Anna

Hardly. I only researched what I was assigned to research. The most leeway I was given was when I had to look up and review what had been said previously about certain specific doctrines. We didn't have electronic searching of anything, or the Internet. So if Brother BS, or RL, or JN asked me to look into what we once said about house-to-house, or the literal vs the figurative heart, or a partial 70 CE fulfillment of Matthew 24, or certain medical advice, or Abaddon, or Evolution, or the Creative Days, or the Prodigal Son, then I might get a chance to read dozens of articles going all the way back through the 1930's. We would find a lot of places where the WT Publications Index needed updating, too. We didn't actually care about going back to Russell. Mostly, the brothers only cared about references going back to 1935, sometimes 1931. Then we might see if our commentary referencing Bible dictionaries and lexicons still held up with the latest versions of those references. And the Aid Book was still producing new questions to look up and double-check for accuracy. 
I was never assigned a research project about chronology, or parousia, or the generation, or Gentile Times, or the 70 years, or Babylonian kings. The closest to that was a double-check of how often anyone had written about a partial or minor fulfillment of Matthew 24 in the first century. And one time I had to look up if we had been consistent about saying that the "Lord's Day" of Revelation 1:10 had been the start of 1914. But obviously it was never a matter of questioning 1914. When COJ's manuscript came up, it was a total surprise to me that anyone would question 1914, although I soon learned that Sydlik, Schroeder, Chitty and Swingle were questioning certain aspects of it. And I soon learned COJ's name from Rusk and Schroeder, but I thought they were going to find someone to respond to the document.
You seem to have not understood much of what Adam Rutherford was saying, then. Adam Rutherford's information is basically a confirmation of the ideas of COJ and every authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Being only two years off from the astronomically evidenced numbers is hardly a problem unless you also want to incorporate the dozens of astronomical readings. But Adam Rutherford stuck with the relative chronology but mostly ignored the "absolute" chronology that the astronomy readings would have given.
With respect to the relative chronology, Adam Rutherford, confirms COJ's understanding and that of every person currently considered an authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Adam Rutherford agrees completely with me, too, on the relative chronology. If he was using the Babylonian Chronicles correctly then he is saying that COJ is right, and the Watchtower is wrong. His information would mostly just confirm COJ, not challenge him. COJ goes further and takes into consideration the rest of the astronomical evidence which Rutherford also nearly had right -- only two years off. Rutherford indicates that the current Watchtower is 22 years off in the absolute, and 20 years off in the relative. 
His information could only have been use to challenge and refute the Watchtower.

The "People's Pulpit" association was the original name that was then changed to "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc."

I'm not sure why anyone would say it is crucial to emphasize that the WTS generally accepts Bishop Ussher's chronology by adding either 19, 20, 21 or 22 years to everything prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and generally accepts everything (without an adjustment) from about the time of the Jews returning to their homeland after Cyrus' decree freed them from Babylon. 
Naturally, this means that Bishop Ussher used 609 for the death of Josiah, and 588 for the destruction of the Temple, and the the WTS adds 20 and 19 years to those dates. The Watchtower, of course, uses 629 for the death of Josiah and continues to use 607 for the destruction of the Temple in order to make 1914 still work.
But this is about as "crucial" as saying that Bishop Ussher agrees within a year or so of COJ, or me, or perhaps 100 Bible commentators. Basically, it merely admits that the WTS generally accepts Ussher's relative chronology. Bishop Ussher turned his relative Bible chronology into an absolute chronology by using Babylonian Greek and Roman sources to fix the BC date of Evil Merodach, the successoor of Nebuchadnezzar at 562 BC. Per Wikipedia's source:
The Watchtower Society adds about 20 years that date, so that our "Ussher" date for every year prior to Evil-Merodach adds about 20, 21 or 22 years.
So Ussher uses the dates evidenced by astronomy for the period of the destruction and Exile. COJ does too. Adam Rutherford does too. As does Wiseman, and as do all the resources the WTS quotes from when discussing the period. This should not be surprising. 
Ussher stays within a year or two of all the astronomically evidenced dates. The only way Adam Rutherford found a way to stay within two years of the astronomically evidenced dates (and still keep 1914) is to reject 607 as the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and to reject Russell's and the Watchtower's date for the destruction of Jerusalem. He starts the counting of the 70 years and the 2,520 years (the 7 times) with the fall of Assyria instead of the fall of Jerusalem. That way he can continue to use 607. In this I would agree with him about 607 (within a year or two). I also agree with his date for the destruction of Jerusalem (within a year or two).

There were big differences between the Bible Students and the Christian Science religion. The pyramid that was built near Mary Baker Eddy's birthplace was built in December 1918, by the same person who designed her cemetery memorial, but not officially sanctioned by the religion itself. The pyramid built near Russell's gravesite was built in 1921. Both have since been destroyed. 

Both had a metal box buried deep within to contain the writers' artifacts, and both had plaques on the 4 sides. One of “Eddy’s” plaques had “The new order of the ages” in Latin. 
Anything that Mary Baker Eddy had said about the Great Pyramid has been downplayed, and in fact, no one has found more than a sentence or two that she ever said about it. But there have been claims by those outside her religion that she supported pyramidology. 
In 1921, some Christian Scientists recommended pilgrimages to the site, but the church discouraged it, reminding people that Eddy didn't want people celebrating her birthday, and she had spoken out against mystic cults and "spiritualism" and "theosophy" that the pyramid apparently represented to some.

Here is the context and the letter from Smyth that Russell published in Volume 3 (Thy Kingdom Come), praising Russell's "originality" and "magnificently" worded passages. It also praised Russell's accuracy to within an inch, even though Russell later rescinded a couple of these measurements and changed them by up to 41 inches. Notice that Russell calls the Pyramid, not just Jehovah's Witness, but also Jehovah's PROPHET:
THE
CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY
OF
GOD'S STONE WITNESS
AND
PROPHET
THE GREAT PYRAMID IN
EGYPT
 
A KINDLY COMMENT ON THIS CHAPTER
WHEN IN MANUSCRIPT, FROM THE PEN
OF THE ESTEEMED
PROF. C. PIAZZI SMYTH, F.R.S.E., F.R.A.S.
EX-ASTRONOMER ROYAL FOR SCOTLAND
Brother William M. Wright, on learning that this chapter on the Great Pyramid was written, requested that he might have the reading of it before it would be put into type, as he had already considerable knowledge of the Pyramid. This we gladly granted, assuring him of our desire for all the criticism possible. After reading the MS., Bro. Wright concluded that, as we desired criticism, the higher the standing of the critic the better. Accordingly he made a typewriter copy of the MS., and by permission mailed it to Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth, who is generally accorded a greater knowledge of the Great Pyramid's construction and measurements than any other man in the world, requesting that he examine the MS. carefully and note upon it any criticism he might have to offer in the interest of the truth. The Professor's answer to that letter, together with the MS. copy sent him, which bore his marks of criticism, when received were sent to the author. We thank Bro. Wright and Prof. Smyth for their kindness, and have followed the corrections indicated; which, however, only three in all, we were pleased to note were not of special importance. Only one of the criticisms was upon measurements, and it showed a variance of only one inch, which we gladly corrected.
Thinking it might be interesting to our readers we give below
Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth's Letter
Clova, Ripon, England, Dec. 21, 1890
Wm. M. Wright, Esq.,
Dear Sir: I have been rather longer than I could have wished in looking over the MS. of your friend, C. T. Russell of Allegheny, Pa., but I have now completed a pretty careful examination, word by word. And that was the least I could do, when you so kindly took the pains to send it with such care between boards by registered parcel, with every page flat, and indited by the typewriter in place of the hand.
At first I could only find slips of the said typewriter, but as I progressed through the pages, the powers, the specialties and the originalities of the Author came out magnificently; and there were not a few passages I should have been glad to take a copy of for quotation, with name, in the next possible edition of my own Pyramid book. But of course I did nothing of that sort, and shall wait with perfect patience and in most thankful mood of mind for when the author of Scripture Studies shall choose his own time for publishing. So I merely remark here that he is both good and new in much that he says on the chronology of various parts of the Pyramid, especially the First Ascending Passage and its granite plug; on the Grand Gallery, as illustrating the Lord's life; on the parallelisms between the King's Chamber and its granite, against the Tabernacle and its gold; and generally on the confirmations or close agreements between Scripture and the Great Pyramid, well commented on.
In the meanwhile, it seems that I am indebted to you for your kind gift of long ago of the first two volumes of Scripture Studies. I did not at the time get further than the first half of the first volume, finding the matter, as I thought, not quite so new as I had expected. But after having profited, as I hope, so much by a thorough reading of this advanced pyramid chapter of the third volume, I must take up the first two volumes again, de novo.
The parcel will go back between its boards, registered. I remain, with many thanks,
Yours respectfully,
C. Piazzi Smyth

Calling assertions unfounded when you know they are true is dishonest.
You are probably aware that Russell got most of his initial pyramid information through persons he never credited, and made it look like he came up with this himself. He paraphrased and nearly plagiarized parts of Joseph Seiss' book "Miracle in Stone" but never credited Seiss. He did reference Smyth's "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid" and used Smyth's endorsement of what Russell published. Smyth gave it a glowing review and Russell published that letter in Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3.
Not always. He had no other source for his predictions about 1910 and 1911 other than the Pyramid itself. This "enlightenment" he sought did not come from the Bible, but from "divining the entrails" of the Great Pyramid. 
Watchtower Reprints page 5249 : page 167, 1913:
We did in discussing the Great Pyramid—STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES Series—suggest that possibly a certain measurement of the step at the upper end of the Grand Gallery might signify something important by the end of 1910. But we hope that we made it clear that we built nothing on that suggestion—that it was merely a suggestion, a guess only, but a pointer that the year 1911 might be looked to with interest.
 

You should be aware by now that I have only one account and I am not at all worried about your multiple accounts. Pointing out just a few of your active ones can merely help others here understand you a bit better. 
In the meantime, I will repeat that you have always been anxious to focus on distractions. You have had so many chances to provide even one bit of evidence, but you have never come through. You have always ignored and deflected or blustered or merely resorted to anger and ad hominem responses whenever any evidence is provided to you. You are making it pretty obvious that the only reason for your decade of failure to respond to evidence is because you don't have any evidence for a response. And the obfuscations you choose instead are an indication that you are are fully aware of this and that you think it's important to hide this truth from others.
As I've said already:
Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

Sounds like you are angry that I wouldn't get angry. "Fiery coals on the head" syndrome I guess. 
The 1914 Bible Students Monthly has already been discussed at length, so I won't belabor it again here under this topic. Best if people do their own research as you say. The easiest way is to get the ZWT database that was once available for free from Bible Student websites. Look up: "end of the age" "end of the world" "consummation of the age" "cosmos" "Matthew 24:3" "Matthew 28:20" etc., and especially pay attention to the previous years of Bible Students Monthly. Then of course, one could go and see Rutherford using the same exact definition of the word "world" when he repeatedly announced: "The World Has Ended - Millions Now Living May Never Die!"
*** w84 2/1 p. 24 par. 11 ‘Oneness of Spirit’ in a Rapidly Growing Flock ***
Thus in 1918 the president of the Watch Tower Society delivered a talk in Los Angeles, California, on a subject later to be repeated by hundreds more speakers, under the title “The World Has Ended, Millions Now Living May Never Die.”
 

@"Hammer" Rubi @"Hammer" Urabi @Dr. Adhominem @Dr. Adhominum 
No. My guess is that when the software for the forum has to be reloaded now and then for maintenance issues, there were a couple of yours that got lost during updates due to attempts to include too many items of special characters and punctuation. Also you can see the attempts to create near duplicates as in the ones I listed above which might sooner or later get flagged by software as superfluous.
Or maybe I imagined that they were being rude to me or insulting me, or worse yet, downvoted me, and I just banned them without telling you. More power to the moderators!!

You have been aware for years that I state I have never banned anyone. You might not believe it of course, but you were aware of my position from previous discussions. Yet, you repeat here that I am showing favoritism to some and banning others. You imply that I am just making excuses for favoritism, and that this behavior with no evidence provided is becoming increasingly obvious -- and you repeat it claiming now that it is MULTIPLE people I have banned by adding -- "with each person you ban." 
So I give you the benefit of the doubt and don't call it an insult yet, even though it clearly was:
BTK insult #1: JWI is making excuses BTK insult #2: JWI is showing favoritism BTK insult #3: JWI is banning others making this behavior obvious with each person JWI bans I was guessing that you meant the "laughter" emoji at the reference to my funeral. Still, I guess this was also meant as an insult:
BTK insult #4: JW upvotes dishonesty I began to respond:
This was not an insult. Just a statement of clear fact. It can't be obvious that I have banned someone since I never have banned anyone. I still honestly don't know if I have the power to do so. 
So far, BTK insults: 5.
You responded with:
So, now you go ahead and try to claim that I was lying via some kind of wordplay that I have never used, but which I have often seen used by others. 
BTK insult #6: JWI is using wordplay manipulation to deceive  Anyway, I responded:
Again, just a statement of fact. And to make it clear you weren't being insulted I made mention of how astute you are. 
As an aside, I don't think it's an insult to point out that when I use certain descriptive words (like "astute') for the first time here almost all the "Allen-Smith-styled" accounts will return that word to me in some way, and I have often said this might be a form of echolalia. No one else does this, but Allen did it, Moise did it, Billy the Kid did it, and at least 20 other Allen-styled accounts. And guess what:
I admit that the phenomenon of echolalia came up in a course I took many years ago. Otherwise I would not likely have noticed. I could give about 150 to 175 examples from the Allen-styled accounts.
Aside completed.
You had gone on next to say: 
Another direct claim that I am lying.
BTK insult #7: JWI will continue lying (claiming NOT to be the Librarian) because he will never publicly admit it.
I assumed that this meant only a few out of hundreds of my posts have been true. Another insult that I am overwhelmingly a liar almost by default.
BTK insult #8: JWI only posts a very small percentage of truth.
At any rate, I don't think I have to spell out the next 20 or 30 micro-insults from you. They don't even make a difference. I'll continue to speak the truth. But I just wanted you to see why it seemed ridiculous for you to claim that other people insult you and you don't insult others. It seemed you had such an obvious double-standard. (Yes, that's an intentional form of me using echolalia. My own definition, not the same form you will see in a dictionary, but perhaps related.) 

I have to admit that I laughed out loud a bit when I saw your claim that Tom and I are the Librarian. It didn't make me laugh when Anna admitted that she had the same reaction. In fact, I cringed a bit realizing that you would take immediate offense and try to make a big deal out of it. 
The problem is not that people are insulting you, but that you have indeed made ridiculous statements and claims. When people make ridiculous claims in public, they can expect ridicule. That's what ridiculous means. You can be glad that the form of ridicule you receive is merely a bit of laughter.
I will again admit that this too made me laugh a bit. Not at you, but at the ridiculousness of the claim about who started insulting, and the fact that you gave yourself a score of 0 insults, which only highlighted your own double standard. Although I doubt this was on purpose;  i don't think you were aware of it.
You probably aren't aware that claiming someone is not telling the truth is insulting, except of course when someone happens to make that claim about you. For example, look closely at the exchanges between you and me. Next post of mine:
 

One more outrageous claim like that and it is off to Worm City for him.
And, what’s with the angel that was able to spring Peter from prison, opening doors right and left, but was not able to spring the one at Mary’s home, leaving Peter knocking in the street. Have him write Bethel about that.

I often wonder if there is any point in responding to any of your ridiculous statements, but this one made me laugh 

Must not be as obvious as you think because I've never banned anyone. I don't even know if I have the power to ban anyone. It's possible I do, but when I was offered moderator powers it was to help keep some order in some otherwise chaotic threads that kept going off-topic, and most specifically it was offered to me at a time when Allen Smith appeared to be responding to nearly all my posts with an extra dose of vitriol. I was told that I could use my new moderator powers to remove excessively spiteful posts from Allen. As you are well aware, I never did, but left them all just exactly as awful as he wanted to express himself. Then someone came along and deleted several versions of Allen along with all his past posts in many cases. This removed the foundation of my own responses to him which makes it difficult to make sense of those threads if anyone were go back and try to read them. 
I may never know if I actually have the power to ban anyone because I will never use it even if I can.

I don't think disfellowshipping is always unethical. The Christian congregation needs this authority for cases of exceptional wrongdoing, gangrene-like heresy and apostasy, and times when accepting association by someone reprehensible would give the appearance of condoning that person's conduct. But it can be implemented in a "barbaric" manner. I've watched this happen. I worked with Governing Body member, Brother Bert Schroeder, when his practice was to threaten to disfellowshipping persons unless they "snitched" on private conversations they had with friends who were closer to Bert's "political" target at the time. Then the person who snitched was allowed to just walk away unscathed. 
I've seen it used to break apart families where a (young -but-just-over-18) baptized person still lived at home with mental conditions that made it nearly impossible for her to safely live on her own, and yet she was kicked out of the home.
I've seen the threat used on my own sister if she were to tell the truth to hospital personnel that her ministerial servant husband had given her the injuries through a beating. 
I've seen the threat used against a registered nurse, a good friend of my brother, who was told (by Brother James Pellechia of the Writing Department) that she could no longer voluntarily care for a 90-year-old nearly invalid wheelchair-bound brother in a second/third floor apartment in Brooklyn who was disfellowshipped for apostasy, mostly over some negative remarks about Rutherford that he wouldn't recant. (He had been a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford.) The nurse asked my brother (a Bethelite at the time) for help and my wife and I were able to sneak in (partly disguised) to help the disfellowshipped person several times a week, along with another sister who took the other days. He literally would have died without the help.
I agree that you have often spoken truth here. However, this is not a congregation. It's a nearly random collection of persons who take an interest in discussing JW-related topics: some controversial, some innocuous. Every one of us who is here is here against the wishes of the Governing Body and we know it. There is therefore no reason to ban/disfellowship over any issue, with the exception of deliberate or targeted abusive behavior intended to hurt or bring harm to someone. But as we are mostly Witnesses here, we have learned to take such abuse in stride. We expect it. And if we happen to doubt or even reject a doctrine or two that most JWs accept, we understand quite well that we should expect to take some "abuse" for it. That's the only kind of abusive behavior I've gotten from the Allen-Smith-persona-like accounts.
I expect it now and then, and don't agree with JR that such a vigilante-styled zealous one needs to identify himself.
I especially don't like the fact that all the innocuous posts from the same individual get lost in the process. That's overkill over and above what's already overkill. 

What about the abusive behavior displayed by TOM, Pudgy, and now Juan, Xero, Many Miles, Miracle Pete, as well as numerous other associated accounts created by Tom and Pudgy? You cannot make any excuses, JWI, for showing favoritism to some individuals while banning others. This behavior becomes increasingly obvious with each person you ban.
Then you upvote that dishonesty.

Oh sure! Here I was thinking that George had finally tracked you down and burned you at the stake! So much for the funeral talk I was preparing.
 
Oh sure! Here I was taking advantage of the situation to posit you and he were the same! (and then afterwards that I had banned you both) So much for my reliability profile.
 
Gasp! You don’t think JR was banned, do you? He could get pretty outrageous, but underneath it all  he had the heart of a pork chop. I mean, George, yes—of course—but there is hardly a point with him, because like a Whack-a-Mole, he is instantly back. But JR—his sense of honor would prevent him coming back under any guise.
He was so reckless in his posts, I guess I should be glad. But somehow I am not. To be sure, I muted his comments. But I usually ended up checking them out one by one anyway.
Oh wait . . .  You mean Juan. Yes, he almost blew a gasket responding to G’s vitriol. He did it well, too. Not that it had the slightest impact on the latter. (But now I am back to wondering what became of the pork chop. Hope he is well.)
Also hope you have been behaving during your absence and that family is well. Now that you are back, turn on the fire-waterworks: 
https://share.icloud.com/photos/036kN6vQPZ9wfl7PnyWb1BJSg
(Oops. My bad. I should not have posted video from the last theocratic gathering. We’ve been asked not to do that.)

Yay! 

I did my one-month penance away from this site, and I'm ready for another 10 years here. LOL.
I hadn't realized that Pudgy also stopped posting the same day. Also, there are dozens of post from George88 that are quoted by others here but when I go back to find the original, they are missing. Looks like JR invoked some of the rules of the forum which may have raised a flag to a moderator. What's left of his requoted comments tells me I probably would not have been much encouraged by the exchanges anyway.
But banning someone like George does almost nothing to remove that kind of vitriol and divisiveness. He still has other active accounts on here anyway. There are times when I think it just makes it worse when old accounts are "reincarnated." Anyone remember these names? 
1 Abusive Behaviour
Moise Racette was warned   March 18, 2023
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Chioke Lin was warned  July 15, 2022
 Acknowledged   15 Abusive Behaviour
César Chávez was warned   May 13, 2021
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Leander H. McNelly was warned  March 8, 2020
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
DefenderOTT was warned  October 24, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Abusive Behaviour
Sean Migos was warned  October 24, 2019
 Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Allen_Smith was warned   October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged   1 Spamming
divergenceKO was warned  October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 1 Abusive Behaviour
Foreigner was warned October 23, 2019
Not Yet Acknowledged 5 Abusive Behaviour
AllenSmith was warned   July 2, 2018
 Acknowledged  

Tyrannosaurus eggshells maybe. No eggshell that I’ve ever encountered.

What do you think happened to JWI and James? I banned them. I’m beginning to come around to your point of view. That’s how keen your powers of persuasion are.

You have just expressed the common and pedestrian viewpoint which typifies the shallowness of those who reside in the open club. However, your statement also provides opportunity for the rare person who possesses true wisdom and insight to let his brilliance and intellectual rigor shine brightly beneath all the sun. This is crucial to recognize. But where in the world is there in the world a man so extraordinaire? C’est moi, who resides—where else?—in the closed club.
The nugget of pure wisdom to be revealed today, which you would do well to write upon the surface of your brain: @Pudgy and @JW Insider are one and the same. They both have commented here forever. They both disappeared at exactly the same time. What further proof could anyone ask for?

I’m curious, George. Why do you hide behind a moniker? I can think of several reasons why others do it, including their own admissions, but what is the rationalization for your persona? 🙏 @George88
 
@TrueTomHarley JWI mentioned that he was involved in several other projects and activities. I haven’t been active lately, because there’s just too much content and input worth browsing here.
Many miles sent me a message about a month ago that I had a knee jerk reaction to because I took as condescending, but it was most likely done in good faith. Hope he is doing good and can continue despite his pain and convictions about the blood issues.

Oh, yeah! Is he obnoxious? Send him right over! We thrive on people like that! Just doing our bit so the open club can stay pristine.
I hear next on the 10-year list is that blogging’s okay, provided you avoid those ne’er-do-wells in the closed club

Never heard it. But I have my doubts only because this same topic came up at Bethel many years ago around mid-1979 during the Bible reading of Job and a morning text comment by Brother Franz regarding the "yearly" feast days for each of Job's sons. The fact that he added the word "yearly" started the unfounded rumor. 
Then, of course, rumors swirled after the following statement made about celebrations with piñatas, allowed at the time only for Witnesses in Mexico but not California when I used to live in Southern California. That changed in 2003:
*** g03 9/22 p. 24 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
When considering whether to include a piñata at a social gathering, Christians should be sensitive to the consciences of others. (1 Corinthians 10:31-33) A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. Understandably, opinions may vary from one place to another. Hence, it is wise to avoid turning such matters into big issues. The Bible says: “Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.”—1 Corinthians 10:24.
This was the conclusion of an article that admitted the association between piñatas and Christmas traditions. Curiously, the article also noted that the Mexican piñata was not strictly related to Lent, Christmas, and the struggle against Satan, and blind faith, but had an older origin celebrating the BIRTHDAY of the war god Huitzilopochtli.
*** g03 9/22 pp. 22-24 The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition ***
Breaking the piñata became a custom on the first Sunday of Lent. It seems that at the beginning of the 16th century, Spanish missionaries brought the piñata to Mexico.
However, the missionaries may have been surprised (as we were) to find that the native people of Mexico already had a similar tradition. The Aztecs celebrated the birthday of Huitzilopochtli, their god of the sun and war...
As part of their strategy to evangelize the Indians, the Spanish missionaries ingeniously made use of the piñata to symbolize, among other things, the Christian’s struggle to conquer the Devil and sin. The traditional piñata was a clay pot covered with colored paper and given a star shape with seven tasseled points. These points were said to represent the seven deadly sins: greed, gluttony, sloth, pride, envy, wrath, and lust. Striking the piñata while blindfolded represented blind faith and willpower overcoming temptation or evil. . . .
The Piñata Today
Later, the piñata became part of the festivities of the posadas during the Christmas season and continues as such to this day. (A star-shaped piñata is used to represent the star that guided the astrologers to Bethlehem.) Breaking the piñata is also considered indispensable at birthday parties. . . .
We found that for many people in Mexico, the piñata has lost its religious significance and is considered by most to be just harmless fun. In fact, piñatas are used in Mexico on many festive occasions, not just for the posadas or for birthdays.