JW Insider

As you say, it may be nothing more than a rumor. Anything asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. So we can just wait for the evidence before concluding anything. Of course, it is also very important to various groups and political entities to make sure there is a CURRENT negative story about China available at all times. Most of these turn out to be nothing or untrue, but just having the story out there, no matter how short-lived, is important to skew opinion. So if this one is untrue, then it adds to a growing list of failed propaganda stories against China. The CCP enjoys overwhelming support from Chinese people of varying class and wealth within all parts of China, so that even a terrible scandal would probably not have much effect on its stability. Within China the President (Xi) has been given high ratings for many years. The Chinese view of their own economy, the reduction of poverty, "peace and security," ease of transportation, even their own "human rights" are important to them. If such a scandal turns out to be true, it would probably have to be leveraged from political and economic forces outside the country before it had enough of an effect inside China to bring down a popular political party.

At Bethel in Brooklyn all brothers would be periodically assigned to either a few hours of after-dinner dish duty or a whole night of guard duty, which entailed walking through totally dark floors in the factories at Squibb (25/30 Columbia Heights) or the 4 main factories at 117 Adams. You would try not to bump into anything as you searched for "key boxes" with a flashlight. Then you'd turn a key and go on to find the next key box, using a page of ambiguous instructions instead of a map. If all the key boxes were hit correctly and in a timely manner every night, the Society could save a lot on insurance. Being the kind of non-sleeper that I am, I never did dish duty, and always swapped it for guard duty. I was shown where a brother, 20-some years earlier, emptied 6 rounds into a roll of printing paper because he didn't know that rolls of paper can expand and contract due to temperature changes and the pops they make can sound like gunfire. 25 to 30 years earlier the Bethelites could still carry a gun on guard duty. This probably stopped in the 1950's, I'm not sure. It probably stopped soon after that shootout with the paper roll.

There is nothing in the Bible itself about that. There are a few traditions about Peter and Rome, but they are mostly from a couple hundred years after the events would have taken place. And these traditions are often contradictory. The Bible is much more consistent and was written almost completely in the same century when Peter lived. Some of those traditions had the Gospel writer Mark as his secretary, but the Bible does not speak of either of them in Rome. The closest is this verse: (1 Peter 5:13, 14) 13 She who is in Babylon, a chosen one like you, sends you her greetings, and so does Mark, my son. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.. . . Since Peter was married, the "she" here is often thought of as referring to his wife, and Babylon is sometimes thought of as a pseudonym for Rome. But we also know that there was still a thriving Jewish population in the actual area of Babylon, so a pseudonym for Rome is not a definite explanation here.

It's pretty clear he is annoyed with those who don't do enough research and then just come to conclusions without evidence. But I think he is absolutely right in almost all cases. It's a bit annoying to see this pet peeve of his play out so often in the footnotes, and it even creeps into the main text a few times. The second volume has even more of this than the first volume. But it's a reflection of the world of historical discussions these days, and the ease with which someone can make a stupid theory look like it was endorsed by the Pope, the GB, or the President (or all three, for whatever that would be worth). I can't find much to disagree with him on because he is honest with his sources. He is a bit more of a Watchtower apologist in this latest book than he was in Volume 1, but I don't mind that. He brings just a little more of the discussion into the world of JWs today, too. (He apparently has had some help from New York Bethel HQ in his research, too.) Also, he does put an awful lot of work into a kind of agenda to disentangle Russell from any Adventist roots. In doing this, he provides something very valuable for those who think "Russellism" was just a simple split from "Millerism." It's a lot more complicated than that. But he seems to forget that most groups who were smitten with Miller-style Adventism were ashamed of it, and therefore it's easy to find quotes from these same persons trying to distance themselves from it, but not as effectively as they wanted people to think.

No proof. But evidence for a tomb supposedly belonging to to the apostle Peter is very old, reaching back to the century after Peter lived. (Some archaeologists also believe they have found physical evidence for such a tomb.) There is no direct Biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. But the early 'church' found it very important to control the location of the bones of martyrs. (There was an early superstition that touching or interacting somehow with the bones, grave or objects owned by martyrs could pass along some of the 'spirit' or miraculous power of that martyr.) The more famous the martyr, the more important it was for the 'church' to control the location of those bones and the tomb. So although the reasons for keeping or moving Peter's tomb to Rome might be very un-Biblical, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization by B W Schulz A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887 by B. W. Schulz Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet by B. W. Schulz

Very interesting and detailed as usual. B W Schulz and R. M. de Vienne (deceased) showed themselves again to be meticulous researches who clearly took time to read a lot of source material to avoid jumping to conclusions. This topic is an area full of ideas that were arrived at this way. Some of the details here I have never seen anywhere else. If anyone has learned things from any of his books so far that they would like to share, or discuss, or even disagree with, then I hope they'll join a conversation about it. I've read the N.H.Barbour book and Volume 1 of "Separate Identity." I learned a lot from both of those.

Thanks, but your post contained a lot more heavy lifting than I could offer. I hope your own experience is taken to heart by those who see things only in very stark 'black and white' terms. I hope that @4Jah2me reads it with an open mind and sees answers to his own questions and issues.

Absolutely. It depends on the context. Jesus also said: (Matthew 23:2, 3) . . .“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, . . . (Mark 12:28-34) . . .One of the scribes who had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first of all?” . . . 32 The scribe said to him: “Teacher, you spoke well, in line with truth, ‘He is One, and there is no other besides him’; 33 and to love him with one’s whole heart, with one’s whole understanding, and with one’s whole strength and to love one’s neighbor as oneself is worth far more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 At this Jesus, discerning that he had answered intelligently, said to him: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.”

People should be defended wherever possible. The motives can be quite pure and still mistakes are made. In fact, I would say that there are specific good motives that make certain kinds of mistakes even more likely. I'm pretty sure that's why we have extra warnings in the Bible about not being misled when it comes to speculation about the end-time events. Paul said not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us. Obviously, the end-time events get us all excited, and these are the most likely times and events that persons would be speculating upon.

I know this wasn't directed directly at me, but I am just as likely to ridicule the chart as several others around here. The reason is reason: (Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . . (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. (James 1:22) . . .However, become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning. . . (Romans 12:1) . . .Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. (James 3:17) 17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, reasonable, . . . This reminds me of the time when Rutherford began teaching about "Armageddon" in 1925 (and the start of the resurrection of the ancient worthies like Abraham and David). He said it was not just a possibility or probability, but the practical equivalent of a certainty. This teaching was Rutherford's most famous prophetic interpretation from the moment that he was supposed to have embodied the "faithful slave" and the "Governing Body" starting in 1919. The 1919 prophetic message "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" was a message about how people would stop dying in 1925. Should anyone have said anything to Rutherford about how unreasonable this idea was? Should anyone have said anything to anyone else who was teaching this? Rutherford was saying that his hearers and readers could be more certain of 1925 than Noah could have been certain about an imminent Flood. He said 1925 was more of a certainty than 1914 had been. (Which year had also been displayed in famous charts and chart-dependent presentations.) I think you are implying that out of respect for Rutherford (and the "faithful slave" and the "Governing Body") that no one should have pointed out that this was unreasonable. Something similar might go for the idea that the Governing Body said that there should be no divorce allowed for a sister in the congregation when her husband was found to be committing adultery with another man. In the latter case, I'm pretty sure that the rule was changed only when enough people were bold enough to make fun of it. If no one had spoken up, we might still be stuck with this unreasonable teaching. You point out that it now seems reasonable that the end might come about based upon the travails that the world is going through at this time. That might seem reasonable to a lot of people. Yet, even if it happens to be correct that we are currently listening to the world's "death rattle," it still does not follow that an unreasonable chart had anything to do with it. If the end comes tonight and someone later discovers that a man in, say, Northern Queensland had been holding up a sign to that effect in a cow pasture, we could not reasonably connect the man's sign to the end-times event.

OUCH! Another example of abominable vs abdominal?

Here's one that is both abominable AND abdominal:

He probably got that from me 😎 since I often point that out each time someone makes too much of electric cars. I'm starting to come around, however, since my oldest son drives a hybrid electric/gas and it gets better than twice the gas mileage of my Honda CR-V. Also, there are now several countries where most of their electricity is now made available from various combinations of hydro, thermal, wind and/or solar -- not oil and gas.

LOL. You got me there. It makes sense, up to a point. Very expressive emojis, btw. But TTH is right. This topic does not overlap well with the OP. Guilty!

At least when it's just the two of you, imitating that "bosom position" thing doesn't seem so awkward. Try that at the Hall! ----references----- *** it-1 p. 219 Attitudes and Gestures *** In the reclining manner of eating that was practiced during the days Jesus was on earth, to lean on another’s bosom was an attitude of intimate friendship or favor, and this was known as the bosom position. (Joh 13:23, 25) This custom was the basis of the illustrations in Luke 16:22, 23 and John 1:18.

We are, yes, but notice that the chart explicitly names "This Generation" from the quote in Matthew 24:34, and while we may have a specially defined "generation" that includes "This Generation," there is all that gap going up to the Great Tribulation that starts from just after 1992 up until the GT. That part is not part of "This Generation" (according to Splane's chart) even if it's part of our new definition of "generation." Perhaps this is a mistake, and the chartmaker just forgot to extend our meaning of generation going all the way up to the Great Tribulation. It's pretty obvious that "all these things" must include the Great Tribulation according to Matthew, Mark and Luke. [edited because it was even less clear before the edit]

@James Thomas Rook Jr., I know that I've already said more than my share about this chart. But there is one point that I have never seen discussed very clearly. It's the fact that it's another way of saying the following: This generation will by all means have passed away before all these things occur. That probably sounds bad, since Jesus said exactly the opposite. But look closely at the chart and note the actual earliest and latest bounds shown for: |<-- "This Generation" -->| On the chart, "This Generation" only reaches to the time when the last person anointed by the year 1914 has died. Notice that big gap before "The Great Tribulation." It does NOT continue to last into the period when a "group 2" anointed person remains alive after the persons from "group 1" have died. And the talks always imply that there are already no more living persons from "group 1." Therefore "This Generation" already finished in 1992 or perhaps a few years after that, although no specific examples were ever brought up as possible candidates, even if unnamed. The idea is given that there may have been possible candidates from group 1 that outlived FWF, but we can assume that these would not have outlived him for very many years. These appear to already be dead based on indications from the talk that Brother Splane was giving. Although some might try to stretch group 1, we should remember that a person is not considered "anointed" until they are baptized. A reasonable baptismal age seems to be from about 14 to 30, so we'll accept 14. For a person to be anointed by 1914, they should have been baptized, presumably as a "Bible Student" and therefore aware of the Watchtower's view of the sign in 1914. This means they were born by or before 1900, baptized by or before 1914, and would be at least 120 years old today if they were part of "This Generation." Therefore "This Generation" has already passed away, and all these things did not occur. So, clearly, we are being asked to believe the very opposite of what Jesus said about the generation. Jesus: This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur. Splane: This generation will by all means have passed away before all these things occur. Whom do we choose to believe?

On the issue of Chinese control of the WHO, it seems that you are giving too much weight to the things you read about various figureheads of certain organizations and governments. I do follow your suggestion to "read up" however and this is the reason I hold beliefs that are often at odds with your own. But this isn't just about reading. It's also about a lot of travel, and communicating directly with persons from widely varying points of view from many different countries on five continents. I still have plenty to learn, of course, and, in fact, I held most of the same viewpoints that you do, until just a very few years ago. Naturally, I don't have time to go into the reasons I have reconsidered so many of my former beliefs about the world. But I think the primary motivation was to learn more about people. I did decide to take an interest in why so many countries have a deep hatred of the "West" that so often leads to violence. I see terrible mistakes being made by many of these countries. But when we start to claim things about them in support of Western propaganda about them, then I realize that, for me, I would just going along with dishonesty in many cases. And in many cases that dishonesty of Western propaganda plays on racism and greed. And most importantly to me, an honest consideration of all sides of these arguments also leads to a greater appreciation of Jehovah's Kingdom through Jesus Christ. Also, a greater appreciation of the Bible and it's message about Jehovah's government. And, of course, a much greater appreciation of our worldwide Christian brotherhood.

With respect to my congratulations to you, your daughter, and your grandchild, you must have misunderstood. Your response surprised me. I never doubted you for a second about the genius and skill of your daughter's doctor. This is why I congratulated you on the birth of a grandchild in a situation that could have ended up quite a bit different in other places. It reminded me of a similar situation around 1974 when so many of us in the Mid-Western United States had very few good doctors to choose from in these circumstances. For bloodless heart operations, we personally knew a brother who had to travel about 1,000 miles to Texas.

Congratulations (and good health) to all three of you: grandmother, mother, and child. And it was great that you found such a brilliant surgeon back around that 1975 time period. I knew Witnesses here who were still struggling to find surgeons who offered blood-free surgery in those years.

What made you think the doctor trained in China? I looked up both doctors mentioned above and neither show up as having been trained in China. I don't think you have to be afraid. China did not take control of the WHO. And if they did, based on what we've learned about China and its efficient and humane response to COVID-19, it would probably be about the same or even much better. A rotation of a Chinese "Minister" as a member of the UN Human Rights Council seems wrong for those who already fall for absurd exaggerations about how China has dealt with those Chinese Uyghurs who support and join the terrorists and fascists fighting for ISIS. But it is pure hypocrisy to imply that allowing US membership in the UN Human Rights Council is any better. Just a month, China pointed out a few of the areas that highlight human rights violations by the U.S. https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-03-13/China-issues-report-on-human-rights-violations-in-U-S--OPjayudDd6/index.html Also, as to control of the WHO, many Chinese complained about US "control" when the WHO exaggerated numbers so badly, creating excess panic over SARS, for example. (Curiously, several US and Western political leaders claimed for a nearly two months that China was highly exaggerating the Covid numbers and saying that they could not have been nearly so high. Then when their own numbers in their own western countries surpassed China, then those Chinese numbers are claimed to be undercounted. Now, it must have been a lot worse in China than they reported.) Here are some interesting "control" numbers of the WHO, prior to US pulling out funding. China is pretty far down the list, giving only 76 million compared to over a billion dollars a year from the USA + Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation All human organizations make errors, sometimes costly. But when we focus on one organization, government or entity as always worse than others, we should also take a look at what we might be overlooking. Remember, it's the WHOLE WORLD in the power of the wicked one.

I've also heard it argued that it showed the greatest example of humility by Jehovah to allow his name to go into obscurity to allow his Son's name to be placed above every other name. But I don't really buy it. It was through human superstition, not Jehovah's laws, that the name was obscured. The Bible certainly didn't obscure it. It's the most common, proper name in the Bible.

Dear sister. Wishing, hoping, and praying you will be well. The hospitals are truly dangerous places now. Just heard a woman (originally from Senegal) "screaming" about what she says happened to her husband in a French hospital. (He was a well known football player, who went in for a non-Covid checkup -a bad headache- and died hours later of a heart attack. She was treated with such disdain, and she is a medical professional.) Things that happen regularly in hospitals today were mostly unheard of in past years.

I read that the the Catholic "Jerusalem" Bible and later the Catholic "New Jerusalem" Bible, were going to use Jahve, thinking it was possibly more accurate and more consistent with how other Hebrew names were translated, but they decided to stick with Yahweh because it was better known. Similar reasoning with the NWT translators in sticking with Jehovah.