JW Insider

1 minute ago, Anna said:

In the Czech Republic he is called Kuba and Sofia is Lucka. Just very common names.

I realized that there were several more name changes as soon as I looked up a couple of the other languages for that last post to Queen Esther. Our Kingdom Hall has a French and Spanish congregation and they both use Caleb and Sophia (Sofia).

My sister is in Copenhagen and she told me it was Caleb and Sophia there too, and I just looked it up and realized it wasn't true, it's just that they listen in English. Perhaps that's why Queen Esther also didn't mention Philipp.

On 7/4/2017 at 0:08 AM, Queen Esther said:

We  are  using  the  same  names,  Caleb  and  Sophia  or  Sofia....

In English, if you go to jw.org you find the following statement:

The video series Become Jehovah’s Friend, featuring songs and the animated characters Caleb and Sophia, has proved to be hugely popular. Parents and children alike have written to express appreciation for various videos in the series.

If you change the language to German, you get the following statement:

Philipp und Sophia sind die Hauptfiguren der Trickfilmreihe Werde Jehovas Freund. Die Kinderfilme und Lieder sind bei Eltern und Kindern äußerst beliebt. Das haben viele mit Dankesbriefen zum Ausdruck gebracht.

In Croatian, it's Dino and Lea. In Danish, it's Lucas and Sofie. In Italian it's Lele and Sofia. in Spanish it's Caleb and Sofia.

So I didn't mean it was a negative thing, but there are a couple of Germans named Caleb, so I wondered why they changed it to Philipp. I thought maybe there might have been a man named Caleb in Germany who had a bad reputation.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

that seems to wrap up THAT discussion.

You'd think so, right?

Sometimes I think that even if the Bible had already called Jesus "the king of kings" and "ruler of the kings of the earth" that it still wouldn't be enough.

On 6/30/2017 at 9:34 PM, Gnosis Pithos said:

Jesus proclamation of the end of days was not incumbent for the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. There were no mass earthquakes, volcanos, isonomies, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera in, 70CE. So that interpretation stands for the “generation” after 1914 that will witness all the signs Jesus spoke of. Those signs have become more frequent and destructive after 1914 when it was NOT common place with frequency before 1914.

Now if the prevailing opinion is Jesus was king in 33CE instead of taking over Aarons high priesthood of the Christian congregation and the end of days Jesus proclaimed in his time due to his established kingship? Then that would have made Jesus King at birth.

The operative words are “hold the offices” over emphasizing by saying HE IS KING!!!!!!

Insight Volume 2 p.1113

The High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. The Bible book of Hebrews points out that Jesus Christ, since his resurrection and entry into heaven, is “a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek forever.” (Heb 6:20; 7:17, 21) To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the highest God, and not by inheritance. Christ Jesus, not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah and of the line of David, did not inherit his office by descent from Aaron, but obtained it by direct appointment of God, as did Melchizedek. (Heb 5:10) In addition to the promise recorded at Psalm 110:4: “Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): ‘You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek!’” which appointment makes him a heavenly King-Priest, Christ also possesses Kingdom authority by reason of his descent from David. In the latter case, he becomes the heir of the kingship promised in the Davidic covenant. (2Sa 7:11-16) He therefore holds in combination the offices of kingship and priesthood, as did Melchizedek.

NOT scripturally sound, for Ezekiel prophecy when only using 1260 in revelation as a guide would end up in 653AD. Just about the time of the rise of the Muslim nations, after the Christian disputes of the formation of the Vatican in 66CE and the Church fathers after 100CE. These churches were only interested in claiming power for themselves in the name of Jesus, NOT for Jesus and God’s heavenly Kingdom. So, here is the unity in that period.

So, Prophecy should have been fulfilled after 653AD, and we are all still here, living under a corrupt government. And who were the 2 witnesses, and why has God allowed an additional 1900 years to pass. Not to mention when did the great commission end in order to fulfill God’s promise of a better Kingdom. Mark 16:15

Therefore, scripture would be a book of inconsistent stories, and prophecy's, since all that Jesus promised for his father’s sake, would have been complete, and humanity continues in the same path So, those opinions ARE NOT SCRIPTURALLY SOUND!!!!!

Knowledge is afforded to those that seek the kingdom of God. Therefore, those that believe their own opinion, is part of this world, and have NO heavenly kingdom interest. Therefore, there is no difficulty expressing God’s word to the nations, by scripture, and those that proclaim in the name of their own opinion, overshadow true knowledge. So, Christians would do better to accept the word of God, and through those that God commissions, rather than allow masked opinions peak their curiosity.

@Gnosis Pithos, Starting with the above post from Friday June 30, I'd like to respond to all of your posts in an orderly manner. If I don't understand why you said something, I can at least make a guess based on context, and you can correct me, please, if I got it wrong. Some was covered in previous answers, but I want to make sure I got all your points.

Your first point, I'm pretty sure, was that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 was not about 70 CE. At first I thought you used the word "incumbent" in its definition of "necessary, required as a duty" and then you implied later that perhaps you meant it with another meaning, and that other meaning is "one already holding office." In either case, the answer is that Jesus was speaking about a visitation of judgment on Jerusalem in 70 CE, and he worded it in such a way that Christians have been able to make application to any period of time prior to his visitation of judgment upon the world. Whether or not Jesus held the office of king is also a part of the point that you make here and elsewhere.

Jesus was called "King" during several periods of his earthly life and ministry:

• around the time of his birth (Herod, astrologers, Simeon [Christ of Jehovah]),
• during his ministry (visitation to Jerusalem on colt of donkey),
• just before his death (Jews/Pilate),
• during his death (the sign above him),
• after his resurrection and ascension and prior to 70 CE (book of Acts, most of Paul's letters, e.g., "King of Kings")
• in the introduction to Revelation (Revelation chapter 1 where called "ruler of the kings of the earth")
• within the Revelation (Revelation 11, 12 where he is also said to "rule as king forever")

The exact time periods referred to in Revelation 11, 12 are not strictly known and therefore could possibly even refer to gaining the "office" of kingship in a year like 1914 if that is Biblically possible.

In addition to the points made above about the specific word "king" we have many additional points that refer to "kingdom," "kingship," "rulership," "authority," "might," "power," "commandments" "Davidic promise" and association with "thrones," "scepters," "majesty," "worship/obeisance," etc. All these points provide even more evidence for the same points made about when, he was king. However, we begin to notice another pattern that is also evidenced, and that is the fact that it's always OTHERS calling him King before his birth and during his ministry, and before his death. Jesus even finds a way to answer the question from Pilate about whether he is King, by highlighting that is comes from the mouth of "OTHERS" (Jews and Pilate). It's only AFTER his resurrection that inspired Bible writers call him a "king" or "ruler" directly or even "king of kings" (1 Tim 6) or say he has "now" been given a "name" above every other government and rulership. It reminds us of Jesus own words just after his resurrection that "ALL AUTHORITY" has now been given to him, so that he now "commands" them as subjects. (Mt 28)

Whether that Biblical pattern is important or not, we can't say, but we can say that the Bible has no problem calling him "King of Kings" after his resurrection and before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE).

You then point out that were no mass earthquakes or related events in 70 CE. so this MUST apply to after 1914, when earthquakes or at least "those signs" now come with greater frequency than before 1914. There is no logic to that statement. The Bible does speak of great earthquakes before 70 CE, and the Watchtower agrees and pointed out the same. But even if there were not, this type of sign is not measurable without a lot of evidence that just isn't there. Great earthquakes may very well be LESS frequent now than in the past. With several billions of people on earth at the same time instead of several millions in times past, every earthquake, even small ones have more opportunity to be more destructive of human life, and that's a good point. Perhaps that's what Jesus meant by "great earthquakes." But we still don't know if this meant that we should be on the watch for a time when earthquakes start becoming more destructive. In fact, many if not the majority of Bible commentators through the years have seen Jesus' statement about earthquakes as an example of what NOT to look for as a sign. Even Charles Taze Russell understood that this was what Jesus meant. Jesus said we are going to hear about wars and great earthquakes but NOT to be misled, not to think that this means the end is upon us because of them. So clearly earthquakes and wars were NOT the sign. Besides, there were no major earthquakes in 1914. One set of evidence lists large population centers around the world that were hit in a way that killed many thousands at a time in 1780, 1783, 1786, 1797, 1837, 1847, 1854, 1855, 1857, 1868, 1881, 1891, 1893, 1896, 1902, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1915, 1920, 1923, 1927, 1931, 1934, 1939, 1944, 1949, 1960, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1975, etc.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th-century_earthquakes#1901.E2.80.931910
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_earthquakes

As more population centers become denser, and as recording devices become more accurate, we will surely hear about more earthquakes, but there is no specific evidence that 1914 and the three or four generations living in the time periods after 1914 have seen an increase. Starting with the records in 1837 it looks like the decade of the 1870's saw no major earthquakes that killed many thousands at once. But we also see such a gap in the decade of the 1950's, and it's just as likely that gaps before 1837 have more to do with lack of historical records and worldwide communication capability (telegraph, telephone). We also have a factor of better construction in some dense population centers which could have reduced the "greatness" of more recent earthquakes since 1914. So the point is that there is just not enough evidence, and even if there was, Jesus' point was that earthquakes were not even an important sign. But we do know for a fact, at least, that there were at least two or three great earthquakes prior to 70, mentioned in the scriptures. We also can be pretty sure that Christians would been looking for evidences of the timing of Jesus' parousia, but he had warned them that these earthquakes had nothing to do with the timing of his parousia.

Then you say:

"Now if the prevailing opinion is Jesus was king in 33CE instead of taking over Aarons high priesthood of the Christian congregation and the end of days Jesus proclaimed in his time due to his established kingship? Then that would have made Jesus King at birth.:

I think you are saying that you are willing to accept that Jesus fulfilled the office of "high priest" in 33 CE but that the only way in which we could say he was "king" in 33 CE would be in the same way that he was "king" at the time of his birth. (Perhaps you are referring to either the expression: "the one born king of the Jews" or perhaps also this:

(John 18:37) . . .So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world. . .

Then of course, you said:

"The operative words are “hold the offices” over emphasizing by saying HE IS KING!!!!!!"

But you don't accept the Bible's answer:

(1 Timothy 6:15) ". . .He is the King. . ."

You then quote the "Insight" book which is, in my opinion, devastating to the theory that Jesus did not become king until 1914. Here's why. Insight says:

To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the highest God, and not by inheritance. . . .  In addition to the promise recorded at Psalm 110:4: “Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): ‘You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek!’” which appointment makes him a heavenly King-Priest, Christ also possesses Kingdom authority by reason of his descent from David. In the latter case, he becomes the heir of the kingship promised in the Davidic covenant. (2Sa 7:11-16) He therefore holds in combination the offices of kingship and priesthood, as did Melchizedek.

So, was that office of King-Priest something that Jesus would be appointed to in the future, or did it already happen? Did we already have such a priest who was also a King-Priest as Melchizedek was? Hebrews answers:

(Hebrews 6:20-7:4) . . .Jesus, who has become a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek forever. 7 For this Mel·chizʹe·dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time.

Hebrews 1 and 2 had already dealt with his Kingship and royal power: "God is your throne." "He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." "The scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." "But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned. . ."

1 minute ago, Queen Esther said:

Aha...  ok !   But  sorry,  I  don't  know  all  cartoos,  hahaha

What do you call Caleb in the Caleb and Sophia cartoons?

Is there any negative stigma associated with someone in Germany who was named Caleb? Or was the word used with a negative meaning? I hear it's only in Germany that he got a name change.

22 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have no idea what that is or where it comes from. There was certainly never anything in print. Does anybody know, like @JW Insider, who knows a lot?

Google and other search tools know a lot. I just take credit until someone embarrasses me with a word of faint praise.

The Watchtower publications never pointed to 1994, although there were about 4 references to the end of the system coming 'before the end of the twentieth century.' (One got corrected in time to change the wording in the bound volume, and therefore also changed for the Watchtower Library CD, but the original Watchtower, and the cassette voice recording contains the prediction.)

The big 1994 prediction was from Harold Camping who pretty much ran Family Radio. Even JWs listened to Family Radio, after Armstrong's World Wide Church of God dwindled to nothing. He started pushing 1994 in 1992, for odd reasons. When he pushed again for May 21, 2011, I got to talk to one of the members on the train who was willing to give me all kinds of literature and CDs on the subject, since it was his last night on earth. (He said.) I haven't looked at them yet.

10 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

Tell  me.....     who  is  it ????

One of the Looney Tunes, Warner Brothers cartoon characters called the Tasmanian Devil, or just "TAZ" for short, as in Charles "Taz" Russell. Since Tasmania is an Australian state, and Taz is not only a volatile, fiery personality, but he is often seen in "tornado" form, I just knew it had to be him.

I know who started it . . . and he's also from Australia or thereabouts:

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So, is there a way to look at OTHER chapters in Revelation, such as chapters 11 and 12, and make any sense of them without reference to the 1914 doctrine?

In another thread, I proposed the possibility that Revelation 11 and Revelation 12 might both be starting out with references to events in the first century CE. There are some immediate problems with this proposal, and a couple of them were pointed out by @ComfortMyPeople. One problem for example is that Christ Jesus obtains the kingship, and this is tied to the time for the dead to be judged, a clear reference to the resurrection:

(Revelation 11:15-18) 15 The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” 16 And the 24 elders who were seated before God on their thrones fell upon their faces and worshipped God, 17 saying: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

As CMP pointed out, that would apparently contradict the scripture that says it was a deviation from the truth to claim it had occurred in the first century:

(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.

Of course, that wasn't the intention of putting the first portions of the chapter in the first century, but it shows that it's possible to test proposals about doctrines and find that some ideas just obviously cannot work. I'm hoping that we can test such speculative proposals even further to see if they actually fit the scriptures, or should be rejected. So when I get an opportunity, hopefully in the next few days, I might be able explain how the ENTIRE 11th chapter MIGHT be understood under a first-century proposal.

This is a follow-up discussion from a conversation under a topic about 1914. It is pure speculation, and I suspect that most persons will find it either a waste of time, or perhaps even a subversion of currently taught doctrines. It is not intended to be. It is a speculative guess about various doctrinal repercussions in the event that the doctrinal about 1914 was dropped. It is especially concerned with whether almost all items related to the parousia would be set into the future, or is it possible that some of them could reasonably be set in the past. Naturally, the goal is to see if the Scriptures could support either of these scenarios, or would either or both need to be rejected on scriptural grounds. In one way, this is a kind of thought experiment that can be used to test the validity of a doctrine like 1914. If abandoning such a doctrine would result only in additional contradictions and confusion, then this becomes evidence that 1914, or something like it, could remain viable for years to come. It is not the goal of this discussion to reject 1914, or get anyone else to reject it. This is also not a comparison to see whether a certain "solution" seems or sounds better than the current solutions we present concerning 1914. It is just a way to see what alternatives we might be left with if the 1914 doctrine were actually changed.

So I should say that this discussion is not for everyone, although all interested persons should feel welcome to comment. I hope this doesn't go on for 15 pages however, so if posts are too far off topic, perhaps it would be better to start new threads for them.

INTRODUCTION

For the most part, it's obvious that Revelation is about future events, especially the events associated with the Return of Christ in Judgment of the Nations, of Babylon, the Great Tribulation, Armageddon, the Millennium, the New Heavens and the New Earth.

But there are parts that reference past events, present events along with, of course, future events.

In fact Jehovah is presented as being in control of history, and this might even be implied in expressions such as this, referencing past, present and future:

(Revelation 1:8) 8 “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

When John was told to write letters to the seven congregations, these were about matters going on in the first century, too:

(Revelation 1:17-19) . . .“Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave. 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these.

Note that in vv 17-19, Jesus also has titles that reference the past, present and future. And we already know that John's messages to the congregations would reference those congregations' recent past, the present and the future.

So, is there a way to look at OTHER chapters in Revelation, such as chapters 11 and 12, and make any sense of them without reference to the 1914 doctrine? And if so, the next question is whether anything in those two chapters, especially, can apply to the first century congregations. If hat question must generally be answered in the negative, then the next question would be if anything (or everything in those two chapters could apply mostly to the future without a need to reference 1914 or a date or time prior to the Great Tribulation, for example.

11 minutes ago, Bible Speaks said:

Then where is the one for 1914? ???

I give up!

Found a better image... sorry it's so big.

46 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

"Doing the right thing since 1914" ....?

What about in 1879?

@JW Insider

@Bible Speaks , 

I hate to say it but you've fallen for another one. The sign is so obviously fake. The original actually says:

Tires / LES SCHWAB -- Doing the right thing since 1952

8 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Hendry Carmichael, (Yearbook 1979 p81-83).

Quite a memorable exchange. In the US/English, this was the 1977 yb p.81-83. Also mentioned in the 1979 yb, p.35.

Nice post! Thanks for taking a break from your break.

2 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

Talk by Gerrit Lösch, member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s witnesses, given in Italian during a special JW convention on May 22, 2005 in the city of Monza, near Milan, Italy. He expresses the official JW view on higher education.

Going to college and hoping to survive it is like putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger to commit suicide and inadvertently surviving and blowing away the part of your brain that was making you think you should commit suicide in the first place.

Or is he saying?

Choosing to go to college is like choosing to commit suicide by shooting yourself in the head and then excusing your suicidal actions by pointing out that at least one person you know survived a bullet to the brain and even lived a better life after the suicide attempt.

The first option sounds like college has the uncanny ability to solve even the most serious problems with surgical precision. Of course, he actually means the second option.

If you are already in college, we won't tell you to drop out, but we commend you if you do.

55 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The orientation that I received way back then in 1972 was definitely "the right thing" in that it expressed a view, already in circulation, that I was not aware of at the time,  namely, that the date of 1975 was merely the (currently understood) end of 6000 years of man's existence. Nothing more. It had just been rather eclipsed by the more sensational (to some) 1975 speculation about "the great tribulation".

Thanks for the response. I tagged your name there in case I had it wrong. You might have been enlightened through a yoga epiphany or something you read, after all.

Yes, it was "merely" the end of 6,000 years but with an important catch that every circuit overseer repeated at each visit for a while there. Whenever Eve was created, that's when the 6th day ended. The great tribulation would start exactly 6,000 years from Eve's creation. So we'd get talks about how Adam had ONLY ONE JOB! To name the animals. And he didn't have to go to them, they came to him. After seeing all the animals he recognized he needed a mate, too. It could have been a matter of months, or even weeks, NOT YEARS!

*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.

If it was not years then, in standard English, it could be one year, possibly 1.1 to 1.9 years, but must be less than two years. This was why the Awake! article indirectly mentioned 1977 as a time when this system would be well on its way out, if not actually gone. This is saying that it probably must happen before October 1977. Whether you put the emphasis on the "probably" or the "must" was a kind of a test of how mature you were, or how much you trusted the Governing Body. (In those days the Governing Body was still just another name for the  "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

So everything fit so well, because the generation of 1914 should have been at least 10 to 15 years old by 1914 to "discern" the significance of the sign. That meant they were born around 1900. That meant they were going to be about 75 years old by 1975. A Biblical lifespan is 70 or 80; so that's also about 75. So, not just the end of the 6,000 years, but the year 1975 itself, became the "appropriate time for God to act." At the very worst, in the mind of Fred Franz and those willing to echo him, it meant no more than 5 years past 1975. This is why we got articles that said "What will the 1970's bring?" And that article talking about it being a matter of a few "months" at the most "not years" after 1975. Even with a few "age" adjustments for the 1914 generation, several of the publications and assembly talks continued to mention that this system of things could not go on past the end of the twentieth century. That type of talk lasted until 1989.

55 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I note that you have not expressed regret at having entered full-time service at a young age, in spite of the rather biased considerations:

For all I know, I did much better than I might have otherwise. At any rate, I have enjoyed all aspects of service, an my only complaint in life right now is stiff knees, and I never get enough sleep. But I still feel badly for those who made decisions without proper guidance, context, support, and who were left without a back-up plan. We have to at least participate in the responsibility of our decisions anyway.

*** w14 4/15 pp. 25-26 par. 17 Be of Good Courage—Jehovah Is Your Helper! ***
17 Seek Jehovah’s direction before you make decisions and commitments, not after making them. Pray for his holy spirit, wisdom, and guidance. (2 Tim. 1:7) Ask yourself: ‘Under what circumstances am I willing to obey Jehovah? Even under persecution?’ If so, are you willing to obey him when it may mean having to lower your standard of living? (Luke 14:33) Ask the elders for Scriptural advice, and show your faith and trust in Jehovah’s promise to help you by following his counsel. The elders cannot make decisions for you, but they can help you make choices that will lead to happiness in the long run.—2 Cor. 1:24.

On 7/2/2017 at 2:05 AM, Gnosis Pithos said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(AD_70)

So, with that in mind, then all matter of prophetic completion would have occurred in 70AD.

Since the prevailing opinion of Matthew 24 is to be viewed of Christ warning in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, once again, we are still here. It took over 400 years to have God hear the cries of the Hebrews in bondage, why has God allowed humanity to be in bondage for over 1600 hundred years. Since the prophetic signs have been fulfilled according to this somewhat ambiguous explanation here. Therefore, a vast amount of scripture would have to be eliminated or rewritten to make this claim. Something that is NOT taught within the Christian congregation because it’s NOT scripturally sound.

OK. I think I got it.

You think that if Jesus was referring to 70 CE, then ALL matters of prophetic completion would have been fulfilled in 70 CE. You think the fact that we are still here shows that Jesus wasn't referring to 70 CE. If he was speaking of a FULL fulfillment in 70, then you ask, in effect, What happens with all the rest of the scriptural promises that never were fulfilled in 70?

As you know, the Watchtower has already dealt with this question many times by invoking the dual fulfillment explanation. It's one of the most common ways to explain Matthew 24. The dual fulfillment works pretty well, right up until the moment that Jesus says:

(Matthew 24:29-31) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

It's interesting that some commentators still do try to put ALL of this on 70 CE. The Watchtower has allowed for all the "signs" even up to and including the "great tribulation" (prior to Mt 24:29) to refer to Jerusalem in 70, but puts a greater fulfillment of all portions of Matthew 24 starting in 1914.

But it's also curious that although commentators can't apply the sun will be darkened...moon...stars...powers of heaven shaken, etc to 70 because it's obviously future. Yet many will still give it only a "spiritual" application. But it's also possible to give it a "spiritual" application to a judgment on the Jewish system, using the elements of sun, moon and stars that have applied to Israel since Joseph's dream about Israel (Jacob)

(Genesis 37:9, 10) . . .This time the sun and the moon and 11 stars were bowing down to me.” 10 Then he related it to his father as well as his brothers, and his father rebuked him and said to him: “What is the meaning of this dream of yours? Am I [the sun] as well as your mother [the moon] and your brothers [the stars] really going to come and bow down to the earth to you?”

Some think this idea is repeated in Revelation 12:1-5:

(Revelation 12:1-6) . . .Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, ² and she was pregnant. . . .. ⁵ And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away to God and to his throne. ⁶ And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God and where they would feed her for 1,260 days.

The application of the "woman" to Israel is also seen here, and is considered by some commentators as an obvious tie-in to Revelation:

(Galatians 4:24-29) . . .These things may be taken as a symbolic drama; for these women mean two covenants, the one from Mount Siʹnai, which bears children for slavery and which is Haʹgar. 25 Now Haʹgar means Siʹnai, a mountain in Arabia, and she corresponds with the Jerusalem today, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Be glad, you barren woman who does not give birth; break into joyful shouting, you woman who does not have birth pains; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than those of her who has the husband.” 28 Now you, brothers, are children of the promise the same as Isaac was. 29 But just as then the one born through natural descent began persecuting the one born through spirit, so also now.

I think the idea is worth exploring, but I don't think it's enough of an explanation. The idea that the sun and moon darkened is often tied to the conditions of total destruction (smoke and fire) that blots out the sun in the day, and moon and stars at night. But this too is not a strong explanation because Jesus tied it closely to the rest of the passage with the word "then."

Russell was sure, along with most Second Adventists, that the sign had occured in 1780 and 1833. But he also believed in a symbolic fulfillment. Commenting on Luke 21:25-33 the Watch Tower in May 1896 said:

Verses 25-31, leaping over centuries, point to events near the close of Gentile Times, and mention the signs of the close of the Gospel age, and connected with the revealing of the Son of Man in glory. The signs in the sun, moon and stars were to give a general idea as to the time when the Kingdom would be nigh. We will not here particularize respecting these signs, but will mention them:-- The remarkable darkening of the sun and moon, May 19th, 1780; and the notable falling of stars or meteoric shower on the morning of Nov. 13th, 1833. While we believe also in a symbolic fulfilment of the darkening of the sun and falling of the stars, yet we cannot overlook the literal fulfilment, and hence expect, in harmony with Verses 32,33, that some of the generation which saw the falling stars will continue to live until God's Kingdom shall be fully established.

The same had been said in the January 1885 Watch Tower, p.711; and  Studies in the Scriptures "Battle of Armageddon" -- Vol 5 p.589-591. (Stocked and sold to the public from 1897 until about 1933)

I think all these chronology problems go away when we take it that Jesus was saying that there would be a parousia upon Jerusalem but immediately after the tribulation of those days, the final parousia could be expected at any time. Not that much emphasis need be put on 70 CE, except that Jesus was saying that the REAL sign of the parousia they were asking about can only happen "immediately" AFTER the parousia (visitation) upon Jerusalem. That means that the only problem is with the word "Immediately."

I think we have to admit, as the Watchtower does, that Jesus really did answer a question about a visitation of judgment on Jerusalem. Jesus said that judgment would be visited on that same generation that was listening to him in Matthew 23, and said that particular generation would not pass away before it happened in Matthew 24 -- that's how near it was. The disciples were therefore concerned and wanted to know when this visitation of judgment would occur. (The word often used for a "visitation" from someone in high rank in this context is "Parousia," therefore the disciples would have used the word parousia with this meaning.) They obviously didn't know anything about an "invisible parousia," although Jesus seems to anticipate that some might start claiming that it would be an "invisible parousia." This could explain why he said it was going to be as visible as a huge lightning flash.

Except for trying to put an exact date on the beginning of the parousia, and making it invisible (from 1874 until it would become "visible" in 1914), I think the Watchtower's solution of a dual fulfillment is a pretty common one. For me, putting any date on the parousia appears to be a rejection of Jesus' very words that no one would know the day or the hour of the parousia. Also, trying to find specific occurrences of any sign or signs prior to the actual visitation (parousia) is a rejection of Jesus' words.

When I mention 33 or 70, of course, I am only using these dates as a shorthand for the events that we have tied to those dates. It doesn't matter to me if we start saying that Jesus actually died in 27 CE, or 30 CE, or 33, or 36, or if Jerusalem wasn't destroyed in precisely the year 70 by the Romans. I think it's only important to know that Jesus showed that world events were still under the control of a higher power (Jehovah) and who could therefore still keep his promises despite any trials and tribulations. Jesus knew that this parousia would arrive within a generation, and it did. For other reasons I think it's important to notice that Jesus also said that the time of the Gentiles trampling the holy city Jerusalem also had not started yet, but that they would begin some time in that current generation.

So for those Biblical reasons, I don't think your list of 12 questions is very applicable. Some of them are simple to answer, but not at all related to this discussion. 

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Having said that, and not disagreeing that there was great emphasis then on increased activity, most of the statements you have underlined have been continually said right down to today. If anything, the perception that one should pioneer whenever possible - that it is an activity 'right as rain' - as opposed to a special escalation of preaching, is more pervasive now than it was then.

That's true in our congregation, too. There are 9 pioneers in our congregation, and we were fortunate to keep 3 for most of the years that I was pioneering.

I thought it was good to get the whole context. There are similarities to now, but there is much less "guilting" into increased activity, and it's positive aspects are emphasized more these days. Pioneering is also much easier now than it was, with more leniency on making your hours, and easier ways to count your hours. These days, I could pioneer with both hands tied behind my back. [pulling a cart!]

The talks on pioneering back then were laced with some of the "guilting" you see in this KM, like: You have health problems? Family responsibilities? No excuse! Let's listen to this experience from [someplace] where a hearing and sight-impaired mother of 10 with no arms and legs got her kids ready for school every day and then put in 8 hours of service. [I'm probably conflating 4 or 5 experiences from that time period, but you probably remember the basic idea.]

Also, the specific counsel on higher education has become MORE practical as time has gone on. For almost 4 decades after this anti-career talk started, it was still quite possible to generally get a good return-on-investment from higher education (at least in the USA). In the last decade, it has become almost impossible. Of course, that's a bit like the 'stopped clock being right twice a day' analogy. If the real reason for the counsel is to keep an institution from attacking your superior morals, that's a very good reason, and it should be highlighted to the extent that it is considered important. Other reasons should also be highlighted to the extent they are considered important.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Which publications were those? Would you provide a reference?

Not all of these recommendations were in the publications; some came from the talks during the circuit overseer's visit, and district overseers were encouraged to arrange special talks on the subject of 1975.  The May 1974 Kingdom Ministry was one of the publications that spoke to this issue directly. I'm quoting almost the entire article to give a better sense:

*** km 5/74 p. 3-4 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
. . . Are we not thankful that Jehovah God has purchased us and that we now belong to Him? . . . The apostle Peter noted that if we have the proper mental disposition we will be moved to “live the remainder of [our] time in the flesh, no more for the desires of men, but for God’s will.”—1 Pet. 4:2.
Is that what you are doing? Are you living no longer simply to satisfy personal ambitions or desires, but to do God’s will? Are there ways in which you could share more fully in doing the will of God?
God’s Will for Us
Jehovah makes clear in his Word that his will for us today includes accomplishing a great work of Kingdom-preaching before the end of this system comes. (Matt. 24:14) . . . Jesus did not hold back, but was whole-souled in his service to God. . . . Jesus knew that he had only a short time, and he did not spare himself in finishing his assignment. Should we not today be imitating his example, especially since we have such a short time left now in which to complete the Kingdom-preaching?
Yes, the end of this system is so very near! Is that not reason to increase our activity? In this regard we can learn something from a runner who puts on a final burst of speed near the finish of a race. Look at Jesus, who apparently stepped up his activity during his final days on earth. In fact, over 27 percent of the material in the Gospels is devoted to just the last week of Jesus’ earthly ministry!—Matt. 21:1–27:50; Mark 11:1–15:37; Luke 19:29–23:46; John 11:55–19:30.
By carefully and prayerfully examining our own circumstances, we also may find that we can spend more time and energy in preaching during this final period before the present system ends. Many of our brothers and sisters are doing just that. This is evident from the rapidly increasing number of pioneers.
Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.—1 John 2:17.
Circumstances such as poor health or responsibilities in connection with your family may limit what you can do in the field ministry. And yet, the pioneer ranks include many who have health limitations, as well as some persons with families. But these brothers and sisters are able to regulate their lives so that they can care for their responsibilities and still put in the 1,200 hours a year, an average of 100 hours a month in the field ministry, required of pioneers.
Therefore, do not be too quick to dismiss the possibility that you, too, may be able to pioneer. Give it careful and prayerful consideration. Perhaps an analysis will reveal that your life is encumbered with needless weights that can be put off so that you can pioneer. Particularly may this be the case if you are single, or are married but have no children.—Heb. 12:1.
So, then, ask yourself: How am I using my life? Can I make adjustments that will enable me to pioneer? If I can, will failure to do so indicate to Jehovah that I am living to satisfy personal desires, rather than to do His will? Every one of us wants to be able to say, as did the apostle Paul, “Indeed, the life that I now live in flesh I live by the faith that is toward the Son of God, who loved me and handed himself over for me. I do not shove aside the undeserved kindness of God.” Gal. 2:20, 21. . . .
So do not delay in giving serious consideration to this matter of how you are using your life. See if you can arrange your affairs to pioneer. Why not discuss the matter with persons already pioneering or with elders in your congregation?

I was part of that 34% increase, one of the 20,394 who had started regular pioneering in the summer of 1973. It included a lot of persons just quitting high school at 16, 17, or having just graduated at 18. I was still 15 when I quit school, and got my diploma through a test when I was 16, which was the only way my father would let me pioneer -- if I already had a diploma and I met with the circuit overseer to talk about it first. The encouragement not to pursue further education came from the circuit overseer and from discussions of talks and of articles such as one below. The core point of the article is found in the two predictions. I added the years [in brackets] that would have gone through your head if you read this in 1969, which helped me decide to quit school in 1973.

If you are a young person you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years.  . . .  Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, [1973] perhaps even six [1975] or eight more years [1977] to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way towards its finish, if not actually gone!"  -- Awake! May 22, 1969, page 14-15.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

I hasten to add that they didn't bring reproach on the organization in the eyes of faithful ones, who are still faithful now. In fact one of the talks at the convention (a talk most probably assigned to be given by a GB helper, ours was) the brother mentions these very things. He goes on to say how most of us thought we wouldn't grow old. He doesn't explain why or offer any "excuses" for the reasons why we thought that, he says it as matter of fact and most take it as matter of fact. However, some have definitely allowed this to become a stumbling block and that is why they are now ex- Witnesses. I am not sure if the rest of the world is even aware of these "false predictions" bar perhaps those who study religions. 

At Bethel, the Awake! magazine was put into "MEPS" format back to 1950 at the same time as the Watchtower. This is what allowed the publications go into the first Watchtower Library CD's. In fact, if you call the Watchtower Society and ask them to look up something in the Awake! they actually use a Watchower Library CD that takes the Awake! back to 1946. I can't think of any reason they decided to take it only as far back as 1970 on the public CD except perhaps this article from 1969. The Watchtower goes back to 1950 on the public CD.

I think it brings some reproach even to bring it up again without honestly explaining why people thought that they wouldn't grow old. They would have never just "thought" that on their own. They were specifically "told" that they would not grow old in this system. Bringing up these old issues at an assembly as a way to claim that it has now been addressed and to show a certain lesson that was learned from it is not helpful unless it's done openly and honestly. The lesson should probably be quite different than the lesson we are now told to learn from that time period. The lessons should probably be that we always let our reasonableness be known to all, and obey God as ruler rather than men, and never allow ourselves to think of any of our elders as if they were in the seat of Moses. Without those lessons, even though all the brothers mean well, it's easy to drift back into an attitude where we can forget our own personal responsibility towards Jehovah and the congregation.

*** w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today ***
(2) When “the Assyrian” attacks, the elders must be absolutely convinced that Jehovah will deliver us. (3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.

*** w13 11/15 p. 24 par. 14 Obey Jehovah’s Shepherds ***
To survive the tenth plague, the Israelites had to obey the instructions to have a special meal and to splash some of the blood of a slaughtered sheep on the doorposts and lintels of their houses. That direction did not come to them by means of a voice out of heaven. No, they had to listen to the older men of Israel, who in turn received specific instructions from Moses. (Ex. 12:1-7, 21-23, 29) In those circumstances, Moses and the older men acted as bearers of Jehovah’s instructions to his people. Christian elders fulfill a comparably vital function today.

(Matthew 23:2) 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses.

Even in a recent article with good information in it warning us against apostates, note how easy it is to slip into the idea that instructions are coming from our leaders instead of from our Leader.

*** w17 July pp. 29-30 Winning the Battle for Your Mind ***
A soldier whose loyalty to his leader is weakened will not fight well. So propagandists attempt to break bonds of confidence and trust between a soldier and his commander. They may use such propaganda as: “You cannot trust your leaders!” and “Do not let them lead you into disaster!” To add weight to these attacks, they may cleverly exploit any mistakes those leaders might make. Satan does this. He never gives up trying to undermine your confidence in the leadership that Jehovah has provided.
Your defense? Be determined to stick to Jehovah’s organization and loyally support the leadership he provides—no matter what imperfections may surface. (1 Thess. 5:12, 13) Do not be “quickly shaken from your reason” . . .

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

To inoculate defenses against doubts asking the similar questions these other brothers would find, sooner or later.

This is a very good way to put it. Thanks.

Of course, it is for good reason that we are taught to be wary of those who promote "different" teachings, and I'm sure all of us would admit that there are some really strange and dangerous teachings out there that we should guard against. So just as we would shudder at some of the false teachings we can find people spouting on various sites and in various books, we immediately sympathize with those who shudder at a different view about 1914. 

And of course it actually hurts to hear that we are disrespecting the GB, or disrespecting Jehovah's channel. But the GB have never said they are in a position that cannot be questioned. They would surely think this would only appear to idolize them. Therefore I wish EVERYONE had worked with them directly, so that a more balanced perspective would be unavoidable.

And by asking questions (but even more so by looking for answers to those questions) we open ourselves up to the charge that we are haughty, making ourselves equal with the GB, or the apostle Paul, or Nathan the prophet. It's almost as if some consider the GB to be our "Leaders" or even the "Head of the congregation," or "masters of our faith" or even our special "Guardians" in Christ.

(1 Corinthians 4:15) . . .you may have 10,000 guardians in Christ. . .

(Matthew 23:10) 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.

(2 Corinthians 1:24) Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.

I think it's a bit easier, for me at least, to look at it from the perspective of showing love and concern for our fellow brothers and sisters, and you have found an illustration (vaccines) that shows that attitude.

I wonder what some might have thought if they had lived three or four generations ago, and read Watch Tower publications starting in 1919, and continued to read the predictions about how there was even more evidence for 1925 than there was for 1914, even more reason to believe in 1925 than reasons Noah had to believe in the Flood. What would say @bruceq or @Gnosis Pithos do for example if they had discovered, just prior to 1925, that the Bible tells us NOT to speculate about chronology of the end-times. What if he noticed that the Jubilee patterns that counted another 50 years from 1874 to 1925 were not valid time indicators. What if he noticed that the entire "Jacob's double" was based on a mistranslation of that word, and could not apply to parallel time dispensations? Should he have spoken up? Would it have been the right thing to do? Would it have shown love?

Also remember that, similar to what some had done in 1914, brothers were stopping their life insurance policies, (in 1914, some were even buying expensive new policies for their relatives who were not of the high calling and who would then be able to take advantage of this new form of "insider trading"). People were quitting their jobs and selling their belongings and giving it to the WTS. The WTS was spending everything in 1914 on the very expensive Photo-Drama slides, film and recordings. Brother MacMillan says the Society was completely broke at the end of 1914. Of course, some will say it doesn't matter because Jehovah will always provide. 

And what @Eoin Joyce said about being "enlightened" to make sure he kept a more balanced view of 1975, back in 1972: "Probably the 1975 thing is the most glaring example I have personally experienced, although I was thankfully enlightened about the erroneous expectations attached about 1972 or so, and seem to have avoided the "hysteria" others appear to have experienced."

If this was due to input from a brother or sister, was that brother doing the right thing? I recall my father speaking to a former Gilead missionary he had hired when they left their assignment in Ecuador. The brother was terribly excited about giving up everything when they reached the year 1975 (in January). The brother was indignant to my father for his lack of faith in what the Society was providing. The Society had spoken approvingly of selling their homes and belongings. My father himself had been chastised by a District Overseer at an assembly in 1972 for adding Matthew 24:36 to the outline talk he gave at a circuit assembly.

Earlier, I brought up a letter in an older Watchtower from February 1890, where Russell's chronology motivated persons to sell their property to give money to the Society. It was just one of several such letters and is likely representative of unnecessary financial hardship on THOUSANDS of brothers and sisters of that time. We can only hope that these persons were not overly discouraged when 25 years went by, then 35, then 45, and then that entire 1874 harvest chronology was dropped completely.

Clare, Mich.

DEAR BROTHER RUSSELL:--After reading Dawn, Vol. II., the chapters on "The Times of the Gentiles," "The Jubilee Cycles," Israel's Double and the Time Chronology, I became convinced that we are indeed in the time of the harvest, while the chapter on the manner of our Lord's second coming and the harmony of present indications leaves no room for even a doubt. Then in place of marrying and settling down, as I undoubtedly would have done, I sold off my personal property, paid all my indebtedness except a mortgage on some land, to engage in this harvest work. As I have not as yet been able to sell the land, and it being mostly unimproved will not rent for enough to pay the interest on the mortgage and the taxes, I thought to spend about a week in the spring putting in enough of a crop to pay the expenses of the place till I can sell it. If I can sell it for even a good deal less than I thought it was worth two years ago, I would have a few hundred dollars left to use as an offering to the Lord. My neighbors thought me very foolish at the course I have taken, and when I began to hold up the truth I met with opposition, but our blessed Lord and Saviour suffered without the gates and we may go to him without the camp bearing his reproach. I esteem the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. I will not be afraid of them, neither of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks.

Yours in the Lord, W. B__________.

The goal was to bear only the reproach of Christ's torture stake, and he ended up bringing further reproach on the organization he hoped would be seen as a witness for Christ:

(Luke 14:27-29) 27 Whoever does not carry his torture stake and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 For example, who of you wanting to build a tower does not first sit down and calculate the expense to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, he might lay its foundation but not be able to finish it, and all the onlookers would start to ridicule him,

I personally responded to the call in the 1970s where the publications recommended that we sell our belongings, quit school, and regular pioneer. I don't think I was disadvantaged in the slightest for having done so. (One parent was for it and one was against it, which provided its own kind of balance.) But it would have been better if these types of statements in the publications had not been made. For example, the prediction that young people will never grow old in this system of things. Those false predictions brought reproach upon the organization.

32 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

How long was your wedding talk?

They were both anointed so I had them overlap. Using a 24-hour clock ("military time") Jim started at 19:14pm and then Fred ended around 20:34pm. I don't see why that is significant in any way though. Why do you ask?

13 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

For one, what does the resurrection of Christ have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE? Just as what the word “incumbent” means, Jesus signs were designated to the present and future generations.

GP, I have to admit that I probably am not understanding all your points, and for that I apologize up front.

Starting with the question I just requoted, I agree with what the Watchtower has said about the resurrection of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. I don't see any question here that is related to the discussion.

I assumed by the word incumbent, you meant "one holding a current office" an office of "kingship" in this case. Of course, I also assume that you will continue to ignore the verse in 1 Timothy that claims that Jesus was already holding the office of kingship. So I think this is a question you don't really wish to respond to, and that might explain why the second sentence doesn't seem to make any relevant point.

13 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

So, with that in mind, then all matter of prophetic completion would have occurred in 70AD.

I suppose that's a possibility. I don't believe it's that simple. But even if it were, it would still be a lesson for those of us in expectation of a future visitation of judgment upon the entire system of things.

(Romans 15:4) 4 For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.

(1 Corinthians 10:6-11) . . .Now these things became examples for us, in order for us not to desire injurious things, as they desired them. 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink. Then they got up to have a good time.” 8 Neither let us practice sexual immorality, as some of them committed sexual immorality, only to fall, 23,000 of them in one day. 9 Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put him to the test, only to perish by the serpents. 10 Neither be murmurers, as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.

Curious use of the plural "ends of the systems of things" in verse 11.

However, I believe the Watchtower is correct when it points out that Revelation must have been written closer to 99 CE, and this therefore is a strong clue that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled upon Jerusalem in 70 CE. In fact, the best evidence of this is the fact that Revelation 11:2,3 references the very same phrase that Jesus used about "Jerusalem being trampled underfoot by the Gentiles," in Luke 21:24, and Revelation ties it to a specific length of the "Gentile Times." It's the only other verse in the whole Bible that mentions these same "Gentile Times" and yet this verse was studiously ignored in that context from the very first article Russell published in 1876 right up the very last articles published on the subject in the last few months. 140 years of ignoring the only verse in the Bible that puts a length to Luke 21:24. It seems obviously that it's because it says that these Gentile Times are not "7 times" in length. Do you have another explanation?

Based on the rest of your comments I think you are making the following argument:

If Jesus' prophecy was about 70 CE, then it must have ONLY been about 70 CE, and could have no application to a future date. Therefore, anyone who thinks Jesus was talking about 70 CE, needs to prove that everything happened in 70 CE (or by 70 CE).

The reason I thought that sounded so odd from someone who has presented himself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the Watchtower has already printed many articles showing that Jesus prophecy had a dual fulfillment. And for most JWs, it would even be damaging to the way that many utilize the Daniel 4 tree dream. If it was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar then you are not allowed to speak about a future fulfillment?

16 hours ago, bruceq said:

Chronology is ambiguous for a reason, Jehovah did not yell from the heavens that His Witnesses is the true faith. Otherwise everyone would be a Witness but for the wrong reasons, Jehovah wants people to worship him from the heart not because of the interpretation of some blogger who gets his info from apostate websites.

I appreciate your position on these chronology issues. I held on to some of them just as strongly as you from the time I was four until I was nearly twenty-four. I might have still been hanging on to them, even now, if it weren't for the fact that my assignment at Bethel put me right next to a member of the Governing Body (B.Schroeder) who had his own questions, and who also lashed out at others who had questions about them. While looking for solutions to some of these same questions, I became friends with other researchers, especially three non-GB brothers who had been the Writing Department's team researching articles for the "Aid Book" (now "Insight"). Some of them had been asked to look over the initial manuscript from an elder in Sweden, who had done a lot of research himself. The brother who assigned my research projects only showed me portions of it, and I didn't see the whole thing until another Brother, (F.Rusk) let me see it as he was working on it. This brother (Rusk) also gave the main part of my wedding talk (with the vows), and one of the brothers from the Aid Book research team also gave 30 minutes of my wedding talk.

But this manuscript, now a book, was of very little interest to me, because it was mostly about archaeological reasons not to try to "anchor" anything on 607. I was only interested in Bible topics, and didn't really think that counted. I don't think I would have necessarily discovered any of this on my own, and therefore I probably wouldn't even be here if it were not for discovering that several members of the Governing Body, and several members of the Writing Department also had doubts and questions about 1914 and related chronology issues, from a Biblical perspective.

So, now that you have impugned and imputed motives for me, I will let what you know what my real primary motives are:

• Love of the Truth,
• Love for the whole association of brothers,
• A clean conscience,

Of course, I realize you probably don't believe this, and further, you probably could not admit that you believed it if even you knew it was true. I'd prefer to assume that you are like me, when I was in your shoes, and preferred not to think about such questions, and assumed that anyone who asked me to think too strongly about such questions was some kind of apostate.

But, I can also explain why I have presented what I have on this particular forum. A conversation or presentation of information about the topic, still cannot happen in a normal congregation setting. This doesn't mean that it is not important to question. It is your Christian duty to question every claim, at least if you wish to be noble-minded.

I think that most of us who are willing to open up about these questions online all realize that we can't do this in our congregations, and yet we also realize that it is important to question. In a forum like this, where ideas can be exchanged, and challenged, we are also able to question without the same kind of effect that it would have inside the congregation. That's because no one needs to believe that we are sincere, if they don't want to. It's easy to dismiss any challenge by just saying things like: "I don't believe it;" "I don't want to look at the evidence;" "I think anyone who questions such things is probably an apostate." No one need be stumbled, because such information and questions are already all over the internet. 

Yet from the perspective of a Witness who has such a question, on a forum, they can ask any question and it is technically no different from any other person on the street asking such a question. Someone can say Trinity is taught in the Bible, and we can either defend our belief, ignore it, assume the person is sincere, assume the person is insincere, assume they are an ex-JW who has gone back like a dog to his vomit, assume they are just like a neighbor we met in service last week, assume they are dishonest, assume they are honest --- the point is that it doesn't matter. They are online, and we are online too. Therefore we are all subject to the rough and tumble world of online discussion -- a forum for ideas.

We can't claim we are stumbled by a non-Witness we meet at the door who could ask the very same question. Yet, they might have read about our belief in an apostate book or from an apostate site. In fact, a sincere non-JW we meet at the door, may be sincerely curious about whether or not something he or she read or heard is true or not. We could always just say: "Oh, we don't answer that particular question because it was once asked by an apostate." We don't think of doing that for questions about hell-fire or Trinity, or neutrality yet many of us are instantly inclined to respond like that if the question is about 1874, 1925, 1975, pyramids, miracle wheat, Hitler.

In fact, I've noticed that we are usually quite willing to discuss 1914 and its repercussions on other doctrines until WE start realizing that the questions are difficult. At that point, we tend to assume the question is no longer sincere, but is some kind of attack. And that's only based on the level of difficulty. We don't generally start lashing out and making accusations when we feel that our foundation is more solid, as it is on Trinity, hell-fire, neutrality, war, etc.

Now I admit that I made it easy for anyone who is uncomfortable to back away from the conversation when I mentioned the "deception" that invariably accompanies chronology doctrines, especially as time goes on, and no one wants to display their dirty laundry. This is a surprising point to a lot of people but it's easy to find the evidence. How many times have you heard or read something in the Watch Tower publications that sounded like this:  "Decades in advance, the Bible Students as Jehovah's Witnesses were known at the time, announced that 1914 would see the start of a great time of trouble." This has never been true. Decades in advance, 1914 was seen as the END of a great time of trouble not the beginning.

The July 15, 1894, Watch Tower said:

"But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble."

Granted, an adjustment to the doctrine occurred one decade prior to 1914, but not "decades" and it was not consistently held to for that entire decade in any case. This could be an honest mistake, even though it has been made at least a dozen times, but it still deceives people into thinking that it's a true statement. However, if we KNOW this, then we should renounce any association with such a claim for the sake of our conscience:

(2 Corinthians 4:2) But we have renounced the shameful, underhanded things, not walking with cunning or adulterating the word of God; but by making the truth manifest, we recommend ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God.

However, my main goal here is not to highlight the "deceptions." These occur almost naturally and should be expected. My goal is to open up the discussion so that if it is wrong, or I am going down the wrong track, I can be corrected. If there is more to learn on the subject (and for me there is more to learn on any subject) the ideas are out there for anyone who is concerned to add to the discussion, and point out what's wrong. If we have questions on such a serious subject we should not keep them to ourselves, and we should not hold back from asking. We should test every expression, even if we feel it is as good as inspired. (1 Jn 4:1; 2 Th 2:2) It would be underhanded for us to keep such things hidden.

(Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.

I was also hoping to find others who might be willing to discuss some of these issues out in the open, and this has already occurred. There are several people who appear willing to discuss it further and I am very interested learning from their views. (Especially on Revelation 11 and 12 with @ComfortMyPeople since I think he has given this more thought than I have.) If you are not interested any further on this type of discussion, and that's your choice, of course.  But I'm sure you'd have something worth considering if you did participate.

23 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

He therefore holds in combination the offices of kingship and priesthood, as did Melchizedek.

You highlighted the above portion of the Insight article. But notice that Hebrews speaks about the same combination of both King and Priest and says:

(Hebrews 8:1) . . .Now this is the main point of what we are saying: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

Notice that the verse puts it in the past tense, that Jesus already filled this combination position being both a priest and already sitting on the throne. This was the main point of what he was saying! That's what made the manner of Jesus' priesthood different from the manner of Aaron, but the same as the manner of Melchizedek, king of righteousness and king of peace.

23 hours ago, Gnosis Pithos said:

The operative words are “hold the offices” over emphasizing by saying HE IS KING!!!!!!

That's the very reason I already posted that I thought you might ignore the verse in First Timothy that not only says he is "king," but that he is "king of kings."

(1 Timothy 6:15) . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings. . .