by Kool Jo 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Ok...so after this new light came out in the watchtower study over the weekend...a couple questions:
1. Why is the year 1914 still relevant to the doctrine?
2. What would the effects be in they were to ever drop the 1914 teaching in the future (let's say 20 years from now)?
Kool Jo
1914 isn't really relevant other than they have printed it so many times that its a sacred cow. How many little kids' first comment was "NINE DEEN FOR DEEN!". Probably 50%, and the other 50% was "JA-HO-BAH!"
They basically needed to shore up stuff surrounding that date with regard to "this generation" and the appointment of the FDS. They have done this now.
Remember, we are dealing with an invisible event, no way to disprove, (and it has their supposed proof of WWI there for backup). That is why they can stick to this date for another hundred years if without anyone really caring.
1. Why is the year 1914 still relevant to the doctrine?
So far, it is very relevant. In Watchtower theology, 1914 is still when Jesus returned invisibility, when he became King, when the Kingdom was set up, the start of the last days, the start of the Harvest. One of most important actions, in Watchtower theology, is that the new King appoints a Slave over the Domestics, which is supposed to occur in 1919. With the Harvest started in 1914 or so, the wheat are being gathered, whereas before no seperating between wheat and weeds would be possible before the Harvest begins. Therefore, now there is a one true religion for them to be gathered to.
2. What would the effects be in they were to ever drop the 1914 teaching in the future (let's say 20 years from now)?
If Jesus did not return in 1914, he did not appoint anybody in 1919, and it would be a blow to the Watchtower's authority. Also if the Harvest has not begun, it's a futile effort to seperate wheat from weeds and all denominations would therefore be on equal footing.
@Kool Joe *****What would the effects be in they were to ever drop the 1914 teaching in the future ******
If Jesus was a "NO (INVISIBLE) SHOW in 1914, then who selected the WBTS as the FDS in 1919. ?
The 1914 teaching is the foundation of their authority, that foundation falters the whole building collapses. Matthew 7:24-27....
They are NOT just another church that have restored original first century Christian TRUTH, they were selected as the ONLY channel of GOD to preach the invisible rulership of Christ in 1914 and are being used to separate the wheat and weeds and the sheep and goats before the great tribulation destroys anyone who refuses to join their organisation.....If Jesus did not show up in 1914, all this work is their own fabrication. Psalm 127:1
LOL you beat me to it Londo111 :)
If Jesus did not return in 1914, he did not appoint anybody in 1919, and it would be a blow to the Watchtower's authority. Also if the Harvest has not begun, it's a futile effort to seperate wheat from weeds and all denominations would therefore be on equal footing.
Yes, but posters here have pointed out the silliness of Jesus "returning" in 1914, appointing the slave over his domestics in 1919, then leaving and returning again in the GT. Where did he go if he's supposed to be enthroned the whole time?
Instead, what if the WT some day reveals that Jesus was present all along (say, since 33CE), then appointed his slave in 1919, and will return one day in the future? Doesn't this make some things simpler doctrinally?
Of course the big loss in jettisoning 1914 is that many JWs are impressed by the Society's "prediction" for 1914 "coming true".
As far as the harvest, the separation has not begun yet according to the Society since 1995 (?) and reaffirmed in yesterday's study, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.
Of course it's silly.
In 1914, he arrived in Kingdom Power as King. His presense begins, but he never actaully leaves Heaven. In the GT, he arrives as Judge. In the JW view, he doesn't have to leave Heaven for this either. So basically, they have different arrivals, depending on the role. The seperation of the sheep and goats is during the GT, the seperation of wheat and weeds is since 1914. They don't view these as exactly the same event.
How they would stand up 1919 without 1914 would be a mean feat. I'd like to see them try.
I realize what you're saying about the teaching, even though it gave me a near-headache during the study trying to understand how Jesus could be present but not yet arrived as Judge.
Anyway, I think this is the key point: as you said, how can they stand up 1919 without 1914? Very easily! Wasn't 1919 when Rutherford et al. were released from prison, or when they started emphasizing the preaching work? The Society doesn't need Jesus' presence to start 5 years earlier. It could start at that time of appointment in 1919. It could not start at all!
Since Jesus is 'going away on business' in the parable, he only needs to make an appointment and leave. His presence actually works against this interpretation, not with it. The only thing the Society needs is some important event to serve as the beginning of the appointment. And if they've moved the year in the past, they can change 1919 too, if they need a better anchor year.
A good suggestion from previous posters is that the Society could actually acknowledge 586BCE as the correct date of Jerusalem's destruction, because this bumps 1914 down to 1935. Guess what happened in 1935? The "new light" about the great crowd! Yes, that's right, the distinction between the little flock and the great crowd was made in that year, which is like the distinction between the domestics and the faithful slave that this whole appointment business hinges on*. Get my drift?
*Except that the domestics now include all of the anointed remnant who aren't in the Crazy Eight, which is a detail that the Society can easily overlook when explaining all of this.
I posted about this but no one knew what I was talking about.
I saw your thread, but I didn't know what to say because I didn't know exactly what you were referring to. I thought maybe it was an upcoming article, and I haven't been studying ahead But yes, so far nothing has really changed about 1914.
