Just read that Carl Olof Jonsson died yesterday

by slimboyfat 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Alethia

  Scholar, i thought WT doesnt interpret Type/Antitypes anymore?

  March 2015 Watchtower

  "The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so"

  Daniel chapter4 makes no mention of anything other than Neb. So why doesn't WT follow its own direction? Possibly because there wouldnt be an organisation without 1914? No 1914, no 1919, no GB
  
  
• 

  scholar

  Alethia

  Daniel chapter4 makes no mention of anything other than Neb. So why doesn't WT follow its own direction? Possibly because there wouldnt be an organisation without 1914? No 1914, no 1919, no GB

  ==

  Incorrect. The fourth chapter of Daniel clearly has two fulfillments as shown by its frequent mention of 'God's Kingdom and the use of the Aramaic word for 'times'.

  scholar JW

  
  
• 

  scholar

  Beth Sarim

  Just read the ''Gentile Times Reconsidered'' by Carl Olaf Jonson,

  Just read it.

  --

  The said scholar has not only read it from cover to cover but he has studied it.

  scholar JW
• 

  Fisherman

  The said scholar has not only read it from cover to cover but he has studied it.

  Many years ago, in all objectivity and fairness so did I so did I but I wasn’t persuaded. I wasn’t convinced. I don’t think it is possible for wt to be wrong about a 70 year desolation ending in 537.

  
  
• 

  Beth Sarim

  ""The said scholar has not only read it from cover to cover but he has studied it.""

  Just marvelous work by Carl Olaf Jonson, wasn't it. Outstanding.
  
  
• 

  TonusOH

  I didn't question the JW perspective on 607/587BC when I was in, and it didn't matter to me afterward. The back-and-forth I see here is similar to what I've seen elsewhere, and I don't have the understanding or the patience to work through it. I also think it is moot.

  Russell used the 1914 date to indicate the end of the world. Not the start of the end times, but -as Stephen Lett might say- the end of the end times. I think that his belief was that Christ's heavenly reign had begun in 1799 or 1874, and that 1914 was when everything would be complete and the new system was to begin.

  It took some time for Rutherford to update the teaching, so that 1914 was given new relevance. It was still a useful date, since WW1 had begun that year and it could be used as evidence that Russell was on to something. The date could also be used to keep the pressure on through the use of the 'generation' teaching. Now, it is more problematic than useful, and I don't see that the issue about the dates will matter much longer. I even wonder if, at some point in the not-too-distant future, the WTS will accept the 587/586 date and pretend that the debate never happened.
• 

  Beth Sarim

  "I wonder at some point the in the-not-to-distant future, the WTS will accept the 587/586 date and pretend the debate never happened".

  Umm, you never know.

  The Borg is very manipulative in their publications. They could easily insert a bunch of weasel words to make it sound like they never suggested 607/1914 at all...or just demand all old publications back for destruction.

  See...I just did it myself...'weasel' word.
• 

  Sanchy

  Scholar: Read it again but this time read it carefully.

  I have read it carefully. Your claim regarding a second fulfillment still holds no water. Sorry.
  
• 

  Gorb

  It is not about the details, but the fact that COJ had a mindset of his own, and spoke out against an awfull system. That's what I respect so much.

  G.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Vanderhoven7, you made a number of good points in a post on page 5 of this topic thread. However, I disagree with your statement that William Miller was "... the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists ...". He did not found the Seventh-day Adventist religion, though he did start the "... mid-19th-century North American religious movement known as Millerism. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Miller_(preacher) ). That movement was one which believed that the second advent of Christ was imminent (and thus it was a second adventist movement). But Miller was a baptist preacher (and for a period of time before starting the movement he was a deist) and to my knowledge he never joined the Seventh Day Adventist church. I think he also observed the Christian Sabbath on Sundays instead of Saturdays.

  What became the Seventh-day Adventist church was influenced by Miller's ideas and it adopted some of his ideas, but that church was not founded by Miller. Likewise Russell's Bible Students movement adopted some of Miller's ideas, but the Bible Students (and the Jehovah's Witnesses) was not founded by Miller. The above mentioned Wikipedia page has a chart called "Reaction of Millerites to the Great Disappointment". It mentions the reactions that various Millerites had to Miller's message and some of the religions which formed as a result of such reactions. Since Seventh-day Adventist church is one of those religions, what you said is nearly correct.