Ok, Dave, I'll quit calling Dummy "Dummy" for awhile. As for whoopin' ass, you and whose mother?
UR, your little Latin ditties are not being answered by Dunny. I wonder why?
As for you, Dunny, since your 'arguments' consist entirely of unsupported bald assertions and denials, with nary a shred of actual argument, and you continue in this foolish mode of discussion post after post, your claim to have given me a "linguistic beating" reminds of the Black Night in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", hopping around on his stumps and waving what's left of arms, hollering "Come back and fight like a man!"
Additionally:
:: The real focus of this thread is on the fact that C. T. Russell was an arrogant, haughty man. The fact that you reject explicit statements from "the faithful and discreet slave" that immediately succeeded Russell in that position speaks volumes about your devotion to truth.
: The magazines have never claimed to be infallible.
Oh please! Not with a direct statement like, "The Watch Tower magazine is infallible." But certainly in other words and certainly by the Watchtower Society's actions against any who disagree. Go to Osarsif's website and look in my article "The WTS and the End of the World": http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm . There you'll find a quote from a 1923 Watch Tower where the Society explicitly claims that its prediction that Armageddon would come in 1925 was even more firmly established than was God's revelation to Noah about the coming Flood. If God's revelation to Noah was inspired, and if the 1925 prediction was even better established than an inspired utterance, then the Society was most certainly claiming that its prediction was inspired.
Here is a partial quote:
Question: Did the order go forth eight months ago to the Pilgrims to cease talking about 1925? Have we more reason, or as much, to believe the kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had to believe that there would be a flood? ...As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had (so far as the Scriptures reveal) upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge.
Since The Watch Tower was at that time, according to today's Watchtower Society, the printed mouthpiece of "the faithful and discreet slave", and it was at that time declaring all sorts of "Bible truths", it follows that "the slave" was then declaring that its interpretation of the Bible was infallible, since that interpretation was better than God's direct revelation to Noah.
: As we grow in knowledge, we must be willing to adjust our viewpoints. Have you ever thought about the possibility that the WT discovered it made a mistake in 1916 when it said Russell claimed to be the FDS in private? No, that could not be possible!
Such an assertion is revisionist nonsense. The fact is that the entire Bible Student community believed and taught as "God's truth" that Russell was "the faithful and wise servant". It suited his purposes to allow them to say such in public so that he didn't have to.
How do you think the Society would have "discovered it made a mistake in 1916"? That issue of The Watch Tower was written by Russell's close associates. They knew exactly what he taught and admitted in private.
You're grasping mightily at straws here, Dunny.
: But in the face of NO evidence, your assertions fall flat on their face for now. Q.E.D.
No evidence? A string of direct quotes from the mouthpiece of "the faithful and discreet slave class" is "no evidence"?
In reality, your denials are supported by no evidence. You can't produce a single bit of evidence that Russell did not claim to be "that servant". You can't produce any evidence or even any actual reason that pre-1927 Watchtower teachings should be rejected. You haven't touched the fact in the 1897 book The Battle of Armageddon Russell explicitly declared that "the faithful and wise servant" had to be an individual, and therefore implied that that individual had to be him since it could be no other. Your failures, my friend, constitute "no evidence".
AlanF
