JW Insider

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

How would the poster justify the banning of others just to keep your group intact?

Exactly. I don't think that can be justified unless the behavior is so outrageous that even you would want someone banned for unjustifiable personal attacks on yourself or calls for violence against your religion's leading representatives or some other outrageous forms of speech, imagery, etc. I don't think we should be dishing it out, but I think all of us should learn to handle some name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It's the nature of religious, political and otherwise ideological discussion these days. If we can't handle it, it's something we should discuss with others, because we're just going to see more and more of it in this world.  

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

Can a person regain their old identity? If not, then why speak of something that's out of someone's control. Yet, the anonymity is high in forums.

I agree with this too. Although I would hate to be the one involved in meting out warnings and suspensions, I think that the worse that should happen is a temporary suspension for those who have OBVIOUSLY broken the rules. Perhaps the suspensions should get a bit longer if a person breaks the rules more often. But the problem is about being fair, because two people may cause just as must dissension and disruption, but one might be more liked or disliked and people would be quicker to suspend the one they dislike. I don't like the fact that a person who is banned forever can't get their posts back, and most of those posts just disappear. If only a couple of posts deserved warnings and suspensions, that's no reason to destroy a history of work by that person.

The only kinds of accounts I would like to see banned are those that come on here like "bots" just to sell a product, where you can't interact with the person about their product. Some software bans them automatically, but a few have slipped onto this forum just to spam with links to advertisements of products.

There's also the idea of private sub-groups. I like these, but they can be overused. I belong to a couple of small mostly JW Biblical discussion forums where you have to be invited. This is fine as far as it goes, and if someone could just come on there to disrupt it would make no sense to invite them. Like having a discussion forum about cats where someone comes on there just to talk about how they hate cats.

56 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Not sure, but this kind of reasoning remember me to another person very tidy [not sure if this is a correct word] you used to have long talks with him

Yes. I don't think anyone else (who has watched multiple-page discussions with him) really doubts that they know him from previous accounts. But not me.  I won't make a big deal about that any more. I told him I wouldn't. He has just as much right to post as anyone, under whatever account name he chooses. It's not like he's really fooling anyone anyway.

36 minutes ago, Moise Racette said:

You made your calculation and somehow came up with 1866.

True. I used your number. Makes me wonder what date you thought your number would lead you? You might be able to see your mistake for yourself if you could answer that. Where did you think your 653 date would lead? 

36 minutes ago, Moise Racette said:

Wrong again. I mentioned what I posted. If the poster used the first volume to make an erred argument, then that's the poster's problem. 

It just means that either you can't see it yet, or if you can, you prefer to pretend that you can't see it so that you don't have to admit a mistake. You would probably get a better understanding of Brown's theory if you would try to answer any of the questions that have been raised. For example, try these three questions that can now be put in a simple YES or NO format:

• 1. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were of a length different from 1,260? Yes or No.
• 2. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were 2,520 years in length? Yes or No.
• 3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No.

If you think the answer is YES to any question, then simply quote the reference.

I suspect that you know the answer but will dodge the question and, if past is prologue, you might even claim that I'm the one dodging the question. Still, they are simple questions, and if you can't or won't answer, people can just make a note of that and move on. Perhaps more serious persons would be interested in the topic.

7 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

Didn't you bring up 1866?

No. That was you. Perhaps you didn't realize you had done so when you said the following which I have marked in red, after your quote of Brown:

On 12/17/2022 at 9:47 PM, Moise Racette said:

From the rise of the four monarchies, commencing 604 A.C., to their final dissolution, there will be a grand week of years, or 2520 years, and will terminate, January 1, 1917.

How he arrived at, 1917 is to be considered. It should have started in 653AC.

Considering that he got 1917 by effectively subtracting 604(-1) from 2520, I merely plugged in your "correction" to see what year you were suggesting by saying he should have subtracted 653(-1) from 2520. YOUR suggestion is the same as saying he should have arrived at 1866 instead of 1917. So I wondered why you were suggesting numbers that would result in 1866.

Then, when I asked what you thought happened of Biblical significance in 1866, you gave the following non-response:

13 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

the question is not on 1866, but instead in 1865.

Rather than answer directly about 1866 or 1865, you added the following "explanation:"

13 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

The usage of 49 or 50 jubilees makes a difference if a historian continues secular history.

Does this mean 1866 had no significance? I can at least recall one U.S. declaration. Therefore, to those historians, the 1915-1917 is still in play, unless anyone uses 49. Then the game changes.

I could tell where you were trying to go with this, but you went about it in the wrong way. In Volume 2 of Even-Tide, page 152, Brown added an idea that he hadn't included in Volume 1. I'll attach the page where he does that at the end of the post. This idea is that if you start with the first year of the image's head of gold in Daniel 2 (Nebuchadnezzar, 604 BCE) then the year 1844 should land on the end of a Jubilee year, every 49 or 50 years. Maybe even a "Grand Jubilee" which is a Jubilee of Jubilees (sometimes considered to be 50x50 years, or 2,500 years. And if one uses 49 for the Jubilee calculations, or various mixed combinations of 49 and 50, then as you say, it can "change the game." There are Bible prophecy commentators who mix and match between 49 and 50 because it gives them more flexibility to play with. For example if you used 50x50, then 2500 - 604 is 1896+1 =1897. The Jubilee before would have been about 1847, and the Jubilee after would have been about 1947. The latter year, 1947, would have made for some headlines with respect to Israel. 

Also, it's possible to see your ultimate goal in "correcting" 1917 be the same as 1915 or even 1914 if you fudge at both ends. This is based on what you wrote as the examples, just after you said that you are always able to find a one or two year "play" in secular chronology dates.

13 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

Since there is always a 1-2 year play when calculating time

This is true. Fudging any date by a year or two when it doesn't land exactly where you want it to is not a very trustworthy method. But it's so common that it's been used by almost every significant prophecy interpreter in the last 3 centuries. Miller himself did it (1843 to 1844). Barbour did it (1873 to 1874). Russell did it several times. Rutherford did it. Franz did it. Watchtower chronology history is a series of 1914 to 1915 and back, 1918 to 1919, 606 to 607, 536 to 538 to 537, no zero year to zero year to no zero year again. We all know this game too well.

gg

2 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

It doesn't explain, why you don't see the missing jubilee, either. The poster brought up 1866. The poster should be the one to explain 1866.

More or less what I expected you to say based on past experience in this type of a discussion. Reminds me of a scene from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh_and_the_Blustery_Day

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

Since there is always a 1-2 year play when calculating time, the question is not on 1866, but instead in 1865.

OK, if there's a 1 to 2 year "play" then why do you prefer 1865 then? Are you able to answer that question, at least?

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

Does this mean 1866 had no significance? I can at least recall one U.S. declaration.

Why would this be about the United States?

1 hour ago, Moise Racette said:

Therefore, to those historians, the 1915-1917 is still in play, unless anyone uses 49. Then the game changes.

What game?

2 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

Then you don't accept what he wrote in his own book. I have posted it twice already. That means you are in denial. What people shouldn't be confused on is on how the poster views the information it rejects.

Of course I don't accept what he wrote in his book. It all turned out to be wrong. For example, here are a couple of snippets in the paragraphs just following the page you quoted.

And, as you must be aware, he interpreted dozens of political events, especially in Turkey and Europe, to be fulfillments of nearly every trumpet and vial and quake and beast and other symbol he could find in Daniel, Revelation and Ezekiel. All of them are to be rejected because none of his expectations about any of them turned out to be true.

But I'm not in denial that J A Brown actually wrote such preposterous and presumptuous interpretations. What you posted twice is still part of the same valid evidence we have that J A Brown did NOT believe the 3.5 Gentile Times ended in 1917. He ended them in 1844.

The entire history of all nations from the Head of Gold in the image of Daniel 2 down to the time when God's Kingdom would crush and put an end to all these nations would therefore start with Nebuchadnezzar's reign and end in 1917, according to Brown. Therefore, every political thing that ever happened after Nebuchadnezzar began his reign would have to fall somewhere between 604 BCE and 1917 CE.

Therefore the 1290 years falls within that range of time, but that doesn't mean that the Gentile Times are the 1290 years. The 1335 years must also fall within that range and cannot extend beyond it, but that doesn't make the 1335 years the same as the Gentile Times either. The entire range of 2520 years must fall exactly within that same range from 604 BCE to 1917 CE, but that doesn't make the 2520 years the same as the Gentile Times either, according to Brown. The 391 year period that Brown speaks about, from (1453 CE to 1844 CE) must also fall within that same range, but that doesn't mean that those 391 years are the Gentile Times either. Same goes for the 2,300 days.

In fact, only one of those periods, the 1,260 days, is the one that Brown said was the Gentile Times, because it was the 1,260 year period, he said, where the Mohammedan Abomination was standing where it ought not, around Jerusalem, and which therefore got in the way of Israel creating a nation. But there would be a first judgment upon the Mohammedan impostiture in 1844, at the end of the 1,260 "days" of the Gentile Times. (And Brown expected Jews to begin returning to Palestine in the 7 years leading up to that date, starting in 1837.) Then there would be a total extirpation of the Muslim presence in 1873, the 1290 days. Then of course, total "happiness" would come to all who are able to wait the 1,335 days to that final second judgment upon all nations.

Notice that the parts you quoted from Even-Tide above is what I had pointed out before, that Israel can finally be established when the Gentile Times end in 1844, "the RISE of the Jewish kingdom." Then they become an Empire by 1873. Then they become the transcendent Glory of Israel in the world at the time of the last judgment in 1917.

3 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

2520 - 653 (+1) = 1866

Interesting that you mark this for the viewer, when you just denied J.A. Brown terminating the 2520 0n 1917 as described in his book. However, you seem to follow Brown's impression, while others prefer to add the missing jubilee. Either 49 or 50.

That still doesn't explain what you think happened (or should have happened) in 1866.

Also, you make a mistake in claiming that I denied J A Brown terminating the 2,520 years in 1917. That's always been exactly when he terminated that period of seven times. Brown made that clear. He also made clear that the Gentile Times (not any period of 7 times) terminated after 1,260 years in 1844. The Gentile Times are not connected to the 7 times according to J A Brown. They are separate periods, according to Brown.

And why would anyone want to add a "missing jubilee"? And who says one is missing? From where? And why do you say that the missing Jubilee should have made him start the time period in 653 (which our publications would place in the 7th year of Josiah)? Did something prophetically significant happen then?

4 hours ago, Pudgy said:

The points  I get from all of this discussion is that in the last two millennium, EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.

Yep. That's a big part of the point I was hoping to make.

J A Brown was likely a strong influence directly or indirectly on William Miller who accepted the 1844 date. Miller was very influential on Nelson Barbour who had been a Second Adventist follower of Miller, and Barbour was the one who added 1873 and 1914 to Miller's mix, similar to how J A Brown had previously added 1873 and 1917. And Barbour was obviously very influential on C T Russell who admits that he learned his chronology from Barbour. And of course, Rutherford and Franz learned it from Russell. 

J A Brown is therefore clearly a part of our own JW history. Which reminds me:

• George Santayana: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
• Karl Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."
• (Romans 15:3, 4) . . .“The reproaches of those reproaching you have fallen upon me.” ⁴ For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction,. . .

3 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And Brown never indicates that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917

Then you dispute J A Brown's own words. 

No. It's just that some people might still be confused about what J A Brown said. He never said that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917. It looks like you are confusing what Brown said about the "4 Tyrannies" (2,520 years) running for "7 times" starting with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar until 1917. You were probably led to believe that Brown considered those 7 times to be the Gentile Times. Of course, these could NOT be the Gentile Times, according to Brown, because for him, the Gentile Times were only 3.5 times (a time, 2 times, and a half a time), not 7 times.

• Brown said that the Gentile Times started in AD 622 and would end in AD 1844.
• Brown said that the Gentile Times would be 1,260 years long:
• 
• Brown said that AD 1844 would be the end of several different prophetic periods.
  • The 1260 lunar years of Mohammedan (Muslim) Impostuture (from AD 622)
  • 
  • The 1260 solar years of Papal claims to infallibility (from AD 584)
  • 
  • The 2300 solar years of Jewish Polity & cleansing of the Sanctuary (from BC 457)

The thought is repeated several times by Brown.

----------------

----------------

3 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

You are not a theorist that should be trusted.

Just read several pages of his book. You'll see that this has nothing to do with theory. It's all pretty straightforward and he repeats a lot of the same things over and over again.

19 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

I never indicated John A Brown mentioned 1914CE. His understanding was on the gentile times. I mentioned 1914CE as a perceived understanding to the end of the gentile times

I wonder what you thought John Brown was right about, then, when you said "that doesn't mean he was wrong about 1914."

For the record John A Brown (in 1823) said that:

• The end of the Gentile Times was going to be just a few years off, in the year AD 1844.
• The beginning of the Gentile Times was the start of Mohammedism (Muslims) in AD 622.
• The Gentile Times were 3 and ¹/₂ times in length, using the length Revelation 11:2 assigns to them.
  • Multiple times he clarifies that the length of the Gentile Times in Luke21:24 = 1,260 (day/yrs)
  • The reason this looks like only 1,222 [solar] years is because he uses "Mohammedan" lunar years

So there is really nothing about John A Brown thinking there are "seven" Gentile Times. (Of course, the ONLY length of time that the Bible ever associates with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 is 1,260 days, so Brown uses that period in years.)

The completely separate 2,520 year period which he derives from Daniel 4 is a period he sets to the start of Nebuchadnezzar's first year of reign in 604 BCE. That would be the year to start the "head of gold" from the image found in Daniel 2  So to Brown it's unrelated to Jewish or Messianic rulership, or the destruction of the Temple about 18 or 19 years later (which Brown would have therefore associated with 587 or 586 BCE.)

And Brown never indicates that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917 or any time around World War I. He ends the Gentile Times in 1844. He ends Daniel's 1,290 day period in 1873. And he ends Daniel's 1,335 day period in 1917. Because all the periods started with the beginning of the Muslim Mohammedan religion in AD 622.

C.T.Russell and many other commentators had focused on the Papal and secular politics of the Holy Roman Empire, using only Solar years, and therefore had started the 1,260 "days" earlier and ended them in 1799. That made the 1,290 "days" end in 1829 and the 1,335 "days" end in 1874. J A Brown appears to be the first commentator to end the 2,300 days in 1844, which Adventists also accepted, both using solar years and starting around Ezra's time in 457 BC.

@Pudgy With respect to the so-called "overlapping generations," John A Brown had "solved" this (in 1823) by saying that Jesus was referring to the literal, physical "Nation of Israel." Curiously, his arguments also count on the fact that the natural nation of Israel would NEVER pass away, but would be restored at Armageddon in 1844, and would become a world empire, surviving the attack of Gog and Magog in 1873, and would reach its full and glorious realization in the entire world by the time of the second judgment in 1917. Some of this is similar to C.T.Russell's view in the Watchtower, and even Rutherford's view up until at least 1925, that the nation of Israel would gradually become the only surviving nation in the world, ruling from Jerusalem in Palestine.

A lot of Witnesses are not aware that C.T.Russell was a "world famous" Zionist according to some current Zionist historians. But Rutherford's last major support for Zionism was the book "Comfort for the Jews" in 1925, containing teachings that Rutherford dropped completely by 1930 (in the books, Light I and Light II).

13 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

How he arrived at, 1917 is to be considered. It should have started in 653AC.

Why? What happened in 1866?

13 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

commencing 604 A.C., to their final dissolution, there will be a grand week of years, or 2520 years, and will terminate, January 1, 1917

2520 - 604 (+1) = 1917

2520 - 653 (+1) = 1866

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I am not going to participate here at least to the end of the year.

Whoops! You are right. I did indicate that I was taking about a month-long break way back around December 10th (on another part of the forum). It sure FEELS like it's been a month already.

On 12/14/2022 at 6:01 PM, Moise Racette said:

There is nothing good that can be said about the abolitionist John Brown. He profaned the name of God and used his misunderstanding of scripture to justify his murderous rampage. . . .

That doesn't mean he was wrong about 1914CE

On 12/14/2022 at 8:02 PM, JW Insider said:

On 12/14/2022 at 6:01 PM, Moise Racette said:

That doesn't mean he was wrong about 1914CE

Now that's funny!!

Sorry if that was misunderstood. When I said "that's funny" I was thinking about the fact that TTH was trying to get this Lincoln/Grant discussion away from JW Only forums and finally put in a general non-JW forum. On this "third" attempt to remove it from JW references, TTH mentioned John Brown, and I wondered if someone might confuse this John Brown with John Aquila Brown. I was afraid someone would say: "Wasn't John Brown the man who wrote about the Gentle Times?"

For anyone who isn't aware of how this ties to JW beliefs, John A. Brown is mentioned in the JW "history" book, that we often just call "Proclaimers," quoted below:

*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. ... He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.

That brief and only mention of him in our publications has confused some into thinking that John A. Brown mentioned 1914. He never did. Based on the above "Proclaimers" quote, some Witnesses have also thought that at least "he did, however, connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24." He never did that either.

So far, the WTS has not corrected the misinformation.

To see what John A. Brown actually said, one can find the primary book about the topic here:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/BakZr75kBvYC?hl=en&gbpv=1

That's volume 1 of Even-Tide, above. Volume 2 is on Google Books, too, but it goes on to other topics:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/FokAQDtWwQgC?hl=en&gbpv=1

He also wrote this book:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Jew_the_Master_key_of_the_Apocalypse/NKPhpB9uKEUC

If anyone wishes to discuss his books, I can join. I've read two of them, and that discussion will be moved to a JW-related forum.

2 hours ago, Moise Racette said:

That doesn't mean he was wrong about 1914CE

Now that's funny!!

Found a close version of it:

Instructions: Read each question carefully. Answer all questions. Time limit -- 4 hours. Begin immediately.

HISTORY: Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially but not exclusively, on its social, political,economic, religious and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America and Africa. Be brief, concise and specific.

MEDICINE: You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.

PUBLIC SPEAKING: 2,500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.

BIOLOGY: create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million year earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English parliamentary system. Prove your thesis.

MUSIC: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.

PSYCHOLOGY: Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ramses II, Gregory of Nicea, Hammurabi. Support your evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.

SOCIOLOGY: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE: Define management. Define Science. How do they relate?

COMPUTER SCIENCE: create a generalized algorithm to optimize all managerial decisions. Assuming and 1130 CPU supporting 50 terminals, each terminal to activate your algorithm; design the communications interface and all necessary control programs.

ENGINEERING: The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed in a box on your desk. You will also find and instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In ten minutes a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel appropriate. Be prepared to justify your decision.

ECONOMICS: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: cubism, the donatist controversy, the wave theory of light. Outline a method for preventing the effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.

POLITICAL SCIENCE: There is a red phone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at length on its socio-political effects, if any.

EPISTEMOLOGY: Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your position.

...

PHILOSOPHY: Sketch the development of human thought; estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE: Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.

EXTRA CREDIT: Define the universe; give three examples.

http://www.mit.edu/people/dmredish/wwwMLRF/links/Humor/The_Exam.html

Just in case this is hard to read, I'm sure I can find it online, or else I'll OCR it so that the text is readable.

I was cleaning out old papers today and came across a final exam. I'll post a picture in a minute.

Mathematics is a very pessimistic exercise. Perhaps we should stop teaching it in schools. (If one reads some of those energy headlines you'd think that they already stopped teaching math in all schools that teach business or politics or social sciences.) 

1 hour ago, Matthew9969 said:

Oh my, your not sacrificing enough of your stuff to the organization

I don't know about that. I pay full price for U.S.A. "Forever" stamps for at least $100 a month, and I also buy my mother's $200 worth a month (she's always pioneering). I even had to pay an extra hundred one month when they sent Christmas stamps instead of what I asked for. That's on top of the sacrifice of sleep getting to the train station at 4:45AM.

On 10/19/2022 at 8:47 PM, Matthew9969 said:

but I do see carts set up in spots where no one can reach them

I only like to set up the cart in a nice clean place where there is very little car or foot traffic because I already have its dirty wheel marks all over my car's back seat.

Thanks for the response. I'll be traveling for about two more weeks but will be happy to respond again to this topic when I get back.

23 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

If anyone has input on this topic  or would like to dialogue, let me know. 

I haven't seen Nicole on the forum in a long time. But I'm glad you noticed this 6 year old post. It seems that churches who believe they are on the true path (which I would think should be a given) must sometimes speak out of both sides of their mouth, when they try to endorse ecumenical movements.

The link where you quoted the footnote also says the following in the main paragraph:

In this connection, it needs also to be recalled that if a non-Catholic Christian, for reasons of conscience and having been convinced of Catholic truth, asks to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, this is to be respected as the work of the Holy Spirit and as an expression of freedom of conscience and of religion. In such a case, it would not be a question of proselytism in the negative sense that has been attributed to this term. As explicitly recognized in the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council, “it is evident that the work of preparing and reconciling those individuals who desire full Catholic communion is of its nature distinct from ecumenical action, but there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God” ( https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html#_ftnref49 )

And, of course, it's nearly impossible to find the right "compromise" between two things so distinct, without noting the opposition between them.

Part of that Vatican "Decree" said the following, which shows the real problem in that ecumenism can also be a scandal, "damaging the holy cause," in that it makes the Christ "divided."

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided Christians to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies. For almost everyone regards the body in which he has heard the Gospel as his Church and indeed, God's Church. All however, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and set forth into the world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

I'm surprised JWI didn't make a joke out of it already

We picked about as many bad apple-related puns as we did apples that day. That's because there's always a cornucopia of corny puns to cope with. They're like low-hanging fruit. I do remember one really dumb "pear" joke I made on the hayride when we passed up the rows of out-of-season pears, and I saw one still on a tree:  I started singing:  ". . . And a Bartlett in a pear tree."  [wrong crowd?]

But I made an unrelated but even odder "pair" joke on the way back home. Unfortunately, it was kind of an off-color joke, for my wife's ears only, that I shouldn't repeat here.

So here goes: 😮

It was based on an actual experience from a couple of days earlier when my wife didn't have the cash at the time to tip the nail salon people and she sent me back there with the tip a couple hours later. I was to find two people, Tina and Lee-Lee, the owner and the "nail-doer," respectively. It was my first time in a nail salon, surrounded by women, and I played up that part of the story when my wife asked me if I had found everyone OK. (Wives won't always admit it, but there is a certain kind of tension when they've just send their husbands into a bevy of women to represent them.)

So all that background of the story had almost nothing to do with the joke. Almost. I thought it would be fun to tell my wife about a certain woman I saw in the nail salon who was just finishing up getting intricate designs put on her nails by the same nail-doer, Lee-Lee, and I had to interrupt them. In excruciating detail I described to my wife how the woman getting her nails done had these extreme upper body elements that reminded me of when Dolly Parton once described her bra with the words, "It's like trying to put 100 pounds of mud in a 50-pound gunny sack." 

But I also mentioned to my wife that, waiting out in front of the salon, was another woman in a car who had almost exactly the same figure, and the same mode of displaying it with a lower-than-low-cut blouse. (Or maybe it was a dress; I don't remember looking.)

I said to myself: I bet that woman in the car is waiting for the same woman I just interrupted. And I'll bet she is going to get in the same car with her. And sure enough, as I was getting back to my own car, that other woman left the salon and got in the car with her, right there in front of the salon.

"How do you think that I was able to predict that this was going to happen?" I asked my by-now-thoroughly-exasperated wife.

Yesterday, I was at Wallkill and Warwick. And it wasn't what you might be thinking. It was to take the grandkids (ages 3 & 6) apple picking. When my own children were young, this was an easy thing to do. Load everyone in a car; drive at least 30 miles outside NYC; watch for signs; take your pick of places; end it with a simple hay-ride, and then take home your pick of apples. Now many of the farms that manage these things only take reservations for picking. They charge $40 for a half-bushel. The have expensive vendor stands creating a makeshift food court, a gift shop, a donut shop, a cider shop. The one we ended up at yesterday had about 500 cars when we arrived (and parking for only about 400). And live music. (?!?!)

Not quite the vibe I grew up with.