Jump to content
The World News Media

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


JW Insider

Recommended Posts


  • Views 46.1k
  • Replies 487
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period.

WAITING… AND FIGHTING ARchiv@L, I appreciate your advice. Very laconic, but appropriate. Only to develop a little further my attitude, let me mention David example in, perhaps, the most difficult pa

(Luke 12:47, 48) . . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did t

Posted Images

  • Member
On 9/16/2020 at 6:35 PM, Anna said:

That's what I wondered 😄. Hey, by the way I think you should witness to "the Saker"....he sounds like he needs it. And I would definitely count my time. If you don't want to do it then somebody should. Like @Outta Here or @JW Insider

I realized that I should at least have put a link in here so that what I said made more sense, so here is:

http://thesaker.is/submarines-in-the-desert-as-my-deepest-gratitude-to-you/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
57 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

When in history did we here the great war?

Not to repeat too much of what has already been said many times, but it has been a while so I'll answer.

We got a great war in 1914 that killed more in a few years than several previous wars ever managed to kill in wars that lasted decades, or even hundreds of years. I have no problem with seeing 1914 as a very historic year for world war, and wars are often associated with pestilence and food shortages, just as they were within a few short years before and after the great war. Some great earthquakes, too, were notable less than 10 years prior to 1914, and less than 10 years after 1914. So I definitely agree that this was a great turning point in history, and I have no problem using this idea in the ministry. More people should be seeking Jehovah's kingdom due to such an historical turning point.

But we should consider too that Jesus told his disciples when they asked him for a sign of the end, not to be misled by wars and reports of wars. So perhaps Satan wanted to fool people into accepting 1914 by leading the nations to a war that could mislead them into thinking they were seeing a sign. 

57 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

607BC has been proven by secular history through the deportations

Secular history does admit in the Babylonian Chronicles a deportation as early as 627 BCE using the Watchtower's dates, which secular history identifies as 607 BCE. For you to say that this proves 607 means that you must be rejecting the 20 year offset that the Watchtower uses in order to place 607 as the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar when Jeremiah says that Jerusalem was burned and the temple destroyed and the Messianic line of kingship was interrupted. 

Otherwise, what "607" date are you referring to? You have obfuscated about this date for several years now. It's probably time you cleared things up about your own beliefs instead of just trying to find fault with others. What makes the SECULAR 607 date about a deportation before Nebuchadnezzar was even a king so interesting to you?

57 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

and 1914 Christ reign in Heaven didn't need to be physical but it was literally seen by millions, that lived it.

But it was not seen by any Bible Student, Jehovah's Witness, or any reader of the Watchtower magazine, was it? We don't know of even one person who would admit to having discerned Jesus reign beginning in 1914. They didn't figure that out for another decade or more, as they still had Jesus' reign tied to 1874 and 1878. And Jesus' invisible presence wasn't discerned in 1914 either, as it was still officially kept as 1874 until about 1943/1944:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. The millennium that was to be marked by the detaining of Satan the Devil enchained in the abyss and by the reign of the 144,000 joint heirs with Christ in heavenly glory was therefore yet in the future. What, then, about the parousia (presence) of Christ? Page 324 of the above book positively says: “The King’s presence or parousia began in 1914.” Also, in the Watchtower issue of July 15, 1949 (page 215, paragraph 22), the statement is made: “ . . . Messiah, the Son of man, came into Kingdom power A.D. 1914 and . . . this constitutes his second coming and the beginning of his second parousía or presence.”

1914 wasn't fully "discerned" until the 1940's, based on clarifications from 1943, 1944 and 1949. Up until then, they still believed they were already in the millennium, the thousand year reign, because the 6,000 years was still being "discerned" as having ended in 1872:

*** ka chap. 11 p. 208 par. 51 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
. . . and the six thousand years of man’s existence on earth ended in 1872 C.E. (The Time Is at Hand, page 42) Then the allowance of two years before the entry of sin led to the year 1874 as the year in which six thousand years of human sin terminated and the seventh thousand years for the elimination of sin by Christ’s reign began.

So neither his kingdom nor his presence were discerned by anyone in 1914, let alone these supposed millions who lived it. The only thing that might have been left was the supposed discernment that the Gentile Times had ended, but in order for that to work they had to completely change the meaning of the phrase "Gentile Times" so that it no longer meant that all nations would stop ruling and all non-Jewish governments would have completely collapsed within 12 months after 1914.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

We got a great war in 1914 that killed more in a few years than several previous wars ever managed to kill in wars that lasted decades, or even hundreds of years.

I can recall saying in talks that if the first time the entire world was concurrently at war does not fulfill Matt 24:7, what does?

(“For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another.”)

And if the greatest pestilence in history by death count, the Spanish flu, does not fulfill Luke 21:10, what does?

(“Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, and in one place after another food shortages and pestilences...”)

HG Wells said something in his Outline of History, about record-setting famine in Russia just afterwards and I used to throw that in, too, with the same question.

Only earthquakes were not included, and there was an article in the early 2000’s I think in which WT cited geologic surveys that earthquakes have been fairly constant through the centuries, are not notably on the increase, and they did not challenge it, though they did say that it is not really the Richter scale that is going to cut it with people today, but the effect upon populations, which is on the increase simply because population is on the increase.

And then Matthew 24:8 could be quoted: “All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.“ Things start off with a bang, but we are still in for a long haul. Other things would transpire, the only good one being the preaching of the good news earth wide, “and then the end will come.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Only earthquakes were not included,

I think it was Russell (or was it Rutherford) who interpreted earthquakes not to be literal but to mean the turmoil of mankind. (If you need a reference I will provide one later).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
21 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I can recall saying in talks that if the first time the entire world was concurrently at war does not fulfill Matt 24:7, what does?

So have I. And I will never say that there is no significance to the fact that a great war broke out just a few short generations ago, and that this war was historically significant.

The problem is how we are using the scenario between Jesus and the disciples. We are pretending that Jesus said something he didn't really say. So for me, it's a matter of trying not to go beyond the things written, and to follow the counsel about paying attention to ourselves and our teaching.

Jesus tells his Jewish disciples that the most significant event in all of Jewish history is going to occur: the great Temple will be utterly destroyed, never to be built again.

Because this is such a great event, the disciples understand that this must be the great Parousia (royal visitation) he is talking about, and the great Synteleia of the world system. Synteleia means, basically: THE END OF ALL THINGS TOGETHER. Not just the conclusion leading up to the end, but the actual, final, destructive END.

But we pretend that Jesus answered them by saying, in effect:

Listen, disciples. If you really want to know how to determine when the end will come, then be on the lookout for for wars, reports of wars, earthquakes, pestilences, and food shortages. When you see all these things together, get ready, because you'll know that the END is very close.

Instead Jesus said, in effect:

[Listen disciples. You just asked for a warning sign so you would know just when this destructive end of all things has approached.] DO NOT BE MISLED!! You are going to hear about wars, but do not be misled: THE END IS NOT YET. There will be earthquakes, food shortages, and pestilence, but these things are not the END, they are a BEGINNING of pangs of distress. 

You are asking about a warning sign, but my Parousia will strike suddenly like lightning, it will come at a time you won't think to be it, like a thief in the night, like when Sodom was destroyed without warning. Like the sudden, surprise destruction on all those people in the days of Noah who didn't believe Noah until the day he went into the ark.

By the time the "SIGN" appears, it will be too late to prepare, because that SIGN appears in the heavens after all these thingssoccur: [all these things that you asked about, i.e., the destruction of the temple.]

(Matthew 24:29, 30) . . .after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

I think we need to discern the difference in those two ideas. Because we really do take those wars, etc., out of context to mean nearly the opposite of what Jesus appears to be saying.

In either case, the end of these things would be coming upon their generation. Earlier Jesus had said that some of them would still be alive when the kingdom would be shown to them, and they would not finish their "rounds" preaching to the cities of Israel before the Son of Man arrived in his kingdom. And, disciples, even after Jesus died, ended up thinking that, therefore, John would not die off before Jesus returned in kingdom glory. (Some of these fulfillments had already happened when Jesus gave a glimpse at the "Transfiguration.") But it means that it was already obvious what the term "this generation" was thought to mean at the time: within the lifespan of many of those alive at the time. And true to Jesus' word, the walls of the temple did fall within 37 years or so, within the lifespan of many of those standing.

Jesus didn't know the times or seasons of the actual, final parousia/synteleia. Neither the Son nor the angels knew. But he knew it had to be "after the tribulation of those days." That is, after the tribulation surrounding the event he told them about: the destruction of the temple and its walls.

So, some of what I said above is interpretation. Without some interpretation here, we would have to say that the parousia/synteleia really was the temple destruction, and that this was the event so big as to never be repeated in history. But we know from John's letters, Revelation, and 1 & 2 Peter, and even Paul's letters, that we should interpret the actual parousia/synteleia to be future, something much bigger than the tribulation of those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Some of the subjects that came up under this topic have been moved to a new topic. Arauna didn't actually start that topic or name it, but this forum assigns a new topic to the person who made the earliest post in that topic, and the earliest one I moved there was hers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.