by Band on the Run 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
“Bible cults cannot understand the authority of Christ and his total ability to know his own and to provide for their needs single-handedly“.
Who questions that? But why should Catholics deny themselves meeting and worshiping freely with other Catholics? If somebody finds that is a personal affront to them, they have the problem, not the Church.
If somebody’s ideology is defined by attacking someone else’s religion is not worth much. Catholicism stands on its own.
It is a mistake to say Russell was most influenced by Second Adventists (Advent Christians, Life and Advent Union, etc.) Russell self identifies as a millennialist Age-to-Come believer. By the time Russell met him, Storrs had left Adventism and was advocating a British Literalist theology. The same is true of Stetson. Stetson was an Age-to-Come believer, a Millenarian, and in his last years he wrote for The Restitution and The Rainbow, both Millenarian publications. Age-to-Come theology differs radically from Millerite Adventism. Russell also read and knew Thomas Wilson, Benjamin Wilson's nephew. Wilson's magazine is noted in the Herald of the Morning. Wilson was an Age to Come believer, not an Adventist.
While Russell believed Miller played a part in the divine plan, he rejected Miller's theology. He saw Miller as important only because he fit in a date system Russell inherited from Barbour. People often point to Barbour as an Adventist influence. However, by the time Russell met him, Barbour had switched to Age-to-Come belief and accepted Mark Allen's belief system. By the 1880s he associated his congregation, the Church of the Strangers, with Allen's Church of the Blessed Hope. Allen did not advocate any form of Millerism.
Much of what we might see as Russell's radical theology owes its development to British Separatist and Anglican writers. Henry Smith-Warleigh is an example. One can find elements of Russellite belief in various medieval era sects such as the Petro-Brucians and some of the Polish Brethren. You will find some similarities among some of the Paulicans. Some of his doctrine seems to trace to a second century sect called the Abrahamites.
It is an uninformed view that associates Russell with Adventism on the basis of his meeting J. Wendell. Russell felt Adventists were seriously out of the light of truth. You can find several discussions of the three principal approaches to Christ's return in Zion's Watch Tower. He says that Millenarians (British Literalist, Age to Come believers in the US) most nearly approach the truth. He was, as documented by Schulz and de Vienne, an age to come believer from 1870 to 1876, well known to readers of The Restitution. Schulz and de Vienne's next book considers this; their research is stellar.
You can trace Barbour's theology by reading Schulz and de Vienne's Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's forgotten prophet. Russell's Age-to-Come theology is traced on their private blog. You'd have to ask for an invitation. Expect to be quized and maybe turned down. They tend to pick people with professional credentials with a real interest in the subject. You can trace it yourself through the pages of the Age-to-Come preiodicals such as The Restitution.
Schulz and his partner have a public blog, though it is far less interesting than the private one. You can find it here: http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
To read the private blog one must agree not to repost the material elsewhere. So, while I'd love to quote long sections of it, I cannot. I will say that it presents the most thorough, well documented research I've ever seen. I look forward to the publication of their next book.
When I studied the Reformation for my degree the concepts semed very familiar to me as someone who had recently left the JWs. Luther, Calvin et al were concerned about geting back to the Bible and what it really said rather than having religion spoon - fed to them through priests. They felt that anyone can find out what the Bible 'really' means by reading it with the help of God's Holy Spirit. Which is how so many religions including the WTS began.
It is not long though before a new clergy class is always formed and they begin telling the laity what the bible really means and what they say goes. Hence the rise of the Protestant churches which all have there clergy and set dogmas now.
There was a similar movement towards bible study in the nineteenth century, with the adventists, mormons, Russelites etc.
It just begs the questions that with every wave of people who want to get 'back to what the bible really says' why is it so difficult to understand?
Band on the Run, I would venture to say that Charles Taze Russell came from a family of Marrano Jews who utilized concepts from John Dee, the man who popularized Christian Kabbalism in England under Elizabeth following the Inquisition. It looks like the Marranos continued their subversion of the Catholic Church by taking up residence in England, where Freemasonry soon followed after their arrival. John Dee's magic is the backbone of most of the British Protestant denominations, as well as the Taborite and Anabaptist hyper-millennialism, while Freemasonry provided a way of hoodwinking governments (Elizabeth onward in England) and keeping Protestant leaders in line with the Illuminati agenda. These heresies soon found their way to America through Britian's Imperial conquest of the New World. When Marranos like Russell and Masons like Joseph Smith and Ellen White arrived on American shores, it wasn't long before their churches started sprouting up.
Smiddy, the Waldensians and the Watchtower share many similarities. The truth is, British Zionism borrowed concepts from almost all of the European Protestant movements. These eventuated in the neo-conservative movement, the goal of Protestantism, whose sole focus is the state of Israel in Palestine.
The modus operandi of all Protestant movements is to separate themselves from the others by requiring some kind of exclusivity, usually through theology. This is necessary for dividing the body of believers, something the sinister architects of the Reformation recognized.
The Watchtower was originally following a pattern of Christian Zionism in the school of Cyrus Scofield. This later changed and it discarded the political element of its theology, more or less. The Evangelical movement, especially the Southern Baptist and Charismatic movement, picked up where Russell left off. The Evangelical movement, dominated by Freemasons and funded by Illuminati money, is now the greatest promotoer of mid-East politics favouring Israel. The current Watchtower pursued another path, one equally as damaging to the Church as the evangelical movement.
The failed predictions of the Watchtower is not exclusive to American millennialist groups; it was going on in Germany, especially in Tabor and where Anabaptism was prevalent. And, of course, it went on in England under the wave of occult revival.
Old goat
Interesting comments, and an interesting site. Just a couple of questions, if i may. Do you know the background(s) of the sites writer(s). Is it x bible students? Also, i have never heard of age to come as a group. Can you fill in more context about them, as in from where they came and went? Thanks so much. I met a chruch of abrahamic faith member once, he was an xjw. Smart guy.
S
Actually, Perry, it is not true that the Popes, as you call the Catholic Church, teach that there is no salvation outside their organisation/priesthood/ark, as you say.
The Catholic Church not only accepts all baptisms in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that are performed with water and the intention to baptise, and they do not claim to be a sole means of salvation. Furthermore, when I studied for my formal theology degree, it was emphasised that whilst the church may outline principles in general, in no way does it see itself as limiting God's grace when applied to anyone at all, no matter who or where they are. A principle in general is often waived in regard to a particular case or person, and is always adaptable in individual circumstances...I don't know if I'm explaining it well at the minute or not.
That's all in marked contrast to the rigid Watchtower rules and regulations. No comparison. Of course, all these precursors of the Watchtower, Anabaptists. Cathars, or any of them, are not the same as the JW's. they are merely the roots from which they have sprung.
No Stonecutters, what you say is really interesting too. How very ironic that the Watchtower, with its open apparent hatred of all things magical...Sparlock, are you listening out there?!...should have the magician John Dee, a very intriguing man, as one of its ancestors!
Actually Chariklo I'm not trying to get testy with you, but the facts show that the Watchtower and the Popes share uncannnily similar false doctrines. Specifically:
1. Jesus is not the Sole Mediator for the believer
2. Their organizations are set forth as sharers in the salvation event thus creating an IDOL out of themselves
3. Their own traditions and writings carry as much weight as the bible
These are called heresies. Several years ago, I created a downloadable .pdf that can be printed like business cards that can be used with equal effectiveness for both Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses. One side shows the JW heresies, and the flip side quotes the identical Catholic heresies.
Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses are known to be extremely critical of one another, yet they indulge in the exact same heretical blasphemy.
Scott77: forfots.
I am guessing you mean "forgets"? Another possibility is "forfeits".
I mentioned the baptists in the denomination tree.
The WTS is such a weird mix of beliefs. The closest thing I can come to a canon is the baptismal questions, which number about a hundred.
What the WTS has in common with the anabaptists, other than separating themselves from the Catholics, is baptism by immersion.
I'm going by memory here, but I believe the chief tenets of the Witness faith, that separate them from other believers (as related by Barbara Anderson), are the vindication of Jehovah's name, repudiation of the trinity, and one other I can't remember.
Since the JWs see themselves as Restorationists, they don't believe the ancient church survived in tact. I don't know of any Christians believing in soul sleeping, for example. The early apostles referred to the body as a "tabernacle" in which the spirit resided. And I think it was Peter who wanted to "depart" and "be with Christ," but he said to remain in the flesh was more needful to the church. The JWs believe that, to Peter, the transition would be only a split second, so to him it would be like departing one second and seeing Christ the next. You can talk yourself blue and it won't change them.
The JWs also make historical things a matter of doctrine, which I find to be strange. Like Jesus not having long hair and dying on a torture pole. Indeed, I even remember seeing Jesus being depicted clean shaven! It's okay to believe or not believe these things historically, but if you're a JW who believes Jesus died on a cross, you might just end up shunned or disfellowshiped. It's become a matter of doctrine. The Catholics also believe and teach that Mary was assumed into heaven without tasting death. There's nothing in either scripture or tradition that can be used as a basis for this. It's merely a papal declaration. But by making historical questions doctrinal, you risk the chance that archeologists and historians will prove you wrong. If it's historical in nature, so they were wrong? Sue them. But if it's doctrine, you just suffered a blow to your credibility.
Perry, facts speak for themselves. Whatever Bible you read nowadays was preserved by the Catholic Church for at least 1500 years.
