serenitynow!: Miracle Wheat too, insane.
Nothing at all wrong or insane with Miracle Wheat, except for the insane evil false accusations that have come about concerning Miracle Wheat!
reslight2
JoinedPosts by reslight2
-
37
What Are Your Favorite WT Quotes/Teachings? Most Ridiculous or Hilarious Ones.
by mentallyfree31 inwhen you look back over the 130 year history of wt, what is the most bizzare/ridiculous/hilarious/absurd teaching or quotes that you have found?.
one of the ones i find hilarious is during the beth-sarim affair, rutherford announced that the world was laughing and mocking them because they don't believe the resurrection is going to come to pass when they said it was.
rutherford went on to say in effect "we will show them when people start coming back from the graves"... lol.
-
-
-
37
What Are Your Favorite WT Quotes/Teachings? Most Ridiculous or Hilarious Ones.
by mentallyfree31 inwhen you look back over the 130 year history of wt, what is the most bizzare/ridiculous/hilarious/absurd teaching or quotes that you have found?.
one of the ones i find hilarious is during the beth-sarim affair, rutherford announced that the world was laughing and mocking them because they don't believe the resurrection is going to come to pass when they said it was.
rutherford went on to say in effect "we will show them when people start coming back from the graves"... lol.
-
-
reslight2
Russell: "A truth presented by satan himself is just as true as a truth presented by God. Accept truth no matter where you find it, no matter what it contradicts" Zion's Watchtower, July, 1879, pp. 8-9.
Nothing wrong with this, not unless you want to believe that a truth spoken by Satan must be a lie simply because he spoke, so that you will end up not believing the truth but will believe that the truth is a lie.
http://ctrussell.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/a-truth-presented-by-satan/
-
9
5 Ends of the World that came and went (JWs get a mention)
by Simon inthey must be so proud, lol.. the funny thing is that the jw end-of-the-world-ists actually came from a branch of the previous failed bunch.
what losers!.
http://roadtickle.com/5-ends-of-the-world-that-came-and-went/.
-
-
reslight2
The year 1914 saw the Great War break out in Europe, but the world still refused to end. This was highly inconvenient, because Russell had promised eternal life to “millions” who witnessed the events of 1914.
Charles Taze Russell was NOT expecting the "end of the world" in 1914, as that term is meant by most people. He did not even believe the "end of the system of things" fully in the same manner as the JWs teach it. Russell believed that the time of trouble, however long it may last, was for the disciplining of the nations, not to bring eternal destruction of unbelievers. Nor was he, at least for ten years before 1914, expecting the Gentile kingdoms to all be gone by or in the year 1914.
http://ctr.reslight.net/2009/12/16/end-1914.html
The latter sentence, pertaining to an alleged promise of Russell (I know of no such promise in the manner stated) seems to be distorting and attributing some of Rutherford's statements to Russell. Nevertheless, when the millions of unbelieving people who witnessed the events of 1914 are raised in the resurrection of the unjust, they will indeed be able to believe and obey at that time, and thus depart into everlasting life. It is the promise of Jesus himself that the time will come (the last day) when the unbelievers will come forth in the resurrection by means of judgment. (John 5:28,29; 12:47,48) Through his apostle Paul the promise is made that as by means of Adam, all are dying, so by means of Christ all are made alive. -- 1 Corinthians 15:21,22.
http://hereafter.reslight.net/archives/152.html
Let them praise Yahweh for his lovingkindness, For his wonderful works to the children of men!. -- Psalm 107:31, World English.
-
9
5 Ends of the World that came and went (JWs get a mention)
by Simon inthey must be so proud, lol.. the funny thing is that the jw end-of-the-world-ists actually came from a branch of the previous failed bunch.
what losers!.
http://roadtickle.com/5-ends-of-the-world-that-came-and-went/.
-
-
reslight2
The Society’s founder Charles Taze Russell, who had only several years of schooling but a great deal of business sense, at first affiliated himself with a group that expected the world to end in 1873.
While Charles Taze Russell was the principle founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, that legal entity as he formed was not to hold "authority" over congregations. Russell did not believe in an authoritarian organization such the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JW doctrine of a "visible organization of God" on earth that is alleged to have sole authority to speak for God came about after Russell died. Russell did not believe in such a doctrines.
Russell probably had the equivalent of at least a Bachelor's degree before he formed the Watch Tower Society. He had been privately tutored in secular education as well having more than seven years of instruction from Bible students who had come before him.
I do not know any group that he affiliated himself with in 1873 other than the independent independent Bible study group in Pittsburgh, PA, but, at least from what Russell himself wrote it is highly unlikely that this group was expecting the "world to end in 1873." There were some of the Second Aventists who were claiming that the planet Earth would be destroyed by fire in 1873, but Russell himself certainly did not hold to such a view. His own words concerning that time were:
I was not a convert, either to the time [1873] he [Jonas Wendell] suggested nor to the events he predicted. I, in company with others in Pittsburgh, organized and maintained a bible class for the searching of the Scriptures, meeting every Sunday.
We reasoned that, if Christ’s coming were to end probation, and bring irrevocable ruin upon ninety-nine in a hundred of mankind; then it could scarcely be considered desirable, neither could we pray with proper spirit, “Come, Lord Jesus, Come quickly!” ( Revelation 22:20 ) We had rather request — much as we should “love his appearing” — that he remain away and our sufferings and trials continue so that “if by any means we might save some.” ( 2 Timothy 4:8 ; 1 Corinthians 9:22 ) Not only so, but great masses of scripture referring to the Millennial glory and teaching that “All nations which thou hast made shall come and worship before thee,” &c., &c., would be left unfulfilled if at His coming there should be a wreck of matter and a crush of world. — Psalm 22:27 ; 67:2 ; 72:11 ; 86:9 ; Isaiah 2:2 ; 25:7 .
We first saw Millennial glory — then the glorious work which is offered us as His Bride; that we are by faith the “seed of Abraham;” and as such, heirs of the promises, &c., in whom “all the families of the earth shall be blest.” (Galatians 3) This most certainly points to a probation in the future after He has come. Thus, speedily, steadily and surely God led us to recognize the second coming of our Lord as being not the sunset of all hope to mankind, but the “rising of the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings.” — Malachi 4:2
The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs, who, both by word and pen, gave us much assistance; but we ever sought not to be followers of men, however good or wise, but “Followers of God, as dear children.” ( Ephesians 5:1 ) Thus growing in grace and knowledge for seven years, the year 1876 found us. — 2 Peter 3:18 . -- Supplment to the first issue of the Watch Tower, July 1, 1879.
Thus, in 1876, Russell had seven years of theological training behind him. However, 1876 was three years before Russell began publishing "The Watch Tower" in 1879, and it was eight years after 1876 when Zion's Watch Tower and Tract Society was legally incorporated.
However, it is important to note that, while Russell, before the year 1876, held great interest in the manner, purpose and effects of Christ's return, it was not until that year that Russell became interested in any date pertaining to that event. 1876 was two years after 1874, but it was in 1876 that Russell's attention was drawn to the work of N. H. Barbour, and the thought that Christ had returned invisible to human eyes in 1874. Russell had already concluded that Christ's return would not be in the flesh, for he had become thoroughly convinced that Jesus had sacrificed his flesh, and thus would return with a body of flesh, but rather with an invisible spiritual body. He was surprized to see that someone else had come to similar conclusions, and thus took an interest in what Barbour had to say about Christ's invisible return in 1874. Again, however, this was two years after 1874 had passed; Before 1873 and 1874 Russell never entertained any thought of Christ's return in either date.
Looking back on the time before Russell began to work with Barbour, Russell laments:
While he believed a bonfire to be the end of the world, and that probation ended with it, Bros. Geo. Storrs, Henry Dunn and others were preaching and writing of “the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy Prophets.” ( Acts 3:21 ), and that “In the ages to come, God would show the exceeding riches of his grace.” ( Ephesians 2:7 ) Again, of what value would it be to know the time if we know nothing of the manner of Christ’s coming?
In other words, although Russell and others, before 1874, were interested in the "restitutrion" that was to follow Christ's return, Barbour had been preaching that the world (meaning the planet earth especially) would be destroyed by fire, and Barbour did not seem, at that time, to be interested in the restitution promises. In that sense, however, Russell did not even believe in the "end of the world" as that term generally meant at that time. Russell certainly never believe in any "doomsday," nor did he believe in an Armageddon such as the JWs teach. His view of Armageddon was that it was a period of time when the nations would be disciplined (not eternally destroyed) so that they may be prepared to accept the King Jesus.
-
4
The brainwashing knows no bounds.........Russell defended in every way!
by iknowall558 incharles taze russell - official website.
-
-
reslight2
I agree with RR in that when I first saw the site, I wondered how it could be called the "official" site concerning Russell. Several years before that site went up, I started a subsection on my website about Charles Taze Russell, and was trying to think of something to put in the title that would distinguish it from the many anti-Russell sites. At that time, the only Bible Students site online that I remember was the Chicago Bible Students, but if remember correctly, there wasn't much on it. I could not find any site that was in defense of Russell, and thought of putting the word "official" in the name of the site as a distinguishing word, but decided not to use that since I felt that only Russell himself could actually authorize someone to designate a site as "official" regarding him, and I did not wish either to leave the impression that I was claiming the authority to speak for Russell. At any rate, while I believe that there is a lot good info on the "official" site, there are also some things I disagree with and/or that I at least question.
-
15
What's the Deal with "Pyramid Inches"?
by cameo-d in.
why did russell count them?.
does the pope count them, too?.
-
-
reslight2
[[[In ancient times the easiest way to measure things was to use the most convenient measuring tools available that anybody could afford to own: your OWN BODY PARTS!
Yes, you could use your own foot to measure "feet".
You could use the width of your thumb to measure an inch (call it by whatever name you like.)
The distance between your outstretched middle finger and your nose would be a yard.
That's how it works. It was called a RULE OF THUMB for this reason.
But, no two people had the same sized body parts. You needed a standard.
You would standardize these measurements by taking the King's body parts and using HIS proprietary measurements and making them the fixed certainty by which all other things would conform. That is why it is called A RULER. (King=Ruler, get it?)]]]
Man's creator is not subject to any of the above. Nor was the knowledge we might attribute to the people when the Great Pyramid was constructed of that great of importance as it is the Creator's knowledge that is of importance.
-
15
What's the Deal with "Pyramid Inches"?
by cameo-d in.
why did russell count them?.
does the pope count them, too?.
-
-
reslight2
[[The Pyramid represents the organization of the illuminati and the powers of the darkness. ]]
Are you suggesting that the so-called illuminati had the Great Pyramid constructed to match many things in the Bible before the Law was even given to Moses? If the Great Pyramid is of the powers of the darkness then it would follow that the Bible is of the powers of darkness.
-
15
What's the Deal with "Pyramid Inches"?
by cameo-d in.
why did russell count them?.
does the pope count them, too?.
-
-
reslight2
Many are misled by the term "pyramid inches." More correctly, it is earth inches.
-
78
Challenge to board:I know the one problem with JW's & Christians in one word.Do You?
by chapstick in -
-
reslight2
What does the nickname Jehovah have to do with the Trinity? Actually the original name for God was EL. The Jehovah's Witnesses are just quirky Christians.
There is only one "holy name" of God in the Bible, and it is the name that he had from the very beginning. "EL" is not his name; "EL" (meanging, strength, might) is a generic word that is used of other persons and things as well as a title for the Creator, Yahweh (Jehovah).
Can anyone here tell me where the Trinity can be found in the Bible (specificly)? It Is there you know.
Look as one may, one will not find anywhere in the Bible anything about a triune God. THINK!!! What do the scriptures say, and what is being imagined in the spriit of human imagination, assumed, added to and read into what the scriptures say? The Creator God is immediately distinguished in Genesis 1:2 as one person, and He is continously presented as one person, and not once as more than one person, all the way through the Bible. In the expression, "spirit of God," does the word God (Elohim) mean three persons? Many trinitarians claim that ELOHIM, being a plural form (actually a plural intensive form), means "persons," and thus allege that "God" as rendered from ELOHIM is speaking of all three of their alleged persons of their alleged triune God, while at the same they most often claim that "spirit" in Genesis 1:2 is referring to their alleged third person of the trinity. Does the narrative present "God" as three persons, or one person? If "God" means, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit", this would mean then, "the spirit of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit." In effect, according to this line of reasoning, the third person of the alleged trinity belongs to all three persons of the alleged trinity, including belonging to the alleged third person of the alleged trinity. Most trinitarians point to Genesis 1:2 as evidence of the third person of their triune God, claiming that the word "spirit" there refers to that alleged person of the their alleged triune God, without realizing the self-contradiction such an assumption brings upon the scripture.
The story of the Trinity is right there in the Garden of Eden also.
There is no story of a triune God in the Garden of Eden, or anywhere else in the Bible.
Also, anyone who says that Russell wasn't a Mason doesn't know what a Mason is. He was a Mason. Why would anyone not want to be a Mason?
Anyone who thinks Russell was a member of the Freemasons organization is totally blind, or nearly so, to what Russell taught and believed. It is downright ludricrous to think that Russell spent most of his life preaching a message contrary to, and which would actually be sabotaging, what he is supposed to have believed in. The tens of thousands of printed pages that have been produced from his works attest that he was not a member of the Freemasons.
-
18
Paul Samuel Leo (Levitsky) Johnson ...
by snowbird in... aka p s l johnson was made to look the villain in the 1975 yearbook of jw's.. i've done research and found out that he resisted rutherford to the bitter end.
he referred to rutherford as "that usurper", and was ousted from bethel.. he seems to have been a fanatic who idolized c. t. russell; his impassioned eulogy at russell's funeral borders on deification.. is that why rutherford hated him so much?.
p s l johnson was founder of the laymen's home missionary movement.. sylvia.
-
-
reslight2
I have studied much of Johnson's works extensively. He had a brilliant mind, and was well trained in both Hebrew and Greek. In this he was a valuable aid to Charles Taze Russell before Russell died. Johnson was, however, absorbed with seeing himself or his particular movement (after Russell died) in types. (Rutherford did this also with the his organization, but not to such an extent as Johnson.) Johnson also claimed that he was to be the "last member" of the "World's High Priest" to be raised in the first resurrection when he died. (He died in 1950, and his successor, Raymond Jolly, declared that there were no more members of the 144,000 left on earth.) Except for these areas, and his determination to have to the high calling ended in 1914-1916, and some other things, there is also much I appreciate in his works. He did present some background history of what happened in Bethel after Russell died and some good refutations of Joseph Rutherford's new doctrines in a book he called "Merariism," the title based on another his application of types. He presents a lot good information in his books, "God", "Creation", "The Millennium," "The Bible," "Christ-Sprit-Covenants," although I do not agree with all he wrote in those books. I have most of Johnson's books and many of his writings, some of which I find beneficial on the more basic teachings that Bible Students general share in common, but the bulk of his work was, I believe, wasted on trying to "convert" Bible Students to his way of thinking, and to accept him as the "Ephiphany Messenger", trying prove himself and his movement in types, etc., which, in turn, produced a form of sectarianism which still exists to this day.