God's Kingdom Rules

[HollyW]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Well I guess it depends how you look at it. From our perspective, yes, the Bible Students did begin discerning Christ's presence in 1914.  It is no secret that the Bible Students were disappointed. It was written about quite a number of times, that their expectations were wrong. In fact, page 50, paragraph 5, of God's Kingdom Rules, does not hide the fact either.

On that page an article in a 1925 WT is referenced.  The article is "Birth of a Nation" and in it Rutherford still referenced 1874 as the date of Christ's invisible presence:

 

 

Michael, who is Christ the Lord, has been present since 1874

 

 

And it looks like that's when they first say that the child born in Revelation 12 isn't the antichrist after all (as they had been saying since the 1870's and were still saying during and after 1914 clear up until 1927), but is the Messianic Kingdom.  How about that?  Looking at the birth of the Messianic Kingdom and seeing the birth of the antichrist !! 

[JW Insider]

40 minutes ago, Anna said:

Not a good habit if you want to present a proper  argument.

I appreciated the chance to practice typing. I'm trying to increase my speed, and will use any excuse I can get. (That, and you didn't get a chance to say that my "tldr" posts have started to annoy you yet.) 

[HollyW]

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

  The idea of the first resurrection in 1918 was once definitive, and has now become only "an interesting possibility."

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible

 

And yet, 

These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus’ sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.

I know this was the April 1st WT, but they weren't joking, were they?

[Anna]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I appreciated the chance to practice typing. I'm trying to increase my speed, and will use any excuse I can get. (That, and you didn't get a chance to say that my "tldr" posts have started to annoy you yet.) 

Your lovely long posts are not annoying me in the least . I just wish I had more time right now. I am working towards a deadline which is at the end of this month and I still have so much to do. I come here to get a quick break and distraction, so I don't burn out, and I even posted a quick topic, which I later realized I titled completely wrong... .but I can't change it now.....and I have no time to properly reply on it either, at least not if I don't want to make any further blunders  .....So, roll on end of the month and then I can breathe again...I'm still working and it's well past midnight here...

[HollyW]

On 8/1/2016 at 8:29 AM, HollyW said:

Let's take a look at the Bible evidence Russell had been saying would prove him right about the end of the Gentile times.

This is from his book called "The Time Is At Hand" which he wrote in 1889:

In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will see the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove

Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will begin to assume control, and that it will then shortly be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions.

 

Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the dominion will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date; because the overthrow of these Gentile governments is directly caused by his dashing them to pieces as a potter's vessel (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 2:27), and establishing in their stead his own righteous government.

 

Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of the overthrow the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the "royal priesthood," "the body of Christ," will be glorified with the Head; because every member is to reign with Christ, being a joint-heir with him of the Kingdom, and it cannot be fully "set up" without every member.

 

Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the "Times of the Gentiles" will be fulfilled or completed.

 

Fifthly, It will prove that by that date, or sooner, Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away; because their "blindness in part" was to continue only "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25), or, in other words, until the full number from among the Gentiles, who are to be members of the body or bride of Christ, would be fully selected.

 

Sixthly, It will prove that the great "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," will reach its culmination in a world-wide reign of anarchy; and then men will learn to be still, and to know that Jehovah is God and that he will be exalted in the earth. (Psa. 46:20)  The condition of things spoken of in symbolic language as raging waves of the sea, melting earth, falling mountains and burning heavens will then pass away, and the "new heavens and new earth" with their peaceful blessings will begin to be recognized by trouble-tossed humanity.  But the Lord's Anointed and his rightful and righteous authority will first be recognized by a company of God's children while passing through the great tribulation--the class represented by m and t on the Chart of the Ages (see also pages 235 to 239, Vol. I); afterward, just at its close, by fleshly Israel; and ultimately by mankind in general.

 

Seventhly, It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34)--and fully consume the power of these kings.  Its own power and dominion will be established as fast as by its varied influences and agencies it crushes and scatters the "powers that be"--civil and ecclesiastical--iron and clay.

Available online at http://wtarchive.svhelden.info/english/books-and-tracts/ and http://www.ctrussell.us/ctrussell/ctrussell.nsf

So, these are the events you would be expecting when you imagine yourself in the dining room that day in October 1914 when C.T. Russell announced that the Gentile times had ended.  These events are the evidence that would prove October 1914 was the correct date Biblically for the end of the Gentile times.  Perhaps someone who feels strong enough spiritually to defend him or her self biblically could show which, if any, of these events took place.

 

Were any of these points mentioned at all when you discussed the letter from the GB when you started your study of the book,"God's Kingdom Rules" ?

[Evacuated]

Actually, I have moved this post from the thread on the Millions campaign as it is moving off topic and better suited here.

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

Regarding rewriting their own history, please be sure to research what's in this book because there are at least two direct falsehoods on pages 21 and 22.

 

  1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

What are they?

 

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

I posted one of them Wednesday in another thread: http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/16699-gods-kingdom-rules/?page=2#comment-27582

 

Well, I am a bit disappointed by your reference to the picture caption above (actually on Page 20, not 21, of God's Kingdom Rules).

As Christ's presence did not start in 1874, regardless of anyone believing that it did, then surely it would not have been possible to discern a sign of it, equally regardless of anyone who thought they did?

And as Christ's presence did start in 1914, then the sign of it surely would begin to be discerned by Bible Students regardless of whether they interpreted all the detail and significance of it correctly?

[HollyW]

15 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Actually, I have moved this post from the thread on the Millions campaign as it is moving off topic and better suited here.

 

What are they?

 

Well, I am a bit disappointed by your reference to the picture caption above (actually on Page 20, not 21, of God's Kingdom Rules).

As Christ's presence did not start in 1874, regardless of anyone believing that it did, then surely it would not have been possible to discern a sign of it, equally regardless of anyone who thought they did?

And as Christ's presence did start in 1914, then the sign of it surely would begin to be discerned by Bible Students regardless of whether they interpreted all the detail and significance of it correctly?

Eoin, thank you for the page correction, but your disappointment should be in your own religious leaders who are being dishonest in relating WTS history to you.  Please research this for yourself.  In 1914 they were saying they had discerned Christ's presence as having started in 1874, not 1914.  It is a lie to say otherwise.  And they hadn't actually discerned it as having started in 1874 until Barbour convinced Russell of it in 1876.

They were wrong about 1874 and they are wrong about 1914.  Being dishonest about their history isn't going to change that.  You and all JWs should be carefully and diligently researching all of this as you study "God's Kingdom Rules" together, because this is a lie: "In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence."

The other lie is on page 22 where they say the following in paragraph 29: "Long before 1914, the Bible Students said that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year."

They were not saying it would BEGIN in 1914, they were saying it would END in 1914.

ZWT 7/1/1894 p.226: "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."

Here's the context, referring to 1914 as God's date:

Quote

Zion's Watch Tower, July 1, 1894 ::R1677 : page 226:: CAN IT BE DELAYED UNTIL 1914?

Seventeen years ago people said, concerning the time features presented in MILLENNIAL DAWN, They seem reasonable in many respects, but surely no such radical changes could occur between now and the close of 1914: if you had proved that they would come about in a century or two, it would seem much more probable. What changes have since occurred, and what velocity is gained daily! "The old is quickly passing, and the new is coming in."

Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain.

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. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the WATCH TOWER of Jan. 15, '92. We advise that it be read again.

In reference to Armageddon, ZWT of Jan 15, 1892 p.24-25, has the following about “the battle of the great day of God Almighty.”

   It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874.  The date of the close of that “battle” is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914.

[Evacuated]

Hi @HollyW

I know you are diligent in your research, but still I am not getting the impact of these arguments as you present them.

My reading of the Page 20 quote is that it refers to the sign of Christ's presence. Now it is patently obvious that the sign of Christ's presence was not discerned in 1874, because the presence referred to did not commence in that year. So for Bible Students to have said that it did was a mistake, regardless of the convictions they held at the time. However, I see no error in stating that Bible stdents began to discern the sign of Christs invisible presence in 1914 nothwithstanding their actual beliefs at the time . People everywhere did, regardless of whether they understood the significance of the events or not. And indeed, with the "Advent Testimony" given wide attestation and distribution at least from late 1917 onwards, it appears that the Bible Students were not the only ones seeing divine significance in these events.  

With regard to your quotation from page 22, there was an incorrect expectation that "the battle of the great day of God Almighty" would be fought and finished in the year 1914, but surely it was better to be be awake than asleep as Jesus advised Matt.24:42.

But, you know these are all obvious and well-known facts that are in the public domain. They are easily obtained by anyone wishing to dig into the detail and are held as common currency by many witnesses that I know. So I cannot see what all the fuss is about, as if some mysterious conspiracy to mislead and beguile is afoot. 

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

they are wrong about 1914

Presumably, this is the crux of the matter for you.  

Am I right in thinking that you feel that the belief of Jehovah's witnesses in the fulfillment of Rev 12:7-12 being proven by the events commencing in 1914 is a similar mistake to those made in connection with the year 1874? 

Also, do you think that believing this prophecy to be in concurrence with the events highlighted by Jesus in answer to his disciples questions recorded, for example, at Matt 24:3. is similarly mistaken? Have I understood that correctly?

[Ann O'Maly]

31 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, I see no error in stating that Bible stdents began to discern the sign of Christs invisible presence in 1914 nothwithstanding their actual beliefs at the time . People everywhere did, regardless of whether they understood the significance of the events or not.

But the Bible Students and other people didn't begin to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence in 1914. The idea that Christ had been invisibly present didn't begin to be discerned by Bible Students until about 1930 (g1930, April 30, p. 503-4 - the earliest published comment "that Jesus has been present since the year 1914"). The rest of the world continued not to discern it.

 

[HollyW]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I know you are diligent in your research, but still I am not getting the impact of these arguments as you present them.

Thank you, Eoin, however what you are not seeing is that this is a false statement on page 20:

"In 1914, the Bible Students began to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence."

And this is a false statement on page 22:

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

These statements are not incorrect expectations or mistaken understandings or any of the other terms used to excuse the failed predictions of the WTS.  Those two statements are flat out false and your leaders know it because:

In 1914 the Bible Students did NOT begin to discern the sign of Christ's invisible presence.

And long before 1914, the Bible students did NOT say that a time of trouble would begin in that marked year.

Their own publications show that they are NOT telling you the truth in the book you're now studying.

I hope that clears things up for you.

[HollyW]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Am I right in thinking that you feel that the belief of Jehovah's witnesses in the fulfillment of Rev 12:7-12 being proven by the events commencing in 1914 is a similar mistake to those made in connection with the year 1874? 

Regarding the passage you've referenced there in Revelation 12, please research what the WTS was saying in 1914 about that chapter. In 1917 the WTS published a book called "The Finished Mystery" which is a compilation of the late Russell's teaching on the books of Revelation and Ezekiel.  Chapter 12 in TFM is called "The Birth of Antichrist" and the information is from what Russell wrote in 1881 in the December ZWT p.305.

[Evacuated]

19 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

the earliest published comment "that Jesus has been present since the year 1914")

To be fair, I am pretty sure that if this comment was published in 1930, then the thought would have been around a lot earlier. The quote in question says "began to discern" in 1914. The word "discern" means "to distinguish with difficulty by sight or with the other senses " 

Clear discernment obviously takes time and may well be difficult.

Despite the erroneous view that Christ's presence started in 1874, there are enough references in the literature earlier than 1930 associating the events of 1914 and onwards as evidences of Christ's continuing presence. Enough for me to accept that discernment about what those events signified had it's beginnings at that time.