Anna

(Matthew 24:15, 16) 15 “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.
(Mark 13:14) 14 “However, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader use discernment), then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains.
(Luke 21:20-28) 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, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. 25 “Also, there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation. 26 People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 But as these things start to occur, stand up straight and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is getting near.”
The words of Mark and Matthew implied that the Romans would have come right up to the Temple to defile it, and that this was the time to leave as quickly as possible. We know from Josephus that Jews read Daniel's "abomination of desolation" to be based on Antiochus IV, who: according to common knowledge had done as follows, 200 years earlier:
In 168 BC, the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes invaded Jerusalem and captured the city. He marched into the Jewish temple, erected a statue of the Greek god Zeus, and sacrificed a pig on the altar of incense. This provoked a revolt in Judea as the Jews fought to remove Antiochus’ sacrilege from the temple. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/abomination-temple/
But Titus did not do anything akin to this in 66. Although in 70, he did. You can see almost direct evidence of this today by looking at the Arch of Titus.
In that year, the Roman general Titus invaded Jerusalem to crush a Jewish revolt, entered the temple, had the building destroyed, and carried off the lampstand and other temple artifacts to Rome.
So, it seems likely that it was not specifically anything in 66 (in Jesus' prophecy) that would have triggered a fleeing to Pella, nor does anyone who believed in a Pella flight actually time it to 66. Cestius Gallus did plunder the Temple [funds] and it resulted in a counter-attack by the Jews that was mostly successful. So this was an excellent time to leave, and both Jews and Romans got out of the city at that time. Wikipedia says:
The Roman governor, Gessius Florus, responded by plundering the Second Temple, claiming the money was for the Emperor, and the next day launching a raid on the city, arresting numerous senior Jewish figures. This prompted a wider, large-scale rebellion and the Roman military garrison of Judaea was quickly overrun by the rebels, while the pro-Roman king Herod Agrippa II, together with Roman officials, fled Jerusalem. As it became clear the rebellion was getting out of control, Cestius Gallus, the legate of Syria, brought in the Syrian army, based on Legion XII Fulminata and reinforced by auxiliary troops, to restore order and quell the revolt. Despite initial advances and the conquest of Jaffa, the Syrian Legion was ambushed and defeated by Jewish rebels at the Battle of Beth Horon with 6,000 Romans massacred and the Legion's aquila lost.
But at that point, Christians would have many months of opportunities to leave the city between 66 and the actual surrounding of Jerusalem in 70. 66 fits some of what Jesus said, but it was not a case so desperate that one would be unable to even grab a coat from inside your house. That was more like the situation just before Passover in 70. This is probably why Eusebius, who had read both Josephus and knew the Bible very well, believed the fleeing to Pella to be based on an angelic revelation.

Using the quotes extracted from Eusebius and Epaphanius in a Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Pella
It might be interesting to note that the impetus to leave Jerusalem and go to Pella was not specifically credited to Jesus' prophecy in Matthew/Mark/Luke, but to an angel, or a specific oracle/revelation/prophecy given just before the war. This would put it on par with the prophecy of Agabus (Acts 11:27, 28) . . .In those days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Agʹa·bus stood up and foretold through the spirit that a great famine was about to come on the entire inhabited earth, which, in fact, did take place in the time of Claudius.
This is a curious report then by Eusebius, that he doesn't tie it to Matthew 24, or Luke 21, for example. (Epiphanius may have "corrected" this nearly 100 years after Eusebius, when he credited the flight to Jesus warning about the city being surrounded.)
The idea that the command only went to those in the city who were worthy, might also imply that there were reports that some [less worthy] Christians had died in Jerusalem's destruction.   Epaphanius had referenced Jesus' prophecy in his book Panarion, but in "Weights and Measures" he pretty much agreed with Eusebius:  

Unfortunately, this has been going on even from the time that the scriptures were written, or at least from very shortly after the NT was completed. This means that even the very idea that there had been an escape to Pella might just be from persons with their own agenda.
The best evidence that comes down to us is from Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis. Eusebius wrote his "Ecclesiastical History" (Church History) between about 300 and 325. Epiphanius would have written "Panarion" around 375. We don't know what, if anything, was written on this topic between 70 CE and 300 CE.
So this might be a little like someone just now trying to make a story about what direction we believe small bands of native Americans (Indians) ran to in 1775 in upstate NY when Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold were capturing the guns at the British Fort Ticonderoga (which would just precede a siege of Boston and the building of a fortification of stakes around parts of that city).
The "American Indians" were not a big part of that story, so there is very little written down about what they did. If someone came up with a new story about it 200 to 250 years later, we might not put much trust in it. But, then again, we might assume that there were some verbal or even written records that could be gathered up from various families in the area, and that there was some truth to such a story.
We have some evidence that the apostles generally stayed in Jerusalem, per Jesus' instructions just after he was resurrected. In Galatians (and corroborated in Corinthians) Paul mentions a period of 14 years after his conversion when he finally goes to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles. If Paul converted before 36, then this refers to a time prior to 50 CE., when at least some apostles were still there. Peter and John are mentioned specifically, and James who was also mentioned had not been considered an apostle. Acts also does not mention any additional apostles (except Peter and James) still alive or around at this time. If there had been an instruction to all the apostles to stay in Jerusalem, for the purpose of forming an apostolic group to study the scriptures and devote themselves to prayer, then it may have already accomplished its purpose and broken up before 50 CE.
We hear of the "The Twelve" in Acts 6, still in Jerusalem, when they send out Stephen and Philip, for example. (Still prior to Paul's conversion.) By chapter 8 of Acts we hear about the group of "apostles in Jerusalem," and how both Peter and John had been sent to Samaria (and we know from Galatians that Peter had gone as far as Antioch). But by chapter 11 of Acts we only hear of some older men in Jerusalem and only one apostle there, Peter. By the time we reach 11:29 we only hear about the effect of the famine on "the brothers living in Judea." This matches about the same timing as Paul spoke of in Galatians and elsewhere when Paul brought collections back to the brothers in Jerusalem "keeping the poor in mind." Then in the next verses of Acts (Acts 12:1-3) we see that Herod has just put the Apostle James (brother of John) to death (not the same James of "James, Peter, and John" in Galatians) and goes after Peter.
After the destruction, we see John the apostle up around the isle of Patmos, but this could have been an exile from anywhere, not necessarily Jerusalem.
So, we really don't know how long the apostles stayed together in Jerusalem, or whether Herod broke that up even prior to the work of Paul and Barnabas, that brought them to Jerusalem (Acts 15). No Bible writer mentions Pella. I don't think there is anyone we know about who mentioned anything about a flight to Pella until 200 years later. There are plenty of letters and stories and other Christian writings between 70 and 300, but no evidence about Pella.
Still, we have the history (through Josephus) of the attack on Jerusalem, and the fact that the Romans started to attack in 66 and then decided to withdraw and not come back until they were ready to wage the war from start to finish in 70. Perhaps no Christians left in 66, although this seems like the time that would fit best. It's possible that most Christians had already left during Herod's persecution. It's possible that most Christians left just as the final approach was being made in 70 around the time of the Passover.
The most "ideal" story says that Christians recognized Jesus warning when Jerusalem was approached in 66, and that they then left and stayed away for about a 3-and-a-half year period until Jerusalem was destroyed with its Temple in 70. But we have no evidence from Josephus or anyone else about that.
It might also be wishful thinking to believe that no Christians were killed during the destruction of Jerusalem, as Epiphanius claimed 300 years later.
As to the idea that John was the only apostle alive after 70, there is an interesting passage in John that seems to refer to his age and the timing of the parousia.
(John 21:20-24) . . .Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, . . . 21 So when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.
I like your questions and there is much more to say about them, but I'll stop for now.

I thought it was funny when he kept repeating "this is HUGE!"
Personally, I did not see anything amazing about this although the guy used every facial expression, emotive tone and dramatic pausing he could to convince. 
There is no hard evidence showing how many Christians there were in the 1st Century, and applying 1986 to 2019 calculations of exponential growth on the growth rate in the 1st Century just cannot be accurate (with or without miracles). Besides that, after the death of the apostles, the Christian congregation apostatized, which means that not every so called "Christian" would have been of the anointed. 
 
 

Thanks for drawing my attention to that. I must remember to use the word evidence rather than proof. "Evidence" is a lot more forgiving 😃

Thanks for drawing my attention to that. I must remember to use the word evidence rather than proof. "Evidence" is a lot more forgiving 😃

We are getting tied up in semantics here. There is always going to be someone "put in charge" of a group who have some assignment to do. Did you never get put in groups at school, perhaps a sports team, with a "captain" ? There is nothing sinister about that, just makes practical sense. Also, in the JW arrangement, someone taking the lead is to lead mainly by example. JW 'leadership" roles are modeled on the first century Christian "leadership" roles. The apostle Paul designated brothers to take the lead in various assignments.....and of course the elder arrangement is Biblical also. 
Hebrews 13:7, Acts 6:3, Acts 14:12, Romans 12:8...etc..
 

I get the impression that other ex-JWs, too, would like to give the impression that the majority of abuse is committed by elders (Mark O'Donnell, for example) even if they know better. It's an unbalanced view.

"They" is a very wide ranged group, if you are talking about all ex-JWs. But it's not likely true that an ex-JW will automatically have a more balanced view. Something could have driven them to leave the JWs, or perhaps they just drifted away, or perhaps something they did resulted in their being identified as no longer associated. In any case I can see the strong possibility of the ex-JW being angry about being "forced" into a situation he or she may not have wanted. I think that's a much stronger motive for a lack of a balanced view. And even if not, I have seem exJWs with terribly unbalanced views. I believe you yourself have admitted to some unbalanced views such as not trusting anyone, not even your wife.

As a side note: it seems the issue here is the American database. We are under NO obligation to hand over this database to lawyers, and if for some reason Lawyers do get a hold of them, then they are forbidden to make them public. By law, they have to keep all such documentation strictly confidential. However, if something like the Australian commission was set up here (USA), then perhaps a nameless database would be made public, just like in Australia. But the lawyers aren't interested in that kind of a database, they are interested in names of perpetrators so they can encourage survivors to file lawsuits against the organization and then rake in the cash. Like this they have to rely on survivors coming forward and filing a lawsuit. Most JW survivors are not interested in filing lawsuits against the organization because they see it's obvious the organization cannot be held responsible for every Tom, Dick, and Harry perpetrator (or those mishandling the case).  In contrast, many ex-JW survivors want to sue the organization because they hate it and want to see it "burn".

Actually there is proof. ALL cases in Australia were submitted to the Australian Royal Commission. I have a copy of the file on my pc. When I get the time I will post it. You can peruse it at your leasure and see that the majority of abuses were not committed by elders. There is no reason to believe it would be any different in the other countries....

As a side note: it seems the issue here is the American database. We are under NO obligation to hand over this database to lawyers, and if for some reason Lawyers do get a hold of them, then they are forbidden to make them public. By law, they have to keep all such documentation strictly confidential. However, if something like the Australian commission was set up here (USA), then perhaps a nameless database would be made public, just like in Australia. But the lawyers aren't interested in that kind of a database, they are interested in names of perpetrators so they can encourage survivors to file lawsuits against the organization and then rake in the cash. Like this they have to rely on survivors coming forward and filing a lawsuit. Most JW survivors are not interested in filing lawsuits against the organization because they see it's obvious the organization cannot be held responsible for every Tom, Dick, and Harry perpetrator (or those mishandling the case).  In contrast, many ex-JW survivors want to sue the organization because they hate it and want to see it "burn".

Actually there is proof. ALL cases in Australia were submitted to the Australian Royal Commission. I have a copy of the file on my pc. When I get the time I will post it. You can peruse it at your leasure and see that the majority of abuses were not committed by elders. There is no reason to believe it would be any different in the other countries....

Actually there is proof. ALL cases in Australia were submitted to the Australian Royal Commission. I have a copy of the file on my pc. When I get the time I will post it. You can peruse it at your leasure and see that the majority of abuses were not committed by elders. There is no reason to believe it would be any different in the other countries....

Witnesses did not predict anything.  The magazine highlighted what the experts said - their educated guess - and brought it to the attention of the readers of Awake magazine, like they do with many important and timely subjects. Get over it!

OK ....so the World ignored those experts ..... too.
That's three blind pigs.

He reading Awake in wrong way. :)))
Article said how MANY EXPERTS, Medical Journal VACCINE and JOHN M. BARRY ..... PREDICTED this and that.

In virtually every case except Jehovah’s Witnesses the ones committing the abuse were the ones holding authority or office within the institution
With Jehovah’s Witnesses, that is rarely the case. Their organization is being asked to assume responsibility for any of their members who have ever committed the crime.
It is not exactly apples to apples.
 https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/02/i-almost-wish-there-would-be-more-public-response.html

Not really a bombshell though based on the January 2nd date.
Someone has done some good work here (video below) on the actual timeline. He's an American who has lived in China for a few years. He reads and speaks Chinese very well. (He's not a pro-Communist spokesperson, and has even been involved in the same types of large anti-government protests that thousands of other Chinese citizens have participated in.)
Even the article on Xi's knowledge of the epidemic actually appears to be a good thing, not something nefarious. It fits right into the timeline:
On January 20th, Xi officially acknowledged that there was an epidemic going on. That was two days before he first spoke publicly about it. In the speech released by Xi’s ruling Communist Party, the president told his party members on Jan 7 that he was already taking measures to contain the coronavirus outbreak.
 

It is interesting to note that the (presumably) earliest forms of Christian art (Catacombs in Rome) date from late 2nd century and there is no depiction of a cross. But there is no depiction of a upright stake either (!) It has been argued that this omission could be because the early Christians didn't want to depict anything to do with Jesus' instrument of death for fear of idolatry. Which says a lot about the "Christians" that came after. They did a 180 degree turn and put crosses everywhere.
 

"The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir"
https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html
Of course this assumption is not 100% fool proof either....
Also there is an interesting debate here including an interesting comment "If one wants to get anatomically picky, the eight bones of the human wrist are counted among the 27 hand bones".
I can verify that in some languages there is no distinction between the whole arm or just the hand. In order to specify what one means you have to say either arm*, or forearm. Usually the context clarifies what one means; for example "wash your hands" wouldn't mean wash your whole arm, but it can get confusing  if you say you broke your arm, because that could mean your hand. Of course there are exact terms for the parts of the upper limb just as there are in English: shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm, wrist and hand. But as you can see the word arm* in English could include all those parts, excluding the hand . When I fractured my knee, people would say I broke my leg. Languages are interesting!
@JOHN BUTLER Bones of the hand include the wrist

 

This is one topic that I would not be dogmatic about when @JOHN BUTLER asked about "when I go into the ministry do I tell people that I might have the truth but I might not"  because as @Outta Here rightly remarked, we cannot know it's shape with absolute certainty. So when covering the cross/stake issue in the Bible teach book with a student, I just simply say that we cannot know what it was 100% either way.
My personal view is there is no reason it couldn't have been a cross, since this is what the Romans traditionally used, but they may not have used it every time, so it easily could have been a stake as well. The early Bible students used the crown and cross emblem, until they decided the cross was not a suitable symbol. One reason why I think that was because as time went on they realized that they must distance themselves from counterfeit Christianity, and since Christendom used the cross and they did not want to be identified with anything that Christendom used,  they dug deeper and discovered its pagan origins etc. But just because it was pagan didn't mean it couldn't have been used in Jesus' execution, after all the Romans WERE pagan! In my opinion the  whole bad thing about the cross is that not only is it pagan and used by supposed Christians as a symbol of Christianity (!) but that it is used in a way which God clearly condemns. If it was a stake (or anything else for that matter) and used in the same way as a cross, it would be the same thing.
To be truthful, personally I really don't think its important to know exactly what shape the instrument of Jesus' death was.

Sorry, but the answer is yes, I have seen most Watchtower leaders practicing love among one another, especially to the flock, and also practicing love to those we might otherwise consider our enemies when it comes to a preaching, and giving of our time to take a message of hope to them.
The kinds of elders or leaders who end up being involved in disfellowshipping those who disagree with doctrine are only working on one part of what they consider to be a Christian duty. I agree that it might show a lack of love with some, but only in that one activity, and not because most of them realize the lack of love. To most it's just a painful job that someone has to do. I know for a fact that elders sometimes cry during and after a judicial meeting. They imagine they are doing an act of sacred service.
(John 16:2) . . .Men will expel YOU from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone that kills YOU will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God.
But sometimes we must forgive them, for they know not what they do. And other times, perhaps most of the time, they are doing the right thing. They ARE performing an act of sacred service. There is a scriptural basis for different versions of this practice.

Given my newfound resolution, I am exploring whether I feel that there any value whatsoever in starting threads on this open JW forum. I am not sure that there is. The ones who object are not doing any more than they have done from Day one, but just rubber-stamping what they have said many times in the past—they get me worked up to no purpose. I do like to keep my finger on the pulse of what the opponents are up to, and I have benefited in some cases by seeing where they are coming from—still there are many many ways of keeping up to date.
I mean, when you repeatedly see such remarks as “dear old Elder Tom because he is deliberately using thousands of words to say what could be said in two sentences,” I have to bite my tongue every time so as not to scream, “the problem is that you are too stupid to read more than two sentences!” Or as when he commends Witness, though saying some of her thoughts were “over his head,” not to hit back with “anything is over your head!” Who needs the aggravation?

So far, very little has gone on in that club. There were a few discussions of what people liked or didn't like about recent and/or upcoming Watchtower studies. It was probably considered better to discuss such things without every topic being turned into: "Yes that's true but you also have a CSA problem." You might not believe it, but we had a guy here once who could take any topic, even one about how you might pronounce YHWH, and would still find a way to weave in a dig about CSA.