While, by consent with the Board of Directors of the Watch Tower Society, Russell himself held control of the legal entity as a publishing service, that entity in his days was not used to control a religious organization such as "Jehovah's Witnesses". Russell did not believe in such an organization, and even preached against similar organizations. Many sought to exalt him to being something of a central authority, but he continuously refused to allow himself or the Watch Tower to become involved in any kind of rulership over local congregations or other Christians. He sought, by means of his will, as well as by the original charter of the Watch Tower Society, to keep that corporation becoming what it did become - after his death - at the hands of Joseph Rutherford. Rutherford, in effect, created a new religious organization with himself as its sole authority, something Russell consistently refused to do. By 1928, the vast majority of the Bible Students movement had rejected Rutherford's new organization, and continued their work as Bible Students; the main reason for the "new name" in 1931 was distinguish the Rutherford's followers from the general Bible Students movement that had rejected Rutherford's new organization.
reslight2
JoinedPosts by reslight2
-
67
Read S. Hassan's Book: Do JW's really fit the cult mold?
by simon17 infirst time i got a chance to read his book, "combatting cult mind control" and was interested to see if jw's fell into the cult mold.
my opinion after carefully reading and having left the witnesses after almost 30 years is... no, they don't.
however, i would add that they wish they were but are simply too big and unwieldy to really pull it off.
-
-
-
36
Help With The Societys View Of Jesus Ransom Applying Only To The Annointed.
by AvocadoJake ini have read bits and pieces about the wt saying jesus ransom sacrifice only applies to the annointed.
the annointed in turn, will be mediators between earth dwellers and jesus christ to jehovah.
to get to jehovah, we know we must approach him in jesus christ name, when did the gb become the middle men between jesus christ and those who think they will be living on the earth.
-
-
reslight2
A major change happened in 1939 with the publishing of the book Salvation. Rutherford decided that Adam could not be fogiven after all.
This was actually published before in 1938; in that same year Rutherford introduced his view that all outside of what he considered to "Jehovah's organization" would be eternally destroyed at his idea of Armageddon.
However, long before this, in 1923, he introduced a new view of the second death and the sheep and goats, in which he claimed that many who have never been englightened have gone into the second death, and thus will not be raised in the day of judgment.
Thus, this was when he actually rejected the ransom for all that Russell taught. In 1938, however, when he stated that Adam was not covered by the ransom, he actually rejected the very basis of the ransom.The condemnation of Adam was not a different condemnation than that of human race condemned in Adam. If Adam is not to be restored to life, this would mean that Adam did not die the death in Adam, and must have therefore died the second death. This would, in effect, mean that the death in Adam is actually the second death. This, in turn, would mean that the whole human race was condemned in Adam to the second death. And thus the self-contradiction of this error becomes apparent.
If Adam's sin was such that no ransom could be provided for it, this would mean that the condemnation of Adam could not be ransomed, and therefore those who are condemned in the condemnation of Adam cannot be ransomed.
Jesus paid the debt for the condemnation upon Adam. All were condemned in one man so that only one sinless man would be needed to redeem all. The same condemnation that was upon Adam came upon the whole human race. ( Romans 5:12-19 ; 1 Corinthians 15:21 , 22 ) There was not one condemnation upon Adam and a different condemnation for the rest of mankind, as the Watchtower, and some others, teach. Jesus paid the penalty that was upon Adam. If he didn’t, then none of us have been redeemed, since it is the penalty upon Adam that is the whole basis of the ransom. If Jesus paid the condemnation upon Adam, and if the condemnation upon the human race is a different condemnation, then only Adam is redeemed, and the human race in Adam has not been redeemed. Only if it is the same condemnation could there be any application of the ransom to the whole world of mankind. And since it is the same condemnation, as can be seen in Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21 , 22 , then Jesus did indeed pay the price for the condemnation of Adam, and thus Adam is included in that ransom, and would be due the benefits provided by that ransom.
-
48
Lurkers to any of mankkeli's treads did you notice that he never answered my brain from thinking? question on how not to use my
by life is to short inlurkers i clearly asked mankkeli how to stop my brain from thinking.
really jehovah came to earth and saw a man who had a horrible marriage, and was involved with the spirit world and jehovah said to himself "there's a man who i can work with to do my will?
to keep believing that i could live forever.
-
-
reslight2
life is to short posted:
I do know about the lives of the founders of my religion
If the thought is that Charles Taze Russell was the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, that is not true. Russell did not believe in such authoritarianism, and he preached against such authoritarianism. He also did not believe in the kind of Armageddon that the JWs preach. Russell was certainly not the founder of that which he did not believe, and which he preached against. Indeed, Russell founded no religion at all.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=484life is to short posted:
Charles Taze Russell had a horrible marriage and he delved in the spirit world way too much for my taste
I am not sure what is meant by that Russell "delved in the spirit world", but it sounds as though you are saying that he delved into spiritism, which he did not. Russell had nothing at all to do with spiritism.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=15Russell's wife became embued with women's rights and wished to use the Watch Tower to promote that cause, which Russell considered to be a cause of the world. This was basically the root of why Russell's marriage came to be a "horrible marriage." Russell, of course, had no control over what his wife decided to do.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=297
life is to short posted:
I have lived his mission most of my life by following the religion he started.
Russell started no religion, but his mission in life was the preaching of the "glad tidings of great joy that is to be all the people," including every Budhhist who ever live or that is living, every Muslim who has ever lived or is living, and including Adam, as well as every man, woman and child who has descended from Adam. Russell did not preach a message of "join us or be eternally destroyed." If you have been preaching Rutherford's message of great woe of eternal destruction for most of the people of earth at Armageddon, then you certainly have not been living the mission of Russell; indeed your mission has been almost the opposite of Russell's mission.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=119 -
32
Announcement Letter of Russell's Death
by startingover ini found this original letter in my families archives.
don't know why the second page is discolored but it's original.. it's interesting the mention of the toga on the second page, and that they called the magazine "the tower".
.
-
-
reslight2
Remember that this group were not "Jehovah's Witnesses". That name was not adopted until years later when Rutherford changed the name from what they used - "Bible Students".
This should be clarified. "Bible Students" -- as a whole, represented by the majority -- did not become "Jehovah's Witnesses". The greater majority of the Bible Students did not accept Rutherford's new organization, nor his new teachings on the "second death" (which basically annulled the ransom for all). The Bible Students movement simply continued without, and separate from, the Watch Tower Society.
-
32
Announcement Letter of Russell's Death
by startingover ini found this original letter in my families archives.
don't know why the second page is discolored but it's original.. it's interesting the mention of the toga on the second page, and that they called the magazine "the tower".
.
-
-
reslight2
why is the cemetary so close to a masonic temple and the two seem to be one complex (no fence or wall between them)?
The Greater Pittsburgh Masonic Center is a comparatively recent construction, and did not exist when Russell was buried. A road separates the Cemetery and that Center -- there is no connection between the two, and certainly they are "one complex". Some have taken pictures at such an angle (which has to be deliberate) so as to actually deceive people into thinking that there is some kind of evil connection between the Masons and Russell's grave.
Nevertheless, when Russell was buried, there was not a Masonic Center near the cemetery.
-
32
Announcement Letter of Russell's Death
by startingover ini found this original letter in my families archives.
don't know why the second page is discolored but it's original.. it's interesting the mention of the toga on the second page, and that they called the magazine "the tower".
.
-
-
reslight2
I had forgotten about the pyramid burial site
Rutherford's pyramid monument was built several years after Russell died. Russell never left any written instructions about such a monument, although it is possible that he had discussed such with Bohnet, who later claimed that Russell desired such a monument to be built. The design of that monument was actually that of Bohnet. I personally do not object to such a monument, except that to me it demonstrates an unnecessary extravangance and a waste of funds. At any rate, that monument was not there when Russell was buried, nor did Russell leave any written instructions for such a monument.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=1212
but when I read about the toga, I had to ask myself about how the witnesses began.
I have wondered a lot about the so-called "toga" scene; Sturgeon reported that he was having difficulty understanding what Russell said, so Russell was evidently incoherent before he died. I believe that Russell said something, possibly about some sheets, and Sturgeon filled in the blanks so as to interpret that what Russell was asking for was a "Roman toga". Having come to know a lot about Russell through his writings, to me, it just doesn't sound like something Russell would ask for, or even if he did, it could have been that he was cold and the best word he could get out was "Roman toga", which was simply two sheets pinned together at the shoulders to cover his body like a robe. He was already wrapped similarly but with a blanket and a sheet, which he found to be uncomfortable, so it is highly likely that he was simply asking to be wrapped in something more comfortable. I highly doubt that Russell saw anything symbolic in such a request, as the stories were probably lembellished, evidently in a desire to exalt Russell to being a prophet (Russell himself disclaimed being a prophet, however, Rutherford and some others were proclaiming Russell to have been a prophet).
Sturgeon's report was printed in the Watch Tower in December 1916:
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/reprints/Z1916DEC.asp#Z364:15Of course, Russell never advocated an organization such as the Jehovah's Witnesses; he did not believe in such authoritarianism, nor in the sectarian spirit that is prevelant in that organization. He did not feel any need to create any new religion, and, and although he denounced sectarianism and denominationalism, he believed that members of the true church could be found amongst all the Christian denominations.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=486
burried in a toga.
As far as I know, Russell was not "buried in a toga". I could not find any thing to substantiate this statement.
-
18
C.T. Russell and 1914
by Quendi ini'm sure there are those on this board who can help me with some research questions.
they concern charles taze russell and his infatuation with 1914 and were posed to me by a member of my own small group.
we call ourselves jwa for jehovah's witnesses anonymous.
-
-
reslight2
I believe the evidence presented by the Edgars concerning the Great Pyramid is overwhelmingly convincing of its being of Yahweh.
Charles Taze Russell, who was never associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, was NOT expecting the "end of the world" in 1914.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=483
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=419
Many people pervert God's works for idolatrous purposes and for purposes contrary to God's purposes. The Bible itself is perverted by many Wiccans, for instance. God's sun, moon, stars and zodiac are perverted by many religions and astrologists, etc. The fact that many pervert God's works should not mean that we should reject God's works.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=1155
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=771
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=170
Rutherford began creating the Jehovah's Witnesses religion almost immediately after Russell died, although he did not name his new organization "Jehovah's Witnesses" until 1931. If you count the JW religion from 1917, it is less than 100 years old.
-
18
C.T. Russell and 1914
by Quendi ini'm sure there are those on this board who can help me with some research questions.
they concern charles taze russell and his infatuation with 1914 and were posed to me by a member of my own small group.
we call ourselves jwa for jehovah's witnesses anonymous.
-
-
reslight2
Russell, in 1876, accepted and adopted from N. H. Barbour the teaching that Jesus' return was in 1874 and the Gentile Times would end in 1914. The measurements of the Great Pyramid (not pyramids -- plural) confirm those dates and many other dates; the source of the dates, however, are from application of time prophecies given in the Bible, not the Great Pyramid.
Someone stated:
CTR did not expect 1914 to usher in war; he taught that the Parousia had taken place in 1874, to be followed by 40 years of the "Time of Trouble", and 1914 would usher in unprecedented peace under the Zionists.
This was Russell's earlier view which he had adopted from Barbour. In 1904 (ten years before 1914), however, he rejected Barbour's view that the time of trouble was to end in 1914, and came to realize that the ending of the Gentile Times would signify the beginning, not the end, of the time of trouble, and that the blessings of peace would be sometime after that time of trouble. He stated that he did not know how long the time of trouble would last after 1914. I believe that the time of trouble did begin in 1914, and we are still in that time of trouble.
As to his expectatiion that the time of trouble would bring war about 1914, Russell did indeed speak of "warfare" in connection with the end of the times of the Gentiles, thus it is not true that "CTR did not expect 1914 to usher in war."
I have collected a lot of quotes from Russell, especially between 1904 up to 1914, regarding his expectations for 1914.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=1301
Russell, however, presented several lines of Biblical prohecy that indicate the year 1914, not just that of the "seven times" of Daniel 4. The JWs dropped all these except for that of Daniel 4.
The basic calculations for arriving at the year 1914 were given in Volumes 2 and 3 of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures:
-
13
Arguing with a Russellite
by Lunatic Faith ini 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
From 1904 to 1914, Russell taught that Armageddon was to begin in and end some time after 1914. He was not, however, preaching the kind Armageddon that the JWs preach. His view of Armageddon was that it was to be a period of chastisement for the people of the nations, not that it would bring eternal destruction to them. He believed that after Armageddon, all peoples of the nations would be blessed by God's kingdom.
See:
Beginning of Time of Trouble - Quotes from Russell: -
13
Arguing with a Russellite
by Lunatic Faith ini 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://agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/start.htm