Friday, May 13, 2022
Sunday, July 11, 2021
Isaiah 43:10 – You Are My Witnesses
You are my witnesses, says Jehovah. — Isaiah 43:10.
Jehovah here speaks to His covenant people Israel, whose very existence bears witness to Jehovah’s formation of Israel (Isaiah 43:1), their affliction and deliverance from Egypt, and their settling in the land of Canaan. Their very existence even today testifies that Jehovah’s promises, made long before, are sure of fulfillment. Isaiah 43:10 is not designating an organization here at the end of the age as being "Jehovah's witnesses."
Israel, however, is a prophetic type of the Messiah, for Jehovah says: “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1) Matthew 2:15 tells us that this was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is called the “faithful witness.” (Revelation 1:5; 3:14) In the first century, the disciples were told that they were to be witnesses of Jesus in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. (Acts 1:8) Today, Christians cannot bear witness as having actually seen Jesus, thus we today can only bear witness to what we have learned of Jesus as revealed in the Bible. In bearing such witness concerning Jesus, Christians also are said to be ‘God’s witnesses’, in that it was Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who raised up Jesus, and who had exalted Jesus to Jehovah’s right hand. (Acts 3:13-26; 5:30-32) Thus, bearing witness for Jesus in harmony with scriptural truth is to also bear witness for the God of Jesus.
Having the example before us, all who belong to Jesus, and who bear witness that Jehovah raised Jesus up as a prophet like Moses, could be spoken of as being witnesses for Jehovah, but such would be irrespective of denomination ties, for one cannot bear witness concerning Jesus without also bearing witness concerning the God of Jesus, since it was Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who raised Jesus as a prophet like Moses, and who raised Jesus from the dead, and who then exalted Jesus as His own right hand. — Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:13-26; 5:30-32; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:14-18; 1 Peter 1:21.
Bearing witness for Jesus and His God, however, has nothing at all to do with joining an authoritarian religious organization that demands all be in submission to a man or a body of men. It does have to do with being in submission to the head of the church, Jesus. It is only through Jesus, not through an authoritarian organization, that one is saved.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Responses to Ankerberg and Weldon's Alleged "Facts"
This page contains brief comments and/or links that address many of the statements in the book “The Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses” (originally we used the 1988 edition, Harvest House Publishers; we are in the progresss of updating this to the updated 2008 edition), by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. While we are not associated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the book has much to do with Charles Taze Russell, and what he taught, and what the Bible Students believe, and many things are presented as “facts” when they are not actually “facts”. Some other matters of doctrine also need to be addressed, as such pertains to Russell and the Bible Students. It is from this standpoint only that we address what is in the book. We do not defend the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” organization, although members of that organization may find the links provided to beneficial.
*********
PAGE 9
Was the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” organization started by Charles Taze Russell, as stated on the book?
No, Russell actually preached against the kind of authoritarianism that the JW leadership has assumed.
See links to much of our related research:
Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Russell on Organization and Authority
PAGE 9
Did Russell obtain his beliefs from the Seventh-Day Adventists?
No, we have found no historical evidence that supports the claim that Russell obtained his beliefs from the Seventh-Day Adventists. He did learn the basics of scriptural doctrine from many “Second Adventists”, but not from the Seventh-Day Adventists.
PAGE 9,10
Did Russell believe in an “authoritarian leadership” such as exists with the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization? Did he, as those after him, "govern authoritatively"?
No, he did not. Russell actively preached against such authoritarianism, recognizing only the authority of Jesus and the apostles through the Bible.
Russell on Organization and Authority
=================below needs to updated to 2008 edition; links may need to be updated.
PAGE 5
Did Russell write a “a new Bible” which he claimed “came from God”?
No, he did not. The Studies in the Scriptures were designed to do just what the title suggests, offer studies of the Holy Bible. Russell never claimed, and even disclaimed, that any of his own conclusions presented in those studies were inspired by God, any direct revelation from God, or that they were infallible. He sought to distinguish his own conclusions from the Bible itself.
Ankerberg and Weldon cite as proof The Finished Mystery, page 387, as cited by Edmond Gruss in his book. The Finished Mystery, however, was not written by Russell, nor did Russell have any control of claims made in that book.
Nevertheless, when we look on page 387, we do not find the claim stated as that which was presented. What we read on page 387 of The Finished Mystery is this statement:
Pastor Russell paid no attention to the words or opinions of man, however learned or pious, whether men of modern days or the “early fathers” of postapostolic times. He listened to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21.)
There is nothing wrong in this statement, and this should be attitude of any true Christian, to listen to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit, that is, the words of God in the Bible itself. What this is saying is that Russell listened to the Bible rather than the words and opinions of men. We agree with this; this was indeed what Russell endeavored to do. It is what Russell proclaimed all Christians should do.
At the time of this writing, we do not have Edmund Gruss’ book, Apostles of Denial: An Examination and Exposé of the History, Doctrines, and Claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We can only say that if Gruss is making the claim that it states that Russell was claiming to have received the Studies in the Scriptures through direct revelation from God, such a claim is not true.
Ankerberg and Weldon then state that Russell claimed that his writings, the Studies in the Scriptures, were “necessary for properly understanding the Bible.” This would seem to contradict the thought just presented that Russell had written a new Bible. Why would there be any concern about “properly understanding the Bible” if Russell’s works were themselves a “new Bible”? Actually, Russell wrote about the STUDIES:
Russell's words:
The six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible.... It is for each one to think for himself, however, and to guide his conduct in every way accordingly.... 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... because the Scriptures are the standard.... "SCRIPTURE STUDIES" NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE. -- Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, page 298.
See:
Links to the actual comments of Russell regarding:
The Bible
Being Inspired of God
Do the leaders of Watchtower Society of today “claim the same authority” that Russell claimed?
Actually,the Watchtower leaders of today claim authority that Russell never claimed, and they have usurped a form of authority that Russell actually preached against. Furthermore, to enforce that authority, they have rejected the good news of great joy for all the people that Russell preached, and replaced it with bad tidings of great woe of eternal destruction for most of the people. Both in organization and gospel, the JWs are preaching almost the opposite of what Russell taught.
See:
The Rock-Built Church
Sermon by Russell that shows that he did not believe in the JW kind of authoritarian organization.
The True Church
Sermon by Russell: This sermon proves that Russell did not believe in sectarianism, and, while not condoning denominationalism, he believed that there could be Christians in all of the denominations that profess to be Christian. As one can see by reading this, Russell certainly did not believe in an organization such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have today, which they style “Jehovah’s organization.”
A Statement from Morton Edgar Regarding Rutherford’s “Organization.”
This statement includes Morton Edgar’s description of Rutherford’s "organization" dogma as compared with what Russell taught.
PAGE 6
Did Russell claim that he was “inspired by God”?
No, search as one may through the works of Russell, you will not find any place that he says that he was “inspired by God.” Some present some things he said which they twist to make what he said mean other than what he was saying, but Russell never once claimed to be inspired of God; indeed, he many times stated that he was not a prophet and that his writings were not infallible.
See:
Russell & Infallibility
Did Russell teach that he or the Watch Tower is “God’s sole channel” on the earth?
No. This dogma did not come from Russell. Ankerberg and Weldon refer to Frederick W. Franz’s book, Crisis of Conscience, which discusses this matter. However, long before Franz wrote his book, several authors among the Bible Students showed the fallacy of this claim. The .
See (we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by these authors):
The Grace of Jehovah (A Dawn Publication)
A Statement from Morton Edgar Regarding Rutherford’s “Organization”
The Desolations of the Sanctuary
PAGE 8
Did Russell teach that “divine guidance only comes through the Watchtower”?
No, he did not. While Russell believed that the Watch Tower Society of his day was being especially used by God, we have not found anything that he said that would mean that divine guidance only comes through the Watch Tower. Indeed, we find many statements that would indicate otherwise.
See:
Russell Quotes Concerning the Bible
PAGE 9
Did Charles Taze Russell claim that Watchtower Society to be on the only organization on through which God works?
No, this cannot be found in his writings; this was a teaching introduced later. As far as we can determine, Russell never spoke of the Watch Tower Society of his day as being an "organization." It could have been referred in a corporate sense and "organization," but not in the sense that the Watchtower Society of today often referred to as the Watchtower organization.
For more, see:
What Did Russell Teach About "Organization"?
PAGE 10
Did Charles Taze Russell prohibit others from participation in military service?
No, Russell never made any such prohibition. At the same time Russell presented the scriptural argument as to why he believed a Christian should have no interest in the wars of this world. Russell left each Christian, however, to decide for himself on this matter.
Did Russell prohibit saluting the flag?
While Russell was alive, this was not an issue. There were no laws in the United States (or any other country that we know of) that required anyone to salute or pledge allegiance to the flag. It was not until after World War I that such an idea became compulsory in the United States. At any rate, like with military service, we feel sure that Russell would not have assumed authority to set forth any prohibition concerning such, and would have allowed all to make up their own minds regarding such. Russell did present the scriptural arguments that a Christian should remain neutral toward the world’s affairs, and that the Christian’s allegiance to God is superior to that of man.
Did Russell prohibit celebrating holidays?
As with other similar issues, Russell did not try to usurp authority over others in such matters. He did not set forth a lot of rules for others to follow, as we now find among the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Likewise, we do not believe that God has given anyone on earth such authority to lay down such rules. Nevertheless, we do believe that each Christian should consider many scriptural principles, especially as related to idolatry, that may be involved in the many celebrations.
See:
How Should a Christian View Thanksgiving and Christmas?
Should Christians Celebrate Birthdays?
Did Charles Taze Russell believe that Christianity “is an apostate religion”?
Absolutely not! Russell taught: “Christianity was established by Jesus and His Apostles. The unbelief of few or many cannot change Christianity.” (Watch Tower, September 15, 1915, page 279) At the same time, Russell rejected man’s creeds and man’s self-assumed “orthodoxy” that are taught to represent Christianity, but fail to be in full harmony with Biblical Christianity.
PAGE 11
Did Charles Taze Russell teach that Christians should hate their enemies so as to desire them to be eternally destroyed without any benefit from the ransom sacrifice of Jesus?
No! Russell actually taught that we should pray for the coming time when Satan will abyssed and that our enemies will then be blessed by God’s Kingdom. Russell taught that every man, woman and child would be blessed because the ransom for all.
PAGE 12
Did Charles Taze Russell teach that the Christian God is “the devil himself”?
No, he did not.
Ankerberg and Weldon give as reference for proof of this something alleged to have been written by Russell on page 410 of the book, The Finished Mystery. This book was not, however, written by Russell, thus this is falsely being attributed Russell. Nevertheless, when one reads what is actually said there, we still do not find any statement that the Christian God is “the devil himself.” The book speaks of the trinity “god” that the clergy have set up, as being Baal, as “the devil himself.” While we doubt that Russell would have ever stated it in this manner, the idea of a triune God, and the idea that God would enforce an eternity of suffering beyond human description on his creatures, is not expressive of the Biblical Christian God at all; it is indeed of the devil, and the dogma negates the purpose of Jesus’ obedience to the only true Christian God [Supreme Being] as revealed in the scriptures. (John 17:1,3; 1 Corinthians 8:6) The dogma surrounding the trinity doctrine actually negates and replaces the Biblical basis of the redemption in Christ.
We wrote something on this for our WordPress site on Charles Taze Russell:
The Christian God Not Jehovah?
Did Charles Taze Russell teach that Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15), is one person, and not three persons?
Yes, he did. Indeed, this is the way the Bible presents the only true God all the way through the Bible; not once do we find any reference at all that describes Jehovah as more than one person. A comparison of Exodus 3:14,15 and Deuteronomy 18:15-19 with Acts 2:2,3 and Hebrews 1:1,2 show that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who spoke through the prophets of the Old Testament, is presented as being one person.
See:
Jesus is Not Jehovah (Yahweh)
Do “Christians” believe that “the one true God exists eternally as three persons”?
We can say that there is a very large sect of Christianity that believes this, although it should be apparent that the Christian authors of the Bible had no knowledge of such an idea. The Christian Bible writers never once expressed the idea that “the only true God exists eternally as three persons.” The founding fathers of the sect of Christianity that teaches this had to call upon their imagination and add many assumptions to many scriptures in order to have the scriptures appear to support the added-on dogma.
1 Timothy 2:5,6
Ankerberg and Weldon give this verse as proof that there is only one true God.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all; the testimony in its own times.
The scripture at 1 Timothy 2:5 is indeed a very good verse to show that there is only one true God; however, if this verse proves there is only one true God, who is that only one true God that is given in this verse? Jesus is not included there as the only true God, but only the God and Father of Jesus is spoken of in the as the “one God”. Thus, this and other similar verses (Romans 3:21-30; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6) prove the only true God to be one person. The word “God”, when applied to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in these verses and throughout the Bible, is used only of one person, not three persons. In 1 Timothy 2:5,6, for instance, Jesus is excluded in these verses from the being the “one God”, since Jesus is described as the mediator between the “one God” and man.
See:
There is One God
Deuteronomy 4:35; Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10
Deuteronomy 4:35 - To you it was revealed, so that you might know that Jehovah is God, and no one else besides Him. -- Green's Literal translation.
Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. -- Green's Literal.
Isaiah 43:10 - You are My witnesses, says Jehovah; and My servant whom I have elected; that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed; nor shall any be after Me. -- Green's Literal.
Ankerberg and Weldon present Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4 and Isaiah 43:10 in reference to the “one God” in 1 Timothy 2:5. Actually, putting these scriptures together with 1 Timothy 2:5 proves that Jesus is not Jehovah, or a person of Jehovah, and that Jehovah is the “only God” spoken of in 1 Timothy 2:5, who is presented in the latter verse, not as three persons, but as one person.
See:
The God of Jesus
Before Jehovah There Was No God Formed
1 Corinthian 8:5,6
1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there are things that are called “gods,” whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many “gods” and many “lords;”
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we to him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.
Paul, by his words recorded in 1 Corinthians 8:6, identifies God, not as more than one person, but only as one person, “the Father”; Jesus, although mentioned, is not included in “God” in this verse. In context, Paul says that not only are those that are called gods and lords (especially idol-gods — Leviticus 19:4; 1 Chronicles 15:26; Galatians 4:8), but also that there are many gods and lords (angels, rulers, judges, etc. See our study: Hebraic Usage of the Title for “God”); in reference to the church, however, there is only one God, and that one God is identified only as one person, and not three persons, and Jesus is identified as the one Lord (appointed so by the one the God — Acts 2:36; 4:11,12; 5:31; Matthew 28:18; John 3:35; 5:22,27; Ephesians 1:17,20-22) of the church. A truly grand testimony that Paul does not view the “God” of a Christian as being more than one person, and that he did not believe that Jesus is included in the “one God” of the church.
See also the study:
One God, One Lord
John 17:1-3
Jesus, in his prayer, identified his God and Father (Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3), not as being one of three persons of the only true God, but as being the “only true God”, and then Jesus excludes himself from being that only true God by stating that he had been sent by that “only true God,” his God and Father. Another excellent scripture that shows that Jesus did not present the only true God as three persons, nor did he ever present himself at being that only true God, or a person of that only true God.
See our study:
Did Jesus Really Say that the Father is the Only True God?
2 Corinthians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort. — World English.
Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort. — King James Version.
Paul does not identify “God” as three persons, but as only one person; Paul does not identify Jesus as “God”, nor as a person of “God”. He does not identify the Father as one person of “God”, as though there were any others who are also persons of “God”.
Colossians 1:3
Colossians 1:3 is another very good scripture that shows that Paul did not view the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as three persons. “We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, praying always for you.” (World English) Paul identifies “God” not as three persons, but as one person, and he identifies Jesus as separate from “God”, not as a person of “God”.
Philippians 2:11
“And that every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father.” — World English.
Paul does not say here that “the Father” is one person of God, and that Jesus is another person of God; he identifies only one person as “God”, and he identifies Jesus as “Lord”. Jesus is made “lord” by the unipersonal God; Jesus is not a person of “God”. — Acts 2:36; 4:11,12; 5:31; Matthew 28:18; John 3:35; 5:22,27; Ephesians 1:17,20-22; Philippians 2:9.
1 Peter 1:2
Aaccording to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. — World English.
Peter does not describe the Father here as being one person of the three persons of “God”; he describes “God” unipersonally as “the Father” and, rather than describe Jesus as person of “God”, Peter distinguishes Jesus from “God”. The idea that the Father is one three persons of God has to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what Peter stated.
John 5:18
Does this scripture mean that Jesus was actually what the Jews’ cause to kill him ascribes him to be, a sinful man making himself equal to God? Certainly not!
See:
The Jewish Leaders’ “Cause” to Kill Jesus
John 20:28
Answered Thomas and he said to him: The Lord of me, and the God of me! — Westcott and Hort Interlinear.
Was Thomas here giving glory of Jesus as being the Most High standing there before him? We have no reason to think so.
Because Thomas used the definite article twice (which is not needed in Koine Greek if only one person is addressed — See John 20:17), some view the way that Thomas expressed himself as first directed toward Jesus as the Lord of Thomas, and then to the Father as the God of Thomas. If Thomas was actually address Jesus when he used the Greek word (usually transliterated as THEOS), then rather than to imagine, assume, and add to this that Jesus must be a person of the only true God, in keeping with what has been revealed in the scriptures, we should conclude that Thomas was addressing Jesus his “mighty one”, not as the Most High.
See our study:
My Lord and My God
Isaiah 9:6
Does Isaiah 9:6 state that Jesus is a person of the Most High?
Isaiah 9:6 is found as Isaiah 9:5 in the JPS: – For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom.
There is no mention in Isaiah 9:6 about the Messiah as being one of three alleged persons of God; nor does anything there say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Any such thought has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what is stated. Most translators, however, have ignored that only a singular name is being referred to, and not a series of names. The singular name, although the name is that of the Messiah, actually describes the God and Father of the Messiah. — Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3.
See our studies:
The Singular Name in Isaiah 9:6
Not a Series of Names
The Mighty God, The Father of Eternity
The Singular Names of the Son Given
Isaiah 9:6 and the Alleged Trinity
The Singular Name
John 1:1
Does John 1:1 refer to Jesus as the only true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No, it doesn’t. The Greek word for “God” is used there of the Logos, but the context and the rest of Bible demonstrates that it was not being used of the Logos to mean “the only true God”.
See our studies:
John 1:1 and Trinitarian Assumptions
The Logos Was Theos
Romans 9:5
Doesn’t Romans 9:5 show that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No, it does not. The context shows that Paul is showing the works of the unipersonal God “through Christ Jesus”. Paul continuously uses the word “God” in reference to the God and Father of Jesus. — Ephesians 1:3.
See our study:
Romans 9:5 – Who is Over All
Titus 2:13
Does Titus 2:13 tell us that Jesus is the God of Abraham, or that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham?
No. Evidence supports that the text has been altered from what Paul actually wrote to Titus; nevertheless, even in the popular text, the use of “God” by Paul would not have been out of harmony with the thought that Jesus is our Mighty Savior, without assuming that it means that Jesus is the God of Abraham, and/or to further assume that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham.
See our study:
The Great God
2 Peter 1:1
Doesn’t 2 Peter 1:1 say that Jesus is our God, and thus we have reason to imagine and assume that Jesus is the God of Abraham, and further to imagine and assume that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham?
No. Before one can imagine and assume that Peter was saying that Jesus is the God of Abraham, and before imagining and assuming that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham, one has to first imagine and assume that Peter meant his words to be understood as referring to Jesus as “our God”. Not all translators would imagine and assume that Peter is referring to Jesus as “our God”. See our study:
Our God and Savior
Page 13
John 14:13 (John 15:26)
Does John 14:13 (Evidently this was meant to be John 15:26) give one reason to imagine and assume that God’s Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30) is a person of “God” to whom the Holy Spirit belongs?
No, the Greek masculine is used in John 15:26 in order to harmonize with the Greek masculine word of Comforter, which is being used in connection with God’s Holy Spirit. Usually, the Greek uses neuter forms in connection with the Greek word for spirit. There is nothing in the verse that gives us any reason to imagine and assume that God’s Holy Spirit is a person, and then to further imagine and assume that the God’s Holy Spirit is one three persons, all of whom are then imagined and assumed to be the one God of Abraham.
See our study:
The Comforter – Is It A Person?
Hebrews 9:14
Doesn’t the Bible refer to God’s Holy Spirit as “eternal”, thus that it possesses one of the attributes that is being alleged to belong only to God, and thus from this we need to imagine and assume that God’s Holy Spirit is a person of the Eternal God?
No, in Hebrews 9:14 we do find the expression “eternal spirit”, but there is nothing at there that offers any hint at all that the “spirit” being referred to is a person, much less that the “spirit” is a person of God. “God” is presented in Hebrews 9:14, not at three persons, but as one person.
See:
Christ, the Eternal Spirit and the Living God
Acts 5:3,4
It is being claimed that God’s Holy Spirit “is … God” and Acts 5:3,4 is cited as proof of such. Actually, there is nothing in Acts 5:3,4 that says that the Holy Spirit that belongs to God is God. There is certainly nothing there that says that God’s Holy Spirit is a person of God to whom the Holy Spirit belongs.
See our study:
Ananias Lied to God, Not to Men
Matthew 28:19
Do the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 designate the only true God (John 17:3) as three persons? No, we find nothing there of the sort. See our studies:
The Baptismal Name
One Name
2 C0rinthians 13:14 – Is “God” Presented as Three Persons?
Actually, no, “God” is presented as one person.
See our study:
The Three Be With You
The Bible teaches the one true God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Ankerberg and Weldon make the above claim on page 13, stating that from verses given (referred to above) “it is clear” that the Bible teaches such. Actually, there is absolutely nothing at all “clear” or otherwise in the verses given that shows that the Bible teaches the one true God exists eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The verses consistently present the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as one person, and never once does the Bible present the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as more than one person. As shown in our studies, “God” in the verses given, when in reference to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is always referring to one person, the God and Father of Jesus.
Pages 13,14
Ankerberg tell us that incomplete comprehension by man concerning what he believes to be truth (the trinity) is not a reason to reject what the Bible teaches. We agree that man’s incomplete comprehension is not a reason to reject any truth that the Bible teaches, but the Bible does not teach the trinity doctrine, thus this is irrelevant. Rejection of the trinity is not due to allowing human reason to judge God’s Word, but it from allowing God’s Word to be found true, and rejecting what man, by use of human imagination, has to add to and read into God’s Word to make God’s Word appear to support what man has imagined to be truth. Since the Bible never, not even once, presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as more than one person, and since such a thought has to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, any scripture thought to teach such, the idea that the only true God is more than one person is therefore unscriptural. Not only this, it contradicts the very basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus as revealed in the Bible, and negates the role Jesus fulfilled while in the days of his flesh, all of which is revealed in the Bible. The evidence of scripture should force any who would submit to the scriptures that the only true God — the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — exists as only one person, separate and distinct from His son.
Page 14
Ankerberg and Weldon present a series of scriptures for which they make the bold statement “that assuming that God is not three persons makes it impossible to understand” these passages of scripture. First of all, the default assumption, or reasoning, is not to assume that God is three persons, but rather that God is one person, for that is the way He is presented throughout the Bible. But usually, the trinitarian apologists make it appear the other way around.
However, one does not have to inject triune God theology into any of hese scriptures in order to understand them. Indeed, injection of the triune God assumption into some things said in these scriptures seems to add confusion to the scriptures. We present the scriptures below and places online where we have examined the scriptures.
Matthew 28:19 – See our discussions on this verse:
The Baptismal Name
One Name
2 Corinthians 1:21,22 – See our discussion regarding these verses:
Christ, God and the Spirit
2 Corinthians 13:14 – See our discussion:
The Three Be With You
Ephesians 2:18 – See:
Through Jesus, One Spirit, and the Father
Ephesians 3:11-16 – See:
God’s Purpose By Means of Christ Through His Spirit
More to follow, God willing; check back later…
*********
Author ResLight
Posted on August 26, 2010
Categories Bible Students movement, Books Examined, Charles Taze Russell, Jehovah's Witnesses, John Ankerberg
Tags apostate religion, Bible Students, Charles Taze Russell, Christian God, divine guidance, false religion, God's organization, holidays, idolatry, infallible, inspired by God, Jehovah's Witnesses, military service, new Bible, one true church, one true god, prophet, saluting the flag, Seventh-Day Adventists, sole channel, trinity
Edit "The (Alleged) Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses"
12 thoughts on “The (Alleged) Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses”
Pingback: Ephesians 2:18 – Through Jesus, One Spirit, and the Father Edit
maina says:
April 8, 2011 at 7:27 am Edit
I’ve been studying the bible with the witmesses for a year.My issue
is the idea you give that JWs impose rules on people.I havent experi
enced that.My teachers point out relevant scripture to me and leave
me to make up my mind.i’ve forexample concluded that true a true christian should not join the millitary though the army is avery attractive carreer to many of my agemates. why? because the bible
( not the JWs) makes it clear that being trainned to kill (and killing)isnot for for those who want to immitate Christ and be allowed into his rigteous peaceful earthly kingdom.
ResLight says:
April 16, 2011 at 8:29 am Edit
maina,
Before commenting, I am wondering exactly what in this post do you consider to be giving the idea that JWs impose rules on people?
Nevertheless, having been associated with the JWs in the past, I can definitely say that, unless they have changed drastically in the past few decades, that they do impose a lot of rules on people that go beyond what the scriptures say. They are not the only ones, however, as many others do the same thing.
On the other hand, have you been baptized by them? My own experience is that they will often treat those not yet baptized, and those who are baptized, differently. In other words, they will make allowances before you are baptized that they do not continue to make once you are baptized. Furthermore, an experience in which you have come to agree with them on would not be a genuine test of their rules. It is when one breaks their rules that the test is applied.
However, since the post here is not actually concerning this, a better subdomain for this discussion would be in reponse to one of the post on the “Focus on Jehovah’s Witnesses” subdomain, or in one of the forums:
http://jws.reslight.net
http://biblehope.yuku.com/forums/71/JW-Doctrine
Regarding Christians and War:
http://www.biblestudents.com/Christian_View_of_War.cfm
*********
PAGE 9
Was the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” organization started by Charles Taze Russell, as stated on the book?
No, Russell actually preached against the kind of authoritarianism that the JW leadership has assumed.
See links to much of our related research:
Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses
Russell on Organization and Authority
PAGE 9
Did Russell obtain his beliefs from the Seventh-Day Adventists?
No, we have found no historical evidence that supports the claim that Russell obtained his beliefs from the Seventh-Day Adventists. He did learn the basics of scriptural doctrine from many “Second Adventists”, but not from the Seventh-Day Adventists.
PAGE 9,10
Did Russell believe in an “authoritarian leadership” such as exists with the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization? Did he, as those after him, "govern authoritatively"?
No, he did not. Russell actively preached against such authoritarianism, recognizing only the authority of Jesus and the apostles through the Bible.
Russell on Organization and Authority
=================below needs to updated to 2008 edition; links may need to be updated.
PAGE 5
Did Russell write a “a new Bible” which he claimed “came from God”?
No, he did not. The Studies in the Scriptures were designed to do just what the title suggests, offer studies of the Holy Bible. Russell never claimed, and even disclaimed, that any of his own conclusions presented in those studies were inspired by God, any direct revelation from God, or that they were infallible. He sought to distinguish his own conclusions from the Bible itself.
Ankerberg and Weldon cite as proof The Finished Mystery, page 387, as cited by Edmond Gruss in his book. The Finished Mystery, however, was not written by Russell, nor did Russell have any control of claims made in that book.
Nevertheless, when we look on page 387, we do not find the claim stated as that which was presented. What we read on page 387 of The Finished Mystery is this statement:
Pastor Russell paid no attention to the words or opinions of man, however learned or pious, whether men of modern days or the “early fathers” of postapostolic times. He listened to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21.)
There is nothing wrong in this statement, and this should be attitude of any true Christian, to listen to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit, that is, the words of God in the Bible itself. What this is saying is that Russell listened to the Bible rather than the words and opinions of men. We agree with this; this was indeed what Russell endeavored to do. It is what Russell proclaimed all Christians should do.
At the time of this writing, we do not have Edmund Gruss’ book, Apostles of Denial: An Examination and Exposé of the History, Doctrines, and Claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We can only say that if Gruss is making the claim that it states that Russell was claiming to have received the Studies in the Scriptures through direct revelation from God, such a claim is not true.
Ankerberg and Weldon then state that Russell claimed that his writings, the Studies in the Scriptures, were “necessary for properly understanding the Bible.” This would seem to contradict the thought just presented that Russell had written a new Bible. Why would there be any concern about “properly understanding the Bible” if Russell’s works were themselves a “new Bible”? Actually, Russell wrote about the STUDIES:
Russell's words:
The six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible.... It is for each one to think for himself, however, and to guide his conduct in every way accordingly.... 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... because the Scriptures are the standard.... "SCRIPTURE STUDIES" NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE. -- Watch Tower, September 15, 1910, page 298.
See:
Links to the actual comments of Russell regarding:
The Bible
Being Inspired of God
Do the leaders of Watchtower Society of today “claim the same authority” that Russell claimed?
Actually,the Watchtower leaders of today claim authority that Russell never claimed, and they have usurped a form of authority that Russell actually preached against. Furthermore, to enforce that authority, they have rejected the good news of great joy for all the people that Russell preached, and replaced it with bad tidings of great woe of eternal destruction for most of the people. Both in organization and gospel, the JWs are preaching almost the opposite of what Russell taught.
See:
The Rock-Built Church
Sermon by Russell that shows that he did not believe in the JW kind of authoritarian organization.
The True Church
Sermon by Russell: This sermon proves that Russell did not believe in sectarianism, and, while not condoning denominationalism, he believed that there could be Christians in all of the denominations that profess to be Christian. As one can see by reading this, Russell certainly did not believe in an organization such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have today, which they style “Jehovah’s organization.”
A Statement from Morton Edgar Regarding Rutherford’s “Organization.”
This statement includes Morton Edgar’s description of Rutherford’s "organization" dogma as compared with what Russell taught.
PAGE 6
Did Russell claim that he was “inspired by God”?
No, search as one may through the works of Russell, you will not find any place that he says that he was “inspired by God.” Some present some things he said which they twist to make what he said mean other than what he was saying, but Russell never once claimed to be inspired of God; indeed, he many times stated that he was not a prophet and that his writings were not infallible.
See:
Russell & Infallibility
Did Russell teach that he or the Watch Tower is “God’s sole channel” on the earth?
No. This dogma did not come from Russell. Ankerberg and Weldon refer to Frederick W. Franz’s book, Crisis of Conscience, which discusses this matter. However, long before Franz wrote his book, several authors among the Bible Students showed the fallacy of this claim. The .
See (we do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by these authors):
The Grace of Jehovah (A Dawn Publication)
A Statement from Morton Edgar Regarding Rutherford’s “Organization”
The Desolations of the Sanctuary
PAGE 8
Did Russell teach that “divine guidance only comes through the Watchtower”?
No, he did not. While Russell believed that the Watch Tower Society of his day was being especially used by God, we have not found anything that he said that would mean that divine guidance only comes through the Watch Tower. Indeed, we find many statements that would indicate otherwise.
See:
Russell Quotes Concerning the Bible
PAGE 9
Did Charles Taze Russell claim that Watchtower Society to be on the only organization on through which God works?
No, this cannot be found in his writings; this was a teaching introduced later. As far as we can determine, Russell never spoke of the Watch Tower Society of his day as being an "organization." It could have been referred in a corporate sense and "organization," but not in the sense that the Watchtower Society of today often referred to as the Watchtower organization.
For more, see:
What Did Russell Teach About "Organization"?
PAGE 10
Did Charles Taze Russell prohibit others from participation in military service?
No, Russell never made any such prohibition. At the same time Russell presented the scriptural argument as to why he believed a Christian should have no interest in the wars of this world. Russell left each Christian, however, to decide for himself on this matter.
Did Russell prohibit saluting the flag?
While Russell was alive, this was not an issue. There were no laws in the United States (or any other country that we know of) that required anyone to salute or pledge allegiance to the flag. It was not until after World War I that such an idea became compulsory in the United States. At any rate, like with military service, we feel sure that Russell would not have assumed authority to set forth any prohibition concerning such, and would have allowed all to make up their own minds regarding such. Russell did present the scriptural arguments that a Christian should remain neutral toward the world’s affairs, and that the Christian’s allegiance to God is superior to that of man.
Did Russell prohibit celebrating holidays?
As with other similar issues, Russell did not try to usurp authority over others in such matters. He did not set forth a lot of rules for others to follow, as we now find among the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Likewise, we do not believe that God has given anyone on earth such authority to lay down such rules. Nevertheless, we do believe that each Christian should consider many scriptural principles, especially as related to idolatry, that may be involved in the many celebrations.
See:
How Should a Christian View Thanksgiving and Christmas?
Should Christians Celebrate Birthdays?
Did Charles Taze Russell believe that Christianity “is an apostate religion”?
Absolutely not! Russell taught: “Christianity was established by Jesus and His Apostles. The unbelief of few or many cannot change Christianity.” (Watch Tower, September 15, 1915, page 279) At the same time, Russell rejected man’s creeds and man’s self-assumed “orthodoxy” that are taught to represent Christianity, but fail to be in full harmony with Biblical Christianity.
PAGE 11
Did Charles Taze Russell teach that Christians should hate their enemies so as to desire them to be eternally destroyed without any benefit from the ransom sacrifice of Jesus?
No! Russell actually taught that we should pray for the coming time when Satan will abyssed and that our enemies will then be blessed by God’s Kingdom. Russell taught that every man, woman and child would be blessed because the ransom for all.
PAGE 12
Did Charles Taze Russell teach that the Christian God is “the devil himself”?
No, he did not.
Ankerberg and Weldon give as reference for proof of this something alleged to have been written by Russell on page 410 of the book, The Finished Mystery. This book was not, however, written by Russell, thus this is falsely being attributed Russell. Nevertheless, when one reads what is actually said there, we still do not find any statement that the Christian God is “the devil himself.” The book speaks of the trinity “god” that the clergy have set up, as being Baal, as “the devil himself.” While we doubt that Russell would have ever stated it in this manner, the idea of a triune God, and the idea that God would enforce an eternity of suffering beyond human description on his creatures, is not expressive of the Biblical Christian God at all; it is indeed of the devil, and the dogma negates the purpose of Jesus’ obedience to the only true Christian God [Supreme Being] as revealed in the scriptures. (John 17:1,3; 1 Corinthians 8:6) The dogma surrounding the trinity doctrine actually negates and replaces the Biblical basis of the redemption in Christ.
We wrote something on this for our WordPress site on Charles Taze Russell:
The Christian God Not Jehovah?
Did Charles Taze Russell teach that Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:14,15), is one person, and not three persons?
Yes, he did. Indeed, this is the way the Bible presents the only true God all the way through the Bible; not once do we find any reference at all that describes Jehovah as more than one person. A comparison of Exodus 3:14,15 and Deuteronomy 18:15-19 with Acts 2:2,3 and Hebrews 1:1,2 show that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who spoke through the prophets of the Old Testament, is presented as being one person.
See:
Jesus is Not Jehovah (Yahweh)
Do “Christians” believe that “the one true God exists eternally as three persons”?
We can say that there is a very large sect of Christianity that believes this, although it should be apparent that the Christian authors of the Bible had no knowledge of such an idea. The Christian Bible writers never once expressed the idea that “the only true God exists eternally as three persons.” The founding fathers of the sect of Christianity that teaches this had to call upon their imagination and add many assumptions to many scriptures in order to have the scriptures appear to support the added-on dogma.
1 Timothy 2:5,6
Ankerberg and Weldon give this verse as proof that there is only one true God.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all; the testimony in its own times.
The scripture at 1 Timothy 2:5 is indeed a very good verse to show that there is only one true God; however, if this verse proves there is only one true God, who is that only one true God that is given in this verse? Jesus is not included there as the only true God, but only the God and Father of Jesus is spoken of in the as the “one God”. Thus, this and other similar verses (Romans 3:21-30; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6) prove the only true God to be one person. The word “God”, when applied to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in these verses and throughout the Bible, is used only of one person, not three persons. In 1 Timothy 2:5,6, for instance, Jesus is excluded in these verses from the being the “one God”, since Jesus is described as the mediator between the “one God” and man.
See:
There is One God
Deuteronomy 4:35; Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10
Deuteronomy 4:35 - To you it was revealed, so that you might know that Jehovah is God, and no one else besides Him. -- Green's Literal translation.
See:
The God of Jesus
Before Jehovah There Was No God Formed
1 Corinthian 8:5,6
1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there are things that are called “gods,” whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many “gods” and many “lords;”
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we to him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.
Paul, by his words recorded in 1 Corinthians 8:6, identifies God, not as more than one person, but only as one person, “the Father”; Jesus, although mentioned, is not included in “God” in this verse. In context, Paul says that not only are those that are called gods and lords (especially idol-gods — Leviticus 19:4; 1 Chronicles 15:26; Galatians 4:8), but also that there are many gods and lords (angels, rulers, judges, etc. See our study: Hebraic Usage of the Title for “God”); in reference to the church, however, there is only one God, and that one God is identified only as one person, and not three persons, and Jesus is identified as the one Lord (appointed so by the one the God — Acts 2:36; 4:11,12; 5:31; Matthew 28:18; John 3:35; 5:22,27; Ephesians 1:17,20-22) of the church. A truly grand testimony that Paul does not view the “God” of a Christian as being more than one person, and that he did not believe that Jesus is included in the “one God” of the church.
See also the study:
One God, One Lord
John 17:1-3
Jesus, in his prayer, identified his God and Father (Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3), not as being one of three persons of the only true God, but as being the “only true God”, and then Jesus excludes himself from being that only true God by stating that he had been sent by that “only true God,” his God and Father. Another excellent scripture that shows that Jesus did not present the only true God as three persons, nor did he ever present himself at being that only true God, or a person of that only true God.
See our study:
Did Jesus Really Say that the Father is the Only True God?
2 Corinthians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort. — World English.
Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort. — King James Version.
Paul does not identify “God” as three persons, but as only one person; Paul does not identify Jesus as “God”, nor as a person of “God”. He does not identify the Father as one person of “God”, as though there were any others who are also persons of “God”.
Colossians 1:3
Colossians 1:3 is another very good scripture that shows that Paul did not view the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as three persons. “We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, praying always for you.” (World English) Paul identifies “God” not as three persons, but as one person, and he identifies Jesus as separate from “God”, not as a person of “God”.
Philippians 2:11
“And that every tongue would confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father.” — World English.
Paul does not say here that “the Father” is one person of God, and that Jesus is another person of God; he identifies only one person as “God”, and he identifies Jesus as “Lord”. Jesus is made “lord” by the unipersonal God; Jesus is not a person of “God”. — Acts 2:36; 4:11,12; 5:31; Matthew 28:18; John 3:35; 5:22,27; Ephesians 1:17,20-22; Philippians 2:9.
1 Peter 1:2
Aaccording to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. — World English.
Peter does not describe the Father here as being one person of the three persons of “God”; he describes “God” unipersonally as “the Father” and, rather than describe Jesus as person of “God”, Peter distinguishes Jesus from “God”. The idea that the Father is one three persons of God has to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what Peter stated.
John 5:18
Does this scripture mean that Jesus was actually what the Jews’ cause to kill him ascribes him to be, a sinful man making himself equal to God? Certainly not!
See:
The Jewish Leaders’ “Cause” to Kill Jesus
John 20:28
Answered Thomas and he said to him: The Lord of me, and the God of me! — Westcott and Hort Interlinear.
Was Thomas here giving glory of Jesus as being the Most High standing there before him? We have no reason to think so.
Because Thomas used the definite article twice (which is not needed in Koine Greek if only one person is addressed — See John 20:17), some view the way that Thomas expressed himself as first directed toward Jesus as the Lord of Thomas, and then to the Father as the God of Thomas. If Thomas was actually address Jesus when he used the Greek word (usually transliterated as THEOS), then rather than to imagine, assume, and add to this that Jesus must be a person of the only true God, in keeping with what has been revealed in the scriptures, we should conclude that Thomas was addressing Jesus his “mighty one”, not as the Most High.
See our study:
My Lord and My God
Isaiah 9:6
Does Isaiah 9:6 state that Jesus is a person of the Most High?
Isaiah 9:6 is found as Isaiah 9:5 in the JPS: – For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom.
There is no mention in Isaiah 9:6 about the Messiah as being one of three alleged persons of God; nor does anything there say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Any such thought has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what is stated. Most translators, however, have ignored that only a singular name is being referred to, and not a series of names. The singular name, although the name is that of the Messiah, actually describes the God and Father of the Messiah. — Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3.
See our studies:
The Singular Name in Isaiah 9:6
Not a Series of Names
The Mighty God, The Father of Eternity
The Singular Names of the Son Given
Isaiah 9:6 and the Alleged Trinity
The Singular Name
John 1:1
Does John 1:1 refer to Jesus as the only true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No, it doesn’t. The Greek word for “God” is used there of the Logos, but the context and the rest of Bible demonstrates that it was not being used of the Logos to mean “the only true God”.
See our studies:
John 1:1 and Trinitarian Assumptions
The Logos Was Theos
Romans 9:5
Doesn’t Romans 9:5 show that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No, it does not. The context shows that Paul is showing the works of the unipersonal God “through Christ Jesus”. Paul continuously uses the word “God” in reference to the God and Father of Jesus. — Ephesians 1:3.
See our study:
Romans 9:5 – Who is Over All
Titus 2:13
Does Titus 2:13 tell us that Jesus is the God of Abraham, or that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham?
No. Evidence supports that the text has been altered from what Paul actually wrote to Titus; nevertheless, even in the popular text, the use of “God” by Paul would not have been out of harmony with the thought that Jesus is our Mighty Savior, without assuming that it means that Jesus is the God of Abraham, and/or to further assume that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham.
See our study:
The Great God
2 Peter 1:1
Doesn’t 2 Peter 1:1 say that Jesus is our God, and thus we have reason to imagine and assume that Jesus is the God of Abraham, and further to imagine and assume that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham?
No. Before one can imagine and assume that Peter was saying that Jesus is the God of Abraham, and before imagining and assuming that Jesus is a person of the God of Abraham, one has to first imagine and assume that Peter meant his words to be understood as referring to Jesus as “our God”. Not all translators would imagine and assume that Peter is referring to Jesus as “our God”. See our study:
Our God and Savior
Page 13
John 14:13 (John 15:26)
Does John 14:13 (Evidently this was meant to be John 15:26) give one reason to imagine and assume that God’s Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30) is a person of “God” to whom the Holy Spirit belongs?
No, the Greek masculine is used in John 15:26 in order to harmonize with the Greek masculine word of Comforter, which is being used in connection with God’s Holy Spirit. Usually, the Greek uses neuter forms in connection with the Greek word for spirit. There is nothing in the verse that gives us any reason to imagine and assume that God’s Holy Spirit is a person, and then to further imagine and assume that the God’s Holy Spirit is one three persons, all of whom are then imagined and assumed to be the one God of Abraham.
See our study:
The Comforter – Is It A Person?
Hebrews 9:14
Doesn’t the Bible refer to God’s Holy Spirit as “eternal”, thus that it possesses one of the attributes that is being alleged to belong only to God, and thus from this we need to imagine and assume that God’s Holy Spirit is a person of the Eternal God?
No, in Hebrews 9:14 we do find the expression “eternal spirit”, but there is nothing at there that offers any hint at all that the “spirit” being referred to is a person, much less that the “spirit” is a person of God. “God” is presented in Hebrews 9:14, not at three persons, but as one person.
See:
Christ, the Eternal Spirit and the Living God
Acts 5:3,4
It is being claimed that God’s Holy Spirit “is … God” and Acts 5:3,4 is cited as proof of such. Actually, there is nothing in Acts 5:3,4 that says that the Holy Spirit that belongs to God is God. There is certainly nothing there that says that God’s Holy Spirit is a person of God to whom the Holy Spirit belongs.
See our study:
Ananias Lied to God, Not to Men
Matthew 28:19
Do the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 designate the only true God (John 17:3) as three persons? No, we find nothing there of the sort. See our studies:
The Baptismal Name
One Name
2 C0rinthians 13:14 – Is “God” Presented as Three Persons?
Actually, no, “God” is presented as one person.
See our study:
The Three Be With You
The Bible teaches the one true God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Ankerberg and Weldon make the above claim on page 13, stating that from verses given (referred to above) “it is clear” that the Bible teaches such. Actually, there is absolutely nothing at all “clear” or otherwise in the verses given that shows that the Bible teaches the one true God exists eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The verses consistently present the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as one person, and never once does the Bible present the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as more than one person. As shown in our studies, “God” in the verses given, when in reference to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is always referring to one person, the God and Father of Jesus.
Pages 13,14
Ankerberg tell us that incomplete comprehension by man concerning what he believes to be truth (the trinity) is not a reason to reject what the Bible teaches. We agree that man’s incomplete comprehension is not a reason to reject any truth that the Bible teaches, but the Bible does not teach the trinity doctrine, thus this is irrelevant. Rejection of the trinity is not due to allowing human reason to judge God’s Word, but it from allowing God’s Word to be found true, and rejecting what man, by use of human imagination, has to add to and read into God’s Word to make God’s Word appear to support what man has imagined to be truth. Since the Bible never, not even once, presents the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as more than one person, and since such a thought has to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, any scripture thought to teach such, the idea that the only true God is more than one person is therefore unscriptural. Not only this, it contradicts the very basis of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus as revealed in the Bible, and negates the role Jesus fulfilled while in the days of his flesh, all of which is revealed in the Bible. The evidence of scripture should force any who would submit to the scriptures that the only true God — the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — exists as only one person, separate and distinct from His son.
Page 14
Ankerberg and Weldon present a series of scriptures for which they make the bold statement “that assuming that God is not three persons makes it impossible to understand” these passages of scripture. First of all, the default assumption, or reasoning, is not to assume that God is three persons, but rather that God is one person, for that is the way He is presented throughout the Bible. But usually, the trinitarian apologists make it appear the other way around.
However, one does not have to inject triune God theology into any of hese scriptures in order to understand them. Indeed, injection of the triune God assumption into some things said in these scriptures seems to add confusion to the scriptures. We present the scriptures below and places online where we have examined the scriptures.
Matthew 28:19 – See our discussions on this verse:
The Baptismal Name
One Name
2 Corinthians 1:21,22 – See our discussion regarding these verses:
Christ, God and the Spirit
2 Corinthians 13:14 – See our discussion:
The Three Be With You
Ephesians 2:18 – See:
Through Jesus, One Spirit, and the Father
Ephesians 3:11-16 – See:
God’s Purpose By Means of Christ Through His Spirit
More to follow, God willing; check back later…
*********
Author ResLight
Posted on August 26, 2010
Categories Bible Students movement, Books Examined, Charles Taze Russell, Jehovah's Witnesses, John Ankerberg
Tags apostate religion, Bible Students, Charles Taze Russell, Christian God, divine guidance, false religion, God's organization, holidays, idolatry, infallible, inspired by God, Jehovah's Witnesses, military service, new Bible, one true church, one true god, prophet, saluting the flag, Seventh-Day Adventists, sole channel, trinity
Edit "The (Alleged) Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses"
12 thoughts on “The (Alleged) Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses”
Pingback: Ephesians 2:18 – Through Jesus, One Spirit, and the Father Edit
maina says:
April 8, 2011 at 7:27 am Edit
I’ve been studying the bible with the witmesses for a year.My issue
is the idea you give that JWs impose rules on people.I havent experi
enced that.My teachers point out relevant scripture to me and leave
me to make up my mind.i’ve forexample concluded that true a true christian should not join the millitary though the army is avery attractive carreer to many of my agemates. why? because the bible
( not the JWs) makes it clear that being trainned to kill (and killing)isnot for for those who want to immitate Christ and be allowed into his rigteous peaceful earthly kingdom.
ResLight says:
April 16, 2011 at 8:29 am Edit
maina,
Before commenting, I am wondering exactly what in this post do you consider to be giving the idea that JWs impose rules on people?
Nevertheless, having been associated with the JWs in the past, I can definitely say that, unless they have changed drastically in the past few decades, that they do impose a lot of rules on people that go beyond what the scriptures say. They are not the only ones, however, as many others do the same thing.
On the other hand, have you been baptized by them? My own experience is that they will often treat those not yet baptized, and those who are baptized, differently. In other words, they will make allowances before you are baptized that they do not continue to make once you are baptized. Furthermore, an experience in which you have come to agree with them on would not be a genuine test of their rules. It is when one breaks their rules that the test is applied.
However, since the post here is not actually concerning this, a better subdomain for this discussion would be in reponse to one of the post on the “Focus on Jehovah’s Witnesses” subdomain, or in one of the forums:
http://jws.reslight.net
http://biblehope.yuku.com/forums/71/JW-Doctrine
Regarding Christians and War:
http://www.biblestudents.com/Christian_View_of_War.cfm
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Response to "Evidence for Christianity"
In response to:
Although the page is directed toward Jehovah's Witnesses (we are not with that organization), we have found so much false information on this page, that we feel a need to respond to what is being said there.
The name of the page is entitled:
How do I show to my Jehovah Witness friend that Jesus is not the Archangel Michael?
Although we are not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, we believe that the Christian scriptural evidence does indeed lead to the conclusion that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. What is not discussed on the page is the fact tht most of the protestant reformers believed that Jesus is Michael. Thus, this teaching is not something new or unique with the Jehovah's Witnesses, although the reformers usually attributed the Archangel as being uncreated. Since we have discussed all concerning this that is presented on by "Evidence for Christianity" elsewhere, we refer to:
The true scriptural evidence of Christianity as found in the Bible is that Jesus is not Ehyeh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and that he is God's firstborn creature. Jesus is indeed now exalted high above the angels, he is no longer a little lower than the angels as he was while in the days of his flesh. I do not believe that in the scriptures Jesus has never been of the class that is referred as "angels" in Hebrews 1.
See:
The part that of even greater to concern to us, however, are those statements made concerning Charles Taze Russell.
Was Russell the Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as claimed on that page?
No, he was not.
Did Russell Teach That Only His Followers Are Saved?
Absolutely NOT! This appears to be attributing the teaching of the JWs to Russell. Indeed, he believed in the ransom for all. What Russell taught was almost the opposite of what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.
See:
Did Russell use language that was unique to his movement, such as the word "Jehovah"?
We would say that every denomination, sect, or movement has some language that is unique to that particular group; however, "Jehovah" -- God's Holy Name as found in the King James Version and the American Revised Version (now American Standard Version) was not at all unique to Russell or the Bible Students movement at all.
See our research regarding:
Additionally, we highly doubt that Russell would have ever thought of the Bible Students' movement as being "his movement".
Did Russell predict the end of the world for 1914, using Daniel 8:14?
Absolutely NOT! Russell presented several lines of Biblical prophecies that lead to the year 1914, but Daniel 8:14 was not one of them.
See:
However, it is misleading to say that Russell was expecting the end of the world in 1914, although one could draw such a conclusion from his earlier statements. In 1876, Russell accepted and adopted Barbour's conclusion that the time of trouble was to end in 1914. However, in 1904, ten years before 1914, Russell rejected that idea and came to believe that the time of trouble was to begin, not end, in 1914, and that the finally passing away of the present heavens and earth would be sometime after 1914. Although Russell, from the first issue of his magazine, preached against the traditional "end of the world" as preached by most Adventists, one could definitely say that after1904 Russell was NOT expecting "the end of the world" in 1914. Russell did not, however, believe the "end of world" -- Armageddon -- as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach it; he was not expecting millions of unbelievers to be eternally destroyed.
See:
When the end of the world did not come in 1914, did Russell say that "we have entered the Investigative Judgement"?
First of all, Russell was NOT expecting the end of the world to come in 1914, nor did he change his view concerning the beginning of the time of trouble as beginning in 1914. He died in 1916 still with the belief that the time of trouble had begun in 1914, just as he believed before 1914, except that in 1915 he appears to have separated the battle of Armageddon from time of trouble, in that he presented the battle as being the final phase of the time of trouble.
We did an computer search of Russell's works for the phrase "investigative judgment", as well as "investigative judgement" and could not find any place that Russell ever used such a term; we are not sure what the author of "Evidence of Christianity" page is referring to concerning Russell allegedly claiming that in 1914, "we have entered the Investigative Judgement." We suspect, however, that the author has confused Russell with Rutherford, or with what the JWs teach, or perhaps with the 7th Day Adventists.
Did Russell Make a Lot of Money From the Movement?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! If making money was his aim, it would have been a lot easier for him to make a lot of money if he had kept his chain of clothing stores. Instead, he divested himself of his fortune in order to provide funds for the spreading of the Gospel.
Did Russell sell "Miracle Wheat"?
Russell himself did not sell any of Stoner's Miracle Wheat, nor did he originate the name "Miracle Wheat', nor did he originate any of the claims for Stoner's Miracle Wheat.
Was "Miracle Wheat" a scam?
NO!
Was Russell sued regarding Miracle Wheat?
NO!
See:
Did Russell's Wife Divorce Russell Because of Marital Unfaithfulness?
NO! Mrs. Russell stated in court that she was not accusing Russell of adultery.
Was Rutherford hired to keep Russell out of jail?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! No authority was ever threatening to put Russell in jail, thus no lawyer was needed to keep Russell out of jail.
Did Rutherford continue the policies of Russell?
Absolutely NOT! In a very short time after Russell's death, Rutherford virtually destroyed the legal entity that Russell had left, and had reconstructed it so that it would serve as a basis for creating a new religious organization.
Did Russell teach that Jesus is "not deity"?
No, Russell did teach the deity of Christ, but he showed from the scriptures what this deity means.
Did Russell Teach that the Holy Spirit is a force for good, rather than a part of God?
We did a search of Russell's works for the phrase "force for good", and could not find any. We are not sure that Russell ever defined the Holy Spirit as being a "part of God", but as we might speak of our finger as a part of us, so we could refer to God's Holy Spirit as being a part of him, since Jesus referred to God's Holy Spirit as God's finger.
What Russell taught concerning God's Holy Spirit may be found in Studies 8-11 of:
Did Russell teach that the only true acceptable name for God is Jehovah?
The question, in the very way it is asked, is highly deceptive, and is evidently designed with the thought that the English word "Jehovah" is being claimed to be the only acceptable spelling and pronunication of God's Holy Name in English. Russell never taught such an idea (nor, as far as we know, do even the JWs teach such an idea). The Bible, however, only speaks of one Holy Name; it never speaks of Holy Names (plural).
See:
The 144,000 of Revelation 7, 14:
Niether Russell's view or our view is the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach. However, ultimately God is the one who will decide who will live in heaven and who will live on earth.
See:
Of course, there were no "JW members" in the days of Russell -- Russell did not believe in such sectarianism; nevertheless, Russell taught that there were many amongst all the Christian sects and denominations that would be in heaven. Our own views, however, although different from Russell's in some applications of scripture, but we acknowledge, as did Russell, that God's true church may be found amongst all the Christian denominations.
Regarding Hell, Soul, Spirit and the condition of the Dead
Did Russell teach there were no true Christians at all until he came to call people back to the true gospel?
No, Russell did not teach such a doctrine.
What about the faithful and discreet slave (faithful and wise servant)?
See our conclusions:
Did Russell Forbid Blood Transfusions?
No.
See our conclusions on this:
What About Holidays?
Regarding the Cross
Did Russell claim to be "the sole interpreter of the Bible"?
No.
Is Jesus the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No, no where in the scriptures is Jesus ever presented as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Indeed, Jesus is always distinguished as being sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
See:
Doesn't John 1:1 Say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No. See:
Does John 1:14 say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No.
See:
Does the Bible present Jesus as being uncreated?
No.
See:
Was Jesus Worshiped?
Yes, but not as being the only true God who had sent him. -- John 17:3.
See:
Does a comparison of Colossians 1:16 with Hebrews 2:10 prove that Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah), the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
No.
See:
Does Hebrews 1:2 show that Jesus is the Creator of the entire universe?
No.
See:
Didn't Jesus, by his words recorded in John 8:58, claim to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? (Exodus 3:14)
No.
See:
The rest to be added later, God willing...
One can find that on close examination, however, that none of the scriptures present the idea that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. See:
Regarding Eternal Punishment, Hell, Soul, etc.
See:
Some Historical Inaccuracies Related to the Bible Students
By Ronald R. Day, Senior
This post is in response to an alleged "Apologetic Study: Introduction to Jehovah's Witness Beliefs", that appears on a site, evidently owned by Catholic. We are not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, but the article does present several misleading and/or false statements concerning Charles Taze Russell. The article is presented by Alfredo Nevarez. We do not attack Mr. Nevarez personally, but we do wish to present the facts related to many of his statements, especially as related to Charles Taze Russell. This work is in progress, which means that we will be adding more to this, God willing, as time permits.
=================================================
It is claimed that Russell founded the Jehovah's Witnesses in 1872. This is false, since Russell never founded the Jehovah's Witnesses movement at all. Russell was never a member of the Jehovah's witnesses organization, and he did not believe in such an organization. Russell preached against such human authoritarianism, and certainly should not be considered the founder of that in which he did not believe, and which he preached against.
In 1872, however, I am not sure what one considered that Russell founded or started on that day; Russell was associated with a small Bible study group in Allegheny, PA (now part of Pittsburg); that group, however, was not started in 1872, but was already in existence in 1872. Russell does mention that it was 1872 that the group came to a clear understanding of the ransom; however, the JW leadership today has rejected the view as Russell and his associates came to understand in 1872. After Russell died, Rutherford first began to reject the basis of the ransom around 1923, with his new light concerning the second death. In 1938, Rutherford openly rejected the very basis of the Ransom that Russell and his associates had understood in 1872.
See our research:
The Watchtower's Self-Contradiction About the Ransom
Adam and the Ransom Sacrifice
Nevertheless, that small group in 1872 could hardly be the founding point of the Bible Students movement, and most definitely not the founding year of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which was actually founded by Joseph Rutherford after Russell died.
For proof, see the research under Charles Taze Russell and Jehovah's Witnesses
It is asserted that at the age of 20, Russell began preaching that there is no hell. This is misleading, since Russell did preach concerning the Bible hell; he was not preaching that there is "no hell". Russell learned from some of his predecessors what the real Bible hell is, and that is what he began to preach.
See the archive related to Russell and "Hell".
It is asserted that Russell borrowed "heavily from the ideas of J. H. Paton who published his works under the title Day Dawn". Actually, Paton's "Day Dawn" was a rehash of "The Three Worlds" that had been published a few years before by Russell and Barbour. Russell already his his basic understanding of the divine plan befoe he Paton published the "Day Dawn".
It is asserted that Russell went on to claim that his works were divinely inspired; actually Russell, unlike Ellen G. White, disclaimed that his works were divinely inspired from the very beginning. See the Russell archive on "Infallibility".
Russell is referred to as though he were claiming to have been a "prophet" of God. In fact, Russell disclaimed being a prophet, and disclaimed that his conclusions were "prophecy". See our research on Russell and Bible Prophecy
It is asserted that Russell was "forced by federal authorities to return money to farmers whom he had sold his 'miracle wheat'". This is entirely false!!! No government authority ever ordered Russell to return any money concerning the sale of Stoner's "Miracle Wheat. Russell did offer to return the money to anyone who was dissatisfied with the wheat, but not one of those buyers of that wheat requested a refund, and thus none of that money was ever returned. By stating "his" Miracle Wheat, the impression is that Russell himself invented and made the claims for this wheat, which is false. It was Kenneth Stoner who first discovered this wheat, and who reported his own results regarding the wheat. Russell did present Stoner's claims and the claims presented in newspapers reports regarding this "Miracle Wheat", but the "Miracle Wheat" was not Russell's "Miracle Wheat", nor was it Russell or anyone associated with the Bible Students who gave it the name "Miracle Wheat".
It is claimed that "the only miraculous thing about the wheat was it's exhorbant price and outlandish claims." Russell never originated any claim for the wheat, except for the suggestion (not actually a claim) that the wheat may present an indication of the Millennial blessings that are yet to come. The fact is that many farmers testified in the court of validity of the claims of Stoner and others regarding the when wheat; although the Daily Eagle ignored all this, and focused on their alleged many government witnesses (which was actually only one witness who presented some alleged findings of some people who evidently somehow had "tested" a few of the wheat seeds and concluded that they were inferior).
Russell himself did not sell the wheat, nor did he set the price for the wheat. Those Bible Students who sold the wheat set the price at $1.00 a pound, which was 25 cents less than Stoner and some others had been selling the wheat. No one seemed to object to Stoner or anyone else selling the wheat for $1.25 a pound, but they did object to the Bible Students' selling of the wheat for $1.00 a pound.
See our documented research regarding Russell and Stoner's Miracle Wheat
It is being claimed that Russell "under oath in a court in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Russell stated that he was an expert Scripture scholar and was fluent in Greek." In fact, the actual court record shows that he disclaimed being a Greek scholar, and certainly that he never claimed to be "fluent in Greek". J.J. Ross very deceitfully rearranged various parts of the court record so as to make it appear that Russell claimed to be an expert. This has been pointed out many times, and yet Ross' deceitfulness continues to be repeated over and over.
See the archives on "Perjury" and "J. J. Ross"
It is being claimed that "in 1897 his wife divorced him for having adulterous affairs with two different women." In fact, the court records show that Mrs. Russell did not claim that Russell was had committed adultery at all. Mrs. Russell presented some hearsay testimony that was designed to marr Russell's character, but she denied that she was claiming that her husband had committed adultery. The testimony concerning this was stricken from the court record, but the Eagle ignored this. At any rate, the court records show that she filed for divorce on the grounds of "mental cruelty". The real reason for their separation to begin with was over the management she sought for the Watch Tower magazine, and her desire to use that magazine to promote her "women's rights" agenda, which Russell refused to allow her to do.
It is claimed "When the judge had ruled against him, Russell immediately transferred his property, worth over $240,000 to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." Actually, although this money was legally in Russell's name, it was being held in trust for use by the Watch Tower Society. Mr. Russell had created several side businesses that was intended to create funds for use by the Watch Tower Society, among them the one called "The United States Investment Company". This company was a partnership created by Russell; its capital stock was $1,000. Pastor Russell furnished that $1,000 out of his personal means. Nevetheless, this put any earnings from this "company" legally in Russell's name, although all the funds created through this company as well as other monies that Russell was holding in trust for the Watch Tower Society were eventually to be turned over to the Watch Tower Society. Mrs. Russell knew of this arrangement long before she even separated from Russell.
For more related to this, see the archive "Russell's 'Divorce'"
See also the archive regarding the "United States Investment Company"
Millennial Dawnists
It is stated that this "sect first was formally know as the Millennial Dawnists, then shortly thereafter as Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society." Of course, there was no JW "sect" in the days of Russell; Russell was a non-sectarian who believed that God's people could found amongst all the various denominations and sects that profess to be Christian. In 1881, Russell wrote his first volume of a series of Bible studies which he originally called "Millennial Dawn". Those who believed in the Millennial Kingdom of Christ as outlined in those volumes were dubbed "Millennial Dawnists" by others; this was never a "formal" name that these groups used of themselves.
"Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society" refers to the legal entity; the legal entity name that was used before this was called "Tower Publishing Company", not "Millennial Dawnists". The legal entity itself however is not the association of Bible Students that formed as result of Russell's work. It is correct that in 1896 the name was changed to "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society"; it continued to have this name until Russell's death in 1916. It is made to appear in the article that Russell, in 1909, changed the name of "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society" to "People's Pulpit Association", but that also in the same year, 1909, he changed it back to "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, which really doesn't make a lot of sense. Actually, "People's Pulpit Association", as a legal entity, was formed in Brooklyn, NY, but this did not do away with the original entity that had been formed in Pennsylvania. In moving the headquarters to Brooklyn, Russell found that, in order to do business in New York, he had to form a new entity in New York. The formation of the new entity, however, did not do away the old entity. Many years after Russell died, Rutherford later had the People Pulpits Association renamed to "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc."
The Name "Jehovah"
It is claimed that the name Jehovah appears no where in Scripture. It is claimed that the name Jehovah is a mistranslation of the name Yahweh. It appears to be saying that "Yahweh" is found in the original King James Bible; if so, this is definitely false. It is claimed that the KJV "used Greek and Hebrew documents (Textus Recptus) that were later found to have had various mis-tranlations. These were later corrected, but the name Jehovah stuck." Actually, Nevarez presents several false statements that simply do not conform with the facts.
Regarding the English form, "Jehovah": Although many refer to this an English translation, it not actually a translation, but a rendering of the Hebrew name of God into an English form. Translated, it means, "He is, He will be, He causes to be", etc. The English form "Jehovah, as such, is not a different "name" than the name given in the original Hebrew as represented by the Hebrew tetragrammaton of God's Holy Name.
Nevarez appears to be confused concerning "Textus Receptus", since the Textus Receptus contains only the New Testament, which was written in Koine Greek, not Biblical Hebrew. However, the KJV rendering of the Holy Name as "Jehovah" appears not in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament. As far as we know, the Holy Name appears in all the known early Hebrew manuscripts and texts of the Old Testament. The KJV used the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament -- not the Textus Receptus; the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament is still the basic text that is used by most translations, although there are many translations of the Old Testament are based on the Septuagint, or the Latin Vulgate. God's Holy Name appears in the Masoretic text more than 6,000 times.
"Yahweh" also is a English form of that same name. Yahweh is based, not on the Hebrew as often claimed, but is evidently a contracted form of the Holy Name given in Koine Greek. The English form "Jehovah" is based directly on one of the forms given in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Neither form (Jehovah/Yahweh) has anything to do with the Greek Textus Receptus, which does not contain the name as either Jehovah or Yahweh. The Textus Receptus, based on the Greek manuscripts that do the same, usually presents the Holy Name in Greek words that are transliterated as KURIOS (Lord), THEOS (God), or some other word. The Textus Receptus does have the poetic short from of God's Holy Name in the term often rendered as "Hallelujah", meaning "Praise Jah". The Textus Receptus also retains the short form the Holy Name in various Hebrew names as rendered into the Koine Greek. Of course, neither the English form "Jehovah", nor the English form "Yahweh", can be found in either the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts as such, since neither language is English, and neither language complies completely with English spelling and phonemes. Indeed, there is a degree of uncertainly as to how phonemes were applied in both ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, and then there is a further degree of being inaccurate in transliterating words with the same exact phonemes of the original Hebrew and Koine Greek.
Indeed, none of the English forms of any Bible name given any in any English translation can be found in either the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, nor in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, not the form "Jesus", "Joshua", "Yeshua", "Yahshua", "Elijah", "Eliyah", "Elias", and on and on -- none of these are in the original Hebrew Bible nor in the original Greek Bible.
See our studies on God's Holy Name:
Denouncement and Hatred of All Religions
It is claimed that in 1872 Russell "stated that God rejected all existing Churches and that from thenceforward only Russell and his followers would be God's spokesmen." This is highly misleading. Russell did believe that in 1878, God's favor to the "nominal church" ended, as Jesus found the denominational systems of confusion to be wanting, and thus the invitation came to for God's people to get out of her. Russell did not set forth the claim that henceforth, "only Russell and his followers" would be God's spokesmen, although some statements, taken out of context, and placed in the context of present-day JW theology, could lead one to that conclusion. We do not, however, agree with all of Russell's conclusions regarding 1874. We may present more research related to this later, but to see what research we have done to date related to 1878 as related to claims people are making concerning Charles Taze Russell, see:
Charles Taze Russell and 1878
Christ is not God
Although this section is directed towards the Jehovah's Witnesses, since we also believe that the Anointed One is not God, the Supreme Being, we will address this briefly. Of itself, the word "Christ", as applied to Jesus, indicates the one anointed by Jehovah, thus the word "Christ" itself indicates that Jesus is not God.* (Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1) The default reasoning should be that Jesus is NOT Jehovah who anointed him. The wording given in the "History" concerning what Russell believed concerning Michael the Archangel is worded in such a way as to leave a false impression. See:
Russell and Michael the Archangel
Michael the Archangel
=========
* Our trinitarian neightbors, of course, invent and add to the scriptures the idea that it was one person of God who anointed another person of God, and thus explain away such scriptures by reading this idea into the scriptures. In reality, the scriptures are completely at harmony with each other without reading all of the trinitarian assumption into the scriptures.
Charles Taze Russell never denied the divinity of Christ, but he did show from the Bible how that divinity, as it would be applied by scriptural words to Jesus in the Bible, does not mean that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Russell stayed very close to the Bible on this subject, rather than all of the assumptions and additons to the Bible that the trintiarian dogma calls for.
For those who wish to search the scriptures for what they do say and what they do not say on regarding what other matters mentioned in this subheading, we recommend the following studies:
The Second Coming is Imminent... Again and Again
This heading is highly misleading, especially from the standpoint of Charles Taze Russell, since Russell, in 1876 adopted the belief from Barbour that Christ had returned in 1874, and he held to that belef until he died in 1916. He never spoke of second coming of Christ as being at any other time than 1874.
It is claimed that Russell adopted "the Adventist idea that the world would end any day". If by "Adventist", the "Second Adventists" are meant, actually, Russell rejected the Adventist's view of the end of the world. He rejected the idea that the planet earth and the whole material universe would and that only few of earth's billions would saved. In 1870, Russell rejected the Second Adventist idea of the end of the world, and never, until the day he died, accepted the Second Adventist idea of the end of the world. However, "Adventist" today often means to most people, 7th Day Adventist. Russell rarely used the expression "the end of the world" because, to many, that expression meant the end of the planet earth. He pointed out the in the Greek, it does not speak of the end of the world, but rather of the end of the age.
If by Adventist, the 7th Day Adventists is meant, Russell never adopted their view at all.
It is claimed that Russell "claimed to have calculated the year [of the end of the world] as 1874." Before 1874, it was not Russell, but rather Nelson Barbour and his associates who had "calculated" from the scriptures that Christ would return in 1874, and thus that the "end of world" was to be expected then. Russell rejected all of the dates set forth by any of the Second Adventist until the year 1876 (about two years AFTER 1874), when he accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had already returned in 1874 as a spirit being. Sometime before 1874, Russell reported that he and the Bible study group he was associated with had already concluded that Christ was to return in the spriit, not in the flesh, since Jesus had sacrficed his flesh for our sins. He had not, however, set any date for the return of Christ, nor had he accepted any of the dates set forth by the Second Adventists, on up to 1876, two years after 1874. In 1876, he accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had already returned -- invisibly -- in 1874.
See our research:
Was Russell Expecting the End of the World in 1874?
Although speaking of Jehovah's Witneses
It is asserted that Russell claimed that Jesus did not actually return to earth, but rather "only to the 'upper air'". In reality, Russell never mentioned anything about "upper air", whatever that is supposed to mean. Russell did believe that Christ had returned invisibly to earth in 1874.
Armageddon in 1914
The statement is made that Russell "stated that Armageddon would begin in 1914." From 1904 on to 1914, yes, Russell was indeed expecting Armageddon to begin in 1914. However, the statement, as it stands in the context of the following statement, would imply that Russell was expecting something that he was not expecting. Russell did not believe in the Armageddon that the JWs preach; his idea of Armageddon was that it was a period of time in which the peoples of the nations would chastised (not eternally destroyed) in preparation for the Kingdom. It is stated: "While WWII did begin in 1914, by coincidence, the earth and all Churches were not destroyed." That Armageddon was to begin in 1914 does not necessarily mean the end of the churches, and most definitely Russell not expecting the end of the planet earth at any time whatsoever.
At this point a little history may be relevant:
In 1876, Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that Armageddon (the time of trouble) had already begun in 1874 and that it would last until 1914 (40 years); shortly after 1880, Russell rejected Barbour's conclusion that Armageddon (as representing the time of trouble) had begun in 1874, but still believed that Armageddon would begin sometime before 1914 (1910 or 1911 was given as suggested dates), and that Armageddon would end, not begin in 1914. In 1904 (tens years BEFORE 1914), Russell realized that the ending of the Gentile Times would not signal the end of Armageddon, but the beginning of Armageddon. Russell held to this latter view on up to his death in 1916. Nevertheless, one should especially note -- for historical accuracy -- that it was NOT UNTIL 1904 that Russell stated that Armageddon was to begin in 1914, not back in the 1870s as implied in the statement given.
*************************
More to be added later, God willing.
The following are notes related to some assorted points brought up on the "history", which we hope to get better organized later.
Russell never claimed to be have "authority" over the church or any any of the Bible Students groups; he claimed to be a fellow-servant of Christ. Others claimed such for him, but he refused such authority until the day he died.
For proof see, the archive regarding Russell and "Sole Channel/Authority"
http://ctr.rlbible.com/?cat=75
Russell preached against anyone being a "follower" of Russell.
See:
Russellism
http://ctr.rlbible.com/?cat=809
Making the assertion concerning followers of Russell in the context of the JW organization also leaves the impression that Russell formed such an organization. Russell was actually a non-sectarian who believed that members of the true church could be found among all the various denominations that claimed to be Christian.
See Russell and Church Organization
http://ctr.rlbible.com/?cat=17
Futhermore, it appears to be implying that Russell rejected 1874 as the date Christ returned, and that he was "then" claiming that Christ was to return in 1914; if this is the thought, it is incorrect. In 1876, two years after 1874, Russell accepted that Christ had returned in 1874, and he held to that view until he died in 1916; he never said anything about Christ as returning in 1914.
Additionally, by stating "Armageddon would begin in 1914" in the context of "Jehovah's Witnesses", it leaves the impression with the reader that Russell was expecting what the JWs preach concerning "Armageddon", that is, that virtually everyone earth except the JWs are eternally destroyed. Russell did not believe in this; indeed, this is similar to the "end of the world" expectations held by most of the "Second Adventists" which he rejecte and which preached against. Russell believed that "Armageddon" was a period of time in which the peoples of the nations would be chatised (not eternally destroyed) in preparation for dthe kingdom blessings to follow. Thus, his original acceptance of Barbour's view that Armageddon was to end in 1914 did not mean that he was expecting millions of unbelievers to be eternally destroyed in 1914, but rather that Satan would have been abyssed and the blessings of the peoples could begin. Of course, in 1904, Russell rejected that earlier view and began to realize that time of trouble was to begin, not end, in 1914, which would then delay the removal of denominationalism until sometime after 1914.
The main thing that Russell was expecting for 1914 was the beginning of the time of trouble, within which to bring about the destruction of Babylon, denominationalism, which Russell often referred to as "the churches", meaning the denominational churches. Russell expected that with the beginning of the time of trouble, it would not be long afterwards that "the church" denominatinal systems would also pass away. Indeed, God is not going to allow such denominational divisions to continue on into the Kingdom Age. Such denominatinal divisions is indeed the product of Satan, not of God. Once Satan is abyssed, the people will certainly have been freed from such denominationalism. Russell died in 1916 rejoicing in seeing that the time of trouble had begun in 1914, although he realized that he had been in error in expecting too much happen as quickly as he expected.
Rutherford took control after Russell died. Russell did not die until October of 1916. Russell himself died still holding to the belief that Christ had returned in 1874, and that the time of trouble had begun in 1914. Russell himself held no expectations regarding 1916 itself; he died with the belief that that their was still a lot of work yet to be done.
However, Rutherford never moved the date 1914 to 1916; if he would have done so, it would have needed to have been done before Russell died in October of 1916, which would not at all fit historical facts. As far as I can determine, the only one(s) who regarding 1916 to have Biblical significance was Paul S. L. Johnson and those who accepted his conclusions. Johnson used a lot of what he thought to be types and antitypal parallels to designate the year 1916, but he did not replace 1914 with 1916. Nor did Johnson point to the year 1916 before 1916 had arrived. He claimed that in 1916 the last member of the 144,000 were sealed, and that since then all who consecrated themselves were of the "youthful worthies", those Russell had referred to as "consecrating between the ages".
Rutherford, however, deceitfully took control after Russell died; he rejected Russell's provisions for the WTS and deceitfully had new by-laws passed by the shareholders who had never read what was in those new by-laws. Effectually, in a few weeks after Russell died, Rutherford had destroyed the WTS as Russell had intended for it to be, and replaced it with a new WTS that he could use to promote his "organization" dogma. Indeed, Russell rarely used the word "organization" related to the WTS, and when he did, it was simply in the sense of corporate organization, not in the sense that Rutherford and his associates began promoting that term as early as December of 1916. Rutherford's methods were very insidious however, and while the majority of those working at Bethel headquarters realized what he was doing and stopped supporting him, it took much longer for those associated with the Bible Students to realize what course Rutherford was taking. Neverthless, by 1928, the Bible Students as whole, represented by the vast majority (well over 75%) had rejected Rutherford's "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma. The Bible Students -- as a whole -- never became "Jehovah's Witnesess"; the Bible Students still exist today, aside from the JW organization.
Rutherford led his followers into accepting another gospel rather than the good news of great joy that will be for all the people that Russell preached, and that the Bible Students still preach today. Rutherford began promoting an alleged gospel that, in effect, is "bad tidings of great woe for most of the people" that they and their children may be eternally destroyed in Armageddon if they do not come to and submit to Rutherford and his organization (which he claimed to be "Jehovah's organization") for salvation. This, indeed, is a "good news" that was almost the very opposite of what Russell preached, and which the Bible Students still preach today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)