AF: So, Dummy, now that it has all been laid out before you in excruciating detail, can you argue that your statement:
quote:Not one thing you typed PROVES ... that Brother Russell called himself: "God's mouthpiece." That was your original contention, AF.
has anything to do with what I stated or what you specifically asked me to produce? Of course not -- you're a dummy.:
I think you're the obtuse idiot here, as my review of your quotes clearly shows. But let us move on, shall we? You were wrong about Quod erat demonstrandum and you are in error when it comes to Russell.
:: Nevertheless, I will visit the website that supposedly shows Russell's claims of infallibility.:
:Replying to a matter again before you've heard it, eh? Don't you pay attention to the Bible's words about that? Don't you ever learn? Had you read the material I referenced on the Web, you'd have found the reference to "the statement concerning Russell's books". Nevertheless, I reproduce it below.:
I said that I would "visit" the website you referred to in your post. I visited it and found that the site was just more of the same old slanderous dung.
:: But you still have to show where Brother Russell ever called himself God's mouthpiece or the faithful and discreet slave. Even if he did call himself "God's mouthpiece," it does not mean that he was haughty. But of course you have not proven that which was to be demonstrated in the first place.:
:The various statements in the quotes I have already provided prove that the Watchtower Society's leaders stated that Russell admitted in private to being "the faithful and wise servant". That Russell was "that slave" was officially stated Watchtower dogma from 1916 through 1927, and was clearly implied in Watchtower literature as far back as 1895, and according to the Society itself was implied as far back as 1883.:
Now you are trying to shift the focus of the discussion. Please stick to the two germane issues here. First, you said that Russell called himself "God's mouthpiece." Secondly, you suggested that Russell elevated his books above the Bible. But let us examine both of those claims in the light of the evidence.
:The asked-for statements from Russell, and a lot more besides, can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/end2.htm#basis which is in the article "The WTS and the End of the World" => "Part 2: The Orwellian Thinking of JWs" => "The Basis of Early False Predictions".
Here is the statement where Russell claimed to be "God's mouthpiece", right off this website:
quote:In the July 15, 1906 Watch Tower, on page 229, Russell wrote:
quote:Many are the inquiries relative to the truths presented in MILLENNIAL DAWN and ZION'S WATCH TOWER, as to whence they came and how they developed to their present symmetrical and beautiful proportions - Were they the results of visions? Did God in any supernatural way grant the solution of these hitherto mysteries of his plan? Are the writers more than ordinary beings? Do they claim any supernatural wisdom or power? or how comes this revelation of God's truth?
No, dear friends, I claim nothing of superiority, nor supernatural power, dignity or authority; nor do I aspire to exalt myself in the estimation of my brethren of the household of faith....
No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out.:
I think you need to acquaint yourself with the notion of sense and reference. Yes, Russell did call himself "God's mouthpiece." But you fail to explain this comment in context. Rusell thought that all Christians should serve as God's mouthpiece and he encouraged the body of Christ (as he understood it) to serve God as a collective mouthpiece. Your comments are nothing but lies and slander. Talk about arrogance. Russell's terminology is explained on this website:
http://network54.com/Realm/Present_Truth/godsmouthpiece.html
As far as the comment about Russell claiming to be the slave in private, that is pretty slender evidence. Its strange that he never ever wrote such a thing in his books. You say that he implied that he was the FDS in his writings. But implications simply will not do here.
:Here is Russell's claim that anyone who failed to read his books would "go off into darkness" within two years:
quote:It was apparently this belief - that he had a special appointment from God - that led to virtually equating his own writings with the Bible itself. In the following material from the September 15, 1910 Watch Tower article "Is the Reading of 'Scripture Studies' Bible Study?", pages 298-9 (4684-5 Reprints), note the difficulty Russell had in maintaining humility. The article discussed the "plan of reading twelve pages of the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES each day." It gave a rather mixed message about how the Bible ought to be viewed. Since Studies in the Scriptures pretty well covered everything the serious Bible student needed to know, it said that, while reading the Bible was important, and "the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible," nevertheless the volumes "are in such form that they, of themselves, contain the important elements of the Bible as well as the comments or elucidations of those bible statements."
quote:If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes - the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, since there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to present the entire matter on the lines of the Word of God. We therefore think it safe to follow this kind of reading, this kind of instruction, this kind of Bible study.
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.:
More distortion of Russell's comments. Yawn! These comments were addressed in the WT years ago and they are also refuted on the website I referenced above:
"Certainly Brother Russell spoke from experience here, seeing some go into the darkness of atheism. The unjust critics of Russell, in their zeal to advertise their little slanders, don't realize that the VERY SAME ARTICLE also says the following:
"The six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible."
"there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to present the entire matter on the lines of the Word of God."
"before we would accept anything as being our own personal faith and conviction, we should say, "I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says."
"we would think it our duty to refer at once to the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are the standard, and in that reference to the Scripture it would be with a view to discerning whether or not we had been mistaken in our previous examinations."
"SCRIPTURE STUDIES" NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE - [the chapter heading title!]
"This is not, therefore, putting the SCRIPTURE STUDIES as a substitute for the Bible, because so far as substituting for the Bible, the STUDIES, on the contrary, continually refer to the Bible; and if one has any doubt as to a reference or if one's recollection should lapse in any degree, one should refresh his memory, and, in fact, should see that his every thought is in harmony with the Bible --not merely in accord with the SCRIPTURE STUDIES, but in accord with the Bible."
Would that the unjust critics of Russell would learn to look before they leap! Sadly, many will only repeat the original slander even after being shown these quotes that contradict their attacks."
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
