Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Responses to Comments

The claim is being made that the truth is that Russell used photos taken directly from freemason books. The freemason book of magic, ect.

Those Bible Students who worked on the Photo Drama of Creation evidently sought to find public domain pictures that could be used in the making of the Photo Drama, and many sources were used. It is possible that some pictures from the Freemasons who believe in the Bible may have been used in this connection, although we have found no direct evidence of such. The reality is that such a claim appears to be made based solely on conjecture.

While we are not certain what "book" is being referred to as the Freemason "book of magic," there is definitely no reason to believe that Russell took photos from any book of magic.

We have beem asked to carefully watch this video and all the photos in it:

The video linked to is marked unavailable/private. We are not allowed to watch it. We suspect that it is the same video that we watched some time ago which actually embeds images into the Photo-Drama that were actually not used in the original Photo Drama, thus making it appear that Russell actually used exact images as are used by the Masons. Indeed, we also suspect that this is the reason that the video was made private. If this is the same video, we exposed this in the comments, although we suspect that our comments were removed.

Here are some links to the actual Photo-Drama of Creation:

Otherwise, we would need to know exactly what photos in the actual Photo-Drama we are supposed to note, and what publication of the Masons such were taken from.

The claim is made that Jesus did not dress up like the politicians and establishment of this world. He critisized them for it.

No scripture is given, and we are not sure what is being referred to as being Jesus' criticism of how the politicians of the world dressed. Nor is it stated how this is supposed to relate to Russell.

We believe, however, that Jesus dressed in the common style of the day.

Evidently, however, the remark is made as a criticism of the way Brother Russell dressed, although it is not stated as to what is being objected to regarding the way Brother Russell dressed. We do not think Russell dressed any different from many ministers of various denominations of his time. However, he certainly did not dress with the distinctive clerical garb that is the custom of clerics in many denominations. Russell, like Jesus, did not promote a clergy/laity distinction.

Jesus did make some criticism of the scribes, not especially of their clothing itself, but of their attitude related to their clothing consisting of long robes. -- Mark 12:38; Luke 20:46.

There is little evidence in the Bible in the Bible of how Jesus dressed, but it does not appear that he dressed any different from what was the custom of that time and region. That Jesus did not deem it wrong to wear long robes can be seen from the description given to Jesus in Revelation 1:13.

The claim is made that Christ did not teach doctrines not found in the Word of God.

Yes, this is true. Evidently, however, the implication of the claim is that Russell did teach doctrines not found in the Bible.

Jesus, of course, having been given a body of flesh from God Himself (Hebrews 10:5), did not have the sinful flesh of men who are condemned in Adam (Romans 5:12-19; 8:3), and absolutely everything he did and said is truth. The "one God" who is the Heavenly Father anointed and sent Jesus (Isaiah 61:1; John 17:1,3), prepared a body of flesh for Jesus (Hebrews 10:5), and made Jesus a little lower than the angels so that Jesus could offer that body of flesh with its blood to Jehovah his God for our sins.  (Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:19; Romans 3:25; Colossians 1:14; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 2:9; 9:14; 10:10; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5) Jesus was the prophet like Moses, who spoke the words of Jehovah is God with error or mistake. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19;

Russell, however, never claimed to have such perfection of truth. Indeed, he consistently denied such, and admitted the possibility of error in some things. He did make mistakes, but he certainly endeavored to not teach as doctrine what is not found in the Word of God. Thus he rejected such doctrines as the trinity, inherent immortal human soul/spirit, conscious eternal suffering, etc.

The claim is made that Christ did not rent an office to practice his Christianity in. 

Again, the implication evidently is that Russell did rent an office to practice his Christianity in. While we don't know that Russell ever rented an office to practice Christianity, we don't know of any scripture that says one should not rent an office as part of his service to Christ.

Russell, did, however, have an office which he used as a study. I suppose Russell could have fulfilled his consecration to follow Christ without such an office, but the office he had was simply a tool that he used in his consecration to Christ.

On the other hand, nearly every pastor of every church of every denomination has an office which he uses for his work. If Russell is to be condemned for having an office, what about these?

Related to the above, Jesus statement, "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head" is quoted (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58), with the claim that the disciple is NOT greater than his master (Matthew 10:24; Luke 6:40), and it is claimed that everyone that is perfect shall be as his master! And then it is stated: "Russell was not!"

This seems to be misusing the scriptures to say that unless one has nowhere to lay his head, then that person is not a disciple of Christ! The only logical conclusion from what is stated is that anyone who has a bed or some place in which to sleep must not be a disciples of Christ!! Did all the early Christians in the first century not have a place to lay their head? Did none of them own houses with a place to lay their heads?

Russell, of course, never claimed to be perfect in his flesh. He definitely never claimed that he was perfect so that he could never make a mistake.

The claim is being made that Jesus never said he was part of a devil worshiping cult knowing his followers would "understand!!!

Again, the implication evidently is that Russell did say he was part of devil worshiping cult, knowing that his followers would understand. Russell never claimed such a ridiculous thought, nor was Russell part of any devil worshiping cult. The only "cult" that Russell advocated was that of belonging only to Christ, and that one should follow Christ. Applying the above to what Russell did say would, in effect, mean that anyone who states that he belongs to Christ is part of a devil worshiping cult. Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses' leadership, Russell did not promote the Bible Students as being "the true religion." He never spoke of the Bible Students as being a religion at all. He did speak of "the true church," which he described as follows:

(1913) The one true Church, dear friends, is the church of the Bible. There never has been but that one true Church. All others are false, and if I built up another church I would be building up another false one. That is not our proposition at all. The I.B.S.A. holds out the proposition which the Bible stands for, namely, that all people who are trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ, and consecrated to follow in his steps, are of the church of the living God whose names are written in heaven. The I.B.S.A. recognizes no other church. It does not say that only those in the I.B.S.A. constitute the church. It recognizes that all true Christians in the various churches should be awake, and we are trying to awaken them to the truth. The I.B.S.A. recognizes that these true Christian people are in danger of falling into infidelity, unless they get the true light of God's Word, and so is trying to bring all Christian people to study the Bible, and thus into complete union as the church of Christ. -- What Pastor Russell Said, page 348.

In his book, The New Creation, Russell wrote:

    No earthly organization can grant a passport to heavenly glory. The most bigoted sectarian (aside from the Romanist) will not claim, even, that membership in his sect will secure heavenly glory. All are forced to admit that the true Church is the one whose record is kept in heaven, and not on earth. They deceive the people by claiming that it is needful to come to Christ through them – needful to become members of some sectarian body in order to become members of "the body of Christ," the true Church. On the contrary, the Lord, while he has not refused any who came to him through sectarianism, and has turned no true seeker away empty, tells us that we need no such hindrances, but could much better have come to him direct. He cries, "Come unto me"; "take my yoke upon you, and learn of me"; "my yoke is easy and my burden is light, and ye shall find rest to your souls." Would that we had given heed to his voice sooner. We would have avoided many of the heavy burdens of sectism, many of its bogs of despair, many of its doubting castles, its vanity fairs, its lions of worldly-mindedness, etc.
    Surely all know that whenever they join any of these human organizations, accepting its Confession of Faith as theirs, they bind themselves to believe neither more nor less than that creed expresses on the subject. If, in spite of the bondage thus voluntarily yielded to, they should think for themselves, and receive light from other sources, in advance of the light enjoyed by the sect they have joined, they must either prove untrue to the sect and to their covenant with it, to believe nothing contrary to its Confession, or else they must honestly cast aside and repudiate the Confession which they have outgrown, and come out of such a sect. To do this requires grace and costs some effort, disrupting, as it often does, pleasant associations, and exposing the honest truth-seeker to the silly charges of being a "traitor" to his sect, a "turncoat," one "not established," etc. When one joins a sect, his mind is supposed to be given up entirely to that sect, and henceforth not his own. The sect undertakes to decide for him what is truth and what is error; and he, to be a true, staunch, faithful member, must accept the decisions of his sect, future as well as past, on all religious matters, ignoring his own individual thought, and avoiding personal investigation, lest he grow in knowledge, and be lost as a member of such sect. This slavery of conscience to a sect and creed is often stated in so many words, when such a one declares that he "belongs" to such a sect.
    These shackles of sectarianism, so far from being rightly esteemed as shackles and bonds, are esteemed and worn as ornaments, as badges of respect and marks of character. So far has the delusion gone, that many of God's children would be ashamed to be known to be without some such chains – light or heavy in weight, long or short in the personal liberty granted. They are ashamed to say that they are not in bondage to any sect or creed, but "belong" to Christ only.
-- The New Creation, pages 185-187.

It is claimed that Christ did not speak of a "new order" as Freemasons do!

Again, the implication appears to be that Russell did speak of a "new order" as the Freemasons do! Actually, Brother Russell did not speak of a "new order" as Freemasons do, nor as many ascribe conspiracy ideas to the Freemaons and a "new order"! Jesus did speak of the "age to come," often rendered as "world to come." (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30) That age to come will certainly be a new order, a new heavens and new earth (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1-5), but not after the manner taught by the Freemasons. Russell did, at times, refer to the age to come as being a new order, but not in the sense that the Freemasons are spoken of as referring to a new order. Most Freemasons have no genuine idea of the new order as promised in the Bible. Russell rarely used the expression "new order" without adding "of things," that is "new order of things." The word "order", however, is based mostly on forms of the Biblical Greek word often transliterated as KOSMOS, as well as forms of the word often transliterated as AION, both of which are often translated as "world".
One of the meanings of KOSMOS is "order"

It is claimed that in fact Russell said he would not dare speak a word against these devil worshipers and that some of his very dear friends are freemasons.

Again, this misquotes and misrepresents two things Russell stated by taking them out of context, and by putting them together with added words to make it appear that Russell condoned freemaonry and worship of the devil. He definitely did not condone man's Freemason Society, and plainly stated such. Russell definitely did not condone worship of the devil or any actions of others related to worship of the devil.

Russell did seem to be under the impression that all the Freemasons professed to be Christian, and thus he seemed to classify them as a Christian sect. As he believed that all sectarianism will be destroyed and not allowed to continue to exist in the Kingdom, he also believed that the Freemasons organization would cease to exist, and not be allowed to continue into the age to come. Believing that the Freemasons professed to be Christian, Russell did not describe them as "devil worshipers." In the broad sense, anyone who has not been regenerated by the blood of Christ could be referred to as a worshiper of the devil, and even those regenerated could fall into various acts that could be referred to as worshiping the devil. In that more than likely most Freemasons had not been regenerated as a child of God, one could say in a broad sense that those unregenerated Freemasons were devil worshipers, although Russell never spoke of such.

Russell stated (we do not necessarily agree with all his applications of scripture):
You will notice that we never have anything to say against any of these. We have not said an unkind word about Freemasonry, and you never read anything unkind that we have ever said about it, and I do not wish to say anything unkind about Presbyterianism, or Methodism. I think that many of the dear friends in these denominations are good people, and I appreciate their characters. What I talk about sometimes is Presbyterian doctrine, and they talk about it, too. And I have read things they have said about Presbyterian doctrines far harder than anything I have ever said. I sometimes quote in the Watch Tower some things Presbyterians say about their own doctrine, and I occasionally quote in the Watch Tower something the Methodists say about their doctrine, because they say it stronger than I should wish to say it.
The Lord did not send me to preach against Masonry or Odd Fellowship, nor against Presbyterianism or Methodism. Our opportunity is to tell the truth, to preach the true gospel of Christ, and the Lord says that this message is to have its effects on the different hearts. Now, if you find yourself in any kind of a bundle, you know that is not the program so far as the wheat is concerned. The wheat is to he gathered into the garner; it is not to be put into bundles in the present life.

At that particular time and place, Russell was not saying anything against the Freemasons, or against Presbyerianism or Methodism, etc., but elsewhere he did:
We note also that the Order of Free Masons, if judged by its past history, has some secret object or scheme, more than fraternity and financial aid in time of sickness or death. And, so far as we can judge, there is a certain amount of profane worship or mummery connected with the rites of this order and some others, which the members do not comprehend, but which, in many cases, serves to satisfy the cravings of the natural mind for worship, and thus hinders it from seeking the worship of God in spirit and in truth--through Christ, the only appointed Mediator and Grand Master.
In proportion as such societies consume valuable time in foolish, senseless rites and ceremonies, and in substituting the worship of their officers, and the use of words and symbols which have no meaning to them, for the worship of God, in his appointed way -- through Christ, and according to knowledge and the spirit of a sound mind -- in that proportion these societies are grievous evils, regardless of the financial gains or losses connected with membership in them.
Such societies, on selfish business principles, are foreign to the spirit of God's Church. In it, those who have this world's goods should be ready to assist the needy of the Lord's family, hoping for nothing again. And all who are members of the true Church whose names are written in heaven, all who have the spirit of the Head, will be willing and anxious to do good unto all men as they have opportunity, especially to the household of faith, who are not leaning upon earthly Societies, but who, instead of spending "dues" in that way, are using their means to serve the Lord, his truth and his people.

For links to some of research related Russell and the Freemasons:

Brother Russell seemed to think all the Freemasons claimed to be Christian, and thus classified them as a whole as bundle of tares - which he believed to be false Christians, and that the Freemasons, as an organization, was a symbolic bundle of symbolic tares that was to be destroyed in the symbolic fiery furnace of the time of trouble. Since Freemasonry does not profess to be Christian, classifying it as a bundle of tares does not actually fit, although the application could -- in a sense -- apply to the Knights Templar, who do profess to be Christian. We do believe that the Freemason organization as a whole may be included as a "rock", as spoken of in Revelation 6:16. That organization will definitely not be allowed to continue to exist into the Kingdom Age, and any held captive in that organization will be set free to come to Christ.

For some of Russell's comments on the Freemasons:

Russell did speak of some of his friends who are Freemasons; as stated before, however, he evidently believed that all Masons professed to be Christian. Nevertheless, Russell, however, often used the term "dear friends" many without meaning that he considered such "friends" to be spiritually close to him. Russell also spoke of his dear friends who are Methodists, Baptists, and of other denominations and organizations. His usage of such language definitely does not mean that he condoned the practices or teachings of any of those organizations.

Russell, however, believed that most who professed to be Christian that are in the various denominations are actually represented by the tares in the parable of the wheat and tares, false Christians, but, he did not claim that absolutely all in the denominations are represented as tares.

It is claimed that Jesus would never choose the meeting place of admitted Satanist to meet with his disciples.

Evidently it is being thought that Russell did choose the meeting place of admitted Satanists to meet with fellow believers. Strictly speaking, anyone who does not belong the Christ is still part of Satan's seed, and thus could be referred to as a Satanist. Most Freemasons, at least in Russell's day, however, did profess to belong to Christ, although most of them were probably not actually consecrated to Christ.

The whole world is being mislead by Satan. (Revelation 12:9) The whole world lies in the power of the evil one. (1 John 5:19) There is no place on earth as such that one can say absolutely is free of Satan's influence. Basically, the whole world is full of liars who, in effect, worship Lucifer (Satan). We are already in, so to speak, a den of demon worshipers by simply being born into this world.

Those who have been regenerated in Christ, however, are not perfect in the flesh, and thus, in the flesh, such may also be found to be subject to telling lies - whether due to weakness of the flesh, or through ignorance, and to such a degree, could be unknowingly serving Lucifer in those specific acts. Such of the flesh, however, is separate from the new creature, which is totally sinless in Christ.

The children of God in a world that has Satan as its prince/god (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4) still has to deal with those of the the world, regardless of what those of the world may believe or practice. (1 Corinthians 5:9,10) If in a land that is full of Buddhists, if the children of God wish to rent a room for a meeting, they will probably have to rent from Buddhists who may have Buddhist symbolism in that room. If in India, they may have to rent from Hindus, etc. Russell and the Bible Students have rented rooms, probably from the cheapest of acceptable options, which included rooms owned by Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and many other denominational churches, the US Armory, Elks lodges, Odd-Fellow Lodges, schools, universities, etc., as well as Masonic lodges, with no thought at all of agreement with the teachings or practices of any of these groups or organizations. The freedom from God is knowledge that whatever religious idolatrous practices and beliefs held by the owners of such building can have no hold upon those who are set free by Christ. And yet there is always the tendency of the flesh to set up bondage to this or that man, or group of men, which is, as the apostle Paul explained, carnal reasoning. -- 1 Corinthians 3:1-4.

Jesus, however, spoke of the Scribes and Pharisees as being children of Satan, and doing the works of Satan. (John 8:41-44) Most of the synagogues of that day were owned by such Scribes and Pharisees. Did Jesus refuse to make use of those synagogues? -- Matthew 4:23; 12:9; 13:54; Mark 1:21; 3:1; 6:2; etc.

It is claimed that we and the JWs have invented our own religion, and do not follow Christ.

Indeed, unlike the JWs, our only endeavor is to follow Christ as best as we are able. It is indeed old, going back to Christ and the apostles, and definitely based on the Bible itself, not the Masons. Rutherford, however, did indeed invent his own religion, which named "Jehovah's Witnesses."

While we do not believe that there is to be a world revolution leading to anarchy is to be actual doctrine, the Bible prophecies do indicate such; this belief, however, is not based on anything taught by the Masons, although the Masons may have a share in such revolutions. We do believe that all sectarianism, however is wrong in God eyes, even the sectarianism that may have crept into the Bible Students movement. Such sectarianism will be destroyed and all held as captives of such will be freed.

It is evidently claimed that we believe that Jerusalem below is the New Jerusalem.

We are not sure where this is coming from. We ourselves have never made such a statement. We do believe the heavenly New Jersualem will make use of Jerusalem below, especially after Satan has been cast into the abyss, in order to enlighten the world concerning the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and concerning the Messiah sent by God. The Jerusalem below must, however, accept their Messiah before this can take place.

Russell certainly did not believe the the Jerusalem below is the New Jerusalem, nor do we know of any of the Bible Students who believe such.

Some statements of Brother Russell regarding the "New Jerusalem":

The period of the reign of Sin and Death is represented as the time when God "remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger" (Lam. 2:1); but following the beginning of the Millennium, the people are prophetically called upon to – "Exalt the Lord our God and worship at his footstool, for he is worthy." (Psa. 99:5) And this thought, that the establishment of the New Jerusalem, the Church of God glorified, as the new government in the earth, will mean the beginning of the restoration of divine favor to Jehovah's footstool, is clearly set forth through the Prophet Zechariah (14:4,5). -- The Battle of Armageddon, page 649.

It is well also to distinguish clearly between the New Jerusalem, the heavenly or spiritual city of which the apostles are the twelve foundations, and the old Jerusalem which is to be rebuilt upon her old heaps. The old Jerusalem's promised restoration implies not merely the reconstruction of the buildings, etc., but specially the reorganization of Israel's government; for a city in prophecy is always the symbol or representation of a government. Hence the promised reconstruction of Jerusalem upon her old foundations implies a national reorganization of Israel upon a basis similar to that which it formerly had, as a people over whom Jehovah's Anointed held the authority. The New Jerusalem represents the Gospel Church in glory and Kingdom power, spiritual, and invisible to men, yet all-powerful. Its descent to earth (Rev. 21:2) marks the fulfilment of that petition of our Lord's prayer which says, "Thy Kingdom come"; and its "coming" will be gradual, and not sudden. It is already "coming down," coming into control, and as a result we see the preliminary steps leading to the re-establishment of the old Jerusalem; and ultimately the result mentioned in our Lord's prayer will be realized – God's will will be done on earth as in heaven. The New Jerusalem and the New Heavens are synonymous, signifying the new spiritual ruling power. -- Thy Kingdom Come, page 258.

QUESTION--Will the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2) be a literal city of gold and gems, and will it come floating down through the sky and locate somewhere on the earth? If so, how, when, and where?

ANSWER--We are aware that quite a number seem to hold the thought of an actual city, with all of its walls, buildings, towers and turrets, coming down from above and locating in the land of Palestine. Those who have this thought should try to bear in mind that much of the Bible is written in highly symbolic or figurative language. The dimensions of this city are given in furlongs in this same chapter. If we reduce these to miles, we have for the dimensions fifteen hundred miles in length and breadth and height. A city of this magnitude could scarcely be placed in the small land of Palestine, which measures less than two hundred miles in its greatest length. By noting the expressions of the 9th verse, it will become apparent to all that not a literal city is referred to, but a symbolic one is meant. The angel showed St. John "The Bride, the Lamb's wife," in symbol, as a beautiful city. Surely no one would so far ignore the faculties of intelligence and reason as to say that the Bride of Christ is to be a literal city. This Bride is the same one represented as saying, in almost the closing words of the Bible, "Come and partake of the waters of life freely." The Bride is the Church class composed of the faithful followers of Christ, of whom the Apostle Paul speaks, saying: "I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2). --What Pastor Russell Said, page 789.

Thursday, November 21, 2019


The word "numerology" is often defined as:

the study of numbers, as the figures designating the year of one's birth, to determine their supposed influence on one's life, future, etc.


The study of the occult significance of numbers.

As commonly used, it is associated with spiritism, demonism, witchcraft, etc.

Russell never spoke of "numerology" (belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events), nor does his works show any belief in such. In the broad sense, the word "occult" etymologically simply means "secret". The Bible is certainly full of secrets, mysteries, unknown to the world, but made known (in varying degrees) to those who have God's spirit. The word "occult" today, however, most often refers to heathen or demonistic spiritistic practices; Russell certainly did not believe in "the occult" as that word is usually used. Indeed, he preached against such practices, and showed how such practices are not in harmony with the Bible.

Likewise, the word "numerology" etymolically simply means "study of numbers." Russell did believe that numbers in the Bible often are symbolic, which is usually termed "Biblical numerics". This is different, however, than what is often conveyed by the word "numberology." Russell was not the first to believe that numbers in the Bible often carry symbolic significance. Nevertheless, if the word "numerology" is used to reflect the study of Biblical numerics, it would not mean that such has any reference to any kind of heathen or demonic occultism. Russell, however, never spoke of numerology, but he did speak of Biblical numerics.

Nor did Russell's study of God's Witness in Egypt have anything to do with heathen occultism, heathen numerology, spiritism, astrology, etc. Indeed, Russell's studies would lead one away from such heathen practices.

Sunday, October 6, 2019

Occult Theocrasy and Russell

General Observations of Miller's Claims Regarding Russell and the Bible Students.

This posting is not yet completed, and final editing still needs to be done.

(The terms "we", "our", etc., are used editorially of the owner of this site

Edith Starr Miller (aka Lady Queenborough), either through ignorance or on purpose, distorted some of what Russell taught to make it appear that Russell was in league with some alleged Satanic plot of the Masons. Without any proof whatsoever Miller asserts Russell to have been a Mason.

As far as we have been able to determine, she is the first to ever have made such an assertion. We have found no evidence that anyone ever claimed that Russell was a member of the Freemasons while he was alive, nor that he was in support of some kind of Satanic occult practices.

We have not found anything that indicates that there were very many who gave serious attention to Miller's distortions and misrepresentations until several, such as Fritz Springmeier and David Icke, began their conspiracy theory campaigns, based on elaborate schemes of distortions and misrepresentations of Russell.

Miller's claim that was Russell was part of a conspiracy of Masons' alleged occult plan to rule the world. In fact, Miller totally misrepresented Russell and what Russell taught in order to make it appear that Russell was indeed some kind of Satanic occultist, a Mason, etc. Indeed, the whole idea that Russell was in some way in support of any imperfect or sinful men ruling the world is totally contrary the central message that Russell spent almost his entire life, energy and fortune in preaching and defending. Those truly familiar with Russell's works would know this, but most of the JWs and ex-JWs are actually familiar with Russell's works, and could thus be easily deceived by such tactics being used by these people who distort what he said or did in order to misrepresent him.

Much of what Miller wrote concerning the Bible Students appears to confuse the teachings of Joseph Rutherford with that of the Bible Students; actually, the central message preached by the Bible Students is almost the very opposite of that preached by Joseph Rutherford. By 1928, the vast majority of the Bible Students around the world had rejected Rutherford's gospel related his alleged "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma. Rutherford named his new group, "Jehovah's Witnesses" in 1931, in order to distinguish his "organization" from the Bible Students.


In the second volume, page 539, of Miller's alleged "research", she starts a chapter entitled,"Russellites or International Bible Students. In reality, anyone who is a "Russellite" would be in contradiction to what Russell taught, and thus in a self-contradiction of beliefs. Russell preached against anyone being a Russellite, believing that one should only follow Christ.

Russell's Comments on Russellites and Russellism

Attracting the Lower Middle Class

"The International Bible Student Movement was founded by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) with the object chiefly of attracting the lower middle class intelligentsia of Christian communities such as certain clerical workers, teachers, servants and persons not accessible to direct forms of propaganda. In America the movement has had great influence among the negro element."

This is obviously Miller's own opinion; We do not, however, believe that Russell started the Watch Tower with any motive to attract any particular class, although he did admit that his works were designed for educated Christians and non-Christians who could read and write. While the Bible Students have had some influence among the black people in America, not a great many blacks in the Americas have taken an interest in this message. However, Russell's writings against many popular religious views being held among white Christians concerning black people -- such as the false idea that black people are beasts -- may have had an unknown amount of influence related to the treatment of black people. We will also say that the Bible Students movement has had a great influence on many blacks in Africa, but this is not due to any object designed of the movement itself.

For what Russell wrote concerning the black people, see:

Forms of Propaganda

We are not sure what is meant by Miller's statement regarding "persons not accessible to direct forms of propaganda." Anyone have any suggestions?

Arbitrary Conclusions

Miller states:

"The Russellite teaching, drawing its own arbitrary conclusions and proclaiming them as final, professes to prove from Biblical sources that all Christian churches are evil and corrupt, that the time of the Gentiles ended in 1914, and that the Jews must henceforth reign supreme over the world."

We can hardly call the extensive scriptural study of Russell's conclusions as being "arbitrary". Our own belief is that the Biblical evidence to us is great, if not overwhelming, that the Gentile Times did end in 1914. Like Brother Russell, however, we are not dogmatic about this, and certainly do not reject a fellow believer in Christ for not accepting this conclusion.

For various views and conclusions among the Bible Students regarding chronology and time prophecies, one may see:

Proclaiming Conclusions as Final

Charles Taze Russell definitely never claimed that his conclusions were final; indeed, he over and over stated the possibility that he could be wrong, especially as related to Bible chronology and Bible time prophecies. He believed that the Bible was right, whether his conclusions regarding the Bible were correct or not. He never assumed authority over fellow believers so as to claim that all had to accept his conclusions. I would say that most Bible Students today follow this same line of reasoning, although there have been some among the Bible Students who have displayed similar sectarian reasoning as Rutherford did.

Documentation may be found among the various material on the links provided at:

However, Miller may have been referring to Rutherford's conclusions, or she may have been confusing Rutherford with Russell. Rutherford was indeed dogmatic, demanding that all had to accept his conclusions, or possibly go into the second death. Rutherford, in effect, separated his group from the Bible Students movement and led his followers away from the Bible Students.

Jews Must Henceforth Reign Supreme

We do not know of any of the Bible Students that teach that "the Jews must henceforth reign supreme over the world." We did some digital searches through using the Bible Students Library software but could find nothing that says anything like this. We did find some statements concerning love reigning supreme and that presently evil reigns supreme, etc., but nothing related to the Jews reigning supreme. We searched for "over the world" and got zero results in all that is contained in the library, version 3.

Brother Russell, before 1914 had arrived, did believe that Jesus would begin the earthly phase of the kingdom in Jerusalem in 1914 or shortly after. Obviously, Jesus still has not set up the earthly phase of kingdom. We ourselves do not see that this can happen until after Jesus throws Satan into the abyss so that the gentiles (nations) will no longer be under his deceptions.

Miller, however, appears to be leaving the impression that the Bible Students are saying that the Jews must rule the earth without Christ. Russell himself did not believe such. Only Christ will have supreme rule over the world. He believed that any human rulership of the age to come must be under the righteous control of Jesus, to whom the Father has given all authority to judge.

The book claims that Russell "elaborates an occult dogma alleged to be based on biblical precedents."

The word "occult" can take on different shades of meaning. Russell did not believe in any form of occult magic, astrology, spiritism, etc., nor did he believe in any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies that are not of God, and or the Bible. Russell was definitely actually non-dogmatic about his beliefs beyond the fundamental Biblical beliefs. The only "occult" or secret dogma that Russell advocated was that God sent Jesus, and that Jesus died for the world of mankind, and that God raised Jesus on the third day.

Russell did speak of the church spoken of in the Bible as being a "secret society." In doing this, he was not saying that the Bible Students are part of any of man's secret societies.

The books appears to distort Russell's undogmatic views of Revelation as being in some way proof that he was connected to the Masons and/or the Occult.

Practically all of the Protestant reformers connected Papacy with Babylon the Great. If one uses this this claim that Russell was in some way connected with the Masons or the Occult, then, if one is consistent, the same would apply to nearly of Protestism whose leaders in the past did the same. Russell, however, did not just point to the Papacy, but to all sectarianism, as being Babylon. He condemned such sectarianism as being unscriptural, but this does not mean that he was condemning the people of any those sectarian systems to some kind of eternal punishment (as did Rutherford). Russell did believe that such sectarianism will not be allowed in the age to come, and thus that the destruction of Babylon (sectarianism) would eventually free all from such sectarian bondage, and thus that Christianity would eventually prove to be victorious. The Dawn printed a booklet that may be helpful along this line, entitled, "God and Reason":

Miller claims that Russell "predicts that, under the visible rulership of the Ancient Worthies (The Jewish Sanhedrin), those Gentiles who still believe in Christ will acknowledge his reign as an invisible one while submitting as Christians to all the hardships these Jewish lords might choose to put upon them."

Brother Russell never spoke of the ancient worthies as being the "Jewish Sanhedrin." Miller may have really believed this false assumption of Russell, although we have no idea where she would get such an idea, except that she would be writing under the influence of Satan, who is the father of lies. (John 8:44) This idea is evidently designed to create a false impression that Russell promoted the idea that the world was to ruled by evil Jewish men. Miller leaves out the Russell believed that the world is to be ruled by Jesus and those who are joint-heirs with Jesus in the heavenly phase of the Kingdom, and that this is all in accord with God the heavenly father's purpose to bless all families of the earth. Russell believed that, due to the righteous rulership of Jesus and the joint-heirs, that the faithful ones of old, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, etc., will be raised and these will become princes (rulers) under the Heavenly rulership (Jesus and the joint-heirs). It was these that he referred to as the "ancient worthies.' They will not rule apart from the righteous and just rulership of Jesus, all to the glory of the God and Father of Jesus, and the entire arranges of that kingdom is for the blessing of all families of the earth!!!!!!! And what a blessing that will be for all mankind, for Satan will no longer be around to promote his evil deceptions. -- Revelation 20:3.

Thus, Brother Russell gave a tremendously wonderful hope for mankind beyond the time of trouble in his message that all families of the earth will be blessed through Jesus and the glorified church. The book, "The Finished Mystery", was not written by Russell, and does not always reflect what Russell taught and believed, and cannot be trusted to truthfully reflect what he taught.

Miller's lack of proper research is shown in her statement: "The present head of this movement is John Rutherford." John Rutherford was not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses organization; he definitely was not the head of that "movement" (actually organization), nor was the head of the Bible Students movement. John Rutherford (father of Adam Rutherford) may have been associated with the Bible Students, but definitely he was not the head of the Bible Students movement. We suspect that Miller was confusing John Rutherford with Joseph Rutherford, who created the Jehovah's Witnesses organization.

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Domestic Troubles (J. F. Rutherford)


(Excerpt from "A Great Battle in the Eccesiastical Heavens", by Joseph F. Rutherford.)

Pastor Russell was married in 1879. For the first thirteen years of their married life he and Mrs. Russell lived happily together. They were both engaged in religious work, and had been even before their marriage. A semi-monthly religious journal, THE WATCH TOWER, was published, of which Pastor Russell was and still is the editor. She became dissatisfied with his manner of conducting this journal and attempted to dictate the policy thereof. Being the head of the house, Pastor Russell would not submit to his wife's dictating the manner of conducting his business affairs. Without notice, she voluntarily separated herself from him in 1897, nearly eighteen years after their marriage. For nearly seven years she lived separate and apart from him, he furnishing her a separate home.

In June, 1903, she filed in the Court of Common Pleas at Pittsburgh a suit for legal separation. They had been actually separated for nearly seven years. In April, 1906, the cause came on for trial before Justice Collier and a jury. It has been remarked by a number of lawyers who have read the record in this case that "no court has ever before granted a separation upon so slight testimony as appears in this case." The record discloses nothing except a misunderstanding between husband and wife, and which at one time was adjusted, by mutual consent. The issue being submitted to the jury they evidently concluded that, being already actually separated for a period of seven years, a legal separation might as well take place.

There never has been an absolute divorce of either of the parties.


Upon the trial of this cause Mrs. Russell testified that one Miss Ball had stated to her that her husband said, "I am like a jelly-fish, I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds I take her to me, and if not I float on to others." All this matter the Court struck from the record and would not permit it to go to the jury. In his charge to the jury the Judge said: "This little incident about this girl that was in the family, that is beyond the ground of the libel and has nothing to do with the case because not being put in it, and it was condoned or allowed to pass."

It is manifest that this "jelly-fish" story was entirely the product of Mrs. Russell's imagination, and other facts which appear in the record conclusively show that it could not have been true.

Domestic Affairs

Pastor Russell emphatically denied that any such thing ever occurred. It would seem unreasonable that any man would make such a statement about himself.

But the most conclusive facts disclosed by the record showing her statement to be untrue are these: Miss Ball came to them in 1889, a child of ten [Rutherford was evidently in error on this], and was taken into the home of Mr. and Mrs. Russell. She was treated as a member of the family. She was an orphan. She kissed both Mr. and Mrs. Russell good night each evening when she retired. They treated her as their own child. (Court Record, pages 90, 91.)

[See our research: Russell and Rose Ball]

Mrs. Russell testified that the "jelly-fish" incident transpired in 1894, when the girl could not have been more than fifteen years of age. (Page 1.5, Record.)

Mrs. Russell lived with her husband for three years thereafter and was separated from him seven years longer before suit was filed, or ten years after the alleged incident before she filed her suit for separation. In her complaint, or bill for separation, no reference whatever is made to the Ball or jelly-fish incident. Her husband had no notice that she intended to make such a charge, and when upon the trial it was intimated by her counsel that he expected to prove such, counsel for Pastor Russell asked for a continuance of the case, which the Court denied. Miss Ball was then living and Mrs. Russell knew where she was and could have procured her as a witness, or have had her deposition, in court. No attempt was made to procure her attendance or her deposition.

Pastor Russell could not have had her there to testify because he had no notice or intimation that his wife would attempt to bring such into the case. It is but reasonable to conclude that this jellyfish story was manufactured for the occasion. Truly it is a great fish-story!


Another point that conclusively shows that the "jelly-fish story," or Miss Ball incident, was manufactured and untrue is this fact: Three years after the alleged incident Mrs. Russell herself selected and called together a committee of three before whom she and her husband met to discuss their differences and tried to arrange them.

Two members of that committee testified at the trial that all the differences of Mr. and Mrs. Russell were discussed and that their trouble grew out of the management of the paper, or journal. The committee decided against Mrs. Russell's contention, and, in their language, the two "kissed and made up."

The Miss Ball or jelly-fish incident was not even intimated to this committee. (Court Record, pages 79, 113-116.)

Domestic Affairs


At the trial of this case Mrs. Russell's counsel made mention that Mr. Russell was in a room with Emily Matthews, a member of the household, and the door was locked. To this Pastor Russell at the time made answer under oath (page 97, Record of Testimony), as follows:

"I said (to Mrs. Russell), 'Dear, you understood all about that. You know that was the room in which the slops were emptied and the water was carried, and that was the morning that Emily Matthews was sick, and you told me of it and asked me to go up and see her, and when they were running out and in with water pails I turned the key for half a minute until I would have a chance to hear quietly what she had to say, and there wasn't the slightest impropriety in anything that was done. I would just as soon that everybody in this room would be present.'"

Mrs. Russell did not deny this statement in her testimony, and therefore, being undisputed, it must be taken as the true and correct explanation. It shows not the slightest impropriety on his part. That Mrs. Russell herself did not believe and never has believed that her husband was guilty of immoral conduct is shown by the record in this case where her own counsel (on page 10) asked Mrs. Russell this question: "You don't mean that your husband was guilty of adultery?" Ans. "No."

It is seen that the court properly took away from the jury the consideration of the "jelly-fish" incident to which she testified. These are the facts which Pastor Russell's enemies distort, and upon which they charge him with immoral conduct. There was no testimony produced upon the trial of this case that had any tendency to show that Pastor Russell had been morally derelict in the slightest. No witness testified against his moral character, and no witness in any court has ever yet uttered a word
of testimony tending to show anything against his morality.


Shortly after the trial of the above case the Washington Post published aforementioned "jelly-fish" story in connection with the name of Pastor Russell, and charged that he was guilty of immoral conduct. Thereupon Pastor Russell filed suit for libel against the Post, which case was tried before a jury. The instructions of the court on behalf of the defendant, the Post, were manifestly erroneous and prejudicial, but notwithstanding this the jury brought in a verdict exonerating Pastor Russell, but allowed him only one dollar damages.

Sunday, September 1, 2019


What did Russell say about "doomsday?" Often many, evidently confusing the message presented by the Jehovah's Witnesses as coming from Brother Russell, claim that Russell created a doomsday cult. Russell, however, did not believe the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

We present below some statements of Russell concerning doomsday. We also provide links to the full sermons or articles being quoted, and recommend that one actually study what he presented to see what his views were, and thus that he was not preaching a "doomsday."

Quote 1:

QUESTION--What is meant by the term "Doomsday?" (A.B.C.)

ANSWER--It is that last dreadful day in the which (according to the antiquated theories of an obsolete theological formation) the Lord will return to the earth, and take His seat upon a great white throne, and then all nations will be gathered before Him, for judgment. As the judgments proceed, the mountains and the rocks will come tumbling down, and the sea and all the waves will roar under the agitations of a mighty storm. About this time a terrible earthquake will shake things up so severely that all the things that can be shaken will be removed. In connection with these terrifying phenomena of nature, there will be the sounding of the last trump, and tremendous voices will be heard in the air. Amidst this deafening uproar, while "the wreck of matter and the crush of worlds" is transpiring, the 20,000,000,000 and more of the human race will be judged, and all within the limitations of a twenty-four hour day. When the final summing up takes place, the Great Judge will invite the few saints, "the little flock," to enter into the conditions of bliss, while to the vast majority of the race He will issue the command to depart into an eternity of torment in fire and brimstone. With the pronouncement of the final sentence of doom, a terrible fire will break forth; the elements shall melt with fervent heat; and the heavens and earth being on fire shall be dissolved! This lurid picture of the judgment time was evidently formed by some one with highly developed imaginative powers, who gathered together a number of symbolic and figurative expressions from the Scriptures with which to produce this amusing sketch of "doomsday," which has served to frighten some good and bad children nearly to death!  -- What Pastor Russell Said, page 294.

Quote 2:

The expression "day of judgment" is greatly misunderstood, being often interpreted to mean doomsday, as signifying the time when trial is ended and the decision given. With this thought in mind, the expression "day of judgment" carries to the minds of many a sense of dread, of fear....

This appointed day has not yet arrived, but the Scriptures clearly outline it as the Day of Christ, the Millennial day, 1,000 years long, in which the world will have its trial, its test, Christ and the Church being its judges (1 Cor. 6:2), not for its condemnation, but for its assistance, its up-building, its instruction and the granting to it of a full krisis or trial or test, to prove which of mankind would intelligently choose the side of evil with its penalty of the Second Death – utter destruction. No wonder the prophet, looking forward to that judgment day at the second coming of Christ rejoices therein, saying – "Let the heavens be glad, And let the earth rejoice; And let men say among the nations, Jehovah reigneth. Let the sea roar and the fulness thereof; Let the fields rejoice and all that are therein.

Then shall the trees of the wood sing aloud At the presence of Jehovah, Because he cometh To judge the earth. O give thanks unto Jehovah, for he is good; For his mercy endureth forever." 1 Chron. 16:31-34

The coming judgment of the world will be Jehovah's judgment day, but the Christ (our Lord and the glorified Church his Bride) will be the judges of the world, both representing Jehovah and his laws and acting also as Mediator. From this standpoint the prospect of the world's crisis or judgment is a blessed one. It implies that in some manner the first judgment of Jehovah against Father Adam and the race, the result of the first trial, has been set aside or cancelled, for there could not be another trial granted to humanity unless the sentence of the first trial were in some manner liquidated. And so we find – the good tidings of great joy which shall be unto all people is that the penalty of the first judgment, in which Father Adam failed and we all shared his penalty, has been met, has been cancelled by the death of Jesus, "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." -- "Four Great Judgment Days and the Results." Printed in The National Labor Tribune, April 13, 1909. Reprinted in Harvest Gleanings Vol. 2, pages 640-645.

Quote 3:

Our text [Hebrews 9:27,28] has long been misunderstood: to the majority of minds it signifies, Beware of doomsday, and bids humanity quake at the thought of inexpressible agonies awaiting all who have not made their peace with God through Christ. We quite agree that the Scriptures do teach, "a just recompense of reward to every soul of man that doeth evil:" [Heb. 2:2 ?]we agree that none of God's laws can be violated with impunity, that "Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap;" [Gal. 6:7] [NS423] but we dissent strongly from the usual thought that the divine Creator purposed from before man's creation an awful and unjust torture, inconceivable in its severe and prolonged sufferings. This erroneous view has come to us from the "dark ages," and we thank God that gradually the eyes of our understanding are opening, so that some of the features of the nightmare of horror which once engulfed us are fading away, and our minds are attaining a saner view of the Almighty and a better understanding of his Word. Error is frequently inconsistent, as in the case before us: it claims, on the one hand, that the sufferings of the ungodly, the unregenerate, begin in the very moment of death and last through all eternity, without change or abatement; then it takes the text before us and contradicts itself, saying that the whole world of mankind will need to wait until the Day of Judgment, and that then and there they will enter upon their hopeless torment. If the one view be right the other one must be wrong, all will admit; but we hold that both these conceptions of the future are erroneous, that both of them are inconsistent with the divine testimony. Scripturally considered, the judgment of the Church takes place during this Gospel age, while the world's judgment will transpire during the Millennium. Scripturally considered, the Church, the Elect, now on trial for eternal life, will receive their reward, be glorified, fully empowered, and will then constitute the "judges of the world." -- "After This the Judgment." National Labor Tribune, October 14, 1906. Reprinted in Harvest Gleanings Vol. 2, pages 422-426.

Quote 4:

Those who have been accustomed to think of the judgment day as merely a time of terror, "doomsday," will no doubt be surprised when we call to their attention that the Scriptures speak to the contrary of this, and assure us that the judgment day will be a mark of divine favor toward humanity. Theology has gotten miserably twisted on this subject, far away from the Bible presentation, and hence the prevalence of the wrong, unscriptural view of the day of judgment. Allow me to quote for you the words of the prophecy respecting this great judgment day, that you may see that the Lord, guiding the words of the Prophet David by inspiration, calls upon all mankind to rejoice that there is to be a judgment day. (1 Chron. 16:31-34) -- "Separating the Sheep From the Goats." The National Labor Tribune, Apritl 30, 1905. Reprinted in Harvest Gleanings Vol. 2, pages 179-184.

Quote 5:

The Day of Judgment, or, as it once was called, Doomsday, had an awful significance to our forefathers. To them it brought pictures of Christ upon his throne of judgment surrounded by myriads of holy angels intent upon executing his decrees, good or bad, and to the vast majority of those decrees were supposed to mean eternal torment. A once famous preacher of this famous city of churches pictured the Judgment scene most grotesquely as represented in the public prints of about thirty years ago. "The Divine Program -- Judgment of the Great White Throne." What Pastor Russell Wrote for the Overland Monthly, pages 37-43.

Quote 6:

the general explanation that this term Day of Judgment has been seriously misconstrued by theologians and by the public. It has been used out of harmony with the Scriptural usage. It has been used out of harmony with reasonable, logical deductions. The term Day of Judgment is generally understood to mean Day of Sentence or Day of Doom. In fact, Doomsday is frequently used as a synonym without the slightest warrant. The term Day of Judgment signifies the Day of trial or testing; as in our text we read that men shall give an account in the Day of Judgment for every idle word. The proper thought on the subject of judgment from the Bible standpoint is this: God created our first parents innocent, perfect, and placed them on trial. Their Day of Judgment was in Eden. How long it would have lasted had they remained faithful to God we are not informed, but as soon as they had disobeyed the Divine Command, their day of trial or judgment was ended, and the sentence, "Dying thou shalt die," began to be inflicted. The judgment or trial of Adam was over, and since all of his posterity share his imperfections and are equally unworthy of life on that account, therefore the sentence of sin, "Dying thou shalt die," rests upon every member of the race, just as though each individual had been on trial in Eden and had lost in the trial with Father Adam. This matter St. Paul clearly enunciates, saying, "By one man's disobedience, sin entered into the world and death as the result of sin. Thus death passed upon all men, because all are sinners" (Romans 5:12.)

This being true, how comes it that there is any mention made in the Scriptures of another judgment day? If all mankind already are judged unworthy of eternal life and worthy of death everlasting, why should there be any further judgment? The Bible answer to the question is that there would have been no reference to a future judgment day had it not been that God had provided a Redeemer, Christ Jesus, by whose merit the first penalty against our race through Adam will eventually be abrogated, set aside. In consequence of the setting aside of the first sentence of death a second trial or judgment will be opened to every member of the race. The first trial or judgment was of one man (Adam) for all of his race. A second trial or judgment, secured by the Redeemer, will treat Adam and all of his race individually; granting them each an individual or personal trial, hence unlike the first trial in Eden, which was of one man and for the race. This second trial has not yet been provided for our race, except in the sense that it has been prepared for and promised--"God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness." That day will be the Millennial day--a thousand years in length. It will be the world's trial [OV208] day or time of individual testing. -- "Every Idle Word." What Pastor Russell Wrote for the Overland Monthly, pages 207-211.

Quote 7:
Our topic for today relates to the great blessings of the world's Judgement Day. Instead of calling it "doomsday," the Scriptures represent it as the great "Jubilee" period. For long centuries, in every land in every part of the earth, Satan has been seeking to misrepresent the divine character and plan, in order to drive men further and further away from their great Creator-in order to hinder them from hearing and appreciating his "wonderful words of life" "speaking peace through Jesus Christ our Lord." The great adversary has totally misrepresented the coming day of judgment. It is to be a day of judgment in the sense of rewards and punishments to the church for the deeds of the present life; but not to the world.

The church, having been freed from the original condemnation through faith in Christ, "justified by faith," and having made consecration to the Lord, is now upon trial; and the Apostle assures us that each one in the church shall, at the conclusion of this age, at the dawning of the millennial age, "receive according to the things done in the body" -as members of the body of Christ. Some of these "overcomers" will be the joint heirs with the Lord in the kingdom, while others of these consecrated ones will fall short of this high attainment and will be of the great company mentioned in Rev. 7:9-15. They will not get into the throne with the bride class, but will be blessed with the great privileges of serving before the throne during the millennial age; they will not get the crowns, but they will get palm branches-because they were not sufficiently loyal to the Lord and to the principles which he enunciated and to the terms of their covenant. They get their white robes of justification sullied, spotted and wrinkled, and fail to properly care for it and have the spots and wrinkles removed through the precious blood, and therefore they must "wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb" -in great tribulations. Still others who have been of the church, the Scriptures clearly indicate, will be judged worthy of the second death.

But as for the world, its judgment waits until the millennial age. Those who do not hear the gospel invitation of the present time will miss all opportunity of a change of nature from human to spiritual. The grand opportunity to be offered to them will be an opportunity for return to perfect human conditions, moral, physical, whose home will be the rejuvenated earth - "Paradise restored." The world will be then on trial, not for the sins of Adam, neither for the weaknesses inherited through him, for which they already are condemned and dying. "Earth's Great Jubilee" (January 4, 1904) Harvest Gleanings Vol. 3, pages 188-195