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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Was Russell sued regarding Miracle Wheat?
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).
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.
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?
See our conclusions on this:
What About Holidays?
Regarding the Cross
Did Russell claim to be "the sole interpreter of the Bible"?
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.
Doesn't John 1:1 Say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Does John 1:14 say that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Does the Bible present Jesus as being uncreated?
Was Jesus Worshiped?
Yes, but not as being the only true God who had sent him. -- John 17:3.
Does a comparison of Colossians 1:16 with Hebrews 2:10 prove that Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah), the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Does Hebrews 1:2 show that Jesus is the Creator of the entire universe?
Didn't Jesus, by his words recorded in John 8:58, claim to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? (Exodus 3:14)
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.