@The Finger:
You have not provided any evidence of CT Russell believing that 1914 was the start of Christ's invisible presence. You maybe right. You maybe uncomfortable that you are wrong and do not wish to talk about it but would rather talk of it as being unrighteous in discussing it. I don't know.
It was after reading your post and checking my previous posts in this thread, that I came to realize that I had been mistaken in what I had written as to Russell's having made an adjustment in his viewpoint from the year 1874 to 1914 as to when it was the start of Christ's invisible presence would be. Thank you for pointing out this error of mine to me. In a previous post, I'm sure you will recall having asked me the following question:
When did Russell make this adjustment to believing the invisible presence was in 1914? and could you show me a quote from the Watchtower of the time period that shows this adjustment. Was it before 1914 or after? I understand from your previous posts you have an extensive library of older publications.
I told you that while I do have an extensive library of older WTS publications, that I had no interest in reviewing them just to answer your question because these older publications contain so many errors in them that one must read them while at the same time remembering what things we knew at that time in order to comprehend some of the statements that these older publications contain, since many adjustments have occurred since Rutherford's day, adjustments regarding some of the things that Russell had taught in his day. Over the years, Jehovah's Witnesses have obtained a progressive understanding of the Bible that makes some of the statements we read in older publications somewhat incomprehensible.
Now @Mad Dawg had indicated in one of his posts how Russell had predicted 1914 --
[3] How do I know they are God’s sole channel? They predicted 1914.
-- and so, in my response. I pointed out to him that Russell didn't predict any dates, least of all make the claim that the world would come to an end in 1914, and any statements to this effect would be false. Russell hasn't predict 1914, but believed that the Gentile Times as to which Jesus spoke at Luke 21:24 would end in 1914, so I went on to tell @Mad Dawg the following:
This year -- 1914 -- was calculated as being 2,520 years following the beginning of the Gentile times, which began in the year 607 BC, and so, in the year 1914, the Gentile times would come to an end, thus being the year when the Lord Jesus Christ would have the right to begin ruling as king 'in the midst of his enemies.' (Psalm 110:2) Pastor Russell had from 1876, for almost 40 years, preached 1914 as a marked year, but he never made any predictions as to what would occur at that time.
But I added the following sentence to my post, which was incorrect:
In addition, Russell preached that the invisible return (or "presence") of Jesus Christ would occur in 1914.
It wasn't Russell, but Jehovah's Witnesses that have been preaching the invisible return of Jesus Christ as occurring in 1914. This is what I should have written, but I realize now that what I actually wrote creditted Russell with knowledge that he definitely didn't have at the time. In the very first issue of the Watch Tower that Russell published back in 1879 we see what Russell believed at the time, as the magazine was called, "Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence"! In 1879, Russell was heralding the invisible presence of Jesus Christ as having begun five years earlier, that is, in the year 1874. Russell believe Jesus' presence would last for 40 years until 1914, the year he had calculated as being when the end of the Gentile Times would be fulfilled. (Luke 21:24)
Now when you stated the following in an earlier post --
I don't understand what you mean when you say "In addition, Russell preached that the invisible return (or "presence") of Jesus Christ would occur in 1914".... Which suggests to me he believed Christ was invisible present in 1876 and a visible presence some time after 1914.
-- and I had replied --
Although Barbour decided in 1883 to abandon his teaching in an invisible presence and began to teach the Adventists' view of a visible presence in 1896, Russell made an adjustment in his viewpoint, believing 1914 to be the year of Jesus' invisible presence, so your quoting older publications that say that Russell believed otherwise only suggests that the man's beliefs were not static, but were progressive.
-- I didn't realize that I had typoed in that post in my saying that Russell believed 1914 to be the year of Jesus' invisible presence and opposed to what Adventists had been teaching as to Jesus' visible presence occurring in 1896. When I should have written "1874," I discovered that I had written "1914," so I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention, for it had not been my intention to mislead anyone as to what Russell believed at the time.
I tend to review the older WTS publications to see how a particular doctrinal viewpoint had been explained at that time, but I do not review the older publications to prove that Russell or Rutherford or Knorr had signed off on statements included in these publications that were erroneous, since I know Jehovah's Witnesses today have obtained a progressive understanding of many Bible truths that Russell, Rutherford and Knorr obviously didn't have in their day.
You will recall, too, that I also told you:
I don't care what Russell may have believed at any particular time before his death because whatever errors he may have made during his lifetime -- and he made many errors, proving that he was as human as you and I are -- he was acquitted for his sins when he died. (Romans 6:7)
Consistently, I went on to tell @flipper:
It makes no difference to me what Russell may have believed before he died 94 years ago, or what he may have believed in 1874, or 42 years before his death, as to when Jesus' invisible presence began. Jehovah's Witnesses believe his invisible presence began concurrently with the composite visible sign that began to appear in the year 1914....
The man was led [by] holy spirit, and it is not like the holy spirit got the date wrong, but an imperfect human that was neither infallible nor inspired by God to determine the correct date using the dates that had been determined by Adventists (like Balbour) from the Bible -- that is, if 1874 should be the date that Russell calculated to be when Jesus' invisible presence would begin -- got the date wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses believe 1914 to be the correct date when the invisible presence of Jesus began and we teach accordingly.
@The Finger:
However it seems to me from reading Matt. 24. that Christ warned there would be those that said he was here when he wasn't. CT Russell seemed to be one who claimed that. It seems F Franz claimed he had seen the "sign of the son of man" when he hadn't. What am I to think?
At Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus was telling his disciples about visible Messiahs, about "false Christs" that would rise up so as to mislead the chosen ones:
"Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. Look! I have forewarned you. Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it."
Your question here cannot have anything at all to do with Jesus' warning his disciples in the first century AD about the emergence of "false Christs," especially considering that Jesus said these things would occur before the "great tribulation" that occurred in 70 AD as made clear at the very beginning of Matthew 24:29:
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened...."
The point is that Russell made no such claim at all, and as for what you say here as to what Franz said, so what? Just like Russell, the man is dead and as is the case will all man, Franz wasn't perfect and he could well have made as many zany statements during his lifetime as did Russell, Rutherford and Knorr. I don't care about human foibles; what I care about is the truth. Mistakes are typically made when one is seeking and searching for the truth, and I'm ok with that.
One other thing I'd like to clear up here: I do not like strawman arguments and I tend to ignore them, except when they are unavoidable. One such strawman is this notion that I have read in this very thread -- @Simon Morley being one of the folks that have advanced this strawman -- that Jehovah's Witnesses have "core beliefs" or "core teachings," listen up: Jehovah's Witnesses do not subscribe to any creed; we have no "core beliefs" or "core teachings."
For example, when Jehovah's Witnesses say that "Jehovah is the true God," this is a fundamental teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, but not a part of any creed that we have; not a "core belief" or a "core teaching" that Jehovah's Witness have: It is simply a fundamental teaching that is derived from a reading of Jeremiah 10:10 and Exodus 6:3. When Jehovah's Witnesses say that "Jesus is God's son" and that we look to Jesus and not Jehovah in connection with out salvation, these, too, are fundamental teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses and not a part of any creed. These are fundamental teachings derived from a reading of John 10:36 and John 20:31; John 5:22, 23; Matthew 25:31-33; and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.
People are often heard saying about Jehovah's Witnesses that we don't hold Jesus as being our Savior, but while Jehovah's Witnesses do follow Jesus' lead in glorifying God, God exalted Jesus as "Chief Agent and Savior" (Acts 5:31), and to Jesus all authority was given so that all "should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:9-11). Consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses give due honor to God's son as Lord.
Jehovah's Witnesses have beliefs that are based on our understanding of the Bible and we accordingly teach these things.
This idea that our understanding of when "this generation" began (Matthew 24:34) and our understanding of when the sign of Christ's invisible presence occurred (Matthew 24:3), or even our understanding of when the symbolic scarlet colored seven-headed wild beast came out of the abyss (Revelation 17:3, 8), are not "core beliefs" or "core teachings" of Jehovah's Witnesses. What things we believe and teach are based on inspired prophecies that by God's will came to recorded in the Bible "that were written for our instruction, that ... we might have hope." (Romans 15:4)
What things Jehovah's Witnesses teach are things that pertain to "the primary doctrine about the Christ" (Hebrews 6:1, 2) and nothing more. Accordingly, the only "core beliefs" or "core teachings" that Jehovah's Witnesses have, "the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), are those things that are recorded in God's word, the Bible. (John 17:17)
@OnTheWayOut:
I hope you are very happy with not just the wool, but a whole sheep pulled over your eyes. I see no point in further discussions with you as we are at opposite ends of the JW belief spectrum. I am certain that you are not so brazenly posting on an apostate website, yet actually believe all your positions that harmonize with WTS, so that simply makes you a troll on this forum seeking attention. Good day to you.
My positions harmonize with the Bible, not with the WTS. You are stuck on this idea that the WTS has assumed the role of "the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). The 144,000 is "the congregation of the living God," also known as "the faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 23:33), whereas the WTS is just a publishing company staffed with Jehovah's Witnesses that prints the literature that Jehovah's Witnesses use in their Christian ministry, through which company, the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses provides instructions to assist the worldwide association of Jehovah's Witnesses.
You have been misled. Although it is not advisable that Jehovah's Witnesses visit websites like this one for some of those whose faith is weak might, upon reading some of the statements made on even this website, might begin to develop serious doubts as to their faith. Most of the people on this forum whose posts I've read are having what faith they may have had once eroded away by those of you that have no faith at all, and that is why the WTS has published many articles suggesting that websites like this be avoided as a protection to those who might think their faith to be strong only to discover their faith isn't as strong as they may have thought. Many of you here whose faith was rather weak when you came to this forum have ignored the advice given you by the governing body, and so many of you have faded away and it's possible that you may in time even leave the spiritual light found in God's organization to inhabit the spiritual darkness where many of the folks here now dwell.
The net result for many of the folks here is that due to their inability to recognize flawed arguments and flawed reasoning when they hear them, for many here have ended up succumbing to the many nonsensical and stupid arguments launched by disgruntled and bitter servants of God that had their own axes to grind against someone, after leaving or having been expelled from God's organization for unchristian conduct, and that "someone" is the Big Bad WTS.
This mythical WTS, which isn't a real person, doesn't have nine heads, isn't any group of people, and certainly doesn't represent the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but is merely the publishing organ that Jehovah's Witnesses use to publish the Bibles and Bible-based literature that we use in our preaching work, an impersonal entity. What's especially sad though is that many of you should not have come here, for the quality of your faith has suffered as you buy into all of this nonsense about the Big Bad WTS. The apostle Paul wrote about these very ones at 2 Timothy 4:3, 4:
For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.
The WTS is the publishing arm of Jehovah's Witnesses and that's all it is. If Jehovah's Witnesses didn't have it own publishing arm, many of us would use a printing/copying facilities like Kinko's as some Jehovah's Witnesses are, in fact, doing in their copying the study articles of the Watchtower that they are using at the Kingdom Hall. It's funny that I don't yet hear any comments from anyone here about folks being misled by Kinko's!
The apostle Paul, in referring to God's heavenly "woman," the "Jerusalem above," who is Jehovah's wifelike organization of spirit creatures in heaven, which corresponds to "the free woman" Sarah, who was once been a "barren woman" (Galatians 4:26; Isaiah 54:1) until "she" finally gave birth to a son, Isaac, who corresponds to the seed of promise, Jesus, when in 29 AD he was begotten with holy spirit, for which event the angels in the "Jerusalem above" had for many centuries been anxiously awaiting since Jehovah had first uttered the prophecy about the seed. (1 Peter 1:12; Genesis 3:15)
It was an Pentecost in 33 AD that more spiritual sons came to be produced by God's "woman" through their anointing with holy spirit and when the ingathering of those that remained of her 144,000 sons ended, "the things in the heavens," then it was that the ingathering of Jesus' "other sheep," "the things on the earth," began. (Ephesians 1:10; John 10:16)
At Galatians 4:26, Paul stated. "the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother," and often many Jehovah's Witnesses can be heard referring to the WTS as "mother," but this is just an affectionate way of referring to the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the anointed servants of God that not only provide oversight to Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide from Brooklyn, NY, which is also where the WTS is located, but who, as long as they continue to be human beings here on earth, also represent "Jerusalem above." When each of these anointed servants of God dies, he or she will each be raised up as an immortal God, just as their brother, Jesus, had become when he was raised up. (John 20:28; 1 Corinthians 15:23, 42-44; 1 Peter 3:18)
Now if all of my positions harmonize with the Bible, please tell me how this in your mind makes me "a troll ... seeking attention"? I know you said in your post, "harmonize with the WTS," but, as I point out here, you have to realize that your saying this sounds about like it would sound had you said "harmonize with Kinko's." You want to bitch and moan, I'm not going to try to get in the way of that, but what I'm saying to you here is that I'm not here as "a troll ... seeking attention" as you characterized me here. And like you, I'm not a child either, but you come off to me as if you think me to be a child, because only a child might be persuaded to believe that by the things that you have said here to me that you manifest the intellect of someone wise when it comes to understanding the Bible. Did you not know that Jehovah actually "catches the wise in their own cunning" or that "the reasonings of the wise men are futile"? (1 Corinthians 3:19, 20)
Have you actually taken the time to read and study God's word? Or have you, like many Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty of doing, been memorizing certain scriptures, memorizing certain things you have read in WTS publications, and reasoning by this that you are someone that knows the truth? I don't quote the Watchtower or any of the WTS publications, except during a congregation meeting or by reference on a website, like this one, where for the benefit of those that do not have access to the Watchtower Library 2009 CD, I will do so. With my knowing the truth, meaning that by my knowing the scriptures upon which the things I am discussing during the Bible-related discussion that I am having with someone are based, I am good to go with the Bible. I'm someone that has been "taught by Jehovah." (John 6:45; Isaiah 54:13)
Now what about you? Your accusing me of "brazenly posting on an apostate website" and calling me a troll demonstrates only an ignorance in you. You r conscience doesn't seem to prevent you from posting to this particular website, but neither does my conscience forbid me from posting to any website that I might wish. I know that you are an adult and not a child, but I wish you wouldn't make stupid arguments like this one, for, as Paul said at 1 Corinthians 10:29, "For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person's conscience?" I won't allow my freedom to be judged by your conscience, especially considering the fact that your conscience doesn't seem to disturb you in the least from posting here, so why don't you tell me why you believe I shouldn't be posting messages here? I want at least one cogent reason, not an opinion of what you think you understood when you might have been reading or one of the WTS publications.
If you should ever want to return to Jehovah, I can talk to you about that. If you want to give me advice as if you were one of Jehovah's Witnesses yourself, I would no more take advice from a disgruntled expelled Jehovah's Witness as to my obligations as being one of Jehovah's Witnesses than I would take advice from a pedophile on how to properly raise my children. Please take a moment to read what I wrote in this last sentence so that you're clear on what I said and what I did not say, since I do know there to be a lot of ignorance on this forum: I did not say nor did I call you a pedophile. You may be ignorant about many things, @OnTheWayOut, the truth being just one of those "things," but I don't want my words here to be perceived by you as causing offense if you should read my words here and ignorantly conclude by them that I either said something or called you something here, which I have not done and am not doing.
I just made an analogy similar to what Jesus did at Matthew 17:25-27 when he was trying to make the point to his apostle Peter that kingdom heirs, sons of the kingdom, are not obliged to pay taxes to the king, for only "the strangers" are obliged to do so and "the sons are tax-free." But since they were living at that time under the authority of "the kings of the earth," namely, Roman authority, it would be best for both he and Peter to pay the head tax anyway, so that they do not cause such rulers to stumble. Get it? Notice that Jesus didn't tell Peter that he was obliged to pay taxes to Caesar, but that, in order "that we do not cause them to stumble," Jesus said, we should be paying our taxes.
Likewise, because a pedophile harms children, my point is that it would be foolhardy, even ridiculous, for anyone to be taking advice from a pedophile on child-rearing, so what this analogy says is that I would view as suspect any advice that you might give me as to my obligations as being one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Understand? Let me apologize in advance in the event you or someone else here reading my post should have for any reason be offended by my analogy.
@cantleave:
Is this DJeggnog character for real? He must be counting time with posts that long and so full of sh*t.
I am always "for real," and you should always take what things I say here seriously. As for my "counting time with posts," that has to be a joke, right? It's just not possible that you would have made such a stupid statement and been serious when you were making it, am I right?
Right now, as I am putting together this post, I am informally rendering direct service to God in His Great Spiritual Temple. You see, I love studying the Bible and talking to folks about the Bible, so why shouldn't I make it count as sacred service? Whenever you have a family study at home, that would be direct service to God. Whenever you should attend meetings at the Kingdom Hall, that would be sacred service to God. Should you raise your hand to participate during any of the meetings held there, this would be sacred service, all of it being direct service to God.
Would it be appropriate to count and report such time I might be spending in direct service to God? No, as a family head, it would not be appropriate for me to do so and what we are typically reporting when we count time spent in direct service to God is formal and informal witnessing to persons who are not already dedicated servants of Jehovah. Did you not know this?
Today, in Jehovah's great Spiritual House, we're to maintain cleanness, wearing our "white robes," meaning that we are must be clean physically, clean mentally, clean morally, clean emotionally, clean spiritually, and in every way if we are to have the privilege of serving in His temple, both "day and night." (Revelation 7:13-15) Those are our basic responsibilities in Jehovah's great house, to render Him sacred service day and night, and to maintain the purity of our white robe, maintaining a clean standing before God, and those who appreciate their privileges at His house will do their best to carry out these responsibilities I just mentioned.
This website is put up for entertainment, and the fact that I'm serious about the things I say here, the things I post here, doesn't transform this website into anything other than this, or make what things I do here in speaking to you and others that also visit this website become more than this: Posts to a website that was put up for entertainment purposes. Am I serving God? Yes. Am I now in God's spiritual temple? Yes. Were I to take the ten-minute drive to the local Starbucks here and spend another ten minutes there drinking a beverage, a coffee, would I be in God's spiritual temple? No, I would not.
What if I had spent that ten minutes speaking to someone about the Bible, who was not already a dedicated servant of God, would I then be in God's temple giving God direct worship? Yes, I would. What if the person with whom I was speaking at the coffee shop those ten minutes was a brother in good standing; would that be direct worship to God? No, it would not. What if the person with whom I was speaking at that coffee shop those ten minutes was a brother not in good standing, someone that had been disfellowshipped; would that be direct worship to God? No, it would not. One other question:
What if the person with whom I was speaking at that coffee shop those ten minutes was a brother not in good standing, someone that had been disfellowshipped, to whom I had been assigned to help restore him to spiritual health; would that be direct worship to God? Yes, it would.
Now did you follow this? Were you able to follow any of what I just said to you here? I'm going to put a question to you now as a kind of review to see if you were able to comprehend all of what I've said here as you are here calling into questions my motives for spending so many hours composing and posting responses to some of the posts here. Are you ready? I'm sure you still remember how it was we did things when you were yourself attending meetings at the Kingdom Hall. Here's are two (2) questions, each of them with "(a)" and "(b)" parts:
1(a). Do you think it would be direct worship to God for me to post messages to this website? Yes or no?
(b) Why do you so answer?
2(a). Do you think it would be appropriate for me to count and report the amount of time I have spent here posting responses to messages here? Yes or no?
(b) Why do you so answer?
@djeggnog
