God's Kingdom Rules

[HollyW]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

*** Watchtower, October 1, 1930, p.291 ***

Understanding that the ''day of Christ'' began when Jesus came to the temple of God, in 1918, it appears that the rebellion must precede that day. The beginning of the falling away or rebellion against God's organization would also mark the beginning of the disclosure of the ''man of sin'', even though none of God's children then on earth understood the matter. The Revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ to show to his "servant" began to be disclosed particularly from 1914 forward, but none of God's children on earth had an understanding thereof for fifteen years or more thereafter. They did see the evidence of things coming to pass which mark a fulfilment of Revelation, but they did not discern the meaning thereof. Likewise the faithful have for some years seen the manifestation of lawlessness and now begin to discern the meaning of the term the "man of sin".

*** end of quote ***

Uh-oh. 

The January 15, 2014 WT says: "The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year."  

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, HollyW said:

The January 15, 2014 WT says: "The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year."  

True. This is what I meant about "stretching" it a bit. As I'm sure you know, there are several more quotes where the wording creates something misleading, but rarely a complete falsehood. This one pushes the "truth" to its limit, but if you notice it is not technically false. It's true that they were "on hand in 1914." But saying that they "readily discerned the sign of Christ's presence in that year" could mean that by sometime between 1922, 1925 and 1931 some were beginning to readily discern it. It wouldn't have been impressive, but it could have said:

"The first group was on hand in 1914, and within 30 years, almost all the people from this same group who remained loyal to the Watch Tower, readily accepted that 1914 had seen the beginning of the sign of Christ's presence in that year."

There are also several more quotes from the 1930's era that parallel the quote from October 1, 1930:

*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***

Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple [in 1918] is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven?  Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.

*** end of quote ***

[JW Insider]

On 9/28/2016 at 2:23 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

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.

 

Be careful, here Eoin. You have just said that "Jesus would exercise his kingship in 1914" and "acknowledging the event in 1914" is, for you, the beginning of discerning that fact.

The supposed "event" about exercising his kingship was still assigned to 1878 as far as they could discern in 1914. You mention elsewhere that a special indication of his kingship in 1914 was acknowledged as early as 1922. That's true, but it actually goes back no earlier than 1918. So it was not really "discerned" in 1914 that Jesus had become king. If he was exercising his kingship in 1914 it was not so different than he had been exercising it since 1878, and hardly different even from the way he had exercised his kingship since 33 CE, for that matter.

I know this is easy to dismiss, and, as far as I'm concerned, this horse has already been beaten into hamburger. But there is something very interesting about the context of Rutherford's statements about 1918, and, for me, it actually helps us understand the mindset of the Bible Students in general when they considered the events of 1914. So it's relevant to the original question. First a quote from 1931 (same one I just repeated to HollyW):

*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***

Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven?  Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.

*** end of quote ***

Looking back, it might seem obvious that the teaching should have been that Zedekiah lost the throne 2,520 years prior to 1914, and Jesus would therefore take up the throne in 1914. Why would they continue to teach that 1878 was the date when Jesus began to rule as "king over the kings of the earth"?

There are several reasons they would have missed this opportunity to "discern." The main reason, of course, is the flexibility that began to be built into the fact that 1914 was to be an end to the time of trouble not the beginning. This had never meant that the chaos and tumult would be over instantly, even if sometimes implied. The fall of all human and religious institutions in October 1914 would likely take several months to resolve. It was often spoken of as lasting from 'October 1914 to October 1915,' and sometimes 'up until the end of 1915.'

A lot of times people will think that the "1915 idea" was added only after the failure of 1914. It's true that many references from 1914 were changed to 1915, during the beginning of that same year (and the March 1, 1915 Watch Tower referenced a more than a dozen changes to a couple of the Studies in the Scriptures books). Most of them were similar to these, quoted from that issue:

• Vol. II., page 81, line 9, "can date only from A.D. 1914," reads "could not precede A.D. 1915."  . . . 
• Vol. III., page 228, line 11, "some time before 1914," reads "very soon after 1914."
• Vol. III., page 228, line 15, "just how long before," reads "just how long after."
• Vol. III., page 362, line 11, "some time before," reads "some time near."

But 1915 was already a part of the discussion much earlier, due to the impracticality of believing that something could be so drastic in October 1914 and not require months of clean-up. But the clean-up timeline was still considered limited, (worked out by the end of 1915), because, after all, Jesus was in charge of these changes from heaven and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be in charge from Jerusalem in Israel [Palestine]:

*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1902 [Reprints p. 3133. Brackets in original.] ***

Those who have studied the plan of the ages and its times and seasons know that this is due to be accomplished by the year 1915—only 12 or 13 years from the present time. Then will the words of this prophecy [Psalm 24:1-4] be fulfilled—The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein; for he hath founded it upon [instead of] the seas, and established it upon [in place of] the floods'—Verses 1, 2 . . . . That is, the present earth, or social organization, and the present heavens, or ruling powers, will have passed away, and the new earth will be established upon the ruins of the old" *** end of quote ***

*** Watch Tower, October 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3249] ***

"It will be vain for Zionists to hope to establish an independent government in Palestine.... Palestine will be 'trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be filled full'—viz., October, 1914, A.D. By that time the heavenly kingdom will be in power and the ancient worthies—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the holy prophets—will be resurrected and constitute the earthly representatives of the spiritual and invisible kingdom of Christ and his Gospel church." *** end of quote ***

That's the most direct reason that they didn't have to think about it until at least October 1915 or perhaps the end of 1915, at the latest. 1915 was already part of the equation. Russell had even said that the same "Jewish year" already included the time through October 1915. And Russell had also mentioned 1915 in the context of the entire 1874-1914 chronology system not being flexible by more than one year, but also invoking the idea a few times that it could be as much as one year off. So, having already waited through the raging of the World War for 13 to 16 months by the end of 2015, then there would be no real urgency to change anything. Just hold tight, because the Great War itself was proof enough that the timeline was back on track. Every month showed their their timeline was a little off, but only one incremental month at a time. The only time that these increments became impossible to continue accepting, would be on 11/11/1918 (Armistice Day) when the War was over. Rutherford and friends were in jail at that time, and it this of course would be a likely time when Rutherford himself would start "discerning" that something was very wrong with the 1874 timeline. (But we can see that even he still didn't do what we might expect with the date of Christ's presence -- I'll get to that if this doesn't get too long.) 

A less direct reason for not discerning 1914, in 1914, might have been just as important. It's the fact that the 1874 timeline required a 40-year harvest until 1914. And several years (perhaps 3 and 1/2 years?) of upheaval and tribulation during this harvest period at the end. The "day or wrath" was inside this 40 year time period, parallel with it, not outside of it -- not after it. This meant that they expected a great tribulation of sorts to break out in 1910 or 1911. The "one-year-off" idea was also invoked here so that 1912 was also later mentioned as a possibility.  

*** Watch Tower, February 1, 1903 [Reprints p. 3141] ***

So far as the Scriptures guide us, we expect the climax of the great time of anarchous trouble in  October, 1914. Our opinion is that so great a trouble would necessarily last in violent form at least three or four years before reaching that climax. Hence, we expect strenuous times by or before October, 1910.  Reasoning backward from 1910 A.D. we are bound to assume that the conditions leading up to such violence as we then expect would include great financial depression, which probably would last some years before reaching so disheartening a stage. We could not, therefore, expect that depression to begin later than, say, 1908." *** end of quote ***

 

The "annihilating of human institutions" was timed to the end of the Gentile Times and readers were wondering and speculating on whether that meant that the worst of it would be over by October 1914 or could there be several months that would be even worse than the years leading up to October 1914?

The chaos would still end in 1914 even if it lasted until near the end of 1915. Therefore even in 1904 through 1911 Russell could still make statements that matched what he had said in 1896:

*** Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p. 226 ***

"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 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."  *** end of quote ***

In 1911, the full completion of the anarchy was still going to be October 1914. Revelation had said that "in one hour" her judgment will be upon her. That one hour could still last the entire year, but the focus was still on the month of October. This is from the Watchtower, June 15, 1911:

"October, 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea," utterly destroyed as a system." (p.190)

The new understanding in 1904 was that there would still be a specific, perhaps even violent tribulation that many Christians (and chosen ones) could come through prior to 1914. But it was now seen that some of the references to a time of worldwide anarchy, such as the world had never seen before, would obviously result from the fall of the human and religious institutions in 1914. In spite of that change, Russell only felt it necessary to focus on 1915 as the outside date instead of 1914. Prior to 1904, the teaching gave the same 3 to 4 year length of the tribulation to the generally parallel time of great anarchy. In moving the time of anarchy to after October 1914 instead of before, I don't think Russell ever repeated the idea that this anarchy would last for 3 to 4 years. He focused on the quickness instead. Matching the 1915 changes to the Studies in the Scriptures (focusing only on 1915 as the updated date), the Watch Tower also only mentions 1915 with reference to the anarchy or "climax of trouble."

*** Watch Tower, June 1, 1906 [Reprints p. 3784] ***

"The thief-like work of taking the church is already in progress; by and by it will be all completed, and shortly thereafter -- 1915 -- the kingdoms of this world, with all of their associated institutions, will go down in a climax of trouble such as the world has never known, because after gathering his bride class the Lord will execute judgments upon Babylon".   *** end of quote ***

*** Watch Tower, July 1, 1904 [Reprints p. 3389] ***

We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great time of trouble which will precede the Millennial blessings will be  after October, 1914, A.D.—very speedily thereafter, in our opinion—in one hour,' 'suddenly' . . . Our forty years' harvest, ending October, 1914 A.D., should not be expected to include the awful period of anarchy which the Scriptures point out to be the fate of Christendom".

However, since those 3 to 4 years of tribulation (and anarchy) didn't happen before 1914, and after waiting until near the end of 1915 it must have became easier (my opinion) to wait and see if this period of anarchy might last 3 to 4 years before culminating in a full fulfillment. That is probably another good reason that Rutherford could say that no one could start to discern new light about Russell's teachings until after 1918.

 

[HollyW]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

*** Watchtower, November 1, 1931, p. 376 ***

Who on earth understood prior to 1918 that Zion is God's organization and gives birth to the kingdom and to her children? The fact that no one on earth did so understand prior to the Lord's coming to his temple [in 1918] is proof that it was not God's due time for them to understand. Who understood prior thereto about Satan's organization, the battle in heaven, and the casting of Satan out of heaven?  Manifestly no one could understand these things until the temple of God was open.

*** end of quote ***

Compare that with pages 28-29 in  "God's Kingdom Rules" where it says the Bible Students were being prepared for the birth of the Kingdom by Russell and his associates way before 1914.  And all along they had been saying the birth of the kingdom in Revelation chapter 12 was the birth of the Antichrist, yet they herald this event as "the greatest event ever to occur in the history of the world" [p.13].  It was also printed up as such in their 1914 book, "The Finished Mystery", and they said Michael in that chapter was the Catholic Pope in Rome.  The truth is Russell was preparing them only for failure and he had been tricked into going against what the Bible says about not knowing the time of Jesus' second coming.

[Evacuated]

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The supposed "event" about exercising his kingship was still assigned to 1878

Yes I know that, but as discussed at length, the reality of the situation is what counts for me.

Whilst the Bible Students' acknowledgement of Jehovah's expression of rulership through Christ's kingdom was mistimed, the reality of that expression of rulership was not. So although they were prematurely aware of an event, for those who did not give up, that awareness, no matter how vaguely focused, was still present when the event became a reality. And under the guidance of God's spirit, that awareness came into focus with the facts.

The opening 9 paragraphs in chapter 5 of the kr book (previously cited actually) cover it for me.

Of course, it all becomes rather pointless if you don't believe that Rev 12:7-12 took place in 1914 (as demonstrated by @HollyW) because that would mean there was no real event for their misplaced awareness to be directed to.

But that's not my view. I believe that starting end of our 1914CE, this announcement is relevant  “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” Rev.11:18.

And that announcement, with ever increasing volume, is being broadcast throught the earth by the organisation now known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The clarity of what was happening dawned on them gradually later, but I think it is pretty clear that they recognised that Jesus would become king in a special sense in sometime in 1914 because the ZWT of July 1 1904 (misquoted by me in an earlier post as Feb 1 1904 oops!) says:

ZWT July 1 1904

And if, as we believe the Scriptures to teach, Gentile Domination was provided for up to October, 1914, it would seem but a reasonable interpretation that divine power for the overthrow of the kingdoms of this world would not be exercised to their dethronement until after the time allotted for their reign had ended-October, 1914.

That indicates a sufficient level of awareness to constitute a beginning of discernment despite it being prior to 1914 (For me)

"They recognized that Jesus would become king in a special sense sometime in 1914."

Since Jesus was present in heaven since 1874 and even as "king over the kings of the earth" since 1878, and the purpose was to turn his attention to the earth in order to "prepare the way" for both literal Jews and Christians (especially his Church/Bride), then all expected events along the way were times when it could be recognized that Jesus had "become king" in a special sense. So, yes, it is true that even before 1914 they expected events in 1878, 1881, 1914, and 3-4 years prior to 1914, that could all show that Jesus had become king in a special sense. They also interpreted events related to the Zionist movement as events proving the efficacy of his kingship. They also interpreted the great progress in science and invention to be proofs of the efficacy of his kingship.

But there are still a few problems with this whole point about Jesus' kingship.

1. The topic is Jesus "presence" not his kingship. This discussion is strictly about whether it is honest or misleading to imply that Bible Students began to "discern" Christ's invisible presence at some point during the year 1914. And we must assume that this means it was discerned (in some way) in October, November or December of 1914.

2. Jesus' kingship was a separate thing that was already "discerned" to have started at a different time. You say you are only interested in the "reality" of the situation, which is another way of saying that false discernment doesn't count towards the discernment in question. In this way, you can dismiss the fact that they were already giving a separate date of 1874 to the invisible presence and 1878 to the date of Jesus holding the position of "king over the kings of the earth." Those false assumptions didn't count as discernment and therefore cannot discount the assumption that any type of significance they gave to 1914, right or wrong, did count as discernment. 

3. The quote from 1904 says nothing about the kingship of Jesus or Jehovah. It only mentions that it was no longer going to be assumed that human power would play such a large "natural" role (through social unrest, war, revolution, political turmoil, labor agitation, socialism, etc.). The events causing turmoil and tribulation that were to start in 1910 or 1911 were going to be exacerbated through an economic depression that would have to start as early as 1908. This was changed in 1904, so that a tribulation could still come upon Christians in general prior to 1914 although the Bride would escape this tribulation because they were being taken at some point earlier. But the new idea was that this no longer needed to be a long drawn out tribulation that could span the time from 1908 to 1914. That would have interfered with the length of the Gentile Times, and the length of the harvest.

The basic idea of the change probably further explains the reason there was no discernment that the "war" was a fulfillment of either Christ's kingship or his presence in 1914, and why such discernment would have to wait until the war was over. It's because the war was seen as developing from human causes. Even into 1915, Russell talked about how the War was already seen to be progressing for years in advance, came as no surprise, and was easily predicted by anyone who had been watching world politics. (This is a different angle than the one we use in the "Out of Darkness" video, where we focus only on its unpredictability and surprise.)

In fact, your quote above from the July 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 198 included the following where the bracketed material appears in the original:

. . . it would seem but a reasonable interpretation that divine for the overthrow of the kingdoms of this world would  not be exercised to their dethronement until after the time allotted for their reign had ended—October, 1914. True, it was to be in the times of these kings that the God of heaven would take from the mountain, without hands [not by human power], the little stone which should eventually smite the image in its feet. True, also, it was to be in the days of these last kings—represented in the toes of the image-- that the God of heaven should set up his Kingdom, which should break in pieces and consume all, but the setting up of that Kingdom we understand has been in progress throughout this harvest time, especially since 1878, since which time we believe that all the overcomers of the Church who die faithful are . . . immediately constituted members of the set-up Kingdom on the Other side the veil. Quite probably this setting up will consume nearly or quite all of the forty years of harvest time apportioned to it; but in any event, the time for the smiting of the image in its feet will not come until October, 1914 A.D., however much trouble and distress of nations may result from the prior awakening of their peoples under the enlightening influences of the dawning of the Millennial morning. Already such distress or perplexity is felt in quarters national, financial and religious. Our previous expectation was that the anarchistic period would last some three or four years, and in our mental calculations of the opportunities for harvest work, we naturally cutoff those years, and the time thus appeared shorter to us. Now, however, we see clearly that for some of the Church there probably remain fully ten years of experience, opportunities, testings, victories, joys and sorrows.

The December 1, 1904 Watch Tower, p. 363 also comes close to the point you are trying to make, but, again it may serve more as an explanation of why they could NOT discern even his kingship in 1914. It's because it was so obvious that they expected divine intervention, but all that 1914 showed them was human intervention. Babylon hadn't fallen in October. The Jewish nation had not been restored just prior to October or even in the following few months. There might have been every expectation that Jesus might use this particular time of turmoil to strike the nations with iron, but instead they continued striking each other.

*** Watch Tower, December 1, 1904, p. 363 ***

Similarly, at the time for the removal of the typical diadem from Israel, God's providences favored the exaltation of Nebuchadnezzar as a world emperor, the head, the first of a series of universal empires whose united reigns he foreshowed would constitute the "times of the Gentiles," the beginning and ending of which times are clearly marked. Evidently divine power had to do with the beginning of these times of the Gentiles and will have even more to do with their closing, at which time Immanuel shall take the reigns of government, the result being the dashing to pieces of the nations by the iron rod of his authority —-Rev. 2:27.  *** end of quote ***

[Note the possibility of using Neb's first regnal year to start the Gentile Times. The 20-year difference had come up in 1904.]

 

5 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Regardless of when they officially imagined Jesus' presence to commence, as long as that recognition coincides with the actual event in 1914, I am satisfied that, regardless of what their imagination deemed the event to be, discernment began.

This is a perfectly slippery position to hold. But the evidence might result in another difficulty.

The dates from the old "1874 chronology" included accepted prophetic fulfillments in A.D. 539, 1799, 1829, 1844, 1859, 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914. By 1927, Rutherford had begun to dismantle several of the foundations for these. By 1929, Rutherford could review them in the December 15, 1929 Watchtower, p. 376,377 saying that:

[T]here does not seem to have been anything that came to pass in 1799 to fulfil this prophecy. The facts do
show, however, that many things have come to pass from 1914 onward in fulfilment thereof. Seeing that the 1260 days . . . does not seem to be . . . in 1799 . . . in fulfilment of this prophecy. . . . there appears to be nothing that came to pass in 1829 that fulfilled this prophecy. But the facts, as above stated, do show many things in fulfilment thereof from 1919 to 1922. Seeing that the 1335-day period must end with a blessed time to the poeple of God, it does not appear that anything came to pass to show a fulfilment thereof in 1874, even though the latter date marks the beginning of the Lord's presence and the beginning of his work in preparing the way before Jehovah. The time of blessedness could not come until after the purifying took place, when the Lord came to his temple; and that did not occur until 1918. But when we understand from the Scriptures and the physical facts that the "time of the end" was a definitely fixed time and must come when God places his King upon his throne, and that this occurred in 1914, then the other prophecies and the facts fit exactly as herein stated. Briefly, then, these prophecies and the dates of their fulfilment are as follows, to wit:

The fixed "time of the end" is October 1, 1914 A.D.
The 1260-day period ended in April, 1918.
The 1290-day period ended September, 1922.
The 1335-day period of blessedness began May,
1926, and goes on for ever.
. . . Since 1918, when the Lord began judgment at
his temple . . .

It's odd that all these dates were considered, or "discerned" while 1874 even had some former prophetic application taken away from it. Yet it was still (incorrectly) "discerned" to be Christ's invisible presence. 

Not only that, Rutherford apparently did re-consider the date for Christ's presence. Throughout 1930 he never uses the date 1874, but adjusts it to "about 1875." This might be confusing for anyone who has seen 1930 mentioned as a specific year when 1874 was still in use. It's in the September 15, 1930 Watchtower.  But notice the context:

Bible Students, having no better interpretation, have accepted the identification of the "man of sin" as the Papal system and have understood that power which had withheld, let or hindered its complete development to be the Pagan Rome empire and that when Pagan Rome was taken over by being overthrown by Papal Rome, then the Papal system or hierarchy was recognized as the "man of sin". In support of this interpretation it has been said that the Papacy was organized as a hierarchy about A.D. 300 and advanced to the zenith of its power about A.D. 800; that its decline began in A.D. 1400; that it was bereft of its temporal power in A.D. 1870; and that from the beginning of the Lord 's presence in 1874 the Devil used the Papal system as the chief opposing instrument of God's kingdom and that the Papal system will meet its final destruction at the beginning of the reign of Christ. -SS Vol. B, pp. 267-361.

Rutherford (as President & Editor) is only quoting a book (SIS, V2) that he had wanted to officially stop promoting in 1927. For financial reasons they kept up several campaigns to sell the remaining stocks (of many thousands) of these books (to the public) well into the early 1930's, and the "Kingdom Ministry" would announce when the last copies of "Studies in the Scriptures" were finally out of stock (for personal libraries) into the 1960's. I mention this because, due to doctrinal changes, there was a rather awkward relationship with these books during this period, as campaigns to sell the books were causing arguments and push-back against Rutherford about why they were asked to sell books wherein most of the doctrines had been discarded. (It was more than just dates and chronology, but several of the dates, too, had already been officially discarded.) And Rutherford was, at the exact same time, complaining that those old-timers who still believed in these books were the "evil slave."

But, in spite of all the changes, especially those starting in 1927, Rutherford had still not completely dropped the "1874 chronology." What I find interesting is that with all the discernment that went into re-thinking the dates of Christ's presence, and the changing of a couple of dozen doctrines that had been taught since Russell's time, he still couldn't look back on 1914 and see it as the beginning of the invisible presence.

Rutherford changed it more specifically from 1874 to "about 1875." He had also shifted away from speaking about a 40 year harvest to, instead, the "day of preparation" that ran from "1878 to 1918," and often "1875 to 1918." The September 1, 1930 Watchtower issue says this on pages 201, 202:

"With the beginning of the second presence of the Lord, approximately A. D. 1875, there was a change in the work. . . .  The evidence seems quite conclusive that the gathering of these members of the body into the temple is almost complete, if not entirely so. The evidence shows that a great separating work has been going on since 1918 and that probably that separating work is not entirely completed, . . . .

The October 15, 1930 Watchtower, p.308 said:

The second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ dates from about A. D. 1875,

The idea was barely mentioned for a couple of years, and then in the June 1, 1933 Watchtower (p.174), it goes back to 1874, again:

The second and invisible presence of Christ dates from about eighteen hundred and seventy-four.

 

This 1875 wasn't really much of a change because the reason was that, in 1928, the entire matter was considered carefully and studiously and published in "Our Lord's Return." But it shows that discernment in the sense of serious reconsideration was going on through these years, and yet, 1874 was determined to be OK even after re-considering the dates related to it, and one of the last remaining foundations for it: 539 A.D.

The proof set forth in the booklet, Our Lord's Return, shows that 539 A. D. is the day from which the prophetic days of Daniel the prophet are counted. . . . These symbolic 1335 days represent that many actual years. That period . . . from and after 539 A. D. ended with the end of 1874 A. D., in the autumn season, or approximately the beginning of 1875. . . . About the beginning of 1875 the facts show that the light began gradually to come to the minds of the faithful ones, telling them that it is his due time for the Lord's presence.

It seems that this same idea of discernment as 'gradual light' was was already understood. They had reconsidered 539 A.D. to be true in 1928, then false in 1929, but continued to keep 1874, even though they had just knocked out the rest of the original foundation for it. This is an indication that there was no room for doubt about 1874.

I think that's all I'm going say on the idea that they were supposedly beginning to discern that 1914 was the beginning of Christ's presence all the back in the year 1914. Anything is possible, but it still doesn't ring true for me. 

[HollyW]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think that's all I'm going say on the idea that they were supposedly beginning to discern that 1914 was the beginning of Christ's presence all the back in the year 1914. Anything is possible, but it still doesn't ring true for me. 

Thank you for all your research, JW Insider.  It becomes more and more obvious that the new book being studied, "God's Kingdom Rules", is an attempt to re-write the history of the WTS and JWs would do well to do their own research into the WTS own publications ---- or, as someone mentioned, they can remove themselves to the bathroom during the study and just tune it out. 

[Evacuated]

 

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is a perfectly slippery position to hold

???

Oh come on, please! If they could get the date of Christs presence wrong then they could get the date of discerning it wrong at the same time couldn't they? It makes no difference to the actual event and the fact that Rev.12:7-12 started its fulfillment in 1914. 

"WHITE MAN'S HEAD ON FIRE"

 

[Ann O'Maly]

21 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Oh come on, please! If they could get the date of Christs presence wrong then they could get the date of discerning it wrong at the same time couldn't they? It makes no difference to the actual event and the fact that Rev.12:7-12 started its fulfillment in 1914. 

How do you know Rev. 12:7-12 'actually' started its fulfillment in 1914? And if they were wrong about the date of Christ's invisible presence and wrong about discerning the sign of it, how are you sure they are right about it today?

[io.porog]

I would like to type a lot of words too  but I'm lazy. 

"To begin to discern" 

As people we become accustomed to gradual progressive adjustments in thinking or phasing out of of one idea in favor of another idea. It seems to me that the above phrase is just referring to the beginning of ones research and hunt of supporting scriptural evidence. As brought out recently in a Broadcast in can take many years for a teaching to be introduced although research on it may have begun many years prior.

Yes, 1874 was a time they once referred to as the Parousia. I wonder if that understand will change to "yet future" along with the "first resurrection"?

 

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

How do you know Rev. 12:7-12 'actually' started its fulfillment in 1914?

The ruler of the world is present.

 

5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And if they were wrong about the date of Christ's invisible presence and wrong about discerning the sign of it, how are you sure they are right about it today?

1Cor.13:7

[Ann O'Maly]

19 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The ruler of the world is present.

Which one? 

Satan's presence as ruler of the world?

Or Jesus' presence as ruler of the world? (Rev. 11:15)

46 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

1Cor.13:7

Matt. 24:23-27