JW Insider

@TrueTomHarley and @Matthew9969. I got a little off topic and forgot that my original point was going to be about the once-common claim that we are the only religion that gives TRUE charity. I know very personally that individuals have been counseled about giving to various charities, especially when they didn't realize the religious or political nature of some charities. If you suspect that your car might be on the verge of having more troubles than it's worth, but it still is worth several thousand in the "blue book" you might hear about a charity that gives "sight to the blind" or something like that and give it to the charity for a $5,000 receipt that you can use on your taxes. But one such charity has taken in millions of dollars by putting these cars up for auction and creating large-print "Old Testament" Bibles to send to people in Israel with poor eyesight. This is not a bad thing in itself, but one such charity apparently made millions for the family members in Brooklyn, NY who were involved, and they had not been able to provide proof that they ever sent more than ONE of these large-print Bibles. And charity scams became much more common again, especially bursting onto the scene again in 2008/9 with the great recession. But they have always been a part of the charity scene. I don't think we are wrong to point this out, although we don't go out of our way to denigrate charities. There was a time when we did. For years, the Watchtower could not mention charities without highlighting bad examples. The farther back you go toward the 1940's the more common this theme was. For example, here are some excerpts from an older Watchtower: *** w50 12/15 pp. 505-507 Religious Charity versus Good Works *** EVERY year hundreds of millions of dollars are contributed by the public to what are termed reputable, legitimate and worthy charities, many of which are sponsored by religious organizations. The question is, Should true Christians, who are under the godly commandments to do good, contribute to these supposedly humanitarian money-raising schemes? . . . But the question was, What was he going to do with what he had? How was he to use his wealth? Said Jesus: ‘If you give to the poor you will have treasure in heaven, provided you come and follow me.’ Thus it becomes clear that donating to charitable causes as a philanthropist is of no value in God’s sight unless one goes farther and becomes a true footstep follower of Jesus. It also appears that the possession of wealth is in itself of no particular harm. The question is, How is that wealth used? If you are rich in this world’s goods will you do what Jesus said? Are you willing to give up your material wealth and follow the course Jesus did, work in the interests of the poor and with the Kingdom message comfort those who mourn? . . . A blind beggar, sitting beside the road, cried out as Jesus passed by, “Have mercy on me.” Now, what did Jesus do, reach down and give the poor fellow a couple of Roman coins for a crust of bread? No, not at all. He gave him a far more valuable gift in restoring his eyesight! (Mark 10:46-52; Matt. 20:30-34; Luke 18:35-43) Jesus’ “charity” was not measured out in money to religious organizations for questionable distribution. . . . To the poor and downtrodden he untiringly preached the good news about God’s kingdom.—Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22; 4:18. The apostles Peter and John followed a similar course when they came upon a poor cripple who requested a donation. “Peter said: ‘Silver and gold I do not possess, but what I do have is what I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk!’ With that he took hold of him by the right hand and raised him up. Instantly the soles of his feet and his ankle bones were made firm, and, leaping up, he stood up and began walking, and he entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God.”—Acts 3:1-8, NW. GOOD WORKS, NOT ADVERTISED CHARITY The gaudy practice today of bestowing honor and praise on heavy contributors to charity drives is directly opposed to Jesus’ counsel. “But take care not to do your good deeds in public for people to see, for, if you do, you will get no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you are going to give to charity, do not blow a trumpet before yourself, as the hypocrites do, in the synagogues and the streets, to make people praise them. I tell you, that is all the reward they will get! But when you give to charity, your own left hand must not know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be secret, and your Father who sees what is secret will reward you.”—Matt. 6:1-4, AT. Judas Iscariot, one of those hypocrites that liked to make a show of his generosity, well represented those today that criticize Jehovah’s witnesses for not building hospitals, setting up food kitchens in slum areas. Such Judaslike ones announce with a blare of horns their personal gifts of mercy to the poor. The people have been robbed and beaten and left half-dead by the ruling elements of this world, just like the “certain man” that Jesus told about who fell among robbers on his way down to Jericho. The Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religionists have observed the spiritual condition of these poor people but have steered clear of them, held aloof and passed them by on the opposite side of the road. Jehovah’s witnesses, on the other hand, like good Samaritans, have searched out these spiritually sick, maimed and half-starved people and, when they were found, have bound up their wounds, have fed them and cared for their needs.—Luke 10:29-37. It is no secret, many so-called “charity” organizations operate a fraud and racket. For example, the New York Times, September 6, 1950, carried an account of how certain “religious charitable organizations” operating in Brooklyn, New York, are giving the poor only 15 per cent of the money they beg from the public. The other 85 per cent goes for what they call “overhead” expense. God’s faithful people cannot afford to donate to such organizations. They must use what they have to preach this gospel of the established Kingdom for the benefit of the poor everywhere, as commanded.—Matt. 24:14. It takes much time, energy and money to carry out this divine command, but Jehovah’s witnesses are happy to use their substance to do it. Investing their money in Bibles and other life-giving literature, they take these to the people at great personal expense. But this is really a sound investment on behalf of the poor, for by so doing Jehovah’s witnesses are storing up treasures in heaven and helping others to do the same thing. And just as the ancient brethren of Macedonia and Achaia contributed material things for their needy brethren at Jerusalem, so also do Jehovah’s witnesses. (Rom. 15:25, 26; Gal. 2:10) All of these things are good works done out of love for and to the honor of Jehovah God. I can't say that the above article says anything that is specifically wrong, but it does focus on how giving to charities is not TRUE charity in the way that our "good works" are true charity. Yet, there were many Bible verses that emphasized that good works actually referred to charitable giving alone, and NOT preaching the good news, which is a different, but necessary, type of giving. Even the parable of the good Samaritan had been re-explained (in separate Watchtower articles) so that it only applied to spiritual giving, not physical giving. I know this wasn't the theme of this particular topic, but it's a chance to make a scriptural point. Too often, we feel that our "good works" or "fine works" refer to the "public declaration of our hope," (Heb 10:23) the preaching of the "good news of the kingdom." (Mt 24:14) But these are separate from one of the primary reasons that we should be meeting together: (Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near. The "fine works" that we meet together to incite and encourage one another to do is the same phrase as "good works" elsewhere in the scriptures, and it refers to charitable actions and charitable activities. It's easy to lose sight of this if we think it means "preaching the good news."

I don't think that is the case. @Matthew9969 We rarely talk about charity except for those related to us in the faith. But if we have limited resources for charity, then surely this is not unreasonable: (Galatians 6:10) 10 So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith. When we have spoken about charity, we don't claim to be the only ones who provide charity, although I know we have been quick to demean charitable organizations and religions who think that by their great works alone they will make it through the narrow gate. But this too may be based on some scriptural reasoning: (Matthew 7:22) 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not . . . perform many powerful works in your name?’ I recall counsel against giving to charitable organizations, especially religious charitable organizations. Whenever I asked my parents about it they would say that we were the only religion that provides TRUE charity. I don't recall much counsel against giving to charity after about 1990, and it seems to be about that time that we began more regularly announcing our own charitable works after disasters, and always regularly adding the fact that we not only gave to support our brothers in need and the rebuilding of local Kingdom Halls, but that there was more than enough left over to help non-JWs. I never lived in Oklahoma, but we had friends in OKC, and I was baptized at an assembly in Tulsa. Back in the 60's and early 70's, from our congregation in Missouri we sometimes helped out when Oklahoma had a bad tornado, and would take a pickup truck loaded with some old clothes, canned goods, 2x4s and a few squares of shingles. But I remember that the brother driving (who owned a small construction company) would just dump any bags of clothes that no one wanted and would even bring back any of the 2x4's or squares of shingles, which we could have given to those non-JWs who needed them much more. But except for some out-of-style neckties, and my old plaid suits that my mother wanted to give away anyway, I had no personal stake in the charity. And as I think about it, the brother who drove his truck had every right to hold back what the brothers didn't need. It was never his purpose to give to non-JWs. I questioned it at the time, but as I look back now, I have no problem with what he did. But I do remember that even then, the experiences of such events retold at the Circuit Assemblies almost always "bragged" that the brothers had given so much that we had plenty left over to give to other needy persons. I recall one such CA announcement about a tornado site that we were personally involved with, and the announcer never made the claim that we had plenty of leftovers to give to non-JWs, which was correct (sort-of). But the same announcement had at least a minute devoted to the fact that others had seen how well we looked after each other and how these onlookers had even come up to us and praised us for our cooperation and diligence putting God's love into action. It didn't occur to me then, but, over the years, having seen how these experiences are developed for assemblies especially, I now wonder whether onlookers had actually used any of those words. I would have to agree that bragging of an unnecessary nature has undoubtedly been behind several of such experiences. But there is also an element of wanting to build one another up, and show the positive side of every experience. Pointing out the numbers of hours and placements and number of pioneers can seem unnecessary too, but these are also encouragements. A brother at Bethel (D.Songer) actually used all these numbers adjusted seasonally and compared them with the timing of various literature campaigns to decide how many of any particular book, booklet or magazine to print. It therefore helped maximize the efficiencies of scale in production, but also avoided unnecessary waste. This can be considered to be a part of being a good steward.

Or dropped out for many of them. Of course, that doesn't count as much because several still got into some colleges that were hard to get into, which implies either family money or privileged educational opportunities during "high school" which are often the equivalent of American college credits. And Malcolm X says he read Rutherford's books and listened to him on the radio, so obviously he didn't need to go to college.

I have been in contact with a couple research coordinators at the British Museum and one has already met with me twice in person this week. I meet another one tomorrow. I have been working from a list of questions, some of which are common questions from religious circles, and some of which are a little more specific to the interest of JWs. It's not that any one person can answer the questions but I can get good leads on recent, ongoing and upcoming research projects. I have found that when I want to contact someone who is working on a project that being able to say I spoke to so-and-so at the BM (or similar place) is an excellent way to start out. My list of questions have included the following topics and research areas. In some of the topics I have dozens of specific questions already on my list. The general topics below might remind anyone of their own questions they might have always wanted to ask someone. The earliest evidence of the use of a cross among Christians. Any Christian and Christian-related iconography prior to 200 C.E. Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian, Greek research on chronology from about 750 to 400-ish B.C.E. Habitation/Population evidence of Israel/Judea/Palestine from 740 to 605 to 589 to 539 to 518 B.C.E. etc. Questions related to identities of rulers mentioned in Daniel Questions about the date of the death of Herod the Great Questions about the identification of the Pharaohs who interacted with Israelites Linguistic "crossover" from Egyptian, Phoenician, Hebrew in religious subjects (priesthood, circumcision, temple-related artifacts) Religion of the Canaanite-related people before and during the Israelite conquest Dead Sea Scrolls as they relate to Second Temple period, and Essene, early Pharisee, and early Christian traditions (I am here for more than a week, staying across from Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park -- also here for a wedding.)

That's the Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral, of course, which is also the primary picture under the Wikipedia article: "History of the Catholic Church in Mexico." The relationship of the Catholic Church has gone through strained periods in Mexico (also in Spain, of course where some parallels occurred.) There were many years when the Catholic Church could not own property, but they had this idea that their "civic associations" such as Catholic schools could be owned by the Church. (I have read that this was one of the ways they fought legally for privileged exceptions.) Even this caused problems. But it seems a reasonable guess that the Watch Tower got the idea from the Catholic Church that declaring yourself a civic association instead of a religion was a good way to be able to own property, as I think Catholics had done with their schools. The Wikipedia article starts out as follows: The history of the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico dates from the period of the Spanish conquest (1519–21) and has continued as an institution in Mexico into the twenty-first century. Catholicism is one of the two major legacies from the Spanish colonial era, the other being Spanish as the nation's language. The Catholic Church was a privileged institution until the mid nineteenth century. It was the sole permissible Church in the colonial era and into the early Mexican Republic, following independence in 1821. At some point in the twentieth century, Eastern Catholic jurisdictions were established in Mexico,[citation needed] but Roman Catholicism remains the largest religious group. In the mid-nineteenth century the liberal La Reforma brought major changes in church-state relations. The Mexican state challenged the Catholic Church's role in education in Mexico, property ownership, birth, marriage, and death records, in anticlerical laws. Many of these were incorporated into the Constitution of 1857, restricting the Church's corporate ownership of property and other limitations. President Porfirio Díaz (1876–1911) pursued a policy of conciliation with the Catholic Church, keeping the liberal anticlerical articles of the constitution in force, but in practice allowing greater freedom of action for the Catholic Church.[1] With Díaz's ouster in 1911 and the decade-long conflict of the Mexican Revolution, the victorious Constitutionalist faction led by Venustiano Carranza wrote the new Constitution of 1917 that strengthened the anticlerical measures in the liberal Constitution of 1857. With the presidency of Northern, anticlerical, revolutionary general Plutarco Elías Calles (1924–28), the State's enforcement of the anticlerical articles of Constitution of 1917 provoked a major crisis in Mexico with violence in a number of regions of Mexico. The Cristero Rebellion (1926–29) was resolved, with the aid of diplomacy of the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, ending the violence, but the anticlerical articles of the constitution remained. President Manuel Avila Camacho (1940–1946) came to office declaring "I am a [Catholic] believer," (soy creyente) and Church-State relations improved though without constitutional changes. A major change came in 1992, with the presidency of Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988–1994). In a sweeping program of reform to "modernize Mexico" that he outlined in his 1988 inaugural address, his government pushed through revisions in the Mexican Constitution, explicitly including a new legal framework that restored the Catholic Church's juridical personality.[2][3][4][5][6] The majority of Mexicans in the twenty-first century identify themselves as being Catholic, but the growth of other religious groups such as Protestant evangelicals, Mormons, as well secularism is consistent with trends elsewhere in Latin America. The 1992 federal Act on Religious Associations and Public Worship (Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público), known in English as the Religious Associations Act or (RAA), has affected all religious groups in Mexico.[7]

...then they must must have spent the last ten years in a coma... [or something to that effect] Of course, this could have slightly more effect if we hadn't been saying almost exactly the same thing for the last 138 years and counting.

I think you just hit upon a very likely meaning of the verse. We've heard the counsel that it seems easier sometimes to endure persecution because we are focused on just that one thing, remaining faithful through the trouble. But when the persecution stops, more people lose focus and find it harder to remain faithful. Perhaps it's similar to one of the ideas in Matthew 6: (Matthew 6:22) 22 “The lamp of the body is the eye. If, then, your eye is focused, your whole body will be bright. (Matthew 6:25) . . .On this account I say to you: Stop being anxious about your lives as to what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your bodies as to what you will wear. Does not life mean more than food and the body than clothing?

Bathroom is down the hall and to the left.

That's another way to look at it. [edited to add:] I think it actually fits the mental attitude of those who would claim we have peace and security in our time. Because there is no TRUE peace and security -- at least not for the majority of mankind. Many people also tend to think too positively and optimistically. Scientists study the potential effects of water shortages, climate change, famine, disease, and their data shows extreme danger, but in an interview or a summary of the same data there is a tendency to say, "Oh but I'm sure we'll be OK; someone will find a solution in time." This is done for decade after decade while things just keep getting closer to complete disaster. I think this is also a bit like being lulled into acceptance of disasters where the shock value wanes after so many. It shows that we don't really know how bad things will be before the end. A recent Watchtower on the subject said something interesting, too: *** w15 8/15 p. 15 par. 7 Keep in Expectation! *** But how bad do you expect conditions to become before “the great tribulation”? (Rev. 7:14) For example, do you expect that there will be a war in every country, no food on anyone’s table, and illness in every household? Under those conditions, even skeptics would likely feel compelled to admit that Bible prophecy was undergoing fulfillment. However, Jesus said that most people would take “no note” of his presence, carrying on with life’s normal activities until it is too late. (Read Matthew 24:37-39.) Thus, the Scriptures indicate that world conditions during the last days would not become so extreme that people would be forced to believe that the end is near.—Luke 17:20; 2 Pet. 3:3, 4. So the idea you presented could fit this too. But it implies that people would be crying for peace and security instead of just "saying" peace and security as the original text behind the scripture shows. I think the Greek can just as well support the translation like the NLT: When people are saying, “Everything is peaceful and secure,” then disaster will fall on them as suddenly as a pregnant woman’s labor pains begin. And there will be no escape. The Bible just says they are "saying" (lego) not crying, not calling out, etc. That fits the idea of a sudden surprise destruction that Jesus spoke of when he mentioned how the people "took no note" before the Flood suddenly swept them away, or in the days of Lot when the people appeared to have no warning at all and then one day, the "fire" suddenly swept them away.

Perhaps it has. What you say would make sense if there was really a "CRY" for peace and security. But the Bible doesn't say there is any sort of "cry" here in 1 Thess 5:3. It sounds like it is just speaking of the contrast between a claim of peace and security, in the Trumpian sense of a "calm before the storm." Or something like the calm in the "eye" of a hurricane. This seems to be the only reason that it could be compared with the night-time break-in of a house, which usually comes during a time of peaceful sleep.

The current plan is to have only 6 more public issues of the Watchtower between now and the of 2019, and then reprint those 6 issues as needed starting in 2020. *** w59 5/1 p. 285 Sharing the Good News by Contributing Personally *** BACK in August, 1879, this magazine said: “‘Zion’s Watch Tower’ has, we believe, JEHOVAH for its backer, and while this is the case it will never beg nor petition men for support. When He who says: ‘All the gold and silver of the mountains are mine,’ fails to provide necessary funds, we will understand it to be time to suspend the publication.” The Society did not suspend publication, and The Watchtower has never missed an issue. Why? Because during the nearly eighty years since The Watchtower stated this policy of reliance upon Jehovah God, the Society has not deviated from it. How about today? Does the Society still maintain this position? Even in the early years, the "Watchtower" magazine went from monthly to twice monthly and back a couple of times. Many of the articles were exact reprints of previous articles, and sometimes the entire magazine was merely a reprint of earlier articles. In spite of the claim above that no issue was missed entire monthly issues were missed several times, sometimes replaced with another tract or book. In August 1881 there was no regular issue, and the September issue was a special issue on the Advent. The reason for not being prepared for the end of 1881 seems obvious, since Russell thought he would have already undergone the "change" -- the "rapture" -- by October 1881. Early ssues that were missed (as regular new issues) included: August 1881 November 1881 February 1882 November 1882 May 1884 August 1885 November 1886, December 1886, January 1887 November 1888 "Millennial Dawn" Volume 1 was sent as a replacement for three missing issues from November 1886, December 1886 and January 1887. The announcement was made in the February 1887 "Tower": . . . we sent a paper bound edition of Millennial Dawn, Vol. I, as representing three numbers of the TOWER, November and December, '86, and January, '87. [page 1, reprint p. 897] In 1892 it was announced that the Tower would now be twice monthly, and go from 16 large pages to 28 pages. There was no new issue for April 15, however. And the June 1 and 15 were combined, etc. etc. All that trivia is just to show that we've gone through things like this before. Increase in size, decrease in size. Increase in regularity, decrease in regularity, and a lot of reprinted articles, which appears to be the plan again.

Speaking of which . . . Have you seen how hard it is to get a Warwick tour? If you call today with just 2 people, you won't be scheduled until February. I got a construction tour over a year ago, but not much was finished, and there was mud everywhere. I'm driving my parents up in January. They've both been called in to work at Bethel for a few weeks on previous occasions (he's an electrical engineer). Even considering "connections" they couldn't find any openings in December for them when they planned on traveling. They will take 4 of us in January, though.

These are the most significant changes I think we've ever seen at an Annual Metting even though all of the changes have already been part of a predictable trend for the last few years.

No more yearbooks?

Because it's part of the Bible. Possibly. Without looking, I would guess that if you found 100 commentaries on the verse that more than 90% of them would be in agreement with the way I prefer to look at it, and less than 10% would be in agreement with the way you prefer to look at it. It doesn't appear to need much if any commentary, as it appears to be clear enough in context. But some questions could still be asked about the Watchtower's viewpoint on the verse. For example, a question I see arising is whether Christians should expect to literally hear (or learn about) some person(s) or entity(ies) talking about "Peace and Security" in some way or another. In other words, should we treat this verse as a "prophecy" or prediction that somewhere between one person and one billion persons will mention peace and security before the end can come? If so, then this "declaration" becomes a kind of sign of the end. Of course, as we describe it, it will be so late as to not be of much value because sudden destruction comes immediately after the currently unknown person(s) or entities are caught uttering the words (or idea). Sort of. This is another matter that does not concern me as deeply as it concerns you, evidently. I am very happy to accept that there COULD be a fulfillment very much like we expect. Some entity like the United Nations COULD very well make a declaration that there is now Peace and Security, and sudden destruction will be instantly upon them. I assume that this declaration would be a mistaken one, or just based on wishful thinking, or might refer the pride such an organization might feel after a major peace deal has been brokered in an area that has long had difficulty in matters of keeping peace. This would satisfy the verse, and satisfy the Watchtower's explanation and all would be just fine. Presumably, you'd be happy, and I'd be happy. I have not found this explanation of the verse on its own (as a prophecy) to be problematic. It may happen this way and it may not. Either way, I'm not worried about it. If the Watchtower teaches that one way is more likely, and you believe another way is more likely and I believe another way is more likely, that's just fine. It can make for a good Biblical discussion in the meantime. But the reason I brought it up as a place where I prefer an explanation much like you will no doubt find in dozens of commentaries is that I think our way of looking at it as Witnesses has been colored by our explanation of the Parousia/Synteleia. The more I study that subject, the more I am convinced that the Bible itself explains the Parousia/Synteleia quite clearly in a way that's different from what we have long learned and taught. That does not necessarily change the meaning or explanation of this particular verse in 1 Thess 5, which could go either way. But I wanted to point out that it might make more sense in the context of non-Watchtower explanations of the Parousia/Synteleia. And it does make more sense to me, in that there is another way to understand it with Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, etc. Also, related to this is that the end of 1 Thess 4 appears to me to NOT make sense in the way the Watchtower has traditionally explained it for almost 100 years. But even here, the Watchtower has just recently changed their understanding of 1 Thess 4 to be more in line with the way that many of Christendom's churches have traditionally explained it. *** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! *** 14 What will happen after Gog of Magog starts the attack on God’s people? Both Matthew and Mark record the same event: “[The Son of man] will send out the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity.” (Mark 13:27; Matt. 24:31) This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43. 15 Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? Many in Christendom believe, according to this teaching, that Christians will be bodily caught up from the earth. Then, they expect that Jesus will visibly return to rule the earth. However, the Bible clearly shows that “the sign of the Son of man” will appear in heaven and that Jesus will come “on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 24:30) Both of these expressions imply invisibility. Additionally, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom.” So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time. In other words, we now believe in a "rapture," it's just that we don't use the specific word because many in Christendom think Christians will be raised with their current bodies instead of spiritual bodies. Just to make the point more clearly, I repeated your words again, because it was the same thing with the idea of this particular kind of "rapture." The explanation was not to the satisfaction of many, and ultimately not to the satisfaction of the Governing Body, either. Perhaps you aren't aware of some of the beliefs that prior generations of Witnesses were required to explain as the meaning of this particular "rapture" passage in 1 Thess 4. Older explanations can now be seen as merely clever ways to avoid the idea of a "rapture" of the kind we now find ourselves accepting and supporting. So, it's true that some understandings SHOULD not have been to our satisfaction, if we were careful students of the Bible. This doesn't mean that we personally need to have all the answers, but it means we should have been asking more questions at least. Using the 2015 change in the "rapture" doctrine, if God himself gave us the clarification when there was a need, then you are saying there was no need for anyone to understand it correctly prior to 2015? Are the only things we have right the things that we need to have right? Did we ever get anything right BEFORE it needed it to be right? You probably don't realize that you are undermining both Jehovah's power and the honesty of the brothers who made dogmatic claims that it must have meant something else for nearly 100 years. If you are right, then you should probably tell the Governing Body that they should never say anything dogmatic again, but only say that God has allowed us to be wrong on anything and everything so far, unless there was a "need." We can be wrong until it's absolutely necessary for God to correct us. Does God ever allow us to correct ourselves before it's absolutely necessary. Since it's not up to us to know exactly when that need has arisen, or even if it has arisen yet, we really don't know if anything is right yet, according to your theory. Or perhaps Brother Jackson was right, and these changes actually come about as more of the Bible is studied more carefully, and someone notices that the Bible helps to interpret the Bible in a better way without contradictions, or historical events, after they have passed, provide a more complete perspective in order to interpret certain passages.

Then, assuming she accepted the proposal, the brothers asked them to become disengaged (Form S-78) and to become re-engaged anywhere outside of Warwick, since the Governing Body also meets in Warwick and does not want anything related to the Branch location area to become idolized, either. Then they decided on a 50-mile radius, which would also include the old Brooklyn Bethel, because, well, you just can't be too careful. For engagement services, they are now providing a special bus that runs from Warwick to the old Burnt-Over Disctrict of New York, where it all began. An announcement comes over the loudspeaker of the bus when the 50-mile radius has been reached, and engagements are allowed again. [edited to add: I just received a note from someone who couldn't tell if I was joking, so I thought I'd better add this explanation to the post. Yes, I'm joking.]

The context was use of the Internet. What he said was: "Be careful on the Internet...I don't know how many times we have to tell you, be careful!...We're just warning you. That's all we can do is admonish . . ..Stick with what we have authorised; you will be safe. You want to go out there? It's at your spiritual risk." A person who claims to be an apostate has put up just a short snippet here as if it is something more nefarious, but keep it in context and notice that it doesn't say, "you will be saved."

I think that this first sentence means that I don't understand Jesus' presence. I'll obviously agree that I don't understand everything about it, and I'll gladly admit that you could easily be holding some key that will address this lack. My position on Biblical topics is that we don't fully understand it all unless Bible statements about the topic are clear. We can only claim to know what the Bible says about a topic, when what is said is unequivocal, and we can only infer additional things to the extent that they make sense from the perspective of all scripture. From this I think you mean that it's because I am limiting my understanding of "presence" in a way that won't allow it to be understood correctly as an "invisible presence." I think this is also basically saying then what the first sentence says: that I don't understand Jesus presence. OK. I'm listening. I think this means that Jesus presence can be "seen" in different ways, perhaps through the outworking of an obvious physical manifestation that is not a direct "optical" view. We don't see the wind, per se, but we see swaying trees. The Israelites didn't "see" God with their eyes but saw a cloud that represented his presence. In the Watchtower we have this same view put forth that we don't see Jesus on his throne, but we see the unmistakable work of the heavenly Kingdom in transforming lives, the increasing number of publishers, the building of more and bigger Assembly Halls, Kingdom Halls, Branch buildings, increasing number of languages translated on our website, etc. What you probably don't realize is that I already agree that most of these things can be evidence of Christ's presence among us. The Watch Tower Society and all the related organizational entities are definitely blessed to the extent that we focus on our ministry, spread the Word, and support one another in love for the entire brotherhood. I have never argued that Jesus is not present, and I have never argued that the increase, at least in quality if not also in numbers, is a result of Jehovah's blessing on our properly motivated activities. We should accept this because Jesus said he would be present with us until the "Synteleia" - that is, "the final end of all things together." (Matthew 28:20) . . .And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion [Synteleia] of the system of things.” If Jesus is present with us until the Synteleia, and he is now "present" then we know this is an "invisible" presence. As you implied above, it's invisible even though we can see manifestations of it. This is what Jesus was saying earlier in the same book of Matthew: (Matthew 18:20) 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” Obviously, I have no problem with an "invisible presence." It's well supported by Scripture. But when Jesus says that this "invisible presence" will last until the "Synteleia" then there must be something a bit different about what to expect when this "Synteleia" has arrived. The Watchtower says that the Synteleia and the Parousia refer to the same time period. This is why I have recently included the word "Parousia" in discussions of the final judgment event. If Jesus promised to be invisibly present until the Synteleia, and we say he is still invisibly present, then we should look into the possibility that the Synteleia has not started yet. And if it's the same as the Parousia, then we should look into the possibility that the Parousia has not started yet. When we do look at the words in all their Biblical contexts carefully, we easily see that one of the major differences between the Parousia and the invisible presence is that Jesus said the Parousia will be unmistakably visible. Now I still agree that "visible" and "seeing" can have a range of meaning in the Bible and in language generally. So I'm not concerned that "every eye will see him" has the exact same meaning as so many religions have given it. What I'm more concerned about is why Jesus went to so much trouble to distinguish the Parousia as something visible when compared to the invisible presence he spoke of in Matthew 28:20 and 18:20. In the context of Matthew 24, for example, we see Jesus warning the disciples that there will be many people saying that Jesus has returned but you just can't see him right now, because he's off in another place, or in some "inner chambers." And how do we know that Jesus was really contrasting the claim of wide visibility with the the misleading idea that he might be "present" but invisible? Because his very next words claimed that the Parousia would shine like lightning. Now I know it's possible to pick apart these two ideas and separate them so that they have nothing to do with each other. But so far no one has been able to make sense of the two ideas together, the way Jesus presented them. The word "For" at the beginning of verse 27 tells me that we should look to the way Jesus presented it, and not just look for ways to dismiss the way Jesus presented it. (Matthew 24:23-27) 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. . . . 26 Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be. This happens to be a point that the book you quoted appears to agree with, at least in the place you quoted above. Note that it says: We should also think of the Parousia as a transformational event—Christ coming out Of hiding so as to be visibly present among his people. At this time in history, he is invisibly present with his people by means of his Spirit. The parousia will mean that the invisible one will become visible. The way Christ will become visible is by a transformation of this present universe as we know it, present physical reality will in some way disappear and the formerly hidden heavenly dimension, where Christ and God dwell, will be revealed" (Beale 2003:138). As such, the hidden Christ will be unveiled and his presence manifested in such a way that all people throughout the earth can see him (Matt 24:27). According to our notion of three-dimensional geography, this would be impossible. But a new dimension will break into our universe, one in which Christ will be able to reveal his presence with all his people at one time. Second Thessalonians 2 presents the parousia of Jesus as the manifestation of a great warrior coming to destroy the man of lawlessness soon after his own parousia. That happens to be agree with exactly the way I usually think about it. But even here, I don't think this describes a single exact and specific way the idea can be fulfilled. There are always things we just won't know until the time comes.

I said "not to cause you any embarrassment" because I'd like to see you avoid these same embarrassing situations you have gotten yourself into before. There have been many times when you evidently thought you were being an opposer and it turned out that the very material you were quoting to try to prove your opposition really supported the same evidence I was proposing. This has been especially true when you oppose Biblical evidence being presented by pasting long quotations from books with scholarly sounding titles and wording. I know that you typically don't appear embarrassed, because sometimes you would just claim that you hadn't believed the material you were presenting in the first place, or you distance yourself from the material in some way after it's pointed out to you. But sometimes you have just "doubled down" with even more material that you apparently thought was oppositional material, but which ALSO turned out to support what I was saying. So, in this case, I was not concerned that you were suffering from any embarrassment, but some of your readers might have thought that I was pointing out this particular situation just to embarrass you. One thing that you do that makes me a bit concerned that you are embarrassed is that you sometimes resort to being extremely vague about what your own point is, even though you quote these lengthy, responses. I've said before on several occasions that I have appreciated the sources you quote because they are often sources I have never heard of before and yet they completely support what I was saying and unfortunately, often completely undermine the point you evidently quoted them for. So what I noticed is that you sometimes just offer the quote without any explanation as to why, leaving me guessing as to whether you actually changed your mind about the point you had been trying to present. But then the final point that makes me think you might realize the embarrassment of these types of interactions is the idea that you can now just take a picture of a book title with NO commentary. With you, this has implied that there is something about the book that supports the points you have made or something in the book that opposes a point someone else has made. It's almost as if you are hoping that someone will notice that you produced a scholarly-sounding or academic-sounding title, but then are also hoping that no one will call your bluff. In this case, when I called your bluff you predictably distanced yourself from the content of the book. For example, you can say that "any book is a good read." As you now say: ..and... I expect you will do something similar after presenting the cover of a book to Cos in another thread, to which he responded. By just throwing out pictures of book covers in response to someone, the implication is that you might have read those books or know something about them, or that you might think that these books somehow support your view. But so often, now, you don't even attempt to say why, and people start to read into your reasons for that vagueness. So I see it as a kind of "projection" when you now bring up the idea of only pretending that you know a book: Really? This makes sense to you? You pretended that a book supported your view when it didn't as a way to show that I had put a personal spin on the books and pretended that I knew about them? It sounds like you are saying that you wanted to be dishonest to prove that I was being presumptuous. I don't see how that would work under any circumstances. Also, it seems like a dishonest projection to say that I pretended to have knowledge of the books, when my very words about one of them was: If your point was to use dishonesty in presenting a book under false pretenses just to see if I would pretend to know about it, then clearly you failed in your purpose. To me, it would seem that the one being pretentious is the one pretending, not the one who admits that "I don't know anything about the last book you included." You also made some relevant points in your post. I'd like to address those in a separate post.

You are indeed an unusual person. Looking back, I'd have to say that @Srecko Sostar is exactly right on this point. Although I agree that it's "unusual" for even a JW to know about this particular point, he was responding to your point about Mexico, TTH, when you said that the rules are different in each country The rules were exactly the same in Mexico for a religious organization, and the Society could have done in Mexico exactly what other religions were doing there, and exactly what the Society had chosen to do in other Central American countries. The only difference was that a religious organization could not own property but had to lease it. The brothers and sisters could have prayed, and sung Kingdom Songs, and conducted Bible studies, and used the Bible in field service just as we do almost everywhere else. When we lived in California and visited our relatives in San Diego and Oceanside, they would regularly visit brothers in Mexico on a day trip. Our whole family had visited the brothers there on several occasions when we were just a "cultural" organization. As soon as the rules changed and religious organizations could own their own property, the Society announced that we would now operate as a religious organization. We avoided public prayer and singing and Bible reading in our meetings purely based on choices made in Brooklyn. In other countries, we fought for the right to have public prayer and singing and Bible reading in our meetings. For some reason we didn't think it was that important to our brothers in Mexico, until we could own the property.

Not yet. What did you have in mind? To me, it's a useful comparison, and I think there are many parallels and similar lessons. The context is similar in some ways and not so much in other ways. In both cases, however, there is a sense that things can continue as they are (Jeremiah) as they have been all along with no sign of a "Parousia" (Peter) and this is a false hope that there never will be a Babylon-on-Jerusalem judgment event (Jeremiah) or a Final Parousia judgment event (Peter). (2 Peter 3:3) First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” In Jeremiah 8, the families of Jerusalem are also holding fast to a deception. Similarly to the people who go on eating and drinking and marrying and claiming that things are going along as always they also "keep returning to the popular course." (v6) In Jeremiah's case, however, he was also up against the "governing body" of Jerusalem who presented a scenario very different from that of Jeremiah. Some were saying "we are wise, and we have the law of Jehovah." (v8). In the previous chapter there was a similar idea. Those close to the Temple were sure that this alone was enough to save them and they put their trust in the fact that they were close to the Temple and that they represented the Temple: (Jeremiah 7:4-7) 4 Do not put your trust in deceptive words and say, ‘This is the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah!’ 5 For if you truly reform your ways and actions; if you truly uphold justice between a man and his neighbor; 6 if you do not oppress foreign residents, orphans, and widows; if you do not shed innocent blood in this place; and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm; 7 then I will allow you to keep residing in this place. . . But those who thought they were wise were actually using their position to promote falsehood (v8) and this fraud was going to catch up with them. Their claim of peace was wishful thinking. It was their own sinful practices that they thought they were getting away with -- their injustice, sin, idolatry etc. (Jeremiah 8:3-22) 3 “And the remnant of this evil family who survive will choose death over life in all the places where I disperse them,” declares Jehovah of armies. 4 “And you must say to them, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “Will they fall and not get up again? If one would turn back, will the other not also turn back? 5 Why is this people, Jerusalem, unfaithful with an enduring unfaithfulness? They hold fast to deception; They refuse to turn back. 6 I paid attention and kept listening, but the way they spoke was not right. Not a man repented over his wickedness or asked, ‘What have I done?’ Each one keeps returning to the popular course, like a horse dashing into the battle. 7 Even the stork in the sky knows its seasons; The turtledove and the swift and the thrush keep to the time of their return. But my own people do not understand the judgment of Jehovah.”’ 8 ‘How can you say: “We are wise, and we have the law of Jehovah”? For in fact, the lying stylus of the scribes has been used only for falsehood. 9 The wise have been put to shame. They have become terrified and will be caught. Look! They have rejected the word of Jehovah, And what wisdom do they have? 10 So I will give their wives to other men, Their fields to other owners; For from the least to the greatest, each one is making dishonest gain; From the prophet to the priest, each one is practicing fraud. 11 And they try to heal the breakdown of the daughter of my people lightly, saying, “There is peace! There is peace!” When there is no peace. 12 Do they feel ashamed of the detestable things they have done? They feel no shame at all! They do not even know how to feel humiliated! So they will fall among the fallen. When I bring punishment on them they will stumble,’ says Jehovah. 13 ‘When I gather them, I will bring them to their end,’ declares Jehovah. ‘There will be no grapes left on the vine, no figs on the fig tree, and the leaves will wither. And what I gave to them will be lost to them.’” 14 “Why are we sitting here? Let us gather together and enter the fortified cities and perish there. For Jehovah our God will do away with us, And he gives us poisoned water to drink, Because we have sinned against Jehovah. 15 There was a hope for peace, but nothing good came, For a time of healing, but there is terror! 16 From Dan is heard the snorting of his horses. At the sound of the neighing of his stallions, The whole land quakes. They come in and devour the land and everything in it, The city and its inhabitants.” 17 “For here I am sending in serpents among you, Poisonous snakes that cannot be charmed, And they will certainly bite you,” declares Jehovah. 18 My grief is incurable; My heart is sick. 19 From a distant land there is a cry for help From the daughter of my people: “Is Jehovah not in Zion? Or is her king not in her?” “Why have they offended me with their graven images, With their worthless foreign gods?” 20 “The harvest has passed, the summer has ended, But we have not been saved!” 21 I am shattered over the breakdown of the daughter of my people; I am dejected. Horror has seized me. 22 Is there no balsam in Gilʹe·ad? Or is there no healer there? Why has the daughter of my people not been restored to health? So, I think there are some lessons here that are applicable in general. There are people trying to fool themselves in order to follow their own selfish desires, when it should be obvious that wickedness cannot go unpunished forever. I get the sense that Jeremiah is more about internal squabbles among various factions of Judean inhabitants and their priests and rulers who don't want to listen to the specific counsel of Jehovah through Jeremiah. These others are relying on their own words and reasoning and asking others to listen to them due to their positions of authority. They are making claims of peace that have nothing to do with reality. The kings of the North (Jeremiah 1:15) are already shaking up the entire country starting with "Dan" (representing the farthest major point in the north). (Jeremiah 8:16). So peace in this case is just a lie in the midst of terror. As far as some other differences go, I get the impression that Paul is paralleling the talk of peace and security in 1 Thessalonians with anyone (Christian, Jewish, or outsider) being truly fooled by changing trends in the conditions so that at least some people truly think there really is safety because they really feel no threat. (In Jeremiah's case, I think he is referring to more of a willful attempt to hide the obvious terror by telling lies about the prospects for peace.) As an aside, I have also noticed some interesting parallels in Jeremiah 8 to some things that Jesus mentioned in the Olivet sermon, but I can't figure if they could have been on purpose. The LXX of Jeremiah is quite different from the MT, and might offer some insight. (Matthew 24:32) 32 “Now learn this illustration from the fig tree: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and sprouts its leaves, you know that summer is near. (Jeremiah 8:13,20) ‘When I gather them, I will bring them to their end,’ declares Jehovah. ‘There will be no grapes left on the vine, no figs on the fig tree, and the leaves will wither. And what I gave to them will be lost to them.’” . . .20 “The harvest has passed, the summer has ended, But we have not been saved!” There is even a sense of Jeremiah lamenting over Jerusalem here in a way that's similar to Jesus at the end of Matthew 23. "My heart is sick....Is there no balsam in Gilead?" Even up to a very similar warning: (Jeremiah 9:11) 11 I will make Jerusalem piles of stones,. . . These could be purely coincidental however based on the similarity of the situation.

Per a suggestion by @The Librarian several posts on this topic were moved to another thread, linked at the end of this post -- affecting recent posts by @TrueTomHarley @Nana Fofana, @James Thomas Rook Jr., @AllenSmith, @Witness https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/46857-saying-peace-and-security-before-sudden-destruction-1th-53-what-does-it-mean/

We would assume that Michael, the archangel, became a fetus, a baby, then a toddler, then a young boy, then went through puberty, and became a young man, and then a full grown man who gave himself over to the authorities to be killed. This should give us a glimpse into the level of humility and love shown: (Philippians 2:7-11) 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Michael means "Who is like God?" and Immanuel means "With us is God." The Bible never makes a specific point about identifying Michael as either Jesus or Immanuel or Christ. But this is not so different from Matthew saying that he will be called Immanuel, and yet we never hear Jesus called Immanual anywhere either. He was mostly called Jesus, Savior, Rabbi, son of man, son of God, and Messiah (Christ), etc. I know this wasn't necessarily your point in bringing it up, but a lot of people think we are the only religion that ever thought of claiming that Michael was the same as Jesus Christ prior to his earthly presence. The idea had been around for many years before Jehovah's Witnesses came along.

The topic is 1 Thess 5:3: ". . . Peace and Security . . ." and it didn't seem wrong to bring in the context of that same verse which obviously starts in the prior paragraph (according to the NWT) which starts in 4:13 and reaches right up to 5:1 which includes "... we the living who survive to the presence [Parousia] of the Lord." In fact, the points I have been making are shared in the book "The Parousia in the New Testament" by A. L. Moore. Not to embarrass you, but this is the same book from which you clipped the image. (See below.) In that book, Moore speaks of the Parousia as synonymous with "the End" (page 111) and "the final Day of the Lord" on page 136. Note also, from the book, that the context of this portion of First Thessalonians is about: ". . . the status of living Christians at the moment of the Parousia. . . . speaking about the fact that neither group will have advantage over the other. . . . between those alive at the Parousia and those dead . . . . speaking of the time of the Parousia's arrival, he does go on to discuss this in 5;i-ii [1 Thess 5:1-11] and there he affirms explicitly that the Parousia will come suddenly and all must watch. . . . since the date of the End is unknown, all are enjoined to watchful, obedient discipleship. So, curiously, you are saying that "if certain people would stop trying to influence a topic with . . . . [Biblical context] . . . . to really understand history and its implications? There would be no need to explain, presumptuous, hypothetical's, by others" Unfortunately, what you inadvertently admit here has become very true of some subjects. The Biblical context does indeed help us to really understand history and its implications. In fact as the book you presented shows, Paul is here in 1 Thessalonians agreeing with Jesus when Moore indicates: ". . . this letter distinctly emphasises that 'the end is not yet'." Just as Jesus said, wars and rumors of wars were an indication that the end is not yet, in answer to a question about whether the disciples might be given a sign of the end. In other words, don't be fooled (misled) into thinking that wars are a sign of the Parousia (Christ's Judgment Visitation) or the Synteleia (the Final End of All Things). There must have been a reason that Jesus told us not to be fooled into thinking that great wars would be a sign of the Parousia. Jesus must have been aware that we would be tempted into thinking that they would be. Throughout history, there were surely going to be times when people in many places would perceive continuing, worsening conditions. Now and then there would be a war that was so bad that it would be considered a time when a new generation of wickedness had begun. It would surely be a time when Jesus must come by 1918 at the latest, or 1925, or within 'not years, but months' around the WWII period, or the mid-1970's, or before the end of the twentieth century; or within the outer limits of the current generation of aging Governing Body members. Jesus must have known how tempting and easy it would be to be fooled by thinking that wars and rumors of wars would be a sign of the Parousia. Otherwise, there would be no reason to warn us "Do not be misled, you are going to hear of wars and rumors of wars, nation will rise up against nation and kingdom against kingdom, but the end is not yet." Wars would take place, as Jesus said, but we would be just as likely to fooled by peace, too. People would be marrying and eating and drinking and saying that things were going on just as they always have been since the world's beginning. And the Parousia would come upon them just as the parousia (judgment event) came suddenly upon Noah's generation, or the days of Lot when Sodom was suddently destroyed, as if without warning. I don't know anything about the last book you included, as if it could help us to "really understand history and its implications." The book you presented in this context, "Politics of Parousia: Reading Mark Inter(Con)Textually" is by Tat-Siong Benny Liew and is described like this in Google Books: This volume moves literary criticism of the Gospels further into the socio-political struggle for liberation - particularly, into the realm of colonial/postcolonial discourse. Taking seriously the thought that Mark's Gospel was written under Roman colonization, and using "inter(con)textuality" as an underlying theory, it examines the relation between Mark's story of Jesus and colonial politics, especially Mark's emphasis on the parousia and his constructions of colonial subjects. It argues that Mark's apocalyptic simultaneously resists and reinscribes colonial ideology in terms of three subject-positions and subject-matters: authority, agency, and gender. Juxtaposing apocalyptic and politics, dissidence and duplication as well as Chinese American narratives and the Markan text, this volume seeks to rethink our struggle for social change and the relationship between cultural politics and Gospel studies. Perhaps you can explain why you included it.