Bookmark and Share

Viewed 1085 times

Rutherford and 1914 "coming"

    M Doug Mason posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:06:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 19 of 1375
    Joined 1/20/2007

    I have seen the 1929 book where Rutherford stated that Christ's Parousia took place in 1874.

    In the course of my research, I have seen people claiming that during the 1920s, Rutherford dated the "coming" of Christ at 1914.

    I do not want to repeat hearsay, and would like to hear from people who have the original documents or verifiable photocopies. What did Rutherford actually say during the 1920s regarding either "Parousia" or "Coming"?

    If during the 1920s, Rutherford states that the Parousia occurred in 1914, how can this be reconciled with his 1929 book?

    Doug

    F blondie posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:15:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 21534 of 36593
    Joined 5/28/2001

    So you have found statements made by Rutherford in the WT publications that Christ's presence began in 1874? 1914 was the end of the Gentile Times from the beginning though what would happen after that time has varied.

    There are online copies of many of Rutherford's books and Russell's books as well as copies for sale on Amazon, Alibris, and Ebay. If you think scans and photocopies will convince many JWs, be aware that they will just say that "apostates" manipulated the print. Even if you took a copy of the appropriate WT book out of their library or KH library and showed them, I doubt you would convince them.

    Blondie

    M TD posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:18:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 1265 of 4667
    Joined 5/14/2001

    Doug,

    The change from 1874 to 1914 for the parousia took place in the early 1930's

    The first clear, unambiguous reference to 1914 as the date for this event did not appear in The Watchtower until the December 1, 1933 issue although there was a booklet that had made such a statement the previous year.

    M greendawn posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:23:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 8367 of 12084
    Joined 4/9/2004

    That's pretty much what happened in the history of the JW ideology. At first this so called invisible parousia occured in 1874 and the end was to occur in 1914. When the passage of time proved these dates false they moved them forward, the invisible parousia to 1914 and the end was to be according to them at various dates 1925, 1975 etc that invariably failed to materialise. The dubs are probably the only ones that split the second coming of Christ in two stages and of course this has no Biblical backing. There will be one return and it will be very visible to all, the faithful and the unfaithful alike.

    M icocer posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:30:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 53 of 58
    Joined 5/4/2006

    Same research I have been doing, cool. This link was given to me which contained some scans. http://www.reexamine.org/quotes/1874.htm

    Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, the astute reader will note at the top of page 47 that: "Barbour succeeded in convincing Russell that Christ's invisible presence had begun in 1874." And again, in the last paragraph on page 133 that: ". . . Russell also came to be persuaded that Christ's invisible presence had begun in 1874." This last statement contains a footnote reference which reads:
    *. . . A clearer understanding of Biblical chronology was published in 1943, in the book The Truth Shall Make you Free, and it was then refined the following year in the book The Kingdom Is at Hand, as well as in later publications.

    M TD posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 02:10:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 1266 of 4667
    Joined 5/14/2001
    A clearer understanding of Biblical chronology was published in 1943, in the book The Truth Shall Make you Free, and it was then refined the following year in the book The Kingdom Is at Hand, as well as in later publications.

    It was at this point that 1874 was dropped as the start of the 7th millenium. The date for that event was moved up by 100 years to the mid-70's which set the stage for the 1975 fiasco

    cabasilas posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 05:33:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 464 of 1801
    Joined 10/28/2005

    Doug,

    I apologize this link is not clickable. But check out this article:

    http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/Historical%20Idealism%20and%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf

    Also, please check for a private message.

    M moggy lover posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:25:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 443 of 767
    Joined 11/25/2005

    Hi, Doug,

    I think the problem that we are having is wrapped up in the idea that JFR evidently believed in two seperate dates, both of which he pursued right up to 1929. As far as I can determine, up to the publication of his book "Prohecy" JFR believed, and taught:

    1 That Jesus had come invisibly in 1874

    2 That the Gentile Times ended in 1914, and Jesus began His rule.

    Now the catch is that when JFR made references to 1914 in pre-1929 publications he always referred to no 2 above, not no 1. For instance in the WT of Mar 1 1925, pg 69, he wrote: "In that year, 1914, the Lord took up his power and began to reign" As can be seen the reference is not to the Parousia of Christ, which to JFR was in 1874, but to the taking up of kingdom rule.

    So, yes, we will find occassions when JFR made reference to 1914, but never, to the best of my knowledge to the invisible presence of Christ taking place then.

    Now, the interesting thing is, that JFR never mentioned the invisible presence of Christ as having taken place in 1874 ever again since the 1929 publication of his book "Prophecy" [pg 65]

    What we will need to find then, are not just those places where JFR mentioned 1914, but where, prior to 1929, he used it for the second presence. I cannot find any.

    Somtime between 1929-1940, JFR reversed himself, and merged the two events, the second Presence, and the taking up of Kingdom power into one date, 1914,which is the current understanding, and which most people assume is what JFR believed prior to 1929. I think this is incorrect, he did not.

    The tricky bit is trying to settle when this merging occured, since there is no specific WT that announced this. Remember that there was no reasoned out WT which spelled out the details with regard to the Second Presence as taking place in 1914, as there was in the pre-1929 days when this was attributed to 1874. JFR merely made oblique references to this new teaching with no overt explanations, and the R&F were expected to follow along or buzz off.

    My understanding is that it was only later that FF made copius references to arrows and squiggles and whatnot placing the second presence in 1914. I feel that all that was done was to appropriate all the arguments reasoned out for 1874, but now making them refer to 1914.

    The failure of the 1874 doctrine must have been a humiliating experience for the WT leadership, and their nimble adjustment to 1914, made by using vague references to scripture, and downright and deliberate obfuscation of their own history, helped them to survive the crisis.

    Cheers

    M Doug Mason posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:02:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 20 of 1375
    Joined 1/20/2007

    Thank you Moggy Lover.

    Your astute insight makes great sense to me.

    I am told that in "The Golden Age" magazine, 1930 page 503, Rutherford wrote: "Jesus has been present since 1914".

    I am also told that in 1932, in "What is Truth?" he wrote "The prophecy of the Bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfilment thereof, shows that the second coming of Christ dates from the fall of the year 1914".

    I want to be able to see the actual citation for myself, in the context if possible.

    I am writing a complex document and want to be absolutely certain there is absolutely no opportunity for someone to find a minor error to focus on.

    Regards, Doug

    M TD posted Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:27:00 GMT(2/8/2007)

    Post 1267 of 4667
    Joined 5/14/2001

    Doug,

    I am told that in "The Golden Age" magazine, 1930 page 503, Rutherford wrote: "Jesus has been present since 1914".

    I am also told that in 1932, in "What is Truth?" he wrote "The prophecy of the Bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfilment thereof, shows that the second coming of Christ dates from the fall of the year 1914".

    Both of these citations are correct. Whether either could be considered authoritive or not is an open question given the fact that equivocal and outright contradictory statements were concurrently appearing in The Watchtower.

    I've documented the demise of 1874 in The Watchtower with scans in the link Cabasilas gave you.

    Atlantis posted Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:24:00 GMT(2/9/2007)

    Post 922 of 3232
    Joined 11/12/2004

    What Is Truth page 48. Free image hosting FreeShare.us Cheers! Atlantis-

    M moggy lover posted Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:17:00 GMT(2/9/2007)

    Post 447 of 767
    Joined 11/25/2005

    As TD has pointed out there was evidently a heightened state of flux in WT theology as an awareness was being felt that the 1874 date was clearly becoming untenable. JFR knew that something had to be done but.... what? He had plugged the 1874 date which such monotonous regularity that any retrenchment from it would obviously make him, as the spokesman for jhoover, look plainly ridiculous.

    I believe he planned a retreat from the 1874 date, but with such an apparent display of theological legerdemain that the impression was created that in fact, no retreat had been undertaken!!

    1 1929 was, we can determine with a fair degree of accuracy, the last time he mentioned the 1874 date

    2 The 1930 GA article you referred to was the first tentative mention of the 1914 parousia, but in a context that would have lulled the suspicions of all but the most diligent of WT scrutiniers.

    3 The quote from the 1932 booklet "What is truth"? was another surreptitious attempt to inject this new idea into the theological mainstream of the WTS, but again, in a context that belied its tremendous importance to the the average R&F member.

    4 In the 30s JFR became obsessed with the idea of type/antitype and so contrived to focus attention on certain OT passages which he taught "foretold" the formation of the WTS. His books: "Light" [Vols 1 and 2] published in 1930, Vindication [vol 1] published in ' 31, "Preservation" Vindication" [vols 2 and 3] published in 32, "Preparation" published in 1933, "Jehovah" [1934] "Riches" [1936] "Enemies" [1937] and "Salvation" [1939], all had a common thread. This was that certain OT events were merely typical of greater occurrences in the 20th C all pointing to the WTS as God's exclusive channel of communication.

    Probably the book that plumbed the depths of the absurd to the most ridiculous level was "Preservation" which attempted to show, with dogmatic assertiveness, that the Bible book of Ruth pictured two "classes" of WT followers then in evidence, with one of them, the "Ruth" class, poised to lead the WT followers triumphantly into the New World. It was in this maelstrom that JFR made his first forays into the new date of 1914 for the parousia.

    5 I feel we can be certain that any pre-1929 reference to 1914 was not to the parousia, but to the end of the Gentile Times, which JFR did believe had occured in 1914. Most WT watchers, would assume that JFR believed then what the WTS believes now, that is, that the two events are framed into one date. He evidently did not.

    Cheers

    cabasilas posted Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:47:00 GMT(2/10/2007)

    Post 466 of 1801
    Joined 10/28/2005

    "I am told that in "The Golden Age" magazine, 1930 page 503, Rutherford wrote: "Jesus has been present since 1914".

    Anyone have a scan available?

      Close

      Confirm ...