Posts by reslight2

27

Yahoo News gives JWs a mention

by Splash in

under the topic of failed end of the world predictions, jws 1914 date gets outed:.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mayan-apocalypse-2012--five-doomsdays-that-never-happened-143929918.html.

splash.

reslight2

kjw53 posted:

Mr Russell said peace would be taken from the earth in 1914--he was correct--- He saw the first ride of the white horse( rev 6) by Jesus who recieved his crown( 1914) he erred by putting a date on harmageddon, but was absolutly correct on the other two events. The rapture is a false teaching that is not found in Gods written word.

I cannot find anything in Russell's writings that supports all of the above; much of it appears to be later teachings of the JWs. Yes, the "rapture" is a false teaching.

In a few of Russell's very earlier writings, he used the word "rapture", but his use of it was not the same its usage as represented in the doctrine of the "rapture" that many speak of, thus he evidently, early in his ministry, stopped using that term as related to the "change" of the saints.

One can check Brother's Russell's thoughts related to Revelation 6 at:

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/BibleXref.asp?xref=bible^Revelation^6

You will need to click on the verse numbers to receive a listings of references to that verse. I do not necessarily agree with all of Russell's conclusions.

Although I could not find any specific statement from Russell in which he said "peace would be taken from the earth in 1914", many of his statements between 1904 to 1914 are in harmony with that thought.

As I mentioned earlier, Russell's view of Armageddon was not the same as that of the JWs. He was not expecting the kind of Armageddon that the JWs preach in 1914; he believed that Armageddon was a period of time -- however long it make take -- in which the peoples of the nations were fully learn the lesson of vanity, after which they were to be blessed in the coming blessings of the kingdom.

27

Yahoo News gives JWs a mention

by Splash in

under the topic of failed end of the world predictions, jws 1914 date gets outed:.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/mayan-apocalypse-2012--five-doomsdays-that-never-happened-143929918.html.

splash.

reslight2

cofty posted:

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ prediction of the Second Coming, August 1914 ***
The door-knocking religious sect’s founder, Charles Taze Russell, predicted that the year would see the Second Coming of Christ.

The JW organization did not exist before 1914 and thus there were no members of that organization at that time. I do not know of anyone associated with the Bible Students who was "predicting" or expecting the Second Coming in 1914.

http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=1556

As someone else has already pointed out, Charles Taze Russell believed Christ had returned in 1874; he was not expecting Christ to return in 1914.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=1174

Russell did not believe in an organization such as the Jehovah's Witnesses; he certainly was not the founder of such an organization that he preached against.

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

From 1904 onward, Russell was expecting that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914, which I believe it did, and we have been in the time of trouble ever since 1914. Additionally, one of the things he believed that would accompany that time of trouble was to be "warfare". Not all that he was expecting has come to pass as quickly as he expected.

See:
Russell's Comments on "The Time of Trouble"

Russell's view of "Armageddon", however, was not the same as that of JWs. Russell was not expecting that in 1914 all unbelievers would be eternally destroyed without ever having come to a knowledge of the truth. Indeed, he preached against similar ideas that were being preached by some of the Second Adventists in his day. He believed that Armageddon was a period of time in which the peoples of the nations were to chastised, not eternally destroyed, in preparation for the blessings of the kingdom.

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

31

Jesus=The archangel Michael?

by WatchTowerofBabel in

(the first chapter of hebrews seems quite explicit on the issue).

but since scriptural texts don't seem quite enough for my jdub kinfolks (wtf?

), i tried to find out where this poppycock idea first popped up.. .

reslight2

I don't have too much time at the present to go into detail.

I am not with the JWs, but Russell adopted the idea that Jesus is the archangel from the Protestant reformers who taught this. Many trinitarians have taught that Jesus is the archangel.

See:
Trinitarians and Michael the Archangel

http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=674

There is nothing in Hebrews 1 (or anywhere else in the Bible) that says that he who is the chief over the angels is not the chief over the angels. Indeed, Hebrews 1:4,6 indicates that Jesus is indeed the archangel.

See my studies on the Michael the Archangel:

Michael the Archangel
http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=730

Is Jesus the Archangel?

http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=2860
http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=2966

5

Recent "New Light"?

by lilbluekitty in

jw
friends

so i've been away from anything witness-y for a number of months...what "new light" are they talking about now?

anything or is it all the same doom and gloom?

i haven't talked to my mom in awhile and when we do talk we don't talk about jw stuff much except for her bragging about rbc stuff.. what news is there?

reslight2

Eustace stated:

Also they only started existing in 1919, conveniently just after Charles Taze Russell died.

Russell actually taught against the formation of an organization such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Until the internet, very few of the JWs were being exposed to what Russell actually taught; could it be that this "new light" is response to the exposure on the internet that no such "organization" existed in the days of Russell?

What Did Russell Teach About "Organization" as Related to the True Church?
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=1892

5

Recent "New Light"?

by lilbluekitty in

jw
friends

so i've been away from anything witness-y for a number of months...what "new light" are they talking about now?

anything or is it all the same doom and gloom?

i haven't talked to my mom in awhile and when we do talk we don't talk about jw stuff much except for her bragging about rbc stuff.. what news is there?

reslight2

Eustace stated:

At the annual meeting it's been reported that they announced the Faithful and Discreet Slave is no longer the annointed on the earth, but is instead basically just the governing body.

In practice, this is actually the way it has been for several decades. Their alleged "anointed" class was never the ones who gave the alleged food to the JW believers in general; it all came from those in charge at that Brooklyn headquarters. In other words, there was never a consensus taken amongst all those professing to the "anointed" as to what "food" was to be given.

33

What Proof Is There That Rutherford Was Responsible For The Pyramid Monument Near CTR's Grave?

by JWB in

what proof is there that rutherford was responsible for the pyramid monument near ctr's grave?.

"charles taze russell died in 1916, the pyramid marker was installed in 1921 (5 years after his death), and the the masonic temple was built in the mid 1990s, these items have nothing to do with pastor russell's grave.

the masonic temple is not even on the cemetery grounds, it is a different property altogether.

reslight2

Finkelstein stated:

In spite of the indisputable fact that the Egyptian Pyramids were built and created in relation to the ancient Egyptian religious practices.

It may be true that "the Egyptian pyramids" (except the Great Pyramid) were built and created in relation to the ancient Egyptian religious practices. The overwhelming evidence shows that the Great Pyramid was not built or created in relation to the ancient Egyptian religious practices.

33

What Proof Is There That Rutherford Was Responsible For The Pyramid Monument Near CTR's Grave?

by JWB in

what proof is there that rutherford was responsible for the pyramid monument near ctr's grave?.

"charles taze russell died in 1916, the pyramid marker was installed in 1921 (5 years after his death), and the the masonic temple was built in the mid 1990s, these items have nothing to do with pastor russell's grave.

the masonic temple is not even on the cemetery grounds, it is a different property altogether.

reslight2

Finkelstein stated:

So then Reslight2 your in agreement then that Russell, your fellow brethen, taking on and accepting Pyramidology
was quite the stupid action on his part, since he self identified himself as a inspired devoted bible scholar/interpeter, should
never embraced this quack ideology and sold it openly to the public.

Absolutely NOT! Whatever would give you such an idea?

Russell was essentially correct in accepting the Great Pyramid as the God's witness in Egypt, although he made some errors regarding its measurements.

I am not sure what is meant by the idea that Russell "self identified himself as a inspired devoted bible scholar/interpreter"; what is this referring to?

Since I have seen nothing at all that I would call "quack ideology" in the teaching that Great Pyramid is God's Stone Witness, such a statement is irrelevant to me. I do believe that many have and are misusing the Great Pyramid and its measurements.

Finkelstein stated:

The other interesting thing is the IBSA under J Rutherford who was still embracing Pyramidology when he proclaimed
that god had chosen the IBSA as his solemnly chosen earthly organization. (1919)
Retrospectively that wasn't really a stupid thing to do since this help validating the organization toward the public

an otherwise good cunning marketing strategy for a religious publishing house to make.

Yes, if by "pyramidology" one means that in 1919, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was still teaching that the Great Pyramid is God's Witness in Egypt. That was my point; Rutherford, in 1928, claimed that this teaching is of the devil, while at the same time claimed that in 1918 Jesus came to inspect the "organization" (which really did not exist in 1918) and approved the "organization" that, according to what he was saying in 1928, was teaching a docrine of the devil. I do not at all in any way believe that the teaching of God's Witness is of the devil; I disagree entirely with such a thought. I repeat: I do believe that the evidence is overwhelming that the Great Pyramid is God's Witness in Egypt. I cannot deny that evidence, or claim, as did Rutherford, that Satan provided that evidence.

I am in general agreement with what Morton Edgar presented in 1929, regarding Rutherford's claims of 1928:

In our class in Glasgow, Scotland, a group of the brethren devoted five weeks to a close study of an Anti-Pyramid article which appeared in the 1928 ‘Watch Tower" (15th November); and we came to the conclusion that not one argument in that article, directed against the inspired testimony of the Pyramid, can stand either the test of Scriptures, or reliable history. We are glad to note that many of the brethren everywhere have come to the same conclusion and many of them have pointed to the significance of that statement made by Brother Russell in his 3rd volume of ‘Studies," page 319, first paragraph, which reads: ‘This ancient structure being thus repeatedly referred to in the Scriptures, we cannot doubt that, if questioned, this ‘Witness’ of the Lord in the land of Egypt will bear such testimony as will honor Jehovah, and fully correspond with his written Word. We thus introduce this ‘Witness’ because the inspiration of its testimony will doubtless be as much disputed as that of the Scriptures, by the prince of darkness, the god of this world, and those whom he blinds to the truth."
Satan could not have been the designer of the Great Pyramid, for this monument contains many features corroborative of the Biblical plan of salvation, which could not have been known to the great adversary when the Pyramid was built over forty centuries ago. Very little investigation can easily prove this. For instance, when our Lord was asked by his disciples when the Kingdom of Israel would be restored, he replied: ‘It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Ac 1:7); and on a previous occasion he had declared: ‘Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mr 13:32).
Now, when we investigate the time-measurements of the Great Pyramid, we find that not only is the ‘Day of the Lord" indicated by them, but all the time-features or prophetic ‘days" mentioned by Daniel the Prophet are accurately marked. Daniel saw his visions, and wrote regarding these ‘Days," about five and a half centuries before our Lord’s first advent, and about sixteen hundred years after the Great Pyramid was built; and he was commanded to ‘shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of end." (Da 12:4). None would understand these matters until the ‘Time of the End"-that is, until the end of the Gospel Age. And yet we find that the Great Pyramid contains these time-features of Daniel, corroborating them by accurate measurements. If God did not reveal these features to Daniel until sixteen hundred years after the Pyramid was built, and if none were to know how to interpret them until many centuries afterwards, and even then only by those who are declared to be ‘wise" (that is wise in the knowledge of the Lord), how could it be possible for Satan, ‘that wicked one," to have known of them at the time the Pyramid was built? It is quite manifestly unscriptural to make any such claim, seeing the heavenly Father had retained in his own power the times and seasons.
There are many other things, now seen to be incorporated in the symbolisms and dimensions of the Great Pyramid, which Satan could not possibly have known about when the building was erected, and about which he probably does not even yet know. For it is only those who have the spirit of the Lord who are taught of God-none others have the privilege of understanding the deep things of God. Just at this point I would like to repeat what Brother Russell says about the Pyramid’s testimony: ‘The Great Pyramid proves to be a storehouse of important truth-scientific, historic and prophetic-and its testimony is found to be in perfect accord with the Bible, expressing the prominent features of its truth in beautiful and fitting symbols. It is by no means an addition to the written revelation: that revelation is complete and perfect, and needs no addition. But it is a strong corroborative witness to God’s plan; and few students can carefully examine it, marking the harmony of its testimony with that of the written Word, without feeling impressed that its construction was planned and directed by the same divine wisdom, and that it is the pillar of witness referred to by the prophet in the above quotation."-Isa 19:19, 20. (See pp. 314, 315, Vol. III ‘Studies.")
We agree with Brother Russell in what he here says; and we think it is true that the symbolisms and measurements of this wonderful building corroborate the Scriptural plan in every particular. We do not go to the Pyramid for first-hand information, so far as the Lord’s plan is concerned, but rely upon the written Word for our instruction. If we but observe this rule, we will be guarded against placing reliance upon, say, any dates for future important events (such as the date for the glorification of the last member of the spirit-begotten Church of Christ), which may be claimed to be indicated by time-measurements in the Pyramid, but for which Scriptural proof cannot be cited. I think it is safe for us to say: The Bible first, and the Pyramid’s corroborative evidence second. Had this rule been observed as I think you will agree, so much credence would not have been placed on such dates as 1925 for the resurrection of the Ancient Worthies, or in 1928 for the resurrection of the last member of the church. The Scriptures did not warrant these dates for such important events; and, incidentally, neither did the Pyramid indicate them as was claimed, and as we warned the brethren at the time.

==========

Taken from:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/treatises/edgar%20gp%20discourse.htm

The main thing I would disagree with in Edgar's discourse is the application of Mark 13:32, which refers to the passing away of the present heavens and earth (Mark 13:31), not to the time when Christ returns. There is a period of time in between the time when Christ intially returns and the time when the heavens and earth pass away. The heaven and earth still have not yet passed away, and we still do not know the day nor the hour as to when this event may take place.

33

What Proof Is There That Rutherford Was Responsible For The Pyramid Monument Near CTR's Grave?

by JWB in

what proof is there that rutherford was responsible for the pyramid monument near ctr's grave?.

"charles taze russell died in 1916, the pyramid marker was installed in 1921 (5 years after his death), and the the masonic temple was built in the mid 1990s, these items have nothing to do with pastor russell's grave.

the masonic temple is not even on the cemetery grounds, it is a different property altogether.

reslight2

JWB stated:

According to the 1919 Convention Report (CR):

"In the exact center of the Bethel lot will be erected diagonally the Pyramid Shape Monument as designed by Brother Bohnet, and accepted by Brother Russell as the most fitting emblem for an enduring monument on the Society's burial space."

Was the CR, and by extension Bohnet, lying that Russell had okayed the monument?

As we know, oral testimony is just as acceptable in law when establishing facts as written testimony. So, either the CR is stating a falsehood or it is not. I understand that modern Bible Students who have a profound respect for CTR will not wish to entertain the idea that he may have approved anything of an "extravagent" nature, yet he may have justified the expense of such a monument considering it "a most fitting emblem". I don't get the impression that CTR would reject using WTS money on something he considered to be promoting praise to the Lord, including a small monument depicting God's Great Stone Witness. I suppose it is just a matter of personal perspective.

I cannot be 100% certain either way; I do question the statements given because much that was being published by Rutherford concerning Russell, and the historical events during the time of Russell, has been shown to not match the actual printed documentation from the time era itself. I also know the tendency of that time was to distort historical events to make them appear to be have been harmony with the "organization" concept, as we all to distort much that Russell stated. Although Rutherford had already begun to distort past events to justify the authority he claimed before the release of the book, "The Finished Mystery", the release of that book is most notable in the claims made for "The Seventh Volume", which was claimed to have been the posthumous work of Russell, when, in fact, most of that book was not from Russell.

Later examples include the false testimony given in the Walsh trial as well as several other trials that false testimony was given pertaining the time that Russell lived. For instance, Covington gave false testimony, when he, in effect,? states that in the days of Russell, all Jehovah's Witnesses had to accept that Christ had returned in 1874. There was no JW organization in those days, and there was no central authority in those days, although some of the Bible Students seemed to regard Russell to be something like a central authority. Russell claimed no special authority of the churches, and certainly never said, or demanded, that all Bible Students had to accept that Christ had returned in 1874. The official position stated in the Watch Tower publications at that time made no such demand that all in the congregations of the Bible Students had to believe that Christ had returned in 1874.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOjmHne4iyk

I could also provide many quotes from Watchtower publications that misrepresent the factual record of the time of Russell. Maybe some day, God willing, I will make a collection of such quotes and show how they are distorting the events of that time. About 15 years ago, I wrote a tract that shows at least one of such distortions, as pertaining to the ransom and the year 1918:

http://jws.reslight.net/?p=19

Hearsay testimony, however, is usually not acceptable in a court of law. Sometimes some who have been given, or placed themselves, in a position of authority may be allowed to get away with such testimony based on "the authority" concept. Even though the one in authority should give false testimony, such testimony may be accepted by many as credible simply based on the "authority" concept.

Although, as I have stated, I question whether Russell actually did approve the building of that monument, that concern is of minor importance to me in comparison with the imaginative false claims being made concerning that monument and Russell's study of the Great Pyramid by Fritz Springmeier, David Icke, and many others.

33

What Proof Is There That Rutherford Was Responsible For The Pyramid Monument Near CTR's Grave?

by JWB in

what proof is there that rutherford was responsible for the pyramid monument near ctr's grave?.

"charles taze russell died in 1916, the pyramid marker was installed in 1921 (5 years after his death), and the the masonic temple was built in the mid 1990s, these items have nothing to do with pastor russell's grave.

the masonic temple is not even on the cemetery grounds, it is a different property altogether.

reslight2

Finkelstein stated:

Really ?
and noting that the remaining IBSA used Free Mason halls after breaking away from Rutherford and his newly created organization the JWS ?

Most of the Bible Students would probably never have considered themselves to have been members of Rutherford's newly created organization to begin with; I remember, back in 1960 or early 1970s, one of the older Bible Students who lived through that time telling me that they did not break away from the organization; I wish I could remember the exact words he used, but having been associated with the JWs, and being familiar with their version of the history of those times, I was somewhat startled by his words.

33

What Proof Is There That Rutherford Was Responsible For The Pyramid Monument Near CTR's Grave?

by JWB in

what proof is there that rutherford was responsible for the pyramid monument near ctr's grave?.

"charles taze russell died in 1916, the pyramid marker was installed in 1921 (5 years after his death), and the the masonic temple was built in the mid 1990s, these items have nothing to do with pastor russell's grave.

the masonic temple is not even on the cemetery grounds, it is a different property altogether.

reslight2

Finkelstein stated:

in addition to the fact that Russell gave talks in many Free Masons halls, bares no similar association whatsoever

Russell and the Bible Students did and still do rent meeting rooms from many different organizations. Russell also gave talks in Methodist churhes; does this mean that he was a member of the Methodist denomination? He also gave talks in Elks Lodges; does this mean that he was a member of the Elks Lodge? Russell also spoke in buildings owned by the United States Armory; does this mean that Russell was a member of any branch that was being served by the armory? I could probably find many more different examples wherein the Bible Students have rented meeting rooms from many different organizations; such rentals does not mean that the Bible Students were in support of, or that they are members of, whatever organizations owned the buildings.

When I was baptized at a General Convention of the Bible Students in Bloomington, IN, the convention had rented a local Baptist Church for such; this does not at all mean that the Convention committee were all members of the Baptist denomination and in support of the Baptist denomination. It certainly does not mean that I am a member of the Baptist denomination because I was baptized in a Baptist Church building. That same Baptist church building was used by Bible Students for the showing of "The Bible Answers" films; again, the fact that the church was used for these showings does not mean that the Bible Students were in support of the Baptist denomination.

No, the fact that at times Brother Russell spoke in buildings owned by the Masons offers nothing at all to me as meaning that Russell was pro-Masonic.