I am the Christ

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching charts of Brother Splane.

I think we are all on the same page regarding the need to avoid creature worship, "pet" theology, going beyond what is written, and all the other pitfalls that those who have time and inclination to study more than the standard spiritual fare must be alert to. Paul's warning about the puffing and clashing effects of knowledge are more vaild today than ever due to the sheer availability and volume of information on Bible teachings we have access to.

This could just as likely read "I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the theories of @JWInsider; rationalisations of @GoneAway etc. (And I know who you really are!)".

Both the Bible and modern history is full of the glaring mistakes of those who nevertheless love Jehovah. And yet the Bible account speaks of one of the most error prone as still (looking back) having a "complete heart", (1Ki.11:4), and that assessment by one before whom no man could stand if errors were what he watched for, (Ps.130:3).

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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."

Yes it is. And this is (should be) of particular concern if such a "perceived attack" is absorbed by someone who lacks the necessary resources to evaluate the information. The labelling of such as "Contraversial" whilst presenting in the public domain is hardly an adequate safeguard. Remember, what is committed to internet stays on internet.

There is no doubt in my mind  that Jehovah's Witnesses are who they say they are, and that the current arrangement for directing the organisation is perfectly acceptable to Jehovah and Jesus (the Head of the congregation). I don't personally have the advantage of being raised in a 3rd generation witness family with an anointed and Bethel pedigree. I literally came off the street to become a witness, and am now the oldest in a large family that has a minority serving Jehovah. However, all I have in the truth, I have fought for vigorously because I recognised the life-saving nature of the information when I read my first Watchtower (which. incidentally. was a single sheet from a magazine being used as rest room "tissue" in a squatted property I happened to be staying in!). So I am not about to bite the hand that feeds me now!

Having a forum like this is a great source of background and additional information on a whole range of topics (to which you make a great contribution). It is also an opportunity to air views or sharpen argument on subjects that would definitely be considered far too "left of field" in a normal congregational setting, in fact would probably result in a rather undesirable labelling.

However, I still think that there is a need to avoid stabbing thoughtlessly at Jehovah's servants (Pr.12:18). And to ensure that all we say or propose is appropriately seasoned with salt (Col.4:6), that it has a tendency toward building up and not tearing down (2Cor.13:10). And we need to strongly promote the idea that sticking with Jehovah's organisation and it's Governing Body today is as vital as was sticking to the faithful Israelites, with Moses and Aaron etc in charge, in the wilderness years. After all, it was a slant on the same information and experience that made the difference as to who actually did survive at that time....wasn't it? (Nu.11:5; Nu.13:26).

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Russell had many things wrong but who is to say?

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. . . .

[indagator]

Quote

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.

Thank you, JWI! I don't think you need the "I mean that as an exaggeration, of course" but realize that you may have included that for the benefit of some of the tenderer members at this forum.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

but who's to say?

I meant it is a case of: "Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand." (Rom.14:4). And Jehovah actually does have  to make him stand now doesn't he, in view of the passage of time. (Not minimising Jesus's role in judgement of course).

For those who are still are followers of Charles Taze Russell though, there might be a need to elaborate on his foibles and eccentricities, but really, who would believe that gobbledegook element now anyway? Pyramidology and those Divine Plan of the Ages Charts? The Laodicean messenger? It's all a bit Ripley isn't it? Actually, I have met one Pyramidologist and one British Israelist who called himself a Rutherfordite (probably not enamoured by CTR actually), in the ministry, so they are out there, (I know some have a web presence, even contributing to this forum),  but that's it in all the years.

These antiquated ideas have a fascination of course, and I love learning about them. But they are a bit like phrenology surely? Although even this may still have a following? Actually, the theory of evolution seems to have some sort of connection with phrenology now I come to think of it......(Muse, muse....another post somewhere else I think).  

: 

 

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Absolutely. My goodness, what goes in in your neck of the woods?

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Absolutely. My goodness, what goes in in your neck of the woods?

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.

[Evacuated]

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Russell and his movement represented the larger fulfillment of the messenger

Oh that. Wow, I thought it was some sort of cultish thing going on over in the US somewhere.

Right, so are you talking about the notion that the work done by active Bible Students prior to 1914 was like a preparatory work similar to that carried out the 1st century by John the Baptizer prior to Jesus appearance as the Messiah?

So of course they wouldn't be considered any more a "messenger [Gk. "angel"]" in a spirit creature sense than John was, although a group rather than an individual. I mean, anybody Jehovah sends with a message is an "angel" right? (Hag.1:13, Mal.2:7), although in English the word seems to be reserved for spirit creatures(apart from some references in Revelation).

So do you have a concern that this idea might have be subject to a sort of "scope-creep" in reverse and got funneled down into CTR as the messenger in some minds, a bit like the GB getting condensed out of all the anointed as the FDS?

[JW Insider]

On 7/25/2018 at 12:47 PM, Gone Away said:

These antiquated ideas have a fascination of course, and I love learning about them. But they are a bit like phrenology surely? Although even this may still have a following?

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)

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

deficient in self-esteem

Mission control....We have a problem......

Seriously even though it's all a bit Ripley now I am still fascinated by it.

Actually, are you embarrassed by all this connection with unadulterated quackery?

[JW Insider]

On 7/25/2018 at 5:49 PM, Gone Away said:

So do you have a concern that this idea might have be subject to a sort of "scope-creep" in reverse and got funneled down into CTR as the messenger in some minds, a bit like the GB getting condensed out of all the anointed as the FDS?

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.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Gone Away said:

Actually, are you embarrassed by all this connection with unadulterated quackery?

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.