DanaBug stated:
=================
It's my understanding that Russell taught 1914 would be the end of the gentile times and the start of armageddon, not the beginning of the gentile times. I also thought Russell's teaching on that wasn't changed until the 30s. What you quoted kind of jumbles it all together. The first sentence is what Russell originally taught but leaves out that he thought Jesus had already returned in 1874. The second sentence is what the teaching was later changed to. But that "time of trouble" as JWs understand it now is different than what Russell taught it would be, precisely because what he taught didn't happen.
-----------------
Yes, you are correct; in 1876, Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that 1914 would be the end of the times of the Gentiles; at least from 1904 onward, Russell believed that 1914 would be the the start of Armageddon (the time of trouble). I don't know of anyone who thought that 1914 would be the beginning of the Gentile Times.
Rutherford, however, in 1923 (Watchtower, pages 307-314), introduced alleged "new light" that virtually rejected Russell's view of Armageddon (and his view concerning the "ransom for all"), for Rutherford claimed that the judgment of the sheep and goats takes place before the blessings were to begin, and that the goats, even though they had never been englightened with the truth, would go into the second death without receiving any benefit at all from the ransom for all. He sought to defend his alleged "new light" in the Watchtower of 1924, pages 381,382. Although he continued for several more years to speak of Adam and all his descendants as being ransomed by Jesus, at the same time he began to make exceptions, claiming that many who had never been spirit-begotten have come under the condemnation of the second death. He claimed, contrary to what Jesus himself stated, that those Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus were condemned to the second death, and thus will be not raised. He claimed that many -- especially religious leaders -- would be eternally destroyed in the second death before the millennial blessings would begin.
He also began to use the threat of second death as a rod to beat his fellow-servants into subjection, claiming, in effect, that any who did not side with him would possibly go into the second death.
It is true that in the 1920s, he had not yet developed his new gospel of woe for most people of the nations to the extent as he did in 1930s; nevertheless, by 1930 he had already brought forth many applications of scripture that limited the gospel, the glad tidings of great joy for all the people, as the Bible Students had been preaching it. Little by little, Rutherford introduced 'new light' in almost every issue of the Watchtower as he endeavored to find ways to boslster claims for his "organization" dogma. He introduced his "new light" concerning the wheat and tares, and "new light" regarding the Jesus' prophecy of Matthew 24; he applied prophecies concerning Israel to his new organization; he slowly molded everything to the point of either being of God's organization (in effect, all who agreed with him) versus Satan's organization (in effect, all who disagreed with him).
During Russell's days, the congregations of Bible Students were what some call autocratic, and each congregation was independent in their service of God through Jesus. The did not have a central governing body. Even when many elected Russell as pastor, Russell refused to use that office to bring the independent congregations under subjection. However, especially between 1925 to 1928, Rutherford sought to fully separate from his organization all who refused to accept his organization, as he sought to bring all the independent congregations into subjection to himself. Many thousands of Bible Students were either disfellowshiped by Rutherford's representatives, or else they willingly and officially withdrew their support from Rutherford, and his new "organization" dogma. The Society's own records show that, by the year 1930, the greater majority of the Bible Students had rejected Rutherford's new organization.
In the February 1, 1938, issue of the Watchtower, page 35, Rutherford gave his own summary concerning his coming to the understanding of Armageddon:
=======
Not until 1925 was “the time of trouble” Scripturally understood. The Watchtower in
its issue of January 1, 1925, forcefully stated for the first time that the “time of trouble” would be the battle of the great day of God Almighty, led by Christ
Jesus against Satan and all his forces, resulting in complete triumph of the Lord. In the May 1, 1925, issue of The Watchtower there appeared the article “For the Elect’s Sake”, showing the relationship of God’s servant class on earth to the great time of trouble upon the world and why and by what means it is shortened or “cut short”. Then followed the publication of the article “One Reason for God’s Vengeance”, December 15, 1927, Watchtower, further elucidating this matter. All this information was given out to the public by means of radio speeches, and by
other discourses and by books. The Lord revealed to his people the meaning of the parable of the sheep and the goats, showing how the “sheep” only would be spared by Jehovah when his wrath is expressed at Armageddon.
---------end of quote
In 1931, having separated his new organization from the general Bible Students movement, and in order to distinguish his organization from the general Bible Students movement, he had his new organization take the name "Jehovah's Witnesses." Having fully separated his organization from the Bible Students, he now could bring forth his new dogma without much hinderance.
He proclaimed that the "great multitude" are the "other sheep" and the sheep of the parable of the sheep and goats; he claimed that these were typed by Jehonadab, and that these must come to "Jehovah's organization" for refuge. Thus the gospel was changed further by this, since the message was no longer a call to reach the goal of perfection for the high call, but rather to become of the "other sheep" in his organization, that they may escape destruction in his new idea of Armageddon. In 1934, he presented his organization as the antypical cities of refuge into which the other sheep must come for refuge during Armageddon. (Watchtower, August 15, 1934, "His Kindness - Part 2", beginning on page 243) A distinction was being drawn between 'the remnant" of the "little flock" and the "other sheep", thus bringing for the "two-tier" class distinction that exists to this day amongst the Jehovah's Witnesses.
In 1938, Rutherford plainly denied the very basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, when he denied that Adam was covered by the blood of Jesus. (Watchtower, March 1, 1938, pages, 69,70) In effect, this would mean that the condemnation upon Adam could not be covered by the ransom sacrifice. But he then claims that condemnation upon Adam came be upon all of Adams descendants, but that they could be covered by the ransom sacrifice of Jesus. He does not seem to see the the self-contradition in this; if he did see the self-contradiction, he simply glossed over it as though it were not there. Rutherford's explanation, in effect, says two contradictory things: that the condemanation upon Adam cannot be covered by the ransom sacrifice, and that the condemnation upon Adam can be covered by the ransom sacrifice. In effect, Rutherford's explanation would have one condemnation upon Adam and a totally different condemnation upon the descendants of Adam, but with the self-contradictory claim that the descendants of Adam had the condemnation upon Adam upon them.
See:
Adam and the Ransom Sacrifice
http://atonement.reslight.net/archives/167.html
In the same year, Rutherford gave his discouse on "Fill the Earth", in which he set forth plainly what he thought of all who would not be in "Jehovah's organization" at Armageddon, definitely denying the ransom for all. The substance of that discourse was printed in the Watchtower, October 15, 1938, "Fill the Earth", beginning on page 397. The discourse may be found online at:
http://www.archive.org/details/FillTheEarthByJudgeRutherford
The 1938 Watchtower (and much more) may be downloaded from:
http://www.archive.org/details/WatchTowerBibleandTractSocietyofPennsylvaniaWatchTowerpubs_0
reslight2
JoinedPosts by reslight2
-
52
Camping tells all tonight!!
by moshe inyes, 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..
-
-
reslight2
-
52
Camping tells all tonight!!
by moshe inyes, 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..
-
-
reslight2
In my post a few minutes ago, I stated:
At first I could figure who was being referred to as Jonas Swendahl.
This should have read: At first I could NOT figure who was being referred to as Jonas Swendahl.
-
52
Camping tells all tonight!!
by moshe inyes, 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..
-
-
reslight2
This forum is not set up to automatically bring quotes forward with who stated what as most forums provide; perhaps I should has shown that the first quote from Refriedtruth on page two of this thread. Reading it back, and can see how it could be confusing if one is not aware that the first quote was not my words, but the words of the poster that I was responding to.
-
52
Camping tells all tonight!!
by moshe inyes, 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..
-
-
reslight2
Here's something a Presbyterian pastor wrote that links William Miller, CT Russell, and Camping. I might have got it from this board too, can't remember. But thanks if that was you! I'm passing around on fb and reddit anything that links the JWs with Camping. Spread the embarassment!
Let us see what is said there about Charles Taze Russell:
Another group that tried to hold to the 1844 date was led by Jonas Swendahl and was known as the Second Adventists. They believed that 1844 marked not the date of Jesus' return, but of the beginning of the last generation. Swendahl taught that Jesus would therefore return in 1874.
One of Swendahl's followers was a former Presbyterian named Charles Taze Russell. When 1874 came and went, he concluded 30 years was not long enough for a generation. So he added 70 years to 1844 and concluded that Jesus would return in 1914. This and other differences led him to split from the Second Adventists and launch Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence. His followers became known as the International Bible Students, and they went about the country with the message, "Millions now living will never die!" Followers were to leave their churches and fellowship together. All churches were considered apostate, but God had provided a new channel for their instruction, Zion's Watchtower Tract Society.
What began as the International Bible Students has become the Jehovah's Witnesses. The date of 1914 was changed to 1925, 1941, and 1975. What began as calling Christians out of their churches to prepare for Christ's return has become an anti-Christian cult. I believe we are seeing something similar attempted today.At first I could figure who was being referred to as Jonas Swendahl. None of the encyclopedias mention such a person. But then I thought that maybe the person meant if Jonas Wendell. If so, Russell never became a follower of Jonas Wendell. He was influenced by Wendell to examine the Bible, but Russell never did accept Wendell's explanation regarding the world being burned up. Russell met with a Bible Study group who came to some conclusions that were very different from that of Wendell's.
Russell's own words:
I have been a Bible student since I first had my attention called to the second coming of our Lord, by Jonas Wendel, a Second Advent Preacher, about 1869, who was then preaching the burning of the world as being due in 1873. But though he first awakened my interest on the subject, I was not a convert, either to the time he suggested nor to the events he predicted. I, in company with others in Pittsburgh, organized and maintained a bible class for the searching of the Scriptures, meeting every Sunday.
We reasoned that, if Christ’s coming were to end probation, and bring irrevocable ruin upon ninety-nine in a hundred of mankind; then it could scarcely be considered desirable, neither could we pray with proper spirit, “Come, Lord Jesus, Come quickly!” ( Revelation 22:20 ) We had rather request — much as we should “love his appearing” — that he remain away and our sufferings and trials continue so that “if by any means we might save some.” ( 2 Timothy 4:8 ; 1 Corinthians 9:22 ) Not only so, but great masses of scripture referring to the Millennial glory and teaching that “All nations which thou hast made shall come and worship before thee,” &c., &c., would be left unfulfilled if at His coming there should be a wreck of matter and a crush of world. — Psalm 22:27 ; 67:2 ; 72:11 ; 86:9 ; Isaiah 2:2 ; 25:7 .
We first saw Millennial glory — then the glorious work which is offered us as His Bride; that we are by faith the “seed of Abraham;” and as such, heirs of the promises, &c., in whom “all the families of the earth shall be blest.” (Galatians 3) This most certainly points to a probation in the future after He has come. Thus, speedily, steadily and surely God led us to recognize the second coming of our Lord as being not the sunset of all hope to mankind, but the “rising of the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings.” — Malachi 4:2
The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs, who, both by word and pen, gave us much assistance; but we ever sought not to be followers of men, however good or wise, but “Followers of God, as dear children.” ( Ephesians 5:1 ) Thus growing in grace and knowledge for seven years, the year 1876 found us. — 2 Peter 3:18 .
Up to this time we persistently ignored time and looked with pity upon Mr. Thurman’s and Mr. Wendel’s ideas. (The latter was preaching the same time as Bro. Barbour; viz: The burning of the world in 1873.) We regarded those ideas as unworthy of consideration, for though we believed the event “nigh even at the doors,” yet we recognized the fact that the church will be withdrawn — translated — before there would be any open manifestation to the world, or, in other words, the two stages of Christ’s second advent, viz: coming for his saints, and coming with all his saints. — Mark 13:29 .
About this time [1876] I received a copy of the “Herald of the Morning,” Bro. B. was its publisher; I read with interest how he and others had been looking for (to use his own expression) “a bonfire”; how scriptural arguments pointed to the autumn of 1874 as the time it was due; how that as the disappointment connected therewith began to abate, he and others had re-examined the scriptural proofs that appeared to teach that the end of the world was due at the time supposed; how clear and firm all those proofs still seemed; etc.; how that then, they began to examine what was due to take place at the end, and found that instead of a bonfire, scripture taught that “The harvest is the end of the world” (or age), and that though the age ended, the earth remained and a new age unfolded in which “All the families of the earth shall be blest.” — Matthew 13:39 ; Genesis 12:3 .
Thus, it was not until 1876 that Russell accepted, not Jonas Wendell's views, but that of Barbour and his associates. Before 1876 Russell did not believe anything concerning either 1873 or 1874. However, I do not know of anyone who was claiming that Christ would return in 1874. Barbour certainly did not think such. If Wendell ever preached such an idea, Russell certainly never "followed" Wendell in preaching such an idea. Russell, in the year 1876, about two years after 1874, accepted that Christ had returned in 1874, and he continued to believe that until his death in 1916. Russell never said one word about the return of Christ in 1914.
Russell considered Wendell his friend, but Russell was never a "follower" of Wendell's views. Wendell died in 1873, the very year that he expected Christ to return and the planet earth was to be burned, eternally destroying millions of earth's inhabitants. So what are we to make the statement on the website:
When 1874 came and went, he concluded 30 years was not long enough for a generation. So he added 70 years to 1844 and concluded that Jesus would return in 1914.
It is not clear if "he" in "he concluded" means Jonas Wendell, or if means Charles Taze Russell. As "he" is used in a later sentence, it seems to be applying it to Russell. Either way the statement if false. Wendell was not even alive in 1874, and in the year 1874 Russell did not hold to any belief concerning 1874 at all. Russell never accepted the date 1874 until after it had passed, about two years later. As yet, however, I have not found any writings of anyone that was associated with the Second Adventists groups nor with the Bible Students movement that -- before 1914 -- had believed that Christ was to return in 1914. I know Russell never taught such an idea; why would he? He believed that Christ had returned in 1874.
Barbour did present several lines of scriptural evidence that 1914 would be the end of the times of the Gentiles, but he never said anything about Christ returning in 1914. Russell's accepted those scriptural lines of evidence in the 1876, but he also never mentioned anything about Christ returning in 1914.
Although Russell, being a non-sectarian, did have association with some of the Second Adventists, he never joined any of the Second Adventist churches. He certainly never accepted the prevailing view amongst Second Adventists that the planet earth was going to destroyed, and that all who died then outside of Christ would be eternally lost. Indeed, the main reason that Russell split with Barbour was over the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
It was Rutherford, not Russell, who introduced the slogan, Millions Now Living Will Never Die. This was in connection with his idea that in 1925 would see the ancient worthies raised back to the earth in that year, and that foretold blessings would begin in that year. In doing this, Russell set aside much of Russell's teachings and reapplied the Jubilee cycles to have them come out in 1925. The majority of the Bible Students did not accept this new teaching, although many of them did not officially break off association with Rutherford at that time. However, once it became fully apparent that Rutherford was creating a sectarian religious organization with a gospel that, in effect, denied the ransom for all (the central doctrine of the Bible Students), the vast majority of the Bible Students refused to accept the authority of Rutherford's new organization.
Russell believed that man's self-appointed orthodoxy was apostate, and he viewed all sectarianism and denominationalism to be of Babylon. Such sectarianism and denominationalism was indeed not approved Jesus or the apostles, and such is apostate, a form of falling away.
In his sermon on "St. Peter's Keys", Russell stated:
I hold, and few, if any, will dispute it, that the one catholic or universal or general Church of Christ is the one mentioned in the Bible — “the Church of the First-borns, written in Heaven.” If this be admitted, my next proposition is that the Lord in Heaven records as members of His true Church all the saintly — whether Roman Catholics, Anglican Catholics, Greek Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. — and none others.
Have we not here the one Church, the Catholic Church, the universal, the only Church which the Bible recognizes?
While Russell did indeed recognize that there had been an apostasy resulting in sectarian denominationlism, at the same time he believed that God's people could be found amongst these various denominations. However, he did not believe that their being a member of this or that denomination was what saves them. He stated in his sermon on "But One Church of the Living God":
Only those in all denominations who have conformed to the conditions required of Christian discipleship, the saintly ones, constitute the True Church — “The Church of the First-born, whose names are written in heaven.” — Matthew 7:21 ; Hebrews 12:23 .
Russell did believe that the denominational "churches" would be destroyed; God is definitely not going allow such divisive sectarianism to continue into that age to come. Satan will be abyssed, and there will be no more deceptions amonst the nations during the world's coming judgment day. (Revelation 20:3) Russell did not, however, believe that this destruction of sectarianism meant that the members of those churches would be eternally destroyed. He believed that such destruction would free true Christians in those denominations from such sectarianism, so that they could see themselves as belonging only to God through Jesus. He believed that most in the denominations, however, are tares, false Christians. He also believed that the destruction of such sectarianism, after they would have their false identity as Christians figuratively burned up, would eventually lead them to accept Christ in truth. Once Satan is abyssed, there will be no more deceptions upon the nations, including those tares who are presently deceived and who claim to be Christian, but who are at heart Christian.
See what I have written on sectarianism:
http://bstudents.reslight.net/sectarianism
It was Rutherford, not Russell, who introduced the "sole channel" of communication dogma.
I may come back to this later...
-
52
Camping tells all tonight!!
by moshe inyes, 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..
-
-
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*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.
-
-
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 inin 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.).
-
-
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:
See Charles Redeker's
The Confirmation of True Bible Chronology
http://www.biblestudents.net/library/truebiblechronology.pdf607 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.aspI 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 inthis 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.
-
-
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:
-
86
Here's PROOF that Charles Taze Russell Was NOT a Pennsylvania Freemason
by AndersonsInfo inno, 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.
-
-
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.
-
19
FREEMASONS and Pastor Russell
by satinka inspeaking 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.
-
-
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.