WontLeave:
While it is good to see that you are awakening to the fact that the JW leadership is not "chosen" by God's holy spirit,
Regarding Charles Taze Russell:
Russell did not start the Jehovah's Witnesses. Russell did not believe in such an authoritarian organization, nor did he believe in the message that is preached by the organization. Indeed, the message preached by the Jehovah's Witnesses is almost the opposite of the "good news of great joy that will be for all the people" that Russell taught and in which he believed as central to the glorification of God. Rutherford rejected the "ransom for all" and replaced it with his "organization" doctrine and the threat of the "second death" for practically anyone who disagreed with Rutherford.
See:
Russell and the Founder of the JWs
Russell and Church Organization
I do not believe that there is anything wrong with Biblical pyramidology.
See:
Russell and Pyramidology
Russell had nothing to do with Spiritistic Numerology
See:
Russell and Numerology
There was nothing wrong with Stoner's Miracle Wheat, nor did Russell do anything wrong related to those who were selling the Miracle Wheat.
See:
Russell and Miracle Wheat
While Russell did not consider his studies on chronology and dates to be on the same par as his studies on the ransom for all and related doctrine, I do not know that the dates are "failed dates." They are failed dates only if God himself never meant those dates to be used. From the JWs' perspective, they would be "failed dates", since Rutherford rejected almost all of Russell's studies on those dates; however, if Barbour was correct on the dates, they are not failed dates. I believe the dates are not "failed dates", although many things expected on those dates may have been "failed expectations." Nevertheless, God is determiner on this, and he will make all known to all in due time. Russell's conclusion was the the prophecies will be fulfilled, whether he had it right or not as in his expectations. Regarding the "time of trouble" that he was expecting to begin 1914, Russell stated: "We believe the Bible teaches October, 1914, as the time. If that is incorrect for a year, or five, or one hundred years, no matter, it is coming some time, whether we have it right or not." (1912 Convention Report) Russell, however, died in 1916 with the belief that the time of trouble had begun in 1914; I also believe that it did begin in 1914 and we are still living in the time of trouble which is disciplining the nations in preparation for the kingdom rule of peace.
See
Russell and 1874
Russell and 1914
As far as "erroneous doctrines," I can see how this could be said from the standpoint of those who accepted Rutherford's new organization and its doctrines, which doctrines are in contradiction to the central teachings of Russell. By 1930, the Bible Students movement (as whole -- represented by the majority) had rejected Rutherford's new organization, as well as his new alleged "gospel" that millions of people of the world would be eternally destroyed without any benefit from the ransom for all. It is any wonder that the majority of the Bible Students refused to preach this new alleged gospel of the kingdom, which is almost the opposite of what they had been preaching for decades? The JWs statement that the former "Bible Students" simply took the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is misleading, since the Bible Students as as whole (as represented by the majority) did not accept Rutherford's new organization, did not accept Rutherford's new gospel, and did not accept the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" for themselves in the sense that Rutherford applied it to his his new organization.
At any rate, I do not know of any "Christian" author's writings since the apostles time that is fully free from error. Russell made some errors, but I believe he certainly had a lot more correct than that in which he made errors. I do not accept all that Russell taught simply because he taught it, and I do believe he was in error on many relatively minor points. Russell never presented his teachings, however, as though they were representing an organization such the "Jehovah's Witnesses". He allowed any to accept or not accept all his conclusions without seeking reprisal against any who did not accept all he taught. He certainly had no thought of sending representatives around to disfellowship all who disagreed with him, as did Rutherford. He sought no control over the local congregations as did Rutherford. Thus, what he wrote and the emphasis to be placed on what he wrote fall into a different category than that of the JW organization's writings and claims, and his writings should not be judged by the later claims of the JW leadership, as so many often do.
See:
Russell and salvation
Russell and the Good News
reslight2
JoinedPosts by reslight2
-
26
Probably going to be DFed for "apostasy" soon
by WontLeave ini've been doing a lot of research lately and decided i'm not going to allow the losers in cheap suits to order me around like their dog.
they are not masters of my faith and have no authority to 'lord it over' me.. all the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but because of the pharisees they would not confess [him], in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of god.
- john 12:42-43 .
-
-
reslight2
-
7
Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1909 and before pdf articles relating to Russell
by bereanbiblestudent inhere is a pdf that has articles and advertisements about and by russell.. .
it is searchable and bookmarked.. .
http://www.sendspace.com/file/wuwoed .
-
-
reslight2
I finally got the file to download, although I still don't know why the player page kept coming up in my earlier tries.
-
7
Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1909 and before pdf articles relating to Russell
by bereanbiblestudent inhere is a pdf that has articles and advertisements about and by russell.. .
it is searchable and bookmarked.. .
http://www.sendspace.com/file/wuwoed .
-
-
reslight2
I unable to get the pdf file at:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/wuwoed
to download. Some kind of player appears in the browser and the the download gets about half way through and stops.
Anyway, I have all the articles that appeared in the Watch Tower in the days of Russell concerning Miracle Wheat (as well as some related material0 in the files beginning at:
-
38
Watchtower BREAKDOWN on the highway to Paradise
by Terry inall of us at one time or another have owned a automobile that was a real lemon!.
the car may have been shiny, stylish and totally cool-looking....the only problem was it was a piece of crap.. repair after repair after repair in a never ending spiral of maintenance kept it in the shop more than it was on the road!.
you may have really loved that car--it might have been a classic---but--it proved to be totally useless for basic transportation because:.
-
-
reslight2
Terry : Much of what you stated is true, some of it is false, or misleading.
Pastor Charles Taze Russell used very specific language in his writings about the destination and arrival time for Armageddon and the 1,000 year reign's beginning.
Russell earlier adopted Barbour's view that Armageddon had begun in 1874, and that it would be end in 1914. In 1904, ten years before 1914, Russell, having had further study on the prophecies of the Bible presented to him, rejected his earlier view and saw that the ending of the Gentile Times would see the beginning, not the end, of the "time of trouble," as he had thought before.
Russell never believed the JW-type of Armageddon at all.
Russell was indeed clear that the 1,000 years began in 1874.
Terry: "God's dates--not ours!" the passengers were assured in no uncertain terms.
What Russell actually stated: "They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours." -- The Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, page 226.
He was stating this as HIS belief. He was not stating that all the Bible Students had to so believe (many of them did not agree with Russell.) I also believe that these dates are "God's dates."
Russell expressed in the same short article: "But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the WATCH TOWER of Jan. 15, '92." It seems that some of the Bible Students were suggesting at that time that the time of trouble would not be until after 1914. Russell at that time felt that they were wrong, but in 1904 -- ten years before 1914, after further study, he actually adopted the view that 1914 was to see the beginning, not the end, of the time of trouble.
Terry: Jesus had already arrived in 1874 and was now ready to slay his enemies and reward his followers with Paradise!
This seems to be retroactively attributing the teachings of Rutherford to Russell. While Russell believed that many deaths would result from the time of trouble (Armageddon), overall, he viewed the time of trouble as a chastising of the nations, in which Jesus would be preparing "his enemies" to be blessed by the seed of Abraham; Russell certainly did not believe that Armageddon was eternally destroy the enemies of Jesus, nor that Jesus' followers' would be rewarded with an earthly Paradise in 1914.
Terry: But, the bus broke down in WWI and repairs began along with new assurances given.
1914 changed from the End to the Beginning of the End. REPAIR ACCOMPLISHED!
This statement is misleading. Russell presented his conclusions in 1904 -- ten years before 1914 -- that the time of trouble was to begin, not end in 1914. As to the "beginning of the end", Russell stated in 1915:
The great war now raging in Europe seems to be the beginning of the end of Gentile Times. Instead of feeling ashamed or discouraged, we feel the reverse. -- Watch Tower, November 1, 1915, page 328.
To Russell, however, "the beginning of the end of Gentile Times" was exactly what he had been expecting in 1914. He was NOT stating something new or different, as though he needed to "repair" a former view.
This is only time I have found that Russell used the expression "the beginning of the end" as related to 1914. In a more broader sense, I could say that some things he stated could be interpreted to mean that the "beginning of the end" began when Jesus came at his first appearing; in another sense I could say that some the things he stated could be interpreted to mean that the "beginning of the end" began in 1799. It depends on the relationship of what is being spoken of. As related to "the beginning of the end of the Gentile Times," however, this was a view that he had held to since about 1876, although in 1904, he did change his view concerning the "time of trouble" as related to the end of the Gentile Times.
See:
-
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.
-
-
reslight2
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.
-
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
