The above words were originally published in "The Time Is At Hand" back in 1889. Russell did not speak those words as being the head of an organization such as the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, nor as prophecy. At the time he wrote those words he had no idea that after he died there would be new organization (Jehovah's Witnesses) formed that would claim him to have been a member of an organization that he did not believe in. As Russell stated elsewhere, however, the conclusions presented in his studies should not be considered prophecy, nor should they be considered infallible. The earlier view which still appeared in editions of "The Time is At Hand" on up until 1915, was a view that Russell had adopted from Barbour. For many years there appears to have been some discussion concerning whether this view was correct, and whether or not the time of trouble had already begun, or whether the time of trouble was to be expected to begin, not end, in 1914. Russell, himself, held to the view that the time of trouble would end in 1914 up until the year 1904 -- ten years before, when he came to partially accept the view that some other Bible Students had been putting forth, that the end of the Gentile Times does not mean the end of the time of trouble, but rather, the *beginning* of the time of trouble. It is based on the idea that the lease of Gentile dominion would have to first be ended, before the time of trouble could begin. Russell accepted this view as being more scripturally correct in 1904, but did not make any change in the above sentence of "The Time Is At Hand" until around 1915. Nevetheless, in the pages of the Watch Tower, between 1904 on up to 1914, Russell several times expressed that he believed that the "time of trouble" would not begin until 1914. Thus, this change in 1904 actually negates Russell's view as originally given in the sentence quoted.
reslight2
JoinedPosts by reslight2
-
443
Generation Teaching - Everyone is speechless?
by Red Piller inmaybe the effect of this change is bigger than realized?
in 1995, it was discussed (positively) by everybody, during the week we studied the wt.
one elder stepped down and was looked down upon.
-
-
-
248
H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"
by AnnOMaly ina long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.
volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.
you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.
-
-
reslight2
You really should continue looking about the Great Pyramid of Giza. That seems to be the only place you would be able to find any non-JW scholars that believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607.
Does the name Morton Edgar ring a bell? I'm sure he would have written a favorable review for Furuli's laughable "broken, tampered tablet theory". Perhaps we could recall some of the other celebrated scholars that agree with your revisionist history?
I do not have Furuli's book, but from what I have read, I could say that he might be in partial agreement with Furuli. Most of Edgar's works may be found online:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/bsllinks/Treatises.htm
(Scroll Down to the Section Marked "Edgars")
Nevertheless, Bible Students have always been free to present variant views on chronology and the Great Pyramid. Even Edgar did not agree with everything that Barbour or Russell presented, and yet Russell recommended the Edgars' books.
For a few of the variant views amongst Bible Students on chronology, check the "Chronology" section at:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/bsllinks/Doctrine.htm
Overall, however, I believe that the basic cross confirmation of the chronology and time prophecies as originally presented by Barbour, and which was built upon by Russell and the Edgars, serves in itself the greatest evidence that it is true. So far this system of prophecy and time prophecy is the only system that I found that has such an abundant amount of corroboration within itself. Just as the Bible itself, once understood in its related features, is found to be harmious, and thus gives abundant evidence of its validity by such harmony, likewise this system of chronology and time prophecy also displays the same harmony within itself. We know that there are thousands who seek to find fault with the Bible itself with claims that its history does not agree with secular history, that it is self-contradictory, etc. I believe both Russell and Edgar demonstrated the harmony of this system of chronology and time prophecy abundantly. But even so, I would not wish to adopt a sectarian view of the matter, so as claim that others who hold to other viewpoints are "not in the truth," etc.
http://bstudents.reslight.net/sectarianism
Ronald
-
248
H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"
by AnnOMaly ina long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.
volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.
you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.
-
-
reslight2
C.T. Russell was the leading pyramidology scholarly genius of all time. He was also the world's leading authority on Miracle Wheat.
Sadly, H. Hunger doesn't appreciate the importance of supporting the flawed and outdated beliefs on a 19th century Adventist sect that has somehow managed to survive into the 21st century.
Charles Taze Russell wrote comparatively very little about the Great Pyramid. Out of the tens of thousands of pages that have been produced from his works, comparatively less than a handful are related to the Great Pyramid, and even then what he presented was mostly that which had been presented earlier by N. H. Barbour.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=14
Russell disclaimed any firsthand knowledge regarding Stoner's "Miracle Wheat"; all he did is present the comments of Stoner and some farmers who had used Stoner's Miracle Wheat, as well as some newspaper articles pertaining to "Miracle Wheat."
Indeed, the world's most leading authority on Miracle Wheat at that time would have been Stoner himself. More recently, the world's most leading authority on a more recent strain of Miracle Wheat was Norman Boulaug.
-
63
Freemasonry and Jehovah's Witnesses
by Hammer_Of_Thor ini've read alot of posts here regarding jw's and freemasonry, and so far i've seen the usual conjecture by non-masons, and a few well written opinions of the inquiring minds among us.. i'm a former jw from texas, and a current freemason in houston.
my question is:.
what specifically does the wts say as far as masonic membership.
-
-
reslight2
Read some Springmeier freydo.... He researched the Watchtower for 30 years and I've read ALL his books. Maybe then you wouldn't defend the indefensible and wouldn't pick on ridiculous technicalities to distract from the fact that Russell was a high level Satanist, pedophile, pervert, false prophet, AND A MASON.
And Springmeier claims that much of the Bible is Masonic, since the Bible at places, as he claims, uses Masonic symbology. I have read his works; it is a lot of imagination being presented as "fact." I have started a series of replies to his writings, which I need to get back to. I believe that the devil has given him great skill to present what is being imagined in such a way as that it appears to be fact.
-
63
Freemasonry and Jehovah's Witnesses
by Hammer_Of_Thor ini've read alot of posts here regarding jw's and freemasonry, and so far i've seen the usual conjecture by non-masons, and a few well written opinions of the inquiring minds among us.. i'm a former jw from texas, and a current freemason in houston.
my question is:.
what specifically does the wts say as far as masonic membership.
-
-
reslight2
The true one, over the years I have been utterly shocked at what some witnesses don't know about their own beliefs. As for the Mason-Russell connection there seems to be evidence pointing both ways. However one cannot deny he did at least "borrow" some of their symbols.
I responded to this earlier, but my response evidently went into oblivion.
Actually, there are thousands of pages of evidence that Russell was not a member of the Freemasons organization, and zero actual evidence that he was a member of the Freemasons' organization. What is often presented as "evidence" is actually that fabricated with human imagination, so that what is being imagined is the evidence.
Russell did on a very few occasions borrowed (or, as some Freemasons have claimed, misrepresented), some of the Freemasons' symbology, even as he used many other things in the world to illustrate various points in the Bible. (For example, in the sermon on "The Temple of God") He certainly never, ever, used such symbology to advocate the goals of the Freemasons, or to lure people into Freemasonry.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=233 -
63
Freemasonry and Jehovah's Witnesses
by Hammer_Of_Thor ini've read alot of posts here regarding jw's and freemasonry, and so far i've seen the usual conjecture by non-masons, and a few well written opinions of the inquiring minds among us.. i'm a former jw from texas, and a current freemason in houston.
my question is:.
what specifically does the wts say as far as masonic membership.
-
-
reslight2
While pyramidology may hold interest for some Masons (after the pyramids are works of masonry), there never has been any great interest in Biblical pyramidology amongst the Masons. Biblical pyramidology, of itself, is not of the Masons, anymore than the Bible itself is of the Masons.
Russell and Pyramidology:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=14I don't know that Charles' father was ever a member of the Masons; I have seen that said several times, but I haven't been able to find any verification that it was true. I would like to know of any actual Freemasons' site(s) that claims that Joseph Russell was a member of the Freemasons. I have seen many anti-Russell sites that have made all kinds of false claims, including the claim that Charles' father, Jospeh Rutherford (as well as Charles Russell) was a member of the Freemasons, but I haven't been able to find an actual site of the Freemasons that claims that either were Freemasons.
Russell himself, however, advocated that a Christian should not belong to such organizations as the Freemasons, and, speaking of the Freemasons' organization, he plainly stated of himself: "I have never been a Mason."
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=763Christian love,
Ronald
-
63
Freemasonry and Jehovah's Witnesses
by Hammer_Of_Thor ini've read alot of posts here regarding jw's and freemasonry, and so far i've seen the usual conjecture by non-masons, and a few well written opinions of the inquiring minds among us.. i'm a former jw from texas, and a current freemason in houston.
my question is:.
what specifically does the wts say as far as masonic membership.
-
-
reslight2
Charles Taze Russell was most definitely NOT a member of the Freemasons' organization. Why would he spend almost his entire lifetime, his entire forturne, and exert almost all of his energy preaching a message that was in the opposite of what he was supposedly in support of? Russell believed that the Freemasons' organization is one of the bundles of this world that will be destroyed. The tens of thousands of pages that have been produced from Russell's writings give overwhelming evidence that Russell was never a member of the Freemasons' organization.
Russell and Freemasons:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=3Russell's writings online:
-
10
icon - 1919 gravesite visit!
by seenitall inlittle known facts about the gravesite and monuments of russell in pa.. this is from the convention program - 1919 isba convention report held in pittsburgh.
note how you could get a chip of granite!.
7at the graveon monday, a party of about 150 was conducted by brother bohnet to the grave of brother russell.
-
-
reslight2
Bohnet claimed that the pyramid monument was, at least as written in 1919 Report, "accepted by Russell." Nothing in Russell's own writings ever mention such a monument, thus I have my doubts that Russell ever actually approved such a monument.
Rutherford's monument, however, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Freemasons organization; Russell was never a member of the Freemasons orgnization, and, as far as I know, neither was Rutherford. The Biblical study of the Great Pyramid has nothing at all to do with the Freemason's organization, nor with spiritism, astrology or demonic occultism.
-
20
Why Did God Commission Russell to Preach to People Who Would All Die Before Armageddon?
by neverendingjourney ini've posted this thought before, but i've yet to get a lot of feedback.
it's also not a point i see brought up very much on jwd, but it seems like a very simple, logical way of disproving witness doctrine/eschatology.. witnesses believe that the parable of the wheat and the weeds is having its fulfillment in our time.
that's to say that jehovah began to gather his people in these last days so that those rightly-disposed can survive armageddon.
-
-
reslight2
- God could foresee wanting to save upwards of 7 million people then he had to start early to allow enough time for the Organization to grow that big ....
No, there is no logic in this, especially since Russell did not even believe in such an organization; Russell had even tried to make sure that that the Watch Tower Society did not become such an "organization" by means of the "by-law" and his will. Rutherford immediately, by means of deception, had the by-laws changed, indeed creating a new legal entity out of the old entity, and he disregarded Russell's will. This is the manner in which he used the Watch Tower to create his new organization. By 1930, the earlier Bible Bible Students movement (those who had been associated with the movement in the days of Russell) had, as a whole (represented by the majority), rejected Rutherford's new organization and Rutherford's new "Gospel" which denied the "ransom for all." Indeed, Russell started the Watch Tower magazine for the very purpose of defending the ransom for all, but Rutherford denied that doctrine, and he led his new organization into such denial.
-
20
Why Did God Commission Russell to Preach to People Who Would All Die Before Armageddon?
by neverendingjourney ini've posted this thought before, but i've yet to get a lot of feedback.
it's also not a point i see brought up very much on jwd, but it seems like a very simple, logical way of disproving witness doctrine/eschatology.. witnesses believe that the parable of the wheat and the weeds is having its fulfillment in our time.
that's to say that jehovah began to gather his people in these last days so that those rightly-disposed can survive armageddon.
-
-
reslight2
- Russell was a false prophet.
Since Russell never claimed to a prophet, since Russell never gave any prophecy, since Russell disclaimed being a prophet, and since Russell many times stated that his conclusions concerning Biblical prophecy were NOT prophecy, Russell most certainly was not a false prophet. He was not right in every detail, but, as we all err, he at times also erred. He did not, however, speak as a "central authority," nor was he heading an organization (such as the JW organization which developed after he died); he allowed others in the Bible Students movement to disagree with him, and he often presented other opinions in the pages of the Watch Tower even though he did not necessarily agree with those views. No, he disclaimed being a prophet; he admitted the possibilty of error on his part, he many times spoke of the differrence between what he was saying the actual prophecy. He stated that the Bible prophecies would be fulfilled whether he had it right concerning those prophecies or not.