reslight2

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 276 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by reslight2

• 
  52

  Camping tells all tonight!!

  by moshe in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  yes, the dates are correct, proofs are correct and judgment day came on may 21- but it was an invisible spiritual judgment- the end of the world is still coming on oct 21. harold egbert camping has just explained the truth to the world 5 minutes ago..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  The Jehovah’s Witnesses first predicted that Jesus would return and the battle of Armageddon would be finished by 1914. (Ibid, p. 101). Like Camping, they believe that Jesus came back in 1914 in a spiritual manner.""

  There was no Jehovah's Witnesses organization before 1914. The Jehovah's Witnesses organization was created (after Russell died) by Joseph Rutherford. By 1930, the Bible Students movement as a whole - represented by the majority - had rejected Rutherford's new oganization as well as his new gospel.

  I don't know of anyone, however, associated with the Watch Tower Society before 1914 who was expecting Jesus to return n 1914. Charles Taze Russell was certainly NOT expecting Christ to return in 1914. In 1876, Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had returned in 1874. Russell died in 1916 still believing that Christ had returned in 1874; he never mentioned any return of Christ in 1914. From 1904 onward, Russell was expecting the "time of trouble" to begin in 1914, which I believe it did, and we are still in that time of trouble, and may be in it for many years yet to come.

  Russell did not believe that Armageddon was to eternally destroy billions of unbelievers as Rutherford taught. Russell believed that the time of trouble was to chastise the unbelievers, preparing them to blessed by God's Kingdom. As I have stated in other threads, Russell's central message -- the ransom for all -- was almost the opposite of that later taught by Rutherford and the JWs.
• 
  205

  The Christian Onslaught

  by satinka in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  *sigh* i have been noticing lately there are a number of groups of "christians" signing up as members of this forum, with the obvious agenda of gaining converts for their own cult-like religions.

  i have been wondering things like:.

  hmmm...maybe i'll try ignoring them.. thank you simon for the space to vent.. satinka.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  It is actually the triune God of Athanasius and his co-horts that has to be formed with assumptions forumalted with the spirit of human imagination, and which assumptions have to then be added to, and read into, the Bible. The Bible no where at all presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as more than one person. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is ALWAYS presented as one person. The Bible always presents Jesus as the son of, sent by, and speaking for, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13-26; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1) The Bible no where presents Jesus as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

  The real Christian onslaught of delusion in the name of Christ had already begun in the first century. It was in the first century that many who professed Christ had already begun preaching "another Jesus".

  God has revealed his truths by means of his holy spirit through the apostles. The unipersonal God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by means of His holy spirit, especially led the apostles into all the truths concerning Christ and what he said, and thereby the faith was delivered to the saints in the first century. (John 14:26; 16:4-13; Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Timothy 2:2; Jude 1:3) The truths revealed to the apostles and made available to us are recorded in the Bible itself. (Ephesians 3:3-12; Colossians 1:25,26; 1 John 4:6) Of course, without the holy spirit, these things that are recorded will still be a mystery to us. — Mark 4:11; 1 Corinthians 2:7-10.
  
  Part of the truth revealed by means of the holy spirit was that there was to be an apostasy, a “falling away” from the truth of God’s Word, with strong delusions. (Matthew 13:24-30; Acts 20:29,30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3,4) This falling away had already begun in the first century, with some receiving a different spirit and preaching “another Jesus”; the apostasy was restrained for only a short while. (2 Thessalonians 2:7; 1 John 2:18,19; 2 Corinthians 11:4) The apostasy spread rapidly after the death the apostles and developed into the great “Man of Sin”, or more correctly “Insubordinate Man,” “Lawless Man”, or “Illegal Man”, a great religious system, which claimed to have the authority to add to God’s Word since their revelation was allegedly of God’s Spirit, and these revelations were claimed, in effect, to add more to the faith that scriptures say had once delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3) The central doctrine became the false teaching that Jesus had to be God Almighty in order to provide atonement for sins. With this spirit of error in mind, the writings of the apostles were totally reinterpreted by means of the spirit of human imagination and assumptions so as to accommodate the error, and many of the Hellenic Jewish philosophies were adapted and added to and blended in with the New Testament, even as the Jews had done with the Old Testament.
  
  Isaiah, in prophesying concerning the stone of stumbling (Isaiah 8:14; Romans 9:23) to both the houses of Israel (Romans 9:6,31; 11:7; 1 Corinthians 10:18; Galatians 6:16), warns us: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20, New King James Version) The “law”, of course, is what we call the Old Testament; the “testimony” of this prophecy is the testimony of the apostles, as given in the New Testament. This the way to test the spirits. (1 John 4:1) It is to these and through these scriptures that the holy spirit today gives true direction, and anything not in agreement with these scriptures is not of the light of the day. (John 11:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:5) In effect, any spirit that does not testify in agreement with what has been revealed is not of the light of new day.
  
  The distortion of who Jesus truly was and is — who while on earth before his death was only human, a little lower than the angels, who gave his flesh for the life of the world — is one of the greatest stumblingblocks to understanding the true Gospel revealed in scripture. Thus Jesus becomes a stumbling stone, not only to the house according the flesh which was corrupted from true doctrine (Israel after the flesh — Luke 13:25-28; Romans 9:30-33), but also the house which claims Jesus, which has also become corrupted from true doctrine through spiritual fornication. — Matthew 27:21-23; Revelation 2:13-15,20-24.
  
  esus, in becoming flesh, became a little lower than the angels, nothing more, nothing less, as the equivalent of Adam before Adam sinned in order to reverse effects of what Adam had done. (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6) In doing this, Jesus, being but a sinless man, nothing more, nothing less, by his obedience, never once falling short of the glory of his God, and by his overcoming all temptation to sin, thereby condemned sin the flesh, and through this means his God and Father could be found just, and yet at the same time the justifier of the sinner. (Romans 3:23,26; 8:3; John 16:33; Hebrews 2:9; 4:15; Revelation 3:21) On the other hand, the added-on philosophies that would exalt Jesus to the glory that only belongs only to the Most High, would, in effect mean that Jesus justified sin the flesh, and shown that for Adam to have obeyed the Most High, Adam would have needed to have been the Most High.

  Blessed be the [unipersonal] God and Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3.
• 
  25

  An in depth examination of THE PYRAMID nonsense of C.T.Russell

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in ancient times the easiest way to measure things was to use the most convenient measuring tools available that anybody could afford to own: your own body parts!.

  yes, you could use your own foot to measure "feet".. .

  you could use the width of your thumb to measure an inch (call it by whatever name you like.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  It is obvious from the comments being made that there has been no real "in-depth" examination of the study of the Great Pyramid, but only a few remarks given to mislead and influence others away from any actual "in-depth" study of God's Stone Witness in Egypt.

  In ancient times the easiest way to measure things was to use the most convenient measuring tools available that anybody could afford to own: your OWN BODY PARTS!

  Yes, Yahweh, of course, has no use for measuring things with body parts. Yahweh knew that diameter of the earth between its two poles. Although there is a general assumption that a cubit was originally the length of a person's forearm, there is no indication that Noah was told to use any part of his body for measurment.

  1.Had a unit of measurement accurate within one-ten millionth of an inch.

  Whether the ancient Egyptians knew of this measure or not is irrelevant, as God knew measurement of the earth. Evidently, the measurement was known amongst the Hebrews, and the Egyptians, having been descendants of Noah, would probably also know of the measurement. It would not be necessary, however, for either the Hebrews or the Egyptians to know the significance behind the measurment.

  2.Had knowledge of the earth's radius

  Again, no, the ancient builders did not need know of the earth's radius. God, of course, knows the earth's radius, and its diameter.

  3.Had the physical means to trim sandstone with one ten-millionth of that inch.

  Again, whatever "abilities" that were needed by the builders could certainly be supplied by the Creator of the earth.

  4.Erected a stone edifice whose SOLE INTENTION was to inform Charles Taze Russell that his Divine Plan of the Ages had the correct time alignment with history!!!

  This conclusion is obviously inaccurate, and is stated simply to leave one with a false impression, since the Great Pyramid displays much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, more than just a corroboration of the chronology that Russell adopted from Barbour, who, in turn, had adopted the chronology of Christopher Bowen. Russell himself, however focused on corroboration of the chronology by the measurements of the Great Pyramid. John and Morton Edgar presented a tremendous amount of other information.

  See the works of the Edgars:

  http://gp.reslight.net/?p=43

  See Charles Redeker's

  The Confirmation of True Bible Chronology
  http://www.biblestudents.net/library/truebiblechronology.pdf

  607 B.C.E. has as much scientific actuality as the Pyramid Inch of Charles Taze Russell.

  I believe the the phrase "pryamid inch" is misleading; I believe "earth inch" would be more correct. Many refer to this inch as the "sacred inch". Nevertheless, this "inch" did not originate with Charles Taze Russell. The discovery in recent times of this inch is usually attributed to Sir Isaac Newton, long before Russell was ever born. Nevertheless, Newton himself showed that this form of measurement was known long before himself.

  http://truthmatters.info/2011/01/25/sir-isaac-newton-the-25-inch-sacred-cubit-and-noahs-ark/

  Charles Taze Russell was forced out of necessity to use charts (Divine Plan of the Ages) and Great Pyramid speculations to PROVE his theology.

  No, I have absolutely no reason at all to think that Charles Taze Russell (or Barbour) was forced out of necessity to use charts (Divine Plan of the Ages) and the Great Pyramid to PROVE his theology. This is totally ridiculous! Russell did use the Chart of the Ages as a means to illustrate the various features of the God's Divine Plan as presented in the Bible. Was he forced out of necessity to do so? Absolutely NOT! The Chart of the Ages is simply an aid to help to the reader see an application of the scriptures to the various time elements of God's purposes.

  It was evidently Barbour, or someone associated with Barbour, who first presented the measurements of the Great Pyramid as corroboration of the Biblical chronology. Was Barbour forced out of necessity to use them? Absolutely NOT! He already had an abundance of evidence from the Bible itself.

  Russell adopted Barbour's conclusions in the year 1876; over the years Russell rejected some of Barbour's conclusions, but not the overall chronology. The GP, however, is only a very, very, very, very small amount of the evidence supporting the chronology.

  What most people don't know is that after he got the approval, Russell CHANGED his computations and printed the Thumb's Up AS THOUGH the new figures had been reviewed.

  See:
  http://mostholyfaith.com/bible/volumes/C10.asp

  I have no reason to think that the text sent to Smyth did not contain the same text as appeared in the Studies. I could not find any verification that the text sent to Smythe was different from the text that appeared in the Studies.

  I assume that this is concerning the measurement given by Russell of the floor of the descending passageway, since all of the other measurments are the same as that of Smyth. As far as I know, Smyth had the text in which Russell wrote concerning the descending passageway, and that text was what originally appeared in the THY KINGDOM COME.

  The problem concerning the decending passageway was that Smyth did not take a measurement of the floor, but of the ceiling. A floor measurement could not be taken since the passageway was filled with debris. Probably Barbour or Russell, or someone else associated with them, tried to use Smyth's ceiling measurements and project those measurements down to the floor. It was not until 1909 that the debris was removed and an actual measurement of the floor was taken.

  It was not until 1905 that Russell changed his understanding of the measurement as given for the descending passageway. Of course, Smyth had died a few years earlier, and he could not be consulted concerning that change. It appears that Russell, or someone associated with Russell, had come up with evidence of a different measurement for the floor of the descending passageway. Russell sought to the correct this in the 1905 edition of THY KINGDOM COME; he failed to note, however, that the letter from Smyth would not apply to the new calculation, and such a thought probably never crossed his mind.

  Indeed, in 1904 Russell changed his viewpoint concerning the beginning of the time of trouble. He had before 1904 thought that the time of trouble was to end, not begin, in 1914, which thought he had adopted from Barbour. In 1904, he adopted the view held by some of his associates that the time of trouble was to begin, not end in 1914. Although a few changes were made to reflect that 1904 change of view in the Scripture Studies, no exhaustive overhaul of the Studies was ever attempted, so that, unless one is aware of the history, some statements in the Studies as he left in them in 1916 may seem to be confusing to some.

  Many have made much ado over this, and evidently either being ignorant of the situation, or deliberately desiring to mislead others, have misepresented this matter, leaving the implication that Russell was willfully misleading others.

  See:

  1904 and Russell's Changes in the Studies in the Scriptures
  http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=692
• 
  68

  Charles Russell's Last Days

  by lovelylil in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this link contains a play by play of russell's last days including why and how he was found dead in a toga made from sheets.

  thought some may find it interesting.. http://www.gtft.org/biblestudents/pastorrussellslastdays.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  I am a Bible Student; I believe it probable that Sturgeon misunderstood and misinterpreted what Russell requested, and in his mind interpreted what Russell said in the manner as he presented it. I personally feel that Russell was probably very cold and was simply seeking some way to wrap his body so as keep from feeling so cold.

  I have also suspected that Sturgeon may have been influenced in his report by Rutherford.

  Although Russell had been dead for only a few weeks, the December issues had already begun to insidiously emphasize "organization", although not many of the Bible Students at that time understood the implications of such statements, nor to what end such statements would lead.

  I do not know that this is true, but, if one reads closely what Sturgeon wrote, much of what he has written are his conclusions about what was happening just before Russell died, not necessarily what Russell himself was thinking.

  Worship of Russell:

  If anyone is actually worshiping Russell, whether ourwardly or in the heart, then that one has failed to understand what Russell presented, and by their worship of Russell would be denying what Russell taught, which would be a self-contradiction if such a person was claiming to believe in what Russell taught.

  Russell spoke on this in 1910, when, in the context of speaking concerning those who find Brother Russell in the scriptures, and who were preaching Brother Russell, he stated:

  I do not find it there. Some of them say that I am blinded on that subject, that they all can see better than I can. Perhaps they can, I do not know, but I think, dear friends, that there is a danger in that direction, and I would like to put you all on guard. I think it is the Lord's will that we should recognize every agency God uses, but we are not to recognize any agency of God as being in any competition whatever with the Lord or with his divine arrangement. He is the fountain of blessing, he only is most to be praised. I think that is the right sentiment. I believe you all agree with that. And yet I think there is a danger of some dear friends preaching Brother Russell. Brother Russell would like for you not to do so.

  He thinks it would not be to the glory of God. Let me repeat, then, dear friends, that in my opinion we have so much of the Gospel of God, so much of his plan to study, so many opportunities of showing forth his praises, that we should employ all our time in that way. My advice, therefore, is that we give very little attention to anything outside of that.

  The Scriptures do indeed say that we may render honor to him to whom honor is due, and that is applicable to anybody and everybody; as, for instance, we look back and we see Martin Luther, and he did a grand work, and we thank God for him; and we might say the same of John Wesley, and very truthfully; I am glad in God's providence he lived, and that he was a faithful man. And there were others of the Lord's people in the past. Let us be glad and rejoice in every one, and be thankful to God he has used various agencies in helping us, and in helping others, and in bringing forward his great cause; but let us not go into anything that would be at all like man-worship, for I am sure that would be displeasing to the Lord and injurious to ourslves. I remind you again of the Scripture in Revelations where the Church is pictured, which we called attention to, I believe, thirty years ago. John, the revelator, who was seeing these things, fell down to worship the angel who showed them to him, and the angel said, 'See thou do it not; worship God; I am thy fellowservant.'

  And so, dear friends, if our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Lord have used Brother Russell in any measure he is very glad and very thankful to be used. And if the Lord is pleased to use him any more, he will be glad to be used down to the last breath, but he does not want any worship, he does not want any undue adoration, he does not want any praise. He is glad to have the love of all those who are brethren of the Lord and to be considered a fellow-servant with all, striving to bring to pass all the glorious things that God has promised, striving to tell the good tidings of great joy to as many as the Lord, our God, shall call.

  -1910; ("Convention Report Sermons", pg. 125) http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/russell/crs.pdf

  My own thoughts pertaining the the faithful and wise servant:

  http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=127
• 
  86

  Here's PROOF that Charles Taze Russell Was NOT a Pennsylvania Freemason

  by AndersonsInfo in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  no, charles taze russell was not a pennsylvania freemason!.

  this is the answer i received in a letter: .

  "after a search of our records, we determined that the three russell's were not members of our organization.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  That symbol is the Egyptian Sun God RA, who is associated with Horus. No one has ever even tried to explain to me what this symbol was doing on the front cover of jw literature at the time they were supposedly "chosen" by Christ. to represent God on earth.

  The Egyptians, having the spirit of perversion, perverted much symoblism of the Hebrews for use in their idolatry. -- Isaiah 19:14.

  Russell, who was never a member of the JW organization, chose the special symbolization of the sun disk with wings to represent several scriptures, especially that of Malachi 4:2.

  http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=322
• 
  19

  FREEMASONS and Pastor Russell

  by satinka in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  speaking of the supernatural... if you do not already fully understand the beginning and development of the freemasons you might want to watch this 2005 series of videos (each about 10 minutes or less):.

  i realize many of you already know that pastor russell who birthed the jws was a freemason.

  so i thought you may find this of interest.. satinka.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  Yes, there are many who, by use of their imagination and assumptions, have assumed that Charles Taze Russell was a member of the freemasons. Actually, the tens of thousands of pages that have been produced from his works attest that he was not a member of that organization.

  http://ctr.reslight.net/?feed=rss2&cat=3
• 
  68

  STOP being naive - the time has come to use your PRIMAL SENSES

  by Dogpatch in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  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".
• 
  68

  STOP being naive - the time has come to use your PRIMAL SENSES

  by Dogpatch in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  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.

  The World Will See Me No More — John 14:19
  http://prophecy.reslight.net/archives/12.html

  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.
• 
  47

  Charles Taze Russel nephew of William Huntington Russell

  by truth.ceeker in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  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.
• 
  47

  Charles Taze Russel nephew of William Huntington Russell

  by truth.ceeker in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  reslight2

  

  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:

  Russell's Expectations Concerning 1914