How a Christmas song would lead me to believe that our 1914 teaching must be right after all.

[Anna]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

those pissy separators that made loading the machine an all-afternoon job

I used to hate them too, but they do help get the cutlery clean by preventing them from sticking together, like for example a spoon into a spoon. 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

and my wife is so disappointed on that account

😂 on the account that it doesn't take you all day so now you have more time to cavort on here instead?

[TrueTomHarley]

22 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think for these very reasons he fits the description of someone supplying food at the proper time. For these reasons I wouldn't blame anyone at that time thinking he was the slave, and I wouldn't blame Russel for thinking that about himself either. 

Inasmuch as he can be ‘the messenger preparing the way,’ preparing the ground for a great building project—well, the first thing you do in preparing the ground for any project is to cart out the trash, in this case hellfire and trinity.

That’s why I always find it puzzling when individuals go on and on about how the Bible disproves these doctrines. A little bit, yes, but—it’s trash. Why would you obsess over it?

[Thinking]

45 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think for these very reasons he fits the description of someone supplying food at the proper time. For these reasons I wouldn't blame anyone at that time thinking he was the slave, and I wouldn't blame Russel for thinking that about himself either. 

I don’t know why we today say he wasn't the slave. Well actually I do...because it wouldn't fit our overall picture regarding 1919 when we say the slave was appointed, because he was dead by then....

 

Yeah well I don’t understand the 1919 stuff…never have felt comfortable with it…but who am I to cause a stir over it…I just don’t get it ….do you?.

[Anna]

38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Inasmuch as he can be ‘the messenger preparing the way,’ preparing the ground for a great building project—well, the first thing you do in preparing the ground for any project is to cart out the trash, in this case hellfire and trinity.

Yes, that's what we teach now, that he was the bones that started to rattle, but I added more to my original post, regarding what we taught about the slave before that..

Here:Added:  Acording to this book; God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached,” (1973, p. 345-47
“The Slave who lived to see the sign”) the slave was appointed in 33 CE. This is what we used to teach, that it was all of the annointed since that time. So since Russel was the only one who seemed to start uncovering Bible truths in the 19th century, then it's easy to see him taking up that role. Of course now we say "Russel and his associates" which makes the slave composite, not one individual.

(Now we teach that it's not all the anointed but only the GB....and that is Witnesses main gripe, since she was ousted from the circle).

[Anna]

23 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Yeah well I don’t understand the 1919 stuff…never have felt comfortable with it…but who am I to cause a stir over it…I just don’t get it ….do you?.

I don't feel that comfortable with it either, too much of a specific date for my liking. It's apparently because Rutherford and Co were exonerated and released from prison in 1919 and started afresh with proclaiming the kingdom with renewed zeal. So looking at it in retrospect we now say they were at that time appointed by Jesus to perform that work as the slave and Russel was the one who prepared the way, according to Bible prophecy. (After the 1st century when apostasy set in, right up to 1919 the annointed were captive to Babylon and not doing anything of note and so they were not the slave.....that was one of the main themes of the Pure Worship book....the restoration of pure worship).

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think he was dead when that was written….he cannot be blamed for what was written after his death

Blamed? Why do you think anyone is blaming Russell. Russell must have sincerely thought that he had personally been appointed to an awesome responsibility. And yet, he would only admit it privately, and never try to push others to accept it.

Still, he said he considered that it was a very important responsibility for only one individual, and he said that modesty made him reluctant to have to claim that the parable of "that servant" pointed to only one man. Would modesty make him reluctant to admit that some other person held the title? The way he managed this sincere belief so well makes him a rather more endearing person in my mind than for example, someone like J.F.Rutherford who gave himself the title "JUDGE" and printed it on his handbills and posters and billboards, yet he was never appointed as a judge, but was only asked to substitute at least once in a country courthouse in Missouri.

I have always thought of Russell's personality as displaying about the right mix of both modesty and conviction. I think of him as kind of an "ideal" gentleman Christian for his era. There are etiquette books for gentlemen from his era which give advice on such things, and which mix them with Christian values, like not trying to seat yourself at the head of the table, but allowing others to make that place for you. Speakers would not give their credentials in their own speeches, but would allow themselves to be introduced with their titles of honor and designations. I hate it when I see so many speakers today try to slyly work in their own resume and accomplishments when it's not appropriate to the theme of their speech.

I just read in one of those etiquette books (on Google) from 1876 that the right way for a gentleman to end a letter, in many cases, was to sign it: "Your obedient servant" even though you knew you were not really that person's servant. 

I believe that Russell did avoid personally and publicly the claim to this title, but he definitely believed that he was the one person who needed modesty because he was the one appointed with that title. He accepted the title from others, and there is no evidence that he ever would counsel them or try to stop them from using that title when referring to him. Since he believed it himself, why would he? It would seem dishonest. The best he could do is deflect a bit. And I believe there were times when he must have done that. I'm sure he knew the scripture where Jesus was called "good teacher" and Jesus said "Why do you call me good?"

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

from what I’ve read he admitted others applied that term to him personally ..I shall try to find it,

I agree that others applied that term to him. He admits as much in the same Watch Tower article when he speaks of his reluctance to publish the understanding that he must now say "that servant" no longer applies to individuals, plural, but to a single individual.

You might also be thinking of what A. H. MacMillan said about how Russell would answer the direct question:

That was from MacMillan's Faith on the March, p. 126-127.

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

And just WHO in the watchtower claimed he said that …..Rutherford????

Rutherford was not yet even one of the Society's officers. And Russell's will had not even appointed him to the initial 5 person Editorial Committee of the Watchtower. So I suspect that it could have been MacMillan himself, or one of the others on the committee. They all needed to approve what went into the December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, dated only 31 days after Russell had died. But MacMillan elsewhere says that Russell would also respond that he was "the servant," but not above others (rather than "a servant," but not above others). I don't think that was just a typo because MacMillan says it twice in the same book.

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

And even if he did….so what…

Exactly!!

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

thank the man for devoting his life as he came out of BTG…thank him for straightening out hellfire and standing strong and fighting against the trinitarian God….Thank him for being fearless in traveling the world and explaining about the kingdom….and the resurrection hope on the earth….
You know what you know because of one’s like him …instead of finding fault…get on your knees with some humility and Thank God Russell found him,,…sheesh talk about finding fault with a brother…..

I'm not finding fault, just giving my opinion about whether (and why) he claimed to be God's spokesman, and claimed to represent the one channel of truth, and accepted the title "the faithful and wise servant". This has a lot to do, I think, with why Russell could be hesitant or undogmatic about an idea, and yet, the other brothers around him would think that it was "an angel" who had given unerring truth. That's what this original topic is about. Russell didn't think that being individually appointed as the "faithful slave" made him unerring in speaking truth, or a prophet. Yes, he made errors, and was a sinful person. He lied (perjured himself) on the stand in court when asked about his business interests, and was forced to correct his perjury in a following court session. He was manipulative and dishonest in his divorce proceedings. I agree that this is completely forgivable when we consider his sincerity in publishing some of the most important Bible truths. Of course, we are thankful for that. But we must never put a man, or group of men, on a pedestal because it tends to create an idolatrous cult (per our own publications). Yesterday, I found a person on YouTube, for example, who calls Russell "an angel."

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

you always seem to sow seeds of doubt about Russell

It's my opinion that I am sowing seeds of truth about Russell, by telling the truth according to Russell's own words and those who knew him. I don't see where "doubt" comes in. It's not like we are supposed to have "faith" in Russell, is it?

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

I don’t doubt he did a lot of wrong…misunderstood heaps of things…and JWI..I will say this…you so quickly condemn the man….there is nothing humble about you in doing it.

Trying to get to know a man's thinking and personality a little better through his own writings is not the same as condemning him. And much of this, to be sure, is just an opinion formed about him. Just as the others around him formed opinions about him in his time. We still teach that Jesus himself formed an opinion about him, and this is a "current teaching" about Russell, not some relic of our past history. So I don't think it's wrong for us to keep learning more about this very intriguing and spiritually influential man.

As an example, we still learn about King David, and sometimes wonder about his great sins, and Jehovah's continued love for him. But it doesn't mean that learning about David's sins is a sign that we are not humble or that we are condemning the man for admitting things David said and did.

[Anna]

57 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

As an example, we still learn about King David, and sometimes wonder about his great sins, and Jehovah's continued love for him. 

Sorry, this is going to be completely off the topic of Russel, but as you know I'm watching "The family" and the guy used the example of David for quite a sinister cause. He asked his "recruits" why did they think that after all the bad stuff David did, (he especially mentioned the adultery and manslaughter surrounding Bathsheba) God still not only forgave him, but kept him in his role as king and as representative of the future Messiah. One of the students answered pretty much as we would; because David was repentant and tried hard to do the right thing (or something like that). This was apparently the wrong answer. The right answer was because he was chosen. Which according to the guy in a nutshell meant that if you are chosen by God, it doesn't matter what you do. He convinced candidates that God chooses people in government today, to essentially be representatives of his Kingdom on earth.

I had no idea that such an idea existed. I mean I know that politicians in the US tend to be religious (Christians), but I didn't know that they believe they are God appointed for that role. It was like a comparison to the anointed, except these were high ranking politicians. (So in a way this is kind of on topic). It was interesting because it was almost like a parallel to our (JW) Organization. It's almost like there is a false "God's organization' and a true "God's organization". In this respect it's easy to see the future conflict of these two "organizations" and some of the puzzle pieces are falling into place for me....from a different angle. @Araunawhere are you?

...Ok, I agree, this should be in a new thread....

 

[xero]

24 minutes ago, Anna said:

Sorry, this is going to be completely off the topic of Russel, but as you know I'm watching "The family" and the guy used the example of David for quite a sinister cause. He asked his "recruits" why did they think that after all the bad stuff David did, (he especially mentioned the adultery and manslaughter surrounding Bathsheba) God still not only forgave him, but kept him in his role as king and as representative of the future Messiah. One of the students answered pretty much as we would; because David was repentant and tried hard to do the right thing (or something like that). This was apparently the wrong answer. The right answer was because he was chosen. Which according to the guy in a nutshell meant that if you are chosen by God, it doesn't matter what you do. He convinced candidates that God chooses people in government today, to essentially be representatives of his Kingdom on earth.

I had no idea that such an idea existed. I mean I know that politicians in the US tend to be religious (Christians), but I didn't know that they believe they are God appointed for that role. It was like a comparison to the anointed, except these were high ranking politicians. (So in a way this is kind of on topic). It was interesting because it was almost like a parallel to our (JW) Organization. It's almost like there is a false "God's organization' and a true "God's organization". In this respect it's easy to see the future conflict of these two "organizations" and some of the puzzle pieces are falling into place for me....from a different angle. @Araunawhere are you?

...Ok, I agree, this should be in a new thread....

 

Well it's very Calvinist.

https://babylonbee.com/news/calvinist-explains-wife-didnt-choose-beard-beard-chose

[TrueTomHarley]

43 minutes ago, Anna said:

I had no idea that such an idea existed.

It’s Calvin.

18 minutes ago, xero said:

It's almost like there is a false "God's organization' and a true "God's organization".

You haven’t been speaking with Mrs. Patiently Sitting on her Hands, have you?

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

I do find it so funny that my user name frightens you all so much. 

Maybe it's the word 'Patiently' because you lot are the opposite and you all want to run ahead with lies and wild ideas.

Or is it the word 'Truth' because you lot hate the word, or do not understand it's meaning.

The JW org is just one of the false organsations earthwide. 

And I do thank you all for the information concerning the F&DS. Your information proves that all the Watchtower leaders / writers / readers, have no idea what truth really is.  @Anna is so funny here because she coppies Tom boy in his insults of me, BUT it is her that gives us so much proof of the lies taught by the Bible Student leaders about the F&DS. 

Come on Anna do you call it all new light ? Sometimes they said it was the 'society' that was the F&DS, then they said it was 'just one man' (Russell), then it became 'all of the Anointed remnant' but oh, then it became 'just the GB'. 

And then we have the 'dates'. Oh dear, the way @JW Insider explains it it is like politicians making up lies and excuses. 

The amount of times the dates / years were changed 'to make it fit' with 1914. NOTE it's not about TRUTH, it's about making it fit their other lies. 

Stop being frightened of TRUTH. And, stop trying to run ahead. IF Yeshua wants you to now something HE will make it known to you. 

Remember that it is YESHUA that has ALL AUTHORITY in heaven and on earth, not your GB. Your GB are nothing. 

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, Anna said:

Sorry, this is going to be completely off the topic of Russel, but as you know I'm watching "The family" and the guy used the example of David for quite a sinister cause. He asked his "recruits" why did they think that after all the bad stuff David did, (he especially mentioned the adultery and manslaughter surrounding Bathsheba) God still not only forgave him, but kept him in his role as king and as representative of the future Messiah. One of the students answered pretty much as we would; because David was repentant and tried hard to do the right thing (or something like that). This was apparently the wrong answer. The right answer was because he was chosen. Which according to the guy in a nutshell meant that if you are chosen by God, it doesn't matter what you do. He convinced candidates that God chooses people in government today, to essentially be representatives of his Kingdom on earth.

I had no idea that such an idea existed. I mean I know that politicians in the US tend to be religious (Christians), but I didn't know that they believe they are God appointed for that role. It was like a comparison to the anointed, except these were high ranking politicians. (So in a way this is kind of on topic). It was interesting because it was almost like a parallel to our (JW) Organization. It's almost like there is a false "God's organization' and a true "God's organization". In this respect it's easy to see the future conflict of these two "organizations" and some of the puzzle pieces are falling into place for me....from a different angle. @Araunawhere are you?

...Ok, I agree, this should be in a new thread....

 

But Saul was chosen and then rejected…as was Judas…wouldn’t that be like saying once saved always saved sort of principle…I watched the Family sometime ago…it made me realise the cunning of Satan to pose and seduce people into believing they ( politicians and all associated with them ) were doing it in Gods name and maybe even bring about Peace and security in his name….

I was glad I watched it…as it helped me understand some things.

[Thinking]

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

. Why would you obsess over it?

Probably because the rest of the world are still utterly deceived by those teachings….it’s trash to us…but to them..it’s their whole life…and who’s obsessing over it….but me finding out what was trash and what wasn’t…was nothing short of miraculous…

im hoping I misunderstood your post…