JW Insider

@Jack Ryan might have a lot of issues, or these might not even be his own issues. At any rate, this particular question is a good one, in my opinion. (And @Gone Away it doesn't really matter if he should expand it to include all persons who get hurt from all types of crimes and injustices. He has started with a specific, narrow example and this should help us to focus on the point of the question.) Back to what you were saying that I requoted, @Space Merchant: In this case, J.Ryan is not treating pedophilia and child sexual abuse as if it were just a JW-only thing. In fact, the nature of the question very clearly shows that he is questioning why we are quick to imply that angels have often run interference for JWs who are in the midst of the preaching work. He is right that we have shown images of angels in protective mode and guiding mode as they watch over the preaching work. I know of several of the images he is referring to. There have been dozens of examples of experiences printed in yearbooks, Watchtowers, and from the convention platform that thank Jehovah for specific cases of angelic protection in the face of all kinds of dangers. Most of these more recent articles about angels, with one exception, no longer depict a ghostly angel hovering over the door-to-door work, although one recent one, below, indicates that they are "over" the cart-witnessing work. Most of the more recent articles show several examples of angels in Biblical times then show the preaching work, but without the depiction of the angel in modern times. Still, the wording that goes along with the pictures is telling: Watchtower, 5/15/2009 p.23 and 24 When viewed alongside the recent pictures that try to give us a sense of the hundreds of millions of such angels standing at the ready it really does, and really should, make us wonder about specific activities that angels are handling in modern times. Did those angels in the Yearbook experiences really make a person miss when they shot bullets at point blank range during times of war and persecution in modern times? Did angels make a person of the right heart condition glance over at a cart? Or was it the receptive heart condition that caused them to glance? Did an angel send a Witness to the door exactly when the householder finished praying for guidance in their search? Other religions have told of the same experiences. What makes our claims different? These questions will also touch on why Jehovah permits wickedness, and why someone's prayer might be answered when another one's is not. It may also touch on human nature. When almost everyone except an especially photogenic young child is saved from an explosion, a burning building or a crashed train or airplane, we will often hear the media interviewing people who say that God must have had a special purpose for that child. We will hear about how wonderful God is in sending an angel to swoop down and save this one or that one. We will not hear about the injustice and loss to the others who died. At any rate, not that anyone has a complete answer, but this is still a good question. Angels help declare the good news throughout the earth -- Watchtower's caption, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017169

I suspect you reversed this convention.

POPE FRANCIS TRIES HIS HAND AT TECHNOLOGY PREDICTIONS A paper from the local Vatican press office, http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino.html , L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, has reported on a speech that Pope Francis gave last month while looking out from above Vatican Square and addressing a crowd of visitors below. Most of the speech was intended as spiritual encouragement in a changing world. I'll only attempt to quote a very small portion of the article that deals with a specific technical prediction: Looking out over a crowd of persons, mostly tourists in Vatican Square, Pope Francis was no doubt responding to the sea of smartphones aimed up at him. To the delight of the crowd, his apparently unscripted speech veered into the arena of technical forecasting, and he made an astounding prediction. He began by saying that it was now hard to imagine that so many past generations lived without ever seeing the many inventions that we now take for granted. He said that the current generation has seen a lot of changes in their lifetimes, too, but that the younger generation has already grown up on iPods, iPads and iPhones, and that they take these things for granted to such an extent that they will not be surprised in the least if they find themselves getting from town to town in self-flying cars long before their own generation passes away. This is where the Pope, evidently paying some homage to the Olivet sermon, added: "But truly I tell you that this generation will not pass away before self-flying cars will be taking us from one town to another, and even from one part of town to another." The above sermon never happened (as far as I know) which is why I put this in "controversial posts." It's fake news. I know it is fake because I just made it all up myself 2 minutes ago. I made it up because we just don't talk enough about the meaning of the term "this generation," as found in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32. I use the example because it addresses the fact that generations overlap. Even in Jesus' day, let's say that the average person lived to be 65 years old and the average person got married and had a son at age 25. And if that son grew up the same, and his son grew up the same, etc., then any person hearing Jesus would, on average, be alive for a few years while their grandparents were still alive, and their first 40 years while their own father was still alive, and their last 40 years while their son was still alive, and their last 15 years while their grandson was still alive. For most of their life there would be 3 overlapping generations. The length of time between each new generation was about 25 years, using this example. Yet, it's also obvious that when Jesus said "this generation" that he didn't need to be addressing only the youngest generation that was just then coming up. He was more likely addressing the entire group of all overlapping generations and treating them as if they were one group of people who would not completely die out before they saw "these things occur." (Remember that the original question was "When will these things occur?" (Referring to the destruction of Jerusalem's temple when not a stone will be left upon a stone.) It occured 37 years later, so that even a 50+ year old grandparent might live to see it, and even a 25+ year old father would very likely live to see it, and his children in the very youngest generation would almost all live to see it. So we can easily see that Jesus was more likely referring to all these overlapping generations as contemporaries. Meaning, all these people who were then alive at the same time. So the question might come up: Could Jesus have been addressing people who had not been born yet? There would be people born over the next 37 years who would also see the destruction of the Temple ("these things") occur. That would be natural. But is that who Jesus was addressing, or was he addressing all the people alive (contemporaries) in the audience? Scripture becomes very flexible when we need it to mean something that it never meant, but we are less forgiving when it comes to contemporary humans who claim they meant something when they said something else. For example, what would we think if 50 years from now, people still weren't seeing these flying cars, and supporters of the Pope starting claiming that he didn't mean his own generation, or the generation of parents, but he meant only the youngest generation of children, the ones who were just then growing up on their iPads and iPhones? That's clearly not what he meant, but we'll accept the possible interpretation as not too far off. But what if 100 years from the time of the speech, even that younger generation had died off? Now the only possible way that the Pope could be right is for people to defend him by saying that the Pope meant that these things would be seen by people who had not yet been born at the time of the "speech." He meant that as the people died out and didn't yet see it, that they would overlap with a new group of people, born as many as 80 or 90 years after the speech, whose lives might have just barely overlapped with those who had actually heard the speech in Vatican Square. They would start to claim that this is the real meaning of the term "this generation." At this point we would probably think that those defenders of the Pope were just lying.

The video with the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1 caught my attention. I've used this in discussions of Trinity as evidence that the NWT has found a fair (but literal) translation of the verse. I wondered what scholars have said about it lately and found a very accessible page about it here: http://www.equip.org/article/jehovahs-witnesses-john-11-new-evidence-advances-discussion/ The overall intent of the write-up is to dismiss the NWT. But it is illuminating in that the writer has so much trouble finding other Coptic evidence that might apply. He twice advances the possibility that this 2nd to 4th century manuscript might actually be from a different perspective than that of the Nicene creed. In other words, non-Trinitarian. But after considering as much relevant evidence as deemed necessary, the writer concludes something which is exactly in line with our own understanding of the verse. Likewise, I am aware of this new evidence, and have weighed the various options. At the end of the day, I believe the best explanation of all three occurrences of the indefinite article in the Sahidic Coptic version of the New Testament is the qualitative one. Therefore, John 1:1c should read: ‘and the Word [Jesus] possesses the same qualities as God.’ This scholarly supported category contextually fits other, grammatically similar passages and best corresponds with what is attested elsewhere—scripturally and historically. The writer thinks it is so important to get rid of the very literal translation "a god" that he doesn't seem to realize that he has actually found agreement with our own position about the verse in that it means "a god" (or even "a God") in the sense of having the same divine qualities as God. This of course fits the context, the rest of the book of John, and helps explain what have seemed to be other difficult passages in Trinity discussions.

I was reading up on the Russian Orthodox Church and noticed that they have an unusually high number of books (apparently) which defend the idea that the "Church" must have more mystery. Both these articles you linked tend to want to make the relationship of God to Christ [and the holy spirit] a "mystery." The first guy says it's a mystery so we shouldn't have tried to make up stuff about it. The Trinity defender says it's a mystery and that's why we should keep using the terms as they have developed over the last couple millennia about the Trinity. For thousands of years, I suppose that priests (including the "academic priesthood") have discovered that even so-called knowledge is power.

Very funny. Even though I already saw this over on your site.

Hey! I wasn't the one doing the "lifting." ?

Yup.

I must admit my confusion at the two different writing styles. Turns out that almost the entire post was a verbatim copy from the FoxNews article from the start, right up until the sentence just requoted (without attribution, I might add). [ http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/27/water-on-mars-does-sciences-theory-about-origin-life-hold-up.html ] Then you threw in a couple paragraphs just before the end from The Onion, of all places, before finishing with Michael Guillen's last sentence again: With every passing year in our search for extraterrestrial water and life, we are getting closer to finding, if not outright proof, then a resolution to Clark’s assertion. Is intelligence ultimately a blessing or a curse? Surely, the answer will make for the biggest headline of all. Michael Guillen Ph.D., former Emmy-winning ABC News Science Editor, taught physics at Harvard and is now president of Spectacular Science Productions. His thriller, "The Null Prophecy," was released in July, 2017. His upcoming book, "The End Of Life As We Know It: Ominous News From The Frontiers Of Science," is coming out October 16th. The Onion article was where all this paragraph started: Shortly following a transmission sent by the Mars Express spacecraft verifying that its instruments had detected a subglacial lake a mile below the planet’s surface, the European Space Agency confirmed Thursday that the orbiter’s surface-penetrating radar had disturbed the eternal and unspeakable dreaming of an aeons-old, world-ravaging malevolence, waking it from its 500-million-year slumber in the underground Martian reservoir. etc. etc. [ https://www.theonion.com/world-eating-leviathan-awoken-from-500-million-year-slu-1827928509 ]

Agreed.

There are plenty of ways that elders and sisters and children in the congregation can "take the lead." Those with specific responsibilities should take the lead in the conduct necessary to meet those responsibilities. In Romans, the entire congregation, children included, are asked to take the lead: (Romans 12:10) 10 In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor to one another, take the lead. This is not specifically an extension of the role of older men. This is also about how the apostles would take the lead in honoring a sister, or a sister would take the lead in honoring an apostle. Or a young child would honor their parents, or the parents would honor the child. The honor goes to one another, so it is obviously based on respect for the dignity of each one of us, based on Christian conduct and love. We should be willing to die for one another if necessary. (Luke 22:25-27) 25 But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. 26 You, though, are not to be that way. But let the one who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the one taking the lead as the one ministering. 27 For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? But I am among you as the one serving. On the issue of the submission mentioned in Hebrews 13:17, note that the NWT crosses this to Ephesians 5:21 where, again, we are to be submissive to one another. There is an order with respect to responsibilities, but wives are honored in that the husband should have the attitude and willingness to give up his life for his wife, just as Christ had that much love for the congregation. (Ephesians 5:21-26) 21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. 22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23 because a husband is head of his wife just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, wives should also be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it. The idea of Hebrews 13:17 is probably better linked to 1 Th 5:12, about showing respect (honor) for those doing the work required to preside and teach and admonish. Still, this is all in the context of people doing their part in serving others based on their gifts and abilities. Those older men, especially, who teach must work harder to prepare material that meets the needs of the congregation. They are watching the congregation as a good shepherd would for areas of weakness and danger and areas where more encouragement and good examples are needed. Since they are working to meet the needs of the congregation, the congregation would do well to be obedient and submissive, as this is directly related to the upbuilding and encouragement of both the overseers and those who are being watched. Humbly following good admonition brings joy to those doing shepherding work and brings joy to those following the admonition. It's another form of mutual encouragement that helps to build up the congregation. (1 Thessalonians 5:11-15) 11 Therefore, keep encouraging one another and building one another up, just as you are in fact doing. 12 Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; 13 and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work. Be peaceable with one another. 14 On the other hand, we urge you, brothers, to warn the disorderly, speak consolingly to those who are depressed, support the weak, be patient toward all. 15 See that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others

Yes. That is how humans are. That is how nations are. That is how the world is. But that is not the way among Christians. (Matthew 20:24-27) 24 When the ten others heard of this, they became indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus, calling them to him, said: “YOU know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This is not the way among YOU; but whoever wants to become great among YOU must be YOUR minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among YOU must be YOUR slave. Hebrews 13 gives us the right view of leadership in the same context, and in the chapters leading up to this verse. In context, we are submissive in that we look to follow good examples of older men and others who have remained faithful and have continued to show brotherly love (13:1), continued to show hospitality (13:2), visited those in prison and those who have been mistreated (13:3), continued to keep their marriages honorable (13:4), continue to lead a life free of the love of money putting faith in Jehovah instead (13:5,6). Therefore, as we are looking for examples to follow so that our own lives can turn out just as honorably, we look to those who came before us, those who have taught us about such things, and those in the congregation who are right there in front of us to find such faithful examples: (Hebrews 13:7) Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. The main reason we meet together is in order to look for and hear from such encouraging examples of fine conduct and good works: (Hebrews 10:24-25) 24 And let us consider [fn: 'pay attention to'] one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . . Those who are taking the lead, then, are the ones we see regularly giving their time to those who have been mistreated, those setting a good example when it comes to a non-materialistic lifestyle, morality, hospitality, etc. We look for such persons as we meet together, and as our own faith and conduct turns out, others will be looking to us for the same kind of encouragement, so that we are encouraging one another to love and fine works. But we are not to look to the example of Israel, and their human kings and priests, as an example to go back to. People often bring up Moses (and sometimes Aaron) and how their leadership was not to be questioned, as a good example for our day, which completely misses the point about the leadership of Christ. Persons who question the Governing Body for example are quickly reminded of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. But that doesn't mean that anyone who sets themselves up in the seat of Moses today shouldn't be questioned. It can mean the opposite, because we should question the very fact of any group of humans sets themselves up in a leadership position like that of Moses. (Hebrews 3:1-6) . . .consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge—Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses also was in all the house of that One. 3 For he is counted worthy of more glory than Moses, since the one who constructs a house has more honor than the house itself. 4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God. 5 Now Moses was faithful as an attendant in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech and the hope of which we boast down to the end. None of us are to be faithful to anyone in the house, because, at most, we are the house. But Jesus is the only one who is over the house. Anyone who claims to be a special attendant in God's household of faith today should be questioned. They are trying to "lord it over" others in the same household. Anyone who believes that their form of Christianity requires such a hierarchy to create an "ark of salvation" must watch out that they are not being like Korah if they in any way try to share the leadership of Jesus Christ, or attempt to mediate the salvation of that household. (Hebrews 8:7-13) 7 If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second. . . . 10 “‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I will write them. And I will become their God, and they will become my people. 11 “‘And they will no longer teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful toward their unrighteous deeds, and I will no longer call their sins to mind.’” 13 In his saying “a new covenant,” he has made the former one obsolete. Now what is obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away.

Yes. Some. Not so much the somewhat innocent involvement with such things, but the promotion of them in the service of religion. I was reading a "Modern Living" type magazine from the 1930's yesterday and couldn't help but notice how much like the "Golden Age" that it was, except that the Golden Age backed up its quackery with religious ideology. That's where it's more cringe-worthy.

Not so much that, but something related to it. (And I'm not actually that concerned about any modern-day play on the idea that "messenger"="angel", although some Bible Students actually started up Angelophone (Angelico) Records as a way to promote Russell's sermons in combination with religious hymns.) The orange "book-study" book named "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" changed the prophetic fulfillment of the Elijah-Elisha mantle transfer to the transfer between Rutherford's presidency and Knorr's presidency. Previously, it was explained that this part of the Bible had really been prophesying the transfer from Russell's presidency to Rutherford's presidency. (Rutherford himself had NOT tried to focus this fulfillment just on himself personally, but focused more on the work of the "Society" beginning especially in 1918 and 1919. He would have focused on 1916/1917, I think, if he thought this was about him personally.) Although it was easy to see that the "ns" book's focus was on the presidents themselves, technically the wording of the doctrine also vaguely included those anointed associates of Rutherford and Knorr, too. But it was a moot point because all the quotes and references were almost all about Rutherford the individual and Knorr the individual. So it was a distinction without a distinction. Of course, the Society (in 2014) dropped the so-called "prophetic narrative" teachings, and 1942 is no longer significant prophetically. But we still look back especially to just one particular name from pre-1914, that of C.T.Russell, and his associates. And, yes, it results in looking back at Russell as the "Leader" during this time period. To me, this detracts us from seeing Jesus as the only Leader during this time period (and all time periods from his earthly life, his resurrection, and his presence with us until the conclusion of the system of things). Yes, Jesus was able to use and bless the efforts of another sinful human. I'm not at all concerned about the very minor danger that some might be confused if Russell's reputation becomes tarnished whenever some of his more hidden episodes are revealed. In my opinion, the scope creep that is much more dangerous to true Christians is that it legitimizes a similar view that tells us we should elevate to a kind of rulership, or at least "governorship," a small group of sinful humans in our day. It tends to make us want to put our trust in nobles, in whom no salvation belongs. It tends to make us forget that we should let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.

I figure that when C.T.Russell had read George Storrs' phrenological report from 1849, published in his "Six Sermons" in 1855, that Russell just had to have one, too. Some phrenology was used to prove that criminals were born that way and that there should be no death penalty, but most White men who were would-be promoters of their ideas would go to these racists, I mean, phrenologists, to help prove to the public how smart they were. George Storrs report concluded the following about him: A Phrenological description of Mr. Storrs, given in 1849, may conclude this account of the author of the Six Sermons. It is as follows:— Mr. Storrs' physical and mental constitution is durable; he has considerable force and energy of character, with fortitude,firmness and perseverance. He thinks for himself, but is open to conviction; will not be forced, but may be persuaded.He is naturally confiding, but experience may have, to a considerable extent, corrected this predisposition to believe, confide in, or give credence to. He is a man of enlarged views, liberal sentiment, and a benevolent disposition. His object is truth, and this he strives to obtain, no matter at what sacrifice. He consults duty before expediency; and would sooner stand alone with truth, than go with the multitude and be in error; yet, he is not dogmatical in the advocacy of what he conceives to be the truth, but is rather persuasive, conciliatory and argumentative. He is a warm friend, a good companion, and an excellent counsellor. He takes comprehensive views of things, examines both sides of all questions of a scriptural character, and decides according to the weight of evidence. - While he uncompromisingly advocates what he believes to be truth, in opposition to this and past ages, he does not sit in judgment on his opponents, but leaves them in the hands of God, to whom they must give account, and unto whom they stand or fall. How convenient, that bumps on one's head could reveal just how good someone was at interpreting scripture. If phrenologists were such good judges of such things, one wonders why we didn't just make sure that the best religions were started by phrenologists themselves. Russell, in 1913, wrote in the March 15 Watch Tower: The Scriptures say that no man can come unto Christ except the Father draw him. (John 6:44.) The answer is that the drawing cannot be done through the Holy Spirit; for the world has not yet received that Spirit. The drawing power which the Almighty exercises over humanity is in different degrees. Some have a strong desire to worship God, others have a weak desire, and others have no desire at all. This difference is due to the shape of the brain. Mankind are born with differences in this respect.--Psa. 51:5. Beliefs like this must have informed some of the more racist statements found in early Watch Tower publications. The July 15, 1907 Watch Tower included some interesting conclusions correlating the phrenology map with the layout of the Tabernacle: Without claiming that Phrenology has reached a perfection of development--without claiming that any has learned to read accurately from the shape of the human skull the various traits of character therein represented, even while admitting that such a reading of character might be defective, and particularly so with those whose characters have been transformed by the renewing of their mind through the begettal of the holy Spirit--nevertheless we may admit that Phrenology so far as understood fully corroborates the picture given us in the arrangement of the Tabernacle of Israel surrounded by the camp. Thus:-- If we imagine the human skull as spread out flat, we find that the central part would correspond to the Tabernacle and its court; for in the very center of the head on top lies spirituality, and directly in front of it lies veneration. The latter organ would correspond well to the court, the former to the holy. As to enter the holies it was necessary to pass through the court, so to enter into a proper heart-appreciation of the spiritual things it is necessary that we enter in through veneration, reverence for God, which will lead us to worship him and to seek to know and to do his will. Surrounding these two central organs are others which correspond well to the different divisions of the tribe of Levi--the sacred tribe devoted to the service of God in the court and in the Tabernacle. These organs represent faith, hope, benevolence, conscientiousness, firmness, etc., and then outside of these again come the various organs of the mind, which have to do more particularly with earthly things. These, useful and valuable in themselves, all need to be controlled and guided from the center. Even as in the camp of Israel, the center, the Tabernacle, was not controlled by the tribes, but the tribes were controlled and guided from the Tabernacle. Thus all the talents and qualities of mind and body which we possess, and which are all represented in our brains, are all to be subject to and guided by our reverence for God and our spiritual perception of his will concerning us, which will is to be expressed primarily through the intermediary organs of benevolence, faith, hope, conscience, etc. It's ironic that the primary reason people like Russell went to phrenologists was to get their ego boosted, or for self-promotional reasons. At Russell's trial with his wife, he lost his case primarily because the judge agreed with Maria Russell that he had often acted with excessively arrogance. C.T.Russell's defense included the fact that he had seen two phrenologists, and both assured him that "he was deficient in self-esteem." So there! (See Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, Vol. 37, p. 351)

We had a fairly recent Watchtower Study and a very recent Congregation Bible Study where it was claimed that Russell and his movement represented the larger fulfillment of the messenger [Gk. "angel"] of Malachi 3:1-4: *** ws13 7/15 pp. 10-11 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” *** A MESSENGER ‘CLEARS UP A WAY’ 5 Long before Jesus gave the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jehovah inspired Malachi to foretell some of the same events. (Read Malachi 3:1-4.) John the Baptizer was the ‘messenger who cleared up the way.’ (Matthew 11:10, 11) The nation of Israel would be judged soon after John’s arrival in the year 29. Jesus was the second messenger mentioned in Malachi’s prophecy. He cleansed the temple in Jerusalem twice. The first time was at the start of his ministry, and the second was at the end of his ministry. (Matthew 21:12, 13; John 2:14-17) So the cleansing of that temple happened over a period of time. 6 What is the larger fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy? For many years before 1914, C. T. Russell and the brothers working with him did a work like that of John the Baptizer. Russell and unnamed associates are the LARGER fulfillment of Malachi, whereas John the Baptizer was therefore the SMALLER fulfillment when he cleared up the way for Jesus. *** kr chap. 2 p. 14 pars. 5-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? 6 Throughout this publication, we will find answers to such questions in the thrilling history of Jehovah’s modern-day people. This history shows that in the latter part of the 19th century, one small group of faithful people was emerging as the only body of genuine Christians in a vast field of imitations. That group came to be known as the Bible Students. Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so.

That sentence might have just pinpointed the issue. Russell collected a body of teachings and promoted them with faith and vigor and a sense of urgency. Jehovah doesn't forget his work and the love he showed for him. Neither should we. (Hebrews 6:10) For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name by ministering and continuing to minister to the holy ones. But we should not be trying to defend him as a person in such a way that we rationalize the false teachings. For most of my life I fell into the same trap of saying, yes he was wrong on this or that, but we can ignore it because of the greater good he did. I had to wonder why I am defending him as a person. He may or may not have been a good person, we can't judge. I believe that in the main he was a very good person. And when I had read through the old Watch Tower magazines, I realized that the majority of his work was still quite useful and valuable for Christians and would-be Christians. (As opposed to "The Finished Mystery" aka "The Seventh Volume," for example, for which the great majority of it is worthless and false.) But we are not supposed to concern ourselves with Russell as a person, or defend him as if he were some kind of canonized saint. We should be concerned with the truth and "wholesomeness" of the teachings that we have basically inherited from the body of teachings he collected. (1 Timothy 1:10) .and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching (1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly. One of the great problems, in my opinion, of course, is that when Bible Students and Watch Tower readers heard what Russell taught and thought, they might think: Russell might have many things wrong but who is to say? For example(s): Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the value of the Great Pyramid to our faith. Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the times and seasons (eschatology), and built up a whole doctrine around a debate over words like "parousia" that had come up as a means to avoid admitting the complete failure of a false prophecy. Now we may still agree with some of these teachings, but some of them were clearly wrong, and many Bible Students apparently accepted them without question: He might be wrong, but who is to say? But Jesus, in Revelation 2-3 had said that it was up to each of us to say: individual Christians and Christian congregations. Just as Paul said that even if it were apostles or angels who declared something not in line with the truth they had learned, THEY, as individuals were responsible to reject the teachings even of those who were called and seen as apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:5) 5 For I consider that I have not proved inferior to your superfine apostles in a single thing. (Galatians 1:8 ) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:17) 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was,. . . (Galatians 2:5, 6) 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. (Revelation 2:2) . . .put to the test those who say they are apostles,. . . When Paul said: "O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence . . .?" (Galatians 3:1) he knew it included some of the 12 original apostles of Jesus himself, or what we might call the "Governing Body" at Jerusalem. The Galatians were so enamored by their position and how they were so highly regarded, that Paul needed to remind them that even if it were an angel out of heaven, they shouldn't listen. Did Paul mean that everything that came out of Jerusalem and the teaching of the apostles was "evil"? Of course not! He just used it as an example to prove that they should have been more responsible to pick and choose as mature persons: (Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. Today, we have the same issue. The "Governing Body" provides us with a wealth of valuable and nourishing spiritual food. They admit that they aren't inspired and that might even be wrong on some doctrines. But we generally go about with the attitude: They might be wrong on some things, but who's to say? In such a case, it's clearly our own faith, reasonableness and conscience that must come into play. (1 Timothy 4:6-16) 6 By giving this counsel to the brothers, you will be a fine minister of Christ Jesus, one nourished with the words of the faith and of the fine teaching that you have followed closely. 7 But reject irreverent false stories. . . 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . .

I think this is important, and especially the scriptures supporting this idea in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 13. Also, I think it's easy to read what I said as a kind of "attack" on the "Governing Body" or even "the faithful and discreet slave." On the contrary, I think we should all appreciate the great good that is being done by the Governing Body, and all exemplary elders in leadership positions. I think that we should look back on what C.T.Russell did, and what he taught, and how he progressed, and see it with much appreciation for his efforts in the restoration of pure worship. (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. We should give him his due, just as we would all other exemplary persons who work hard in the interests of Jehovah's Kingdom through Christ Jesus. That was Russell's primary focus, and we benefit so much from his hard work. G.A. pointed out these same types of things that I have repeated here, too: However, no one should need a TITLE for these things. Jesus said that all of you are brothers. (Matthew 23:8) But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. Older men and other servants who met certain exemplary criteria would be used in the congregations to lead, shepherd, oversee, administer and teach. None of those things require a "title." But to say that one person or one small group of persons should be looked up to as "leaders" is something Jesus said was wrong. I know there is a tendency to try to defend Russell (in his day) and the current Governing Body for every current teaching. The way in which the concept of "Governing Body" is used exacerbates this issue. But this is not the way that Jesus expected congregations to work. We can love and appreciate all teachings that we can accept with a clear conscience. Fortunately, that's a very high percentage. But some here have argued that we must accept every "wind of teaching" even the ones that have tossed us about this way and that way. (As all eschatological teachings have done.) Look at the principles of local congregational direction and personal responsibility that Jesus expected of each congregation in the examples in Revelation: (Revelation 2:1,2,6) “To the angel of the congregation in Ephʹe·sus write: These are the things that he says who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: 2 ‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . . 6 Still, you do have this in your favor: that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:14, 15) 14 “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, . . . 15 In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus. (Revelation 2:24) 24 “‘However, I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching,. . . I am not putting on you any other burden. 25 Just the same, hold fast to what you have until I come. We can be very appreciative of all the wonderful things we have learned from work done and distributed by the Governing Body, but Jesus implies that he might still take us to task for following teachings that we should have known were not right. I mean it as an exaggeration, of course, but notice how not-so-different these verses just quoted from Revelation are from a make-believe verse that might have said: "Still you have this in your favor: that you have adhered to the teachings from my Word which you have learned from the beginning. Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching charts of Brother Splane.

If you believe the Watch Tower publications, however, you would have to agree that he actually did claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." I know you have already seen the quotes in "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" that the WTS published, along with reports from his funeral, Convention reports from both before and after his death, and A. H. MacMillan's book "Faith on the March." Even though he did say it to some, he most certainly did not need to. Many of the most successful men of the 19th century were experts at "mock humility." In some situations it was considered the only "proper" way to communicate one's authority and title to others. One method was to always allow others to introduce your title. (Colossians 2:18) 18 Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. He is actually puffed up without proper cause by his fleshly frame of mind, Teaching that there was only one person in his day who should be identified as that faithful and wise servant [faithful and discreet slave] who serves meat in due season [food at the proper time] is admittedly not an explicit claim on its own. But when you also identify your own writings as "meat in due season" and publish many letters addressing you as the "faithful and wise servant" you are merely making wise use of the 19th century methods. Even the admission that you can't let "modesty" keep you from explaining that there is only ONE individual "faithful and wise servant" rather than multiple "servants" is an obvious yet sufficiently humble "reveal." I'm afraid we would just be repeating information already covered if we dug out all the sources again, but I'm sure you know them. The reason I quoted the scripture from Colossians is to discuss the danger, not just of false humility, but of something else, which is just as relevant today: False humility can hide a haughtiness which is often accompanied by presumptuousness and a lack of wisdom and discretion. But you are probably also aware that Russell was worshiped as an angel. When the verse speaks of the worship of angels, we know that no one worshiped angels as the highest authority, but it was a kind of secondary worship based on lower levels in the hierarchy of Jehovah's creatures. This kind of worship should not be acceptable among Christians, yet Russell allowed it. He is never seen strongly speaking out against it. It had to wait until Rutherford who said that one of the first things he wanted to do was change this cult mentality of worshiping Russell. *** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight *** Why, brother, if I [Rutherford] ever get out of here [prison], by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. *** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America *** So it was understood that the “servant” God used to dispense spiritual food was a class. With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. [Strange that in 1975 the writer didn't feel free to admit directly that it was Russell himself who positioned this doctrine to be applied to himself, even if it was an issue where he allowed people close to him to promote at first.] *** kr chap. 2 p. 23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** . Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him *** jv chap. 28 pp. 625-626 Testing and Sifting From Within *** But you, Brother Rutherford, have a disposition which has no comparison with that of Brother Russell. Even your looks are different. It is not your fault. It was your birthday present, and you could not refuse it. . . . Did the Lord know what he was doing when he placed you at the head of affairs? He surely did. In the past we were all prone to worship the creature more than the Creator. The Lord knew that. So he placed a creature with a different disposition at the head of affairs, or I should say in charge of the work, the harvest work. You desire nobody to worship you. [I don't think it's true that so many were prone to worship the creature, Brother Russell, more than the Creator. But worshiping, or assigning reverence to an "angel" even if we know the relative place of that angel in the hierarchy, still detracts from the worship of the Creator. There is also an implication that Rutherford was different from Russell in that he did not desire to be worshiped, implying that perhaps Russell did very little to stop the worship and the development of a cult around him. I don't think this implication was intended, but I do believe there is some truth to it.] *** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) *** Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. On the topic of worshiping angels, this is a curious coincidence: *** w85 7/15 p. 12 par. 11 “Let No Man Deprive You of the Prize” *** A fourth-century council at nearby Laodicea found it necessary to declare: “Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and . . . call upon the names of angels. . . . If any one, therefore, be found to exercise himself in this private idolatry, let him be accursed.” However, fifth-century theologian and scholar Theodoret indicates that “this vice” of angel worship still existed there in his day. Places near Laodicea had an early problem with worship of angels, and I'm sure you know which angel Russell was associated with: Rev 3:14 "And unto the angel [messenger] of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" KJV Page 4 of the 1917 book, The Finished Mystery says: Pastor Russell being the messenger of the Laodicean Church, and occupying the position of the Lord's special servant to give the Household of Faith meat in due season .... Page 53 of the same book says: The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell, born February 16, 1852. He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth (p. 53).

I'll make a call tomorrow (or at least later in the week) to another person, still at Bethel, who knew him well. Can you tell me how you knew him?

I really appreciated the info you provided on the first two versions of Paton's book. The third one was in 1890, and appears to match the timing of an article by Russell in the May 1890 Watch Tower where Russell reviews the history with Barbour and Paton in an article called "Sifting the Wheat." He mentions these first two versions of Day Dawn, and how it came about that he finally stopped accepting articles from Paton and stopped distributing his book which favored a view of the Ransom that came closer to Barbour's view (Restitution without Substitution). Are you indicating that he was NOT arguing in favor of himself being viewed as the FDS[FWS]? Even the article just mentioned in 1890 says that Russell wanted to personally be God's "mouthpiece," God's "instrument," and he said that the frame of mind he put himself into, back in 1881, allowed him to receive the correct and harmonious understanding "and no one has ever yet been able to find a flaw in it." Of course, Russell then ties this new understanding to several ideas about the ransom that we now find flawed, including the very topic implied in the title of this thread [OP]. Russell said several things about the ransom sacrifice that we would now find just about as ridiculous as the view of the ransom that Barbour held, including the idea that this ransom sacrifice was not completed by Jesus, but would include the sacrifices of the joint-sacrificers. I understand completely that most of Russell's ideas had a basis in Scripture, even if some of his interpretations of those Scriptures were unwarranted. I defend and appreciate the long view of what Russell was involved with, but I can't always see a way or even a reason to defend him for those unwarranted interpretations. As Paul puts it in Galatians 1: 'after all, is it men I am trying to please, or God?' In other words, I don't see the same parallel you see: that both Russell and the modern Governing Body struggled to understand Matthew 24:45 in a way to avoid an awkward view. From what I can see, the only parallel is that ultimately both Russell and the GB made the same mistake, a mistake that makes Matthew 24:45 even more awkward in trying to explain it in context, and when trying to keep it from contradicting the rest of the Bible. A much less awkward understanding had already been available to and accepted by Russell for many years prior to his view that he personally was acting as the FDS/FWS. Claiming that the FDS/FWS was one individual, and accepting himself as the one person who could then claim that role, is about as awkward as @TrueTomHarley claiming that because he once had a good neighborly experience taking care of a robbery victim, that he is, individually in his person, the "True Neighbor" of Luke 10:29-37. Just as "True Tom" can claim to be the "True Neighbor" that answers the question: "Who really is my neighbor?" the Governing Body can claim to be the answer to the question "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?" [See how dangerous it is to join this thread, TTH?]

I really liked him. That's because back when I was just 21, he gave me an assignment to help set up the pre-press, typesetting, and "art" department at the branch in Athens in 1978. This was right in the middle of a vacation which I would spend traveling with a member of the GB and his family for the first few weeks through London, Paris, Barcelona, Nice, and Rome. Then this assignment in Athens (which I honestly didn't deserve) and the last few weeks traveling in 7 additional countries, staying with Witness families and at the Branches. I was born in California but grew up mostly in Missouri, so this was more than I could have hoped for. Because of the extra assignments, I ended up with a 6-week "vacation" after only earning a 3-week vacation. Everyone said Songer was educated as an engineer, and I liked him for his sense of humor. (Most engineers have one as a prerequisite to getting along in their future jobs.) He reminded me of my father, an electrical engineer with a similar sense of humor. Good times!

I agree, which is why I made the comment that it was not necessarily even unscriptural. It just "sounds" even more wrong when juxtaposed with so many other Matthew 24 interpretations he made. Of course, I can't explain why he troubled himself to say that this also made it appropriate to apply to himself and others of the "high calling" additional titles such as "Eternal Father" and "The Prophet Greater than Moses." And it seems to diminish the sacrifice that Jesus made when men such as Russell would claim to be a necessary part of that great propitiatory sacrifice. Very few members of that class that we identify as the modern anointed remnant since the late 1800's, including Russell, have ever "sacrificed" even a tiny fraction compared to what Jesus sacrificed. The most well-known of that class among us in more recent decades have spent the greater part of their life in the comfort of an organizational bureaucracy.

Harumph!! [can't find the appropriate emoji ?]

I agree. The influence of Henry Grew on Russell is clear, even if some of it came indirectly through others. There are a lot of parallels and several probable dependencies in Russell's writings to those of Grew although I don't recall if Russell ever quotes him directly. George Stetson was also anti-Trinitarian, and even George Storrs appears to be non-Trinitarian or at least neutral. Russell was probably non-Trinitarian or neutral in a way similar to George Storrs up until sometime prior to 1882 when Russell writes his own article defending against the Trinity. This was almost immediately after Paton left, so it's likely his mind was clearly made up well before 1882. *** jv chap. 28 p. 620 Testing and Sifting From Within *** Two years later, [1881] Paton, who was then serving as a traveling representative of the Watch Tower, also began to turn away, thereafter publishing a book (his second one entitled Day Dawn) . . . [It's the only mention of Day Dawn in the Proclaimers book, and therefore implies that it was only published after Paton left the Watch Tower.]