JW Insider

8 minutes ago, TrueTom said:

It was actually considered to make every American a mandated reporter? If there was suspected child sexual abuse anywhere, everyone would legally bound to report it with legal consequences if they did not?

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.)

6 hours ago, TrueTom said:

Did he really? If so, that should have been the first fact highlighted in any discussion of this subject, for it is the obvious answer.

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

5 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

I wanted to add this scripture to the discussion but the time period refers to Armageddon and not the one I had in mind.

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.

1. 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.)
2. 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."
3. 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.

On 2/26/2017 at 6:26 PM, ComfortMyPeople said:

I’m not saying this moment had to be 1914, only a future date from 33 C.E.

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.)

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In my opinion there really are a couple of verses that give us pause about whether the above (Point #1) tells the whole story.

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.

4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

I was trying to be ironic.

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

46 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Does this sentence reflect doubt, uncertainty?

Yes. To me it means that trying to see the future is like aiming at a moving target that moves in random directions.

46 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

You got Superior Education from a relevant source!

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.

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

This is a warning to the remnant of spiritual Israel and their dedicated sheeplike associates. They should not be surprised that they will have the whole world of mankind under Satan the Devil against them. Not amazed should they be even if military dictatorship world wide came

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..”

4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

• ·       I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected
• ·       II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected
• ·       III How to harmonize both sets of verses
• ·       IV The Third way

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

8 hours ago, TrueTom said:

it is physically more harmful to the lungs.

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

On 2/25/2017 at 8:47 PM, TrueTom said:

 Our morons went on to build a massive infrastructure, even including an 880 language website . . . . When your morons have done the same, then we can talk.

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. 

On 2/23/2017 at 6:22 PM, AllenSmith said:

Some scholars believe the inert name “Pagan” was derived by, the word “Dagan” Fish symbol.

@AllenSmith Do you have any evidence for this connection between the word "Pagan" and "Dagan"?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So nice of you to add this, since you believe the WTS to be in error with their conclusions that COJ refutes as “facts” If your own research concluded the same as COJ then you have made my point.

As you probably know, probably 99% of all Neo-Babylonian scholars who have ever researched the topic of the chronology surrounding the reign of Nebuchadnezzar agree entirely with COJ's research. So it's not specifically COJ's research that I find credible; it's the research of 99% of all Neo-Babylonian scholars. If you have found someone in the 1% whose research you find credible, then by all means present it. It's just that you've had this opportunity several times, and have always, so far, ended up presenting evidence that went against your own claims. After that, you have often tried throwing an "ad hominem" tantrum instead of showing any evidence. Then, I notice that you wait a few weeks or months and either forget what happened, or try to pretend it didn't happen. In spite of these tactics, I'm willing to see you try again. If you think you have evidence this time, please start a new topic.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

JWinsider: If you are referring to research that Allen quoted, you should know that in the past he has quoted much research that he later claimed he did not believe in or which turned out not to be supportive of the idea he apparently thought it was defending.

Once again, a mischaracterization of my intentions. When will you learn? Perhaps you should start blaming your failures of misapplication on scholarly work on yourself instead of trying to push it off on someone else. When I apply; certain works, it’s to show the same line of thought ignorance has embraced.

No mischaracterization at all. I merely stated a fact. And it's a fact that several people on this forum have noticed. It might have been helpful for Aruana to understand that, because right after you posted a lot of research, she asked: "You believe this research?" I assumed you would explain yourself because it was not clear why you posted some of it, and I was pretty sure it was not all research that you believed in yourself. Or as I also said, you may have been using some of it and added some additional research "for context." But at any rate, you certainly haven't made clear what portions of it you believe in and what portions you do not.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Regardless If it's agreeable or not, would be inconsequential since any researcher will read and accept what they want to accept.

If that were the case then they were not really a researcher (if they only read and accept what they want to accept). If a person really is a researcher they will be finding themselves constantly questioning things they have previously accepted. I have finally had to accept many things I didn't want to, but only if there was sufficient evidence against the ideas I had held, and for the idea that came to replace it. And it never means that any of my current ideas are absolutely defined either. Research is a continually humbling experience, because new evidence must always be weighed carefully apart from our preconceived notions. Pride makes us give to much weight to preconceived notions and traditions. But traditions can make the word of God invalid, as Jesus said.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

AllenSmith: Some scholars believe the inert name “Pagan” was derived by the word “Dagan” Fish symbol.

I never saw you or anyone else provide evidence for this. The most likely information I found on the derivation of "Pagan" matches what I see in the Oxford English Dictionary:

pagan, n. and a.

(ˈpeɪgən)

Forms: 4 paygane, 5 pagayne, 5–6 pagane, 5– pagan.

[ad. L. pāgān-us, orig. ‘villager, rustic; civilian, non-militant’, opposed to mīlēs ‘soldier, one of the army’, in Christian L. (Tertullian, Augustine) ‘heathen’ as opposed to Christian or Jewish. The Christians called themselves mīlitēs ‘enrolled soldiers’ of Christ, members of his militant church, and applied to non-Christians the term applied by soldiers to all who were ‘not enrolled in the army’. Cf. Tertullian De Corona Militis xi, ‘Apud hunc [Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis’. See also Gibbon xxi. note.
Cf. payen.
   The explanation of L. pāgānus in the sense ‘non-Christian, heathen’, as arising out of that of ‘villager, rustic’, (supposedly indicating the fact that the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and hamlets after Christianity had been generally accepted in the towns and cities of the Roman Empire: see Trench Study of Words 102, and cf. Orosius i Præf. ‘Ex locorum agrestium compitis et pagis pagani vocantur’) has been shown to be chronologically and historically untenable, for this use of the word goes back to Tertullian c 202, when paganism was still the public and dominant religion, and even appears, according to Lanciani, in an epitaph of the 2nd cent.]

If you actually have information on this connection to Dagan by "some scholars" or any scholar, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested. Do you have any?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So, what you are suggesting like O’Maly is, ONLY your research is worthwhile and acceptable. That’s the funniest thing you’ve said yet.

Actually, as you can see, I didn't say anything about whose research is acceptable, and I have NEVER indicated that only my research is worthwhile and acceptable. Research is usually a process, anyway, not an end in itself. It usually involved comparing evidence with the research of others, which means that by definition, no one in their right mind would ever think that ONLY their own research was valid.

I only indicated that one of the persons who was very well-known for making use of Hislop, and who spent a lot of time trying to validate Hislop ended up seeing his research as "fake" and he also saw first-hand how people went into denial no matter what they saw with their own eyes. This was exactly what Aruana was talking about. I noticed that you didn't requote the part about the Watch Tower dropping their use of Hislop for all the Babylon connections we once used his research to prove. So far, everything I've seen shows that the Watch Tower was correct to "drop" him. I've seen several bits of so-called research from Hislop that is so easy to prove false.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Paraphrasing, Just like an excellent description of the “scholarship” of Carl Olof Jonsson, and a lot of other sloppy scholars who rely on him and people like him.

This is another great example. I didn't accept any of Carl Olof Jonsson's research at first, and when I finally did see it I knew I had to check all the most relevant points for myself. So I ignored his points and conclusions and started on my own.  I spent many days at the NYPL requesting materials from the "stacks." I spent a lot of money in purchased books and photocopying at the library since most of these books were for reference only. I worked in NYC for 25 years, otherwise this would not have been possible. But after I did this for myself, only then could I respect the research he had done, even though, as I have always said, I am NOT a scholar in this area, and it certainly is NOT my specialty. (I only mention that, because I think I remember you claiming the opposite about me once.) 

51 minutes ago, TrueTom said:

In other cases (of simple disagreement) it is the method - blaring a loudspeaker before passing thousands who pay not the slightest attention to you.

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.

15 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Sometimes it is harder to speak to them than to Muslims because they love their idol worship and will tell you directly that they want nothing to do with you because JWs do not worship Mary.  They see Mary as interceding for women and Jesus as interceding for men..  I was flabbergasted when I had a long discussion with a very religious Greek orthodox man and I gave him a good chance to explain to me where Mary fits in in his church!

That's interesting. I read recently that a lot of Muslims are confused about the Christian God because they think he that he is supposed to be a Trinity of the "Father, Son and Mary" and that this has made Muslims think of "Allah" as a kind of name for God that distinguishes Allah from the Christian God. Therefore, on the Muslim side of this equation, several of them have this exact same argument, some saying that Allah just means "the true God" therefore the same as the Abrahamic "God" of the Jews, and others insisting that it must be a different, or even higher name for God. Some have even shown concern for the plural "elohim" in Hebrew, and of course, all of them reject the plural "Trinity" in nominal Christianity.

On 2/25/2017 at 2:13 AM, Arauna said:

Many of these western scholars  make me laugh when they come up with their silly ideas sometimes.  They live in secluded little worlds and become big frogs in small ponds (academics) but have not seen the real thing!  Especially when they start going into denial of what their eyes see because they want it to be different and make a name for themselves.

This sounds like an excellent description of the "scholarship" of Alexander Hislop, and a lot of other sloppy scholars who rely on him and people like him. Recently I quoted a person who had based his books on Hislop's "scholarship" and was making money off of it (The Two Babylons). After years of additional research, he realized it was "fake news" and rejected it, even though it meant a loss of money and fame for himself. He received all kinds of accusations, almost the equivalent of death threats just because he could no longer use fake scholarship in good conscience.

The Watch Tower also stopped using his fake scholarship many years ago, but it is still popular on the Internet because it fits what a lot of people want to believe.

On 2/25/2017 at 2:13 AM, Arauna said:

You believe this "research?"

All I am saying is that we need to be very careful before accepting so-called research just because it fits preconceived ideas or appears to be partly true. If you are referring to research that Allen quoted, you should know that in the past he has quoted much research that he later claimed he did not believe in or which turned out not to be supportive of the idea he apparently thought it was defending. 

On 2/24/2017 at 9:47 PM, AllenSmith said:

Yahweh is given the titles ’ēl or ba‘al, or is called “the Sun,” or is attributed their features. The word addition may also be applied to the incorporation of distinctly different attributes within Yahweh. Both solar and storm language are attributed to Yahweh in different passages and even within the same units. Similarly, Yahweh embodies both male and female, both El and Asherah.

I don't think that Allen is really saying he believes that Yahweh as a name is associated with the Sun (Shemesh is sun in Hebrew and Shamash is the name of the Mesopotamian/Babylonian Sun god.) Nor is the name itself applied in order to embody both male and female traits, as Allen quoted above. Perhaps Allen was quoting this portion for additional context. But either way, it shows what I was saying before: that we need to be very careful in our acceptance of scholarship and research.

Almost every bit of "research" that has been claimed of Muslim religion has a similar scholarly corollary in the way research shows us that Hebrew religion was practiced. Monotheism was a difficult thing for ancient peoples. Egypt tried it for a while too, and reverted. Jehovah blessed Israel as a holy nation to the extent that they maintained monotheism in his name.

Linguistically, there appears to be more evidence that the Arabic "allah" is from "al-ilah" (the God) -- also see, Aramaic "ʼĔlāhā", and Hebrew "Eloah" (70 times in the Bible). "Eloah" is used the same as the same as Aramaic "Elah." And "ilah" (Arabic for god or God) is traceable, therefore, to the same word for God found in the Aramaic portions of Daniel. When Hebrew puts the word "the" in front of it, it implies "the only true God." (Psalm 18:32, for example) This is exactly the purpose of Arabic putting the word "the" in front of it so that "al-ilah" means the only true God. The contracting of "Al-ilah" to "Allah" is a very common form of contraction that happens with other similar words. Words, over time, are contracted very similarly in Hebrew and English, too, of course.

Christian Arabs today have no other word for God but Allah. What word does the Arabic Watchtower use for God? Before Islam even existed, Arab-speaking Christians used the word "Allah" as the word for God -- for 500 years before Muhammad was born.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Islam has tried very hard to hide its connections to moon worship but one of my elderly bible students (if they are older Muslims) know of this. Modern apologists of course also try to hide this fact.  Many of the rituals etc. come from pagan worship.

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

So, all evidence that man claims, is inconsequential with what is written in scripture.

It's pretty obvious, as Allen has indicated, that we have to be very careful with what we call "established fact" when it's about evidence that one group claims in order to claim superiority over another group.

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

In analyzing the beliefs of the Harranians as reported in the literature, we must be careful to distinguish the nature of these sources. Muslim material on Harran is wildly contradictory,

I'm reminded that there are hundreds of nearly identical examples in scholarly religious discussion about the Hebrew God, Jehovah/YHWH and much of it based on artifacts and linguistic evidence. Furthermore, much of the scholarship on these sources of Biblical/Jewish/Hebrew religion is not from antagonistic sources, but the majority from Jewish and Christian sources.

The name Jehovah itself has been linked to many pagan sources. This doesn't mean it's true. There were also false gods and fables that spread throughout the Near East and apparently gave the Hebrews many of their words for things that other nations worshipped. There are connections between the festival for Esther and the moon. The Hebrew word for the Sun matches the Babylonian Sun-God. The same goes for many other words. This continues in the Greek Scriptures with words from the Greeks like Hades and Tartarus.

The sun-moon-stars motif is also found in the Bible, if Israel, and :

• (Genesis 37:9, 10) . . .“I have had another dream. This time the sun and the moon and 11 stars were bowing down to me.” 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 as well as your mother and your brothers really going to come and bow down to the earth to you?”

That doesn't mean that the Jews were steeped in Moon worship. Yet, some people think that this motif (where the sun, moon and stars represented Israel) is reflected in Jesus prophecy about the destruction of the Jewish system of things, when Jerusalem was to be destroyed in 70 C.E., and again when Revelation speaks of Jesus as having been born out of the nation of Israel as heir to Messianic kingship:

• (Matthew 24:29) . . ., the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven. . .
• (Revelation 6:12, 13) . . .and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the entire moon became as blood, and the stars of heaven fell to the earth as when a fig tree shaken by a high wind drops its unripe figs. [the fig tree was a symbol Jesus had used for Israel]
• (Revelation 12:1, 2) . . .A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth. [compare the Genesis quote above about 11 stars instead of 12]

And while there are suppositions about how the sources of Muslim culture and practice are related to fertility, Jehovah is depicted in our own Bible as demanding one of the most significant fertility rites of all. Jehovah was the one who said that the rite of circumcision was directly related to fertility and nothing else. (Genesis 17:1-9)

Also, we have to be careful about assigning the same value to various hadith and oral traditions to the entire Muslim faith. Some of the Muslim fundamentalist cults (like the entire country of Saudi Arabia) select certain of these traditions and give these portions the same weight of the Koran. Most Muslim scholars reject this practice, even if the hadith supposedly says something true about Muhammad himself.

Remember that we also reject much of the "Bible" writings that Catholicism accepts. We call it apocryphal and don't include it in the Bible. The Jews have a huge body of oral traditions, too. And it's embarrassing to read these Jewish writings and find highly respected rabbis discussing whether whether the Bible indicates that it's OK to have sex with a child at age 3, or whether they should wait until age 8 or 9.

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.

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

Of course we must teach them this but sometimes they just want to  "take" more than "give".  Because witnesses are so 'giving' these people can become predators.   So we must be careful to keep the right focus - first on spiritual help. 

That point was also made clear in the article. Thought of you as I was reading it. You've specialized in the very type of work the article was all about.

35 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Yeah... I feel great pain for the ones we have chased away,

I agree, but I didn't think you would go there on this particular article. Based on the history of "new light" we obviously have had a mix of valid and invalid teachings. We would be foolish to think that this track record somehow disappears after each and every correction. Yet we sometimes act as if our doctrines are unquestionable, or at least that we should treat them as if they are.

The one thing I saw in the article that reminded me of you was this statement:

*** w17 May p. 5 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
GIVING REFUGEES PRACTICAL HELP
11 At first, we may need to supplement our brothers’ food, clothing, or other basic needs. Even small gestures, like giving a brother a necktie, mean a lot.

I was thinking, "a necktie"? Really? That's on par with supplementing their food, clothing  and other basic needs? It reminded me of a satirical post you made once and something similar I saw once in "The Onion."

On 2/22/2017 at 10:44 AM, Anna said:

Thank you JWI for sharing another, albeit sad, story. I gather this happened around the time of trouble when quite a few were disfellowshipped including one of the GB members, resulting in paranoia and the "witch hunt" where even private thoughts were questioned and became a disfellowshipping offense.....

Yes. This started late in 1981, a little before the GB member was disfellowshipped, but after he had been asked to resign from the Governing Body. These kinds of things were not typical, as far as I could tell, except around the epicenter of Brooklyn Bethel.

On 2/22/2017 at 9:43 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

Above all, many thanks JWI for sharing so sensitive subjects.

You're welcome. As I mentioned to Anna, I thought that this kind of thing was much more rare outside of the headquarters area. I appreciate getting a better picture from some of the anecdotes you have included on the topic.

Percy's case was the most extreme that I took personally, and which made my blood boil. There was another, but I won't tell it again now in any detail (about my sister being asked to put up with her violently abusive husband and to try more meekness, field service and prayer, because they didn't want to remove his privileges as a ministerial servant).

But please remember that these are told in the context of the time that they happened. We are nowhere near perfect, and we don't really claim to be, but we have all seen many improvements, especially in the last decade or two. And I think that all of us continue to expect more big improvements, some of which are likely to surprise us.

In fact, I was pleased that @Eoin Joyce didn't think this was the whole story (about Percy) and that @TrueTomimplied that such stories might be only partially true. When something that happened is extremely difficult to believe, then it should be that much less likely to ever happen again.

I notice that the question of dirty laundry and motive also comes up, which shouldn't be surprising. The question should be welcomed. If we are concerned about truth and justice and improvements and error and tradition and 'strongly entrenched things' then the common "refrain" will be the request to refrain. Accusations of pride and apostasy are expected too. Love for the brotherhood should override these minor obstacles, however, and we should do our best to imitate Biblical examples of faith and courage.

I appreciate the discussion. If we see error we should spotlight it. In the long run, this makes the light of truth shine more brightly.

(Mark 4:21, 22) 21 He also said to them: “A lamp is not brought out to be put under a basket or under a bed, is it? Is it not brought out to be put on a lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I present the Draft Copy of the December 2016 issue

It nearly stubbled me.

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Why do I feel I am not getting the full story here?

I'm sure there are two or more sides to every story. We met Percy probably about 80 times. I was very interested in his reasons and his reasoning. He had no senility of any kind, and I like that he focused on the positive. He would show me how fast he could get up from his chair. He could walk, and even get up the stairs, but it was painfully slow. Still, he didn't want the wheelchair. It was really for people like me who were impatient to get him from point A to point B and back as quickly as possible. His complaints were usually about food, and he was very particular about how his food was cooked, but he was very appreciative. He discussed recipes with my wife, and told us both a lot of wonderful stories and experiences, some of which have probably appeared in past yearbooks and from assembly platforms.

I tried to imagine what would have happened between Percy and the elders that made him seem like such a danger. He had been in the same congregation for 50 years, and hadn't got in trouble before. Of course, I finally asked him and he was very clear about it. The elders asked him to reveal private conversations with his friends that he had discussed Bible topics with where those topics were out of harmony with current Watchtower teachings. He had made it clear to the elders that he wouldn't discuss private conversations with his friends. This is obviously an affront to the entire process because it does not show deference to the authority of the elders. He had three judicial hearings, and even went to 124 Columbia Heights for the last one.

You probably know that there was a set of questions in those days that Bethel elders were asking of persons suspected of disloyalty. One of them was the question about whether the "suspect" believed that the Watchtower Society and its Discreet Slave was the only organization Jehovah was using to feed spiritual truth on the earth today. (Don't know if Percy told this to the elders, but to me he said answered that same question with another question about how the scripture says, 'For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.) He thought the question itself was not fully scriptural, which ultimately leads to the fact that he is questioning the faithful and discreet slave. As I'm sure you know, that was the true and only definition of apostasy at that time: "Do you question the faithful and discreet slave?" If the judicial committee can get you to either directly or indirectly answer that question in the affirmative, then you are an apostate.

I would never claim that Percy was exactly right in his opinion. And I would never suggest that anyone be so blunt with elders on a judicial committee, especially one with Bethel elders. At Bethel, many of the long-term elders are completely divorced from the reality of living in the real world. There was often little room for justice to be tempered with mercy inside Bethel. Every week, we had to listen to Brother Knorr and and others make loud and angry tirades about who was being kicked out of Bethel for this or that. We sometimes had to sit through the shame and embarrassing details of their sins. I heard it was much, much worse under Rutherford where he was able to dress down someone until he got them to cry in front of hundreds of people. I don't think some of these brothers were trained to think of real-world consequences to the person being judged, or the subsequent consequences to their own reputation for acting harshly.