1874, 1914 and 1943

by TD 96 Replies latest jw friends

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    OBVES you have clearly been inserting your medication anally instead of orally, which is why they are having no effect.

    Please correct this behaviour anomally asap so the members of this forum can have some peace from your numerological verbal diarrhea.

  • sabastious

    DJ you are a sleazy lawyer. Your disregard for the honest truth is simply appalling to me. 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? Is your ego and the rest of you fused forever? Maybe you don't realize it anymore. Maybe it happened such a long time ago. In any event it's clear that love of neighbor has left your soul and I greatly fear for you, I really do. You don't seem to ever give up on your selfishness and you polish your ego like a super bowl trophy. You are a weasel and a coward to put it lightly.

    You are not a seeker of truth, but a manipulator of it. You are not honest, but a liar. You abuse the God given gift of intelligence. You are an embarrasment to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the apostate community as well as God because you refuse to care about nothing, but your "superiour understanding" and avoision, by way of misdirection, of anything that resembles the other side of the Watchtower coin.

    You have an addiction of the chemicals released in your brain when your ego gets stroked. You are a junky.

    Matthew 24: 49-51 - But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    You beat people at the first sign of a valid argument on the other side. You are currently the epidemy of a hypocrite and certainly you are on the road to "weeping and gnashing of teeth" because you are too tied to humans and their interpretations. Most people here, I have seen, don't want to assign themselves to any ideology a hundreth as concrete as your blind faith in the men, historical and present, of the Watchtower.

    Without even knowing it you have done nothing but further a message of "The master is delaying" and God help the people that get in your destructive path.


  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    He's practically autistic with his aspergers I reckon, so make some small allowances for his obnoxiousness.

  • djeggnog

    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).

    @jwfacts wrote:

    Prior to 1914 the Watchtower taught that the second coming was in 1874.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    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.

    @Cameron_Don wrote:

    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.


  • cantleave

    Eggnog you liar!!!

    He DID provide the quotes (edit jwfacts did).

    "The second coming of the Lord, therefore, began in 1874; and that date and the years 1914 and 1918 are specially marked dates with reference to his coming. Prophecy can not be understood until it has been fulfilled or is in the course of fulfillment. From 1874 to 1914 the prophecy concerning the Lord's coming was being fulfilled and could be understood, and was understood, by those who were faithful to the Lord and who were watching the development of events, but not by others."? Creation 1927 This was also written before 1914. "Thus we found the time of our Lord's second advent clearly proven to be 1874 in October of that year, as shown in Vol. 11., chap. vi." .... the Jubilee Cycles show October 1874 to be the date of our Lord s return" The Time of the Harvest (1911ed)p.127 "While the time-prophecies thus point to and harmonize with 1874 as the date of our Lord s second presence, assuring us of the fact with mathematical precision, we find ourselves overwhelmed with evidence of another character; for certain peculiar signs, foretold by the Lord and the apostles and prophets, which were to precede his coming, are now clearly recognised as actually fulfilled. ... The cleansing of the sanctuary was also accomplished as predicted, and at a time sufficiently in advance of 1874 to make ready "a people prepared for the Lord" a people in devout expectancy of his coming" The Time of the Harvest(1911ed)p.129 "1874 as the exact date of our Lord s return" The Time of the Harvest (1911ed) p.306 "The second advent of our Lord in the end or harvest of the Gospel age, occurring in the fall of 1874, proves to be at a point of time exactly parallel to the time of his first advent, in the end of the Jewish age." The Time of the Harvest (1911ed)p.125 "... he would in reality assume the kingly office, power, etc., viz., in the spring of 1878, three and a half years after his second advent at the beginning of the harvest period, in the fall of 1874." The Time of the Harvest (1911ed)p.234

    They are so well documented, why do you come on here and lie ypur arse off?

    I used to think you were just stupid, but no you are deliberately decietful. Like many JW's you decieve yourself and try to bring others into the vomit of the Watchtowers deception and lies.

    If there was a god, like the one you believe in, he would have you marked for your dishonesty.

  • 00DAD

    So let me get this straight: JW's today have "a different understanding" than Russell or Rutherford. These are called "progressive" beliefs or "Present Truth".

    Hmmm, well I suppose that would all be fine if the GB wouldn't DF people for getting there sooner or later than them, or simply disagreeing.

    BTW, which one of the six different "understandings" of the meaning of the term "generation" will ultimately turn out to be the correct one? Or maybe we haven't gotten there yet either?

    Are we there yet? Are we? Are we? I wanna' go home!

    Maybe it's just me, but I want some truth that's going to be the same yesterday, today and forever. Is that too much to ask?

  • cantleave

    The GB are disgraceful in the bullying manner they treat the flock.

    They are so up themselves, projecting themselves as god channel of communcation that they don't care how many fmilies they break up in the process.

    Fools like eggnog show a similar discgusting attitude by supporting these evil men.

  • nugget

    Deegnog is missing the point. Any religion has the right to change doctrine otherwise we would still burn heretics and change can be a good thing. It is how we present our religion and how we accept change that is the issue.

    The material presented does show that the doctrine has changed and what is believed today does not reflect what has been published historically. Saying that it isn't so and failing to accept evidence does not make it go away. However I understand you need to take the stand you do because you have no room for manouvere.

    The organisation calls itself "The Truth" not "A tuth" or progressive understanding. Truth is absolute it doesn't change and any doctrine that changes so radiacally that it is no longer recognisable means that what was once taught is incorrect. If you have taught something that is incorrect it is untrue and if something is untrue it is a lie.

    If you admit the error even if you put it down to human imperfection you also admit that at one time you taught a lie that you were not in fact the truth. That is a huge admission to make. All the society can do is maintain the fiction that they have always spoken the truth that mistakes are adjustements and that evidence is wrong. People are told that if they question current truth or how it was arrived at then they lack humility. It is all smoke and mirrors.

  • sabastious

    I apologize, DJ, for misrepresenting you in myst last post. You're actually just a sleazy lawyer in training; I stand corrected.


  • MacHislopp

    Hello everyone,

    A great post by TD .

    After been away for a long time I would like to take this occasion to remind of one of my topics (posted on October 16 th 2003 ) …yes quite a long time ago, pertinent to TD material, with the title:

    1874 v. 1914 date change a masterpiece of forgery and deception!

    Part ONE : The WTBS Inc. worlwide teaching about the

    1874's date since C.T. Russell;

    Part TWO : The WTBS Inc. worldwide teaching about

    the change of date, from 1874 to 1914;

    Part THREE : The WTBS Inc. wordwide 'masquerade' and pathetic

    revised / rewritten history concerning the two dates ;

    Anyone is free to check the material. Greetings to everyone.

    J.C. MacHislopp

Share this