Did Russell and Rutherford fit the WTS' own definition of false prophets?

False Prophets

Individuals and organizations

1) proclaiming messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that

2) do not originate with the true God and

3) are not in harmony with his revealed will

Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 132

Also on page 4 of the April 15, 1995 Watchtower they define prophecies as follows:

" Information written in advance about what definitely would occur in the future "

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Russell & Rutherford Fit the Society’s Own Definition of False Prophets

    The Governing Body insists that what Russell and Rutherford did does not come under the Bible’s definition of false prophets at Deuteronomy 18:20-22. What about their own definition? False Prophets Individuals and organizations (1) proclaiming messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that (2) do not originate with the true God and (3) are not in harmony with his revealed will. Russell and Rutherford (1) attributed their messages to a superhuman source, (2) none of their messages that originated with God and (3) they were not in harmony with his revealed will. Therefore they were not false prophets? According to their own definition they were.

    In their efforts to convince themselves that Russell and Rutherford were not false prophets, the Governing Body has apparently not noticed that it doesn’t matter if they were false prophets or not. Note again what former President Frederick Franz said in his God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has approached…The serving of food, the right sort of [Bible teachings] at the proper time was the issue. It had to be according to this that a decision must be rendered by [Jesus]. If Rutherford’s Millions Now Living Will Never Die was a false prophecy it certainly was not “the right sort of food at the proper time.” But even it was just “a mistake” it was still not the right sort of food or the proper time to be serving it. Even if Rutherford was not a false prophet he was still guilty of providing wrong spiritual food relative to the extremely important matter of Christ’s Kingdom, along with all the rest of the improper, untimely spiritual food he provided from both his own and Russell’s writings. And even if none of the teachings considered come under the Bible’s definition of false prophecies, they were still teachings that were not true on very serious matters such as the time of Jesus’ Second Coming and the end of the world. And so it doesn’t matter what the Governing Body chooses to call all those failed attempts to set dates. They were all wrong food at the wrong time which, according to the way they interpret Matthew 24:45-47, disqualified them as Jesus’ “faithful and discreet slave.” And according to their June 1, 2001 Watchtower not a single one of those teachings/prophecies mentioned should have ever appeared in the Society’s literature because none of them were “what God reveals in his Word.”

  • 4 years ago

    Yes, If the "Almighty Watchtower" is going to use all kinds of word or combination of words to say they weren't false prophets, then at least we can say they were not teaching correctly of they were not dispensing the proper food at the proper time. Russell died in 1916 but his teaching carried on for a while, the 1874 date of Jesus' invisible presence and so on that was later changed to the 1914 date. Many teaching of Russell and Rutherford has been changed over the years, so if the changes occurred, they must have been teaching wrong, or someone else today is teaching wrong. To be honest they all got it wrong, today, yesterday and maybe tomorrow ?

  • 1 decade ago

    They were not prophets. They were businessmen. Very, very good businessmen. And the Watchtower is one of the richest businesses in the world.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes!

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, not to mention the Holy Bible.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, by their own words !

  • Yes, and they wore very flashy ties.

  • 1 decade ago

    They sure do. So do all of their subsequent place holders.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.