1975 was in the past. Are we HONEST about it TODAY?

[JW Insider]

6 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Now ask yourself. Do I really need to show you your own falsehoods when they are plain to see by others?

Yes. If you claim I presented falsehoods you do have to show them, not just claim they are plain to see.

And especially not to just provide numerous examples that merely support exactly what I already said. It's as if you think you are playing to audience of stupid people who will be fooled into thinking that just because you offered some documentary evidence, and pretended that it doesn't support exactly what I said, that they will believe there is some kind of disagreement between what I said above and the evidence you showed. Instead you should try to show where this evidence differs from what I already said. Otherwise you will still appear to be highly dishonest.

[JW Insider]

28 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Another thing you are NOT taking into account. Not All the Bible Student Association, independent churches adhered completely to Pastor Russell’s teachings.

This is true, and this is why I took it into account by explaining that this was the "general view" of those who closely followed Russell's own writings.

You have cherry-picked several of Russell's statements by the way, and then made false claims about what else he must have believed or not believed. Instead, you should be aware of everthing that he wrote about a subject before making such sweeping (false) claims. (example: " Therefore, the ONLY expectation Charles Taze Russell had for the year AD1914 was the conclusion of the “gentile times” that’s it.") I'm sure you are aware that anyone could open almost any of Watchtower volume from 1879 to 1914 and see 100 examples proving this statement false.

You have also taken some statements about Russellism and in defense of Russellism, and falsely claimed that these are my views.

28 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Now what have you accused the Bible Student association and Pastor Russell of being? Advents on many of your past posts. A false comparison if ever I saw one.

He only relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he admits to it, and to the extent that he relied on their teachings and made them such an important part of his own. From what he admits to alone, he ended up being deeply "indebted" to the Second Adventist, but for the most part he only borrowed their chronology. Most of the other Watchtower doctrines had been originally initiated by other religious groups, with some possible coincidental overlap with the Second Adventists, but not necessarily from them.

[JW Insider]

18 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Word salad!

Yes. I remember when someone, I think it was Anne O'maly, once called your gibberish a "word salad." Evidently because you misunderstood the meaning of the term, I have seen you try to pin that label on the words of others several times since then. This is a small example of what I meant at one time when I spoke of the evidence for your "grudge echolalia." (Not a real psychological term, as far as I know.)

25 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

What I just showed is the difference between defending falsehoods that you claim with actual truth. The fact you present yourself as a Watchtower expert is diminished by your actions and post.

Just another empty claim. You never showed that anything I wrote was wrong. I already summarized what you did in the previous posts. In fact you provided some evidence that completely agreed with what I said. Also, I do not claim to be a Watchtower expert; I have an strong interest in our history, just as you evidently do. Our history contains many things to be proud of, and we can also learn how to avoid repeating some of the mistakes, so it seems a worthwhile pursuit.

In the next post, I'd like to get back to the topic.

[JW Insider]

19 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Once again, this just shows more of your lack of understanding about the Bible Student association.

Again, you take something I said about Russell's support for Second Adventism, claim it shows a lack of understanding, and then go on to only give evidence that what I said was correct. At least that's what it looks like on my first read of itI'm sure I could learn more about this topic, and if we discussed it, I'm sure you might even present some interesting details I could learn from. I appreciate this. But when you tell someone that "this just shows more of [my] lack of understanding" you shouldn't just provide material that shows I was right. If I'm going to learn anything from this, you have to provide something that makes a point that differs from what I said.

I was just about to return to the actual topic of how we currently defend 1975, but I do appreciate that you focused on one particular point where you say I was wrong. Since this is a point you seem sure about, I will go ahead and look at this point more closely and see if there might be something you have said that shows where I went wrong.

[Srecko Sostar]

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

One: the Watchtower was referencing the completion of a “prophetic cycle” in 1975.

Do you suggest, how WT can calculate and predict future events because of "prophetic cycles" ? 

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Once again, this just shows more of your lack of understanding about the Bible Student association.

OK, I'll give you one more chance. You never know. The thousandth try might be a charm, for you.

So, you claim that the following things I said show this lack of understanding:

He only relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he admits to it, and to the extent that he relied on their teachings and made them such an important part of his own. From what he admits to alone, he ended up being deeply "indebted" to the Second Adventist, but for the most part he only borrowed their chronology. Most of the other Watchtower doctrines had been originally initiated by other religious groups, with some possible coincidental overlap with the Second Adventists, but not necessarily from them.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Anyone who had a different view from the Vatican was welcomed by the association. That doesn’t mean they accepted their doctrine but rather they found something in common with that different church.

Your claim here in no way contradicts what I said above. Clearly, as we know, Russell never belonged to a Second Adventist church. We also know that what he found acceptable among the Adventists came from his own study of the Bible, listening to preachers of several faiths, and of course reading and studying the writings of several faiths. As I said above, some of the overlap in doctrines with other faiths could have been coincidental, and this could even be true of overlap with prior doctrines of the Second Adventists. 

Perhaps you object to the idea that Russell felt indebted to the Second Adventists, but that's not from me, that's from Russell's own words. He credits a Second Adventist with rekindling his faith. He joined a Second Adventist to begin publishing works written by Second Adventists. He taught that the "midnight cry" from Matthew 25 was a cry made by Second Adventists just prior to 1874.  In "The Time is at Hand" Russell taught that Luke 3:15 had a modern fulfillment among the persons led by William Miller (whom he said was the leader of those who would take the name "Adventists"). In fact, to Russell, the difference between the "foolish virgins" and the "wise virgins" was specifically the fact that most of the original "Millerite" Adventists had a chronology based on the exact same starting dates as Russell, but that they ended their dates prior to 1874, while Russell (due to accepting Barbour's chronology theories) extended them to 1874 to meet the Bridegroom. So Russell and his followers saw themselves as the wise virgins who had walked with the Adventists with continuing light (oil in their lamps) while so many of the other virgins who had light, had let their lamp oil run out. Russell admits that he got the chronology that he accepted directly from Barbour, a Second Adventist.

But this does not discount the idea that many of Russell's other teachings did not match the Adventists, and some of the others that did may have matched only by coincidence, as I said above. Some of those other teachings would have come from his own study, and some clearly had been previously initiated by other religions before Russell came to accept them, whether directly, indirectly or purely through his own study. For example, no one doubts that Russell accepted pseudo-religious pyramidology from Joseph Seiss, for example. Just because a few Second Adventists also accepted pyramidology, this does not make it an Adventist doctrine.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

PEYTON G. BOWMAN.

You quote the Bowman letter as if it shows something different from what I said, but it too is in perfect agreement with what I wrote. Thanks for quoting it, as it provides good support for the idea I was presenting. Bowman was probably (according to B W Schultz blog) a former Methodist who had become a [Second] Adventist preacher:

Thanks for your quick comments on Bowman. Bowman is also mentioned in one of the Advent Christian history books, I don't recall, but it must be the Advent Christian History. I remember there is a photograph of him. He was one of their preachers. Also Bowman is mentioned in the history book of the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, "Historical Waymarks of the Church of God", on p.14, and he is in a group photo on p. 15.

Adventists often were known to have a strong overlap of doctrines with "the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith" and this also happened to be true of Barbour and Russell.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time. They were composed like all other earthly companies of two or more classes; one class had the Spirit in their hearts as well as its light in the Word (oil in their vessels and in their lamps) others had only the light of the Word (oil in the lamp).

Yes, thanks for including the above, too. It's what I said here and also what I said several months ago in this same topic on an earlier page.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

So, no! I’m not showing thing's that agree with your distorted argument. I’m showing the contradiction you pose against the Watchtower.

You may not agree, on purpose, but the only evidence you found agrees perfectly with what I said. Wishing a thing rarely makes it true.

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, Russell WAS NOT A SUPPORTER OF ADVENTISM as you speculate and insist he was by the publications that come from various brethren within the association.

Exactly. This is why you and I still agree that Russell was not a supporter of Second Adventism. He indicates that he was terribly embarrassed for them, and wished not to be associated with their 'great disappointment.' But he accepted their chronology, and accepted --and promoted-- the adjustment to that chronology from a Second Adventist named Nelson Barbour. But I agree completely that he did not support Second Adventism. If you speak of "adventism" in general, however, not the religion, then Russell was actually a very strong supporter of adventism. But I believe you already acknowledge this with your statement:

18 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Russell is referring to the two advents.

The first and second advents of the world's Redeemer and Lord, and the important matters associated therewith.

So, as far as I can tell, all your evidence is in complete agreement with the statements I made that you were hoping to oppose.

Edited to add: I just noticed the more recent posts, just above this one. Along with some of the obligatory false claims you make about me, you also provide some quotes as evidence from Russell. Thanks again. These are also exactly as I have already presented above. You will notice that Russell makes it clear that he never was a Second Adventist, just as I have always said here for years. Hopefully that puts the matter to rest.

[Srecko Sostar]

23 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

1.    Are you honestly implying the Watchtower is the only organization to reference the 6000 years of human existence?

 

2.    Are you making an argument between creation and evolution?

 

3.    Are you suggesting the Watchtower does not receive God’s Holy Spirit?

 

1) I don't think how WT is only who believe in 6000 years of human existence.

2) It is personal decision on what individual find reasonable to believe.

3) I don't think how any Structure (Institution, Organization, Religion, Company, Corporation) receiving HS. Only thing to believe as possible is, how person as individual, or as group of people are in position to receive HS.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

It takes a pretty sad puppy to upvote his own madness.

[Srecko Sostar]

@BillyTheKid46I found this on internet:

It seems how Structures in WT are well educated in talking about end of the world. :))

 

[JW Insider]

What you have done here is so absolutely amazing that I took a picture of that portion of your above post, and copied it here. You have quoted a portion of what I said in purplish-colored text where I say that he ONLY relied on Second Adventism to the extent that he relied on them. A tautology. But then you offer the PERFECT quote in support of that statement. I would have used this exact quote myself, but you not only used it, you CORRECTLY HIGHLIGHTED exactly the portions that highlight the support for what I said. Almost as if this was some kind of Watchtower Study and you were asked to underline (highlight) the portions of Russell's quote that prove the statement in purple is correct. Thank you for doing this for me!

Russell is saying that a lot of people will contemptuously indicate that there is nothing good that comes out of Adventism. But he adds that if we are humble, and wise in God's sight, we will admit that Millerite Second Adventism was what started the CORRECT understanding of Daniel's visions. Not only that, but even the right time in which to start the prophecy, specifically of the 1260 days. Russell says that we even admit that Miller's correct view on this was the "KEY" that initiated the preaching of TRUTH on this matter.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Who wrote that article?

Russell himself! In Volume 3 of Studies in the Scriptures, page 86, 87.

Then, you go on further in your post to makes some statements and ask some questions that indicate that you did not really understand what you just quoted, even though you highlighted all the correct portions. But you also leave out a very important point. It's that we do not even need to go back to Miller to show that Russell saw Second Adventism as the KEY to the truth about Daniel. If you have read the work of another Second Adventist named Nelson Barbour, you will see that Nelson Barbour was the person who had pointed this out, before Russell, exactly this same point about what Miller had done wrong, by starting the key dates of Daniel at different points to make them end on the same date, when Barbour showed that they should have started on the same date so that they ended on different dates. So it was the work of a Second Adventist that Russell admits to relying upon for the chronology correction.

In any case, Miller, Barbour and Russell all started these dates in the period of the decline of the "Holy Roman Empire" (Catholic secular rule) and all of them ended these dates in the period surrounding the 1800's (1799-1874, in Barbour/Russell). Russell, based on accepting Barbour's dates, ends the 1260 days in 1799, and the 1290 days in 1829. Russell goes on further in the same Volume III to say, beginning on page 305:

We have marked, too, the fixed dates to which the Prophet Daniel calls attention. The 2,300 days point to 1846 as the time when God's sanctuary would be cleansed of the defiling errors and principles of Papacy; and we have noted the cleansing there accomplished. We have noted the fulfilment of the 1,260 days, or the time, times and half a time, of Papacy's power to persecute, and the beginning there, in 1799, of the Time of the End. We have seen how the 1,290 days marked the beginning of an understanding of the mysteries of prophecy in the year 1829, culminating in the great movement of 1844 known as the Second Advent movement, when, according to the Lord's prediction, the wise virgins went forth to meet the Bridegroom, thirty years prior to his actual coming. We have seen the fulfilment of the predicted tarrying; and for fifteen years the midnight cry, "Behold the Bridegroom!" has gone forth. We have marked with special delight the 1,335 days, pointing, as they do, to 1874 as the exact date of our Lord's return; and we have since that time experienced the very blessedness promised—through the clearer unfoldings of the wonderful mysteries of the divine plan.

Guess who Russell is talking about here as the person behind the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the 1,290 days. The 1290 is MILLER time. Daniel pointed to MILLER's understanding. Granted that Miller was following in the steps of many before him. But who was promoting that understanding in the year predicted by God in Daniel 12:11. It was Russell's understanding that God specifically predicted 1829, through Daniel. Russell's writings as indexed in the EBC for Daniel 12:11 condenses it to one sentence:

[Daniel 12:11] Shall be 1290 days —1290 years, ending 1829 AD, at which time William Miller began to call attention to the time prophecies. C84, C87;R5565:5

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Russell chose Miller because he happened to be the most “recent” person to speak about time prophecy that he could relate to about the 1260 period.

Not at all. Barbour had been the most recent Second Adventist whom Russell had relied on for the 1260, 1290, 1335, 2300.

Probably this is even true of the 2,520 from Leviticus 26 and the Daniel 4 Tree Dream prophecy, too. Although that could have been both indirectly from Miller, Bishop Elliott, etc. (And Miller, Barbour, and even Elliott, could have been influenced from J.A.Brown, and others.)

However, when Russell had his very first article published, in 1876, it was in the publication of a leader of the Second Adventists, named George Storrs. Notice how closely, Russell's follows the order of Miller's thoughts. I assume you know Russell's version, and there are differences, so I'll just quote excerpts from Miller, 40 years prior to Russell ( http://the2520.com/william_miller_lec.htm )

On the Punishment of the People of God Seven Times for their Sins (1836)

LEVITICUS 26:23,24

And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me, then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins. . . . We are very fond of throwing back upon the Jews what, upon the principle of equity and justice, would equally belong to us Gentiles. . . . Ezek. 12:27, "The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off." . . .

3. I shall now show what is meant by "seven times," in the text.

1st. "Seven times," in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, was fulfilled in seven years. Nebuchadnezzar,for his pride and arrogancy against God, was driven among the beasts of the field, and was made to eat grass as oxen, until seven times passed over him, and until he learned that the Most High ruled in the kingdoms of men, and gave it to whomsoever he would. This being a matter of history, and as an allegory or sample to the people of God for their pride and arrogancy, in refusing to be reformed by God, and claiming the power and will to do these things themselves, --they, too, like Nebuchadnezzar, must be driven among the beasts of the field, (meaning the kingdoms of the world,) until they learn the sovereignty of God, and that he dispenses his favors to whomsoever he will. That, being a matter of history, and a sample only, was fulfilled in seven years; but this, being a prophecy, will only be fulfilled in seven prophetic times, which will be 7 times 360 years, which will make 2520 years; for one half of 7 times, that is, 3 times and a half, is called, in Rev. 12:6, 1260 days, (fulfilled in so many years.) See also Rev. 12:14; 13:5. Forty-two months is the one half of 2520, for twice 1260 is 2520. Therefore the sum and substance of the whole is, that the people of God would be among the beasts, or kings of the earth, seven times, which is 2520 years, . . . And Ezekiel alludes to the same "seven times," Eze. 39:9,10, . . .

The proper question would now be, "When did those years begin?" I answer, They must have begun with the first captivity of the tribe of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in Babylon; for all the prophets agree in this thing, that Babylon would be the kingdom which would carry the Jews into captivity. . . .

Then, if Babylon was the nation which was to scatter the people of God, and this, too, in the days of Manasseh, I ask, When was this captivity? I answer, In the year 677 before Christ; see 2 Chron. 33:9-13; see also the Bible chronology of that event; this being the first captivity of Judah in Babylon. Then take 677 years, which were before Christ, from 2520 years, which includes the whole "seven times," or "seven years," prophetic, and the remainder will be 1843 after Christ; showing that the people of God will be gathered from among all nations, and the kingdom and greatness of the kingdom will be given to the saints of the Most High; . . .

 

 

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, that writer to an extent, exaggerated the relation between second Adventism and Russell. Barbour and others to an extent believed Russell’s works, but then turned away from his teachings to reengage their ideology of second Adventism.

I remember when Allen Smith said the same thing, and although his posts are gone, the same thought is still found under one of Allen's alternate accounts on this forum:

On 7/6/2018 at 11:34 PM, DefenderOTT said:

Even though some of those Advents like Barbour, Storr, and others that quite couldn’t agree with Miller, did find themselves seeking, further, answer in which they found Russell as eager to learn scripture wholeheartedly, then, what they had been taught. . . . . Barbour, Storr, and others returned to their original understanding of Adventism that Russell was unable to agree with.

By coincidence, he (Allen) often used the same odd spelling "Advents" that you often use.

There is one other thing that Allen Smith said a few times, and I often asked him what he meant, but he never responded. Since you are apparently saying the same thing, and claim to be continuing the work of Allen Smith, perhaps you can at least tell me what you mean by it. It was Allen's idea that we need to believe that the 2,520 years is actually two back-to-back uses of the 1,260 period. Allen said we needed to understand that there were TWO different periods of 1,260.

What's confusing about this is that the Watchtower uses 2,520 to refer to a period OF YEARS that started in 607 BCE but it uses the 1,260 as a period of DAYS that started just a few days prior to January 1915 and ended in 1918. Yet, like Allen, you say:

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

What’s your excuse in “only” believing the bible, only mentions (1) 1260 period when in “fact” it shows (2)? 2520!

You are aware, of course, that John Aquila Brown, among others, believed a version of this. Even William Miller believed a version of this as he explained in the same 1836 speech I quoted above. Miller said:

. . . for twice 1260 is 2520. Therefore the sum and substance of the whole is, that the people of God would be among the beasts, or kings of the earth, seven times, which is 2520 years, one half of which time they would be among be under literal Babylon, which means the ruling kings of the earth, viz. 1260 years; and the other half under mystical Babylon, the mother of harlots, the abomination of the whole earth, 1260 years; making in all 2520 years.

In what sense do you believe that there are two periods of 1,260 that make up the 2,520?

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, only the meek and righteous will inherit the earth.

This are beautiful attributes of personality. Soooo .... it is not important do you (or anyone else) in JWorg or not ?