by Essan 209 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Come on DJeggnog, your flock awaits an answer. I'm getting bored.
'Diotrephes' is waiting reproof from the self professed "Older Man" and "judge". You've cast yourself as the hero and me as the villain, so, come on,
Hit me!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bfcsaFPclA
(Told you I was getting bored Lol)
<------------- Team Essan.
LOL. You apostate. That's it, you're getting judged as soon as Dj gets here. Don't you know he'll judge angels? :)
"To my knowledge, the Watchtower has never taught that the invisible coming of Christ began in 1914.
I think he must be pulling the proverbial bull over your eyes on purpose, maybe to get a RISE out of us...... for kicks. Cuz if thats a true statement , he may explode if he ever gets a hold of The Finished Mystery!!!! YIKES
Yeah Chris, it's extremely telling that the Society's old literature is their 'kryptonite'. What shocks me though is people like DJ's boldness in making claims and presuming to teach others about what Russell and the Society did or didn't teach when they are evidently completely ignorant of their own Organizations history. Either that or they know the truth, but lie anyway. DJ has done both. And it's ridiculous to for them to think they can get away with that here. Do they think we're as oblivious to the facts as the JW's in the hall? We left because we know the facts. Their BS doesn't work here, yet still they try to peddle it.
@djeggnog wrote:
To my knowledge, the Watchtower has never taught that the invisible coming of Christ began in 1914.
@Heaven wrote:
DJEggnog must be a very 'weak' Jehovah's Witness then.
Maybe so. I'm supposing though that you are suggesting that what I said here about the WTS never teaching a thing about the "invisible coming of Christ" beginning in 1914 makes me not a 'heavy' Jehovah's Witness, because you, like the OP (@Essan here), happen to be of the belief that "the invisible coming of Christ" is exactly the same as "the invisible presence of Christ," is that right? Based on the position you appear to have taken in your post, @Heaven, I would conclude that you are exactly of the same opinion as @Essan in this regard, and that for this reason you think me to be "a very 'weak' Jehovah's Witness." Would this be a correct conclusion for me to draw as to the basis for this conclusion of yours, @Heaven?
In your post, you pointed out that with reference to the "Gentile Times" or, as per the quote from the WTS website, "the appointed times of the nations," that from as long ago as when Pastor Russell was alive, Jehovah's Witnesses even today believe that after a period of 2,520 years, counting from the year 607 BC, that the Lord Jesus Christ was installed as king in the heavens some 96 years ago in 1914 "in the midst of [his] enemies" here on earth as was foretold by the psalmist David. (Psalm 110:2)
The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, "the appointed times of the nations" ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King.*—Psalm 2:1-6; Daniel 7:13, 14.
You then edited your post to also quote the following from the WTS website:
"For some 35 years prior to 1914, The Watchtower (now the most widely distributed religious magazine on earth) had been calling attention to 1914 as a year marked in Bible prophecy. These prophecies began to have a remarkable fulfillment in 1914. One of these was Jesus' own prophecy, uttered 1,900 years ago, concerning "the sign" that would appear at the end of the system of things and that would prove that he was invisibly present with kingly power.... Have you experienced the war destruction, the food shortages, or any of the great earthquakes that have plagued the earth since 1914? If so, you have been an eyewitness of "the sign" of "the time of the end" of this system of things.—Daniel 12:4.
Do you see those two words, "invisibly present," that are highlighted here in green, the same words that you yourself highlighted in your post in yellow? I don't pretend that I know can your reason for highlighting them, but in the thread started by @flipper, which is referenced in the OP's post here, entitled "Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation Overlap Change to You," I feel that @Essan decided to hijack @flipper's thread in order to push his anti-WTS agenda to make the same point that @The Finger was seeking to make as to "the invisible coming of Christ":
If the WTS knows that Chuck did not predict the invisible coming of Christ in 1914, why don’t they correct this error among the R&F JW’s?
The WTS hasn't published what @Essan asserts that the WTS has consistently published. He's in error and he needs to apologize for making this incredible statement. To emphasize @Essan's error, I asked @Ding, in this same thread, the following question:
Would you interpret the phrase "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914" as if what I had [written] was "the invisible presence of Christ in 1914," especially if you knew that Jesus' presence is different than Jesus coming?
@Essan reminds me of Diotrephes to whom the apostle John refers at 3 John 9, 10, for, like Diotrephes, @Essan doesn't seem to be able to discuss this issue without calling me a liar for my unwillingness to buy what he's trying to sell me here that conflates the invisible coming of Christ with his invisible presence. I've been here telling the man that Jesus' coming is not the same as Jesus' presence, but @Essan is contentious to a fault, having not a modicum of respect for my opinion to at least hear it.
While I respect @Essan's right to have a different opinion than I do on this matter, he doesn't reciprocate in this regard, for he behaves as if he doesn't know how to agree to disagree, and IMO disagreeableness permeates the tenor of his posts. Consequently, I find that I am unable to talk to the guy since he insults me when I engaged him directly and he insults me when I have engaged him indirectly in my posts to others in that thread. I'm going to try to lay it all out here for the benefit of those that weren't following the aforementioned "Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation Overlap Change to You" thread. BTW, I will henceforth be referring to this other thread as the "Other Thread."
In response to one of @hadit's posts, I speak to the issue of prophetic patterns that had first been raised by @Mad Dawg, and then later by @Ultimate Reality:
In the minor fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, we know now that by "this generation" Jesus didn't mean "a 25 to 30 year period," but he actually meant a 37-year period. We know this now, but the Christians living back there in the first century AD during this 37-year period didn't know what they came to know after Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans. They came to know only after 70 AD that when Jesus used the word "generation," he was referring to a period of time, and not just 20 or 23 years.
Now there is a glaring typo in this paragraph -- maybe you caught it right away -- for I did not intend to suggest that this generation was 37 years in length, but that this meant that this generation was at least 37 years in length:
In the minor fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, we know now that by "this generation" Jesus didn't mean "a 25 to 30 year period," but he actually meant --
at least
-- a 37-year period. We know this now, but the Christians living back there in the first century AD during this 37-year period didn't know what they came to know after Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans. They came to know only after 70 AD that when Jesus used the word "generation," he was referring to a period of time, and not just 20 or 23 years.
After explaining to @Mad Dawg --
Jehovah's Witnesses have our own terminology, and when we refer to prophetic types, prophetic parallels and prophetic elements, calling them prophetic patterns.
-- I go on to explain to @Ultimate Reality, who wrote the following regarding what Jehovah's Witnesses refer to as the "prophetic patterns" that are connected with the minor and major fulfillment of a prophecy:
Parallel Dispensations form the foundation for the prophetic Biblical interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Says who? I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't agree with this statement.
I then went on to say to @hadit:
In the minor fulfillment, this "first generation" was impacted by the great tribulation that destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD, some 37 years after Jesus' prophecy, and while in hindsight we know there were 37 years between when Jesus uttered this prophecy and its fulfillment, Jesus wasn't predicting a number of years at all, but an event in a generation of the sign that lasted for a period of 37 years. In the major fulfillment, however, we know that some 96 years have elapsed between the year 1914, which was the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence and the current year of 2010, so we know that the generation of the sign is a period of at least 96 years and counting.
Because I came to realize that I had failed to include the words "at least" in my post to @hadit, in response to one of @allelsefails' posts, I spell out the fact that this "generation" really lasted for a total of not "37 years," but for "at least" 77 years, so I tell @allelsefails regarding a "biblical generation":
I don't agree that a biblical generation has always been 40 years. You yourself just pointed out that the generation about which Jesus spoke lasted less than 40 years (37 years I believe you said), but here's where intelligence comes in: Jesus uttered those words to folks that were living at the time, did he not? He also stated in the minor fulfillment of his words that that generation would "by no means pass away" until all those things he foretold occurred, correct? Jesus was 33-1/2 years old at the time he made this statement, was he not? How long was this generation of that sign? It was at least 33 years plus the 37 years that you mentioned, for a total of how many years? You do the math and tell me how long that generation really was that was affected by the "great tribulation" of those days, ok?
At any rate, in response to @The Finger, I asked and have been asking the following:
Can you post here a citation from any of the WTS' publications that specifically [indicates] that Russell predicted "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914"? I'd like to read one of these WTS publications wherein it is stated how Russell actually made a prediction as to "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914." Do you have anything like that?
You say that I "must be a very 'weak' Jehovah's Witness" because you believe "the invisible coming of Christ" to be exactly the same as "the invisible presence of Christ," which it isn't! Let me say again:
To my knowledge, the Watchtower has never taught that the invisible coming of Christ began in 1914.
Now I'm quite sure that @Essan clearly doesn't want to have a discussion with me as to the meaning of the words that Jesus used at Matthew 24:34 when referring to "this generation," because, as I said, he not only hijacked @flipper's thread by taking me to task for what he believes Pastor Russell taught regarding the invisible coming of Christ, even though, as I've also said here, Russell didn't teach a thing about the invisible coming of Christ, but did teach that the invisible presence of Christ began in 1874, but this particular issue is so important to the man that he even started this thread calling me out "regarding [my] lies"!
Unlike what Russell taught, Jehovah's Witnesses today do not believe that Jesus' invisible presence occurred in 1874, but that his invisible presence occurred in 1914. As is the case with many of Russell's teachings, Jehovah's Witnesses today have a different understanding than did Russell as to whether Jesus' invisible presence began, but Russell did not know when Jesus' coming would begin and he didn't make any predictions concerning Jesus' coming, visible or invisible.
This is my first post to this thread, but I need to make it clear to everyone here -- including the OP -- that I have no problem arguing my point of view and with anyone else here doing the same thing, but I'm not here to argue with anyone. This means I won't be sparring with you, @Essan. I respect everyone's right to have and hold onto an opinion, but if only @Essan's opinion matters and mine has no currency whatsoever, then @Essan and I cannot have a discussion.
If "debate" means me taking barbs from @Essan for pointing out where he draws inferences from books authored by Russell, like the book, "The Time is at Hand," which was originally published back in 1889, and from which he quotes from the 1907 edition in this thread, inferences that really don't exist, then I will withdraw from this thread. As arrogant as this may sound to some of you here, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm nothing like most of you here were that may have even served as elders in the local congregation that you attended before leaving or fading, "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3:7)
I am one of the few knowledgeable Witnesses you've ever met (or never met!) IRL or in cyberspace, someone that knows not just the "edges" of the truth, the width and length, but the breadth of what things the Bible teaches, so, #1, I'm going to be right until and unless someone proves me to be wrong, #2, I make a lot of typos so I'm not going to be rushed by anyone, and #3, there's more of you here than there is of me, so don't want anyone accusing me of dissing him or her should I decide to direct a response to one and not to the other if the post to which I am responding carries the gist of someone else's post. (I mean, this is a forum and every post is a public message and any member that wants to do so are free to post a response to it.)
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, 'a slave of God and a disciple of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God's chosen ones and the accurate knowledge of the truth which accords with godly devotion,' I am speaking not just to forum members, but to lurkers, and to everyone that can and do monitor the discussions had on this website. (Titus 1:1)
I don't wish to offend anyone in this thread, but if I think a question is stupid, I'm not always going to be politically correct or as tactful as I could have been in characterizing the question as stupid, but I'm saying I think the question is a stupid one, and what I'm not saying is that the individual that has asked such a stupid question is stupid, for that would be a personal attack, an ad hominem, and I do not come here to attack anyone personally.
If you should call me a liar, that would not be an ad hominem because through the contentiousness exhibited here by many of you here, you are definitely "lying against the truth" (James 3:14), which is certainly not an ad hominem, but a fact. If I should say that anyone is a liar, it not as if I had called that person a faggot, or a sissy, or a retard or even a jerk or crazy (well, "jerk" isn't so much an ad hominem just as being a "fool" or "ignorant" aren't ad hominems either because one is what one is!), but a liar is someone that doesn't speak the truth, someone that deliberately seeks mislead others. If it should be anyone's desire here to be a liar, to be a jerk, to be a fool, to be ignorant, I'm going to call a spade a spade and let 'em.
I have said about @Essan that reading comprehension didn't seem to me to be his strong suit, so his "beefing" about what Russell taught should be just his way of handling his angst over his getting"pink-slipped" by the local elders for something he did so that he really wants to "murder" someone, like the members of the governing body for what led to the elders to disfellowship him, that his directing his anger toward the governning body would make him "a crazy person" IMO, and what's so stupid to me is that @Essan and other folks here on this forum tend to refer to the "governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses" as the "WTS" or as "the Watchtower," except that the "WTS" is merely a publishing company staffed by Jehovah's Witnesses and the "Watchtower" is the name of a bimonthly periodical (magazine).
Switching gears here, I want everyone here to notice the tone of this exchange between @Essan and I in the Other Thread, which tone I seek to avoid in this thread:
Good luck Ultimate Reality and Mad Dawg in getting DJ to answer that question. He didn't answer it the first or second time, as with so many questions he's asked.
I provide answers to all of the questions I'm asked. The fact that someone may not like or agree with my answer is not something that I care to consider when responding to someone's post though.
I challenge him to straightforwardly answer your question and to do it in five lines or less (it should take a lot less)
If this doesn't happen it indicates that once again he a) doesn't have a straight answer b) hopes to obscure that fact in a mountain of meaningless drivel.
Yes, I recall your issuing such a challenge to me, and I did answer the question that I was asked with straightforwardness, but all I can do is provide the water; I cannot make you drink any of it.
He'll also probably pretend - again - that he doesn't understand the question, that the question is not "clear", or he'll say he's not sure of your "motivation in asking it", or that he's not sure you deserve an answer because he's not sure you are "sincere".
I have no need to pretend that I don't understand someone's question. If I do not wish to answer a question without first knowing what is being asked, I think it prudent to seek a clarification before answering a question that I wasn't asked. Frankly, I think it to be rather foolish for anyone to answer a question when they do not understand it. But that's me.
Basically expect a torrent of bull, clumsy evasion and a professed inability to discern obvious meaning or understand clear, simple questions which borders on mental retardation. But here's hoping he surprises us.
If this is what you prefer to believe about me and my messaging style, then this will probably be the very last response that you'll be receiving from me. I don't know who the "us" is, but I do know that "us" will henceforth not include you. You feel a need to "name-call" and toss darts at someone, when I can simply ignore your posts as you continue to do this. BTW, I'd be ignoring your post not as someone suffering from mental retardation, BTW, I'd be ignoring your post not as someone suffering from mental retardation, but as someone that recognizes when someone is emotionally immature and is being intentionally abrasive for some reason. I come to this forum to interact with adults that behave as such and not as if they were juveniles.
I cannot have this discussion while taking barbs like this, and if there's going to be this kind of thing in this thread, I'd sooner withdraw from it without further comment than be a participant in a virtual slugfest.
As I've said, @Essan happens to be of the belief that "the invisible coming of Christ" is exactly the same as "the invisible presence of Christ," but he's wrong; these two things are not the same, and as long as this is going to be a discussion, I'm going to take a chance here and respond directly to @Essan's post in this thread:
First, in the Other Thread, @Mad Dawg asked me the following question, and I think it important to incorporate here a portion of that Other Thread into this one to help everyone in this understand (maybe) understand the context of @Essans' remarks in this particular thread:
What response would I get to this question from the average JW: Did the WTS/Chuck Russell predict Jesus’ invisible presence would occur in 1914?
Here's the way I responded to @Mad Dawg's question:
No, Russell did not do that. As a matter of fact, I had to correct one of my typos in this very thread to ensure that I was not communicating that Russell had indicated that Jesus' invisible presence would occur in 1914, for Russell did not predict any date at all, but had only indicated that his calculations had revealed that Jesus' invisible presence had begun in the year 1874. Like I told you before when you brought this up early on in this thread, there is a difference between Jesus' "presence" and Jesus' "coming." The first occurred in 1914 whereas the second will not occur until after the great tribulation.
@Essan followed up on @Mad Dawg's question by making the following accusation:
"The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence that Jesus' presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914." Watchtower 1993 January 15 pp.5,9
And based on @Essan's erroneous belief as to what "Jesus' presence in heavenly Kingdom power [which] began in 1914" means -- he thinks by this expression that Jehovah's Witnesses are saying that "Jesus' coming began in 1914" when that is not what this expression means! -- this was what @Essan concluded:
LIE. The Watchtower presented evidence, as fact, that this presence began in 1874 for over 40 years. That is not 'consistency'.
Where is this "inconsistency"? I have to wonder whether @Essan knows the difference between the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses as to Jesus' presence beginning in 1914 and the invisible coming of Christ in 1914. To my knowledge, the Watchtower has never taught that the invisible coming of Christ began in 1914. Never. But Russell did teach that the invisible presence of Christ Jesus began in 1874. When I read this I realized that @Essan doesn't know that there is difference between Jesus' "presence" and Jesus' "coming," that his presence and coming are not the same thing. Jesus' presence occurred in 1914, not in 1874 as Russell stated....
And please take note of the rest of my very long sentence:
.... and the Watchtower [consistently] declares 1914 to be the year when Jesus' invisible presence began, 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)
I read everything in that Other Thread, but when @Essan goes on to conflate a bad argument that he didn't prove by throwing at it more things that he declares to be"lies" into the mix without proving an alleged "inconsistency" between the teachings of Russell then and the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses today, it's all I can do but wonder why he didn't bother to read what I wrote. I'm now going to connect this comment (in blue) with what @Essan writes in this thread, and I will begin with this:
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.
This is not what I said at all. What I said was that Russell did not predict 1914 to be the year of Jesus' invisible coming. What you quote here is Russell's paraphrase of 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, but that isn't a prediction. You say that "Russell must have predicted and proclaimed 1914 to be the year of Christ's 'Coming,'" but what you cut and pasted here doesn't prove that "Russell must have predicted and proclaimed 1914 to be the year of Christ's 'Coming,'" does it? What you assert here is merely an assertion on your part for through conjecture you have so concluded, but conjecture isn't proof. Do you have any of that, @Essan?
You say that I argued that Russell could not have "predicted and proclaimed 1914 to be the year of Christ's 'Coming'" because Jesus "coming" comes after the "Tribulation," but not only didn't I say this, I wouldn't have said this because Russell didn't believe what Jehovah's Witnesses today believe as to when the "great tribulation" could occur. I'm going to be quoting here from the same source from which you quoted in your post, from the book, The Time is at Hand, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2 (1889), "Study IV, The Times of the Gentiles," pp.76-78.
Notice that Russell did not know when Jesus' coming would actually begin:
It will be God’s Kingdom, the Kingdom of Jehovah’s Anointed. It will be established gradually, during a great time of trouble with which the Gospel age will close, and in the midst of which present dominions shall be utterly consumed, passing away amid great confusion.
In referring to the great tribulation, Russell believed a "great time of trouble" would begin at the close of the "Gospel age," and this "great time of trouble" had not yet arrived. Let's talk about what Russell believed about the Gospel age. In the Watch Tower, dated January 1, 1892, stated the following:
This good message of the Kingdom ... must first be preached before the end of this age. [¶] We ask whether this has yet been done, and reply, No. That which is generally preached under the name gospel has little in it that is really good tidings, and nothing whatever in it about the kingdom that our Lord promised should be "set up" in the end of the Gospel age, to bless all the families of the earth during the Millennial age. [¶] Catholics and Protestants, although they use our Lord’s prayer, saying, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven," do not expect such a kingdom, and hence are not preaching it in all or in any of the nations of the world.... Thus this work is still open to be done and can be done by no others than those who know something of these good tidings of the kingdom. (Id., at p. 8.)
However, in the Watchtower dated September 1, 1915, published 23 years after the previous one quoted above, Russell acknowledges that the door to the "high calling" of Gospel age had not yet closed, but spoke of "the full opening of the Millennium" to occur after the close of "this Gospel age" as follows:
It is our thought that with the closing of the "door" of this Gospel age there will be no more begetting of the holy Spirit to the spirit nature.
Any afterward coming to God through consecration, before the inauguration of the restitution work, will be accepted by him, not to the spirit plane of being, but to the earthly plane. Such would come in under the same conditions as the ancient worthies who were accepted of God. The ancient worthies came in, no call being opened to them—the high calling not being yet open. But they freely gave themselves up to God without knowing what blessings their consecration would bring, except that they had the intimation that they would, in the future life, have a "better resurrection" than would the remainder of the world. [¶] Our thought is that whoever under such conditions as these will make a full consecration to the Lord, to leave all to follow in his ways, and will live up faithfully, loyally, to that consecration, may be privileged to be counted as a similar class to those who preceded this Gospel age. We know of no reason why the Lord would refuse to receive those who make a consecration after the close of the Gospel age high calling and before the full opening of the Millennium. (Id. at pp. 268, 269.)
Clearly, Russell didn't believe that Armageddon had come the previous year, in 1914, or that Jesus had come in kingdom power in 1914, since, in 1915, he considers himself as living during "this Gospel age," and was yet looking forward to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ during the "Millennial age" to follow the close of the Gospel age.
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"?
As already point out, Russell didn't believe Jesus would "come' before the Gospel age or during the Gospel age, but at the close of the Gospel age, and that the Gospel age would be followed by the Millennial age. According to The Time is at Hand, quoted above, Russell believed that "God’s Kingdom [would] be established gradually, during a great time of trouble with which the Gospel age will close." In 1915, the Gospel age had not yet closed, nor had this "great time of trouble" -- the "great tribulation" -- yet begun.
You go on to quote in your post in the Other Thread from The Time is at Hand, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2 (1889), "Study IV, The Times of the Gentiles," wherein you emphasize certain words in your quoted (bolded below):
"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
I am now going to quote here the entire clip from which you were quoting from pp. 76-78 from the book in its entirety, so that we will all be in a position to understand the context of what Russell is saying:
In this chapter we 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 that date will see the disintegration 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 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.
Secondly, It will prove that 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; because the overthrow of these Gentile governments is directly caused by his dashing them to pieces as a potter's vessel (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 2:27), and establishing in their stead his own righteous government.
Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of the overthrow the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the "royal priesthood," "the body of Christ," will be glorified with the Head; because every member is to reign with Christ, being a joint-heir with him of the Kingdom, and it cannot be fully "set up" without every member.
Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the "Times of the Gentiles" will be fulfilled or completed.
Fifthly, It will prove that by that date, or sooner, Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away; because their "blindness in part" was to continue only "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25), or, in other words, until the full number from among the Gentiles, who are to be members of the body or bride of Christ, would be fully selected.
Sixthly, It will prove that 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; and then men will learn to be still, and to know that Jehovah is God and that he will be exalted in the earth. (Psa. 46:10) The condition of things spoken of in symbolic language as raging waves of the sea, melting earth, falling mountains and burning heavens will then pass away, and the "new heavens and new earth" with their peaceful blessings will begin to be recognized by trouble-tossed humanity. But the Lord's Anointed and his rightful and righteous authority will first be recognized by a company of God's children while passing through the great tribulation--the class represented by m and t on the Chart of the Ages (see also pages 235 to 239, Vol. I); afterward, just at its close, by fleshly Israel; and ultimately by mankind in general.
Seventhly, 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. Its own power and dominion will be established as fast as by its varied influences and agencies it crushes and scatters the "powers that be"--civil and ecclesiastical--iron and clay.
The Time is at Hand, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 2 (1889), "Study IV, The Times of the Gentiles," pp.76-78.
Here now is the first of the two (2) questions you asked me:
DJ, Would you have us believe that Russell taught that the long prayed for "Kingdom would come" in 1914, in [its] fullest possible sense, in the earth, but that Jesus would somehow not have "come"?
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. What Russell actually stated was that "the full end of the times of the Gentiles ... will be reached in AD: 1914" after which the rule of imperfect men would begin to disintegrate. He 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? Russell then goes on to say as to the end of the Gentile times in 1914 that "if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures," then it would prove that the kingdom would "shortly be "set up," in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions," and that "he whose right it is" -- referring to the Lord Jesus Christ -- "will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and ... that he will be present for a considerable period before that date" Keep in mind that Russell taught that Jesus was "invisibly present" in 1874 and the book from which you quoted clearly indicates that Jesus would be "present as earth's new Ruler" in 1914.
Again, you quoted from The Time is at Hand book as proof that "Russell must have predicted and proclaimed 1914 to be the year of Christ's 'Coming,'" but what you quoted doesn't even come close to proving your contention, does it? No, Russell didn't teach that Jesus would come in 1914, nor did he predict his coming in kingdom power in 1914, but that in 1914 he "will then be present as earth's new Ruler," but from the invisible heavens.
Here now is the second of the two (2) questions you asked me:
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.
This question assumes a fact that is not in evidence, for Russell didn't say that Christ would come in 1914, but that he would be present in 1914. It is you that is twisting Russell's words to make Russell appear to have said something that he really does not say. Why would you be doing this, @Essan? Only someone ignorant might be persuaded to conclude what you have here asserted and what you said isn't true and you know it isn't true, so why do it? What's your angle?
So this matter is settled. Agreed? Russell taught that [Jesus'] invisible coming would be in 1914.
No, we are not agreed. Russell did not teach that Jesus' invisible coming would be in1914, and you know it!
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't claim that Jesus would have "come" by 1914? If so, that would be insanity.
I have made no such claim. It is you that is raising this strawman about the end of the tribulation, the destruction of Christendom and of all governments, Armageddon, and God's Kingdom being "in complete and direct control of the earth "all by late 1914," but none of this is what The Time is at Hand book says, is it? You made all of this up, didn't you? Why? To mislead me or to perhaps mislead the gullible or those that may not quite comprehend your flawed arguments here? Or is it that you think me to be a fool? Stupid? Ignorant? Crazy?
Your response to this post, @Essan, if you should decide to respond, will determine whether I post any messages in follow-up to you. Otherwise, I'll ignore your posts and (maybe) post a response indirectly to your posts, but not directly to you, just as I did in that Other Thread. I am looking forward to receiving an honest reply from you and not more of the same twisting of Russell's words or mine. I have substantiated everything that I have been saying here, using the book from which you quoted, so I'm especially looking forward to your retracting the statements that you have made here as to what things you asserted Russell believed regarding the year 1914, since I have proved your claims here to have been totally false.
@djeggnog
DJeggnog, I have a question that I'd like you to answer prompted by your ridiculously long and (for reasons which I'll soon explain) pointless post above. Please abide by the request in the OP and don't write such long posts again. Please read carefully as most of your errors appear to come from ignorance of what others wrote. And you say I have trouble with reading comprehension?
Why are you wrongly referring to my supposedly mistaking the "presence" and "coming"? This is not so. Please correct this. Read my post after Heaven's on page 1, where I myself correct her on this. . DJ, I am not referencing any "presence" but the "COMING". I am using YOUR belief structure to prove that Russell predicted Christ's "COMING" for 1914. The evidence I presented is exclusively about Russell predicting this "COMING". I have already explained this to you over half a dozen times now. This is the central error of your post and makes all your subsequent ramblings pointless.
There are only two issues here, both of which you miss:
1) I am not talking about Jesus "presence" - I proved to YOU that Russell always taught Jesus presence began in 1874, which you were ignorant of, so obviously I know it - I am exclusively referring to Jesus "COMING" and proving that Russell predicted this for 1914.
2) Russell predicted Christ's "COMING" for 1914, because he also predicted that the height of the Tribulation would be passed in 1914 and that Armageddon would be over by the end of 1914. Christ must "COME" after the Tribulation and at or just before Armageddon, as you yourself said, so Russell was necessarily predicting Christ's "COMING" for 1914.
Finally, you say:
Dj said: "I have made no such claim. It is you that is raising this strawman about the end of the tribulation, the destruction of Christendom and of all governments, Armageddon, and God's Kingdom being "in complete and direct control of the earth "all by late 1914," but none of this is what The Time is at Hand book says, is it? You made all of this up, didn't you? Why? To mislead me or to perhaps mislead the gullible or those that may not quite comprehend your flawed arguments here? Or is it that you think me to be a fool? Stupid? Ignorant? Crazy?"
Give.... me.... strength. You are at the very least deceived.
DJ, do you realize that if you read edited reprints of Russell's books, which were changed near or after Russell's predictions had failed and the dates had past, you will never know what he actually predicted before those dates? Your source material is not original and has been significantly altered.
You are using books which have had their original text changed after the dates to which they referred had passed? Are you the only JW here who doesn't know that or have the wits to realize it's significance? This is common knowledge here. You need to use the originals to know what the Society said before it rewrote history. Russell said everything I quoted him as saying - it was just changed later when these predictions failed and when his views changed.
1. Research this.
2. Get back to me.
3. Retract your claims.
4. Apologize.
Are there any DJ-whisperers here who understand the issues under discussion and may have the patience and conciseness to explain the pertinent points in a way that will somehow reach him? I don't seem to have the 'knack'.
I will take a very special kind of someone I think. LOL
DJ, I am looking online to try to find a comprehensive list of the changes that were made to "The Time is At Hand". But in the meantime please read what Internet Archive has to say under it's listing for this book. (My highlights in bold):
"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
I was telling the truth about what Russell predicted for 1914. You have been deceived, but not by me.
Essan
You should have read his post it shows concisely that Russell did not "predict" anything.
Why is prophecy such an issue for you?
Prophecy understanding/decernment is one of the few areas where we are told to subjectively look for signs and fulfillment in the world around us, subject to Bible chronology and prophecies concerning this.
It's not meant to be exact science from the beginning hense why it was originally obscured in symbolic hard to understand language biblically until the "time of the End". We are meant to keep searching and looking for fulfillment around us and so it is a constantly refining as our knowledge and understanding grow.
Why would anyone judge any christian faith on their recognition of Bible prophecy fulfillment? which is only 100% in hindsight? Jesus himself had to explain which of the prophecies he fulfilled regarding the messiah after the fact.
According to you the Apostles as the chosen of Jesus should have immediately known and got them right without the need to be told by Jesus?
Luke 24:27 (New International Version)
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
You are putting a false unbiblically expectation on prophecy understanding that is clearly part of an agenda to create doubt and false expectation of what God's people will be acheiving in these times.
