That's the link to the biography of Barbour and his movement. I don't think this is selling as well as it should, judging by comments on the authors' blog. It's a shame. This is good, eye-opening history - something that watchtowerites cannot refute. As I said above, it's not an anti-witness book. But it's hard to read this and not get a better sense of Russell's clulessness. Watchtower history as pesented by the Watchtower Society is mostly myth.
Old Goat
JoinedPosts by Old Goat
-
16
miller and russell... the best laugh i've had for a while
by Aussie Oz ini just can't contain my mirth (and disgust ) about the the history of the wt soc any more!.
the history of miller and his teachings, barbour being a millerite and a guide to the then young russell cemented the truth of the modern day wt organizations history as opposed to its own whitewashed version of history.. for 37 years i saw them as the one true religion.
now i just see them as total frauds.
-
-
-
14
Jehovah's Witnesses - the religion without a past or a future
by Mickey mouse inthere is only one timeframe that matters to a jehovah's witness: the present.. "so what if we taught that in 1993?
this is our present truth!.
jehovah's witnesses are being conditioned to think that the organization's history is unimportant, "the way jehovah is blessing the work now proves that this is his organization".. here's a question: if you were born into a catholic family in 1922, lived 70 years and died in 1992, what is your current standing before jehovah according to jw doctrine?
-
-
Old Goat
Schulz and de Vienne, in their book on Nelson Barbour, quote Stroup as saying:
"There is no unified historical record of the movement and on the whole the present-day followers are totally ignorant that the group has a history. The majority of those whom I questioned did not even know the year of its founding. Many Witnesses would like to assume that the organization, being inspired of God, never had an earthly beginning. Some actually told me that it dated back to a period before the creation of the world. Others said that the problem of the organization’s history was trivial beside such a monumental task as that in which they are now engaged."
Witness "history" as usually written is a collection of myths. The "present truth" concept entered Witness thinking via the Second Adventists, but the phrase ultimately comes from Non-Conformist and Protestant groups primarily in England. The earliest use of it in a way similar to adventists of which I am aware was by Stephen Dennison in a tract published in 1622. The actual phrase comes from Second Peter.
The best Witness history site out there is: http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
It's run by one of the authors of the Barbour biography (lulu.com is where it's listed.). He's a Witness, but he doesn't spout nonsense when it comes to the historical articles he posts. He documents everything, and some of it must make his Witness readers squirm.
-
16
miller and russell... the best laugh i've had for a while
by Aussie Oz ini just can't contain my mirth (and disgust ) about the the history of the wt soc any more!.
the history of miller and his teachings, barbour being a millerite and a guide to the then young russell cemented the truth of the modern day wt organizations history as opposed to its own whitewashed version of history.. for 37 years i saw them as the one true religion.
now i just see them as total frauds.
-
-
Old Goat
Every religion has connections to the past. Jehovah's Witnesses are a millenarian movement and connect to that movement in broad ways. The millenarian movement is wider than Millerism, including in its scope many British and German theologians. A recent post over at http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ reveals Russell's dependence on William Warleigh, an Anglican. That was total news to me.
As far as Nelson Barbour goes, read Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet by Schulz and de Vienne. It's excellent history, entertaining to read, and will open your eyes. It's not an anti-witness book, just history, and probably more important for that. You can buy the book via lulu.com .
I'm not disturbed by a Russellite connection to Miller. And that there is one is not news. What disturbs me is the persistence among modern Jehovah's Witnesses of a dictatorial approach to theology. They stifle theological debate under the guise of banning apostate thinking. They formulate practices that go beyond Biblical practice. You don't really need a list do you? I don't reject Witnesses as Christians. I do reject the practices of Witness Hierarchy as un-Christian and dictatorial. Yes, the Bible says to respect those taking the lead, but one has to answer the question: "Leading to where?"
-
47
OMG! I am 50 this year! Why am I freaking out? Anger - how do you cope?
by hamsterbait ini was told when i hit thirty and was catastrophising, "just wait till you are 40, it just gets better.".
ha!.
i am fifty in a few weeks.
-
-
Old Goat
I'd be happy to tell you how I coped, but I'm not sure I remember 50 at all. It doesn't get better, it gets worse. My only problem at 40 was some butt-spread. My hair started thinning at 50. At sixty I started to hurt constantly. Now ... sometimes i remember to tie my shoes ... I can hardly wait for 80. So near, so much fun, such adventure, such aches and pains! Quit yer whinin' buster! You're a spring chicken.
-
2
Simply Amazing
by Old Goat ini lurk mostly.
i enjoy reading the posts.
i shake my head at some, nod with others and have endless sympathy for many posters.
-
-
Old Goat
I lurk mostly. I enjoy reading the posts. I shake my head at some, nod with others and have endless sympathy for many posters. My interest tends toward history. If you've read my previous posts you know this. I recommended the new book on Nelson Barbour. You should read it. It's fun to see straight history as told by a Witnesses with little toleration for either Watchtower or anti-Watchtower nonsense.
I follow the author's blog. It's lain fallow for a while, but I see he's been posting his research again. (I wish he'd learn how to formant things!) His newest post consists of rough draft of material on the first Watchtower tracts. I see that he intends much more with this than he's posted thus far. What struck my interest is that he probes into the background of Russell's belief system, and he doesn't spare Russell when he's being idiotic. Of course some of us will ask, "When was he not being a bit idiotic." But we won't argue that point now.
In the current post he delves into Russell's belief that the existence of evil was essential. He traces it to an English clergyman from whom Russell borrowed with out credit or reference. While analyzing one of the early Bible Student Tracts and the influences behind it, he writes:
"Neither Russell nor Warleigh relied on Biblical proof for any of this. Instead they relied on a chain of inferences, some of them quite flawed. Warleigh’s definition of pity was especially flawed, and both Russell and he limited the scope of Adam’s perfect intellect so that they presupposed a need for experiential learning. Apparently neither of them thought Adam or Eve capable of abstract reason.
Russell liked what he read of Warleigh’s work and adapted it uncritically. Warleigh wrote: “Man was the masterpiece of all creation” This viewpoint may be more understandable in him because he was Trinitarian and saw Jesus as uncreated, a part of the ‘godhead.” Still, it is hared to forgive him this bit of nonsense in the light of the Psalm that has man a little less than angels. Russell borrowed this though wholesale, writing that man was “the masterpiece of God’s workmanship.” At least Russell had the good sense to limit that status to man’s state among earthly creatures. Even then the though implies that the rest of God’s earthly creation was only practice and not as well formed.
This is a history and not a theology text, and I will not discuss the theological merit of these ideas at length. The two most obvious problems were that Warleigh and Russell after him relied on “reason” and not scripture. They denied that their scheme made God the author of sin, but if He saw it as “necessary” so man could be taught “good,” planned for it, made it inevitable – who else was?
This belief undercut his more thought-out view of Atonement and Reconciliation, though it was scant few of his opponents that saw the flaw. Many of them shared his admiration for Warleigh. Most of this doctrine was abandoned by Jehovah’s Witnesses under J. F. Rutherford. Many Bible Students continue to believe it, though without any understanding of its roots."
In these few tame and scholarly words, this Witness writer does more to expose Russell as the theological bumbler he was than almost any of the sensationalist material that floats around on the web. I love this! Dry history? Yes, I suppose. But such gems hidden in this research!
Visit the blog. Wade through the history and look for the gems! http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
And I recommend his book too: Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. (lulu.com)
-
24
More from the June 15th WT on the Love at the meetings.
by life is to short inthis wt just keeps getting better and better, ok well the start of it was the worst the generation change but man this whole wt is really ticking me off.
i must just be in some mood right now.
it has taken me the whole week to listen to it.
-
-
Old Goat
As my name implies, I'm old. I figure that I've attended about 17,000 meetings, including conventions and assemblies. (That's a rough guess and probably a bit low considering the years when we treaveled and attended more than more than our share of conventions.) Out of all those meetings, I probably enjoyed 500. Now that may seem like a lot of enjoyable meetings, but spread that out between the mid 1940's and now, and it ain't many, bub.
The meetings fail in many ways, but the gossip, back biting, stupidity, and idiocy just leave me cold. I was raised in a congregation that thought of itself as having "high standards." The standards were set, not by the Bible, but by the personal opinion of a bunch of old women who held the congregation servant's ear. (CompanyServant way back when.)
Love among the "brothers" is startlingly rare. Pettiness is common.
-
2
Vintage colour WT
by 5thGeneration inanyone know where i can get a vintage colour wt like the one below?.
i kind of want one with the nice colours, crosses and masonic cross and crown.. i wanted to frame it for my office and just tell people it's part of my truthtm heritage.
.
-
-
Old Goat
Watch for it on ebay. It's expensive though. Maybe you can find someone who can make a color photocopy?
-
16
TEST YOUR INSIDE KNOWLEDGE: Watchtower Origns: a Saga begins
by Terry in[if !mso]> <mce:style><!
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#vml);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#vml);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#vml);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#vml);} [endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:donotoptimizeforbrowser /> </w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif] .
-
-
Old Goat
None of the “core beliefs” attributed to Ellen G. White came from her, and Russell owes nothing to her. The beliefs listed were common to the Millerite movement, and preceded E. White’s “visions.” (She was a plagiarist, stealing freely from other Second Adventists including Horace Lorenzo Hastings.)
Russell entered Adventism on the non-sabatarian side of the clan. He was most influenced by those associated with Advent Christians, the Life and Advent Union, and various smaller sects who used the name “Church of God” or Restitutionist.
In my opinion Russell weasels out of the association by saying he owed something to Second Adventists (He mentions Stetson [Advent Christian] and Storrs [Formerly Life and Advent Union, independent at the time of their meeting]). His doctrines were borrowed from them, or he was introduced to them through Adventists. This included soul-sleep, his date system, his view of the labor/capital conflict, etc.
The Russellite date system was the creation of Nelson Barbour. (The best resource on Barbour and his associates is the book Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet, available at lulu.com. I can’t recommend this enough. It’s straight history, not a polemic. And it’s more damaging because it is well documented history and not speculation. The authors manage to point out the faults in previous discussion of Barbour and his time with Russell. The chapter on Russell is too brief for my taste, but apparently they intend to enlarge on it in a follow up book.)
Barbour had nothing to do with Seventh-day Adventists. After severing ties with the Advent Christian Church and then with Russell, he identified with The Church of the Blessed Hope, founded in Cleveland, Ohio, by Mark Allen. The church still exists as about two or three small congregations.
Most of Russellite and Adventist doctrine derives from others, particularly Anglicans. The prophetical frame work of both bodies as it was in the 19 th Century was derived from Mede and the Anglican Bishop Thomas Newton. Both authors were circulated and read among Adventists generally, non-Sabatarian Adventists (Second Adventists) in particular.
The basic date system that Russell borrowed from Barbour is the creation of two Anglicans, E. B. Elliott and Christopher Bowen. (Bowen’s bio. is in a footnote in Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. Buy this book! You’re missing out if you do not.)
Daniel T. Taylor, a prominent Advent Christian and briefly interested in Barbour’s date setting, wrote Voice of the Church in All Ages. There are several editions; the later editions are more complete. He details where many of the Second Advent doctrines came from, especially their view of the impending millennium. They relied heavily on Anglicans, Lutherans (eg Bengal), and a few non-conformists.
To say that Russell borrowed doesn’t detract from what he tried to do. Borrowing really isn’t the point. It’s not that he borrowed but what he borrowed. The biography of Barbour I mentioned above makes this point:
“What Russell ‘got from Barbour’ is consistently overstated, the object being to discredit Russell on the basis that his doctrine wasn’t original. Russell would be horrified at the suggestion that he originated anything. He sought the ‘Old Theology,’ the Bible’s actual teachings. Even if one believes he succeeded indifferently, criticizing him for lack of originality seems silly.”
I agree with that. There is little that is original in modern (Post Reformation) theology. It’s all borrowed. So what? The issue is the quality of the borrowing. Russell, if you’ll excuse the term, sucked at choosing what to borrow.
Paradise restored, the death state, the Russellite chronology, his view of Armageddon, his no-nameism and more all came from some place else. This is true of Luther, Calvin, and pastor what’s-his-name down the street. All their doctrines are borrowed. It’s a non-issue.
The date 1914 does not come from John Nelson Darby. (Ever read Darby? He’s not the bad guy here. Dispensationalism may be a crock, but Darby was an excellent Bible student. Try reading some of what he wrote.) The 1914 date comes from several sources, but it entered Russell’s theology through Barbour who got it from E. B. Elliot, an Anglican.
Many of the details and sources of Barbourite theology are non-Adventist. Read the dang book I mentioned.
Also, while Russellites still view Russell as the “mouthpiece of God”, Witnesses do not. Witness theology underwent a drastic change in the late 1920 and early 1930’s. It owes more to Christadelphian roots than you may expect. Compare Rutherford’s Light with John Thomas’ Eureka.
-
94
Jephthah's Daughter
by cantleave ini have read somewhere that jephthah's daughter did not really go into temple service but was a victim of ritual sacrifice.
the bible says that after weeping over her virginity that the maidens would visit her annually.
how could they visit her if she was killed?.
-
-
Old Goat
Based on the Hebrew grammar, A. C. Hervey, author of the commentary on Judges for the Pulpit Commentary, says: ""She was to be 'Jehovah's,' an expression unnecessary if it was to be make a burn offering, and which could only mean 'dedicated to perpetual virginity or priesthood.' ... The inference is imperative. It was not death, but perpetual virginity, to which she was devoted."
Back in the 1890's Patrick Fairbairn wrote an exhaustive article on Jephthah's sacrifice and its implications. He reached the same conclusion. She was dedicated to temple service and a perpetual virgin. (Fairbairn's Standard Bible Encyclopedia).
As I check through most of the commentaries and dictionaries, this seems to be the consensus. The argument that is most persuasive to me is the grammatical one.
-
14
A CO's diagnosis and counsel
by ldrnomo insome time back when i was an elder and expressed my concerns about the blood doctrine to another elder (in confidence) the news got back to the whole body of elders and the co who i will just call (bro.
smith) .
after speaking to me for some time and determining that i did not believe in the wt blood doctrine.
-
-