Talk:Charles Taze Russell

1914

I know it might be unpopular with quite a few contributors to this article, but for fairness' sake shouldn't we include Russell's changing attitude (at least) toward the year 1914 in his publications? He did change his mind quite radically, and it can easily be attested from the sources. Any opinions? Trigaranus (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's unpopular, so long as it's reliably sourced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, as soon as I have a bit of time on my hands I am going to look for copies of the relevant editions. Trigaranus (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The popularity or unpopularity of a topic with editors shouldn't have any impact upon whether or not something is mentioned in an article. It merely needs to be relevant, well sourced, presented without bias (pro or con,) balanced and neutral. The topic is very rich. But it might be more thoroughly addressed under the article for Jehovah's Witnesses than here because there is nearly a century of changing views and interpretations presented in their literature. It's not necessary to give it undue weight in this article. A brief notation — perhaps a few sentences or a paragraph — would be appropriate. I would advise however that it be presented here on the Talk page before adding to the article due to the potential for controversy as you have noted. It can be hashed out here and a consensus reached on how to properly present it. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Russell did change his position on 1914 in the year 1904, about ten years before 1914. Before 1904, Russell believed that the time of trouble (Armageddon) had begun in 1874 and that it was end in 1914. In 1904, he realized that the time of trouble was to come in or shortly after the end of the times of the Gentiles in 1914. Russell died in 1916, still holding to the belief that the time of trouble had begun in 1914. I have collected many of the more precise statements Russell made about this at:

[1]https://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/10/t-of-t.html ResLight (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Russell not an Adventist just for sharing certain views

I forcefully propose to change the description from "Adventist minister" to "Restorationist minister". Russell was a member of the Bible Students from 1879 until 1916. And he also identified as a Bible Student. Bible Students are not a group of Adventists and not even a group of Protestants. Russell himself said: "I confess indebtedness to Adventists as well as to other denominations. [...] for tough Adventism helped me to no single truth, it did help me greatly in the unlearning of errors, and thus prepared me for the Truth" (Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, pp. 229–230, reprints p. 3821). As a Bible Student, Russell was not a member of Adventism, he rather distanced himself from the movement, though he did thank if for helping him to "unlearn errors", but that's also applicable to other denominations, whose ideas Russell sometimes borrowed.

The reason why a previous editor reinstated "Adventist" was that Russell's eschatology (e.g. parallel dispensations) was borrowed from Adventism. As stated above, Russell also learned ideas from other groups, as he admitted. But as he was neither a member of an Adventist group and distanced himself in a different category from Adventism, this does not justify calling him "Adventist". It is as illogical as calling today's Jehovah's Witnesses "Adventist" for believing in Christ's Second Advent (teaching: Jesus comes in the future in addition to his being present since 1914, see The Watchtower, July 15, 2013, pp. 7–8) or calling Muhammad a Christian for saying that Jesus is the Messiah.

It is also improper for a modern person to impose religious descriptions on people that explicitly distanced themselves from them. For example, although Fred Hoyle stated in 1981 that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and ... there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature", which could be interpreted to suggest that he was a theist, as certain people interpreted Russell to be Adventist due to his eschatological views, Hoyle explicitly said: "I am an atheist." It would be arrogant to interpret Hoyle's views to suggest that he is a theist, when he made clear that he was not. And a Wikipedia entry suggesting Hoyle to be a theist would certainly be rejected. Similarly, we should not interpret Russell's views and classifications of him for him. If he wasn't a member and said he isn't an Adventist, he isn't one. Change the description. Junkönig (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No (‘forcefully’). As much as a particular denomination might assert that it is different and ‘the only true religion’, the eschatology of the Bible Students (and JWs, actually) is definitionally within Adventism, very specifically including their interpretations of the book of Daniel. They didn’t just spring up independently as ‘restored Christianity’.

Bible Students (and JWs) very definitely fit within the broad category of Protestantism. They have distinctly Protestant origins and their core teachings are a product of the Protestant Reformation via the Adventist movement. The core Protestant tenets of sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria are all present, with altered terminology. Their polity, use of the Protestant canon, and their use of Jehovah (the preferred form in Protestant Bibles over Yahweh) all point to Protestantism. Even their more ‘distinct’ beliefs are products of the Reformation, including nontrinitarianism, which was promoted by various early Protestants such as John Assheton (though rejected by most Protestant denominations). The article should state that Russell tried to distinguish his group from other denominations, but it would be quite dishonest to reclassify the denomination independently of its actual origins.—Jeffro77 Talk 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not read that any scholar classifies Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses as part of Adventism just because they believe in Christ's Second Advent. Adventism isn't just this belief. It is a group that is part of Protestantism. But, as you noted, Restorationist groups saying they are "the only true church" (or congregation, etc.) are closer to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc. in this regard, not Protestantism. There are other differences to Protestantism. Suffice to say that eschatological similarities don't justify the classification of Adventist due to the fact that eschatology is just one part of Christianity. A comparison to another group: Russell also believed in the autonomy of Bible Student ecclesias. I don't see anyone claiming that he can be classified as Congregationalist just because of this big, yet only one, similarity. Why? Because Congregationalism is a part of Protestantism and Russell was not.

"The article should state that Russell tried to distinguish his group from other denominations, but it would be quite dishonest to reclassify the denomination independently of its actual origins."

I grant this point. It still doesn't follow that he was fully Adventist. Calling him "Adventist-influenced Restorationist minister" - this would be an adequate compromise, as it would still show that he had these Adventist origins and borrowed relevant eschatological ideas from there, but still wasn't fully one himself. Junkönig (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Your use of the quote from Russell demonstrates that you are confusing 'denomination' with 'classification’. Whilst Russell and his group were not of a particular existing Adventist denomination, his own denomination was Adventist. In addition to the very significant elements of eschatology (not limited to their interpretations of Daniel), Bible Students (and JW) views of mortality, no consciousness after death, annihilationism (i.e., eternal destruction rather than eternal torment in hell) are also from Adventism. Also, your comparison to congregationalism is a false equivalence, as it involves only a basic semantic connection rather than an intrinsic and complex foundational belief.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Various sources can be cited for the classification of Russell and the Bible Students (and Jehovah's Witnesses) as Adventist.[2][3][4]

There is a type of hostile complicity between JWs and other Christian denominations in the lie that JWs aren't Protestants: JWs want to be seen as something different from other churches, and many other denominations don't want to consider JWs to be 'real' Christians (usually because JWs don't believe in the Trinity, though Christadelphians don't either, and they are usually classified as Adventists and Protestants).--Jeffro77 Talk 09:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

1) I don't think Russell used "Adventist" only the sense of the denomination of Adventism. I think he also used the word in the sense of not being part of the whole belief system of Adventism, as he said that "Adventism helped me to no single truth". I don't think you can just disregard Russell's own opinions and say he shared the Adventist belief system regardless, just like it would be improper to interpret Hoyle's opinions for him and say he was a theist, although he said he was an atheist.

2) "[M]ortality, no consciousness after death, annihilationism" or death/the afterlife are part of Christian eschatology. Eschatology isn't just the end times.

3) The comparison to Congregationalism isn't just a "basic semantic connection rather than an intrinsic and complex foundational belief". To the contrary, there is no semantic connection. Russell's Bible Students said "ecclesias", not "congregations" (as Jehovah's Witnesses do today). The connection is a foundational belief, i.e., that church bodies should have loose connections and autonomy (regardless of terms).

4) I disagree that Russell, Bible Students, modern Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc. can be classified as Protestant or of the Adventist branch. There are just too many differences, the Trinity being the biggest. When you look at Wikipedia, you can see Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians (historic Bible Students not listed) being part of "Nontrinitarian Restorationism" under "Miscellaneous" in List of Christian denominations and List of Christian denominations by number of members, but not Protestantism. I think the consistency should be maintained here by just saying "Adventist-influenced" irrespective of how some authors classified said groups and Russell. You will always find some authors advocating fringe opinions. But the best opinion seems to be making a distinction to Protestantism and still mentioning historic connections. Junkönig (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I have provided encyclopaedic citations that unambiguously classify them as Adventist, and I have also explained why less encyclopaedic sources are motivated to say JWs and its forerunners are something separate. You can stop now.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

While Jeffro and I have disagreed in the past over whether the JW's are Protestant (see here for that year old post if you're interested) I am in agreement with him here. Russell was an Adventist preacher, regardless of personal opinion. As for scholarly classifications, George D. Chryssides, arguably the foremost scholar on the JW's at the moment, explicitly calls Russell an "Adventist teacher" in his Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction (pg. 17), and in Jehovah's Witnesses: Continuity and Change (pg 47-48) while acknowledging Russell's self-proclaimed "I am not an Adventist" claim and his disagreements with some teachings. In the latter book (pg. 228) Chryssides says that while Russell "made his own distinctive mark on the Society's view on eschatology, similar calculations were commonplace in Adventist circles." Zoe Knox, in her Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World: From 1870 to the present (pg. 2), states "Russell's differences from key Adventist figures amounted to no greater a deviation than many of the Second Adventists (sometimes called First-day Adventist) offshoots...". I think these RS's, along with what Jeffro has provided above, call for keeping the "Adventist minister" descriptor for Russell. Vyselink (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I still disagree. If one claims Russell and the Bible Students are Adventist and Protestant, then modern Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians would be, too. Yet, Wikipedia classifies them as part of "Nontrinitarian Restorationism" under "Miscellaneous" in List of Christian denominations and List of Christian denominations by number of members, not as part of Adventism and not even under Protestantism. And on the articles on Christadelphians and Jehovah's Witnesses, there is also no trace of them being Protestant and/or Adventist. Wikipedia must be consistent, so either all other articles on all Nontrinitarian Restorationist groups are rewritten to present the view taught above or we accept that regardless of some commonalities Nontrinitarian Restorationist groups can never be Adventist or generally Protestant due to core differences. Junkönig (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Interjected Comment: You are free to disagree. But WP doesn't run on personal beliefs, it runs on WP:RS's, and the sources Jeffro and I provided are that. There is also a flaw in your argument. The JW's have changed significantly over the years, as they are still an active organization. CTR died over a century ago, his beliefs and teachings can not change. He will always be an Adventist preacher, while the JW's could have/have changed from being Protestant to something else (as I argued last year, but in which case is irrelevant to the point here). Vyselink (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Whilst there is variation in sources describing JWs as Protestant, encyclopedias of religion routinely classify JWs as Adventist (in addition, of course, to the Bible Students). For example, The Encyclopedia of Protestantism (published 2005, and a separate work to the 2004 Encyclopedia of Protestantism cited earlier in this thread) explains in its introduction (page xiii[5]) that various denominations (explicitly including Jehovah's Witnesses) are only "more loosely" within the Protestant movement. But its entry on the denomination explicitly identifies JWs as a form of Adventism.[6] Naturally, this also identifies Russell and the Bible Students as Adventist as well.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There are reliable sources already provided (none of which are fringe authors despite your earlier suggestion) explicitly identifying Russell (and also Bible Students, Christadelphians and JWs) within Adventism and Protestantism. Your rationale that there are Wikipedia articles that classify them differently is irrelevant. If you are concerned about Wikipedia articles being inconsistent on the matter, the solution is to fix the other Wikipedia articles to be consistent with the reliable sources.

(Also, your other claim that ‘ecclesia’ has no semantic connection to ‘congregation’ is entirely wrong. It is a direct translation.)—Jeffro77 Talk 20:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It is also not the case that Restorationism and Protestantism are mutually exclusive, and the Wikipedia article about Restorationism explicitly mentions overlap. Though restorationists generally claim to be an ‘original’ form of Christianity, the denominations in question are Protestant at their core. (It’s roughly analogous to ‘sovereign citizens’ claiming to be separate to their actual country of citizenship.) It is not necessary to significantly alter what Wikipedia says about Restorationism, and nor is that an excuse to hide the fact that reliable sources classify groups within Protestantism.—Jeffro77 Talk 21:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I still disagree.

1) When you have multiple contradictory sources, you should present the consensus on Wikipedia. And, yes, there are credible sources (in the sense of that the author has expertise) for almost any position (except maybe really bad ones like that the earth is flat). But, yes, there are also scientists who are really college-educated (even from Harvard) who say Creationism is true and the theory of evolution is false. So what? I don't think that Jeffro77 would agree to cite such sources. Why? Because this isn't the consensus. Some authors are fringe, that is, on their own against the consensus. (Fringe does not necessarily mean lunatic or false, contrary to popular use.) Wikipedia is not a fact-finding/truth-finding enterprise. It does not and never claimed to present truth. Every person should personally strive to find truth. Wikipedia's job is just to present the consensus of the time, which may be true or false. And this consesus is that Bible Students, modern Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc. should be classfied as Nontrinitatian Restorationist, not Adventist or Protestant. How do we know that this is this the majority opinion on Wikipedia? Because they are already classified as such in List of Christian denominations, List of Christian denominations by number of members and their own articles. You can not present one opinion on one part of Wikipedia and another one on another part. It doesn't work.

2) Vyselink argued that Russell and the Bible Students could have been (he doesn't even believe it, otherwise he would not have used this ambiguous language) Adventist and Protestant back then, but Jehovah's Witnesses aren't now. This position is stated by nobody in the scholarly community. Jeffro77 cited sources that classify Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses as Adventist and Protestant. Other scholars say they are Nontrintarian Restorationist. But the position that they were one and became another is not stated by any scholar. It is worse than agreeing to Creationism on Wikipedia and closer to agreeing to the view that the earth is flat, as it has no support at all. One source of Jeffro77 said that Jehovah's Witnesses started out as "a small Adventist sect". Starting out implies not being it anymore. But this can not be interpreted in Vyselink's way, the context shows that the change applies to them being "small". Bible Students were very small, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't that small. The opinion is clear: Those scholars saying Russell is Adventist and Protestant say the same about Jehovah's Witnesses. Vyselink's view is untenable. Why? Obviously the reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses are listed as different from Protestantism still apply to the person of Russell and the Bible Students, namely belief in "the one true church" (closer to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) and rejection of the Trinity (own classification). And the reason why Jeffro77 listed Bible Students as Adventist (eschatology, etc.) also still apply to Jehovah's Witnesses. This is why no scholar, let alone a consensus necessary for Wikipedia, shares Vyselink's evolution hypothesis. It must be rejected.

3) "Also, your other claim that ‘ecclesia’ has no semantic connection to ‘congregation’ is entirely wrong. It is a direct translation." Another misunderstanding of the point. The point wasn't that there is no linguistic connection. The point was that I didn't use semantics to compare Russell and Bible Students to Congregationalism, but one intergral notion (church governance), just like Jeffro77 used one point (eschatology) to make a commection to Adventism. The point is that one area of agreement with another groups doesn't mean being part of the group.

4) The overlapping argument is flawed. Every Christian denominational group has some overlap with another. They are all closer to each other than to outside worldviews. Breaking the argument down, it is another fuzzy concept argument, that is: "Blue and yellow have a fluid transition of green. Their distinction is fuzzy. Therefore, something very close to pure blue can be classfied as yellow and something very close to pure yellow as blue." Obviously, this is a bad argument. Russell, Bible Students, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians obviously are somewhere in the green area, so to speak. So are Adventists. No denomination is fully one side. But they are still closer to one side.

5) "It’s roughly analogous to ‘sovereign citizens’ claiming to be separate to their actual country of citizenship." You can not trust every person on legal matters. But you should trust groups and people on their own descriptions of beliefs. So, when Hoyle says: "I am an atheist", why would you say: "No, I know you better than yourself! This quote that I interpret in this way means you are a theist!"? This is exactly what is done to Russell here. In addition, the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses say that they are "the only true church" makes them closer to Roman Catholicsm and Eastern Orthodoxy than to Protestantism. But this isn't the only reason given. Another reason is the Trinity. And the disagreement about the very nature of God is not as minor as to not warrant another category other than Protestantism. Junkönig (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources I provided, and the other sources Vyselink gave, are mainstream sources and not at all fringe. Please stop beating the dead horse.—Jeffro77 Talk 12:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

But they still aren't the consensus on Wikipedia. It shouldn't be that one view is the basis of one part of Wikipedia and another exists on another part. Junkönig (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s concept of consensus does not mean that you can just interpret other articles that say a particular thing, often with inappropriate or inadequate sources, and assert that all other articles must agree. ‘Consensus’ needs to be established among editors at article Talk, not just asserted that other stuff exists. I have provided 21st century mainstream sources that unambiguously classify Russell and the Bible Students as Adventist. If you are very concerned about consistency across Wikipedia, you can add those sources to other articles (but you should not do so in a contentious manner just to make a point.) Other than Russell’s self-serving comment about his denomination being something special, what sources, particularly modern ones, support your view that he (and the Bible Students) were not Adventist?—Jeffro77 Talk 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, you yourself stated that if Russell was one, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc. are it, too. So, that's not just my assertion. But, obviously, my time is limited. And my "energy" is needed elsewhere, so to speak. So, I can only make this one discussion on this topic and don't have the ability to search every other similar group and make this discucssion there again to establish consensus to change everything.

Now, your argument that I should find sources that call Russell not a certain label is strange. Do you think people also list not collecting stamps or not swimming as a hobbies? What do you expect? A statement that Russell is not Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., etc. Why would it make sense to call someone by what he is not? Anyway, one source I have is Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, which says that Protestant is "a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth". No, obviously both modern Jehovah's Witnesses and Russell reject the priesthood of all believers. Only the bride or Christ, the anointed, have it. And Russell also said that there are other believers. It's just that he didn't convert them. The "Great Company" class was believed to be believing members of other churches. The priesthood was limited.

But I'll accept that you just won't accept this. Fine, Wikipedia is just Wikipedia anyway. If no change will be made, that's okay. I can "agree to disagree", so to speak.

Junkönig (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have provided sources that unambiguously classify Russell as Adventist. You have claimed he was not Adventist despite those sources. This isn’t some vague ‘non-stamp collector’ nonsense, because you have made the specific claim that he wasn’t Adventist. You would need to support that claim with sources.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, the definition of Protestantism that you provided does apply to JWs as well. JWs specifically believe that all JWs are ordained as ministers at their baptism. The Protestant concept of ‘priesthood of all believers’ refers to their belief that they can confess things to God directly (needing only Jesus as mediator) as distinct from the Catholic practice of confession to a priest, not that there ‘isn’t a separate category of priests’. The JW concept of the 144000 as priests only applies to a hypothetical period after Armageddon. Members who claim to be anointed are not regarded as priests now, and their own literature instead says that some who claim to be anointed might have mental or emotional problems.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

1) Again, it's strange for me to demonstrate a negative. That's just not how it's done (see the hobby example above). Why would people just list what religious denominational group a person is not in? Then you'd have to list hundreds. But, okay, I still found one source that is close to my position: "As commonly told, Russell was introduced to Millerite Adventism by Jonas Wendell and other Adventists. ... Though he denied ever having been an Adventist he was one. This is wrong. None of Russell’s doctrines owe their origin to Millerism or any of the descendent Adventists organizations. Russell’s belief system, with a few key exceptions, was developed while in association with Age-to-Come believers, especially those in the One Faith Movement. This movement was most closely associated with The Restitution, a newspaper published in Plymouth, Indiana. Russell’s closest associates were connected to One Faith or some form of Age-to-Come belief. This includes George Storrs." This is only one source with the direct statement "No". Less direct statements are that Russell, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. are closer to Nontrinitatian Restorationism than to Protestantism, including Adventism. But you would probably call them biased Protestants or whatever. Or say that Russell was definitely closest to both Restorationists and Adventists at the same time. Again, I don't want to fight with you. So, I'll just accept the article as it is.

2) I don't think that the Protestant notion of all believers as priests just means approaching God directly in forgiveness prayers. It also means that all Protestant believers get to have the label (not necessarily title) "priest" (just like "Christian", "king", "anointed", "elect", etc.). But Catholics would say that only some believers should be called "priests". So, Jehovah's Witnesses are again different from Protestantism. And you also said Protestants believe in Jesus being the mediator in prayers. Again, Jehovah's Witnesses think he is only the mediator of the Bride of Christ. Although they say prayers in Jesus' name, that's just Jesus being a broker, not a mediator as with those in the New Covenant. Those might be technicalities for some, but are important for some belief systems.

Irrespective of this, let's just grant your premise that priests = ministers. Okay, then Jehovah's Witnesses would fit your definition. Russell still wouldn't however. He also believed that all believing and baptized Bible Students are ministers. However, he also taught that believers exist outside of his group! These were called the Great Company class (similar to the Great Crowd of Jehovah's Witnesses, it's just that now they are taken in and baptized). This class was supposed to consist of members of other churches. They would serve in heaven in other areas, not the priesthood. So, even granting that ministers = priests, he still believed in a class for simple believers, other church members, and a class for the cremè de la cremè, ordained members of the Bible Students.

And even though the 144000 may have little mental or emotional problems, I have some. Hahaha. No, seriously, some idiots tried to confuse me with the ideas of the brain in a vat, the matrix, and other speculative s*** so that I doubt what obviously exists, including myself. But I don't want to go insane and need to valuably invest my time. There are more important things, frankly. So, I will just end this discussion by saying that we "agree to disagree" here, so to speak. Everything remains as it is. Junkönig (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not really appropriate to add new details that you think support your view and then say you’re stopping the discussion so that other parties aren’t supposed to have a right of reply. If you’re stopping, just stop.

No one has asserted that Russell was ‘not a member of hundreds of denominations’. You need to learn the logical difference between ‘no A are B’ and ‘A is not B’. The first is an unprovable negative, the latter is not. Reliable sources explicitly identify Russell (and Bible Students and JWs) as Adventist. End of story. (The position on Protestantism is more complex and varied though.) The additional source you provided is not particularly compelling; it makes an unverifiable claim about an anonymous ‘internet troll’ and then raises a straw man attack about calling Russell an Adventist supposedly being meant as an insult. (Schultz’s implication that calling JWs Adventists is just some internet-era myth is readily shown to be false by the fact that pre-Internet literature also calls them Adventist[7](1966, page 18)) It goes on to claim that “none of Russell’s doctrines owe their origins to Millerism” which is quite erroneous. The book is self-published. I found online comments that Schulz is a JW and therefore not an impartial source.

Your ad hoc rationalisation about the Protestant concept of ‘priesthood of all members’ is also incorrect.[8] It is precisely in the same sense that JWs regard all baptised members as “ministers”. Bible Students (and JWs) don’t have any other class of priests apart from in a hypothetical future supernatural political structure after Armageddon, which is unrelated to contemporary JW or Protestant church polity. (It should be noted that whilst JWs and Protestants don't have a separate class of intercessory priests in the same way as the Catholic church, they do have elders/pastors and ministerial servants/deacons, and those are often given a similar legal status to bishops/priests in various jurisdictions. Additionally, JWs use special semantics for the word 'mediator', but it is still their view that Jesus is the only intercessory agent for prayer.)

And I didn’t say ‘the 144,000 have emotional or mental problems’. I said the Watch Tower Society says that some who claim to be anointed are not in the 144,000 but only think they are due to those problems.

It is not necessary to try to rebut further if you are no longer seeking to change the article.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Archive

On a quick side-note, every post on this talk page other than the one directly above on Russell's Adventism is at LEAST three years old. Can someone who knows how to do it archive those to just clean this page up a bit?Vyselink (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone doesn’t get to it first, I’ll do it when I’m not on mobile device.—Jeffro77 Talk 21:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)