JW Insider

@Eoin Joyce Wow! I was just thinking about this same point last night for the current thread on Christ's power and authority. In order for us to get a sense of Jehovah's majesty, there must be some extent to which we need certain images in our head, like a crown, a throne, royal garb, a scepter, etc. Jehovah must know that these images are helpful to understand his Sovereignty. The images of a kingdom --with all the glorious splendor of a central palace, a sizable realm, along with an innumerable entourage of soldiers, servants, slaves, messengers at the king's command-- probably carries about the same meaning from the time of the earliest empires until now.
Clearly there is an element of anthropomorphism in the imagery, because a perfect spirit being needs nothing physical.
But the fact that Jehovah is a Sovereign or King is important to the concept of his Sovereignty and Kingdom. That Jehovah is at the top of a heavenly hierarchy and is all-powerful is conveyed immediately with these images.
As Jesus is also a heavenly spirit creature, the same would be true of his Kingdom, too. Obviously, many of the disciples had trouble "spiritualizing" some of the concepts about God's Kingdom through Christ. They considered the physical seat of the Kingdom to be earthly Jerusalem, rather than the Jerusalem above. He spoke of his Father's house as having many mansions, but he also had to remind them that hierarchical positions in that kingdom were not given the same meaning that they might have on earth. Heaven is a place "not made with hands."
Clearly, the same goes for the term "Bride of Christ" too. In heaven, where "in the resurrection there is neither male or female," Jesus marries a good number of "male virgins." Marriage carries with it the idea of union, love, closeness, loyalty, and an unbreakable bond. The physical concepts of marriage do not apply.
Therefore, even terms like "Father" and "Son" carry an element of anthropomorphism.

@Eoin Joyce Wow! I was just thinking about this same point last night for the current thread on Christ's power and authority. In order for us to get a sense of Jehovah's majesty, there must be some extent to which we need certain images in our head, like a crown, a throne, royal garb, a scepter, etc. Jehovah must know that these images are helpful to understand his Sovereignty. The images of a kingdom --with all the glorious splendor of a central palace, a sizable realm, along with an innumerable entourage of soldiers, servants, slaves, messengers at the king's command-- probably carries about the same meaning from the time of the earliest empires until now.
Clearly there is an element of anthropomorphism in the imagery, because a perfect spirit being needs nothing physical.
But the fact that Jehovah is a Sovereign or King is important to the concept of his Sovereignty and Kingdom. That Jehovah is at the top of a heavenly hierarchy and is all-powerful is conveyed immediately with these images.
As Jesus is also a heavenly spirit creature, the same would be true of his Kingdom, too. Obviously, many of the disciples had trouble "spiritualizing" some of the concepts about God's Kingdom through Christ. They considered the physical seat of the Kingdom to be earthly Jerusalem, rather than the Jerusalem above. He spoke of his Father's house as having many mansions, but he also had to remind them that hierarchical positions in that kingdom were not given the same meaning that they might have on earth. Heaven is a place "not made with hands."
Clearly, the same goes for the term "Bride of Christ" too. In heaven, where "in the resurrection there is neither male or female," Jesus marries a good number of "male virgins." Marriage carries with it the idea of union, love, closeness, loyalty, and an unbreakable bond. The physical concepts of marriage do not apply.
Therefore, even terms like "Father" and "Son" carry an element of anthropomorphism.

This whole matter is likely a source of far more than embarrassment for informed and genuine Witnesses everywhere.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that, despite the whole world being seemingly appalled by this particular crime, it appears to be pandemic.
For example:
China: http://www.economist.com/news/china/21705848-china-has-millions-sexually-abused-children-it-beginning-acknowledge-their-suffering
Russia: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/child-abuse-in-russia-is-routine-20452
Nigeria: http://www.voanews.com/a/unicef-report-child-abuse-nigeria/2955314.html
Argentina: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4db6c687dff74f81bfee4294bf068914/argentina-investigates-alleged-sex-abuse-school
Scotland: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39116477
The work of the various investigative bodies seems so far to have done little more than reveal that the problem is far more widespread and historic than anyone imagined...everywhere. The disbelief and denial displayed by many decent people in the face of evidence to the contrary serves to illustrate the heinousness of the crime and the challenge of eradication. The "Yes he did" and "No he didn't" chorus is another tragic feature of this whole business.
Personally, I am glad to have become more aware of the matter, particularly due to the ARC work which provides a better level of information than the vitriolic apostate ramblings, sensationalist news reporting, and other widely circulated accounts. I welcome this level of investigation into all areas and pray that the lessons learned will be applied by all involved institutions despite the fact that they are at best temporary and symptom-focussed. (The bleatings of professionals over cost and implication of measures illustrate institutional unwillingness/inadequacy to deal with the matter).
Could it be that humanity in general has failed in it's duty to protect it's young ones? Don't all answer at once! And what of the victims? Shattered personalities, ruined and even lost lives...none of this can be restored by compensation or apportioning of blame.
We are witnessing the fulfillment of Paul's words to Timothy at 2Tim.3:1-5 with self-love replacing natural affection as a feature of human society in these "last days", and none worse than among those "having an appearance of godliness but proving false to it's power.".
Only Jehovah's Kingdom in Christ's hands can eradicate this abominable practice completely and also redress the effects of the crime effectively as one stated objective puts it: 
"All the kings will bow down before him, and all the nations will serve him.  For he will rescue the poor who cry for help, also the lowly one and whoever has no helper" Ps 72 11-12
 

@TrueTom   You make some very valid points in your post. I wouldn't argue against any of it.
There is also considerable overlap between bullying and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse often becomes just another type of bullying, and those in the "herd" who have been weakened emotionally by either/or will often find themselves targeted (picked off) by abusers (predators) for the rest of their lives. After looking at 4,500 cases of reported sexual abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2015, (and looking at more statistically significant reporting especially since 1985) The Australian Royal Commission (ARC) reported that about 7% of Catholic priests have been accused. But it was lower in the Catholic schools run by nuns dealing with children, and much higher in the places where males in authority dealt with children (average age was 10 and 11). 30% of the crimes were committed by Catholic "brothers," (those usually assigned to various "orders") another 30% of the crimes were by priests themselves, and 5% by Catholic "sisters" (generally, nuns). It was highest in the "Order of St. John of God" where a full 40% of those in authority there were accused of child abuse. The reason, it shouldn't surprise us, is that these men worked specifically with emotionally disturbed children. Easy picking! One person I listened to on the BBC made it clear that any organization anywhere in the world that had such a high rate of accused and convicted child abusers would be considered a "criminal organization."
I agree that all of us want to do all we can. But our own track record was awful, especially in those early years when expensive lawsuits were being covered up long before the very first article about protecting children came out. And members of our own Governing Body fought against printing articles and information on the subject. Just as in other organizations, we didn't want to admit that it was even possible in our own organization, because this would bring such reproach on Jehovah's name and organization. It would give opposers something to point to. My own father in his capacity as a congregation elder, counseled my sister to avoid going to the hospital after abuse by her husband to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation. "What if they asked you what happened, what are you going to tell them?" "What kind of witness would it give to the community if it got out that a minister in the congregation had to go to jail?" "Don't you think it would be more appropriate to try again, but be more humble and conforming and win him with a mild manner?" "Spending more time in prayer and study and service is surely the best counsel." 
My sister came back to the congregation, but she was disfellowshipped for defying this counsel. (She said she would separate and NOT try to get back in her husband's good graces.) I agree that we can always say that it was her unrepentant attitude and anger at the counsel that got her disfellowshipped. I also agree that she was never told NOT to go to the authorities or to specifically LIE to the authorities who might ask her questions at the hospital. But she was definitely pressured for years not to go to authorities and professionals, and even to "lie" through omission of facts if she did go. And she was definitely punished for reacting negatively to the counsel and authority of the elders.
I know about similar cases, and even of a case of child abuse that was covered up in the same way through not-so-subtle pressures to "do the right thing" when it comes to the issue of reproach and even "mandatory reporting." But the case of my sister, I know first-hand. I even offered to give my brother-in-law a taste of his own medicine, which was not the Christian thing to do, but I thought it was a pretty fair interpretation of Matthew 18:15 at the time.
Another point to remember before we start putting our own organization on too high a pedestal here is that if you count the Catholic population and the reported cases in those districts in Australia and compare them to the population of Jehovah's Witnesses and the reported cases in the same districts, then you see that our problem might even be many times worse than the Catholics. I can't say that it really is worse, because this is also a factor of how accurately such accusations are reported. 
Also, if you watched the videos from the previous ARC hearings, you might also be surprised to learn who the abusers were in several of the 1,000+ cases reported among Witnesses. I had heard that at least one of these abusers would be revealed in a separate case by November 2016, but that case is evidently under some kind of gag order, or otherwise delayed under some slow-moving wheels. So please strike what I said and forget I said anything about it. But I am almost certain that the plan is to engage some of these cases in public courts. (Partly because some lawyers involuntarily salivate when money is involved.) I don't think too many Australian Witnesses are holding their heads very high when the topic is brought up during witnessing activities.

I think it's more like: 
“Difficult to see. Always in motion the future is..”  =)

I have a friend in Australia, a very spiritual, zealous, sweet and humble sister, her husband is an elder and coordinator, and when I asked her about the general consensus of the friends there, she quoted a scripture "But there is nothing carefully concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that will not become known" Luke 12:2 .
 

I don't mean to be negative, although it is a good video, in my opinion though I've always thought that depicting the "bad guy" as a monster type looking thing is a little misleading (for the children at least) because it makes it look like the "bad guy" is going to be easily identifiable, because.....well he LOOKS bad, and acts CREEPY, whereas in reality a sexual predator grooms his victims and appears very nice to the children, and others. Many times the child molester is a member of the family. The children might be looking for someone sleazy, and might be thrown off guard if the person is a "nice" brother in the congregation, a friend of the family, or even sadly a parent. I might be wrong, just my thought...

@TrueTom   You make some very valid points in your post. I wouldn't argue against any of it.
There is also considerable overlap between bullying and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse often becomes just another type of bullying, and those in the "herd" who have been weakened emotionally by either/or will often find themselves targeted (picked off) by abusers (predators) for the rest of their lives. After looking at 4,500 cases of reported sexual abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2015, (and looking at more statistically significant reporting especially since 1985) The Australian Royal Commission (ARC) reported that about 7% of Catholic priests have been accused. But it was lower in the Catholic schools run by nuns dealing with children, and much higher in the places where males in authority dealt with children (average age was 10 and 11). 30% of the crimes were committed by Catholic "brothers," (those usually assigned to various "orders") another 30% of the crimes were by priests themselves, and 5% by Catholic "sisters" (generally, nuns). It was highest in the "Order of St. John of God" where a full 40% of those in authority there were accused of child abuse. The reason, it shouldn't surprise us, is that these men worked specifically with emotionally disturbed children. Easy picking! One person I listened to on the BBC made it clear that any organization anywhere in the world that had such a high rate of accused and convicted child abusers would be considered a "criminal organization."
I agree that all of us want to do all we can. But our own track record was awful, especially in those early years when expensive lawsuits were being covered up long before the very first article about protecting children came out. And members of our own Governing Body fought against printing articles and information on the subject. Just as in other organizations, we didn't want to admit that it was even possible in our own organization, because this would bring such reproach on Jehovah's name and organization. It would give opposers something to point to. My own father in his capacity as a congregation elder, counseled my sister to avoid going to the hospital after abuse by her husband to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation. "What if they asked you what happened, what are you going to tell them?" "What kind of witness would it give to the community if it got out that a minister in the congregation had to go to jail?" "Don't you think it would be more appropriate to try again, but be more humble and conforming and win him with a mild manner?" "Spending more time in prayer and study and service is surely the best counsel." 
My sister came back to the congregation, but she was disfellowshipped for defying this counsel. (She said she would separate and NOT try to get back in her husband's good graces.) I agree that we can always say that it was her unrepentant attitude and anger at the counsel that got her disfellowshipped. I also agree that she was never told NOT to go to the authorities or to specifically LIE to the authorities who might ask her questions at the hospital. But she was definitely pressured for years not to go to authorities and professionals, and even to "lie" through omission of facts if she did go. And she was definitely punished for reacting negatively to the counsel and authority of the elders.
I know about similar cases, and even of a case of child abuse that was covered up in the same way through not-so-subtle pressures to "do the right thing" when it comes to the issue of reproach and even "mandatory reporting." But the case of my sister, I know first-hand. I even offered to give my brother-in-law a taste of his own medicine, which was not the Christian thing to do, but I thought it was a pretty fair interpretation of Matthew 18:15 at the time.
Another point to remember before we start putting our own organization on too high a pedestal here is that if you count the Catholic population and the reported cases in those districts in Australia and compare them to the population of Jehovah's Witnesses and the reported cases in the same districts, then you see that our problem might even be many times worse than the Catholics. I can't say that it really is worse, because this is also a factor of how accurately such accusations are reported. 
Also, if you watched the videos from the previous ARC hearings, you might also be surprised to learn who the abusers were in several of the 1,000+ cases reported among Witnesses. I had heard that at least one of these abusers would be revealed in a separate case by November 2016, but that case is evidently under some kind of gag order, or otherwise delayed under some slow-moving wheels. So please strike what I said and forget I said anything about it. But I am almost certain that the plan is to engage some of these cases in public courts. (Partly because some lawyers involuntarily salivate when money is involved.) I don't think too many Australian Witnesses are holding their heads very high when the topic is brought up during witnessing activities.

1.  Yes, you mentioned most of what I wanted to infer from Dan 12:1. And you reminded the old references. So they were still in my brain.   But when I checked the CD I saw that it is now referring in a special way to his standing up at Armageddon. 
When I saw the answer at *** w15 5/15 p. 30 par. 3 Questions From Readers  I discontinued my discourse.
2."The answer was that Stephen, like John in Revelation, must have been seeing Jesus in the future, after 1914. As far as I know, this is not a necessary part of our doctrinal explanation. (If it ever really was.) [Do you, or any of the other "old-timers" remember if this was ever in print? I vaguely remember seeing it but can't remember if it was published.] " - JWInsider
I don't remember it ever being an important part of our doctrine but I can look it up.  Thanks for your contribution and research.

I must recognize, this is an "entrenched truth" for me. I find it difficult change my mind because, after a lot of years, my neurons and dendrites have a lot of highways in the direction of thinking that:

·        Jesus went to heaven and sat down (waiting, not actively ruling)
·        Jesus would be crowned, and his kingdom would begin at a later date
But your arguments (JWI) seem to be very solid, and the ideas contribute by Eoin vey valids.

Well, let’s try to find a “connecting link” between positions.

First, and foremost, I suppose the most important (and foundational, core, unchangeable) truths are:

·        Christ is the appointed king.
·        His kingdom would begin, logically, at some moment after his resurrection.
·        His kingdom would gradually conquer to all his enemies
·        There is a climax, when the king would wage a final war
If we can agree with the above points, I think we can build from a solid foundation, cannot we? Then, the point at issue seems to be the precise moment when the king is crowned and, consequently, the kingdom begins.

“I see Satan already fallen” (Lu 10:18)

We all agree these words, expressed in a past tense, would have a future fulfillment. So, I tend to think that some of the 50 verses or more JWI aptly quote could have the same meaning: The certainly of the rulership is so high that is expressed as already happened. Melinda has also quote similar statements in Revelation. How, otherwise, could we understand the words (Eph 2:6) “he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus”? I found reasonable the explanations:

·        *** sl chap. 8 p. 132 par. 6 A Spiritual Paradise on a Polluted Earth *** Figuratively, Paul was already seated with fellow Christians on earth “in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus.”
·        *** it-1 pp. 1064-1065 Heaven *** How can persons in “heavenly places” still be on earth? The apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians speaks of Christians then living on earth as though they were already enjoying a heavenly position, being raised up and “seated . . . together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus.” (Eph 1:3; 2:6) The context shows that anointed Christians are so viewed by God because of his having ‘assigned them as heirs’ with his Son in the heavenly inheritance. While yet on earth, they have been exalted, or ‘lifted up,’ by such assignment. (Eph 1:11, 18-20; 2:4-7, 22) Ephesians 2:6
·        *** w15 8/15 p. 13 par. 14 Meditate on Jehovah’s Enduring Love *** Paul described anointed Christians as having been ‘raised up and seated together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus.’ (Eph. 2:6) They occupy this spiritual position because they have been ‘sealed with the promised holy spirit, which is a token in advance of their inheritance,’ that is, ‘the hope reserved for them in the heavens.’—Eph. 1:13, 14; Col. 1:5.
In a similar way, why don’t think the same regarding Christ’s Kingdom? Perhaps the many verses speaking as he was already King in the 1st century could be seen as HOW GOD CONSIDER his victorious Son from that time forward: the king. But the beginning of the kingdom could be future.

Eoin also mention the undeniable fact we all believe that in spite Jehovah is the Eternal King, the Bible mentions that when his sovereignty reaches some special achievement, He “becomes to reign” in some other special way. Thus, he expresses the idea that Christ would be king when resurrected, and that some subsequent events would be “begins to rule” in new ways. Well, I assume this is a resume of his position.

I think all our pillar or column beliefs would be the same either way, whether Christ had begun to reign in 33, 1914 or any other date.

Anyway, I hope nobody consider inappropriate or inopportune if I point out some ideas.

 

The Appearance of the King


 

The appearance of Christ inspecting the 7 congregations:

·        (Re 1:13-16) “and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed in a garment that reached down to the feet and wearing a golden sash around his chest. Moreover, his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery flame, and his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp, long, two-edged sword was protruding, and his countenance was like the sun when it shines at its brightest”.
The appearance of Christ in cavalry charge:

·        (Re 19:12-16) “His eyes are a fiery flame, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, and he is clothed with an outer garment stained with blood, and he is called by the name The Word of God. Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. And out of his mouth protrudes a sharp, long sword with which to strike the nations, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. Moreover, he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his outer garment, yes, on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”
I’d like to point out the similarities in the appearance, as reflected in the pictures, in both situations: when inspecting the congregations and in his final war against the enemies. But there is a paramount difference: the crown.

The inspection visit occurs, obviously, sometime after his resurrection. We can observe him as the glorious person he is. But in this period of time he doesn’t wear any crown. Could this indicate he is the appointed king, but still not working as such?

The three times he is seen with crown in the Scriptures

Errors and omissions excepted, there are only three accounts where Jesus is seen crowned.

·        (Re 6:2) “And I saw, and look! a white horse, and the one seated on it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went out conquering and to complete his conquest.”
·        (Re 14:14-16) “Then I saw, and look! a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was someone like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Another angel emerged from the temple sanctuary, calling with a loud voice to the one seated on the cloud: “Put your sickle in and reap, because the hour has come to reap, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” And the one seated on the cloud thrust his sickle into the earth, and the earth was reaped.
·        (Re 19:11-16) “I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse […] on his head are many diadems […] he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty […] he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”
A meticulous reading of the passages could indicate us the following:

·        Obviously, is Christ
·        He is already crowned as king
·        His kingship is related to his victory against the enemies
About the white horse of Re 6, what I found very meaningful is the fact that points out the moment of the coronation: “and a crown was given him”. And, immediately after this event, it is mentioned he starts to win over the enemies. Now, I question: did it happen in 33 C.E.? Did Christ begin to win in that year over his enemies? How to fit the parable of the wheat and weed? Didn’t the apostasy win over Christianism at those days? But the ride of the king is without any defeat: “conquering and to complete his conquest”. I am unclear this could happen in 33.

In the other two accounts (Re 14 and 19), the king is seen crowned. If we link all three accounts I think we can get a comprehensive picture pointing out the fact that, when the king gets its crown begins to conquer without interruption till the end.

The day of the coronation, Daniel account.

I assume that the majority of us see the coronation day of one monarch as a very exciting event, especially if he is our king. I think the Bible reflected these proper feelings when cover the coronation, the crowning of the Jehovah’s designed king.

The vision itself:

·        (Daniel 7:8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14) “And look! there were eyes like human eyes in this horn, and there was a mouth speaking arrogantly. I kept watching until thrones were set in place and the Ancient of Days sat down […] The Court took its seat, and books were opened […] 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 […] look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom”
Known account, isn’t it? Daniel asked to the angel and he provides him more information

The angel’s explanation

·        (Daniel 7:21, 22, 26, 27) “I kept watching as that horn made war on the holy ones, and it was prevailing against them, 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 […] But the Court sat, and they took away his rulership, in order to annihilate him and to destroy him completely […] ‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One”
Logically, what the angel said as explanation couldn’t be at odds with the vision itself, right? Now, let’s merge both accounts, trying to get an order of the events:

1 The horn speaks arrogantly against the saints, made war on them.
2   As a result of this malicious action, one Court is formed, presided by the Ancient of Days. A sentence of destruction is decreed. Who will execute this judgment?
3.      The son of man approaches. The kingdom is given to him
4.      The holy ones receive a favorable judgment, but the horn is destroyed
5.      The holy ones also receive the kingdom
If this order is correct, I can’t see this being fulfilled in that year (33). A basic proof is the fact the horn had not yet came into existence!

The day of the coronation, John account.

I think the most enlightening account about this matter under our consideration is Revelation 12 (and its context, the chapter 11). Because it describes the beginning of the kingdom as the birth of a child. Something completely new, not starting centuries ago. And the verses, all of us will agree, only could apply to the last era.

John account also fits with Daniel, because true worshippers are described under attack from enemies. They are protected by God. The kingdom starts. The child begins his life.

Final thoughts

As I’ve mention before, perhaps we are not so distant in our views. Many times I’ve think about the day when Christ went to heaven. I suppose an enormous happiness happened. In human terms, cheering, hugs and, probably, formal declarations from Jehovah. I imagine a general assembly, with all the angels of the heaven. God is receiving His beloved son again! This, offering his blood as ransom. Then, he sat down in the closest possible position to his Father. He received “all authority” at this moment. His disciples can, appropriately, begin to preach about a new king, a future king. But so safe his kingdom would come, that the Scriptures could talk as if the king already was ruling.

Both    

Nothing surprises me any more!

I think that's just "old" speak, maybe wanting to sound a little Shakespearean perhaps? "Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, it seems to me most strange that men should fear; Seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come"......
But then guess what, I found this!
http://prestwickhouse.blogspot.com/2009/12/plain-english-how-yoda-helps-students.htmlo
So I wasn't too far off the mark after all
 

Not exclusively to Armageddon, though.
As I know you are aware, Daniel 12:1 was once a key part of the argument that Jesus was not really King in 33 CE but had to wait until 1914. It was part of a 3-part proof.
It's true that Jesus sat down at Jehovah's right hand in 33 CE, but this doesn't mean he actually became King in 33 CE. (This covered the many references to Psalm 110 in the Greek Scriptures.) That's because when he was "sitting," this was an indication that he was "sitting and waiting" until Jehovah was ready to enthrone him as Messianic King so that he could, at that future time, begin conquering in the midst of his enemies. This fits Hebrews 10:12, 13 "[he]. . . sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet." The time would come for Jesus to stop sitting and finally stand up. So Daniel 12:1 was used here to show that Jesus would stand up at the beginning of his rulership as King.  Not sure, but you were probably remembering that for many years we taught that he "stood up" in 1914:
*** w85 7/1 p. 28 par. 20 Triumphing in “the Final Part of the Days” ***
This Michael is Jesus Christ, who ‘stood up’ in his Kingdom in 1914, promptly to eject Satan from the heavens.
But now, the teaching has changed a bit. Jesus was already standing in 1914, but also stands up at Armageddon. He stands up while he is already standing, so that we simply say that it was in a different sense of "standing up." The bracketed information in the quote below was not added, it's in the original article:
*** w15 5/15 p. 30 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
“During that time Michael [Jesus Christ] will stand up [at Armageddon], the great prince who is standing [since 1914] in behalf of your people.
I don't know if it ever made it into a Watch Tower publication, but maybe it's in one of the old "Sermon Outlines" or one of the two versions of the "Make Sure of All Things" books. But at a KM school the question was once asked why Stephen said he already saw Jesus "standing" at the right hand of God.
(Acts 7:54-56) . . .. 55 But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.”
The answer was that Stephen, like John in Revelation, must have been seeing Jesus in the future, after 1914. As far as I know, this is not a necessary part of our doctrinal explanation. (If it ever really was.) [Do you, or any of the other "old-timers" remember if this was ever in print? I vaguely remember seeing it but can't remember if it was published.]
*** w86 10/15 p. 6 A Change of Rulership—Soon! ***
However, Jesus did not begin his rule over mankind in 33 C.E. He had a period of waiting. It was only after this that Jehovah empowered him to “go subduing in the midst of [his] enemies.”  . . . Jesus thus identified himself as Michael who would stand up to rule. . . . These events have been remarkably fulfilled since 1914. Jesus then assumed power in heaven as King, and he has been ruling in the midst of his enemies.—Matthew 24:3, 7-12.
 

CMP, I'm glad you are leaving 1914 out of it for now. I'm sure it will come up out of necessity, but I agree that focusing on what we know about the time of Jesus kingship in 33 CE is a key to understanding, because "33 CE" is mentioned so often in the scriptures as the time when Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven. (I understand that some scholars would put this at 30 CE based on evidence from Josephus linked with Luke, especially. But I'm fine with just calling it "33 CE" as long as we all know that we mean especially the time of Jesus resurrection and/or ascension.)
What I was saying in the quote above was that there really are a couple of verses that should make us reconsider if Jesus kingship in 33 CE is the full explanation of what the scriptures mean by his kingship.
I believe that Eoin has just pointed them out perfectly. I wasn't trying to completely dismiss your points from Daniel 2, 7 and Rev 11. I was just trying to show that we couldn't rely on them to dismiss the "real" kingship that started in 33 CE. I agree that all of them could have referred to the Kingdom at any of its "milestone" events or accomplishments. But the fact is that we already know the Kingdom could have started in 33 CE according to the many scriptures that indicate that it did. With that in mind none of those additional references actually contradicted this. All of them could be seen as agreeing that the Kingdom started in 33 CE and then, over time, there could be any number of events that might be seen as highlights of the manifestation of that kingdom. Any one of those highlighted times or events could correctly be seen as a time when the "Jehovah became King" or "Jesus took the throne" or the "Kingdom began," or the "Kingdom would arrive" (as in "Let your Kingdom come.")
I think we should get back to the points about Daniel and Revelation. But if you don't mind, I think that Eoin's post provides a stronger replacement to the argument you were making from Romans 4:17. Either one would allow us to resolve the scriptures that indicate that Jesus kingship began in 33 AND the idea that we could claim that it also starts at a later time. Eoin's solution appears to be that both ideas can (and should) be true.
Are you OK with this particular direction to the discussion, that Eoin has presented? Perhaps you still wanted to go into more detail with the original point you were making. I'm sure you were just outlining the discussion anyway, and might have been ready to add many more good reasons to continue in the original direction.
 

Sorry. Missed that one completely. Not your fault though. Just didn't expect it.

Now I see that my sentence was ambiguous. I was trying to be ironic. When you said that you listened to Fred Franz speak like Yoda, I meant "higher studies"

???? only severely out of context!!!
There seems to be an unecessarily extreme position set out in this debate. It appears to be assumed that the idea of Jesus "becoming" king at a date considerably later than the time of his being " exalted to the right hand of God " excludes him being a king in the interim period. The debate appears to focus on the demolition of this idea, which is indeed a false concept, and more than adequately accomplishes this.
However, this position is not integral to the understanding that a time period could elapse between Jesus returning to the "right hand of God" and his subsequent future role in the execution of Jehovah's "judgement against the nations." Ps 110 (in full).
A simple parallel can be drawn with Jehovah Himself. Jehovah is termed the King of Eternity. As such, He is not (never has been nor will be) subject to anything, not even the passing of time, despite His existence FROM eternity until the moment of creation when He acted on His decision to share His universe.
Since the moment He created an intelligent being in the form of his only-begotten Son, He has retained His position as King of Eternity. Despite the attack on His right to rule, and the rebellion of Satan, an unspecified number of powerful spirits, along with millions of mankind on earth, Jehovah has never relinquished His position as King of Eternity. His eternal Sovereignty was acknowledged by his faithful servants on earth, not as a future condition, but as a current state, recognised by faithful humans, spirits, and His only-begotten Son. Ps.47:2,7; Ps. 90:2; Ps.103:19-20; Lu.4:5-8. It was even forcibly impressed on pagan rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar, see Dan.4:34-35,37.
And yet we find statements such as that of David when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to the City of David:
"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful; Declare among the nations: ‘Jehovah has become King!" 1 Chr.16:31 And the Sons of Korah, after stating that Jehovah "is the great King" (Ps.47:2,7) follow up with this:
"God has become King over the nations. God sits on his holy throne." Ps.47:8. And Isaiah, after referring 8 times to Jehovah as the existing Sovereign Lord, says prophetically in connection with the restoration of Jerusalem:
"For Jehovah of armies has become King in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem," Is.24:23 Jesus himself, when providing his outline for prayer priorities, said:
"Let your kingdom come" Matt.6:10. And later, in his revelation, in describing " things that must shortly take place" (Rev.1:1), he points to a future time when:
“The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ"  Rev 11:15. And also that faithful ones say: "We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king" Rev.11:17. So how is it that Jehovah could be "King of Eternity" (1Tim.1:17; Rev.15:2), have His throne "established long ago" (Ps.93:2), with a "kingship that is an eternal kingship" (Ps145:13) and at the same time become king on a number of occasions over the centuries?
Answer this and you will be on the path to understanding how it is that Jesus, who like his Father, was/is ruling as a king, and yet could/will, also like his Father, become king at the same time. 

 
 

Thank you for organizing this discussion. In the next few days I would love to delve into this subject again.
My first take on it is as follows:
I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected Agree that this is the primary starting point, and that these and several other scriptures make up the bulk of the instances to work from. These scriptures do put it in the past tense, as if Jesus was already king, and as if the focus of the entire first-century preaching work was that Christians were already claiming that "there is another king, Jesus."   II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected In my opinion there really are a couple of verses that give us pause about whether the above (Point #1) tells the whole story. However, I don't believe that these particular verses from Daniel chap 2, chap 7 and Revelation chap 11 make "Point #1" difficult to accept. In context, I believe they even add extra support to "Point #1." For example, (Daniel 2:34, 35) ". . .You looked on until a stone was cut out, not by hands, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and of clay and crushed them. . . . But the stone that struck the image became a large mountain, and it filled the whole earth." The idea of a kingdom that begins in a way that can fill the entire earth over time is perfectly aligned with a kingdom that takes power "in the midst of its enemies." It also fits many of Jesus illustrations about the Kingdom that for example: (Matthew 13:31-33) . . .“The Kingdom of the heavens is like a mustard grain that a man took and planted in his field. 32 It is, in fact, the tiniest of all the seeds, but when it has grown, it is the largest of the vegetable plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and find lodging among its branches.” Daniel 7 also provides a scenario of what will occur with the Kingdom over time. The Kingdom is given to someone like a son of man in verse 13, and 14. The holy ones will also receive the kingdom, but only after the horn makes war on them and, quoting, Daniel 7:22, ". . . the appointed time arrived for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom." Clearly Christ receives the kingdom before the holy ones receive it. Revelation 11 matches the same time-based scenario perfectly: (Revelation 11:17, 18) . . . you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward . . . the holy ones . . . III How to harmonize both sets of verses Because there is no contradiction between "Point #1" and "Point #2" there is nothing to harmonize, and it does not become necessary to invoke a time shift through the idea that it is OK for Jehovah to call something prematurely just because it is so sure to happen. In this case it is still OK to accept all the verses for what they actually say. No twisting or stretching required. It would not make a lot of sense to try to override the idea given in about 50 verses with an idea imposed upon it from unrelated verses anyway. In every case, in the verses you utilized to claim that these things Paul spoke of were not yet true, they actually were in fact true, and Paul explained why in the context of each of those verses. Paul explained the ways in this was already occurring for Christians who had already brought into the Kingdom of God's beloved Son during the first-century system of things, but that Jesus had already been seated in heavenly places in a better way: (Ephesians 1:21) ". . . not only in this system of things but also in that to come." IV The Third way The idea based on your take of the above points was that Christ only received an appointment to be Lord and King at the time he went to heaven. Based on your idea, "The kingdom was secured" and "the king was crowned" yet "the kingdom would begin, at some time in the future." But, again, we should be careful not to dismiss what 50 verses say, and claim they might mean something else, just because of a verse that apparently had nothing to do with the chronology of the Kingdom, but was really about how Jehovah can 'call things into existence that do not yet exist.' [See NWT, footnote]  The context was dealing with resurrection, a promise made to Abraham about his offspring, and the idea that Jehovah could declare Abraham righteous through undeserved kindness based on his faith. There are a few other issues with this idea that the Kingdom had not yet had a start when Jesus was crowned, and "sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty." (Hebrews 8:1) There is a minor theme about Psalm 110 that runs through most of the books of the Greek Scriptures, sometimes quoted explicitly and sometimes referenced in more subtle ways. Christians were already giving allegiance to Christ and only acted as "alien residents" in this system. A king commands his followers and Jesus is shown sending out his disciples to do all the things he has commanded, along with the words "all authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." (Matthew 28:19,20) We would be denying the scriptures if we said that he would obtain more authority at some future time. Just because he had not yet acted on it, does not mean he didn't have it. Other verses, you already quoted, show that this authority was already (Ephesians 1:21) "far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named" at the time that Jesus sat at God's right hand. So if Jesus was already given authority far above every king on earth, then who are we to say that he was not yet a king himself? It smacks of blasphemy, or at least a real lack of appreciation of his authority.
Of course, the most important point, I think, is the Psalm 110 theme itself. The Psalm speaks of a king sitting at God's right hand. That king would have the power of his scepter extended by Jehovah himself (v.2), so that he would go on subduing in the midst of his enemies. That phrase covers the point made above about the kingdom starting out as something that would begin to show up the weaknesses of the world powers. World powers that could not conquer the holy ones, but which would grow until a time was reached when it would put an end to those world powers and kingdoms. Anyone who claimed that the king in Psalm 110 was not really a king just because he was only sitting on a throne at God's right hand is missing the entire idea of the Psalm. It's true that the Watchtower has taught that "sitting on a throne at God's right hand" means he is only waiting to become king, but the apostle Paul has ruined that teaching forever. Paul knew that a king could sit on a throne and still be a king. A king sitting on a throne is actually a perfect symbol of rulership, not simply someone "waiting" to be king. This is why Paul paraphrases the term "sitting at God's right hand" in a way that crushes the traditional teaching:
(1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing
Notice how Paul thinks that "sit at God's right hand" means the same thing as "rule as king." I've included verse 26 because it too crushes the traditional idea we have been taught that Jesus is not king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Clearly, Jesus doesn't completely crush the last enemy until the end of the thousand years. So, do we claim that Jesus is not really king until the end of the thousand years? Obviously not.
He has been king all along from the time he began to "rule as king" when he sat at God's right hand. When did he sit at God's right hand?
(Acts 2:32, 33) . . .God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God . . .

When Did Jesus Secure Full Kingdom Power? Revisited
·       I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected ·       II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected ·       III How to harmonize both sets of verses ·       IV The Third way This is a follow up of the tread:
When Did Jesus Secure Full Kingdom Power?
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/2285-when-did-jesus-secure-full-kingdom-power/#comment-3268
 
 
 
I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected
JW Insider, who originated the post, quoted many verses that clearly say us that Christ was King ALREADY in first century. Some of them:
(Matthew 28:17, 18) When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted. Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
·        The authority was already given (Philippians 2:9, 10) For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground.
·        Exalted, in the past, not in the future (1 Timothy 6:14, 15) our Lord Jesus Christ, 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
·        He was already king and lord (Revelation 17:14) These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings,. . .
·        He was already Lord and King (Revelation 1:5) and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
·        He was already the Ruler (Colossians 1:13) 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
·        He has already transferred us to this kingdom (completely agree there is no Biblical support for a special congregation-related kingdom)  
 
(Ephesians 1:19-22) . . .. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 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, 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.  He also subjected all things under his feet. . .
 
·        God seated, and subjected to him, in the past, not in the future  
 
Well. No commentary needed. These and other similar verses seem to prove that when Jesus Christ went to heaven, he was already appointed as king, not having to wait for a future date, as 1914, for example.
 
 II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected
(Daniel 2:44) “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever”
·        The kingdom would be set up in the days of those kings, the kings ruling in the time of the end, not in the first century. (Daniel 7:13, 14,27) “I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed… “‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’
·        Kingdom would be given to the Son of Man in the last days, at the same time that the holy ones, not being this possible when Christ was resurrected.  (Revelation 11:15-18) “The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” And the 24 elders who were seated before God on their thrones fell upon their faces and worshipped God, saying: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
·        The exact moment when God and His Son start to rule match with the time nations become wrathful, not in first century.  
 
 
III How to harmonize both sets of verses
For His great power and prescience, to Jehovah apply these wonderful words:
·        (Romans 4:17) “who makes the dead alive and calls the things that are not as though they are” In this way, it seems that Bible talks about certain happenings, still in the future, as already fulfilled.
We also sometimes speak in this way when we wish convey security in our speech: our travel agent says us “you are flying to the Caribbean” after paying for the trip, but still on the ground, obviously.
Similarly, we found the next verses talking about a FUTURE promise, as realized, performed.
(Ephesians 1:3) “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in union with Christ”
·        But they were still on earth, not on heaven. (Ephesians 2:6) “Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus”
·        The Christians were still alive, not raised to heaven.  
 
(Colossians 1:13) “He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son”
 
·        Accepting the view this verse is not talking (as evidently does not) about a special kingdom over the congregation, but about the Kingdom of Christ, Paul goes on to say that the Christians were already transferred to this kingdom, but his happening was still on the future. (Colossians 2:12) “For you were buried with him in his baptism, and by your relationship with him you were also raised up together through your faith in the powerful work of God, who raised him up from the dead.”
·        When this was written, the Christians were still alive, no raised from dead. Once and again, there is a speech about future events as they had already happened. In this way, it is perfectly possible that all these verses quoted in the section I, in spite the past tense of the verb, would be referring to the future. And, the most important, in this way harmonizing the verses in section II.
 
IV The Third way
Apparently, the exposition above refutes the idea that Christ secured his kingdom at 33 C.E. when he was resurrected and went to heaven, in this way giving support to the idea Christ would secure his Kingdom in 1914.
Well, without enter in the 1914 arena, at this moment, the only two points I intended to show are, according my opinion:
·        When Christ went to heaven, received the appointment to be Lord, King and many other things. ·        The kingdom was secured, the king was crowned, the kingdom would begin, at some time in the future. As a consequence of the last idea, the next other:
·        I’m not saying this moment had to be 1914, only a future date from 33 C.E.  
 
 

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
[In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.]

The article that changed everything
In my opinion, it was the Watchtower 10/1/2005, “Parents—What Future Do You Want for Your Children?” A close friend of me working in Brooklyn Bethel at those days mention that the brother (I think he was from the GB) presiding the Monday Family Worship said regarding the article under study: “well, this is the same point of view as always”, but not everyone nodded. Let’s review why.
Summarizing the advises from 1990-2005, this quote could be a typical example:
·        *** g94 8/22 p. 5 Additional Schooling or not? *** Supplementary Education. The Watchtower of November 1, 1992, noted concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses and the full-time ministry: “The general trend in many lands is that the level of schooling required to earn decent wages is now higher than it was a few years ago. . . . It is difficult to find jobs with decent wages after completing simply the minimum schooling required by law . . .  “What is meant by ‘decent wages’? . . . Their wages might be termed ‘adequate,’ or ‘satisfactory,’ if what they earn allows them to live decently while leaving them sufficient time and strength to accomplish their Christian ministry.”   So The Watchtower said: “No hard-and-fast rules should be made either for or against extra education. In spite of the above reference, in general, advanced education was always presented in a way not recommended, for its dangers, as immorality, materialism, proud and so.
But, when this 2005 article was studied in the congregation, we couldn’t find any possibility do chose going to University and to be an exemplar brother. And this position was forced in several schools of elders and additional instructions regarding choosing speakers for assemblies and other exemplar Christians.
But there was this small sentence in the article:
·        *** w05 10/1 p. 30 par. 13 Parents—What Future Do You Want for Your Children? *** “Of course, immorality, bad behavior, and pressures are by no means limited to the college or university campus” Of course! Every JW is well aware of this reality. A young Christian of 16 years must face also to temptations and pressures in his secular job, if he chooses leave studies and start to work. And, this is the reality in my country, the immorality in Professional Schools (not sure the translation in English, I mean places where you learn some skill), are WORST, and the atmosphere is WORST than in Universities. Why? Because in my country, in general only good students go to University, and most of them concentrate on studying. On the other hand, a lot of unmotivated youth assist to these other schools only to passing the time.
To whom correspond the decision? All those involved, not the elders, not the congregation. When should react the congregation? (Gal 6:1) “Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness” In other words, if we see the brother takes a dangerous path, the loving way is to advise him. For example:
·        The young must leave the home and go to another city, staying with worldly people ·        The debts are so high that will force to the Christian to spend all his time work hard to cancel Love and spiritual motivates us to give advice. Perhaps the lack of judgment could lead to losing the privileges. But not (is my opinion) as a general rule. But let’s consider next situations:
·        What (as in my city) there are several universities, avoiding the necessity to leave home? ·        What if my son eats at home, sleeps at home? ·        What if, for these reasons, I have the opportunity to talk with my son every day, and see the different situations he’s coping in his daily life? ·        What if the workload in his studies are quite similar to those that would have working? ·        What if I can move to the city where the University is located, to oversee my son? ·        What if I can delay the finalization of the career, in the interest that my son would have less workload, and, in this way, more freedom for his spiritual activities? ·        What if I can take over the debts ·        What if…? The 2005 article did not consider these possibilities at all. Simply, if you go to University, you’ll face all these dangers.
What has happened since then?
I have a good friend. He’s a very known elder. His three sons have gone to University (living at home). The outcome:
·        The three are -at this time- in full time ministry. One of them was several years in Bethel. ·        One of them is a very humble and nice elder (because before he went to University he already was so) ·        Two of them are not so humble (because before they went to University they already were this way) I’ve seen a lot of other youth not going to University. The outcome
·        The humble ones, still are. ·        The proud ones, still are. Yes, I’ve heard a lot of times the experience of someone going to University and leaving the truth, or becoming more proud, or more materialist. But I’ve seen the same in many brothers without superior studies. For me, the relevant factor is:
Has contributed the superior studies to this spiritual outcome?
My personal experience.
I learnt the truth in the 1975 generation. Imagine. I start as pioneer the same day when I was baptized, when I was 16. In spite my parents pressure (I’m alone as JW) and my love for Science and Chemistry, I started the regular at 17 accepting any kind o partial time job, and when I was 18 was sent as special pioneer to another region. Later, I got married and about 30 had to leave full time service.
My situation was anything but easy. My only skill with 30 years was to preach. I struggled a lot studying for myself computer sciences after exhausting workdays. As I gained skills I could get better jobs. Over time I founded my own company related with software development. All my employees have University degree but, invariably, I had to teach them a lot of skills.
Do I think I lost my time when I was pioneer? I’m about 60, Do I think I could have attended University and, later, start as pioneer? What if, instead of doing well things, economically, at this moment I had a poor paid job, with no good holidays, no good car, do I still think it was a bad decision, not going to Chemistry University?
I would never exchange those wonderful years serving as pioneer and helping humble people to learn the truth, helping to establish new congregations, depending of God’s hand… No car, no big house, no holidays is better than serving in this special way.
So, what I think about these persons that now realized they wasted part of their life not attending superior studies?
As several of you have mention, if we hold the kingdom first, no sacrifice we could have done is perceived as such. But this does not mean that our position regarding superior studies are, at some degree, an imposition, not a personal decision.
 
 
 
 

"Breathtaking. I shall call him... Mini-Me".
 
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Me

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
[In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags.]

If you have a source for that, I'd like to show it to my neighbor.