (Although we are a little quicker off the mark in this). e.g. Take this notion that unbaptised children who die go somewhere on the fringes of "hell" called "Limbo" to receive [whatever] for their unredeemed, inherited ("Original") sin. "It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all." Augustine (4th Century) "St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned," Catholic Encyclopedia (21st Century) Catholic Encyclopedia entry on "Limbo": (21st Century) "the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum")" In a long-awaited document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized”, the Church’s International Theological Commission said "limbo" reflected an “unduly restrictive view of salvation”. The document states (in contrast to the view of Augustine and the Catholic Encyclopedia): "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision." (20th Century) There is a bit of incoherence in the chronological sequencing of these changes, but ...hey ho...I suppose it's a bit like turning a supertanker. PS. Jehovah's Witnesses haven't changed their views on this whole paticular piece of nonsense by the way. They still hold to the view expressed at Ecc 9:5 "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all". (11th Century BCE!)

That's interesting. Where did you hear that? Do you have the reference? Yes indeed. Revelation 22:18-19. I wonder if the Catholic Church has noted that text as well?

There is some sort of contradiction in this phrase...can't quite put my finger on it???? Anyway, it's good to remember that not all Catholics followed their leaders over the years. Many good folk in the Catholic Church have tried to live as Christians despite their actions.

Bit overstated. It only really matters what Jehovah thinks we are, does it not?" 1Sam.16:7: "For the way man sees is not the way God sees, because mere man sees what appears to the eyes, but Jehovah sees into the heart.”

There is good reasoning in this comment, but faulty logic. Surely, although distinct, sinning against God's spirit is of necessity a sin against God Himself? Why would it carry a heavier judgement? Because the spirit is a separate person? This is not a logical step or inevitable conclusion. Given that Jehovah's spirit is His personal, active force, to sin against it is, in other words, to sin against the active and present person of God Himself. The claim of the religionists when actually witnessing the operation of God's spirit in empowering Jesus to perform miracles was to declare that these were performed with the assistance of Satan. (Matt.12:22-32). They did not deny the miracle, but slandered the source of Jesus' power to act. This was described as sin against the holy sprit and, as such, unforgivable. A person may sin against God in an indirect manner, through ignorance, or weakness, by damaging or misusing His property for example. There is a way such sin can be forgiven. But to openly sin against the active manifestation of the presence of God, evident in pouring out of holy spirit, this is akin to following the example of Satan in his defiant challenge in the presence of God as recorded at Job Chapters 1 and 2. It is worth noting that this is a sin that only God can determine as having occurred. But it is also imperative to note that true enlightenment from the word of God, which is also a manifestation of God's spirit (Heb.4:12), if rejected, can also be a precursor to sinning against GOD'S SPIRIT: "For it is impossible concerning those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and become sharers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age, and having fallen away, to renew them again to repentance, because they have crucified again for themselves the Son of God and held him up to contempt.." Heb 6:4-6 (LEB)

PS. Interestingly, Bill Haley & His Comets embarked on the first ever rock and roll band world tour, starting in the UK, in 1957. Would that count as a celestial phenomenon?

Simply..odd! I'm surprised it was written down at all. Out of interest, do we know how the agenda got into the public domain?

Encouraging, shows potential, etc etc

Who are the ones mentioned at Rev.12:4,9?

Well, they had a go, but didn't succeed. Isaiah 40:8, 1Pet.1:25. So we're happy with what we got!

No "ring of truth" apparent to me despite the copious repetition. Untruth never "rings true" no matter how often the pull is tugged.

Free speech or course but you are just creating debate abiout personal preference and really seeking to impose your personal views on others in matters of conscience. Short comment? Stop wasting peoples time!

This is a simple statement and really answers @Anna's question. The debate is obviously far from over, but as an interim observation, from reading all the various arguments and responses to questions about the chronology endorsed by the Watchtower articles on this matter, two things are apparent (at the moment ) to me. 1. It is NOT posssible to reconcile the Bible Chronolgy used by Jehovah's Witnesses with all current attestations of secular history. This would appear to be the case for ALL interpretations of Bible Chronology. The torturous explanations I have seen presented arguing against JW Chronology are, for the most part, complex, lengthy, and tedious, similar to the kind of argumentation found in 19th and early 20th century Society publications . Also whilst purporting to be factual, both sides use the same liberal sprinkling of irrelevant terms such as "honest", "dishonest"; "most modern"; "reputable" and other irrelevant descriptors that would be more at home in an argument about the scientific basis for the theory of evolution. 2, The crux of objection to the Bible Chronolgy as used by Jehovah's Witnesses is a disagreement with the Witness view of the year 1914 CE as the time for the establishment of the Messianic kingdom in Jesus Christ's hands, in heaven, and the commencement of the "last days" period of this current human system of government under the influence of Satan the Devil. Intertwined with this is a disagreement with the view that the period of time of 2520 years commonly termed the "Gentile Times", elsewhere the "appointed time of the nations", commenced in the year 607BCE and terminated in the year 1914CE. I just do not believe that working out where we are in the stream of time has to be as difficult as objectors claim. None of the opposers arguments presented so far have the "ring of truth" about them. Â

"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to....." Peter Alan Green(baum) 1969.

More to the point: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions Australian RC Final Report 2017 - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf

You're right, but of course that isn't the point being made. All of Babylon the Great is "holy" from the standpoint of its supporters. All of Babylon the Great will be dismantled by the political entity of the day in harmony with Jehovah's expressed judgement. And there is no need to bring Jehovah's estimation of what is Holy into the equation because, at the time of Jerusalem's penetration by the Roman army, he had long cast off the old temple arrangement with the success of Jesus mission to earth. In fact, the event described at Matt.27:51; Mk.15:38; Lu.23:45 33 years earlier indicated very clearly that Jehovah had stripped away the "Holy" status of that edifice. Jesus’ baptism, in 29 C.E., had already anointed, or set apart, that heavenly, spiritual reality originally represented by the Most Holy of the earthly tabernacle and of the later temple, (Hebrews 9:11, 12), and this is the temple sanctuary described at Rev 11:19 wher the missing "ark of the covenant" is finally located (figuratively of course). So then, at the time of Jersusalem's end from 66CE to 70CE , the literal "Holy" and "Most Holy" compartments of the temple were just relics of the past, "holy" indeed in the eyes of the adherents to the redundant Jewish religion of the time, but nevetheless as profane as any other religious eduifice of the day in the eyes of Jehovah God. Actually. it had been long marked for destruction as is Christendom and all of Babylon the Great today.

Disappointing! I thought this was an update.

At the mo', United Nations. Man's last hope for Peace., Ha!Ha! *** w13 7/15 pp. 4-5 par. 6 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” *** What will signal the start of the great tribulation? Jesus foretold: “When you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.” (Matt. 24:15, 16) In the first fulfillment, the “standing in a holy place” occurred in 66 C.E. when the Roman army (“the disgusting thing”) attacked Jerusalem and its temple (a place holy in the eyes of the Jews). In the larger fulfillment, the “standing” will occur when the United Nations (the modern-day “disgusting thing”) attacks Christendom (which is holy in the eyes of nominal Christians) and the rest of Babylon the Great. The same attack is described at Revelation 17:16-18. That event will be the beginning of the great tribulation.

Nothing against women of course because it's women who carry her back to Babylon. More in keeping with the idea of Jehovah's faithful ones being pictured as a woman in many Bible accounts. Spiritual faithfulness, bridal chastity, all these are images related. Of course spritual adultery personified in the great prostitute, Babylon the Great, provides a contrast. So in this case, any proving false to Jehovah's covenanted arrangement are swiftly contained and dispatched. Similar to the description in Matthew 13:41 where the angels clear out the wicked influences in the Christian Congregation. Only in Zecahariah, more emphasis is given to the solidarity expressed by Jehovah's faithful human servants in keeping with the later injunction at 1 Cor 5:13. (Stork-winged women). There's an old book, Paradise Restored to Mankind Through Theocracy that will give more meaty insight although judicious study is required. I've posted it in the publications section under 1972. Take a look. Â

One acceptable definition: "Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not only describes it but also shows its value: “The most important thing about science is the scientific method—a way of thinking systematically, a way of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one’s own errors, a way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific method.”

Who would these things be disturbing to?

Who knows?

Jesus explained that one: Mark 10:29-30: "Jesus said: “Truly I say to you, no one has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the sake of the good news who will not get 100 times more now in this period of time—houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the coming system of things, everlasting life."