ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

[Witness]

12 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Then by Extensa, you galvanize your personal opinion that renders it meaningless. With that said, you can continue with your “false” claim. The “false” claim linking Russell and Armageddon, by you. No further evidence needed.

 

 

2 Timothy 4:3-4New International Version (NIV)

 

 

³ For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴ They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

 

 

By stating that Russel linked 1914 with Armageddon, I have become the false prophet.  

I think I've heard everything now.  

 

1888 "In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that the date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove; Firstly, that at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, Thy Kingdom come, will obtain full, universal control, and that it will then be set up, or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions." (The Time Is At Hand, 1888, p. 76, 77)

 

2 Tim 4:3,4

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

13 minutes ago, Witness said:

By stating that Russel linked 1914 with Armageddon, I have become the false prophet.  

I think I've heard everything now.  

 

Well, the proof is in GP’s presentation article, then I guess you have heard everything there is to present “falsehoods” to a disingenuous claim. It must also be a common theme here to misinterpret writings of others. When, will you ever learn the proper context Jesus intended to convey about Scripture if keep this up, about bible understanding.

[Witness]

10 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I believe that was the point!!

It is God’s true Temple, 2 Thess 2:4, that is being deceived by Satan’s last day deception, not Christendom.   2 Thess 2:1; 1 Cor 3:16,9; Eph 2:22; 1 Pet 2:5; Rev 11:1,2  

This “faithful city”, spiritual “Jerusalem” and once in covenant with God, has become a harlot.  Isa 63:18; 1:21; Rev 17:1; Matt 5:35; Ps 48:2

A faithful remnant exits this city where God's Temple is "trampled".  They must be cleansed and refined from the harlotry they, too, committed by leaving their Head to be ruled by another - a "wicked steward" who condones the trampling of God's Temple.     Matt 24:15; Luke 12:42,45; Rev 17:6  

Judgment begins with the house of God. 2 Cor 6:17; Mal 3:2; Rev 18:4-8; 3:18

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

10 hours ago, Witness said:

A faithful remnant exits this city where God's Temple is "trampled".  They must be cleansed and refined from the harlotry they, too, committed by leaving their Head to be ruled by another - a "wicked steward" who condones the trampling of God's Temple.

I believe you have a misguided passion. However, how does misapplying Scripture "help" you personally? Your argument is supported by your own contrived notions. To that extent, then, how would this help others, when, you have placed yourself in the same position you so passionately defend against.

In your case of taking up as King David, doing both right and wrong, then, you would need to exercise the wisdom of Solomon!

[Witness]

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I believe you have a misguided passion. However, how does misapplying Scripture "help" you personally? Your argument is supported by your own contrived notions. To that extent, then, how would this help others, when, you have placed yourself in the same position you so passionately defend against.

In your case of taking up as King David, doing both right and wrong, then, you would need to exercise the wisdom of Solomon!

I welcome your explanation of the scriptures you feel I have misapplied, but perhaps on a new thread.  

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Meanwhile all this discussion is going on, poor Caleb is being held

Prisoner in the confiscated Russian Bethel Branch Office by Russkies !!

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

18 hours ago, Witness said:

I welcome your explanation of the scriptures you feel I have misapplied, but perhaps on a new thread.  

If you really have to ask, then, you don't understand scripture as well as you thought you did. Think about your "hatred" toward the Governing Body, first, and go from there. Now, don't be dishonest with yourself, and reply, you don't hate the Governing Body. It seems, with "all" your previous posts, that ship has sailed!!!!

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

I know this is dragging up an old topic but having just been given the No 2, 2020 Watchtower

What Is God's Kingdom ? Page 10 Second and third paragraphs.

( I see the GB are still pushing the year 1914.  )

"The sign that Jesus gave, along with Bible chronology, helps us understand that God set up his Kingdom in heaven in the year 1914. * At that time, he installed his Son, Jesus Christ, as King. (Psalm 2:2, 4, 6-9) Soon, God’s Kingdom will rule the earth, and it will remove all rival rulerships and make the earth a paradise for humans to live in forever.

Shortly, the words of the model prayer that Jesus taught will be fulfilled: “Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth.” (Matthew 6:10) What, though, has the Kingdom been doing since it took power in 1914? And what can we look forward to when the Kingdom takes complete rulership of mankind?"

 

I thought the GB / CCJW / Watchtower  had stopped pushing this 1914 idea. 

I thought @JW Insider had given us many points to show how wrong 1914 is. 

I was surprised to see it so prominently pushed as being 'fact'. 

 

 

 

[Arauna]

29 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

thought @JW Insider had given us many points to show how wrong 1914 is. 

So he is your "leader" or teacher?   Who says he is right in his assumptions? 

Is it because you tend to go against anything written by the GB that you agree with his assumptions?   While he does try very hard to sound "open minded" and "politically correct", it does not mean he is correct in what he writes. I have seen long unrelated searches for past information that has nothing to do with the present.  Long writings which prove that he only accepts what sounds right to his own mind.....and sometimes the 'past' falls into that category and the present is not considered. Long quotes from the past publications to criticize the GB...... or....quotes which come across as criticism of the GB - all in the name of trying to look 'open minded'.

I have have seen more than enough evidence to prove totally the opposite of what he says -  you are going after your own desires and not really looking what the bible has to say? 

I am done with wasting my valuable time to answer these non-substantial challenges or trolling episodes....

Witnesses believe in 1914 and those who do not, must look to themselves to ask why do they think their own opinions are more important...... are they smarter ..... do they have more holy spirit....than the rest of us..... are they sitting on the fence.... or are they just plain stubborn in their own wisdom ...... or.....are they just plainly unreasonable in the application of scriptures.  Here on this forum I have seen application of scriptures which are all thrown together to come to a certain conclusion..........  Not really meticulous research. A mumbo-jumbo of unrelated scriptures used together.

No need to apologize to open the subject again.  From my side consider it done and over.

I am not here to sound nice or please trolls.... 

Of course you will be answered - by those who love their own opinions......and you are welcome to down vote me.... lol...

You have provided irresistible bait for Witness.  

 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

I thought @JW Insider had given us many points to show how wrong 1914 is.

I planned to just let this sit because it reminded me of typical trolling behavior, and I've said all I want to say about 1914 for a while. But I have to agree with this part of what @Arauna said about you:

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Is it because you tend to go against anything written by the GB that you agree with his assumptions? 

You already know that you will disagree with anything I say in support of the current teachings of the GB, and when I present the opinion that the GB are wrong about something, all of a sudden you treat me like I'm some important teacher of truth.

We all have opinions, and when it comes to interpretation, it doesn't matter how strongly we believe them or present them: they're still opinions.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Oh dear, feathers ruffled very quickly. So, there must be some truth in my comment above. 

For anyone that is interested. I think i can remember JWI saying that the GB were 'backing off' (my phrase) from the 1914 teachings. I even think I remember him quoting how many times, per year, that it was used in W/t mags. Hence when i saw it in this fairly new W/t i was surprised. 

When you look at the title of this very topic :

"ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view"

Then you would think my comment above would be quite acceptable to honest hearted ones. 

I did do a bit of research and found out that the 1914 date had some relation to Pyramidology / Russell / Rutherford, which was still believed up until 1928. Not exactly 'Holy Spirit' guiding that was it ? 

My answer to @Arauna is this.  The Bible does not mention 1914 at all. So the Witnesses that believe in 1914 are not doing so because they believe what the Bible says, they are doing so because they believe what the Governing Body says. 

My answer to @JW Insider is this. I quote you 

We all have opinions, and when it comes to interpretation, it doesn't matter how strongly we believe them or present them: they're still opinions.

This applies just as much to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. They are not inspired or guided by Holy Spirit, they have proved as much by the things they write about the Anointed remnant. 

If you people wish to judge me as a troll, then so be it. I am willing to suffer all insults because i seek truth and honesty.  But i do realise that truth hurts, so I'm prepared for the backlash. 

 

[Witness]

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

Not really meticulous research. A mumbo-jumbo of unrelated scriptures used together.

It really doesn’t take meticulous research to disprove 1914. 

“ In 1914 the long-awaited new heavens came into existence. The Messianic Kingdom born in that year rules from heaven itself, and Jehovah has given it authority over all the earth.   ip chapter 26, pp 372-389 

Anyone who was anointed after the death of the last of the anointed ones in the first group—that is, after those who witnessed the “beginning of pangs of distress” in 1914—would not be part of “this generation.”—Matt. 24:8.    Kr chapter 1 pg 6-12

The Kingdom was apparently BORN in 1914

FOLLOWED BY “pangs of distress”  in the same year, as translated by the NWT

The Greek word for “pangs of distress”:  

ὠδίν ōdín, o-deen'; akin to G3601; a pang or throe, especially of childbirth:—pain, sorrow, travail.

“the pain of childbirth, travail pain, birth pangs”

As in 1 Thess 5:3 – “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”

 

Various translations:

All these events are the beginning of birth pains.  HSCB

But all these things are the beginning of birth pains.  LEB

All these are the beginning of birth pains.  NIV

All this is but the beginning [the early pains] of the birth pangs [of the intolerable anguish]. AMPC

These things are only the beginning of troubles, like the first pains of a woman giving birth.  ERV

 Why does the NWT say “pangs of distress” and not "birth pains"?  Because, anyone with any sense knows that birth does not happen before birth pains – before labor, that results in birth. 

 

 

http://pearl-laborpains.blogspot.com/