There was a young blonde lady who was passing out the WT & Awake Magazines at the bus stop where I was waiting for the bus to go downtown....
I started having a conversation with her by starting out about Charles Taze Russell. I told her that of all of my readings of the works of C.T. Russell, not one time did he ever teach that Jesus was Michael the Archangel....
So I told her about this quote....
Zion’s Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, their official magazine of doctrine, 1879, page 48, which is teaching on Jesus Christ: "...His position is contrasted with that of men and angels, as he is Lord of both, having ‘all power in heaven and earth.’ Hence it is said, ‘Let all the angels of God worship him’ [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God; and the reason is,] because he has ‘by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they.’ Michael or Gabriel are perhaps grander names than Jesus, though Jesus is grand in its very simplicity, but the official character of the Son of God as Saviour and King is the inheritance from his Father which is far superior to theirs, for it pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell. He has given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow both in heaven and earth. And there is ‘none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’"
So I pulled out a Scripture.....
John 8 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, [1] you will indeed die in your sins."
I asked her this question....
"Would Charles Taze Russell die in his sins if he did not believe that Jesus was Michael the Archangel?"
She gave me a funny look at first and saw her mind started cranking....
She then finally said that Jehovah would judge him based on his work.
Not a bad comeback from a rookie if I may say so.
I told her that CT Russell never once taught that Jesus was Michael UNTIL after his death, then Judge Rutherford started teaching it, so I asked her why the switch?
Of course she gave me the usual "new light" crap answer....
So I told her this that the WT says that the New Light does not remove Old Light, but adds to it...
1881 February edition of the Zion's Watchtower, "A new view of truth can never contradict a former truth. New Light never extinguishes old light but adds to it," (p. 188).
She didn't have an answer to that so she said she would look into this and get back with me if she ever catches me again waiting for the bus.
Yiz