When Jesus appointed the Society in 1919

In 1919 the WT Society claims Jesus appointed them as his channel and organization. What was the society teaching at this time? What were their beliefs?

Jesus presence had started in 1874.
The end [Armageddon] would arrive in 1925.
The Great Crowd was then a heavenly class.
Celebrating birthdays and Christmas was Ok.

After Jesus had returned to heaven and the chosen were, chosen.
Celebrating birthdays and Christmas was still a Ok.
The cross was still on the cover of the Watchtower until 1930
In 1928 J F Rutherford said the pyramid in Giza was not 'God's Stone Witness, as C T Russell had said but from Satan.
There is more but I need a cup of coffee and a lie down.

That is great information! I hope there will be more posts on this year, 1919. As for 1874, I will start a new thread.

False teachings.Nobody knows the hour...

The WTS claims as one of the reasons for Jesus' approval of their "organization" in 1918 or 1919 was "it" was teaching the truth about the ransom. In fact, what was being taught about the ransom in 1919 was very different from what Rutherford later taught. In 1919, however, Rutherford was still teaching the "ransom for all", that the ransom covers Adam and every man, woman and child who is dying in Adam.

In the March 15, 1990 Watchtower we find:

Quote :

Jesus came `to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.’ (Mark 10:45) But who are the many? Adam is evidently excluded because he was a perfect man who deliberately chose to disobey God and died as unrepentant, willful sinner.

The article goes on to say:

Quote :

The course taken by each individual determines whether he will benefit from Jesus’ sacrifice. Like Adam, the willfully wicked do not have the ransom merit and eternal life forced upon them. As Christ said: `He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.’ (John 3:36)

Thus The Watchtower of the JWs would basically make all who disobey the Watchtower leaders [who supposedly represent Jesus] in this life as willfully wicked, and receiving no benefit from the ransom. (This disregards John 12:46-48, which shows that those who disobey Jesus today will be judged in the resurrection day. In this life, the wrath, inherited from Adam, simply remains upon him.) Likewise, according to the present-day Watchtower leaders, Adam would receive no benefit from the ransom.

Note, however, that in the February 15, 1919 Watch Tower, we find:

Quote :

The Bible declares it to be God’s purpose that there shall be a great day, a thousand-year day, in which Christ will give the world a judgment, or trial. The right to give them this trial our Lord Jesus has secured by his own death, having tasted death for Adam and all his posterity, condemned to death in him. {Hebrews 2:9) The death of our Lord, a perfect man, would be the full offset for the sentence upon the first man. Thus the way is opened for the great "times of restitution" mentioned by the Apostle Peter.

In the April 1, 1919 Watch Tower, we find:

Quote :

No man could be judicially tried and condemned to death while already under a death sentence. To have a second sentence he must have come, either actually or reckonedly, from under the first sentence. The world has been condemned once, in Adam. Not until they shall have been released from that condemnation can they come under another condemnation. Hence the Bible declares it to be God’s purpose that there shall be a great day, a thousand-year day, in which Christ will give the world a judgment, or trial. Thee right to give them this trial our Lord Jesus has secured by his own death, having tasted death for Adam and all his posterity, condemned to death in
him. {Hebrews 2:9) The death of our Lord, a perfect man, would be the full offset for the sentence upon the first man. Thus the way is opened for the great "times of restitution" mentioned by the Apostle Peter.

Thus, in 1919, The Watch Tower was still recognizing the basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus as Russell and the Bible Students had long been teaching. The condemnation upon Adam was the same condemnation that was upon all of Adam's descendants, and thus Adam, as well as all dying in Adam would be raised in the last day for judgment. No one, however, could under a condemnation of death except that he first be released from the first condemnation. From the reasoning given, if Adam's offspring was under the same exact condemnation as was Adam, otherwise all could not be condemned in the one man, Adam. This was the central teaching of Russell and the Bible Students.

Nevertheless, from about 1923 to 1938, Rutherford slowly began to deny the basis of the ransom as given by the reasoning that was presented in 1919, so that by 1939, The Watch Tower was no longer preaching that the ransom was for all mankind, but rather that it was "for the obedient ones of mankind."

Quote :

The perfect man Adam sinned and was put to death. The perfect man Jesus was without sin and suffered death. Would that mean that Adam was redeemed by the blood of Christ Jesus? No, it does not mean that, but exactly the contrary. Adam was a willful sinner. (1 Tim. 2: 14) For that willful transgression Adam was. put to death, bccause that was God’s announced penalty for sin. There is no reason to conclude that Jehovah will reverse his judgment; because God changes not. (Mal. 3: 6) All the offspring of Adam were necessarily brought under the condemnation by reason of the fact that they inherited imperfection from Adam. They were not on trial, and the judgment of death was not entered against them; but being born in sin and shapen in iniquity, they must die because of inherited sin unless redemption is provided. The opportunity of salvation is given to Adam’s offspring through the shed blood of Christ Jesus, and in order to avail oneself of that opportunity he must comply with the conditions, to wit, to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and to obey God’s commandment.-Rom. 5:12,19.

The above is actually faulty reasoning, and would leave an imbalance in the scales of justice, according the reasoning being presented in 1919. If the condemnation upon Adam is eternal without any redemption, then, since the offspring of Adam are under the exact same condemnation of Adam, then none of Adam’s offspring are redeemable either. Otherwise, the offspring of Adam are not condemned in Adam, but are condemned in their own sin, in which case a different sinless savior would be needed for each and every sinner; this would require billions of saviors to die for each and every sinner. In effect, if Adam is not to be restored to life, this would mean that Adam did not die the death in Adam, and must have therefore died the second death. This would, in effect, mean that the death in Adam is actually the second death. This, in turn, would mean that the whole human race was condemned in Adam to the second death. And thus the self-contradiction of this error becomes apparent.

Quote :

Only Adam was tried and convicted and sentenced to death. His offspring were not on trial. The judgment was entered against Adam, and not against his offspring. However, his offspring being from the imperfect man Adam, all were born in sin and sinners because of inherited imperfections. All suffered the result of Adam’s sin. The life of the perfect man Adam was forfeited, and his offspring came into existence without the right to life. Adam cannot be redeemed and return nnd be released from the death sentence without God’s reversing his own judgment; and God does not change. (Mal. 3:6) The offspring of Adam, however, being subject to death, not because of their own wrongdoing, but by reason of inheritance, could consistently and properly be purchased and given life according to God’s will and purpose.

The statements, as given, are actually self-contradictory. According to the reasoning being given in 1919, if all were not on trial in Adam, then Adam's offspring are not condemned in Adam, and thus no infant, no baby who has not committed a personal sin, would be dying. And yet, we find that they do die. Romans 5:12-19 shows that they made sinners in Adam, not from their own sin. I myself believe that the truth is, either all are judged in Adam, or all are not judged in Adam. The apostle Paul states that “the judgment was by one to condemnation” and “by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (Romans 5:16,18, World English) It is clear that Paul believed that all mankind was condemned in the judgment that came upon Adam, he did not believe that there was one judgment upon Adam and a different judgment upon the rest of mankind.

In The Watchtower of February 15, 1991:

Quote :

Neither Adam nor Eve, however, benefit from the ransom. The Mosaic Law contained this principle: “You must take no ransom for the soul of a murderer who is deserving to die.” (Numbers 35:31) Adam was not deceived, so his sin was willful, deliberate. (1 Timothy 2:14) It amounted to the murder of his offspring, for they now inherited his imperfection, thus coming under sentence of death. Clearly, Adam deserved to die, for as a perfect man, he had willfully chosen to disobey God’s law. It would have been contrary to Jehovah’s righteous principles for him to apply the ransom in Adam’s behalf. Paying the wage for Adam’s sin, however, does provide for the nullifying of the death sentence upon Adam’s offspring! (Romans 5:16) In a legal sense, the destructive power of sin is cut off right at its source. The ransomer ‘tastes death for every man,’ bearing the consequences of sin for all of Adam’s children.—Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24.

I have addressed the above reasoning in my study on website:
Adam and the Ransom Sacrifice
I evidently am not be allowed to post a link, so I will provide the link separated by spaces:
http : // reslight . net / ?p=167

For the present purpose, the main point is that there is a drastic change in the very basic doctrine of the ransom sacrifice as it was taught in 1919 as compared to what is being taught now. Indeed, if The Watch Tower was teaching the truth concerning the ransom in 1919, then what The Watchtower of today is teaching is false, for they do not teach the same thing. Indeed, if one of the JWs should begin to actively preach what was being taught in 1919 about the ransom, more than likely he or she would be disfellowshiped and branded an "apostate", as illogical as that sounds.