...so the idea still stands
Are you sure?
I thought it used to be because they claimed there was a first-century "faithful and discreet slave" and from there they claimed an unbroken line of anointed for God to make sure there was always some kind of "faithful and discreet slave" on the earth, which gave C.T. Russell and his pals some legitimacy.
But with that March series of articles, even Russell got thrown under the bus - he wasn't part of the "faithful and discreet slave" - and there now was no slave before 1919, when they now say the slave was appointed. Therefore, they no longer do (or they no longer need to) claim an unbroken line of anointed?
Maybe they didn't explicitly do away with the idea in the articles (which they never do with anything - it just gets "overwritten" by "noo lite") but they have done away with the need for the idea of being an unbroken line? Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Why the hell am I trying to make sense of this garbage...