Jesus Christ is King even before 1914 so Why the Need to...

by ProfCNJ 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ProfCNJ

  Good morning folks! I have believed in the 1914 JW core teaching for more than 20 years. But now, after seeing much about this date, I find it uncomfortable and odd to believe it unquestionably, much less defend it against opposing thoughts.

  By just looking at, and reflecting on, some of these bible verses and checking their correlations, it would be reasonable to conclude that Christ is already KING way back before 1914.

  Matthew 28:18 from New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

  18 Then Jesus came to them. He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

  John 12:15

  "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt."

  1 Timothy 6:15

  which He will bring about at the proper time - He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

  Revelation 17:14

  "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."

  John 18:37

  Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

  Luke 19:38

  “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!” ( Psalm 118:26)

  “May there be peace and glory in the highest heaven!”

  Therefore, if Christ has existed as KING even when the WT has not been hatched, why is there a need for him to invisibly rule as king beginning in 1914?
• 

  losingit

  One of the things I didn't understand either as a witness once I really started reading my bible on a regular basis. Just didn't make sense to me that he was crowned as king later when the texts you cited show he was already king. Thank you for reminding me of one of the questions I had while still in .
• 

  label licker

  This one is for sure a keeper! Society would definetly call you a critical thinker and that you shouldn't be so dogmatic. At least that's what they told me when I would pick out scriptures that they couldn't answer. That's what I love about this site, it makes you dig and think. Thanks
• 

  prologos

  In the bible reading for next week's KH school: Col 1:13 "-- transferred us [ist century Christians] into the KINGDOM [then existing, ruling] of the son of his love.--"

  A kingdom of God existed since Pentecost 33. c.e. ?
• 

  ProfCNJ

  @losingit @label licker Thanks for the kind comments. :)

  It really doesn't make sense for a king to become one again if he has held on to that position from inception. Unless he was stripped of the same position at some point in time in history, such a lofty designation stays uncontested in God's kingdom.
• 

  2+2=5

  I think it stems from the false date setting that the bible students and other religious nutters were doing 200 years ago.

  Predict a date for Jesus return.... Doesn't happen, so then they just say he did come....... Invisibly.

  This was the pattern for 1799, 1874, 1878, 1914, 1925...... The only reason they stuck with 1914 is because when WWI started, they had something significant that year, the other dates just got thrown to the scrap heap.

  In conclusion, the 1914/Jesus enthronement is a load of crap.
• 

  ProfCNJ

  2+2 = 5, first of all, I like the math. :D

  Seriously though, question we want to ask open-minded brothers in the organization is: Isn't Christ already existing "invisibly" since his return to his Heavenly Father?

  This is the problem with the unfulfilled prophecy being associated with a specific date. Any edifice built on shaky foundation no matter how majestic it looks will soon encounter structural problems especially when nature strikes. Hidden cracks will soon develop. And no matter how much repairs are done, if the foundation is really the main issue, the edifice will eventually break and crash.
• 

  Zoos

  I can't find the scripture right now but there is a prophecy in Isaiah referring to an accomplishment that Jesus would make (dying faithfully, I think) and the prophesy was presented in the past tense as if it had already been accomplished - so confident was God in His son's ability.

  Reading some of the quotes above I couldn't help but wonder if those were also prophesies presented in a current setting. The answer, of course, is irrelevant. His kinship is (or will be) and that is that. All this invisible hogwash is wearisome. It has never come with a credible explanation and certainly never had a shred of evidence.

  Arrived invisibly! I'm gonna try that at work someday.
• 

  Bobcat

  Scriptures I have amassed (so far) that indicate Jesus was a king long before 1914:

  Psalm 110:1 - especially compare with:

  1 Cor 15:24-26 alludes to Ps 110 but says "rule as king" instead of 'sitting at God's right hand.'

  Eph 1:20, 21 alludes to Ps 110:1, but says hes above every govt. in this age.

  Php 2:9-11 'Name above every other in heaven and earth

  Col 1:13; 2:10 "The kingdom of the Son . . ."

  1 Tim 6:15, 16 (If applicable to Son) says he is now (at time of writing) a king. (See w05 9/1 p.27 for Society view.)

  Rev 1:4, 5 Is the 'ruler of the kings of the earth' (told to John, c. AD 100; quoting/alluding to Ps 89:27)

  Rev 2:26, 27 Jesus promises to give followers "authority over the nations" "just as I have received from my Father"

  Rev 3:7 "Has the key of David" (Present tense, alluding to authority involving Davidic rulership covenant)

  Rev 3:21 'Sat down with my Father on his throne.'

  Rev 17:14 "Lord of lords and King of kings" present tense)

  Here are references/allusions to Dan 7:13, 14 in Matthew. Note that the context of most of them places then in the 1st Century:

  Mt 10:23

  Mt 16:27, 28

  Mt 19:28 (This one is distant future. But note that it involves 'sitting on a throne to judge,' not becoming a king.)

  Mt 24:30 (This happens within "this generation," which sandwiches it - 23:36, 24:34)

  Mt 25:31 (See comment on 19:28)

  Mt 26:64 (Those trying him would see evidence of fulfillment of Dan 7:13, 14)

  Mt 28:18 (Has all authority in heaven and earth. Mentioned above in OP.)

  Some verses that one might use to object:

  Dan 2:44 'God sets up Kingdom in the days of those kings.' But note the context (Daniel talking with Nebuchadnezzar). "In the days of those kings" could refer to any point in time during the kingdoms future from then. Saying it has to be during the time of the feet would be forcing it to say something precise, when it isn't precise.

  Mt 6:9, 10 "Let your kingdom come." This more probably refers to the Kingdom taking action, not the crowning of the King of the kingdom.

  This is what I have so far. I'll be watching this thread closely for additional info. (For or against, I want the truth of it.) But the proponderance of the references above all point to Jesus becoming King after his resurrection and ascension to his Father.

  This effectively wipes 1914 off the map from yet a third front. The chronology is wrong. The application of Dan chap. 4 is strained. And now the King was already a King long before 1914.

  To all the above posters and the OP, thanks for starting this thread and sharing what you know.

  (For some reason my formatting won't work. I had everything neatly indented, but it all shifts right when I submit it.)
• 

  70wksfyrs

  ProfCNJ,

  Well done for learning TTATT this year. You make very logical coherrant points. I think 1914 is nonsence also

  Take care on your journey

  70wks....