The timing of Jesus' 2nd Coming

[JW Insider]

On 8/30/2016 at 1:31 PM, Arauna said:

Revelation 12: 6-12 Clearly shows: . . . When Jesus takes authority in the heavens he would throw Satan and his demons out of heaven. (Jesus sat at the right hand of his father until 1914 when he received the Kingdom power from his father and threw Satan out.) The scriptures goes on to show that Satan would then create havoc on earth because he has a "short period of time left"   This scripture clearly shows that there would be a period on earth when Jesus would be ruling invisible from heaven amidst his enemies Ps 110:1+2.

Aruana, These comments help explain why the doctrine makes sense to most Witnesses. You also gave a longer version of this same type of answer to Holly in another post that I'll quote from later because it includes some additional points, and some of the strongest ones, at that. It's the one from August 31 that starts out: " Question to you -  to think about: Why did God give so many prophecies about the timing and arriving of the first coming and dedication of the messiah- and it was fulfilled right on time (70 week prophesy in Daniel).  Would he not also give to Daniel a second prophecy which shows when he would start ruling invisibly in heaven as indicated in Daniel 7: 13 + 14?"

I wanted to respond to all the different points of defense that you made with respect to the 1914 doctrine, but I also wanted to acknowledge something so that no one gets the idea that I am thinking that it somehow makes one better for accepting a certain set of beliefs around 1914, or that someone is not intelligent, or is not a rational thinker for believing exactly what the Watchtower teaches.

As we all know, it's fact that the doctrine seems to be a reasonable and rational explanation of an entire set of apparently interrelated Scriptures (Daniel, Ezekiel, Matthew, Luke, Hebrews, etc) , and a theme that we can trace from Genesis 3:15 to the end of Revelation. And, it's more than that, it's something that is given a lot of specific importance and attention by the Governing Body, the "faithful and discreet slave," men that we highly respect when it comes to teaching the Bible doctrines. If they consider it important to emphasize and give no sign of changing it, then obviously we follow their lead.

Therefore I am well aware that any one specific point from the Bible that might appear to invalidate a portion of the 1914 doctrine would be expected to have no effect on our overall view of the doctrine. At least for me this was true. And ever since I started discussing this on-line a few months ago, I see that it's the same for other Witnesses as it was for me. (This is why, for me, it's important to admit that I probably never would have given these ideas a full consideration if it weren't for learning that other members of the Governing Body, Writing Dept, Service Dept, and other respected Bethel Elders had also doubted the validity of the doctrine. This included the very member of the Governing Body I worked for, who was the one who first made me aware that these others were saying things against 1914.)

I think that many of us will also admit that it's mostly the fact that this is a teaching from our Governing Body that has the most effect on our acceptance of it. Obviously, it's not just the meaning of the scriptures themselves, but their explanation of them that carries the most weight, because they could tell us one year that those scriptures mean one thing and next year that they mean something else, and we would probably, in general, have no problem with that. In fact, that has actually happened at least half-a-dozen times on the subject of the "generation," and it has happened again recently on subjects like 'the wheat and the weeds," the "first resurrection," the "rapture," "types and antitypes," even the definition of the "faithful and discreet slave" itself (which is an exception to the type-antitype update).

But this does not mean it is irrational to accept their explanation. It is out of appreciation for the many other teachings that we accept as truth. These are teachings that define us, and according to the Watchtower, they are teachings that make us "special."

The idea of being "special" is sometimes even worked into these very discussions about 1914 in the Watchtower, and the lead of the anointed:

*** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. This period of time includes both the 1,260 days (42 months) and the symbolic three and a half days referred to in Revelation chapter 11.
How happy we are that Jehovah arranged for this spiritual refining work to cleanse a special people for fine works! (Titus 2:14) Additionally, we appreciate the example set by the faithful anointed ones who took the lead during that time of testing and thereby served as the symbolic two witnesses.

From the very start, even Russell used the idea that he understood the chronology to be something that made the Watch Tower "special." He accepted the title "faithful and discreet slave" and applied it to no one else, because he was providing food "at the proper time" ["meat in due season"] based on the chronology he promoted. [I know that you are tired of "Russell" quotes, so I will only include them if requested.] Russell, even used the acceptance of his chronology as the means to distinguish the "wise virgins" at the wedding feast from the "foolish virgins" who remain locked out of the wedding feast.

And, of course, feeling that we are right, and that the rest of the world is wrong, can rightly provide some of the proper motivation for preaching and teaching and warning others. This is not all bad, but it's easy to see how we can end up with an unbalanced pride and tend to attract listeners for the wrong reasons if we lean too much on our own understanding about such ideas, and tend to forget that Jehovah said that this area was not ours to know. Remember all the little ones who were stumbled at the false predictions about 1881 and 1914 and 1925 and predictions about what the "mid-1970's" would bring.

But the secondary attraction of the 1914 doctrine is the fascinating way that an entire set of scriptures can mean something different to us than they mean to those who have studied those same scriptures for nearly 2,000 years. This gets back to the idea that a "threefold cord cannot quickly be broken." In our case, we have taken, not just three, but about 10 different ideas and woven them into a very strong concept. We use many of the exact same scriptures to prove 1914 that other people would use to prove that 1914 is a false doctrine.

There are about three scriptures which are exceptions. These are scriptures that anyone discussing the 1914 doctrine will sometimes show us to prove that the 1914 doctrine is false. These are ones that the Watchtower will never mention in context with a discussion of 1914. As far as I have seen the Watchtower will just avoid them, even though their connection to the 1914 doctrine is so obvious. This is apparently because there was no way to re-translate them or to easily re-explain them in a different way from the way they are usually understood.

Two of them have been mentioned a couple of times already, and although I haven't read all the posts here, I doubt that anyone has attempted to explain them. Here are some questions related to one of them: 

1. Why did the Bible reference Jesus word's about the Gentile Times from Luke 21:24 and then attach an actual length of time to them? (I'd like to see any one of us try to answer that question on its own, before answering the next question about it, which is this:)

2. Why is the length of time that the Bible attaches to Luke 21:24 only "42 months" -- 1,260 days -- i.e. three and one-half times, according to Revelation 11:2,3?

3. Why do the Watch Tower publications not cross-reference Luke 21:24 with Revelation 11:2,3 -- even though the verse in Revelation is the only verse that specifically puts a time on the "appointed times" of the Gentiles for trampling Jerusalem underfoot?

Another question ties back to the verse that you referenced above in Psalm 110:1. This was probably the most re-quoted verse from the Hebrew Scriptures, referenced in many of the books of the Greek Scriptures, and alluded to in most of them. (Mt, Mk, Lk, Ac, 1 Cor, Eph, Col, Heb, 1 Pet, etc., sometimes multiple times in the same book).

A couple questions on this verse, too.

1. If Jesus was sitting at God's right hand, does this give the impression that he is sitting on a throne the way a king sits on a throne?

2. Whether we think the answer is "yes," or "no," would it ever be proper then, to say that Jesus sitting at God's right hand means the same thing as "ruling as king"?

3. If a king of Israel was waiting for God's appointed time for a certain action to be taken against does that mean that he wasn't actually king until that time came?

4. Does a king need to "stand up" to be king, or can he be king while still sitting and waiting for something?

As you know, question #3 is alluding to the fact that we often use Hebrews 10:12, 13 to imply that Jesus was merely waiting almost passively at the right hand of the throne of Majesty, but was not yet given the title "king". 

(Hebrews 10:12, 13) 12 But this man . . .  sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet.

But this fact seems to escape our notice that the same word for 'waiting' can refer to 'keen expectation' just as it is used in the next chapter:

(Hebrews 11:8-10) By faith Abraham . . . was awaiting the city having real foundations, whose designer and builder is God.

And 1 Peter uses it to refer to Jehovah himself waiting patiently to destroy his enemies in Noah's day.

And of course with reference to question #4 we often argued that the act of sitting on a throne doesn't mean you are king until you "stand up." The reason I spent so much time on the issue of "standing up" is that we have dropped this teaching. When someone would say that Stephen saw Jesus standing, we always had to convince the householder that Jesus hadn't really stood up and that this vision Stephen saw was in the future:

• (Acts 7:55, 56) 55 But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.”

We use the same argument about John being transferred into the future when he refers to Jesus as the "King of Kings" in Revelation:

• (Revelation 1:5) . . . and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”

What we don't comment on is the fact that we only want the third title to be future, not the first two, and that this was the way John introduces the book to readers before he even began speaking of being "in the Lord's day."

And of course, question #2 refers to the fact that Paul refers to Psalm 110:1,2 as if the meaning of "sit at my right hand" means exactly the same as "rule as king."

• (1 Corinthians 15:25) For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.

• (Psalm 110:1) .Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.

 

Therefore, Jesus was already ruling as king in the midst of his enemies from the time he sat at God's right hand, which was, of course, the time when all powers were subject to him, and all authority had been given to him. We would never say that all powers were not subject to Jehovah while he was waiting patiently for the time to produce the Flood, would we? Why would we say any less of Jesus, about whom Hebrews 1:3 (and Philippians 3:21) says:

 

 

• (Hebrews 1:3) 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
• (Philippians 3:19-21) . . .. 20 But our citizenship exists in the heavens, and we are eagerly waiting for a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our humble body to be like his glorious body by his great power that enables him to subject all things to himself.

 

If we attempt to limit that power to just a limited kingdom over his congregation then are we not belittling him? After all, in addition to just the congregation, Ephesians says:

• (Ephesians 1:19-21) . . .It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.

Notice that Ephesians even includes the timeline: "when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand." Do we really have the right to change Jehovah's timeline? For the last 75 years we have said that didn't happen until 1914. We still hold to the idea spelled out in 1950 as you can see on your 2015 WT Lib CD:

*** w50 12/15 p. 513 pars. 16-17 Praise to the New World’s Founder ***

That meant that Jesus at God’s right hand had to wait till 1914 . . .  In 1914 was the time for God to give the kingdom to his faithful Son, “whose right it is,” and for the Son to come into the kingdom in fulfillment of the covenant with his forefather David. At that date was the time for him to act on his heavenly Father’s invitation: “Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” (Ps. 2:7-9, AS) Since he received the nations of earth in order to break and dash them to pieces like pottery smashed with an iron rod, it would indicate that the “appointed times of the nations” had ended.

17 In 1914, at the end of those “appointed times”, Jehovah began to rule as king. How do we know that? Well, at the beginning of those times in 607 B.C. he ceased to reign, by overturning King Zedekiah’s rule at Jerusalem. He ousted him from the “throne of Jehovah” and let the Babylonian Gentiles smash Jerusalem to pieces and let it be trampled on by the nations. Hence the end of those times in 1914 meant just the reverse. There God Almighty took again to himself his great power. He began ruling as king, not at earthly Jerusalem or over the former promised land of Palestine, but over all the earth and all its nations inside and outside of Christendom. He did this in remembrance of his kingdom covenant with David and by installing the worthy Son of David, Jesus Christ, as King of the new world. Not as King on a material throne in an earthly Jerusalem, but on the “throne of Jehovah” which is in heaven and where Jesus had been sitting waiting for all his enemies to be made his footstool. “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool,” says Jehovah. (Acts 7:49, NW; Isa. 66:1, AS) So since 1914 is the time for the Gentile nations to be no longer on top but underfoot, to be trampled on by the heavenly Rulers till they are ground to powder and are blown away at the battle of Armageddon.

If Jehovah was already king before Jehovah 'became king in 1914,' then why couldn't we say the same of Jesus? And doesn't this idea make the words lose their meaning, when we remember that not one of his subjects on earth knew anything about what Jehovah had just done in 1914? A great display of power and authority might be said to be a way in which an existing king can "become king." But if no one here noticed -- not even those whom Jesus had especially chosen to be  "that faithful and wise servant" -- then why should this time be a better reason to override what the Bible already said about Jesus becoming king in the first century. 

Also, we know from the way that the Davidic kingdom is referenced by Peter in Acts 2 that Jesus received the Davidic Kingdom when he sat at God's right hand. But if the logic of the above referenced Watchtower was correct, then 1914 is 'known' because it was the time for Jesus to begin smashing the nations with an iron rod. But we know that he did not smash the nations with an iron rod in 1914. So Jesus is still ruling in the midst of enemies just as Paul said he was already "ruling as king" in the midst of his enemies back in the first century at 1 Cor 15:25 and elsewhere.

 

 

 

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If Jehovah was already king before Jehovah 'became king in 1914,' then why couldn't we say the same of Jesus?

Who said we cannot?

Jehovah has never relinquished His Sovereignty ever in the face of Satan's attacks. So when in, for example, Ps 47:7 it says that Jehovah "is King" and then in Ps 47:8 that Jehovah has "become King" do we mean that Jehovah stopped being King for a while? That is nonsense! He cannot stop being King any more that the proverbial leopard can change it's spots!

So Jehovah only stops being King in the minds of those who rebel against Him. And that erroneous concept is soon debunked when He expresses His rulership and actually does something. Nebuchadnezzar was on the receiving end of such an experience as recorded in the account at Dan. 4:1-37 much quoted or alluded to in this thread. And on that occasion he fared better than many others who have opposed (or will oppose) Jehovah's sovreeignty.

With regard to Jesus, as he said, "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18) even before his return to the heavens.

So, whether he 'sits on a throne at God's right hand' for some time after, (Acts 2:34, Heb.1:13); at a later date "goes forth conquering and to complete his conquest" (Rev.6:2); as Michael, battles with and hurls down Satan and his angels (Rev 12:7-9); as Michael again, 'stands up' at a time of unprecendented distress (Dan.12:1); as the angel with the abyss key, bounds the original serpent for 1000 years (Rev. 20:2); and then, mission accomplished, "subjects himself to the One who subjected all things to him" (1 Cor.15:28); what of it? Is he any less a king?

All these are actions whereby Jesus becomes king in the same way that Jehovah becomes king, whilst never relinquishing His Sovereignty. So then, as Jehovah's delegate and appointed king, by any action taken by Jesus in his ruling of God's kingdom in Jehovah's name, Jehovah becomes king also on every expression of that rule, whether in the destruction of opposition, or the enhanced appreciation in the minds of those who accept these actions as expressions of His rulership through Christ.

So don't tell me that no one noticed 1914!!!!! Whether they appreciated the true significance of the events at that time in their true nature might be arguable, but the simple statement that the "(Gentile) kings have had their day" remains true, no matter which way you look at it.

Rev. 22:20

[JW Insider]

32 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Who said we cannot?

Jehovah has never relinquished His Sovereignty ever in the face of Satan's attacks. So when in, for example, Ps 47:7 it says that Jehovah "is King" and then in Ps 47:8 that Jehovah has "become King" do we mean that Jehovah stopped being King for a while? That is nonsense! He cannot stop being King any more that the proverbial leopard can change it's spots!

Exactly! If the Bible says Jesus was king in 33 CE then we could see it in the same light as we understand Jehovah's kingship. Jesus was clearly said to be king, and even had the title "King of Kings" and "Ruler of the Kings of the Earth."

• (1 Timothy 6:15) . . . He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords
• (Revelation 1:4, 5)  John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from . . . from Jesus Christ, . . . “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
• (Acts 17:7) . . .All these men act in opposition to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.. . .

Can we rightly say that Jesus stopped being this King for a while? It would still be true that at some future point after 33 CE, Jesus could "become king" in a special sense when he would express that Kingship in a new way of take some special action. It is in the same way that when Jehovah puts his sovereignty on display or takes some special action, we could say that he "became king" in a special sense. I would agree 100% that if Jesus was a "king of those who rule as kings" in 33 CE, then he could not stop being King any more than the proverbial leopard can change its spots!

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So Jehovah only stops being King in the minds of those who rebel against Him. And that erroneous concept is soon debunked when He expresses His rulership and actually does something.

I agree. There was therefore no reason to say Jesus stopped being King, either. When he expresses his rulership in some special way and takes some special action with respect to that Kingdom.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

With regard to Jesus, as he said, "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18) even before his return to the heavens.

You seem to imply that Jesus would have to wait 40 days after his resurrection to ascend to the throne. But the focus is not on his ascension, but his resurrection. Jesus' kingship has nothing to do whether he, a spirit creature, is physically sitting or standing or "appears" on a physical throne, a physical cloud, or standing on the physical earth. The scriptures give us the timeline. It was at his resurrection to the highest position of power in the universe next to his Father himself. It's true that Hebrews focuses on his "death" as a sacrifice before he  "sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty." Also the scripture from 1 Peter, below, implies that it was at his ascension, but the idea is that this was the period during which "all things were made subject" to him. A king has subjects. None of them say he would wait nearly 2,000 years before actually becoming King.

(Acts 2:29-35) . . . David, . . . knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’

(Romans 8:34) 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us.

(Ephesians 1:19-21) . . .It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.

(Hebrews 12:2) . . .he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (also, Hebrews10:12) But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God, (also, Hebrews 8:1) . . .and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. . .

(1 Peter 3:21, 22) . . .through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.

(Romans 1:3, 4) 3 concerning his Son, who came to be from the offspring of David according to the flesh, 4 but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead—yes, Jesus Christ our Lord.

The publications have several times discussed the amazing power of God that was behind the resurrection of Jesus to make him the second-most powerful person in the universe in that instant.

(1 Corinthians 15:43-45) . . . it is raised up in power. 44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If. . . 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Of course, if it waited 40 days to the ascension, as 1 Peter implies, then this was still in the year 33 CE, not 1914 CE.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

what of it? Is he any less a king?

Not at all. And when Jesus takes on early subjects of his kingdom through the congregation beginning in 33 CE he is no less a king. When he commands them to go forth 'marching like soldiers' into the world as evangelists, he is no less a king.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

All these are actions whereby Jesus becomes king in the same way that Jehovah becomes king, whilst never relinquishing His Sovereignty. So then, as Jehovah's delegate and appointed king, by any action taken by Jesus in his ruling of God's kingdom in Jehovah's name, Jehovah becomes king also on every expression of that rule, whether in the destruction of opposition, or the enhanced appreciation in the minds of those who accept these actions as expressions of His rulership through Christ.

Absolutely! This is my point. If there had been some major expression or action taken by God's Kingdom in 1914 then this is absolutely right! Jesus and Jehovah could both be said to have "become king" sometime during the year 1914.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So don't tell me that no one noticed 1914!!!!! Whether they appreciated the true significance of the events at that time in their true nature might be arguable, but the simple statement that the "(Gentile) kings have had their day" remains true, no matter which way you look at it.    Rev. 22:20

Who noticed it? No one at the Watch Tower Society noticed it. If they did, they said nothing about it until many years later. You really think it's enough that they simply continued to make a statement using a phrase that no one knew the meaning of? This is not very believable to me. Here's why:

Let's say that I told you 100 times in advance of 1914 that the "End of the Gentile Times" means the end of a great day of wrath and time of trouble and chaos. I also say that we know such a "day of wrath" would be finished by1914 because it's the "End of the Gentile Times" and the "nations" would no longer rule after that date. Then 1914 comes along and becomes the start of a time of trouble. You are saying it's OK, as long as I still used the phrase "End of the Gentile Times"

What if I tried to sell you a car that I called a luxury, black Mercedes Benz that I said was brand new with no miles on it, but I delivered to you a smashed and burned orange Mercedes Benz? This would be OK as long as I used the term "Mercedes Benz"?  Remember, that with 1914, the Watchtower got no details about 1914 right. Not even one.

And according to the book of Revelation they even got the length of the Gentile Times wrong. So in my analogy, it's more like it was a smashed and burned, orange "Volkswagen" when you were expecting a Mercedes Benz.

 

 

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You seem to imply that Jesus would have to wait 40 days after his resurrection to ascend to the throne.

No implication here. The point is the quotation where the present perfect progressive tense describes an action that began in the past, continues in the present, and may continue into the future: "has been". 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Who noticed it?

By this I think you are referring to the year 1914.

Well I would say a very large proportion of the earth's population noticed it. Regardless of the perceptions, correct or incorrect,  ascribed by Bible Students who had been looking forward to that year and publicising it for some time in advance, that year has been a focus of attention ever since by those who see it as a punctuation mark in history. Even those who are obsessessed with debunking the year as significant seem to make it so by their efforts. The internet is awash with quotes from every perceivable source on these matters so I will limit my reproducing here to only one:

The Advent Testimony Manifesto published on November 8, 1917 seemed to indicate considerable spiritual interest in that time period  judging from the status of those signatories listed below the seven point manifesto:

"‘First—That the present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles.

"‘Second—That the revelation of the Lord may ha expected at any moment, when he will be manifested as evidently as to his disciples on the evening of his resurrection.

"'Third—That the completed church will be translated, to be "forever with the Lord".

"'Fourth—That Israel will be restored to its own

land in unbelief, and he afterward converted by the appearance of Christ on its behalf.

"'Fifth—That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the second coming of our Lord, because all nations will be subject to his rule.

"'Sixth—That under the reign of Christ there will be a further great effusion of the Holy Spirit on all flesh.

"'Seventh—That the truths embodied in this statement are of the utmost practical value in determining Christian character and action with reference to the pressing problems of the hour.

•    Dr. F.B. Meyer                             Baptist
•    Rev. Alfred Bird                            Baptist
•    Rev. J.S. Harrison                        Baptist
•    Dr. A.C. Dixon                              Baptist                 
•    Pastor W. Fuller-Gooch               Independent         
•    Dr. J. Stuart Holden                     Anglican              
•    Preb. H. Webb-Peploe                 Anglican              
•    Preb. F.S. Webster                       Anglican              
•    Dr. Dinsdale T. Young                  Methodist
•    Dr. G. Campbell-Morgan             Congregationalist
 

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If there had been some major expression or action taken by God's Kingdom in 1914 then this is absolutely right! Jesus and Jehovah could both be said to have "become king" sometime during the year 1914.

Well, for me, all things considered, I believe that the expression of Jehovahs rulership through His Anointed King Christ Jesus that took place in 1914 is described at Rev. 12:7-10:

"And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled  but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven.  So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.  I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!"

and for me, the current world scenario involving all people, including Jehovah's Witnesses, since that date is the evidence of that invisible event.

I know that your feeling on this matter as stated below:

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is not very believable to me

But to be honest, despite your eloquence, experience, and excellent attention to detail in research in many areas, in this element I perceive not just a "smashed and burned, orange "Volkswagen"", but the devastation and wreckage of a traincrash!

I hope the coming congegational bible study using the publication "God's Kingdom Rules" will enable at least a salvage operation to be successful. 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

On 9/13/2016 at 4:20 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

With regard to Jesus, as he said, "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18) even before his return to the heavens.

I believe you might be indicating, then, that Jesus may have been given this authority prior even to his death. Perhaps at his birth or his baptism, or perhaps designated from thousands or millions of years prior. I was thinking that the Bible verses generally fall on the side of "his resurrection" when he received this authority. I thought you were putting the emphasis on the fact that you added: 'even before his return to the heavens (ascension).' At any rate, there are dozens of other Bible passages that tell us enough about the time period to at least know that there was a big emphasis on the year 33 CE. as a time when his kingship was expressed. Yet, in our doctrine, we still prefer to call this time period, a time when he was only King-designate, even after he is called "Ruler of the Kings of the Earth." We create a scriptural contradiction that must be resolved with the idea that he is not really "King of those who rule as kings" but merely "King-designate."

I wouldn't say this is a completely impossible solution, but it creates Bible contradictions that are unnecessary. And naturally, I think we should be careful about adding to the Bible in such ways. We already know that Jehovah can "become king" in a special sense, without ever having relinquished his sovereignty. Similarly we know that Jesus could wait for the proper time to take on certain actions and aspects of his kingship, and this doesn't mean that he was "sitting and waiting" for his kingship to start at a later time. In the same way, Jehovah was not any less King or Sovereign while he waited patiently for the proper time to bring judgment in Noah's day.

On 9/13/2016 at 9:28 PM, JW Insider said:

Who noticed it? No one at the Watch Tower Society noticed it. If they did, they said nothing about it until many years later. You really think it's enough that they simply continued to make a statement using a phrase that no one knew the meaning of? This is not very believable to me.

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

By this I think you are referring to the year 1914.

No. Not exactly. Everyone who was alive "noticed" the year 1914. And this was a very significant year in history. Instead, I meant: "Who noticed that Jesus Christ had done something or acted in a way that brought attention to his Kingship?" In other words, in what way did anyone notice that Jesus or Jehovah had "become king" in that particular year.

I was speaking specifically about those things that you had already put into the context. You included actions and expressions of some ways that Jesus and Jehovah could potentially have "become king." You included, "goes forth conquering . . ." (Rev.6:2); as Michael, battles with and hurls down Satan and his angels (Rev 12:7-9); as Michael again, 'stands up' at a time of unprecedented distress,' all of which are included as events of the 1914 doctrine.

"Who noticed any of those things? No one associated with the Watch Tower Society thought that Michael had gone forth conquering in that year, or that Michael battled with and hurled down Satan in that year, or that Michael was now "standing up' at a time of unprecedented distress. I don't think we need to get into the specifics of what was taught on all these subjects up until (and well after) 1914, but I'll use Daniel 12:1 as an example from Vol 3 of Studies in the Scriptures p. 123,124:

Since the beginning (1799) of the Time of the End, God has been preparing his consecrated "holy people," his "Sanctuary," for the great blessings he intended to pour upon them during these forty years of harvest: which blessings are also intended as special preparation for their entering with Christ into full joy and joint-heirship with him, as his bride. At the exact "time appointed," 1799, the end of the 1260 days, the power of the Man of Sin, the great oppressor of the Church, was broken, and his dominion taken away. . . . Again, we have found the second advent of our Lord indicated by the prophet Daniel (12:1), yet in such a manner as to be under cover until the events foretold to precede it had transpired and passed into history, when we were led to see that the one veiled under the name Michael is indeed that which the name indicates--God's representative--"The Great Prince." Yes, we recognize him: "The Prince of the Covenant," the "Mighty God [ruler]," the "Everlasting Father [life-giver]" (Dan. 11:22; Isa. 9:6), who is to "stand up" with power and authority, to accomplish the great restitution of all things, and to offer everlasting life to the dead and dying millions of mankind, redeemed by his own precious blood. And, having traced the 1335 days of Dan. xii, down to their ending at this same date, we can now understand why the angel who thus pointed out the date referred to it in such exultant terms--"Oh, the blessedness of him that waiteth [who is in a waiting or watching attitude] and cometh to the thousand, three hundred, five and thirty days!"--A.D. 1874.* And in our reckoning of the symbolic times here given, let it not be overlooked that we used the key furnished us by the manner in which the first advent was indicated--a symbolic day representing a literal year. 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. II, chap. vi.

---

 

Since these things had already been "proven" to have started in 1799, 1874, 1878, etc, and that they would END in 1914 and be fully accomplished in 1914, then it seems wrong to say that they noticed it, and got some "enhanced appreciation" when they were actually completely oblivious to everything that might have happened in 1914, and remained in that "oblivious" state for many years thereafter. 

On 9/13/2016 at 4:20 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

also on every expression of that rule, whether in the destruction of opposition, or the enhanced appreciation in the minds of those who accept these actions as expressions of His rulership through Christ.

None of the events you mentioned about the "expression of that rule" were accepted as events that occurred in 1914.

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

that year has been a focus of attention ever since by those who see it as a punctuation mark in history.

That's true. And it truly was a punctuation mark in history.

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

The internet is awash with quotes from every perceivable source on these matters so I will limit my reproducing here to only one:

The Advent Testimony Manifesto published on November 8, 1917 seemed to indicate considerable spiritual interest in that time period  judging from the status of those signatories listed below the seven point manifesto:

It's a very interesting document isn't it? But in some ways it is very exceptional and not part of a flood of similar quotes about 1914. I remember when brothers like Gene Smalley in the Writing Department would scour newspapers, Time, Newsweek, Reader's Digest, etc., for countless hours and even weeks at a time, and then get super-excited when he would find even the smallest 1914 reference that supported the idea that it was a significant historical date.

The Advent Testimony Manifesto comes from another cross-and-crown "Adventist" group of people who obsessed about the Advent and the timing of the rapture due to the events surrounding WWI and Jew/Gentile relationships -- just as the Bible Students would do. (see pwmi.org) Many of them changed their name to "Witnesses" before the Bible Students did, based on Isaiah 43:10 and the fact that the word "Testimony" can also be translated "Witness." Through the years they have been associated with those who have embarrassed them with their date speculations and "numerology" continuing to predict dates for Jesus' return in the 1930's and 1940's. This kind of thing is very typical when great events of world history drive them to start making predictions. As you know, it happened with the Bible Students, too, when the Watchtower began teaching that 1925 was even better attested to than 1914.

This actually just goes right back to what Jesus said: "Do not be misled. You are going to hear of wars and rumors of wars." Jesus must have known that people would would tend to obsess about prophetic numerology when wars and great earthquakes and famines would break out. It's no wonder that Jesus started his answer in that way, when the disciples asked him how they would know when it was time for time for the great event of his parousia to occur.
 

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

Even those who are obsessessed with debunking the year as significant seem to make it so by their efforts.

I suppose that would have to include me. I do take it very seriously, but I'm happy to appear that way as long as it's in the context of an attempt to stick closer to the words of Jesus in the OP and avoid setting ourselves up as those who have encroached on the knowledge of God by ignoring Acts 1:7, etc. None of us need be ashamed of speaking out about our beliefs to defend God and Christ no matter how "strongly intrenched" a tradition has become.

(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) . . .for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ;

Based on the clear statements in the Scriptures, it seems quite possible that we have raised up our own knowledge against what Acts 1:7 actually calls 'the knowledge of God.' And if our traditional reasonings are out of harmony with Jesus' warnings mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1&2 Thess, 1&2 Peter, etc, then we should speak out to make those reasonings 'obedient to the Christ.'

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

I hope the coming congegational bible study using the publication "God's Kingdom Rules" will enable at least a salvage operation to be successful. 

That would be nice!

[Ann O'Maly]

On 9/11/2016 at 4:33 AM, AllenSmith said:

Before the 90’s, opposers were scrutinizing the WTS for claiming the WTS had predicted the end of the world in 1914.

Again, you a disputing the historical facts. As you well know, Russell predicted, among other things, the end of earth's rulers in 1914 and the end of the 'world' as people knew it.

A few years after 1914, and despite none of Russell's predictions coming to pass, Rutherford proclaimed in true 'Emperor's New Clothes' fashion: 

"The World Has Ended! The Golden Age Is Here! Millions Now Living Will Never Die: This Means What It Says - It Is A Fact"

Quote

because there’s no zero between Anno Domini and Common Era.

Um, what?

Quote

 

With that said. The BLC expect for time periods which run entirely after 1992Elul, where the NBLC starts in the Hebrew month of Elul, was universal for early man. It was something that all civilizations used prior to 800 B.C. Even though one can surmise that calendar is closer to the prophetic calendar, but the lunisolar calendar is the most logical.

 

Lolol! Dear oh dear. You're using ex-JW Gordon Ritchie's "Lord's Witnesses" site for your information!  He sees codes everywhere in the Bible and uses them to prophesy end times events, which invariably fail and have to be revised.

Quote

The early Hebrew, Roman, Egyptian, Mayan, Chinese and Babylonian Calendars were all likewise 360 days long with 12 months of 30 days each. This is why the circle has 360 degrees in it.

Incorrect (apart from the circle having 360 degrees part). Instead of relying on Ritchie's webpage or Keith Hunter's Illuminati Numerology ideas or a reputedly error-ridden book (Parise), try being more judicious about your sources, hey?

E.g. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/Calendar.html
 

[Ann O'Maly]

On 9/12/2016 at 1:17 PM, AllenSmith said:

... opposers that use the same watchtower article to make their distorted claims. I’ve said it many times, they should read the entire article.

If you mean the two articles from the October and November 2011 Watchtowers, not only have I read the entire articles, but I've checked the original sources in the endnotes too. This is why I feel so appalled that the Writing Department could mangle the subject and misrepresent the academic sources in that way.

 

[Evacuated]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I believe you might be indicating, then, that Jesus may have been given this authority prior even to his death. Perhaps at his birth or his baptism, or perhaps designated from thousands or millions of years prior.

Well, I only had in mind the point in discussion at that moment, that Jesus had power and authority granted before he returned to the heavens, which power and authority he excercised, for example, in commissioning his followers to preach and make disciples. It would be interesting to consider the proposition that his kingship was as good as granted earlier,  at the earliest in the words spoken at Genesis 3:15, but that's for another time and thread.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

all of which are included as events of the 1914 doctrine

You seem to have misunderstood me here. My list of events attributable to Jesus excercising his kingly authority were not "included as events of the 1914 doctrine". They were examples of the way in which a reigning king (Jesus) could become a king, by expressing rulership in a particular instance. Obviously, events were included that have not yet occurred even now in 2017. These include the Daniel 12:1 event where Michael is described as 'standing up' and this despite the fact he is already "standing on behalf of your (Daniel's) people".

With regard to further points raised in the response by @JW Insider.

Quoting a load of chronological rambling from old Watchtower publications does nothing to dissuade me from the fact that 1914 remains a significant year in the collective conciousness of vast numbers of people for all sorts of reasons. I have quoted the Advent Manifesto which, whilst not specifying the year, has a focus on the time period and indicates the view of some of the leading lights of evangelical Christendom. Who cares what other rubbish they attached to this manifesto? The views of leaders in other disciplines are easily retrieved.

The Jan 1 1914 Watchtower said "the Year 1914 is the last one of what the Bible terms "Gentile Times"-- the period in which God has allowed the nations af the earth to do their best to rule the world. The end of their "times" marks the date for the beginning of Messiah’s kingdom, which the Bible declares is to be ushered in with a great time of trouble, just such as we see impending."

The further quote attributed to Charles Taze Russell in Oct 1914, (whatever day it was made), the "(Gentile) kings have had their day" is indicative of the significance of that year in the minds of the Bible Students, regardless of any nonsensical gibberish attached to their beliefs at the time.

It matters not to me what interpretation was put on the events of that time by Bible Students, Adventists, politicians, clergymen or anyone else, the fact remains that the year was sufficiently forseen, was experienced by vast numbers of people, and remains sufficiently significant.

Also for me, the subsequent pattern of worldwide events, which includes the worldwide preaching activity of today's Jehovah's Witnesses and the reaction to it, unmistakably marks this time period, starting in 1914, as being headed up by the event described at Rev. 12:7-10:

"And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled  but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven.  So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.  I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!"

Satan's attempts to obscure his ultimate embarrassment and his desparate humiliation as a result of this event, from the collective consciousness of mankind is........ a dismal failure!

I have yet to to hear a convincing argument to the contrary.

I think it's time for me to bow out of this particular topic. 

[JW Insider]

 

 

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It would be interesting to consider the proposition that his kingship was as good as granted earlier,  at the earliest in the words spoken at Genesis 3:15, but that's for another time and thread.

It would be interesting. That is as good a time as any to apply the term king-designate, as the Kingdom becomes the theme of the Bible at this point:

• (John 18:37) . . .“Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth .. . .
• (Matthew 2:2) . . .“Where is the one born king of the Jews?. . .

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

You seem to have misunderstood me here. My list of events attributable to Jesus excercising his kingly authority were not "included as events of the 1914 doctrine".

No, I understood that you were offering a list of several things that could be attributed across a much longer timeline. What I had intended to do was copy portions of 3 of those items that we have include as "expressions" of kingship that were supposed to have occurred in 1914. I remembered to erase "and to complete his conquest" from the first phrase, but I was sloppy on Daniel 12:1 because I was thinking of the entire verse in general, and you had only specifically referred to the time when Jesus "stands up" at some time in the GT, not the "standing" since 1914. And we had already discussed how the "standing up" has become a future event, again (since 1986/87). I made a mistake here and should have only included 2 items from your list for the same point.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Quoting a load of chronological rambling from old Watchtower publications does nothing to dissuade me from the fact that 1914 remains a significant year in the collective conciousness of vast numbers of people for all sorts of reasons.

I didn't think it would, or should. The only point was that, while the year was considered significant, it was for all the wrong reasons for the Watch Tower Society. Perhaps a few other secular and religious people came close to seeing some of what we now see in it, but at the time, no one saw it as an expression of Jesus kingship -- except in the misuse of a phrase which prompted them to continue to make false predictions based upon the way they had defined the phrase. 

If I understand you correctly however, you are making a point that goes beyond just the fact that were making use of a specific phrase about the "Gentile Times." (Which is a good thing, I think, since we have redefined the meaning of that phrase anyway). You are saying that many people saw the expression of Jesus kingship in that year, even though they may not have understood it's significance, nor even been able to acknowledge that Jesus or Jehovah had anything to do with it. Even those who were focusing on the significance of 1917 and beyond were seeing an "expression" of Jesus kingship in that same time period which was obviously related to 1914. That sounds like a fair answer.

I suppose you are saying that the War itself was closely related to Jesus kingdom, that it somehow was an indicator of the end of Gentile kings, at least the end of their lease. And perhaps they were witnessing the increased activities of a recently debased Satan who was now walking about like a roaring lion seeking to cause chaos that might devour potential earthly representatives of the Kingdom. Or maybe just the extra anger of Satan for having been thrown down was enough to say they had seen an expression of the Kingdom of God and His Christ. If any were looking closely at the Watch Tower organization they would have seen a very steep drop in activity, a drop in enthusiasm, a large loss of membership, cancelled subscriptions to the Watch Tower, and many Bible Students admitting that they had lost their faith. Of course, they would have also seen that a minority kept going fairly strongly, which is now seen as a true expression of the Kingdom.

The Watchtower has been referring to the 1917 London Manifesto since the 1940's, but I don't really know exactly why. What the 1917 group, for example, was actually witnessing was WWI, progress with Zionism in Palestine, proposal of a League of Nations or similar institution (which they were prepared to reject). And while they do not admit it anywhere I could see, perhaps they even witnessed or were influenced by Bible Students, or some Adventist groups, many of which had read Ellen G. White's work called "Advent Testimony" but who did not wish to associate themselves directly with the existing Adventist religions, even though they all had similar pre-millennial views, and copied much material from them. In just a few more years, the events surrounding Hitler's talk of a Third Reich also became associated with similar spiritual Adventist Millennarian movements. Hitler thought of the Third Reich as a Millennial movement, too, of course. If the 1917 Advent Testimony movement was a response to Jesus "becoming King" then I suppose the Third Reich might also be deemed such, although it had a different take on Zionism. I'm sure we could at least argue that they were also responding to the chaos and Satanic anger of the time.

If this is your argument, then you are able to cover quite a few different responses as people seeing that Jesus had become King, even though they didn't understand that this is what they were seeing.

Of course, perhaps you are saying that it wasn't necessary that any were responding directly to expressions of Jesus newly installed kingdom. Perhaps it was enough that they merely said to themselves something like, "the times, they are a-changin'". They didn't have to understand anything beyond that. It would be interesting to see what the current view of the Governing Body is on this subject. I don't know for sure, but think it's actually closer to this last idea that the world only needed to notice that there was some type of historical demarcation such that between 1914 and say 1918, they had seen a great war and a great pestilence. For those associated with the Watch Tower Society, it was enough that they had used the expression "End of the Gentile Times" with reference to the year.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Also for me, the subsequent pattern of worldwide events, which includes the worldwide preaching activity of today's Jehovah's Witnesses and the reaction to it, unmistakably marks this time period, starting in 1914, as being headed up by the event described at Rev. 12:7-10:

For me, this is very significant. Even without a specific need to attach it to a chronological timeline, or a specific definition of a "generation." Managing such a tremendous undertaking on a world-wide scale is amazing, and is an indication of just how blessed we are. I sometimes imagine we could be even more blessed if we relied on the words of Jehovah, and especially Jesus in this particular case, without making any exceptions.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Watchtower has been referring to the 1917 London Manifesto since the 1940's,

Millions now Living Will Never Die booklet has the first reference I have seen, 1920?

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

you are able to cover quite a few different responses as people seeing that Jesus had become King, even though they didn't understand that this is what they were seeing.

I think that result would be a better word than response for the very reason that they didn't understand what they were seeing. For example, a building may collapse due to subsidence, or it may be demolished by it's owners due to subsidence. The first is a result and the reasons may be later discerned. The second is a response for those same reasons.

To apply, world conditions since 1914, including the varied reactions to them, are the result of what is described at Rev 12:7-10. The real reasons have been later discerned, and the activity of Jehovahs Witnesses has transformed into a response to an ever clearer understanding of those reasons.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I sometimes imagine we could be even more blessed if we relied on the words of Jehovah, and especially Jesus in this particular case, without making any exceptions.

It is a miracle we have the words of Jehovah and Jesus at all given the measure of opposition to them. Jehovah's blessings are undeserved kindnesses however, and His promise at Malachi 3:10 to those who give Him His proper due guarantees a blessing until there is "no more want".  I have experienced this throughout my time associated with Jehovahs people. As far as I am concerned, my place is to continue chasing the chariot. We will have plenty of time to polish the coachwork once we have survived "the great tribulation."

Hope you get my drift. 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Millions now Living Will Never Die booklet has the first reference I have seen, 1920?

That's probably the first. I was thinking about a discussion in a 1949 Watchtower I had just read, but when I check the Publications Index I see there were also several from the 1930's, including Vindication and the booklet the same year, "The Final War" (1932).

Your analogy to buildings appears to work from the perspective of the doctrine. People saw the building (system) collapse in some way in 1914. Some were closer to understanding the underlying reasons and some would (or could) find out later if they would so choose.

[Arauna]

I see you guys are still at it:  Explain to me why the first world war (1914) saw the first use of extensive air battles - airplanes, the first world war saw the first widespread use of machine guns, flame throwers, submarines (only small ones used before in the civil war) chemical warfare, tanks... and the list goes on.  Then the second world war saw more advanced use of these kinds of weapons : air craft carriers, massive guns, tanks, battle of Britain in the air,  plus 2 exploded atom bombs........and gas as killing machines.    Well known historians agree that 1914 was the year the world went mad. It was the beginning of a new war era. There were wars before but not on this scale.

Never before in earth's history did we see the use of weapons of mass destruction which can kill on the scale as was done in the first and second world wars.   And now we are facing a greater proliferation of nuclear weapons.... MAD Mutual assured destruction still going on.... 

According to your 'logical' thinking these signs were just regular things that were going on - just like before - Jesus was not crowned in heaven in 1914?  Well dream on.... and stay asleep in your self-induced comas...or self-denial.  The world has just been going on as before has it?   These were not part of the composite sign that we have been in the "Parousia"   since 1914?

Are you denying that nothing different happened in the world arena since 1914?

The woman is pregnant and you do not see it.  The birth pains are getting closer and closer (the pains of distress in the world) .... and soon the baby (Armageddon) will be here... and you guys are wasting time on senseless debates about what Russell and friends believed - now almost century and a half ago? 

I would like to hear your explanation - how these things mentioned above was NOT different from what happened BEFORE 1914...  Just to name one item:- they still used horses in 1914 (WW1) and found that it does not work any more because this type of warfare became OBSOLETE.... Previous wars were mostly fought by man to man combat and guns that were drawn by horses and guns that took time to load.   Technology became perfected just before 1914 - to kill......... explain this to me .....

I do not need old Watchtowers  to tell me that 1914 was a special year  - or not.  The evidence of secular history clearly points to the fact that there was a change in mankind's capability to kill.  Bring these events in line with what the bible says and one can see that Satan is here and he has wrought havoc on this earth - since 1914.... Why we are facing extinction soon.... if mankind does not work together really fast....

We already know that cooperation is not going to happen  and if they do - it will be a false security. The date and time of the birth we do not know... it is looming though because the times are heavy pregnant....the fig tree is blooming... the signs of Parousia is escalating... birth pains getting closer.

Do not bother to answer if you do not have an excellent explanation for the above historical facts:...Why the years before 1914 were NOT different to the years after 1914  - and do not quote Wikipedia or some magazine to me... I want a reply in your own words.