Eye opening article about the... (page 2)

rocketman

Okay, Russell thing aside, the rest of it seems accurate and also doesn't make the jws look very good.

RR

Vine?s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words Topic: Prophet

<1,,4396,prophetes> "one who speaks forth or openly" (see PROPHECY, A), "a proclaimer of a divine message," denoted among the Greeks an interpreter of the oracles of the gods. In the Sept. it is the translation of the word roeh, "a seer;" 1 Sam. 9:9, indicating that the "prophet" was one who had immediate intercourse with God. It also translates the word nabhi, meaning "either one in whom the message from God springs forth" or "one to whom anything is secretly communicated."

Hence, in general, "the prophet" was one upon whom the Spirit of God rested, Num. 11:17-29, one, to whom and through whom God speaks, Num. 12:2; Amos 3:7,8. In the case of the OT prophets their messages were very largely the proclamation of the Divine purposes of salvation and glory to be accomplished in the future; the "prophesying" of the NT "prophets" was both a preaching of the Divine counsels of grace already accomplished and the foretelling of the purposes of God in the future. In the NT the word is used (a) of "the OT prophets," e.g., Matt. 5:12; Mark 6:15; Luke 4:27; John 8:52; Rom. 11:3; (b) of "prophets in general," e.g., Matt. 10:41; 21:46; Mark 6:4; (c) of "John the Baptist," Matt. 21:26; Luke 1:76; (d) of "prophets in the churches," e.g., Acts 13:1; 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor. 12:28,29; 14:29,32,37; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; (e) of "Christ, as the aforepromised Prophet," e.g., John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:22; 7:37, or, without the article, and, without reference to the Old Testament, Mark 6:15, Luke 7:16; in Luke 24:19 it is used with aner, "a man;" John 4:19; 9:17; (f) of "two witnesses" yet to be raised up for special purposes, Rev. 11:10,18; (g) of "the Cretan poet Epimenides," Titus 1:12; (h) by metonymy, of "the writings of prophets," e.g., Luke 24:27; Acts 8:28.

NeonMadman

In my opinion, RR, you bolded the wrong part of the statement. The key to the issue is the part that says:

"the prophet" was one upon whom the Spirit of God rested, Num. 11:17-29, one, to whom and through whom God speaks,

Whether the prophet was "preaching...the Divine counsels of grace already accomplished [or]...foretelling the purposes of God in the future," he was speaking the words that God gave him. One who is speaking his own words, however accurate and scripturally supported, is not a prophet. Otherwise, we would all be "prophets" every time we read from the Bible. Russell claimed more than that he was simply a preacher of what the Bible said; he claimed to be God's exclusive channel of truth - maybe not to the same extent that the WTS of today claims that, but he did make such a claim. He did claim to be one 'through whom God speaks' in a different way than others. Therefore, he must pass the test of Deuteronomy 18; unfortunately, he fails that test.

RR

Well Neon, you need to show me in Russell's own words, where he calims to be anything others than a mouthpiece of God, as ALL christians should be!

RR

integ

Where does it say in the bible that we're all supposed to be mouthpiece's of God? Follow the "EXAMPLE" of Christ yes. Does that mean that we are to do EVERYTHING that Jesus did? Jesus set the example of wearing sandals and skirts, are we supposed to do that too?

Integ.

RR

Christian are to be footstep followers of Christ, meaning to follow in his example. Jesus stated in Acts 8:1 "and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." How are we to do that if we do not speak? If we do not give a witness to others about the faith that is within us?

RR

NeonMadman

Well Neon, you need to show me in Russell's own words, where he calims to be anything others than a mouthpiece of God, as ALL christians should be!

I think I already have. When Russell referred to his chronology - which was clearly wrong - as "God's dates, not ours," was he not attributing that chronology to God rather than his own understanding? I suppose I could look up the reference on that statement for you, but I suspect you are already familiar with it; there's no question in my mind that you know Russell's writings much better than I do.

And, as integ pointed out, I think there is a difference between preaching the gospel, as Christians are commanded to do, and claiming to be a "mouthpiece" for God. The latter implies some sort of special revelation being passed to others through the "mouthpiece," which is not available through normal study of the Bible. Russell's attributing his chronology to God is a good example; he was, in effect, claiming to have some special understanding that was not available to others except through him. Indeed, the degree of reverence that was and is afforded to Russell and his writings by the Bible Students from his time till now stands as evidence that he is regarded as something much more than just another Christian offering his opinions. The gospel that Christians preach does not need to be "channeled" through any human; it is available to all simply by reading the Bible.

Really, I find your argument a bit disingenuous. It's sort of like the way the WTS claims out of one side of its mouth that it isn't inspired or infallible, but then tells its followers out of the other side of its mouth that it's wrong to question anything the organization teaches. Likewise, you say on the one hand that Russell was a "mouthpiece" of God just as any other Christian should be, yet on the other hand, you hold his writings in high regard and call him the "faithful and wise servant." If he was only a "mouthpiece" for God in the sense that every Christian should be, why are his writings and teachings any more important than yours or mine?

RR

Neon,

I personally hold and believe that Russell's chronology is correct, he is right, they are God's dates, however the interpretation of what should have occurred on those dates were man's. So I agree with the quote.

As to Rusell's teachingsd and writings being held in high regard over yours or mine? tell me, what have you written and publish?

RR

Yerusalyim

But they are linked by a small publishing empire and motivated by periodic mass rallies - such as this week's convention

Ummm, small publishing empire? Actually they're pretty big.

Euphemism

Big for a corporation, small for an empire...

Eye opening article about the...

Share this