Posts by reslight2

7

What would you say in reply?

by outsmartthesystem in

i am in a discussion about jeremiah the 25th chapter.

(and jehovah "calling to account against the king of babylon and against that nation") my argument is very basic.

how did god call to account against the king of babylon (thus supposedly ending the 70 years of desolation) in 537bc.....2 years after babylon fell?.

reslight2

paulnotsaul stated:

In this book I'm reading it says that Russell at the age of eighteen got interested in just when Christ was to come.

At the age of 18, Russell became interested in the return of Christ, but he held little interest in "when", as far as setting any specific date. According ot this own words, he did not become interested in any date pertaining to Christ's return until about 1876.

paulnotsaul stated:

To solve this problem, he began to study the bible.

Russell did not begin to study to the Bible to solve the problem of "when" Christ was to return, but he became interested in the purpose of Christ's return. This is what led him to study the Bible.

Russell's own words:

I have been a Bible student since I first had my attention called to the second coming of our Lord, by Jonas Wendel, a Second Advent Preacher, about 1869, who was then preaching the burning of the world as being due in 1873. But though he first awakened my interest on the subject, I was not a convert, either to the time he suggested nor to the events he predicted. I, in company with others in Pittsburgh, organized and maintained a bible class for the searching of the Scriptures, meeting every Sunday.
We reasoned that, if Christ’s coming were to end probation, and bring irrevocable ruin upon ninety-nine in a hundred of mankind; then it could scarcely be considered desirable, neither could we pray with proper spirit, “Come, Lord Jesus, Come quickly!” ( Revelation 22:20 ) We had rather request — much as we should “love his appearing” — that he remain away and our sufferings and trials continue so that “if by any means we might save some.” ( 2 Timothy 4:8 ; 1 Corinthians 9:22 ) Not only so, but great masses of scripture referring to the Millennial glory and teaching that “All nations which thou hast made shall come and worship before thee,” &c., &c., would be left unfulfilled if at His coming there should be a wreck of matter and a crush of world. — Psalm 22:27 ; 67:2 ; 72:11 ; 86:9 ; Isaiah 2:2 ; 25:7 .
We first saw Millennial glory — then the glorious work which is offered us as His Bride; that we are by faith the “seed of Abraham;” and as such, heirs of the promises, &c., in whom “all the families of the earth shall be blest.” (Galatians 3) This most certainly points to a probation in the future after He has come. Thus, speedily, steadily and surely God led us to recognize the second coming of our Lord as being not the sunset of all hope to mankind, but the “rising of the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings.” — Malachi 4:2
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=346

Note that initially Russell did NOT accept the time elements of Christ's return; he was interested in the purpose of Christ's return. It was not until around 1876 that Russell became interested in the time of Christ's return.

paulnotsaul stated:

He very soon published his findings in a pamphlet entitled The Object and Manner of the Lord's Return. For centuries, great minds of the church have wrestled with the problem of the Second Coming, but Russell felt that he had solved it in almost no time at all. Russells pamphlet consists of a lengthy, complicated, and incorrect interpretation of unrelated Scriptures combined with an intricate method of computing time. The end result of his labors was the statement that Jesus Christ would return in 1874.

Actually, the book, The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return, never mentions 1874; that book was about the "obejct" -- purpose -- and the manner of Christ's return. This book was published in 1877, and thus even if it had mentioned 1874 -- which is does not -- it would not have been a statement that Christ was to return in 1874, since 1874 had already passed. Nor was this book the result of some hasty preparation, for it was he result of about eight years of study. At the time of the publication of this work, Russell was not longer 18 years old, but was about 26 years old.

Russell stated:

The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs, who, both by word and pen, gave us much assistance; but we ever sought not to be followers of men, however good or wise, but “Followers of God, as dear children.” ( Ephesians 5:1 ) Thus growing in grace and knowledge for seven years, the year 1876 found us. — 2 Peter 3:18 .
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=346

The book, The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return, may be found online at:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/russell/object.pdf

paulnotsaul stated:

Later,Russell changed the date to 1914

In 1876, Russell spent much time with N. H. Barbour, from whom Russell accepted the date 1874 as when Christ had already returned. He never changed the date of Christ's return in 1874 to 1914; Russell died in 1916 still with the belief that Christ had returned in 1874. The year 1874 came about a result of decades of study by many different people; not that all of these people arrived to the year 1874, but their work contributed to realization that the time prophecies point to that year.

paulnotsaul stated:

This return was not to be a physical one, but a spiritual one. In other words, when Christ would return, He would not be seen. This of course contradicts Revelation 1: 7.

Revelation 1:7 is obviously symbolic, being part of book that is using symbolism throughout. Obviously, however, the person who wrote this never actually read the book, "The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return", and evidently does not realize that if Christ returns in the flesh that he sacrificed for sin, then there has actually been no real sacrifice of Jesus for sin.
Jesus Died in the Flesh, Raised in the Spirit

Jesus Died a Human Being – Raised a Spirit Being

65

Attention Governing Body: October 2, 2014 is only 940 days away...

by Alfred in

in 1823, john aquila brown (a man who is not mentioned in any wt publication) came up with a bizarre mathematical calculation which totalled 2,520 years (in an unauthorized attempt to predict the end of the gentile times).... several religions recycled this bizarre calculation, including the adventists and the bible students... when armageddon didn't come on the variety of early 20th century dates predicted by several "dooms-day" religions of that time (including charles taze russell's bible students who predicted that the big a would start in 1914), they all finally realized that this 2,520-year calculation was nothing more than arbitrary mathematical speculation derived from erratic biblical extrapolation.... except for the bible students who continued to move up the date for armageddon 2 more times (1918, 1925) and then decided to use wwi as the starting point for the "last days".. all the while, one thing that seems to remain intact is the october 2, 1914 date.

oddly, for the watchtower bible & tract publishing cult, this particular date still marks the end of the 2,520-year period (that john aquila brown referred to in his bizarre 1823 book "the even tide")... again, no mention of this in any watchtower publication.

but, for jws, that date still remains the starting point for the period of time often referred to as the "last days" or even "the generation that shall not pass".. because of this, the governing body has been forced to change the definition of "the generation that shall not pass" countless times since the early 1970's.

reslight2

Alfred stated:

Charles Taze Russell's Bible Students who predicted that the Big A would start in 1914

I am not sure what is meant by the "the Big A". Russell was expecting the "time of trouble" to begin in 1914. Russell died in 1916 still with the belief tha the time of trouble had begun in 1914.

Alfred stated:

except for the Bible Students who continued to move up the date for Armageddon 2 more times (1918, 1925)

I cannot be certain, but it appears that most of the Bible Students continued to hold that the time of trouble (Armageddon) had begun in 1914. I know that this is what I believe, and I know of many other Bible Students who also believe this. By 1928, the majority of the Bible Students had rejected Rutherford's new organization. Rutherford wanted to use the prophecies to bolster support for his new organization, and thus he rejected much that Russell had taught concerning 1799, 1874, 1914, etc.

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

87

WTS successfully counters claims it is a "false prophet"

by trthskr in

greetings.. http://www.jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html.

"do not interpretations belong to god?".

but as the saying goes; you can never satisfy a critic.. .

reslight2

Terry stated:

What is honest about speculation if it is not labeled SPECULATION or OPINION upfront? When Russell brackets his speculations with "god's dates, not ours" it sounds less like Opinion and more like "channeling" as the "mouthpiece" of god. Or am I missing something?

Russell's words are often quoted out of context and placed in the context of the claims of the JW organization. What Russell actually stated, was:

"They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours." Russell, using an editoral "we" -- stated his "belief" -- his "opinion" -- that they are God's dates, and he was firm in stating his belief; he was not being dogmatic. He was not saying that everyone had to accept what he believed, nor was he claiming that he knew for a fact that what he believed was beyond error. Indeed, in the context of those words, he stated, "But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the WATCH TOWER of Jan. 15, '92." (Watch Tower, July 15, 1894) Note that he did indeed use the words "opinion" and "view".

I will not, however, that his statement here regarding 1914 being the date for the end of the time of trouble is stated evidently because there were some of the Bible Students who were saying that they believed that the time of trouble was to begin -- not end -- in 1914. Russell had accepted Barbour's view that the time of trouble was to end in 1914, and for many years he did not seem to understand why some of the Bible Students were thinking otherwise. However, evidently after much discussion, in 1904 (ten years before 1914) Russell changed his "view" from that he had held to earlier, and which he expressed in 1894 in the article referenced, and came to accept that 1914 was to see the beginning -- not the end -- of the time of trouble. Thus, from 1904 up to 1914, Russell held to the view that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914, and he believed until he died in 1916 that the time of trouble did begin in 1914. However, to get the proper perspective of all of this, one has to take Russell out of the context of the organization concept of the JWs, or out of the context that many present him as being a prophet, and realize that he was did not regarding himself as the dictator of any such organization, and certainly not as a prophet.

There were several different viewpoints amongst the Bible Students when Russell was living, and Russell never considered himself as one to demand his view on all the Bible Students. Indeed, he many times presented differing viewpoints in the pages of the Watch Tower.

Nevertheless, I can also firmly say that I believe that they are God's dates; I do not mean that to be dogmatic. I admit that what I believe in this regard may be wrong, even though I firmly believe it to be correct; I can only say that God will reveal to all whatever is in error in His own due time.

Yes, Russell believed himself to a mouthpiece for God, but he also believed that all true Christians, regardless of denominational ties, are God's mouthpieces.

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=530

87

WTS successfully counters claims it is a "false prophet"

by trthskr in

greetings.. http://www.jehovah.to/xlation/fp.html.

"do not interpretations belong to god?".

but as the saying goes; you can never satisfy a critic.. .

reslight2

factfinder stated:

those are very good points you bring out that the WTS was founded by a clothing salesman and then a corrupt lawyer.
If God always had an organization on earth, Charles Taze Russell decided not to join it, but to start up his own. They would never admit this of course.

While the JWs project their organization back into the days of Russell, Russell himself did not start up any such organization. He continued to preached against the need of any "outward organization" until his death.

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

After Russell died, Rutherford almost immediately began to promote the idea of "organization", and he began to use the legal entity (The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Soceity) as a basis to form his new organization. By the 1928, the Bible Students, as a whole (represented by the vast majority) had rejected Rutherford's new organization.

3

Watchtower Council Approved by God?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

watchtower council approved by god?.

today i uploaded a new article to my blog addressing an observation made recently by historian zoe knox in comparison with what watchtower says of its governing body.

unfortunately for watchtower, something does not add up.

reslight2

Another snippet from Zoe Knox’s article reads:
“This reconciliation of the spiritual and the secular indicates that the organization is adept at recasting (and, as we shall see, resurrecting) failed narratives and adapting contemporary events to reaffirm Charles Taze Russell’s interpretations of biblical chronology, first expounded in the 1880s.”

Actually, the "organization" that came into existence after Russell died rejected practically all of Charles Taze Russell's conclusions concerning Biblical chronology. The chronology now used by the JWs from creation to the destruction of Jerusalem is totally different from that Russell had adopted. Rutherford rejected practically all the dates that Russell had adopted, such 1799, 1874, etc.; although they do teach that the Gentile Times ended in 1914, they have rejected Russell's conclusion that the time of trouble began in 1914. Russell himself, of course, rejected some of his earlier views on the ending of the Gentile Times, but the only time prophecy that is even similar to that which Russell presented is that of Daniel 4. Russell died in 1916, still believing the the time of trouble had begun in 1914 -- he never said anything about Christ returning in 1914 as the JWs teach.

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=1301

Russell, however, did not speak for any kind of "governing body" of an organization. Russell preached against the kind of organization that Rutherford later created, and he preached against the kind of Armageddon that is bad tidings of eternal destruction for most of the people. Russell's beliefs about Armageddon were almost the opposite of what the JWs preach.

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=119

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=64

18

Guy H. Pierce - 2nd Marriage: Divorced, Widowed???

by 00DAD in

jw
friends

i'm gathering (or at least trying to gather) same background info on the gb members.

it's surprisingly difficult to do!!!

it would seem that guy h. pierce is currently on his 2nd marriage.

reslight2

I do know that both Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Rutherford were divorced. Do you know if any other GB guys were divorced?

Russell was never a member of a JW "governing body".

Regarding Russell's "divorce" (which was actually a legal separation):

http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=297

81

WT Mar 15th 2012 - 144,000 no longer a literal number?

by dozy in

reading idly through this magazine , i read the study article "rejoicing in our hope" which discusses the two "hopes" according to the wtbts ie heaven & earth.. a couple of points were of interest:.

(1) absolutely no mention at all of the 144,000 or rev 14. usually an article like this would be filled with references , but it isn't even mentioned.

it does discuss the "limited number" , but only in contrast with the "no man can number" great crowd.. (2) a much more laid back attitude towards the two hopes.

reslight2

One thing that I began to realize when I was with the JWs is that doctrine is most often formed, or changed, according to what is expedient to the organization, not necessarily as a result of serious Bible study. "What is best for the organization" seemed to be the controlling factor. When I read Raymond Franz' book, Crisis of Conscience, it became clear that my thoughts were correct.

I can remember how the JWs criticized me for studying what they called "old light." "Light" itself, as from God, is without error. Error is darkness, not light. Thus, there can be no such thing as "old light" that contradicts "new light". Consecrated Christians may be hindered in understanding the light that is given to them from the Bible due to errors, but that does not mean that any errors they have are part of the "light" of God. Once one rids oneself of an error, that error was not old light from God, it was part of the darkness that has come due to Satan's blinding influence over the world. A Christian, however, does have to grow in knowledge -- if he submits to what God has provided through his spirit in the Bible, he will be discarding the old darkness as he grows; one can grow in knowledge, however, that takes one away from the knowledge of God into the errors of man. I believe, however, that most of the consecrated never grow much in the actual word of God, for they often cannot study the Word without filtering it through the traditions of man, and thus remain as babes in Christ all of their lives.

8

What were the "anointed" doing from John to Russell?

by Ding in

in watchtower teaching, what were the "anointed remnant" doing between the death of the apostle john and the coming of pastor russell?.

during all those centuries, there was no visible organization publishing watchtower literature so as to enable people to understand the bible.

there was no organized worldwide door-to-door preaching work being done (who assigned territories and kept track of time records, for example?).

reslight2

Russell himself never taught much of the things that are now being proclaimed by the Jehovah's Witnesses, although many of these things are often wrongfully presented as though Russell taught them. He did not believe in an organization such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Nevertheless, I do wish to correct a common error that many have thought.

Russell did indeed, in 1876, accept Barbour's teachings that Christ had returned in 1874. However, Russell had already concluded before that time that Christ would not return in the flesh, since he had sacrificed his flesh forever, so the idea that Christ would return invisibly was not new to him in 1876.

Nor did Russell believe in separating fellow consecrated Christians into "anointed" versus "non-anointed" classes. Once a question came up as to whether one who is consecrated, but who remains in a denominational church should be considered of the great multitude, but Russell stated that we cannot judge such. To Russell, however, the great multitude was also to receive life in heaven, not on the earth. But, unlike Rutherford, and some others, he refused to become judge of who was of which class, nor did he ever claim that the great multitude were not "anointed".

67

Read S. Hassan's Book: Do JW's really fit the cult mold?

by simon17 in

first 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.

reslight2

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.

36

Help With The Societys View Of Jesus Ransom Applying Only To The Annointed.

by AvocadoJake in

i 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.