The first portion of this post is a repost of just a portion of my previous post, which contained a few typos in it, which often happens when I don't proofread what I dictate, as well as a few additional remarks that were not a part of my original dictation (where indicated in red).
Prior to 1914 the Watchtower taught that the second coming was in 1874.
Prove this by providing a quote from any Watchtower publication that teaches that Christ's second coming occurred in 1874. Until you should get around to producing such a quote, this statement of yours is a lie.
It appears that he has provided what you asked for.
Is that right? If anything that @jwfacts posted by way of response should really seem to you to be what I asked for, then the fact you so concluded would make you an idiot in my opinion. Do you consider yourself to be an idiot? Should others consider you to be such? Look: I don't need you to referee the "action" here; I'm fully capable of determining for myself whether I am satisfied by something that you or anyone else should provide me as proof in support of any of the contentions that "you guys" make here on JWN. Jehovah's Witnesses today have a different understanding as to when Christ's invisible presence began; we have abandoned and no longer abide by the teaching of Russell and Rutherford that his presence or parousia began in 1874 and continued through 1914, the end of the Gentile Times, when Jesus became enthroned in the heavenly kingdom of God as king.
Like I said in a previous post, if you prefer to pigeonhole us as if our beliefs aren't progressive, but are static ones -- like the static doctrine that Christendom's trinitarians blindly believe as to Jesus' being God incarnate without a doubt in their minds until I plant one by asking them to explain Matthew 1:20 to me that says Baby Jesus was 'conceived of the Holy Ghost,' which exposes a fatal flaw in their static "three co-equal Persons" doctrine if, in fact, the Holy Ghost "begat" Jesus, thus making the Holy Ghost Jesus' father when John 1:14 describes Jesus as being "the only begotten of the Father"-- then that's on you. Our understanding of things doesn't remain static, but progressive, since we are always learning.
Today, in 2011, people don't refer to World War I as "the World War" or "the Great War" any longer. We have a different understanding. When Jehovah God created Pluto, it wasn't a planet, but it took some 76 years -- from February 18, 1930, to August 23, 2006 -- for folks to finally realize, using the God-given tools that were given them, to figure out what Jehovah knew all along. Today, in 2011, we have a different understanding, and anyone that still refers to Pluto as if it were the "ninth planet in our solar system" is subject to be scorned for their tenacious holding onto a static viewpoint about Pluto, a old viewpoint that has gone the way of the dinosaur. Both Russell and Rutherford believed Christ's invisible presence began in 1874, and that his second coming -- the "end of the world" -- began in 1914, but today, in 2011, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus' presence began in 1914 and that his presence continues down to our own day. Why is that? Because we have a different understanding.
What is more, what @jwfacts said here doesn't satisfy me at all. Like you, @jwfacts just wants to argue and I'm going to now let him do that with someone else.
DJ you are a sleazy lawyer.
I'm not quite a lawyer yet. I have yet to sit for the California Bar, but I'll be sure to let you know if I pass it the first time. If I don't pass it the first time, then I'll let you know only if I should be successful the second or third time.
Your disregard for the honest truth is simply appalling to me.
I don't believe I disregard truth at all.
I watch in disbelief and anger as you try to goad people into making mistakes and then pounce on them while making sure as many people see your "glorious victories" as possible. Is it just second nature now?
You are an [embarrassment] to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the apostate community as well as God because you refuse to care about nothing....
I didn't understand the rest of this paragraph, but as to the first portion of it: How exactly could I be the embarrassment that you say I am to "the apostate community" when I don't belong to your cult? What am I missing here? I don't seek your cult's approval? You are all followers of Raymond Franz as I see it; you are all his disciples, whereas I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, who is not only my savior, but my personal Lord as well.
You beat people at the first sign of a valid argument on the other side.
Yes, I do. When I was a kid, a teenager, I didn't really believe in throwing jabs. Once I'd delivered a shot to your liver or to one of your kidneys, the pain will force you to bend over, and the fight is over. I believe it cruel to bludgeon folks to a bloody pulp over several rounds, but it often takes a few jabs to break someone down to be able to finally deliver the coup de grâce. As an adult and a Christian though, I admit that I believe in bludgeoning folks with the truth, and as you may have noticed, I'm very good at it.