Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?
What Vienne (Annie) said is so true.
We need to be careful not to get caught up in our emotions toward watchtower and spread false narratives or make bold claims that turn out to be just wrong.
We risk losing credibility if we're not careful to compare and contrast.
Personally it takes me a long time to trust someone if I find them putting forward an idea that is later proven wrong especially if they push the idea as indisputable.
I don't expect anyone to react any different from me if they find poorly researched bold accusations or statements, especially coming from opposers who likely are just fault finding to suit the narrative they want to portray.
Watchtower has enough verifiable dirt without us slinging unverified mud.
I found the book 'Separate Identity' Volume One to be very fairly written and researched. Just about the best I have seen.
They still borrow ideas. Anything g they come up with you can find in some other' sects beliefs
Christian sects claim to follow the bible; they claim to derive their beliefs from it. So there is a vast similarity among them, even when they differ in key areas. This is as true of other sects as it is of Jehovah's Witnesses.
But overall, compared with many other sectarian leaders, it seems that he was a good person with good intentuons - SBF
I broadly agree agree with that but I'm not sure it was still true towards the end of his life. His statement that elevated the utility of Studies in the Scriptures above scripture suggests extreme hubris.
Are you referring to his 1910 article on Studies in the Scriptures?
To be honest it was so long ago since I read Russell's books I would be struggling to remember the source.
To paraphrase he said something along the lines of - if somebody had only the bible, they would be walking in darkness, but if they had ONLY Studies in Scripture then in ten years time they would still be in the light.
- a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraudBased on this recognized definition of the noun ,charlatan, I don't think that it's too far off in describing old CT as a charlatan. He didn't disagree when referred to as the 'the faithful steward". He conned folks with 'miracle wheat'. He certainly thought he had special knowledge and was a gift from god! ( See the great pyramid inch scam!) He didn't give too much credit to others from which he "borrowed" their teachings. IMHO he was at best a kindly, gentle charlatan unlike his successor old booze Rutherford!just saying!
The definition suggests that the claim was knowingly false. Russell believed what he taught. So, while he was mistaken, we cannot call him a charlatan within the definition of the word.
I understand that you do not like him. I'm not certain how familiar you are with his life, beyond what you might have read on opposition Internet boards on in polemical literature. But, even if we detest the man, we should describe him fairly.