The original context is found here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/39516-all-aspects-of-1914-doctrine-are-now-problematic-from-a-scriptural-point-of-view/
[Responses or questions from other forum participants are removed, unless brief]
Then, the dispensation of time prophecy is erred by marking Jesus king in 33CE. That would nullify all the efforts Jesus made NOT to be made king by the mass crowd as suggested in John 6:15 and would misalign, what Jesus meant in John 18:36. Once again a none sustainable argument, until the fulfillment in 1914.
We already know from other scriptures that Jesus became king in 33 C.E. John 6:15 does not contradict the rest of the Bible at all. As you know, John 6:15 says the following, along with a bit of context:
(John 6:12-17) 12 But when they had eaten their fill, he said to his disciples: “Gather together the fragments left over, so that nothing is wasted.” 13 So they gathered them together and filled 12 baskets with fragments left over by those who had eaten from the five barley loaves. 14 When the people saw the sign he performed, they began to say: “This really is the Prophet who was to come into the world.” 15 Then Jesus, knowing that they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again to the mountain all alone. 16 When evening fell, his disciples went down to the sea, 17 and boarding a boat, they set out across the sea for Ca·perʹna·um. By now it had grown dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
This particular crowd may have wanted to make him king based on the fact that he could provide earthly things, such as food, and as you already pointed out, we know that Jesus would later say, in John 18:
(John 18:36, 37) . . .“My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.” 37 So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, . . .
Also, notice that Jesus did not condemn a different crowd who would also declare him king, and Jesus even helped set up the scenario:
(Matthew 21:1-9) 21 When they got close to Jerusalem and arrived at Bethʹpha·ge on the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them: “Go into the village that is within sight, and you will at once find a donkey tied and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If someone says anything to you, you must say, ‘The Lord needs them.’ At that he will immediately send them.” 4 This actually took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet, who said: 5 “Tell the daughter of Zion: ‘Look! Your king is coming to you, mild-tempered and mounted on a donkey, yes, on a colt, the offspring of a beast of burden.’” 6 So the disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and its colt, and they put their outer garments on them, and he sat on them. 8 Most of the crowd spread their outer garments on the road, while others were cutting down branches from the trees and spreading them on the road. 9 Moreover, the crowds going ahead of him and those following him kept shouting: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!”
This is a low-cost version of what the people of that time period termed a “PAROUSIA.” As the New World Translation Appendix stated:
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) ***
Also, Bauer, p. 630, states that pa·rou·siʹa “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.”
This type of royal visitation (parousia) often took the form of a parade with joyous crowds and fanfare. Of course, to a disobedient province, such a visitation (parousia) could also include a display of judgment against enemies of the state.
Some of Russell’s followers leaned toward Adventism, while Russell himself didn’t. An early problem of a nondenominational church that voted their Elders in, and was independent of Russell’s primary church the people’s pulpit. The same can be said about publications like the Bible Examiner.
This is mostly true. Russell used the name Watch Tower for the primary corporation for nearly 40 years, incorporated officially for more than 30 of those years. The People’s Pulpit, of course, was just an alternative name for the purpose of owning property in New York that the Pennsylvania corporation hadn’t been set up for. (It could have been expanded for that purpose, but Russell had personal reasons to move all money out of Pennsylvania during his divorce.) But Russell only used that alternative name for 7 years before he died. Later it was changed from People’s Pulpit [of New York] to “Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [of New York]”
While Storrs and others continued a path inconsistent with that of Russell, Russell relied only on what Scripture showed. So, once again, 1914 is scripturally sound through Russell’s reasoning,
Russell continued to rely on a chronological system that promoted each of the following dates as specially marked in prophecy or predicted in prophecy. Almost all of them were still distinctly considered Biblically significant, and still being published “in print” in the publications until at least a decade after Russell died.
- 1918 (date predicted in 1917, based on Russell’s writings, 8.5 months after his death)
- 1920 (date predicted in 1917, based on Russell’s writings, 8.5 months after his death)
So, tell me again, how Russell relied only on what the Scripture showed that made the 1914 date “scripturally sound.”