Posts by Essan

209

Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan in

i'm disgusted.

so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

Essan

Djeggnog said, as quoted in the last post " [Russell] didn't predict that 1914 would be the end of the Gospel age."

Really? Let's see.

"There was a sense in which the Jewish Age ended at the cross and another sense in which it was extended 37 years. So, we believe, there is a sense in which the Gospel Age ended in 1878, and another sense in which it is extended 37 years, or until 1914." - Watchtower May 1880 "The Sign of His Presence" p 3.

"The transition period of seventy years mentioned at the beginning of this article, has is parallel in the transition of the Gospel Age to the Millennium, or between A.D. 1844 and A.D. 1914" - Watchtower July 1880 "The Closing Work" p 4.

"There is a sense in which the Jewish Age extends until the destruction of Jerusalem, and in the same sense the Gospel Age extends to 1914." - Watchtower July 1880 "The Closing Work No.2" p 4

So Russell DID " predict that 1914 would be the end of the Gospel age", i n complete contradiction to Djeggnog's claim. These are only the first few references indicating the ending of the Gospel Age in 1914 that I found in a search of early Watchtowers. There were hundreds more.

There were some other interesting references too. Having already seen that Russell ends the Gospel Age in 1914, both from the quotes above and those in previous posts which show Russell dated the successive Millennial reign, the Millennial Age, as beginning from 1914, lets look at the following:

"The Gospel Age, lasting from the resurrection of Christ, when he became the "first-born from the dead, and the beginning of the new creation," until the full company of 'the Church of the First-born' is complete, and He comes. The time of the sounding of the seventh trumpet, the resurrection and reward of the prophets, saints etc. Rev 11:16" - Watchtower July 1979

"And will all be complete at the end of the Gospel Age. And then shall the Great High Priest of the world (Jesus and His bride made ONE, Head and members complete) stand forth crowned a King and Priest after the Melchisidec order. There he will stand before the world (manifest but unseen)" - Watchtower March 1880 "The Great Day of Atonement" p 1.

So, the Gospel Age was to end in 1914, according to Russell's prediction, "And then he comes" , then Christ will "stand forth" , "stand before the world" , "manifest" but unseen .
Could it be more explicit? And I'm still only up to the 1880 Watchtowers! LOL.
Now contrast all of the above - the evidence in this post and all the other evidence presented - with DJ's claim:
"Russell didn't teach a thing about the invisible coming of Christ... Russell did not know when Jesus' coming would begin and he didn't make any predictions concerning Jesus' coming, visible or invisible...Russell did not predict any date at all....Russell did not predict 1914 to be the year of Jesus' invisible coming"

209

Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan in

i'm disgusted.

so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

Essan

DJ Eggnog said: "[Russell] didn't predict that 1914 would be the end of the Gospel age, which would culminate in Armageddon, followed by the beginning of the Millennial age and Christ's rule, did he?"

But the Watchtower said:

""The final overthrow of present governments... will be followed by seven years of socialism and anarchy, to end with 1914 by the establishment of Christ's Millennial government" - Watchtower Reprints August 15th 1892. p239.

"...the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom, October 1914" - Watchtower Reprints July 1st 1899 p 172.

"October, 1914 A.D. By that time the heavenly Kingdom will be in power and the ancient worthies - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the holy prophets - will be resurrected and will constitute the earthly representatives of the spiritual and invisible Kingdom of Christ" - Watchtower Reprints Oct. 1st 1903 p 373.

"Our Lord's presence, as shown in MILLENNIAL DAWN, VOL II, dates from October, 1874... the Kingdom will be fully established, or "set up", by October, A.D. 1914, as already pointed out" - Watchtower Reprints 1st August 1904 p 229.

Now, bear in mind four things:

1. These quotes of Russell's come from the Watchtower, not the disputed text of "The Time is At Hand".

2. They explicitly predict the Millennial rule and Millennial age will begin in 1914, which DJ claims above Russell never taught.

3. They explicitly refer to the "final overthrow" of the worlds governments by the Kingdom - what is that if not the end of Armageddon?

4. Most revealingly, DJeggnog has already seen these quotes, because I posted them before he said what is quoted above, so he is now ignoring the clear words of Russell in the Watchtower and his words in "The Time is At Hand".

209

Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan in

i'm disgusted.

so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

Essan

Yep, it's pretty shocking Yourmomma.

That's why I created a thread about it. It's ridiculous that we should even need to have this conversation, never mind six pages of it, and DJ is still insisting he's right and even demanding apologies for disagreeing with him. Insane.

And it's actually worse than that - not only is DJ denying Russell predicted Christ's coming for 1914, he denied that Russell predicted anything for 1914, and has yet to retract that claim!

We are through the looking glass here people. Welcome to the bizarre extremes of hardcore Watchtowersim.

209

Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan in

i'm disgusted.

so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

Essan

OK, OK, What about 144,000 points?

Everyone else 0

Brotherdan 144,000

We'll even let you pretend they're literal

209

Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan in

i'm disgusted.

so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

Essan

Not 607 Dan, anything but 607!

What about 539? :)

209

Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan in

i'm disgusted.

so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

Essan

DJ,

Peacedog is more than capable of refuting your nonsense, but seeing as you're referring to me I'm going to respond.

1. I didn't say I quoted a 1889 edition of the book, I indicated I was using the 1889 text. The text was changed in 1915, so any edition used before 1915 will not contain changes introduced after 1915 but will be the same in this regard as the original, understand?

2. If you take all of page 76 and page 77 of the The Time is At Hand in the original text, rather than the doctored text you quote, then it's perfectly blatant that Russell was predicting Christ would come in 1914. How can the Kingdom come on earth without it's King coming? But it's interesting you are focusing on only this page and these quotes, when you were provided with around two dozen quotes equally as explicit besides these.

3. You said: "But Russell didn't teach that "[God's] Kingdom would come" in 1914, and nothing you quoted in your post from The Time is at Hand book even suggested such a thing." but the original pre-1915 text of this book, which you have already seen, says on page 77:

"1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove - 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 will then be "set up", or fimply established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions."

So, if in light of that, you maintain that " Russell didn't teach that "[God's] Kingdom would come" in 1914, and nothing you quoted in your post from The Time is at Hand book even suggested such a thing", then I simply have to ask what it is you have been smoking and suggest that you stop.

4. So, you don't think that Russell saying that in 1914 Christ "will then be present as earth's new Ruler" - in the context of everything else he predicted for 1914 on that same page (in the original text) including: all the anointed being glorified as Kings, the Tribulation being passed, God's Kingdom just having come on earth, and been "set up" and established in the earth, the rule of men having concluded forever and all their institutions destroyed - you think this doesn't amount to a claim that Christ would come in 1914? Again, quit smoking strange things. This one page proves it, but I presented you with countless quotes besides this proving it. Russell proclaimed Christ to be "Present" from 1874 but he is clear that in 1914 he "will then be present" in a new capacity "as earth's new ruler". Thus, Russell predicted that, like the Kingdom Christians long prayed for, it's King would come in 1914. A Kingdom on earth coming without it's King coming? I think not.

5. You say "What do you think, @peacedog? What Russell did teach though was that in 1914, Jesus " will then be present as earth's new Ruler ," and now that we know, according to the Bible at 1 Timothy 6:16, that Jesus "dwells in [an] unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see," his presence would have to be an invisible one."

LOL. Typical and predictable obfuscation. I never said Russell predicted a visible coming. I just said Russell predicted Christ's coming for 1914. It was YOU who claimed that Russell neither predicted a visible NOR invisible coming, nor anything like it, for 1914. So don't try to move the goal posts now and try to make objections out of irrelevancies. The situation is rather like the JW view today. They are not necessarily expecting Jesus to appear visibly 'in person' at Armageddon, but they are expecting him to come, at some point, with supernatural phenomena and VERY visible effect on the earth - exactly as Russell falsely predicted for 1914.

You are the guy who flatly denied Russell predicted anything for 1914 and we haven't heard even the slightest retraction yet. You are trying to switch emphasis, contradicting yourself, and debate something that wasn't even claimed - a predicted visible coming - but haven't even admitted yet how desperately wrong you were to outrageously claim Russell predicted nothing for 1914?

How thoroughly dishonest and dishonourable you are.

209

Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan in

i'm disgusted.

so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

Essan

OK, Dj and any interested readers. Go to this link:

http://www.a2z.org/wtarchive/archive.htm

Click on 'CT Russell Era"

Click on "1879-1916 Watchtower"

Find the March 1st 1915 Watchtower and the section "CHANGES IN 'SCRIPTURE STUDIES'" on the Watchtower page (not PDF page) 66.

It lists the changes, listing first the original 1889 text (which makes the 1914 predictions) then the changed 1915 text (Which edits these embarrassing failed 1914 predictions out).

This proves that the original text contained these predictions, that they were changed in 1915, that DJ's copy of 'The Time is At Hand' must be - according to the Watchtower itself - a post 1915 edition, because the exact text in his copy did not exist before 1915.

How many lines of disproof of your claim will be sufficient for you to admit you were wrong DJ? This is the third.

209

Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan in

i'm disgusted.

so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

Essan

DJeggnog said: Please use the following link to see the scan that I only just uploaded to my website that comes from the original book, The Time is at Hand, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2 (1889), "Study IV, The Times of the Gentiles," pp.76-78... since my only goal here is to provide proof of what was written in the original 1889 release"

This scan DOES NOT come from the "original book" and does not prove "what was written in the original 1889 release", because it is NOT a first edition. It is an altered post 1915 edition.

Do you understand the difference between a book when it is first written and it's later EDITIONS (notice the word 'editions' includes the word EDIT)? Do you realize that all editions of the book will have the date 1889 on them because that was when the book was originally written, but later EDITIONS of the book, which have slightly altered text, will also have an indicator of which EDITION they are and when this EDITION was released? Go to the follwing link and see the listed editions of this book which the site has available:

http://www.a2z.org/wtarchive/archive.htm#russell

Now, do you see the different editions of this book listed? Do see the dates of these editions, 1st edition, 1902 edition, 1911 edition, 1927 edition? Do you see the date the precedes all these different editions released in different years? 1889. Every edition has the date 1889 AS WELL as the date of the edition. This is because the book first published in 1889, but it doesn't mean that every book is an 1889 EDITION, and it doesn't mean every book has the same text. They don't.

Stop trying to pass off a doctored later edition - in which the Society has deceptively altered it's failed predictions to hide embarrassment - as a first edition or an "original book"! Are you stupid enough to not know the difference or deceptive enough not to care? Either way you should not be presuming to teach others nor to berate others who try to prize open you clam like narrow mind to point out a few hard facts to you.

It's INSANE that you are debating this because you have already been shown the quote from the 1915 Watchtower who lists the very changes made in the text! That too you can confirm independently. Go to the same link above find the Watchtower and see for yourself. So the Watchtower says that the text was changed in 1915 and even tells you what the changes were - you still don't admit it? Madness.

You've also see what the Internet Archive also has to sy about this book. Is this website also in on some 'conspiracy' to pretend that 1914 predictions were in the 1st edition but removed from later edition?

The Time Is At Hand by Charles Taze Russell

Description

"The Time is at Hand!," by Charles Taze Russell. Volume 2 of Millennial Dawn. First published in 1889 by the Watch Tower Society. The series was later re-titled Studies in the Scriptures. Predictions for the year 1914 were changed in later printings. Russell was succeeded by J.F. Rutherford, who later renamed the group Jehovah's Witnesses."

http://www.archive.org/details/TheTimeIsAtHandByCharlesTazeRussell

139

Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

by bohm in

jw
friends

there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

Essan

Zid, your God has boobs and can't throw. Need I say more? :)

Technically though, I suppose it could be said that Jehovah has boobs - they're called Jehovah's Witnesses and he's got 7 million of them

209

Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan in

i'm disgusted.

so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

Essan

Thanks Peacedog, I think DJ is relying on bombast and bluster and hoping that people won't make the effort to check the facts for themselves - ironically, that's what he actually accuses me of, despite the fact that of the two of us I was the one providing links to the original texts! That's the Society's tactic too, speak authoritatively and hope nobody checks. They taught DJ well.

Yeah, it seems obvious now that DJ was just a liar. I knew he lied, I just hoped he was unwittingly repeating lies he was told, rather than being a knowing participant in lies. But it seems clear from his responses to the evidence that he is personally committed to lying and just intends to protect his delusions and infect others with them at all costs, rather than being an honest lover of truth. As I've said before, JW's like him still manage shock me, because I had no idea at all that such people existed among JW's when I was one. I still can't get used to it. I think that's why I get so dogged in trying to present the facts to them sometimes, because I imagine they must just not understand or be mistaken and so there must surely some a point where they say "Oh, I see! Yes that's undeniable." I'm still not used to people who are actively, knowingly, devotedly deceptive.