Posts by reslight2

13

Arguing with a Russellite

by Lunatic Faith in

jw
friends

i posted a blog yesterday regarding some of the occult images used by the watchtower society.

i got an interesting response today from an apparent russellite.

i have never run into these people so i was surprised at his vehement defense of russell.

reslight2

Russell, up until a year before he died, was still preaching against sectarianism. As late as 1915 (just before his death in 1916) he was teaching the following:

The Lord in Heaven records as members of His true Church all the saintly - whether Roman Catholics, Anglican Catholics, Greek Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians, etc. -- and none others.
Have we not here the one Church, catholic, universal, the only Church which the Bible recognizes? In the past we have been too narrow and have supposed that God was as narrow as ourselves. It was on this account that Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists persecuted and were persecuted, each thinking itself the true Church. Are we not all getting broader conceptions of our God and of His Church? Do we not see that we were mistaken in calling the outward organization the Church of Christ instead of remembering that the Lord alone writes the names of the Church, that He alone reads the hearts, that He alone is the Judge, and that He alone has the right to blot out the names of reprobates?
St. Paul wrote against sectarianism, already manifest in his day-some saying :"I am of Paul"; others, "I am of Peter"; etc. The Apostle asks, "Is Christ divided:" (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)

The above was printed in Bible Students Monthly, Volume 7, Number 9 (1915), Under the title, "The Catholic Church -- St. Peter's Kingdom Keys." It was reproduced in the Chicago Bible Students publication: Harvest Gleanings Volume 1.

http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2008/09/xf01-catholic-church.html

We have the tens of thousands of pages that have been produced from the works of Russell that provide overwhelming testimony that Russell was not a Freemason. He plainly stated: “I have never been a Mason.”

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=763

He did employ some terminology from the Freemasons and many others to provide illustrations of various things taught in the Bible. There is no doubt in my mind that Russell was not a member of the Freemason organization. Indeed, no one has presented any proof whatsoever that Russell lied when he said, "I have never been a Mason." What is often presented is what has been conjured up in the spirit of human imagination. Overwhelming evidence in his writings that he was not a Mason; zero evidence that he was Mason.

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=3

Most of Russell's works may be found online:

http://mostholyfaith.com/

http://agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/start.htm

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/bsllinks/Russell.htm

http://biblestudents.net/htdb/

13

Arguing with a Russellite

by Lunatic Faith in

jw
friends

i posted a blog yesterday regarding some of the occult images used by the watchtower society.

i got an interesting response today from an apparent russellite.

i have never run into these people so i was surprised at his vehement defense of russell.

reslight2

I am not a Russellite; I am a Bible student. I cannot imagine a truly consecrated Christian Bible student threatening to sue anyone who posted anything that the Bible student disagreed with.

http://ctr.reslight.net

79

Do you think Witnesses would drink the "Cool-Aid" if told to do so...like Jonestown?

by Witness 007 in

jonestown 1970's, jim jones brainwashed his 900 member cult into committing mass suicide by drinking cyanide cool-aid.

only three escaped.

{the smart ones} one man hid under a building....another escaped into the jungle while armed guards dragged another member to get injected by force.

reslight2

Anyone considering joining the religion of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or current members of this group, are generally unfamiliar with its early history, the beliefs and practices of its founder Charles Taze Russell and to a lesser extent Joseph F. Rutherford. The Watchtower Society goes to great lengths to distance itself from Russell and his teachings as they are now considered anathema, and bizarre. The foundational tenets of the faith are so different from today's religion that the Russell-era organization is virtually unrecognizable.

There is indeed a great deal of difference between the Russell-era non-authoritarianism and the organization that Rutherford created after Russell died. Russell did not believe in any such authoritarian organization as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Russell did not believe in the Armageddon dogma preached by the JW organization. The JWs reject the very basis of the central doctrine that Russell taught -- the ransom for all.

Much of the old doctrine has been thrown out and would be condemned as seeped in the occult and clearly pagan today, and for good reason, because such conduct and beliefs are unscriptural and prohibited. Harsh words, no doubt, but facts speak for themselves and explain to a great extent some of today's questionable doctrine and practices. Try as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, there is no escaping their occult pagan past. Potential converts are forewarned and are advised to study these issues carefully. Below are numerous websites devoted to exposing the Jehovah's Witnesses' deep connection with the occult and its pagan origins.

From the perspective of the JWs, much that Russell taught would indeed be considered pagan. Russell himself, however, did not believe in the occult.

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=599

This documented historical connection with the occult is evident in several ways. Russell relied heavily on astrological predictions and signs of the zodiac.

Since Russell did not rely at all on astrological predictions, or the signs of the zodiac (as in astrology), the above statements are false.

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=301

Many of Rutherford and Russell's false predictions were calculated based on alignment and measurement of ancient Egyptian pyramids relying in essence on the powers of the occult.

The study of God's Stone Witness in Egypt (not "ancient Egyptian pyramids" [plural]) as a verfication of the Bible has nothing at all to do relying on the essence of the power of the occult. Russell did not rely at all on the "powers of the occult".

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=14

A small pyramid was erected next to Russell's grave as a memorial to his life and work. The satanic All-Seeing Eye of occult worship adorns Russell's memorial pyramid

Rutherford did have a small replica of the Great Pyramid constructed in the center of the WTS plot of the Rosemont Cemetery. As far as I have determined, the orginal plans did not call for any "all-seeing eye" symbolism. If there is an "all-seeing eye" on the topstone, it may have been etched there later. Although I have no found any place that Russell ever used the all-seeying eye symbolism, the symbol represents Yahweh's all-seeing eye, and of itself, is not Satanic or occultic. Of course, the Bible itself has been perverted for occult and Satanic use; this does not mean that the Bible itself is of occult worship or Satanic.

Rutherford's pyramid monument was indeed constructed in honor of Russell, but not for him only; it was to honor all who died while working at the WTS headquarters. There are many names inscribed on that monument, not just Russell's name.

arly Watchtower publications incorporate Masonic symbolism to a great degree.

In a very, very, very, very few instances, Russell employed some things he had learned about the Masons (he was not always correct, however, in what he thought to be Masonic rituals, etc.) to illustrate various things concerning the only secret society he believed in, the church of Christ. Russell did not, however, incorporate Masonic symbolism as many often think he did. The Cross and Cross symbolism he employed had nothing at all to do with the Freemasons, for instance.

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=168

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=3

Furthermore, the Divine Plan of the Ages, an early Watchtower book, is adorned with the Winged Sun Disc, an Egyptian religious symbol of pagan origins and false worship.

Although the Egyptians perverted the use of the symbolism of the winged sun, the Bible uses the symbolism. Russell had a graphic designed that would reflect what the Bible says; again the symbolism itself is not of pagan origins, any more that the symbolism of the sun in the Bible is of pagan origins. The sun itself is not of pagan origin.

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

11

The Solon Association!

by Atlantis in

do you remember this?-(credit goes to farkel)-http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/77218/1/russell-the-man-russell the liar .

charles t. russell lied several times in court during his divorce proceedings.

he did this to try to hide from the fact he had yet another business enterprise going right there at watch tower headquarters!

reslight2

Regarding Russell's first testimony concerning the Solon Company, I believe that at the time he really did not remember anything about it. The Solon Company only existed for a very short period of time and was a failure; its goal was to provide funds for the ministry of the Watch Tower Society. Russell had a lot of things on his mind in between that would have overcrowded the significance of the name that had been chosen for a company that no longer existed, and which, with the many other ongoing activities that were much higher in significance, the name "Solon" became a faded memory.

This same thing has happened to me regarding things I have said, people I have known, etc., and this if often the case with people who have high levels of mental activity. I have seen similar events happen with account executives who have so much on their mnds that something they considered relatively insignificant had become totally forgotten until someone else refreshed their memory.

29

Judge Rutherford steps off a curb, is struck by a truck and dies.....

by Terry in

pastor charles taze russell died on a train outside pampas texas in october of 1916.. shortly afterward a phonecall was placed to j.f.rutherford that "the old man is dead.".

as we all know, rutherford wasted no time.

he engineered a series of moves that placed himself at the helm of a publishing company.

reslight2

I believe that "what if" concerning historical happenings cannot ever be adequately addressed. God is not unaware of anything that is happening, and absolutely nothing can happen that he does not, at least, permit, or allow to happen. The Bible Students' movement was becoming, even before Russell died, a sectarian movement. Divisions and secta have always exsited in the Christian congregation. The apostle Paul wrote of such exsiting in the first century. Although he stated that this should not be, he stated: " there must be also factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you." (1 Corinthians 11:19) Thus, God allows divisions and sects so that those whom he approves may be revealed. Not that they are made known publicly and by carnal recognition. But they reveal themselves to God so as to be approved by God. Man, however, even most of those who belong to Christ, continue in the mode of carnal thinking, and remain as babes in Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:1) It would appear from the carnal standpoint that we should seek to establish the church with some human authority to control it, so that there may be a united front. It was this kind of thinking that Russell often preached against, although I must admit, at the same time he seemed to not recognize that such an attitude was developing within the Bible Students' movement itself. Perhaps he believed that, since the church would soon no longer be in the flesh, that it was not important to speak out against such, although he did more or less quietly speak out against it, as in a meeting of the Pilgrims, Elders, and Deacons during a convention in 1910.

http://mostholyfaith.com/bible/CRS/1910a.asp#CR125:1

He published his sermon on " The Catholic Church -- St. Peter's Kingdom Keys" in 1915 in the Bible Students Monthly, which shows that he still did not condone sectarianism.

http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2008/09/xf01-catholic-church.html

Nevertheless, God is proving his people, not by what "group", or "sect", or "denomnation", or "movement", that they associate with, but by their association with, and obedience to, the one whom He sent to die for us. Indeed, sectarianism, despite how much other considered "truth" is otherwise being upheld by any group, often leads one to fail in obedience to Jesus in loving one another, since the sectarian attitude often would restrict that commandment to their own particular group,

See:

http://bstudents.reslight.net/sectarianism

34

Brooklyn Bethelites under evacuation order due to hurricane Irene.

by koolaid-man in

jw
friends

http://southbrooklynpost.com/news-views/bloomberg-evacuates-low-lying-brooklyn/attachment/hurricane-map-brooklyn/.

.

reslight2

The WTS moved to Brooklyn in 1908 just after the first split from the WTS by PSL Johnson regarding Russell's change in the New Covenant teaching.
****
In 1905 Paul S. L. Johnson, one of the traveling "Pilgrim" speakers and a former Lutheran minister, pointed out to Russell that his doctrines on the New Covenant had undergone a complete reversal.

====

Paul S. L. Johnson never had a split with Russell over the New Covenant. When Rutherford became president, Johnson did have a split with Rutherford due to Rutherford's usupation of power, and his many misleading and/or false statements being made concerning Russell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_S._L._Johnson

163

The Trinity

by The Quiet One in

i have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.

what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?

i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?

reslight2

Post 767 of 772
Since 9/2/2010
@GOrwell
The divinity of Christ can't be denied. John 1:18 indicates this fact in the NWT more than any other version.

I am not with the JWs, and I rarely use the NWT. I do not, however, believe that the Bible ever reveals Jesus to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I do believe that the Bible does reveal the divinity of Jesus, but that is another matter. Jesus' possession of the quality of divinity does not make Jesus to be Yahweh any more than the angels who also possess the quality of divinity.

http://godandson.reslight.net/archives/19.html

No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. — World English.

No one has seen God at any time ; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. — New American Standard.

It should be apparent that if John did refer to the Jesus as theos in this verse, it is not the same sense as “Theos” that no man has seen. Also, does “God” in reference to Jesus, speak of Jesus as a man, or as his allegedly being God Most High? Applying the assumed “dual nature” theory to this verse ends up with an apparent self-contradiction, for it would end up having Jesus as being allegedly God Most High making known the Most High God, not the human Jesus making known the Most High God. To illustrate this, let us replace the references to God with “the Most High”:

New American Standard: No one has seen [the Most High] at any time; the only begotten [Most High] who is in the bosom of the [Most High], He [the Most High] has explained [the Most High].

I have written more on John 1:18 at:

http://godandson.reslight.net/archives/1272.html

163

The Trinity

by The Quiet One in

i have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.

what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?

i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?

reslight2

When one adds to the scriptures that Jesus is Yahweh, this does not dispell confusion; indeed it causes confusion. The Bible is very simply and straighforward without adding the confusion of a dogma that would make Jesus into being the God of Jesus. Indeed, not only does the idea that Jesus is Yahweh add confusion to the Bible, it would be in contradiction to the very Biblical basis of the redemption that comes through Jesus.

http://godandson.reslight.net/archives/45.html

Was it not Yahweh, the unipersonal God of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who raised Jesus up as a prophet like Moses, and who anointed Jesus, making Jesus to be both Christ (anointed one) and Lord? -- Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-22; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36; 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2.

In Acts 2:36, is Jesus identified as the God of the Old Testament? Does "God" there not mean the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as shown in Acts 3:13-26? In Acts 3:13-26, is Jesus identified as the God of the Old Testament; does not "God" in those verse refer to one person who is not Jesus, but rather as the unipersonal God of the Old Testament who raised Jesus as the prophet like Moses? In Hebrews 1:1,2, does it not say that just as the God of the Old Testament spoke through prophets, so the God of the Old Testament speaks to us through His son? Jesus is not identified as the God of the Old Testament, but rather he is identified as the Son who is sent by the God of the Old Testament, who speaks for the God of the Old Testament, and who tells us of the unipersonal God of the Old Testament. -- 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 .

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

Who is "God" that no one has seen? Is it three persons? Or is not one person, who is the God and Father of Jesus? Should it not be obvious that in saying that Jesus came to declare "him" -- that is God -- that John was using the word "God", not of Jesus, of the One whom Jesus came to declare, that is, the God and Father of Jesus? Jesus came to declare the unipersonal God of the Old Testament; he did not come to declare himself as being the God of the Old Testament.

http://godandson.reslight.net/archives/1272.html

163

The Trinity

by The Quiet One in

i have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.

what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?

i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?

reslight2

Jesus, in his original begettal, was indeed of the same "nature" as his Father, that is spirit, with the gloryof a spiritual body. This does not mean that there are two who have the glory or nature of being the Most High. Jesus will never have the nature of being the Most High. He will always the son of the Most High, but he will never be the Most High, nor will he ever be equal to the Most High, of whom he is the son. Jesus will never possess the glory or nature of being the Most High that only belongs to the Most High. -- Isaiah 42:8; 48:11; Luke 1:32; 1 Corinthians 15:27,28.

163

The Trinity

by The Quiet One in

i have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.

what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?

i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?

reslight2

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods [mighty ones}?'

John 10:35 If he called them gods [mighty ones], to whom the word [Logos] of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken),

John 10: 36 Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?

A "son" designates one who has been brought forth into existence by a "Father". This thought does indeed contradict the trinity doctrine, so that the trinitarian has to redefine both what it means to be generated (begotten) as well as what it means to be son, and this they do only in regard Jesus as being the Son of God. This is done through human imagination being added to and read into the scriptures.

In the expression "Son of God", the word "God" designates only one person as that "God" -- the Might, and that is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. (Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3) Jesus is not the Son of three persons, nor is he the son of himself (as many oneness believers seem to believe). Jesus is indeed the son of the One who is not himself, the One whom Jesus declared to be "the only true God" (the only true Might). (John 17:1,3) Aside from Yahweh, there is no might (Hebrew transliterated ELOHIM, a form of EL, meaning strength, might, power). (Isaiah 44:6; 45:5) Any might, any power, in the universe, depends on Yahweh as the source of that might, power, including the might and power that Yahweh has given to His son.