by neverendingjourney 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
My understanding of this come from "A PEOPLE FOR HIS NAME" by Tony Wills.
CTR wasn't preaching to the soon-to-be-dead. He felt his mission was to gather together the Bride of Christ who were scattered throughout the churches of Christendom.
"A PEOPLE FOR HIS NAME" is one of the best histories of the WTB&TS you can get, which is why it isn't a Watchtower publication. You can get a copy from FREEMINDS or from LULU.com.
"Maybe" God had Russell preach a lot of rubbish to prove to the world that Russell was a false prophet.
THE careful student will have observed that the period designated "The Time of the End" is very appropriately named, since not only does the Gospel age close in it, but in it, also, all prophecies relating to the close of this age terminate, reaching their fulfilments. The same class of readers will have noticed, too, the special importance of the last 40 of those 115 years (1874-1914), called "The End" or "Harvest." (Thy Kingdom Come, p.121)
We see no reason for changing the figures-- nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. (Watch Tower Reprints, p.1677)
The root of it is the claim of being a special spokesperson for a literal
144,000, which started with early Russell and has carried on through the whole
Watchtower history, then hoking up rationalizations for it to get people to send
money to them instead of whoever else.
Pyramids start having special meaningful measurements (distinct from other
popular stories about them), Jesus appears invisibly, research books that aren't
supportive are misused to seem supportive, pertinent evidence is omitted, and
more commonly accepted ideas are mischaracterized and propagandized against.
Don't project R. Franz' post-Watchtower period into the earlier period--they
didn't have a sincere period.
Since when did logic ever deter the Watchtower?
They have been out of cards for years, but they're still dealing....
This topic hints at another issue.
According to WT theology, the "Great Crowd" was identified in 1935. Several thousand of tose who proclaimed themselves of this group stood up when prompted at a JW convention that year.
According to Revelation & WT theology, the "Great Crowd" survives Armageddon.
An infant alive at that time is now 75+. Anyone capable of understanding Rutherford's words back then is at the very least in their late 80's.
Before too much longer, all of those alive in 1935 at that convention, like the "generation of 1914", will be dead.
So - since none of them will survive Armageddon, were they really the "Great Crowd"?
If not - then what group was it that was identified in 1935?
Or did God identify the "Great Crowd" a few decades too early?
Another set of fun questions to ask your favorite JW!
sir82:
What's of real interest to me is how the Watchtower will handle the holes in their doctrine going forward. Will they develop a new doctrinal framework to make their beliefs internally consistent or will they stop teaching them and bank on the rank and file forgetting and/or not paying attention to them.
My money's on the latter. There has been an obvious "dumbing down" of their literature since the beginning of my involvement with this group in the mid 80s. As I pointed out earlier, a precedent was set with the whole Adam/Eve, 6000 year creative days, 1975 nonsense. The Watchtower initially tried to explain the 1975 failure by saying that a gap existed between the creation of Adam and Eve and that this gap explained why the 6,000 years didn't run out in 1975. Then the WT simply dropped the issue completely. They stopped teaching it. I never knew this was an official WT teaching while I was in and I doubt that more than 5% of Witnesses I associated with had any idea this was the case. Most had become Witnesses after 1975.
But it could go either way. All that's needed is some smarty-pants know-it-all on the GB who believes Jehovah has appointed him to be the new Fred Franz, a chief theologian, and a whole host of new, crazy doctrinal interpretations could be in the works. Time will tell.
Russell never believed in such a thing. Russell did not believe that he was commissioned to preach to people who all die before Armageddon. Russell did not believe in the JW "Gospel" of bad tidings of great misery that millions of earth inhabitants would be eternally destroyed, and thus, not believing in this alleged "Good News", Russell had no thought of preaching a message of warning of such an impending doom. It was Rutherford who invented this alledged "Good News," not Russell.
In Russell's time they believed that the end was coming in 1914, not over a hundred years in the future.
Russell was looking for the end of the Gentile Times in 1914. He was not looking for 'the end' in 1914, if by that expression one has in mind the JWs' view of Armageddon and the end of this system. Russell believe on Armageddon and the end of this age was almost totally different from what the JWs preach today.
From 1904 to 1914, he was expecting the "beginning" of the "time of trouble" in 1914. Although various dates were proposed (1915, 1918, 1920, etc.) as to how long the "time of trouble" would last after 1914 before the Satan is abyssed, and the present heavens and earth pass away, Russell stated that actually the Bible does not provide a prophecy that gives how long the time of trouble was to last.
Since Russell never claimed to a prophet, since Russell never gave any prophecy, since Russell disclaimed being a prophet, and since Russell many times stated that his conclusions concerning Biblical prophecy were NOT prophecy, Russell most certainly was not a false prophet. He was not right in every detail, but, as we all err, he at times also erred. He did not, however, speak as a "central authority," nor was he heading an organization (such as the JW organization which developed after he died); he allowed others in the Bible Students movement to disagree with him, and he often presented other opinions in the pages of the Watch Tower even though he did not necessarily agree with those views. No, he disclaimed being a prophet; he admitted the possibilty of error on his part, he many times spoke of the differrence between what he was saying the actual prophecy. He stated that the Bible prophecies would be fulfilled whether he had it right concerning those prophecies or not.
No, there is no logic in this, especially since Russell did not even believe in such an organization; Russell had even tried to make sure that that the Watch Tower Society did not become such an "organization" by means of the "by-law" and his will. Rutherford immediately, by means of deception, had the by-laws changed, indeed creating a new legal entity out of the old entity, and he disregarded Russell's will. This is the manner in which he used the Watch Tower to create his new organization. By 1930, the earlier Bible Bible Students movement (those who had been associated with the movement in the days of Russell) had, as a whole (represented by the majority), rejected Rutherford's new organization and Rutherford's new "Gospel" which denied the "ransom for all." Indeed, Russell started the Watch Tower magazine for the very purpose of defending the ransom for all, but Rutherford denied that doctrine, and he led his new organization into such denial.
