I agree with RR in that when I first saw the site, I wondered how it could be called the "official" site concerning Russell. Several years before that site went up, I started a subsection on my website about Charles Taze Russell, and was trying to think of something to put in the title that would distinguish it from the many anti-Russell sites. At that time, the only Bible Students site online that I remember was the Chicago Bible Students, but if remember correctly, there wasn't much on it. I could not find any site that was in defense of Russell, and thought of putting the word "official" in the name of the site as a distinguishing word, but decided not to use that since I felt that only Russell himself could actually authorize someone to designate a site as "official" regarding him, and I did not wish either to leave the impression that I was claiming the authority to speak for Russell. At any rate, while I believe that there is a lot good info on the "official" site, there are also some things I disagree with and/or that I at least question.
reslight2
JoinedPosts by reslight2
-
4
The brainwashing knows no bounds.........Russell defended in every way!
by iknowall558 incharles taze russell - official website.
-
-
-
15
What's the Deal with "Pyramid Inches"?
by cameo-d in.
why did russell count them?.
does the pope count them, too?.
-
-
reslight2
[[[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.)
The distance between your outstretched middle finger and your nose would be a yard.
That's how it works. It was called a RULE OF THUMB for this reason.
But, no two people had the same sized body parts. You needed a standard.
You would standardize these measurements by taking the King's body parts and using HIS proprietary measurements and making them the fixed certainty by which all other things would conform. That is why it is called A RULER. (King=Ruler, get it?)]]]
Man's creator is not subject to any of the above. Nor was the knowledge we might attribute to the people when the Great Pyramid was constructed of that great of importance as it is the Creator's knowledge that is of importance.
-
15
What's the Deal with "Pyramid Inches"?
by cameo-d in.
why did russell count them?.
does the pope count them, too?.
-
-
reslight2
[[The Pyramid represents the organization of the illuminati and the powers of the darkness. ]]
Are you suggesting that the so-called illuminati had the Great Pyramid constructed to match many things in the Bible before the Law was even given to Moses? If the Great Pyramid is of the powers of the darkness then it would follow that the Bible is of the powers of darkness.
-
15
What's the Deal with "Pyramid Inches"?
by cameo-d in.
why did russell count them?.
does the pope count them, too?.
-
-
reslight2
Many are misled by the term "pyramid inches." More correctly, it is earth inches.
-
78
Challenge to board:I know the one problem with JW's & Christians in one word.Do You?
by chapstick in -
-
reslight2
What does the nickname Jehovah have to do with the Trinity? Actually the original name for God was EL. The Jehovah's Witnesses are just quirky Christians.
There is only one "holy name" of God in the Bible, and it is the name that he had from the very beginning. "EL" is not his name; "EL" (meanging, strength, might) is a generic word that is used of other persons and things as well as a title for the Creator, Yahweh (Jehovah).
Can anyone here tell me where the Trinity can be found in the Bible (specificly)? It Is there you know.
Look as one may, one will not find anywhere in the Bible anything about a triune God. THINK!!! What do the scriptures say, and what is being imagined in the spriit of human imagination, assumed, added to and read into what the scriptures say? The Creator God is immediately distinguished in Genesis 1:2 as one person, and He is continously presented as one person, and not once as more than one person, all the way through the Bible. In the expression, "spirit of God," does the word God (Elohim) mean three persons? Many trinitarians claim that ELOHIM, being a plural form (actually a plural intensive form), means "persons," and thus allege that "God" as rendered from ELOHIM is speaking of all three of their alleged persons of their alleged triune God, while at the same they most often claim that "spirit" in Genesis 1:2 is referring to their alleged third person of the trinity. Does the narrative present "God" as three persons, or one person? If "God" means, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit", this would mean then, "the spirit of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit." In effect, according to this line of reasoning, the third person of the alleged trinity belongs to all three persons of the alleged trinity, including belonging to the alleged third person of the alleged trinity. Most trinitarians point to Genesis 1:2 as evidence of the third person of their triune God, claiming that the word "spirit" there refers to that alleged person of the their alleged triune God, without realizing the self-contradiction such an assumption brings upon the scripture.
The story of the Trinity is right there in the Garden of Eden also.
There is no story of a triune God in the Garden of Eden, or anywhere else in the Bible.
Also, anyone who says that Russell wasn't a Mason doesn't know what a Mason is. He was a Mason. Why would anyone not want to be a Mason?
Anyone who thinks Russell was a member of the Freemasons organization is totally blind, or nearly so, to what Russell taught and believed. It is downright ludricrous to think that Russell spent most of his life preaching a message contrary to, and which would actually be sabotaging, what he is supposed to have believed in. The tens of thousands of printed pages that have been produced from his works attest that he was not a member of the Freemasons.
-
18
Paul Samuel Leo (Levitsky) Johnson ...
by snowbird in... aka p s l johnson was made to look the villain in the 1975 yearbook of jw's.. i've done research and found out that he resisted rutherford to the bitter end.
he referred to rutherford as "that usurper", and was ousted from bethel.. he seems to have been a fanatic who idolized c. t. russell; his impassioned eulogy at russell's funeral borders on deification.. is that why rutherford hated him so much?.
p s l johnson was founder of the laymen's home missionary movement.. sylvia.
-
-
reslight2
I have studied much of Johnson's works extensively. He had a brilliant mind, and was well trained in both Hebrew and Greek. In this he was a valuable aid to Charles Taze Russell before Russell died. Johnson was, however, absorbed with seeing himself or his particular movement (after Russell died) in types. (Rutherford did this also with the his organization, but not to such an extent as Johnson.) Johnson also claimed that he was to be the "last member" of the "World's High Priest" to be raised in the first resurrection when he died. (He died in 1950, and his successor, Raymond Jolly, declared that there were no more members of the 144,000 left on earth.) Except for these areas, and his determination to have to the high calling ended in 1914-1916, and some other things, there is also much I appreciate in his works. He did present some background history of what happened in Bethel after Russell died and some good refutations of Joseph Rutherford's new doctrines in a book he called "Merariism," the title based on another his application of types. He presents a lot good information in his books, "God", "Creation", "The Millennium," "The Bible," "Christ-Sprit-Covenants," although I do not agree with all he wrote in those books. I have most of Johnson's books and many of his writings, some of which I find beneficial on the more basic teachings that Bible Students general share in common, but the bulk of his work was, I believe, wasted on trying to "convert" Bible Students to his way of thinking, and to accept him as the "Ephiphany Messenger", trying prove himself and his movement in types, etc., which, in turn, produced a form of sectarianism which still exists to this day.
-
14
Help! I have a pyramid/1914 question?
by keeshondgirl indoes anyone know when the watchtower society stopped believing that they arrived at 1874 and 1914 as results of russels measurements of the pyramid ?.
how long was it that they believed their pyramid idea before they used their twisted bible dates to 'prove' that jesus's enthronement wasn't based on a pyramid measurement?.
-
-
reslight2
Actually, the 1874 date was based on the 1335 days prophecy of Daniel, the "double" parallels, and the jubilee cycles. 6,000 years from Adam's creation, according to Barbour/Russell's chronology, does not end in 1874, but rather in 1872 (or using the whole year method of years from fall to fall, the beginning of 1873). Russell allowed two years from Adam's creation to his disobedience, which he believed happened 6,000 years before 1874.
Neither Barbour nor Russell replaced 1874 with 1914, as many on the internet have claimed, since Russell believed -- until his death -- that Christ had returned in 1874. Rutherford also for many years after Russell's death taught that Christ had returned in 1874 until about 1928 or 1929, about whch time he began to claim that Christ had returned in 1914, and began using the 1335 days and the other days of Daniel as alleged proofs of events related to his new organization.
-
14
JWs... You are not unique! take a look at this. My research
by Aussie Oz inin my research i have decided to go waaaay back.
so, one of the first things i did was look at the beginnings with regard to charles taze russell.. while this may be old news to many, this is indeed new to me.
and i want to tell this to the jws that are no doubt on here too.. you are an adventist sect.. without posting the expanded (very long) version of my research, i will post the basics that lead me to this conclusion.. how unique are jehovahs witnesses?
-
-
reslight2
There are four religions that essentially believe the same stuff as Jehovah's Witnesses with very slight variations.
Associated Bible Students, Dawn Bible Students, Christadelphians, and Second Day Adventists. The only other one that can be loosely called the same would be Seventh Day Adventists.
The variations between the Bible Students groups and the Jehovah's Witnesses could hardly be called "slight." The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that millions of unbelieving men, women and children will be eternally destroyed in the "great tribulation" or the battle of Armageddon. The Bible Students do not teach that idea at all, but rather believe that all unbelievers who are dying in Adam will be blessed with the resurrection of the unjust in the last day due to the ransom for all. The JWs rejected the 'ransom for all' and replaced it with a doctrine that basically says: "join us or be eternally destroyed." Charles Taze Russell considered the doctrine of the ransom for all as being the central doctrine in understanding how Jesus' death provides salvation for all.
"Second Day Adventists" seems to be a psuedo name often given to the "Second Adventists." I have not been able to verify that there ever was a group that called themsevles "Second Day Adventists." I cannot think of any scriptural reason for any group to call themselves "Second Day Adventists," except that in a general sense, one could speak of the entire period of man's history from the creation of Adam as a "day", and the "day" of when the world is to blessed by the seed of Abraham as a "second day." While I don't know of any group who adopted such a name, I have seen many refer to the "Second Adventists" by adding the word "Day" in the middle, possibly because of the denominational name "Seventh Day Adventists" is used as basis, and the word "Day" has been added to correlate the Second Adventists as having a similar name.
-
30
FRAUD at the proper time: Watchtower swindle and GB nonsense
by Terry infood at the proper time?
there is a huge difference between an opinion and a false teaching.. what if it could be unambiguously demonstrated that a teaching is not merely opinion but a false religious view passed off as absolute truth in the name of a higher authority?.
would that not be fraud?
-
-
reslight2
3. 1846 marked the fulfillment of prophecy in having Jesus cleanse the Sanctuary (having arrived invisibly).
Russell's study on this may be found at:
http://agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/htdb0099.htm
Another Bible Student has written a follow-up on this:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/treatises/The%20Cleansing%20Of%20The%20Sanctuary.htmThere are some aspects I disagree with the two presentation above, but overall, I am in agreement.
I not sure what is meant by the idea that Jesus arrived in invisibily in 1846, as I could not verify any such thought as being presented by Russell.
Ronald R.
-
30
FRAUD at the proper time: Watchtower swindle and GB nonsense
by Terry infood at the proper time?
there is a huge difference between an opinion and a false teaching.. what if it could be unambiguously demonstrated that a teaching is not merely opinion but a false religious view passed off as absolute truth in the name of a higher authority?.
would that not be fraud?
-
-
reslight2
Again, it appears to be assumed that this is a false teaching; as far as I know, there has never been such a meteor shower as that one since.
http://agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/htdb0118.htm
Russell was not the first to make such an application, and there were many other authors saying the same thing; however, nor was he presenting the matter as the primary fulfillment of the prophecy, as can be seen from his study on this. It is the symbolic fulfillment that Russell emphasized, not the physical.
Russell stated in the Foreward of that book: "All Christian people credit the book of Revelation to our Lord, as St. John does. (Rev. 1:1) Therefore we are not responsible for the symbolism used in that book. There are so many ways in which one might be misunderstood, even by good Christian people, that we naturally feel a delicacy about expressing our views. As we proceed to set forth our understanding of the symbols of the Revelation, we wish to state most emphatically that we are saying nothing whatever against godly Christians anywhere, at any time, whether in any church or out of any church.... As we present our interpretations of the symbols of Revelation, we realize that the Word of God conveys a very terrible arraignment of some of the great systems of our day-- some that we have long reverenced and esteemed, that we have thought contained many who are godly in word and in deed. Let us, therefore, clearly distinguish between individuals and systems. We say nothing against the godly individual, but in the interpretation of the Word of God what we have to say is merely in respect to these systems."
I personally would only suggest that the meteor shower was a possible fulfillment, while I would view the symbolic fulfillment to be of much great weight.
Ronald R.