JW Insider

1 hour ago, Anna said:

More than anything, it is criticism of the org. especially its leadership, and dredging up past mistakes. Not all of this is lies. I would say only about 10% might be lies.

I would agree, but I also should have included the idea of distortion of facts as TTH did. (And with an excellent illustration, I might add, which I read while picking my nose.)

But then again, I consider any purposeful distortion of facts to be a lie. It serves the same purpose, but even more nefariously. The "lie" is there, but it's in a hidden agenda.

Of course, it's a sword that can cut both ways. For example, our publications "dredge up" bits of historical information in every few issues of the Watchtower or every couple of years that will usually have the purpose of showing that prophecies from Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, Revelation, etc were fulfilled among the leadership of this very organization. Sometimes the publications or broadcasts will include ideas about just how much better the leaders of our organization were at predicting 1914 decades in advance, or how much better we were than the Federal Council of Churches, or how we predicted the going off into the abyss of the League and its rise as the United Nations.

Sometimes it will then add the point that we should therefore 'trust the leaders of this organization, if we want to survive the great tribulation and Armageddon.' The point will sometimes be made that these predictions are 'proof of guidance by Jehovah's unerring spirit.'

So the problem for persons who have done their due-diligence and looked up these "controversial" items for themselves --to see if these things were so-- is that some of those persons will come back with the idea that these are actually only 10 percent lies, but that still doesn't equate to 90 percent "true."  (See TTH's post.)

We know that the counsel by the GB is actually intended like a father to his children to help us stay out of danger. It might even be based on an exaggeration: "Don't go near those people because they always lie!" It doesn't mean every word is a lie, but the overall message probably is a lie. Their overall apostate message is probably "Don't trust the leaders of this organization, if you want to survive the great tribulation and Armageddon." Or, "These mistakes are proof of NO guidance by Jehovah's unerring spirit."

Obviously there are some here who are anxious to immediately twist anything said as quickly as possible into those apostate messages. And then there are those who might assume that anyone who continues to dredge up mistakes from the past is subtly trying to create those overall apostate messages which can be a by-product of dredging up past error -- without ever even making those apostate statements overtly. 

It's pretty clear that this is what Allen Smith's henchaccounts think I am doing on purpose. This is why I don't blame him for calling out what he thinks I am doing. It's also why I welcome his input, because it reminds those who have not done their due-diligence that this is NOT something to just accept because someone is stating it. It's just an opinion. Just because I will offer the reasons for my own opinion, and just because I personally accept my own opinion, doesn't mean that it couldn't be mistaken. I've been fooled before and I'll likely be fooled again. 

Sooner or later, though, people who do their Beroean due-diligence will end up facing some uncomfortable ideas that they may not be prepared for in the least. It's bad to have the rug pulled out from under you with nothing to fall back on. I personally believe we need a faith that doesn't rely so much on human leaders for validation. We can still appreciate the reasons for respecting human leadership, and for following direction from those taking the lead in the most important work, announcing Jehovah's Kingdom through Christ. But we don't need 2 out of 100 past predictions to come true. We don't even need prophecies that predicted events among the Watchtower's leadership in 1919, for example.

59 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Wow! Only your opinion matters. People must convince you before you call it the truth. That is hilarious since "due diligence" is not part of a governed criteria for good research here by most of you.

That's funny. It says exactly the opposite of 'only my opinion matters.' It says that no one should have to believe what I say because, even when I have done my own due-diligence and put what I have researched on here with evidence, that it's still really just my opinion about the evidence. I expect that TTH understood what I said, but I really should have rewritten it. I worded it rather convolutedlylike.

59 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

You accused TTH earlier of trying to "exonerate Rutherford

Another problem in the understanding of what I said. I didn't accuse TTH of trying to exonerate Rutherford. I only pointed out that asking that particular question he asked about what goals of JFR that JFR thought were identical with Hitler's is a question that is very "bad" if TTH was trying to exonerate Rutherford.

(And the reason was that Hitler was already well known around the world for about 5 goals. And JFR managed to make it appear that he was aligned with 3 of those 5.)

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

19 hours ago, Arauna said:

. . . most Americans view the world only through American eyes . . .

Yes. How can it be said of an American city that “in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth?”

Good point. And to Arauna's point, most "Westerners" view the world only through "Western" eyes. The news about various countries in the world sounds almost the same in France, UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, US, Germany, etc.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As near as I can tell, JWs swallow them [conspiracies] in no greater proportion than the overall world.

And probably get taken in much less than the overall world due to neutrality, disinterest in low priority secular things, general avoidance of non-JW Internet sites. We've got our own priorities to be concerned about. (Although I'm sure this forum would make many wonder about myself and others.)

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

One fact that flies in the face of Russia being the belligerent king is that America bombs more countries than he. . . . when Bob’s Bomb Company has become a huge enterprise with stockholders that must be fed or they will go elsewhere, Bob sends lobbyists to Washington to promote the view—and spread money around liberally to those who pick up on it—that the world is an extraordinarily dangerous place of countless enemies that must be kept in check—and as it turns out, ‘we build just the products to facilitate that.’ The lobbyists are not there primarily to hawk Bob’s Bombs over Bill’s Bombs—they are there to foment rising waters that will float all boats.

Important point about Russia not being as belligerent as America. This has been true for decades. While America hyped Russia's conflicts in Afghanistan and Georgia and now Ukraine, America would never hype the fact that America has been caught fomenting trouble in Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, even Hong Kong with CIA operatives, while amassing bases and missiles and ships all along the borders in Eastern Europe, the Mideast, the southern border of North Korea, creating coups and wars in Africa, Central and South America, etc. Another irony is that while deploring Russia's involvement in Syria, America doesn't report (except once accidentally and then quickly walked back) the number of US troops that had already invaded and who have been sitting inside Syria's borders all along, uninvited, based in the oil-rich areas of Syria, where America has been (and still is) controlling the flow of a majority of Syria's oil. America constantly discusses the threats of various other countries, while America is already overrunning and bombing countries to create death, chaos, and instability. Now, one of the problems is that it turns out that military lobbyists have been pushing various planes, radar systems, and defensive weapons that don't work very well. And while this was always a way to keep countries buying upgrades, now some of those buyers are looking to buy from Russia and China for various defensive weapons, because they don't trust the American weapons as they once did.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is little different with a host of other industries—tobacco, food, pharma, for instance—they reach the point where they must keep that money rolling in and then they do things to that end without regard to effect on the consumer or general society. I do not follow anything on Twitter without following its polar opposite, and in this way I have come to feel that some ‘conspiracy theories’ are actually much better argued that the mainline, which often just says that ‘we’ve got this locked up’ and shouts down whoever would challenge it. As you point out, the large internet firms are also going this way—agreeing to whatever nasty terms this or that government lays down—just to expand their reach.

You must be like a "Beroean" on Twitter. Too bad there is no perfect method. And then there are the bots which flood one end or the other of your polar opposites and try to create trends and skews. There is another method of ruining any method of gathering accurate news sources, which many hope to get through Twitter/FB, and that's the inclusion of purposeful creation of "chaos" disguised as plain and simple truth in mainstream media. (Trump tweets, NYTimes, Vox, Vice, CNN, Fox, MSNBC) 

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As to Hitler positioning himself in his pre-1933 days, the GreatCourses professor on American history refers to a “low-level anti-semitism” that was almost universal prior to WWII—and in many parts of the world, not so low-level—so that picking up on it would be no more controversial than breathing air.

Much more to be said on this. Might come back to it later.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Okay, okay—olive branch here. I was in an atypical mood at the time, rethinking some things in view of yesterday WT article.

I'm sure I sounded a bit harsher than I meant to. If I made it sound like a big problem, I didn't mean to. For me this is not a controversy. Rutherford was just plainly wrong on this. Doesn't change the fact that he was right on so many other things. But I have to ask. Do you really think any of this information is applicable to paragraphs 8 and 11 of yesterday's Watchtower? Those WT paragraphs were about "lies" and "apostate lies." This is just information, hopefully honest and unvarnished. Also, one of the scriptures in the Study was Isaiah 54:17:

17  No weapon formed against you will have any success, . . .

A shield of knowledge will help us blunt the effect from anyone who tries to weaponize this information. But sometimes the actual shield for our faith will merely take the form of honesty and humility, and accepting the humanity of those taking the lead among us. If something turns out to be true, we don't want to be too quick to just reject is as false because we don't like the sound of it. 

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But that’s not really the same as accepting it right here on the worldwide media network forum

I was only referring to the principle of not accepting something as true without multiple "witnesses" of evidence, documentation, speeches, etc. For me it meant that I wouldn't want to put something out here as fact unless I had personally done a good amount of due-diligence. It wasn't about whether anyone else should read and accept what someone puts on this forum and accepts it just because it includes multiple instances of evidence. Until someone already "knows" or looks up evidence for themselves, all they have looked at here is just someone's opinion about the evidence. 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I went out of my way in Dear Mr Putin not to demonize the Russian President, as most in the West does, and you praised me for it—not for Putin specifically, but for writing a book that did not reflect the common Western perception of Russia.

Many try to make Putin out to be another Hitler, and I think you are right that trying to demonize him in that way burns bridges unnecessarily. But I liked that you didn't actually let Putin off the hook, either.

My comments in this regard, as you indicate, were mostly about not parroting the Western version of Russian's history as it is sometimes stereotyped. Terribly bad things happened. But the numerical extent is controversial in Russia, and among many world historians, and Putin himself has to walk a tightrope on some of those historical topics. Besides you found a good way to make the same points without letting this additional controversy distract from your main point.   

But to your point here: I think Putin is awful in a lot of ways, and probably OK in a lot of ways. I'm pretty sure you know a lot more about him than I do, all the more so, after the work you put into the book project. But I don't think you are saying we shouldn't trash Hitler after all that we've learned about him. I don't think there is anything controversial about calling out Hitler's racism and the methods used to reach his political goals.

35 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That's a very bad question if you are trying to exonerate JFR here.

I don’t like the tone, for I am not particularly trying to do that.

You may have noticed that the last time this came up on the forum, I stayed away from these details of the JFR/Hitler discussion, but I thought I remembered that you had already made a similar point in a previous discussion:

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

NO! he was referring to the feel-good cumbaya boiler-plate high principles that every human agency that  comes down the pipe promises and fails to deliver because of their insistence to do it by human thinking and not God’s!

Certain ones have commented with some disapproval —I think you have been one of them—at the seeming ‘need’ of the organization to diss anything that does not come from them. Here you seem to be holding them accountable for not doing just that.

I wanted to show the reasons that this particular case should not be compared (in my opinion) with a practice of dissing just anything that doesn't come from the organization. These details were in response to the idea that Rutherford might have been referring just to the feel-good principles and promises of a typical politician. I took the above quote to that effect as your "defense" of Rutherford's specific actions in this regard, even if it wasn't particularly what you were trying to do.

35 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Rather, the statement suggests to me that you are trying to condemn him.

I'm not at all trying to condemn Rutherford generally. Listening closely to his speeches and known writings, you can tell he has a love for Jehovah, and a strong faith that Jehovah will act on behalf of righteous people. Most everything I read from his writing and speeches is perfectly fine. But I am trying to condemn this conduct shown "here" on this matter. Absolutely!

By his own words he condemns his own actions here, on this particular matter.

We should never use two different scales, even when judging matters of this life about a distinguished and respected member of the Governing Body.

Isn't this the very reason that Galatians 1 and 2 is part of Scripture, and therefore beneficial for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness? In Galatians, Paul showed how Peter stood "condemned" in this matter of showing favoritism for one race or national group above another. Earlier Paul had just shown how we might go wrong for showing favoritism for a leader just because that person might be distinguished and respected.

There is nothing particularly wrong with bringing an accusation against an older man as long as we are conscientiously following the principle of not just making accusations wildly because of what we have heard from only one source, or unreliable sources. I think, or hope at least, that I am following the advice of Paul here:

• (1 Timothy 5:19-21) 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.

@Arauna, I think it's just like @TrueTomHarley already indicated. Some conspiracies are going to turn out to be true. And, like I said before: almost all conspiracies have a lot of truth in them or they wouldn't work; they wouldn't get very far. Making up a counter-conspiracy is often the way to hide a true conspiracy.

And conspiracies should never surprise us if we are aware of the "machinations" of the Devil.

42 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Just to clarify: extreme socialism becomes communism and extreme capitalism also ends up looking  like communism. 

Extreme socialism does become communism. But extreme capitalism does not look like communism, it's the definition of fascism. Capitalism defended by a militaristic state is fascism.

42 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Both end up with a few rich people on the top who further enrich themselves and later end up as dictating all policy - and both end up with a majority of equally poor population underneath.

You have likely been listening to a lot of the same propaganda that now has most of the world in its thrall. I listened to it, too, for most of my life. The problem with your theory is that the United States, through dozens of once-secret sources, which are now in the open, prove definitively that the United States was deathly afraid of communism because it brings poor people out of poverty much quicker than capitalism ever has. This is the reason that communism is a "threat" and has to be interfered with and sabotaged constantly. It's the reason that the United States has chosen to destroy nations like North Korea and Vietnam and Libya and Syria and Venezuela and Nicaragua and even much smaller nations, more defenseless than those.

The United States has been running scared for decades, because of the theory that people might notice that communism, at least Marxist communism, is a scientific approach to the economy such that more poor in the population rise above the poverty level.

Russian communism, in spite of two world wars, and a couple of very paranoid leaders, managed to build itself up from a very poor economy with most of the population in poverty, to the second biggest economy in the world in just the 40 years from about 1917 to 1957. US Capitalism, for example, though a much richer country, barely moved the bar on the percentage of people it could bring out of poverty in any 40 year period.

China's communism is creating an economy that has now very likely become the number one economy in the world. And it was and still is a poor, overpopulated country.  In the years since its revolution in the late 1940's it has managed to bring more persons out of poverty than all other nations put together. There is a rumor that they might have completely raised virtually everyone above the poverty line by late 2020 or 2021. And this is what's reported by Western journalists, not just Chinese sources. And China has done this without bombing countries for their resources or using the US/IMF/WorldBank tactics of creating loans to be defaulted on so that the leverage on those loans allows rampant stealing of resources, trade for military bases, pipelines, etc. In fact, John Bolton was angry at China for using tactics in Africa that made local populations "prefer" China over America when it came to doing business for their valuable resources (rare earth metals, etc). Those "tactics" include NOT using loans for leverage, NOT using military proxies to murder uncooperative local populations, NOT promoting civil war to weaken the country, NOT attempting regime changes, NOT building infrastructure that is clearly for the purpose of American military bases, NOT using a majority of Chinese persons as workers in these lands to hurt the local economies, etc.

These "tactics" have worked so well, that almost everything the United States has done to make themselves unpopular in the world is projected onto China to try to make China look worse. Even the surveillance initiatives that you have often brought up are only in the testing stages and are still chaotic and experimental. They have been tried in only a few test areas and cities in China and they are not nearly as pervasive as such surveillance systems are in the United States.

Don't get the idea that I think Communism is a proper solution for the world, or that I think that these countries can do no wrong. They are led by humans, influenced by Satan, and will make dangerous mistakes just like every other nation. The only true solution to human governments is a government by God, God's Kingdom under Christ.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Which “goals” of Hitler that JR agreed with do you think that he was speaking about?

That's a very bad question if you are trying to exonerate JFR here.

I'm sure you already know this, but Hitler didn't come out of the blue. The goals of the Hitler's Nazi party had already been made clear in the 1920's. Hitler was actually becoming important in internal political and military circles in 1918/9, when the first swastika flags were seen even at the tail end of WWI. He had been an intelligence officer in WWI. Also as a political operative he was not speaking just for himself, but amassed more political power by standing for popular ideas about remilitarizing to prove the true superiority of the Teutonic race, and that they would have won WWI, except for the UK and of course Jewish Bolshevism. Even before 1920, the foundations of the Nazi party were already "coming into their own."

Because the Nazi party was very anti-Socialist (in spite of its name), it also grew in parallel with Italian fascism under Mussolini, whose party also gained power from the end of WWI. Mussolini was a "social Darwinian" racist (white supremacist), but not nearly as anti-Jewish as Hitler's party. Still it was a clear that Italy fascist party and Germany's fascist party (the Nazis) were trending in the same direction. Mussolini was breaking unions, was pro-capitalist, for privatizing businesses,etc. Both Nazism and Italian Fascism were seen as the "Anti-Revolution Revolution" or "Revolution of the Right" opposing the leftist Leninist style revolution of the left. The Russian revolution was spreading its ideology in some ways across Europe, as already seen in Finland and Romania and Ukraine, and Nazism was the cure. 

When Hitler staged his premature coup to get power in 1925, of course, he was caught and sent to jail, where he wrote Mein Kampf. By the mid-to-late-20s, Mein Kampf had made very clear all the basic components of his ideology. His goals were to bring Germany back into WWI to win it this time. He also made clear that lying and backstabbing and false propaganda were going to be necessary "tools." The book along with his speeches promoted rabid anti-Semitism in the 1920's which he toned down only by the early 1930's to be more electable and respectable. He was visited by many Americans before he took power, being seen as a celebrity. Many others in the party did not control their anti-Semitic rhetoric in their political speeches. Not that it mattered, because it started to come back with a vengeance through Hitler himself within months of his election.  

So his goals were clear from the 1920's. His party would be built on German imperialism, racial supremacy, fascism/nazism, and in his rise to prominence, he had used this rhetoric of revenge (over WWI, Treaty of Versailles) to push German even the socialist workers to the right. (Through inflitration and lying propaganda whenever necessary.)  He wanted to erase the shame of WWI, blaming the loss on Britain and Jews. German society saw the rhetoric rising but still assumed he could never become electable. But with rising industrialization, Hitler made fascism seem feasible. The premonitions in his rhetoric of the early and mid 20's made it seem realistic that that Germany should re-arm and conquer the world. The rationale for making war on the west was Jewish Bolshevism and the fact that they were blockaded by Britain, and obviously it was Russian-Jewish Bolshevism in the east since 1917.

If I haven't repeated myself enough already above, he was already a scary, militaristic, fascist, anti-socialist, anti-British, anti-Jewish, white supremacist. So I don't know what goals Rutherford thought were identical, but he already would have known much of the above history because I'm sure he had been reading the writing of a Jewish person who had already reported this by early 1933. But this same Jewish man had also written in April 1933 that Hitler's party, even though ostensibly pro-Catholic, didn't care anymore and had been breaking up not just socialist and communist meetings, but Catholic meetings, too.

Perhaps this is why Rutherford thought it was safe to include the following in his letter:

The Brooklyn headquarter of the Watchtower Society is pro German in an exemplary way and has been so for many years. . . . These two magazines, "The Watchtower" and "Bible Student" were the only magazines in America which refused to engage in anti-German propaganda . . . . In the very same manner, in course of the recent months the board of directors of our Society not only refused to engage in propaganda against Germany, but has even taken a position against it. The enclosed declaration underlines this fact and emphasizes that the people leading in such propaganda (Jewish businessmen and Catholics) also are the most rigorous persecutors of the work of our Society and its board of directors. This and other statements of the declaration are meant to repudiate the slanderous accusation, that Bible Researchers are supported by the Jews.

And the "Declaration" letter at the the same time included the following statements. The WTS was apparently not ashamed of them because they even printed them in English in the 1934 Yearbook, p. 134-138. The support for Hitler's Nazi principles are aligned with Hitler's propaganda against Jews and the British nation, and Rutherford admits his anti-Catholicism, too (which might NOT have aligned with Hitler's principles).

It is falsely charged by our enemies that we have received financial support for our work from the Jews. Nothing is farther from the truth. Up to this hour there never has been the slightest bit of money contributed to our work by Jews. We are the faithful followers of Christ Jesus and believe upon Him as the Savior of the world, whereas the Jews entirely reject Jesus Christ and emphatically deny that he is the Savior of the world sent of God for man's good. This of itself should be sufficient proof to show that we receive no support from Jews and that therefore the charges against us are maliciously false and could proceed only from Satan, our great enemy. The greatest and the most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: The Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills.

The present government of Germany has declared emphatically against Big Business oppressors and in opposition to the wrongful religious influence in the political affairs of the nations. Such is exactly our position.

Instead of being against the principles advocated by the government of Germany, we stand squarely for such principles, and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus will bring about the full realization of these principles and will give to the people peace and prosperity and the greatest desire of every honest heart.

A careful examination of our books and literature will disclose the fact that the very high ideals held and promulgated by the present national government are set forth in and endorsed and strongly emphasized in our publications and show that Jehovah God will see to it that these high ideals in due time will be attained by all persons who love righteousness.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

just as Rutherford initially praised Hitler's Nazi government 

I’m dubious of that.

The letter that Rutherford wrote to Hitler around June 25, 1933 uses pretty much the same logic that the Watchtower had used for supporting the League of Nations. The idea is that the Bible Students stood for the same ethical goals as the Nazi government under Hitler, and that they were in full agreement with them. Hitler's goals were just a political expression of purely religious goals of the Bible Students. The letter says:

The conference of five thousand delegates also noted - as is expressed in the declaration - that the Bible Researchers of Germany are fighting for the very same high ethical goals and ideals which also the national government of the German Reich proclaimed respecting the relationship of humans to God, namely: honesty of the created being towards its creator.

The conference came to the conclusion that there are no contradictions when it comes to the relationship between the Bible Researchers of Germany to the national government of the German Reich. To the contrary, referring to the purely religious and unpolitical goals and efforts of the Bible Researchers, it can be said that these are in full agreement with the identical goals of the national government of the German Reich.

Of course, Hitler and his government had done very little by that point in 1933 to show how they would go about executing those "same ethical goals." But it was risky for Rutherford to claim they were identical. It's like giving Obama a Nobel Peace Prize just before he expands the current wars and takes the United States into some new ones.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Initially . .  Watchtower praised the League of Nations, as if . . . political expression of God's kingdom on earth,

I’m dubious of that.

(Revelation 17:8, NWT 1984)  The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.

The NWT says above that some would "wonder admiringly" about this beast. The Watchtower in 1919 came out with an article that appears to be a commentary on that same phrase the Federal Council of Churches had used, but they also managed to use words that showed they "wondered admiringly" calling the ideals of this League both wonderful and admirable. But the Watchtower article also compared the League's ideals to show that they were essentially the same as the ideals of God's kingdom, and was even suggesting that this League might be involved in the initiation of the outworking of God's kingdom on earth. Just as the Federation of Churches had done, however, the Watchtower was not saying it was the same as God's kingdom, only that it was a "political" expression of those goals. Just like many in the Federation of Churches, it was realized that it would take more than political goals to actually achieve the full outworking of God's kingdom.

Here are some snippets from the first, last and a middle paragraph of a short article in the Watch Tower,  February 15, 1919,  p.51, with a more complete text of the article below:

We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.

So the Watchtower claimed that the Peace Conference and the "virtual reality" of the League of Nations were not merely the evolution of human progress, but were were strides of Jehovah's divine providence. They were a part of Jehovah's day of preparation for the Messianic Kingdom. In a small way this idealistic League of Nations was a political expression of what God's Kingdom would complete on earth.

In fact, one point of the article is that the wonderful and admirable League of Nations is more than just a political expression of God's kingdom, but a social and economic expression of the ideals of God's kingdom on earth, too.

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

Interesting - they had pinpointed the UN at that time.....because it is now getting significantly important in the present time.  It (un) may even now go in abyss and come up with a new name. All I know is that UN Agenda 2030 cannot work unless they do eventually control policy in the West in a totalitarian way and work with the Chinese/Russian block of alliances . . .

There is always some truth in half-truths, and conspiracy theorists always deal in half-truths. I have usually found, or I should say "always found" that whenever I hear about the dangers of a certain UN initiative, that the person promoting the theory is often virtually unacquainted with the original documents, and is getting their information from another place, rather than the UN source.

I think that any human organization can be dangerous, even inadvertently. People make stupid and dangerous decisions without thinking of consequences. It happens all the more with persons of influence and power who make dangerous decisions, sometimes on purpose, and sometimes while trying to do the right thing. So I'm not at all surprised about bad things coming out of the UN, NATO, the EU, the White House, Russia, China, etc.

And I'm not surprised that persons, even Rutherford, in 1918 on up through 1940, '41, '42, '43, '44, '45, etc., also held conspiratorial views of the League of Nations and the UN, and that these views influenced some of those extremely inaccurate predictions about them. Inaccurate predictions about them are found in the Watch Tower publications and also on the pages of many other religions and political, secular organizations, too.  

Initially, of course, the Watchtower praised the League of Nations, as if it were some sort of political expression of God's kingdom on earth, just as Rutherford initially praised Hitler's Nazi government as if it were some sort of political expression of God's kingdom on earth. Of course, in neither case did this view last very long, and it was never expressed as if these two political expressions (the League and Hitler) could ever be looked upon as any kind of replacement of God's kingdom. 

I doubt that this site is very accurate, but I agree with much of what is said on this wikipedia-style article at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/United_Nations

It includes among its member nations not only parliamentary democracies, but also human rights abusers mainly concerned with their own power. Because unanimity among the Big 5 (the USA, France, UK, Russia and China) is needed for any action involving the Security Council, things rarely get done, and UN sanctions can be pretty much ignored by all nations great and small. That's okay, though, since the countries like the US that are meant to fund it systematically starve it of funding, so the UN can't do much anyway.^{[note 1]} On some small scale activities, it can do some good, but any attempts at actual peace-keeping usually fall apart. What should then be a cause for peace and brotherhood instead just becomes another bureaucratic nightmare.

. . .

The UN and conspiracy theories

As an international body, the UN has predictably attracted the attention of conspiracy theorists. Due to conservatives' dislike of the institution, the conspiracy theories tend to come from the far-right wingnut camp, although said theories often cross over into the loony left fringes as well.

League of Nations

UN conspiracism grew out of the Paris Peace Conference at the end of the First World War as liberal internationalists like Woodrow Wilson pushed for an international body that would promote global peace and national self-determination. Opponents of the plan, most notably Wilson's nemesis Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA), argued that joining the League of Nations would cause the US to become entangled in malignant international politics, that the US might have to commit troops to wars it didn't want to fight, and that the League would infringe on national sovereignty.^[4] Despite the fact that the US ultimately failed to join the League of Nations — and that its failure was one of the major causes of World War II — conspiracy theories about world government began to spring up in fringe circles. Often, these were vague murmurings about shadowy international dealings, though some conspiracy theories began to take on racist overtones. Father Coughlin, for example, alleged that the League was a tool of the Jews to prosecute a "sacred war" against the US.

As a side note: One of the few positive things that the League of Nations accomplished was issuing "Nansen Passports," the first internationally recognized form of Refugee Documents for stateless people.^[5]

Formation of the UN

Conspiratorial themes about the League of Nations transferred over to the newly formed United Nations during the post-war era. The John Birch Society (JBS) was (and still is) most famous for pushing conspiracy theories about the UN being a front for a communist world take-over. The JBS also implicated the UN in plotting to institute one world religion to supplant Christianity. This was to be done through subtle means, such as a "War on Christmas" in which religious Christmas decorations would be replaced by UN iconography.^[6]

The New World Order and other current theories

Current conspiracy theories about the UN usually portray it as the heart of an alleged "New World Order" (NWO), or at least implicate it as a major player in said Order. The UN effectively acts as a Rorschach test for political cranks to project their paranoia onto. Some more recent conspiratorial notions include:

• The UN is in cahoots with [insert favored bogeyman here]. (Popular choices include the Jews, the NWO, communists, environmentalists, "globalists", corporo-fascists, Illuminati, the Catholic Church, Freemasons, Reptoids, Them, etc.).

• The idea of the UN instituting a world religion or the UN being a vehicle for the Antichrist has become a common trope among the rapture ready set. Jack Chick was fond of this one.^[7] This idea is also shared to some extent by Jehovah's Witnesses, who consider UN to be the "image of a wild beast" from Revelation 13 and the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" mentioned in Matthew 24:15, which will soon act to destroy all other religions, and finally turn against JWs. The UN has also been accused of being the Harlot being described as "Sitting atop the Nations, Multitudes, Languages, and Tongues" (sitting atop the tongues, what an image!).

• The UN has launched smaller projects such as the "North American Union" to gradually erase national borders.

• After the fall of the Soviet Union, the UN increasingly became the target of anti-environmentalist conspiracy theories, primarily the notion of a power-grab using climate change as a cover. This is due to the UN's institution of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to produce consensus reports on climate change. Conspiracies vary from the "softer" side (the UN is simply cooking the books to enrich itself) to the extremely alarmist (the UN is angling for world domination via alleged "junk science" and the machinations of Al Gore). Another element in this view is that the commies infiltrated the environmental movement after the fall of the USSR and are now using the UN as a tool via environmental policy.^{[note 2]}Christopher Monckton is a proponent of this theory.^[8]

• Agenda 21, the most recent UN-related conspiracy theory, also centers on a non-binding environmental agreement. If you want to know more, Glenn Beck wrote the book.^[9]

• Mix the second and the fourth conspiracies and you get the idea that the UN is attempting to enforce a global Earth-worshiping pagan hippie cult where everyone is forced to sing the praises of Gaia.^{[10][note 3]} This one, at least, could provide some amusement if it were true.

• Sometimes related to the environmental conspiracy theories (usually global warming) is the idea that concern about overpopulation is being used as a scare tactic to lay the groundwork for a genocide or eugenics scheme to kill off the "useless eaters." As if the world's population isn't currently growing at an alarming rate.

• The UN is under the control of Arab/Muslim states and attempting to (a) enable terrorists, (b) usher in the "global caliphate", (c) subtly insert sharia into the American legal system, or (d) all of the above.^{[note 4]}

• The UN Arms Trade Treaty is an attempt of an "end run" around the Second Amendment to take away everyone's guns. Just guess the factual accuracy of that one.^[11]

• Left-ish circles have their own conspiracy theories. Most common is the claim is that the UN is merely the pawn of the United States and its imperialistic schemes. This sometimes plays into fears about globalization (WTO, duh).^[12] This seems to ignore the complete antipathy to the UN and other international organizations that some US administrations have shown in the past.^{[note 5]} The War in Iraq also demonstrated that the US doesn't need no stinkin' UN to carry out imperialistic schemes.

15 hours ago, Arauna said:

I think the word you meant was genealogy.

No that was Paul who said not to argue about genealogy (which was the primary source of Hebrew Scripture chronology).

Jesus counsel to the disciples was not to concern themselves with chronology. The exact term was "times and seasons," as in when Jesus said, 

Acts 1:7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.

Paul agreed when he said:

(1 Thessalonians 5:1) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.

15 hours ago, Arauna said:

The genealogy is important to know. Why did god then insert it in the bible?

Genealogies became the historical calendar the Jews used. We use dates that tell us how many years a date was from the time of Jesus' birth (both before and after). Apparently, the Jews didn't need these types of distant historical dates very often, but if necessary, they had enough information to know approximately how far they were in the stream of time since Adam, or since any particular patriarch or king. Also, of course, there were some prophecies, too, that were time-based long BEFORE Jesus said that the future parousia would be as if a complete sudden surprise, like a lightning flash, or like the sudden destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

15 hours ago, Arauna said:

This refers to the fact that the bible promised a future king. Jesus was not yet king while on the torture stake.

So far, in several years of bringing up this topic, everyone has always picked the easy ones to defend against. But that verse was mostly included to show that the prevailing view among Jews was that Messiah (Christ) was a synonym for "King." There was never a need to say Christ is King, because that was redundant, like saying "The Messianic King is a King!" This means that every reference to Jesus as the "Christ" was the same as saying "Anointed Messianic King." This is what adds so much meaning to Peter's statement at Pentecost, shortly after Jesus was resurrected:

(Acts 2:30-36) . . .Because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’ 36 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.”

(Hebrews 1:2-8) . . .Now at the end of these days [Greek: Now, in the last days] he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, . . . And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. . . .  8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.

(Hebrews 8:1) . . .We have such a high priest as this, [after the order of Melchizedek who was both king and priest] and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

We are in the awkward position of explaining how a person could be holding the scepter of his Kingdom, yet not be a king.

Our tradition forces us to argue against only a few scriptures that indicate that Jesus was a "king" explicitly. But to be complete we should also argue against every time the term "Christ" is used.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The idea that Armageddon was only MONTHS away, instead of years, was a common theme for the remainder of the war.

Was it?

That was partially answered in the previous post. But there were more quotes of course.

The first is from the Watchtower, September 15, 1941, p. 288

Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon.

Sometimes it was even a matter of "days." The following is from Consolation (lka, Awake!) April 27, 1942, p. 13

Proof is now submitted that we are now living at the end of the days, and we may expect to see Daniel and the other mentioned princes any day now!

And the following was already quoted from "Universal War Near," 1935:

. . . during the few remaining months until the breaking of that universal cataclysm the powers that rule the nations of the earth will continue to make treaties and tell the people that by such means they will keep that world peace and bring about prosperity.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Watchtower had been predicting that the NON-democracies. . .  would win WWII up until 9 months before . . .

Had it?

It started mostly in Rutherford's acceptance of conspiratorialist half-truths from some anti-Catholic sources back in 1938. There were strong rumors that the Catholic Church wanted to use the opportunities brought about by the war to control the entire world through a kind of Catholic caliphate. Rutherford could easily tie fascist Italy to the Vatican through Mussolini, and Hitler's concord with the Vatican had already been exposed, too. Communist Russia was not perceived as an "Axis" power of course, as it would become the country that would go on to defeat Hitler almost single-handedly, but joining with the "Allied" powers, to complete it. But he looked to information about how Communist party sources were trying to reach a hand out for peace with the Vatican. And he followed rabid anti-Catholic sources to prove that the Catholic church was looking to rule the entire world.

Therefore, in 1938, in the booklet, "Face the Facts" he predicted that the 'Axis' powers and communists would form a Catholic "combine" to finally take over America and Britain.

When Mussolini marched to Rome to take possession thereof he was an avowed atheist, opposed to God and his kingdom, and would not tolerate anyone who supports God's kingdom or advertises the same. He was then opposed to all religious organizations. But in 1929 Mussolini and the pope, the head of that mighty religious organization, entered into an alliance by which temporal power in Italy was restored to the pope, and Mussolini became a devoted Catholic, and therefore a supporter of religion. Likewise the dictator of the totalitarian rule of Germany has entered into an alliance with the pope, and he is an avowed Catholic and supports the Catholic religion, and protects it within that arbitrary government.
Recently Mr. Forbes, executive secretary of the Communist party, proposed mutual co-operation between Communism and the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in state affairs. In answer thereto the pope, acting through his cardinal and authoritative representative (Verdier), at Paris, made reply to the Communist party in these words: "If this gesture of the outstretched hand from your side expresses the wish to become better acquainted with your Catholic brothers in order to give better respect to the religion which inspires them to their convictions, their feelings, their works, then the church will not refuse to carry out this work of enlightenment and you will recognize that this can contribute greatly to the happiness of all." To such generous offer from the pope the Communist party responded in these words: "The outstretched hand of the Communist party to the Catholic people remains outstretched." (New York Times, July 26, 1938) True, the Catholic Press of America, since the Hierarchy's connection with the Fascists was exposed in Australia, in Seattle, Washington, and in other places, has had much to say about a possible break between the pope and the Fascists. Such publication is merely a political trick to keep the people deceived and in the dark while the Totalitarians march on and seize control of America and England.
The indisputable facts are that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy has stooped wholly to political methods to gain control of the world, and concerning such an honest Catholic of New York has written a book entitled "Rome Stoops to Conquer", and therein submits the proof that Vatican City's chief objective is to rule the world in conjunction with radical powers. The Hierarchy has placed its trusted men in the key positions of political office in practically every nation of the world, which men are first Catholic and, regardless of the just rights of the people, always carry out the will of the Hierarchy in political governmental affairs. These facts, which cannot be disputed, disclose the Roman Catholic Hierarchy's determination to act as a kind of spiritual super-government over the dictators of the world, forming a part of the monstrosity, and which violently opposes Jehovah and his kingdom under Christ Jesus. The monstrosity moves onward! . . .

When the totalitarian Catholic combine gains control of the British Isles, which it is certain to do, then all liberties of the people will be at an end. . . .

The totalitarian combine is going to get control of England and America. You cannot prevent it. Do not try. Your safety is on the Lord's side; but there really will be but a short time that the combine will hold sway, because it is written in the Lord's Word, at 1 Thessalonians 5: 3, that when this crowd says, 'We are now at peace and safety,' the Lord sends sudden destruction upon them, and they are at their wits' end, and they shall find no way of escape.

Rutherford spoke of Armageddon coming against a world of totalitarian nations, and this is what he meant. The totalitarian combine would have already taken over England and America when Armageddon arrives. The nearness of this time was expressed in many ways. One of them, in the same booklet, echoed the Millions campaign, which was NOT just about the great crowd, but about the world in general. This time it was more specifically about the "great crowd" [Jonadabs]. The doctrine had changed so that ONLY the Jonadabs would survive Armageddon.

Would it be Scripturally proper for them to now marry and to begin to rear children? No, is the answer, which is supported by the Scriptures. Referring to the prophetic picture: Noah's sons and their wives had no children before or during the flood, and none were born of them until after the flood was dried up, and the record is that it was two years after the flood before children born are mentioned.. . . Those Jonadabs who now contemplate marriage, it would seem, would do better if they wait a few years, until the fiery storm of Armageddon is gone,. . . The only ones who will survive Armageddon will be God's faithful children . . . . .The kingdom is here, and certain and complete victory will crown the King, Christ Jesus, and those who stand with him. The earth is to be filled with a righteous people, and those faithful Jonadabs now living shall not die, but shall have a part in the performance or work of populating the earth with righteous people, and all these things to the eternal praise of Jehovah and the vindication of his name.

Since 1935, Rutherford had been saying that we were in the time "immediately" before Armageddon, and that it would therefore NOT be scriptural to get married and have children either immediately before or immediately after Armageddon. That this meant a matter of only "months" had been made clear, too. This next quote is from the booklet and talk "Universal War Near" from 1935

. . . during the few remaining months until the breaking of that universal cataclysm the powers that rule the nations of the earth will continue to make treaties and tell the people that by such means they will keep that world peace and bring about prosperity. (Universal War Near, 1935, p. 3, 26-27)

For a few years, the idea had been that there would be NO winners of a war before Armageddon, because nations would keep a tentative peace through treaties until Armageddon broke out. But this had changed by 1938 (above) and by December 1941 the idea that the totalitarian (axis) powers would win had been around for about three years. But only in December 1941 had the idea been added that the totalitarian, axis powers (the Catholic Vatican Nazi Fascist combine) had managed to take over Belgium, France, and others, but would be ready to compromise and therefore not gain full control of America and Britain, but would manage their "win" through the taking away of freedoms.

You'll notice too that the idea of a "new League of Nations" was already in quotes from secular sources.

[December 1, 1941 Watchtower, p.357-362]

It was no longer a full "military" victory to be expected by the king of the north. But the king of the north would be the one to extend its rule over all the nations of the earth.

Note that Rutherford concludes the article the same way. He hasn't really given up on the idea that that totalitarian (Axis) rule would still overrun all the nations of the earth.

Only if the totalitarian rule would overrun all the nations of the earth would it be possible for the cry of Peace and Security to come from the "king of the north" rather than the "king of the south." Therefore, it was earlier in the same article where this had been stated (more than once):

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

but toward the end of the presentation a slide displayed the U.N. building rent in two by a lightning bolt from heaven! an image that I had never seen before and do not think I have seen since.,

That was around 1985? The Watchtower ran several Armageddon covers back-to-back that year. The following is from February 1, 1985, p.6.

Also, a lot more of the artwork turned cartoonish and amateurish between 1982 and 1985, for some reason. I was part of the art deparment from 1976 to 1980 and worked on other projects until 1982, so I had nothing to do with the above. Gotta love magenta lightning and those realistic puffs of smoke, though!

I believe the one you are thinking of was in color and focused more specifically on the UN building. I recall it very similarly, but don't remember if it appeared in a booklet or just where. It wasn't in a Watchtower that I remember.

On 1/18/2020 at 6:28 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

I was always impressed that the wild beast goes into the abyss, then comes out again, and that Knorr seemed to anticipate it.

This claim is about the talk by Knorr in Sept 1942 and the booklet by the same name "Peace - Can It Last?"

Knorr, didn't anticipate it. He knew about the formation of the United Nations because it had already been announced for the past 9 months before the talk. President Roosevelt himself had called it the "United Nations." Knorr even stated in the talk that the name "United Nations" had already been announced by a member of the President's cabinet. Listening to the talk, and reading the booklet, you can see therefore, that this was never a prediction, nor was it presented as a prediction.

It was not spun as a prediction until 1958 when Fred Franz wrote the book "Your Will Be Done On Earth" and this portion implying a prediction was requoted in the 2/1/1960 Watchtower. By July 15, 1960 the claim had become very explicit:

*** w60 7/15 p. 444 par. 19 Staying Awake with the “Faithful and Discreet Slave” ***
. In 1942 the “faithful and discreet slave” guided by Jehovah’s unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up. Such wakefulness was concerning events that unerringly took place three years later. At the 1958 Divine Will International Assembly amazing advance information in connection with Daniel’s prophecy was given about events to occur in the immediate future. Such evidence of spiritual foresight is recorded for us in the book “Your Will Be Done on Earth.” Once again the “faithful and discreet slave” has been tipped off ahead of time for the guidance of all lovers of God. Surely one’s present security depends on his staying awake with the “faithful and discreet slave.”

The Watchtower had been predicting that the NON-democracies, the AXIS powers would win WWII, at least up until 9 months before the talk. But then Knorr had also repeated a prior idea that the war would be stopped by treaties with no real winners. Then by the time of the talk, the idea was that the Vatican would compromise but that the win by the Allies would not last long BECAUSE the cry of peace and security after the war would be the immediate end of peace due to Armageddon being triggered. (using 1 Thessallonians 5). Also, this "win" would be declared by the new TOTALITARIAN world order under the totalitarian armies of the UN. The Watchtower was interpreting this situation to support the idea that it would now only be a matter of a very short time for the Kingdom to take over, compared to the length of the war itself. The idea that Armageddon was only MONTHS away, instead of years, was a common theme for the remainder of the war.

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

At least you have made a change about, being convinced that Jesus was made king in AD33

Jesus was not just anointed in 29 and ruling as king by 33, he was also already called "king of kings." As you already know, I'm sure, there is no scripture or prophecy that depicts Jesus waiting to be made king in 1914.

(1 Timothy 6:13-16) . . .Before God, who preserves all things alive, and Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might.. . .

I'm not going to say that the scriptures are lying when they say that Jesus had been made king in the first century. I imagine that if you could be transported back in time to the first century and heard these Bible writers saying the following, you would be saying: "No! No! Jesus doesn't deserve all this honor. Stop referring to Jesus as King." Stop repeating scriptures like the one above, or like the title that Revelation gives Jesus:

(Revelation 17:14) . . .because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. . .

(Acts 2:34-36) . . .“Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’ 36 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.”

(1 Corinthians 15:25) . . .For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.

(Matthew 28:18) 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.

(Revelation 1:5) . . .and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”. . .

(Philippians 2:9, 10) 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground. . .

(Ephesians 1:20, 21) 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.

I can imagine you arguing with Paul, saying that he should stop saying that when Jesus was raised from the dead that he was already placed far above every government and authority and power and lordship, because that was the same as saying that he was given a name even higher than kings and emperors and Caesars. You might argue to Paul that he should stop saying such things, because then Paul himself is saying that Jesus is a king. Surely, Jesus was just joking when he told Pilate that the governor himself was saying that he was a king. Surely the sign on the stake was wrong when it claimed that Jesus had said he was a king. Perhaps you would argue against the title Christ, too. Because Christ was the same as saying he was the Messiah: the Messianic king.

(Mark 15:32) . . .Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down off the torture stake, . . .

(Luke 23:2, 3) . . .and saying he himself is Christ a king.” 3 Now Pilate asked him the question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” In answer he said: “You yourself are saying it.”

(Luke 23:35-38) . . .let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.” 36 Even the soldiers mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine 37 and saying: “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself.” 38 There was also an inscription over him: “This is the King of the Jews.”

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

and prophecy was completed in AD70

Prophecy was not completed in 70. But we do know that in the first century Jesus said that his disciples should stop concerning themselves with chronology.

54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

The harlot is riding the beast - which may be happening soon in a more intense way when religion takes the initiative to promote UN policies and ideas about one religion and the new morality.

This is all very possible, and one way or another these scriptures will be fulfilled. But we must watch out for hubris and presumptuousness when we try to pretend that we absolutely know it must happen through a specific agency on earth. Jehovah may fulfill his word by making rocks cry out if necessary. We should keep in mind that these are very interesting and sometimes reasonable interpretations, but they are still just interpretations. It's very haughty to look at a track record that has failed on every single prophetic prediction so far, and then claim that we must be right on this particular future prediction.

You probably know that there are several religions in Christendom that believe we must watch the United Nations for fulfillments of several Bible prophecies and end-time events. There area also several conspiratorial crackpots who discuss the UN and declare exaggerated claims for the purpose of fearmongering for followers. There is a lot that appears to be "truth" about the UN from various "trustworthy" sources that claim to be directly quoting UN documents. But when you take the time to look at the actual documents they are interpreting, you realize that it's built on half-truths or less.

26 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

since the player in Babylon the great are the actors in the Vatican City

False religion today surely includes Vatican City. But I don't limit the symbol of Babylon to what might come out of the literal city limits of Rome (which includes Vatican City). I know that many have thought like this, including Russell and his early associates, even Rutherford. I didn't look it up for an exact quote, but I have read that at least one edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire area of Vatican State proper is now confined."

26 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Those are the ones falsifying the actual intent of Christ in order for the POPE to continue his dominance just as the players of old. Then, it is the Catholic Church that is misleading people.

Again, I would not limit it to Catholicism or even just the false forms of Christianity. I think the Watchtower publications have it right in defining Babylon as a "world empire of false religion."

26 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Then the observation of Babylon the Great is simply FALSE religion. Who but the U.N. can carry that message to the other nations? Who can personally carry that message in open forums like this?

That makes more sense that it is simply "false religion." But I don't know why the U.N. would carry that message to other nations, telling them that Babylon the Great is simply "false religion." Perhaps you mean that only the U.N. could carry a message demanding some action against religion, in general, or against specific religions. At present, they have no such power to do anything like that. If they did, we already know it would be completely ignored, at least under current world circumstances. Most things done and said by the UN are ignored, or they have simply been overridden by countries with veto power. Therefore waiting on the U.N. to do something, even if it MIGHT happen, is really the same as waiting on some sign. And that particular expectation is based on an interpretation of a book wherein we have changed interpretations dozens of times over the years.

If we are still waiting on world circumstances to change such that such a message could be carried out with any effect by the U.N. then we are contradicting Jesus' words that the end can come as a sudden surprise at any time.

Since we know that it would take something much greater than the U.N. right now, we also must say that this scenario can only play out if we believe that:

*** rr chap. 18 p. 198 par. 18 “My Great Rage Will Flare Up” ***
They will not realize that it was actually God who put the thought into their hearts to get rid of religions that have so grossly misrepresented him.—Rev. 17:16, 17.

If it takes God to put this thought into their hearts, then there is no need to speculate at all about the U.N.

And your question about who can personally carry that message in open forums like this seems wrong. It seems like you are seeing way too much importance in a little "backwater" forum where only about three dozen persons ever speak up about such issues, and where two dozen of them are probably you.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The good thing about "Babylon the great" could not possibly be tied to ancient ROME as you indicate

To be clear, I never said that Babylon the Great was Rome, either as a literal city or even specifically the same exact symbol as Rome. But there is definitely a strong tie to Rome, if I am understanding the symbol of Rome correctly. I have proposed that Rome represents the world. Babylon is tied very closely to this same "Rome" as a symbol. Revelation says that this woman with the name "Babylon the Great" has something to do with the "seven hills on which the woman sits."

(Revelation 17:9) “This calls for a mind that has wisdom: The seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top.

(Revelation 17:9, Catholic Jerusalem Bible) . . .“This calls for shrewdness: The seven heads are the seven hills, on which the woman is sitting."

There has been only one city that has had the name "the city on seven hills" for well over 2,200 years. The Latin Vulgate here says: "septem capita septem montes" (seven heads on seven hills[mounts]). Cicero and Plutarch both mention the "septem colles/montes Romae"  (seven hills/mounts of Rome) and both indicate that this term had been used long before Revelation was written. A Wikipedia article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome

So any first readers of Revelation, would have just recalled (traumatically) the devastating attack from Rome on Jerusalem, and the continuing persecution of Jews and Christians by Rome. There would be no question how they would immediately identify the Woman as the Great City who sits atop seven hills. 

(Revelation 17:3-18) . . .And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns. . . . On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.” 6 And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the holy ones and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. . . . The seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top. .  .  “The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is sitting, mean peoples and crowds and nations and tongues. . . .18 And the woman whom you saw means the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth.”

So this woman is a great city who sits on seven hills. At the time Revelation was written there was only city that sat on seven hills. So, yes, I would say there is some very close connection between the city of Rome and the prostitute named Babylon the Great.

Of course, I made it clear that I don't think the city is literal. But this woman has the name of Babylon and she sits on top of a symbol of Rome. The NWT cross-references Jeremiah 51:8 and Isaiah 21:9 with Revelation 18:4. In fact, the cross-references tell the story exactly in the way any well-read Christian would have read Revelation. It's the contexts of those cross-references, even though they applied to Babylon, that makes it easy to make the same application to Rome. These references explain both a physical and symbolic message that was simple and unavoidable:

(Jeremiah 51:5-10) . . .For Israel and Judah are not widowed from their God, from Jehovah of armies.  . .  6 Flee out of the midst of Babylon, And escape for your life. Do not perish because of her error. For it is the time for Jehovah’s vengeance. He is paying her back for what she has done.  7 Babylon has been a golden cup in the hand of Jehovah; She made all the earth drunk. From her wine the nations have drunk; That is why the nations have gone mad.  8 Suddenly Babylon has fallen and is broken. Wail over her! Get balsam for her pain; perhaps she may be healed.”  9 “We tried to heal Babylon, but she could not be healed. Leave her and let us go, each to his own land. For her judgment has reached to the heavens; It is as high as the clouds. 10 Jehovah has brought about justice for us. Come, let us recount in Zion the work of Jehovah our God.”

(Isaiah 21:9)  9 Look at what is coming: . . . Then he spoke up and said: “She has fallen! Babylon has fallen! All the graven images of her gods he has shattered to the ground!”

The clue is in the idea that all her religious images have proved worthless from Jehovah's judgments against Babylon. Jehovah's people must turn away from any reliance on false gods and turn back completely to Jehovah's pure worship:

(Isaiah 48:20) . . .Go out from Babylon! Flee from the Chal·deʹans! Announce it with a joyful cry! Proclaim it! Make it known to the ends of the earth. Say: “Jehovah has repurchased his servant Jacob.

(Isaiah 52:11) 11 Turn away, turn away, get out of there, touch nothing unclean! Get out from the midst of her, keep yourselves clean, You who are carrying the utensils of Jehovah.

These scriptures were about judgments against Babylon because Babylon had represented the cup of God's judgments against the nations. But, after that fact, for God's people Babylon had now represented the fact that they, in exile, were being held back from restoring the recently destroyed Temple at Jerusalem. Yet they were to restore pure worship in a New Jerusalem. These themes will play out in the rest of Revelation, too.

You had said I am trying to detract from 1919. Not exactly. Getting out of Babylon refers to restoring pure worship. For the WTS, this has been a long process that included positive and correct teachings that Russell had accepted before 1919, including removing "Babylon-like" graven images, which was a hallmark of Catholicism and even several Protestant denominations. There was a cleansing of false doctrines like the Trinity, hell-fire, immortal soul, etc. Rutherford pushed to get rid of several more false ideas that Russell had not removed, including an adjustment to the counsel about participation in war as early as 1917, although  most of the new adjustments came in the years 1927 to 1931, culminating in a name change that helped separate the Bible Students even further from the baggage of nearly 50 years for certain other false teachings and misinterpretations. (Christmas, pyramidology, Zionism)

I don't see anything particularly special about 1919, but I can understand that it was a year when opportunities arose for removing more false teachings. And there were some good new initiatives under Rutherford in 1919 that should be highlighted. (Especially expanded participation by many in door-to-door ministry.) But since 1919 was primarily a really big year for pushing the false teachings about 1925, I would not focus too much on the year 1919 itself. It's really a continuous stream of incremental progress, and the shock of failure over all of the 1914/1915 predictions was probably one of the reasons that so LITTLE progress was made in 1919 itself.

In truth, we as an organization have been blessed with spiritual progress since the late 1800's. There are likely many more blessings of spiritual progress to be made in the near future. We can be happy for this. We are blessed for it. Of course, you (Cesar) apparently hate it that I raise my little, unworthy voice in opposition to the chronology traditions we are still stuck with. That's your right and it's what I would expect from many Witnesses. But my own strongly-held conscientious beliefs include the idea that we would be even more blessed if these "strongly entrenched things" were overturned. It's not like these ideas are my own. In discussions at work while at Bethel have heard a few members of the Governing Body themselves (from about 1977 to 1982) struggle with the 1919 date and related dates. I heard Brother Dan Sydlik himself say that we ought to just scrap all this 1919 stuff and start over from scratch.

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You've convinced me that you are extremely dishonest.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I am convinced you are extremely dishonest person

By the way, when I have often identified this habit of yours as "defensive echolalia" I don't mean it as any kind of actual medical disorder. Seriously, I only mean that you so often defend yourself by merely echoing the same words back in a kind of immature "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" style. (The one that comedian Peewee Herman made famous.) I am not referring to anything like an actual diagnosis of pathological "echolalia" which is something completely different:

www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › echolalia

Echolalia | Definition of Echolalia by Merriam-Webster

Echolalia definition is - the often pathological repetition of what is said by other people as if echoing them.

 

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The good thing about "Babylon the great" could not possibly be tied to ancient ROME as you indicate .  . . . This has nothing to do with disloyal people supporting this scheme of adding Rome to the mix.

It probably did sound like I was tying Babylon the Great to ROME. I'll try to explain shortly. But first I wanted to look again at your reasons for saying it is NOT tied to Rome.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This ideal of the Greco-Roman heathenism and Judaism can be considered to the modern day Vatican College of Cardinals that held the same tradition of the Sanhedrin with 71 members. Therefore, it can be applied to the Catholic Church not Rome itself.

I think this was meant to respond to the idea that Babylon the Great had nothing to do with Rome. I don't see your point, though.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Just because Vatican City is in Rome wasn’t a concern for writers, just false prophets we see today, just like back then. Then, it's the Catholic Church that will be implicated, not the people of Rome just like the Jewish Pharisees did with Pilate.

I think this was also meant to respond to the idea that Babylon the Great had nothing to do with Rome. I don't see the point of this either. Hopefully you can explain.

I'll try to explain what I might have implied by throwing "Rome" into the mix in my next post.

5 hours ago, Kosonen said:

Maybe the shortest answer to that question is in Daniel 7:11 "I kept watching at that time because of the sound of the arrogant* words that the horn was speaking;+ I watched until the beast was killed and its body was destroyed and it was given over to be burned in the fire. 12  But as for the rest of the beasts,+ their rulerships were taken away, and their lives were prolonged for a time and a season.

And the rest of this portion of Daniel that you quoted:

“I kept watching as that horn made war on the holy ones, and it was prevailing against them,+22  until the Ancient of Days+ came and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Supreme One,+ and the appointed time arrived for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom.+23  “This is what he said: ‘As for the fourth beast, there is a fourth kingdom that will come to be on the earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour all the earth and will trample it down and crush it.+ 24  As for the ten horns, ten kings will rise up out of that kingdom; and still another one will rise up after them, and he will be different from the first ones, and he will humiliate three kings.+ 25  He will speak words against the Most High,+ and he will continually harass the holy ones of the Supreme One. He will intend to change times and law, and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.*+ 26  But the Court sat, and they took away his rulership, in order to annihilate him and to destroy him completely."

The fourth beast, we all agree, I think, is Rome, i.e., the Roman Empire. Our publications make this clear:

*** it-1 p. 269 Beasts, Symbolic ***
Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian kingdom, . . . Medo-Persia’s domination was ended by the lightning conquest of the Grecian forces headed by Alexander the Great. . . .The Grecian Empire was eventually taken over completely by Rome. The Roman Empire surpassed all the preceding empires not only in the extent of its domain (covering the entire Mediterranean area and in time reaching to the British Isles) but also in the efficiency of its military machine and the firmness of its application of Roman law to the provinces of its far-flung empire. Rome, of course, was the political instrument used to execute the Messiah, Christ Jesus, as well as to persecute the early Christian congregation.

Naturally, we want this to extend further down to our day, and it still would in a way, but it still ends at Rome. There is nothing here about anything beyond Rome. Nothing about the Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese, or Anglo-American world powers. And this is appropriate, because of the last highlighted sentence: Rome executed Christ and persecuted the early Christian congregation.

It was therefore ROME that made war against the holy ones in Daniel 7:21. And we know from Colossians that it was in 33 CE, under ROME, when the holy ones began taking possession of the Kingdom. In a preliminary sense, the "early adopters" of the Kingdom were the ones chosen as disciples during Jesus' lifetime, during his "kingdom ministry."

(Matthew 12:28-30) ²⁸ But if it is by means of God’s spirit that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you. ²⁹ Or how can anyone invade the house of a strong man and seize his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Only then can he plunder his house. ³⁰ Whoever is not on my side is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

It was Rome, backed by the "ruler and authority of the air" that "changed time and laws" by destroying the Temple at Jerusalem, or even intending to interfere with the timing of the birth of the Kingdom (Eph 1:9, Rev 12). Also, it is clear in Daniel that the 10 horns are kings coming out of this Roman kingdom, NOT new kingdoms throughout later history. It was during Rome's rule that Satan's rulership (therefore "Rome's" rulership) was taken away, at least from the perspective of conquering Christians.

(Luke 10:18, 19) ¹⁸ At that he said to them: “I see Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven. ¹⁹ Look! I have given you the authority to trample underfoot serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing at all will harm you.

(John 12:31, 32) ³¹ Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. ³² And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all sorts of men to myself.

1 hour ago, Kosonen said:

And really, why would Jehovah tell us prophetically about events around WT society 100 years ago?

The purpose is sometimes in the "subtext" and sometimes declared openly by members of the Governing Body themselves. It is because Jehovah wanted us to be able to identify the faithful and discreet slave as the "Governing Body" since 1919. If the specific explanations are not convincing to us, it does not mean that the Governing Body is promoting it with ulterior motives. It could be true, and even if it is not a true fulfillment, it does not mean that it was just "made up." It just means that this is a traditional explanation that has been handed down for many decades and has been accepted as the most likely explanation until enough questions about it arose.

As you know, very recently the Watchtower changed the date for the Captivity to Babylon the Great from 1918 to about the year 100 CE. This was most recently tied to 1918 because it was the date that the WT had traditionally handed down since shorty after the "seven brothers" were made physically captive in Atlanta. It supposedly had been made to fit a few other beliefs the WTS has held about 1918 (i.e., first resurrection in 1918, removal of holy spirit in 1918, punishment for the cult of Russell/nationalism/political involvement, the cleansing of the Temple in 1918). But 1918 has now been nearly totally unlinked from every one of those old 1918 fulfillments.

When enough questions no longer had good answers, 1918 was removed from the prophetic "equations." If enough questions come up about 1919, then this might also go away. Until then, it serves a purpose of showing that Jehovah and Jesus had already prophesied about the Bible Students under Rutherford's direction, and approved them, and appointed them. But again, even if this particular identification for 1919 goes away, it doesn't take away from the overall, general value of the doctrines that were guarded by these same persons since the 1870's, and which began to be further refined especially BECAUSE of the events surrounding 1918 and 1919 and culminating in the cleansing of many false doctrines handed down from Russell between 1927 and 1931. A lot of significant things happened during this time period, but we don't need specific numbers to be interpreted from Daniel and Revelation to give them more significance. The good that was done and which leads to the good we are still doing in our association with the same worldwide brotherhood isn't taken away if these specific explanations of prophecies are dropped.  

1 hour ago, Kosonen said:

And really, why would Jehovah tell us prophetically about events around WT society 100 years ago? Would it not be much more of spiritual value if it concerned Jehovah's witnesses before Armageddon now when there are millions of Jehovah's witnesses?

Would it not be of even more spiritual value if it concerned all Christians in every century since Revelation was written? This it would do if Rome was, in fact, the last world power. If it represents the system of things of this world and its desires. I don't think there would have been any doubt about the identification of Rome by the first readers of Revelation. All Christians would have understood that they were already raised up, made alive together with Christ, and already "seated together in the heavenly places." Christians understood that even physical symbols had spiritual meanings, including conquering and death and resurrection:

(Ephesians 2:1-7) . . .Furthermore, God made you alive, though you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. 3 Yes, among them we all at one time conducted ourselves in harmony with the desires of our flesh, carrying out the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and we were naturally children of wrath just as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, 5 made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses—by undeserved kindness you have been saved. 6 Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming systems of things he might demonstrate the surpassing riches of his undeserved kindness in his graciousness toward us in union with Christ Jesus.

Of course, this does not mean that the physical outworking of these same symbols would not also occur at some unspecified time in the future. And, a physical fulfillment would result in actual wrath against the children of this world who still walk according to the ruler and authority of the air. This is similar to the Olivet prophecy about Jerusalem, which was initially about the current Jewish system of things, but which wold ultimately be fulfilled in the coming system of things -- the new heaven and the new earth.

This is why I think that the Society's view about Babylon the Great being false religion is still perfectly apt. Just because it was already being fulfilled in the early centuries of Christianity,  these symbols can still have a more physical fulfillment on a grander scale in the final judgment.

The quotes you made from Daniel point to the same idea.

13 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Its interesting how JWinsider has an appeal when the aka comes from the same persona. He usually accuses others of being Allen Smith but has no problem being Allen Smith like.

You've convinced me that you are extremely dishonest. I have one account here; just one persona. I don't "pat myself on the back" with votes or comments from multiple personas. Therefore I am not Allen-Smith-like as you are claiming. That kind of Allen-Smith-like dishonesty is for immature people who troll forums to make themselves feel better about themselves.

16 hours ago, Kosonen said:

I want that just like when you studied the Bible and you understood basic truths checking scriptures that made sense, you now likewise look at the scriptures I present and you draw the correct conclusions.

It sounds like you are absolutely sure of this interpretation. I won't deny that that the interpretation has some appeal. I brought up 9-11 because it was soon after 9-11-2001 that dozens of websites began promoting this theory for the first time, although several had already held that NYC was Babylon the Great for many years prior. If I were to search Google today with: "Babylon the Great is New York CIty" I get about 18,000,000 hits where the first few pages, at least, are full of sites that would agree with you. Even on page 10, I get a site reference that includes an interesting tidbit from a business site:

www.businessinsider.com › largest-cities-in-history-2011-4

The 16 greatest cities in human history - Business Insider

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

@Annamentioned one victim in the suit who wanted no part of it. He or she wanted to ‘get on with life’ & was content that the perpetrator was punished & and did not feel the desire to blame parties that he thought were not at fault.

This is a good attitude, and is probably expected for one who remains a Witness. But it's also very easy to start thinking that a person who asks for money damages is somehow tainted, or we think they must not believe that this system will be over in a few decades at most.

But we must be ready to square this with the fact that the Watchtower has sued for money damages on a few occasions, and sometimes not just to the guilty parties, but a scattershot suit that becomes a fishing expedition among many different companies to try to put the true story together to see who is responsible. The following was the first of many reports that came up on a Google search of "Watchtower sues over Warwick site "

Battle over contamination at Watchtower site in Warwick ...