Regardless, there is no evidence at all that Russell was a member of the Freemasons (except what has to imagined and assumed) and there are tens of thousands of pages of Russell's works that overwhelmingly prove that he was not in agreement with the goals of the Freemasons or the Knights Templar. Indeed, his belief that the trinity doctrine is man-made and denies the ransom sacrifice would exclude him from being a member of the Knghts Templar, for belief in the trinity is required to be a member of the Knights Templar. Russell, however, seemed to confuse the Masons and the Knights Templar as being one and the same, which would mean, from his mistaken view, that he would assume that all Masons professed to be Christian, and as he did with Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and members of many other denominations, he referred to them as "brethren". This does not mean that he agree with such organizations, but it did conform with his view that true Christians may be found amongst all the various professed Christian denominations and organizations.
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.
-
-
-
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
*lost* stated:
Yes, I have read it before. Aside from the blankets.
he requested a Roman 'toga' be made for him.
he looked like he was clothed in a shroud as he died.
All I can say is that it is claimed that Sturgeon reported that Russell asked for a Roman toga. He may have, I don't know; the point is that any kind of religious signficance concerning such would have to be assumed and read into the request. The alleged "Roman toga" that Russell is alleged to have asked for consisted of two sheets, one in front, one in back, attached to each other over his shoulders. This just sounds to me that Russell was simply trying to find someway to warm himself more comfortably than the former methods tried.
-
11
If Jesus is Michael, then why would he be afraid of Satan?
by Pronger1 injude 1:9 shows that michael didn't dare rebuke satan.
if jesus is michael, then why would he be afraid to do so?
in matthew and mark it clearly shows that the demons were afraid of jesus..
-
-
reslight2
I am not with the JWs, but the belief that Jesus is Michael is not of itself a WT doctrine. Practically all of the Protestant reformers believed that Jesus is Michael.
I have present most of the reasons that I believe Jesus is Michael on my website.
http://jesus.rlbible.com/?page_id=5295 -
11
If Jesus is Michael, then why would he be afraid of Satan?
by Pronger1 injude 1:9 shows that michael didn't dare rebuke satan.
if jesus is michael, then why would he be afraid to do so?
in matthew and mark it clearly shows that the demons were afraid of jesus..
-
-
reslight2
There is nothing in the Bible that says that Michael was afraid of Satan.
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling [Greek, Blasphemia, blasphemy] judgment [Greek, krisis] upon him, but said, “[Yahweh] rebuke you.” — Revised Standard Version.
But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, “May [Yahweh] rebuke you!” — World English Bible translation
But Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses; he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, “Let [Yahweh] rebuke you!” — Literal Translation of the Bible, Jay Green.
http://jesus.rlbible.com/?p=2966#jude1-9 -
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
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 -
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.