BETHEL'S BIG SECRET

[Space Merchant]

21 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Hi JWI. On page 10, SM wrote:

Example 3 [1925] - Now for example 3, it is the same reused, washed and rinsed rhetoric about Pastor Rutherford's Millions will Never Die...

I reacted with:

I’m not petty, but I’m surprised that such an informed and knowledgeable debater like you mistakenly names historical figures from the WT.
Russell was called Pastor, and Rutherford was called Judge.

Then two of our esteemed colleagues joined forces and performed a whole litany on what the word judge means and what the word pastor means. And so on.

As i respond to Dmitar, i have no problem if Russell's brethren using word "elder" in communication with Russell. My quote from JW library article just showed WHY Bible Students started to call Russell with title "Pastor". *

If my grammar contribute to misunderstanding, this would be easy to resolve. But I think the two of them have other needs.

If I may say this too: I am not making this comment to you in order for you to get involved in proving this or that reality. I simply respect you for what I think of you based on previous acquaintances through forum discussions.

*PS Pastor Russell but not Judge Russell vs Judge Rutherford but not Pastor Rutherford

I never brought up the term Elder, it was in regards to Rutherford's leadership for the Bible Students. JWI is aware of that because of a typo I made from responding to numerous responses you made in a 3 min span.

That being said, it is in regards to those who is the leader of a Christian congregation who also gives advice and counsel to people from the community or congregation.

You were even told some words today are not as used anymore, hence root.

Pastor and Judges are two different things, you were already told this, as to why he is noted as someone of Law, at Judge.

I do not join forces with anyone, I am myself and by myself.

On 2/16/2022 at 12:03 PM, Space Merchant said:

Pastor Rutherford (Joseph Franklin "Judge" Rutherford) was the second president (or leader) of the incorporated Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. He played a primary role in the organization and doctrinal development of Jehovah's Witnesses who came out of the Bible Student Movement (One of the movements that emerged from the Great Awakening/Revival). He only became one of Bible Students because he developed an interest in the teachings of Watch Tower Society's Pastor Russell, which led to his joining the Bible Student movement, and he was baptized in 1906. He also had a hand, using his Law Experience, for legal counsel.

The reason he was called A Judge was because he began his career in law, working as a Court Stenographer, as is with experience as a trial lawyer and prosecutor, in addition to that, he became a special judge in the 14th Judicial District of Missouri at some time after 1895.

 

I rather you not twist what I said.

[Srecko Sostar]

10 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

JWI is aware of that because of a typo I made from responding to numerous responses you made in a 3 min span.

So why didn't you say before that it was an obstacle for you. From now on, I will write slowly.  

[Space Merchant]

8 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So why didn't you say before that it was an obstacle for you. From now on, I will write slowly.  

We both already know the second president/leader of JWs was Rutherford, who continue to lead the Bible Students. I said this, and you were given question to which you ignored. The typo pertains to JWI and I alone, as seen in the latter page, including pages 9 and 10. Even previously, the mentioned of Tulsa.

There is no question that the second leader is known, more so, in that time period, therefore your citation of from JW.org only pertains to the president-day, not the 19th century. This is the same error which the YouTuber did. Be wise not to repeat this.

That being said, at last now with that response, it shows that you indeed were back peddling from the question of which now you attest otherwise. Thank you for proving that the mentioned of Rutherford in examples 1, 2 and 3 were indeed false of which Witness deem as true. You unexpectedly walked into that one, effectively disqualifying the video.

You were not typing past, you made responses to specific responses from point to point. Evidence, page 9.

Now where did you get the notation that I called Pastor Russell or Rutherford an Elder? This is why I stated you seem to be twisting what I said. As far as I know, only @Dmitar coined this, I mentioned Pastor, Judge and Deacon.

[Space Merchant]

@Witness @Srecko Sostar Because I take pity on the misguided, I suggest you read/look into the following. It does not matter whether you are a former, or current Jehovah's Witness, does not matter if you agree or disagree, but you both have to understand that a re-write of history is an extremely bad precedent; for I stated this to even the Black Hebrew Israelites. This precedent can lead to the category of denial of history/or distortion of the Holocaust. This also goes for the events that took place prior, and the unrelated Gobitis situation involving the American Constitution.

Example one, also refuted via this source

• https://www.history.com/news/tulsa-massacre-black-wall-street-before-and-after-photos
• http://www.dewaynewatts.com/home/the-lost-story-of-love-among-the-tulsa-1921-massacre

a source both JWI and I mentioned in the past:

• http://reddirtimports.blogspot.com/
• Granted both of you often times go to JW.org, here you go - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2021/1921-One-Hundred-Years-Ago/

Source which refutes Example 2:

• https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust
• https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/jehovahs-witnesses

Misc:

The Gobitis Case

• https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/308/minersville-school-district-v-gobitis#:~:text=Gobitis (1940)&text=School District v.-,Gobitis%2C 310 U.S. 586 (1940)%2C that state legislatures,the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

 

• On Archives in a public/non-public domain - https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-library-and-vs-archive/

 

You do not have to read through all of them, but there are points in there that give detail. As stated, videos and experiences vary, people do give their bias opinion, it does not mean you have to shut off your mind when you are accountable to being a discerning person. It is unknown if neither of you are a genuine Christian, regardless, it would be wise to discern what you are hearing/reading, for Christians have the responsibility to Examine such things, liken to Apostle Paul and those in Macedonia, etc. Do not give in to the Agenda either because it only makes you a viable candidate for the Beast and the Harlot.

[Dmitar]

Seems to me everyone is getting ahead of themselves since I pointed out that titles don't really matter. It appears people are willing to twist other people's words out of convenience to their own distorted arguments.

Stick to your own arguments. You won't trip yourselves as much.

Just like the opinion on Jehovah's Witnesses and Bible Students in Germany. If people are going to debate the Nazi era, have a strong factual approach. The Nazi's started some form of persecution for Bible Students, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Jews starting in 1933. Regardless if you want to apply timetables such as 1933-1939, or 1933-1945.

The first affiliation the Watchtower introduced in Germany was 1903.

The Watchtower was recognized by the German legal association in 1921.

When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, in March of that year, The consul of Catholic Bishops declared collaboration of Catholics with the new administration

However, in April of that year, directly affecting "Jehovah's Witnesses" as a religious GROUP, began a banning movement in Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Jews had yet to be considered and targeted for hatred for their religious beliefs. That came later. Bible Students, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Jews received the same hatred, persecution, and punishment from the Nazis.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

16 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Granted both of you often times go to JW.org, here you go - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2021/1921-One-Hundred-Years-Ago/

excerpt from the article:

About the same time, Brother Arthur Claus, who was white, made a courageous decision.........Arthur and the neighbor successfully protected the property against the looters. 

Given today’s WTJWorg theology, about the “separation of true Christians from the rest of society,” this historical example is interesting because two people (from opposite religious poles) banded together to oppose a third group of people and to protect property of neighbor. What is next curiosity? Article stated previously:

 Arriving at Brother Hill’s home, he encountered a white neighbor holding a rifle. The neighbor, also a friend of Brother Hill’s,...

Here we see a bare-handed “righteous man” (Bible Student) and an armed “unrighteous man” (false Christian) as they “yoke” together in the same job. Really interesting report. What can this historical example and experience from the time of Bible Students teach today's JW?

[Space Merchant]

@Srecko Sostar Unwise to add your own assertions to the events of Tulsa. The religous backing of the rifle baring neighbor was never cited, so assuming he is Christian, be it true or false, is not wise. Brother Hill was cited before, even by JWI. To assume the defense of looters attested to firearms, is unwise also, for people can defend a place of business without deadly force, even in the past, even now. But regardless, we you can see by the examples and cited aritcle, the brothers of the faith mentioned did not harbor any racical hatred between the two. The ExJW thought otherwise; not knowing about Tulsa. It is also noted when those befreind someone of another race, black, in those days, they evade confrontation with Jim Crow mental folk, keep the friendship obsuce to protect their friend and or mate, i.e. a white man who's wife/mate is a black woman, he will do whatever it takes to protect her when force is not neccessary; some events are equated to this in that Era.

That being said, these events took place in the 1900s, do not be like the YouTuber who applied today's thinking to the old days.

Also Hill was mentioned in example to you before, do not twist the narrative.

But it is strange how you muster this reponse because you equated the events to Doctrine rather than History.

Just so you know it was talked about before, @JW Insider cited the same article in regardings to adding futher context as linked here (for the 3rd time)

 

Thank you once again for proving Example 1 from Witness' video is a lie. You are doing more harm to her video source than anyone else here with that regard.

[Dmitar]

44 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Here we see a bare-handed “righteous man” (Bible Student) and an armed “unrighteous man” (false Christian) as they “yoke” together in the same job. Really interesting report. What can this historical example and experience from the time of Bible Students teach today's JW?

This just means you didn't understand the article. Just because there was a person with a rifle doesn't mean, that rifle was used to deter looters. Spoken words could have easily prevailed. Once again, the chain of custody by misinformation hard at work by stellar minds.

Everyone here should stick to their own propaganda literature and not butcher someone else's.

[Dmitar]

The other misconception here is that somehow JWI and SM are a treasure trove of knowledge. I haven't seen that kind of knowledge as yet.

[Space Merchant]

45 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

The other misconception here is that somehow JWI and SM are a treasure trove of knowledge. I haven't seen that kind of knowledge as yet.

Citations of the sources, merely. If you are aware from the last thread, I rely on evidence, qutations, citations, etc, even call backs - this is literally the norm in relation to all my reponses, as is with alluding to Scripture. The thing is with us outside of the paradigm is we rely on evidence and information, reasons being to prevent the Agenda/Propaganda driven folk from taking over, to shift things, an example of this is in regards to things today, likewise with Mainstream Christendom, who adopted that mentality.

That being said, in short, facts are everything, and I noted JWI because both of us, even the Ahtiest, allued to the events of Tulsa invovling the Bible Students, as is, the events of the court house, espically in regards to the accusation of the 17 year old girl.

Other than that, the white nieghbor, there is no evidence of him being Christian, be it ture or not, for even back then, there is no dobut the Christians outside of root would adopt Jim Crow Laws, in addition to willfull sregregation, of which the YouTuber allueded to. If anything, the biggest part of Tulsa was regarding the court house, of which Rutherford's picture can be seen.

[Dmitar]

49 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

That being said, in short, facts are everything, and I noted JWI because both of us, even the Ahtiest, allued to the events of Tulsa invovling the Bible Students, as is, the events of the court house, espically in regards to the accusation of the 17 year old girl.

I believe that is the intent of my remark.

50 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Other than that, the white nieghbor, there is no evidence of him being Christian, be it ture or not, for even back then, there is no dobut the Christians outside of root would adopt Jim Crow Laws, in addition to willfull sregregation, of which the YouTuber allueded to. If anything, the biggest part of Tulsa was regarding the court house, of which Rutherford's picture can be seen.

Since none of us were there, I didn't find it necessary to sway the argument one way or another. A person that has been inside a racial riot can surmise, talking to agitated people go a long way. As you stated, violence isn't always the norm.

[Space Merchant]

27 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

Since none of us were there, I didn't find it necessary to sway the argument one way or another. A person that has been inside a racial riot can surmise, talking to agitated people go a long way. As you stated, violence isn't always the norm.

Indeed, none of us were, however in regards to the events of Black Wall Street, not everyone was under the influence of the Jim Crow Laws, evident leading up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As for the other remark it is unlikely action or not, violence found it's way into some people's homes resulting in anyone in that area during that time to flee, if white, dangerous punishment, if black, regardless of sex/age, it will be far worse for them.

It is absurd that there are those out there who would attest to re-writing segments in history just to fit their Agenda, and those of it are the obvious ones, the former EXJW in the video just simply outright deem the Bible Students racist without knowing as to why there was segregation institutions, likewise in regards to the events of Germany.

The irony of all this, Witness, Pearl's acolyte, does not realize that this YouTuber has blocked anyone be it by him or those abusing the system from calling out the misleading information, which is a similar case to the events of 11/5/17, let alone what was in the video prior to the claim of misleading. Even here, misinformation has tainted the latter so much so she isn't unable to critical think or discern if the YouTuber was of deception or not. The very reason I refer this to Glasgow because a similar thing was done, as is a recent case regarding a Leftist.

That being said, everyone should be able to understand history of these events, accurately because eventually, enemies will use their Agenda to change things; the onlookers are aware of this. This is a situation I, and others in the community of which I am from, dealing with/fight against with known information to refute Marxism; censorship being the biggest issue with us now.

Other than that, all the examples addressed in that video was refuted, even the one pertaining to Archives, etc. The reason the latter continues is due to saving face, nothing more, making the video's claim vs the likes of Tulsa irrefutable, as with examples 2 and 3.