Do JWs still believe in 1914?

by Iamallcool 125 Replies latest members private

Anony Mous

Holy waste of memory and characters djeggnog
You are definitely not keeping up to date with the current WTBTS doctrine.
I suppose you could be right. I may not be as bright as you, but I do the best I can.
Flattery and seeming acceptance of my argument as thought in Theocratic Ministry School - how nice.
You are wrong on many counts and are stuck in their 80's-90's doctrine, go read your most recent pubs to see what the length of a creation day is. You're also mixing up your dates and your facts.
I don't read the recent publications; I author them.
Oh really? Now you need to be able to prove that. Do you know what that word means?
JW's do indeed claim that they were chosen from among the rest of Christianity and that Jesus did an inspection between 1914 and 1919 (the date which they got out of prison for sedition, not because of religious persecution as they sometimes claim) when Rutherford believed he and LATER by extension the GB was chosen by God to lead the WTBTS. No biblical proof other than 'this is a fulfillment of prophecy so-and-so' is ever claimed.
Do you mean "by Judge Rutherford"?
Yes, why so endearing about him? He only called himself a judge, he was never a real-life judge you know.
That "no biblical proof other than 'this is a fulfillment of prophecy so-and-so' is ever claimed" by Judge Rutherford? I've never met the man, so I cannot know what he claimed to believe or what "biblical proof" he offered for his beliefs lest I read what books he authored to compare what things he believed to be true when he was alive with what things I believe to be true today, and I've read quite a few books, and can tell you that my beliefs today would trump his beliefs then. I imagine that I could make a list of all of the things Rutherford wrote during his lifetime which I know today to be erroneous beliefs on his part, that is, if I had any interest in picking his carcass clean, like a buzzard.
Well, first of all. You can see what he claimed to believe and said others should believe by reading the last of the Studies in the Scriptures as well as other books authored by him. We nor he cares what YOU believe. Read up on him, he wasn't a kind man that could stand somebody saying that their believes were superior to his. You can find most of that in the Bethel library. He claimed to be inspired so what he said was truth. The GB still claims they are inspired and everything they write is being led by Holy Spirit, we must then keep them to that claim, the Holy Spirit is infallible.
In the 1800s, Naturalist Charles Darwin knew not a thing about DNA, so my beliefs in 2011 would trump his beliefs when he died in 1882.
Naturalist? Lol. Darwin was NOT a naturalist and that is an ad-hominem attack on his corpse (picking it like a buzzard). Learn to know what you're talking about first. Also, he didn't believe something out of his magical hat, he had a hypothesis and proved his hypothesis by science and until you can get a PhD in that field, prove him wrong and get that viewpoint accepted by the peers in that community you would be considered wrong.
that, before they died, they did not know certain truths? When someone in your own family or one of your friends or neighbors dies, do you tend to harp upon the faults, shortcomings and imperfections that you observed they had in life? Or do you tend to just harp upon the faults, shortcomings and imperfections of dead people that you didn't even know in life?
I would if they claimed to be inspired or led by a perfect entity. If you elevate yourself to that level (by saying I am the direct representative of God) then you also need to be able to live up to the scrutiny.
Hardly anyone would say that German Chancellor Adolf Hitler was a good man; I believe he had something to do with Mein Kaupf, did he not? I believe Hitler died in 1945, and I'm sure you would agree that whatever faults, shortcomings and imperfections Rutherford possessed would pale in significance to those possessed by Hitler, right? Did Rutherford murder anyone? I believe, in contrast with Rutherford, that Hitler was responsible for the murder of millions of people. Let me ask you this: Do you also harp upon Hitler's faults, shortcomings and imperfections, the way you do here regarding Rutherford's faults, shortcomings and imperfections, like some kind of religious crusade, but in connection with Hitler's 1925 "classic," Mein Kaupf?
Did you read Mein Kampf? I did, it's not all that bad for his time, read Huck Finn as a comparison. Comparing somebody to Hitler or saying he's better than Hitler doesn't help in this context. That's a typical example of a weak argument. Rutherford claimed to be inspired by God and thus has to be held to THOSE standards - he has to be almost as good as Jesus in his knowledge of the Bible and what he claims where inspired interpretations or revelations need to fit perfectly.
1935 is when they indeed identified the 'Great Crowd' as there were more than 144,000 followers and they said until recently that then their number was sealed.
So...?
You said that wasn't true.
As far as 1975 goes, the WTBTS even published a half-assed apology for it, they definitely implied it and it was as much as gospel when it was said on the stage.
What did the WTBTS publish that you found to be "a half-assed apology" for 1975, and for what did the WTBTS need to apologize?
March 15, 1980 p 16
There is even a book published by the WTBTS from back then that has now all but disappeared out of their libraries and is not available on the Watchtower Library that shows the calculation to which they showed around 1975 would be the end.
I take it that you are referring to the "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" book. As it happens, I have a copy of this book. Over the years, I've heard sinister things asserted about the "Life Everlasting" book, but, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask you to give me the page number(s) where Jehovah's Witnesses predicted Armageddon would arrive in or "around" the year 1975. Is it conspiratorial that the "Life Everlasting" book is not among the many other books found in the Watchtower Library (WTLIB)?
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. It's just 'convenient' that the WTLIB is only half of a CD-ROM (400/700MB) while a lot of the information has been digitized.
"This generation" has changed meaning different times in WTBTS eschatology as you may well know and as you also can read in WT publication has been used several times to calculate an absolute end from 1914 onwards. When Jesus said those words, they came true in Jerusalem as 'this generation' in all meanings (classic and extended) given to it did NOT pass away by the destruction of Jerusalem. However if JW's believe that 1914 is the beginning of 'This Generation', then where is the end of 'This Generation'?
Why are you concerned about "WTBTS eschatology" if you are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
That's what we're talking about isn't it (look up the word in the dictionary). Who says I'm not and why do you revert to an ad-hominem attack again? I AM a baptized member of Jehovah's Witnesses in GOOD standing and WITH MANY responsibilities supposedly appointed with the blessings from the nation's branch I reside in who have gotten the help of Holy Spirit to guide them in this appointment.
Why do you care what it is Jehovah's Witnesses are teaching others regarding the meaning of Jesus' words at Matthew 24:34 or anything else that Jehovah's Witnesses teach? Are you not concerned about what Baptists are teaching regarding the trinity doctrine? What about what the Episcopalians are teachings regarding gay marriage? Do you frequently post messages of dissent against the religious teachings of any Christian denomination other than Jehovah's Witnesses? If not, why do you think us to be so deserving of getting such love from you and not the Episcopalians or the Baptists or even the Catholics?
I care because that's what I'm supposed to believe but can not honestly back this up by my interpretation of the message in the Bible. I care because my life will be ruined by publicly declaring I do not believe those things. I do post messages against other denominations in open forums. So because you feel personally hurt by my argument you reside to questioning my actions?
Do JWs still believe in 1914: No. Most Witnesses don't even know how to explain it (as djeggnog shows).
Is that right? How didn't I demonstrate my inability to explain the year 1914? In one of my posts to @shepherd in this particular thread, I wrote:
I said MOST (again, learn to read). You cannot explain it according to the current version of their eschatology however.
djeggnog

@miseryloveselders:
So are we to believe you're on the Writing Department?
No comment.
@nugget:
JWs believe in 1914 as a pivotal date however the reasoning behind this date is less clear....
How so?
The link between 1914 and the generation is being diluted and as a result as time passes the need for complex sums will diminish.
How so?
@garyneal:
Not sure what to say other than I don't intend to read all of THAT.
Do what you always do (and ignore it quicker this time).
@djeggnog wrote:
Do you tend to believe everything that you read in print? I hope not, but I realize some people are given to believe some of the most outrageous things imaginable, some people are the willing prey of conspiracy theorists, some people are gullible, some people are wise.
@poopsiecakes wrote:
Pot, meet kettle.
<g>
@Millions:
Incidentally, I think you will find Hitler's book was called Mein Kampf, not Mein Kaupf, seeing as you are so ready to pounce on the spelling mistakes of others, another mark of Christ-like humility.
Did I mention that I didn't proofread my post? I dictated it and didn't take the time to proofread it carefully, so this typo go away from me. I appreciate your pointing it out to me. Thank you.
I await your next long-winded, verbose, self-important reply with the greatest of eagerness sir, and I relish the prospect of wading through its turgid Watchtower prose style and the litany of unresearched historical 'facts' it will undoubtedly contain, all lifted directly from the pages of the literature you apparently authored.
I didn't lift anything I posted here from the Watchtower. I dictated it from my head and did a bit of cut-and-paste from previous posts. Nothing I write is unresearched, but everything I write is well-researched. Instead of making unfounded accusations, why not do your own research into the things I stated in my post, see if you can authenticate the historical and scriptural references made. If I was inaccurate in any of the things I wrote, then come back here and say so, pointing out where I erred, and if you're right, I'll accept your findings. Of course, if you come back here with nothing, then everyone will know that you were just blowing smoke. Ok?
@andrekish wrote:
There are two sides to this debate, I've heard only one so far, that proposed by the Witnesses.... As a single viewpoint only, I admire all men who look to their Creator as this often puts us in our places and makes us think about this world and how we treat each other. Many people here clearly have differing viewpoints and that is wonderful since there are several billion of us scuttling around wrecking this planet with our petty wars and hatreds and here the laptop is as mighty as the missile.
@djeggnog wrote:
Different viewpoints connotes disunity of thought, which is never going to be a good thing... ever.
To @pirata:
Since I was referring to what @andrekish's remarked about "there being two sides to this debate" that arose out of the OP's question as to whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses still believe in 1914, the "differing viewpoints" here from those who were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses "connotes disunity of thought," and such "disunity of thought" isn't the same as if they were united in worship of the only true God, Jehovah. In the future, I would hope that my words not be taken out of context, not by you, not by anyone.
@djeggnog
andrekish

Hi Djeggnog. Thank you for your time and patience. The reason I wrote about differing views being wonderful was to illustrate the capacity for individualism and independant thought among men. I should have added that overall uniformity of thought, ie, no humans kill, maim, harm, etc, should obviously over-ride individual capacity for trouble. And as you seem be very well aware, respect for things greater than ourselves should over-ride our own human conceptions and ways of thinking.
I have had a Bible study with some of Jehovah's Witnesses a few years ago and did some independant research afterwards.
I am immensely intrigued by Daniel's prophecies because of personal experiences. It did slightly strike me that anyone who can list a verifable sequence of historical events, ie the King of the North and the King of the South, long before they happened deserves at least a second glance.
The reason I think this is that I keep seeing images of events that verifiably later occur. This truly happens to me. Mad, eh?
This is not psychosis because psychotic conditions do not produce images of the future that later actually happen.
For example, in February of the year of the demise of a separated Germany, months prior to the first unrest in any part of the old Soviet empire, I had a sudden strange feeling and saw some swirling images then stated to the friends who were with me: 'The Berlin Wall is coming down this year.' They were surprised and ribbed me over it but I followed my instinct and said it again. I knew it would be coming down that year even though there was as yet no hint of unrest in the former USSR. In May and June that year the USSR began to fall apart and in november the wall came down.
More recently I told my sister-in-law that she was pregnant, completely unaware that she had been medically informed she could not have children. Again I was ridiculed by the people around me. Two weeks later she found out that she was four weeks pregnant. I find this startling and intriguing especially since it's happening to me and happens fairly often, ie, a couple of times a year. Some people have said that this is demonic in origin. I do hope not because I do try to follow Solomon's advice: Above all things guard your heart, ie, do to others as you would have them do to you. Sound advice whether Christian, Jew or Muslim, Hindu, Seikh or Bhuddist, capitalist, communist or theocrat. How many of us sadly lack compassion these days.
However, since I wasn't there when Daniel, or whoever wrote this, actually penned it, to me it doesn't matter. The fact that anyone could foresee the future accurately is what is to me significant. 1914? 1915? 1782? 3009? I don't really care, it's too easy to get caught in an arguement and forget what is important here. Since I experience what could be psychic phenomena or demonic visions, and they could be for all I know, I tend to keep a distance from most organised Christian groups, including Jehovah's Witnesses for whom I have as individuals nothing but respect.
What I am about to say will undoubtably cause howls of laughter here among some, and perhaps howls of rage from others. It always does. I don't care because I am an equal among humans. I'm going to stick my head right over the parapet once again and repeat what I keep telling everyone.
Look up folks, because most of you haven't got a clue what's about to happen.
miseryloveselders

@miseryloveselders:
No comment.
So are we to believe you're on the Writing Department?
djeggnog

@Anony mous wrote:
JW's do indeed claim that they were chosen from among the rest of Christianity and that Jesus did an inspection between 1914 and 1919 (the date which they got out of prison for sedition, not because of religious persecution as they sometimes claim) when Rutherford believed he and LATER by extension the GB was chosen by God to lead the WTBTS. No biblical proof other than 'this is a fulfillment of prophecy so-and-so' is ever claimed.
@djeggnog wrote:
Do you mean "by Judge Rutherford"? That "no biblical proof other than 'this is a fulfillment of prophecy so-and-so' is ever claimed" by Judge Rutherford?
@Anony mous wrote:
Yes, why so endearing about him?
What's so endearing about my seeking a clarification from you?
He only called himself a judge, he was never a real-life judge you know.
Maybe he wasn't a judge, but do you think the Missouri State Bar was informed, when he was appointed to sit as a Special Judge in Missouri's 14th Judicial District, where he clerked for two years for another judge, and occasionally served in the stead of the regular judge as a substitute judge that Judge Rutherford, that he wasn't a real judge?
@djeggnog wrote:
In the 1800s, Naturalist Charles Darwin knew not a thing about DNA, so my beliefs in 2011 would trump his beliefs when he died in 1882.
@Anony mous wrote:
Naturalist? Lol. Darwin was NOT a naturalist....
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
Hardly anyone would say that German Chancellor Adolf Hitler was a good man; I believe he had something to do with Mein [Kampf], did he not?
@Anony mous wrote:
Did you read Mein Kampf? I did, it's not all that bad for his time, read Huck Finn as a comparison.
I accept that this is your comparison.
@Anony mous wrote:
1935 is when they indeed identified the 'Great Crowd' as there were more than 144,000 followers and they said until recently that then their number was sealed.
@djeggnog wrote:
So...?
@Anony mous wrote:
You said that wasn't true.
Ok.
@Anony mous wrote:
As far as 1975 goes, the WTBTS even published a half-assed apology for it, they definitely implied it and it was as much as gospel when it was said on the stage.
@djeggnog wrote:
What did the WTBTS publish that you found to be "a half-assed apology" for 1975, and for what did the WTBTS need to apologize?
@Anony mous wrote:
March 15, 1980 p 16
I'm familiar with paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Watchtower, and although there were regrets over the expectations that had been initiated by statement that suggested the possibility that the seventh creative day would come to an end in 1975 (as counted from Adam's creation and not Eve's), there is no apology in either of the paragraphs in the above-referenced article.
@Anony mous wrote:
There is even a book published by the WTBTS from back then that has now all but disappeared out of their libraries and is not available on the Watchtower Library that shows the calculation to which they showed around 1975 would be the end.
@djeggnog wrote:
I take it that you are referring to the "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" book. As it happens, I have a copy of this book. Over the years, I've heard sinister things asserted about the "Life Everlasting" book, but, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask you to give me the page number(s) where Jehovah's Witnesses predicted Armageddon would arrive in or "around" the year 1975. Is it conspiratorial that the "Life Everlasting" book is not among the many other books found in the Watchtower Library (WTLIB)?
@Anony mous wrote:
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. It's just 'convenient' that the WTLIB is only half of a CD-ROM (400/700MB) while a lot of the information has been digitized.
Your response is lame. I know what you wrote; I quoted what you said in this post and in my previous one. I asked you to provide the page number in the "Life Everlasting" book since you claimed that it "shows the calculation to which they showed around 1975 would be the end." Are you going to provide the page number or not?
@djeggnog wrote:
Why are you concerned about "WTBTS eschatology" if you are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
@Anony mous wrote:
That's what we're talking about isn't it (look up the word in the dictionary). Who says I'm not and why do you revert to an ad-hominem attack again?
I am the one saying that you're not one of Jehovah's Witnesses and this is not an ad hominem; I believe that you aren't what you claim to be, to be a fact. You pretend to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but Jehovah knows that you are a counterfeit, a bogus Christian, someone that masquerades as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but, as I read your posts, I'd have you in a committee forthwith. I'm not worried through; my God is strong. Why don't you look up the word "disingenuous." I think, if you're being honest with yourself, that you'll agree the definition to be a most appropriate one.
@djeggnog
pirata

@djeggnog: Since I was referring to what @andrekish's remarked about "there being two sides to this debate" that arose out of the OP's question as to whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses still believe in 1914, the "differing viewpoints" here from those who were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses "connotes disunity of thought," and such "disunity of thought" isn't the same as if they were united in worship of the only true God, Jehovah. In the future, I would hope that my words not be taken out of context, not by you, not by anyone.
I didn't mean to take it out of context. I took your comment as a general statement that conformity (or unity) of thought is an ideal to strive for (and especially so in religious matters).
jay88

1935 is when they indeed identified the 'Great Crowd' as there were more than 144,000 followers and they said until recently that then their number was sealed.
@djeggnog wrote:
So...?
@Anony mous wrote:
You said that wasn't true.
Ok.
Ok means "Yes I lied so what"
What did the WTBTS publish that you found to be "a half-assed apology" for 1975, and for what did the WTBTS need to apologize?
@Anony mous wrote:
March 15, 1980 p 16
I'm familiar with paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Watchtower, and although there were regrets over the expectations that had been initiated by statement that suggested the possibility that the seventh creative day would come to an end in 1975 (as counted from Adam's creation and not Eve's), there is no apology in either of the paragraphs in the above-referenced article.
Normally we would get a copy & paste from our beloved apostate associate djeggnog but he let us down.
djeggnog

@djeggnog wrote:
Since I was referring to what @andrekish's remarked about "there being two sides to this debate" that arose out of the OP's question as to whether or not Jehovah's Witnesses still believe in 1914, the "differing viewpoints" here from those who were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses "connotes disunity of thought," and such "disunity of thought" isn't the same as if they were united in worship of the only true God, Jehovah. In the future, I would hope that my words not be taken out of context, not by you, not by anyone.
@pirata wrote:
I didn't mean to take it out of context. I took your comment as a general statement that conformity (or unity) of thought is an ideal to strive for (and especially so in religious matters).
Ok. It appears then that I owe you an apology for how I (mis)read your post, and I do apologize. It wasn't your intent to take my words out of context.
@djeggnog
pirata

@djeggnog: Ok. It appears then that I owe you an apology for how I (mis)read your post, and I do apologize. It wasn't your intent to take my words out of context.
No apology necessary, I had just posted a smiley, which is quite open to interpretation.
poopsiecakes

Well, I'm not sure what <g> means but I choose to think it means grin in which case there's hope for you yet, Eggykins.

Do JWs still believe in 1914?

Share this