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., is used editorally 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.

"Russellites"

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
http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2009/09/russellites.html

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:
http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/12/racist.html

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:
http://rlbibleresources.blogspot.com/2016/12/chronology.html

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:
http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/12/authoritylinks.html

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.
https://herald-magazine.com/bible-student-library/

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.
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/CRS/1906.asp#CR9:1

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":
http://www.dawnbible.com/booklets/reason.htm

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)

DOMESTIC TROUBLES

(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.

GREATEST FISH STORY
EVER MANUFACTURED

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!

A CLINCHER

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

MRS. RUSSELL TESTIFIES HER
HUSBAND WAS NOT GUILTY

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.

PASTOR RUSSELL EXONERATED IN
SEVERAL COURTS

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

Doomsday

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.
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/QB/qb.asp?xRef=Q794:1#Q794:1


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.
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Newspaper_Sermons/NS42.asp#NS640:5

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.
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/newspaper_sermons/NS27.asp#NS422:6


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.
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/OverlandMonthly/overland.asp?xRef=OV37

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.
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/OverlandMonthly/overland.asp?xRef=OV207

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
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Harvest_Gleanings_3/HG053.asp#HGL188:3

Monday, August 19, 2019

Cure for Appendicitis

It is being claimed that Russell taught that appendicitis is caused by biting worms in the colon. The obvious reason for this claim was to make it appear that Russell was some kind of quack who should not be taken seriously.

As far as appendicitis pain, there was an article in the Watch Tower of January 1, 1912, page 26, entitled "Cure for Appendicitis". We don't know that Russell himself wrote it; it was probably given to him from one of his associates, possibly a doctor, and he simply had it printed in the magazine. It is probable that in 1912,  much of the work at the Watch Tower Society was handled by others, although Russell sought to approve everything that appeared in the Watch Tower, he himself stated, "We try to be careful about every word that goes into the Watch Tower, but we do not claim to be infallible; we are doing the best we can." -- What Pastor Russell Said, page 57.

 The article does not state that appendicitis itself is caused by "biting worms", but rather that the pain from appendicitis is caused by "biting worms". We cannot say exactly what is meant by "biting worms" in the article, but bacteria itself could be described as "worms", and we suppose the infections caused by bacteria could be described as from biting worms.

Nevertheless, there is research that speaks of parasitic worms that have been found in the appendix with appendicitis, thus this article has validity. Sanotin was indeed used even by some doctors in the days of Russell to bring relief to patients suffering from appendicitis pain, as it does expel such parasitic worms, thus bringing relief to the patient suffering from pain caused by those worms.

Regardless, the short article was simply a suggestion; it was not presented as being dogma, infallible, without error, etc. Nor did the article represent an authoritarian organization such as Rutherford created after Russell died. If it had appeared in one of the home advice magazines of that day, more than likely no one would be on what could likened to a "witch hunt" to make something of it. But because it was printed by the magazine that Russell edited, it is being presented as though it was some kind of official doctrine that was being promulgated by someone. Russell, however, never assumed any such authority, not for himself, nor for the Watch Tower Society of his day.

We should also note that the information was passed gratis; Russell was not getting rich in having this information published.

The article may be found online at:
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Reprints/Z1912JAN.asp#Z26:13

A Dog's Head

The claim is being made that Russell said that if a dog's head was shaped like a man's, that he would think like a man. This is obviously stated in an effort to deride Russell and influence people to think Russell was some kind of nut.

Russell never said exactly that if a dog's head "was shaped" like man's, that the dog could think like a man. This seems to convey something I am sure Russell never intended. Rather Russell actually stated:

The difference between Adam and the other creatures was not in the breath, or spirit of lives. Man had the same kind of spirit of life. The difference was that man had a finer organism. How do we know? Stand a man alongside of a dog. Look at their heads. The one slopes back; there is no place for the intellectual qualities at all, or at least a very small place for the thinking apparatus man has. He has more brain than the dog. If we could make a dog with the same head as a man, he would think the same as a man. But God did not endow the dog, or any other brute, with the same capacity as man. He was in God's likeness, because he gave him the superior mental powers. -- What Pastor Russell Said, page 667.

We see nothing wrong with this; if a dog was given the same head as man, which would include the same kind of brain that a man has, yes the dog could indeed think like man. But as Brother Russell was pointing out, that was not what God intended. Then entire answer may be found at:
http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/QB/qb.asp?xRef=Q666:5#Q666:5