Posts moved from a recent topic about a J.F.Rutherford book

[TrueTomHarley]

11 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

You seem to have the same problem JWI when it comes to understanding, a point made. I was not referring to your books, but rather a copy of Shults book that might b in your possession. 

Look, I use the pages as toilet paper, okay? Please tell me what you have against my books.

You were making sour remarks long before you ever knew I had a BWShultz book. And I’ve only read a few scattered portions. I find it a bit tedious. It’s a expose of religious trivia of 100+ years ago and I find myself saying, “Why would anyone care about that?”

[JW Insider]

17 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

I wasn't referring to a literal link or source, but a historical link that some Bible Student Associations link themselves to the Advent movement.

Of course. I get it now. I get the impression that you have probably not read B W Schulz books then. I have all three of them and have read two of them (Barbour, and Separate Identity V.1). I have not completed Volume 2.

Schulz actually sides more with you on the idea that Russell did NOT consider himself as following in the footsteps of Adventists. Russell only would admit that the Advent Movement was used by Jehovah, as was Miller himself (according to the Watch Tower). Schulz makes it clear that Russell didn't consider himself Adventist, but as Russell himself indicated, closer to the "Age To Come" believers.

[TrueTomHarley]

54 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

When an author such as yourself accepts apostasy here and then claims, he is fighting a good fight in his books, those books lose value. That's out of your own making, not mind.

“Now TTH had been saying: “It was for nothing that I kissed up to this cantankerous old fellow in the wilderness. Not a single thing bad thing about him did I say [lately], and yet he repays me evil for good.  May God do the same and more to the enemies of TTH if I allow a single sentence of his to survive until the morning!”

54 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

When you get a chance, forward BWShults book to JWI

He already told you he has a copy.

54 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

I asked SWShults son for a copy but was denied.

I didn’t know he had a son.

I can honestly say I have never read an apostate book. A few online articles here and there, but mostly not even that. So many others have that I find it easy to glean whatever I need from them. You are far more versed in their bile than I

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Pudgy said:

 

 

Walter:

I realize I am not talking about an apostate book, but which do you think has better survived the last 100 years …. The 20 or so books written by Russel and Rutherford, and others, circa 1914, which if taught now would be considered apostasy, or the writings of Edgar Rice Burroughs, circa 1914, who among about 20 or so books, wrote “Tarzan of the Apes”?

( a town North of Los Angeles was renamed Tarzana, California in honor of Edgar Rice Burroughs, and recently one of the most expensive movies ever made “John Carter” from his book “Princess of Mars”).

I await your promised harsh, negative response.

He might not answer so I will ….probably the books like Tarzan of the apes edgar rice may have outsold  Russell and Ruthfords books. …that’s what Jesus said…not many would listen…and the apostasy you talk of was what they thought was wrong coming out of BTG with all that garbage still on their backs…and just being human I guess…personally if I have found Russell the genteel one and much more humble than  Rutherford ,…Rutherford changed quickly things so important and  spiritually  correct about Jesus and the ark and waters of the flood..represent him to it now representing the org...now one comments on that here but the ramifications of such a massive blunder and probably pride pushed so many good brothers and sister away..

I actually think and I could be wrong the beating of the sheep began then…I’m so relieved the modern day GB returned that to the original understanding,,,,,mind you some things Russel thought and wrote needed to be changed…sorry for butting in..hope that was okay and I hope Walter answers you NICLEY!

[JW Insider]

26 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

I’d rather take Russell’s personal position as a congregationalist.

It's a different topic that we've already discussed at greater length elsewhere. But you should notice that Russell was saying he WAS a Congregationalist. That's the denomination in which he was raised, and some influence remained. But it's the one he left, and he states that he pretty much had to start over, to "start from scratch."

26 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

I wouldn’t go as far as suggesting Pastor Russell was an “age to come believer”

I don't think it's that simple either. Neither does Schulz. But Schulz finds ample evidence that Russell admits to his greater affinity to "Age to Come" believers. As you noted, this doesn't mean Russell agreed with them in all respects. Russell continued to progress in his beliefs and adjusted some of his own previous beliefs along the way.

26 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

Therefore, those books that reference ANY link to Adventism are wrong! Apostate or not!

It's true that even a lot of Witnesses also assume that Russell was not much different than a Second Adventist with updated dates. As I'm sure you know, the full answer starts with a lot that was borrowed from Adventism but goes well beyond into Russell's own studies. And you are right that a lot of non-Adventist churches were "adventist" in the sense that they all expected a "second advent." You could even expect Christ's return to be imminent and not be part of any Adventist church. But you go too far in that last quoted statement. Even the current Proclaimers book references some links to Adventism.

Although Schulz agrees with you on this point, I have found additional evidence showing even more links to Second Adventism than Schulz admits. Some of it also shows up from contributors to his site.

[JW Insider]

11 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

That's your position, not his. I'd rather read that era's material as intended.

Actually, it's Russell's position. He states it clearly when he writes his own autobiographical statements in the Watchtower. But let's talk about Russell under another topic. This topic should really be more about Rutherford, and what happened shortly after Russell died.

14 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

Comparing ideologies is NOT acceptance. Let's make that very clear!

You are very correct about that. And this is one of the reasons why I maintain that opinion about the stronger links to Adventism than some will admit. But again, I don't want to divert from the topic just yet. There have already been more than enough questions and comments about Rutherford that deserve better clarification, before we start off on new topics about Russell. Of course, feel free to say what you will about it, but know that it might end up getting moved under a mostly-Russell topic, rather than a mostly Rutherford topic

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."

In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions,

At the International Congress in Vienna, I think 1989 or so, they repeated that nonsense about marriage and children.

[JW Insider]

29 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

At the International Congress in Vienna, I think 1989 or so, they repeated that nonsense about marriage and children.

Yes, I also heard that this was around 1989. That's because the January 1, 1989 Watchtower had just predicted that the new system would be within about 11 years.

"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."

This was a "necessary" belief based on the then-current understanding of "this generation."

It's human nature, I guess. If things go on the same, I expect the same kind of talk in 2025 or so, in preparation for a subliminal belief among us that the end must come by 2034, else the 1914 teaching would become effectively obsolete. Then, if all continues, such talk will keep happening until the overlapping groups within the generation become mathematically impossible.

But these things shouldn't phase us (too much). Elsewhere @xero spoke of how we should enter the kingdom as little children. Little children, on their way to an anticipated destination are prone to over-excitement, asking questions like: "Are we there yet?" "Now how many more miles, daddy?" [If that was in another forum, xero, I hope you don't mind having the idea repeated here.]

[Thinking]

49 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

At the International Congress in Vienna, I think 1989 or so, they repeated that nonsense about marriage and children.

I must have zoned out at that one…

[Pudgy]

…. the best naps I have ever had, was at Assemblies.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Sometimes I wonder if Jehovah allows these things to see who will follow man and who will have worked on their faith hard enough to to see thru this…

I was just thinking of that expression "Jehovah allowed it." You might think it flippant for me to say, Jehovah also allowed the Holocaust. But, I once hired a consultant who was a Jewish rabbi, and who also had some specific IT skills we needed. His conversations about religion were usually guarded, but I asked him if he thinks that so many Jews are either atheist or agnostic because of the Holocaust. He said that ha-Shem (God) allowed it as a test to see who would still have faith. To me, that sounded rather distasteful, and I don't know if it's a common belief among Jews. In one sense, we almost have to believe that it's partly true of all bad things that Jehovah allows, but what kind of a test is that?

I think we should still fall back upon the idea that we are all imperfect and not to be trusted, and yet, if an individual or group will gather in Jesus' name to accomplish a ministry with the right heart condition, then their effort will be blessed. And I think that what proved a right heart condition among Russell and early Bible Students included the desire not to kill fellow humans (no war) the desire to see Jehovah as a real approachable and understanding, loving person (no Hellfire, no Trinity), and a desire to spread the good news of the Kingdom. To the extent that this desire was motivated by love, the work was blessed. This blessing is manifested especially in the fact that it attracts more persons of like motivation. 

The failures and imperfections aren't really "tests" so much as they are the natural interaction among highly imperfect persons. True Christianity is set up this way so that our own motivations are made manifest by how we see the conduct and faith of others working out, and our desire to apply spiritual growth in our own lives. It's the idea of pressing on to maturity, chewing solid food, and leaving the milk behind. Yet there are always some of us who are still more comfortable and satisfied with the "milk," and there are always some who will be serving "milk" instead of "solid food." The GB serve both. No matter where we are on this food maturity spectrum, we should be welcoming to all the others no matter where they are on that food spectrum. -- And then, what some obsess over as items of solid food, thinking these are "deep things of God," are probably the milkiest of all.

The most solid food of all, for the most mature, is simply love out of a purely motivated heart.

(1 Timothy 1:4, 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.

[Srecko Sostar]

53 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

(no Hellfire

If we start from the premise that God is love and does everything so that people would not suffer and have (hope for) everlasting life, but still "allows evil" in various forms and intensities, then the question can be asked:

What is the difference between the idea that God allows "hellfire" after death of man and the idea that God allows “earthly fire” during the life of that same man?

In duration of "fire", i guess. The duration depends on the accuracy of the thesis - an immortal soul after death or a mortal soul before death. :))