JW Insider

I fell for that series, too. For me, it's entertaining because the writer(s) were aware of how only a five-year absence would change lives so dramatically in so many different ways. It's a small-scale "resurrection fantasy." The characters in the story who were trying hard to give a religious meaning to their experience appear to have given up early on making it fit their defined concepts of religion. It becomes more of a more secular "the-Universe-is-calling" and "we-are-all-connected" story, but even those experiences are subject to wildly different interpretations after a mix of both positive and negative "Universe callings." In the sense that it is about realistic and understandable ways in which average people might respond to something "supernatural" I think they did a credible job. But I am also happy to criticize it, of course. 😎
Some very recent JW Broadcasting and Watchtower comments have encouraged a little more use of our imagination (and even speculation) when we come across ideas in our Bible reading. I think that "Manifest" is a little like someone hearing the following verse, with a very shallow concept of resurrection, and imagining all the many possible scenarios of similar situations:
(Matthew 22:28) . . .So in the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her as a wife.”

Not that it should matter too much to anyone here, but just to get a discussion started, I will happily state that I am in 100% agreement with all the scriptures in this list. And am in 100% agreement with at least 990 of the 997 words (counted by copying the content portion of this to https://wordcounter.net/).
I found only 3 things I'd take a small issue with:
"Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that" I agree with this point, but I'm embarrassed that such an important list (for our purposes) has the name and opinion of a "secular" professor in it. Jason DeBuhn's name has been on this list since at least 2015 and has never been removed. It's inconsistent with the rest of the list, which otherwise only highlights a simple Bible basis, not some scholar. "A person’s works prove that his faith is alive." This isn't necessarily true. A person can have works that look like they are motivated by faith, but are motivated by self-righteousness, a competitive spirit, a desire to earn salvation and be rewarded accordingly, blindly following men, etc., just to mention some common examples.   (Matthew 7:22) . . .Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not . . . perform many powerful works in your name?’ "He began ruling in 1914." Hmmm. I've probably said before that I can't find this one in the Bible. (And it's just about the only sentence that has no scripture to back it up.)  I wish it had said: "We believe Jesus is now ruling invisibly from heaven." Or, "We believe that we now live in a time when Jesus, from his heavenly throne, is giving special attention to matters of the Kingdom on earth." In addition to those, there are a couple of other things, much less important to me, that I could see changing in the future, and the change wouldn't cause a problem or inconsistency either way. For example, I could see the possibility that the "144,000" is a symbolic number, and might even represent the full number of natural Jewish Christians as easily as it could represent the full number of spiritual Jews. But the list explicitly allows for some expressions to be interpreted symbolically, anyway, so it wouldn't bother me either way to use the expression, "The 144,000 will rule in heaven."  ["We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1. "]
It's also possible that "blood" in Acts 15 is a symbol for "bloodguilt," such as murder, manslaughter, war, etc., just as "idols" can include things like "gluttony" (Phil 3:19) "greediness" (Col 3:5) and even "pleasing men" (Eph 6:6,7; Gal 1:10)  Personally, for my own conscience, I'm fine with the idea that abstaining from blood transfusions is one way that we abstain from blood. But there's a chance that we as individuals and as an organization should not be imposing this as a rule on the Bible-trained consciences of others.
That idea might already be covered, even if unintentionally, by the very nice idea expressed here: "Our unity allows for personal choice, though. Each Witness makes decisions in harmony with his or her own Bible-trained conscience."
Outside of those few comments, I would be willing to die for the other 990 words out of the 997.

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

It's a little easier for modern readers to accept our theory than it would have been for readers and listeners at the time Revelation was written. It's very easy for modern readers who use Arabic numerals like we do in Western and Arabic-influenced nations.
In European languages or Arabic, the number six-hundred-sixty-six would look like this: 666.
But in the Greek of Revelation the number was written to look more like χξϛ  or in the oldest manuscript of Revelation and a couple of others the number is XIC. which is not 666 but 616. 
In Latin, just as an analogy, it would look like DCLXVI. One of the oldest Latin translations, however, has it as DCXVI. And to show that this wasn't just a copyist error, the number was also spelled out in the Latin words for "six hundred and sixteen" not just the Roman numerals for 616.
Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading as early as 180 CE, which is even earlier than any known Bible manuscripts of Revelation, but he preferred the number 666, and considered 616 to be a copyist's error. 200 years later (380) Jerome made a new translation into Latin and "corrected" the DCXVI to DCLXVI.
In Hebrew it could look like this: (MSV or TRSV).  [Mem [600] Samekh [60] Vav [6] or Tau [400] Resh [200] Samekh [60] Vav [6] ]
But what's even more interesting is that we can't take a number like 616 and make it mean the same thing no matter how we position the numerals. (661 does not equal 166 does not equal 616) But in Greek you could write the number as XIC, CIX, IXC, XCI etc, and it would always say 616. Same in Hebrew. In fact, in old Hebrew documents and even now, certain order exceptions are common or preferred. Note this from  https://smontagu.org/writings/HebrewNumbers.html
The numerical value of each letter is fixed and not determined by position, so reordering a number will not change its value. This may be done when a number spells out a word with negative connotations (e.g. 298: RESH TSADI HET is the Hebrew for “murder” so it is sometimes written as RESH HET TSADI), or when the reordered form has especially positive connotations (e.g 18: YUD HET is often written as HET YUD, the Hebrew for “alive”). Unlike the previous exception, using the regular form in these cases is not considered an error.
If the last two digits of a number are 15 or 16, they should be expressed not as YUD HE (10+5) and YUD VAV (10+6), but as TET VAV (9+6) and TET ZAYIN (9+7). This is done to avoid a close resemblance to the Tetragrammaton (four-letter name of God) YUD HE VAV HE. Although this convention is originally derived from religious practice, it is universally used even in completely secular contexts.
It's obvious, then, that readers of Greek and Hebrew were even more alert to recalculations of numbers, or the words that might be conveyed. After all, most words could also just be a more convoluted way to convey a number. For example, some say that Matthew is putting special emphasis on the Davidic line when he breaks up the generations from Abraham to Jesus into groups of 14. In Hebrew, the word "DAVID" is also a way to write the number 14. Other Jewish writers did this type of thing regularly.
Here's some info from Wikipedia:
... the appearance of the figure 616 in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; Paris—one of the four great uncial codices), as well as in the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and in an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybeare, 1907). Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it (Haer. V, 30). In the 380s, correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament (commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina), Jerome retained "666".[13][14]

  Fragment from Papyrus 115 (P115) of Revelation in the 66th vol. of the Oxyrhynchus series (P. Oxy. 4499).[15] Has the number of the beast as χιϛ, 616. Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the University of Oxford's Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast's number as 616 (χις). This fragment is the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 found as of 2017.[2][3]Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, known before the Papyrus 115 finding but dating to after it, has 616 written in full: ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").[16]
Papyrus 115 and Ephraemi Rescriptus have led some scholars to regard 616 as the original number of the beast.[17] According to Paul Louis, "The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Gustav Adolf Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6+...+36 = 666)".[18]

No. It takes 19.

The most common explanation for how the number χξϛ would have been calculated as a man's number by Jewish Christians who heard or read Revelation is this:
To see it, go to https://www.gematrix.org/?word=csr+nrn and type in the following if you have or can switch to a Hebrew keyboard and type this person's name:
נרון קסר
Calculate the man's number and it will show this:

 
For fun, you can also type in the alternate spelling of the same name in Hebrew characters:
נרו קסר
You will get this:

It just happens, of course, perhaps by coincidence, that those were the two most common ways to spell the name of the first "beast" said to "stand on land and sea" (from the city on 7 hills) who also persecuted Christians in the first century. He was the emperor who falsely blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome, and which resulted in the immediate persecution and torture and murder and burning alive of thousands of Christians.
The two ways to spell his name were pronounced Caesar NERON (666) or Caesar NERO (616).
[Compare "Solomon:" Hebrew SHLOMO and Hellenized form SOLOMON.]

It's a little easier for modern readers to accept our theory than it would have been for readers and listeners at the time Revelation was written. It's very easy for modern readers who use Arabic numerals like we do in Western and Arabic-influenced nations.
In European languages or Arabic, the number six-hundred-sixty-six would look like this: 666.
But in the Greek of Revelation the number was written to look more like χξϛ  or in the oldest manuscript of Revelation and a couple of others the number is XIC. which is not 666 but 616. 
In Latin, just as an analogy, it would look like DCLXVI. One of the oldest Latin translations, however, has it as DCXVI. And to show that this wasn't just a copyist error, the number was also spelled out in the Latin words for "six hundred and sixteen" not just the Roman numerals for 616.
Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading as early as 180 CE, which is even earlier than any known Bible manuscripts of Revelation, but he preferred the number 666, and considered 616 to be a copyist's error. 200 years later (380) Jerome made a new translation into Latin and "corrected" the DCXVI to DCLXVI.
In Hebrew it could look like this: (MSV or TRSV).  [Mem [600] Samekh [60] Vav [6] or Tau [400] Resh [200] Samekh [60] Vav [6] ]
But what's even more interesting is that we can't take a number like 616 and make it mean the same thing no matter how we position the numerals. (661 does not equal 166 does not equal 616) But in Greek you could write the number as XIC, CIX, IXC, XCI etc, and it would always say 616. Same in Hebrew. In fact, in old Hebrew documents and even now, certain order exceptions are common or preferred. Note this from  https://smontagu.org/writings/HebrewNumbers.html
The numerical value of each letter is fixed and not determined by position, so reordering a number will not change its value. This may be done when a number spells out a word with negative connotations (e.g. 298: RESH TSADI HET is the Hebrew for “murder” so it is sometimes written as RESH HET TSADI), or when the reordered form has especially positive connotations (e.g 18: YUD HET is often written as HET YUD, the Hebrew for “alive”). Unlike the previous exception, using the regular form in these cases is not considered an error.
If the last two digits of a number are 15 or 16, they should be expressed not as YUD HE (10+5) and YUD VAV (10+6), but as TET VAV (9+6) and TET ZAYIN (9+7). This is done to avoid a close resemblance to the Tetragrammaton (four-letter name of God) YUD HE VAV HE. Although this convention is originally derived from religious practice, it is universally used even in completely secular contexts.
It's obvious, then, that readers of Greek and Hebrew were even more alert to recalculations of numbers, or the words that might be conveyed. After all, most words could also just be a more convoluted way to convey a number. For example, some say that Matthew is putting special emphasis on the Davidic line when he breaks up the generations from Abraham to Jesus into groups of 14. In Hebrew, the word "DAVID" is also a way to write the number 14. Other Jewish writers did this type of thing regularly.
Here's some info from Wikipedia:
... the appearance of the figure 616 in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; Paris—one of the four great uncial codices), as well as in the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and in an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybeare, 1907). Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it (Haer. V, 30). In the 380s, correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament (commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina), Jerome retained "666".[13][14]

  Fragment from Papyrus 115 (P115) of Revelation in the 66th vol. of the Oxyrhynchus series (P. Oxy. 4499).[15] Has the number of the beast as χιϛ, 616. Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the University of Oxford's Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast's number as 616 (χις). This fragment is the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 found as of 2017.[2][3]Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, known before the Papyrus 115 finding but dating to after it, has 616 written in full: ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").[16]
Papyrus 115 and Ephraemi Rescriptus have led some scholars to regard 616 as the original number of the beast.[17] According to Paul Louis, "The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Gustav Adolf Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6+...+36 = 666)".[18]

It's a little easier for modern readers to accept our theory than it would have been for readers and listeners at the time Revelation was written. It's very easy for modern readers who use Arabic numerals like we do in Western and Arabic-influenced nations.
In European languages or Arabic, the number six-hundred-sixty-six would look like this: 666.
But in the Greek of Revelation the number was written to look more like χξϛ  or in the oldest manuscript of Revelation and a couple of others the number is XIC. which is not 666 but 616. 
In Latin, just as an analogy, it would look like DCLXVI. One of the oldest Latin translations, however, has it as DCXVI. And to show that this wasn't just a copyist error, the number was also spelled out in the Latin words for "six hundred and sixteen" not just the Roman numerals for 616.
Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading as early as 180 CE, which is even earlier than any known Bible manuscripts of Revelation, but he preferred the number 666, and considered 616 to be a copyist's error. 200 years later (380) Jerome made a new translation into Latin and "corrected" the DCXVI to DCLXVI.
In Hebrew it could look like this: (MSV or TRSV).  [Mem [600] Samekh [60] Vav [6] or Tau [400] Resh [200] Samekh [60] Vav [6] ]
But what's even more interesting is that we can't take a number like 616 and make it mean the same thing no matter how we position the numerals. (661 does not equal 166 does not equal 616) But in Greek you could write the number as XIC, CIX, IXC, XCI etc, and it would always say 616. Same in Hebrew. In fact, in old Hebrew documents and even now, certain order exceptions are common or preferred. Note this from  https://smontagu.org/writings/HebrewNumbers.html
The numerical value of each letter is fixed and not determined by position, so reordering a number will not change its value. This may be done when a number spells out a word with negative connotations (e.g. 298: RESH TSADI HET is the Hebrew for “murder” so it is sometimes written as RESH HET TSADI), or when the reordered form has especially positive connotations (e.g 18: YUD HET is often written as HET YUD, the Hebrew for “alive”). Unlike the previous exception, using the regular form in these cases is not considered an error.
If the last two digits of a number are 15 or 16, they should be expressed not as YUD HE (10+5) and YUD VAV (10+6), but as TET VAV (9+6) and TET ZAYIN (9+7). This is done to avoid a close resemblance to the Tetragrammaton (four-letter name of God) YUD HE VAV HE. Although this convention is originally derived from religious practice, it is universally used even in completely secular contexts.
It's obvious, then, that readers of Greek and Hebrew were even more alert to recalculations of numbers, or the words that might be conveyed. After all, most words could also just be a more convoluted way to convey a number. For example, some say that Matthew is putting special emphasis on the Davidic line when he breaks up the generations from Abraham to Jesus into groups of 14. In Hebrew, the word "DAVID" is also a way to write the number 14. Other Jewish writers did this type of thing regularly.
Here's some info from Wikipedia:
... the appearance of the figure 616 in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; Paris—one of the four great uncial codices), as well as in the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and in an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybeare, 1907). Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it (Haer. V, 30). In the 380s, correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament (commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina), Jerome retained "666".[13][14]

  Fragment from Papyrus 115 (P115) of Revelation in the 66th vol. of the Oxyrhynchus series (P. Oxy. 4499).[15] Has the number of the beast as χιϛ, 616. Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the University of Oxford's Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast's number as 616 (χις). This fragment is the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 found as of 2017.[2][3]Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, known before the Papyrus 115 finding but dating to after it, has 616 written in full: ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").[16]
Papyrus 115 and Ephraemi Rescriptus have led some scholars to regard 616 as the original number of the beast.[17] According to Paul Louis, "The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Gustav Adolf Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6+...+36 = 666)".[18]

This is what I think of when we start talking about apostates.
All the parties involved are a bunch of ineffectual, fat corgi's.

Schwetzinger Zeitung 11 November 2017
Kurt Willy Triller’s credentials unknown
Reformation Jubilee - Martin Luther also used this term for God / Over 1000 years old / Contained in many quotations from the Bible
Don't forget the name Jehovah
A lot is being written about Luther in the well-known press these days, and in particular his various translations of the Bible are mentioned. Unfortunately, one particular point is missing, namely that Martin Luther used the name of God Jehovah and drew attention to it.
For Jehovah's Witnesses, their God Jehovah is everything. They have given themselves unreservedly to this God and want to contribute to the sanctification of Jehovah's name. Aside from the fact that the major churches and most Christian denominations do not use the name of God at all - except in footnotes in some Bible translations, nor do they make God's name known - we can point to well-documented testimonies that the name Jehovah does not first appear was needed in the 21st century. As anyone can read in their Bible at Romans 3:29, Jehovah is not only the God of the Jews, but the God of all men. In the German-speaking world, Jehovah is the traditional pronunciation of God's name, indeed the demonstrably most common form.
In 1270, the Catholic monk Raimundus Martini used this name in his book "Pugio Fidei" (Dagger of Faith). In the meantime, research has been able to determine that the German pronunciation Jehovah dates back to the year 1000. The well-known Benedictine monk, theologian, and head of the monastery school in St. Gallen/Switzerland, Labeo Notker (950 - 1022), translated numerous works from Latin into German, including the Psalms. Already in the year 1000 AD he used the name of God in Latin Iehovae, but also the German pronunciation Jehovah.
Yes, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts contain the name of God in the form of four consonants "YHWH", called the Tetragrammaton. Even if the orthodox Jews as well as the churches of Christendom want to keep silent about the divine name, they should search in the archives, study their own churches carefully, read old Bible translations and they would then always come across the divine name Jehovah. In the courtyard of the Heidelberg Castle, for example, the name Iehovae and "YHWH" are engraved on a stone tablet on the castle. The castle was first mentioned in a document in 1303, while the stone tablet was added in 1592 due to an extension. Also at the "Hotel Ritter" in Heidelberg one reads the name Jehovah on the parapet of the central axis in gold letters. This Renaissance building was built in 1592. In the "Hymnal for the Evangelical Protestant Church of the Grand Duchy of Baden", Karlsruhe 1882, by Oberkirchenrat von Stösser, song no. 12 reads: "I want to sing to you, Jehovah!" Song No. 46 reads: "Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah to your name be glory, power and glory". In the original text of Holy Scripture or the Bible, the divine name "YHWH" or "YHWH" or "JHVH" occurs in 7,216 places and is vocabulized as Jehovah. What did Jesus say about his father's name? Jesus Christ, the Son of God, says the following in Matthew 6:9: "Our Father which is in heaven. Hallowed be thy name!" In the Bible book of Ezekiel alone, according to the Brockhaus translation, the statement occurs 67 times: "And they will know that I am Jehovah!" As the Bible clearly shows, there comes a time when all must recognize and truly perceive that God has a name: "And I will sanctify my great name, which is profaned among the nations. And the nations will know that I am Jehovah , says the Lord Jehovah, when I sanctify myself before their eyes. I, Jehovah, have spoken and will do it!" - Ezekiel 36:22, 23, 36 Brockhaus Translation 1871 - Sanctification of the divine name Jehovah is therefore of the utmost importance. To enable everyone to do so, the Bible, the written Word of God, and God's name, Jehovah, have been made known throughout the earth. Luther did this too. profaned among the nations. And the nations will know that I am Jehovah, says the Lord Jehovah, when I sanctify myself before their eyes. I, Jehovah, have spoken and will do it!" - Ezekiel 36:22, 23, 36 Brockhaus Translation 1871 - So sanctification of the divine name Jehovah is of the utmost importance. To enable everyone to do this, the Bible, the Written Word of God and God's name Jehovah made known throughout the earth, as did Luther. profaned among the nations. And the nations will know that I am Jehovah, says the Lord Jehovah, when I sanctify myself before their eyes. I, Jehovah, have spoken and will do it!" - Ezekiel 36:22, 23, 36 Brockhaus Translation 1871 - So sanctification of the divine name Jehovah is of the utmost importance. To enable everyone to do this, the Bible, the Written Word of God and God's name Jehovah made known throughout the earth, as did Luther. the written word of God and God's name Jehovah made known throughout the earth. Luther did this too. the written word of God and God's name Jehovah made known throughout the earth. Luther did this too.
Kurt Willy Triller, Eppelheim

Sunday night, I started to watch this at about 2:30 am, while my wife was sleeping next to me. But the TV Soundbar speaker needs a high setting for regular TV and a low setting for Netflix. So when I switched between HDMI's to get to Netflix I forgot to turn down the volume, and got that 100-decibel GONG that introduces Netflix. She woke up and told me to turn the TV off, which I did.
And then I saw your recommendation on Monday. So I watched it. Yes, it was an overused setup for that kind of detective movie, but quite entertaining. And somehow they worked in a James Bond style ending that we might associate with Daniel Craig. And the most unexpected ending with Ed Norton in blackface, and the Mona Lisa in blackface, twice (-- if you know what I mean).

Please don’t overthink things. People generally do well to act on their first instinct.

Ten seconds later I got the widows/windows thing.
Not bad.
Only took 44 years and ten seconds.

And I bet they didn't serve children either.

https://www.cpr.org/2022/12/28/thornton-jehovahs-witness-murder-suicide-update/

Where is your respect for truthful speech?! 
Every single news report told that Police said that they were MARRIED and FORMER MEMBERS of the Congregation. 
Why the contentious spirit? 
Who are you?

Actions speak louder than words. Always.

The reason my libertarian relative can be forgiven for thinking Lincoln cared only about preserving the union and not freeing slaves was that the man said just that. You can’t fault a person for taking another at his word, can you? True, Lincoln was just being cagey as he built a consensus, without which he knew his emancipation project would go up in smoke, but how is the casual onlooker to know that?
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery,” Lincoln wrote in response to a New York Tribune editorial. “if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
The New York Tribune had no way of knowing that Lincoln had already committed himself to a course that would eclipse anything they might have dreamed of, but it was too soon to tip his hand. Too many people cared only about preservation and not a whit about freeing slaves. They would not buy into a program focused on the latter. Toward the end of his life, Horace Greeley, the Tribune editor who penned the letter prompting Lincoln’s reply, would tire and retreat from his own abolition/reconstruction crusade, but Lincoln never did, nor did Grant, his successor after Johnson.
The best way to measure a man’s racism or lack thereof back then was to gauge Frederick Douglass’s reaction to them. Douglass, the escaped slave who had taught himself to read and write, then went on to take his place among the best writers of any age, was a frequent critic of Lincoln in his early (and later) presidency. Then they met. 
Douglass dropped by the White House, unannounced, at the suggestion of allies, and presented his card. He had expected to wait hours. Instead, he was ushered in within minutes “I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,” he later said. 
From Doris Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: “The president was seated in a chair when Douglas entered the room, surrounded by a multitude of books and papers, his feet and legs were extended in front of his chair. ‘At my approach he slowly drew his feet in from the different parts of the room into which they had strayed and he began to rise.’ As Lincoln extended his hand in greeting Douglas hesitantly began to introduce himself. ‘I know who you are Mr Douglass,’ Lincoln said. Mr Seward [Secretary of State and 60-mile-away neighbor] has told me all about you. Sit down, I am glad to see you.’ Lincoln’s warmth put Douglas instantly at ease. Douglass later maintained that he had never seen a more transparent countenance.”
"Here comes my friend Douglas!" Lincoln later loudly proclaimed at his second inaugural ball to which Douglass almost didn’t gain admittance, due to a long-standing policy of barring Blacks. “I am glad to see you.” He pressed him for his reaction to his talk (previous post). Douglass demurred, embarrassed to be monopolizing the president when there were hundreds pressing to see him. “You must stop a little, Douglass,” Lincoln said. “There is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it?” Douglass said at last the it was a “sacred effort” and Lincoln beamed.
Frederick Douglass would later recall that “of all the men he had met, Lincoln was the first great man that I talked with in the United states freely who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.” It is a statement, Goodwin observes, that is all the more remarkable when one reflects that Douglass had interacted with dozens of while abolitionists.
It was the same with the 18th president as it was with the 16th. Douglass had frequent access to Grant. But not with the 17th president. Douglass, heading a Black delegation, met Johnson only once. “Those damned sons of bitches thought they had me in a trap!” Johnson gloated afterwards. “I know that damned Douglass; he's just like any n****r, and he would sooner cut a white man's throat than not.” God works through human governments? In two sentences, all that Lincoln had accomplished was undone. 
Thus, William Seward’s retort to Stephen Douglas, who was then angling for the job, proved wrong: “No man will ever be President of the United States who spells 'negro' with two g’s.” Then, again, it’s not as though Johnson was elected president. They had to kill a better man to get him in. An impeachment, which failed by a single vote to convict, almost got him out.

I prefer leaving it here where people who have already read it and weighed in can continue to do so. Maybe just start another version of the same topic over there?

The Denver Post doesn't make any sense. If the pair was working together to harm Witnesses at the Kingdom hall, like Bonnie and Clyde, they would have died like Bonnie and Clyde, not murder-suicide.
But, just like anything that sparks speculation by disenchanted witnesses here, why don't people just invoke their right to free speech and be brave enough to let the Org know how they really feel about it. Then look to start your own religion, just like Some Israelites did when they started worshiping Baal.
Also, wordplay with the word "murder" doesn't make a difference.
(Matthew 5:21) 21 “You heard that it was said to those of ancient times: ‘You must not murder, but whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of justice.. . .
 
Let's not start misrepresenting scripture to the public in what is considered self-defense to a Christian of Faith. Should Jesus have used the self-defense ideology to preserve his life?
It appears, this topic should have been entered in the "closed forum" so illogical participants could air their complaints about the Org in a private group setting.
The difference with Murder is, even thought you might NOT be judged by man's law with self-defense, you won't escape God's judgment, since God still considers it murder.
(James 2:10, 11) 10 For if anyone obeys all the Law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against all of it. 11 For the one who said, “You must not commit adultery,” also said, “You must not murder.” If, now, you do not commit adultery but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of law. . .
Once again, let's not combine man's law and the bible with our own belief to justify an erred assumption. Murder is murder to God, justified or not, and a person will be judged for taking the life of another by God, justified or not.
That is why, people cannot apply that hypothetical in wartime to justify murder through war in order to preserve ones own life. Simply put, we should not place ourselves in a position to be judged just like those two individuals if they had a sinful motive.
 

I think the point the media is trying to accomplish is, it's another dark day for shootings in America. That apparent murder-suicide of "former" members of that congregation, doesn't necessarily detail if they were active or former members.
The politics of this world is, should Americans be allowed to carry guns in a house of worship. In some States, that's already allowed. Will a good guy with a gun be helpful in a shooting? 
That depends on the circumstance. There was a couple trying to make a point about guns in a church in 2017, the fool shot himself by accident inside the church. There was a shooting in a Texas church and a person with a gun shoot the suspect. A shooter in California was subdued by church members, no guns. One size doesn't fit all.
People that look at scripture in Jesus time might say, Some apostles carried swords. Yes! They did, but how many apostles involved themselves with Roman politics or an incursion in a synagogue. I recall, when Jesus was jailed, tried, and killed without so much as 1 apostle doing anything about it. I believe Christ words were, if my kingdom was part of this world, my servants would fight for me.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is not of this realm." Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders.
It is a tragedy, we should just leave it at that.

Now THAT is scary!

It is arcane reasoning like this that led the Jurassic Park scientists to attempt recreation of certain other wild beasts, with disastrous results, particularly in the sequels. 

Where are these small JW discussion forums? I’ve never been invited to one. Not that I would accept, most likely. I have my hands full now—but still. I do get FB group invitations all the time but when I look them over few strike me as unique.
Yeah, I guess that’s true. When the old hen took down the entire TrueTom vs the Apostates thread I was much put out, having taken for granted I could always go back there, as though it was a filing system.
Uh oh.
Just look how it has turned out for Elon Musk
Why do I think with such admiration of JWI keeping up with old-time fellows Bethelites, some of whom have fallen into instability? It’s a personality trait that extends into other areas.

Yes. I don't think anyone else (who has watched multiple-page discussions with him) really doubts that they know him from previous accounts. But not me.  I won't make a big deal about that any more. I told him I wouldn't. He has just as much right to post as anyone, under whatever account name he chooses. It's not like he's really fooling anyone anyway.