1874, 1914 and 1943

by TD 96 Replies latest jw friends

  • diamondiiz
    @diamondiiz suggests that the decade of the 30s (and maybe he also meant to include the decade of the 20s, but I don't really know)

    No, my understanding of a decade is not an overlapping decade as you may imagine. In the 1920s there were many references to 1874 as Jesus' return not just a few - many. As TD stated, the idea to change Jesus' return from 1874 to 1914 started to form in the early 1930s but officially WTS changed it in 1943. The only thing that Russell taught about 1914 that wasn't changed was that it was the end of Gentile Times and that's it. Even when calculating the gentile times, Russell used 606BC based on his understanding that 536BC was Cyrus' first year not that the Jews returned to their homeland after a year of traveling as appears to be todays JW teaching. JW today teach the Russell was their first president and they don't exclude him as a nut that he was so you have to accept that WTS has been a false prophet from the start preaching and teaching 1874 as Jesus' invisible return for over 50 years before they changed their dogma. De 18:20-22 clearly applies to WTS!!! If you get confused about Russell's calculation grab Thy Kingdom Come book and read it. While 1914 may not have been viewed as Armageddon taught by JWs today it had a similar meaning for Russell and his followers. After all, if the governments were to be destroyed by Jesus in 1914 or 1915 or shortly after(again in the early 1910s Russell had cold feet so needed to adjust his teaching).....the teaching of the end of the system of things was expected then and not in the distance future and that's what they've been Preaching and Teaching. False prophets is what they came to be and that's only the start of the fraud that wts is.

    “‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’

    The point not to be missed here though is that Jehovah's Witnesses today teach that Jesus' presence began in 1914, and what is more, his presence has not yet ended, but it continues to this very day.

    Who cares what JWs teach today!!! In 30 years from now they may teach that Jesus returned in 2014 because they misapplied the 100 years somewhere and so what? Everyone will have to just ignore the fact the 1914 has been taught for a long period of time? There is no point that is being missed by TD but by you. The point is that JWs hide the facts from those that they recruit. In fact is that most witnesses today don't even have a true understanding of their own past.

  • jwfacts

    djeggnog what is your point?

    The quotes from TD show that the second coming and parousia continued to be taught to be 1874 well after 1914. The quotes you include just further support that the Watchtower was wrong, and its teachings changed after 1914. For instance it states in your 1913 Watchtower quote "

    The kingdoms of earth will come to an end, and "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom."

    The kingdoms did not end in 1914.

  • allelsefails

    DJEEGGNOG - Are you suggesting that Russell and Rutherford did not teach that the last days and Jesus prophecies about the end of the Gentile times Pointed so clearly to 1799 AD that it was absolutely correct? That Jesus came to power in 1874?

    The issue that you are NOT answering is simple - In 1914 - 1920 YOU teach that Jesus was judging and correcting Bible Students (JWs) and CHOSE them to represent him. But they TAUGHT the 1799 - 1874 for DECADES. Russell himself believed and taught that the Christianity or JWs we have today IS apostate. He rejected Christendom primarily because of their "Armageddon" He did not believe God would destroy BIllions of people. the systems of this world would go, but the People would be allowed to make real decisions with real knowledge.

  • the-illuminator81

    Let's say that I made a reservation at a restaurant. Before my parousia or presence at the restaurant begins, I first have to go to the restaurant. So before I can be present, there must be a coming. If Jesus was present in 1874, his coming must have happened before, not after.

    Unless of course Jesus was very smelly, and his stench was 'present' at the restaurant 40 years before he arrived. But that would be unbiblical, since there is no talk of a stench strong enough to transcend the barriers of time.

    The watchtowers you quote only show that even in 1914, the society was not capable of admitting error, and they tried to screw around with logic and the meaning of words to twist their old, false statements into being true.

    In 1914, they were waiting for his physical presence so he could start Armageddon, just like they are still waiting today in 2011.

    Makes me think of the generation change in 1995. When reality catches up with them, they suddenly have 'new light'.

  • jwfacts

    Great research TD. Does anyone have a copy of the April 30, 1930 issue of The Golden Age referred to here as the first reference to Jesus' rulership starting in 1914?

  • poopsiecakes

    Great thread! (I'll admit I didn't read DJEggnoggin's diatribe)

    They really have a knack for damning themselves with their own printed words, don't they?

  • undercover
    (I'll admit I didn't read DJEggnoggin's diatribe)

    Just goes to shows what excellent taste you have...

    aside from DJeggsforbrains nonsense...great thread.

    Thanks TD!

  • 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.


  • Cameron_Don


    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

  • jwfacts

    "In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book "The Truth Shall Make You Free." This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man's existence into the decade of the 1970's. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. ?Page 324 of the above book positively says: "The King's presence or parousia began in 1914."" <i>God's Kingdom on a Thousand Years Has Approached</i> p.209

    That statement is quite dishonest for two reasons. If the teaching of 1874 as the start of the second coming changed in 1930 (not 1943), then it had nothing to do with the change in the calculation of the 6000 years.

Share this