Friday, October 17, 2008

Biblical Study of the Great Pyramid Vs. Spiritism

The claim is being made that pyramidology is a "a spiritistic religion," and, assuming this to be true, therefore it is claimed that Charles Taze Russell was a spiritist. Some refer to "pyramidology" as though it means, "pyramid worship" and claim that Russell worshiped the pyramids. Those who make these claims evidently have little idea as to what true Biblical study of God's Witness in Egypt is about, and are probably confusing such Biblical study with practices of witchcraft, pagan or heathen occultism, "pyramid power," transcendentalism, occultic freemasonry, etc., that are often associated with the term "pyramidology." Indeed, most definitions given in the dictionary appear to ignore the Biblical study of God's Witness in Egypt as being "pyramidology."

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Ross' Perjury Accusations

By Ronald R. Day, Senior
A writer on a blogsite states:
In 1913, Russell sued Baptist minister J.J. Ross in the Ontario High Court for libel for a tract Ross wrote about Russell the previous year.
The very titles of Ross' publications: "Some Facts (and More Facts) About the Self-Styled 'Pastor' Charles T. Russell," belies the deceptive spirit of the publications, since Charles Taze Russell did not bestow upon himself the title of "Pastor," but was indeed appointed first as "pastor" by the Allegheny Church, and he was later appointed as "pastor" -- shepherd -- by many other churches all over the world. Ross evidently overlooked these appointments.. (Russell believed that every consecrated Christian, sanctified by the blood of the covenant, was "ordained," appointed by God, to a ministry.)

Of course, what Ross evidently was concerned about was the fact that Russell had never been appointed as "pastor" by what Ross considered to be acceptable sources for such an appointment by men educated in the Protestant doctrines of men and their philosophies, that is, by a Baptist, a Methodist, or similar school, whom Ross evidently considered to have exclusive authority to appoint anyone to minister the Word of God. And yet, how many denominations are there that can give scriptural authority for its own ordinations and the scriptural right to forbid it to others, or to question the scripturalness of other denominations' or religious groups' ordination than its own? Some have tried, but all such, in the end, leads to sectarian assumptions being read into whatever scriptures are presented.

As far as the word "pastor" is concerned, this is word not used in the Bible as designating a separate "office", such as elder, deacon, etc. The word "pastor" simply means "shepherd".

Jehovah is the Most High Shepherd (Pastor), who is the source of all power and authority (1 Corinthians 8:6); Jesus is the “genuine” (Greek, transliterated, Kalos, Strong’s #2570, genuine as opposed to the false shepherds) shepherd (pastor) appointed over the sheep by the Most High Shepherd (Pastor). The Most High Shepherd (Pastor) Jehovah judges His sheep through, by means of the genuine shepherd whom he has appointed. — Psalm 23:1; 96:13; 98:9; Ezekiel 34:2-24; John 5:22,23; 10:11-17,29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Romans 2:16; 14:10; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10.

Nevertheless, the Bible states: "He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets (public speakers); and some, evangelists (preachers of the good news); and some, shepherds (pastors) and teachers."  (Ephesians 4:11, World English) "He" is evidently referring to the appointed Pastor Jesus, who had ascended to be at God's right hand (John 15:26; Acts 1:8; 2:32,33; 5:31; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 4:10; Philippians 2:9; Hebrews 10:12), and whom God used to pour out His spirit on the church. Those whom Jesus appoints as pastors, however, are "servants", not rulers or lords over the flock. -- Matthew 20:25,26.

Additionally, none of us are perfect, and Brother Russell never claimed to be perfect, or infallible. Indeed, he openly claimed that the conclusions he presented were NOT infallible, and the he could make mistakes. Brother Russell was interrogated for hours without let up during the Ross trial and most people often become very confused after such prolonged interrogation; one is almost bound to make some mistakes based on misunderstanding of what he was being asked under such interrogation. At most, this appears to be what happened with Brother Russell, but he was never allowed to explain himself in court, but he did explain himself outside of court.

The writer continues:
Ross accused Russell of being undereducated in areas of religious concern, such as theology, classical languages and philosophy.
The above quote represents a rewording of what Ross actually said.

Nevertheless, Russell had been educated through private tutors and had also been instructed by various ministers who had come before him. Further, through his own self-study he educated himself regarding many subjects. The fact that he did not receive his education at the hands of humanly-recognized sectarian theological schools does not mean that he did not understand what he was writing about. Brother Russell also had the aid of Paul S. L. Johnson, who was thoroughly trained in Biblical Greek and Hebrew. That Russell did -- in his writings -- correctly present the usage of Hebrew and Greek words was confirmed, with some few minor exceptions, by Brother Johnson. Johnson graduated from from Capital University in Columbus, OH on May 25, 1898. He won the valedictory and also the highest honors ever given in the history of that university. He also graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Ohio Synod of the Lutheran Church. He was thoroughly educated in both Hebrew and Greek; this gave him the skills necessary to understand the Bible from the original languages. He had been taught in the seminary the doctrine of eternal torture of those not saved; through his studies of the Bible itself he came to understand that a God of perfect, wisdom, justice, power and love, would not, could not, punish his enemies with such a punishment as eternal roasting. He also came to see the true Biblical viewpoint of God and His Son, as opposed to the trinitarianism or modalism. With few exceptions, he confirmed the conclusions that Russell had reached. (See his books "God," "Creation," "The Bible," "Christ--Spirit--Covenants," etc., in which he verifies most of Russell's conclusions and elaborates upon the Hebrew and Greek usage involved.)

Ross is often quoted as a source of evidence that Russell had perjured himself in court. Please note that Russell was never charged with perjury by any court official, but the charge comes from Ross himself, who had already shown that his dislike of Russell. Ross actually presented a false version of the trial record so as to make it appear that Russell stated that he knew Greek. Here is what Ross wrote concerning Russell's testimony in the Hamilton County Courtroom on  March 13, 1913, and which many love to quote in order to discredit Russell:

"Do you know the Greek?" asked the Attorney.

"Oh, yes," was Russell's reply.

Here he was handed a copy of the New Testament in Greek, by Westcott & Hort, and asked to read the letters as they appear on the top of page 447. He did not know the Greek alphabet. "Now,"

Mr. Staunton asked [sic], "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"

"No," said Mr. Russell without a blush.
However, what does an an examination of the relevant portions of the official transcript of record actually show? We find that Ross, who accused Russell of "devising falsely" and of being "a fabricator," was himself guilty of serious dishonesty.

Before the part of the interrogation that Ross relates, we find that Russell had already stated that he had not been trained in Greek or Latin. Here is the record of the questions of Ross's lawyer, George Lynch-Staunton, and Russell's replies:

Question: "You don't profess, then, to be schooled in the Latin language?"

Answer: "No, Sir."

Question: "Or in Greek?"

Answer: "No, Sir."

It was after that Lynch-Staunton asked Russell if he knew the Greek alphabet; he did not ask, as Ross claimed: "Do you know Greek?". Here is the testimony of that record from the court transcript:

Question: "Do you know the Greek alphabet?"

Answer: "Oh, Yes."

Question: "Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?"

Answer: "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."

Question: "Would you tell me the names of the letters of those on the top of the page, page 447 I have got here [from Westcott and Hort]?"

Answer: "Well, I don't know that I would be able to."

Question: "You can't tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know."

Answer: "My way ..." [At this point he was interrupted by the court and not allowed to explain.]

It was after this that Russell was asked:
"Are you familiar with the Greek language?"

Answer: "No!"

Please note that Russell was asked several different questions, the first one being if he had been schooled in either the Greek or Latin languages, to which he stated that he had not been. He was then asked, not if he knew Greek as Ross claims, but if he knew the Greek alphabet. This question, without a given qualification, could be interpreted in different ways. One might be able to repeat the Greek alphabet without being able to recognize the alphabet in print. In Russell's mind, however, he seemed to interpret this question as to mean, do you know the Greek alphabet so as to make use of the Greek alphabet? In the next question, he was asked if he could tell the Greek letters if he saw them, and Russell truthfully answered, "Some of them," and truthfully admitted that he might make a mistake on some of them. Most people could know some of them. Many without a high school education, for instance, might recognize the letter alpha as well as beta. However, then another question was asked, and some specific letters were pointed to in a Greek text. What those letters were is not revealed, but evidently they were letters deliberately selected that were not so commonly known. The whole approach, however, is a lawyer's method of trying paint a picture in the worst light possible. Nevertheless, it should be evident that Russell never claimed to know Greek, as Ross makes it appear to be.

Regarding Russell's answer concerning if he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell wanted to explain what he meant by that his answer, but was not permitted to do so, as the court record shows. He later explained that what he meant was that he had simply developed a schoolboy's ability to recognize Greek words in Greek concordances and other scholarly works. His concern, however, was more about the meaning of the words rather than identifying the Greek characters that make up the words.

Russell did not perjure himself in court. He did at times, evidently after hours of interrogation, seem to be confused over some questions, but this can happen to the best of us, especially after more than two or three hours of questioning. 

Nonetheless, the facts show that Ross misrepresented and rearranged the sequence of events of what actually happened in court in order to give the impression that Russell had committed perjury. Furthermore, there is no court record showing that Russell was ever legally accused of, or legally charged with, perjury, nor was Russell ever accused by any court of perjury. Ross' attorney never charged Russell with perjury; the idea originated in the head of J. J. Ross himself, and evidently he felt that the court record as it was not that convincing, so he doctored the "facts" to make it more sure to appear to support his accusation.

The charge of libel at that time was considered a criminal offense in Ontario. Thus, when Russell filed his complaint against Ross, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Ross. Ross evaded the officer for some time and even failed to keep his appointment at his church to prevent the officer from taking him into custody. Finally, he was taken before George E. Jelfs, Police Magistrate, on the charge of criminal libel. Upon a hearing he was committed for trial. Upon motion, the Superior Court quashed the commitment because of a technical error in the proceedings. Ross was again taken before the Magistrate.

When the case came on for hearing the second time Pastor Russell, who was a necessary witness, was away on an extended trip in Panama and other parts of the South, filling appointments previously made, and had no notice of the date of hearing. Ross and his counsel tried to make it appear that Pastor Russell was evading the trial. As soon as Pastor Russell returned to Brooklyn and heard that he was wanted he immediately notified the Magistrate that he was ready to come to Canada. He did go and gave his testimony. Again the Magistrate committed Ross to appear before the high court to answer an indictment to be preferred by the Grand Jury. When the case came before that court the Judge of the court, in charging the Grand Jury relative to its duties, among other things, said to the jury: "Unless the jury finds that this alleged libel would cause a breach of the public peace in Canada then no indictment should be returned, but the parties should resort to civil suit for damages." The jury returned "no bill," and it is manifest that they could not have done otherwise under this charge of the Court, for the reason that Pastor Russell lived in Brooklyn, New York, and Rev. Ross lived in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and it would be physically impossible for the libel to cause a breach of the public peace when the parties were so far apart. It is because of this that Russell "lost" the court case.

Thus it will be seen that the real issues were never tried and never determined. Pastor Russell did not resort to civil action for damages, for the reason that he was advised that such an action would be useless, since Ross was irresponsible financially and could not be compelled by such a proceeding to publish a retraction.

Thereafter, Rev. Ross became even bolder in his desire to slander Russell so that he published another pamphlet against Pastor Russell with more unmitigated falsehoods and misrepresentations of facts. Selecting here and there isolated paragraphs from the court records, he twisted them, added to, misrepresented and made them appear entirely different from what was actually stated. This could not have been accidental on his part. For instance, among other things, he charges, related Mrs. Russell's divorce: "He (Pastor Russell) sought to evade payment fixed by the court by fleeing from one State to another, making it necessary for his wife to get an extradition order, which she did, and which led to the condemnation of the cunning pastor by a third court, and the increase of the alimony." Rev. Ross probably did not know that extradition proceedings cannot be resorted to in order to enforce a money judgment. No "extradition order" was made, nor were there any extradition proceedings. But probably Rev. Ross thought the people would believe his statement, even though false, because he is recognized as "Reverend."

Ross charged that Pastor Russell was unlearned because he was not a graduate of some theological school. Yet there are many living men who never even saw the outside walls of a theological school who know more about the Bible and its teaching than is taught in any theological college in the land. Pastor Russell was not a graduate of any man-made theological college, that is true. One of the greatest lawyers this country has produced -- Benjamin Harrison -- never attended a law school. Theological colleges teach theology, usually the traditions of men, but not necessarily the Bible, except that they might be able to make the Bible appear to be in harmony with their theology and tradition. Nevertheless, before there were such sectarian theological schools, how did the followers of Jesus learn about the Bible? Pastor Russell, however, probably knew the Bible better than any other man in his day.

Upon this point we should note the words of Dr. G.W. Bull in his learned treatise of "The Gospel of John," as follows:
AN IRREGULAR (John 7:15). That is what they all say. The crime of Christ was that He had not taken a course in their college. 'Whence hath He learning?' There are some professional policemen who must protect all learning; medicine, law, gospel, or what not. If you never went through their schools of learning you are a freak, and there is something suspicious about your good sense. These men thought there was only one way of learning -- they would ask a certificate of the sun! There are many schools and schoolmasters in God's universe. Cease your criticism of any Christian scholar. Let him learn in his own way; the Kingdom of God is going to make great progress when some of these high brows are removed to Heaven. Sometimes a man's utterance of profound Truths is stated in poor grammatical form, and the philosophers are puzzled by his power. They wonder where he got it: I do not know -- probably his alma mater was his mother's knees -- then let him speak. Remember today: 'God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the mighty.
It has ever been the rule of those entrenched in error to persecute others who bring forth light and truth, exposing error. Why was Jesus persecuted by the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees? Because He taught the people! He said to them that because of their selfishness they persecuted and killed the prophets whom Jehovah had sent to teach the people.

The apostles taught concerning Jesus and the resurrection of the dead, and the Priests, Sadducees and Pharisees persecuted them. Why? "They were grieved that they taught the people."--Acts 4:1-5.

Is it because Pastor Russell was at one time engaged in secular business, or because he was connected with some business corporations several years ago, or because they are especially interested in his domestic relations, that many who profess Christ persist in persecuting him even long after his death? No, indeed! Why then? BECAUSE HE TAUGHT THE PEOPLE! And yet the truth, to those who receive such with an honest heart, actually exposes the deceitfulness of those who continue to spread lies, misrepresentations, distortions of facts, quotes out of context, misquotes, etc., in order deceive the masses.

Some of Brother Russell's own defenses, which contain much of which he was not allowed to present in court:

Russell Responses to J. J. Ross

Pastor's Russell's Reply to Critics

For more concerning the alleged "perjury" of Russell:

The Late Walter Martin's Sham Scholarship -- by James Penton

Did Pastor Russell lie under oath about his knowledge of Greek?

Did Pastor Russell Lie Under Oath?

St. Paul Enterprise: Defences of Pastor Russell — Discusses accusations and misrepresentations made by William T. Ellis, W. B. Riley, and others. Some statements seem to exalt Brother Russell too highly, making him a prophet (which Russell himself disclaimed, QB272; 675:1), but most is good information. (This appears to no longer be online; if someone knows were it may be found online, please leave a comment below.)

Some of the material in this presentation has been adapted from:
A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens

Russell Questioned His Faith

By Ronald R. Day, Sr. - Restoration Light (reslight, rlbible) Bible Study Services

The following statement has been made on a forum concerning Charles Taze Russell:

Russell questioned his faith at an early age and was uncomfortable with hell and predestination. He bounced around between Presbyterianism, Adventism, and Congregationalism before founding the movement that would become the JW's.

We are not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but Russell was right in questioning his faith in the teachings of man, especially those teachings that would depict the Creator as a fiendish demon as in such doctrines as the supposed indescribable eternal sufferings of billions of men, women, children, infants, etc., who died without believing in Jesus.

Of course, as he pointed out, he thought that these teachings were actually a part of the Bible, and thus, believing this, his faith concerning the Bible also came into doubt. Once he learned that the Bible did not teach such blasphemous doctrines such as the eternal indescribable suffering of most of mankind, and that it did teach that Christ died for all, he was right in taking up the Biblical stand for the truth concerning these matters.

For more information of the condition of the dead, hell, hades, sheol, lake of fire, eternal torment, etc., see:

For more information about the "ransom for all," see:

For more information about the "trinity," see:

Russell, however, learned the Biblical truths about hell, the condition of the dead, and about the trinity, as well as "the ransom for all," from others who had become before him. He made no secret of this. Nevertheless, his understanding of these matters did not originate from out of the blue, nor were they simply his own thoughts. It was the proper Biblical understanding of these matters that led him to reaffirm his faith in the Bible, in the God of the Bible, and in Jesus as the Son of God who gave himself a ransom for all.

I doubt that Russell would have ever claimed to have been the founder of the Bible Students movement. At any rate, the Allegheny class of Bible Students existed before Russell became associated with N. H. Barbour, who was a "Second Adventist"; Barbour, however, was not a member of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Russell, of course, was not the founder of an organization called "Jehovah's Witnesses." He never heard of such an organization; he did not believe in such an organization, and he preached against the formation of such an organization until the day he died. Russell refused to allow himself or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to become a "central authority" over the local congregations, although, individually, and as congregations, many of the Bible Students may have come to view him as such.

Edited and links updated, March 7, 2017; updated May 5, 2020

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Russell and the One True Catholic Church

This post is to address some of the items appearing on "on a blogsite" that presents many false statements and misleading comments concerning Brother Russell. Many others present similar misrepresentations of Russell. While we are not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses (nor was Russell), we do highly esteem Brother Russell and the work he did.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Did Russell Start a New Religion?

One of the accusations often made against Russell is that he created a new religion, since, according to some websites, he was dissatisfied with Christianity, or he was dissatisfied with "the church," etc.

Actually, Russell was one the greatest defenders of the Christian faith and Biblical faith in history. While many apologists defended man's traditions as Christian faith, Charles Taze Russell went to the Bible itself, and he showed from the scriptures the truth concerning the human soul, the Bible hell, the trinity and many other doctrines that have to be added to the scriptures by human dogma.

Charles Taze Russell never claimed to have found a new religion, or a new church. His endeavor was to restore the teachings of Christ and the apostles, the "faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) He believed in the one true church, of which Jesus is the foundation. The Bible Students movement was never intended to be a sectarian new religion or denomination.
(Articles mostly written by Russell that contain the phrase "true church.")

Wasn't Russell the founder of a new religion called "Jehovah's Witnesses?" No, Russell did found such an organization, nor did he believe in such an organization. The "Jehovah's Witnesses" leadership have rejected the very core doctrine of the scriptures concerning the "ransom for all," replacing it with a doctrine of a "ransom for some," and also a doctrine of eternal destruction for billions of unenlightened unbelievers, as well as their children, in Armageddon's battle. Russell never taught such a doctrine, which doctrine goes contrary to the basic philosophy of the atonement as revealed in the Bible.
The Ransom For All

Unlike the JWs who profess their organization to be the only true religion, Brother Russell, who did not regard the Bible Students to be a religion, never spoke of the Bible Students as being "the true religion." 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.
Russell also stated:
    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. -- Thy Kingdom Come, pages 185-187.
Concerning the Watch Tower Society of his day, Russell stated:
“Let it be borne in mind that the Society exercises no authority, makes no criticism, but merely gives advice; and that in the interest of the Lord’s Cause and the Lord’s people.” -- Watch Tower, August 1916, page 248
The "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization/religion did not exist in Brother Russell's day. That organization came into existence later. After Russell died, Joseph Rutherford, through deceit and legal trickery, gained control of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and used that legal entity as a means of establishing his new religion which he later called "Jehovah's Witnesses."

Russell did not claim any special revelation from God, other than the revelation already provided by the Bible. He did believe that God's spirit was allowing him to see things in the Bible that traditionalists could not see, since their eyes were being blinded by the tint of their own traditions and sectarianism.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Was Russell the Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

It has become the custom for writers to state that Russell was the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses organization. Thus, many often attribute the teachings of that organization to Russell, although what Russell taught may or may not be the same what the JWs teach. In many cases, Brother Russell taught almost the very opposite of what the JW leadership teaches.

In reality, Russell was never a member of the JW organization, and he never founded such an organization.

Russell did not believe in such an organization, and he certainly did not believe in human centralized authority of such an organization. For proof of Russell's beliefs concerning "organization," see out research concerning:

What Did C. T. Russell Teach About "Organization" As Related to the Watch Tower?


Who Did Russell Actually Believe to Be the "only authority" of the Church?

The above and more links to information related to:

Russell, Organization, and Authority.

At least one apparently claims that I am in error in claiming that Russell was never a member of the JW organization, and that Russell was not the founder of such an organization.

The historical facts, however, tell us otherwise:  Russell actively preached against the formation of such an authoritarian organization  until he died in 1916. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in his days was not a ruling organization, but what some have called "a service organization." Russell, by means of his last will, as well as other written instructions, sought to keep the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society from becoming what it did become at hands of Joseph Rutherford.

After Russell died, Joseph Rutherford, by means of deceit and legal trickery, gained control of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and used that legal entity to form his new organization with its new teachings. He did this by rejecting the core teachings of Russell and the Bible Students. Indeed, by 1928, the Bible Students, as represented by the vast majority (more than 75%), had rejected Rutherford's new "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma. In the 1930s, Rutherford named his new organization "Jehovah's Witnesses" in order to distinguish his organization from the Bible Students who refused to go along with his new teachings.

For more information concerning:

Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Related to this, it is often also falsely claimed that Russell was a member of the Freemasons' organization. Regarding this false claim, see the following:
Russell and the Freemasons

Did Russell Deny the Deity/Divinity of Jesus?

One of the many charges that is usually leveled against Russell is that he denied the divinity or deity of Jesus Christ. Actually this is not so, although he did deny the trinity doctrine, or that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.