thanks to the great "watchtower history" blog with historical information about the pre- and early bible students years, i became today aware of the origine of the name the watchtower and the masthead illustration in front of the old magazines.. in c.t.
russell's younger days, his mother and other relatives died and were buried on the family plot at the allegheny cemetery.. it must have been a defining moment voor the young ctr.
look at his inspiration to choose the name and masthead of his magazine.
Island Man,
The idea of a Watch Tower comes from Ezekiel, There were several periodicals with some variant of the name Watch Tower. There was a British publication with a similar name in the 1830s. An American periodical associated with the millenarian movement was named Prophetic Times and Watch Tower. A small Advent Christian periodical adopted the name, though after Zion's Watch Tower was well known.
thanks to the great "watchtower history" blog with historical information about the pre- and early bible students years, i became today aware of the origine of the name the watchtower and the masthead illustration in front of the old magazines.. in c.t.
russell's younger days, his mother and other relatives died and were buried on the family plot at the allegheny cemetery.. it must have been a defining moment voor the young ctr.
look at his inspiration to choose the name and masthead of his magazine.
SimonSays,
You continue to be a moron. There was no theft and defilement of Russell's grave. The pyramid monument is not his grave. His grave has a small headstone with his portrait engraved on it. It is nearby, but it is not the pyramid. You don't like Schulz's bio of Barbour solely because of the title which in your illiterate, mind-dead way you misunderstand. Are you suggesting that they're grave robbers? Shame on you for being stupid.
Schulz and de Vienne run the truthhistory blog. http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
Their second book, A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower, 1870-1887 (volume 1) contributes more to our understanding of the earliest years of Russell and Zion's Watch Tower than any other book.
rachael de vienne is one of the authors of separate identity, a history of the watch tower's earliest years.
she's received low grade harassment from the watchtower for years.
she posted about it on her personal blog.
rachael de vienne is one of the authors of separate identity, a history of the watch tower's earliest years.
she's received low grade harassment from the watchtower for years.
she posted about it on her personal blog.
rachael de vienne is one of the authors of separate identity, a history of the watch tower's earliest years.
she's received low grade harassment from the watchtower for years.
she posted about it on her personal blog.
JWDaughter,
Yes, my fault for not giving enough background to make her post intelligible. Rachael has long standing problems with Watch Tower harassment, many of which are detailed in older posts. These include emails, comments left on her history blog since moderated out and issues with local elders who seem to think that because her mother was a Witness and Rachael attended at a child that they have some hold over her.
rachael de vienne is one of the authors of separate identity, a history of the watch tower's earliest years.
she's received low grade harassment from the watchtower for years.
she posted about it on her personal blog.
English isn’t your first language, or you’re illiterate. Your spelling and grammar obscure your message. But, I think we can dissect your post. You present me with comparisons between Russell and Barbour. They are false comparisons, full of factual and logical flaws.
First you compare Russell and Barbour’s trial of faith. You fault Barbour and praise Russell, but on a false basis. Barbour lost his faith in Adventism, not the Bible. We know this because he says so. When in Australia, prospecting for Gold, he continued to preach what he saw as Christian doctrine. You suggest that turning prospector, taking up the medical profession and inventing things makes Barbour something less than Russell.
Russell lost his faith in Christianity, retaining only a deist’s belief that there must be a God. We know this because he says so. To an audience in India and in other places he repeats that story and says he became an infidel, meaning that he rejected the Bible and Christianity. During that time he turned his attention to business. Russell never stopped speculating in business. He had several stores; the most at one time was five. He owned a hat store, some clothing stores, a furniture and household goods store, and a music store. He invested in oil leases; dabbled in the stock market; loaned money on interest; ran a turpentine business and a brick company. He owned a used heavy equipment and scrap iron business. He sold printing equipment. He invested in a coal mine, a soda ash mine, (someone suggested it was a gold mine, but it wasn’t.) He invested in real estate and continued to do so up to 1908 at least.
If it was wrong for Barbour to engage in business, it was wrong for Russell to do so. But where does God say a Christian must not be in business? Of the two, loss of faith was most profound for Russell. He rejected Christianity. Barbour lost faith in Millerism, but continued to preach. So your comparison, meant to pump up Russell at Barbour’s expense, is a false one.
You discuss Russell’s adventures as a Congregationalist. You seem not to know that there is no doctrinal difference between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. The two churches differed only in governance. They shared preachers in ‘union congregations.’ The Plymouth Congregational Church, the church Russell joined, was a missionary church. It appealed to Russell because of its outreach. The two ministers who served during Russell’s affiliation were both Presbyterian.
Neither Penton nor Schulz and de Vienne claim Russell was an Adventist. Schulz and de Vienne explore the origins of his theology, using Russell’s own words to prove he wasn’t an Adventist. You’re erecting a straw-man argument. However, he was exposed to prophetic exposition. Plymouth Church’s first pastor, Henry Moore, preached and wrote on prophecy. His preaching was within the millennialist (Literalist) tradition common to British, Continental, and American theology. Moore’s work finds a place in Russell’s thought.
No-one claimed Russell was involved in the 1873-4 movement, though he was certainly interested in it. He met Jonas Wendell in 1869 (not 1870 as you say). Wendell preached in Lafayette Hall, in Pittsburgh that January 17th, and then moved to Quincy Hall in Allegheny, a few steps away from the Russell’s home. Wendell introduced him to the 1873 speculation and to other similar claims. Russell read William Carr Thruman’s books with interest. His interest abated only as each speculation failed. He wrote to Adventist and millenarian papers, leaving a trail for a historian to follow.
You claim that Russell and Barbour’s association ended because of Barbour’s Adventist doctrine. This is nonsense. It ended because Barbour preached Unitarian atonement theory. Russell and Barbour both identify it as Unitarianism, not Adventism. When Russell withdrew, he continued to hold to their shared chronology and doctrine with almost no change until his death.
By the time Russell met him, Barbour was no longer an Adventist. (Russell says this.) He had moved into Age-to-Come theology. This is British Literalism. He adopted Mark Allan’s doctrine and told a newspaper reporter that his congregation in Rochester was affiliated with Allan’s Church of the Blessed Hope.
Your entire argument rests on misstated ‘facts’ and misleading statements. You’re spelling, grammar and thought are confused. You want to elevate Russell at Barbour’s expense. You’ve chosen the wrong tack. Barbour was vain, self-entitled and a thief. The difference between them when they separated was personal behavior with a mix of doctrinal difference.
Giving history lessons is my profession. You’ve just had one. I should add that you criticize Penton and Schulz and de Vienne for selling books. Original research is expensive and time consuming. The Bible principal is “to the worker belong his wages.” I’ve written a few textbooks over the years some still in use. (I’m nearly 90) And I can tell you that return on work is often small. If you don’t want to pay for a book, don’t buy it. But it is not a sin to buy and sell, even intellectual work.
rachael de vienne is one of the authors of separate identity, a history of the watch tower's earliest years.
she's received low grade harassment from the watchtower for years.
she posted about it on her personal blog.
rachael de vienne is one of the authors of separate identity, a history of the watch tower's earliest years.
she's received low grade harassment from the watchtower for years.
she posted about it on her personal blog.
reb,
There's a back story there found somewhere on her blog. Two elders from the local congregation visited her in her home asking her to stop teaching a reading/literature class that used contemporary fantasy fiction. Think dragons and fairies and similar. Remember, she isn't a witness and never was one.
Apparently some Witness child wanted to take the class and their parents wouldn't let them. So the elders felt, I guess on the basis that her mother was a Witness, free to rant at her over it.
Dr. de Vienne teaches Advance Placement and gifted and talented classes in a K-12 setting. She lives across the Columbia River from me.
rachael de vienne is one of the authors of separate identity, a history of the watch tower's earliest years.
she's received low grade harassment from the watchtower for years.
she posted about it on her personal blog.
Simon,
You obviously haven't read Schulz and de Vienne's bio of Barbour. You made up your mind based on the title. In "watchtower parlance" that marks you as foolish. You are mislead by your tendency to rush to judgment.
Assume some personal responsibility and avoid posts you know will upset you.
A supporter of Penton? Who? Me? Dr. de Vienne? be more specific. I don't see anything on this post that supports Penton - or on de Vienne's blog post.
I have no problem recommending Penton's books. The third edition of Apocalypse Delayed is excellent. First edition not so much. I may not always agree with him, but he as the academic credentials to write the book. So do Schulz and de Vienne. And you? not so much. You make things up and decide you've struck intellectual gold.
If you disagree with Penton or with the content of Schulz and de Vienne's books, support your opinion with some facts. Start with reading the books. Something you so obviously have not done.
http://i.imgur.com/e490el3.png.
.
