5 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

inspired by current events, I’m buying this forum?

Is that the smell of "Musk"? I smell a muskrat.

52 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

Whichever pathetic moderator posted this subliminal message is a sick individual. You smell!

No moderator added this. It's an artifact of your own editing. You evidently started out "i smell" when you were writing "i smell a troll . . ." But when you were editing your post to change the "i" to "I" and use highlighting and color, you had moved that original line too far down in the editing window, and forgot to edit it back out, because you probably couldn't see it.

I think I can edit people's posts, but I won't do it. I know I can delete a post entirely. Although, in the past, instead of deleting posts (when I have no request to delete) I merely move them to a new topic. But I think you would prefer this gets deleted. So, unless you say otherwise in the next few minutes, I will try to delete the whole post. To clean it all up, I think I should then clean up a few of the other remarks that were part of this, including one from Anna and perhaps others.

I think that most people who post here regularly are already aware that you ARE the same person behind the accounts: Allen Smith, Billy The Kid, NoisySrecko, Dmitar, Leander H McNeely, etc., etc., etc. There is no real question about that for many of us. But that fact has already been brought up elsewhere.

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I did a quick skim and kind of assumed that it was a joke only because I can’t imagine JWI doing a 180. Was it not?

6 hours ago, Anna said:

@JW Insiderare you conducting a gullibility experiment? 

Not exactly a joke, TTH, and, yes, Anna, it was something a little more akin to an experiment. Not so much about gullibility, but about human nature and the way we protect our belief systems. But I think this "experiment" was inadvertently conducted already, especially between 1907 and 1917:

In 1917 Rutherford wrote the following in the October 15, 1917 Watchtower, p.317:

So, this was not my personal opinion, but was supposed to have once been an interpretation of prophecy handed down to Rutherford through the Holy Spirit -- or "made known to us by the Spirit" as the article says. I merely copied the same idea and numbers that the Watchtower used:

When you multiply the 11 years by 360, you get 3,960. 2045 BCE + 3,960 years brings us to the year 1915.

Although the Bible doesn't say both birds were young, the Spirit evidently made J.F.Rutherford assume both were one year old. It was actually C.T.Russell who printed this idea first in 1907, considering it credible, of course, but not trying to present it as absolute "inspired" truth. Here are some snippets from the March 1, 1907 Watchtower which included:

But even if Russell only published this idea presented as a "remarkable coincidence" it still took on a life of its own. If something got printed in the Watchtower and, of course, because C.T.Russell considered himself and the Watchtower as "God's mouthpiece" it was still taken very seriously. In fact, Brother Woodworth (co-author of The Finished Mystery) immediately (in 1907) added this idea to the Berean Bible Teachers' Manual as one of the: "Twenty Time Proofs -- That the Reign of Evil Will Cease and the Earthly Phase of the Kingdom of God Be Established in 1914-1915."   So it was there in time to bind into the KJV Bibles that the Watchtower Society produced in 1907 and the 1908 edition, too. According to the current Proclaimers book, p.606: ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993037 )

Four years later, in 1907, the Bible Students Edition of the King James Version was published. The “Berean Bible Teachers’ Manual” was bound with it, as an appendix. This included concise comments on verses from all parts of the Bible, along with references to Watch Tower publications for fuller explanation.

These already contained Genesis 15:9 as one of those "PROOFS" of 1914/1915.

So here in Genesis 15 we have a verse of the Bible, which in context is about the Abrahamic Covenant and is also a very clear discussion of chronology. It points out the time, the actual number of years, when the heirs of Abraham would inherit the land promised to him and his seed. It not only speaks to the chronology in years, but mentions the number of generations that would overlap until the time had reached its full measure!

Note first of all that the number of years of age of each animal is mentioned, so it must be important. 3 years + 3 years + 3 years. The age of the birds is not so specified, but the word "young" is mentioned indicating that they are about 1 year old each. So we have 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 11 years of age total. 11 times 360 prophetic days in each year is a total of 3,960 days, therefore 3,960 years.

So when did this covenant with Abraham's go into effect? The Insight book gives us the starting point:

*** it-1 p. 29 Abraham ***

Sojourn in Canaan. Now 75 years old, Abraham began to move his household out of Haran to the land of Canaan, where he lived out the remaining hundred years of his life in tents as an alien and migratory resident. (Ge 12:4) It was following the death of his father Terah that Abraham went out from Haran in 1943 B.C.E. and crossed the Euphrates River, evidently on the 14th day of the month that later became known as Nisan. (Ge 11:32; Ex 12:40-43, LXX) It was at that time that the covenant between Jehovah and Abraham went into effect, and the 430-year period of temporary residence until the making of the Law covenant with Israel began.—Ex 12:40-42; Ga 3:17.

So we start with the year 1943 BCE. But we also make a necessary adjustment, the same one made by C.T.Russell, as mentioned in our book "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached!" (ka):

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 206-208 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***

THE CORRECTING OF A MISUNDERSTANDING

…  The above chronology followed the suggestion that was made in Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, in its footnote on Acts 13:20, which verse read: “And after these things, he gave Judges about four hundred and fifty years, till Samuel the prophet.” The footnote on this reading of the verse said:

A difficulty occurs here which has very much puzzled Biblical chronologists. The date given here is at variance with the statement found in 1 Kings 6:1. There have been many solutions offered, but only one which seems entirely satisfactory, i.e., that the text in 1 Kings 6:1 has been corrupted, by substituting the Hebrew character daleth (4) for hay (5) which is very similar in form. This would make 580 years (instead of 480) from the exode to the building of the temple, and exactly agree with Paul’s chronology.

⁵¹ Accordingly, on page 53 of the book entitled “The Time Is at Hand,” author C. T. Russell wrote, referring to 1 Kings 6:1:

It evidently should read the five-hundred-and-eightieth year, and was possibly an error in transcribing; for if to Solomon’s four years we add David’s forty, and Saul’s space of forty, and the forty-six years from leaving Egypt to the division of the land, we have one hundred and thirty years, which deducted from four hundred and eighty would leave only three hundred and fifty years for the period of the Judges, instead of the four hundred and fifty years mentioned in the Book of Judges, and by Paul, as heretofore shown. The Hebrew character “daleth” (4) very much resembles the character “hay” (5), and it is supposed that in this way the error has occurred, possibly the mistake of a transcriber. I Kings 6:1, then, should read five hundred and eighty, and thus be in perfect harmony with the other statements.

Thus, by inserting 100 years into the Bible chronology during the period of the Judges, man’s creation was pushed back 100 years . . .

So there we have it: 1945 BCE + 100 years = 2045 BCE. 3,960 years from 2045 = 1915 and since there was no zero year, that brings us exactly to 1914.

Please let me know what you think. Let me know if I have made any mistakes or false assumptions.

I hadn't talked about 1914 in a while, and although I have been critical of the teaching, I was trying to think of scriptural reasons that one might accept it as correct.

Just a couple days before the Memorial, I heard a dumb theory on a local station that tried to make a rationale for why Christianity has an Easter bunny and colorful eggs. It was crazy but it reminded me that I had also vaguely remembered something like this with the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" so I looked up the lyrics on Google to see if the lyrics actually could lend themselves to some kind of religious rationale. Google provides a section called "People Also Ask:"

I didn't bother to look up the rest. But this got me to thinking that maybe this song is nearly as old as the KJV (1611) and I wondered whether the KJV Bible had even translated the birds of Genesis 15 correctly calling them "a turtledove and a pigeon." The NWT uses the same language, so I figured there was probably a good basis.

(Genesis 15:9, KJV) And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

So what's that got to do with 1914, you might be wondering?

So, my mind wandered again, and I realized that I might have been wrong about doubting 1914. It was just too much of a coincidence that Genesis 15:9 actually points to the year 1914 in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant - through a dream - just as 1914 is pointed to in the context of the Davidic Covenant according to our understanding of Daniel 4, also through a dream.

I think this is pretty amazing, maybe more than just coincidence. So I'll explain why in the next post. But first the context of Genesis 15 for anyone who might not remember:

(Genesis 15:5-16) ⁵He now brought him outside and said: “Look up, please, to the heavens and count the stars, . . . “So your offspring will become.” . . .⁷ Then he added: “I am Jehovah, who brought you out of Ur of the Chal·deʹans to give you this land as your possession.” ⁸ To this he said: “Sovereign Lord Jehovah, how will I know that I will take possession of it?” ⁹ He replied to him: “Take for me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” . . . ¹²... a deep sleep fell upon Aʹbram and a great and frightening darkness descended on him. ¹³ Then He said to Aʹbram: “Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years. ¹⁶ But they will return here in the fourth generation . . .

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

is he some sort of Mason?

A lot of modern Jewish writing uses this spelling. Dmitar quoted from several such sources that used that spelling just in the last couple of months. Very few others have ever mentioned it or made use of this spelling.

23 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

... to obey G-d as instructed by the bible, of staying away from bad company and their influence. 1 Corinthians 5:11, 15:33. They see as you see the Org bylaws, written by men rather than by G-d.

I know it's off the topic, but the "algorithm" 🙃 just picked up something interesting about this particular spelling of "G-d" which was also a feature of several of the same accounts mentioned earlier. "Allen Smith" "Billy the Kid" "Dmitar" etc.

In fact, it was also used by one of your most cleverly named accounts, in my opinion. It was one that you used just after the "Billy The Kid" account, and I thought it was a clever renaming, remaining in the same genre of account names:

On 2/22/2020 at 4:45 PM, Leander H. McNelly said:

You either serve G-d the right way or you don’t.

@Patiently waiting for Truth had already pointed out McNelly's relationship to "Billy the Kid" since Leander H McNelly was from the same time in American "Old West" history, and from the same part of the United States, just one state over from where Billy the Kid was also active. McNelly was also famous for gunfights.

Of course, since Leander McNelly was a famous Texas Ranger, it might be of interest to note that the name "Walter Prescott" is also a two-thirds of the name of the author of "The Texas Rangers," a book that includes discussions about Leander H McNelly.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/texasrangers.htm

8 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Titus 3:8b-11... (MSG). . .Warn a quarrelsome person once or twice, but then be done with him.

This also sounds like a typical plan for administrators running a discussion forum.

Nothing personal, but that verse also reminded me of someone, so I looked up the phrase "none Christian" [in quotes] in the Search tool on this site. Whenever I've done that in the past, it used to return a long list of posts from about 20+ different accounts. They were always from names like: Dmitar, NoisySrecko, BillyTheKid, AllenSmith, etc., that I could easily recognize as the same person using 20+ different accounts.

Today, I tried it again, and something about the Search tool has changed. Today, it only returned four posts from only two accounts: WalterPrescott and Dmitar. Strange, right?

16 hours ago, Dmitar said:

In line with the above, professor of history Robert Wohl wrote in his book The Generation of 1914: “A historical generation is not defined by its chronological limits . . . It is not a zone of dates.”

This is exactly the point. Thanks. The Watchtower has ALWAYS turned the generation into a zone of dates. When the Watchtower's previous zone of dates was no longer tenable, there was an excellent opportunity to understand it in the way that Robert Wohl would have described it. But instead, it became a zone of dates again when it was "determined" that the great tribulation must occur within the zone of dates before a younger generation of anointed (whose lives overlapped with the earlier generation of anointed) would themselves die out:

*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
Brother Barr made clear that the gathering would not continue indefinitely. He referred to Matthew 24:34, which says: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” He twice read the comment: “Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation.” We do not know the exact length of “this generation,” but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!

As Brother Splane has explained, by using a chart, that generation has now become a zone of dates from 1914 (through at least 1992 when Fred Franz died) and then extending only so far out as to when the last of the once-contemporary, younger "generation" of anointed have not completely died out.

That definition, although very specific, has become rather sloppy in the retelling. Just note the following two points that are now part of the explanation. I'll mark in red, the points that are problematic:

*** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 14-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
When prophecy was not fulfilled in the way that they expected in 1914, what did they do? Most of them continued serving Jehovah faithfully and endured trials and persecution. Over the years, most, if not all, of those anointed ones have remained faithful until death.
¹⁵ In his prophecy about the last days of Satan’s world, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17.
¹⁶ All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation.

'...most, if not all..."

I'm not sure about the purpose of the claim made here, but the early Watchtowers indicated that "most" of the anointed during the period leading up to 1914 actually left the Watchtower Society. Many left immediately after 1914 failed to include the predictions for that year. (The Watchtower later pointed to 1915 as the actual date for the end of the Gentile Times.)  A much larger portion left during the 1917-1918 period based on the actions taken by Rutherford. By 1927-1928 when so many of Russell's teachings had been abandoned, it was apparently "MOST" of those who had been considered anointed in 1914 who had left the Watchtower Society by then. A few exceptions actually came back to the Watchtower. Long-time Governing Body member, Brother Karl Klein, left the Watchtower to join the Standfasters (Part of the "evil slave," per Rutherford), but Brother Klein came back. Listening to the stories and experiences from Karl Klein and Fred Franz and my great-grandfather, and one-time colporteur Percy Harding, they all claimed that it was MOST of the anointed who had been unfaithful, at least to the Watchtower. If the Watchtower's statement above is correct, it must be based on the idea that they were still faithful to Jehovah even after leaving the Watchtower Society, or that those who left were never anointed in the first place.

This is reminiscent of the claim made in 1982 about the earlier Liberian persecution:

*** w82 4/15 p. 26 par. 19 Enduring Joyfully Despite Persecution ***
While a few did give way and compromise because of fear, the great majority maintained integrity.

After that claim was made, someone pointed out the error and a correction was printed:

*** w82 7/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
. . . However, the Yearbook for 1977 states that the majority compromised their faith. Why this discrepancy?
The statement in The Watchtower for April 15, 1982, is in error. Actually, according to the Yearbook of 1977, pages 176 and 178, there were about 100 Liberian Witnesses who went through the Gbarnga persecution maintaining integrity, while approximately 200 compromised their faith.

"The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year."

I think that all of us know the problem with this claim. The first group that was present in 1914 did NOT understand that Christ began ruling as King in that year. For several more years, they all continued to claim that Jesus did NOT begin ruling as King in that year. Instead, the Watchtower continued to teach them that Jesus had begun ruling as King in 1878. Hints came about half-a-decade later that this date might change, or even get pushed back from 1878 to 1874 (See Rutherford's famous Cedar Point talk in 1922). But it wasn't until more than a decade later, in the late 1920's and early 1930's that 1914 became the new date for Jesus to have begun ruling as King.

In fact, the idea that Jesus had been invisibly present since 1874 did not become officially and fully revised until 1943:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. . . .  Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.”

So, if none of the anointed ever really discerned the sign of Jesus Kingship and presence in 1914, and didn't discern it until 1943, then perhaps there wasn't even a real need to come up with the overlapping generations theory. I personally know someone who was anointed before 1943 who is still alive and faithful.

14 hours ago, Dmitar said:

There is no doubt that 1914 marked a very important point of change in history. I have seen ex-JWs and non-JWs try to deny this, just because it probably embarrasses them that the Watchtower Society has been able to hold onto the significance of the 1914 date for so long.

However, the book that Dmitar mentioned is actually an excellent book that uses the expression "generation of 1914" in the same manner that Jesus appears to have used the expression "this generation" (that is, the generation of 33 CE). Technically, Jesus could have meant all the people who were contemporaries meaning all the very old people, middle-aged people, young men, and small children who were alive when Jesus called them "this generation." But obviously the very old did NOT live to see the great tribulation of those days when Jerusalem was surrounded by encamped armies. 70 was a long and fortunate lifespan, and the average in those days (not including childbirth deaths) was likely only to about age 40. That generation that saw all those things occur by Rome in 66-70, had to live at least another 33 to 37 years.

But Robert Wohl in the book focuses on the age of 5 young middle-class elites  in 5 Western countries of Europe, and he follows the ideas and experiences that these 5 men (born in 1880's and 1890's) would have witnessed especially from about 1914 up until the post-war years of the 1940's. In the book he reminds us that people had spoken of the "sacrificed generation" of the men of 1885. And that various schools had spoken of the "social generation," and the "scientific generation" at various points in the late 1800's.

That is the common use of the expressions like "generation of Jesus' day" "generation of the apostles" "generation of Joseph and his brothers" "generation of 1914" "generation of my grandfather" "generation of my great-grandfather" "generation of my children".

Of course there are other technical definitions of generation but the default, we would expect, is always the common meaning unless otherwise specified. Robert Wohl gives us the common meaning, the default meaning. If we think we should apply Robert Wohl's understanding and use of the term "generation of 1914" it's the same as saying that the Watchtower got it wrong.

To be fair, I wanted to add that Wohl holds that the common meaning of generation, of which there may be about "three in a century," is not binding on the extended significance and impact of that generation on following generations. That's no doubt why he chose the title because that generation of 1914 still has relevant meaning even for today. But that type of impact can go on forever and is clearly a completely different use than the one that the Watchtower uses. The Watchtower has specifically stated that it is about a limited and specific demarcation of time, quite different from when Jesus used expressions like "who will save you from this wicked generation."

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

"We have to be absolutely sure that everything fits."

I watched the whole video (and I had seen it before) but I saw nothing really wrong in what Brother Splane was saying. Can you clarify what is so wrong about making sure that everything fits?

1 hour ago, Witness said:

Names have already been mentioned here, but what good is an address if those they meet with online are from all parts of the world?

I believe the only name you have mentioned is Pearl Doxsey. (Doesn't she have a brother named Ortho?)

Just a quick (but serious) question: Do you think that a "true anointed" like Pearl in your opinion, serves "perfect" spiritual food?

It looks like everyone now needs to have their post "approved by a moderator" before the post will appear. Normally I'd have thought that thread would say: "This thread is now closed."

But we're getting a message like this:

Seems that Pudgy, Thinking and Dmitar each lost two posts apiece. I don't see that you lost any posts. Must be that Thinking had a spelling/usage error (Jesus's). Dmitar spelled "Gaul" when he meant "gall", and Pudgy spelled the plural/possessive of "hippopotamus" as hippopotamices' (or something like that). So there is plenty of blame to go around.

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

The woman who followed Jesus around continually crying out that this is Indeed the Son of God ….actually caused Jesus such irritation even tho speaking highly of him and in fact truths ..frustration enough to demand the demon with in her to depart.

I really appreciated the insight here. Thanks.

On 3/28/2022 at 7:15 PM, Thinking said:

Knowledge is not what is most important JWI….if he behaved in the KH as he does here..he would be spiritually  counselled by the elders…once and perhaps twice…and if he continued to slander other brothers and sisters and bully them and call out numerous ones as liars etc he would be disfellowshipped for that.

I understand what you are saying, and for a while, I would have agreed that he was not a real Witness, and that he was only a counterfeit to make Witnesses look bad. I know that other Witnesses here also "disown" him from the ranks of baptized Witnesses. I suspect that his personality has already made trouble for himself with the elders, and that this is one of the reasons he reaches out here. Like the guy who gets yelled at when he's at work, and must find a dog to kick when he gets home.

But I think the matter is more complex with him. On the most visible level it appears that he is a living embodiment of the works of the flesh, and the opposite of every fruit of the spirit.

(Galatians 5:19-26) . . .Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, and they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, brazen conduct, ²⁰ idolatry, spiritism, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, sects, ²¹envy, ... ²² On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, ²³ mildness, self-control. ...²⁶ Let us not become egotistical, stirring up competition with one another, envying one another.

But I think there are other "layers" when you peel back the onion, so to speak. I see difficult issues of a struggling Witness, and I think he is constantly, if inadvertently, giving us hints about these struggles. We might think that we'd never witness such levels of wrath and reviling and name-calling within a congregation, but I've seen such things manifest in otherwise well-meaning brothers within the Writing Department at Bethel. I won't name names here, but sometimes brothers in the most responsible positions --persons I normally thought of as loving-- could actually turn "vicious" against even the most mild-mannered and peace-loving brothers. But, right or wrong, it was usually because they were seeing something they felt was a spiritual danger to the brotherhood. Unfortunately, this could be taken so far that brothers in responsible positions even felt that admitting a mistake could constitute a spiritual danger to the organizational arrangement.

This is the level where I find some of Dmitar's wrath understandable. He has seen some of the things that I have said, you have said, Arauna, Tom, Anna, etc., that are very disturbing to him. It's because he feels the need to be a kind of "hero" that fights when there is any perceived "attack" against the organization. He is the "Billy-the-Kid, Wyatt-Earp-styled gunslinger of the old American West" hunting out all possible forms of dangerous thinking.

I've seen this hero complex before, and I agree that it tends to offer no more than haughty, puffed-up knowledge (but often just pretentious bluster) instead of love. If you have ever followed the early on-line history of one calling himself scholar_jw here or even Rolf Furuli, you'll see the same thing. They are hoping to be "heroes" to defend the less defensible traditions. Even some of the "fringe" Witnesses who have been here, and who offer their unique interpretations of prophecies --and who evidently think they are defending WTS doctrines-- will often show a real "mean streak" when their date predictions are questioned.

But I also see that kind of ego revealed in the sound of my own words, and sometimes in anyone else who questions a current teaching or practice. So, in spite of what I don't appreciate about him and others like him, I thought it was only fair to also offer anything positive about him. It was intended as a kind of one-sided "eulogy" if he is really leaving the forum.

On 3/27/2022 at 10:57 PM, Mic Drop said:

Don't forget that Stanley Milgram's research showed that many—but not all—regular people can be manipulated into committing atrocities.

Good point. These points have crossed my mind as I have been to places recently that asked me if I wanted to add a donation to the Nazi-backed regime in Ukraine. Of course, they don't put it exactly like that, and I don't think of recent Russian war crimes as any less troublesome. 

By coincidence, just yesterday, I read a few stories in a book I was about to toss out, called "The Complete Stories of Erskine Caldwell." I noticed that he often touched on the topic of race relations between Whites and Blacks in Georgia, while writing during the peak years of Nazi atrocities. It might seem unlrelated, but there were a couple sentences in the following linked story "Saturday Afternoon" that reminded me of Stanley Milgram's research. [Caution: It's about a lynching!]

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/caldwell.html

On 3/28/2022 at 3:53 PM, Dmitar said:

How is your @JW Insider style of argument, make it incorrect? If you don't understand my post, it's simple, stay out of my conversation and stop being obtuse like @JW Insider  provoking a meaningless argument.

Several people here have understood you to say that you plan to leave this discussion forum soon, or perhaps at least the name "Dmitar" will be leaving the forum. If this is true, I wanted to say that I have found things you have said on certain subjects to be valuable. I might have never looked at the apocryphal book of Judith, for example, if it had not been for your serious utilization of that book. I typically don't try to access commentaries from the late 1700's and early 1800's but have made exceptions after you have quoted from them. These excursions often take me to some additional books that you quoted from or where your sources provide footnotes to other resources. I have learned a lot from them.

You often quote interesting information that sends me searching for where you got it from. I will honestly miss some of this.

I find the intensity and zeal and emotion with which you defend the faith to be unmatched, and it makes me wonder sometimes if there were not perhaps examples like this in the first century where we sometimes read of "sharp bursts of anger," or the disciples like James and John who were also given the name ' Bo·a·nerʹges, which means “Sons of Thunder.” ' You have made me wonder about the range of characteristics among Christian congregations in all ages.

Naturally, since this is a discussion forum, I will often make it known when I think a Biblical or even a secular idea is being misrepresented or exaggerated. I thank you for engaging on topics that many others find too tedious to attempt.

On the other hand, from everything you've said, I already know what you'll think of any counsel or criticism that comes from me. But this doesn't mean I must hold back from giving it, just as you don't seem to hold back much. I won't try to make a list of things I find disagreeable, but as you move along from here to other places, I do hope that you will consider a couple of things:

I think you will likely find it easier to make important points and get them across if you spend less time picking fights with others, or repeatedly reviling others to prove your superiority or knowledge. In the past I would have pointed out other things I noticed, too, but I've seen what I perceive as real improvement on several of those other things I've complained about in the past.  I think the one habit of yours that gets in your own way the most is "projection." When you do something wrong (like pick fights, revile others, or look for little ways to cause contention) you apparently want to blame others for the same thing. You seem to always want to make these things someone else's problems instead of owning up to them yourself.

By "projection" of course I mean in the sense of the definition found here:

Other than those issues, I think I'll really miss a lot of what you have been able to offer over the years.

On 3/25/2022 at 5:48 PM, Space Merchant said:

This is known, but concerning the Pastor, I believe JWI is aware of this, I recall even at one point he attempted to contact Reslight (also called Reslite by some) who is a Bible Student who knows a lot about Russell. Although he disagrees with JWs on some things, anything regarding the Bible Students he will defend, but even in Reslight's case, EXJWs come after him, as do the Trinitarians, likewise with Oneness believers.

Perhaps I mentioned it somewhere already, but Reslite did get back to me with a response. And he also responded to a question I asked him on his blog. He is both careful and accurate, and therefore an excellent resource on Russell. He did not have the particular information I questioned him about, however, and he recommended another resource.

For most concerns about Russell, Reslite's default position is to defend him fully, and this is almost always the right direction to go. Most JW opposers (and Bible Student opposers) go for the more ludicrous attacks on Russell anyway, and therefore it's a safe bet on most issues to follow the information in the Proclaimers book and Reslite's information, too, where he can offer additional material.

But there are a couple of concerns about Russell that rarely get brought up, and one of these is the fact that Brother Rutherford claimed that Russell alone (individually - in his person) had been the "faithful and discreet slave" and Rutherford gave a funeral speech for Russell repeating this belief. This was in accord with Russell's own Watch Tower teaching about the "faithful and wise servant" for nearly the previous two decades. Rutherford also  published material about him clarifying that Russell himself accepted the title and would have claimed it publicly but that Russell's humility only allowed him to claim it privately.

This is not a big deal to me, but it is a minor concern, because the most current claim in our publications about this is that Russell "never claimed to be such" and therefore the idea is effectively blamed on others, with the idea that Russell only accepted this teaching about himself because of the undue influence of others around him. (See, Proclaimers.)

The actual history of the idea creates another minor concern about the current teaching: If Rutherford was one of those appointed by Jesus Christ in 1919  to be one of the select few members of the "faithful and discreet slave," then why was it that since December 1919 and all through at least 1927, Rutherford didn't accept this appointment from Jesus, but still insisted that ONLY Russell himself had been that faithful and discreet slave?

I have a feeling that the reason Dmitar referenced me with respect to this particular topic is because he recognizes the problems of these minor issues but he believes they are major, and therefore must somehow try to defend against them by making it appear they are just hearsay, not claims found in the WT publications themselves.  

12 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

As for those with military experience, they're not treated as well, and if anything, they are purposely sent to the frontlines, sometimes unarmed.

Sending them in to a frontline with little or no ammo for their weapons made no sense to me when I heard about that. Except that one idea might have been to make sure Americans die so that the US will step in and step up to fight Russia. This was Ukraine's goal all along, but it's becoming painfully obvious to Zalensky now that it was never the US goal. The US only needed to tease them into a war that would continue to weaken the country, and hopefully still keep them dependent on the purchase of more military weapons from the US. Previously, the US sold them billions in weapons so that they would keep killing fellow Ukrainians in Donbas, to the tune of about 14,000 dead. Whether they are bombing their own people, as they have been for more than 8 years, or bombing Russians, should make no difference to the US, as long as they still need US weapons to do it.

It is usually the goal of stupid people in the media and in the population who think that the US is all-powerful and can step into a war with Russia (or anyone else) to prove American dominance over everyone and everything. Biden, and at least half of Congress, might be dumb enough to be goaded into it, but the entire goal of US wars and invasions and occupations since 9/11 has never been to "win" anything, but mostly to create enough chaos to make American weapon-making oligarchs richer, while weakening the economies of countries the US chooses to interfere with.

The US occupation of Syria, of course, is to continue illegally occupying about a third of Syria to weaken the country with civil war, and mostly to control its oil which the US has been stealing now since their civil war began there. (And, of course, to bully and lie about Assad enough so that he knows he can't fight back.) The US support of the genocide in Yemen is, of course, only to please Saudi Arabia since the US has no conscience about where they purchase oil from (while making sure that Germany and other Europeans will not purchase gas from Russia).

Oh wait! Was this about Ukraine or door-to-door ministry?

4 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Other then that, because of Ukraine, they're trying to get others involved in the war, some people, volunteers is said to have become Canon Fodder and their passports destroyed, entrapment.

I saw that. A couple of different soldiers escaped and had the same story. Some of these volunteer soldiers have even come from the US, and the local soldiers don't want them on the ground alongside them, but will use them for suicide missions.

46 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Evidently, at some point the prophecy abandons the past and tackles the future. The problem is knowing where to cut!

Yes. I see your point. It becomes difficult to keep trying to see who the original characters were, and then making them only the OBJECT LESSONS of the time of the end.

The only way to do that is to spiritualize the lesson. By "spiritualizing," I mean that these enemies to Jehovah's people really are dead to us, because we have warred with Jehovah's enemies and "conquered the world" according to scripture. Of course, we must also continue to conquer, but Christians are in effect already raised up, and his enemies are already condemned to death. In other words there is a sense in which the King of the North already "came to his end in the land of decoration."

And the reason I'm looking into spiritualizing the lesson would be because I think we know (deep down) that this is also the way to understand Revelation, Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. We know that Jesus had in mind the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, and called it, in effect, "a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time." When Jesus added, "nor will ever occur again," now we must move it forward again to the final parousia, not just the time of judgment on literal Jerusalem.

Also, Revelation says that Daniel wasn't really in the time of the end, and thus the scrolls were sealed up, but it's because Revelation was written in the time of the end that it was then time to unseal Daniel's words. We resolve that in the WT publications by saying that John wasn't really in the time of the end, but that he was moved in a vision to the 1914 era. But this does not fit the introduction to Revelation before John is swept away in vision, and it does not resolve the issue of what almost every letter in the Christian Greek Scriptures includes (plus Acts): the fact that they also were written in what had just become the time of the end, the last days. It's even in the quote from 1 Cor 10, above:

they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.

55 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

• 1. Everything was fulfilled at the time of the Hellenic kings who influenced Israel, mainly Antiochus IV Epiphanes
• 2. Much of what we believe has already been accomplished is still in the future and must be fulfilled.

I largely agree. But I think that there is another way to look at the original historical events for MOST historical events found in the scriptures. I look at them like this:

(Romans 15:4, 5) . . .For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope. ⁵ Now may the God who supplies endurance and comfort grant you to have among yourselves the same mental attitude that Christ Jesus had,

(1 Corinthians 10:1-11) . . .Now I want you to know, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea ² and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea, ³ and all ate the same spiritual food ⁴ and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant the Christ. ⁵ Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, for they were struck down in the wilderness. ⁶ Now these things became examples for us, in order for us not to desire injurious things, as they desired them. ⁷ Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink. Then they got up to have a good time.” ⁸ Neither let us practice sexual immorality, as some of them committed sexual immorality, only to fall, 23,000 of them in one day. ⁹ Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put him to the test, only to perish by the serpents. ¹⁰ Neither be murmurers, as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer. ¹¹ Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.

In other words, the specifics are not applied to certain classes of Christians any more than they are applied to certain specific rulers or kingdoms. We don't have a Korah, Dathan and Abiram murmuring class who put Moses to the test in a specific way, for example. But we do learn a lesson for our instruction that no one, or no group of people, should put the words of Jesus to the test, or try to usurp, or take away from the authority of Jehovah's arrangement, who put Jesus as head over the congregation. So when Pharoah tried to attack the Israelites going through the sea, we don't need a new fulfillment of "Pharoah" every few decades. We don't need to identify the specific "Pharoah" of the 1st, 2nd . . . 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.

I think this is also true of the King of the North, for example. We have a specific person who Daniel had in mind for the great king whose kingdom was broken up to the four winds. We know that this great king was Alexander the Great. We don't need a new Alexander for each generation of history, or each generation of Jehovah's Witnesses. That's where I can personally see the LESSON of the "King of the North." We can always look at an event of history and say well that was the Pharaoh of this-or-that time period. Or that was the "abomination of desolation" of this-or-that time period.

I'm thinking, therefore, that Jesus wasn't identifying a "new" [Seleucid] king of the north when speaking of the Romans who would surround Jerusalem.

Jews of that generation would already have identified Caligula with Antiochus Epiphanes, for example, when Caligula had ordered the erection of his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem -- something that directly led to the revolution in Judea that resulted in the fulfillment of Jesus prophecy about the surrounding armies. This was all too similar to what Antiochus had done a couple centuries earlier. But this didn't mean that Antiochus was Caligula, only that the lesson was appropriate. There would be nothing wrong with saying that Caligula was being "an Antiochus," but not in the sense that he was the specific fulfillment of a prophecy.

All this makes sense to me up to a point, and I explained it OK. But it doesn't make sense completely, and I think this is where you are already coming from. For example, Paul in Thessalonians was very specific about identifying an end-times "antichrist" using the same terms as found in Daniel. This is part of the argument found here, too:

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/daniel-11/

I should have mentioned above that the Insight book identifies Alexander's generals who became the KON and KOS, but they point to the Daniel's prophecy book which provides more historical info:

*** it-2 p. 509 North ***
“The King of the North.” Facts of history provide still another basis for determining how “north” is to be understood in some texts. A case in point is “the king of the north” mentioned in Daniel chapter 11. Historical evidence indicates that the “mighty king” of Daniel 11:3 was Alexander the Great. After Alexander’s death, the empire was eventually divided among his four generals. One of these generals, Seleucus Nicator, took Mesopotamia and Syria, this making him the ruler of territory situated N of Palestine. Another general, Ptolemy Lagus, gained control of Egypt, to the SW of Palestine. Therefore, with Seleucus Nicator and Ptolemy Lagus the long struggle between “the king of the north” and “the king of the south” began. However, the prophecy concerning “the king of the north” extends from the time of Seleucus Nicator down to “the time of the end.” (Da 11:40) Logically, then, the national and political identity of “the king of the north” would change in the course of history. But it would still be possible to determine his identity on the basis of what the prophecy said the “king of the north” would do.—See the book Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy!, 1999, pp. 211-285.

But the Daniel book adds a lot more info, I'll edit it down:

*** dp chap. 13 pp. 213-229 Two Kings in Conflict ***
A GREAT KINGDOM DIVIDED INTO FOUR
8 “A mighty king will certainly stand up and rule with extensive dominion and do according to his will,” said the angel. (Daniel 11:3) Twenty-year-old Alexander ‘stood up’ as king of Macedonia in 336 B.C.E. He did become “a mighty king”—Alexander the Great. Driven by a plan of his father, Philip II, he took the Persian provinces in the Middle East. Crossing the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, his 47,000 men scattered the 250,000 troops of Darius III at Gaugamela. Subsequently, Darius fled and was murdered, ending the Persian dynasty. Greece now became the world power, and Alexander ‘ruled with extensive dominion and did according to his will.’
⁹ Alexander’s rulership over the world was to be brief, for God’s angel added: “When he will have stood up, his kingdom will be broken and be divided toward the four winds of the heavens, but not to his posterity and not according to his dominion with which he had ruled; because his kingdom will be uprooted, even for others than these.” (Daniel 11:4) Alexander was not quite 33 years old when sudden illness took his life in Babylon in 323 B.C.E.
¹⁰ Alexander’s vast empire did not pass to “his posterity.” His brother Philip III Arrhidaeus reigned for less than seven years and was murdered at the instance of Olympias, Alexander’s mother, in 317 B.C.E. Alexander’s son Alexander IV ruled until 311 B.C.E. when he met death at the hands of Cassander, one of his father’s generals. Alexander’s illegitimate son Heracles sought to rule in his father’s name but was murdered in 309 B.C.E. Thus ended the line of Alexander, “his dominion” departing from his family.
¹¹ Following the death of Alexander, his kingdom was “divided toward the four winds.” His many generals quarreled among themselves as they grabbed for territory. One-eyed General Antigonus I tried to bring all of Alexander’s empire under his control. But he was killed in a battle at Ipsus in Phrygia. By the year 301 B.C.E., four of Alexander’s generals were in power over the vast territory that their commander had conquered. Cassander ruled Macedonia and Greece. Lysimachus gained control over Asia Minor and Thrace. Seleucus I Nicator secured Mesopotamia and Syria. And Ptolemy Lagus took Egypt and Palestine. True to the prophetic word, Alexander’s great empire was divided into four Hellenistic kingdoms.
TWO RIVAL KINGS EMERGE
¹² A few years after coming to power, Cassander died, and in 285 B.C.E., Lysimachus took possession of the European part of the Greek Empire. In 281 B.C.E., Lysimachus fell in battle before Seleucus I Nicator, giving Seleucus control over the major portion of the Asiatic territories. Antigonus II Gonatas, grandson of one of Alexander’s generals, ascended to the throne of Macedonia in 276 B.C.E. In time, Macedonia became dependent upon Rome and ended up as a Roman province in 146 B.C.E.
¹³ Only two of the four Hellenistic kingdoms now remained prominent—one under Seleucus I Nicator and the other under Ptolemy Lagus. Seleucus established the Seleucid dynasty in Syria. Among the cities he founded were Antioch—the new Syrian capital—and the seaport of Seleucia. The apostle Paul later taught in Antioch, where the followers of Jesus first came to be called Christians. (Acts 11:25, 26; 13:1-4) Seleucus was assassinated in 281 B.C.E., but his dynasty ruled until 64 B.C.E. when Roman General Gnaeus Pompey made Syria a Roman province.
¹⁴ The Hellenistic kingdom that lasted the longest of the four was that of Ptolemy Lagus, or Ptolemy I, who assumed the title of king in 305 B.C.E. The Ptolemaic dynasty that he established continued to rule Egypt until it fell to Rome in 30 B.C.E.
¹⁵ Thus out of four Hellenistic kingdoms, there emerged two strong kings—Seleucus I Nicator over Syria and Ptolemy I over Egypt. With these two kings began the long struggle between “the king of the north” and “the king of the south,” described in Daniel chapter 11. Jehovah’s angel left the names of the kings unmentioned, for the identity and nationality of these two kings would change throughout the centuries. Omitting unnecessary details, the angel mentioned only rulers and events that have a bearing on the conflict.
          ...[skipping a lot]...
WHAT DID YOU DISCERN?
• What two lines of strong kings emerged out of Hellenistic kingdoms, and what struggle did the kings begin?
• As foretold at Daniel 11:6, how did the two kings enter into “an equitable arrangement”?
• How did the conflict continue between
   Seleucus II and Ptolemy III (Daniel 11:7-9)?
   Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV (Daniel 11:10-12)?
   Antiochus III and Ptolemy V (Daniel 11:13-16)?
• What was the purpose of the marriage between Cleopatra I and Ptolemy V, and why did the scheme fail (Daniel 11:17-19)?
• How has paying attention to Daniel 11:1-19 benefited you?

What seems odd to me, is just how specifically all the prophecy exactly fits The Seleucids and the Ptolemies. Nothing that exact comes close to fitting any of the future KONs and KOSs that might be identified through the following centuries.

The long portions that I skipped make this even clearer, but I didn't want to just put the entire chapter(s) up here. All of us can read it however at: https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Pay-Attention-to-Daniels-Prophecy/