Appointed Times of the Nations?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am amazed Manny, really i am, for it seems to me that Jehovahs Witnesses must be the only organisation that has revised their teaching as understanding and knowledge has progressed, considering the interest in Mr. Russells thoughts and the controversy they seem to awaken, is this not what is meant to happen in the face of reason?

Do you mind giving an example of a revised teaching?

Originally posted by galveston75
You guys really need to get over this Russell thing. He was just a man that was searching for the truth in the Bible and trying to get away from the falsehoods and teachings in of the religions around him. What is so bad about that? What faults he had was because he was a human and no different then yourself...
Sure he origanlly had dates and time wron ...[text shortened]... ent on. So...that means that the correct understanding of the truth may not be correct at first.

You guys really need to get over this Russell thing.
There is no "Russell thing" to get over. I pointed out the inconsistency of following a tested-and-found-wanting leader whose very ideas should have been enough to warn any who heard/hears them.

What is so bad about that? What faults he had was because he was a human and no different then yourself...
Because instead of leading to the truth, he wandered way astray and has since taken many folks with him. Nothing like me, really.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
point number one,
were not the apostles of the Christ interested in Christs return or presence, let me answer that for you? or on second thoughts, why don't you read Matthew chapter 24 and rethink your rather ill concieved and in my opinion vain assertion.

point number two,
perhaps you can point out where Russell has ever claimed that he was i ...[text shortened]... on other things id rather be doing that refuting your, to be quite honest, unoriginal claims.

point number one,
were not the apostles of the Christ interested in Christs return or presence,
Of course. And when they were given the answer, i.e., don't concern yourselves with such secondary information, they moved on.

point number two,
perhaps you can point out where Russell has ever claimed that he was infallible? perhaps you can point out where Russell ever claimed that he was either a prophet or inspired of God.
I don't ever remember arguing that point.

point number three is unworthy of any reply, see the above, for the apostles of Christ made many mistakes, but did it render their worship invalid, nope i don't think so.
Are you now equating Russell with the apostles?

point number four is also not only laughable, but utterly devoid on any type of relevance, other than to Mr. Russell himself, and quite frankly, do you also go around you're own friends and neighbours poking into there marital affairs?
Apparently you consider the Bible "utterly devoid" of relevance, for it is there that we find some of the qualifications for church leadership--- and especially for the man who calls himself 'pastor.' One of those qualifications is management of one's household.

now if you have quite finished apostatising against Mr. Russell,
I'm not really sure what you mean by that term, because it doesn't seem to fit with anything said or implied up to this point.

your, to be quite honest, unoriginal claims.
They are not my claims: they are historically verifiable, originating with the founder of the JW line.