Could Russell be " disfellowshipped" one day?
:Your own post, is an answer to your argument Johnny. Doc was fast, you appear rather slow, to tell you my first impression, cantankerous, a bit low on serotonin, and a contentious whiner, IMO.
I doubt that anyone understands your horrible grammar and your horrible attempt to communicate whatever-it-is you are trying to communicate with that drivel above.
I did detect a number of ad hominems, but I did not detect any facts or evidence, just opinions which came from the place where you wipe with toilet paper.. (This puts you in the "fucking morons who just blather their opinions" category. Yeah. We have a name for you and your ilk, dummy.)
Do you want to impress people with the vast wealth of your research and knowledge? Well, just post those links RIGHT NOW and show us your creds. Otherwise, fuck off, newbie, because that is just what you are: a snotty little newbie with no creds, no history of WT research, no legacy, no track record whatsoever who thinks you are King Shit, when you aren't even dogshit, fool.
Farkel, a bit low on serotonin and contentious whiner CLASS (according to King Shit)
There is nastiness in this thread having little to do with would Russell ever be disfellowshipped? I am not a seer.
This evolving will of God I find silly. God is capable of decisive action. His will does not fit human will. By definition, God is what is not human, in part.
Has anyone ever researched if the 1800s was an extraordinary period of religious activity and scholarship? Most historical Jesus is from the 20th century. If someone were a Bible scholar and compared the synoptics and John, figured out ancient history to invalidate people's claims about all books being literal and establishment a more accurate time line, why would they delve into precisely what Jesus said no man would ever know? The two are polar opposites, in my view.
The Englightenment period was just as hot in religious discovery terms. In fact, I doubt there has ever been a time in Christianity, when Christians did not find new ways to encounter Christ and the Bible. Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, and Raphael to name but a few were major movers of new ways of viewing Christ.
There was not fairy dust sprinkled in the 1900s.
Frankly, I find Russell's beliefs much sillier than Rutherford and following. Their organizational style was more sickening. Also, Russell was not a semi-deity.
I am such a history buff but Christianity limited to the past is dead Christianity. Paul wrote that we meet the Risen Christ more than the historical Jesus. Christ acts in our lives in the present. I fail to see the attraction with all these dead figures. Certainly, the history helps prove that the WT has never been pristine or the exclusive agent of God.
The Bible moves me precisely b/c it speaks to timeless questions. Or perhaps we project timeless questions on to it. I don't know.