Yahoo News gives JWs a mention

by Splash 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • ziddina

    Hee hee!!!

    What Mrs. Jones said...

    He actually said 1874:
    Russell taught that Jesus invisible rulership began in 1874.
    "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present since October 1874, A.D., according to the testimony of the prophets, to those who have ears to hear it: and the formal inauguration of his kingly office dates from April 1878, A.D." Studies in Scriptures Series IV (1897) p.621
    and when nothing happened he moved it to 1914. What a happifying cowinkydink!
  • redvip2000

    How anybody can read the writings of Charles Russell and be convinced that the men had some sort of insight into the future is ludicrous. To date i am not aware of anything he tried to predict that actually came true. Some of his reasonings and interpretations of bible events are comparable to biblical "snake oil" and in reality as flawed as the Watchtower society is in it's teachings, even they are enbarassed to be associated too closely with Russell, and one can clearly see why.

    The man was evidently honest and decent, but insightful? Enlightened? Clearly not.

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    There are tons of Bible Students, Redvip. And I'm with you. I'm not sure how you can read this guy's stuff and think he had any special insight. His obsession with the pyramids is enough for me to view him as a nut, personally. But if I remember right, reslight still fully believes that the pyramids are God's stone witness.

    But if you love this you go. I still say he has "crazy eyes":

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    Watching these videos, I've found it interesting that Russell speaks with a slight British accent (especially in that last video). this how men tried to talk to sound intelligent back then? He was from Pennsylvania, was he not? Where did the accent come from?

  • reslight2

    Deputy Dog posted:


    From: THE TIME IS AT HAND page 99

    In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A. D. 1914. Then the prayer of the Church, ever since her Lord took his departure - "Thy Kingdom come'' - will be answered; and under that wise and just administration, the whole earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord - with knowledge, and righteousness, and peace (Psa. 72:19; Isa. 6:3; Hab. 2:14); and the will of God shall be done "on earth, as it is done in heaven."

    Last time I checked the kindoms of this world are still ruling. Or is this what God's will is like in heaven?

    page 101

    Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A. D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty'' (Rev. 16:14.), which will end in A, D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word.

    These are both quotes from what Brother Russell had written before 1904; from 1904 onward, Russell was no longer expecting the final end of the kingdoms of this world in 1914. Notice that Brother Russell states "we", referring to himself, his opinion, his own conclusions. Nevertheless, what he had considered an established fact before 1904, he admitted to have been wrong. On the other hand, as Russell stated many times, he was not prophesying, he disclaimed that anything he stated was infallible, nor did Russell claim any special authority as being "central authority" to which everyone had to agree as the JW leadership does. Indeed, there were several differing opinions amongst the Bible Students concerning time prophecy and Bible chronology, and Russell mentioned and even presented differering views in the pages of the Watch Tower.

    In 1909, Russell stated:

    These 2520 years we believe will expire with October, 1914; at that time we believe the Gentile lease of power will expire, and that the God of heaven will set up his Kingdom in Israel. We do not expect universal peace to immediately ensue because Christ is styled the Prince of Peace. On the contrary, to our understanding the collapse of the nations will be through a fierce strife, “a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation,” in which “there shall be no peace to him that goeth out, nor to him that cometh in,” because God will set every man’s hand against his neighbor. Our belief is that the warfare between capital and labor, emperors and peoples, will be short, sharp, decisive, and bring untold calamity upon all concerned. If people could only discern it, they would avoid it, but their eyes are holden; they see not, neither do they understand. All the parties to the conflict are plunging into it, each intent on gaining its point, and each oblivious to its own best interests. — “Times of the Gentiles”, The National Labor Tribune, July 11, 1909.

    Although the conflict has not been as "short' as Russell was expecting, we have been in this conflict ever since 1914. Various groups have been clamoring for their supposed "rights", and the struggle for world control to secure whatever "rights" is being claimed is far from over, and will eventually bring mankind to the point as foretold in Psalm 107:26,27:

    Their soul melts away because of trouble. They reel back and forth, and stagger like a drunken man, And are at their wits' end.

    Once mankind has reached their wits end at trying to solve his own problems, they will be brought to their desired haven (Psam 107:28), into the time when Satan will be abyssed, and they will be blessed by the Kingom rule of Jesus and the saints.

    In 1910, Russell stated:

    I believe October, 1914, is the time when we may expect that great time of trouble, because it seems to our judgment, as far as we can understand the Scriptures, that is the time when the Gentile period of lease, or tenure, will expire, and when, therefore, we may expect that the time of trouble shall be ushered in; and that time of trouble we understand is the one the Scriptures tell about–a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, a time of trouble which shall overwhelm all sorts of government, and every institution of the present time; and a time of trouble which thus will make ready and prepare mankind for the glorious reign of Christ and his Church, for the blessing and uplifting of all the families of the earth. — What Pastor Russell Said, Question 555:4 (1910).

    Blessed hope for the heathen! The blessing of all the nations!!! Great joy that shall be for all the people! That was the emphasis, the core, of Russell's teachings. Oh how I will thank the Heavenly Father for how he has used Brother Russell to being forth these things out from the Bible. I do believe he was used in a special way! I am so saddened that Rutherford rejected the glad tidings Russell spent most of life in defense of and began to proclaim bad tidings of great woe of eternal destruction for most of the peoples in Armageddon!!!!

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    Oh how I will thank the Heavenly Father for how he has used Brother Russell to being forth these things out from the Bible.

    I never use this emoticon, but there is nothing else that describes the look on my face right now...

  • Christ Alone
    Christ Alone

    I also find it interesting that because Russell didn't CALL himself a prophet, you reject the idea that he could be a false prophet. One does not need to specifically call themselves a prophet to be a false one.

    We all know Deut 18:20-22. There is nothing in the context that implies that one would need to be CALLED a prophet to be a false prophet. They just need to state as truth something that God told them. Russell claimed this. And while he DID make statements as to his infallibility, he also employed double speak and said that his dates were unchangable because they were verified by the Bible.


  • ScenicViewer

    A couple of questions for Reslight2,

    1) You wrote,

    "Since Russell, who was never speaking on behalf an authoritarian religious organization such the Jehovah's Witnesses, and who disclaimed [b]eing a prophet..."

    Q1, Do you have a reference where Russell disclaimed being a prophet?

    2) You wrote,

    We begin with the announcement of his change of view in 1904:

    We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great time of trouble which will precede the Millennial blessings will be after October, 1914 A.D.very speedily thereafter, in our opinion –”in one hour,” “suddenly.” — Universal Anarchy: Just Before or After October, 1914 A.D.? ZWT, July 1, 1904, page 197, Reprints 3389,

    Q2, Even if Russell correctly changed his understanding that 1914 would be the start of trouble rather than the end of it, we are almost 100 years beyond his prediction that the Millennial blessings would happen 'speedily, in one hour, suddenly, thereafter.' Since nothing happened soon after 1914, why wouldn't he still be a false prophet, teaching his wrong understandings as truth?

    3) Regarding the expected return of Christ in 1874, (No Q here, but a comment)

    You wrote,

    The Watch Tower Society (which did not come into existence until 1881) in the days of Russell never made any prediction at all concerning Christ's "Second Coming". Nor did Russell himself ever make any prediction at all concerning Christ's Second Coming. In 1876, about two years after 1874, Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had already returned in 1874, and Russell held to that belief until he died in 1916.

    You sound as though Russell himself was not a proponent, nor did he preach about, 1874 being the date of Christ's return, that it was all Barbour's fault and that Russell himself was neutral regarding that date.

    The quote below shows that Bro. Keith, one of Russell's "contributors," was "used by the Lord" to give an answer as to why 1873/1874/1875 failed to see Christ's return. Parousia was discovered, and the return was understood by Russell and his followers, from that point on, to have happened invisibly. He considered it "new light" that 1874 was the time that Christ returned invisibly, which "caused all of the former “light” to shine with tenfold brightness."

    The point here is that Russell was very much behind the 1874 date for Christ's return.

    (W Feb, 1881 p188 par 2 of Reprints)
    Looking back to 1871, we see that many of our company were what are known as Second Adventists, and the light they held briefly stated, was that there would be a second advent of Jesus -- that he would come to bless and immortalize the saints, to judge the world and to burn up the world and all the wicked. This, they claimed would occur in 1873, because the 6,000 years from the creation of Adam were complete then.
    But prophecies were found which pointed positively to 1874 as the time when Jesus was due to be present, and the resurrection of Daniel was also due as proved by the ending of the jubilee cycles and the 1335 days of Dan. xii.

    Carefully they [Second Adventists] examined the chronology but it seemed faultless and positively declared that the 6,000 years ended in 1873... Was an error found? No…the “1335 days” of Daniel could not possibly be prolonged beyond the fall of ‘74 or the spring 1875 and these periods were both past.

    (Continuing with par 5)
    Just at this time Bro. Keith, (one of our contributors) was used of the Lord to throw another beam of light on the subject which brought order out of confusion and caused all of the former “light” to shine with tenfold brightness. Brother K. had been reading carefully Matthew xxiv chapter, using the “Emphatic Diaglott,”…37th and 39th verses… “For as the days of Noah thus will be the presence of the son of man….thus will be the presence of the Son of Man.”

    His surprise was, at finding that the Greek word parousia which signifies presence, had in our common version been improperly rendered coming, but the new rendering showed that it was not the act of coming that resembled the days of Noah, but that as in Noah‘s days…it would be at the time of Jesus’ presence at the second advent.

Share this