Bible Students Misrepresented

[ResLight]

Bible Students Misrepresented in Video

The material below has also been posted at:
http://defendbiblefaith.com/?p=1130

Several claims are being made concerning the Bible Students that are misleading, to say the least, in the video entitled, "WHY Bible Students say they have the truth". This video, by the way, never gets around to actually saying "why" the Bible Students say they have "the truth." Instead, what is presented in the video is actually an attack on the Bible Students movement that falsely misrepresents the Bible Students and Russell.

It is not at all true that the beliefs of the Bible Students and the beliefs of the JWs are "almost the same". There are some similarities, but as regarding the central doctrine of salvation and the atonement, organization, as well as many other things, the Bible Students believe almost the very opposite of what the JWs teach and believe.

Bible Students is Not a Religion or Sect

"Bible Students" is not supposed to be a religion, or a sect, although many associated with the Bible Students movement often make use of the term "Bible Students" as though it is such. Sadlly, the sectarian carnal way of thinking often prevails even amongst the Bible Students.
See my study on "sectarianism":
http://rlbible.com/?page_id=454

Charles Taze Russell was himself a non-sectarian who did not believe in sectarianism nor in starting a new religion.
See my research related to Charles Taze Russell and Sectarianism
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?page_id=3499

"Bible Students" can only have the "the truth" if they have Jesus and his God. -- John 14:6; 17:1,3; 1 John 2:23.

Nevertheless, many Bible Students speak of being "in the truth" as meaning something beyond the simple scriptural statement, which often does lead to a sectarian spirit.

A true Bible Student is a follower of Brother Russell only as Brother Russell may point to the Bible. Anyone who is a follower of Russell otherwise is not a true Bible Student. In the same way a Bible Student may be a follower of Matthew Henry, Martin Luther, etc., in the sense of realizing truths that they have presented from the Bible. To be a follower of any man, that is, to take whatever any man says to be "truth" simply because he said (other than the authors of the Bible) this or that, is not being a Bible Student.

The only "cult" that any Bible Student should belong to would be the "cult" of Jesus and his apostles. That is how Brother Russell himself viewed the matter.
See:
Who Did Russell Actually Believe to Be the "only authority" of the Church?
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=334

Anyone who is putting faith in Brother Russell and not in the Bible is in a state of self-contradiction, since Brother Russell preached against putting faith in Brother Russell and not in the Bible. On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.

See my research:
Should One Blindly Follow Russell?
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=129

However, to say that one does not need aids to understand the Bible would not be in agreement with the Bible itself. Thousands read the Bible through the tint of whatever traditions they have in their mind and fail to comprehend its true message. One does need the help of God's spirit, but this does not mean that one should neglect to use human aids, whether that aid comes from Robert Young, James Strong, Martin Luther, or whoever else. Indeed, if one is reading the Bible in English, he is reading the Bible with the aid whoever has translated the Bible into English. If one goes to church and hears a sermon, he is subject to being influenced by the conclusions of what is being said that sermon. To be fully without the aid of any others than the Bible writers, one would need the original autographs of every book of the Bible, and one would have know without the aid of anyone else the original languages in which they were written.

See my study:
Understanding Kingdom Mysteries
http://rl-bibleinfo.com/?p=380

While I do not agree with all of Brother Russell's conclusions, I do believe that God used him to bring forth many truths from the Bible, especially as related to the atonement as provided through Jesus. His works prove this to be true. One of general education should be able to verify the veracity of the basic truths Brother Russell presented by use of aids such a Strong's Concordance, Englishman's Lexicons, etc. Today, such aids may be even found online for the free use of any.

Regarding the Bible Students, see:
http://www.rlbible.com/?page_id=500

Regarding Charles Taze Russell, see:
http://ctr-rlbible.com/

The Chart of the Ages

The Chart of the Ages shown almost throughout the video is not directly concerning the Great Pyramid of Egypt, nor is it based on the Great Pyramid of Egypt as the video seems to suggest. The Chart of the Ages is not used by Bible Students all over the world to predict the future, but it is used to illustrate the various ages as revealed in tehe Bible.

As many organizations make use of pyramids to illustrate their organizational structure, so Brother Russell made use of pyramids to illustrate the structure and development of God's Kingdom. One should note that the Chart of the Ages is not about the Great Pyramid, but rather the Bible. The chart is NOT based on the Great Pyramid, but is based on the Bible itself and the various features as presented in the Bible itself; this does not mean that all that Brother Russell stated and/or presented related to that chart is absolutely true. Each Christian should be free to make up his or he own mind concerning the details of God's plan and purposes.

For Brother Russell's own explanation of the Chart of the Ages:
http://htdbv8.com/Volume1/V1_12.htm

God's Holy Name

It really does not make sense to say that "Jehovah" is not God's name. "Jehovah" is simply an English form based on the Hebrew form of God's Holy Name most often used in the Masoretic Hebrew text; another form often used amongst Bible Students is "Yahweh". The English form "Jehovah", however, is more directly based on Hebrew; the English form "Yahweh" is based on some sounds often attributed to a koine Greek form of the Holy Name (that form is often transliterated as IAUE). Most scholars, however, have concluded that the Koine Greek lacks the same sounds of ancient Hebrew. Additionally, any form of the Holy Name produced in Hebrew would have to based solely on pronunciation, not on vowels, since the Hebrew at that time had no written vowels. Then the assignment of the sounds of those Greek vowels as given by later scholars may or may not be correct. At any rate, since the Greek does not have the sounds of the original, the result of producing the Holy Name in Greek would be a shortened Greek version of the name, and thus should not be used as a basis for claiming how God's name was originally pronounced in Hebrew.

Nevertheless, "Jehovah" is indeed an English form of God's Holy Name. The English form, "Jehovah", does indeed represent in English form the Hebrew form of the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus. Whether the sounding of the name is exactly the same as the original Hebrew is irrelevant; God has never stated that his Holy Name must sound alike in every language, which, in reality, would mean that one could not speak God's Holy Name at all in some languages, since those languages would not have any sound equivalent to the original Hebrew pronunciation. Most, however, who make much ado about the English form "Jehovah" not being the Holy Name of God, are inconsistent in that they fail to do the same with name of the Messiah, as well as other names. In other words, they most often still present the Messiah's name as "Jesus", although the English pronunication of "Jesus" is definitely not the original Hebrew pronunciation of that name.
See my research:
Correct Spelling and Pronunciation of God's Name in English
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=5769

As pertaining to God's name, we are told in the video to do the very opposite of what one really should do. Like many others, it appears to be reckoning the English form "Jehovah" to be a "name" in and of itself, totally separate from the Hebrew. If one is consistent regarding this, one should do the same with the name of the Messiah, and claim that "Jesus" is not the name of the Messiah. In reality, the reasoning presented in the video is actually fallacious reasoning.

It is claimed that a Spanish monk invented "Jehovah". This is totally false. No, the Catholic church did not invent the English form "Jehovah".
See my related research:
A Catholic Monk Invented "Jehovah"?
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=6269

It is definitely totally false that God's Holy Name is "the LORD", or that it is "GOD", as many translations often falsely present God's Holy Name as being.
See my research:
Is the Holy Name "the Lord"?
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=3601

Great Pyramid

Most Bible Students would agree that the pyramid of Giza cannot "predict" anything. That is not its purpose. Any who make use of the Great Pyramid to "predict" this or that, would have to basically depend upon their own imagination, or become subject to the influence of demonic spiritism. Brother Russell did not use the Great Pyramid as a basis for expectation; he, and many others, did and do believe that the Great Pyramid does corroborate what the Bible itself says, as well as the chronology and time prophecies of the Bible. Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that the Great Pyramid is indeed God's Witness in Egypt.

See my research page:
http://rl-bibleinfo.com/?page_id=276

Brother Russell did NOT use the Great Pyramid as a basis to predict the future. He used Biblical prophecies as a basis. This is not to say that he was correct in all his expectations, as he evidently was not.

See my research:
Charles Taze Russell and the Great Pyramid
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?page_id=2853

The video discussed above may be seen at:

[Elijahovah]

I agee with what you said about pyramid predicting. He was merely stating that by his bible chronology the bible did the predicting and the pyramid merely simply agreed with it. So too look at all the pyramid calculations that are astronomy (namely the 2170bc shaft). Though Russell had a Flood of 2472bc and Rutherford had 2372bc, it would appear that the 2170bc pyramid was wither 300-year Arpaxad or 200-year Arpaxad. The 2370bc Flood does not change the 200-year foundation because pyramid tradition does claim the pyramid was built to make an observation of 100-year Seth and 400-year Seth. The Seth stars are the Big Dipper, specifically the star Alioth. No idea what aims at that star, above the pyramid peak if you stand on the north side. Or perhaps the north shaft from the 2nd chamber (claimed as Queens Chamber), or 3rd chamber (King's).

But again, my knowledge of pyramid doesn't mean i am predicting by using them. AND it is important to note that ALL traditions make it very clear that while life plummeted from Noah 900 to 400 to 200 to 137 that instead of resolving what is aging all organic life on the planet, they were instead wrapped up in these astronomy towers to catch the date of the asteroid armageddon. (Year 6000)
Thus you cannot escape from having all those people who pick armageddon dates with the Great Pyramid. Yet you also then fail to see it stresses that we KNOW our asteroids, and soon, yes now.

[Verooo~]

Post by ResLight
Bible Students Misrepresented in Video
http://defendbiblefaith.com/?p=1130
Several claims are being made concerning the Bible Students that are misleading, to say the least, in the video entitled, "WHY Bible Students say they have the truth". This video, by the way, never gets around to actually saying "why" the Bible Students say they have "the truth." Instead, what is presented in the video is actually an attack on the Bible Students movement that falsely misrepresents the Bible Students and Russell.
It is not at all true that the beliefs of the Bible Students and the beliefs of the JWs are "almost the same". There are some similarities, but as regarding the central doctrine of salvation and the atonement, organization, as well as many other things, the Bible Students believe almost the very opposite of what the JWs teach and believe.
Bible Students is Not a Religion or Sect
"Bible Students" is not supposed to be a religion, or a sect, although many associated with the Bible Students movement often make use of the term "Bible Students" as though it is such. Sadlly, the sectarian carnal way of thinking often prevails even amongst the Bible Students.
http://rlbible.com/?page_id=454
Charles Taze Russell was himself a non-sectarian who did not believe in sectarianism nor in starting a new religion.
See my research related to Charles Taze Russell and Sectarianism
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?page_id=3499
"Bible Students" can only have the "the truth" if they have Jesus and his God. -- John 14:6; 17:1,3; 1 John 2:23.
Nevertheless, many Bible Students speak of being "in the truth" as meaning something beyond the simple scriptural statement, which often does lead to a sectarian spirit.
A true Bible Student is a follower of Brother Russell only as Brother Russell may point to the Bible. Anyone who is a follower of Russell otherwise is not a true Bible Student. In the same way a Bible Student may be a follower of Matthew Henry, Martin Luther, etc., in the sense of realizing truths that they have presented from the Bible. To be a follower of any man, that is, to take whatever any man says to be "truth" simply because he said (other than the authors of the Bible) this or that, is not being a Bible Student.
The only "cult" that any Bible Student should belong to would be the "cult" of Jesus and his apostles. That is how Brother Russell himself viewed the matter.
Who Did Russell Actually Believe to Be the "only authority" of the Church?
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=334
Anyone who is putting faith in Brother Russell and not in the Bible is in a state of self-contradiction, since Brother Russell preached against putting faith in Brother Russell and not in the Bible. On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.
Should One Blindly Follow Russell?
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=129
However, to say that one does not need aids to understand the Bible would not be in agreement with the Bible itself. Thousands read the Bible through the tint of whatever traditions they have in their mind and fail to comprehend its true message. One does need the help of God's spirit, but this does not mean that one should neglect to use human aids, whether that aid comes from Robert Young, James Strong, Martin Luther, or whoever else. Indeed, if one is reading the Bible in English, he is reading the Bible with the aid whoever has translated the Bible into English. If one goes to church and hears a sermon, he is subject to being influenced by the conclusions of what is being said that sermon. To be fully without the aid of any others than the Bible writers, one would need the original autographs of every book of the Bible, and one would have know without the aid of anyone else the original languages in which they were written.
Understanding Kingdom Mysteries
http://rl-bibleinfo.com/?p=380
While I do not agree with all of Brother Russell's conclusions, I do believe that God used him to bring forth many truths from the Bible, especially as related to the atonement as provided through Jesus. His works prove this to be true. One of general education should be able to verify the veracity of the basic truths Brother Russell presented by use of aids such a Strong's Concordance, Englishman's Lexicons, etc. Today, such aids may be even found online for the free use of any.
http://www.rlbible.com/?page_id=500
http://ctr-rlbible.com/
The Chart of the Ages
The Chart of the Ages shown almost throughout the video is not directly concerning the Great Pyramid of Egypt, nor is it based on the Great Pyramid of Egypt as the video seems to suggest. The Chart of the Ages is not used by Bible Students all over the world to predict the future, but it is used to illustrate the various ages as revealed in tehe Bible.
As many organizations make use of pyramids to illustrate their organizational structure, so Brother Russell made use of pyramids to illustrate the structure and development of God's Kingdom. One should note that the Chart of the Ages is not about the Great Pyramid, but rather the Bible. The chart is NOT based on the Great Pyramid, but is based on the Bible itself and the various features as presented in the Bible itself; this does not mean that all that Brother Russell stated and/or presented related to that chart is absolutely true. Each Christian should be free to make up his or he own mind concerning the details of God's plan and purposes.
http://htdbv8.com/Volume1/V1_12.htm
God's Holy Name
It really does not make sense to say that "Jehovah" is not God's name. "Jehovah" is simply an English form based on the Hebrew form of God's Holy Name most often used in the Masoretic Hebrew text; another form often used amongst Bible Students is "Yahweh". The English form "Jehovah", however, is more directly based on Hebrew; the English form "Yahweh" is based on some sounds often attributed to a koine Greek form of the Holy Name (that form is often transliterated as IAUE). Most scholars, however, have concluded that the Koine Greek lacks the same sounds of ancient Hebrew. Additionally, any form of the Holy Name produced in Hebrew would have to based solely on pronunciation, not on vowels, since the Hebrew at that time had no written vowels. Then the assignment of the sounds of those Greek vowels as given by later scholars may or may not be correct. At any rate, since the Greek does not have the sounds of the original, the result of producing the Holy Name in Greek would be a shortened Greek version of the name, and thus should not be used as a basis for claiming how God's name was originally pronounced in Hebrew.
Nevertheless, "Jehovah" is indeed an English form of God's Holy Name. The English form, "Jehovah", does indeed represent in English form the Hebrew form of the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus. Whether the sounding of the name is exactly the same as the original Hebrew is irrelevant; God has never stated that his Holy Name must sound alike in every language, which, in reality, would mean that one could not speak God's Holy Name at all in some languages, since those languages would not have any sound equivalent to the original Hebrew pronunciation. Most, however, who make much ado about the English form "Jehovah" not being the Holy Name of God, are inconsistent in that they fail to do the same with name of the Messiah, as well as other names. In other words, they most often still present the Messiah's name as "Jesus", although the English pronunication of "Jesus" is definitely not the original Hebrew pronunciation of that name.
Correct Spelling and Pronunciation of God's Name in English
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=5769
As pertaining to God's name, we are told in the video to do the very opposite of what one really should do. Like many others, it appears to be reckoning the English form "Jehovah" to be a "name" in and of itself, totally separate from the Hebrew. If one is consistent regarding this, one should do the same with the name of the Messiah, and claim that "Jesus" is not the name of the Messiah. In reality, the reasoning presented in the video is actually fallacious reasoning.
It is claimed that a Spanish monk invented "Jehovah". This is totally false. No, the Catholic church did not invent the English form "Jehovah".
A Catholic Monk Invented "Jehovah"?
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=6269
It is definitely totally false that God's Holy Name is "the LORD", or that it is "GOD", as many translations often falsely present God's Holy Name as being.
Is the Holy Name "the Lord"?
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=3601
Great Pyramid
Most Bible Students would agree that the pyramid of Giza cannot "predict" anything. That is not its purpose. Any who make use of the Great Pyramid to "predict" this or that, would have to basically depend upon their own imagination, or become subject to the influence of demonic spiritism. Brother Russell did not use the Great Pyramid as a basis for expectation; he, and many others, did and do believe that the Great Pyramid does corroborate what the Bible itself says, as well as the chronology and time prophecies of the Bible. Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that the Great Pyramid is indeed God's Witness in Egypt.
http://rl-bibleinfo.com/?page_id=276
Brother Russell did NOT use the Great Pyramid as a basis to predict the future. He used Biblical prophecies as a basis. This is not to say that he was correct in all his expectations, as he evidently was not.
Charles Taze Russell and the Great Pyramid
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?page_id=2853
http://youtu.be/cIS-b5pRd-0

As long as Russell the wack and quack was the leader of the bible students they will never look good.

V

[ResLight]

Post by Verooo~

Post by ResLight
Bible Students Misrepresented in Video
http://defendbiblefaith.com/?p=1130
Several claims are being made concerning the Bible Students that are misleading, to say the least, in the video entitled, "WHY Bible Students say they have the truth". This video, by the way, never gets around to actually saying "why" the Bible Students say they have "the truth." Instead, what is presented in the video is actually an attack on the Bible Students movement that falsely misrepresents the Bible Students and Russell.
It is not at all true that the beliefs of the Bible Students and the beliefs of the JWs are "almost the same". There are some similarities, but as regarding the central doctrine of salvation and the atonement, organization, as well as many other things, the Bible Students believe almost the very opposite of what the JWs teach and believe.
Bible Students is Not a Religion or Sect
"Bible Students" is not supposed to be a religion, or a sect, although many associated with the Bible Students movement often make use of the term "Bible Students" as though it is such. Sadlly, the sectarian carnal way of thinking often prevails even amongst the Bible Students.
http://rlbible.com/?page_id=454
Charles Taze Russell was himself a non-sectarian who did not believe in sectarianism nor in starting a new religion.
See my research related to Charles Taze Russell and Sectarianism
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?page_id=3499
"Bible Students" can only have the "the truth" if they have Jesus and his God. -- John 14:6; 17:1,3; 1 John 2:23.
Nevertheless, many Bible Students speak of being "in the truth" as meaning something beyond the simple scriptural statement, which often does lead to a sectarian spirit.
A true Bible Student is a follower of Brother Russell only as Brother Russell may point to the Bible. Anyone who is a follower of Russell otherwise is not a true Bible Student. In the same way a Bible Student may be a follower of Matthew Henry, Martin Luther, etc., in the sense of realizing truths that they have presented from the Bible. To be a follower of any man, that is, to take whatever any man says to be "truth" simply because he said (other than the authors of the Bible) this or that, is not being a Bible Student.
The only "cult" that any Bible Student should belong to would be the "cult" of Jesus and his apostles. That is how Brother Russell himself viewed the matter.
Who Did Russell Actually Believe to Be the "only authority" of the Church?
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=334
Anyone who is putting faith in Brother Russell and not in the Bible is in a state of self-contradiction, since Brother Russell preached against putting faith in Brother Russell and not in the Bible. On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.
Should One Blindly Follow Russell?
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=129
However, to say that one does not need aids to understand the Bible would not be in agreement with the Bible itself. Thousands read the Bible through the tint of whatever traditions they have in their mind and fail to comprehend its true message. One does need the help of God's spirit, but this does not mean that one should neglect to use human aids, whether that aid comes from Robert Young, James Strong, Martin Luther, or whoever else. Indeed, if one is reading the Bible in English, he is reading the Bible with the aid whoever has translated the Bible into English. If one goes to church and hears a sermon, he is subject to being influenced by the conclusions of what is being said that sermon. To be fully without the aid of any others than the Bible writers, one would need the original autographs of every book of the Bible, and one would have know without the aid of anyone else the original languages in which they were written.
Understanding Kingdom Mysteries
http://rl-bibleinfo.com/?p=380
While I do not agree with all of Brother Russell's conclusions, I do believe that God used him to bring forth many truths from the Bible, especially as related to the atonement as provided through Jesus. His works prove this to be true. One of general education should be able to verify the veracity of the basic truths Brother Russell presented by use of aids such a Strong's Concordance, Englishman's Lexicons, etc. Today, such aids may be even found online for the free use of any.
http://www.rlbible.com/?page_id=500
http://ctr-rlbible.com/
The Chart of the Ages
The Chart of the Ages shown almost throughout the video is not directly concerning the Great Pyramid of Egypt, nor is it based on the Great Pyramid of Egypt as the video seems to suggest. The Chart of the Ages is not used by Bible Students all over the world to predict the future, but it is used to illustrate the various ages as revealed in tehe Bible.
As many organizations make use of pyramids to illustrate their organizational structure, so Brother Russell made use of pyramids to illustrate the structure and development of God's Kingdom. One should note that the Chart of the Ages is not about the Great Pyramid, but rather the Bible. The chart is NOT based on the Great Pyramid, but is based on the Bible itself and the various features as presented in the Bible itself; this does not mean that all that Brother Russell stated and/or presented related to that chart is absolutely true. Each Christian should be free to make up his or he own mind concerning the details of God's plan and purposes.
http://htdbv8.com/Volume1/V1_12.htm
God's Holy Name
It really does not make sense to say that "Jehovah" is not God's name. "Jehovah" is simply an English form based on the Hebrew form of God's Holy Name most often used in the Masoretic Hebrew text; another form often used amongst Bible Students is "Yahweh". The English form "Jehovah", however, is more directly based on Hebrew; the English form "Yahweh" is based on some sounds often attributed to a koine Greek form of the Holy Name (that form is often transliterated as IAUE). Most scholars, however, have concluded that the Koine Greek lacks the same sounds of ancient Hebrew. Additionally, any form of the Holy Name produced in Hebrew would have to based solely on pronunciation, not on vowels, since the Hebrew at that time had no written vowels. Then the assignment of the sounds of those Greek vowels as given by later scholars may or may not be correct. At any rate, since the Greek does not have the sounds of the original, the result of producing the Holy Name in Greek would be a shortened Greek version of the name, and thus should not be used as a basis for claiming how God's name was originally pronounced in Hebrew.
Nevertheless, "Jehovah" is indeed an English form of God's Holy Name. The English form, "Jehovah", does indeed represent in English form the Hebrew form of the only true God, the God and Father of Jesus. Whether the sounding of the name is exactly the same as the original Hebrew is irrelevant; God has never stated that his Holy Name must sound alike in every language, which, in reality, would mean that one could not speak God's Holy Name at all in some languages, since those languages would not have any sound equivalent to the original Hebrew pronunciation. Most, however, who make much ado about the English form "Jehovah" not being the Holy Name of God, are inconsistent in that they fail to do the same with name of the Messiah, as well as other names. In other words, they most often still present the Messiah's name as "Jesus", although the English pronunication of "Jesus" is definitely not the original Hebrew pronunciation of that name.
Correct Spelling and Pronunciation of God's Name in English
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=5769
As pertaining to God's name, we are told in the video to do the very opposite of what one really should do. Like many others, it appears to be reckoning the English form "Jehovah" to be a "name" in and of itself, totally separate from the Hebrew. If one is consistent regarding this, one should do the same with the name of the Messiah, and claim that "Jesus" is not the name of the Messiah. In reality, the reasoning presented in the video is actually fallacious reasoning.
It is claimed that a Spanish monk invented "Jehovah". This is totally false. No, the Catholic church did not invent the English form "Jehovah".
A Catholic Monk Invented "Jehovah"?
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=6269
It is definitely totally false that God's Holy Name is "the LORD", or that it is "GOD", as many translations often falsely present God's Holy Name as being.
Is the Holy Name "the Lord"?
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=3601
Great Pyramid
Most Bible Students would agree that the pyramid of Giza cannot "predict" anything. That is not its purpose. Any who make use of the Great Pyramid to "predict" this or that, would have to basically depend upon their own imagination, or become subject to the influence of demonic spiritism. Brother Russell did not use the Great Pyramid as a basis for expectation; he, and many others, did and do believe that the Great Pyramid does corroborate what the Bible itself says, as well as the chronology and time prophecies of the Bible. Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that the Great Pyramid is indeed God's Witness in Egypt.
http://rl-bibleinfo.com/?page_id=276
Brother Russell did NOT use the Great Pyramid as a basis to predict the future. He used Biblical prophecies as a basis. This is not to say that he was correct in all his expectations, as he evidently was not.
Charles Taze Russell and the Great Pyramid
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?page_id=2853
http://youtu.be/cIS-b5pRd-0

As long as Russell the wack and quack was the leader of the bible students they will never look good.
V

I will bless Jehovah at all times; His praise shall always be in my mouth. -- Psalm 34:1, Green's Literal Translation.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <a24c05ae-edc8-4770-9459-***@googlegroups.com>, ResLight
says...

Post by ResLight
On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount
of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings
are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to
take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should
believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.

You're a liar.

"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the Divine Plan in
studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the
Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become
familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he lays them aside
and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible
for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness.
On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their
references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the
light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the
Scriptures." (The Watchtower; 9/15/1910; pp. 298)

[ResLight]

In article, ResLight
says...

Post by ResLight
On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount
of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings
are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to
take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should
believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.

You're a liar.
"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the Divine Plan in
studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the
Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become
familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he lays them aside
and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible
for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness.
On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their
references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the
light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the
Scriptures." (The Watchtower; 9/15/1910; pp. 298)

Whatever Brother Russell had in mind when he wrote the above, he was NOT saying that his writings were to take the place of the Bible, or that one should believe what he wrote even if it were to be found to be scripturally in error.

In the same article Russell wrote:

"The six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible."

"Our thought, therefore, is that these SCRIPTURE STUDIES are a great assistance, a very valuable help, in the understanding of God's Word. If these books are to be of any value to us it must be because we see in them loyalty to the Word of God, and as far as our judgment goes, see them to be in full harmony with the Word and not antagonistic to it. Therefore, in reading them the first time, and perhaps the second time, and before we would accept anything as being our own personal faith and conviction, we should say, "I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says." And so we would study the Scriptures in the light of these SCRIPTURE STUDIES; we would prove every point, or disprove it, as the case might be. We would be satisfied with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from this standpoint."

"If, at the same time, in any future reading, we should come to a place where something did not seem clear to us and we thought of some Scripture which seemed not as harmonious with it as we had previously thought, we would think it our duty to refer at once to the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are the standard, and in that reference to the Scripture it would be with a view to discerning whether or not we had been mistaken in our previous examinations."

"'SCRIPTURE STUDIES" NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE

This is not, therefore, putting the SCRIPTURE STUDIES as a substitute for the Bible, because so far as substituting for the Bible, the STUDIES, on the contrary, continually refer to the Bible; and if one has any doubt as to a reference or if one's recollection should lapse in any degree, one should refresh his memory, and, in fact, should see that his every thought is in harmony with the Bible - not merely in accord with the SCRIPTURE STUDIES, but in accord with the Bible."


http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=861

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <3a47f36f-18f0-49cb-962d-***@googlegroups.com>, ResLight
says...

Post by ResLight

In article, ResLight
says...
=20

Post by ResLight
On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount
of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings
are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to
take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should
believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.

You're a liar.
"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the
Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see,
also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even
after he has used them, after he has become familiar with
them, after he has read them for ten years - if he lays them
aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though
he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience
shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the
other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies
with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible,
as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two
years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures."
(The Watchtower; 9/15/1910; pp. 298)

Whatever Brother Russell had in mind when he wrote the above,
he was NOT saying that his writings were to take the place of
the Bible

What is quoted above is very clear. It says Russell's books are more important
than the Bible. It says that one doesn't even need the Bible. If he wrote
something else contradicting what is quoted above, then that simply reinforces
what I've been saying all along, that Russell was a nut.

[ResLight]

Post by Annointed Remnant
says...

Post by ResLight

In article, ResLight
says...
=20

Post by ResLight
On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount
of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings
are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to
take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should
believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.

You're a liar.
"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the
Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see,
also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even
after he has used them, after he has become familiar with
them, after he has read them for ten years - if he lays them
aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though
he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience
shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the
other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies
with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible,
as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two
years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures."
(The Watchtower; 9/15/1910; pp. 298)

Whatever Brother Russell had in mind when he wrote the above,
he was NOT saying that his writings were to take the place of
the Bible

What is quoted above is very clear. It says Russell's books are more important
something else contradicting what is quoted above, then that simply reinforces
what I've been saying all along, that Russell was a nut.

Only if you take what Russell out of context of what he was saying, and place it in the context of what you claim he was saying.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <7db9a9cd-5510-4e51-95b5-***@googlegroups.com>, ResLight
says...

Post by ResLight

Post by Annointed Remnant
says...

Post by ResLight

In article, ResLight
says...
=20

Post by ResLight
On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount
of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings
are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to
take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should
believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.

You're a liar.
"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the
Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see,
also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even
after he has used them, after he has become familiar with
them, after he has read them for ten years - if he lays them
aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though
he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience
shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the
other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies
with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible,
as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two
years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures."
(The Watchtower; 9/15/1910; pp. 298)

Whatever Brother Russell had in mind when he wrote the above,
he was NOT saying that his writings were to take the place of
the Bible

What is quoted above is very clear. It says Russell's
books are more important than the Bible. It says that
one doesn't even need the Bible. If he wrote something
else contradicting what is quoted above, then that
simply reinforces what I've been saying all along, that
Russell was a nut.

Only if you take what Russell out of context of what he
was saying, and place it in the context of what you claim
he was saying.

The paragraph quoted above in NOT out of context! Read it! I'm not saying the
nut didn't write something somewhere else that contradicted what is quoted
above, but what is quoted above is clear enough even for an idiot to comprehend.
It plainly says that Russell's books are more important that the Bible. Stop
lying for the old fool.

[ResLight]

Post by Annointed Remnant
says...

Post by ResLight

In article, ResLight
says...
=20

Post by ResLight
On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount
of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings
are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to
take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should
believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.

You're a liar.
"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the
Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see,
also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even
after he has used them, after he has become familiar with
them, after he has read them for ten years - if he lays them
aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though
he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience
shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the
other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies
with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible,
as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two
years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures."
(The Watchtower; 9/15/1910; pp. 298)

Whatever Brother Russell had in mind when he wrote the above,
he was NOT saying that his writings were to take the place of
the Bible

What is quoted above is very clear. It says Russell's books are more important
something else contradicting what is quoted above, then that simply reinforces
what I've been saying all along, that Russell was a nut.

What is quoted never at all says that Russells' books are more important than the Bible. What is quoted is based on the "if" statements made before and after. If the Studies are found to be in harmony with the Bible, then....

What Russell says in the context is very clear. It states the Bible is the standard, not his Studies. The entire article may be found at:
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=861

My comments related to some false claims made regarding this article may be found at:
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=1677

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <11e1c684-dba2-42a1-9251-***@googlegroups.com>, ResLight
says...

Post by ResLight

Post by Annointed Remnant
says...

Post by ResLight

In article, ResLight
says...
=20

Post by ResLight
On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount
of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings
are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to
take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should
believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.

You're a liar.
"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the
Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see,
also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even
after he has used them, after he has become familiar with
them, after he has read them for ten years - if he lays them
aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though
he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience
shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the
other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies
with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible,
as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two
years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures."
(The Watchtower; 9/15/1910; pp. 298)

Whatever Brother Russell had in mind when he wrote the above,
he was NOT saying that his writings were to take the place of
the Bible

What is quoted above is very clear. It says Russell's books
are more important than the Bible. It says that one doesn't
even need the Bible. If he wrote something else
contradicting what is quoted above, then that simply
reinforces what I've been saying all along, that Russell
was a nut.

What is quoted never at all says that Russells' books are
more important than the Bible.

What planet do you live on?

Post by ResLight
What is quoted is based on the "if" statements made before
and after. If the Studies are found to be in harmony with
the Bible, then....

You're lying again, pal. In no way shape or form does he say "if the Studies
are found to be in harmony with the Bible." He states emphatically that his
books, and his books only, will lead one to the light. The Bible is NOT
necessary, but his books are. You're even more stuck on that nut than the
Jehovah's Witnesses are. At least they do try to distance themselves somewhat
from the nut. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[ResLight]

Post by Annointed Remnant
says...

Post by ResLight
On the other hand, Brother Russell gave a tremendous amount
of Biblical references that do indeed show that his writings
are "Bible aids", but as he said, his Bible aids are not to
take the place of the Bible. A true Bible Student should
believe the Bible even if it contradicts Russell's aids.

You're a liar.
"Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the Divine Plan in
studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the
Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become
familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he lays them aside
and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible
for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness.
On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their
references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the
light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the
Scriptures." (The Watchtower; 9/15/1910; pp. 298)

I will add also that, unlike the JW leadership, Brother Russell did not advocate himself to have the authority of a prophet or an apostle (although some of his associates may have claimed to have been such). Just before his death, he stated:

"Let it be borne in mind that the Society exercises no authority, makes no criticism, but merely gives advice; and that in the interest of the Lord's Cause and the Lord's people." -- The Watch Tower, August 15, 1916, page 248.

This reflects many other similar statements that he made throughout his life.

http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=1892
http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=360

[Elijahovah]

People presume that if WatchTower is God's vessel then it is Jehovah's Witnesses who are saved. They do not understand that if Jehovah's Witnesses are God's vessel that it is the other way around, the WatchTower gets saved because mother Mary doesn't save the son, the son saves mother Mary. Likewise the 7 governing body doesn't save the last of the 144,000 but the last of the 144,000 saves the 7 GB and that is only if they still are of that 144,000 because on the last day Judas was NOT of it. Doesn't matter whether the reward (or catch-net) for bad behavior is hell or earth, the losing of your communion partaking or baptism means you do not wake up in heaven. The 7 places in heaven would be filled by 7 others.

NOW for the legal license that this is all done by. YOU force God Jehovah to claim only your defined legal marriage license is approved by Him, be it USA or British or government or church or an anyone "ordained" by WT to marry someone, and you claim power to decide who is married when any government court decision forbid someone, and you also decide who isn't married when court does marry someone, or a church marries them, and then your own license from Jehovah you then spit on despite the fact the legal license that married the Jerusalem's temple to Jehovah was a legal license from pagan Persian Cyrus labeled as THE CHRIST and that license quoted by Ezra as if the license is God Jehovah's WORD.

Here are the dates that JWleaks now presents from the British courts. The license was obtained from June 29 thru July 2 of 1914. Applied June 29, approved June 30, incorporated July 2. This closed the door for all licenses applying to be the wife of Jesus. This means that if Esther becomes another Vashti, that a new license for someone else does not happen. Instead Esther is rejected and killed for being a rebel Satan, and another will be selected to bear the same license (a take over) because Jehovah will give the IBSA license to the one who WILL be a true pure Esther.

What proves the door closed. THESE dates prove it. Noah's ark door was closed in the year 1656am (2370bc) on the 2nd month 17th day (2-17-600)which is Julian date Nov 27 (G.Nov 7). Now analyze what dates this 360-day calendar becomes in 1914. The day ArchDuke Ferdinand was shot (before the first war was declared that Revelation speaks of), this date is year 4945. As Noah's year 600 is Adam's 1656am, Noah's 4945 is Adam's year 6001am. This means 6000 years ended in 1914, because the year 6000am ended in 1914 when 6001am started. The date Gregorian June 28 is 2-18-4945 and so shot in the early morn the last 2 or 3 hours of the date 2-17 the same as the ark door closing were in the western zones of the USA. Application of the bride was then applied and approved on the listed dates.

What does this change? Well Revelation says the baby kingdom son is born before war breaks out. So the shot was not itself declaration of war yet. It also changes the previous guess of the date being Mayan new year June 1. Noah's new year 6001am is May 12, and American Mayan shifted the 360-day new year 20 days to June 1. So June 1 was presumed the acceptance of application made after May 12. Now the document is published at JWleaks so we can see it was applied for when the shot was heard around the world and started the labor pains to produce a global license. That license now gets attacked currently in Britain and in Australia blaming the GB for what elders do. Peter uses his sword on little girls and Jesus has to heal it or be guilty as the leader. The very GB board fails to be like Jesus but are instead like the apostles where Loesch and Tight Pants Tony behave like Peter and Judas. Esther will go to the king and again when the Lamb is struck the sheep scatter. This is why all 144,000 must be complete because Jehovah gives THEM the reward to show Satan that God picks them true and well...how does Esther show the Satan that dwells in all people on earth. She shows them by the power of being flesh for 40 days like Jesus was. THIS divides the world into those who see and believe, those who did not see and so they hear of it and yet believe (or like Thomas they wait to be shown again to believe) and the rest of the world who say this is insanity this trash died, we killed it, it has not risen up to heaven, and it is NOT appearing to you people. THE fact is if you see the dead and you can TOUCH its flesh then would you not believe day 40 is the asteroid impact and that YOU WILL head to the mountains before you become slow like Lot's wife?

memorial to 2-17, the ark door was closed to other church licenses in 1914;
the alert ones got the license, but don't boast because it doesn't say which individuals survive this, just brace for the fulfillment of all these words, as of ... ... NOW.

[Elijahovah]

THE PATRIARCHAL AGE

is a lie. There is no such thing. Peleg started it. Patriarchal is NOT the rule by father over family sons. Patriarchal is the rule of father over grandsons. The rule of father over all great grandsons, and all generations under you. Patriarchal rule started not with collective dwelling cities (before the Flood) but with the first POLITICAL cities after the Flood where the city is declared OWNED by a father, and then all sons no matter how many generations are ruled by it, by any king supposedly appointed to represent the father, the king being the SON of the father. This is master and slavery, and it did not exist except by appointment when Peleg started doing this, claiming he had Shiloh's (grandpa Shelah's) permission and authority to rule Ur this way, and justifying it by saying it was appointment, not just bossing around (like a tyrant) as Nimrod did back in his father's city Kish where Peleg was raised by Eber, and Peleg then disputed with his contemporary same-age city-sibling Nimrod over how the Babel observatory should be built. The Era of patriarchal age (kingship of The Son) is 2207bc (anointed 10-1 on Feb 28 which is not Kayak 1) and coronated new year 1-01-765 (1821am) on May 29 (not Thoth 1 on Feb 26 as new year). Before this all family was direct father to direct son, until the son left because he had his own son which ended the direct patriarch between father and son. The LIAR claiming a patriarchal society speaks defying Moses who says sons and daughters leave parents to be their own family they cleave to. Such was the case before Flood and until Peleg's 2207bc when was he was 62. Queen Puabi is Peleg Mes.Anipada's wife whose grocery list is on a tablet in Britain of what other's should get for her. If reincarnation were true she would be my JW mother. LOL I told her today that there is more to life than cooking for others (tired of being fattened up by her, and then use it as leverage to demand hard work from me that leaves me no time for my own house) so I said as men and boys would be told, you need another skill besides just ONE, cooking, one that's become obsolete, if you think you're a commodity others need to go in debt to. Water canopy goes back up and weeding and clearing will consume your time while every kind of food grows all around you for everyone to grab and eat, not just grass seeds (grains, rice, corn, wheat).

[Elijahovah]

And ResLight and NointedRem stood up before Pontius and said yes we heard this Russell say he would bomb the temple 3 days from now. Let us kill him. We kill nuts.

[Elijahovah]

LOOK Ressy, Studying how the pyramid predicts is not demonism. That's slandering propaganda tactics. There is a verse reverse converse in what people say. There are those who take the birth of Jesus and explain the stars, and then those who explain the stars and so choose to move the birth. So i understand what you say about Russell favored Bible numerology and then said the pyramid fit it. He did not favor someone who comes and said we have all re-measured the pyramid and its numbers were wrong so now the Bible numerology must be changed to fit the new accurate numbers for the pyramid.

Here is the problem. Even the numerology is wrong or demonic. BUT now here is where numbers are not demonic and pyramid is not demonic. Numbers are correct if they relate to already known facts. Here is a fact, that Egypt said the new year THOTH had never been changed and so chrnology must have an additional 720 years for 180 leap days and a Flood of 3090bc not 2370bc.

what this did was add 720 years to an interpretation that said Flood year was Adams 2256am (1656am is birth of Noah not Flood) and so to prepare for 6000 years the fear or hope would come 1320 years earlier in 654 AD (-655). THIS would be `1260 years after Jerfusalem was destroyed. And so any messenger from Babel or from China or from India could call himself the name Gabriel and state this fact that 1260 years will change the world to run to hope for this 654AD or run from it, make someone king, or whether they wroship it as God for 1320 years 655-1975 or whether they see it as anti-Christ ruling, this arrival at 1260 years would definately effect the world for where freedom and sanctuary would be until the real 6000 came. THIS is not numerology. This is a study of human behavior and the results it does to the world.

WHAT Russell did was numerology, wrong, until you find out that he was unaware that frm the Flood 2370bc (he said it was 2472bc) that the 4344 years to 6000 are a 360-day calendar that will be the first true 6000 (before egyptian years and before whole years, Julian years, Gregorian years) and it ends in 1914. So 1914 for a license to God's kingdom (this does not mean rule as in obey, but rule as set an example, or set right, and become the survivors) that license would come globally in 1914, and it did. It is IBSA (processed June 29 thru July 1 in an online link). When did year 6000 end? new year 6001 May 12, (American Mayan new year tun June 1), and making 46 days later day 47 dated 2-17-4345 =6001am like Noah's ark packing on day of asteroid impact (2-17-600)=1656am the British sunset date June 27 of 1914 for sunrise June 28. In Noah's day Earth was hit by an asteroid (bullet) and now on this exact same date earth was again hit by a bullet that threatened death via world-reaction. The license for IBSA was the same PACKING THE ARK FOR 5 DAYS June 28 and 29 and 30 and 31 and July 1. Beware of metaphors because Jesus used the expression of JOnah 3 days and 3 nites and yet his death was Nisan 14 holiday and Nisan 16 holiday. Even metaphorically if Jesus was ALREADY DEAD as Judas was kicked outof Passover Thursday nite, the 3 days and 3 nites is not complete until Jesus presents himself alive on Sunday nite, though already raised and presented to 2 women at the grave in the morning. YET you have churches who will reject Nisan 14 death on Friday as too late for raised Sunday morn and they start spreading the days of death Thursday to raised Monday. However, Jesus never said look at the leaves of spring all come out the same day and the same shape. This is why the day and hour is known though no one lese knows it. Because petty issue is made as you do with whether the pyramid's intent was to count 100 years to Armageddon. AND wow i have again just been blessed because although Egyptian tower hoped to measure 100s as bc2170-2070-1970bc onward, Ur's tower when Reu was age 13 (13-year Mars cycle 2233-2226bc) is 100 years to the end of his rule as first human king, ruling 80 years (2207-2127bc) from age 32 to 112, he gives his kingship in 2127bc to a 2126bc king Mes.Kiag whom after 14 years (2000-2015) i can now say my hunch that Mes.Kiag-Nannar is Serug proves true (because it presums in the chrnology of Jasher and Ussher and Mayan to be mistaken as Terah's birth. This 2126bc is 100-year cycles to 1975, passing right thru the famed Amizaduga Babylon's 2400am of 1626bc.

So anyways, ResLight you cannot call true time-calculation demonism. No you cant even label false mistaken chronology as demonism. Demonism goes beyond presenting a lie and into defending that lie as truth, and killing all truth to fight for your lie to stay alive. Saul (Paul) teetered on demonism. But apparently Jesus said this man does damage and he thinks it is for God. Jesus saw that there exists those who do put to death with no profit or gain or insulted ego, but sincerely think they are helping God in their blindness.