a lot of us spend a great deal of time on this board and elsewhere discussing the intricate doctrines of the .
watch tower as if they were legitimate arguments from the bible.. one of these is the issue of blood and blood transfusion.. another is "who is the faithful and discreet slave?".
or "what is the definition of "generation" given in the bible, so we can prove the witnesses wrong?.
Reslight:
My primal senses tell me that you are a Bible Student and still believe in Russell, despite all the god talk.
Was I right?
Randy
Randy: I am a Bible Student, and I believe that Russell was a Christian who endeavored to present Bible truths concerning God and Jesus, and the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, if that is what you mean by "believe in Russell".
a lot of us spend a great deal of time on this board and elsewhere discussing the intricate doctrines of the .
watch tower as if they were legitimate arguments from the bible.. one of these is the issue of blood and blood transfusion.. another is "who is the faithful and discreet slave?".
or "what is the definition of "generation" given in the bible, so we can prove the witnesses wrong?.
Charles Taze Russell. And no doubt he borrowed that from some dissenting early Adventist who tried to reason his way out of why Jesus DIDN'T RETURN in 1844 or 1874. So millions of people spend decades arguing over a stupid idea that no one in the history of Christianity had bothered themselves with for 2000 years. Why? Because Jesus made it pretty plain how he would come back.
Jesus made it plain that he would not come back as a human being, having a body of flesh, which, if one applies the scripture, would mean that he would come back as a being a litlle lower than the angels. -- Hebrews 2:9.
It was in 1876 that Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had already returned in 1874 (two years earlier). However, Russell had already concluded from his own study of the Bible that Jesus would not return as a human being, in the flesh, since he found out from the scriptures that Jesus had offered his humanity, his flesh, his body, in sacrifice to God. Aside from the fact that if Christ is still flesh that he is still a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:9), if he is still flesh, then we have no sacrifice for sin, we have no redemption, and and no price has been given to pay the wages of sin, etc.
primal:
1. first; original; primeval: primal eras before the appearance of life on earth . 2. of first importance; fundamental: the primal resources of a nation.
sense:
1. any of the faculties, as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch, by which humans and animals perceive stimuli originating from outside or inside the body. 2. these faculties collectively. 3. their operation or function; sensation . 4. a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste, etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the body: to have a sense of cold. 5. a faculty or function of the mind analogous to sensation : the moral sense. 6. any special capacity for perception, estimation, appreciation, etc.: a sense of humor. 7. Usually, senses. clear and sound mental faculties; sanity: Have you taken leave of your senses? 8. a more or less vague perception or impression: a sense of security. 9. a mental discernment, realization, or recognition; acuteness: a just sense of the worth of a thing. 10. the recognition of something as incumbent or fitting: a sense of duty. 11. sound practical intelligence: He has no sense. 12. something that is sensible or reasonable: to talk sense. 13. the meaning or gist of something: You missed the sense of his statement. 14. the value or worth of something; merit: There's no sense in worrying about the past. 15. the meaning of a word or phrase in a specific context, especially as isolated in a dictionary or glossary; the semantic element in a word or group of words. 16. an opinion or judgment formed or held, especially by an assemblage or body of persons: the sense of a meeting. Defintions from dictionary.com.
Our primal senses as originally given to us through Adam have been corrupted due to sin. Adam was created with a crown of sinless glory that fully reflected the righteousness of God. Man was given dominion over all the earth, but lost that dominion due to sin, so that, we now do not see all things subjected to man. -- Genesis 1:26,28: Psalm 8:4-8; Romans 3:23; 5:12-19; Hebrews 2:7,8.
The senses the Christian is called upon to use is that which has been revealed through God's holy spirit in the Bible. Thus to the new creation, the primal, that which is of greatest importance, is what God has revealed in the Bible. To deny the purpose for which Jesus came in the flesh, that is, to give that flesh as for the life of the world, would be to deny the very basis of the redemption. Every thing in the New Testament, once properly understood, agrees with this. If we think we have found something that disgrees with this, then we have fully appreciated what was written; if this is so, usually our minds can only see the scripture through the blinding tint of man's tradition, and in doing so, we fail to get the full picture.
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..
So, you are attacking me ad-hominem, calling me "evil-minded", then countering with more symantics? Your reasoning is pure and typical JW all the way, friend, and it's not a work of art friend, it's satire, and it's also documentation and evidence of what Rusell really intended when he published his non-prophesy prophesies.
I am not with the JWs, nor was Russell ever associated with the JWs. Russell never spoke as being a central authority for any such organization. Russell did not believe in the alleged "good news" that is preached by the JWs, and the message Russell preached was almost the opposite of what the JWs preach.
It is certain evil/bad to misrepresent the character of a follower of Christ. The caricature of Russell as saying anything about being packed on the Mount of Olives is indeed a lie, and is therefore bad/evil. " Yahweh hates... a lying tongue." -- Proverbs 6:16,17.
Psalm 34:13 - Keep your tongue from evil , And your lips from speaking lies.
To present anything, however, that misrepresents another as having bad or evil intentions, does represent an evil thought toward that person. Since whoever made up the material in the picture evidently did so with such evil thoughts toward Russell, then it does indeed represent such evil-mindedness, a mind intent on bad thoughts toward Russell. The one who made up the material, however, may have also thought that such did represent the truth, but yet because of the desire to find something "bad" about Russell, such would result in that which is "bad" in the thoughts of the one who made such up by which to misrepresent and slander Russell.
That being said, however, all of us, and one time or another, have been guilty of the sin of lying, and of being deceived by lies, which is why we need to the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. All of us have been guilty, at one time or another, of misrepresenting another by what we would project from own bad thoughts about that person. Thus, as Paul stated, none of us have any reason to condemn others, as we are all already condemned in Adam's transgression, and in need to Jesus' ransom sacrifice. -- Romans 2:1; 3:9; 5:12-19.
The real instigator of the deceptive lies about Russell, however, I believe is Satan the Devil. I do not believe that most people who are spreading such lies are originators of the evil of the deceptions of the lies, but rather that it is Satan. (John 8:44; Revelation 12:7) I thank the Heavenly Father for understanding that such deceptions will soon not be permitted by God, since Satan is to be abyssed, so that he will not be able to deceive the people during that coming day of the world's judgment. -- Psalm 96; Psalm 98; Isaiah 2:2-4; John 12:47,48; Acts 17:31; Revelation 20:3.
The real documentation and evidence shows that, from the very start his minstry -- which ministry has nothing at all to do with the authoritarian attidues of the JW leadership, Russell denied that his expectations were infallible and/or prophecy. Russell, from the very start of his ministry, claimed that the only authority one should recognize in the church is that of Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles, whose messages are found in the Bible. I have already given some of that true documentation and evidence.
If you could, please, explain exactly the reason Russell and friends took a boat over to Israel in 1914 and sat atop the Mount of Olives for this picture? Was it a mere sight-seeing tour of the Bible lands? They weren't expecting to be raptured off or some such nonsense, where they? I'm surprised Rutherford wasn't wearing a damn jet-pack so he could get a head start.
Since Russell never took a boat over to Israel in 1914 to sit top of the Mount of Olives, I have nothing to explain in this regard, except to say that Russell was not in Israel in October of 1914. Someone else has stated that the picture is from the September, 1908, Watch Tower; I have not been able to verify this, but it is evidently a picture taken sometime before 1914.
Expecting the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, which meant, no matter what you say, or however Russell colored it before and after, that the end of this system of things was going to come; the implications and inferrences of Russell's false prophesies are clear.
The above appears to be projecting back on Russell the later JW teachings. Russell did not believe in the end of the system of things as the JWs believe, and never was expecting such. Russell believed that the "end of the age" had already begun in 1874. From 1904 up to 1914, Russell was expecting the "time of trouble" was to begin in 1914; nothing at all to color it before or after; it is simple fact. His view of the "time of trouble" was that it was a period of time in which the people of the nations were to disciplined, not eternally destroyed, and such time of trouble would prepare the peoples for the blessings of God's Kingdom.
Russell's earlier view, which he rejected in 1904, was that the Gentile Kingdoms would all be removed in 1914, and that the blessings of God's kingdom would begin in 1914. As I stated, and such is simply fact, Russell, from 1904 on up to 1914, was expecting, not that the Gentile kingdoms would all be removed in 1914, but rather that the "time of trouble" was to begin in 1914, which would eventually lead to the removal of all Gentile rulership and the blessings of God's kingdom sometime after 1914. Russell, however, never gave any of his expectations as being any kind of central authority in the church; he certainly never gave any of his expectations as being a central authority of the Jehovah's Witnesses. From the very start of his ministry, he disclaimed any infallibility regarding his expectations, and never claimed that his expectations were infallible. Russell did not believe in any such central authority amongs men as the JWs have, etc., and preached against such authoritarianism until the day he died. All of this is simply fact. Nothing at all to "color: about it.
I'm not debating this crap with you anymore. You are clearly cherry-picking the denials of Russell and ignoring the whole story. Ridiculous.
Except that one is actually acquainted with the facts, I believe it would be best not to debate that of which one has little or no knowledge. One should certainly not present what has to imagined, assumed, distorted, etc., as representing the "whole story", while ignoring the actual facts.
It is not my purpose, however, to defend absolutely everything Russell said or taught, as I disagree with him on many things. Nevertheless, I do not believe that he deliberately taught anything in error.
No Christian writer since the days of the apostles can fully claim that everything that he has written is absolutely without error, and Russell certainly never made any such claim. He did believe, without claiming infallibilty for such belief, that what he had written was in harmony with the light of the Bible. I do not believe any Christian writer should be writing anything that he believes to be out of harmony with the Bible, although I have read authors who claim to be Christian that have openly rejected much of the Bible.
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.
