Russell already had a blanket, which had been wrapped around him, but that was not satisactory. See Menta Sturgeon's report:
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1916DEC.asp#Z360:11
reslight2
JoinedPosts by reslight2
-
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
-
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
Sturgeon had reported, before he claimed that Russell asked for a Roman toga, that he could not understand what Russell was saying, and he also reported that Russell was trying to find some way to keep warm; Russell indicated that he wanted two sheets, one on the front and one on the back, fastened together over his shoulders. Sturgeon claimed that Russell had asked for a "Roman Toga"; in view of the earlier reported efforts of Russell trying to find a way to keep warm, I believe that either Sturgeon may have misunderstood Russell, or that if Russell did ask for a Roman toga, he was simply asking for some way to keep his body warm. I highly doubt that he was trying to make some kind of statement by asking for Roman toga.
As far as the Knights Templar are concerned, they claim that they are not actually connected to the earlier "Knights Templar".
At any rate, the way it has been explained to me by several different Masons is that one can be a member of the Freemasons without joining the Knights Templar; one can be a member of the Freemasons without professing to be a Christian, but one does have to profess to believe in God, defined as the Supreme Being. Thus, at least theorectically, one could be a Jew or Muslim, or even a deist, and become a member of the Freemasons. An atheist, however, cannot join the Freemasons. Nevertheless, to join the Knights Templar (as it is today, not the old Knights Templar of several centuries ago), one has be a member of the Freemasons, and additionally one has to profess to be Christian, and a believer in the trinity. Thus, a Jew or a Muslim cannot join the Knights Templar, even though he may be a member of the Freemasons, except that he should become a Christian. Several of the Knights Templar I have spoken with have claimed that they, being Christian, had simply adopted the cross and crown symbolism from the traditional churches.
Russell, in his writings, seemed to confuse the Knights Templar and the Freemasons as being one and the same thing; however, I have come across many people who seem to think the same thing.
-
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
The imagination of the gossipers and witch hunters can continue to find one imagined "evidence" after another that Russell was a member of the Freemasons. The words, and actions, and work, of any person can, if one keeps trying to find some way to so, be twisted to sometimes mean almost the very opposite of the reality.
Russell did, at times, make use of Freemasons' terminology, not to condone or promote the Freemasons, but simply to illustrate some similar terminology used in the Bible.There is nothing at all on Rutherford's pyramid monument however, that is, of itself, of the Freemasons. I do not believe that Russell knowlingly used anything that promoted any Freemason symbolism; since he admitted that the photos used in the Photo-Drama came from many different sources, it may have been that some them did come from people who were, or who had been at one time a member of the Freemasons. The Biblical symbolism of the cross and crown is not exclusive to the Freemasons (actually the Knights Templar -- not all Freemasons use that symbolism). NOTE: to be accepted as a member of the Knights Templar, I have been told that one has to believe in the alleged Christian trinity-- Russell did not believe in the trinity.
Nevertheless, anyone who has actually studied Russell's works know that he did not spend almost his entire life, his time and money, preaching a doctrine contrary to what he is often alleged to have actually been supporting, evidently by preaching a doctrine contrary to what he actually was supporting. Most, however, who make these allegations do not actually know what Russell taught, nor why he taught what he taught, although they may think that they do know what Russell taught.
http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?page_id=2055 -
21
Who's the biggest WT villian? Russell/Rutherford/Knorr/Franz?
by Las Malvinas son Argentinas inmine is rutherford.
the bible student movement of russell was badly splintered after the usurpation and was destined to fade away like the other russellite movements.
then judge joe decides to rebrand with 'jehovah's witnesses' and concieves of many different schemes designed to put his people into danger and gaining publicity for a sect that no one really thought about any more.
-
-
reslight2
As for Russell, he was a part of the original deception, and despite being proven wrong on so many things he stubbornly stuck to his belief that he was right.
What is "the original deception"? I have proven to myself from the Bible that Russell certainly had very little wrong.
Rutherford to me took the crazed prophecies of Russell
Despite Rutherford's claim that Russell was a prophet, Russell disclaimed being a prophet, and disclaimed that his expectations were to be considered as "prophecy"; thus, Russell never gave any prophecies at all.
By the early 1930s, Rutherford, however, in his zeal to find support in prophecy for his "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma, had rejected most of Russell's studies of Bible prophecy and replaced them with his own. By 1928, more than 75% of the Bible Students had rejected Rutherford's "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma and related dogma. Contrary to what the WTS has claimed, the Bible Students did not "go out of existence." They still exist to this day.
Russell, however, never presented his studies as being infallible, nor did he insist that all the Bible Students had to agree with his conclusions. Indeed, there were several different theories amongst the Bible Students movement concerning chronology and time prophecies even in the days of Russell. Russell humbly refused to accept authority over the local congregations; each congregation and individual was free to either accept or reject anything Russell (or anyone else) might present. -
21
Who's the biggest WT villian? Russell/Rutherford/Knorr/Franz?
by Las Malvinas son Argentinas inmine is rutherford.
the bible student movement of russell was badly splintered after the usurpation and was destined to fade away like the other russellite movements.
then judge joe decides to rebrand with 'jehovah's witnesses' and concieves of many different schemes designed to put his people into danger and gaining publicity for a sect that no one really thought about any more.
-
-
reslight2
Las Malvinas son Argentinas posted (5/7/2013):
The Bible Student movement of Russell was badly splintered after the usurpation and was destined to fade away like the other Russellite movements.
The Bible Student movement has continued to exist to this day. It has never faded away.
-
78
Another Lie/Revisionist History in todays WT study!!
by BU2B ini caught yet another revisionist history deception in todays wt lesson.. .
here is a quote from paragraph 4 of the 2/15/13 study edition.
"decades before 1914, jehovah's worshippers declared to the nations that the end of "the appointed times of the nations" would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.".
-
-
reslight2
ADCMS: lost- it wouldn't matter if reslight knows that already or not. He asserted earlier in this thread that Russell considered chronology and time prophecies as "non-essential" and really didn't talk about it that much in WT literature. Reslight totally dismissed the quotes I posted earlier plainly showing that Russell was very definite about his chronologies and viewed them as "god's dates". Reslight instead presented a Straw Man argument, and said at least Russell didn't force anyone to accept his views. I'm fully aware of this...and I never brought it up. Reslight uses diversionary tactics to avoid answering questions and acknowledging information he's uncomfortable with.
Again, this does not address any of the facts I have presented, and continues to elude actually acknowledging the facts. I did not "dismiss" any of the quotes, but showed that none of them were actually "dogmatic", but rather were expressions of Russell's own firm convictions; and yes, Russell did indeed definitely believe in the chronology and his conclusions regarding time prophecies. I also definitely believe in them, but if anyone else cannot receive this chronology and/or the conclusions concerning the time prophecies, like Russell, I will not be dogmatic as to judge that person as not being a Christian, or that such a person should disfellowshiped, or otherwise condemned. The fact is that Russell stated that he was not " dogmatic " in his views.
Russell, himself, showed what he considered "essential", and he did not include acceptance his study of chronology and time prophecies to be "essential".
The Scriptural idea of unity is upon the foundation principles of the Gospel. (1) Our redemption through the precious blood, and our justification by demonstrated faith therein. (2) Our sanctification, setting apart to the Lord, the Truth and their service--including the service of the brethren. (3) Aside from these essentials, upon which unity must be demanded, there can be no Scriptural fellowship; upon every other point fullest liberty is to be accorded, with, however, a desire to see, and to help others to see, the divine plan in its every feature and detail. -- — The New Creation, page 240.
AndDontCallMeShirley stated:
Reslight2 also stated that he doesn't really believe Russell actually measured the pyramid at Giza, even though Russell travelled to Egypt twice and wrote a book about it- a book, incidentally, that discussed chronology and time prophecies in great detail. But, don't think about that too much- reslight2 doesn't either. Reslight believes Russell spent a lot of time and money travelling to Egypt just to have a photo taken of himself holding a big stick in his hand.
I could not verify that Russell visited Egypt twice; I could verify that he visited Egypt in his Around the World Tour of 1912. Russell did not just visit Egypt and/or the Great Pyramid; he visited many other countries around the world. Russell's entire report of that trip to the Great Pyramid made be found at: http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/CRS/1912a.asp#CR258:7
Russell did not write a book about the Great Pyramid itself; he did write one chapter in one book -- Thy Kingdom Come -- about the God's witness in Egypt. Most of the information contained in that chapter had already presented by Nelson Barbour long before Russell wrote THY KINGDOM COME in 1890. Barbour based his study on the measurements provided by Piazzi Smyth. Russell wrote two books on time prophecy, but only one of them has one chapter on the Great Pyramid.
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/volumes/index.asp#vol2
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/volumes/index.asp#vol3
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/barbour%20pyramid.htmNevertheless, Russell's trip to Egypt took place AFTER he had written the chapter in the book in 1890; the measurements given in the book were based on measurements taken by Piazza Smyth, as Russell stated in the chapter itself. The chapter from the book, Thy Kingdom Come, was also put in a limited edition of The Divine Plan of the Ages, but Russell never wrote a entire book devoted to the Great Pyramid.
http://archive.org/details/TheDivinePlanOfTheAgesAndTheGreatPyramidThe Edgar brothers (John and Morton), on the other hand, did go to Egypt and took many measurements of their own and published several books on their work regarding the Great Pyramid. Again, this was after Russell had written his book that has a chapter on the Great Pyramid, and after the change made in the 1905 edition of that book related to the floor of the descending passageway, which no one had actually measured until the Edgars cleared the debris so that it could be measured.
http://www.rlbible.com/binfo/?p=328
http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?p=48
AndDontCallMeShirley stated:Reslight confuses his beliefs as fact, and you'll not make a dent with him.
And still, the verifiable facts I have presented have not been addressed, but rather they have again been evaded.
-
78
Another Lie/Revisionist History in todays WT study!!
by BU2B ini caught yet another revisionist history deception in todays wt lesson.. .
here is a quote from paragraph 4 of the 2/15/13 study edition.
"decades before 1914, jehovah's worshippers declared to the nations that the end of "the appointed times of the nations" would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.".
-
-
reslight2
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/250786/4/Another-Lie-Revisionist-History-in-todays-WT-study *lost* stated:
Reslight
Have you seen the Creation Drama slides ? The Egyptians named/worshipped Adam as the first Pharoah ( I didn't know this ) then russel was there researching it.
Yes, I am aware that Russell presented many things such as the above that corroborate the Bible record, and that shows that all races have a common origin.
1874 + 40 = 1914
(somebody above mentioned the war was in the pipelin for 40 yrs before the outbreak . then I realised, combined 1914, not sure if it relevent.)
regards lost
I don't know of anything that would be relevant in this. May God bless.
-
78
Another Lie/Revisionist History in todays WT study!!
by BU2B ini caught yet another revisionist history deception in todays wt lesson.. .
here is a quote from paragraph 4 of the 2/15/13 study edition.
"decades before 1914, jehovah's worshippers declared to the nations that the end of "the appointed times of the nations" would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.".
-
-
reslight2
AndDontCallMeShirley
reslight-
I've provided many quotes and article citations which show your claims are not as tenable as you think they are. You've provided none. You make claims without substantiation. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, saying the same things over and over ad nauseum, does not make it true.
I have many more quotes that debunk your various positions, but decided against posting them as it would do no good.
Although I have seen many things asserted, as yet, I have seen no response that addresses the facts I presented and/or provided links for. All I have seen is methods used to ignore what I have presented. Nevertheless, since the above is non-specific, I am not sure what to reply to. It would seem to imply that I am wrong about something, but it does not say what that is, and it certainly does not address any of the facts I presented.
AndDontCallMeShirley
You are entitled to your opinions, I respect that, and I have no real need to convince you of anything.
I'll conclude with a quote that is very apropos to this discussion:
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
- Carl Sagan
That's quite a good quote; many will tenaciously hold to what they wish to be correct, and will ignore all facts to the contrary.
Should one still believe that Russell changed the ending of the Gentile Times to October of 1915, despite the facts that show that he did not?
http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?p=139Should one still believe that the change on page 99 of The Time Is At Hand took place in 1915, as a result of an alleged failure of 1914, rather than either in 1911 or before, even though the facts show that it was there at in the 1911 edition?
http://www.rlbible.com/ctr/?p=1556Should one still believe that Russell presented his conclusions concerning Bible chronology as "dogma" that was mandatory that all Bible Students should believe, even though his own writings show that he did not do this?
http://ctrussell.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/infallibility/Yes, one can present many statements wherein he affirms his firm belief in the chronology and the dates, but one can also find many statements wherein he states something like:
The Apostle John shows us that this matter of distinguishing as between brethren that are to be esteemed and brethren that are to be warned, appertains not merely to conduct but also to doctrinal matters. Yet we may be sure that he does not mean that we are to disfellowship a brother merely because of some differences of view on non-essential questions. We may be sure that he does mean his words to apply strictly and only to the fundamentals of the doctrine of Christ: for instance, faith in God; faith in Jesus as our Redeemer; faith in the promises of the divine Word. These will be marks of a "brother," if supported by Christian conduct, walking after the spirit of the truth;--even tho the brother might have other views which would differ from ours in respect to certain features of the plan of God not so clearly and specifically set forth in the Scriptures. But for those whom we recognize as being doctrinally astray from the foundation principles of Christ, the Apostle intimates that very drastic measures are appropriate;--not persecutions, nor railing; not bitter and acrimonious disputes; not hatred, either open or secret; but a proper showing of our disfellowship with the false doctrines held and taught by them; a proper protection, so that our influence shall not be in any manner or degree used to uphold his denial of the fundamentals of the Gospel. This drastic course is outlined by the Apostle in these words: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [confessing Christ to have come into the world, in the flesh, to redeem our race, etc.] receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds." --2 John 10,11. -- Watch Tower, July 1, 1902, page 199.
And,
Those who cannot receive this interpretation are entirely welcome to have as their own any better interpretation, or none at all, as they see fit. Indeed, we might remark that this is true of all that we write. Hence, should any cease to see eye to eye with us, they have full right to their own opinion, without any need for a quarrel with us. If they find new and better light our sentiment towards them is, God bless you. We are glad if you have something that will do you more good than that which we present. -- Watch Tower, July 15, 1909, page 219.
And,
We answer, as we have frequently done before in the DAWNS and TOWERS and orally and by letter, that we have never claimed our calculations to be infallibly correct; we have never claimed that they were knowledge, nor based upon indisputable evidence, facts, knowledge; our claim has always been that they are based on faith. We have set forth the evidences as plainly as possible and stated the conclusions of faith we draw from them, and have invited others to accept as much or as little of them as their hearts and heads could endorse. Many have examined these evidences and have accepted them; others equally bright do not endorse them. Those who have been able to accept them by faith seem to have received special blessings, not merely along the line of prophetic harmonies, but along all other lines of grace and truth. We have not condemned those who could not see, but have rejoiced with those whose exercise of faith has brought them special blessings--"Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear."
Possibly some who have read the DAWNS have presented our conclusions more strongly than we; but if so that is their own responsibility. 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.
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1907OCT.asp#Z294:9
May God bless. In due time, the truth will prevail before all, and all will know the truth, but not as long as Satan is still allowed to deceive.
-
78
Another Lie/Revisionist History in todays WT study!!
by BU2B ini caught yet another revisionist history deception in todays wt lesson.. .
here is a quote from paragraph 4 of the 2/15/13 study edition.
"decades before 1914, jehovah's worshippers declared to the nations that the end of "the appointed times of the nations" would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.".
-
-
reslight2
AndDontCallMeShirley stated:
wulf said: Wow it's quite interesting to read a Bible Student well versed in Russell etc (@reslight2).
ADCMS: REALLY ?!!!
A few reslight quotes:
The "change" spoke of above evidently actually took place in 1911 edition
Yes, since I do not have an 1908, 1909, or 1910 edition, and I do have a 1911 edition, I cannot be certain that the change did not happen before 1911, thus, I say "evidently". By saying "evidently", I do not mean that I do know that the change is shown in the 1911 edition; that is a verifiable fact, since a scan of the 1911 edition is available from archive.org. Not having seen any 1908, 1909 or 1910 editions (if there were such), I cannot say for a certainty that the change did not take place before 1911, thus I say "evidently."
AndDontCallMeShirley stated:
it has been speculated that the change may have been made without Russell’s authorization
Which does not do away with the fact that the change did appear in 1911 edition, and that it does indeed not correspond with Russell's statements in the context, and that it does not agree with Russell's statements in the pages of the WT and elsewhere in 1911.
AndDontCallMeShirley stated:
one could conclude that Russell may have changed this
I does not matter about this; this does not do away with the FACT that the change is in the 1911 edition; it does not do away with the FACT that the change does NOT agree with the context; it does not do away with the fact that the change does not agree with what Russell was saying in the pages of the WT and elsewhere in 1911.
None of the short statements quoted of me changes the facts -- they appear to be given simply to turn attention away from the facts; the change appears in the 1911 edition, and thus the change was not because of any alleged failure of 1914. Indeed, Russell was in September of 1916, a few months before he died, still affirming his belief that the Gentile Times ended in 1914, not 1915.
It still seems clear to us that the prophetic period known as the Times of the Gentiles ended chronologically in October, 1914. The fact that the Great Day of Wrath upon the nations began there marks a good fulfilment of our expectations.... We see no reason for doubting, therefore, that the Times of the Gentiles ended in October, 1914.
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1916SEP.asp#Z264:2
It should be self-evident, that regardless of how or who or what caused the change in the 1911 edition of The Time Is At Hand, Russell never stopped believing and teaching that the Gentile Times ended in 1914; he never changed his teachings to say that instead of the Gentile ending in 1914, that they will end in 1915.
he died in 1914
Proves I am not perfect and can hit the wrong key.
.evidently Russell did not wish to go into the details at that time
Russell, at that time was taking 'the back seat' to Barbour; Barbour did go into the details in showing that the time of trouble, according to his understanding, had begun in 1874. Russell later presented some of those details; at first, he accepted Barbour's conclusion that the time of trouble had begun in 1874; later, he came to the conclusion that time of trouble had not yet begun, but that it would come sometime before 1914; and finally, in 1904, he became convinced that the time of trouble could not begin until the Gentile Times had ended.
Nevertheless, had Barbour never rejected the scriptural basis for the ransom, Russell would never have felt the need to start another magazine. Indeed, the biggest reason that Russell started The Watch Tower was to defend the atonement, the substitute, that Christ provided to pay the debt of sin and the wages of sin -- death.
-
78
Another Lie/Revisionist History in todays WT study!!
by BU2B ini caught yet another revisionist history deception in todays wt lesson.. .
here is a quote from paragraph 4 of the 2/15/13 study edition.
"decades before 1914, jehovah's worshippers declared to the nations that the end of "the appointed times of the nations" would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.".
-
-
reslight2
AndDontCallMeShirley stated:
reslight2 said:
Many world leaders and military officers anticipated a major war starting in Europe prior to 1914. It was a matter of "when", not "if" it would happen.
I am not sure what this is based on. I learned in college that in 1913, the general consensus of most people was that there was NOT going to be any more wars.
ADCMS: Then you need to read more reslight2!! In fact, 40 years before the outbreak of WW 1, many saw it coming. I'm not going to give you my documentation or sources for this. If you care to know the answer, go look it up, just as I did!! I did not refer to "the general consensus of most people" as you do- I stated that political and military officials, persons actually aware of developing circumstances, were noting an impending major war. The "general consensus" is generally unaware and uninformed, so of course they thought everything was wonderful. Experts in-the-know thought differently.
Can you show me where I can find the documentation for the above? There may have been political and military officials some 40 years before the outbreak of WW 1 who were expecting an impending major war; indeed, if I remember correctly, many treaties were being signed to prevent such from happening.
To virtually anybody alive in the vibrant early years of the 20th century, nothing would have seemed further away than war.
http://www.theglobalist.com/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=4290
It is ironic that statements before the war foresaw a time of lasting peace, perpetual advancement and an unceasing march toward utopia. Europe believed it lived a charmed life. War was a thing of the past. The new technological advances would usher in a period of unequalled prosperity.
http://www.jewishhistory.org/coming-of-the-great-war/
Moreover, as Europe had enjoyed nearly three decades without a major war, there was a widespread belief that war was a thing of the past, not of the future.
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/industrial-slaughter-and-war-the-march-of-progress/
This conforms to what I was taught in college; that the European and many other world leaders thought that all their treaties and trade agreements made war unthinkable, and thus, near to impossible.