This is a response to some claims being made in a video entitled, "Jehovah's Witnesses History Exposed." This video presents part of one of the John Ankerberg shows. This pesents mostly statements from William Cetnar, who left the Jehovah's Witnesses. We are not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but many things in the video is related to Charles Taze Russell. Russell was never a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but was a Bible Student. Since we believe that Brother Russell was a fellow servant of the Lord Jesus, we do have an interest in what is being said related to him.The statement is made that Russell "made it to the 7th grade." This is evidently designed to present Russell as an uneducated man. Russell's education, however, did not end when he finished the seventh grade. See our resource page on Russell's Education.
The claim is made that Charles Taze Russell was the first president of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Actually, although Russell was the first president of the legal corporation, The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Russell knew nothing of, and did not believe in, any authoritarian "organization" such as the "Jehovah's Witnesses." The legal entity that Russell was president of, however, was, in effect, destroyed within a few weeks after Russell died. Russell would not allow the Watch Tower Society of his time to be used for authoritarian purposes, although many of his associates were, in effect, claiming authority on behalf of of the WTS. However, there was no "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization associated with the WTS of Russell's time, and Russell himself preached against such a visible oganization on earth clothed with authority during the Gospel Age. (Watch Tower, September 1, 1893, page 262; Watch Tower, December 1, 1894, page 384) Regarding the Bible Students, Russell stated in 1915: "There would be nothing to come out of, as an organization, if one is an International Bible Student. You cannot get out of anything you have not gone into." (The Watch Tower, July 15, 1915, pages 218, 219).It was not until after Russell died that the "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma appeared, leading to a separation of the Bible Students from Rutherford's Watch Tower. Rutherford actually created the Jehovah's Witnesses by rejecting the teachings of Russell and the Bible Students, as well as rejecting the Watch Tower Society as Russell had designed it to be. No, Russell was not the president of the JW organization at all, since the Jehovah's Witnesses did not exist while Russell was alive. He definitely was not the president of an authoritarian organization such as he preached against.
It is claimed that Russell said that he is the angel of Laodicea. Russell never said that he is the angel (messenger) of Laodicea; nor did he claim that such a messenger (except the apostles) had any "authority" over the church. The Watch Tower publications of Russell's day gave several different opinions concerning the angels of Revelation 2 and Revelation 3. No where, however, do we find that Russell claimed to be the Laodicean Messenger. Others may have made that claim for Russell, but he himself never made such a claim for himself. Likewise, others were evidently attributing a special authority to Russell; however, Russell denied having such authority. Additionally, Russell did not present of the "angels" of Revelation as being "prophets" of God.
It is stated Russell claimed that he is God's channel of commmunication. We did many digital searches through Russell's works for such statement from Russell, but we did not find any such statement. Our conclusion is that Russell never spoke of himself as "God's channel of communication". One cannot find anyplace in all the tens of thousands of pages of Russell's works where he ever made such a claim.
It is stated that Russell claimed to be "God's spokeseman". Russell evidently did believe that he was being used by God in a special way, but we have not found any time that he claimed to be the sole spokesman/spokesperson for God. We did find that he did spoke of himself as a mouthpiece for God; but he also claimed that all Christians should be mouthpieces for God.
It is stated that Russell claimed to be "God's prophet". Again, we have not found any time that Russell ever made such a claim. In fact, what we do find that is that many times Russell disclaimed being a prophet. Russell plainly stated: "I am not a prophet." (What Pastor Russell Said, Q272:1, 1910) Russell most certainly NEVER claimed to be "God's Prophet". In fact, he stated many times that he was not a prophet and that his expectations were not prophecies. The only prophecies that Russell believed in are the prophecies found in the Bible. He believed the Biblical prophecies were true, even if his expectations proved to not be true.
Next it is stated that Russell claimed to be "the faithful and wise servant." Look as we may through Russell's works, we cannot find any place where Russell himself ever claimed himself to be the "faithful and wise servant", although most of his associates applied this to Russell. Russell himself stated: "Some of the dear brethren seem to find as much about Brother Russell in the Bible as they find about the Lord Jesus, and I think that is a great mistake. I do not find it there. Some of them say that I am blinded on that subject, that they all can see better than I can. Perhaps they can, I do not know, but I think, dear friends, that there is a danger in that direction, and I would like to put you all on guard.... I think there is a danger of some dear friends preaching Brother Russell. Brother Russell would like for you not to do so. He thinks it would not be to the glory of God." (1910 Convention Report) He definitely did not "volunteer" to be such. It was actually his wife who first applied Matthew 24:45 to Russell.
The claim is made that Jehovah's Witnesses began in 1874. In reality, there were no "Jehovah's Witnesses" in 1874. In 1874, there was a small independent group of Bible students in Pittsburgh associated with Charles Taze Russell which had already been meeting for several years, but that group did not believe in an organization such as "Jehovah's Witnesses". That group had already been in existence, however, for several years before 1874, we do wonder why anyone would think that in 1874 that group would represent the beginning of the "Jehovah's Witnesses."
It is claimed that the Jehovah's Witnesses began in 1874 with the announcement that Jesus would be here physically in 1874, and Russell was "a little upset" in 1875 because Jesus didn't show up in 1874. Besides the fact that there were no Jehovah's Witnesses until after Russell died, the reality is that before 1874, Russell did not make any announcement that Jesus would return visibly in 1874. Russell himself, before 1874, held no expectations at all regarding 1874. Therefore, in 1875, Charles Taze was not all "upset" because of an alleged failure of Christ to return 1874; before 1876, Russell reported that he rejected the dates set forth by Wendell and the Second Adventists. Thus, all the years before 1876, Russell never believed anything at all about 1874!!!! Yes, in 1876, Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had already returned in 1874; it was in 1876, not before, that Russell came to believe anything at all concerning the date 1874. Before 1876, he never believed anything about 1874. Before 1874, Russell never said anything at all about Christ's return in 1874. Having no expectations at all concerning 1874, he had no reason to be "upset". None of this, however, has anything to do with the idea that the Jehovah's Witnesses started in 1874, or any time while Russell was alive. For Russell's own accounts of those years, see the links to Russell's Histories.
It is made to appear that Barbour and Russell "came up with" the definition that the Greek word often transliterated as "parousia" means "presence." The fact is neither Barbour nor Russell came up with the definition of "parousia" as meaning "presence". James Strong and many other Greek scholars had already shown the primary meaning of "parousia" as "presence" long before Russell or Barbour met with each other in 1876. Russell, however, had already -- many years before he met with Barbour in 1876 -- come to understand that Jesus, having sacrificed his body of flesh with its blood for our sins (John 6:51; Luke 22:19,20; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Ephesians 5:2; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 9:12,14; 10:10; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; Revelation 1:5), was raised in a spirit body. Thus, the idea that Christ returns, not a human being, but as a spirit being, as not new to Russell in 1876.
It is evidently claimed that if Jesus' parousia means "presence" that this would contradict Matthew 28:20. In reality, there isn't anything in Matthew 28:20 that would be violated by the view that Christ, having been put to death in the flesh, is now a spirit being (1 Peter 3:18), returns as a spirit being. Indeed, if one applies Matthew 28:20 to the parousia, it would mean that Jesus' parousia began in the first century, and thus there is no future return of Christ at all at any time, either in the flesh, or in the spirit. Matthew 28:20 is not about his parousia, but of the time intervening between his ascension and his parousia, when he personally returns. Jesus does not become a spirit being at his parousia, or when he returns, but he was raised as a spirit being back in the first century. (1 Peter 3:18) Nevetherless, whether he be spirit or flesh, he is in the heavens until the times of restoration. (Matthew 26:11; Acts 3:21) As foretold, however, the world was to never see him again, but his disciples would "see" him. (John 14:19) This does not mean that he could not be present with his people for we read that, although he was in heaven at the right hand of his God, he was serving his people as priest, making intercession for them. Thus, although his person is in heaven until his return, he still has communion with his people before his return. -- Romans 8:34; Hebrews 4:14,15; 7:25,26; 8:1; 9:24; 1 John 2:1.
It is evidently claimed that if Jesus' parousia means "presence" that this would contradict Matthew 28:20. In reality, there isn't anything in Matthew 28:20 that would be violated by the view that Christ, having been put to death in the flesh, is now a spirit being (1 Peter 3:18), returns as a spirit being. Indeed, if one applies Matthew 28:20 to the parousia, it would mean that Jesus' parousia began in the first century, and thus there is no future return of Christ at all at any time, either in the flesh, or in the spirit. Matthew 28:20 is not about his parousia, but of the time intervening between his ascension and his parousia, when he personally returns. Jesus does not become a spirit being at his parousia, or when he returns, but he was raised as a spirit being back in the first century. (1 Peter 3:18) Nevetherless, whether he be spirit or flesh, he is in the heavens until the times of restoration. (Matthew 26:11; Acts 3:21) As foretold, however, the world was to never see him again, but his disciples would "see" him. (John 14:19) This does not mean that he could not be present with his people for we read that, although he was in heaven at the right hand of his God, he was serving his people as priest, making intercession for them. Thus, although his person is in heaven until his return, he still has communion with his people before his return. -- Romans 8:34; Hebrews 4:14,15; 7:25,26; 8:1; 9:24; 1 John 2:1.
Indirectly, it is implied that Russell claimed to have the "only true religion". The Jehovah's Witnesses make that claim, but Russell was never a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor does the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only true religion mean that this idea came from Russell. Actually, we have not found any place where Russell claimed to have the "only true religion". Indeed, we have no place that even referred to the Bible Students as a "religion". He did speak of the "one true church" which he described as being enrolled in heaven, and consisting of the truly consecrated, irrespective of any demonational ties. Indeed, we must conclude that Russell did not claim that he was any spokesman for any "one true religion". For his views concerning the one true church, see: Russell and the True Church
*** Below needs to be edited....
Did Russell advocate any "visible organization of God" as spoken of in the video? No, he did not. He did not believe in any such organization, and certainly not in the authoritarianism that is claimed by the leadership of the JWs. See links to some our research related to Russell, Authority and Organization.
Did Russell place his writings above the Bible? No! See links to some our research regarding
Russell and: Authority
Russell and: Authority
It is claimed that Russell said that he talked to angels. Of course, this is totally false. We have been studying Russell's works since about 1960, and never have we found anything in Russell's writings wherein he makes such a statement. Indeed, Russell disclaimed having received any kind of "divine revelation" by such means. Russell certainly would never have recommended that anyone should be disfellowshiped for believing the Bible if they found something in his writings that disagreed with the Bible. Indeed, he said regarding his "Studies in the Scriptures", "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.' And so we would study the Scriptures in the light of these SCRIPTURE STUDIES; we would prove every point, or disprove it, as the case might be. We would be satisfied with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from this standpoint." -- The Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, "Is the Reading of 'Scripture Studies' Bible Study?".
Russell certainly never advocated the "shunning" techniques that the JW organization insists upon. Russell's views regarding disfellowshiping may be found at:
Charles Taze Russell never, ever, claimed to have "talked with angels." Instead, Russell actually stated the very opposite: "We claim no new revelations, for to our understanding the revelations of God to his saints are completed and finished by the records of John on Patmos." -- Watch Tower, July 1882, page 2.
We do agree with the Cetnars that the JWs alleged 144,000 cannot be the "the prophet" --organizationally -- for today. We have not found anything in Russell's writings, however, that makes such a claim. Additionally, he certainly could not have made any such claim in the sense that JW leadership made such a claim, since Russell did not believe in such an authoritarian organization. Furthermore, Russell believed that the only prophet similar to the prophets of old for our time is Jesus (through the apostles). -- Hebrews 1:2.
Charles Taze Russell, once he understood the "ransom for all" around 1872, never preached a message that all who did not belong to any organization, sect, group, religion, etc., would be exterminated in 1874, 1879, or any other date. There were no Jehovah's Witnesses back then either preaching such a message. Russell DID NOT BELIEVE in the JW message regarding Armageddon, and thus, he did not preach such a message. Indeed, he preached against similar messages being preached by some sects of his day.
Regarding the alleged 6,000 years since Adam's creation: even if their chronology is true (we do not believe that it is), the year of Adam's creation does mean that the seventh day of 7,000 years began in that same year. The Bible does not directly reveal when the the seventh day began, but it is highly unlikely that it began in the very day that Adam was created. Brother Russell suggested that 6,000 years from Adam's creation as 1872, and he allowed two years before the beginning of the seventh day, and thus he believed that 6,000 years from beginning of the seventh day of 7,000 years ended in 1874.
The foretold "forbidding to marry" has been fulfilled in many ways. In practically every state and nation, there are many laws that forbid various ones to marry. In some places, one is forbidden to marry if they have been divorced for any reason whatsoever. Most places forbid marriage to young people under whatever age has been determined by men who have enacted such laws. And of course, in some religions, those appointed as "priests" and/or "nuns", etc., are forbidden to marry. The latter, however, is more or less voluntary, since one is not forced to become either such a priest or nun. In the other instances, it is not voluntary, but the will of others are forced upon those who come under such prohibitions. I do not know to what extent the JWs sought to enforce the "no marriage" policy; I do not know if one could be disfellowshiped for breaking, or for disagreeing with, the "no marriage" policy. I remember one JW, many years ago, told me that very few in the organization gave any serious attention to that policy, thus, I assume that one would not be disfellowshiped if they did marry. On the other hand, I also met one JW who, as a result of the Society's statements, never did marry, and who told me of the frustration that this had caused in his life.
Mrs. Cetnar (approximately 18:36) speaks of her great-grandmother as being a member of the JW religion with Charles Taze Russell. If one had been associated with the work of Charles Taze Russell, that one would not have been a member of the JW oganization, despite what JWs today may claim. There was no JW organization, no JW religion at all, in the days of Russell. Russell did not believe in such a religion, nor did the Bible Students in general believe in such a religion. Russell never spoke of God speaking through any such organization.
The topic of blood transfusions comes up in the video. Many think that the JW prohibition on blood transfustions came from Charles Taze Russell. This is false. Russell never spoke against blood transfusions, and would certainly never assumed authority to forbid anyone from taking blood transfusions. For what Russell said about eating blood, one may see:
Mrs. Cetnar (approximately 18:36) speaks of her great-grandmother as being a member of the JW religion with Charles Taze Russell. If one had been associated with the work of Charles Taze Russell, that one would not have been a member of the JW oganization, despite what JWs today may claim. There was no JW organization, no JW religion at all, in the days of Russell. Russell did not believe in such a religion, nor did the Bible Students in general believe in such a religion. Russell never spoke of God speaking through any such organization.
The topic of blood transfusions comes up in the video. Many think that the JW prohibition on blood transfustions came from Charles Taze Russell. This is false. Russell never spoke against blood transfusions, and would certainly never assumed authority to forbid anyone from taking blood transfusions. For what Russell said about eating blood, one may see:
It should be noted that neither Russell nor his Watch Tower claimed to be the "only way to God". Russell pointed to Jesus as the only way to God.
It is claimed that Jehovah's witnesses announced the end of the world for 1874, 1879, 1914 and other dates. In 1874, 1879 as well as in 1914, there were no Jehovah's Witnesses. As already pointed out, before 1914, Russell himself held no expectation at all for 1874, and certainly never claimed that the world was to end in 1874. I don't know of anyone who made any prophetic claims for 1879; Russell held no expectations for 1879. Russell did hold expectation -- without claiming any authority as a prophet -- of the church being completed in 1878, but he never said anything about the world coming to an end in 1878, nor in 1914. His earlier view was that the Gentile kingdoms would all be gone in 1914, and the peace was to come to the world in 1914. He was not expecting what is generally called the end of the world. He changed his viewpoint on this, however, in 1904, and from 1904 onward, he was no longer expecting the end of all Gentile kingdoms in 1914, and rather than expecting peace, he was expecting "time of trouble" to bring revolutions. His change related to this however, was not after 1914, as it is made to appear in the video, but about ten years before 1914. He never actually set any time for the end of the "time of trouble".
As to the English form of God's Holy Name as "Jehovah," this form is simply a transliteration of one of the forms of the Holy Name as found in the Masoretic text. As such, it is not a false name anymore than the tetragrammaton of the Holy Name in Hebrew is a false name. There is no command in the Bible, however, that declares that any Hebrew name, included that of God's Holy Name, has to be pronounced in every language exactly as it was pronounced in ancient Hebrew, and that if it is not pronounced exactly the same in ancient Hebrew, then it is false name. This demand is made up by man, not by God. Indeed, this idea would actually mean that "Jesus" is a false name also, since the English pronunciation of that name is definitely not the way it was pronounced in ancient Hebrew. The truth is that no one one earth today knows for a certainty how any Hebrew name was originally pronounced.
See our studies related to:
See our studies related to:
For our own studies regarding: the Twelve Tribes, the 1440,000 and the Great Multitude
No comments:
Post a Comment