Some Bethelites are Jackasses

by Old Goat 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  SimonSays

  If you disagree with Penton or with the content of Schulz and de Vienne's books, support your opinion with some facts. Start with reading the books. Something you so obviously have not done. old goat
  

  Funny how people assume. In order to show facts from baseless ideology assuming you have personal proof of your assertions, without having to rely on people that for all intent and purposes is just to make money on lies, can be easily achieved by looking elsewhere.

  I believe I mentioned “The forgotten prophet” which is the theme book your referencing, Isn’t that correct? Schulz and deVienne: Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet, 2009. Unless you are referring to another.

  The false and misleading impression with Barbour after 1844.

  1. Adventists in the Geneseo area met in Springwater to await the second coming in 1843. Their disappointment was profound, and Barbour suffered a crisis of faith. Later, he would write: “We held together until the autumn of 1844. Then, as if a raft floating in deep water should suddenly disappear from under its living burden, so our platform went from under us, and we made for shore in every direction; but our unity was gone, and, like drowning men, we caught at straws.” [Barbour, N. H.: Evidences for the Coming of the Lord in 1873, Or the Midnight Cry, 1871, page 26.]

  2. What was Barbour’s mindset he was disappointed.” Barbour abandoned his faith. He pursued a medical career, becoming a Medical Electrician, a therapist who treated disease through the application of electric current. It was seen as a valid therapy in those days.

  3.

  What did Barbour invest his time on while rethinking life? “He left for Australia to prospect for Gold, returning via London in 1859. There is some evidence that he preached on occasion while in Australia. A ship-board discussion with a clergyman reactivated his interest in Bible prophecy. He consulted books on prophetic themes at the British Library and became convinced that 1873 would mark the return of Christ. This was not a new speculation but had been advanced by others at least as early as 1823.

  4. Charles Taze Russell, age left the Presbyterian Church to join a congregational church. Independent from his upbringing. Did C.T. Russell even consider Miller at this point? 1865 NO! Is there any publicans to suggest Russell was influenced by Miller at this time? NO! Did Russell know of Barbour at this Time? NO! Why, at that time, Barbour became an inventor and associated with Peter Cooper, the founder of Cooper Union. He patented several inventions. By 1863 he was in medical practice, dividing his time between Auburn and Rochester, New York. He returned to London in 1864 to demonstrate one of his inventions. He used his association with other inventors and scientists to spread his end-times doctrine, and some of his earliest associates in that belief were inventors and physicians.

  5. Barbour return to spirituality.” He published something as early as 1867, though it has been lost. In 1871 he wrote and published a small book entitled Evidences for the Coming of the Lord in 1873, or The Midnight Cry. It quickly went through two printings and articles by him started appearing in the Second Adventist press, notably the World’s Crisis.
  
  A significant movement advocating 1873 grew up, though it was divided into several parties. Jonas Wendell lead one; another centered on the magazine The Watchman’s Cry, and the rest associated most closely with Barbour. British Barbourites were represented by Elias H. Tuckett, a clergyman.

  6. Charles Taze Russell.” At age sixteen, a discussion with a childhood friend on faults perceived in Christianity such as contradictions in creeds, along with medieval traditions led Russell to question his faith. He then investigated various other religions, but concluded that they did not provide the answers he was seeking. 1868. Was there any involvement or partnership between Barbour and Russell at this time? NO! Russell ended up questioning scripture but to better understand it not abandon it like Barbour. It wasn’t until 1870 at age eighteen that the young Russell attended and Advent meeting under Jonas Wendell. This was the first time Russell heard anything to do with the Advent movement. Did he get influenced by it, not necessarily, because he stated: that although he did not entirely agree with the arguments presented by Wendell, the presentation was sufficient to inspire within him a renewed zeal and re-establish his belief that the Bible is the word of God. To believe in the Bible, not the ideology of the Advent movement portrayed by ignorant and stupid people of 1873-1874.

  I could continue, but its tedious work, and I’m not here to teach you a history lesson.

  Untimely when Barbour and Russell agreed to a partnership in 1878 it was short lived. Why, because Barbour NOT Russell continued with his Advent views which Russell DISAGREED with. They had a falling out and they went their separate ways with their own publicans. Was Russell ever influenced by the advent movement, NO!

  So before you consider someone doesn’t know the lies and deception published by ignorant people just to make money, I suggest you read all the publicans you depict as being true, and before you embarrass yourself any further by suggesting I haven’t proven anything, that will suggest volumes to a none chronologist.
• 

  SimonSays

  OLD GOAT: What I meant about embarrassing yourself with this rewrite of Doug Mason nonsense remember your quotes a year ago.

  "
  

  There were many who had no connection to Miller that believed the end was near. Literalist belief extends back to German, Dutch and English expositors from the 17th Century. Belief in the near advent of Christ was not unique to Miller. It was the characteristic belief of most in Christendom both before and after Miller. Millerite Adventists were in the minority among belevers in the near close of the age. If you really had read Russell's Studies in the Scriptures you would have seen that he never read anything Miller wrote. (He says so, and it's obvious from content.) Russell was an Age to Come Literalist. He spent the years from 1870-1876 associating with them and believed their distinctive doctrine. Literialist doctrine is not Adventism.

  That you associate all end of age belief with Miller suggests that your research is very shallow. By 1876 Barbour was no longer an Adventist. He left that belief for Mark Allen's Blessed Hope theology. Russell, Barbour and their associates did not expect end-times events to be what Millerite Adventists expected. They owed their expectations to a trail of expositors that took them back to the German Piscator, and the Baptist Whiston and others none of whose theology is remotely similar to Millerite Adventism." OLD GOAT!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
• 

  JWdaughter

  This thread and the referenced blog are nonsensical.
• 

  Old Goat

  English isn’t your first language, or you’re illiterate. Your spelling and grammar obscure your message. But, I think we can dissect your post. You present me with comparisons between Russell and Barbour. They are false comparisons, full of factual and logical flaws.

  First you compare Russell and Barbour’s trial of faith. You fault Barbour and praise Russell, but on a false basis. Barbour lost his faith in Adventism, not the Bible. We know this because he says so. When in Australia, prospecting for Gold, he continued to preach what he saw as Christian doctrine. You suggest that turning prospector, taking up the medical profession and inventing things makes Barbour something less than Russell.

  Russell lost his faith in Christianity, retaining only a deist’s belief that there must be a God. We know this because he says so. To an audience in India and in other places he repeats that story and says he became an infidel, meaning that he rejected the Bible and Christianity. During that time he turned his attention to business. Russell never stopped speculating in business. He had several stores; the most at one time was five. He owned a hat store, some clothing stores, a furniture and household goods store, and a music store. He invested in oil leases; dabbled in the stock market; loaned money on interest; ran a turpentine business and a brick company. He owned a used heavy equipment and scrap iron business. He sold printing equipment. He invested in a coal mine, a soda ash mine, (someone suggested it was a gold mine, but it wasn’t.) He invested in real estate and continued to do so up to 1908 at least.

  If it was wrong for Barbour to engage in business, it was wrong for Russell to do so. But where does God say a Christian must not be in business? Of the two, loss of faith was most profound for Russell. He rejected Christianity. Barbour lost faith in Millerism, but continued to preach. So your comparison, meant to pump up Russell at Barbour’s expense, is a false one.

  You discuss Russell’s adventures as a Congregationalist. You seem not to know that there is no doctrinal difference between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. The two churches differed only in governance. They shared preachers in ‘union congregations.’ The Plymouth Congregational Church, the church Russell joined, was a missionary church. It appealed to Russell because of its outreach. The two ministers who served during Russell’s affiliation were both Presbyterian.

  Neither Penton nor Schulz and de Vienne claim Russell was an Adventist. Schulz and de Vienne explore the origins of his theology, using Russell’s own words to prove he wasn’t an Adventist. You’re erecting a straw-man argument. However, he was exposed to prophetic exposition. Plymouth Church’s first pastor, Henry Moore, preached and wrote on prophecy. His preaching was within the millennialist (Literalist) tradition common to British, Continental, and American theology. Moore’s work finds a place in Russell’s thought.

  No-one claimed Russell was involved in the 1873-4 movement, though he was certainly interested in it. He met Jonas Wendell in 1869 (not 1870 as you say). Wendell preached in Lafayette Hall, in Pittsburgh that January 17th, and then moved to Quincy Hall in Allegheny, a few steps away from the Russell’s home. Wendell introduced him to the 1873 speculation and to other similar claims. Russell read William Carr Thruman’s books with interest. His interest abated only as each speculation failed. He wrote to Adventist and millenarian papers, leaving a trail for a historian to follow.

  You claim that Russell and Barbour’s association ended because of Barbour’s Adventist doctrine. This is nonsense. It ended because Barbour preached Unitarian atonement theory. Russell and Barbour both identify it as Unitarianism, not Adventism. When Russell withdrew, he continued to hold to their shared chronology and doctrine with almost no change until his death.

  By the time Russell met him, Barbour was no longer an Adventist. (Russell says this.) He had moved into Age-to-Come theology. This is British Literalism. He adopted Mark Allan’s doctrine and told a newspaper reporter that his congregation in Rochester was affiliated with Allan’s Church of the Blessed Hope.

  Your entire argument rests on misstated ‘facts’ and misleading statements. You’re spelling, grammar and thought are confused. You want to elevate Russell at Barbour’s expense. You’ve chosen the wrong tack. Barbour was vain, self-entitled and a thief. The difference between them when they separated was personal behavior with a mix of doctrinal difference.

  Giving history lessons is my profession. You’ve just had one. I should add that you criticize Penton and Schulz and de Vienne for selling books. Original research is expensive and time consuming. The Bible principal is “to the worker belong his wages.” I’ve written a few textbooks over the years some still in use. (I’m nearly 90) And I can tell you that return on work is often small. If you don’t want to pay for a book, don’t buy it. But it is not a sin to buy and sell, even intellectual work.
• 

  Old Goat

  JWDaughter,

  Yes, my fault for not giving enough background to make her post intelligible. Rachael has long standing problems with Watch Tower harassment, many of which are detailed in older posts. These include emails, comments left on her history blog since moderated out and issues with local elders who seem to think that because her mother was a Witness and Rachael attended at a child that they have some hold over her.
• 

  Old Goat

  One last comment. I've never read anything Mr. Mason wrote.
  
• 

  Old Goat

  It is embarrassing to misspell when commenting on another's spelling. For principal read principle. For you're read your. Damn it.
  
• 

  SimonSays

  By the time Russell met him, Barbour was no longer an Adventist. (Russell says this.) He had moved into Age-to-Come theology. This is British Literalism. He adopted Mark Allan’s doctrine and told a newspaper reporter that his congregation in Rochester was affiliated with Allan’s Church of the Blessed Hope.

  Exactly, you have just confirmed what ignorant people having been disputing for over 15 years here.

  Giving history lessons is my profession. You’ve just had one. I should add that you criticize Penton and Schulz and de Vienne for selling books. Original research is expensive and time consuming. The Bible principal is “to the worker belong his wages.” I’ve written a few textbooks over the years some still in use. (I’m nearly 90) And I can tell you that return on work is often small. If you don’t want to pay for a book, don’t buy it. But it is not a sin to buy and sell, even intellectual work.

  I sorry to read this, a historian. Wow! The research on the account of Barbour is not entirely ORIGINAL since he wrote many pamphlets and information in other books. So to suggest that research is expensive for reading books, Come On! Not even you buy in to that, unless you’re suggesting these people spoke to Barbour. Aside from that, Barbour was a lost Prophet but to the Advent Movement NOT the Bible Students as suggested once again from questionable sources.

  Your entire argument rests on misstated ‘facts’ and misleading statements. You’re spelling, grammar and thought are confused. You want to elevate Russell at Barbour’s expense. You’ve chosen the wrong tack. Barbour was vain, self-entitled and a thief. The difference between them when they separated was personal behavior with a mix of doctrinal difference.

  I’m glad you corrected yourself. I wouldn’t be able to find a different aspect to low life. Find a different way of giving history lessons for WTS stuff, you’re just embarrassing yourself. Don’t worry you have impressed people here from all the time you have invested here. Is it worth money by deception, Hm!!!!!!!!

  There are about 7-8 books that would refute the claim you and your friend suggest. However to believe that person was being harassed by the WTS obviously doesn’t know the meaning of the word. You will never impress me as a historian although it would have been nice since you seem to be more open minded than others, but if you’re going to promote someone, know the REAL TRUE. My responses are not researched like yours, I don’t have time to use proper grammar, sorry.