Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

by flipper 269 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Essan

  Djeggnog,

  So, you aren't willing/able to discern from the quotes that I left that Russell taught that Jesus "invisible coming" would be in 1914. It's bizarre to me that you can't discern it from those quotes, but no matter. I'll hand feed you some more, seeing as you won't bother to research it yourself.

  You said: "To my knowledge, the Watchtower has never taught that the invisible coming of Christ began in 1914. Never."

  Well seeing as your "knowledge" has already proven to be so deeply flawed, you'd think you simply ask for more specific information, of find it yourself, rather than presuming - once again - to teach and make bold claims out of sheer ignorance. So, I have a question for you. If Russell didn't predict that Jesus "coming" would be in 1914. Then when?

  There is a simple way to settle this actually. Does Jesus "invisible coming" occur just before/at Armageddon?

  " God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power." 2 Thess 1:6-9.

  So, if Armageddon was predicted by Russell to have finished by the end of 1914, and Jesus would to be ruling the earth by then, when must he have been teaching Jesus would "come"?

  "...the battle of the great day of God Almighty, the date of the close of that "battle" is definitely marked in Scripture as October 1914. - Zion's Watch Tower 1892 January 15 p.23

  " In this chapter we will present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men...Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come,"will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions. Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the domination will then be present as earth’s new Ruler..." - The Time Is at Hand (SS-2), 1907 ed., p. 76-78

  Would you have us believe that Russell taught that the long prayed for "Kingdom would come" in 1914, in it's fullest possible sense, in the earth, but that Jesus would somehow not have "come"? Or that he taught that Christ was present as king from 1874, and that he would also "then be present", in 1914, "as earths new Ruler", but was somehow not stating that this was when he would "come". Rubbish.

  So this matter is settled. Agreed? Russell taught that Jesus invisible coming would be in 1914. Unless you are claiming that Russell taught that the Tribulation would end, Christendom would be destroyed, all Governments destroyed, Armageddon would be over, Christ's Kingdom would be in complete and direct control of the earth - all by late 1914 - but, somehow, he didn't claim that Jesus would have "come" by 1914? If so, that would be insanity.

  But, seeing as even explicit statements seem incomprehensible to you, we'll continue until it penetrates even your fogged mind.

  You claim that Russell never taught that Jesus "invisible coming" was to be in 1914. But you also say: "but Jesus' coming will not occur until after the "great tribulation" when all of the political kingdoms turn on all religions, including ours, which will be then be followed by "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels," IOW, it is after the great tribulation that Jesus' coming begins. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

  So, you give the markers for identifying when this "invisible coming" must begin: The tribulation ends, religion is attacked, and at that point "Jesus coming begins", Armageddon concludes, His Rulership is established in the earth. Yes?

  This, you say, was never taught by Russell as being in 1914. Let's see:

  "The seventh trumpet sounds from Aug. 1840, until "the time of trouble," [Great Tribulation] or day of wrath is ended. Hence, it doubtless ends with the times of the Gentiles, and this forty years of conquest; and therefore, sounds until A. D. 1914; at the end of which, Babylon the great, will have fallen, and the "dragon" be bound: that is, the nations will be subdued, and "the prince of this world cast out."" Three Worlds and The Harvest of This World (1877) p.143

  " 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble" [Great Tribulation] . - The Watchtower Reprints, July 15, 1894, p. 1677

  "And, with the end of A.D. 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as already shown in prophecy." Studies In the Scriptures Series III - Thy Kingdom Come (1891) p.153

  "October, 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea," utterly destroyed as a system." Watch Tower 1911 June 15 p.190

  Here are all the elements you mentioned, pinned on 1914 by Russell! So if the tribulation, according to Russell, ends at the close of 1914 with the destruction of Babylon, and the close of Armageddon, then as you say: "it is after the great tribulation that Jesus' coming begins.", so how did Russell NOT predict this "coming" for the end of 1914?

  Could Jesus be ruling the earth in 1914, and yet not already have "invisibly come"?

  "SETTING UP THE EARTHLY GOVERNMENT ---- Not until the full end of Gentile Times (October, A.D. 1914) should we expect the earthly phase of God's Kingdom; for in giving a lease of dominion to the Gentiles until that date God made no mistake and his plans alter not. The earthly phase of the Kingdom of God when set up will be Israelitish; for such is God's engagement or covenant with Abraham and his natural seed." Studies In the Scriptures Series IV - The Day of Vengeance pp.624,625

  "It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34)-and fully consume the power of these kings." - Studies In the Scriptures Series II - The Time Is at Hand (1889) pp.77, 78 *

  "True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved. In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A. D. 1914." Studies In the Scriptures Series II - The Time Is At Hand (1889) pp.99, 101

  "A. D. 1914, when the day of wrath will be passed, and the resurrection and return of the "whole house of Israel" due." Three Worlds and The Harvest of This World (1877) p.166

  "The beginning of the earthly phase of the Kingdom in the end of A.D. 1914 will, we understand, consist wholly of the resurrected holy ones of olden time-from John the Baptizer back to Abel-"Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the holy prophets." Studies In the Scriptures Series IV - The Day of Vengeance p.62

  DJ, you'd think after being proven wrong repeatedly about what Russell taught that you'd at least pause for thought, but no. Your kamikaze tactic seems to be to make repeated false claims, and when they are disproven, narrow the claim ever further. Don't you see the pattern? Don't you find this embarrassing? Clearly you intent is to defend the Society rather than learn the truth.

  What's fascinating about your response in your last post is this:

  The four WT statements I quoted in my last post are all false. They are Watchtower lies about what Russell taught. The Society's literature of the time proves them all to be totally false. The fascinating thing is that you don't care about that, YOU DON"T CARE THAT THE WATCHTOWER LIES! And your 'defense' is actually, "Well those aren't the particular lies I was talking about, I was talking about a very specific claimed lie and you haven't proved that one".

  This is no defense. It shows you don't care that you religion lies to it's members. And now that lie has been proven false too.

  *Studies In the Scriptures Series II - The Time Is at Hand (1889) pp.77, 78 claimed seven things would happen in 1914. Not one of these eventuated. The following statements are extracted from that list;

  • 1. "the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men. at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will begin to assume control, and that it will then shortly be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions."
    2. He whose right it is thus to take the dominion will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date;
    3. the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the "royal priesthood," "the body of Christ," will beglorified with the Head;
    4. Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down
    5. Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away
    6. the great "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," will reach its culmination in a world-wide reign of anarchy
    7. It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34)-and fully consume the power of these kings."

  http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/1914.html
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Eggnog said:

  Jesus' presence occurred in 1914, not in 1874 as Russell stated, and the Watchtower consistency declares 1914 to be the year when Jesus' invisible presence began,

  You are getting closer here. Russell and the Watchtower said that Jesus’ invisible presence began in 1874. In fact, the Watchtower continued with 1874 until it changed the date in 1943. The WTS has never retracted its statements about 1874. It simply waited 30 years and gave a new date. BTW, if the composite sign of the parousia in 1914 is so obvious, why did it take the WTS 30 years to see it?

  If I were to stop any random JW and ask them “How do you know that the WTS is God’s sole channel?”, would they not respond, “Because they predicted Jesus’ presence in 1914”?
• 

  Essan

  The Finger said: "Djeggnog, lol!"

  It's frustrating isn't it? What do you say to someone who can stare incontrovertible fact in the face and totally ignore it? If you didn't laugh, you'd have to cry.
• 

  Essan

  Bttt - for those who wrongly claim Russell did not predict Christ's "coming" for 1914. :)
• 

  flipper

  " Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see , it's getting hard (for JW's) to be someone- but it all works out - it doesn't matter much to me. Let me take you down 'cause I'm going to Watchtower fields, nothing is real, and something to get hung about ! Watchtower fields forever . " To be sung to the Beatles - Strawberry Fields Forever
• 

  djeggnog

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I've read everything in this thread, but when @Essan goes on to conflate a bad argument that he didn't prove by throwing at it more things he declares to be"lies" into the mix, it's all I can do but wonder why he didn't bother to read what I wrote:

  Can you post here a citation from any of the WTS' publications that specifically [indicates] that Russell predicted "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914"? I'd like to read one of these WTS publications wherein it is stated how Russell actually made a prediction as to "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914." Do you have anything like that?

  @Mad Dawg wrote:

  You are getting closer here. Russell and the Watchtower said that Jesus’ invisible presence began in 1874. In fact, the Watchtower continued with 1874 until it changed the date in 1943. The WTS has never retracted its statements about 1874. It simply waited 30 years and gave a new date. BTW, if the composite sign of the parousia in 1914 is so obvious, why did it take the WTS 30 years to see it?

  First of all, there is a difference between Jesus' "presence" and Jesus' "coming," and I cannot make this any clear than I have made it. In my previois post, was reacting to what @Essan said, not to what he did not say.

  Next, I'm not concerned with "getting closer here." Many of the things that Russell taught are not taught by Jehovah's Witnesses today and haven't been taught for many years now, and just as I wasn't alive when Russell was teaching these things, hardly any of Jehovah's Witnesses today were alive at that time, so they cannot be painted with what things Russell may have believed or taught in his day before they ever heard the truth, let alone before they became dedicated and baptized Witnesses of Jehovah.

  Here's some analogous to this very question: Should reparations be given to blacks here in the US for the wrongs done toward them as a race of people when slavery was institutionalized here in the US, and if so, how much should each family get in recompense for those wrongs and from whom? And if you answer "from the whites that economically benefitted from that institution," but I'd ask you "from which whites" since there are whites that immigrated to the US way after slavery had been abolished -- maybe within the last year, for example, that had nothing at all to do with the goings-on here in this country during the 1700s, 1800s and 1900s, but because of the white privilege automatically accorded them by whites in this country, these white immigrants have become unwitting beneficiaries of the legacy of slavery that preexisted their setting foot on American soil, and so it would be unfair IMO to paint all whites with the same brush since some incurred benefits by their just having shown up white for an employment interview or in finding suitable living quarters in a housing tract or project, or when they submitted an application for their child to attend a specific college or when making application for a business loan.

  This comment was inspired by another thread that I have been following (without comment though), but I am bringing up this fact to make the point that you are free to accuse anyone you wish, least of all Jehovah's Witnesses, for the statements that Russell may have made before any of them were even born, but to ask any of these folks, even Jehovah's Witnesses, to provide an explanation in defense of someone else's statements, especially the ones that they were taught by other Jehovah's Witnesses to have been an incorrect viewpoint, but to do so is like asking white immigrants to pay reparations to blacks for something that none of them were responsible, although they unwittingly became beneficiaries of institutional slavery.

  Personally, I'm not in the least concerned with what things I know Jehovah's Witnesses no longer believe or teach. If long ago, Jehovah's Witnesses were preaching things based on someone else's speculation, then it could well be true that once upon a time we were teaching things that were wholly unscriptural, and I say this without any equivocation. But I only feel responsible for teaching things that I have not personally verified as the truth, and anyone that should repeat something that they may have heard someone say or read somewhere without first verifying its veracity before doing so is guilty of spreading a rumor that may even be a lie or engaging in slander.

  However, there's no way that I'm not going to even try to provide an explanation for any teaching that a dead guy may or may not have taught since I don't personally know whether Russell was responsible for any of these statements on which"you guys" here keep harping or were statements edited by someone on his editorial staff that made it to print for which Russell, as president of the WTS, would have been liable at law, but to which he may or may not have subscribed at all. I do not agree with many of the statements contained in the volumes of "Studies in the Scriptures," but I do agree with some of them.

  As a matter of fact, I recently quoted something in this thread that regarding one of Jesus' extraordinary miracles (Mark 5:22-24, 35-43) had been published in Zion's Watch Tower, April 15, 1900, with which all Jehovah's Witnesses today disagree: "The miracle performed upon Jairus’ daughter is nowhere designated a resurrection, nor was it such in fact.... [Jesus] merely awakened her, leaving her upon the same plane of death on which she had been born, and had thus far lived for twelve years." (Id. at pp. 2617, 2618.) But so what?

  As a licensed LDA here in Los Angeles County that works with other attorneys and has a keen understanding of what is actionable libel or slander and what doesn't constitute defamation of anyone, I am not concerned nor do I worry about someone indicting me for comments made by someone else.

  I might know more about the law than any of you here and this may be why "you guys" here are basically arguing to the wind, because all of you, quite frankly, sound like gossipy women (no offense to the ladies, but I believe we all recognize who the gossipy one are!) that are still in a quandary as to why it is they were no longer welcome as a member of the knitting club: namely, because you were loud and boisterous, and weren't willing to obey the club rules for longer than a week or two before you eventually resumed the loud and boisterous behavior that eventually got them tossed.

  What is important though is not what statements may or may not have been made by a dead guy some 136 years ago. What's important is that we lose the "bitter jealousy and contentiousness" and serve the true God, that we "not be bragging and lying against the truth," but walk in accord with His ways. (James 3:14) And one of the last things I need is for you, @Essan or anyone else here to post scriptures with a view to proving that Pastor Russell was an imperfect soul, because there is one thing on which everyone here will agree (unless they be fools!) that all of us are imperfect sinners that have fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23), which is primarily why some of us were first attracted to the message of the gospel or good news, whether as one of Jehovah's Witnesses or as a God-fearing individual belonging to some other Christian denomination.

  Also, it would be derelict on my part in this vein to not mention the fact that at death we are all acquitted of our sins by God (Romans 6:7), so all of this intrigue over Russell that drives these anti-Jehovah's Witness discussions aside, if you're presently out of the "club," then man-up (or woman-up) and accept this, and do not pretend that the elders are responsible for your decision to leave and stay gone, although it's true that some elders have been responsible for "encouraging" the families of some of their brothers to either change congregations or leave God's organization, making these elders responsible for stumbling some that have taken their unfair treatment seriously, thrown up their hands and left us for good. Hopefully, they will come to their senses and realize that the elders are imperfect men, too, and that not one of them can accurately read anyone's heart and so, as Jesus said, the causes for stumbling come, but "woe to the one through whom they come!" (Luke 17:1)

  You did ask though "if the composite sign of the parousia in 1914 is so obvious, why did it take the WTS 30 years to see it? and I'm sure that I cannot answer your question since it assumes facts not in evidence. On what is this "30 years to see it" part of your question based? Is this conjecture on your part or do you have facts to support this portion of your statement regarding this "30 years"? I'd be interested in seeing what you can provide in support.

  If I were to stop any random JW and ask them "How do you know that the WTS is God’s sole channel?", would they not respond, "Because they predicted Jesus’ presence in 1914"?

  I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but you had better hope that you do not select me at random, for I would not answer in such a simplistic fashion. I fancy myself as being a mature Christian, so when you asked this same question before, I told you that as my "short answer" to your question is that there has only been one Christian-based religious organization that has more than adequately fulfilled Bible prophecies regarding the worldwide preaching work and the faithful and discreet slave (Matthew 24:14; 24:45-47) for more than 130 years now and that would be the association of Jehovah's Witnesses through its governing body, God's collective channel of communication.

  "The WTS is not God's sole channel of communication. Jehovah's Witnesses are God's sole channel of communication, and, more specifically, Jesus' anointed congregation -- the faithful and discreet slave -- that is God's sole channel of communication. Jehovah's Witnesses, who are of the 'other sheep,' and are associates of the 'faithful slave,' are a part of this same channel." Now this is exactly what I told you before.

  Jehovah's Witnesses worship the true God, Jehovah, and when God's spirit clearly began to operate upon five (5) men (in addition to Russell back in 1876), God used those dedicated Bible students to reveal even more about Himself than had been known or had been taught about Him. These five men were Jonas Wendell (1815-1873), who had been associated with the Second Adventist Church; Nelson H. Barbour (1824-1906), who had been associated with the Millerites Adventists; George Stetson (1814-1879), who had been associated with the Advent Christian Church; Henry Grew (1781-1862), who had been associated with the Orthodox Church; and George Storrs (1796-1879), who had been associated with the Methodist Church.

  When it became evident that God had been blessing Russell's efforts to champion Bible truth, Russell took the lead in 1879 in publishing the magazine, Zion's Watch Tower, and although he was an imperfect man and what things he published were not inspired, God's blessings continued to be on his work so that it was discerned that it had become the instrument and sole channel of communication through which God was using to gather the remaining ones of the anointed and to make whatever changes or adjustments it deemed necessary to nourish the household of faith with spiritual food at the proper time so that the organization kept multiplying.

  If in the future, @Mad Dawg, you should decide to ask me this same question a third time, my answer will be the same, pretty much.

  @djeggnog
• 

  booby

  Amazing what the "generation" topic has generated. But to djeggnog I also have a question. In the dvd put out this year, faith in action it is stated that Russell had a problem with the notion that a god of love could be reconciled with the hell fire doctrine that taught 'eternal torment'. Do you think that Russell would do any better with the teaching or belief that is promulgated by Jesus' anointed congregation -- the faithful and discreet slave -- that is God's sole channel of communication asyou put it, that this god of love is prepared to, imminently, cause the death in yet to be seen horrific fashion of billions of people including babies and young innocent children.
• 

  Mall Cop

  DJEGGNOG.The Denial of Death, death anxiety is your problem. All of your thinking is about obtaining eternal life. I don't blame you, it is hard to accept that dust you are and to dust you shall return.
• 

  Essan

  Dj Eggnog: "First of all, there is a difference between Jesus' "presence" and Jesus' "coming," and I cannot make this any clear than I have made it. In my previois post, was reacting to what @Essan said"

  We just categorically proved that Russell predicted that Jesus "coming" was to be in 1914.

  We just categorically proved that Russell taught as fact that Christ's "presence" as King began in 1874, and that he taught that Christ's "coming" at the end of the Tribulation to destroy the wicked and rule the earth - exactly as described at 2 Thess. 1: 6-9 - would be in 1914.

  This matter is settled.

  Your claim was absolutely wrong - again. This has been proven repeatedly, to redundancy. You asked for the evidence and you got exactly what you asked for.

  What does it say about you that you simply ignore this, and even post what I quote above, acting as if nothing has happened, after seeing a mountain of incontrovertible evidence? And the thing is, you have done this several times in just this one thread. Unless you lazily asked for us to provide you the evidence - which you could have found yourself with one click of the link I gave you ages ago - and then when we did provide it you didn't bother to read it. Did you read it? Do you care about the facts? The evidence is 8 posts above this one, on this page. Read it and have the humility and honesty to correct your (latest) false claim.

  How is anyone supposed to take you seriously or think that you care one jot about truth when you act like this? You personify intellectual dishonesty.

  Unbelievable.
• 

  The Finger

  Djeggnog,

  I'm still not totally clear on this.

  This vacation you went on and then came back from and could have been in work but weren't and they thought you would be so you were actually present in a "parousia."

  Or

  Like if when the elder who visits me invites me to the hall like he did a few weeks ago and i said when i come back from my hols. and he's waiting outside to greet me and i'm watching TV istead, go next week I am actually present it's my invisible presence my "parousia" and my coming is next week. (If i'm present like this do they count me)

  Am I getting this?