THE WATCHTOWER HISTORY OF GOG OF MAGOG

[JW Insider]

50 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

That sounds like it should have been at the St. Louis assembly. Where does Rutherford say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Okay, thank you. When you read the articles correctly. Are you one of those Jehovah Witness giving out a bad report about it? I will not engage in your quarrel. 

I'm only asking about how or why Rutherford would say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1941.

Your report about it said:

1 hour ago, Dmitar said:

However, Rutherford himself spoke out loud in an assembly in 1941 stating he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the assembly cheerfully agreed.

 

[Dmitar]

17 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Whose theology was accepted by Jesus and YHVH in 1919?

The framework started with Rutherford. The Bible Students as indicated by my previous post was rejected by them. So, no! For as much as you want to, they're not the same.

[Dmitar]

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm only asking about how or why Rutherford would say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1941.

Your report about it said:

I will have to look up the article, unless you have it on hand.

[Srecko Sostar]

11 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

The framework started with Rutherford. The Bible Students as indicated by the above comment was rejected by them.

And Rutherford was not JW as you stated before.

 

2 hours ago, Dmitar said:

However, Rutherford himself spoke out loud in an assembly in 1941 stating he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the assembly cheerfully agreed.

What was Rutherford religious pedigree? Bible Student, I guess. ... or just lawyer of his deceased boss who established WT, Mr Russell?  

[Dmitar]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What was Rutherford religious pedigree? Bible Student, I guess. ... or just lawyer of his deceased boss who established WT, Mr Russell?  

The same church Pastor Russell attended. The Brooklyn Tabernacle. You seem to forget, all Bible Students were "independent" of each other. It would be a bad report to put the same belief system within the association. Russell welcomed other denominations to speak.  A prime example is the chart you posted. The FREE BIBLE STUDENT association splintered from Russell a decade before because they didn't accept his theology anymore. Therefore, Pastor Russell, established his own tabernacle.

[Dmitar]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

And Rutherford was not JW as you stated before.

He identified as a free and independent church. Too many Jehovah Witnesses want to lump all the BSA together, that's a bad report.

[Dmitar]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm only asking about how or why Rutherford would say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1941.

Your report about it said:

In response to the question posted. I looked everywhere for the article in question. I’m afraid it might have been held in my hard drive that crashed, and al thel information I held dearly, was lost. Likewise, I’m not referring to the article in 1931 Gold Age which states if someone would ask a fellow service worker who they were, they would answer, "I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."

This was meant to be a cry of separation among all those groups that were being falsely identified, such as Russellites, Millennial Dawn People, ISBA, etc. to that of the Ecclesiastes tabernacle of Rutherford.

I cannot recall if it was the Ohio convention or the St Louis convention. Since I cannot produce the article, I can only say, I sincerely apologize. I have made an unintentional bad report. That was not my intent,

This in no way impedes anyone if they wish to ridicule me. It’s your right. If for some reason, I ever come across that article, that stated, “am I one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the audience replied, NO! In a loud voice, I will be no more than happy to share it here.

[Thinking]

9 hours ago, Dmitar said:

In response to the question posted. I looked everywhere for the article in question. I’m afraid it might have been held in my hard drive that crashed, and al thel information I held dearly, was lost. Likewise, I’m not referring to the article in 1931 Gold Age which states if someone would ask a fellow service worker who they were, they would answer, "I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."

This was meant to be a cry of separation among all those groups that were being falsely identified, such as Russellites, Millennial Dawn People, ISBA, etc. to that of the Ecclesiastes tabernacle of Rutherford.

I cannot recall if it was the Ohio convention or the St Louis convention. Since I cannot produce the article, I can only say, I sincerely apologize. I have made an unintentional bad report. That was not my intent,

This in no way impedes anyone if they wish to ridicule me. It’s your right. If for some reason, I ever come across that article, that stated, “am I one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the audience replied, NO! In a loud voice, I will be no more than happy to share it here.

No one is going to ridicule you..and you are big enough to to apologise…an admiral quality…..I vaguely remember the audience you speak of saying loudly NO…not sure if I read it or seen it on the net…but I think your wording may be wrong….wasn’t he correcting us about how we used to say we were a Jehovah Witness …???? ..we’ll anyway that’s how I remember it….

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Now this is all very interesting because JWs on here try to lump all ex-JWs together as apostates or something else. 

BUT IF Rutherford was a completely 'independant individual', and if Russell stated that  AN ORGANISATION WAS NOT NECESSARY. And if Dmitar states that all Bible Students were separate individuals, and / or, all congregations were 'self run and self ruled', then it seems that pre JW organisation it was possible to serve God through Christ, without joining a 'religion'. 

So from what date did a person 'have to be' a baptised JW to be saved ? When did this form of control take over ? 

And most importantly, can a person be an independant true Christian now ?  That would not stop Christians from gathering together, it would simply mean that no one is 'in control of other people conscience'. 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

…..I vaguely remember the audience you speak of saying loudly NO…not sure if I read it or seen it on the net…but I think your wording may be wrong….wasn’t he correcting us about how we used to say we were a Jehovah Witness …???? .

I vaguely recall it too. Yes, I think the wording might be wrong. If memory serves (it may not) I think he was saying something to the effect, ‘Does anyone here thing Joseph F Rutherford is the leader of Jehovah’s Witnesses?’ to which the reply was a loud, NO.  The point being that nobody present misunderstood that Christ was the actual leader of the congregation.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If memory serves (it may not) I think he was saying something to the effect, ‘Does anyone here thing Joseph F Rutherford is the leader of Jehovah’s Witnesses?’ to which the reply was a loud, NO.  The point being that nobody present misunderstood that Christ was the actual leader of the congregation.

That is what I remember, too. In fact, that's in the Proclaimers book:

*** jv chap. 15 p. 220 Development of the Organization Structure ***
At a convention in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1941, shortly before his death, he spoke about the matter of leadership, saying: “I want to let any strangers here know what you think about a man being your leader, so they won’t be forgetting. Every time something rises up and starts to grow, they say there is some man a leader who has a great following. If there is any person in this audience who thinks that I, this man standing here, is the leader of Jehovah’s witnesses, say Yes.” The response was an impressive silence, broken only by an emphatic “No” from several in the audience.

[Srecko Sostar]

17 hours ago, Dmitar said:

all Bible Students were "independent" of each other.

Independence ended with the arrival of Rutherford. 

Also keep in mind that in my comments on Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses, I have always had in mind one common link that has always connected them, regardless of the individuals who have later sided with this or that schism. Continuity of WTBTS.

All those who remained faithful to their "spiritual mother", the so-called "earthly organization" or WTBTS Company, regardless of changes in external name / label are proof that all beliefs, past or present, are what binds them together. They have common legacy.

That’s why the claim how JWs once celebrated Christmas is correct. Because today's JWs who do not celebrate Christmas any more are members of the same Organization under whose auspices and authority Christmas was celebrated in the past. Today’s JWs can defend themselves by claiming that they do not believe what Bible Students once believed, and that therefore it is not their past and legacy. But such a claim is completely incorrect. Because both, former and current believers, are members, they are followers of one and the same Corporation that has the legal continuity.