Some Inaccuracies Regarding Russell

Posted on December 12, 2010. Filed under: Is it true what they say? | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

I had posted a comment on paradosparables regarding some inaccurate statements being made concerning Charles Taze Russell; it appears that my comments are not being allowed, so I am resposting the comments here, with some edits. https://paradoxparables.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/confronting-the-inaccuracies-of-a-false-critique-of-my-post-falling-tulip-petals/

The Assertion is made that Russell “was having bible studies with the leader of the 7th Day Adventist movement”.

Charles Taze Russell started the Watch Tower to defend the atoning sacrifice of Jesus for all, as opposed to the teachings of some of the Second Adventists who were, in effect, denying the necessity of that sacrifice, as well as the “end of the world” doctrines presented by many of the Second Adventists. Russell was never “having Bible studies with the leader of the 7th Day Adventist movement.” Russell did study under some of the authors who had been associated with the “Second Adventist” movement. It is possible that the author of the blog is confusing the “Second Adventists” with the “Seventh-Day Adventists.” The “Second Adventists” had no “the leader”. Supplement of the First Issue of the Watch Tower

The assertion is made that “That is where they got all their failed end time date prophecies based upon a false view and interpretation of the Mayan calendar.”

I know of no association of the Bible study of time prophecies that Russell adopted that had anything to with any kind of interpretation of “the Mayan calendar.” A search of Russell’s and Barbour’s works on the Bible Students Library DVD show no reference whatever of the “Mayan calendar”. William Miller based his expectations on study of the Bible, not the Mayan calendar. However, study of Biblical prophecy and making conclusions concerning that study is not the same as making prophecies. See: Charles Taze Russell – Prophet?

Russell is presented as “the founder of the Jehovah’s Witness”.

Charles Taze Russell, however, never founded any sectarian or authoritarian organization such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was a non-sectarian who actively preached against such sectarianism and authoritarianism. Furthermore, he actively preached against the kind of alleged “Good News” that is preached by that organization. He certainly was not the founder of that which he preached against. The Jehovah’s Witnesses organization was created by Joseph Rutherford after Russell had died. Charles Taze Russell: Founder of the JWs?

CLICK HERE to see what Russell thought about Calvinism.

CLICK HERE to see what Russell thought about Arminianism.

Addendum in Reply to Comments Received:

It is being claimed the same Watch Tower Society of which Russell was the main founder is the same Watchtower Society that Jehovah’s Witnesses use today. Actually, the Watch Tower Society as Russell had left it was virtually destroyed within a few weeks after Russell died. Rutherford introduced and by means of deceit and trickery, had new by-laws passed which, in effect, destroyed the intended structure of the original Watch Tower Society.

Whoever of the Russell family may have been members of the Freemasons does not mean that Russell must have also been a Freemason. We have no reason at all to think that when Russell stated, “I have never been a Mason,” that he was lying. We have tens of thousands of pages produced from Russell’s works that overwhelmingly testify that he was not in league with the Freemasons.

In referring to the Mason “brethren”, it should be obvious that Russell was not saying that they were brothers in Christ, but he was using the term as they refer to each other as “brethren”. In saying “our Masonic brethren”, while Russell, being imperfect, may not have chosen the best way to express it, Russell was not saying that he was acknowledging them as “brethren” in Christ, but in a sense that are our neighbors who consider themselves to be “Masonic brethren”.

See:

The Temple of God

I am a free and accepted Mason

It is being claimed that Russell’s gravestone is a pyramid. This claim is false, but it would not make much difference to us if his gravestone were in the shape of the Great Pyramid. It is the intent of this claim that is of more concern, as it would imply that there something sinister and evil about the Biblical study of the Great Pyramid as God’s Stone Witness. While we do not agree with all of the Edgars’ conclusions, we believe they do present overwhelming evidence that the Great Pyramid is indeed God’s Witness in Egypt.

See:

Is Russell Buried In or Under a Pyramid?

Russell’s Cross and Crown Symbolism — Masonic? Rosicrucian?

Russell’s Pyramid Tomb?

CTR’s Gravestone

Links to John and Morton Edgar’s Works

It is hinted that Russell would deny being a Mason because of Masonic secrecy. Is this logical? Would a man spend most of his money, time and energy sabotaging what is he supposed to be supporting by sabotaging what is is secretly supporting? This logic would work only those who have not actually studied Russell’s writings to know what he taught, and why he taught what he taught.

Russell’s Works Online

It is claimed that Russell used the measurements of the Great Pyramid to date “the end times”. This is deceptive, since Barbour and Russell based their study on the Bible, not the Great Pyramid. The Great Pyramid does support the time prophecies of the Bible, but the measurements of the Great Pyramid only corroborate the Bible; those measurements are not the basis of the dates. It had been presented by several before Russell, based on Biblical time prophecy, that “end times” (The Bible does not say “end times”, it does refer to “the time of the end”) had begun 1798. Russell placed it six months later, in 1799.

It is being hinted that the start of World War was a collaborative effort, evidently between Barbour, or Russell, and the Freemasons. There is no evidence that Barbour, back in 1875, had collaborated with the Freemasons in order to have World War I begin in 1914, or that Russell himself ever collaborated with the Masons to have such a war started. Russell was expecting, from 1904 onward, that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914. He was expecting the end of the world in 1914, and he stated so. He died in 1916 believing that the time of trouble did begin in 1914. I believe that the time of trouble did begin in 1914, and that we are still in that time of trouble.

It is hinted that Russell was expecting “the end of days” in 1914. Russell was expecting the end of the days of the Gentile Times in 1914, and the ending of the Gentiles would bring the foretold “time of trouble”; nevertheless, Russell never used the expression “end of days”. Russell was certainly NOT expecting the end of this world, or the JW kind of Armageddon, in 1914. Russell preached against the kind of Armageddon that Rutherford later taught. A quote is given concerning an expectation (not a prophecy) that Russell had stated in 1889 that the battle of the great day of God Almighty would be over in 1914. Russell rejected that view in1904, ten years before 1914 came.

See:

Beginning of the Time of Trouble – Quotes From Russell

CTR’s Expectations Concerning 1914

It is stated that one cannot force God’s hand. I am sure that Russell would have agreed with that statement. Russell admitted the possibility that he might be in error regarding chronology and/or his expectations related to time prophecy; he never claimed his studies on these to be infallible, nor even necessary doctrine.

See also:

Did William Miller Get His Chronology and Dates From the Mayan Calendar? and Did Russell Claim Infallibilty? Russell, although he had some association with some of the Second Adventists, which neither he nor any of the Bible Students have ever tried to hide, never had any association with the 7th Day Adventists. The genuine history of the relationship regarding these various groups and organizations, however, has never been denied by Bible Students. Russell never believed in a sectarian religious organization such as the 7th Day Adventists, and certainly not the claims of its leaders to have received “visions” from God. We believe as did Russell, that Christ did indeed return in 1874. Although we believe this to be true, we do not try hinder the service of other Christians who may not be able to see this matter; indeed, we, as did Russell, do not even claim that our belief concerning this to be infallible.  And, if in the coming age when all matters will be set straight, we are proven to be wrong, a true Christian should be humble enough to admit that what he was mistaken concerning the matter, and accept whatever discipline may be needed at that time. The reverse is also true; if it is shown in the next age that what we believe is true, those Christians who have rejected this should be humble enough to submit to truth and any necessary discipline. I believe all of us will surprised in some way at errors we have believed. See our study: Parable of the Four Servants — Luke 12:42-48 It is claimed by paraDOXparABLEs: “The fact is I do know what I am speaking about and its based in fact.” We believe that he may be convinced that he knows what he is talking about, but we also believe that we do know what we are talking about, as, for instance, we KNOW Russell’s gravestone is not in the shape of pyramid. Here is a picture of Russell’s gravestone:

Russell’s GravestoneAs one can see, that gravestone is not in the shape of pyramid. There is no way to escape that a statement that Russell’s gravestone is a pyramid is not “based in fact”, except that one totally distort the “fact” to make it appear that Rutherford’s pyramid monument is Russell’s gravestone. And then the “fact” that Russell believed that the Great Pyramid is God’s Stone Witness in Egypt has to be distorted by means of human imagination so as to make it appear that Russell’s belief regarding this was because he was in support of the goals of the Freemasons, which it would have to imagined and assumed that he supported the goals of the Freemasons by spending his wealth, most of his time and energy to sabotage in tens of thousands of pages of material what he is being imagined to have been supporting by such a sabotage. For more information on Charles Taze Russell, see:

Focus on Charles Taze Russell

Regarding Russell’s gravestone:

Is Russell Buried In or Under a Pyramid?

Russell’s Pyramid Tomb?

CTR’s Gravestone

Yes, Russell never lost all faith in the Bible because of the Calvinistic views, but not just because of that, because of the Arminian view also. Both views called for an eternity of unimaginable concious suffering for those considered to be lost according to those views. Russell, once having learned of the ransom for all, rejected both the Arminian views as well as Calvinism, although he did show how the scriptures present both election as well as free will.

Here are some of his sermons or studies pertaining to this (although we are in generally agreement, we do not necessarily agree with all the details of his statements).

What is the True Gospel?

Our Lord’s Return – Its Object, the Restitution of All Things

Conceded At Last

Which is the True Gospel?

Election and Free Grace Can Be Harmonized

The scriptures say nothing about man’s soul being inherently immortal, nor of a triune God. Both doctrines would end up nullified the purpose of Christ’s death. There is no reason for a truth seeker to add those doctrines to scripture.

See our sites:

Life Now and Hereafter

Focus on the Atonement

Jesus and His God

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Is This True or False?

Posted on November 20, 2010. Filed under: Is it true what they say? | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

A post is presented on a site called “Hot Events” that asks the question directed toward “Jehovah’s Witnesses”: Is This True or False? I do not know if the question is thought of as rhetorical, but none of my responses to the post have been acknowledged, so I am left wondering if the owner posted this material, and asked the question without actually expecting anyone to seriously to challenge what is stated, thus, with the assumption that the statements are true.

After doing a search of the internet, I have found that this material has been copied and pasted to many sites, blogs and forums. It seems that many like rush to spread false accusations, misrepresentations, etc., without actually investigating whether what is stated is fact or not.

As a Bible Student, I am mostly concerned with what is being stated about Charles Taze Russell, and do not intend to respond all of the things being said about Rutherford and others.

#1: It is being claimed that the sect now known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses was started by Charles Taze Russell.

Is this true, or is it false? Many may be inclined to say it is true, but one who knows the facts, if he is honest, should answer: It is false!

The first major reason for answering that the statement is false is that Charles Taze Russell did not believe such a sectarian authoritarian organization as the Jehovah”s Witnesses. He actively preached against such authoritarian sectarianism. The JW organization was slowly formed by Joseph Rutherford after Russell died; the Bible Student movement as a whole did not become part of that organization. Indeed, the Bible Students movement that had been associated with Russell, as a whole (represented by the majority), rejected Rutherford’s new organization, and continued their activities without Rutherford or his new organization. Therefore, it is misleading to say that Russell started what is now the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

See the following:

Was Russell the Founder of What is Now Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Russell — Founder of the JWs?

Russell Was Not the Founder of the JWs

Is Russell Responsible for the JWs?

The second major reason for answering that the statement is false is that Russell taught a “Good News” that is almost the opposite of that Rutherford introduced, and which still serves as a basis for Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “Good News” to this day. When Rutherford introduced his new “good news”, he several times misrepresented what Russell taught on the “ransom for all,” setting up one strawman argument after another, and then knocking down the strawman. Many of these “strawman” arguments still appear in the Watchtower publications to this day.

Nevertheless, since Russell really did preach “glad tiding of great joy for all the people,” as opposed to the bad tiding of eternal destruction for all people who reject the JW organization, again it would be misleading to say that Russell started such sectarianism.

See Russell’s studies on:

Which is the True Gospel?

The True Gospel and Its Effects

Why Will There Be a Second Advent?

“The Day of Vengeance” What, When and Where Will It Be?

Ransom and Restitution

#2: It is being claimed that Russell, at the age of seventeen, tried to convert an atheist to Christianity, but that Russell was himself converted to agnosticism.

Is this true or false? Yes, this part is true; that is to say, Russell at least tended toward agnosticism, or perhaps deism, for a short while, believing that the unjust, unreasonable, diabolic doctrines of man’s so-called orthodoxy were actually part of the Bible.

#3: It is being claimed that some time later, Russell attended an Adventist meeting where he was told that Jesus would be back at any time, and thus Russell “got interested in the Bible.”

Is this true or false? I cannot answer this completely, because Russell did not state exactly what it was that sparked his interest when he attended Jonas Wendall’s meeting in 1870. Russell never stated what Wendell spoke on that aroused his interest, but considering what Russell did write concerning his views between 1870 to 1876, it seems highly unlikely that Russell would have been aroused with Wendall’s views on the return of Christ is 1874. It would seem more likely that Russell may have been aroused by Wendall’s views concerning the condition of the dead, or something similar. In Russell’s writings, he stated that he did not accept Wendell’s prophetic “dates”, and that he had no interest in prophetic dates until 1876; so it seems very likely, if Wendell had spoken on his views concerning 1873 in 1870, Russell, then tending toward agnosticism, would not have been attracted by what Wendell presented. However, if Wendell spoke on one of Russell’s greatest concerns about the Bible, that is “hell”, or something related to the condition of the dead and the resurrection, then it seems more logical that Russell would have responded to that message favorably.

See:

Wendall’s 1870 Presentation

#4: The claim is made that William Miller predicted the world to end in 1843, and then 1844. Due to the perceived failure of these dates, it is alleged “many people became frustrated and withdrew from the Adventist movement.” It is claimed that a remnant, being led by Ellen G. White, formed the Seventh-Day Adventist movement. The leading light of Adventism had been William Miller, a flamboyant preacher who predicted that the world would end in 1843. When it didn’t, he “discovered” an arithmetical error in his eschatological calculations and said it would end in 1844. When his prediction again failed, many people became frustrated and withdrew from the Adventist movement, but a remnant, led by Ellen G. White, went on to form the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, and that it was “this diminished Adventism which influenced Russell.

Is this true or is it false? It is basically true, but yet it is still deceptive. The reader will probably be left with the thought that Russell was influenced by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The author does not reveal that there were many “Adventists”, often referred to collectively as “Second Adventists”, who were not associated with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Russell was influenced by many “Second Adventists” writers, but I have found no evidence of any influence by any of the Seventh-Day Adventists’ writers.

#5: It is claimed that Russell took the title “Pastor” even though he never got through high school.

Is this true or false? It is true in the sense that Russell never had formal high school education as administered in classrooms; however, it is misleading since by the time he was ordained as pastor in Pittsburgh, his education through private tutors and his own self-education and would have rivaled that of many that of many college graduates. Nevertheless, the statement would seem to be saying that one has to have man’s secular training in a “high school” in order to serve as a pastor. The Bible never makes such a stipulation.

It is also misleading to say that Russell “took the title of Pastor.” Russell was appointed as pastor by the church that he was associated with in Allegheny, PA. He did not merely take the title or office upon himself.

#6: It is being claimed that before Russell got his religious career well underway, Russell promoted what he called “miracle wheat.”

Is it true or false? Did Russell, before “his religious career was well under way” even know of anything called “Miracle Wheat”? Assuming that one counts his “religious career” as having been well under way in 1879, when he started publishing The Watch Tower. Had he known anything of Miracle Wheat before he started publishing the magazine? Absolutely not! And certainly by 1904, he surely had his religious career well under way! Had he ever said anything at all about “Miracle Wheat”? Absolutely not! Kent Stoner did not discover the “Miracle Wheat” until 1906. Russell did not find out about it until about two years later, around 1908, when it was being reported in the newspapers. Kent Stoner was a farmer in Virginia, and had no association with Brother Russell or the Bible Students. The name “Miracle Wheat” was first given to this wheat by either Kent Stoner, one of his associates who helped him in isolating and keeping the strain pure, or by the newspapers. The point is that there is no way that Russell even knew about this “Miracle Wheat” “Before he got his religious career well underway.” He certainly had his “religious career” well under way in 1908, thus the statement is false.

#7: It is claimed that Russell promoted what he called “miracle wheat.”

This continues from #6. This needs to addressed in two parts:

Did Russell ever “promote” miracle wheat? Indirectly he did, but the use of the word “promote” might be misleading. What actually happened is that two farmers, both Bible Students, had purchased some seeds from Stoner and had grown a lot of this “Miracle Wheat”, and wished to offer it for sale, and would donate all proceeds to the Watch Tower Society. Russell placed announcements of this offer in the pages of the Watch Tower, and allowed the seeds to stored, packaged and shipped from the basement of the headquarters of the Society.

The second part, to address is: what he called “miracle wheat,”

This is not exactly false, but again it is misleading. Someone named a rounded plastic tubing “hula-hoop” and every one called it “hula-hoop.” Likewise, since Stoner’s wheat discovery was named “Miracle Wheat”, Russell also called by that name. However, it is highly likely that the author chose the above wording so as to imply that Russell is the one that named the wheat “Miracle Wheat”, and probably that is the what most readers would assume from the way its is written. Russell, of course, did not give the wheat its name; he did call it by the name that was given to it in the newspapers, that is, “Miracle Wheat.”

#8: The statement is made that Russell sold this Miracle Wheat at sixty dollars per bushel.

This I have to give as false. Russell himself did not sell any of the wheat; it was others who offered the wheat for sale. Russell simply conveyed their offer in a few words of the Watch Tower. The price of sixty dollars per bushel was $25 LESS per bushel than Stoner had been selling the same wheat.

#9: It is being stated that Russell claimed Miracle Wheat “would grow five times as well as regular wheat.”

This is definitely false! Russell never made any claims at all for Stoner’s Miracle Wheat. He published newspaper reports of Stoner’s claims and claims by others concerning Miracle Wheat, but I have been unable locate any place where even Stoner or anyone ever stated exactly that it would grow five times as well as regular wheat. Newspaper reports were showing that it did grow many times more than other wheat, but the amounts varied from farmer to farmer.

#10 It is being claimed that Stoner’s Miracle Wheat grew slightly less well than regular wheat, that this was established in court when Russell was sued.

False on two counts. (1) The wheat was shown in court to produce several times that of regular wheat. (2) Russell was never sued regarding Miracle Wheat. It was Russell who sued the Daily Brooklyn Eagle for libel.

For the true facts regarding Russell and Miracle Wheat, see:

Charles Taze Russell and the Miracle Wheat Story

Pastor Russell in Reply to Critics

A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens

Borlaug’s New Miracle Wheat (Search)

#11 It is being claimed that Russell “marketed a fake cancer cure.”

False. The cancer cure that Russell obtained was not fake; many seem to simply assume that it must have been “fake” since they have already condemned Russell of all kinds of other falsehoods, thus it seems that they are willing to believe that they have a right to assume anything else imaginable. The formula which Russell obtained from a doctor was legit, and similar formulas are used to this day to treat skin cancer. However, the use of the word “marketed” implies that he was selling this formula.

Here is how Russell himself describes the way he “marketed” this formula, as shown from his offer: “The recipe has come to us free and we are willing to communicate the formula, but to those only who are troubled with surface cancers and who will write to us directly, stating particulars. No fee will be charged, but in order to protect the sufferers, we require a promise that they will not sell the formula to others, nor receive pay for the use of it, nor communicate the formula to anybody. Any one known to be a sufferer can be informed of the terms on which the prescription is obtainable through us.”

See:

A Cure for Surface Cancer

#12: It is being claimed that Russell also marketed what he termed a “millennial bean.” The comment is made that the name “millennial bean” probably meant that it took a thousand years to sprout.

The way this is presented is false. Again, the word “marketed” is also applied to this “Millennial Bean.” The statement that Russell “termed” this “millennial bean” is also misleading, since he is not the one who gave it the name “millennial bean.”

See our report:
Millennial Bean

#13: It being claimed that Russell taught his followers the non-existence of hell.

Is this true? No! Russell taught anyone who would listen that the Bible hell does exist, but that it is not the kind of “hell” taught by man’s self-claimed “orthodoxy.”

See:

To Hell and Back! Who Are There?

Click Here for a search of Russell’s works regarding the Bible hell.

See our subdomain:
Life Now and Hereafter

#14: It is being claimed that Russell taught his followers the annihilation of unsaved people, which doctrine, it is being claimed, Russell picked up from the Adventists).

Is this true? No, Russell did not teach the annihilation of “unsaved people.” The author who makes this claim simply seems to be ignorant of what Russell did teach. Indeed, one of the main reasons for starting the Watch Tower magazine was to combat this false teaching that many Adventists were promoting. However, the writer, by using the word “Adventists” is probably referring to the Seventh-Day Adventists, not to the general groups often referred to as the “Second Adventists.”

While I do not necessarily agree with all of Russell’s conclusions, I would recommend reading Russell’s studies:

Our Lord’s Return – Its Object: The Restitution of All Things

The Day of Judgment

Ransom and Restitution

While many Adventists were teaching the annihilation of unsaved people, Russell rejected that teaching, and proclaimed the “ransom for all” saves everyone who is dying in Adam. — John 12:47,48; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.

#15: It being claimed that Russell taught the non-existence of the Trinity.

Is this true? Yes! And I agree with him on this, since it was Jesus himself who said that the Father is the only true God. — John 17:3.

For many studies related to this, see:
Jesus and His God

#16: It is being claimed that Russell taught the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel.

Did Russell identify Jesus with Michael the Archangel? Yes, as this conclusion is indicated from the Bible itself. However, before Russell reached this conclusion, many trinitarians had reached the same conclusion, that is, that Michael is Jesus.

See:

Michael the Archangel

Trinitarians and Michael the Archangel

#17: It is being claimed that Russell “the reduction of the Holy Spirit from a person to a force.”

Russell did not have to reduce the holy spirit from being a person, since the Bible no where presents the holy spirit as a person of the God to whom the holy spirit belongs. In the phrase “spirit of God” (ELOHIM, Genesis 1:2), does the word “God” (ELOHIM) represent one person, or three persons? Does the alleged person of the holy spirit belong to one person or three persons, one of which would be the person of the holy spirit which would then belong to the person of the holy spirit?

God’s holy spirit is likened to God’s finger (as the power of God). (Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20) As the instrument of the revealing of truth, the holy spirit is likened to God’s “mouth”. (1 Kings 8:24; 2 Chronicles 6:4; 36:12,21; Ezra 1:1; Isaiah 1:20; 40:5; 45:23; 48:3; 58:14; 62:2; Jeremiah 9:12,20; Ezekiel 33:7; Micah 4:4; Matthew 4:4; Mark 12:36; Acts 1:17; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7; 9:8; 10:15,16; 2 Peter 1:21) Are we to think of God’s finger or his mouth as a separate and distinct person of God (using trinitarian terminology)? Is your finger, or your mouth, a separate and distinct person of yourself?

In Russell’s studies on the Holy Spirit, we have not found any place that he ever describes the Holy Spirit of God as simply being “force.” If by “force”, one means “power”, this is certainly an aspect of God’s Holy Spirit.

See Russell’s studies:
The Channel of the Atonement: The Holy Spirit of God

Hear O Israel! Jehovah Our God is One: Jehovah

#18: It is being claimed that Russell taught the mortality (not immortality) of the soul.

This is true, at least as related to the dogma that says that man’s soul is inherently immortal; I believe Russell was correct in not adding to the scriptures this dogma an inherent immortal soul or spirit that continues to be conscious when the body dies. Such an idea is not once presented in the Bible, and one has to call upon the spirit of human imaginations in order “see” such a doctrine any where in the Bible.

CLICK HERE for a list of studies that are related to immortality.

#19 — It is being claimed that Russell taught the return of Jesus in 1914.

This is totally false. Russell never once taught the return of Christ in 1914. In 1876, Russell accepted that Russell had already returned in 1874, and he believed this until the day he died.

#20 — When 1914 had come and gone, with no Jesus in sight, Russell modified his teachings and claimed Jesus had, in fact, returned to Earth, but that his return was invisible.

The above is also false. Obviously, if Russell did not teach the return of Christ in 1914, he did not change his viewpoint concerning 1914 as the return of Christ, since Russell was never expecting Christ to return in 1914 at all. Russell was expecting the time of trouble to begin (Armageddon) in 1914, and we believe that time of trouble did begin in 1914, and we are still in that time of trouble to this day.

It is stated:

#21 It is being claimed that Russell taught that Christ’s visible return would come later (evidently after 1914), but still very soon.

As stated this is also false. Although I am not sure what is meant by the above statement, Russell did not believe that Jesus would ever return “in the flesh.” We have found no reference in Russell’s writings wherein he ever stated that he was a “visible return” of Christ at any time. Russell believed that Jesus offered his flesh once for all time as an offering for sin (Hebrews 10:10), thus Russell was not expecting for Jesus to come in that flesh at anytime. Nevertheless, the effects of the invisible kingdom of Jesus will be made manifest throughout the earth. Russell was, from 1904 to 1914, expecting the manifestation of Christ and the church to be some time after 1914, but if the thought is that Russell that Christ would return in his former flesh, Russell never believed such an idea. Russell began to realize around 1873 that Christ would not come again in his sacrificed flesh or body. Jesus does not take back his sacrifice.

Another point concerning this is also important to understand: Russell did not believe in “Armageddon” as it is taught by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. His view that was that “Armageddon” was to be over a period of time, in which many events were to take place. He believed that Armageddon was to discipline the nations, not to eternally destroy millions of men, women and children without their obtaining any benefit from the ransom for all.

#22 It is being claimed that in 1931, Rutherford changed the name of “sect” to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

While Rutherford did indeed change the name of his new organization to “Jehovah’s Witnesses” in 1931, it is deceptive if one thinks that the Bible Students movement became Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a whole (represented by the vast majority), the Bible Students movement rejected Rutherford’s new organization and his new gospel associated with “organization” doctrine. Thus, as a whole, the general name of the movement “Bible Students” was never changed to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The “Bible Students” continue exist to this day.

The following provide links to other sites that present essentially the same misleading material:

Is This True or False? – Catholic Answers

Is This True or False? – Catholic Apologetics

Is This True or False? – The Age Cases

Is This True or False? – Pittsburgh City Guide

Is This True or False? – The Truth About Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 6 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...