Thursday, October 12, 2017

Temporary Post for Comments

This in very rough draft is an extract of Bruce's preface to volume 2 of Separate Identity. It is here for comment. We need your input. ... So be really nice and leave a comment up or down, critical or helpful. Just comment.

This post has been deleted.

23 comments:

Welyson Araújo Rios said...

We studied the Masons history and
Russell is so different than their
Caracteristics...I agree with you, poster

Andrew Martin said...

Excellent! You've laid out quite clearly the British connection to Russell's search for truth. I, for one, will cease referring to him as "an American Original"!

Also, cannot some of Russell's early influences be traced almost directly back to England? Such as in the case of George Storrs > influenced by Henry Grew > whose father was associated with > Joseph Priestly > who was the first Unitarian minister in America, having been chased out of England (more or less) for his beliefs?

Do I have that basically correct?

Great piece of reasoning! Looking forward to more.

Welyson Araújo Rios said...

Who have the link to st.paul interprise
Newspapers clipping with Russell's sermona?

Semer said...

Great article, thank you very much. As I was reading, I was trying to find something that wasn't clear or something that could be explained better, but as I continued reading everything seemed fine to me.

Sha'el, Princess of Pixies said...

Andrew, there were Unitarians in America before Priestly. But the rest is true.

Welyson, I don't know of anywhere on line where you can find the St. Paul Enterprise. The Minnesota State Historical Society has a nearly complete collection on microfilm. The set is expensive.

Thanks, everyone for the comments. This will change. B continues to work on it and there are several more sections to write.

Andrew Martin said...

Sha'el - thanks for the clarification about Priestley. If I'm going to tell the story, I need to tell it correctly! Your work has enabled me to do a much better job of that when I share the story with others.

Welyson Araújo Rios said...

Thanks

roberto said...

Rachael and Bruce, it is a great introduction. Simple, clear, logical, and with strong evidences to support your version. I often read and ponder your preface of "A Separate Identity 1", a superb essay, a book in a book.
And now, finally, I, we, have this introduction of Volume 2.
You move the interpretation of the Watch Tower Movement from the narrow misleading ‘American Originals’ of the last half of the 19th Century, to a deepest and extentive interepretation, tracing the true roots of the Watch Tower movement. I agree with your interpretation.

Quote:

"A Restoration movement seeking a return to New Testament belief and practice."

"The impelling force behind the broad movement of which the Watch Tower was a part was faith in the Bible’s word."

"Modern speculation about the roots of millennial belief tends to ignore the role of belief. Yet, belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant, meant for the edification and guidance of believers is what impels millenarian faith. Social crisis may color interpretation, but taking the Bible at its prophetic word is the cause."

" .... Russellism comes from this tradition. It arose from the same causes, not social unrest, but a desire to return to New Testament belief and practice. Each generation of millenarians interprets contemporaneous events in the light of their belief, but the events do not drive millenarian belief. Watch Tower belief in the Russell era is not a religion of despair. It was not an attempt to withdraw from a changing world. It wasn’t an attempt to formulate new ‘truths.’ It was an attempt to assert anew belief in the Bible as the inspired word of God"

"Some historians paint the Lollards as common, even peasants. But Lollard missionaries could read. It was part of their mission to read the Bible to those who had never heard it read. These were men educated beyond the normal, not disenfranchised peasants."

Now I am curious to see how you will improve this essay. I know you will improve it, I don't know how you will do that. Chapeau.

Gary said...

Excellent work Bruce. I look forward to reading more of this. As a JW from the UK with an interest in the religious history of Britain during the last few centuries it comes as little surprise to see some central features of Bible Student theology as passing through here en route to America.

Whatever her opinion on the matter, it is a shame that Zoe Knox, a generally fine author on JW subjects, gets placed beside Andrew Holden in your introduction. In my opinion they are poles apart in terms of accuracy. I have read much of Knox's work and though sometimes I differ with her in terms of interpretation, I much value her thoughts. (I think it best I do not share my view of Holden!)

All good wishes to Rachael and yourself,
Gary

P.S. Would have liked to have known where the sentence starting "Ruth Bloch’s analysis was that, judging only by" was going.

Sha'el, Princess of Pixies said...

We count Knox as a friend to our research; Holden's work is nearly worthless. We should clarify that.

Welyson Araújo Rios said...

What about Brother Rahn and J. ROTHERHAM and their religious relation
With Russell

Sha'el, Princess of Pixies said...

Welyson, they have no place in the itroduction. Rotherham is mentioned in our biography of Barbour and will again see mention in volume 3.

jerome said...

"Brother Rahn" is mentioned in the book "God's Kingdom Rules" on page 174 as suggesting group meetings. But Rahn has no place in Watchtower antecedents. He entered the WT picture around 1890 and defected to the Koreshan Unity in 1895. J B Rotherham wrote a lengthy review of The Divine Plan of the Ages in The Rainbow magazine, and an internet search will give you details of his history.

Leonardo Cuéllar said...

Congratulations! I enjoyed the introduction a very much, and I am now hungry for more. Do you have an estimated date or year for the publication of the second volume?

I don't know if I am wrong about this, I am not an English expert, but in this sentence: "It was an attempt to assert anew belief in the Bible as the inspired word of God." shouldn't "anew" be separated: "a new"?


Welyson Araújo Rios said...

Thanks jerome...thanks sha'el

Sha'el, Princess of Pixies said...

anew is a single word.

Andrew Martin said...

For Leonardo Cuellar - as far as the English word "anew", no, it is appropriate in some contexts. Rather than being a construction of an article and an adjective, modifying the noun "belief", it is actually an adverb in this case, used to modify the verb "assert".

It basically means "again", sort of in an optimistic way.

Thanks for asking. Language is fun, isn't it? I always say that when God confused the languages at Babel, he did an excellent job of it!

:)

Welyson Araújo Rios said...

It seems the spanish word nuevamente or the portuguese denovo (de + novo) ... basically means again....

Leonardo Cuéllar said...

Great explanation Andrew, I learn something new everyday!, actually, "again" makes much more sense than "a new" on that sentence.
Thanks!

Sha'el, Princess of Pixies said...

"Again" and "anew" have differing meanings. Again implies a repeat. Anew implies a restatement.

Andrew Martin said...

Thanks for that further clarification!

roberto said...

When Bruce writes "Criticisms have been few", he's referring to reviews on "A Separate Identity 1"?

Sha'el, Princess of Pixies said...

Yes, Roberto.