JW Insider

2 hours ago, betoken said:

Why are you so angry. Is this considered spamming?

Angry? LOL!

You asked: "Is this considered spamming?" (referring to Pudgy's recent activity shown on his profile page.) Since your first activity on this forum shows up as starting only a couple of hours ago, I should assume that you really don't know and are asking me a sincere and innocent question. So, I'll offer my perspective, and tell you why.

No. Pudgy's profile does not reflect spamming. For reference, I took updated screenshots from the same profile page.  The first line of the first screenshot shows Pudgy reacting to the rather funny statement by Fausto Hoover that told me to calm down. Since that was so much like the very laughable "Why are you so angry?" in your own post. I thought it was funny, too. It definitely deserved a laughing icon, but as you might already know, I have never given any of Fausto's numerous accounts any vote over the last three years except a few up-votes that I thought were well-deserved. I have never given him a down-vote for any reason, and although I have been tempted to give a few laughing votes, I stopped doing that about three years ago too because he misunderstood it. His numerous accounts invariably use the laughing emoji to express derision, so I didn't want to have mine confused for the same. 

On those next two lines, Pudgy reacted to two of my posts about a half-hour apart: that's not unreasonable considering that these were serious posts addressing a serious matter. I'm not sure why you were concerned to add the line that someone named Dandellon Frend reacted to one of his own posts 10 hours earlier or that Srecko had reacted to one of his posts 11 hours earlier.

Then you provided a more recent set of Pudgy's reactions to myself and to you, "betoken," for which I have also updated the screenshot. This time my comments are after the screenshot below.

Starting from the bottom this time, the first is an up-vote reaction to a serious post by me, and the next one up is a serious up-vote reaction to a serious post by Srecko. Nothing spammy about either of those. They are for completely separate people.

Then. yes. he laughed at three very short posts in a row when you, the new person named "betoken" showed up. You may not be aware, but most people laugh when one of Fausto's many "personalities" comes on the scene when he seems to be severely challenged by someone. Some laugh at the childish naivety, thinking that he thinks he is pulling a fast one and that no one is noticing that it's really just him by another name. Pudgy probably thought the same about the "betoken" name. Others have noticed this pattern of bringing in other versions of himself and just laugh at the mess he makes of a topic that reminds them of one of those humorous pictures we've all seen of a dog that chews up a bunch of cushions and then looks up all innocent and sad that he has done all the damage he can but has no more worlds [cushions] to conquer. I laugh, although I don't press the emoji, because it reminds me of a joke I once heard about a person who cheats at solitaire to raise his self-esteem. Then, he probably thought it was funny that you may have thought you could really impute a motive about someone and think it would stick by asking questions like "Why are you so angry?" or better yet: "antagonistic."

I will admit that I thought Pudgy saw the humor in the whole situation and sees the entertainment in watching agenda-driven posts that are so easy to see through. I do think that Pudgy also sees the potential that the laughing emoji will be seen as derision. And I think he should be careful to avoid this. I'm uncomfortable with using that even three times in a row. But a series of three or four laughing emojis is not the same as an unexplained series of 6 down-votes to those who have challenged an agenda, followed immediately by a series of 6 unexplained up-votes to one's current "master" account. Pudgy has never shown evidence of bringing on new accounts just to enhance his own "self-esteem." He stands by his positions and will defend them. Unlike bringing on someone like "Ray" (or his many "brothers") who rarely has anything to say for himself, but will up-vote anything his master wants up-voted, and down-vote just about anything from persons who have challenged him, even if it means haphazardly down-voting a simple Bible scripture or Watchtower quote. 

Anyway, I hope you understand my own perspective a little better about what it means to use the emojis for spamming purposes.

4 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

I can tell you why they didn't want to emphasize BCH. Because BHC did report her claim to the police. There is yet another reason why we should not trust the conclusions made by apostates.

I notice that the date is highlighted on this police form above. Notice that it was 11/10/2000 that "Elder Bennett" gave a statement to "Police Officer Bennett." But look at the ARC exhibits here: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits-case-study-29 and select the document: Report of Appeal Committee regarding [BCH]. If you download it you will see the following:

But this letter is dated: July 1989. This was evidently more than 11 Years before Charman Bennett gave a statement to the police.

38 minutes ago, betoken said:

If Anna and Comfortmypeople emerge to give you an upvote, what would your response be?

Seriously? If anyone started to upvote me the way your doppelgangers upvote you, I'd complain to them that they were spamming, and that, when used excessively, it can give the appearance of unfair bias or sometimes even "mockery" or something "pathetic" instead of agreement. For comparison, here's a screenshot of what Ray's activity on your own profile looked like, all from that same three-minute spamming spree mentioned above:

I think the word "pathetic" comes to the mind of most persons who Witness this kind of thing here.

16 hours ago, Peter Carroll said:

good entertainment at the very least

Looks like Peter Carroll was correct, @Fausto Hoover.

According to your Ray Devereaux profile, [ https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/18582-ray-devereaux/ ] you hadn't brought "Ray" out do your spamming work for you for over 2.2 years, per that post from Srecko back in March 2021. As usual, per all your previous spamming patterns, it's easy to guess who your "Ray" has down-voted, and who your "Ray" has up-voted, without even opening the link above to see the actual posts the following screenshot refers to.  

I know I had promised you I wouldn't keep exposing your multi-personality tactics, and I've kept that promise for nearly two years now. But this one had already been exposed by others. And it also made me realize that this is all a game to you anyway, and it really does you no harm to expose you. After all, you already admitted that "someone" will just come back under a different name in the worst case: i.e, if any admin happens to discover this latest flailing of yours, for example. Anyway, I'm not asking that you get banned again over this practice. I think it actually helps everyone see through your tactics. I hope they leave you to own devices and machinations. 

If I continue to respond on this topic, it's not because I care whether or not you agree. It's just that there are others here who see how serious this topic is, and don't think all of it is part of a game.

unnecessarily edited 2 hours later to add:

P.S. Just thought I'd quickly check to see all the emoji activity on your own account while Ray was on that 3 minute spamming spree. Looks like you did pretty well this time, almost as many upvotes as last time:

Unfortunately, this software doesn't keep track of such iconic activity for more than a few hours, so I thought I'd check your profile before they disappeared.

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/20274-fausto-hoover/?wr=eyJhcHAiOiJmb3J1bXMiLCJtb2R1bGUiOiJmb3J1bXMtY29tbWVudCIsImlkXzEiOjkwNjEzLCJpZF8yIjoxODMzNDl9

and that's where I got the above screenshot.

3 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Because BHC did report her claim to the police.

If "BHC" was a victim herself, and reported to the police, then is not related to the common claim about whether any congregation elders, the Branch, or legal representatives of the Branch, ever voluntarily reported any cases to the police. I guess I see your point, though. It's possible that someone could have found a way to add up any of the 1700+ cases that actually did finally make it to the police even if it was from victims themselves. Yet we already know that many of these reports happened many years after the congregation's and Branch documents showed that they already were aware of some of these cases, and had never reported them. Most of the time, the victims who reported also waited many years before reporting. If this is the case, then I am pretty disgusted with Holly Folk's false implication about the 383. I understand that they (at BitterWinter) want to build a niche audience supportive of "new religions" and their support is often helpful. But it should be done honestly or it isn't worth so much in the long run. 

1 hour ago, Fausto Hoover said:

The number you promote. Therefore, it's your contention the information is true.

I don't promote these numbers to be true at all. I can only refer to the numbers that show up in the documents that were, for a time, all available on the ARC website. I have no way of verifying if those numbers are correct. I can only verify what numbers I have seen within those documents. The documents could be completely without merit for all I know. I have made it pretty clear that it is NOT my contention that the information is true. It could be a lot worse than these numbers purport, or it could be a lot better. All I have is the data provided.

This is why my focus was on where that claim of "383 cases reported to the police" came up. It wasn't in any early discussions of the ARC. I didn't see it in any ARC documentation. I vaguely recalled a claim that some [more recent] cases really had been reported to the police, but no one made a claim that reports related to the 1.006 perpetrators came from the Witnesses, or from the Branch, or from congregation Elders. From what I can see so far, it was first on Bitterwinter many years after the ARC hearings. I assumed I must have missed that key piece of data, and it would be very useful data to prove bias on the part of the Australian court.

1 hour ago, Fausto Hoover said:

The number you promote. Therefore, it's your contention the information is true. . . . The false claim was never retracted and that would have been helpful.

Yes, the exhibit information is there in my post. The exhibit information is too lengthy.

I'm not at all concerned about whether you agree with Jehovah's Witnesses who report 1,006 perpetrators vs those who read it as 1,006 cases of CSA. Your Bitter Winter "Holly Folk" link does not deny that they were "perpetrators." On the link you provided, she says:

Based on this document, the media reported that there had been 1,006 perpetrators who had committed sexual crimes in Australia . . .

I have no stake one way or another as to whether these numbers are correct, and it's a bit late to try to get a retraction from Holly Folk, or to get a retraction from all the JWs and non-JWs who reported those numbers as they read them.

You referred to some contention over the numbers, and you indicated that JWs are making a "false claim" when they read this as 1,006 perpetrators. Against that supposedly "false claim" you said: Yes, the exhibit information is there in my post." And you said: "My exhibit of the ARC document proves my point ."

I looked for that exhibit and found nothing that counters the numbers provided by other Witnesses, or the Branch numbers, or Holly Folk. It turned out that your exhibit had nothing to do with the numbers you claimed were false. It had to do with the timing of certain CSA policies.

9 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

My exhibit of the ARC document proves my point

Sorry. I didn't see your exhibit of the ARC document. Is it in this thread?

19 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Inflating figures without substantial evidence is an unwise decision.

Deflating them is unwise, too.

19 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

You are the original author of the submitted post.

That's a very odd, and unsubstantiated accusation. I'm not the original author. Just as I would not claim that you are somehow the author of the incorrect information about only 1,006 "cases." That same misinformation had been spread dozens of times before you repeated it. It's not your fault. Also, I have never made a comment on reddit, or do I have an account there anyway. So the JW defender who happens to disagree with you, is NOT me. He just happens to agree with me and he happens to agree with the ARC data provided by the Watchtower Branch.

1 hour ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Part of the ARC allegation was the 2 witness rule and how the victim was forced to confront the accused.

The problem here was that much of the data came from a time when the victim really was forced to confront the accused. And there was evidence that it had happened since 1999, too. And the elders testifying at the ARC didn't help when they wouldn't reject the old policy. 

And of course, a similar problem happened when the elders, even Bro. Jackson himself wouldn't completely reject the court's understanding of how we implement the two-witness policy.

On 6/7/2023 at 9:43 PM, Fausto Hoover said:

Well, perhaps one day. The ARC presented the 1006 cases in their investigation. Perhaps the other cases you have mentioned were rejected by them. Therefore, the total amount after 65 years should stay at 1006.

The thing is, it never was 1,006 cases [instances]. It was 1,006 perpetrators, per the numbers the Watchtower Branch provided to the ARC. It was always at least 1,732 cases, per the numbers the Watchtower Branch provided to the ARC. 1,006 "cases" was just a very common sloppy reading of the numbers. I saw it being misreported that way on the first day of the ARC hearings. Only a few people corrected it. I recalled the number vaguely because when I saw people making the correction, I looked it up myself to make sure it was right before commenting on it.

Although I have looked at my notes, I still haven't got out my old computer with the files (and I don't plan to for at least a week). But I did find a site (unfortunately it is generally an anti-JW site) and that site has numbers that pretty much match all my own notes from MS-OneNote. I won't link to it, but you could look up any of the lines in Google and would probably find it easily:

I don't know if every statement is true. I don't even know if the Watchtower Branch provided all the data. (In fact, I heard from the Australian brother that several Witnesses were already suspicious when some notorious cases were missing from the Gold Coast, Queensland area.) At any rate, here is their summary of the ARC data that generally matched my own notes taken directly from the ARC data:

• There was at least 1732 children who were sexually abused. Over 650 of those children were abused by family members.
• At least 170 of the children sexually abused were under the age of 5.
• There was 1006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of that number, 15 were women.
• 579 of the alleged abusers confessed to their crime(s). 306 did not. Of the remaining 121, it’s unclear whether they confessed or not.
• 95 of the alleged child abusers were not Jehovah’s Witnesses when they committed their first sexual abuse.
• 65 of the alleged child abusers were ministerial servants; 42 were elders;  8 were pioneers; and 1 was a circuit overseer.
• At least 56 ministerial servants and 27 elders were deleted from their roles. 6 elders and 2 ministerial servants were re-appointed to their roles.
• Over 33 ministerial servants, 13 elders and 1 pioneer were disfellowshipped.
• 14 ministerial servants, 4 elders and 1 pioneer were convicted for Child Sexual Abuse by the Australian authorities, yet 3 of those elders and 3 of those ministerial servants were never disfellowshipped for their crimes.
• Not a single instance of Child Sexual Abuse was ever reported to the authorities by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

On 6/7/2023 at 8:28 PM, Fausto Hoover said:

Could you explain why you rounded the number of reported cases to 1700 while there are many others that went unreported?

Sure. I had added that information to a post a ways back, but I added it by editing the post almost 3 minutes after I first posted it and you had already responded to before seeing the edit. Here it is:

On 6/7/2023 at 7:13 PM, JW Insider said:

If memory serves, however, it was 1006 perpetrators and about 1700+ children. (Many perpetrators are reported to abuse more than one child over long periods of time.) Over a third of the cases were related to their abusers, although this does not always fit the term "incest" which I used rather loosely above. Also although a 20-year time frame covered MOST of the cases, there were several outliers that went further back. I think there might have even been a case where a perpetrator might have admitted to starting his crime spree as early as 1938.

I have the docs on another laptop I stopped using because it was giving me problems. But I did keep notes in OneNote which I can retrieve on any computer. It's not the source, but it says 1,006 perpetrators and 1,732+ children.

When I looked up your link I also noticed that a person identifying as a JW on Reddit is defending against the potential exaggerations. He admits the same thing here:

  https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/a6cmmo/an_answer_from_a_jw_regarding_the_arc_1006_cases/
He (or she) says:

Quote

These data are based on this official ARC document:

1006 is not the number of cases of abuse but the number of people who were at some point accused of child abuse.

20 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Although I intended to share the link, it turned out that the hyperlink was automatically generated. I hope I won't get in trouble.

Thanks. I didn't go too far down the reddit hole to figure out where the person who made the comment was coming from. He seems not to always be very careful with the numbers and his understanding. But anyway, it's clear that his source is Holly Folk, and perhaps someday I will try to find out what HER source was. Perhaps there was a review of statistics coming from the ARC that I missed. At any rate, if the number came from the ARC, then that doesn't provide ammunition against the ARC for bias -- and that was what I was looking for. But if the numbers came from elsewhere, I'd love to know who gave them to Holly Folk and if she quotes a source. 

34 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Please refer to the information I posted for your consideration.

Thanks. I had read the Holly Folk article on bitterwinter some time ago, and I forgot that number 383 reported because Holly Folk was extremely careful to say things that were supportive of the Watchtower's position, yet she seemed to have carefully worded that line so that it didn't actually say that it was the congregations that had reported those 383 incidents. Her article only tried to imply it was the congregation who reported these incidents by saying the 383 was evidence there wasn't a cover-up. Obviously someone had reported them. But there were no reports that Witnesses had ever reported any. Remember that some of these cases were listed in the database because when a CURRENT case comes up in a  congregational judicial matter, the accused may admit to crimes prior to even becoming a Witness. The same issue has come up in the United States where persons previously convicted of CSA crime have become Witnesses only later in life, but their confessions even to prior crimes would be included in a record of some kind so that the elders would know what to watch out for. Some current Witnesses have even served time in their past for previous convictions. Obviously, anything that resulted in a conviction had been reported somewhere, whether a teacher, a bartender, a friend of the victim, a non-Witness parent, or a Witness who went against counsel from the elders.

What I was saying before was that I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are skewed somehow. It's hard to believe that of 1700 incidents and 1000 perpetrators, not one JW would report. 

30 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Understood, let me know if there's anything I can help you with.

Yes. There is. Hopefully, you can help with that Reddit source for the 383 incidents you mentioned. Thanks.

38 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Could you please provide a source that supports your statement? My understanding is that there have been a total of 1006 cases within a 20-year time frame.

Yes, I can. I'll look it up again. I saved the spreadsheet that the ARC had as one of their documents along with a lot of other documents they had on their site. If you can provide the source I asked about (those 383 cases), I will go look up the sources again.

If memory serves, however, it was 1006 perpetrators and about 1700+ children. (Many perpetrators are reported to abuse more than one child over long periods of time.) Over a third of the cases were related to their abusers, although this does not always fit the term "incest" which I used rather loosely above. Also although a 20-year time frame covered MOST of the cases, there were several outliers that went further back. I think there might have even been a case where a perpetrator might have admitted to starting his crime spree as early as 1938.

57 minutes ago, Fausto Hoover said:

I'm curious as to why the 383 incidents that involved police weren't included in the ARC investigation.

I wouldn't be surprised at this. Do you have a source? Is there a reason that the Watchtower lawyers forgot to include this in any kind of defense? I heard a rumor about this too but was surprised that it took so many years for this rumor to begin circulating. But it seems reasonable, and if it were just made up by someone, I'm sure they would have picked a higher number. After all, 1000 perpetrators and at least 1500 unreported cases versus nearly 400 reported incidents is still embarrassing. I'm sure privacy issues were a part of this too, especially in cases of incest, where family members and even victims often insist that nothing is reported to authorities. I now know one of the Australian CSA victims personally, and he says that many cases are about incest, but his own was not. (For him, it was multiple instances of rape over a period of a couple of years. When a young friend of his finally talked him into turning in his rapist, the elder threatened him with blackmail based on lies. )

But I'm all too aware of the old policies of protecting the reputation of the organization (aka, not bringing reproach upon Jehovah's name). My sister went through this with a physically abusive husband and was threatened with discipline herself if she let hospital personnel become aware of her true reasons for being treated. Not nearly so traumatic was my own experience when a Bethelite stole my money on his last day at Bethel. I confided the issue to an elderly brother who lived next door and he and several elders at Bethel wanted me to let it go, not say a word, and they would get the Home Office to refund it. But I took my cue from Brother Knorr who was publicly dismissing at least one Bethelite a week for theft during this time by announcing their dismissal and reasons for it at Morning Worship. So I thought it better to contact the elders in his congregation. I ended up getting the money back. But I wasn't worried about the money. I knew my parents or my brother would replace it in an instant. I think I was just angry at the thief and wanted him to face the music.

It's very difficult to make a presentation without showing bias. The things that are important to one person or group or religion are the thing reported, not the things that are much less important. This presentation above was extra careful to present only things that were factual, but even here a couple of biases slipped in.

For one thing, the narrator claims by strong implication that no changes to CSA policy were initiated in the wake of the Australian Royal Commission. This isn't true. First of all, Bro Jackson made some excellent points about how responsibility for CSA policies cannot just be one-sided where all blame appears to be put on an organization when the organization itself often has no blame in the matter. Primary blame is always on the perpetrators of the crime, but policies to deal with it include government and law enforcement policies. It's true that many individuals within the organization have not always followed the law, but the law itself is often inconsistent, and frankly, the authorities have not earned public trust.

The ARC pointed out some of these egregious mistakes and even cover-ups. But the truth is that CSA policies were updated CORRECTLY in the wake of the ARC, and there was also a kind of "public service announcement" that addressed a necessary attitudinal shift among Witnesses: There was to be no more thinking that covering up CSA crimes somehow protected the reputation of the organization. From now on the emphasis was on the fact that all the shame should be centered on the perpetrator. Also, there has been a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the legal issues and more legal personnel have been aiding the organization in this regard.

I get the impression that these new policies and emphasis have been working. There are fewer and fewer NEW cases being tried against JWs. There are many cases still being tried and pending, but they are nearly always from CSA reports that predate the updated policies.  

19 minutes ago, AudreyAnnaNana said:

Since the Kingdom didn't start ruling in 1914, there was no need for those brothers to feel they were not keeping integrity if they were to get a political party card in nations that required it. 

You make your point based on rejection of 1914 as the beginning of the "parousia" and Jesus' reign as king. I also can't see how that idea fits the Biblical references to the parousia. But I believe Jesus was already enthroned much earlier, so it doesn't matter what happened specifically in 1914. Jesus WAS king in 1914 because he had already been raised up much earlier as the Davidic Messiah.

I noticed an earlier comment you made elsewhere where you reject the idea that Jesus became king when he sat down at the right hand of majesty. I understand that there are different ways to interpret "kingship" and "authority." But it's still a legitimate interpretation that Jesus already held his position as "king of kings and lord of lords" because he was given "all authority" at that time including a name which was above all rulers and principalities whether they be in heaven or on earth. Hebrews says that he had a crown at this time, a sceptre at this time, and a throne at this time, and that he was already of the order of Melchizedek who was both king and priest at the same time.

Revelation calls Jesus the "ruler of the kings of the earth." Paul shows that when Psalm 110 used the expression "sit at my right hand" that one should interpret that phrase as "rule as king." 

For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

The examples of Jewish persons who worked for and supported gentile governments is not necessarily seen again in Christian times, where Christians owed their citizenship to the heavens and believed they were just temporary residents in this world.

4 minutes ago, AudreyAnnaNana said:

Well, it looks like he's around, maybe @JW Insider would be willing to give a summary of the political party card issue that happened in Malawi? 😃

I have no desire to get drawn into a conversation about what happened in Malawi, but I would say that (in my opinion) there was nothing wrong with the Watchtower's policy about not purchasing the political party card in Malawi. It was not the fault of the Watchtower that the government in Malawi pushed an agenda of extreme and vicious persecution upon good citizens of Malawi just because they had sound religious reasons not to purchase a political party card.

23 hours ago, boyle said:

@JW Insider Not that I want you to reply, because I don't, but, did you and @BroRando do the numbers?

Does 2016 come up? Does your reference align to the Alpha generation and its ultimate impact?

I probably haven't kept up enough with things being said recently, so I don't really know what you're asking about.

A few months ago, I always tried to read almost everything that everyone would write on this forum. I did this for a few years here but decided it was a bit excessive even though this forum is relatively small. I have read only a very small percentage of posts for about two months now. So I don't really know what you are talking about when you ask if I and BroRando did the numbers. I don't know anything about the significance of 2016 or the "Alpha Generation." I've read that the Alpha generation refers to people born after the year 2000, who are therefore currently about 23 years old or less. I don't recall reading anything from BroRando about 2016 or the Alpha Generation.

I am hopeful that the end of this wicked system comes soon, but I have never believed in trying to tie the future fulfillment of prophecies to specific dates. I'd go so far as to say it's unchristian to get overly involved in such speculation about the times and seasons. But I do understand the desire to peer into such things and always want to learn more about the fulfillment of prophecy. I'm intrigued about whatever you mean about me "doing the numbers" "2016" "Alpha Generation" and whatever you meant by my "reference." I'm sure I didn't refer to any of those things, so I wondered what you meant by that. 

20 minutes ago, boyle said:

Therefore, . . . answer the questions.

I know that the excerpt I just re-quoted here was for another poster, but it reminded me that you hadn't answered my question yet. Please let me know if you intend to answer the question about which part of that article on pages 244-246 gave the "insight" you wanted people to see. (I'm guessing that you meant "insight" that might have supported the current teaching about the "generation" that is sometimes misnamed: the "overlapping generations" doctrine.)

36 minutes ago, boyle said:

I highly recommend delving into the insights of a PhD expert on this topic. I don't think you will understand, but it never hurts to try.

Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (2005) pps. 244-246

I delved into the insights of this article. At least, I read it and found it very easy to understand. But didn't see why you recommended it. Did you think it was supportive of the so-called "overlapping generation" theory, or non-supportive. And in either case, was there something specific in that article you wanted to highlight?  If so, where?

Here's the 2005 edition, for reference pps:244-246:

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

famous for being the suspected dry-erase board mastermind of the “overlapping generations” chart.

Just a teaser here. I found what might be the earliest version of early Christians (or perhaps early apostates?) coming up with their version of the "overlapping generations" theory in the late first century CE or early second century. I'll try to include it when I get some time to respond to a poster's fig tree parable discussion in the more joyful, peaceful, kinder part  of the forum. Seems like too many topics in this part of the forum quickly boil over with festering fruits of the flesh.

On 3/9/2023 at 8:45 PM, The Librarian said:

 

Let's hope our @Queen Esther is ok 😓

 

I messaged her earlier. She says they are OK. Sent our love to them and anyone they know affected by the tragedy.