JW Insider

I think this is important, and especially the scriptures supporting this idea in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 13.
Also, I think it's easy to read what I said as a kind of "attack" on the "Governing Body" or even "the faithful and discreet slave." On the contrary, I think we should all appreciate the great good that is being done by the Governing Body, and all exemplary elders in leadership positions. I think that we should look back on what C.T.Russell did, and what he taught, and how he progressed, and see it with much appreciation for his efforts in the restoration of pure worship.
(1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. We should give him his due, just as we would all other exemplary persons who work hard in the interests of Jehovah's Kingdom through Christ Jesus. That was Russell's primary focus, and we benefit so much from his hard work. G.A. pointed out these same types of things that I have repeated here, too:
However, no one should need a TITLE for these things. Jesus said that all of you are brothers.
(Matthew 23:8) But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. Older men and other servants who met certain exemplary criteria would be used in the congregations to lead, shepherd, oversee, administer and teach. None of those things require a "title." But to say that one person or one small group of persons should be looked up to as "leaders" is something Jesus said was wrong.
I know there is a tendency to try to defend Russell (in his day) and the current Governing Body for every current teaching. The way in which the concept of "Governing Body" is used exacerbates this issue. But this is not the way that Jesus expected congregations to work. We can love and appreciate all teachings that we can accept with a clear conscience. Fortunately, that's a very high percentage. But some here have argued that we must accept every "wind of teaching" even the ones that have tossed us about this way and that way. (As all eschatological teachings have done.)
Look at the principles of local congregational direction and personal responsibility that Jesus expected of each congregation in the examples in Revelation:
(Revelation 2:1,2,6) “To the angel of the congregation in Ephʹe·sus write: These are the things that he says who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: 2 ‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . . 6 Still, you do have this in your favor: that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:14, 15) 14 “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, . . . 15 In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus.
(Revelation 2:24) 24 “‘However, I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching,. . . I am not putting on you any other burden. 25 Just the same, hold fast to what you have until I come.
We can be very appreciative of all the wonderful things we have learned from work done and distributed by the Governing Body, but Jesus implies that he might still take us to task for following teachings that we should have known were not right. I mean it as an exaggeration, of course, but notice how not-so-different these verses just quoted from Revelation are from a make-believe verse that might have said:
"Still you have this in your favor: that you have adhered to the teachings from my Word which you have learned from the beginning. Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching charts of Brother Splane.

If you believe the Watch Tower publications, however, you would have to agree that he actually did claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." I know you have already seen the quotes in "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" that the WTS published, along with reports from his funeral, Convention reports from both before and after his death, and A. H. MacMillan's book "Faith on the March."
Even though he did say it to some, he most certainly did not need to. Many of the most successful men of the 19th century were experts at "mock humility." In some situations it was considered the only "proper" way to communicate one's authority and title to others. One method was to always allow others to introduce your title.
(Colossians 2:18) 18 Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. He is actually puffed up without proper cause by his fleshly frame of mind, Teaching that there was only one person in his day who should be identified as that faithful and wise servant [faithful and discreet slave] who serves meat in due season [food at the proper time] is admittedly not an explicit claim on its own. But when you also identify your own writings as "meat in due season" and publish many letters addressing you as the "faithful and wise servant" you are merely making wise use of the 19th century methods. Even the admission that you can't let "modesty" keep you from explaining that there is only ONE individual "faithful and wise servant" rather than multiple "servants" is an obvious yet sufficiently humble "reveal."
I'm afraid we would just be repeating information already covered if we dug out all the sources again, but I'm sure you know them. The reason I quoted the scripture from Colossians is to discuss the danger, not just of false humility, but of something else, which is just as relevant today:
False humility can hide a haughtiness which is often accompanied by presumptuousness and a lack of wisdom and discretion. But you are probably also aware that Russell was worshiped as an angel. When the verse speaks of the worship of angels, we know that no one worshiped angels as the highest authority, but it was a kind of secondary worship based on lower levels in the hierarchy of Jehovah's creatures. This kind of worship should not be acceptable among Christians, yet Russell allowed it. He is never seen strongly speaking out against it.
It had to wait until Rutherford who said that one of the first things he wanted to do was change this cult mentality of worshiping Russell.
*** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight ***
Why, brother, if I [Rutherford] ever get out of here [prison], by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. *** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America ***
So it was understood that the “servant” God used to dispense spiritual food was a class. With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. [Strange that in 1975 the writer didn't feel free to admit directly that it was Russell himself who positioned this doctrine to be applied to himself, even if it was an issue where he allowed people close to him to promote at first.]
*** kr chap. 2 p. 23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him *** jv chap. 28 pp. 625-626 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
But you, Brother Rutherford, have a disposition which has no comparison with that of Brother Russell. Even your looks are different. It is not your fault. It was your birthday present, and you could not refuse it. . . . Did the Lord know what he was doing when he placed you at the head of affairs? He surely did. In the past we were all prone to worship the creature more than the Creator. The Lord knew that. So he placed a creature with a different disposition at the head of affairs, or I should say in charge of the work, the harvest work. You desire nobody to worship you. [I don't think it's true that so many were prone to worship the creature, Brother Russell, more than the Creator. But worshiping, or assigning reverence to an "angel" even if we know the relative place of that angel in the hierarchy, still detracts from the worship of the Creator. There is also an implication that Rutherford was different from Russell in that he did not desire to be worshiped, implying that perhaps Russell did very little to stop the worship and the development of a cult around him. I don't think this implication was intended, but I do believe there is some truth to it.]
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. On the topic of worshiping angels, this is a curious coincidence:
*** w85 7/15 p. 12 par. 11 “Let No Man Deprive You of the Prize” ***
A fourth-century council at nearby Laodicea found it necessary to declare: “Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and . . . call upon the names of angels. . . . If any one, therefore, be found to exercise himself in this private idolatry, let him be accursed.” However, fifth-century theologian and scholar Theodoret indicates that “this vice” of angel worship still existed there in his day. Places near Laodicea had an early problem with worship of angels, and I'm sure you know which angel Russell was associated with:
Rev 3:14 "And unto the angel [messenger] of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" KJV  Page 4 of the 1917 book, The Finished Mystery says:
Pastor Russell being the messenger of the Laodicean Church, and occupying the position of the Lord's special servant to give the Household of Faith meat in due season .... Page 53 of the same book says:
The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell, born February 16, 1852. He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth (p. 53).  

Russell appears to be grappling with the notion, (scripturally presented), that anointed Christians constitute the "body of Christ", in the context of Christ being termed the Head of that body, yet located in a different realm.. He also weaves in Paul's words regarding the transformation of humans "I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you" (Gal.4:19) and other such expressions. He appears to attach more significance to illustrative vocabulary concerning the earthly position of anointed Christians than is scripturally warranted. --   Gone Away
Based on Gone Away's digest, I am adding two cents. (I have not been able to read all.)
Russell, like Paul, sacrificed a lot for the good news. However he was clearly wrong if he appeared to be roping himself into that unique sacrifice that Jesus gave.
No other person could have done it.   The person had to be one who could replace Adam, a man made perfect by God.  (Deut 19:21)  None of the anointed is perfect in the flesh, though righteousness is credited to them. 
No imperfect man could give a ransom for another imperfect man.
(Psalm 49:7, ? None of them can ever redeem a brother Or give to God a ransom for him,  8 (The ransom price for their life is so precious That it is always beyond their reach);
  (Romans 6:8-11) 8 Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is no longer master over him. 10 For the death that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time, but the life that he lives, he lives with reference to God. 11 Likewise you, consider yourselves to be dead with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus.
 No one of the anointed can say he has no sin, so that he could offer himself as a sacrifice for sins.
 (1 John 1:8-10) 8 If we make the statement, “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we make the statement, “We have not sinned,” we are making him a liar, and his word is not in us.
 (1 John 2:1, 2) My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. 2 And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s.
 No other human sacrifice is required.  But God is well pleased with our bearing Kingdom fruit, including the fruit of lips
 (Hebrews 13:15, 16) 15 Through him let us always offer to God a sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of our lips that make public declaration to his name. 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices.
 ==== 
Perhaps Russell had a similar feeling to Paul?
 (Galatians 4:19) my little children, for whom I am again experiencing birth pains until Christ is formed in you.
Similar thoughts (in my opinion):
 (2 Corinthians 11:28) 28 Besides those things of an external kind, there is what rushes in on me from day to day: the anxiety for all the congregations.
 (2 Corinthians 11:1, 2) . . .! 2 For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ. . .
 Ephesians 4:11-16) And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, 13 until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.
N.B. Russell's knowledge was imperfect, but gave him enough zeal to make a start in the restoration of true worship; at one point the apostle Paul's knowledge was imperfect too, though greatly superior to Russell's but he did very well in spearheading the work when redirected by Jesus and his letters are still guiding us today. However, Paul said he was looking  as though through a metal mirror but eventually would know accurately and face-to-face. Very encouraging!
(1 Corinthians 13:12, 13) 12 For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love.

I really appreciated the info you provided on the first two versions of Paton's book. The third one was in 1890, and appears to match the timing of an article by Russell in the May 1890 Watch Tower where Russell reviews the history with Barbour and Paton in an article called "Sifting the Wheat." He mentions these first two versions of Day Dawn, and how it came about that he finally stopped accepting articles from Paton and stopped distributing his book which favored a view of the Ransom that came closer to Barbour's view (Restitution without Substitution).
Are you indicating that he was NOT arguing in favor of himself being viewed as the FDS[FWS]? Even the article just mentioned in 1890 says that Russell wanted to personally be God's "mouthpiece," God's "instrument," and he said that the frame of mind he put himself into, back in 1881, allowed him to receive the correct and harmonious understanding "and no one has ever yet been able to find a flaw in it." Of course, Russell then ties this new understanding to several ideas about the ransom that we now find flawed, including the very topic implied in the title of this thread [OP]. Russell said several things about the ransom sacrifice that we would now find just about as ridiculous as the view of the ransom that Barbour held, including the idea that this ransom sacrifice was not completed by Jesus, but would include the sacrifices of the joint-sacrificers.
I understand completely that most of Russell's ideas had a basis in Scripture, even if some of his interpretations of those Scriptures were unwarranted. I defend and appreciate the long view of what Russell was involved with, but I can't always see a way or even a reason to defend him for those unwarranted interpretations. As Paul puts it in Galatians 1: 'after all, is it men I am trying to please, or God?'
In other words, I don't see the same parallel you see: that both Russell and the modern Governing Body struggled to understand Matthew 24:45 in a way to avoid an awkward view. From what I can see, the only parallel is that ultimately both Russell and the GB made the same mistake, a mistake that makes Matthew 24:45 even more awkward in trying to explain it in context, and when trying to keep it from contradicting the rest of the Bible.
A much less awkward understanding had already been available to and accepted by Russell for many years prior to his view that he personally was acting as the FDS/FWS.
Claiming that the FDS/FWS was one individual, and accepting himself as the one person who could then claim that role, is about as awkward as @TrueTomHarley claiming that because he once had a good neighborly experience taking care of a robbery victim, that he is, individually in his person, the "True Neighbor" of Luke 10:29-37.
Just as "True Tom" can claim to be the "True Neighbor" that answers the question: "Who really is my neighbor?" the Governing Body can claim to be the answer to the question "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"
[See how dangerous it is to join this thread, TTH?]

I really appreciated the info you provided on the first two versions of Paton's book. The third one was in 1890, and appears to match the timing of an article by Russell in the May 1890 Watch Tower where Russell reviews the history with Barbour and Paton in an article called "Sifting the Wheat." He mentions these first two versions of Day Dawn, and how it came about that he finally stopped accepting articles from Paton and stopped distributing his book which favored a view of the Ransom that came closer to Barbour's view (Restitution without Substitution).
Are you indicating that he was NOT arguing in favor of himself being viewed as the FDS[FWS]? Even the article just mentioned in 1890 says that Russell wanted to personally be God's "mouthpiece," God's "instrument," and he said that the frame of mind he put himself into, back in 1881, allowed him to receive the correct and harmonious understanding "and no one has ever yet been able to find a flaw in it." Of course, Russell then ties this new understanding to several ideas about the ransom that we now find flawed, including the very topic implied in the title of this thread [OP]. Russell said several things about the ransom sacrifice that we would now find just about as ridiculous as the view of the ransom that Barbour held, including the idea that this ransom sacrifice was not completed by Jesus, but would include the sacrifices of the joint-sacrificers.
I understand completely that most of Russell's ideas had a basis in Scripture, even if some of his interpretations of those Scriptures were unwarranted. I defend and appreciate the long view of what Russell was involved with, but I can't always see a way or even a reason to defend him for those unwarranted interpretations. As Paul puts it in Galatians 1: 'after all, is it men I am trying to please, or God?'
In other words, I don't see the same parallel you see: that both Russell and the modern Governing Body struggled to understand Matthew 24:45 in a way to avoid an awkward view. From what I can see, the only parallel is that ultimately both Russell and the GB made the same mistake, a mistake that makes Matthew 24:45 even more awkward in trying to explain it in context, and when trying to keep it from contradicting the rest of the Bible.
A much less awkward understanding had already been available to and accepted by Russell for many years prior to his view that he personally was acting as the FDS/FWS.
Claiming that the FDS/FWS was one individual, and accepting himself as the one person who could then claim that role, is about as awkward as @TrueTomHarley claiming that because he once had a good neighborly experience taking care of a robbery victim, that he is, individually in his person, the "True Neighbor" of Luke 10:29-37.
Just as "True Tom" can claim to be the "True Neighbor" that answers the question: "Who really is my neighbor?" the Governing Body can claim to be the answer to the question "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"
[See how dangerous it is to join this thread, TTH?]

I really appreciated the info you provided on the first two versions of Paton's book. The third one was in 1890, and appears to match the timing of an article by Russell in the May 1890 Watch Tower where Russell reviews the history with Barbour and Paton in an article called "Sifting the Wheat." He mentions these first two versions of Day Dawn, and how it came about that he finally stopped accepting articles from Paton and stopped distributing his book which favored a view of the Ransom that came closer to Barbour's view (Restitution without Substitution).
Are you indicating that he was NOT arguing in favor of himself being viewed as the FDS[FWS]? Even the article just mentioned in 1890 says that Russell wanted to personally be God's "mouthpiece," God's "instrument," and he said that the frame of mind he put himself into, back in 1881, allowed him to receive the correct and harmonious understanding "and no one has ever yet been able to find a flaw in it." Of course, Russell then ties this new understanding to several ideas about the ransom that we now find flawed, including the very topic implied in the title of this thread [OP]. Russell said several things about the ransom sacrifice that we would now find just about as ridiculous as the view of the ransom that Barbour held, including the idea that this ransom sacrifice was not completed by Jesus, but would include the sacrifices of the joint-sacrificers.
I understand completely that most of Russell's ideas had a basis in Scripture, even if some of his interpretations of those Scriptures were unwarranted. I defend and appreciate the long view of what Russell was involved with, but I can't always see a way or even a reason to defend him for those unwarranted interpretations. As Paul puts it in Galatians 1: 'after all, is it men I am trying to please, or God?'
In other words, I don't see the same parallel you see: that both Russell and the modern Governing Body struggled to understand Matthew 24:45 in a way to avoid an awkward view. From what I can see, the only parallel is that ultimately both Russell and the GB made the same mistake, a mistake that makes Matthew 24:45 even more awkward in trying to explain it in context, and when trying to keep it from contradicting the rest of the Bible.
A much less awkward understanding had already been available to and accepted by Russell for many years prior to his view that he personally was acting as the FDS/FWS.
Claiming that the FDS/FWS was one individual, and accepting himself as the one person who could then claim that role, is about as awkward as @TrueTomHarley claiming that because he once had a good neighborly experience taking care of a robbery victim, that he is, individually in his person, the "True Neighbor" of Luke 10:29-37.
Just as "True Tom" can claim to be the "True Neighbor" that answers the question: "Who really is my neighbor?" the Governing Body can claim to be the answer to the question "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?"
[See how dangerous it is to join this thread, TTH?]

I agree, which is why I made the comment that it was not necessarily even unscriptural. It just "sounds" even more wrong when juxtaposed with so many other Matthew 24 interpretations he made.
Of course, I can't explain why he troubled himself to say that this also made it appropriate to apply to himself and others of the "high calling" additional titles such as "Eternal Father" and "The Prophet Greater than Moses." And it seems to diminish the sacrifice that Jesus made when men such as Russell would claim to be a necessary part of that great propitiatory sacrifice. Very few members of that class that we identify as the modern anointed remnant since the late 1800's, including Russell, have ever "sacrificed" even a tiny fraction compared to what Jesus sacrificed. The most well-known of that class among us in more recent decades have spent the greater part of their life in the comfort of an organizational bureaucracy.

The Book of Hebrews

Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
 
? Proof of Trinitarian Error
Trinitarians claim God the Father addresses Jesus as "God" in this verse.
? The Claims vs. The Facts
The facts show that the Trinitarian interpretation and translation is impossible and the writer is rather describing how the exalted Jesus now has the authority of God's throne.
? The Problems with the claims of Trinitarians
Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6.
Side-by-side
Hebrews 1:8 - But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Psalms 45:6 - Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; The above translation of Hebrews 1:8 is another example of Trinitarian translation bias. Here they outrageously try to claim that God the Father is addressing Jesus as "O God." This translation crudely violates the context for the sake of Trinitarian tradition.
1. The Greek Grammar and Intentional Translation Bias

Concerning Hebrews 1:8, Trinitarian apologists are somewhat pretentious and would have you believe their "O God" translation is the only possible translation. So they always cherry pick the vocative "O God" translation for their apologetic agenda. However, Trinitarian Greek translation scholars openly admit the Greek grammar does indeed allow for a different translation. Trinitarian scholars admit that "God is your throne (or Your throne is God) is grammatically correct (see Robertson or Westcott for example). Some of these scholars also concede that it makes theological sense. This is also evidenced by a review of various major translations. The RSV translates Psalm 45:6 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever." The NRSV footnote for Psalm 45:6 reads, "Your throne is a throne of God" and the Hebrews 1:8 footnote reads, "God is your throne."
NOTE: Some grammarians have even argued that the vocative is an artificial category created by translators. In other words, they argue that it is a category which is an English speaking convention which would have never been conceived in a Koine Greek speaker's mind.
The word "throne" in Scripture
With the exception of a few informed scholars, Trinitarians generally seem to dismiss the "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God," translation because they can't imagine how God could be Jesus Christ's throne. Some even conclude this is silly because, they object, it would have God being used as Jesus' chair (throne). However, the ignorance is actually their own. The problem is that they are equating the word "throne" with a chair to sit upon. This notion comes from ignorance concerning the use of the word "throne" in the Scripture.
David and Solomon sat on "the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah we see this in the 2 verses that will be mention below
1 Chronicles 29:23 - Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD [YHWH] as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him. 2 Chronicles 9:8 - Blessed be the LORD [YHWH] your God, who has delighted in you and set you on his throne as king for the LORD [YHWH] your God! Because your God loved Israel and would establish them forever, he has made you king over them, that you may execute justice and righteousness.” And these two sat over the Kingdom of God,
1 Chronicles 28:5 - And of all my sons (for the LORD [YHWH] has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD [YHWH] over Israel.  
This does not mean they sat on God's chair in heaven. To sit on a throne means one assumes the authority signified by that throne. When David and Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah it meant they were given the right to execute the authority of God's throne over the nation of Israel, that is, God's authority over Israel. God promised David that He would establish his throne forever (2 Samuel 7:13,16) but it doesn't mean God is establishing a chair. It means God will establish David's Kingdom authority. When Benaiah says, "may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my Lord King David!" (1 Kings 1:36), he isn't suggesting that Solomon will have a better chair to sit on than David. When Gabriel informs Virgin Mary that God will give baby Jesus the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32), he wasn't suggesting that God was going to give a chair to Jesus. The word "throne" is a reference to kingly authority. Also see Colossians 1:16 were "thrones" are in a list of varies authorities. When Jesus said he sat down with his Father on His throne (Revelation 3:21), the main idea is not that Jesus squeezed up beside the Father on the Father's chair in heaven. The point is that Jesus assumed the authority signified by that throne and was given the right to execute his God's authority. And this is the concept expressed by the translations, "God is your throne," or "Your throne is God."
It is important to recognize how the word "throne" is used in the Bible and for the reader to see that the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is implicitly based on a false premise. A physical throne symbolizes kingly authority. The word "throne" at Hebrews 1:8 is being used to refer to authority not where Jesus is physically sitting. This is made obvious by the immediate context, "...the scepter of your Kingdom..." To be given a throne is a way of saying someone is given kingly authority. So a translation which says, "Your throne is God" would not be saying, "The place where you sit is God" as Trinitarians are necessarily presuming in their objections and or claims. Rather, this language would be a way of saying either:
(1) Jesus' authority is God" (God is over Jesus in terms of authority), or (2) Jesus' authority is God's authority granted by God to Jesus to execute (just as Joseph's authority was Pharaoh's authority). In context, the latter of the two would make the most sense. When it is clearly understood how the word "throne" is being used here, and in places like Luke 1:32, it is also clearly seen why the Trinitarian objection to the "God is your throne" translation is feeble at best.
2. Psalms 45:6

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 45:6-7. The 45th Psalm celebrates an ancient Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia. This event occurred a several centuries before Jesus was born. The identity of the king in question is uncertain but most scholars think it is probably Solomon. So if we translated the Greek text as Trinitarians do, it would look like the following:
So shall we conclude that Solomon was being called "God"? To claim that Jesus is being called "God" at Hebrews 1:8 is to also claim Solomon is being called "God" at Psalm 45:6. That just isn't going to make any sense whatsoever. Or perhaps we should add Solomon to the Trinity and end up with a Quadrinity? An honest person will see the seriousness of the problem here, even to the point of calling out such problem, should need be.
"Dual" Prophecy
Like many Psalms, this refers to both the ancient Davidic King and the Messiah. This is common in Scripture and this type of thing is commonly called "dual prophecy" with a "near and far fulfillment." God's promise to David at 2 Samuel 7:11-14 is said in Scripture to be fulfilled in Solomon as well as Jesus.
2 Samuel 7:11-14 - (11) from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. (12) When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. (13) He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (14) I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, Isaiah 7:14 was necessarily fulfilled in the days of King Ahaz, as a sign to Ahaz, but was also fulfilled when Jesus was born.
Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 42:1 is obviously referring to Israel but Matthew applies the verse to Jesus (because he is the King of the Jews). Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled in both Israel and Jesus. These are but a few of several examples.
Isaiah 42:1 - The Lord's Chosen Servant - Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. Hosea 11:1 - The Lord's Love for Israel - When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. Psalm 45:6 is referring to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If we assume that King is Solomon, it would be disingenuous to say the language used here means "Jesus is God" but deny the same language means "Solomon is God." Hence, the only reasonable conclusion is that Solomon is not being called God and neither is Jesus.
David and Solomon were God's Christ, His Anointed One. This meant they were given the right to sit on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20-23). In other words, they ruled on God's behalf; they executed God's authority. This occurred because Israel had rejected God as their King (1 Samuel chapter 8th) and wanted a human king. The result was that God did his ruling through a human king. This fact is very significant to a thoughtful interpretation of Psalm 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8.
3. God's God

A very serious problem with the Trinitarian translation is the resulting implications of their translation.
Hebrews 1:8-9 - (8) But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. (9) You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” The result of this translation is that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God's God would make God to be above God's peers. It's unbelievably ludicrous in multiple ways.
Even further, if we follow the "O God" translation to it's logical conclusion, we have even more preposterous consequences. Consider verses such as Psalm 43:4,
Psalm 43:4 - Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy, and I will praise you with the lyre, O God, my God. In Scripture, when anyone addresses the God of Israel as "O God" it means they are acknowledging that the addressee is their God. For this reason, it is absurd to suggest God the Father would address anyone as "O God" since it would imply the son is the Father's God.
The Trinitarian translation results in a situation where God addressed someone else as God and then says that God's God anoints God so that God will be above God's peers. Let the reader appreciate the utter implausibility of such a claim.
4. Translation Inconsistency

Another problem with the Trinitarian claim is translation inconsistency. At Hebrews 1:8-9, the Greek term ho theos ("the god") occurs 3 times. The term ho theos ("the God") is the usual Greek way of referring to God in the Bible and our English word "God" without the article is the normal way to translate this Greek term with the understanding that capital "G" God is an English way of referring to "the God" (although we sometimes translate it as "the God"). Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "God" in verse 9. More technically, they are inconsistently interpreting ho theos as "O God" in verse 8 but as "the God" in verse 9.
The Greek term ho theos normally means "the God" but Trinitarians would have it that here it means "O God." But there is no reason to translate this Greek term in this manner except to promote a man-made tradition, that is, the doctrine of the Trinity.
It should be clear to every reasonable and honest person that the above facts demonstrate that something is very amiss about Trinitarian claims concerning Hebrews 1:8-9 (Psalm 45:6-7). Trinitarians admit that "Your throne is God" is a grammatically viable translation. Some also confess it also makes contextual sense. And their standard objection to this translation is based on a naïve presumption. Hebrews 1:8-9 quotes Psalm 45:6-7 which is about an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. If these words identify Jesus as "God" then they also identify another human being as "God" who lived hundreds of years before Jesus. And if Jesus is being identified as God, then the Father is being identified as God's God which is ridiculous. The implications of the "O God" rendering catapults the passage into absurdity. By definition, God cannot have someone else as his God when there is only one God. And again, it is also clear that Trinitarians are inconsistently translating ho theos in two different ways within this selfsame passage. Even further, it is clear that this chapter is about a man who became superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4) not the one God who always is/was superior to His angels. Facts like these show us that the Trinitarian claim is based on spin rather than facts.
Analyzing the Facts
1. The Greek Text
2. The Structure of Psalm 45:6-7 & Hebrews 1:8-9
 
Also note the parallelism between "the throne of you ho theos" and "God, your God, has anointed you." Each of the ancient Davidic Kings such as Saul, David, Solomon, were God's Anointed One. Each of these men were the Anointed as Kings of Israel, God's Chosen King, God's Anointed One. Read into these verses:
1 Samuel 2:10; 10:1, 12:3,5; 15:17, 16:12-13; 24:6,10, 26:9,11,16,23 2 Samuel 1:14,16,21 2 Samuel 23:1 Psalm 2:2, 18:50, 89:20 God anointed David with the Holy Spirit and it was by this Spirit which David ruled and judged God's Kingdom of God, that is, the Kingdom of Israel. In this way, David and Solomon sat down on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah (1 Chronicles 29:23). This does not mean they sat on God's chair but they were given the authority of God's throne, the right to execute God's authority over His Kingdom, the nation of Israel. This throne authority was given to the Davidic King when God anointed these men with His Holy Spirit. Their throne was the fact that God had anointed them to rule as Kings and God accomplished this anointing by bestowing the Spirit upon them. Men anointed these Kings with actual oil and God anointed them with His Spirit. The authority of their throne was God Himself since they ruled and judged by the Spirit of God. An actual literal throne symbolizes a King's authority and the word "throne" simply refers to their Kingly authority.
For example, when Gabriel announces that God will give to Jesus the throne of his father David, it means that God will give that same Kingly authority to Jesus, God's Anointed One. That Kingly authority was the anointing of God's Holy Spirit, that is, God Himself. Their Kingly authority is God, that is, each of these men were God's Anointed One and they were anointed by God with the Spirit of God to rule and judge by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God, God Himself, was their Kingly authority. Thus one could say to this Davidic King, "Your throne is God" or "God is your throne" since this means "Your Kingly authority is God Himself," or "God Himself is your Kingly authority."
The Davidic King's throne is the righteousness of God, that is, His rule is the righteousness of God. His scepter is the righteousness of God. The Davidic King ruled and judged by the Spirit of God in which God had anointed him.
1 Samuel 16:13 - Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah. Compare the following and note how Hebrews 1:8 is expressing the same idea:
3. The Context
In the book of Hebrews, the writer refers to how Jesus sat down at the right hand of the throne of God several times:
Now observe how Hebrews 1:8 fits into the immediate context of Hebrews chapter 1:
It should be clear to anyone that the same idea is being presented in all three of these verses. And the same idea is presented here as well:
Let us not forget that these words were spoken to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day at Psalm 45:6. The Davidic King sat "on the throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" over "the Kingdom of Yahweh/Jehovah" (1 Chronicles 29:23, 2 Chronicles 9:8, 1 Chronicles 28:5, 2 Chronicles 13:8). God had promised King David that his descendant would sit on this throne, that is, he would have this Kingly authority. And Gabriel confirms that this promise to David was about to be fulfilled when baby Jesus was born, the son of David. As David had sat down on God's throne, Jesus would sit down on God's throne. This throne is a divinely established throne because the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, is Anointed by God to rule and judge in His name. He is God's representative and or spokesman, His chosen King. His Kingly authority is God Himself because this King is Anointed by God in the Holy Spirit to rule and judge in His name.
The Hebrew writer's point throughout this chapter is that God made the risen Jesus superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4,6,8-9,13). The word "throne" signifies kingly authority. The risen Jesus' authority is the authority of God's throne. Such authority is greater than the authority of the angels.
4. The Davidic Divine Throne: David, Solomon, Jesus the son of David

It also needs to be understood that the word "throne" does not simply mean a fancy chair to sit upon. For example, the angel Gabriel stated that Jesus would receive the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32-33; see also Psalm 94:20). This doesn't mean he would receive a chair to sit upon but that he would assume the position of the Davidic King just as David was King over Israel. The word "throne" refers to a position of authority and indicates Kingly authority.
1 Kings 1:37 -  As the Lord has been with my lord the king, even so may he be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord King David.”
At Hebrews 1:8, the throne in question is a reference to the Kingly authority of God. When he rose from the dead, Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). To sit at "the right hand of God" means Jesus was given the right to execute God's authority, the authority of God's throne. The words "right hand of God" indicate that this authority is not inherently his to execute but that God has appointed him to execute this authority much like Pharaoh did with Joseph. In other words, Joseph ruled Egypt on behalf of Pharaoh and the risen Jesus now rules creation on behalf of God the Father. To be at the right hand of God means that the authority is inherently God the Father's but Jesus was given the right to execute that authority in the same way Joseph ruled on Pharaoh's behalf.
Genesis 41:40-43 - (40) You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” (41) And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” (42) Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph's hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. (43) And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. Additionally, verse 9 indicates God anointed Jesus to be above his peers. This is a Biblical way of saying God anointed Jesus as King just as the ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to rule over Israel sitting on the throne of God. Jesus was anointed to sit on the throne in question in verse 8, that is, to execute the authority of the throne of God. In light of these facts, the words "the throne of you ho theos" is quite obviously to say that Jesus has been given the authority of his God's throne.
The ancient Davidic Kings were anointed to sit on the throne of God over Israel; the risen Jesus, promised son of David, was anointed to sit on the throne of God over all creation - "your throne ho theos". Jesus sat down on his Father's throne (Revelations 3:21). Indeed, this concept is the main idea in this chapter and into the next (Hebrews 1:3,8,13; 2:5-9). The God (ho theos placed Jesus over all the works of His hands (Hebrews 1:1-13; 2:5-9). The way this is done is to grant him the authority of the Father's throne, God's throne, "Your throne ho theos."
5. Manuscript Evidence

There is a very important manuscript variant reading of verse 8 (p46; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc.). This is represented by the NASB which reads "HIS Kingdom instead of "your Kingdom." If this is the correct manuscript reading, it would mean the writer was quoting a version of the Septuagint with this reading. So should it read "Your Kingdom" or "His Kingdom"? This is very significant since the throne in question in this verse is the throne of the Kingdom, God's Kingly throne. It appears that the best manuscript evidence may favor "His Kingdom" which grammatically can be taken to refer to the Father's Kingdom. If "His Kingdom" is the correct reading, then it is even more clear that the first instance of ho theos in verse 8 refers to God the Father and the vocative translation "O God" is not correct. This fact has also been acknowledged by Trinitarian academics. The pronoun "His" would be referring back to the Father in the phrase "the throne of you ho theos" which means this phrase refers to the Father's Kingly throne which the risen Jesus sat down upon in order to rule God the Father's Kingdom. See verses Hebrews 1:10-13 and 2:7-8 (see Psalms 8:6) where it says the risen Jesus was placed over the works of the Father's hands. Since Psalms 45 is being quoted here, one should not overlook the fact that this is also the scenario when David and Solomon sat on the throne of God ruling over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:20, 23). It is no surprise then that the Hebrews writer is quoting Psalms 45:6-7 where the context shows us that it refers to an ancient Davidic King on his wedding day. Indeed, David/Solomon ruled over God's Kingdom ("His Kingdom") have sat down on God's throne.
It is also interesting that the "throne of Yahweh/Jehovah" which David sat upon is also called the "throne of David" in the Scriptures. Notice how the same concept at Revelations 3:21.
The Old Testament tells us that God's Christ, David and/or Solomon, sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God. This means they were granted the right by God to execute the authority of their God's Kingly throne as His Christ, His Anointed One, that person whom God chose to rule over His Kingdom, the people of Israel. At Hebrews 1:8-9, writer is quoting Psalms 45 which is referring to an ancient Davidic King on His wedding day (see scholarly commentaries). These facts about the ancient Davidic King fit perfectly with God and His Christ, Jesus, the promised son of David. Read 2 Samuel 7:11-14.

With those particular Scriptural facts in mind, and since God's throne signifies His Kingly authority just as it did in the days of David, this would mean the risen Jesus was given the right to execute God the Father's authority. And that is what the rest of the verse is alluding to, "the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His Kingdom." This means Jesus is given the right to execute authority over all the works of the Father's hands. And that is precisely what the writer goes on to emphasize (Hebrews 2:5-9).
6. God is your throne

Trinitarian apologists have illustrated their ignorance here many times. It is not uncommon to see them mocking, rave and rant over people, one of their primary targets being the Jehovah's Witnesses and their Watchtower translation (The New World Translation/NWT) by supposing it means Jesus' throne is God and Jesus therefore sits on God. The Trinitarian ignorance here is stunning, obvious and continues to be quite absurd for the sake of their doctrine. Regard the following verse for example:
Luke 1:32 - He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
The words "God is your throne" or "Your throne is God" mean that Jesus Christ's authority is the Kingly authority of God. He executes God the Father's authority. David sat on the throne of God over the Kingdom of God (1 Chronicles 28:5, 29:23). For that reason, all Israel bowed down and worshiped (proskuneo) Yahweh/Jehovah and King David (1 Chronicles 29:20). This means that David executed God's authority on God's behalf much like Joseph ruling on behalf of Pharaoh. This is also what is happening at Psalms 45:6-7 where the Psalmist is speaking to the Davidic King on his wedding day. He sits on the throne of God, the God of Israel. And that is what the language of Hebrews 1:8 means. "Your throne is God" means that he has been given the Kingly authority of God, his God.
Conclusion

When all the facts are laid out before us, the truth of the matter is plain and it should be evident to the reasonable mind that the weight of the evidence is heavily against the absurd Trinitarian translation. The Trinitarian translation not only results in an absurd statement concerning God's God, it results in an ancient Davidic King (Psalms 45) who lived long before Jesus being called "God." Trinitarians inconsistently translate ho theos at Hebrews 1:8-9 and the implications are that God has a God and God's God anoints God so that God will make God to be above God's peers. It's ridiculous on the face of it.
However, when we understand how Scripture uses the word "throne" to refer to Kingly authority, and when we understand that the Davidic King, whether David or Jesus, was anointed by God in His Holy Spirit to rule and judge, the verdict is clear and undeniable. The Davidic King's, throne, his Kingly authority to rule, is God Himself who rules and judges through his human King because He has anointed that King by His Spirit to do so (i.e. "God is your throne"). His Kingly authority is God, his throne is God. He executes the authority of God's throne, that is, the Davidic King executes his God's authority and he is anointed to do so by the Holy Spirit of God. The Kingly authority by which he rules is the authority/throne of God Himself. This Kingly authority means that the King's judgments are thereby God's judgment because God has given the King this authority to make these judgements. Hence it says, "Your throne ho theos." Moreover, the manuscript evidence strongly suggests the verse is not only referring to the Father's throne but to "His Kingdom". Since God's throne signifies His Kingdom authority, the verdict concerning this verse should be clear.
Additional Notes:
 
 

I agree. The influence of Henry Grew on Russell is clear, even if some of it came indirectly through others. There are a lot of parallels and several probable dependencies in Russell's writings to those of Grew although I don't recall if Russell ever quotes him directly.
George Stetson was also anti-Trinitarian, and even George Storrs appears to be non-Trinitarian or at least neutral. Russell was probably non-Trinitarian or neutral in a way similar to George Storrs up until sometime prior to 1882 when Russell writes his own article defending against the Trinity. This was almost immediately after Paton left, so it's likely his mind was clearly made up well before 1882.
*** jv chap. 28 p. 620 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
Two years later, [1881] Paton, who was then serving as a traveling representative of the Watch Tower, also began to turn away, thereafter publishing a book (his second one entitled Day Dawn) . . . [It's the only mention of Day Dawn in the Proclaimers book, and therefore implies that it was only published after Paton left the Watch Tower.]

I really liked him. That's because back when I was just 21, he gave me an assignment to help set up the pre-press, typesetting, and "art" department at the branch in Athens in 1978. This was right in the middle of a vacation which I would spend traveling with a member of the GB and his family for the first few weeks through London, Paris, Barcelona, Nice, and Rome. Then this assignment in Athens (which I honestly didn't deserve) and the last few weeks traveling in 7 additional countries, staying with Witness families and at the Branches. I was born in California but grew up mostly in Missouri, so this was more than I could have hoped for. Because of the extra assignments, I ended up with a 6-week "vacation" after only earning a 3-week vacation.
Everyone said Songer was educated as an engineer, and I liked him for his sense of humor. (Most engineers have one as a prerequisite to getting along in their future jobs.) He reminded me of my father, an electrical engineer with a similar sense of humor. Good times!

Seems Paton published a first edition in 1880 prior to his defection. This edition was endorsed by Russell and was obtainable direct from the publisher or brokered through the WTS.
A second, revised edition was proposed in Aug 1881.  The text of the revision was objectionable to Russell, particularly a new chapter entitled The Atonement which was seen as implying a denial of Christ's Ransom.Both Russell and the original publisher refused further involvement with Paton. Paton then decided to publish the revised book himself. Paton gives the reason for his revision in a later issue of his magazine:
"Since sending out the first edition, by a careful examination of the Word, my mind had undergone a change as to the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, and the Atonement. I did not deny the Ransom, as some have positively affirmed, but only denied the correctness of their, and my own former theory of the matter. I now saw that the idea of Substitution, or that Christ died instead of mankind, was unscriptural and untrue, as we all die. The unity of Christ, as the Second Man, with the whole race, I saw to be the Apostolic idea, so that all died and rose in him. So this fundamental and vitalunion with Christ, as the basis of a practical and experimental at-one-ment with, or reconciliation to God, took the place of substitution in DAY DAWN, when revised." The World’s Hope. February 15, 1890. (Volume 8, number 4).

GA asks, "Isn't this an exceptional case? Apart from obvious censuring of [apostates] within the Christian congregation at that time, am I overlooking another similar example in Scripture?"

Well, if so, then it's quite an “exception,” don't you think? If we want to look at "Scripture" in an overall sense, we have the prophets openly chastising the Israelite and Judean kings repeatedly, even a faithful one like David, right? Elihu castigating the “righteous man” Job, eh? Then there are those letters in Rev. 2-3. Only two congs there come up looking well, and again the accounts are public condemnations since they were written in Revelation and circulated widely.

But I think the book of Acts itself may be the greatest example. Before entering into that matter, a bit of background is necessary. I partake of biblical scholarship in the wide meaning of the term. By that I mean not just stale 19th-century commentaries that predate critical scholarship but real, current biblical scholarship, not foolishly accepting whatever such ones say (impossible to do anyway since such scholars are in frequent disagreement) but finding what is useful and true, separating the wheat from the chaff—all from the perspective of a faithful believer but also a genuinely critical thinker.

That said, there is much truth to the common contention among critical NT scholars about the book of Acts having a candy-coated bias that glosses over the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem heavies who preceded him in Christianity. In fact, for a faithful person this view has huge implications for why Jehovah did not have Jesus in contact with Paul while Jesus walked the earth—but then that is a separate matter.

Do you find it odd that nowhere in Acts is the Antioch incident ever mentioned? Or even Peter’s trip to Antioch? And then further “reinforcements” from James arriving there? Do you find it odd that Luke has a record at Acts 21:25 of James and the older men in Jerusalem telling Paul: “As for the believers among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication” when according to Acts Paul not only knew all this but was an active participant in forming such a decision? Wouldn’t that be like Fred Franz telling JFR in 1939 that not all had the heavenly hope but that there was a great crowd who would live on earth? (Sorry the parallel is not exact but it’s off the cuff.) My point here is that the book of Acts is quite odd in multiple ways, and one of them is that the work really is an attempt to gloss over the heavy disagreements that existed within early Christianity among its leaders. Luke was a peacemaker who reduced the real tensions that existed to a spat between Paul and Barnabas over Mark—though even here we see the Jerusalem group (Barnabas and Mark) vs. Paul—and presented the early Christian leadership in an idealized manner. In reality it was regularly contentious, like BOE meetings frequently are today and like Ray Franz reports GB meetings often were in his day.

That’s all I have time for, but hopefully there are some things for you to think about here in response to your query.

@JW Insider This I will note because a source of my, Mr. Lite, among several of his sources CTR does not mention this (granted that his sources tend to be now dead-links since they are that old), never made any acknowledgment of this, well it was kind expected due how said source has been handled over the years.
Anyways, could it be possible also that Christian Teacher and Writer Henry Grew (1781-1862) also played a role in CTR being against the Doctrine of the Trinity as well? Grew's study in the Bible lead him to reject the teachings of mainstream Christendom, of which is practiced today by both mainstream and New Agers, which is, that he rejected the Trinity, Immortal Soul Doctrine (Immortality of the Soul), literal torment of Hellfire (Eternal torment) and a list of other things.
For people outside of the mainstream also share this view, if I may add.
A list of Grew's writings (there might be more, would have to check)
Christian Loyalty: A Sermon on Matthew XXII:21 Designed to Illustrate the Authority of Caesar and Jesus Christ (1810) An Examination of the Divine Testimony Concerning the Character of the Son of God (1824) A Tribute to the Memory of the Apostles, and an Exhibition of the First Christian Churches (1836) The Practices of the Early Christians Considered (1838) A Review of Phelps' Argument for the Perpetuity of the Sabbath (1844) The Intermediate State (1849), The Sabbath (1850) An Examination of the Divine Testimony on the Nature and Character of the Son of God (1855) An Appeal to Pious Trinitarians (1857) The Atonement (1859) Divine Dispensations, Past, Present and Future (1861)

Thanks, JWI, for the reply. Yes, this forum may be better than others I've visited. It has a number of haters and Jesus freaks but they have nothing to offer, truly the spiritually dead. What I like about it is the apparently small number of real thinkers who still have faith in scripture and a healthy, balanced view of the bros/org without slipping into the fantasyland that most Witnesses must live in.

The org today has reached a real nadir in its existence. The bros at the top are extremely limited, evidently more so than at any time of its past. Being such an authoritarian group, this manifests itself in the real lack of thought-provoking anything. I surely do not know what Jehovah has in mind for his people at this time, but the small element of faithful thinkers here seems like a real refreshment. In a sense, perhaps, a sort of "remnant"—ha!

JWI: "the work he was doing was blessed sometimes in spite of his efforts, rather than just because of his efforts. It's an expression you will still hear among the brothers in modern times, too, referring to how things still often work out for the best in spite of us apparently getting in the way of ourselves." Along the lines of the overall moral lesson to be gleaned from the Josephus saga (Gen. 45:5-8)? Other passages could be cited too.

So I guess I'll hang around for a while and give and take what I can, as I have the time from my other pressures in life.

Just posting this to see where it fits into the topic, if it fits in.  Just thought of it.
(Hebrews 11:26) because he considered the reproach of the Christ to be riches greater than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward.   
(Refers to one being sent on behalf of Jehovah, not to Jesus himself.)

 

Well, a partial answer can be found by considering:
Zephaniah 2:3: "Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger."
Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, and to walk in modesty with your God"
Jeremiah 29:10: "“‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope"
2Pet.2:8-9: "However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones............he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

Sure. The most pro-Trinitarian writing promoted by the Watch Tower Society actually came from the WT's assistant editor, Paton in 1880. Paton's writings in the Watch Tower supported the Trinity, and a book he authored, "The Day Dawn" was clearly Trinitarian although its main focus was to prepare the faithful for the prophecies pointing to 1881. Paton had also been Barbour's assistant editor until 1879 and both Barbour and Paton were unquestionably Trinitarian. Trinitarian-friendly wording even shows up in "Three Worlds" (the early collaboration between Russell and Barbour). It criticized the Christadelphians for not believing the Holy Spirit was a Person. Since the Proclaimers book distances the WTS from the "Day Dawn" I'll include just a bit of info about the book from before that publication, including this from the June 1880 WT. (emphasis mine.)
"The Day Dawn, or the Gospel in
Type and Prophecy."
The first copy of this work has just been received from the printer, and the entire edition of 4,000 copies will be ready for delivery by the time this paper reaches you. It is a more exhaustive and elaborate work than we had at first expected; more so by far than anything ever presented on the above topics, from our standpoint. It contains 334 pages in clear and distinct type. To give an idea of its size, we would say that it contains about three times as much matter as the "Three Worlds," a book familiar to most of our readers, now out of print. . . . we should say it is a work which will do an inestimable amount of good, and to many, will be an instructor second only to the Word of God. . . .  the subject is made so beautifully plain and clear, that many, we believe, will bless God for having been permitted to read it. It is divided into twenty-nine chapters, and like God's book, contains things "both new and old." "Price of Day Dawn, in paper covers, 50 cts.
" " " " cloth " 75 "
. . . We hope that every reader of the WATCH TOWER will avail himself at once of these liberal terms. The time arguments alone, clearly and plainly stated, should do you fifty dollars worth of good if not more. Those who can afford to do so, should keep a dozen copies on their loan list.  WT articles are seen promoting the book well into the year 1881. In fact, the oft-quoted article from 1881 "Wanted 1,000 Preachers" was part of a campaign to sell "Day Dawn" books and WT subscriptions. Note this quote from that article in April 1881:
  . . . as a work of kindness and love to them, endeavor to sell them the "Day Dawn," or to take their subscription for the "Watch Tower," *** w55 2/1 p. 76 Part 3—Expanding the Organization ***
While the Society had been circulating a bound book entitled “Day Dawn,” written by an early associate, J. H. Paton, it was decided for Russell to become writer of a new book to be called “Millennial Dawn,” which after many difficulties appeared in 1886 as Volume 1 of a promised series. In one point, the Day Dawn book stated (p.225):
The work of the Holy Spirit is one of the most important elements in the plan of revelation and salvation. He is always spoken of by the Saviour as a Person, and is called the "Spirit of truth." He inspired men to write or speak the truth; and second, He enables men to understand it. By comparing this with 1 Pet. 1:11, it will be seen that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are used interchangeably. The March 1880, WT had said:
There is and ever has been but one Christ. A change of nature does not change identity. Whether as the pre-existent One, as the Word made flesh, or as the High Priest who can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, He still is Lord, and as such we worship Him. "Ye call me Lord and Master," said He on earth, "and ye do well, for so I am. . . . to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong, for when He bringeth the first Begotten into the world, He sayeth, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And Again, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Of course, the idea that it was proper to worship Jesus Christ remained in the WT much longer and was even part of the amended corporate charter of 1944, and was explicitly a part of our teachings until 1953. (See, Make Sure of All Things, under the heading "Christ to be Worshipped as a Glorious Spirit") But this is not technically a  support of the Trinity. Combining this, however, with arguments in favor of seeing the Holy Spirit as a Person, would be supportive of the Trinity.

Sure. The most pro-Trinitarian writing promoted by the Watch Tower Society actually came from the WT's assistant editor, Paton in 1880. Paton's writings in the Watch Tower supported the Trinity, and a book he authored, "The Day Dawn" was clearly Trinitarian although its main focus was to prepare the faithful for the prophecies pointing to 1881. Paton had also been Barbour's assistant editor until 1879 and both Barbour and Paton were unquestionably Trinitarian. Trinitarian-friendly wording even shows up in "Three Worlds" (the early collaboration between Russell and Barbour). It criticized the Christadelphians for not believing the Holy Spirit was a Person. Since the Proclaimers book distances the WTS from the "Day Dawn" I'll include just a bit of info about the book from before that publication, including this from the June 1880 WT. (emphasis mine.)
"The Day Dawn, or the Gospel in
Type and Prophecy."
The first copy of this work has just been received from the printer, and the entire edition of 4,000 copies will be ready for delivery by the time this paper reaches you. It is a more exhaustive and elaborate work than we had at first expected; more so by far than anything ever presented on the above topics, from our standpoint. It contains 334 pages in clear and distinct type. To give an idea of its size, we would say that it contains about three times as much matter as the "Three Worlds," a book familiar to most of our readers, now out of print. . . . we should say it is a work which will do an inestimable amount of good, and to many, will be an instructor second only to the Word of God. . . .  the subject is made so beautifully plain and clear, that many, we believe, will bless God for having been permitted to read it. It is divided into twenty-nine chapters, and like God's book, contains things "both new and old." "Price of Day Dawn, in paper covers, 50 cts.
" " " " cloth " 75 "
. . . We hope that every reader of the WATCH TOWER will avail himself at once of these liberal terms. The time arguments alone, clearly and plainly stated, should do you fifty dollars worth of good if not more. Those who can afford to do so, should keep a dozen copies on their loan list.  WT articles are seen promoting the book well into the year 1881. In fact, the oft-quoted article from 1881 "Wanted 1,000 Preachers" was part of a campaign to sell "Day Dawn" books and WT subscriptions. Note this quote from that article in April 1881:
  . . . as a work of kindness and love to them, endeavor to sell them the "Day Dawn," or to take their subscription for the "Watch Tower," *** w55 2/1 p. 76 Part 3—Expanding the Organization ***
While the Society had been circulating a bound book entitled “Day Dawn,” written by an early associate, J. H. Paton, it was decided for Russell to become writer of a new book to be called “Millennial Dawn,” which after many difficulties appeared in 1886 as Volume 1 of a promised series. In one point, the Day Dawn book stated (p.225):
The work of the Holy Spirit is one of the most important elements in the plan of revelation and salvation. He is always spoken of by the Saviour as a Person, and is called the "Spirit of truth." He inspired men to write or speak the truth; and second, He enables men to understand it. By comparing this with 1 Pet. 1:11, it will be seen that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are used interchangeably. The March 1880, WT had said:
There is and ever has been but one Christ. A change of nature does not change identity. Whether as the pre-existent One, as the Word made flesh, or as the High Priest who can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, He still is Lord, and as such we worship Him. "Ye call me Lord and Master," said He on earth, "and ye do well, for so I am. . . . to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong, for when He bringeth the first Begotten into the world, He sayeth, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And Again, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Of course, the idea that it was proper to worship Jesus Christ remained in the WT much longer and was even part of the amended corporate charter of 1944, and was explicitly a part of our teachings until 1953. (See, Make Sure of All Things, under the heading "Christ to be Worshipped as a Glorious Spirit") But this is not technically a  support of the Trinity. Combining this, however, with arguments in favor of seeing the Holy Spirit as a Person, would be supportive of the Trinity.

I'm glad you found it thought provoking. That was the intent. What I like about a forum such as this is that a person can share the types of things that that have provoked one's own thoughts and then hear whether others have thought about the same, or if others agree or disagree with the thoughts. In the congregational setting, not all thought-provoking thoughts can be shared, or else they must be shared with great care, especially when one considers the counsel of Jesus to avoid stumbling others.
However, in a discussion forum such as this, a sincere person can ask any question, even one that might not have been asked in a congregational setting for fear of stumbling others.
There is nothing new in this topic, of course. Although it's something that's little known among most Witnesses.  The primary source is Watchtower publications, in this case.
So back to the idea of the content and style (or should we say "the object and manner") of the religious movement under Russell's leadership. Yes, one of the points is that Russell would most assuredly have stumbled many persons who tried to follow his leadership if they took him as seriously as he took himself. But, as you say, it also shows, as we often say, that the work he was doing was blessed sometimes in spite of his efforts, rather than just because of his efforts. It's an expression you will still hear among the brothers in modern times, too, referring to how things still often work out for the best in spite of us apparently getting in the way of ourselves. 
The idea that this religious movement could therefore be expected to "falter" and yet greatly succeeded is quite true. Of course, we realistically should also learn from the fact that it really did falter many times, with many great times of stumbling, sifting, false prophetic predictions, even teaching twisted private interpretations as doctrines, etc. Looking at the likely proportion of gains and losses among the brothers is infomative. Barbour and Russell knew that there could easily be as many as 50,000 Second Adventists who could be receptive to Barbour's eschatology. Barbour apparently was building up to a readership aiming at such a number when when his own 1874 "Disappointment" knocked his expectation from near 30,000 back to a readership of less than 5,000. Russell went straight for the 50,000 again when he initially teamed with Barbour in 1877, but another 1878 "Disappointment" put his expectation for his own paper (Zion's Watch Tower) at less than 8,000 when it started in late 1879. Membership built up again slowly, but specific doctrinal challenges evidently produced schisms linked to those doctrines.
For comparison, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists both came out of the same time period and built from the same "Burnt Over District" milieu as a foundation, and steadily gained converts on par with the Bible Students, and even passing them. Today, there are more active JWs than Mormons. (Mormons count 14.5 million, but only about 30% actively attend meetings.) SDA has grown to at least 25 million, 3 times the size of the Watchtower/Bible_Student/JW movement, perhaps even with a larger number actively attending meetings and joining in church activities. Yet JWs are successful in promoting an even greater level of weekly and monthly congregational and ministerial activity, even with only one-third the members.
Again, I mention all this unnecessary background because I wouldn't start counting the "success" back in Russell's time. The Watchtower often points to 1919 as a truer beginning of our current movement (after Russell died). I would put it just 15 years later, in 1934/5. Since then, the progress has been steady, and the doctrinal changes have been overwhelmingly positive. The movement since about 1934 has very few points of recognizable comparison to the movement under Russell. 
That said, I was not saying that Russell's "I am the Christ" claim, which he would share with others of the "high calling" was even Biblically incorrect. I don't fault it as a crazy doctrine. His basis was rational. It would have been easier for a more hesitant person to be concerned with what others might think of them for making such a claim, but he chose this interpretation over any fear of backlash because he must have thought it was right.
This reminds me of another idea Russell had that we might think is crazy now, but it showed a real faith in the outworking of God's "divine plan." Russell thought that he might be a ghost. That's how outsiders might interpret his idea that it was possible that he might wake up some morning in or after 1881, and actually be a spirit in the way that Jesus showed himself to the disciples after his resurrection, able to eat and drink and even show his old scars.  Russell apparently mused that he might not even know exactly when the "change" from flesh to a spirit creature had happened, if the anointed of the high calling were changed, but did not immediately ascend to heaven. It was a very odd view of how the rapture might work, athough a more traditional view of the rapture had been held in 1878 and 1881, and this expectation was finally put off until 1914 and then 1915.
Others can look at all these and just focus on the apparent "craziness" of it all. But we can also look at it with the idea that Russell must have had a solid, strong faith in the expectation surrounding the "fact" that Jesus really was present in 1874 and ready to act on behalf of the faithful. If he was some kind of charlatan building a religion to gain followers he would not have stuck his neck out. He would have been more concerned with consequences of being wrong. The same could be said for Rutherford's biggest mistake in predicting 1925. He must have had a real and strong faith in this particular interpretation of prophecy.

New here and I'm still learning the ropes, reading various one's posts and so on. I guess I should try my hand at a "Controversial Post" that might rile some readers. That's not really my motive. Rather it is to stimulate some thought. It is certainly not to damage anyone's faith.

On the OP by JWI here (https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/56691-i-am-the-christ/?tab=comments#comment-95352) Space Merchant brought up the matter of JWs being Restorationists. There is much truth to that, whether the org has always wanted to admit it or not. The question to deal with in such a case is how far any group is willing to go in that regard. For example, if a group today really wanted to go full bore in imitating the first Christians, would not those already in authority literally lay their hands upon newly appointed men? That’s what the earliest Christians did.

That's a relatively minor issue, but a larger one is my focus. Let's grant that the brothers today pretty much do try and imitate the first Christians. They have a history, however, of not always wanting to do so. For example, in Ray Franz's first book he relates that when he was working on the Aid book and went to his uncle about what he was discovering regarding how the first Christians governed themselves, he got a response that basically showed Fred Franz knew all along that the way the org had governed itself up to that point was not the way the earliest Christians did. His uncle stated that changes from the way the first Christians did things were acceptable, specifically, "since Christ had taken Kingdom power in 1914, there could rightly be changes in the way things were administered on earth" (CofC pp. 24-5, 1st ed.; p. 28, 4th ed.). This was over the institution of the bodies of elders arrangement, something that, to the org's credit they adopted so as to become more in harmony with the biblical view. It is worthy of note, however, that FF knew the earlier cong. servant system was unbiblical, for years felt that was okay, and only agreed to change it when others put pressure on him to do so.

So what about today? In spite of many criticisms by outsiders and grumpy people who leave for whatever reasons (and a few are surely legit, though most are probably not), the basic structure of a governing committee/board/body is in imitation of the Jerusalem group of original living apostles and other leading figures there. But is everything today like it was in the first century? Did that early GB never openly criticize each other before the flock as today's GB is so careful to avoid doing? The incident at Antioch shows otherwise (Gal. 2:11-14). Here we have one member of the GB, Paul, calling on the carpet quite openly, "before them all," Peter and other GB men from James. Not only did he do this publicly in Antioch but he then sent out a letter to the congregations in Galatia declaring what he did. Furthermore, he did this knowing that copies of that letter would be made and circulated elsewhere.

Just how does the GB's practice of governing God's people today imitate that model? Could you imagine today’s GB imitating the first Christians in this regard? If one tries to make an exception here and say that in this area, it's OK to depart from the biblical model, then is it not hypocritical to criticize other professed Christians for not following the earliest Christians' practice and celebrating holidays like Christmas and Easter, or failing to preach the Kingdom of God as a real government?

That should be something to think about that will qualify as a controversial topic! Remember, please, this is not posted to harm anyone's faith but to cause individuals to think.

To read the sidebar "I Am the Christ, by JW Insider" is disconcerting.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned another case, still in progress, where it was a 16-year-old female and about a 25-year-old brother. In this case the congregation is in legal trouble for having asked the girl to claim it was consensual, but the 25-year-old went on to abuse again. I don't know for sure, but I don't think in this case, there is an attempt to go after the elders, based on the assumption that the directive came from HQ.

There won't be any of Jehovah's Witnesses after Armageddon. only Jehovah's witnesses, presumably
And as for Abraham and David Splane's chart, I am sure he will be as interested in this as all of us are in Jacob's selective breeding theories. Gen.30:37-43.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned another case, still in progress, where it was a 16-year-old female and about a 25-year-old brother. In this case the congregation is in legal trouble for having asked the girl to claim it was consensual, but the 25-year-old went on to abuse again. I don't know for sure, but I don't think in this case, there is an attempt to go after the elders, based on the assumption that the directive came from HQ.

There you go! Unfortunately not tired, as I had hoped. 
Misquoting, misleading, blundering blather.... I'm not sure how to suggest a remedy for this kind of penchant for misrepresentation, other than to quote from your own post: " it sets the tone of the remainder of your opinion"