God's Kingdom Rules

[Evacuated]

15 hours ago, HollyW said:

May our Lord and God bless you in your research and efforts to find the truth.

Thanks for your kind expressions @HollyW. I hope they are as sincerely meant as they sound. 

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

That's a pity. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now you're just being plain nasty. You are listening to AllenSmith too much!!

5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

duh

Eloquent!  

Advent Testimony folk and Armstrong's WWCG's may have demonstrated weird beliefs on various issues, but a common factor in their beliefs was that of an imminent return of Jesus Christ to rule as Jehovahs King. That is pretty amazing despite it's obscure expression... regardless of their eccentricities, even they could see it. More than can be said for others of the self-proclamied intelligensia.

5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

a man convinced against his will...

Who said that?? Anyway, your attempts to convince me have been unsuccessful on this occasion. It's not about your quotes of what's written in Watchtower's period literature, it's more about the paucity of them.

I have answered JWInsider a little more comprehensively on this matter. So I don't see the point of repeating it all here.

Actually, there's a thing. He does have communication skills so why not take a lesson there?  

   0

•  
• Quote
•  
• Options  

[HollyW]

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Thanks for your kind expressions @HollyW. I hope they are as sincerely meant as they sound. 

Absolutely!

[Ann O'Maly]

14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Now you're just being plain nasty.

Cheeky, yes. 'Plain nasty,' no. Hence the wink smiley. Nevertheless, you were trying to wriggle round the evidence from Watchtower history that showed the "Kingdom Rules" statement to be untruthful.

14 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Advent Testimony folk and Armstrong's WWCG's may have demonstrated weird beliefs on various issues, but a common factor in their beliefs was that of an imminent return of Jesus Christ to rule as Jehovahs King. That is pretty amazing despite it's obscure expression... regardless of their eccentricities, even they could see it.

Why don't we add Harold Camping to the list of those validating BSs' and JWs' eschatological expectations too?

Unless one is a preterist, Christians generally believe in a future return of Christ, so how is it remarkable that Adventists and fringe Christian-based religions expect it as well?

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It's not about your quotes of what's written in Watchtower's period literature, it's more about the paucity of them.

The 'mouth of two or three witnesses' is insufficient to 'establish a matter' for you? How much testimony from the period literature would it take to convince you that the BSs had begun to discern the sign of Jesus' presence nearly 40 years earlier than 1914, according to their beliefs, thereby rendering the "Kingdom Rules" brochure inaccurate on that point?

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Actually, there's a thing. He does have communication skills so why not take a lesson there?  

Indeed he does.  However, as much as I enjoy and learn from reading JW Insider's posts, we have different styles and time availability. I'm a 'bullet point,' 'tl;dr' kinda gal who prefers cutting to the chase and using 10 words to express a thought rather than 100. 

[HollyW]

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

On 9/26/2016 at 11:13 PM, JW Insider said:

Christ was still present in 1914 because he had been present since 1874.

That is my point.

But that isn't the point on page 20 of the book.  It's saying that it was in 1914 that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence.  That isn't true.  That's why I asked if you would reword their sentence to make it tell the truth.  You seem to indicate that you do know it isn't an accurate statement yet you continue to try to uphold it.

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, a ZWT article of Feb 1 1904 is entitled Universal Anarchy - Just Before or After Oct. 1914.

And a quote from ZWT Nov 1 1904 commenting on a newspaper article states:

"The above clipping, we believe, is from The Saturday Evening Post. We print it not for its own sake as an item merely, but also because it so closely coincides with our expectations, based on the divine Word - regarding the ending of “Gentile Times” in October, 1914, when will follow the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation;“-the anarchous period which will in divine providence be followed by the kingdom rule of everlasting righteousness."

Later in Dec 1 1904, after some gobbledegook about Israel's restoration, the WT mentions:

"It is to be accomplished in the day of trouble, shortly after October, 1914, we believe."

I do not care much about the context of these articles which is, frankly, often indecipherable. However, without any further trawling, I have to submit that there was definitely a view that "a (particular) time of trouble would begin in that marked year" (1914).

Let's look again at the statement in "God's Kingdom Rules" on page 22:

Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year.

Notice that it is saying "long before 1914" -- it's a bit of a stretch, don't you think, that they mean 10 years is "long before 1914"?

Also, do you see how you are characterizing the very publications Jehovah and Jesus would have been inspecting and evidently approving as "food in due season"?  I mean, I'm very glad you see how off-base those publications are, but to maintain that God reviewed them and considered them proper spiritual sustenance is contradictory.

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Why don't we add Harold Camping to the list of those validating BSs' and JWs' eschatological expectations too?

Why the limitation? Let's add everyone else we can think of!

Accept or deny, interpret as they will, all humans today are validating the truthfulness of the prophecies in Jehovah's Word as contained in the Bible.

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

BSs had begun to discern the sign of Jesus' presence nearly 40 years earlier than 1914,

Well, I am fairly clear on the erroneous BSs beliefs relating to the 1874 to 1914 period. I mean they did go to great lengths to publicize them didn't they?. However, I cannot see how they could discern something which was not there?? This particular aspect of Christ's presence was not even dimly discernable until 1914 anyway, as it did not occur until that time. So they couldn't have begun to discern it earlier even if they thought they did. They may well have been looking but it was not discernable at that time. And, as far as I can see, the level of discernment from 1914, being as dim as it was at that time, qualifies as a "beginning". But that's just to my understanding.

I appreciate you may have a different view of the significance of 1914, but that is not the immediate point of this thread.

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

'mouth of two or three witnesses'

Yes, that is a good principle, but it's just that my examination of those witnesses leads me to conclude differently from yourself. I think I am free to do that am I not?

Your 1922 extract, second underlined passage, illustrates the point to me. They certainly felt that Jesus had been present since 1874 but they also stated that in 1914 Jesus began ruling as King thus altering an aspect of that presence.

Now looking back, I can see that the significance they attached to Jesus presence 1874 to 1914 was mistaken. He was no more with them during that period than he had been since his stating this fact in the 1stC as recorded at Matt 28:20. However, their recognising Jesus taking up his kingship in 1914, albeit still connected in their minds with the 1874 date, constitutes a discernment connected with that kingly aspect of Christ's presence that to me seems like a "beginning" because it had not been the discernment of a reality before that date. They obviously viewed it differently at the time.

I appreciate you may have a different view of when Jesus became King, but that is not the immediate point of this thread.

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I'm a 'bullet point,' 'tl;dr' kinda gal who prefers cutting to the chase and using 10 words to express a thought rather than 100.

That's a strength. But there is always room for tact isn't there? Col.4:6  

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

Notice that it is saying "long before 1914" -- it's a bit of a stretch, don't you think, that they mean 10 years is "long before 1914"?

That is a matter of opinion really.  Also, I haven't exhaustively searched earlier publications outside of the WT as I felt these quotes were sufficient to establish the point for me. (2 or 3 witnesses as AnnOMaly said).

I do not know the basis the writer had for the statement in the Kingdom Rules book, but I am satisfied by what I have read that a time of trouble was expected starting in 1914 in addition to what they had stated about the 1874-1914 period. I think the point in the paragraph under question is about the fact that their expectation was dwarfed by what did occur in and since 1914CE.

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

You seem to indicate that you do know it isn't an accurate statement yet you continue to try to uphold it.

I am happy with the statement because it says they  "began to discern". Their belief that the presence as such started in 1874 was erroneous. They could not have discerned something which was not there. The fact that Jesus became King in a special way in 1914 was recognised despite the erroneous elements of their views. So I am quite happy with the term "began" in connection with that discernment. It was imagination up to 1914, but then they began to get it right and if AnnOMaly's research is accurate, they did make a clearer statement in 1930. Which is 16 years later. So, it "began" in 1914 when the event took place.

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

Also, do you see how you are characterizing the very publications Jehovah and Jesus would have been inspecting and evidently approving as "food in due season"?

As for food in due season, there is a lot more in those publications than speculation on end times. From what I have read and observed, those Bible Students were far better cared for spiritually than any other group in that period of time. And despite their small numbers, and the opposition they received, they lifted the roof off as far and wide as they possibly could throughout as much of the world as they could reach with the Bible's message. And this their successors continue to do.

I am happy to let Jehovah and Jesus indicate their judgement as to who is providing  "food in due season". 

 

[HollyW]

30 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I am happy with the statement because it says they  "began to discern".

You still keep missing the point.  It was NOT in 1914 that they "began to discern".  The statement in the book shows, at best, ignorance of the WTS history. At worst, it is an outright lie, just as the one on page 22 is.

If it's because of the former, whoever wrote it should not be allowed to do write anything more until he or she has thoroughly researched it so they know what they're talking about.  But then, how did it get past the men on the GB? 

It it's because of the latter, every JW should be thoroughly researching this without fail, as you have begun to do.

37 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I am happy to let Jehovah and Jesus indicate their judgement as to who is providing  "food in due season"

But, again, look at what you keep calling what you say Jehovah and Jesus found to be "food in due season."

[Evacuated]

55 minutes ago, HollyW said:

It was NOT in 1914 that they "began to discern"

This is getting a bit unreasonable.

To me, they could not have discerned something that was not there, regardless of whenever they said Jesus presence began. So that rules out anything they said prior to 1914 as having any relevance.

Now they clearly acknowledged that Jesus would excercise his kingship in 1914 and related any events subsequent to the end of the Gentile Times as evidence of that.

As Jesus' excercise of kingship took place in 1914 and was not a reality before, then acknowledging the event in 1914 is for me the beginning of discerning that fact. Anything prior to that date was purely speculation.That is the way I view it and I have not yet heard anything convincing otherwise.

BUT answer this if you would. Do you believe that the Gentile Times ended in 1914? Do you believe that Jesus excercised his kingly authority and cast Satan and his demons out of heaven and to the vicinity of the earth in 1914? 

I think the answer to those questions is the key to unlocking this puzzle. 

[HollyW]

38 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

This is getting a bit unreasonable.

To me, they could not have discerned something that was not there, regardless of whenever they said Jesus presence began. So that rules out anything they said prior to 1914 as having any relevance.

Now they clearly acknowledged that Jesus would excercise his kingship in 1914 and related any events subsequent to the end of the Gentile Times as evidence of that.

As Jesus' excercise of kingship took place in 1914 and was not a reality before, then acknowledging the event in 1914 is for me the beginning of discerning that fact. Anything prior to that date was purely speculation.That is the way I view it and I have not yet heard anything convincing otherwise.

BUT answer this if you would. Do you believe that the Gentile Times ended in 1914? Do you believe that Jesus excercised his kingly authority and cast Satan and his demons out of heaven and to the vicinity of the earth in 1914? 

I think the answer to those questions is the key to unlocking this puzzle. 

Eoin, the key is for the WTS to tell the truth about when it was that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.  That way you'll finally believe what several of us now have already told you: i.e. it was not in 1914 that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.  It wasn't until long after 1914 that they began to discern the sign of his presence in 1914.

You're absolutely correct that they could not have discerned something that was not there, yet that is exactly what they said they were doing from 1876 to long after 1914.

[Anna]

9 minutes ago, HollyW said:

Eoin, the key is for the WTS to tell the truth about when it was that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.  That way you'll finally believe what several of us now have already told you: i.e. it was not in 1914 that they began to discern the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.  It wasn't until long after 1914 that they began to discern the sign of his presence in 1914.

You're absolutely correct that they could not have discerned something that was not there, yet that is exactly what they said they were doing from 1876 to long after 1914.

Can I put an end to this argument (discussion)? On page 50, paragraph 5 and 6 of the book says:

"As we saw in Chapter 2 of this book, the Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant in fulfilling Bible prophecy. However, at that time they believed that Christ’s presence had begun in 1874, that he had begun to rule in heaven in 1878, and that the Kingdom would not be fully set up until October 1914. The harvest would extend from 1874 to 1914 and would culminate in the gathering of the anointed to heaven. Do mistaken ideas such as these cast doubt on whether Jesus was guiding those faithful ones by means of holy spirit?

⁶ Not at all! Think again of our opening illustration. Would the premature ideas and eager questions of the tourists cast doubt on the reliability of their guide? Hardly! Similarly, although God’s people sometimes try to work out details of Jehovah’s purpose before it is time for the holy spirit to guide them to such truths, it is clear that Jesus is leading them. Thus, faithful ones prove willing to be corrected and humbly adjust their views.—Jas. 4:6."

 

[HollyW]

11 minutes ago, Anna said:

Can I put an end to this argument (discussion)? On page 50, paragraph 5 and 6 of the book says:

"As we saw in Chapter 2 of this book, the Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant in fulfilling Bible prophecy. However, at that time they believed that Christ’s presence had begun in 1874, that he had begun to rule in heaven in 1878, and that the Kingdom would not be fully set up until October 1914. The harvest would extend from 1874 to 1914 and would culminate in the gathering of the anointed to heaven. Do mistaken ideas such as these cast doubt on whether Jesus was guiding those faithful ones by means of holy spirit?

⁶ Not at all! Think again of our opening illustration. Would the premature ideas and eager questions of the tourists cast doubt on the reliability of their guide? Hardly! Similarly, although God’s people sometimes try to work out details of Jehovah’s purpose before it is time for the holy spirit to guide them to such truths, it is clear that Jesus is leading them. Thus, faithful ones prove willing to be corrected and humbly adjust their views.—Jas. 4:6."

 

Thank you, Anna!  That certainly supports the fact that the statement on page 20 is false.  Quite a bungle, wouldn't you say!

Now if they would just admit the statement on page 22 is also false.