JW Insider

Yes. That's the point. Things like this can literally happen, and have literally happened in the past right up to the point of the miraculous divine intervention.
In the past such things have happened even to peaceful secular groups who are perceived as being a threat to totalitarian and imperial states. Even if NOT exactly like what will happen during the great tribulation and Armageddon, it still creates a picture of the divine intervention that can be seen in a symbolic way that all Christians should experience when facing death for a righteous cause. Stephen's faith, for example, may have allowed him to see such a vision of divine intervention just prior to being stoned to death. Long prior to Armageddon, in the first three centuries of Christianity, perhaps hundreds of thousands faced death in such a manner in arenas, by mobs, by trial and execution, on stakes and crosses, by wild beasts, by fire, etc. Those true Christians in the past can still experience what is perhaps similar imagery in their very next conscious moments after their death, at the time of their resurrection. This imagery in the video should help produce a reason to feel the same courage in a potentially near future time when that same imagery may happen literally just prior to divine intervention. 
So all this part of the video, and even the video itself is well done and should have a good effect on our courage.
But you hit upon a major theme of the video, even if it was not very overt. It's also about being obedient to men. This could end up making people associate salvation with obedience to humans. I'm sure that @Witness might have mentioned this before somewhere else, but the very article quoted above by "Witness" about Gog and Magog is the article that you quoted from earlier in this topic:
*** ws13 11/15 p. 20 pars. 16-17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today *** [Simplified Watchtower]
The Bible says that this army is made up of “seven shepherds” and “eight dukes,” or princes. (Micah 5:5) Who are they? They are the congregation elders. (1 Peter 5:2) Today, Jehovah is using many faithful elders to shepherd and to strengthen his people for the future attack of “the Assyrian.” (See footnote.) . . .  (3) At that time, the direction that you receive from Jehovah’s organization may seem strange or unusual. But all of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether we agree with them or not, because obeying these instructions will save our lives. *** w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today ***
(3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. It's just my personal opinion, of course, but this is where I see a danger. We are telling people who expect to be surrounded by doubt and fear [the first words of the song in the video] to remember that for salvation they must be ready to obey instructions they hear through the elders that might sound strange and not make any sense "from a human standpoint." In other words, we are to accept and obey the instructions from humans as if they are from something greater than just a human standpoint.
Notice that the simplified Watchtower version comes out and just plainly states that our salvation depends upon obeying strange and unusual direction from elders through the organization: salvation by obedience to men. Did we forget?
(Psalm 146:3)  3 Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs [who cannot bring salvation, NWT Revised]. Calling them nobles, princes, or dukes, doesn't make a difference;  they are still sons of earthling man, humans. The idea above subverts the scripture.
 
 
 
 

Now that Barnum and Bailey has folded its tents, you may get less and less of these. I found this on https://www.drsoda.com/baancrb.html
Barnum's Animal Crackers (Bag)***DISCONTINUED***
So, who knows, a little self-control and an unshaken box with pristine, unbroken giraffe necks might someday yield $50 on eBay. I thought I'd sell my basement full of Hostess Twinkies on eBay when they were to be discontinued in May 2013. But since a new company bought them out of bankruptcy and resurrected them in July 2013, I guess I'll just have to use them for insulation, or maybe to stuff into pillows or something.

Yes. That's the point. Things like this can literally happen, and have literally happened in the past right up to the point of the miraculous divine intervention.
In the past such things have happened even to peaceful secular groups who are perceived as being a threat to totalitarian and imperial states. Even if NOT exactly like what will happen during the great tribulation and Armageddon, it still creates a picture of the divine intervention that can be seen in a symbolic way that all Christians should experience when facing death for a righteous cause. Stephen's faith, for example, may have allowed him to see such a vision of divine intervention just prior to being stoned to death. Long prior to Armageddon, in the first three centuries of Christianity, perhaps hundreds of thousands faced death in such a manner in arenas, by mobs, by trial and execution, on stakes and crosses, by wild beasts, by fire, etc. Those true Christians in the past can still experience what is perhaps similar imagery in their very next conscious moments after their death, at the time of their resurrection. This imagery in the video should help produce a reason to feel the same courage in a potentially near future time when that same imagery may happen literally just prior to divine intervention. 
So all this part of the video, and even the video itself is well done and should have a good effect on our courage.
But you hit upon a major theme of the video, even if it was not very overt. It's also about being obedient to men. This could end up making people associate salvation with obedience to humans. I'm sure that @Witness might have mentioned this before somewhere else, but the very article quoted above by "Witness" about Gog and Magog is the article that you quoted from earlier in this topic:
*** ws13 11/15 p. 20 pars. 16-17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today *** [Simplified Watchtower]
The Bible says that this army is made up of “seven shepherds” and “eight dukes,” or princes. (Micah 5:5) Who are they? They are the congregation elders. (1 Peter 5:2) Today, Jehovah is using many faithful elders to shepherd and to strengthen his people for the future attack of “the Assyrian.” (See footnote.) . . .  (3) At that time, the direction that you receive from Jehovah’s organization may seem strange or unusual. But all of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether we agree with them or not, because obeying these instructions will save our lives. *** w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today ***
(3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. It's just my personal opinion, of course, but this is where I see a danger. We are telling people who expect to be surrounded by doubt and fear [the first words of the song in the video] to remember that for salvation they must be ready to obey instructions they hear through the elders that might sound strange and not make any sense "from a human standpoint." In other words, we are to accept and obey the instructions from humans as if they are from something greater than just a human standpoint.
Notice that the simplified Watchtower version comes out and just plainly states that our salvation depends upon obeying strange and unusual direction from elders through the organization: salvation by obedience to men. Did we forget?
(Psalm 146:3)  3 Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs [who cannot bring salvation, NWT Revised]. Calling them nobles, princes, or dukes, doesn't make a difference;  they are still sons of earthling man, humans. The idea above subverts the scripture.
 
 
 
 

We stopped using that number in the 1970s. The jw.org site has a better approximation now:
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-holocaust-facts-concentration-camps/
About 1,500 of Jehovah’s Witnesses died during the time of the Holocaust, out of some 35,000 Witnesses living in Germany and Nazi-occupied countries. The cause of death is not known in all cases. Since research is ongoing, figures and other details may be updated in time. Executions: Close to 400 Witnesses were executed in Germany and in Nazi-occupied countries. Most victims were tried in court, sentenced to death, and beheaded. Others were shot or hanged without a formal court hearing. Severe detention conditions: More than 1,000 Witnesses died in Nazi concentration camps and prisons. They were worked to death or died as a result of torture, starvation, exposure to cold, illness, or poor medical care. As a result of the brutal treatment, others died shortly after their liberation at the end of World War II. Other causes: Some Witnesses were killed in gas chambers, subjected to deadly medical experiments, or given lethal injections. The last group under "other causes" could have been as many as 100 Witnesses. Further study on this shows that many of those deaths we might still be counting as "Jehovah's Witnesses" were actually "Bible Students" who were either still one of the other factions of "Russellites" or who had returned to "Bible Students" associations after certain issues they had with J.Rutherford especially after 1927 and after 1933.

I saw a picture of ex-JW Barbara Anderson in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania from several months ago, apparently with some other ex-JWs who helped to get this publicized. It was from a political rally about changing the laws to help more victims of child sexual abuse.
It seems they, along with Catholics and others, have been working with the politicians and lawmakers in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA (the State capitol), to get more publicity and exposure about child sexual abuse, and changes to the law regarding the statute of limitations, child protection awareness, etc. Some of that work and pressure recently helped move politicians to push for exposing the 300 Catholic priests publicly in Pennsylvania just weeks ago. One of those associated with Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York priests, Theodore McCarrick, had been demoted as a cardinal but promoted to be the archbishop of Washington DC, with the knowledge of the Vatican.
I have read that Barbara Anderson had already been invited to the Vatican a few years ago to share her expertise about dealing with the issue in a religious institution. I'd be interested if anyone else has drawn a connection between exJWs and this exposure.

Yes. That's the point. Things like this can literally happen, and have literally happened in the past right up to the point of the miraculous divine intervention.
In the past such things have happened even to peaceful secular groups who are perceived as being a threat to totalitarian and imperial states. Even if NOT exactly like what will happen during the great tribulation and Armageddon, it still creates a picture of the divine intervention that can be seen in a symbolic way that all Christians should experience when facing death for a righteous cause. Stephen's faith, for example, may have allowed him to see such a vision of divine intervention just prior to being stoned to death. Long prior to Armageddon, in the first three centuries of Christianity, perhaps hundreds of thousands faced death in such a manner in arenas, by mobs, by trial and execution, on stakes and crosses, by wild beasts, by fire, etc. Those true Christians in the past can still experience what is perhaps similar imagery in their very next conscious moments after their death, at the time of their resurrection. This imagery in the video should help produce a reason to feel the same courage in a potentially near future time when that same imagery may happen literally just prior to divine intervention. 
So all this part of the video, and even the video itself is well done and should have a good effect on our courage.
But you hit upon a major theme of the video, even if it was not very overt. It's also about being obedient to men. This could end up making people associate salvation with obedience to humans. I'm sure that @Witness might have mentioned this before somewhere else, but the very article quoted above by "Witness" about Gog and Magog is the article that you quoted from earlier in this topic:
*** ws13 11/15 p. 20 pars. 16-17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today *** [Simplified Watchtower]
The Bible says that this army is made up of “seven shepherds” and “eight dukes,” or princes. (Micah 5:5) Who are they? They are the congregation elders. (1 Peter 5:2) Today, Jehovah is using many faithful elders to shepherd and to strengthen his people for the future attack of “the Assyrian.” (See footnote.) . . .  (3) At that time, the direction that you receive from Jehovah’s organization may seem strange or unusual. But all of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether we agree with them or not, because obeying these instructions will save our lives. *** w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today ***
(3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. It's just my personal opinion, of course, but this is where I see a danger. We are telling people who expect to be surrounded by doubt and fear [the first words of the song in the video] to remember that for salvation they must be ready to obey instructions they hear through the elders that might sound strange and not make any sense "from a human standpoint." In other words, we are to accept and obey the instructions from humans as if they are from something greater than just a human standpoint.
Notice that the simplified Watchtower version comes out and just plainly states that our salvation depends upon obeying strange and unusual direction from elders through the organization: salvation by obedience to men. Did we forget?
(Psalm 146:3)  3 Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs [who cannot bring salvation, NWT Revised]. Calling them nobles, princes, or dukes, doesn't make a difference;  they are still sons of earthling man, humans. The idea above subverts the scripture.
 
 
 
 

It is. But it is very diverse, even among Muslims. Wikipedia says:
The total number of Christians in Pakistan was estimated at 2.5 million in 2005, or 1.6% of the population. Hindus make up another 2.5 to 3 million.

Maybe. To me it sounds like the original post is recommending that ex-JWs return evil for evil:
(Romans 12:17-21) 17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good. What some Witnesses do under the supposed umbrella of "tough love" is actually "evil" in the sense of showing no natural affection, or shutting off their true affections. It is hypocritical love if they are able to shut off love for family just to avoid contact with a disfellowshipped person. The paragraph in the Bible just before the one quoted above starts out:
(Romans 12:9) 9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. . . . Based on this idea, there is another way to read the entire idea about Biblical disfellowshipping:
(2 Corinthians 6:3-13) 3 In no way are we giving any cause for stumbling, so that no fault may be found with our ministry; 4 but in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, . . .  by patience, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech,. . .  11 We have opened our mouth to speak to you, Corinthians, and we have opened wide our heart. 12 We are not restricted in our affections for you, but you are restricted in your own tender affections for us. 13 So in response—I speak as to my children—you too open your hearts wide. (Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, . . . malicious disposition, . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for in the thing in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, inasmuch as you that judge practice the same things. Remember, too, that Jesus said that Moses was allowed to give the law that Israelites could disfellowship their own wives only as a concession to their own hard-heartedness:
(Matthew 19:7-8 ) : “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives,. . . It's true that Christians should not "share" with evildoers, for what sharing do believers have with unbelievers, what sharing does light have with darkness. But this cannot mean completely avoiding them, or even a complete lack of association with them. Paul made this clear in the central, pertinent discussion of the topic:
(1 Corinthians 5:9-11) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. When a person accepts their disfellowshipping, and is no longer presenting himself or herself as a member of our faith, they are no longer calling themselves our brother. The most vocal ex-JWs make it all the more obvious that they are not calling themselves our brother. So they become just as a person of the world to us.
(Matthew 18:17) . . .. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. Scripturally, however, that means that we are perfectly within our own rights to exercise the freedom of our Bible-trained conscience, to associate with them just as we would anyone else in the world. This does not necessarily mean close association, or "table fellowship" which was acceptance of these ones as an insider, related to us either as family or those related to us in the faith. Yet, we should consider that Jesus had "table fellowship" with sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, gentiles, and unclean persons, without condoning their sin. People found fault with his ministry but Jesus did not give any cause for stumbling through such table fellowship. (2 Cor 6:3,4 quoted above.)
There is sometimes an in-between step where a person still calls himself our brother, and we should still admonish him as our brother. Yet they are not fully walking in accordance with Christian teachings. These are the ones we "mark" --to withdraw our close association from them-- even though they are still considered brothers. Apparently, Paul especially had in mind greedy persons who wanted to remain in association for what they could get, not what they could share. They wanted the free food, as a key feature of Christianity was its open-hearted table fellowship, providing material food for the poor, the orphans, the widows, etc:
(2 Thessalonians 3:6-15) 6 Now we are giving you instructions, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who is walking disorderly and not according to the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you should imitate us, because we did not behave in a disorderly way among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you. 9 Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10 In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” 11 For we hear that some are walking disorderly among you, not working at all, but meddling with what does not concern them. 12 To such people we give the order and exhortation in the Lord Jesus Christ that they should work quietly and eat food they themselves earn. 13 For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing good. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother. It must have been frustrating, that some would just be no more than meddlers, taking and not finding ways to share, but Paul admonishes the Christians not to give up in doing good. [Good works included giving, sharing and distributing material goods.] I think that many ex-JWs are frustrated at the unchristian conduct of some Witnesses, but ex-JWs, too, should not give up in doing what is good if they wish to "heap fiery coals" and conquer evil with good. Most Witnesses probably need to "get out more" as it is, and seeing one's grandkids can only help to have a good effect in general, and help to open the hearts wider. Even if the ex-JW being shunned believes the Witness is a bad influence, the fact of a grandparent spending any time at all with a grandchild can only be a good influence on the grandparent.

This is a case of being "righteous overmuch" or "self-righteous" and "haughty" like the Pharisees. Paul put the ideas together in Romans quoted above:
(Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting,  . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable . . . The haughty, self-righteous Pharisees and scribes, too, were "inventors of [such] injurious things" as Jesus pointed out:
(Matthew 15:5, 6) . . .‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. They found ways to avoid the merciful treatment of relatives by trading it for evidence of how righteous they looked in front of others.
(Matthew 6:2) . . .So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . . It's directly related to the issue of "table fellowship," too:
(Matthew 9:10-13) 10 Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”

This is a case of being "righteous overmuch" or "self-righteous" and "haughty" like the Pharisees. Paul put the ideas together in Romans quoted above:
(Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting,  . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable . . . The haughty, self-righteous Pharisees and scribes, too, were "inventors of [such] injurious things" as Jesus pointed out:
(Matthew 15:5, 6) . . .‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. They found ways to avoid the merciful treatment of relatives by trading it for evidence of how righteous they looked in front of others.
(Matthew 6:2) . . .So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . . It's directly related to the issue of "table fellowship," too:
(Matthew 9:10-13) 10 Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”

Agree. 
“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”  2 Cor 10:3-5
The knowledge of God is Truth.  Any argument against truth is a lie; showing that the war at hand and the weapons needed, involve only truth, to battle against lies. 
This is the theme of the Greek scriptures.  Jesus brought truth, battled the lies, and taught his disciples to do the same.  The battle doesn’t take on a physical form with the world’s military armies in the symbolic book of Revelation, but depicts how the rider on the white horse, called “Faithful and True”, defeats the Beast who received “spirit” from the false prophet - all to deceive Christ’s servants…with lies, since that is the weapon false prophets use.  Rev 13:1,5-7,11-17
This is the greatest, destructive “scheme” of Satan and not recognizable by the naked eye. 
 “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.  Eph 6:10-17
The scripture’s “day of evil” isn’t what the video portrays at all.  Rather, it involves Satan’s deception of lies; and our desire to either battle against it, or stand vulnerable in an open field and allow the enemy, Satan, to overcome us with his “flood” of lies.   Joel 3:14; Rev 16:13-16; 2 Thess 2:9-12;  Rev 12:15,16
“And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.”  Matt 10:28
We can’t physically see the light and truth of Christ or the darkness and lies of Satan; yet, we know that both powers exist, and are present for us to decide which will enter our hearts and rule our lives.  2 Cor 11:12-15; John 8:12; Phil 2:14-16; 1 John 1:5,6
Since this is the case, the battle to remain in the light of truth, takes a concerted effort, as “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one”. 1 John 5:19
 
 
 
 
 

The best way to pick up on some additional historical background pertinent to the situation in Judea and Galilee is to read Josephus, especially "Wars of the Jews."  Whiston's translation is free here, and in a well organized PDF with TOC and navigation links: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0037-0103,_Flavius_Josephus,_De_Bello_Judaico,_EN.pdf
Although I hesitate to be seen as promoting it, I also thought that the writers and producers of A.D.-Kingdom and Empire (2015), now on Netflix, did one of the better jobs in depicting the book of Acts in an easy to watch, professional "drama." It's not hard to mentally filter out some of the extra-Biblical interpretations. But even some of what we might tend to filter out gives us some material to think about. They did the entire thing without reference to trinity, hellfire although they probably pushed a bit too far the relationship between the Zealots and one or more apostles chosen from among Zealots. There are 12 episodes and I would recommend all except the very last episode which takes a bit too much from Josephus, adds a bit more non-history for drama, and then puts the Christians in the middle of a political situation that was not possible from a Biblical perspective. (Also #7 has a very unlikely visit from Tiberius to Pilate in Jerusalem, which, if it happened at all, would have taken place in the port city, Caesarea.) It's primary characters are Pilate & wife, Caiaphas & wife, Herod & wife, Peter, John, Thomas, Saul/Paul, Simon the Zealot, Stephen, Simon the Magician, Ethiopian Eunuch, Philip the Evangelizer, James the brother of Jesus, with some short cameos by Jesus, Emperor Tiberius, Caligula, a couple of Marys and the occasional angel here and there, too.
I haven't watched the part-documentary, part-drama called "Roman Empire" now in its second season, nor much of HBO's "Rome," but I did see all episodes of "I, Claudius" several years ago, and I have the book(s) it was based on. Those would probably be useful supplements to "A.D." (As long as none of these are taken as pure history, but only general ideas about the historical setting and perspectives of various classes of people during that time.)

We'll be going through Acts in the assigned Bible reading and I thought I'd share some online resources that are quite interesting and apparently accurate enough for their purposes. Hopefully, others here will share a few of their favorite resources, too.
http://pelagios.org/maps/greco-roman/ is a very detailed map of the Roman Empire with all cities referred to in ancient sources near the time of the Greek Scriptures. "This map features details such as major and minor roads, aqueducts, temples, cemeteries and quarries."
Similar things have been done on other sites ( https://omnesviae.org/ ) but my absolute favorite is a kind of Google Maps for the Ancient World: http://orbis.stanford.edu/#
It lets you choose if you are traveling between any two places by ship, boat, military speed, civilian speed, foot, horse, donkey, chariot, etc. It lets you choose a common coastal navigation system that "hugs the coast" which was a common method of navigation. It also calculates the cost of various modes of transportation, not just in time, but in money.
 

Yes. There are contradictory motives for apologies, and contradictory reactions to apologies. We need to consider what is the right thing to do in each case. Some people apologize without apologizing as in "I take full responsibility for the failures (or a particular failure) that occurred during my time in office."  But just don't try to make them accountable in any way. I'm reminded of H.Clinton's Benghazi, or the TEN different "Benghazis," some much larger and more deadly, at various U.S. embassies under G.W.Bush.
Depends on many factors: the mood, the Zeitgeist, the economy, the efficacy of the corporate propaganda machine (aka "the news"), etc. For example, Pope Francis is visiting Ireland in the middle of the worst mood of Catholics in Ireland ever. Ireland is still majority Catholic, yet a majority of Catholics in places are now voting for same-sex marriage, abortion, divorce law changes, etc.  And attendance at churches has fallen precipitously. Media outlets that used to be supportive of the Church are saying out loud that they are waiting for more than the usual apologies and prayers offered up in an attempt to heal the mood. It's not just sexual abuse, which was rampant in Ireland and was covered up through the Vatican, too. It was forcing unwed women to give up their babies, violence against women at "nunneries" and other abuse issues which keep getting turned up. Some say (NPR yesterday, for example) that every single family in Ireland has been affected in some way.
It's a good thing it happened during a time when the U.S. and other Western European powers were salivating to find civil rights abuses in Russia. The world hardly gives a second look when things like this happen to groups and religions in Africa, India, Indonesia, etc. Things have to become very deadly to get attention elsewhere (as in Myanmar/Burma)
You have a point, but I think those that kick up the biggest fuss about shunning around here, at least, are those who were shunned by their families over doctrinal disagreements. Moral issues are not such a big deal, when a person has chosen a lifestyle that keeps them away from natural and free association with relatives. Some fade into a separate life after a non-scriptural divorce, for example. Some give some evidence that they know better, might return someday, or even wish they could associate but just keep too many worldly associations and habits. After some length of time, I've seen these persons visit their Witness relatives and associate at weddings and funerals and large family gatherings as if nothing happened. But it's not that often, and the Witnesses aren't going out of their way to associate.  
But I do see a bigger difference when the reason was doctrinal. Even bringing up the name of the person is rare or hushed or forbidden. They are still treated worse than those who left for moral reasons. And the feelings on the side of the person who is shunned for "apostasy" must hurt them much worse than we can imagine, if they believe they were only standing up for truth, or left for the "right reasons." When they still want to show love to their families, see their children, grandchildren or parents or grandparents, but their families don't want to see them it is the Witness who has "no natural affection." To them, the only reason they are treated badly and without any respect, in their opinion, is sometimes because they stopped believing something that was wrong anyway, and there was probably a time when they were too vocal about it, or too invested in the "truth" of what could turn out to be a minor issue. But even if they don't feel strongly any more about the particular issue, they can't conscientiously recant what they think is a Bible teaching. And if they have become atheists, they can't very well answer any of the questions correctly that could bring them back into association. I think this is the kind of "violence" that JTR is sometimes referring to, and it's something about which we should have more sympathy and empathy.

I'll link to it in the next couple days. Sounds like no one is really pushing for it at the moment, and that's not why I brought it up. I brought it up to show the kind of story that can be exaggerated too far on one side and minimized to the point of dishonesty on the other side. And of course, the exaggeration through a form of reductio ad absurdum is just another form of minimization. (e.g. "shoving aside the Vatican" or Chris Christie's "[yeah right] I actually was the guy working the cones out there." But you are basically right that it started out as nearly nothing (information access), except that it got out of control pretty quickly. And when the folks in Writing who were in on it saw some potential future advantages, they didn't back down, but just dug in their heels a bit harder and kept up with the requirements for their particular NGO membership. (The requirement that Writing could most easily meet was publishing an article in Awake! once or twice a year to give publicity to various U.N. initiatives, like UNICEF, for example.)

I'll link to it in the next couple days. Sounds like no one is really pushing for it at the moment, and that's not why I brought it up. I brought it up to show the kind of story that can be exaggerated too far on one side and minimized to the point of dishonesty on the other side. And of course, the exaggeration through a form of reductio ad absurdum is just another form of minimization. (e.g. "shoving aside the Vatican" or Chris Christie's "[yeah right] I actually was the guy working the cones out there." But you are basically right that it started out as nearly nothing (information access), except that it got out of control pretty quickly. And when the folks in Writing who were in on it saw some potential future advantages, they didn't back down, but just dug in their heels a bit harder and kept up with the requirements for their particular NGO membership. (The requirement that Writing could most easily meet was publishing an article in Awake! once or twice a year to give publicity to various U.N. initiatives, like UNICEF, for example.)

Yes. There are contradictory motives for apologies, and contradictory reactions to apologies. We need to consider what is the right thing to do in each case. Some people apologize without apologizing as in "I take full responsibility for the failures (or a particular failure) that occurred during my time in office."  But just don't try to make them accountable in any way. I'm reminded of H.Clinton's Benghazi, or the TEN different "Benghazis," some much larger and more deadly, at various U.S. embassies under G.W.Bush.
Depends on many factors: the mood, the Zeitgeist, the economy, the efficacy of the corporate propaganda machine (aka "the news"), etc. For example, Pope Francis is visiting Ireland in the middle of the worst mood of Catholics in Ireland ever. Ireland is still majority Catholic, yet a majority of Catholics in places are now voting for same-sex marriage, abortion, divorce law changes, etc.  And attendance at churches has fallen precipitously. Media outlets that used to be supportive of the Church are saying out loud that they are waiting for more than the usual apologies and prayers offered up in an attempt to heal the mood. It's not just sexual abuse, which was rampant in Ireland and was covered up through the Vatican, too. It was forcing unwed women to give up their babies, violence against women at "nunneries" and other abuse issues which keep getting turned up. Some say (NPR yesterday, for example) that every single family in Ireland has been affected in some way.
It's a good thing it happened during a time when the U.S. and other Western European powers were salivating to find civil rights abuses in Russia. The world hardly gives a second look when things like this happen to groups and religions in Africa, India, Indonesia, etc. Things have to become very deadly to get attention elsewhere (as in Myanmar/Burma)
You have a point, but I think those that kick up the biggest fuss about shunning around here, at least, are those who were shunned by their families over doctrinal disagreements. Moral issues are not such a big deal, when a person has chosen a lifestyle that keeps them away from natural and free association with relatives. Some fade into a separate life after a non-scriptural divorce, for example. Some give some evidence that they know better, might return someday, or even wish they could associate but just keep too many worldly associations and habits. After some length of time, I've seen these persons visit their Witness relatives and associate at weddings and funerals and large family gatherings as if nothing happened. But it's not that often, and the Witnesses aren't going out of their way to associate.  
But I do see a bigger difference when the reason was doctrinal. Even bringing up the name of the person is rare or hushed or forbidden. They are still treated worse than those who left for moral reasons. And the feelings on the side of the person who is shunned for "apostasy" must hurt them much worse than we can imagine, if they believe they were only standing up for truth, or left for the "right reasons." When they still want to show love to their families, see their children, grandchildren or parents or grandparents, but their families don't want to see them it is the Witness who has "no natural affection." To them, the only reason they are treated badly and without any respect, in their opinion, is sometimes because they stopped believing something that was wrong anyway, and there was probably a time when they were too vocal about it, or too invested in the "truth" of what could turn out to be a minor issue. But even if they don't feel strongly any more about the particular issue, they can't conscientiously recant what they think is a Bible teaching. And if they have become atheists, they can't very well answer any of the questions correctly that could bring them back into association. I think this is the kind of "violence" that JTR is sometimes referring to, and it's something about which we should have more sympathy and empathy.

I think your astute encapsulation of my modus operandi is just about right when you include my bracketed edit. I suppose one could make a semi-scriptural case for holding back and another for not holding back. My conscience tells me to not hold back, but I still hold back on some topics, and only "spill the beans" where those topics have already been brought up by others elsewhere. I'm sure I've said it before, but one of my primary concerns is the natural tendency to defend what we don't really know. This can end up making the defender ultimately look like a fool to someone who knows better, or has seen the strength of the evidence. But worse, it can lead someone to engage in dishonest dialogue.
If I don't know something about a topic, I am very grateful for those who have tried to tell what they have learned publicly, even if it is difficult to find. But there are several topics about which our natural tendencies have already made some of us look like we don't care about truth as much as sustaining an assumed reputation. Some of the same "defenders" don't realize they are creating a reputation of caring more about reputation than about truth. This affects discussions of WTS history, chronology, child abuse, and a host of other topics, most of which get blown out of proportion by opposers. But some get blown out of proportion by JW defenders.
Why choose an "obscure" Internet outpost such as this? My own parents, for example, learned about the "U.N." fiasco and said they talked to a friend about it who said that it never happened, nothing like it ever happened, and it was all apostate lies. Well, for many, my parents included, they could manage to go from here to the new system and they need never know any better, and it's unlikely they will spread what they think they know beyond a very small circle of friends. And if they do, it will be in good conscience. I have personally spoken to the embarrassed and penitent brother initially behind the fiasco, along with a couple of his friends, and I think I know something about this situation which should also mitigate some of the embarrassment, but can also honestly admit what happened.
I don't need to look for the largest audience. I only need to do just enough to clear my conscience in "not holding back."

Most of us have probably already worked through the online Bible Study course on jw.org.This was an excellent idea. Although others sites have done it, too, it was especially good to see it on the jw.org site. It has some unique features here and is, of course, geared toward a Witness viewpoint. Yet there are very few lessons that contain a lot of unique doctrinal material, even though Trinity, Soul/Hell are presented. It's very simplified and has some nice features that would work well for non-readers. It's all finished in 8 lessons.
Each lesson may have only a few questions or sections and a quick reader can get through all the content of all the lessons, including short videos, in about 15 minutes. You could even click all the footnotes and links and read the scripture links and still finish the entire course in under a half-hour. There are links at the end of each lesson which point to website articles (usually original or slightly modified Watchtower and Awake! articles that have their own pages on the jw.org site). Comparing this to several of our our books geared toward those who would study the Bible with us in person (for several months) one could more easily customize a Bible study where extra links were only looked up in the event the student had additional questions or concerns about a topic, and a sufficient study could be completed in a matter of days, or even hours.
Notice too that there are no direct links to anything about 1914, 1919, 1922, etc. Nothing about blood transfusions, birthdays, etc. The very first lesson does contain a 53 second video where the very first and only secular dates are mentioned: they are 732 B.C.E., then 539 B.C.E., then 614 B.C.E. Someone might wonder why 539 is used as an accurate secular date and yet there is no explanation as to why the other two secular dates differ from the same secular evidence by 20 years. I don't suppose anyone expects the student to question this. A sense of accuracy is offered by the statement immediately following the video which says: "Each detail is confirmed by historical records, including the Nabonidus Chronicle and the history of Herodotus." Of course, the only reason we keep one of the secular dates (539), but change the prior secular dates by 20 years is so that the 1914 date can be "supported." But, as stated, 1914 is not mentioned directly in the lessons, unless you include two of the six extra links to articles for further information (at the end of the very last lesson, 3.3).
These are the lessons: 
Unit 1 | The Bible and Its Author
Lesson 1.1  |  About the Bible—Can the Bible Help You?
Lesson 1.2  |  Who Is God, the Creator?
Unit 2 | The Bible’s Main Characters
Lesson 2.1  |  Who Is Jesus?
Lesson 2.2  |  Who Are the Angels?
Lesson 2.3  |  Why Did God Create Humans?
Unit 3 | The Bible’s Message of Hope
Lesson 3.1  |  Why Do Suffering and Evil Exist?
Lesson 3.2  |  How Does God Save Us From Death?
Lesson 3.3  |  How Will God End Suffering and Evil?

Back when the TMS instructor spent a lot more time on stage giving speech counsel between TMS talks, we had one (Brother Johnson) who showed us the importance of modulation, pauses, and emphasis by putting up the following on a chalkboard
U.C.D.B's L.M.N.O.B's O.S.A.R.B's
He read it blandly and it meant nothing. Then he read it again with new modulation, pauses and emphasis:, and it was easily understood to mean:
You! See dee bees? 'ell, 'em ain' no bees.   [H*ll, them ain't no bees!] Oh [y]es [th]ey are bees! Some audible gasps were heard as they understood that he had just said "Hell" from the platform, but, somehow, it proved that you can get stung if you don't understand modulation, pauses and emphasis.

I think your astute encapsulation of my modus operandi is just about right when you include my bracketed edit. I suppose one could make a semi-scriptural case for holding back and another for not holding back. My conscience tells me to not hold back, but I still hold back on some topics, and only "spill the beans" where those topics have already been brought up by others elsewhere. I'm sure I've said it before, but one of my primary concerns is the natural tendency to defend what we don't really know. This can end up making the defender ultimately look like a fool to someone who knows better, or has seen the strength of the evidence. But worse, it can lead someone to engage in dishonest dialogue.
If I don't know something about a topic, I am very grateful for those who have tried to tell what they have learned publicly, even if it is difficult to find. But there are several topics about which our natural tendencies have already made some of us look like we don't care about truth as much as sustaining an assumed reputation. Some of the same "defenders" don't realize they are creating a reputation of caring more about reputation than about truth. This affects discussions of WTS history, chronology, child abuse, and a host of other topics, most of which get blown out of proportion by opposers. But some get blown out of proportion by JW defenders.
Why choose an "obscure" Internet outpost such as this? My own parents, for example, learned about the "U.N." fiasco and said they talked to a friend about it who said that it never happened, nothing like it ever happened, and it was all apostate lies. Well, for many, my parents included, they could manage to go from here to the new system and they need never know any better, and it's unlikely they will spread what they think they know beyond a very small circle of friends. And if they do, it will be in good conscience. I have personally spoken to the embarrassed and penitent brother initially behind the fiasco, along with a couple of his friends, and I think I know something about this situation which should also mitigate some of the embarrassment, but can also honestly admit what happened.
I don't need to look for the largest audience. I only need to do just enough to clear my conscience in "not holding back."

Not funny! (Just my personal opinion and judgment call.) Have you read the new book about JWs and the Watchtower Society called "Ellen's Song"? It seems to have derived almost entirely from Internet discussions and rumors.
And yes, I could write a real review. I read the whole thing, Amazon Kindle version, in about 6 hours, taking plenty of notes. I don't recommend it. But it shows that a non-ex-Witness (my opinion) has access to all the same material that we could discuss here, and therefore so-called "apostate" material need not come from apostates to be relevant for public discussion.

As long as Paul pops Nero in the nose and gets the girl I'm happy.

We'll be going through Acts in the assigned Bible reading and I thought I'd share some online resources that are quite interesting and apparently accurate enough for their purposes. Hopefully, others here will share a few of their favorite resources, too.
http://pelagios.org/maps/greco-roman/ is a very detailed map of the Roman Empire with all cities referred to in ancient sources near the time of the Greek Scriptures. "This map features details such as major and minor roads, aqueducts, temples, cemeteries and quarries."
Similar things have been done on other sites ( https://omnesviae.org/ ) but my absolute favorite is a kind of Google Maps for the Ancient World: http://orbis.stanford.edu/#
It lets you choose if you are traveling between any two places by ship, boat, military speed, civilian speed, foot, horse, donkey, chariot, etc. It lets you choose a common coastal navigation system that "hugs the coast" which was a common method of navigation. It also calculates the cost of various modes of transportation, not just in time, but in money.
 

Back to the six month limit?