Anna

The best thing would be if we got the facts from the brothers at that KH. But it's like trying to draw blood out of a stone....
Is it all about trying to make us look squeaky clean again?
I wonder if this will be mentioned on our website....With the facts? 
Let's all have a bet, yay on nay?

The best thing would be if we got the facts from the brothers at that KH. But it's like trying to draw blood out of a stone....
Is it all about trying to make us look squeaky clean again?
I wonder if this will be mentioned on our website....With the facts? 
Let's all have a bet, yay on nay?

@xero@Anna@Pudgy@TrueTomHarley
@Witness
There is some interesting and telling commentary on the TWITTER feed of the THORNTON POLICE DEPT, a local Police department which is one of the law enforcement entities involved in the investigation. GO TO BOTTOM OF NEWS STORIES BELOW TO SEE LINK TO TWITTER CONVERSATION / opt to follow this Police Dept on Twitter.

Copied off local Denver news station, 9News.com, online website:
3 incendiary devices found after murder-suicide at Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall

A woman was shot and killed by her husband, who then killed himself Sunday morning in Thornton.
https://www.9news.com/mobile/article/news/crime/active-shooter-jehovah-witness-church-thornton/73-d3e16d55-2169-40aa-9af1-896f63ce35dc

Article shared from the KUSA app, download the app today at https://www.9news.com/appredirect/.
 
 

Well put, Scripturally based statements….But this is more than a tragedy.
This is a strong MESSAGE - inherent in the actions that played out on that Kingdom Hall property in Denver.
The MESSAGE is a HIGHLY SYMBOLIC EXPRESSION OF RAGE, EXASPERATION, DESPERATION and ANGUISH!!
The perpetrator left behind evidence of this: 1) His murdered wife  2) His murdered self 3) Three incendiary devices found at the scene 4) A 911 phone call at 9 AM telling that there was a fire at the Kingdom Hall
I was told that at a nearby Kingdom Hall Meeting yesterday, it was announced that the murder was carried out by people who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses and it was coincidence that it occurred on Kingdom Hall property. This defies logic. This appears to be deceit without regard for truth and accuracy.
I posit that it would be more constructive for the members of the two congregations that use that Kingdom Hall to ask themselves:
Do I need to be supplicating Jehovah for mercy in any neglected shepherding or lack of love shown to these desperate souls? Did the Shepherds seek the lost sheep as Jesus and Jehovah instruct? Was Justice given to their situation? Both local news sources, Denver7 and 9news, told in their original stories, which have not changed for over 24 hours, that the Police stated that the two murdered adults were former members of a Jehovah’s Witness congregation at this Kingdom Hall.
Why else was this Kingdom Hall chosen as a murder site?
Why else was this Kingdom Hall chosen to be set on fire?
The perpetrator was sending a message to Somebody (singular or plural) who attends THIS Kingdom Hall.
Let he who has ears, listen…
BTW I do attend and am a member of a Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Denver metro area. That does not mean that I know more than the police on site investigating the case. Irrespective of my geographic location, I am able to hear A VERY STRONG and MOST EMPHATIC message being sent by the perpetrator. 
@xero@Anna@TrueTomHarley@Pudgy

I like how all those "brave" folks say they go packing to church....and that none of this would have happened.... but don't they know there is the element of surprise? True, we don't know the whole story yet, but I doubt any of those gun toting people would have changed the outcome of this particular tragic story. It's obvious the husband only intended to kill himself and his wife....and did it pretty quick probably. 
 
 

Any way you look at it the murdered one is a ‘former member.’

You know that "former member" and "was not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses" is the same thing in our eyes, and only depends on who is saying it. I.e a news reporter will say "former member" and someone at the KH may say "they were not Witnesses". 

You know that "former member" and "was not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses" is the same thing in our eyes, and only depends on who is saying it. I.e a news reporter will say "former member" and someone at the KH may say "they were not Witnesses". 

You know that "former member" and "was not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses" is the same thing in our eyes, and only depends on who is saying it. I.e a news reporter will say "former member" and someone at the KH may say "they were not Witnesses". 

TOP STORY TODAY:  DETAILS TO FOLLOW …..

Exactly. I don't think that can be justified unless the behavior is so outrageous that even you would want someone banned for unjustifiable personal attacks on yourself or calls for violence against your religion's leading representatives or some other outrageous forms of speech, imagery, etc. I don't think we should be dishing it out, but I think all of us should learn to handle some name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It's the nature of religious, political and otherwise ideological discussion these days. If we can't handle it, it's something we should discuss with others, because we're just going to see more and more of it in this world.  
I agree with this too. Although I would hate to be the one involved in meting out warnings and suspensions, I think that the worse that should happen is a temporary suspension for those who have OBVIOUSLY broken the rules. Perhaps the suspensions should get a bit longer if a person breaks the rules more often. But the problem is about being fair, because two people may cause just as must dissension and disruption, but one might be more liked or disliked and people would be quicker to suspend the one they dislike. I don't like the fact that a person who is banned forever can't get their posts back, and most of those posts just disappear. If only a couple of posts deserved warnings and suspensions, that's no reason to destroy a history of work by that person.
The only kinds of accounts I would like to see banned are those that come on here like "bots" just to sell a product, where you can't interact with the person about their product. Some software bans them automatically, but a few have slipped onto this forum just to spam with links to advertisements of products.
There's also the idea of private sub-groups. I like these, but they can be overused. I belong to a couple of small mostly JW Biblical discussion forums where you have to be invited. This is fine as far as it goes, and if someone could just come on there to disrupt it would make no sense to invite them. Like having a discussion forum about cats where someone comes on there just to talk about how they hate cats.

Of course 1866 was important in the defeat of the Confederate States of America.
What significance does that have in Bible prophesy?
Nothing whatsoever.

Yes. I don't think anyone else (who has watched multiple-page discussions with him) really doubts that they know him from previous accounts. But not me.  I won't make a big deal about that any more. I told him I wouldn't. He has just as much right to post as anyone, under whatever account name he chooses. It's not like he's really fooling anyone anyway.

True. I used your number. Makes me wonder what date you thought your number would lead you? You might be able to see your mistake for yourself if you could answer that. Where did you think your 653 date would lead? 
 
It just means that either you can't see it yet, or if you can, you prefer to pretend that you can't see it so that you don't have to admit a mistake. You would probably get a better understanding of Brown's theory if you would try to answer any of the questions that have been raised. For example, try these three questions that can now be put in a simple YES or NO format:
1. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were of a length different from 1,260? Yes or No. 2. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were 2,520 years in length? Yes or No. 3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No. If you think the answer is YES to any question, then simply quote the reference.
I suspect that you know the answer but will dodge the question and, if past is prologue, you might even claim that I'm the one dodging the question. Still, they are simple questions, and if you can't or won't answer, people can just make a note of that and move on. Perhaps more serious persons would be interested in the topic.

AND, while we wait for the New System, instead of paying some Sky Pilot good money for fake news, use that same money to buy pork chops, rub them on your clothes, lay flat on the floor, and have someone pour onto you a box full of puppies.
…….. close enough.

Why am I reminded of a certain local sister’s remark years ago about witnessing to her own former people, the Pentecostals? ‘When they’ve got their music on, you can’t touch em.’
In the background as I write this, family members play ‘Jehovah Give Me Courage’—it’s not only music, but video. 

Are you crazy?!
Posting your social security number is an invitation to identity theft!
***
I demand credit for this thread! Don’t give it to Moise. How unjust!
TrueTom writes about John Brown. JWI responds with John A Brown, the chronology writer.
What’s next?
TrueTom: Robert E Lee commanded the . . .
Anna: ‘There used to be a Bob Lee as I was learning the truth. What a character he was!’
TrueTom: Jefferson Davis presided over the . . . 
Pudgy: ‘Dave Jefferson, the Presiding Overseer of the Backwoods congregation, was a . . . 
TrueTom: Frederick Douglass spoke powerfully for . . . 
Amidstheheroes: ‘Fred Douglas, our table head, back when I . . . ‘
TrueTom: Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward, was the one who . . 
JWI: ‘Brother Stewart Williams, a plumber by trade, was stuck with the task of cleaning out the sewars on one particularly . . .

"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach".
Aldous Huxley

"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach".
Aldous Huxley

"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach".
Aldous Huxley

Yep. That's a big part of the point I was hoping to make.
J A Brown was likely a strong influence directly or indirectly on William Miller who accepted the 1844 date. Miller was very influential on Nelson Barbour who had been a Second Adventist follower of Miller, and Barbour was the one who added 1873 and 1914 to Miller's mix, similar to how J A Brown had previously added 1873 and 1917. And Barbour was obviously very influential on C T Russell who admits that he learned his chronology from Barbour. And of course, Rutherford and Franz learned it from Russell. 
J A Brown is therefore clearly a part of our own JW history. Which reminds me:
George Santayana: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Karl Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." (Romans 15:3, 4) . . .“The reproaches of those reproaching you have fallen upon me.” 4 For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction,. . .

No. It's just that some people might still be confused about what J A Brown said. He never said that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917. It looks like you are confusing what Brown said about the "4 Tyrannies" (2,520 years) running for "7 times" starting with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar until 1917. You were probably led to believe that Brown considered those 7 times to be the Gentile Times. Of course, these could NOT be the Gentile Times, according to Brown, because for him, the Gentile Times were only 3.5 times (a time, 2 times, and a half a time), not 7 times.
Brown said that the Gentile Times started in AD 622 and would end in AD 1844. Brown said that the Gentile Times would be 1,260 years long: Brown said that AD 1844 would be the end of several different prophetic periods. The 1260 lunar years of Mohammedan (Muslim) Impostuture (from AD 622) The 1260 solar years of Papal claims to infallibility (from AD 584) The 2300 solar years of Jewish Polity & cleansing of the Sanctuary (from BC 457) The thought is repeated several times by Brown.

----------------

----------------

Just read several pages of his book. You'll see that this has nothing to do with theory. It's all pretty straightforward and he repeats a lot of the same things over and over again.
 

42

The points  I get from all of this discussion is that in the last two millennium, EVERYONE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.
And there have been NO exceptions.

I wonder what you thought John Brown was right about, then, when you said "that doesn't mean he was wrong about 1914."
For the record John A Brown (in 1823) said that:
The end of the Gentile Times was going to be just a few years off, in the year AD 1844. The beginning of the Gentile Times was the start of Mohammedism (Muslims) in AD 622. The Gentile Times were 3 and 1/2 times in length, using the length Revelation 11:2 assigns to them. Multiple times he clarifies that the length of the Gentile Times in Luke21:24 = 1,260 (day/yrs) The reason this looks like only 1,222 [solar] years is because he uses "Mohammedan" lunar years So there is really nothing about John A Brown thinking there are "seven" Gentile Times. (Of course, the ONLY length of time that the Bible ever associates with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 is 1,260 days, so Brown uses that period in years.)
The completely separate 2,520 year period which he derives from Daniel 4 is a period he sets to the start of Nebuchadnezzar's first year of reign in 604 BCE. That would be the year to start the "head of gold" from the image found in Daniel 2  So to Brown it's unrelated to Jewish or Messianic rulership, or the destruction of the Temple about 18 or 19 years later (which Brown would have therefore associated with 587 or 586 BCE.)
And Brown never indicates that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917 or any time around World War I. He ends the Gentile Times in 1844. He ends Daniel's 1,290 day period in 1873. And he ends Daniel's 1,335 day period in 1917. Because all the periods started with the beginning of the Muslim Mohammedan religion in AD 622.
C.T.Russell and many other commentators had focused on the Papal and secular politics of the Holy Roman Empire, using only Solar years, and therefore had started the 1,260 "days" earlier and ended them in 1799. That made the 1,290 "days" end in 1829 and the 1,335 "days" end in 1874. J A Brown appears to be the first commentator to end the 2,300 days in 1844, which Adventists also accepted, both using solar years and starting around Ezra's time in 457 BC.