JW Insider

I should have mentioned above that the Insight book identifies Alexander's generals who became the KON and KOS, but they point to the Daniel's prophecy book which provides more historical info:
*** it-2 p. 509 North ***
“The King of the North.” Facts of history provide still another basis for determining how “north” is to be understood in some texts. A case in point is “the king of the north” mentioned in Daniel chapter 11. Historical evidence indicates that the “mighty king” of Daniel 11:3 was Alexander the Great. After Alexander’s death, the empire was eventually divided among his four generals. One of these generals, Seleucus Nicator, took Mesopotamia and Syria, this making him the ruler of territory situated N of Palestine. Another general, Ptolemy Lagus, gained control of Egypt, to the SW of Palestine. Therefore, with Seleucus Nicator and Ptolemy Lagus the long struggle between “the king of the north” and “the king of the south” began. However, the prophecy concerning “the king of the north” extends from the time of Seleucus Nicator down to “the time of the end.” (Da 11:40) Logically, then, the national and political identity of “the king of the north” would change in the course of history. But it would still be possible to determine his identity on the basis of what the prophecy said the “king of the north” would do.—See the book Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy!, 1999, pp. 211-285.
But the Daniel book adds a lot more info, I'll edit it down:
*** dp chap. 13 pp. 213-229 Two Kings in Conflict ***
A GREAT KINGDOM DIVIDED INTO FOUR
8 “A mighty king will certainly stand up and rule with extensive dominion and do according to his will,” said the angel. (Daniel 11:3) Twenty-year-old Alexander ‘stood up’ as king of Macedonia in 336 B.C.E. He did become “a mighty king”—Alexander the Great. Driven by a plan of his father, Philip II, he took the Persian provinces in the Middle East. Crossing the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, his 47,000 men scattered the 250,000 troops of Darius III at Gaugamela. Subsequently, Darius fled and was murdered, ending the Persian dynasty. Greece now became the world power, and Alexander ‘ruled with extensive dominion and did according to his will.’
9 Alexander’s rulership over the world was to be brief, for God’s angel added: “When he will have stood up, his kingdom will be broken and be divided toward the four winds of the heavens, but not to his posterity and not according to his dominion with which he had ruled; because his kingdom will be uprooted, even for others than these.” (Daniel 11:4) Alexander was not quite 33 years old when sudden illness took his life in Babylon in 323 B.C.E.
10 Alexander’s vast empire did not pass to “his posterity.” His brother Philip III Arrhidaeus reigned for less than seven years and was murdered at the instance of Olympias, Alexander’s mother, in 317 B.C.E. Alexander’s son Alexander IV ruled until 311 B.C.E. when he met death at the hands of Cassander, one of his father’s generals. Alexander’s illegitimate son Heracles sought to rule in his father’s name but was murdered in 309 B.C.E. Thus ended the line of Alexander, “his dominion” departing from his family.
11 Following the death of Alexander, his kingdom was “divided toward the four winds.” His many generals quarreled among themselves as they grabbed for territory. One-eyed General Antigonus I tried to bring all of Alexander’s empire under his control. But he was killed in a battle at Ipsus in Phrygia. By the year 301 B.C.E., four of Alexander’s generals were in power over the vast territory that their commander had conquered. Cassander ruled Macedonia and Greece. Lysimachus gained control over Asia Minor and Thrace. Seleucus I Nicator secured Mesopotamia and Syria. And Ptolemy Lagus took Egypt and Palestine. True to the prophetic word, Alexander’s great empire was divided into four Hellenistic kingdoms.
TWO RIVAL KINGS EMERGE
12 A few years after coming to power, Cassander died, and in 285 B.C.E., Lysimachus took possession of the European part of the Greek Empire. In 281 B.C.E., Lysimachus fell in battle before Seleucus I Nicator, giving Seleucus control over the major portion of the Asiatic territories. Antigonus II Gonatas, grandson of one of Alexander’s generals, ascended to the throne of Macedonia in 276 B.C.E. In time, Macedonia became dependent upon Rome and ended up as a Roman province in 146 B.C.E.
13 Only two of the four Hellenistic kingdoms now remained prominent—one under Seleucus I Nicator and the other under Ptolemy Lagus. Seleucus established the Seleucid dynasty in Syria. Among the cities he founded were Antioch—the new Syrian capital—and the seaport of Seleucia. The apostle Paul later taught in Antioch, where the followers of Jesus first came to be called Christians. (Acts 11:25, 26; 13:1-4) Seleucus was assassinated in 281 B.C.E., but his dynasty ruled until 64 B.C.E. when Roman General Gnaeus Pompey made Syria a Roman province.
14 The Hellenistic kingdom that lasted the longest of the four was that of Ptolemy Lagus, or Ptolemy I, who assumed the title of king in 305 B.C.E. The Ptolemaic dynasty that he established continued to rule Egypt until it fell to Rome in 30 B.C.E.
15 Thus out of four Hellenistic kingdoms, there emerged two strong kings—Seleucus I Nicator over Syria and Ptolemy I over Egypt. With these two kings began the long struggle between “the king of the north” and “the king of the south,” described in Daniel chapter 11. Jehovah’s angel left the names of the kings unmentioned, for the identity and nationality of these two kings would change throughout the centuries. Omitting unnecessary details, the angel mentioned only rulers and events that have a bearing on the conflict.
          ...[skipping a lot]...
WHAT DID YOU DISCERN?
• What two lines of strong kings emerged out of Hellenistic kingdoms, and what struggle did the kings begin?
• As foretold at Daniel 11:6, how did the two kings enter into “an equitable arrangement”?
• How did the conflict continue between
   Seleucus II and Ptolemy III (Daniel 11:7-9)?
   Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV (Daniel 11:10-12)?
   Antiochus III and Ptolemy V (Daniel 11:13-16)?
• What was the purpose of the marriage between Cleopatra I and Ptolemy V, and why did the scheme fail (Daniel 11:17-19)?
• How has paying attention to Daniel 11:1-19 benefited you?
What seems odd to me, is just how specifically all the prophecy exactly fits The Seleucids and the Ptolemies. Nothing that exact comes close to fitting any of the future KONs and KOSs that might be identified through the following centuries.
The long portions that I skipped make this even clearer, but I didn't want to just put the entire chapter(s) up here. All of us can read it however at: https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Pay-Attention-to-Daniels-Prophecy/
 

This is one of the reasons apparently why the book of Daniel was nearly not accepted into the Jewish Canon of Holy Scriptures (and why Revelation for similar reasons was nearly not accepted into the Christian Canon of Holy Scriptures). Of nearly all the books, these were two where the disputes lasted about the longest.
It probably seemed too specific to the circumstances of the first group for whom it had an intended audience. But we have it recorded that Jesus quoted the book of Daniel, where the context was about the KON, and he implied that Rome was taking on the role that the Seleucids had fulfilled. But this implication can be disputed, too, because Jesus never mentioned the King of the North, but he did imply that the fulfillment of the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" was to have a fulfillment at around the time when the Roman armies would be surrounding, or preparing to surround, Jerusalem and the Temple.
(Matthew 24:15, 16) . . .“Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken about by Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place (let the reader use discernment), 16 then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains."
(Luke 21:20, 21) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains,. . .
And if Jesus was allowing for a second fulfillment , or completion of the fulfillment in those years, then do we have the right to go beyond what Jesus said and also make it about who the King of the North and King of the South should be in all the future years after Rome?

I was hoping to avoid the typical sarcasm (I'm guilty of it too) against the organizations of Christendom and our own WTS, too, who have had a lot of untenable explanations and interpretations over the years for these things. I don't want to impute bad motives when I don't know the motives. I understand the circumstances that the WTS and GB have sort of boxed themselves into by believing that there must be a specific "last days" interpretation. I know some of the reasons for this interpretation, especially the identification of the KON with Russia now, and Germany in the 1940's, for example.
But I see some issues with the explanation, and hoped to deal specifically with the issues about the explanations, not the motives.

Yes. I see your point. It becomes difficult to keep trying to see who the original characters were, and then making them only the OBJECT LESSONS of the time of the end.
The only way to do that is to spiritualize the lesson. By "spiritualizing," I mean that these enemies to Jehovah's people really are dead to us, because we have warred with Jehovah's enemies and "conquered the world" according to scripture. Of course, we must also continue to conquer, but Christians are in effect already raised up, and his enemies are already condemned to death. In other words there is a sense in which the King of the North already "came to his end in the land of decoration."
And the reason I'm looking into spiritualizing the lesson would be because I think we know (deep down) that this is also the way to understand Revelation, Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. We know that Jesus had in mind the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, and called it, in effect, "a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time." When Jesus added, "nor will ever occur again," now we must move it forward again to the final parousia, not just the time of judgment on literal Jerusalem.
Also, Revelation says that Daniel wasn't really in the time of the end, and thus the scrolls were sealed up, but it's because Revelation was written in the time of the end that it was then time to unseal Daniel's words. We resolve that in the WT publications by saying that John wasn't really in the time of the end, but that he was moved in a vision to the 1914 era. But this does not fit the introduction to Revelation before John is swept away in vision, and it does not resolve the issue of what almost every letter in the Christian Greek Scriptures includes (plus Acts): the fact that they also were written in what had just become the time of the end, the last days. It's even in the quote from 1 Cor 10, above:
they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.

Yes. I see your point. It becomes difficult to keep trying to see who the original characters were, and then making them only the OBJECT LESSONS of the time of the end.
The only way to do that is to spiritualize the lesson. By "spiritualizing," I mean that these enemies to Jehovah's people really are dead to us, because we have warred with Jehovah's enemies and "conquered the world" according to scripture. Of course, we must also continue to conquer, but Christians are in effect already raised up, and his enemies are already condemned to death. In other words there is a sense in which the King of the North already "came to his end in the land of decoration."
And the reason I'm looking into spiritualizing the lesson would be because I think we know (deep down) that this is also the way to understand Revelation, Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. We know that Jesus had in mind the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, and called it, in effect, "a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time." When Jesus added, "nor will ever occur again," now we must move it forward again to the final parousia, not just the time of judgment on literal Jerusalem.
Also, Revelation says that Daniel wasn't really in the time of the end, and thus the scrolls were sealed up, but it's because Revelation was written in the time of the end that it was then time to unseal Daniel's words. We resolve that in the WT publications by saying that John wasn't really in the time of the end, but that he was moved in a vision to the 1914 era. But this does not fit the introduction to Revelation before John is swept away in vision, and it does not resolve the issue of what almost every letter in the Christian Greek Scriptures includes (plus Acts): the fact that they also were written in what had just become the time of the end, the last days. It's even in the quote from 1 Cor 10, above:
they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.

It seems like all the major JW-related topics on this forum, no matter what the original topic, have become a mix of discussions that will end up including: Russia, Ukraine, Covid19, the UN, the KON, the KOS, and China. That's perfectly fine, of course. But for ease of reference, what if we could include our basic ideas and opinions about the KON, KOS, GOG and MAGOG, in one place. I'm not proposing to move any posts from other topics to here, but anyone should feel free to copy and quote what's been said elsewhere, if they wish. 
I wanted to start with some quotes from WTS publications as a basis. First from the Pure Worship book:
*** rr chap. 17 p. 183 par. 8 “I Am Against You, O Gog” ***
8 “The king of the north.” (Read Daniel 11:40-45.) Daniel foretold the march of world powers from his day down to our time. The prophecy also mentions rival political foes—“the king of the south” and “the king of the north”—each of them having changed identity over the centuries as various earthly nations have fought for supremacy. Regarding the final campaign of the king of the north in “the time of the end,” Daniel said: “He will go out in a great rage to annihilate and to devote many to destruction.” Jehovah’s worshippers are the primary target of the king of the north. But like Gog of Magog, the king of the north comes “to his end” after failing in his attack on God’s people.
And on the topic of Gog of Magog, just previous to the above quote:
*** rr chap. 17 p. 182 “I Am Against You, O Gog” ***
The Enemy—Gog of Magog
3 Read Ezekiel 38:1, 2, 8, 18; 39:4, 11. Here is the gist of the prophecy: “In the final part of the years,” an enemy called “Gog of . . . Magog” invades “the land” of God’s people. But that vicious attack causes Jehovah’s “great rage” to flare up, and Jehovah steps in and defeats Gog. Victorious, Jehovah gives his defeated enemy and all those with him “as food to all kinds of birds of prey and the wild beasts.” Finally, Jehovah gives Gog “a burial place.” To understand how this prophecy will be fulfilled in the near future, we first need to identify Gog.
4 Who, then, is Gog of Magog? From Ezekiel’s description, we may conclude that Gog is an enemy of pure worshippers. Is Gog a prophetic name for Satan—the greatest of all enemies of true worship? For many decades, that is what our publications said. However, a further consideration of Ezekiel’s prophecy led to an adjustment in our understanding. The Watchtower explained that the title Gog of Magog refers, not to an invisible spirit creature, but to a visible human enemy—a coalition of nations that will fight against pure worship. Before we review the basis for such a conclusion, let us first examine two clues in Ezekiel’s prophecy that indicate that Gog is not a spirit creature.
5 “I will give you as food to all kinds of birds of prey.” (Ezek. 39:4) The Scriptures often use the idea of birds of prey devouring a carcass as a warning of divine judgment. God gave such warnings to the nation of Israel as well as to non-Israelite nations. (Deut. 28:26; Jer. 7:33; Ezek. 29:3, 5) Note, though, that those divine warnings were given, not to spirit creatures, but to flesh-and-blood humans. After all, birds of prey and wild beasts eat flesh, not spirit. So this divine warning in Ezekiel’s prophecy suggests that Gog is not a spirit creature.
6 “I will give Gog a burial place . . . in Israel.” (Ezek. 39:11) The Scriptures do not speak of spirit creatures as being buried on earth. Rather, Satan and his demons will be abyssed for 1,000 years, and later they will be hurled into the symbolic lake of fire, signifying their everlasting destruction. (Luke 8:31; Rev. 20:1-3, 10) Since Gog is spoken of as being given “a burial place” on earth, we may conclude that he is not a spirit creature.

I was hoping to avoid the typical sarcasm (I'm guilty of it too) against the organizations of Christendom and our own WTS, too, who have had a lot of untenable explanations and interpretations over the years for these things. I don't want to impute bad motives when I don't know the motives. I understand the circumstances that the WTS and GB have sort of boxed themselves into by believing that there must be a specific "last days" interpretation. I know some of the reasons for this interpretation, especially the identification of the KON with Russia now, and Germany in the 1940's, for example.
But I see some issues with the explanation, and hoped to deal specifically with the issues about the explanations, not the motives.

I was hoping to avoid the typical sarcasm (I'm guilty of it too) against the organizations of Christendom and our own WTS, too, who have had a lot of untenable explanations and interpretations over the years for these things. I don't want to impute bad motives when I don't know the motives. I understand the circumstances that the WTS and GB have sort of boxed themselves into by believing that there must be a specific "last days" interpretation. I know some of the reasons for this interpretation, especially the identification of the KON with Russia now, and Germany in the 1940's, for example.
But I see some issues with the explanation, and hoped to deal specifically with the issues about the explanations, not the motives.

But that's a bit beside the point, which is that Daniel 11 clearly has a very specific set of kings in mind. I have not yet figured out exactly why so many Bible commentators have decided that they should apply new and different kings to these kings of the north and south.
Why do we do this for the KON and KOS, but not for any of the predecessor kings like Alexander the Great. If Daniel 11 referred to the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empire/kingdoms which were two of the four generals split from Alexander's empire when he died, then why do we say that it has changed its meaning over the years?

It seems like all the major JW-related topics on this forum, no matter what the original topic, have become a mix of discussions that will end up including: Russia, Ukraine, Covid19, the UN, the KON, the KOS, and China. That's perfectly fine, of course. But for ease of reference, what if we could include our basic ideas and opinions about the KON, KOS, GOG and MAGOG, in one place. I'm not proposing to move any posts from other topics to here, but anyone should feel free to copy and quote what's been said elsewhere, if they wish. 
I wanted to start with some quotes from WTS publications as a basis. First from the Pure Worship book:
*** rr chap. 17 p. 183 par. 8 “I Am Against You, O Gog” ***
8 “The king of the north.” (Read Daniel 11:40-45.) Daniel foretold the march of world powers from his day down to our time. The prophecy also mentions rival political foes—“the king of the south” and “the king of the north”—each of them having changed identity over the centuries as various earthly nations have fought for supremacy. Regarding the final campaign of the king of the north in “the time of the end,” Daniel said: “He will go out in a great rage to annihilate and to devote many to destruction.” Jehovah’s worshippers are the primary target of the king of the north. But like Gog of Magog, the king of the north comes “to his end” after failing in his attack on God’s people.
And on the topic of Gog of Magog, just previous to the above quote:
*** rr chap. 17 p. 182 “I Am Against You, O Gog” ***
The Enemy—Gog of Magog
3 Read Ezekiel 38:1, 2, 8, 18; 39:4, 11. Here is the gist of the prophecy: “In the final part of the years,” an enemy called “Gog of . . . Magog” invades “the land” of God’s people. But that vicious attack causes Jehovah’s “great rage” to flare up, and Jehovah steps in and defeats Gog. Victorious, Jehovah gives his defeated enemy and all those with him “as food to all kinds of birds of prey and the wild beasts.” Finally, Jehovah gives Gog “a burial place.” To understand how this prophecy will be fulfilled in the near future, we first need to identify Gog.
4 Who, then, is Gog of Magog? From Ezekiel’s description, we may conclude that Gog is an enemy of pure worshippers. Is Gog a prophetic name for Satan—the greatest of all enemies of true worship? For many decades, that is what our publications said. However, a further consideration of Ezekiel’s prophecy led to an adjustment in our understanding. The Watchtower explained that the title Gog of Magog refers, not to an invisible spirit creature, but to a visible human enemy—a coalition of nations that will fight against pure worship. Before we review the basis for such a conclusion, let us first examine two clues in Ezekiel’s prophecy that indicate that Gog is not a spirit creature.
5 “I will give you as food to all kinds of birds of prey.” (Ezek. 39:4) The Scriptures often use the idea of birds of prey devouring a carcass as a warning of divine judgment. God gave such warnings to the nation of Israel as well as to non-Israelite nations. (Deut. 28:26; Jer. 7:33; Ezek. 29:3, 5) Note, though, that those divine warnings were given, not to spirit creatures, but to flesh-and-blood humans. After all, birds of prey and wild beasts eat flesh, not spirit. So this divine warning in Ezekiel’s prophecy suggests that Gog is not a spirit creature.
6 “I will give Gog a burial place . . . in Israel.” (Ezek. 39:11) The Scriptures do not speak of spirit creatures as being buried on earth. Rather, Satan and his demons will be abyssed for 1,000 years, and later they will be hurled into the symbolic lake of fire, signifying their everlasting destruction. (Luke 8:31; Rev. 20:1-3, 10) Since Gog is spoken of as being given “a burial place” on earth, we may conclude that he is not a spirit creature.

It also takes about 2 minutes to figure out any new persona of his. What has he had—20 since I’ve been here? I’ll block them too. I’ve done my time with this fellow. No more. 
Better to sporadically respond to remarks of guys like Srecko. His opposition is unveiled, his dislike for Witnesses loyal to the earthly organization undisguised, and he makes a disagreeable sense, but at least it is sense. You can realistically hope to know where he is coming from.

The 520 are all the notifications I have in the last 30 days from the dozen or so people I follow, or people who respond to posts I made, or react to them, or mention me. But I am saying that out of every 500+ notifications, it's not unusual to have over a hundred of those notifications where Dmitar has referred to me or down-voted me, or tried to draw my attention to him in some negative way. 

When I click on the Notifications icon (looks like a bell) there is a link at the bottom that says "Seel All Notifications." When I click on that link, I get the 520 notifications that I received for the last 30 days (since February 13). There are 25 on a page, and I have 21 pages of them. On every page there are usually a few out of the 25 that say "Dmitar mentioned you in a topic: . . ." In fact, some pages have you mentioning me 4 or 5 times on the same page.
Here's a representative example, below, of 6 notifications in a row where half of them show Dmitar mentioning me in a topic -- and it's often a topic that I had not even participated in. I just figure it's usually Dmitar trying to cause divisions again. (See Titus 3:10 NIV.)  It's a little bit like a notification that "Dmitar has reacted to a post in a topic . . . "  Whenever I see that latter notification, I can always predict that it's a down-vote of some kind, and I can usually be assured by the down-vote that what I said was most likely correct. I have received hundreds of these from you (under your various names). After a while, it's so predictable that I think of it as a kind of proofreader's mark: If Dmitar down-voted it, then it's probably correct and there's usually no need to go and re-read what I wrote there.

I noticed your implication that I will respond to only your mistakes and not others when you said:
This is rather absurd, because, as I showed above, you have tried to draw me into hundreds of your posts and I have often never even looked at them, or at least never responded to most of them. Also, I don't keep a count, but I suspect that I have seen well over 10,000 mistakes you have made, under your various names here, and most of these mistakes are obvious to everyone. Yet, I have responded only to a tiny fraction of them, even ignoring the grossest of those errors. And, of course, I have made many mistakes here and welcome correction by others, and I hope most others have welcomed the times when I have corrected their mistakes, too.
In fact, the only reason I responded to your mistake about Paul vs. Matthew Levi (son of Alphaeus) is that it reminded me of the fact that I have only seen you twice admit a mistake and then only when it didn't really matter. It was someone else who pointed it out once and I had pointed out the other one you admitted to. But I have seen people (including myself) point out mistakes you have made and I have seen you go to extremely ridiculous lengths to avoid admitting having made an error. I just happened to get curious about what you would use as your excuse this time. Predictably you came up with a "good" one: that you had made the mistake on purpose, just to see if you could draw me into the conversation. Quite a stretch, but I see you have tried to make it work by purposely throwing in another mistake about Levi being the name of Matthew's father, instead of Alphaeus. This one, of course, you DID put in there on purpose, evidently to claim that my current response somehow can convince stupid people that it was what you intended with the first mistake, too. I don't think most people here are stupid enough to fall for it.

The 520 are all the notifications I have in the last 30 days from the dozen or so people I follow, or people who respond to posts I made, or react to them, or mention me. But I am saying that out of every 500+ notifications, it's not unusual to have over a hundred of those notifications where Dmitar has referred to me or down-voted me, or tried to draw my attention to him in some negative way. 

When I click on the Notifications icon (looks like a bell) there is a link at the bottom that says "Seel All Notifications." When I click on that link, I get the 520 notifications that I received for the last 30 days (since February 13). There are 25 on a page, and I have 21 pages of them. On every page there are usually a few out of the 25 that say "Dmitar mentioned you in a topic: . . ." In fact, some pages have you mentioning me 4 or 5 times on the same page.
Here's a representative example, below, of 6 notifications in a row where half of them show Dmitar mentioning me in a topic -- and it's often a topic that I had not even participated in. I just figure it's usually Dmitar trying to cause divisions again. (See Titus 3:10 NIV.)  It's a little bit like a notification that "Dmitar has reacted to a post in a topic . . . "  Whenever I see that latter notification, I can always predict that it's a down-vote of some kind, and I can usually be assured by the down-vote that what I said was most likely correct. I have received hundreds of these from you (under your various names). After a while, it's so predictable that I think of it as a kind of proofreader's mark: If Dmitar down-voted it, then it's probably correct and there's usually no need to go and re-read what I wrote there.

I noticed your implication that I will respond to only your mistakes and not others when you said:
This is rather absurd, because, as I showed above, you have tried to draw me into hundreds of your posts and I have often never even looked at them, or at least never responded to most of them. Also, I don't keep a count, but I suspect that I have seen well over 10,000 mistakes you have made, under your various names here, and most of these mistakes are obvious to everyone. Yet, I have responded only to a tiny fraction of them, even ignoring the grossest of those errors. And, of course, I have made many mistakes here and welcome correction by others, and I hope most others have welcomed the times when I have corrected their mistakes, too.
In fact, the only reason I responded to your mistake about Paul vs. Matthew Levi (son of Alphaeus) is that it reminded me of the fact that I have only seen you twice admit a mistake and then only when it didn't really matter. It was someone else who pointed it out once and I had pointed out the other one you admitted to. But I have seen people (including myself) point out mistakes you have made and I have seen you go to extremely ridiculous lengths to avoid admitting having made an error. I just happened to get curious about what you would use as your excuse this time. Predictably you came up with a "good" one: that you had made the mistake on purpose, just to see if you could draw me into the conversation. Quite a stretch, but I see you have tried to make it work by purposely throwing in another mistake about Levi being the name of Matthew's father, instead of Alphaeus. This one, of course, you DID put in there on purpose, evidently to claim that my current response somehow can convince stupid people that it was what you intended with the first mistake, too. I don't think most people here are stupid enough to fall for it.

Clever.

If you got that from the NWT Glossary, you probably weren't the only one to understand it this way:
*** nwt p. 1707 Glossary of Bible Terms ***
Some were also members of the Sanhedrin. They often opposed Jesus regarding Sabbath observance, traditions, and association with sinners and tax collectors. Some became Christians, including Saul of Tarsus.—Mt 9:11; 12:14; Mr 7:5; Lu 6:2; Ac 26:5.
It's easy to misread this and come to the conclusion that Paul was a tax collector. But it is really referring to the fact that Saul/Paul had been a member of the Pharisees.

Clever.

The 520 are all the notifications I have in the last 30 days from the dozen or so people I follow, or people who respond to posts I made, or react to them, or mention me. But I am saying that out of every 500+ notifications, it's not unusual to have over a hundred of those notifications where Dmitar has referred to me or down-voted me, or tried to draw my attention to him in some negative way. 

When I click on the Notifications icon (looks like a bell) there is a link at the bottom that says "Seel All Notifications." When I click on that link, I get the 520 notifications that I received for the last 30 days (since February 13). There are 25 on a page, and I have 21 pages of them. On every page there are usually a few out of the 25 that say "Dmitar mentioned you in a topic: . . ." In fact, some pages have you mentioning me 4 or 5 times on the same page.
Here's a representative example, below, of 6 notifications in a row where half of them show Dmitar mentioning me in a topic -- and it's often a topic that I had not even participated in. I just figure it's usually Dmitar trying to cause divisions again. (See Titus 3:10 NIV.)  It's a little bit like a notification that "Dmitar has reacted to a post in a topic . . . "  Whenever I see that latter notification, I can always predict that it's a down-vote of some kind, and I can usually be assured by the down-vote that what I said was most likely correct. I have received hundreds of these from you (under your various names). After a while, it's so predictable that I think of it as a kind of proofreader's mark: If Dmitar down-voted it, then it's probably correct and there's usually no need to go and re-read what I wrote there.

I noticed your implication that I will respond to only your mistakes and not others when you said:
This is rather absurd, because, as I showed above, you have tried to draw me into hundreds of your posts and I have often never even looked at them, or at least never responded to most of them. Also, I don't keep a count, but I suspect that I have seen well over 10,000 mistakes you have made, under your various names here, and most of these mistakes are obvious to everyone. Yet, I have responded only to a tiny fraction of them, even ignoring the grossest of those errors. And, of course, I have made many mistakes here and welcome correction by others, and I hope most others have welcomed the times when I have corrected their mistakes, too.
In fact, the only reason I responded to your mistake about Paul vs. Matthew Levi (son of Alphaeus) is that it reminded me of the fact that I have only seen you twice admit a mistake and then only when it didn't really matter. It was someone else who pointed it out once and I had pointed out the other one you admitted to. But I have seen people (including myself) point out mistakes you have made and I have seen you go to extremely ridiculous lengths to avoid admitting having made an error. I just happened to get curious about what you would use as your excuse this time. Predictably you came up with a "good" one: that you had made the mistake on purpose, just to see if you could draw me into the conversation. Quite a stretch, but I see you have tried to make it work by purposely throwing in another mistake about Levi being the name of Matthew's father, instead of Alphaeus. This one, of course, you DID put in there on purpose, evidently to claim that my current response somehow can convince stupid people that it was what you intended with the first mistake, too. I don't think most people here are stupid enough to fall for it.

If you got that from the NWT Glossary, you probably weren't the only one to understand it this way:
*** nwt p. 1707 Glossary of Bible Terms ***
Some were also members of the Sanhedrin. They often opposed Jesus regarding Sabbath observance, traditions, and association with sinners and tax collectors. Some became Christians, including Saul of Tarsus.—Mt 9:11; 12:14; Mr 7:5; Lu 6:2; Ac 26:5.
It's easy to misread this and come to the conclusion that Paul was a tax collector. But it is really referring to the fact that Saul/Paul had been a member of the Pharisees.

Was he  ? I thought it was Matthew. 

I asked you to do research, never made the claim of fake news. Because during war time a serious situation, propaganda is all over the place. If you look up the drone story itself, there are different notions

1 says it is believed to be...
the second says its from Ukraine.
The 3rd, yours, assumes is from Ukraine just by looking at what is written.
And the list goes on. It is no different from the example given, Snake Island.
As shown below
BBC and similar  2 weeks ago around the same timeframe:


 
 
You can't put too much of your trust in the MSM.
Anyone can claim they saw a drone fall, but clearly you can't claim origin and what was the origin of impact, now can you?
Ok then enlightened me - Who shot down the drone, and who operated the drone?
Was there anything that can be branched from a false flag category to get your country involved?

There’s some good stuff coming out of Space Merchant lately.

There is an abundance of Propaganda, this is why research is vital.
That being said, the MSM are speculating with this one - one says claim to be, the other likely, the other assumed to be, the other believed. One attest to the fact it is Soviet Era, the other of Ukraine origin.
I wouldn't trust the BBC if I were you because when it comes to a situation like this, they're prone to give bias, as is war mongering notions if the situation calls for it. BBC has been known to make mistakes and pushed as truth in dire situations. Not only it is bias, it is more Left Wing. I recommend looking for unbias news if research is something you cannot do.
Anyways, War is a sign that the End is Near, as is Famine, as is destruction and death, and in such things, people's lives are cut short (ending the remaining days they have left), directly or indirectly if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.