Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Many Miles]

3 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

The year 1914 comes before the time of Charles Taze Russell with other writers.

Yes. But the "extraordinary prophecy" cited by the society from The World Magazine specifically references Russell's prophecy and not any predecessors. And, as it turns out, The World Magazine was wrong because Russell's prediction that 1914 would see Armageddon was false. It didn't happen.

8 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

If you're unable to comprehend the significance of the end of the gentile times or what they actually represent, it is imperative that you make an effort to understand. It's not a matter of simply counting backwards; there is a deeper meaning to be grasped.

Do you deny that Russell taught that 1914 would see Armageddon? THAT is what The World Magazine credited Russell with correctly prophesying. 

10 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

Actually, Russell was very explicit about it.

Yes. He was.

"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. 1914 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."—(The Time is at Hand, Chapter IV, The Times of the Gentiles, 1902, p 101, underlining added for emphsis)

Russell came right out and predicted that Armageddon would end in 1914. He was wrong. The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from using the positive press coverage.

What Russell said about 1914 prior to 1914 is not subjective. It's conveniently written down.

[Srecko Sostar]

1 minute ago, Many Problems said:

Can you demonstrate the connection between Jesus' invisible presence and Armageddon in 1914? Your conclusion seems to be based on flawed ideology.

Barbour and Russell produced a connection between the two dates. They dealt with chronology and prophecies and reached the conclusions of the time. I don't deal with it anymore since I left the JWs. Please consult the book "Proclaimers" and other publications of WTJWorg which produced tons of material on the subject, 1914. It was normal for Bible students to expect Armageddon in 1914.

9 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

Do you believe that Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses are one and the same? Do you believe that they uphold the same principles and share the same values? 

I don't understand what you mean. JWs today claim that BS is their forerunner. I can believe that and I don't have to believe it. 

3 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

You should stop focusing on yourself and start presenting fresh arguments. It's truly repugnant how you keep bringing up the topic of pedophilia in all of your posts. How can you claim to be against pedophilia while simultaneously advocating for a pedophile? This extreme contradiction is the most misguided position I've come across from you.

??

[Many Miles]

11 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

If you truly oppose the viewpoint, why not substantiate your position using scripture instead of getting lost in the misuse of articles?

Who has to cite scripture to know Armageddon did not occur in 1914?

[Many Miles]

31 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

Who is the intended audience for your post in order to comprehend the way you are causing confusion? However, what event happened in 1914 that signifies the conclusion of the gentile times as explained by Russell, an event that you and individuals such as JWinsider are unwilling to acknowledge?

Intended audience? The wider audience on a forum open to the public is the public. But, generally, my comments are addressed to fellow participants engaging in this discussion, which includes discussion of things are are or are not falsifiable. Since Srecko raised the specter of 1919, then to Srecko I only pointed out that theologically among JWs the 1919 date is anchored to the more important theology of 1914. And, whether 1914 is a legit theological date has, according to the society, been authenticated by an article published August 30, 1914 in The World Magazine, which article correctly attributed what Russell predicted (Armageddon) but, as it turned out, falsely said what Russell said was true. Russell's prediction that 1914 would see Armageddon was false. The World Magazine was wrong. Though the article correctly said what Russell taught, it incorrectly said his teaching was true.

[Many Miles]

I want to add a thought regarding all this chronology discussion. 

Though there is plenty of history and documentation to know what was said, by whom, when, and whether it was true, false or subjective, this is material that for the most part is not really hurting anyone. Could it be misleading. Of course. Could is be misused. Yes. But for Christians who are supposed to live in a steady state of expectation is it really consequential whether something happened invisibly in 1914 or not? To me, though I know the subject area fairly well, it's something that I could sit and listen to without being too bothered.

It's other teachings that have had, and continue to have, a more direct and daily consequence to JWs that are far more important to me. We are all sinners, and our organization is no exception. We should all be grown Christians about that! What's important is looking to see where we can improve in our following of the Christ, and follow him closer. Jesus said he is the truth. So truth should be our aim.

Though we unavoidably have differences in personal conscientiously held beliefs, we can be unified in the common cause of always seeking what is true, whatever that is.

[Srecko Sostar]

44 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

Who is the intended audience for your post in order to comprehend the way you are causing confusion? However, what event happened in 1914 that signifies the conclusion of the gentile times as explained by Russell, an event that you and individuals such as JWinsider are unwilling to acknowledge?

Maybe Wikipedia can help

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914

[Many Miles]

3 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

So, what you're saying is that there are individuals, like yourself, who are being disingenuous by misrepresenting articles and scriptures?

Honestly, only you know what that is supposed to be referring too.

 

3 minutes ago, Many Problems said:

Srecko continually revisits the past, making false claims just like you do about the Armageddon nonsense you now bring up.

It is true that Russell predicted Armageddon would come in 1914. I quoted his own publication to that end, for your sake. It's not my prediction. It was Russell's.

[Pudgy]

Why not post the entire article? Then the headline would not be ambiguous.

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Yes. But the "extraordinary prophecy" cited by the society from The World Magazine specifically references Russell's prophecy and not any predecessors. And, as it turns out, The World Magazine was wrong because Russell's prediction that 1914 would see Armageddon was false. It didn't happen.

Do you deny that Russell taught that 1914 would see Armageddon? THAT is what The World Magazine credited Russell with correctly prophesying. 

Yes. He was.

"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. 1914 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."—(The Time is at Hand, Chapter IV, The Times of the Gentiles, 1902, p 101, underlining added for emphsis)

Russell came right out and predicted that Armageddon would end in 1914. He was wrong. The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from using the positive press coverage.

What Russell said about 1914 prior to 1914 is not subjective. It's conveniently written down.

 

 

 

He also admitted he was wrong and it seemed there was a bigger work that lay ahead that someone else other than he would address .

he never forced anyone to beleive his chronology…they could beleive or not beleive…he didn’t think any less of them…and he still considered them his spiritual brothers.

[Juan Rivera]

On 11/6/2023 at 12:23 PM, Many Miles said:

You've written a lot of words and I'm not sure why.

😂I’ll do better on my next response. It’s difficult not following all these rabbit trails. I believe that fruitful authentic dialogue is focused dialogue. Be right back! 

[Many Miles]

14 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

It’s difficult not following all these rabbit trails. I believe that fruitful authentic dialogue is focused dialogue. Be right back! 

Juan, that's precious! Thanks. You gave me a smile this day. Thank you. Sometimes, simple is better. Take your time.

[Pudgy]

51 minutes ago, George88 said:

I believe that would be the most enlightening part of the headline published in 1914. Nonetheless, feel free to peruse the entire front page if it appeals to those who wish to scrutinize 1914 by distorting Russell's words similar to the manipulation observed in most things Watchtower.

You yourself have supplied purportedly as backup evidence of your points completely unreadable garbage. Ever heard of the concept “check your work”?