@jwfacts wrote:
Prior to 1914 the Watchtower taught that the second coming was in 1874.
@djeggnog wrote:
Prove this by providing a quote from any Watchtower publication that teaches that Christ's second coming occurred in 1874. Until you should get around to producing such a quote, this statement of yours is a lie.
@jwfacts wrote:
What about the following quotes then?
@djeggnog wrote:
You have here provided not one, but two quotes taken completely out of context in order to prove your contention that Russell and the Bible Students did not believe Christ's Second Coming or Second Advent would occur in 1914 with the hope that such nonsense would escape my notice, as might escape the notice of the clueless and weak-minded functional illiterates that have had little or no formal education, many of whom have no high school diploma and have never learned the folly of providing statements made out of context as proof to someone with an education and who doesn't suffer from a reading comprehension disability.
My point here is that both of these quotes you provided in your message were taken out of context. The conclusions you reached and included in your message were absurd. I underlined the surrounding text from the Thy Kingdom Come and Creation books from which the quotations in your message came that you did not include that would have informed you as to the context of Russell's and Rutherford's words that for some reason you thought would make your point about what Russell believed as to Christ's invisible presence and his Second Coming, which, in those days, Christ's "second presence" was thought to have begun in 1874 and extended to 1914, "during the latter part of the period known as 'the time of the end.'"
@jwfacts wrote:
I provided a quote showing that it the teaching was that the second coming was in 1874.
The quotes from TD show that the second coming and parousia continued to be taught to be 1874 well after 1914.
@djeggnog wrote:
But this is not true. Just as I pointed out in my last message, Jesus' Second Coming was expected to occur at the end of the Gentile Times, some 2,520 years after 606 BC, or 1914. Notice I said 606 BC and not 607 BC, because Russell's chronology was based on an error in allowing for a zero year that did not exist, but taking this into consideration, when counting 2,520 years from 607 BC, you still arrive at 1914, which is when the Bible Students expected Jesus' return, his Second Coming.
However, Russell never taught Jesus' parousia to be the same as Jesus' Second Coming. What those quotes that were provided in my previous message from those 1913 and 1914 issues of the Watch Tower prove is that neither Russell nor the Bible Students [believed] Jesus' parousia or presence to have been the same as his Second Coming. In 1876, Russell and Barbour believed that Jesus' parousia had begun in 1874, two years earlier, and that his Second Coming would occur 40 years later in 1914. After 1914, that Jesus' parousia has begun in 1874 continued to be taught until 1943 until the Society released the book, The Truth Shall Make You Free, which served to correct the misunderstanding that had existed since Russell's time with respect to Bible chronology.
"We say that according to the best chronological reckoning of which we are capable, it is approximately that time--whether it be October, 1914, or later. Without dogmatizing, we are looking for certain events: (1) The termination of the Gentile times--Gentile supremacy in the world--and (2) For the inauguration of Messiah’s kingdom in the world. The kingdoms of earth will come to an end, and 'the God of heaven will set up a kingdom.' (Daniel 2:44)"
(Watch Tower, dated October 15, 1913, pp. 307, 308.)
@jwfacts wrote:
If the teaching of 1874 as the start of the second coming changed in 1930 (not 1943), then it had nothing to do with the change in the calculation of the 6000 years.
@djeggnog wrote:
Excuse me, but what on earth are you talking about here? I never said a thing about the teaching regarding Christ's "second coming" as having been changed from 1874, since Russell never taught that his second coming had occurred in 1874.
@Leolaia wrote:
I think Russell used the term "second coming" imprecisely to refer to both the parousia (hence the expression "second presence", which occurred frequently in his writings....
@jwfacts:
As Leolaia eloquently showed, it is not as black and white as Eggnogg wants us to prove. Russell was not consistent in presentation of when the Second Coming was, and whether Second Coming, Presence and Second Advent were one and the same thing, or different events. That is also the case in Christianity, with differing opinions on whether these three terms are interchangeable or not. However, from my reading of it, Russell did say the Second Coming/Second Advent started Jesus' 40 year presence in 1874, to culminate in the end of the world in 1914.
You need to read again what it was you originally wrote because what you're doing now in agreeing with @Leolaia's statement here is pretending that what she says here is in complete agreement with what you said when disputing the matter with me. You were being disagreeable with me, but it appears that you are now willing to acknowledge the ambiguity that exists in many of the things that were written during Russell's stewardship over the Society, but I have explained how I view the writings of both men (Russell and Rutherford). You don't want to be disagreeable toward @Leolaia, and that's fine, but if some of her statements are consistent with mine, then why exactly are you still arguing with me if you are in agreement with her statements? Is it the fact that I am the one saying them that makes all of the difference or what? (These last few questions here are rhetorical since it's clear to me that you just want to argue with me.)
Now @Leolaia didn't go as far as to say what I'm about to say here, but I'll incorporate by reference what it is I have already said here and add here, that after having read Russell and Rutherford, that it is clear to me that these men didn't have good proofreaders, for had what they wrote been proofread by a good proofreader (like the ones we have in Brooklyn and in Patterson today!), many of the statements that are ambiguous at best regarding Christ's invisible presence or parousia and his second coming would have been phrased more clearly.
@00DAD wrote:
Hmmm, well I suppose that would all be fine if the GB wouldn't DF people for getting there sooner or later than them, or simply disagreeing.
@djeggnog wrote:
I don't want any of my spiritual brothers or sisters to be disfellowshipped either, but, by way of illustration, if you had come into our household as the ninth child when we are already raising eight children, with a few of these being adopted as [our] own so that [we], their parents, call these adoptees "son" and "daughter" the same as [we] call [our] biological children "son" and "daughter," and they all of them call [us] "Mom" or "Dad," and you, the ninth child, should become disgruntled with the way in which we administer discipline in our own household, believing our grounding you for a month to impress upon your mind the need to comply with our rule against sneaking into the freezer to eat ice cream and taking one or two pieces of chicken without asking for permission to do so and especially lying about it -- a rule of conduct by which the rest of our children know they must abide for the sake of peace among them and with us, their parents -- to be morally wrong, you will still be disciplined in the same way that we equally discipline all of our children without exception in the hope that you will learn that you must comply with our rule. This means that there is a possibility that you will be grounded for another month should you repeat the same or a similar offense.
However, if we should learn that you have begun to plant "apostate" views of dissent among the rest of the children, hoping to cause a mutiny by enlisting one or more of them to join your rebellion against our authority as your parents, it might be that we will have to send you back to the orphanage or wherever it was you used to live to protect the household from your having an unwholesome influence on them, if your rebelliousness doesn't cause you to become a runaway to get away from our authority, but you need to learn that we administer discipline in our household for a similar reason as such is administered in God's household, namely, in order "that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in God's household, which is the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)
God's organization began as a mustard seed, but has now grown into a large luxuriant tree, and the birds are free to lodge in this "tree" -- God's organization -- if they wish. (Matthew 13:31, 32) You may not like how discipline in being administered in God's organization today, and there are things that I don't like that we do in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses based on the results of a vote [taken] by elders that could possibly be voting "yes" because, not being perfect people, they just don't like the person very much and just don't want to be merciful, but this is the way things are being [done] now in God's household. We have been called to peace, so, I say, leave this stuff alone, for we have a central body of elders -- we refer to them as our "Governing Body" -- to whom we look to resolve such matters, but keep in mind that they are also imperfect men and resolving this issue may not be the priority item you would like it to be on its plate.
Those of us that have come to join God's household by getting baptized have no say in the matter of disfellowshipping, but I do expect the voting policy will change. Let your focus be on the work of the ministry to which we have been assigned (Matthew 28:19, 20; 2 Timothy 4:2), and don't lose your mind by doing something stupid. Rather, brace up your mind for activity and "keep your senses completely." (1 Peter 1:13)
We are well aware that some that regularly associate with us at meetings may seek to cause us "trouble with speeches" to subvert our faith and thereby "pervert the good news about the Christ," but we must also be on the watch for any "poisonous root" that might spring up and cause the kind of trouble in God's congregation that might defile and deprive others of God's undeserved kindness. (Acts 15:24; Galatians 1:7; Hebrews 12:15)
If the disfellowshipping policy bothers you or you or one of your own family members should become disfellowshipped for any reason, do not leave God's household; that would be a bad move. A better one is for you and yours to move to a different congregation, maybe a different circuit, but away from those whose imperfections could cause you to stumble right out of the truth due to your own imperfections, and start anew. I often show up at congregations where no one knows me to observe and you know what? Many of the friends don't say "Hello" to me unless I say "Hello" first, and so I could feel that they are shunning me, but I also know such behavior isn't so much personal as it is human nature for people that don't know you to do. If you've been disfellowshipped, break the ice by searching out the elders in that "different" congregation and let them know that you or your loved one that has been disfellowshipped seeks to be reinstated, but keep in mind that you or your disfellowshipped loved one is partly the reason for the disfellowshipment and the other part was the decision of the elders on the judicial committee that said "yes." Jehovah is still your God and he had no direct input in the decision that was made against you or your disfellowshipped loved one.
@The Quiet One wrote:
Djeggnogg said - "us, their parents -- to be morally wrong, you will still be disciplined in the same way that WE equally discipline all of OUR children without exception in the hope that you will learn that you must comply with OUR RULE"(capitals mine) - This illustration is an incoherent mess, it doesn't make sense [grammatically], and you refer to 'us' as being both the children and the parents, but I thought I'd just point out that the 'parents' (Governing body) seem to own the children in your little story, and they expect the children to submit to their rule.
Yes, my illustration was "an incoherent mess," and the necessary corrections are shown above in red, but the central body of elders to whom Jehovah's Witnesses refer as the "Governing Body" are not the "parents" in my illustration. We are all of us brothers, but the Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Christian congregation is the one appointed by Jehovah God as the head of God's household, the parent of all those exercising faith in his name, that is to say, of all those that are putting faith in Jesus' ransom. The fact that Jesus, in turn, has appointed his spiritual brothers here on earth that he called "the faithful and discreet slave" over all of his "domestics" (Matthew 24:45-47) does not transform the Governing Body that represents the "slave" as anyone's parents, for they remain slaves of God and of Christ, even as Jesus' "other sheep" are slaves of God and of Christ as well.
Whose flock is it that the GB are meant to be [shepherding]?
The flock of God. (Acts 20:28)
And would Jesus leave his children with people that change the rules as they go, even changing the severity of punishment and/or whether the action is punishable, who even kick out of the home and spiritually place the death sentence on any child that dares to say they are being treated unfairly and inconsistently?
Yes, he would, and Jesus did, in fact, leave to the "slave" the autonomy necessary for it to accomplish the commission it was given to make disciples of people of all nations, which it has been doing since 33 AD. You mention a "death sentence," but there is nothing in my illustration akin to any such sentence being imposed on anyone. You might have decided to view disfellowshipping as being on a par with a sentence and execution imposed on the errant Christian, but this makes no sense in view of the fact that any repentant Christian that has been disfellowshipped will be reinstated, which would not be the case if disfellowshipment meant death by execution as you have here likened such to be.
For instance, to go along with part of your example, a child who stole a chicken leg from the freezer and was disciplined (based on a rule regarding not stealing chicken from the freezer), is upset when another child a short time later is allowed to take a chicken leg because the parents have now 'realised' that the leg doesn't represent the whole chicken, and so the rule of not stealing chickens doesn't apply here. Just two of the flaws in your illustration in relation to reality..
I believe in a perfect world that the rules ought to be applied by the local elders equally to everyone, but even if there should be flaws in my illustration, there are definitely flawed men in the congregation that are administering such discipline in the local congregation in view of the fact that we do not live in a perfect world and the elders meting it out are themselves imperfect men. This being the case, I have knowledge of cases where the vote to disfellowship was arguably for extraneous humans having nothing at all to do with the offense that the elders had been empaneled as a judicial committee to handle, and some of the appealed cases have led to reversal of the decision to disfellowship, whereas not everyone that is disfellowshipped will request an appeal of the disfellowshipment decision. Maybe you didn't know this and thought that an appeal was automatic, but of the judicial committee should not receive a letter appealing the decision to disfellowship within seven days from the time the wrongdoer receives notification thereof, the decision is final seven days after the notification date.
Dj said- "your rebellion against our authority as your parents" - Whose authority are Christians under?
I've already pointed out that the central body of elders to whom Jehovah's Witnesses refer as the "Governing Body" are not the "parents" in my illustration, but just as Jesus Christ is the head of the congregation in subjection to Jehovah God, the Christian congregation is in subjection to the Christ, who has by means of holy spirit appointed the "slave," represented by the Governing Body, over his "domestics" and over the rest of the Christian household to take the lead, in that Jesus has given these men as "gifts" to the Christian congregation, some of these "gifts" being "shepherds and teachers," scripturally-qualified men appointed by the Governing Body to serve in the local congregation as a body of elders to whom Christians are directed to "be submissive." (Ephesians 4:7, 8, 11-13; Hebrews 13:17)
And if Jesus has given the GB/elders at the local level such authority, where is the proof?
I've cited several scriptures above as proof that the local elders, even the central body of elders, were appointed by holy spirit, so that their authority to preside and "take care of God's congregation" (1 Timothy 3:5) is based on the spiritual qualifications that the holy spirit has clearly laid out for those serving as overseers and ministerial servants in the congregation. (1 Timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13). Let me rephrase this: Elders are duly appointed to serve in the local congregation by means of holy spirit, and the scriptural proof of this can be found by reading 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 12, 13, for it is only by examining the things we read in the Bible as to the qualifications that elders must meet that we can prove to ourselves that the holy spirit itself has appointed such men as overseers in the congregation, for it is through the Scriptures that the holy spirit speaks. If you did not understand (until now!) that the holy spirit speaks through the Scriptures, I trust you can appreciate that the holy spirit is what gives substance to the elder arrangement in the Christian congregation, but if you should reject what I have here explained to you and would rather balk over what things I have said here, this is, of course, your choice to make.
There is plenty of evidence of lack of divine backing.
I believe the Bible provides sufficient evidence that the elder arrangement in the Christian congregation has God's backing, but you are free to disagree with me.
Dj said- '' leave this stuff alone, for we have a central body of elders -- we refer to them as our"Governing Body" -- to whom we look to resolve such matters'' - Really.. So jw's look to the GB to resolve matters?
Yes.
How about Jehovah, shouldn't he be at least consulted?
What need is there to "consult" Jehovah when he, the author of the Bible, gave it to us so that we might get to know things about him, even form a relationship with him, get to know him, become his friend. Of course, you must already know that he is the author of the Bible, but what you should take to heart is that it was by means of his holy spirit that the Bible was, in fact, written. We are "consulting" Jehovah when we read and study his word. We form a relationship with him when we pray to him through Jesus Christ, since God is holy, and we can never approach Jehovah in prayer, except through Jesus, since Jesus is not only the one that died for us, but Jesus is also the one that pleads for us when we pray to Jehovah, provided we are convinced that he will do exactly what he has promised to do, for our faith is counted to us as righteousness. (Romans 4:21-24; 8:34)
I am often amazed by the statements made here by some here on JWN that were once Jehovah's Witnesses, who never seemed to have learned during their stint with us that their prayers must be directed to Jehovah God, but according to his will, and by this I don't just mean as to the things for which we might ask him, but as to our manner of approaching him, for our "Amen" to God must be said through Jesus, else Jehovah will not and does not hear our prayers. (2 Corinthians 1:20; 1 John 5:14)
Once @sizemik ridiculed God here as being either impotent or as being non-existent, one, when he wrote the following (in a different thread):
It also doesn't answer why we have Earthquakes, Tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, forest fires, landslides, floods, epidemics, diseases, birth defects etc. These events have existed long before man can be accused of having a direct effect on climate etc . . . and are a natural consequence of the way life is configured.
Jehovah promised: "I am making all things new." (Revelation 21:5) He never promised that he was going to prevent the occurrence of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, volcanos, forest fires, landslides, floods, epidemics, diseases, birth defects, etc., and it is a lie for him to have described these things as being "a natural consequence of the way life is configured," for, in the beginning, everything that Jehovah made was perfect. These things he mentioned are the consequence of the tremendous weight of the waters of the global deluge that beset planet earth back in 2370 BC and sin's entrance into the world so that Jehovah only directed his watch care to his people in one portion of the Middle East.
Now Jehovah may send angelic help wherever it is needed in the world to accomplish his purpose in connection with the everlasting good news that is currently being preached in the world, but Jesus himself predicted that things like the ones @sizemik mentioned would be occurring during the conclusion of this system of things in which we are now living, and as for the birth defects and the diseases that plague mankind, these things will continue until "the former things have passed away." (Revelation 21:4)
Again, life as we know it to be was not originally configured the way it is today and the way it has been since the founding of the world, but when sin came on the scene, he decreed not only appointed times, but set boundaries for man, allowing all but one nation to live their entire existence in ignorance of his will, that is, until now, for the appointed time arrived when he began to tell men everywhere to repent by pursuing the righteousness that comes through exercising faith in Christ, for the day is fast approaching when Jehovah will have his son judge the earth by the Christian standard. (Acts 17:26, 30, 31)
I find this sentence very revealing as to who jw's today really put their trust in. ''Maybe one wishes to put a little more zing in their life by assuming the risks associated with having sexual relations with someone to whom they are not married'' - What is wrong with you? Are you obsessed with sex? There's a pattern developing.. This part of the reply of yours has nothing to do with the question, which was about the generation doctrine and its changes.
I'm obsessed with former "brothers" and "sisters" leaving God's organization after being disfellowshipped and feeling extremely guilty, even suicidal, after they have affected their quality of life through their immoral antics with a brother or a sister or with others, which have impacted their fleshly organisms in a way that has forever changed their lives into one involving taking pills every day due to one act of disobedience that led to their being disfellowshipped, and they are so guiltridden -- some of them after their hospitalization and incarceration has become known due to drug abuse or tax evasion or larceny or whatever on their part -- that they don't return so that they might be reinstated. The apostle Peter betrayed Jesus, and yet he came back. No matter the reason that one is disfellowshipped, they can and should come back and seek reinstatement. I'm obsessed over folks that know they ought to repent, that keep touching the unclean thing and won't repent.
Why can you not answer the question in a clear, concise and direct way, rather than avoid it? You still haven't replied to my last post in the 'spiritual paradise' thread, though, so I don't expect a reply to this.
I recall a thread started by @No Room For George entitled, "If the WT provides such a spiritual paradise, why are WT apologists so emotional about the discussions here?" but I believe I responded to the messages posted to it, except those messages that were attacking me. If I failed to respond to something you wrote in any other thread, I apologize. Please provide the Post Number of your message in this other thread here, and I will go back to that thread and read it, but I don't want to go off-topic discussing that other thread in this thread.
@djeggnog
