Post by ResLight on Jun 12, 2014 20:04:21 GMT -5
There is a video that several have wanted me to see, entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses History Exposed." It is a video taken from the John Ankerberg show, in which William Cetnar presents his alleged exposition of Jehovah's Witnesses history. I am not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I am with the Bible Students.
I met William Cetnar very briefly back in 1980s when I was working at the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement headquarters in Chester Springs, PA. I had just arrived as he was leaving, and he seemed to be in a hurry to leave, but we chatted for a few minutes.
I have not as yet watched the whole video, as I am taking watching little by little each day. So far, however, what I have seen appears to an imaginary history designed to redicule rather than presenting factual information.
Cetnar first imagines that Charles Taze Russell was the "first president of the Jehovah's Witnesses", when in in actuality Russell was never even a member of such an organization. Indeed, although Russell was the first president of legal corporate entity, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Russell was never the president of any religious organization; he preached against the kind of authoritarianism that Rutherford promoted, and that is still promoted by the JW leadership to this day.
Cetnar imagines that Russell claimed to be the angel of Laodicea, that Russell claimed be God's channel of communication, God's spokesman, the faithful and wise servant, etc., when he actually never made any such claims.
Cetnar imagines that the Jehovah's Witnesses started in 1874; in reality there was no "Jehovah's Witnesses" or any such organization until after Russell died. Cetnar is evidently referring to the Bible study group that Russell was associated with in Pittsburgh, but that group did not form in 1874, but rather about 1872. In 1874, that group held no profession of being any part of an organization such organization such as "Jehovah's Witnesses". The JW organization was created after Russell died.
Cetnar imagines that "Jehovah's Witnesses" predicted that Christ was to return visibly in 1874; if he is referring to Russell and the group associated with Russell, they, before 1874, never held any expectations that Christ was to return in 1874 at all. Russell discussed this several times -- before 1876 he had not accepted any of the dates sets by the Second Adventists.
Cetnar imagines that Brother Russell, after 1874 had come and gone, was "upset" that Christ did not return visibly in 1874. Cetnar's imaginations are wrong, since Russell, before 1874, was not at expecting Christ to return in 1874, either visibly or invisibly. Russell had, however, about two years before 1874 already come to the conclusion that Christ would not return in the flesh, since he had sacrificed that flesh for our sins. Thus, when Russell met with Barbour (around 1876), Russell was already convinced that Christ was to not to return in the flesh, but in the spirit.
Cetnar imagines that Barbour and Russell came up the definition that parousia means presence, when in reality, many Greek scholars long before Russell and Barbour had already given "presence" as one of the primary meanings of "parousia". Neither Barbour or Russell came up with that definition.
That is about as far I have gotten so far; I am also responding to this video on my website:
ctr.rlbible.com/?p=3043
I met William Cetnar very briefly back in 1980s when I was working at the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement headquarters in Chester Springs, PA. I had just arrived as he was leaving, and he seemed to be in a hurry to leave, but we chatted for a few minutes.
I have not as yet watched the whole video, as I am taking watching little by little each day. So far, however, what I have seen appears to an imaginary history designed to redicule rather than presenting factual information.
Cetnar first imagines that Charles Taze Russell was the "first president of the Jehovah's Witnesses", when in in actuality Russell was never even a member of such an organization. Indeed, although Russell was the first president of legal corporate entity, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Russell was never the president of any religious organization; he preached against the kind of authoritarianism that Rutherford promoted, and that is still promoted by the JW leadership to this day.
Cetnar imagines that Russell claimed to be the angel of Laodicea, that Russell claimed be God's channel of communication, God's spokesman, the faithful and wise servant, etc., when he actually never made any such claims.
Cetnar imagines that the Jehovah's Witnesses started in 1874; in reality there was no "Jehovah's Witnesses" or any such organization until after Russell died. Cetnar is evidently referring to the Bible study group that Russell was associated with in Pittsburgh, but that group did not form in 1874, but rather about 1872. In 1874, that group held no profession of being any part of an organization such organization such as "Jehovah's Witnesses". The JW organization was created after Russell died.
Cetnar imagines that "Jehovah's Witnesses" predicted that Christ was to return visibly in 1874; if he is referring to Russell and the group associated with Russell, they, before 1874, never held any expectations that Christ was to return in 1874 at all. Russell discussed this several times -- before 1876 he had not accepted any of the dates sets by the Second Adventists.
Cetnar imagines that Brother Russell, after 1874 had come and gone, was "upset" that Christ did not return visibly in 1874. Cetnar's imaginations are wrong, since Russell, before 1874, was not at expecting Christ to return in 1874, either visibly or invisibly. Russell had, however, about two years before 1874 already come to the conclusion that Christ would not return in the flesh, since he had sacrificed that flesh for our sins. Thus, when Russell met with Barbour (around 1876), Russell was already convinced that Christ was to not to return in the flesh, but in the spirit.
Cetnar imagines that Barbour and Russell came up the definition that parousia means presence, when in reality, many Greek scholars long before Russell and Barbour had already given "presence" as one of the primary meanings of "parousia". Neither Barbour or Russell came up with that definition.
That is about as far I have gotten so far; I am also responding to this video on my website:
ctr.rlbible.com/?p=3043
