Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

by Essan 209 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Essan

  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. (He reluctantly admitted that Russell taught 1874 to be the year beginning Jesus 'presence', but not that he taught Christ's "Coming" in power would be in 1914, or any other date, presumably)

  This history behind this is that DJ has made many false claims about the history or his Organization, as he attempts to defend their record. These can be found in this thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/196432/1/Have-your-JW-Relatives-Explained-about-Generation-Overlap-Change-to-You

  DJ's false claims have been utterly debunked with direct and explicit quotes from the Society's literature. The most recent claim, outlined above, was also debunked at length, more than once, with multiple quotes. However, DJ uses a most infuriating tactic employed by only the most dishonest and shameless debaters - he simply ignores the evidence and continues his lies as if nothing has happened. When someone ignores a body of clear evidence disproving their claim - evidence not open to interpretation, but explicit - and yet fails to make a retraction or even to acknowledge such evidence, that is dishonourable. But when this evidence is actually asked for - which DJ did - and is consequently presented several times by an obliging poster and yet he not only ignores this, but continues to repeat the false, debunked, claim despite the evidence, that makes him a liar, IMO.

  This is low, dishonest, infuriating behaviour in any discussion but is particularly shameful for a professed Christian. As I can't get DJ to respond either to me or the quotes of his Organizations own leaders in the thread linked above, I'm calling him on it here, out in the open.

  So, I'm calling you a liar DJ, and your reputation is on the line. Defend or retract the latest claim you made, described above. I will present the evidence again, in my next post, as may others if they wish, and you can respond, either with a rebuttal or a retraction. But I'd ask others not to divert the conversation or change the topic. Nor is this a thread intended as a place to generally attack DJ or other WT apologists. Although I would appreciate bumps so that DJ gets a chance to see this and respond.

  But I don't want to hear any excuse making from you DJ. I don't want pointless epic epistles on other subjects. Stick to the point. You don't need to write a thousand lines. I want you to be accountable for this claim of yours only. Any such equivocation and distraction will only confirm your status as a liar and a fraud, as will silence. Put up or shut up.
• 

  Essan

  Here is a cut and paste of some of the evidence I presented to show that Russell must have predicted and proclaimed 1914 to be the year of Christ's "Coming". DJ had argued that Russell could not have done so because Jesus "coming" comes after the "Tribulation", and he referenced 2 Thess:

  " God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power." 2 Thess 1:6-9.

  So, if we find that Armageddon was predicted by Russell to have finished by the end of 1914, and Jesus would to be ruling the earth by then, when must he have been teaching Jesus would "come"?

  "...the battle of the great day of God Almighty, the date of the close of that "battle" i s definitely marked in Scripture as October 1914 . - Zion's Watch Tower 1892 January 15 p.23

  " In this chapter we will present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men...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 that it will then be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions. Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the domination will then be present as earth’s new Ruler..." - The Time Is at Hand (SS-2), 1907 ed., p. 76-78

  DJ, Would you have us believe that Russell taught that the long prayed for "Kingdom would come" in 1914, in it's fullest possible sense, in the earth , but that Jesus would somehow not have "come"? Or that he taught that Christ was present as king from 1874, and that he would also "then be present", in 1914, "as earths new Ruler", but was somehow not stating that this was when he would "come"? Rubbish.

  So this matter is settled. Agreed? Russell taught that Jesus invisible coming would be in 1914. Unless you are claiming that Russell taught that the Tribulation would end, Christendom would be destroyed, all Governments destroyed, Armageddon would be over, Christ's Kingdom would be in complete and direct control of the earth - all by late 1914 - but, somehow, he didn'tclaim that Jesus would have "come" by 1914? If so, that would be insanity.

  But, seeing as even explicit statements seem incomprehensible to you, we'll continue until it penetrates even your fogged mind.

  You claim that Russell never taught that Jesus "invisible coming" was to be in 1914. But you also say: "but Jesus' coming will not occur until after the "great tribulation" when all of the political kingdoms turn on all religions, including ours, which will be then be followed by "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels," IOW, it is after the great tribulation that Jesus' coming begins. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

  So, you give the markers for identifying when this "invisible coming" must begin: The tribulation ends, religion is attacked, and at that point "Jesus coming begins", Armageddon concludes, His Rulership is established in the earth. Yes?

  This, you say, was never taught by Russell as being in 1914. Let's see:

  "The seventh trumpet sounds from Aug. 1840, until "the time of trouble," [Great Tribulation] or day of wrath is ended. Hence, it doubtless ends with the times of the Gentiles, and this forty years of conquest; and therefore, sounds until A. D. 1914; at the end of which, Babylon the great, will have fallen , and the "dragon" be bound: that is, the nations will be subdued, and "the prince of this world cast out."" Three Worlds and The Harvest of This World (1877) p.143

  " 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble" [Great Tribulation] . - The Watchtower Reprints, July 15, 1894, p. 1677

  "And, with the end of A.D. 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as already shown in prophecy." Studies In the Scriptures Series III - Thy Kingdom Come (1891) p.153

  "October, 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea," utterly destroyed as a system." Watch Tower 1911 June 15 p.190

  Here are all the elements you mentioned, pinned on 1914 by Russell! So if the tribulation, according to Russell, ends at the close of 1914 with the destruction of Babylon, and the close of Armageddon, then as you say: "it is after the great tribulation that Jesus' coming begins. ", so how did Russell NOT predict this "coming" for the end of 1914?

  Could Jesus be ruling the earth in 1914, and yet not already have "invisibly come"?

  "SETTING UP THE EARTHLY GOVERNMENT ---- Not until the full end of Gentile Times ( October, A.D. 1914) should we expect the earthly phase of God's Kingdom; for in giving a lease of dominion to the Gentiles until that date God made no mistake and his plans alter not . The earthly phase of the Kingdom of God when set up will be Israelitish; for such is God's engagement or covenant with Abraham and his natural seed." Studies In the Scriptures Series IV - The Day of Vengeance pp.624,625

  "It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34)-and fully consume the power of these kings ." - Studies In the Scriptures Series II - The Time Is at Hand (1889) pp.77, 78 *

  "True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved . In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God , will be accomplished at the end of A. D. 1914 ." Studies In the Scriptures Series II - The Time Is At Hand (1889) pp.99, 101

  "A. D. 1914, when the day of wrath will be passed , and the resurrection and return of the "whole house of Israel" due." Three Worlds and The Harvest of This World (1877) p.166

  "The beginning of the earthly phase of the Kingdom in the end of A.D. 1914 will, we understand, consist wholly of the resurrected holy ones of olden time-from John the Baptizer back to Abel-"Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the holy prophets." Studies In the Scriptures Series IV - The Day of Vengeance p.62

  *Studies In the Scriptures Series II - The Time Is at Hand (1889) pp.77, 78 claimed seven things would happen in 1914. Not one of these eventuated. The following statements are extracted from that list;

  • 1. "the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men. at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will begin to assume control, and that it will then shortly be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions."
    2. He whose right it is thus to take the dominion will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date;
    3. the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the "royal priesthood," "the body of Christ," will beglorified with the Head;
    4. Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down
    5. Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away
    6. the great "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," will reach its culmination in a world-wide reign of anarchy
    7. It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34)-and fully consume the power of these kings."

  http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/1914.html

  DJ simply ignored all the above, and around a half dozen further references to it, for several more pages and even continued to repeat the same false claim, despite the evidence, that Russell did not predict Jesus "Coming" for 1914. He also failed to retract or even acknowledge that his claim that Russell predicted nothing at all for 1914 had been thoroughly disproven.
• 

  moshe

  Semantics is a great weapon, he must have been thinking that Russell had 1914 "teachings", but they weren't predictions, because he didn't preface them with the words, "I predict", so it's not a prediction, based on "my" word rules/game.
• 

  sooner7nc

  Noob Fight! Everybody get yer popcorn!
• 

  Essan

  Yeah Moshe, maybe Paedophile Elders could start using that defense in court too?

  "No, no, Your Honour, I didn't rape him because I never used the word 'rape'."
• 

  moshe

  Dead people don't need to worry about defending what they wrote- they leave it to others to interpret as they see fit- isn't that what Jesus did?
• 

  notverylikely

  "No, no, Your Honour, I didn't rape him because I never used the word 'rape'."

  "You said rape twice."

  "I like rape."
• 

  palmtree67

  "Actually, I said grape."

  "You misunderstood me."
• 

  yesidid

  bump
• 

  bohm

  "Actually, I said grape.", invisibly.