1914 - When and how did the belief that Jesus began ruling in 1914 become a requirement for Jehovah's Witnesses?

Watchman said:
Thankfully the WT has dispensed with the Dispensationalism talk. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Jehovah's Witnesses may have stopped using the specific word "dispensation" as it's become somewhat archaic, but it is a Biblical term, translated from the Greek word oi•ko•no•mi'an and the Latin word, di•spen•sa•tio'nem and it is used at Ephesians 1:10 in the King James Version, American Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation, Douay-Rheims Bible, Literal Standard Version, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, NKJV, and other translations. In some translations it is translated as "administration", as in Rotherham's Literal Translation and the NWT, which has a footnote providing details of the Greek and Latin origins of the word. It doesn't mean "dispense" as in get rid of, or throw out.

An online source defines it in the theological sense as:
Dispensation: Theology. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
a divinely appointed order or age:
the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

The Weymouth Translation puts the verse at Ephesians 1: 10 this way:
"for the government of the world when the times are ripe for it--the purpose which He has cherished in His own mind of restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ; yes, things in Heaven and things on earth, to find their one Head in Him." Ephesians 1:10

I believe JWs still believe and teach that God has a grand plan for the government of the world that will bring about the restoring of the whole creation under Christ, as well the essence of the various other periods of Biblical history. So it seems correct that Penton, in his recent video above, is quite correct in saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are "dispensationalists".
 
Last edited:
Ms_ladyblue said:
Here is part 2 about Rutherford. This was a horrible man. He was not a man of God for sure.

Click to expand...
The patience of Jehovah; with the transgressions done in His House: Through time He has had to witness endless wickedness being carried out by those in positions of authority ones like the high priest Eli who knowingly overlooked the wickedness carried out by his sons in Jehovah's place of worship later King Saul he too put Jah to the test and others too many to mention; thanks to our Fathers patience with us we have reached this moment in time the threshold of Christ's return; Jehovah's Day!
 
Ms_ladyblue said:
Here is part 2 about Rutherford. This was a horrible man. He was not a man of God for sure.
Click to expand...
I watched this video last night. I'd heard before that Rutherford had a drinking problem, which is very much contrary to the Scriptures, which prohibits heavy drinkers from being overseers, I believe, which would mean that Rutherford shouldn't have held the position that he did for that reason, if not for other reasons as well. In fact, drunkards are among those who won't inherit God's kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:10

As for not observing Christmas, we know it has pagan roots, and there were others who felt it was a pagan holiday before the Witnesses did, such as the Puritans, who were Pilgrims, I believe. Rutherford also, rather strangely, put a stop to singing at meetings, from what I understand, which was started up again after he passed away. I'd also heard that he antagonized Hitler, which made the persecution in Germany worse for the Bible Students during the war. I wasn't aware that the Cadillac that he drove was a gift, however.
 
Last edited:
Christmas was banned in Massachuettes for a century. In the 1600s it was more of a celebration of wild revelry than anything. The Puritans, who were Pilgrims, were trying to purify their faith from non-Biblical practices.

When Massachusetts Banned Christmas
www.history.com

When Massachusetts Banned Christmas | HISTORY

Ebenezer Scrooge and the Grinch had nothing on the 17th‑century Puritans, who actually banned the public celebration of Christmas in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for an entire generation.
www.history.com www.history.com

From the above article from History dot com:
"In their strict interpretation of the Bible, the Puritans noted that there was no scriptural basis for commemorating Christmas. “The Puritans tried to run a society in which legislation would not violate anything that the Bible said, and nowhere in the Bible is there a mention of celebrating the Nativity,” Nissenbaum says. The Puritans noted that the scriptures did not mention a season, let alone a single day, that marked the birth of Jesus.

Even worse for the Puritans were the pagan roots of Christmas. Not until the fourth century A.D. did the church in Rome ordain the celebration of the Nativity on December 25, and that was done by co-opting existing pagan celebrations such as Saturnalia, an ancient Roman holiday of lights marked with drinking and feasting that coincided with the winter solstice. The noted Puritan minister Increase Mather wrote that Christmas occurred on December 25 not because “Christ was born in that month, but because the heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those pagan holidays metamorphosed into Christian [ones].” According to Nissenbaum, “Puritans believed Christmas was basically just a pagan custom that the Catholics took over without any biblical basis for it. The holiday had everything to do with the time of year, the solstice and Saturnalia and nothing to do with Christianity.”

The pagan-like way in which Christmas was celebrated troubled the Puritans even more than the underlying theology. “Men dishonor Christ more in the 12 days of Christmas than in all the 12 months besides,” wrote 16th-century clergyman Hugh Latimer. Christmas in the 1600s was hardly a silent night, let alone a holy one. More befitting a rowdy spring break than a sacred occasion, Christmas revelers used the holiday as an excuse to feast, drink, gamble on dice and card games and engage in licentious behavior."
 
Last edited:
Serenity said:
Christmas was banned in Massachuettes for a century. In the 1600s it was more of a celebration of wild revelry than anything. The Puritans, who were Pilgrims, were trying to purify their faith from non-Biblical practices.

When Massachusetts Banned Christmas
www.history.com

When Massachusetts Banned Christmas | HISTORY

Ebenezer Scrooge and the Grinch had nothing on the 17th‑century Puritans, who actually banned the public celebration of Christmas in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for an entire generation.
www.history.com www.history.com

From the above article from History dot com:
"In their strict interpretation of the Bible, the Puritans noted that there was no scriptural basis for commemorating Christmas. “The Puritans tried to run a society in which legislation would not violate anything that the Bible said, and nowhere in the Bible is there a mention of celebrating the Nativity,” Nissenbaum says. The Puritans noted that the scriptures did not mention a season, let alone a single day, that marked the birth of Jesus.

Even worse for the Puritans were the pagan roots of Christmas. Not until the fourth century A.D. did the church in Rome ordain the celebration of the Nativity on December 25, and that was done by co-opting existing pagan celebrations such as Saturnalia, an ancient Roman holiday of lights marked with drinking and feasting that coincided with the winter solstice. The noted Puritan minister Increase Mather wrote that Christmas occurred on December 25 not because “Christ was born in that month, but because the heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those pagan holidays metamorphosed into Christian [ones].” According to Nissenbaum, “Puritans believed Christmas was basically just a pagan custom that the Catholics took over without any biblical basis for it. The holiday had everything to do with the time of year, the solstice and Saturnalia and nothing to do with Christianity.”

The pagan-like way in which Christmas was celebrated troubled the Puritans even more than the underlying theology. “Men dishonor Christ more in the 12 days of Christmas than in all the 12 months besides,” wrote 16th-century clergyman Hugh Latimer. Christmas in the 1600s was hardly a silent night, let alone a holy one. More befitting a rowdy spring break than a sacred occasion, Christmas revelers used the holiday as an excuse to feast, drink, gamble on dice and card games and engage in licentious behavior."
Click to expand...
The Puritan Cromwell also banned Easter and Whitsun; they got it right in places; but really to become dictators for Christ is the same as Bethel's take! Jehovah does not want to frogmarch us to righteousness?
 
MickHewitt said:
The Puritan Cromwell also banned Easter and Whitsun; they got it right in places; but really to become dictators for Christ is the same as Bethel's take! Jehovah does not want to frogmarch us to righteousness?
Click to expand...
Serenity said:
What is Whitsun?
Click to expand...
I Googled Whitsun as I'd never heard of it as it's not observed in the US as far as I know. I found this information:

Guestling Bradshaw CE Primary School - Whitsuntide Traditions

guestling-esussex.secure-dbprimary.com guestling-esussex.secure-dbprimary.com

The Puritans wanted to cleanse themselves of what they felt were un-Christian traditions and practices of the nominal church. As the article above about the Pilgrims brings out, they came to America to escape religious persecution and for freedom of religion. But, from what I understand, some of those who fled from religious persecution also later became guilty of it themselves. It seems that the road to pure worship has been a long, bumpy and twisted one, frought with errors, mistakes, falsehoods, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, persecutions, human imperfection, and lack of true knowledge and understanding, etc.
 
Last edited:
Serenity said:
It seems that the road to pure worship has been a long, bumpy and twisted one, frought with errors, mistakes, falsehoods, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, persecutions, human imperfection, lack of knowledge and understanding, etc.
Click to expand...

GREAT TRUTHS

GREAT truths are dearly bought. The common truth,
Such as men give and take from day to day,
Comes in the common walk of easy life,
Blown by the careless wind across our way.

Great truths are dearly won; not found by chance,
Nor wafted on the breath of summer dream;
But grasped in the great struggle of the soul,
Hard buffeting with adverse wind and stream.

Sometimes, 'mid conflict, turmoil, fear and grief,
When the strong hand of God, put forth in might,
Ploughs up the subsoil of the stagnant heart,
It brings some buried truth-seeds to the light.

Not in the general mart, 'mid corn and wine;
Not in the merchandise of gold and gems;
Not in the world's gay hall of midnight mirth,
Nor 'mid the blaze of regal diadems;

Not in the general clash of human creeds,
Nor in the merchandise 'twixt church and world,
Is truth's fair treasure found, 'mongst tares and weeds;
Nor her fair banner in their midst unfurled.

Truth springs like harvest from the well-ploughed fields,
Rewarding patient toil, and faith, and zeal.
To those thus seeking her, she ever yields
Her richest treasures for their lasting weal.​
 
MickHewitt said:
I should have omitted the colloquial term and simply said without our arm up our back marched to obeying righteousness. Thanks for your patience Serenity.
Click to expand...
Not at all, Mick. It's not a criticism or complaint. I rather enjoy hearing or rather seeing, new words and expressions. It adds a bit of color (colour, UK) and variety to the conversation. 👩‍🎨
 
Ms_ladyblue said:
Here is part 2 about Rutherford. This was a horrible man. He was not a man of God for sure.

Click to expand...
I just came across a new book (2024) about Rutherford's Coup of the Watchtower in 1917. It's hard to imagine that Jehovah and Jesus could possibly approve of, let alone be behind or party to, what Rutherford did and the shady methods that he used. 🤔

Rutherford's Coup: The Watchtower Succession Crisis of 1917 and Its Aftermath
 
DR75 less 1 said:
James has made it clear in other videos that he no longer go along with the W/T, but he has not made it clear that he is still a worshiper of Jehovah.
Click to expand...
I've checked out his books on Amazon and eBay and they are quite expensive, though quite a number of years old. One hardcover on Amazon, "Jehovah's Witnesses And The Third Reich" (2002), is $218.48, which is rather high, imho, basically written for JWs, or those looking to find fault with the faith. The paperback is less at $58.77. The book is well rated, with some good reviews, however. 4.6 out of 5 stars.
 
Last edited:
There are actually only 12 reviews for the Third Reich book by Penton on Amazon. One very negative review of the book "Jehovah's Witnesses And The Third Reich" (2002) on Amazon states the following (italics added):

"The book ostensibly centers on the David-Goliath story of an apparently valiant little band of religious dissidents who had the cheek to take on [...] and the Nazis. The story in itself is fascinating, but the author clearly has another aim, namely, to vilify the leadership of the Jehovah Witness faith. I have little sympathy for organised religion, having left the Reformed church some years ago. But this attack seems patently ill-placed.

Weaving in tantalising bits of history, the author alternately pouts and shouts, calling down evil on past and present church leaders, along with any academic that appears interested in, sympathetic to or admiring of Witnesses in Nazi Germany. Then he marshals a gaggle of like-minded critics who turn out to be malcontents and defectors with the predictable `atrocity' stories of the disillusioned.

Slogging through their shrill stories tired me. But what made me angry was the unabashed "blame game," in which the writer charges that the persecuted religionists brought trouble on themselves by standing up for their beliefs. Dismissing any contrary opinion with a label of "ridiculous" or "absurd," the author frequently sinks into the same behaviour that he charges his antagonists with-dogmatism, labeling, and manipulation of facts. Despite assertions to the contrary, the archival evidence he presents is woefully thin. That a reputable academic press would publish this book is quite astounding. I am seldom as critical as I am here, but this book and its vitriol left a terribly bad taste."
 
Last edited:
MickHewitt said:
Thanks; There has been much muck spreading over the life of Rutherford yet he gave us the most precious of titles 'Jehovah's Witnesses' Caesar's white robe was shown to the crowd to evidence his being assassinated; 23 stabbing wounds. I'm a conspiricy nut Serenity!
Click to expand...
While I believe Russell was a true child of God and very sincere in his faith, though in error on a number of points, what I've heard and read about Rutherford leaves me rather confused. I've listened to quite a number of his talks, and he was a powerful and convincing speaker of the basic Bible truths, but he was also in error on a number of things as well.
Drinking alcohol was a very common vice during that time, and very common in general. Whether Rutherford was as much of a drinker as many say he was, how can we know for certain? Though I suppose the "two witness" rule might well apply in this case as I believe there are more than two witnesses in this case.
It's quite sad that the Bible Students were so brutally persecuted by Hitler, even sadder if it was made worse by the actions of the Watchtower leader.
 
Serenity said:
I've checked out his books on Amazon and eBay and they are quite expensive, though quite a number of years old. One hardcover on Amazon, "Jehovah's Witnesses And The Third Reich" (2002), is $218.48, which is rather high, imho, basically written for JWs, or those looking to find fault with the faith. The paperback is less at $58.77. The book is well rated, with some good reviews, however. 4.6 out of 5 stars.
Click to expand...

Seems clear that James has jumped out of the fry pan, but not so clear if he has jumped into the fire or not.
 
Serenity said:
While I believe Russell was a true child of God and very sincere in his faith, though in error on a number of points, what I've heard and read about Rutherford leaves me rather confused. I've listened to quite a number of his talks, and he was a powerful and convincing speaker of the basic Bible truths, but he was also in error on a number of things as well.
Drinking alcohol was a very common vice during that time, and very common in general. Whether Rutherford was as much of a drinker as many say he was, how can we know for certain? Though I suppose the "two witness" rule might well apply in this case as I believe there are more than two witnesses in this case.
It's quite sad that the Bible Students were so brutally persecuted by Hitler, even sadder if it was made worse by the actions of the Watchtower leader.
Click to expand...

Still, like those who have gone before us, we will all need to face the judgement eventually.
May Jehovah help us to be ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top