Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

by AlanF 82 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JT

  Julien

  Duncecap we would all be interested in seeing you reply to the relevant points AF made..

  ###

  Hell is almost Frozen over - we all will be skating soon

  james
• 

  JT

  zep says
  But really, for someone who has read, it appears, a lot of philosophy...you still believe all that 1914/607 bullshit, am i right here?. Somehow i just can't imagine that someone who appears to be so well read in philosophy would still buy into such dumbass rubbish like 1914 and the 7 times etc. Are you really that much of an idiot..

  ####

  hey when i showed the thread to some NONJW they said the same thing

  i have showed these folks writings of the wt from the good old days and they find the early beliefs to be wacked

  so when they see this "Educated guy", "Well Read guy" up here supporting some of the
  Goffiest material ever written - they just find it so amazing

  for loyal jw they can stay if they want to

  but you can't show a nonjw who hasn't bought into the FDS WE SPEAK FOR GOD STUFF who would accept the wt org-

  i have found very few persons who are nonjw who after looking at just a few of the old wt quotes still feel that the jw have have a clear understanding of the bible

  and with guys like this - it becomes all the more easier

  james
• 

  JT

  Anchor hit it on the head

  : The magazines have never claimed to be infallible.
  That's the biggest laugh you've given us so far. Of course they have not so claimed. Neither does the Governing Body. Yet they expect and demand to be treated that way.

  ####

  you could not have worded it any better
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Dave,

  How are you doing, buddy? Now that I have made my point about Q.E.D., I will try and ease up on AF regarding this matter. I just wanted to make it clear that this formula is a medieval construction (as numerous sources show) and was not employed in the Classical period sans the gerundive. But then, I am now going back on my promise. I quit for now. Thanks for the reminders. :-)

  Take care!

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 

  dunsscot

  Mi homo!

  Inimici mei fidem superare volunt. Sed contra Deus eos superavit. Interea dum tempus venit, tolerabiliter patiar. Hominibus viam Dei docebo et Te Deum laudabo. Ubi veritas, Deus ibi est. Veritatem autem facientes in caritate, superabimus.

  Te valere jubeo!
  Dano

  PS I always hated composition class!

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 

  dunsscot

  AF has contended that Russell thought he was the FDS of Matthew 24:45-47. I have yet to see any evidence that Russell claimed to be the "slave." Even some of his opposers have admitted as much. AF has not shown one quote from Russell that proves he thought he was the FDS. But here is one quote that removes all doubt. I will try to post more as I get the chance. From The Time is at Hand - (1889) Volume II-Study V, pp. 163-165:

  "Who, then [in the "harvest"], is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Master shall make* ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed that servant whom his Master on coming [erchomai--when he arrives] shall find so doing. Verily, I say unto you, he shall make him ruler over all his goods"--all the vast storehouse of precious truth shall be opened to such **faithful servants**, to arm and supply and feed the entire household of faith.
  But if the servant's heart is not right, he will say, My Master tarries [has not arrived], and may smite [oppose and contradict] his fellow servants [those who differ with him;
  ----------
  *Sinaitic and Vatican MSS read "shall make."

  ::page 164::
  those, therefore, who are declaring the opposite--My Lord does not tarry, but has come, is present]. Such may eat and drink with the intemperate [become intoxicated with the spirit of the world], but the Master of that servant will come [Greek, heko--will have arrived] in a day not expected, and in an hour in which that servant is not aware, and will cut him off [from being one of the servants privileged to hand meat in due season to the household], and will appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. [Though not a hypocrite but a genuine servant, he must, because unfaithful and overcharged, have his portion with the hypocrites in the perplexity and trouble coming upon Babylon.] "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
  The foregoing, carefully examined, clearly teaches us that in the end of this age there will be ONE CLASS denying that the Lord is present (not denying that he will come sometime, but that he has come), and smiting or harshly opposing those fellow servants who must therefore be teaching the opposite--that the Lord has come. Which is the faithful, truthful servant, and which the one in error, is clearly stated by our Lord. The faithful one whom he finds giving seasonable "meat" will be exalted and given fuller stewardship over the storehouse of truth, with increased ability to bring it forth to the household, while the unfaithful one will be gradually separated and drawn into closer and closer sympathy with the mere professors or hypocrites. And note the fact that the unfaithful is thus cut off, or separated, at a time of which he is not aware--in the harvest time--while his Lord is really present unknown to him, searching for and gathering his jewels. `Matt. 13:30`; `Psa. 50:5`; `Mal. 3:17`; `Matt. 24:31`
  We particularize here, merely to show that, in answer to the question of the disciples about signs and evidences of his second presence, our Lord taught that neither the world nor

  ::page 165::
  the unfaithful servants would be aware of it, until the intense fire of trouble is at least commenced. And the faithful evidently will see him present merely by the eye of faith-- through the Scriptures written aforetime for their learning, to be apprehended as they become due.

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 

  belbab

  Done Scutt

  I think you been DONE SCUTTLED, but then I may be prejudiced. I have an intense aversion to Latin, ever since I had to use a French Bible, The Cardinal Lienart Bible, while thumpin’ the Catholics over in Quebec. To get them even to look in a Bible, it had to be one that had the Catholic , Imprimateur, on it , For us illiterate ones, it means it had to be an approved Catholic version. Now the good Cardinal, just lifted all the Latin words from the Vulgate manuscript, frenchified them and incorporated them in the Bible. It was so difficult to understand, and very few could. Except learned and gifted people like your self.

  So I am prejudiced against Latin words and those who obfuscate (“make something obscure” for the peasants present) ‘THAT WHICH IS SO’ namely, TRUTH ,with long unintelligent Latinisms.

  I could only wade through about one or two pages of this thread, may be if I can get vacation for a few days I could make it through to the end. As of now , i,m.u.o. [in my unlearned opinion] Alan F is in the ring waiting for you to come back in and meet his arguments . You have snuck out through the ropes , put on your Roman toga, and hurling loud lengthy Latin crap in an effort to counter his facts.

  So AF, for me, has won, but then I am speaking with bias.

  So I will suggest we call for an outside opinion. How about we make a collective effort to find out who you are, find out where you went to school, find out your Latin , philosophical peers and present this wonderful example of your erudition to them for appraisal. Also, I have a nephew, who was invited to US on a scholarship who has degrees in both philosophy and mathematics and several other letters after his name. I will get his opinion too.

  So I will give anyone out there a case of beer for any information leading to the arrestation of Done SCutts drivel.

  One other Latin word: PROPAGANDA

  Propaganda, dissemination of ideas and information for the purpose of inducing or intensifying specific attitudes and actions.
  and: PROPAGANDA FIDES, propaganda for the faith, (Catholic) where the word originated.

  belbab, anglicizing the truth.
• 

  Had Enough

  I posted the following on another thread by Amazing to Duns about this subject. Since Duns has said here: "I have yet to see any evidence that Russell claimed to be the "slave",and "AF has not shown one quote from Russell that proves he thought he was the FDS." I thought I would post it here too.

  We acknowledge the quotes that can be found in early writings of Russell making such statements as in the 1889 quotation you supplied and this one I found in the 1881 WT where he refers to the FDS as "that 'little flock' of consecrated servants".

  However the WTS itself acknowledges the accepted beliefs of that time period, in its own Proclaimers Book pg.143, par.1, where it says, after the above 1881 WT quote:

  Over a decade later, however, Brother Russell's wife publicly expressed the idea that Russell himself was the faithful and wise servant. The view that she voiced concerning the identity of the 'faithful servant' came to be generally held by the Bible Students for some 30 years. Brother Russell did not reject their view, but he personally avoided making such an application of the text, emphasizing his opposition to the idea of a clergy class commissioned to teach God's Word in contrast to a lay class that was not thus commissioned. {bold added)

  In "not rejecting their view", he certainly contributed to the then-current belief in his being the FDS, even if it was started by his wife.By not saying anything against that idea, he was in effect giving the impression that that was his belief also.

  Also on pg.626, par.2, of the Proclaimers book, the WTS states of the time after Russell's death that:

  Many who were sifted out at that time clung to the view that a single individual, Charles Taze Russell, was the "faithful and wise servant".....Particularly following his death,The Watch Tower itself set forth this view for a number of years. In view of the prominent role that Brother Russell had played, it appeared to the Bible Students of that time that this was the case. He did not personally promote the idea, but he did acknowledge the apparent reasonableness of the arguments of those who favored it. He also emphasized, however, that whoever the Lord might use in such a role must be humble as well as zealous to bring glory to the Master, and that if the one chosen by the Lord failed, he would be replaced by another. (bold added)

  So even if Russell didn't say the words "I am the FDS", he "acknowledged the reasonableness" of the idea, and certainly helped the idea to exist for a time even narrowing it down to using the words "the one chosen", at one time, instead of referring to the FDS as a collective body.

  Additionally, in the Proclaimers book on pg.143,par.2, the WTS quotes Russell's own words from the July 6, 1906 WT pg.229 where he says:

  The truths I present, as God's mouthpiece were not revealed in visions.....

  . He did call himself "God's mouthpiece".

  These points themselves support the claims that Russell accepted the belief he was the FDS even if he didn't say the exact words and even though his earlier quotations say otherwise.
• 

  ianao

  I don't think there was really anything at all to win here actually, but I have to give AF his "props" for proving his point.

  Seems to me that Russell's actions showed that he at least liked the idea of being the faithful and wise steward and never rejected his wife's or anyone else's view of it. As a matter of fact, he would have been an idiot to reject it as it was giving him more of this odd spiritual charisma that other "messiahs" on this board seem to enjoy.

  If you all want a modern-day example of what most likely was happening in the late 1800s to early 1900s, then take a look at some of the older postings of a gentleman who posts here by the name of MDS. You will see that up until his posts regarding "scapegoat arrangements" he was making good headway with mind-melding others on this board into thinking that he may have just been a second offerring from God, chosen to preach in these "last days".

  The whole basis of his arguments were presenting "scriptural arguments" showing the need of a new "position" to be filled spiritually, along with the attributes of said person, then slowly introducing the idea through implication that perhaps HE was the one filling that position.

  MDS was pretty good until he started making blatant statements about his perceived "role" in God's plan and received direct attacks from other "Christ messengers" posting on this board which drove his "scirptural" arguments into oblivion.

  Anyway, to make a long story short, I believe that this type of situation was occurring back at the beginning of this century with Russell and his followers. He kept implying what he thought they SHOULD believe until they believed it. Of course he would never ADMIT to it publicly because unlike MDS Russell was smart enough to know that if he were to declare it publicly then he would be called a liar if it was discovered to be a falsehood by other "messiah people". So he played it safe and allowed others to draw the conclusions he desired others to reach.

  The WT in more recent times have handled each of their "prohetic notions" in this similar manner. Pronounce "the end" at say... 1975. Puff up people's hopes with specious assertions and implications, then when it doesn't happen it's the fault of the believers for believing what they were encouraged to believe. Oh of course the WT never SAID anything directly, so it's not their fault! Just forget where the readers got the idea came from!
• 

  larc

  Duns,

  I have not taken the time to read the very lengthy threads that have been devoted to the Russell subject. Nontheless, I am providing two quotes that were made in 1917 regarding Russell. I would be interested in your interpretation of these. "The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell." (The Finished Mystery, 1917, p.53), and "The two most prominent messengers, however, are the first and last - St. Paul and Pastor Russell." (WT Nov. 1, 1917, p. 323). With this kind of veneration, it is surprising that they did not refer to these two mesengers as "St. Paul and St. Charles." Whatever Russell claimed from his own lips, it is pretty clear what the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society thought of him.

  Duns - any comments?