Posted by Tom [Zachary] on March 29, 1999 at 21:07:34 {7nb3mCfGvUSebvwPYao6PaEpA0ijdc}:
In Reply to: *Known to be Untrue posted by Moderator 14 on March 28, 1999 at 20:53:25:
M14,
You said:
It's just a little hard to know where to start since your original premise is wrong. There is a difference in 'presence' and 'receiving kingly power.'
This is true. Russell believed that Christ did not receive kingly power in the year 1874. He believed that there would be an interim of 3 � years corresponding to Jesus� ministry which would delay this event until the spring of 1878.
The Organization's statements on this have been
consistent as long as we recognize that there was an acknowledged change in view as to time. You show a fundamental lack of understanding as to what they're talking about.
Sorry M14, it is you who is misinformed. You have
put your trust in the Society�s retelling of their own history without bothering to actually read the publications in question for yourself.
The Time Is At Hand said on page 235:
The fall of A.D. 1874, where the Jubilee cycles point out that our Lord was due to be present, corresponds to the time of his baptism and anointing by the holy Spirit when he became Messiah the Prince (`Dan. 9:25`), and began his work of reaping the Jewish harvest. The Spring of A.D. 1878 (three and a half years after) corresponds to the date at which our Lord assumed the office of King, rode on the ass, cleansed the temple of its money-changers, and wept over and gave up to desolation that nominal church or kingdom; and it marks the date when the nominal church systems were "spewed out"
on page 239:
Just so it has been in this harvest: Our Lord's presence as Bridegroom and Reaper was recognized during the first three and a half years, from A.D. 1874 to A.D. 1878. Since that time it has been emphatically manifest that the time had come in A.D. 1878 when kingly judgment should begin at the house of God. It is here that `Rev. 14:14-20` applies, and our Lord is brought to view as the Reaper crowned. The year A.D. 1878, being the parallel of his assuming power and authority in the type, clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of kings, by our present, spiritual, invisible Lord--the time of his taking to himself his great power to reign, which in the prophecy is closely associated with the resurrection of his faithful, and the beginning of the trouble and wrath upon the nations. (emphasis in original)
on page 240:
The special work since A.D. 1878 has been the proclamation of the King's command, "Come out of her [Babylon], my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."
The chronological table on page 247 (2nd column) said:
Actual Presence of the Lord as Bridegroom
and Reaper--October, A.D. 1874
Power and Title as King Assumed three
and a half years later--A.D. 1878
Russell, influenced by a number of things, believed and published that Christ's presence
began in 1874.
This is true.
He also believed and published, starting in 1877, that the Gentile times would end in 1914 and that would be coupled with Christ's accepting kingly power to rule.
Completely wrong on both counts. Russell by his own word was convinced of Barbour�s chronological views in the year 1876. He subsequently taught clearly and in no uncertain terms that Jesus received and began to exercise this kingly power in the year 1878. To cite yet another example the book Thy Kingdom Come says on page 150:
The parallel to this, as we have seen, points to 1874 as the time of our Lord's second presence as Bridegroom and Reaper, and to April 1878 as the time when he began to exercise his office of King of kings and Lord of lords in very deed--this time a spiritual King, present with all power, though invisible to men.
After 1914, indeed starting in the
period 1912 - 1914, there was a realization that things hadn't turned out like they thought they were going to.
This is true
In 1925 with a Watchtower article, the timing on the beginning of the presence was moved
to 1914.
This is not true. It was taught clear up until the early 30�s that the Parousia commenced in 1874. In fact the Proclaimers book which you yourself have quoted says this was not changed until 1943 for some strange reason. At any rate this was not changed in 1925. It was in 1925 in the March 1st issue of The Watch Tower in the article Birth of a Nation where the visible events that were supposed to happen in 1914 were spiritualized into invisible heavenly events. It was in this article that the 1878 date for Christ to receive his kingly power was moved forward to 1914. On page 69, this article said:
�Michael, who is Christ the Lord, has been present since 1874, but he did not interfere with Satan. He remained silent until his right to rule had come. Satan�s right had expired in 1914."
The organization has consistently related this chain of events just as I
have stated althought with a lot more verbage.
Yes and a lot of it is revisionism. They have repeatedly attempted to rewrite their own history.
It's been covered repeatedly in various issues of the Watchtower and
in a number of books. Rather than being dishonest, they have been brutally honest in acknowledging their original error and disappointment.
In recent years they have been more forthright regarding 1874 vs. 1914, more so than
at any other time except the early 70�s. In this respect, the Proclaimers book is by far the most honest history the Society has yet published. � which says a lot about how bad the other histories have been, because the
Proclaimers book still leaves a lot to be desired.
I expect no acknowledgement of error or apology because I believe you are incapable of it. Unfortunately I think you are completely captive to your prejudices and
illusions. I apologize for the length and repetition of this material but it's necessary to demonstrate consistency, and I don't think one line quotes are good for much other than misrepresentation. Sources for my statements follow:
On 1878 you are completely mistaken. On 1874 vs. 1914 your quotes simply show that correct statements can be found intermixed with the incorrect. This does not negate the fact that concerning the doctrinal history of the Witnesses, false statements, some of them blatantly so, have been made and continue to be made.
Tom