Demonstrating the difference between early and current views of 1914

[JW Insider]

@BillyTheKid46 made some statements in another thread that claimed the necessity of demonstrating the difference between early Zion's Watch Tower views and current Watchtower views. He says it was a totally different understanding with the same goal of 1914:

15 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Perhaps there are older JW’s that have understood what 1914 represents and has always represented. That’s why it’s necessary to demonstrate the difference between early Zion Watchtower works with what the Watchtower is today. Totally different understanding with the same goal of 1914. 😉

To get a fair context of the discussion, I'll show the entire relevant portions of each response from the original topic here:

The above response from BillyTheKid was because @JOHN BUTLER brought up some speculation that Armageddon is likely far off, and I mentioned the following:

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And it must be just as wrong to speculate that it must happen before the deaths of the entire second group of anointed who overlapped with an earlier group of anointed who would later admit that they misunderstood what they saw happening in 1914.

After BillyTheKid's response to that, already shown at the top of this post, I said:

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Perhaps there are ["older JW’s that have understood what 1914 represents and has always represented"], and perhaps the current understanding of what 1914 represented is 100 percent correct. But the Watchtower does not speak of a first group of the this generation who merely "have understood what 1914 represents and what has always represented" does it? No, the Watchtower speaks of those who understood the sign that they were seeing in 1914, at the time they were seeing it.

*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.

This doesn't fit the current Watchtower explanation that they had it wrong at the time. They didn't even teach that this supposed sign in 1914 meant that Jesus had begun his presence. (His presence had begun in 1874, and this was still the official teaching until 1943/1944. No one we know recognized this in 1914.) So it would be difficult to claim that anyone saw the sign and understood it in 1914, unless you happen to know of someone who understood it that way. Fred Franz admits that he misunderstood it until 1943, and he is used as a primary example of a person in the first group.

To that @BillyTheKid46 responded:

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then you have plenty of work ahead of you. Not that it’s going to matter, but if you really were a faithful witness, the generation referred in the Zion Watchtower talked about before and after 1914 with the earthly saints.

Some critics back then thought Russell was only looking to fulfill a literal amount of 144,000 then quit looking. A question arose as to what would happen to the faithful after the 144,000 saints were acquired.

It’s not that difficult to understand. But as you stated” Perhaps, but it's not obvious yet to me.” This is cynicism that doesn’t prove anything by personal opinion.

This is why there is a difference between Jesus presences in 1874 to that of enthronement, taking his rightful seat in 1914.

No one before 1914 would literally see judgment day. That doesn’t mean they wouldn't be included as the other sheep with an earthly hope after 1914. The teaching back then as a backdrop was and still is, once you die, you go to heaven. Where is your adjustment on that? 

I have not yet responded to BillyTheKid's other points, which I may attempt to do here. But I did respond to his statement, "This is why there is a difference between Jesus presences in 1874 to that of enthronement, taking his rightful seat in 1914."

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not much of a difference from 1874 to 1878, though, was it?

The recent Watchtower stated: 

*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year.

But when Bro Rutherford gave his famous 'Advertise, Advertise, Advertise' talk at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922 (nearly a decade after 1914) he said this:

“Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? . . . Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.” – Watchtower, November 1, 1922, p. 337.

There was not yet an official change that Jesus had become king in 1914, nor that Jesus presence had begun in 1914. The presence was clearly still dated to 1874. The beginning of his kingship was still dated to 1878, and this was still being published in service campaigns at least until 1933. Finished Mystery, published in 1917, and sold until 1933, put it like this:

 

To which BillyTheKid responded:

13 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe you are the one that pointed to 1874 as an absolute instead of a transition or inspection as it were.

And BilyTheKid also responded in another post:

12 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I hope to God you will one day understand the significance of 1914. The misapplication of The Bible Students analogy however different end up being the same, but with less clutter.

In order to understand, you would have to investigate what the prelude was in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1898, 1901, 1904, 1906, 1910, 1911 or wait that’s a firearm, 1913, 1914, 1915, and their correlations. What was the experience between 1916-1919?

Russell, while still learning was insightful. There are many publications to research.

-----

Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word.

STUDY IV

THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES

What are Gentile Times?—Their Beginning; Their Length; Their End A.D. 1914—Attendant Events—Events to Follow—Literal and Symbolic Time—A Remarkable Type—Present Indications—God's Kingdom to Overthrow Gentile Rule—Therefore Organized Before It Ends—Before A.D. 1914—Why Opposed by Gentile Kingdoms—How and Why All will Finally Accept it Joyfully—"The Desire of All Nations Shall Come."

Was he talking about an earthly kingdom? No that came from opposers in his time. Did it mean the world would end in 1914, No, that’s an ex-WJ’s excuse and those that oppose the Watchtower? The coined phrase " SETTING UP OF THE KINGDOM" means what?

The time stamp, meant, preparation for Christ to take his rightful place in Heaven and enthroned at the appropriate time.

---

But if you are one of those that only believe in one 1260, then it won't make a difference, and there's no reason to debate it here or in a closed forum.

Hopefully, I'll get a chance respond to BillyTheKid here, and to understand how he thinks we should understand the idea that there was more than one 1260, among many other points made.

[JW Insider]

22 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Obviously, there is something you haven’t considered.

Perhaps, but it's not obvious yet to me.

22 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

So, I would expect an active JW to understand it and not minimize it and dismiss it with personal opinion.

You haven't been clear about what "it" is that active JWs understand, and do not minimize or dismiss.

22 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Perhaps there are older JW’s that have understood what 1914 represents and has always represented.

Perhaps there are, and perhaps the current understanding of what 1914 represented is 100 percent correct. But the Watchtower does not speak of a first group of the this generation who merely "have understood what 1914 represents and what has always represented" does it? No, the Watchtower speaks of those who understood the sign that they were seeing in 1914, at the time they were seeing it.

*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.

This doesn't fit the current Watchtower explanation that they had it wrong at the time. They didn't even teach that this supposed sign in 1914 meant that Jesus had begun his presence. (His presence had begun in 1874, and this was still the official teaching until 1943/1944. No one we know recognized this in 1914.) So it would be difficult to claim that anyone saw the sign and understood it in 1914, unless you happen to know of someone who understood it that way. Fred Franz admits that he misunderstood it until 1943, and he is used as a primary example of a person in the first group.

[JW Insider]

38 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

This is why there is a difference between Jesus presences in 1874 to that of enthronement, taking his rightful seat in 1914.

Not much of a difference from 1874 to 1878, though, was it?

The recent Watchtower stated:

*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year.

But when Bro Rutherford gave his famous 'Advertise, Advertise, Advertise' talk at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922 (nearly a decade after 1914) he said this:

“Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? . . . Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.” – Watchtower, November 1, 1922, p. 337.

There was not yet an official change that Jesus had become king in 1914, nor that Jesus presence had begun in 1914. The presence was clearly still dated to 1874. The beginning of his kingship was still dated to 1878, and this was still being published in service campaigns at least until 1933. Finished Mystery, published in 1917, and sold until 1933, put it like this:

 

[JW Insider]

..

[JOHN BUTLER]

I remember, well sort of remember a scripture where Jesus said to his heavenly Father 

At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 

So please tell me where all this that you are debating fits in ?  If as 'little children' we are supposed to understand scripture then why such complications ? It seems to add proof to my idea about only the true Anointed fully understanding scripture. 

I do thank you however for confirming that the GB / Watchtower Soc'  change teachings and ideas. It does add foundation to my criticism of the GB and the JW org.