Cameron_Don

Joined

• started 25 topics
• posted 63 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Cameron_Don

• 
  96

  1874, 1914 and 1943

  by TD in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

  from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

  (this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  Djeggnog,

  You quoted the December 1, 1984 Watchtower article where it said...

  "Russell and his associates quickly understood that Christ’s presence would be (future tense) invisible."

  But as you know, Russell had no idea that Christ had already been present since 1874 until he met with Nelson Barbour two years in 1876. And so Russell never understood that Christ would be invisibly present sometime in the future. He understood that Christ had already been present (past tense) since 1874.

  To me that would be similar to saying today that the Governing Body understands that Christ's presence will be (future tense) invisible. But we know that they understand that Christ's presence already is (present tense) invisible, and has been since 1914.

  It's interesting how people can read the same thing but see what it says differently.

  Don
• 
  96

  1874, 1914 and 1943

  by TD in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

  from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

  (this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  In my book I quote the December 1,1984 Watchtower where it says....

  " When Christ’s invisible presence began in 1914, happy were [Jehovah’s Witnesses] to have been found watching."

  That statement misleads the reader to believe that in 1914 the Witnesses (Bible Students) realized that Jesus' "invisible presence" had begun in that year and that's why they were "happy."

  But Djeggnog knows as well as the rest of us that the simple reason why they were not watching for Jesus' invisible presence to begin in 1914 because they believed it had already begun 40 years earlier in 1874.

  But that is not the reason that Djeggnog gives in his above post. He explained the reason this way:

  "The reason Jehovah's Witnesses aren't "watching" for Jesus' invisible presence to begin is because

  (1) Jesus' Second Coming was signaled by the composite sign of his invisible presence that began when the Gentile Times ended in 1914 and

  (2) as we are all living today during the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus' presence continues until his manifestation occurs (the sign of the Son of man appears in the skies above our heads in all time zones!) signaling the end of Jesus' presence and the beginning of Armageddon, the end of this system of things."

  Wow! It's like he drops us off in the Twilight Zone!

  The simple answer to why in 1914 they were not watching for Jesus' invisible presence begin becomes involved with why they are not watching for his invisible presence to begin today, the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, the conclusion of the system of things, the Sign of the Son of man, the end of Jesus' presence and the beginning of Armageddon, and the end of this system of things.

  Hmmm...

  Don Cameron
• 
  96

  1874, 1914 and 1943

  by TD in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

  from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

  (this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  Dieggnog,

  You said, "1914, the year (Russell) had calculated Christ's Second Coming would occur."

  Can you give us an example where Russell calculated that Christ's Second Coming would occur in 1914?

  Don Cameron
• 
  96

  1874, 1914 and 1943

  by TD in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

  from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

  (this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  Apparently Djeggnog thinks of Christ's "invisible presence" and his "Second Coming" as referring to two separate, unrelated events. I think he feels that although Russell incorrectly looked backward to 1874 as the date of the beginning of Jesus' "invisible presence," he correctly looked forward to 1914 for the beginning of his "Second Coming."

  But I think of Christ's "invisible presence" and his "Second Coming" as referring to the same thing. As I explain at the beginning of the book under "Christ’s invisible presence": This term corresponds to what everyone else calls "the Second Coming of Christ." p. 7

  Whereas I think of Djeggnog as being mistaken, he thinks of me as being "clueless."

  But Russell's "The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return" seems to equate Jesus' invisible presence with his Second Advent or Coming. See http://www.christianmedia.us/ebooks3/object.pdf.

  Don
• 
  96

  1874, 1914 and 1943

  by TD in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

  from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

  (this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  I made another 'typo'. The above statement shoud read: "The time to pass an examination is when it is given, not (14 years [1933]) or 24 years [1943] after it is over. And they themselves say that Jesus’ examination was over in the spring of 1919."

  Don
• 
  96

  1874, 1914 and 1943

  by TD in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a persistent meme that floats around on jw related internet forums holds that christ's second coming was moved forward 40 years (i.e.

  from 1874 to 1914) in the year 1943.

  (this appears to be based primarily on a statment in the book god's kingdom of a thousand years has approached on page 209 and to a lesser degree, a footnote at the bottom of page 133 of the publication jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  Hello TD,.

  I recall when you brought this informatoin to my attention a year or so ago. When I wrote "Captives of a Concept" I was not aware of the above specific 1933 Watchtower statements until you brought them to my attention. But in my footnote on page 22 I had acknowledged the following...

  "NOTE: There is some evidence that Rutherford first mentioned 1914 as the beginning of Christ’s Second Coming in the 1930s. But the Proclaimers book doesn’t mention any date prior to 1943."

  I also said,

  The point I wanted to make is that, "

  Either way it wouldn’t make any difference because the change of date (from 1874 to 1914) was made long after Jesus’ (1918-1919) examination was over."

  And I concluded my reasoning by saying that "The time to pass an examination is when it is given, not (19 years [1933] or 29 years [1943] years) after it is over. And they themselves say that Jesus’ examination was over in the spring of 1919."

  I recall when you originally brought this matter to my attention you agreed that as far as the above point I was trying to make, it would not have made any difference whether the date 1874 was changed to 1914 in 1933 or 1943. In 1919 the Society would have given Jesus the wrong answer (1874) for the date of his parousia.

  Don
• 
  21

  A Point Djeggnog Missed...

  by Cameron_Don in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a while back djeggnog said to me.... "evidently you want the readers of your book to believe what jehovah's witnesses believe[d] (down till 1919) to be a matter of embracing the beliefs of these dead men (russell and rutherford).

  but jehovah's witnesses embrace[d] the teachings of jesus christ, our living lord.".

  "captives of a concept" presents 48 examples where jehovah's witnesses (bible students) did in fact embrace the beliefs of the now dead men russell and rutherford.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  A while back Djeggnog said to me...

  "Evidently you want the readers of your book to believe what Jehovah's Witnesses believe[d] (down till 1919) to be a matter of embracing the beliefs of these dead men (Russell and Rutherford). But Jehovah's Witnesses embrace[d] the teachings of Jesus Christ, our living Lord."

  "Captives of a Concept" presents 48 examples where Jehovah's Witnesses (Bible Students) did in fact embrace the beliefs of the now dead men Russell and Rutherford. None of the teachings mentioned in the book were "the teachings of Jesus Christ" as evidenced by they fact that Jehovah's Witnesses no longer teach any of them.

  For whatever reason Djeggnog seems to have missed that important point in the book.

  Don Cameron
• 
  98

  New here

  by Tuber in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey all.. .

  thought i'd introduce myself.. .

  first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  Tuber.

  I mistakenly referred you to Matthew 24:45-57. That should have been Matthew 24:45-47.

  Don
• 
  98

  New here

  by Tuber in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey all.. .

  thought i'd introduce myself.. .

  first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  Tuber,

  I would recommend "Captives of a Concept." It focuses on the organization's most important teaching - "the Society is God's organization" - which is based on their interpretation of the most important Scripture in their theology - Matthew 24:45-57

  Don
• 
  98

  New here

  by Tuber in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey all.. .

  thought i'd introduce myself.. .

  first, a disclaimer: i'm an athiest.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Cameron_Don

  Tuber,

  Here is a sample of how the book reads...

  The Best Way to Get Along With Jehovah’s Witnesses

  "When it comes to the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses view themselves as the teachers and everyone else on earth as potential students. The only time they view themselves as students is when "God’s organization" is the teacher. Therefore, the best way to get along with them is to

  let them be the teachers ."

  "Remember that it isn’t a matter of trying to teach them that they are wrong but rather that they may teach themselves the truth about their organization’s history while they are in the process of teaching someone else about it."

  The book offers some suggestions on how to go about placing them in a position where they may teach themselves the truth about their religion.

  Don Cameron

  – Romans 2:21