AllenSmith

Tom:
 It is a Fair and Necessary thing to do to impugn someones competence and motives when they are disparaging you with irrelevancy, and THEN using an irrelevant (to the specific point) Scripture as a club to try and give credibility to their lack of reasoning ability, which does accuse by inference.
If we do it YOUR way, and have peace ... it will be the peace of mental enslavement for EVERYBODY, as the bullies win.
You want to let the superfine politically correct bullies win?

Eoin Joyce:
I do not need examples of my statements, for my entertainment ..... YOU need to show examples of my statements to show that there is a rational basis for the scripture you quoted had anything whatsoever with anything I have ever said.
It is a quite common occurrence that when people do not like what someone has said, based on their ingrained CULTURAL values,  that they root around for a scripture to support their intellectual position, and attempt to beat someone over the head with it.
The scripture you quoted was a fine scripture ... but my position ( since I do know what statements that I make..) is that it was completely irrelevant to the conversational thread ACTUALLY taking place. 
Similar to using the scripture " ... after I leave, wolves will enter in among the flock .." to support the supposition that one's dog is going to go to heaven, reasoning that "Uh... well... a dog is a kinda wolf!" That is wrong on SEVERAL levels.
I have challenged you to show the relevance of THAT specific scripture you quoted as a reply, to those SPECIFIC statements that I was making ... or even allowing any have EVER made in over 7,000 of my comments.
Further, if you refuse to make the connection ... AND since there is prima fascia evidence that there IS NO CONNECTION, then you are just trying to support your pique by bullying someone with a Scripture that has nothing to do with what was being discussed ... or anything I have EVER said.
I do not think there is any connection, and have a legitimate reason to accuse you of attempting to bully.
If you CAN logically and reasonably show the connection, then I am wrong, and your point is valid.
I don't have any spiritual qualifications, but all that is required is a moderate ability to reason.
If, as an example,  a member of the Governing Body is wrong about something, he may have IMMENSE spiritual qualifications, but he is STILL WRONG about that something, whatever it might be.
I DON'T NEED EXAMPLES ....... YOU DO!
Your credibility and a fair impunement of your motives are on the line if you don't have any ...
 

... all of what?
I expect NOTHING from the world, so I do not care about that .. we HAVE to just endure that.
I only care about how we treat each other in the Truth.

I don't worry so much about Satan the Devil, as I worry about clueless men trying to consolidate their own power and self-appointed authority, and who and how many they are willing to hurt to do that.

People don't burn others at the stake because they are rational... they do it based on how they FEEL!
Reality is that the Russians .... FEEL .... that JWs are extremist with an iron fist in a velvet fur glove.
If there is ANYBODY on Earth that understands that, it is the Russians who grew up under Soviet tyranny, where families were turned against each other.
I hope the Court will, in it's ruling(s) explain the reasons WHY they ruled the way they did.
If so ... then we will know.

Everything the Defense said was fair, and true .... Jehovah's witnesses are the most peaceful and non-extremist people on Earth ... EXCEPT IN ONE AREA ... and that is how we destroy whole families to disfellowship one individual ... which unravels  and destroys the very fabric of civilization.
I hope the Court will, in it's ruling(s) explain the REASONS why they ruled the way they did.
.
 

AMEN to THAT!
Test Question 1.) What in life is NOT a gamble?
Test Question 2.) What scripture in the Bible Prohibits taking known risks ?
... all else is drivel, and irrelevancy ...
Be a sport. (hahahahaha...) actually write down the questions, and under them .. WRITE DOWN the REAL answers!
 
 

It's true. I remember when some Bethelites began betting on when certain non-anointed brothers at Bethel would start partaking of the emblems publicly before the older members of the Governing Body started dying off. Seriously!!
And @Bible Speaks is also right about "chess." When I first wanted to play chess with some of the guys who set up a table around NYC parks, I realized that this was intended to be a money-making scheme for those with the tables. Even a side-bet is possible with some of them.

Bible Speaks:
So far you have not shown me ANYTHING from the Bible that is wrong with taking calculated risks and gambling.
By the way .. EVERYTIME YOU GET IN YOUR CAR TO GO ANYWHERE ... you are gambling your life, health, and fortune. ... and the lives of those riding with you.
EVERYTHING in life is a gamble ... Oh, and by the way, the Society has perhaps a HALF BILLION dollars in Stock Market Investments and invested trust funds ... and have a whole DEPARTMENT to TRY and manage those ...(oh, what's the word I am lookng for ... oh yeah! ...) GAMBLE.
And in a Lottery, EVERY participant is there by his OWN FREE will .... in any enterprise entered upon with free will, there are no losers ... only those who did not win the pool.
And yes, YOU will be disfellowshipped for buying a one dollar Lottery ticket ... while the Society gambles with millions of dollars of OUR contributions... EVERY ... DAY!
What's wrong with THAT picture?
 
 
 

Here is the REAL TEST!
...and all else is drivel, and irrelevancy ...
Test Question 1.) What in life is NOT a gamble?
Test Question 2.) What scripture in the Bible Prohibits taking known risks ?
NONE of the above scriptures I saw  HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ANYONE willing to take a calculated risk on a voluntary basis, and in the case of, say, a Lottery, participate with others who WILLINGLY pool their money at odds of 1 in 295,000,000.
NOTHING WHATSOEVER !
zero, zip, nada, goose eggs!
If we prohibit taking known risks, among many other things, the human race will stagnate into the pit of starvation, death, and slavery, as Farmers will be PROHIBITED from doing their jobs and we will starve, there are a million ways to die,  and when enslaved, we will accept with resignation the status quo, and not risk getting free.
Oh, and by the way ... who today worships any God of Luck?
Nobody I have ever met.
I cannot even think of a name to associate with one.
Test Question 1.) What in life is NOT a gamble?
Test Question 2.) What scripture in the Bible Prohibits taking known risks ?
... all else is drivel, and irrelevancy ...
.
 

“You men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny.” (Isaiah 65:11)
♠️♣️♥️♦️?♦️♥️♣️♠️
Does the Bible Condemn Gambling?
???
The Lure of Luck
Since gambling involves betting on uncertainties, belief in luck—a mysterious force that supposedly controls random events—plays a large role, especially when money is wagered. For example, auspicious numbers are chosen for lottery tickets; the uttering of certain words is forbidden among superstitious mah-jongg players; and a puff of air is blown over dice before they are thrown. Why? Gamblers often believe that luck will, or at least might, influence the outcome.
♠️♣️♥️♦️?♦️♥️♠️♣️
Is it merely a harmless game to put one’s trust in luck? Some people in ancient Israel felt that way. They believed that luck could bring them prosperity. How did Jehovah God feel about the matter? In God’s eyes, belief in luck is a form of idolatry and is not compatible with true worship. It reflects trust in an imaginary force rather than in the true God. There is no reason to believe that God has changed his view.
♠️♣️♥️♦️?♦️♥️♣️♠️
There is a much more sinister side to gambling besides winning and losing. “Those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many senseless and hurtful desires, which plunge men into destruction and ruin,” says God’s Word. (1 Timothy 6:9) 
♠️♣️♥️♦️?♦️♥️♣️♠️
A snare is designed to entangle a victim. Countless numbers of people, determined to wager only a small amount of money or to try their hand at gambling just a few times, have become entangled and unable to escape gambling addiction. It has destroyed careers, hurt loved ones, and ruined families.
♠️♣️♥️♦️?♦️♥️♣️♠️
“Quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2) God’s will, not popular sentiment, should guide a Christian’s life. As “the happy God,” Jehovah wants us to enjoy life, free of the bitter fruitage that results from the snare that gambling is.—1 Timothy 1:11.
♠️♣️♥️♦️?♦️♥️♣️♠️
Servants of God earn money by honest work
???⚖️???
The Excitement of Winning
Is gambling habit-forming, easily leading to addiction? Following a study of gamblers’ responses to winning and losing, Dr. Hans Breiter noted that “a monetary reward in a gambling-like experiment produces brain activation very similar to that observed in a cocaine addict receiving an infusion of cocaine.”
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011167#h=8

LOL. Every now and then Allen goes on a gift-giving campaign of the same sort with me. I already got three out of three from him, one for each of my posts in this new topic alone. I don't feel badly, however, because I notice that he typically gives them out when he realizes he can't respond truthfully to a point without agreeing, and it's anathema for him to agree. So he has only these two choices. I actually prefer receiving the negative point, rather than be embarrassed for him when he goes off into another dishonest or unscriptural diatribe.
There, with that statement, I just gave him a chance to claim a completely different rationale for his reactions. Maybe he will thank me for this one!

I don't think Allen liked me saying "I like it when you get carried away" he gave me a negative point, my first one on here I think!! Boo hoo, I think I'm upset an I'm going to cry, and there isn't even a crying emoticon on here! And I think the Librarian is dead, she's not been chastising anyone for changing the subject for a while now, I mean look at the previous 1914 thread, although a reconciliation has been reached, its all gone silly on there. Everything is falling apart. I think I'm going to go out in the garden, sulk, and eat worms....good night everyone

That's ok I like it when you get carried away
Yes, the example you present would be perfect, because as you say, dogmatic explanations are SO susceptible to revisions, so much so that it is not really a prudent thing to do.....and references would be great for those who wish to "make sure of all things". I think @ComfortMyPeoplementioned once that it would be nice to have more of a commentary style for some of our publications and use more expressions such as "perhaps", "most likely",  "it would be reasonable to conclude", ....etc. But that has not been the style of the society (although improving a little) and my theory is, and I have mentioned this before, that the GB feel like they must speak with authority, otherwise they may lose respect and trust, i.e. the parent/child model. However, this has backfired in more ways than one quite a number of times...
P.S. I think one particular book had quite a few overt dogmatic statements on things that no one could possibly know for sure, it was one of the prophetic books we studied at our book study, either Isaiah, Ezekiel or Daniel. I remember one mature, studious sister got a little upset and exclaimed; how can they know that! I wish I could remember what it was...

@Anna I'd love to see a new Revelation book, too. I don't think it would remove types and anti-types completely, because I agree with @TrueTomHarley that Revelation "fairly begs" for these applications. Besides, the new "rule" on avoiding speculative types/anti-types doesn't cover prophecy; it only covers narratives and parables. (We also can make an anti-type prophecy from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream in Daniel 4, because it shows up in Daniel, a book of prophecy, although we do not make a prophecy out of the "Lion's Den" narrative, or the "Three Hebrew 'Children'" narrative. Also we make an exception for parables that immediately follow a prophecy such as the end of Matthew 24, which is evidently why we treat the "faithful and discreet slave" parable as a prophecy about the Governing Body starting in 1919, although here, too, we make no prophecy out of the specific features of "two women grinding at a mill, one left, the other taken away, etc.")
I would love to see a book on Revelation that is done in the style of a standard commentary, so that it contains several possibilities for the meaning of each verse, instead of dogmatic explanations that effectively make the entire book obsolete as soon as something changes. I'd like to see a style that is heavier on expressions like the following (where the ** refers to scripture citations, footnotes, or other references):
"This verse in Revelation 11:1 is clearly alluding to similar verses in Ezekiel and Zechariah where the context of those verses discusses the preparations for rebuilding an earlier temple at Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar.** The rebuilt temple lasted from the time of Zechariah** until Herod the Great expanded it in the decades before Jesus was born.** That temple was destroyed in a horrific holocaust by the Romans in 70 C.E. Through the centuries, many have believed that this verse is an indication that a new physical temple will literally be built in Jerusalem before the final visitation of judgment on the world. It was while Herod's expanded temple was still standing that Jesus said: "Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ** In fact, Paul speaks of Christians themselves as each one a temple** and all being built up together into a holy temple**. Therefore, it appears that we could look for a spiritual, rather than a physical application of the temple spoken of here. Note, too, that there is a specific time element associated with the temple preparation.**ref 1,260 etc** This could be an indication that the verse applies to some specific event in the time period leading up to the final judgment of the world. Perhaps it is a time period that we can identify within the recent history of God's people.** Perhaps it is something we will come to understand in the very near future! Some commentators have even applied it to events that would have been clear to the hearers of this vision who had lived in the first century. Recall that many in that generation had just experienced the traumatic event in 70 CE, seeing Jerusalem and its temple destroyed in a war that took well over a million lives.** In fact, a specific length of 1,260 days might have reminded them of the time period between [etc. etc. etc.]
The next verses, however, may shed more light on the meaning of this and give evidence that the fulfillment is not limited to a first century application . . . etc etc etc...
Sorry, got carried away.

In another thread, I proposed the possibility that Revelation 11 and Revelation 12 might both be starting out with references to events in the first century CE. There are some immediate problems with this proposal, and a couple of them were pointed out by @ComfortMyPeople. One problem for example is that Christ Jesus obtains the kingship, and this is tied to the time for the dead to be judged, a clear reference to the resurrection:
(Revelation 11:15-18) 15 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.” 16 And the 24 elders who were seated before God on their thrones fell upon their faces and worshipped God, 17 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. 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 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.”
As CMP pointed out, that would apparently contradict the scripture that says it was a deviation from the truth to claim it had occurred in the first century:
(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.
Of course, that wasn't the intention of putting the first portions of the chapter in the first century, but it shows that it's possible to test proposals about doctrines and find that some ideas just obviously cannot work. I'm hoping that we can test such speculative proposals even further to see if they actually fit the scriptures, or should be rejected. So when I get an opportunity, hopefully in the next few days, I might be able explain how the ENTIRE 11th chapter MIGHT be understood under a first-century proposal.

This is a follow-up discussion from a conversation under a topic about 1914. It is pure speculation, and I suspect that most persons will find it either a waste of time, or perhaps even a subversion of currently taught doctrines. It is not intended to be. It is a speculative guess about various doctrinal repercussions in the event that the doctrinal about 1914 was dropped. It is especially concerned with whether almost all items related to the parousia would be set into the future, or is it possible that some of them could reasonably be set in the past. Naturally, the goal is to see if the Scriptures could support either of these scenarios, or would either or both need to be rejected on scriptural grounds. In one way, this is a kind of thought experiment that can be used to test the validity of a doctrine like 1914. If abandoning such a doctrine would result only in additional contradictions and confusion, then this becomes evidence that 1914, or something like it, could remain viable for years to come. It is not the goal of this discussion to reject 1914, or get anyone else to reject it. This is also not a comparison to see whether a certain "solution" seems or sounds better than the current solutions we present concerning 1914. It is just a way to see what alternatives we might be left with if the 1914 doctrine were actually changed.
So I should say that this discussion is not for everyone, although all interested persons should feel welcome to comment. I hope this doesn't go on for 15 pages however, so if posts are too far off topic, perhaps it would be better to start new threads for them.
INTRODUCTION
For the most part, it's obvious that Revelation is about future events, especially the events associated with the Return of Christ in Judgment of the Nations, of Babylon, the Great Tribulation, Armageddon, the Millennium, the New Heavens and the New Earth.
But there are parts that reference past events, present events along with, of course, future events.
In fact Jehovah is presented as being in control of history, and this might even be implied in expressions such as this, referencing past, present and future:
(Revelation 1:8) 8 “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”
When John was told to write letters to the seven congregations, these were about matters going on in the first century, too:
(Revelation 1:17-19) . . .“Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave. 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these.
Note that in vv 17-19, Jesus also has titles that reference the past, present and future. And we already know that John's messages to the congregations would reference those congregations' recent past, the present and the future.
So, is there a way to look at OTHER chapters in Revelation, such as chapters 11 and 12, and make any sense of them without reference to the 1914 doctrine? And if so, the next question is whether anything in those two chapters, especially, can apply to the first century congregations. If hat question must generally be answered in the negative, then the next question would be if anything (or everything in those two chapters could apply mostly to the future without a need to reference 1914 or a date or time prior to the Great Tribulation, for example.

@Gnosis Pithos being offended is not the criteria for removal. He is not attacking you or another specific person.

@Gnosis Pithos, Starting with the above post from Friday June 30, I'd like to respond to all of your posts in an orderly manner. If I don't understand why you said something, I can at least make a guess based on context, and you can correct me, please, if I got it wrong. Some was covered in previous answers, but I want to make sure I got all your points.
Your first point, I'm pretty sure, was that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 was not about 70 CE. At first I thought you used the word "incumbent" in its definition of "necessary, required as a duty" and then you implied later that perhaps you meant it with another meaning, and that other meaning is "one already holding office." In either case, the answer is that Jesus was speaking about a visitation of judgment on Jerusalem in 70 CE, and he worded it in such a way that Christians have been able to make application to any period of time prior to his visitation of judgment upon the world. Whether or not Jesus held the office of king is also a part of the point that you make here and elsewhere.
Jesus was called "King" during several periods of his earthly life and ministry:
around the time of his birth (Herod, astrologers, Simeon [Christ of Jehovah]), during his ministry (visitation to Jerusalem on colt of donkey), just before his death (Jews/Pilate), during his death (the sign above him), after his resurrection and ascension and prior to 70 CE (book of Acts, most of Paul's letters, e.g., "King of Kings") in the introduction to Revelation (Revelation chapter 1 where called "ruler of the kings of the earth") within the Revelation (Revelation 11, 12 where he is also said to "rule as king forever") The exact time periods referred to in Revelation 11, 12 are not strictly known and therefore could possibly even refer to gaining the "office" of kingship in a year like 1914 if that is Biblically possible.
In addition to the points made above about the specific word "king" we have many additional points that refer to "kingdom," "kingship," "rulership," "authority," "might," "power," "commandments" "Davidic promise" and association with "thrones," "scepters," "majesty," "worship/obeisance," etc. All these points provide even more evidence for the same points made about when, he was king. However, we begin to notice another pattern that is also evidenced, and that is the fact that it's always OTHERS calling him King before his birth and during his ministry, and before his death. Jesus even finds a way to answer the question from Pilate about whether he is King, by highlighting that is comes from the mouth of "OTHERS" (Jews and Pilate). It's only AFTER his resurrection that inspired Bible writers call him a "king" or "ruler" directly or even "king of kings" (1 Tim 6) or say he has "now" been given a "name" above every other government and rulership. It reminds us of Jesus own words just after his resurrection that "ALL AUTHORITY" has now been given to him, so that he now "commands" them as subjects. (Mt 28)
Whether that Biblical pattern is important or not, we can't say, but we can say that the Bible has no problem calling him "King of Kings" after his resurrection and before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE).
You then point out that were no mass earthquakes or related events in 70 CE. so this MUST apply to after 1914, when earthquakes or at least "those signs" now come with greater frequency than before 1914. There is no logic to that statement. The Bible does speak of great earthquakes before 70 CE, and the Watchtower agrees and pointed out the same. But even if there were not, this type of sign is not measurable without a lot of evidence that just isn't there. Great earthquakes may very well be LESS frequent now than in the past. With several billions of people on earth at the same time instead of several millions in times past, every earthquake, even small ones have more opportunity to be more destructive of human life, and that's a good point. Perhaps that's what Jesus meant by "great earthquakes." But we still don't know if this meant that we should be on the watch for a time when earthquakes start becoming more destructive. In fact, many if not the majority of Bible commentators through the years have seen Jesus' statement about earthquakes as an example of what NOT to look for as a sign. Even Charles Taze Russell understood that this was what Jesus meant. Jesus said we are going to hear about wars and great earthquakes but NOT to be misled, not to think that this means the end is upon us because of them. So clearly earthquakes and wars were NOT the sign. Besides, there were no major earthquakes in 1914. One set of evidence lists large population centers around the world that were hit in a way that killed many thousands at a time in 1780, 1783, 1786, 1797, 1837, 1847, 1854, 1855, 1857, 1868, 1881, 1891, 1893, 1896, 1902, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1915, 1920, 1923, 1927, 1931, 1934, 1939, 1944, 1949, 1960, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1975, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th-century_earthquakes#1901.E2.80.931910 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_earthquakes As more population centers become denser, and as recording devices become more accurate, we will surely hear about more earthquakes, but there is no specific evidence that 1914 and the three or four generations living in the time periods after 1914 have seen an increase. Starting with the records in 1837 it looks like the decade of the 1870's saw no major earthquakes that killed many thousands at once. But we also see such a gap in the decade of the 1950's, and it's just as likely that gaps before 1837 have more to do with lack of historical records and worldwide communication capability (telegraph, telephone). We also have a factor of better construction in some dense population centers which could have reduced the "greatness" of more recent earthquakes since 1914. So the point is that there is just not enough evidence, and even if there was, Jesus' point was that earthquakes were not even an important sign. But we do know for a fact, at least, that there were at least two or three great earthquakes prior to 70, mentioned in the scriptures. We also can be pretty sure that Christians would been looking for evidences of the timing of Jesus' parousia, but he had warned them that these earthquakes had nothing to do with the timing of his parousia.
Then you say:
"Now if the prevailing opinion is Jesus was king in 33CE instead of taking over Aarons high priesthood of the Christian congregation and the end of days Jesus proclaimed in his time due to his established kingship? Then that would have made Jesus King at birth.:
I think you are saying that you are willing to accept that Jesus fulfilled the office of "high priest" in 33 CE but that the only way in which we could say he was "king" in 33 CE would be in the same way that he was "king" at the time of his birth. (Perhaps you are referring to either the expression: "the one born king of the Jews" or perhaps also this:
(John 18:37) . . .So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world. . .
Then of course, you said:
"The operative words are “hold the offices” over emphasizing by saying HE IS KING!!!!!!"
But you don't accept the Bible's answer:
(1 Timothy 6:15) ". . .He is the King. . ."
You then quote the "Insight" book which is, in my opinion, devastating to the theory that Jesus did not become king until 1914. Here's why. Insight says:
To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the highest God, and not by inheritance. . . .  In addition to the promise recorded at Psalm 110:4: “Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): ‘You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek!’” which appointment makes him a heavenly King-Priest, Christ also possesses Kingdom authority by reason of his descent from David. In the latter case, he becomes the heir of the kingship promised in the Davidic covenant. (2Sa 7:11-16) He therefore holds in combination the offices of kingship and priesthood, as did Melchizedek.
So, was that office of King-Priest something that Jesus would be appointed to in the future, or did it already happen? Did we already have such a priest who was also a King-Priest as Melchizedek was? Hebrews answers:
(Hebrews 6:20-7:4) . . .Jesus, who has become a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek forever. 7 For this Mel·chizʹe·dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time.
Hebrews 1 and 2 had already dealt with his Kingship and royal power: "God is your throne." "He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." "The scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." "But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned. . ."
 
 
 

Yes I remember such talks, but they were not the only talks I heard.
I suppose I was spoilt early on for this sort of pressure.  I learnt two things (which may or may not be orthodox), but they have stood me in good stead and, I believe, have served to prevent me from being quickly shaken from my reason or to be alarmed. (2Thess.2:2)
1. I shared lodgings with for a while with Hendry Carmichael, (Yearbook 1977 p81-83). I learned many things from this zealous, Glaswegian brother. He once said to me, with his twinkling blue eyes a-sparkle, "You know laddie, your Armageddon came the day you heard the good news, because what you do with it will make an everlasting difference to your future!".
2. Over the years, I have been blessed with many, wonderful bible studies who have progressed to dedication and baptism, including a woman who is now my wife and pioneer partner. She said to me recently that it sadddens her sometimes to hear that the end is as imminent as many brothers emphasize. I know what she means. If the end had come in 1975, she would not have found the truth. (And nor me, her). And when it does come, there will be no others to save out of this wicked world. I know the resurrection will afford unimaginable opportunities to help people learn the truth of God's puposes, but we are meeting new ones all the time now, and starting new studies, in a part of the world I was told is "unproductive"!
So what am I saying? Well, my Armageddon (figurative of course), has long come and gone, and I am making every effort to ensure that when the real one does, I am rightly disposed for everlasting life.(Acts 13:48). And as far as the time left is concerned? Well, every day in this system of things, lives are being saved in evidence of Jehovah's patience. (Ex.18:23) And we can have as much a share in this as our volunteer sprit impels. (2Cor.9:6-7) There is no organisation on earth that facilitates this work in the way that Jehovah's Witnesses do. (Mich.4:1-2)
And that I think, for me anyway, captures the essence of 1Tim.4:16: "Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you."

These are excellent points. But let's look at this more closely. Let's say, just as an example, there was an angel who vanquished all opposition to Jehovah's rulership by killing 185,000 Assyrians in one night. This might even be one of those occasions when one could say, "Jehovah has become King." But would you ever express this fact by calling that angel a king? 
Also, if you are able to say, as you did, that Jehovah's Son could express rulership in executive action, then why be so concerned to claim that he is NOT really a king holding the office of king? Perhaps that's exactly what makes him a king in the Bible's terminology.
How can you even use an expression like the "kingdom of His Son" without thinking that the person for whom that Kingdom is named is not truly a king? Would you ever say "David's kingdom" and claim that David was not really a king?
Also, notice that Jehovah is already a king when some event or action causes Jehovah to become king. So, why do we need to make sure then that Jesus is NOT a king when the Bible speaks of him as becoming king?
Trying to make use of this idea that Jehovah can be said to become King even though he already is King is irrelevant, then. It doesn't prove Jehovah was not a King, so it can't be used to prove that Jesus was not a King. So when you say "why cannot Jesus do the same?" what you really mean is something like the opposite. You mean something more akin to "why can't we say Jesus is NOT a king when he becomes king."
And why do you think everyone who holds this idea that Jesus can be called king but not really be a king has avoided the fact that his title in 1 Tim 6 is "king of kings" in the first century? Doesn't this make him more than just a king over the kingdom of his congregation? Why is he called "ruler of the kings of the earth" in the first century?
The Watchtower publications freely admit that Jesus was at least king of the kingdom over his congregation. And we believe Colossians was written around 61 CE.
(Colossians 1:13) 13 He [God] rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Of course, the Bible says nothing about Jesus having two kingdoms. And since God's "beloved Son" is Jesus, this verse actually says "He . . . transferred us into the Kingdom of [Jesus]." It is pure conjecture and speculation to claim that Jesus has a second Kingdom, not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. What is really happening here is pretty obvious, which is that Jesus has been bringing Kingdom subjects into his Kingdom since the first century.
To me, it's more like when there's a fire on the back of someone's head, but that person is more interested in semantics and ignores the obvious.
 

You must be new here. Most things JTR says has to be taken with a pinch of salt, and definitely not personally. And this is how those who reacted probably took it too, just JTR black humour. 

Gnosis:
You obviously have NO sense of humor whatsoever or you would have realized what was REALLY being said when I made my comment.
I find YOUR comments outrageously FUNNY! ....  and please be assured they are much appreciated!
James Thomas Rook, Jr.
... also known as Willey-the-half-sprung -lampshade
PS: Chill out! have a few beers ... relax ... you will be a LOT happier .. and live a LOT longer.
.
Oh ... you need to put that in context ....
 
 
 

You'd think so, right?
Sometimes I think that even if the Bible had already called Jesus "the king of kings" and "ruler of the kings of the earth" that it still wouldn't be enough.

Except for people with a combination of tourette's syndrome, dislexia, and one leg shorter than the other, which gives you brain-tilt .... that seems to wrap up THAT discussion.