is this correct?
charles taze russel, an alleged free mason was the nephew of william huntington russell, the creator of the skull and crossbones, the americna version of the illuminati.
kinda makes sense that the apple wouldnt fall from the tree..
Quite an evil-minded work of art that distorts the reality, to say the least. Russell was expecting "the end" of the Gentile Times in 1914. From 1904 to 1914, he was expecting the beginning of the "time of trouble" in 1914; he plainly stated that he was not expecting "the end of the world" in 1914. I believe that the end of the Gentile Times did come in 1914, and that we have been in the "time of trouble" ever since.
See:
is this correct?
charles taze russel, an alleged free mason was the nephew of william huntington russell, the creator of the skull and crossbones, the americna version of the illuminati.
kinda makes sense that the apple wouldnt fall from the tree..
“’Our own views are not prophecy, but interpretations of the holy prophets of old. -- Watch Tower, October 1890, page 8.’”
Prophesy:
1. To reveal by divine inspiration.
2. To predict with certainty as if by divine inspiration. See Synonyms at foretell.
3. To prefigure; foreshow.
v.intr.
1. To reveal the will or message of God.
2. To predict the future as if by divine inspiration.
3. To speak as a prophet.
While the word "prophesy" does not always have the same meaning in the Bible, it generally is meant of one as described in Deuteronomy 18:15-19; the prophets of the Old Testament were such prophets, and thus their statements are prophecy; Russell never claimed to be such a prophet, and nothing in his writings is such prophecy.
is this correct?
charles taze russel, an alleged free mason was the nephew of william huntington russell, the creator of the skull and crossbones, the americna version of the illuminati.
kinda makes sense that the apple wouldnt fall from the tree..
Russell himself never claimed to the "Laodicean Messenger".
Here is Russell's original tombstone (picture circa 1921):
Evidently, sometime after 1921, that gravestone was replaced with the one that now his gravestone:
As I stated, Russell never claimed to be the "Loadicean Messenger". He certainly never claimed that either he or his writings were inspired by God in any such sense that would mean that he was claiming that his writings were without error. In a broad sense, every child of God is "inspired" by means of God's holy spirit.
See what I have written:
The Faithful and Wise Servant and Other Servants
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=127
Russell stated:
Our own views are not prophecy, but interpretations of the holy prophets of old. -- Watch Tower, October 1890, page 8.
Neither must you lean upon the DAWN and the TOWER as infallible teachers. -- “The Watch Tower”, June, 1893 pg. 168.
More perhaps than any other servant, ZION’S WATCH TOWER has opposed the thought that the Church of Christ is composed of a clerical class commissioned to teach, and a lay class not commissioned to teach the divine Word: it specially has held up the inspired words, “all ye are brethren” and “one is your Master”; and has pointed out that all consecrated believers are of the “royal priesthood” each fully commissioned, not to “lord it” over others, but to sacrifice himself in the service of the truth, doing good unto all, especially to the household of faith. So with the servants of Matt. 24:49; service is their only commission, not lordship or self-appointment. All the members of the “body” are “anointed to preach” the gospel, and instructed to search the Scriptures, as we have heretofore clearly shown. This has been true ever since Pentecost, and is as true as ever to-day.
— Zion’s Watch Tower, June 15, 1896, pages 139,140.
Whatever "helps" really point us to the Bible as the only authority, and assist us in rightly dividing it, are profitable to us as servants and guides: but that which attempts to be to us instead of God's Word is a dangerous foe. -- Watch Tower, August 15, 1897, page 240.
So far as the true Church is concerned, the only authority in it is the Lord, the Head of the Church, and his Word, and the words of those whom he specially chose to be his mouth-pieces, the apostles.-- Watch Tower, July 1, 1900, page 195.
We claim no infallibility for our presentations. -- Zion’s Watch Tower, April 15, 1901, page 136.
We have urged and still urge that the dear children of God read studiously what we have presented;–the Scriptures, the applications and interpretations–and then form their own judgments. We neither urge nor insist upon our views as infallible, nor do we smite or abuse those who disagree; but regard as “Brethren” all sanctified believers in the precious blood. — Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1, 1907, page 294.
We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES. -- Watch Tower, January 1, 1908, page 5.
We try to be careful about every word that goes into the Watch Tower, but we do not claim to be infallible; we are doing the best we can. (What Pastor Russell Said, Q56:1, 1910)
I am not a prophet.” -- What Pastor Russell Said, Q272:1, 1910.
If we have made some mistake in the time, it will not matter a bit; we are consecrated to Him unto death. Perhaps the Lord will test us along this line. But I should not mind; I tell you that I am enjoying the Lord, and enjoying the previous Word more and more every day, and if it gets still better by 1914, I don’t know how good it will be. So that, whether we have the exact moment is very immaterial to us; it is quite a secondary matter. But there is no doubt at all that the Kingdom will come–whether in that year, or another year–it is sure to come, “For the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it, and who shall disannul it”? — 1912, Convention Sermon Reports, page 439
is this correct?
charles taze russel, an alleged free mason was the nephew of william huntington russell, the creator of the skull and crossbones, the americna version of the illuminati.
kinda makes sense that the apple wouldnt fall from the tree..
CT Russell was a plagiarist immersed in new age religious beliefs,
Yes, Russell did indeed accept the Bible teachings of the "age to come", the new heavens and the new earth. That will indeed be a "new age"; however, Russell had nothing at all to do with what is generally called "new age" teachings of today. Russell did not plagiarized anything; he did re-present what others before him taught; he never tried to hide that.
and he adopted, borrowed, and stole from various sources steeped in mysticism and the occult, including Masonry.
The above is, simply put, false, at least in the implications of the manner in which is was written. Russell preached against all forms of demonic occultism; nevertheless, he did borrow from many different sources of many different people illustrations, such using man's idea of secret soceity to illustrate the secret, or mystery, of the church as depicted in the Bible; the writers of the Bible did similarly.
He was a religious teachings whore and combined many facets of what he read, and came up with a form of religious Jeet Kune Do, passing these teachings off as his own original material, inspired of God and His spirit direction.
As I stated, Russell never tried to hide how he had arrived at his conclusions, nor the fact that others had helped to him to attain his understanding. Russell never claimed to be "inspired of God", and even disclaimed such. He did believe that he, and all children of God, are being led by God's spirit. (Romans 8:14) He did not believe that being led by the spirit of God meant that he was flawless, or that he was incapable of making mistakes, etc.
See what I have writte on this elsewhere:
Did Russell Claim Direct Revelation From God?
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=43
Did Russell Claim Infallibility?
http://ctrussell.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/infallibility/
He was the equivalent of the forum user who pretends to know stuff, but is simply a copy and paste artist. It’s only impressive to those who don’t understand how google works, or who isn’t well read on a particular topic. The Bible Students who followed Russell were astounded at what Russell preached. They had never heard such things before because they were lazy-ass followers, infants needing to be spoon-fed. The trend continues today; 7.2 million Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t check a fact to save their lives.
All I can say is that the anyone who thinks the above of Russell has not genuinely studied Russell's works. Russell, however, was never associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses organization; he preached against the kind of authoritarianism of such an organization. Likewise, he preached against the kind of alleged "Good News" that is preached by that organization. Nevertheless, no Bible Student should be following Russell, except that Russell can lead the Bible Student to a greater and clearer understanding of Jesus and the God of Jesus. Anyone who settles for being "spoon-fed" has a misconception of what it is to be a true Bible Student. Nevertheless, I can say that this is exactly what many associated with the JWs wish; an organization such as the JWs appeals to the carnal desire of the flesh along this line (as do many other religious organizations).
See what I have written on this:
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Idol
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=803
is this correct?
charles taze russel, an alleged free mason was the nephew of william huntington russell, the creator of the skull and crossbones, the americna version of the illuminati.
kinda makes sense that the apple wouldnt fall from the tree..
Yeah, the nearby "Masonic Way", the pyramid, the cross and crown, the toga, and as you mentioned, he dies at midnight on Halloween...it's all just a fucking coincidence.
The road that was built decades after Russell died has nothing to do with Russell.
Nothing about Biblical study of the Great Pyramid has anything to do with the Freemasons' organization.
Nothing about Russell's use of a cross and crown symbol, a symbol that has been used by almost every denomination of Christendom, that has anything to do with the Freemasons' organization.
Whether Russell actually asked for a "toga", I don't know. It may have been interpreted that way, with Rutherford's contribution. But at any rate, one would have to use a great deal of imagination and based on what is imagined further assume that such would have anything to do with the Freemasons' organization.
Russell did not die at midnight on halloween. He died 2:30 PM.
Nothing in any of this has anything to do with the Freemasons' organization.
The tens of thousands of pages of Russell's works give an abundance of testimony that Russell was not in league with the Freemasons' organization. Indeed, if he were, then he spent most of his life sabotaging that which he is alleged to have been supporting.
See:
Focus on Charles Taze Russell >> Freemasons
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=3
Why should a Christian be concerned when Russell is being misrepresented? Many may be concerned, but lacking in time and/or skill to know how to respond. Nevertheless, should a fellow-Christian stand by while a man of God is being misrepresented, when it is in the realms of ability and time to correct such misrepresentation? The falsehoods being spread about Russell are in overabundance; those who would seek to correct those falsehoods are very few. Would that I could respond to all the hundreds of false things that are spread about Russell, or any other Christian. There is just not enough time to do so, however.
I am grateful to God that Russell defended the Bible as opposed to man's self-appointed orthodoxy, and I am grateful to the Dawn Bible Students Association for pointing out to me Russell's teachings on the atonement, the ransom for all, and why God is permitting so much suffering. Back in 1950s and 1960s, I was greatly troubled over these matters, and although I had read in the Bible about the "ransom for all" and how God was going to bless all the nations, I still could not put all the scriptures together in any way that would make sense, since I was still greatly influenced by man's tradition. I had prayed extensively concerning this matter, and, having come into contact with the Dawn, these brothers of Christ helped me to realize that Russell was teaching similar to the I had the thoughts I was having from my own study of the Bible. I examined Russell's teachings thoroughly with the Bible, and although I had questions concerning many details, the way he tied so many scriptures together (something that I could not do on my own) led me to be convinced that, overall, he was correct concerning the "ransom for all." Nevertheless, I have not relied wholly on his writings, but have expanded beyond what he wrote on the topic.
http://atonement.reslight.net
I do not defend everything that Russell taught and said, but I do try to defend him against misrepresentations being spread about him. I do hold Russell in high esteem, since it was his works -- as well as with the aid of some others -- that led me to an understanding of why God is allowing all the suffering, evil, sects, denominations, religions, etc., and more importantly, an understanding of the ransom for all.
I believe that it is because Russell held to and defended the ransom for all that Satan has especially sought to promote all kinds of false stories so that he might keep others from appreciating the truth. Not many have ever given ear to the truth, however, as Satan is very active in in his deceptions. (2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 12:9) The time will soon be, however, as a result of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus (John 12:47,48; 1 Timothy 2:5,6), that Satan will not be permitted to deceive the heathen, and the heathen will be able to see and hear the truth. -- Isaiah 2:2-4; Revelation 20:3.
i woke up today a right grumpy basket case.... not a good day for the jehovah's witness to call on me to do there usual shepherding call, bringing me the usual mags of shite!
i stood there on the doorstep in my pj's, care free and all fired up.
i was asked how i was doing & then informed that they had my latest mags.
A Russell apologist. How many people forfeited their lives to the ideals of this man?
I assume that it is being alleged that there people who "forfeited" there lives to the ideals of Russell. I don't know of any.
It may be logical he has been falsely accused of some things just because we have a tendency to blame the bad guy for even more harm than he has actually done. He is by no means an innocent.
No one is 100% innocent in absolutely everthing he done since the day he was born. However, Russell was not guilty of the many false charges that have spread abroad about him.
Russell, if he did anyone harm (and we have all unjustly done others harm in our lives at times), I am certain did much, much, more good than harm, by his presenting the "good news of great joy that will be for all the people."
Russell was never with the Jehovah's Witnesses, he did not believe in the message that the JWs preach about millions of people being eternally destroyed in Armageddon without ever receiving benefit from the "ransom for all"; he never objected to blood transfusions; he never went about disfellowshipping people because they disagreed with him; he actually preached against the kind of organization that Joseph Rutherford created after Russell died; Russell actually preached against the kind of alleged "good news" that Rutherford created after Russell died (the bad tidings of great woe for most of the people that billions of men, women and their children will be eternally destroyed if they do not join with the JW org). Indeed, the message preached by the JWs is almost the very opposite of that preached by Russell.
Nevertheless, much of the things and doctrines that Rutherford created are often unjustly and falsely attributed to Russell.
I have no reason at all to think that Russell was a "bad guy"; I have every reason to believe that he was a Christian endeavoring to serve Jesus to the best of his ability, and that God did indeed use him to spread many truths of the Bible.
i woke up today a right grumpy basket case.... not a good day for the jehovah's witness to call on me to do there usual shepherding call, bringing me the usual mags of shite!
i stood there on the doorstep in my pj's, care free and all fired up.
i was asked how i was doing & then informed that they had my latest mags.
They rubbished me, so I told them all about the debauch lifestyles of Taze Russell saying that Jehovah would never have used him as a servant..
While I rejoice to see that anyone frees themselves from the JW organization, on the other hand, a Christian should be careful of not adopting the methods of many who seek to promote falsehoods about Russell. Not knowing exactly what "debauch lifestyles" are being attributed to Russell, I cannot respond to him. Russell was not perfect, and he had his own battles with the sinful flesh to contend with as all of us, but I would not say that he led any debauched lifestyle.
While I would say that most of the JWs know very little about Russell, many of them may know enough to realize that Russell may be falsely accused, and, from their standpoint, they consider Russell to have been a member of their oganization (he never was), and in their minds translate such false accusations as being made of their organization, considering such to be persecution of their alleged "Christian" organization. Russell, himself, however, preached against such authoritarians organizations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, and he preached against the kind of alleged "good news" that is preached by the JW organization.
last week, i told you i was going to tell my daughter that i was leaving the truth this weekend and you all gave me sound advice.
but, i cannot keep a secret this heavy from the person i love most on this earth, my only daughter, who is beautiful inside and out.. well, i have always had an open and honest relationship with my daughter, and i guess it paid off.
this weekend i visited my daughter (who lives in another state) and i told her i was leaving "the truth.
In the binder on the first page was a photo of CTRussel's headstone, with the Laodecian Messenger on it.
Charles Taze Russell never himself claimed to have been the "Laodicean Messenger."
The next page was the pyramid monument, the one with Watchtower B&T S on it.
Rutherford's pyramid monument was built several years after Russell died. Although it was claimed that Russell approved that monument, I highly doubt that he would have approved such extravagance. Other than it deemed an extravagance misuse of money, I have no objection to the monument, representing God's stone witness in Egypt.
The next page was another view of it. The next page was the old Watchtower from 1906 with the cross and crown and the knights on it.
Russell used the cross and crown symbol to represent Biblical terminology; likewise with the armor of righteousness symbol. -- Romans 13:12; 2 Corinthians 6:7; Ephesians 6:11-18.
Regarding the cross and crown:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=168
She is a college educated history major and particularly loves world and ancient history. She knew right away something was wrong. The next page was a print out of the Masonic symbols, taken from the freemason's own website, showing the cross and crown.
One has to use their imagination to suppose that artwork of a cross and crown is, of itself, a Masonic symbol. (See the previous link). There was no Masonic symbols in artwork of Russell's Watch Tower magazine.
She was visably upset. She had tears in her eyes. The next photo was of the Finished Mystery book with the winged disk on it.
The winged sun artwork was used to symbolize many scriptures, but especially Malachi 4:2; the artwork had nothiing to do with either the Masons or any form of spiritistic occultism.
See:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=322
She seemed incredibly uncomfortable, the significance was apparent to her immediately. I asked, "How could Jehovah allow these symbols to be used by his earthy visible organization?"
I then turned back to the headstone and said "Isn't it strange, Jehovah waited until the perfect man, Jesus, was 30 years old to annoint him, but Charles Taze Russell was only in his mid twenties when he started this religion.
Russell did not "start" any religion at all; he certainly never started a the "Jehovah's Witnesses" religion. He was a non-sectarian who did not believe in such religious organizations, and even preached against any such kind of organization. Not only that, Russell did not believe in the message preached by "Jehovah's Witnesses"; indeed he preached against such kind of message. It is not fair to Russell to attribute him with starting that which he did not believe in, and against which he preached. After Russell died, Joseph Rutherford "started" that organization, and introduced his new good news of woe of eternal destruction for most of the people. Most of the earlier Bible Students, however, rejected Rutherford's new organization, as well as Rutherford's new "good news."
Regarding Russell and organization:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=64
Regarding Russell and the good news:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=530
Regarding Russell and Armageddon:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=119
Does that make any sense?" Then I turned the next page to some Watchtower publication quotes about Jehovah living on a star, the Pyramid of Giza being Jehovah's stone witness, how he used the distances inside the pyramid to arrive at the date 1874.
The date 1874 was arrived at, not from God's stone witness (the Great Pyramid), but rather from study of Bible prophecy. The Great Pyramid confirms that date, but the date is not based on the Great Pyramid.
I showed her the quote in the Finished Mystery book about how Russell was still directing the organization after his death.
Russell, of course, had no control over what claims were made concerning him after his death; although the concept of "organization" was already being promoted by Rutherford, that concept did not correspond to Russell's beliefs.
Then we went over the quotes about 1874, 1914, 1925 and 1975.
Russell, as well as I and many Bible Students, believe that Christ returned in 1874, and that the time of trouble began in 1914. Russell, of course, had nothing to do with the date 1925 or the date 1975. Indeed, the latter date (1975) is flatly in contradiction to what Russell believed.
She has heard us talk about 1975 all her life. I had actual Kingdom Ministry articles and Watchtower articles.
Next in the binder was the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing...asked her if this was really "new light, "or was this total reversal.
Bible Students, of course, in general do not believe in this kind of "new light". They pointed out long ago how the Rutherford's limiting of the "ransom for all" denies the very basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.
See what I have written on this at:
http://jws.reslight.net/?p=19
http://atonement.reslight.net/archives/167.html
http://hereafter.reslight.net/archives/152.html
Some things written by other Bible Students:
http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2010/09/does-the-bible-support-a-governing-body/
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/a%20message%20for%20jw%27s.htm
http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2010/05/will-the-wicked-get-an-opportunity-to-repent/
Christian love,
Ronald
i'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 .
"There was nothing wrong with Stoner's Miracle Wheat, "
It was not a miracle, was it?
I would suppose that this depends on what one would consider a "miracle" to be.
At any rate, none of the Bible Students gave the wheat the name "Miracle Wheat." Evidently to either Stoner or one of his associates thought that the wheat was like a miracle, and thus it was called "Miracle Wheat"; Stoner and his associates were not Bible Students. Russell simply quoted the name "Miracle Wheat" from the newspaper articles; it was NOT Russell who came up with the name "Miracle Wheat" or the wheat itself, as some have falsely assumed.
The original Miracle Wheat died out as farmers became lax in following the instructions for keeping the strain pure. The "miracle wheat" that is distributed today is that developed by Norman Bourlaug. Neither Stoner or Bourlaug were associated with the Bible Students, nor are any of the Bible Students responsible for naming the wheat "Miracle Wheat."
Regarding Bourlaug's "Miracle Wheat" that exists today:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=629
Regading Stoner's "Miracle Wheat" and Russell's statements concerning that wheat.
i'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 .
" I do not believe that there is anything wrong with Biblical pyramidology."
Well, I do, because it is based on conjecture...
I would say that it is certainly much less conjecture than what many add to the scriptures to sustain their trinity dogma; however, I would not wish to be understood as trying to force what I believe in this matter on others. God allows each to understand according to His will. One can be a Christian without accepting the Great Pyramid as God's stone witness in Egypt.
Nevertheless, have you studied the Edgars' work on the Great Pyramid so as to definitely say it is based on conjecture, so much so that it is not worthy of acceptance?
