I don't get how JW's believe Charles Taze Russell had any legitimate authority for his teachings.

  • Thread starter Thread starter MH84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MH84

Guest
I have to admit that I do not know all that much about the Jehovah’s Witnesses because I have had practically no contact with any of its members nor have I looked up the religion much.

I actually thought that the JW’s believe that Russell was a prophet in a similar vein to Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons), but when I had a brief look at Russell’s biography at wikipedia he seems that he founded his religion purely based on his own interpretations and findings and not on any supernatural revelations. And that he was inspired to preach after hearing a sermon from an Adventist minister by the name of Jonas Wendell.

Can someone tell me why do members believe the teachings of Charles Taze Russell? Why him and not Smith, or John Thomas or the leaders of the other restoration movements?

And also how do they know they are following the original religion of Russell, when his religion was divided into smaller groups after he passed away?
 
I could be wrong, but I thought a lot of Russell’s ideas have been pitched to the wayside.

But then again, one never knows with the JWs because their ideas change so frequently. They describe these changes as “new light”. Someone once pointed out a better description would be “strobe light”!
 
A poster in another thread said this in part of her post.
In fact, C. T. Russell in one of his early works used Heb. 1:6 as a proof that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are not the same person (Watchtower, November 11, 1879, pg. 48).
Is this true?
 
I actually thought that the JW’s believe that Russell was a prophet in a similar vein to Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons), but when I had a brief look at Russell’s biography at wikipedia he seems that he founded his religion purely based on his own interpretations and findings and not on any supernatural revelations. And that he was inspired to preach after hearing a sermon from an Adventist minister by the name of Jonas Wendell.

Can someone tell me why do members believe the teachings of Charles Taze Russell? Why him and not Smith, or John Thomas or the leaders of the other restoration movements?

And also how do they know they are following the original religion of Russell, when his religion was divided into smaller groups after he passed away?
Russell specfically said and wrote on many occassions specifically saying he wasn’t inspired, he wasn’t infallible (like the Pope claims), and the things he taught weren’t “inspired prophecies”. I’ve provided those quotes for others in the past.

Russell was a dedicated Bible student who tested what the Catholic and Protestant Churches were teaching against what the Bible actually said. He preached the results of his findings.

Many of his core doctrine are believed by JW’s today including Jehovah is Almighty God, Jesus Christ is His son, Jesus provided the ransom sacrifice. Hell is simply a mistranslation of the Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek word Hades and means the common grave of mankind, etc. See: What Do They Believe?

Russell was particularly interested in understanding what all the chronological prophecies meant in Daniel, Ezekiel and gave his interpretation of what those meant.

JW’s do not hold him to be a prophet, inspired, or idolized in anyway. We don’t follow any human as our leader, but view Jesus Christ as the head of our congregation.

Much of what Russell identified as Bible teachings that contradicted the Churches is still held to be true by current JW’s.

The interpretation of Bible prophecy is subjective in nature and is updated as more information is understood.
 
…JW’s do not hold him to be a prophet, inspired, or idolized in anyway. We don’t follow any human as our leader, but view Jesus Christ as the head of our congregation.

Much of what Russell identified as Bible teachings that contradicted the Churches is still held to be true by current JW’s.

The interpretation of Bible prophecy is subjective in nature and is updated as more information is understood.
Thanks for your response.

But when did Russell start actually believing that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were the only true church? There must have been a time when his followers actually started believing that Russell had started to preach the only correct interpretation of the bible. In other words, Russell (and his followers) must have thought that he had been given authority by Jesus. Otherwise they would be just assuming that Russell was right, like the followers of John Thomas, Jonas Wendell etc.
 
A poster in another thread said this in part of her post.

Is this true?
I have all these old Watchtowers from the first issue in July of 1879. Although I don’t see Russell referring to Heb 1:6 on that page, he does reason that Michael the Archangel is not Jesus Christ in this November 1879 issue.

However, a few years later, in the June 1883 Watchtower article “The Arch-Angel” he observes that Michael and Jesus share similar descriptions and activities and wonders:

“While we are not directly told who is Jehovah’s chief-messenger, except that his name is called Michael, the thought suggests itself, Can it be that he who was called Michael - Jehovah’s chief-messenger-was no other than our Lord in his pre-human condition?”

This is not much different than JW modern day thoughts:

“While there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus, there is one scripture that links Jesus with the office of archangel.” (February 2002 Awake Article - Who Is Michael The Archangel?

Now, from my own perspective, I notice that argument about Jesus=Michael to somewhat similar to most Trinitarian Proofs about Jesus = Jehovah. The typical argument is that Jehovah is described as XYZ and Jesus is similarly described as XYZ, thus Jesus must be Jehovah. Michael is described as XYZ and Jesus is described as XYZ therefore perhaps Jesus = Michael.

Thus, I don’t argue Michael=Jesus because I don’t see it as 100% objective. I note the similarities and respect the idea.

For more information, read:posts 27 & 28 here
 
Thus, I don’t argue Michael=Jesus because I don’t see it as 100% objective. I note the similarities and respect the idea.
!!! :confused:
I thought all JW’s believe that Michael and Jesus are the same. I didnt know that some (I presume) don’t believe this.

If this is the case, could you tell me how your views are different from say a Christadelphian? Why do you think the JW’s preach what is true?

You learn something new each day…
 
The central CORE creed doctrine of the Watchtower,yes the reason the Watchtower came into existence was to declare Jesus second coming in 1914.When the prophecy (derived from William Miller of 1842) failed they said that he came “invisibly”.

geocities.com/paulblizard/russell.html more on C.T. Russell
 
!!! :confused:
I thought all JW’s believe that Michael and Jesus are the same. I didnt know that some (I presume) don’t believe this.

If this is the case, could you tell me how your views are different from say a Christadelphian? Why do you think the JW’s preach what is true?

You learn something new each day…
Read the official quote:

“While there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus, there is one scripture that links Jesus with the office of archangel.” (February 2002 Awake Article - Who Is Michael The Archangel?

That’s the official view from WT headquarters.

I agree with that statement. There is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael as Jesus. There are a number of scriptures that describe him in ways that Jesus is also described.
 
Russell also taught the Great Pyramid of Giza was placed there by God and that end-times could be predicted by calculating the length of some of the inside passageways. The Watchtower also called the pyramid “The Bible in stone” - Watchtower Reprints, 4790 (The Watch Tower, 15 March 1911, 95).

MH84, you might want to check out Jason Evert’s Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses.
 
A couple of years ago they came to my house and gave me some material. In it they said that Jesus was Michael. So there they go again changing their teaching. How can the blind lead the blind? Look at the following to see how they change with the wind:

The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT, 7-1879, 7-8). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT, 6-1-1952, 338). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT 8-1-1965, 479). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT 6-1-1988, 31). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Live Forever, early ed., 179). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Live Forever, later ed., 179). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 985). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand! 273).
 
A couple of years ago they came to my house and gave me some material. In it they said that Jesus was Michael. So there they go again changing their teaching. How can the blind lead the blind? Look at the following to see how they change with the wind:

The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT, 7-1879, 7-8). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT, 6-1-1952, 338). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT 8-1-1965, 479). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT 6-1-1988, 31). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Live Forever, early ed., 179). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Live Forever, later ed., 179). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 985). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand! 273).
Jesus said that the men of Sodom would rise up in the judgment and condemn the unbelievers of Christ’s day. But, the apostles later wrote that Sodom received the judicial punishment of everlasting fire. So what is it? The Scriptures can be interpreted both ways. But, instead of criticizing the Watchtower for vacillating between two different opinions, what’s wrong with you using your own mind to determine the truth of the matter, if the destiny of the Sodomites is really so important to you? Will you condemn yourself so harshly if you later change your opinion?

So what is your answer, are they or aren’t they going to be resurrected and why?
 
A couple of years ago they came to my house and gave me some material. In it they said that Jesus was Michael. So there they go again changing their teaching.
The understanding about Jesus and Michael has been consistent since 1883.
 
he wasn’t infallible (like the Pope claims)
Steve, it’s the church belief about the Holy Spirit guiding the Pope. The Pope does not claim this of his own. Few desire to be Pope, as he answers to God for all Christians.
Russell was a dedicated Bible student
I really wonder if he ever studied the complete, pre-Lutheran canon. If so, why did he exclude the Septuagint? Clearly, he trusted Luther more than the early church fathers, as he went with Luther’s canon. That, in itself, is strange. And pure Protestant, unless he also added his own beliefs to the mix.
Russell was particularly interested in understanding what all the chronological prophecies meant in Daniel, Ezekiel and gave his interpretation of what those meant.
Why believe Russell 's interpretation?
JW’s do not hold him to be a prophet, inspired, or idolized in anyway.
THen, why listen to a single word he said?
We don’t follow any human as our leader, but view Jesus Christ as the head of our congregation.
Not human, not Divine. Which is Jesus? How do you know this? Scripture? The same scripture where Jesus says he and the father are one?
The interpretation of Bible prophecy is subjective in nature and is updated as more information is understood.
Thank you, but I’ll go with Divine Revelation.
 
Steve, it’s the church belief about the Holy Spirit guiding the Pope. The Pope does not claim this of his own. Few desire to be Pope, as he answers to God for all Christians.
Oh sorry… Is this a matter of the church believes it and he doesn’t deny it?
I really wonder if he ever studied the complete, pre-Lutheran canon. If so, why did he exclude the Septuagint? Clearly, he trusted Luther more than the early church fathers, as he went with Luther’s canon. That, in itself, is strange. And pure Protestant, unless he also added his own beliefs to the mix.
Do you mean the Apocrypha? Yes, JW’s have done a detailed review and don’t include it based on our own specific analysis, not Luther’s. And why all this concern about what Russell thought? Do you think we hold him up to be like a Pope or something?
Why believe Russell 's interpretation?
THen, why listen to a single word he said?
For the same reason I read and review what all the religions have to say on various topics.
Not human, not Divine. Which is Jesus? How do you know this? Scripture? The same scripture where Jesus says he and the father are one?
Yeah, that same one where Jesus prays his disciples are one, just like he and his father are one… (John 17:21, 22)

John 17:21,*22, “that they may be one even as we are one.”
 
The interpretation of Bible prophecy is subjective in nature and is updated as more information is understood.
JW’s do not hold him to be a prophet, inspired, or idolized in anyway. We don’t follow any human as our leader, but view Jesus Christ as the head of our congregation.
Here are a few things to ponder. Biblesteve (many times people on this forum when addressing somebody instead of using the full name will just use initials of the name but I would rather not use the initials for biblesteve even though his replies & the JW’s are full of it) (Hope I don’t get banned for this) says that Jesus Christ is the head of the JW congregation.

Well according to the WS 1/15/59 it states “Who will be Jehovah’s prophet? Who will be the modern Jeremiahs? The plain facts show God has been pleased to use Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
The WT on 10-1-1964 states “God has on earth today a prophet like organization and then again on 4/1/72 it says ““This ‘prophet’ was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses.”

So we must gather from this that the JW organization is Gods prophet on earth.
But then again on 4/1/72 it counters with “Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a ‘prophet’ of god. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record.”

Well lets review of record (and these are only a drop in the bucket)

First what does the WT NWT Bible have to say about prophets “DT 12:20-22…the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak**…that prophet must die.** And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” When the** prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah** and** the word does not occur or come true,** that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it.”

Biblesteve now says “The interpretation of Bible prophecy is subjective in nature and is updated as more information is understood.” That is a cop-out. In other words when things don’t turn out the way this supposed prophet organization gets out of all there errors is that all those prophecies are just being developed as more information is understood.
But the WT claims their organization is controlled by Jehovah. Jehovah must be doing a lousy job if he cant communicate the right thing time and again.
Here are some prophecies from the WT for the record
WT 10/1890 PG 1243
“…the Scriptural declaration that the Millennium of peace and blessing would be introduced by forty years of trouble, beginning slightly in 1874 and increasing until social chaos should prevail in 1974.”
WT 1/15/1894 PG 1355
“The date of the close of that ‘battle’ is definitely marked in Scripture as of October, 1914. it is already in progress, its beginning dating from October 1874.”
WT 7/15/1894 PG 1677
There is no reason for changing the figures: they are God’s date, not ours: 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but the end.
WT 9/15/1901 PG 2876

The trouble in October 1914 is clearly marked in Scriptures: the severe trouble to start no later than 1910, with severe spasms between now and then.

Then they backed off by saying this

WT 9/1/1914 PG 5527
“Armageddon may begin next spring, yet it is purely speculation to attempt to say just when.”
WT 11/1/1914 PG 5565
We did not say positively that this would be the year.”

HUH??? Look above!!! What does “…clearly marked in scripture” mean?

When nothing happened they changed it to 1925 with these
WT 7/15/1922 PG 217
“This chronology is not of man but of God…of divine origin…Absolutely and unqualifiedly correct.”

WT 9/1/1922 PG 262
“1914 ended the Gentile Times…The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the **Scriptures…**By then the great crises will be reached and probably passed.”

WT 4/1/1923 PG 106
“1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures…The Christian 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.”
WT 7/15/1924 PG 211
“The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914.”

They backed off again by saying this 1975 YEARBOOk PG 146
“The year 1925 came and went. Jesus’ anointed followers were still on earth as a class. The faithful men of old times–Abraham, David and others–had not been resurrected to become princes in the earth. (Ps. 45:16) So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: ‘1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled: their hopes were dashed…Instead of its being considered a “probability” they read into it that it was a “certainty.” HUH AGAIN??? But they use the words “clearly” and “definitely” and “more distinctly”.
Is this what Biblesteve now claims as “… Bible prophecy is subjective in nature and is updated as more information is understood.”
Of course they changed it to 1975 but nothing has happened but I believe they are getting ready to do their thing again as I have seen pamphlets by the JW’s claiming that the “end is coming soon”. Let’s see what “new information is understood” when nothing happens.
 
Dear Tobylue,

I see you are very good at the copy/paste command with information from anti-JW sites.

Since the purpose of this non-Catholic forum is for discussion and is a little more nobel than just dumping anti-JW info into posts, I’d encourage you to add more value next time.

Also, it’s good for each of us to remember a key forum rule:

“Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.”

Best wishes on your Bible studies.
 
Oh sorry… Is this a matter of the church believes it and he doesn’t deny it?
Well, if you examine how Jesus empowered Peter (“give you the keys to heaven”, “whatever you hold bound is bound”, “he who hears you hears me”), you just maybe can see that we believe what Jesus said. Peter and the eleven laid hands on and made successors. When Peter was crucified, the Apostolic authority was handed on. The Pope is Peter’s successor and has his authority. Apostolic authority seems to be included in Jesus’ “Whatever”
Do you mean the Apocrypha?
No. Pardon me. The Deuterocanon. And please don’t claim that these were added at Trent. It was Trent that formally defined that which had been consistent Christian practice for over 1,500 years. They had to to counter the deformers when Luther began ripping whole books out of scripture. Your “NWT” does not have this Sacred Scripture even though Christ and the Apostles quoted from it. Does this concern you at all?
And why all this concern about what Russell thought? Do you think we hold him up to be like a Pope or something?
Without Russell’s unique twists and additions, you’d be just another Protestant, that’s why. You should be so blessed as to have someone whom the Holy Spirit protects from error on matters of faith and morals! What Russell thought ended up forming the unorthodox and peculiarly JW views. So, I guess you place a lot of stock on what he said and believed, that’s all. The Adventists also deny that Ellen White was their “Pope” as LDS deny that Smith was theirs. All three adventist religions deny the true Pope, but have a version of their own.
Yeah, that same one where Jesus prays his disciples are one, just like he and his father are one… (John 17:21, 22)
John 17:21,*22, “that they may be one even as we are one.”
The deck is stacked against you. The One True church wrote the book. You cannot use scripture either to disprove Catholicism, or to prove Russell’s teachings. Private interpretation always leads to error. You might as well start your own church - Thousands have.
 
Dear Tobylue,

I see you are very good at the copy/paste command with information from anti-JW sites.

Since the purpose of this non-Catholic forum is for discussion and is a little more nobel than just dumping anti-JW info into posts, I’d encourage you to add more value next time.

Also, it’s good for each of us to remember a key forum rule:

“Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.”

Best wishes on your Bible studies.
I see no refutation in your reply.
 
No. Pardon me. The Deuterocanon. And please don’t claim that these were added at Trent. It was Trent that formally defined that which had been consistent Christian practice for over 1,500 years. They had to to counter the deformers when Luther began ripping whole books out of scripture. Your “NWT” does not have this Sacred Scripture even though Christ and the Apostles quoted from it. Does this concern you at all?
Well, you’ve tossed out a couple ideas that should make for an interesting conversation. Please provide specifics about your claim that Jesus and his Apostles quoted from something you think should be in the Canon and I’d be glad to discuss it with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top