JW Insider

[Note: Several of the ideas presented below are not in accord with current Watch Tower publications.] Why? It's quite possible you are right, but the Scriptures seem to point away from a distant fulfillment in the future. Just for the record, I see no reason to deny Jesus' words here. Yes, it's true that the full destruction of Satan would come at a later date, but there is no reason to believe that Satan had not fallen based specifically on the accomplishment of Jesus' ministry. Jesus' ministry was for the very purpose of breaking the power of Satan, and that ministry was accomplished. Is there a scripture that says that this falling, or casting down of Satan from heaven was scheduled for some time far in the future? Satan's rule of sin was broken because Jehovah could now view sinners as if righteous. Men of goodwill now had a proper means of approach to God and a means, therefore, of taking back what Satan had taken away. Jesus took away the sin of the world. A part of the symbolism about the power over Satan was the fact that powerful works performed by Jesus and his early disciples included proof positive that Jesus was conquering Satan's power. Jesus had given the disciples authority over the demons. But the primary accomplishment of his ministry was that Jesus saved mankind from the spiritually paralyzing effects of sin. Satan would still be here to tempt us and would still be the "god of this system" just as he was in 1815, 1915 and 2015. Clearly Satan's power over us was brought low, because, through Christ's ministry Christians now have power to conquer -- to get the mastery over sin. Satan lost his "rule" over us, even though he continued his rule over the world. We know from Hebrews that this ministry was fully accomplished at Jesus' death and resurrection. Note: (John 12:31-33) 31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all sorts of men to myself.” 33 This he was really saying to indicate what sort of death he was about to die. (Hebrews 2:14) . . .so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, (John 14:30) 30 I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me. The spread of that Kingdom in 33 CE, starting at Pentecost was also a key part of the ministry of Jesus through the pouring out of the holy spirit: (John 16:8-11) . . .And when that one comes, [holy spirit] he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. (Acts 26:17, 18) 17 And I will rescue you from this people and from the nations, to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by their faith in me.’ And of course, this whole argument comes "full circle" again, explaining how the Kingdom is already at work: (Ephesians 2:1-6) 2 Furthermore, God made you alive, though you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. 3 Yes, among them we all at one time conducted ourselves in harmony with the desires of our flesh, carrying out the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and we were naturally children of wrath just as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, 5 made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses—by undeserved kindness you have been saved. 6 Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus, Surely, it was in this same way that Satan was cast down knowing he had a short period of time, seeking to devour, just as he is depicted in Revelation 12: (1 Peter 5:8) . . .Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. (Revelation 2:10) . . .Look! The Devil will keep on throwing some of you into prison so that you may be fully put to the test, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Revelation 12:9-12) 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. 12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.” In 2016, Satan was surely aware that his time was even shorter than it was in 1916, yet there is no specific evidence that Satan's anger was any less visceral during Nero's day, or back when Peter said that Satan was already walking about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. Therefore, I would take Jesus at his word, and not place this event of Satan's falling or "casting out" as something that occurs thousands of years later.

I thought it just sounded like a reminder about the etiquette of book promotion through forums. I don't think anyone here was too worried about the chance to learn about your book. I liked what I read and I will very likely buy one or both. But once a place becomes known for promotion of books or JW.ORG pins or Sophia book-bags, etc, then the audience here for discussion of issues drops.

"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." Rev 11:15 “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." Rev 11:17 I can see Revelation as a sweeping history of the Kingdom from 33 CE on, conquering in the midst of its enemies, until the end of the thousand-year reign. The two verses picked out above are clearly about milestone events or achievements of that Kingdom. Whichever particular milestone is referenced, whether past or present or future, results in much appreciation, especially in heaven. It must be an integral part of the working out of an overall purpose for the Kingdom. It fits the idea you pointed out earlier about how a major achievement or event related to the Kingdom could be spoken of as a time when "Jehovah becomes King" even though he was already the eternal King. In this particular case it appears that "Jehovah has become King" due to the installation of Jesus as a king who will rule forever with Jehovah. I find this to be a parallel to (or echo of) 1 Chronicles 16, as was already pointed out earlier. Also see, Isaiah 24, Psalm 93, 96, 97, 98, 99. Part of the beauty of Revelation is the fact that these echoes are purposeful, and there are many of them in this chapter alone, starting with references to Ezekiel, Zechariah and Luke 21 at the beginning of the chapter. I would love to go into detail on the appreciation I have for all of Revelation. In fact, I find it difficult to just pick out these two verses without discussing how it fits into the entire book. I started to answer about Revelation 11 by showing how it fits well within the content of chapters 8 through 19. Naturally, this is not the purpose of your question, so I will save that, and not even try to comment on the surrounding verses in the same chapter. But you are probably aware that I no longer find this chapter to include predictions about 1918 and 1919, and therefore it is unlikely that certain ideas I appreciate from Revelation 11 would coincide with certain ideas you appreciate from the same chapter. But I also don't see these potential differences as a problem, because Revelation was purposely provided to us in a cryptic manner, such that the Watchtower itself has rarely kept the same interpretations of entire chapters intact for more than a few decades at a time. Revelation continues to serve the purpose of giving us hope through all kinds of trials, tribulations, woes and plagues, and yet we are encouraged that our faith in Jehovah's Kingdom is not misplaced. Jehovah is always in control and his Kingdom will continue to conquer so that the promise of a new heavens and new earth cannot fail. Other than that, the specifics of Revelation will always pique our interest in serious Bible study, fuel the imagination of Christians and would-be Christians alike, encourage us to rely on persons who know more about Bible history and the Bible texts than we ourselves do, and, perhaps primarily, test our humility. It reminds us that we cannot rely on ourselves alone for understanding, and perhaps, too, that not everything that has happened or will happen in Christian history will always be personally about us.

Toleration is not a black and white idea. It's on a spectrum. 50 shades of gray, and sometimes shades of black and blue. Colleges tolerate abuse reports about athletes for as long as they believe they can avoid public embarrassment. Murder is a crime, yet abuse, even if it reaches the level of rape, is more of an embarrassment than a crime. So it's handled internally if possible. In religious organizations, murder is a crime, yet abuse, even if it reaches the level of rape, is also thought of as a sin, which can also be handled internally in the eyes of the religious organizations. Colleges and religions are often in the same category as "recruitment" organizations, so the need to keep problems quiet is a historical tradition. The focus has traditionally been about the reputation of the organization, not on looking out for the best interests of victims. And, yes, I know I'm rambling, because you know all this better than I do. I still tend to avoid the topic because I still find it uncomfortable and embarrassing. But I think that all sexual abuse is a kind of rape, and I think rape is a crime, and I think that any organizations that get out front and show that they are more concerned with the little ones, the victims, will have made themselves even more appealing in the area of recruitment, too.

The issue of the "crown" is probably one of those issues that perfectly fits the point that Eoin made. By the way, I still agree that the argument you were making from Romans 4:17 will be important to the discussion, and the verses that you and Melinda applied to that argument are valid. I'm not dismissing it, even though I didn't think that Romans 4:17 was the right verse to find the foundation of that idea. But that was a trivial side point. Still, it made more sense to start with this idea that Eoin presented, because it is a better bridge for resolving the apparent contradiction that Jesus begins a kingship in 33 and the kingdom also comes at a later date, too. As Eoin put it, this was not an "either-or" situation. That said, a king receiving a crown even after he has been declared the king is possible even among human kings, and likely would provide a scenario that indicates the exact idea of a special occasion when the Kingdom achieves a special milestone. This is exactly the idea behind "Jehovah becoming King" even though it was obvious he is already an eternal King. You did leave out a mention of a crown that I think is crucial to getting a truer picture: (Hebrews 1:2-4,8; 2:5,9) 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. . . . 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. . . . 2:5 For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. . . .9 But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, I believe our traditional teaching makes it too easy for us to miss the point that even words like "subject" "obeisance" and "Christ" [Messiah] were also references to kingship. In Jesus' day, the term Christ (Messiah) was exclusively tied to the royal heir of King David, of the tribe of Judah. See Peter's speech in Acts 2, for example. Or, more simply: (Matthew 22:42) “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s.. . ." The book of Hebrews clearly includes a commentary on Psalm 110 and appropriately expands on the glorious royal imagery of a throne, a crown, a scepter, glorious garments, and royal "subjects" (angels subject to him as ministers, doing obeisance to him). That's the basis of the first two chapters. Later chapters explain how this king can also be a priest according to the manner of Melchizedek based on Psalm 110:4. It was already understood from chapters one and two that Jesus was a King. So here's what Hebrews says about Melchizedek: (Hebrews 7:2, 14) . . .First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” . . . 14 For it is clear that our Lord has descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests coming from that tribe. So it was clear that Jesus was king, but less clear how "Scripturally" he could also be a priest. What is the conclusion after the first few chapters of Hebrews show that this King is also a priest? (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, I wanted to mention that, based on the idea from Romans 4:17 (or elsewhere), that it really doesn't matter so much about the exact chronology of saying that the Kingdom was among them in Jesus' day, or when he sat down with God as his throne in 33 CE, or when he again arrives to be seen in the Kingdom "present" or Kingdom "coming." But based on the language of Hebrews 1 through 8 for example, it doesn't seem right to minimize the kingdom in 33 and then highlight the Kingdom as being so much more important at a later date. To me the question boils down to whether we really need to minimize the meaning of Matthew 28:18 (among other verses). In effect, we say that Jesus didn't really mean to use the word "all" here: (Matthew 28:18) . . .: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. And for further consideration: (John 17:1-5) . . .Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you have given him authority over all flesh [authority over all mankind, NWT footnote], so that he may give everlasting life to all those whom you have given to him. 3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

I'm sure you are right. About the entrenched dendrites, that is. It's a very rational-sounding scenario. I also find it very appealing. Jesus is appointed, but told to sit and wait. Then 1,881 years later, he stands and begins ruling. It's as if we really can no longer imagine that a King can actually rule while sitting down on a throne (even though it's the way Jehovah is depicted when He rules as King). We have this idea entrenched that Jesus can't really begin ruling, for real, until he's allowed to stand up. It makes sense as long as we can think of Jesus as a child whose father just told him to sit there and be quiet until he tells you it's OK to stand up. But that's kind of a "smart-aleck" reason and carries very little weight with any of us. A better reason to break away from our traditional thinking is found in the Bible itself. It's a fairly quick process: We have to remind ourselves why Jesus is "waiting." We find the answer in the same verse that gives us the "waiting" idea in the first place: (Hebrews 10:12, 13) But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God, from then on waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. So Jesus is waiting from the time he sat down at the right hand of God. (I assume you agree this was in 33 C.E.) But for how long was he waiting? Until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. And how long would that last? Obviously, until the last enemy death is brought to nothing. (I assume you agree that this is most likely at the end of the thousand-year reign, and I assume you believe that the thousand-year reign is still future.) (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. (Revelation 20:14, 15) 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. 15 Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:4-6) . . .And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years. Therefore, Jesus is still waiting until his enemies, including death, are made a footstool for his feet. He is waiting until the appropriate time when all is finished, and he can "hand over the Kingdom to his God and Father." So, this particular idea of "waiting" does not refer to inactivity, or waiting until he becomes an actively ruling King. I would think it might be something like U.S. President Abraham Lincoln actively sending men into a "Civil War," yet at the same time also waiting until the war would be over. According to Paul, "sitting at God's right hand" is the equivalent of "ruling as king."

Doesn't seem to match anything I can find published. But sometimes these points go back to Watchtowers prior to the Watchtower Library (pre-1950). The notes are also loaded with type-antitype teachings, some of which I had never heard of, but might go back prior to 1950.

Yes. It's from a set of "Gilead Notes" - Ulysses V. Glass, May 1978. Nothing ever published. I was thinking Sermon Outlines or Make Sure of All Things so I looked in one and couldn't find it, but remembered that Glass's Gilead Notes are typed up about the same way, in kind of an outline form. "Stephen not praying to Christ, addressing Christ in vision like John, Christ standing indicates vision is future" Thanks for going to the trouble of looking it up.

@Eoin Joyce Wow! I was just thinking about this same point last night for the current thread on Christ's power and authority. In order for us to get a sense of Jehovah's majesty, there must be some extent to which we need certain images in our head, like a crown, a throne, royal garb, a scepter, etc. Jehovah must know that these images are helpful to understand his Sovereignty. The images of a kingdom --with all the glorious splendor of a central palace, a sizable realm, along with an innumerable entourage of soldiers, servants, slaves, messengers at the king's command-- probably carries about the same meaning from the time of the earliest empires until now. Clearly there is an element of anthropomorphism in the imagery, because a perfect spirit being needs nothing physical. But the fact that Jehovah is a Sovereign or King is important to the concept of his Sovereignty and Kingdom. That Jehovah is at the top of a heavenly hierarchy and is all-powerful is conveyed immediately with these images. As Jesus is also a heavenly spirit creature, the same would be true of his Kingdom, too. Obviously, many of the disciples had trouble "spiritualizing" some of the concepts about God's Kingdom through Christ. They considered the physical seat of the Kingdom to be earthly Jerusalem, rather than the Jerusalem above. He spoke of his Father's house as having many mansions, but he also had to remind them that hierarchical positions in that kingdom were not given the same meaning that they might have on earth. Heaven is a place "not made with hands." Clearly, the same goes for the term "Bride of Christ" too. In heaven, where "in the resurrection there is neither male or female," Jesus marries a good number of "male virgins." Marriage carries with it the idea of union, love, closeness, loyalty, and an unbreakable bond. The physical concepts of marriage do not apply. Therefore, even terms like "Father" and "Son" carry an element of anthropomorphism.

@TrueTom You make some very valid points in your post. I wouldn't argue against any of it. There is also considerable overlap between bullying and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse often becomes just another type of bullying, and those in the "herd" who have been weakened emotionally by either/or will often find themselves targeted (picked off) by abusers (predators) for the rest of their lives. After looking at 4,500 cases of reported sexual abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2015, (and looking at more statistically significant reporting especially since 1985) The Australian Royal Commission (ARC) reported that about 7% of Catholic priests have been accused. But it was lower in the Catholic schools run by nuns dealing with children, and much higher in the places where males in authority dealt with children (average age was 10 and 11). 30% of the crimes were committed by Catholic "brothers," (those usually assigned to various "orders") another 30% of the crimes were by priests themselves, and 5% by Catholic "sisters" (generally, nuns). It was highest in the "Order of St. John of God" where a full 40% of those in authority there were accused of child abuse. The reason, it shouldn't surprise us, is that these men worked specifically with emotionally disturbed children. Easy picking! One person I listened to on the BBC made it clear that any organization anywhere in the world that had such a high rate of accused and convicted child abusers would be considered a "criminal organization." I agree that all of us want to do all we can. But our own track record was awful, especially in those early years when expensive lawsuits were being covered up long before the very first article about protecting children came out. And members of our own Governing Body fought against printing articles and information on the subject. Just as in other organizations, we didn't want to admit that it was even possible in our own organization, because this would bring such reproach on Jehovah's name and organization. It would give opposers something to point to. My own father in his capacity as a congregation elder, counseled my sister to avoid going to the hospital after abuse by her husband to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation. "What if they asked you what happened, what are you going to tell them?" "What kind of witness would it give to the community if it got out that a minister in the congregation had to go to jail?" "Don't you think it would be more appropriate to try again, but be more humble and conforming and win him with a mild manner?" "Spending more time in prayer and study and service is surely the best counsel." My sister came back to the congregation, but she was disfellowshipped for defying this counsel. (She said she would separate and NOT try to get back in her husband's good graces.) I agree that we can always say that it was her unrepentant attitude and anger at the counsel that got her disfellowshipped. I also agree that she was never told NOT to go to the authorities or to specifically LIE to the authorities who might ask her questions at the hospital. But she was definitely pressured for years not to go to authorities and professionals, and even to "lie" through omission of facts if she did go. And she was definitely punished for reacting negatively to the counsel and authority of the elders. I know about similar cases, and even of a case of child abuse that was covered up in the same way through not-so-subtle pressures to "do the right thing" when it comes to the issue of reproach and even "mandatory reporting." But the case of my sister, I know first-hand. I even offered to give my brother-in-law a taste of his own medicine, which was not the Christian thing to do, but I thought it was a pretty fair interpretation of Matthew 18:15 at the time. Another point to remember before we start putting our own organization on too high a pedestal here is that if you count the Catholic population and the reported cases in those districts in Australia and compare them to the population of Jehovah's Witnesses and the reported cases in the same districts, then you see that our problem might even be many times worse than the Catholics. I can't say that it really is worse, because this is also a factor of how accurately such accusations are reported. Also, if you watched the videos from the previous ARC hearings, you might also be surprised to learn who the abusers were in several of the 1,000+ cases reported among Witnesses. I had heard that at least one of these abusers would be revealed in a separate case by November 2016, but that case is evidently under some kind of gag order, or otherwise delayed under some slow-moving wheels. So please strike what I said and forget I said anything about it. But I am almost certain that the plan is to engage some of these cases in public courts. (Partly because some lawyers involuntarily salivate when money is involved.) I don't think too many Australian Witnesses are holding their heads very high when the topic is brought up during witnessing activities.

I think you understand my position from previous discussions, but I will clarify. I don't hold to that unnecessarily extreme position. I assume that Jesus can "become" king again at a date considerably later than the time when he is first exalted to the right hand of God. I believe he was made King in 33 CE, but I also believe that what holds true for Jehovah should also hold true for Jesus: that there can indeed be events and accomplishments of that Kingdom after 33 CE for which we could say again say that "Jesus has become King." In a previous discussion the point was about whether it was OK to say that Jesus had not yet secured full Kingdom power in 33 CE. And that is the primary question behind the OP here, too. I think it would be wrong to say that he didn't have full authority (power) in 33 CE if Jesus made a specific point of telling us that he did in Matthew 28:18: "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." - KJV "Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: 'All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. . . .' " - NWT Imagine how little sense it would make if someone claimed that an earthly ruler did not have the authority to do something just because he hadn't done it yet. What if they said any of the following things? "Julius Caesar does not yet have the authority to invade Gaul because he hasn't done it yet." "Caesar Augustus was just crowned and enthroned as the Emperor, but let's not call him Emperor until some point in the future when he takes some specific action we are waiting for." So when Jesus is called the King of Kings (another term for Emperor) the exact point is made in 1 Timothy: that even though he has not made all his power manifest yet, he is still already holding all that power, and will manifest it at the appointed time. (1 Timothy 6:13-15) 13 Before God, who preserves all things alive, and Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, Also, since Paul mentions the "fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate" it might be good to review that declaration in total: (Matthew 27:11) 11 Jesus now stood before the governor, and the governor put the question to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus replied: “You yourself say it.” That's the entire declaration that Matthew, Mark and Luke chose to mention. And therefore it could have been the entire declaration that Timothy would likely be aware of, since it was quite possible John had not likely been written yet. John adds just a little more to it: (John 18:36, 37) 36 Jesus answered: “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.” 37 So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king.. . ." So that "declaration" itself was about Jesus' kingship. (And this was, of course, a few days before his resurrection and ascension.)

There is a ridiculous way to implement this and the report pointed that out. But there should be a minimum level of evidence that every person should be able to look for which makes child abuse suspected. For example: The child or young adult complains to ANYONE that someone touched them inappropriately and points out the places where he or she was touched. The child or young adult complains to ANYONE that they were forced to touch an adult inappropriately. There are signs of abuse or trauma actually seen by a parent or medical professional even when the child or young adult will not explain or cannot explain where these signs came from (blood, bruises, etc.) Believe it or not, even though those three points might seem obvious to you or me, legally they still only point to a "suspicion" of child abuse. And worse, every one of these OBVIOUS signs and complaints has been seen and heard by parents, guardians, school nurses, police, teachers, coaches, EMS, college presidents, etc., and yet persons in all these categories did not always report the suspected abuse. So the specter of unnecessary trauma should not cloud the reasonable implementation of mandated reporting. An inspection by a medical or trained professional need not be any more invasive in these situations than any other type of examination by a doctor. (And for that matter, parents should also be present even for doctors' examinations. The recent report on 60 Minutes of a famous gymnastics injury therapist should be kept in mind. He evidently got away with hundreds or even more than a thousand cases of child abuse, before enough children complained.)

Yes. I watched the hearings (what I could stand of them at least) and this point was clear from Brother Jackson.

Not exclusively to Armageddon, though. As I know you are aware, Daniel 12:1 was once a key part of the argument that Jesus was not really King in 33 CE but had to wait until 1914. It was part of a 3-part proof. It's true that Jesus sat down at Jehovah's right hand in 33 CE, but this doesn't mean he actually became King in 33 CE. (This covered the many references to Psalm 110 in the Greek Scriptures.) That's because when he was "sitting," this was an indication that he was "sitting and waiting" until Jehovah was ready to enthrone him as Messianic King so that he could, at that future time, begin conquering in the midst of his enemies. This fits Hebrews 10:12, 13 "[he]. . . sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet." The time would come for Jesus to stop sitting and finally stand up. So Daniel 12:1 was used here to show that Jesus would stand up at the beginning of his rulership as King. Not sure, but you were probably remembering that for many years we taught that he "stood up" in 1914: *** w85 7/1 p. 28 par. 20 Triumphing in “the Final Part of the Days” *** This Michael is Jesus Christ, who ‘stood up’ in his Kingdom in 1914, promptly to eject Satan from the heavens. But now, the teaching has changed a bit. Jesus was already standing in 1914, but also stands up at Armageddon. He stands up while he is already standing, so that we simply say that it was in a different sense of "standing up." The bracketed information in the quote below was not added, it's in the original article: *** w15 5/15 p. 30 par. 3 Questions From Readers *** “During that time Michael [Jesus Christ] will stand up [at Armageddon], the great prince who is standing [since 1914] in behalf of your people. I don't know if it ever made it into a Watch Tower publication, but maybe it's in one of the old "Sermon Outlines" or one of the two versions of the "Make Sure of All Things" books. But at a KM school the question was once asked why Stephen said he already saw Jesus "standing" at the right hand of God. (Acts 7:54-56) . . .. 55 But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.” The answer was that Stephen, like John in Revelation, must have been seeing Jesus in the future, after 1914. As far as I know, this is not a necessary part of our doctrinal explanation. (If it ever really was.) [Do you, or any of the other "old-timers" remember if this was ever in print? I vaguely remember seeing it but can't remember if it was published.] *** w86 10/15 p. 6 A Change of Rulership—Soon! *** However, Jesus did not begin his rule over mankind in 33 C.E. He had a period of waiting. It was only after this that Jehovah empowered him to “go subduing in the midst of [his] enemies.” . . . Jesus thus identified himself as Michael who would stand up to rule. . . . These events have been remarkably fulfilled since 1914. Jesus then assumed power in heaven as King, and he has been ruling in the midst of his enemies.—Matthew 24:3, 7-12.

CMP, I'm glad you are leaving 1914 out of it for now. I'm sure it will come up out of necessity, but I agree that focusing on what we know about the time of Jesus kingship in 33 CE is a key to understanding, because "33 CE" is mentioned so often in the scriptures as the time when Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven. (I understand that some scholars would put this at 30 CE based on evidence from Josephus linked with Luke, especially. But I'm fine with just calling it "33 CE" as long as we all know that we mean especially the time of Jesus resurrection and/or ascension.) What I was saying in the quote above was that there really are a couple of verses that should make us reconsider if Jesus kingship in 33 CE is the full explanation of what the scriptures mean by his kingship. I believe that Eoin has just pointed them out perfectly. I wasn't trying to completely dismiss your points from Daniel 2, 7 and Rev 11. I was just trying to show that we couldn't rely on them to dismiss the "real" kingship that started in 33 CE. I agree that all of them could have referred to the Kingdom at any of its "milestone" events or accomplishments. But the fact is that we already know the Kingdom could have started in 33 CE according to the many scriptures that indicate that it did. With that in mind none of those additional references actually contradicted this. All of them could be seen as agreeing that the Kingdom started in 33 CE and then, over time, there could be any number of events that might be seen as highlights of the manifestation of that kingdom. Any one of those highlighted times or events could correctly be seen as a time when the "Jehovah became King" or "Jesus took the throne" or the "Kingdom began," or the "Kingdom would arrive" (as in "Let your Kingdom come.") I think we should get back to the points about Daniel and Revelation. But if you don't mind, I think that Eoin's post provides a stronger replacement to the argument you were making from Romans 4:17. Either one would allow us to resolve the scriptures that indicate that Jesus kingship began in 33 AND the idea that we could claim that it also starts at a later time. Eoin's solution appears to be that both ideas can (and should) be true. Are you OK with this particular direction to the discussion, that Eoin has presented? Perhaps you still wanted to go into more detail with the original point you were making. I'm sure you were just outlining the discussion anyway, and might have been ready to add many more good reasons to continue in the original direction.

Sorry. Missed that one completely. Not your fault though. Just didn't expect it.

Yes. To me it means that trying to see the future is like aiming at a moving target that moves in random directions. And no, I don't claim any superior education. Everyone is American high school is usually offered a foreign language to learn, although not too many high schools offer German any more like they did when I went to school. Your English is much better than you think it is.

I remember that was taking my first year learning German in school when I first read the highlighted sentence, and assumed that the writer was foreign, because the word-order in the sentence is not standard English. Now I know that the style was that of Fred Franz, who could sometimes sound like he could "speak Yoda" from the assembly platform once or twice per speech. Yoda, in Star Wars, said things like: "Do not underestimate the power of the Emperor or suffer your father's fate you will." "Not if anything to say about it I have." On the subject of Gog of Magog, however, Yoda's most appropriate quote would probably be: “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future..”

Thank you for organizing this discussion. In the next few days I would love to delve into this subject again. My first take on it is as follows: I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected Agree that this is the primary starting point, and that these and several other scriptures make up the bulk of the instances to work from. These scriptures do put it in the past tense, as if Jesus was already king, and as if the focus of the entire first-century preaching work was that Christians were already claiming that "there is another king, Jesus." II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected In my opinion there really are a couple of verses that give us pause about whether the above (Point #1) tells the whole story. However, I don't believe that these particular verses from Daniel chap 2, chap 7 and Revelation chap 11 make "Point #1" difficult to accept. In context, I believe they even add extra support to "Point #1." For example, (Daniel 2:34, 35) ". . .You looked on until a stone was cut out, not by hands, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and of clay and crushed them. . . . But the stone that struck the image became a large mountain, and it filled the whole earth." The idea of a kingdom that begins in a way that can fill the entire earth over time is perfectly aligned with a kingdom that takes power "in the midst of its enemies." It also fits many of Jesus illustrations about the Kingdom that for example: (Matthew 13:31-33) . . .“The Kingdom of the heavens is like a mustard grain that a man took and planted in his field. 32 It is, in fact, the tiniest of all the seeds, but when it has grown, it is the largest of the vegetable plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and find lodging among its branches.” Daniel 7 also provides a scenario of what will occur with the Kingdom over time. The Kingdom is given to someone like a son of man in verse 13, and 14. The holy ones will also receive the kingdom, but only after the horn makes war on them and, quoting, Daniel 7:22, ". . . the appointed time arrived for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom." Clearly Christ receives the kingdom before the holy ones receive it. Revelation 11 matches the same time-based scenario perfectly: (Revelation 11:17, 18) . . . 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 . . . the holy ones . . . III How to harmonize both sets of verses Because there is no contradiction between "Point #1" and "Point #2" there is nothing to harmonize, and it does not become necessary to invoke a time shift through the idea that it is OK for Jehovah to call something prematurely just because it is so sure to happen. In this case it is still OK to accept all the verses for what they actually say. No twisting or stretching required. It would not make a lot of sense to try to override the idea given in about 50 verses with an idea imposed upon it from unrelated verses anyway. In every case, in the verses you utilized to claim that these things Paul spoke of were not yet true, they actually were in fact true, and Paul explained why in the context of each of those verses. Paul explained the ways in this was already occurring for Christians who had already brought into the Kingdom of God's beloved Son during the first-century system of things, but that Jesus had already been seated in heavenly places in a better way: (Ephesians 1:21) ". . . not only in this system of things but also in that to come." IV The Third way The idea based on your take of the above points was that Christ only received an appointment to be Lord and King at the time he went to heaven. Based on your idea, "The kingdom was secured" and "the king was crowned" yet "the kingdom would begin, at some time in the future." But, again, we should be careful not to dismiss what 50 verses say, and claim they might mean something else, just because of a verse that apparently had nothing to do with the chronology of the Kingdom, but was really about how Jehovah can 'call things into existence that do not yet exist.' [See NWT, footnote] The context was dealing with resurrection, a promise made to Abraham about his offspring, and the idea that Jehovah could declare Abraham righteous through undeserved kindness based on his faith. There are a few other issues with this idea that the Kingdom had not yet had a start when Jesus was crowned, and "sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty." (Hebrews 8:1) There is a minor theme about Psalm 110 that runs through most of the books of the Greek Scriptures, sometimes quoted explicitly and sometimes referenced in more subtle ways. Christians were already giving allegiance to Christ and only acted as "alien residents" in this system. A king commands his followers and Jesus is shown sending out his disciples to do all the things he has commanded, along with the words "all authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." (Matthew 28:19,20) We would be denying the scriptures if we said that he would obtain more authority at some future time. Just because he had not yet acted on it, does not mean he didn't have it. Other verses, you already quoted, show that this authority was already (Ephesians 1:21) "far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named" at the time that Jesus sat at God's right hand. So if Jesus was already given authority far above every king on earth, then who are we to say that he was not yet a king himself? It smacks of blasphemy, or at least a real lack of appreciation of his authority. Of course, the most important point, I think, is the Psalm 110 theme itself. The Psalm speaks of a king sitting at God's right hand. That king would have the power of his scepter extended by Jehovah himself (v.2), so that he would go on subduing in the midst of his enemies. That phrase covers the point made above about the kingdom starting out as something that would begin to show up the weaknesses of the world powers. World powers that could not conquer the holy ones, but which would grow until a time was reached when it would put an end to those world powers and kingdoms. Anyone who claimed that the king in Psalm 110 was not really a king just because he was only sitting on a throne at God's right hand is missing the entire idea of the Psalm. It's true that the Watchtower has taught that "sitting on a throne at God's right hand" means he is only waiting to become king, but the apostle Paul has ruined that teaching forever. Paul knew that a king could sit on a throne and still be a king. A king sitting on a throne is actually a perfect symbol of rulership, not simply someone "waiting" to be king. This is why Paul paraphrases the term "sitting at God's right hand" in a way that crushes the traditional teaching: (1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing Notice how Paul thinks that "sit at God's right hand" means the same thing as "rule as king." I've included verse 26 because it too crushes the traditional idea we have been taught that Jesus is not king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Clearly, Jesus doesn't completely crush the last enemy until the end of the thousand years. So, do we claim that Jesus is not really king until the end of the thousand years? Obviously not. He has been king all along from the time he began to "rule as king" when he sat at God's right hand. When did he sit at God's right hand? (Acts 2:32, 33) . . .God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God . . .

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem. [In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.]

"Breathtaking. I shall call him... Mini-Me". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Me

If you have a source for that, I'd like to show it to my neighbor.

I didn't miss your point. These morons who simply yell out against us very often do not even know exactly what we teach. Even ones who have been Witnesses, and left, are often just angry because they blame our rules for destroying their families, destroying love between children and parents, husbands and wives, etc. But there comes a time to move on, and do their best to start over. They probably don't realize that yelling out in anger probably just makes all of us more sure that we are right and they are wrong.

I don't have a problem with "morons" either, but only if we are fair and balanced and willing to refer to the Bible Students and early JWs as "morons" for following the instructions to do the same thing with loudspeakers, amplified phonographs, and sound cars in the area of churches. (In Russell's day they targeted churches, but only with tracts, not loud preaching.) My parents and their fathers (my grandfathers) did this, but the closest I ever got to that old-time preaching style, was wearing sandwich signs at the 1963 Peace on Earth convention in Pasadena. Sandwich signs had already lost their popularity by then, but the city servant or assembly servant had made a few for some reason. I was only 6 and I vaguely remember it dragged on the ground in front of me and I think I might have even tripped a time or two. I've seen the picture, and will ask my parents for a copy to post.

There has been an assumption that the US President will reduce regulations on companies that pollute which will make them more profitable. Similarly it is assumed that he will reduce the regulations that keep banks more honest, and that they will therefore become more profitable, too. Same for drug/pharma companies. Companies that make money from privatizing the education system are expected to be more profitable. But the most outstanding rise in stock prices from the time that our current US President became electable was in the area of privatized prisons. Perhaps it was the promise of new detention centers for immigrants, both legal and illegal, and a new crackdown on crime, or a realization that less money spent on health, education and welfare has always been a perfect formula for locking up more people. What's curious about most Americans and much of the rest of the world, too, is that they have long believed that great rises in stock prices ("Wall Street") is a good thing. The types of rises that are seen in the stock market however are mostly a reflection of the ability of companies in general to make more money --profit-- off the backs of people who can't afford to participate profitably in that same market. The stock market is more of a signal of economic greed by the top 1% to 5% than it is of healthy economic growth with benefits that might trickle down to the rest of the population.