Arauna

I may not have expressed myself well. It wouldn’t be the first time.

But Saul was chosen and then rejected…as was Judas…wouldn’t that be like saying once saved always saved sort of principle…I watched the Family sometime ago…it made me realise the cunning of Satan to pose and seduce people into believing they ( politicians and all associated with them ) were doing it in Gods name and maybe even bring about Peace and security in his name….
I was glad I watched it…as it helped me understand some things.

It’s Calvin.
You haven’t been speaking with Mrs. Patiently Sitting on her Hands, have you?

I don't feel that comfortable with it either, too much of a specific date for my liking. It's apparently because Rutherford and Co were exonerated and released from prison in 1919 and started afresh with proclaiming the kingdom with renewed zeal. So looking at it in retrospect we now say they were at that time appointed by Jesus to perform that work as the slave and Russel was the one who prepared the way, according to Bible prophecy. (After the 1st century when apostasy set in, right up to 1919 the annointed were captive to Babylon and not doing anything of note and so they were not the slave.....that was one of the main themes of the Pure Worship book....the restoration of pure worship).

Yes, that's what we teach now, that he was the bones that started to rattle, but I added more to my original post, regarding what we taught about the slave before that..
Here:Added:  Acording to this book; God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached,” (1973, p. 345-47
“The Slave who lived to see the sign”) the slave was appointed in 33 CE. This is what we used to teach, that it was all of the annointed since that time. So since Russel was the only one who seemed to start uncovering Bible truths in the 19th century, then it's easy to see him taking up that role. Of course now we say "Russel and his associates" which makes the slave composite, not one individual.
(Now we teach that it's not all the anointed but only the GB....and that is Witnesses main gripe, since she was ousted from the circle).

It does not matter if he was the slave or not. (With new light we know he was not - he was only the messenger before the faithful slave rendering service in the Parousia)  Mal 3: 1  “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight. Look! He will certainly come,” says Jehovah of armies. ). 
At that time the knowledge of the Truth the brothers had was good enough for those who lived in this time period.  They had  learnt that there is no soul that goes out of you which is immortal; and many other truths which helped them to cling to Jehovah and the ransom; as they did not believe that Jesús is God. They already had most of the basic truths and were contemplating newer ones... and had discarded some wrong ones.  The resurrection they received will be based on what they knew at the time and Jehovah is the judge of who is righteous.  (Their work was also to expose the idolatry of Christendom because Babylon the Great was about to fall after 1914).
To highlight if the JWs were right or wrong at that time does not matter either; and to nitpick their leadership and how they came to be what they are today is not even important.  It is what we do today that is important.... and because humans are imperfect the 'slave' today can still make mistakes.... and they will be judged accordingly (Ps103 Jehovah keeps in mind that we are all flesh). 
We can only look at the history and pray we do not make the same mistakes ...... but that is as far as it goes.  Many will try to use this history to prove that we are a cult or a false religion - but compared with other Christian denominations - Jehovah needed a people who did not have the bloody history on their hands for supporting wars and recruiting  soldiers. He needed to form a nation that were trying to be obedient and were willing to learn - get up after mistakes - and go on. Since good leaders are always scarce, Jehovah had to work with those which were available - just as he does today.
 
 

I was a bit surprised that JWI posted his "experiment" in the open forum because here they are already convinced of what the experiment "proved".  Plus anything here just gets mashed up by the likes of Allen Smith and his multiple personalities, or Witness whose only interest is to turn every scripture anti GB regardless of the topic, or patiently sitting on his hands who sees a conspiracy in all that the GB do and say.....

I thought as much after I deliberated over it for a few days.
It was an interesting experiment. It made me realize that rather than the actual content, which I merely skimmed over like Tom, I was more concerned with the reputation or status of the person who wrote it. This was interesting because I see this mentality today. It's not only that we want to protect our belief system, but it goes deeper than that.  It highlighted that many times it's not what is said but who says it. Perhaps this explains why some of us embrace some beliefs which we don't really understand fully, (or cannot explain ourselves) without bothering to really understand them because ... ahem.....because we trust those who put forward these explanations. If 1914 had been explained by an Indian Guru, I doubt anyone of JWs would be interested. Or perhaps it would be adopted, but its origins would be buried, just like John Aquila Brown and others who made 1914 calculations.
So I hesitated, (although my instinct told me otherwise) because I know you like to dig deep but of late you also try not to stir the pot. My instincts told me you are trying to illustrate a point. The point that if we try hard enough, we can pick a few scriptures and make them fit something that we want support for. And if you have already built a certain reputation, especially trustworthiness, it will most likely convince others too. That just seems to be the rule as you say with people in general.
Tom was more on the ball, being suspicious that you would make a 180 turn. And Pudgy the old dog realist heard a ring of the "cat thesis" (which I did too actually, and I do know you have a wicked sense of humour).
My hubby and me have finished the one docu series and now we have started another Netflix one called the Family, this time about a Christian group (you've probably seen that too). It's amazing what people are capable of doing and believing. Of course when watching these documentaries I always compare our belief system, not so much the content but more the way we apply it, and thankfully, I always see how superior our application is to even so called Christians.
One thing that struck me and gave me an idea, although this is off topic here but I don't think it matters now because we have all veered off since your "experiment" is over.  Anyway, most will know that I am skeptical about Governments turning on religion, especially in the United States where it plays such an integral part of society and the constitution. Something that was said in the Family made me think of another angle. The journalist whose story this is, overhears Doug Coe, one of the leaders of the Family, saying to another member that "putting labels on religions such as "Muslim", "Christian" gets in the way of your prayers to Jesus .....organized religion detracts from Jesus...we've got to take Jesus out of the religious wrapping". This is IT! It's not that religion per say will be destroyed, but organized religion will be. One of the episodes is called One World Order. Arauna would be proud of me.
 

… I sympathize with you, but being a cartoon dog, My dog dish somehow cleans itself.

I did many treks in africa and my husband was trained in survival as a soldier.  We went up into the mountain without water - and caught some in a plastic sheet... and we just wiped our plates with paper.  There is a lot one can get by without modern amenities

The lazy adder snake may have had “other” problems …..

I did many treks in africa and my husband was trained in survival as a soldier.  We went up into the mountain without water - and caught some in a plastic sheet... and we just wiped our plates with paper.  There is a lot one can get by without modern amenities

If you are in mountain areas where there’s bears or mountain lions, etc., it’s a good idea to always use the “buddy system”.
Make sure your buddy is a slower runner than you are.

I did many treks in africa and my husband was trained in survival as a soldier.  We went up into the mountain without water - and caught some in a plastic sheet... and we just wiped our plates with paper.  There is a lot one can get by without modern amenities

Lessons Learned From Movies -  “The Ballad of Cable Hogue” (1970).
 
After he is abandoned in the desert without water, Cable Hogue (Jason Robards) wanders for days until he finds a supply of water in a muddy ditch. Determining that the spot is the only spring in the area, Cable decides to start a business offering water for sale to passing stagecoaches, and digs a well.
This is the only water for 60 miles, and he does well, watering horses and passengers on a regular basis, in both directions. He also provides meals from the desert, which he makes into a stew so the passengers cannot tell the sources, and serves the food in large prospectors gold panning “plates”, nailed to tables, under an awning, behind his ramshackle stagecoach building.
Now here is the point I think True Tom will appreciate …. As the passengers finish their food, a woman sees the nails, and notices she can’t move her plate.
She asks Cable Hogue how does he clean the dishes? Cable explains that after everyone has eaten, he tilts the tables on their side, the dogs lick the plates clean, and the desert sun kills the germs!
Viola!
 

(pronounced wah-LAH!)
 

We were taught that in the creation book - so for once you seem to agree with the GB!

Agh please!  It was a deliberate joke!  Not a Freudian slip!

I hadn't talked about 1914 in a while, and although I have been critical of the teaching, I was trying to think of scriptural reasons that one might accept it as correct.
Just a couple days before the Memorial, I heard a dumb theory on a local station that tried to make a rationale for why Christianity has an Easter bunny and colorful eggs. It was crazy but it reminded me that I had also vaguely remembered something like this with the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" so I looked up the lyrics on Google to see if the lyrics actually could lend themselves to some kind of religious rationale. Google provides a section called "People Also Ask:"
 

 


I didn't bother to look up the rest. But this got me to thinking that maybe this song is nearly as old as the KJV (1611) and I wondered whether the KJV Bible had even translated the birds of Genesis 15 correctly calling them "a turtledove and a pigeon." The NWT uses the same language, so I figured there was probably a good basis.
(Genesis 15:9, KJV) And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
So what's that got to do with 1914, you might be wondering?
So, my mind wandered again, and I realized that I might have been wrong about doubting 1914. It was just too much of a coincidence that Genesis 15:9 actually points to the year 1914 in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant - through a dream - just as 1914 is pointed to in the context of the Davidic Covenant according to our understanding of Daniel 4, also through a dream.
I think this is pretty amazing, maybe more than just coincidence. So I'll explain why in the next post. But first the context of Genesis 15 for anyone who might not remember:
(Genesis 15:5-16) 5 He now brought him outside and said: “Look up, please, to the heavens and count the stars, . . . “So your offspring will become.” . . .7 Then he added: “I am Jehovah, who brought you out of Ur of the Chal·deʹans to give you this land as your possession.” 8 To this he said: “Sovereign Lord Jehovah, how will I know that I will take possession of it?” 9 He replied to him: “Take for me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” . . . 12 ... a deep sleep fell upon Aʹbram and a great and frightening darkness descended on him. 13 Then He said to Aʹbram: “Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years. 16 But they will return here in the fourth generation . . .

Hanging out with Quaid at a Martian beach resort?