Thursday, October 4, 2012

Was Russell the Founder of the JW Organization? (Response)

 One objects to our stating that Charles Taze Russell was not the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses; the author never gives any genuine reason for stating that Russell was the founder of the JWs, but several misleading statements are given.

While there is no doubt that the Jehovah's Witnesses organization sprang forth from the Bible Students, it is deceptive to say that Charles Taze Russell was the founder of the the JWs, since he preached against the kind of organization that Rutherford created after Russell died.
What Did C. T. Russell Teach About “Organization” As Related to the Watch Tower Society?


Nor did Russell believe in the Armageddon message the JWs preach.
The JW Organization, Armageddon, 1914, and Russell

Is is being claimed that Russell's International Bible Students had their name changed in 1931 by Rutherford to "Jehovah's Witnesses". Although the Bible Student's movement is not "Russell's", the Bible Students in general DID NOT have their name changed by Rutherford in 1931 to Jehovah's Witnesses. According the WTS's own records, by the year 1928, more than 75% of the Bible Students had rejected Rutherford's new organization and his new dogma associated with such an organization. Thus, the greater majority of the what is called "Russell's" Bible Students did not have their name changed by Rutherford. Indeed, it was in order to distinguish his new organization from the old Bible Students movement, that Rutherford named his new organization “Jehovah’s Witnesses” in 1931.
See:
Bible Students Did Not Become Jehovah's Witnesses
When Was the Jehovah's Witnesses Religion Established?

Comments then shift away from Russell as the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses to the date 1914. Although this has nothing at all to do with the claim that Russell was the founder of the JWs, what Russell was expecting for 1914 is misrepresented; it is true that not all that Russell was expecting for 1914 was accomplished, but the main thing, at least from 1904 onward, that Russell was expecting that 1914 was to bring the beginning, not the end, of the time of trouble. That time of trouble did begin in 1914, and I believe we have been in it ever since. Russell died in 1916, still holding to the belief that the time of trouble had begun in 1914.
See:
Beginning of the Time of Trouble – Quotes From Russell


It is claimed that the Society, after 1914, concluded that "1914 was not the end of the Seven Times". While we are not associaed with the JWs, neither Russell nor Rutherford ever concluded "that 1914 was not the end of the 'Seven Times'" Russell, himself, believed until the died in 1916 that the seven times had ended in 1914. Rutherford did reject a lot of the other methods that Barbour and Russell had used to obtain the date 1914, but Rutherford did not reject the "seven times" application of Daniel 4. As far as I know, the JWs still believe this to this day. I know that many Bible Students still believe this to this day.


Nevertheless, Russell, by means of his will and the original charter, had sought to keep the legal entity, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, from becoming what it did become. Russell, of course, had no control over what Rutherford did after Russell died.


Russell, however, never presented his expectations and conclusions concerning the Gentile Times as though he were a central or governing authority over others. He did not reject anyone as being a Christian if they disagreed with him that the Gentile Times was to end in 1914 (indeed, not all the Bible Students agreed with him on this while he was alive, and the same still true today).

Russell died in 1916, rejoicing in his belief that the Gentile Times had ended in 1914 and that time of trouble had begun in 1914. Russell had been suffering from multiple chronic illnesses for several years before he died.

Russell never gave any prophecies at all; the only "prophecies" that Russell believed in are the prophecies of God's prophets and the apostles as given in the Bible. He separated his conclusions based on the study of those prophecies from the actual prophecies.
See:
Was Charles Taze Russell a Prophet? A False Prophet?

The author has a second page, entitled "Was Charles Taze Russell the Founder of the JWs? Part 2", although there is nothing at all on that page that demonstrates that Russell was the founder of a religion, or that Russell was the founder of the kind of an organization that he preached against. Many people do indeed like to take the comments of Russell out of context of his own writings, and place them in the context of the authoritarian claims of the JWs, so as to make it appear that Russell was claiming that same authority as the JW leadership today, when in reality, he was not!

See:

Is the Reading of “Scripture Studies” Bible Study?
Did Russell Claim His Writings to be Superior to the Bible?
Brother Russell on Authority and Organization















Sunday, August 26, 2012

Strange Prophecy of Jehovah's Witnesses & the Giza Pyramid

Another blogger has posted a lot of misleading information about Charles Taze Russell as related to Russell's Biblical study of what he believed to be "God's Stone Witness in Egypt". Much of what is stated in the blog appears to have been copied from other sources, so the author may not have been actually aware that what he has presented misrepresents the truth.

(1) It is falsely claimed that Charles Taze Russell is the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those who are truly familiar with Russell's works know that Russell did believe in such an organization as the Jehovah's Witnesses; in fact, he preached against the idea of any central authority other than Jesus and the apostles and he preached against the idea that any outward organization has any scriptural claim to be the true church. Please note that the owner of this site is not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor does he seek to defend that organization.
See:

Russell - Founder of the JWs?
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=484


(2) The statement is made that Russell used the Great Pyramid of Giza for making Biblical prophetic predictions. This statement is misleading in that Russell did not use the Great Pyramid as the source of his conclusions, but rather he used the Bible itself.

See:
Charles Taze Russell - "Prophet?"
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=118
Russell and the Great Pyramid
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=48


(3) It is claimed that Russell's study of the Great Pyramid sounds like the occultic new age type of thinking. This is misleading, since Russell's Biblical study of prophecy has nothing at all do with the Satanic occultism, or Satan's "New Age" ideas, except that, as Russell stated several times, Satan often seeks to imitate truth in order to get people to believe his lies.
See: Charles Taze Russell and the Occult:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=599

(4) It is stated that the use of pyramids for prophecy is unBiblical. As stated, we agree, and I am sure that Russell would have agreed with that statement -- as it is stated -- also. However, the intent of the statement is misleading regarding at three points: (a) the reference to "pyramids" (plural) does not apply to Russell, since his interest was only in one pyramid he believed to be God's witness in Egypt; (b) the phrase "for prophecy" does not apply to Russell since he did not look to the Great Pyramid itself "for prophecy", but as corroboration of Bible prophecy; (c) the statement "is unBiblical" would seem to designate Russell's study of the Great Pyramid as being "unBiblical"; I do not believe that study of God's witness in Egypt to be "unBiblical", since such study corroborates and confirms the Bible itself as being God's revelation to man.
See:
The Great Pyramid and the Bible
http://gp.reslight.net

(5) A picture is presented of Rutherford's pyramid monument with caption "Pyramid/Grave of C.T. Russell of the Jehovah Witnesses". There are three things that misrepresented in that one statement: (a) The pyarmd monument shown was not built by Russell, but Rutherford had it constructed several years after Russell died. (b) Rutherford's pyramid monument is not Russell's grave. (c) Russell was never a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses organizaton.
See:
Russell's Grave
http://ctr.reslight.net/?cat=176


(6) The statement is made that Russell brought in influences from eastern mysticism into Christianity. In actuality, the only "eastern mysticism" that Russell believed in was the mysteries of the Bible, which is an "eastern" -- not a "western" book. Russell did not believe in, and did not teach, the "eastern mysticism" of heathen religions. The thought, however, suggests that the study of God's witness in Egypt, and how it corroborates the Bible is in some way connected to heathen religious mysticism, which it is not. The thought also suggests that Russell was the one who introduced the Biblical study of the Great Pyramid into Christianity. He was not; there were many Christians before him who had concluded that the Great Pyramid is God's witness in Egypt. Russell did not introduce that idea into Christianity, since it had already been introduced into Christianity by others who had come before him.

The title suggests that it is strange to study God's witness in Egypt; it is indeed "strange" to those who have not actually studied the matter, and especially to those who have their minds made up to be against such a study. Nevertheless, does not the Bible itself speak of how Ephraim considered God's laws to be strange. (Hosea 8:12) Indeed, many Christians, having highly influence doctrines of men and modern thought, might find much that is in Bible to be "strange".

I do not necessarily agree with all conclusions given by the following authors:

Bible Review Magazine 1902-1903 (Google Affiliate Ad)

Royal 39127H ETB1 Electronic Bible Reference Book (Google Affiliate Ad)

Handbook of Biblical Hebrew (Google Affiliate Ad)

Royal Consumer ETB1 KJV And World English Bible (Google Affiliate Ad)

Manual of Biblical Archaeology (Google Affiliate Ad)


Thursday, August 9, 2012

Did CT Russell Claim That The Christian God is the Devil?

The claim is being made that Russell said that the Christian, or Biblical, God is the devil. This idea appears to have been started by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, in their book: "The Facts on Jehovah's Witnesses". One site states:

Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and a former President of the Society, even referred to the Christian concept of God as, “the devil himself.” The God of the Watchtower is not the biblical God and is therefore not capable of saving people from their sins.
First, Russell was never associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses organization. Russell did not believe in such an authoritarian organization, and preached against the idea that any "outward organization" can legitimately claim to be "the true church." Furthermore, Russell preached against the kind of Armageddon message that is preached by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Russell should certainly not be viewed as the founder of that which he preached against.

Nor did Russell ever refer to the Biblical, Christian, concept of God -- the God and Father of our Lord Jesus (Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3) -- as, "the devil himself." One cannot find any such reference anywhere in the works of Russell. Ankerberg and Weldon cite, not what was written by Russell, but the book, The Finished Mystery, which was not written by Russell, and then takes the reference out of context of what is being said to make it appear that it was saying that the Christian God is the devil himself. On another site, we have examined Ankerberg and Weldon's claims, so we will not repeat that examination here.
========
See:
The Christian God Not Jehovah?
Nevertheless, Charles Taze Russell did not believe in adding the concept of a "triune God" to what God has revealed in the Bible. Russell realized that, from Genesis to Revelation, we never find the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob revealed as being a "triune God", nor such a concept ever revealed in the Bible itself.
See:
Jesus is Not Yahweh (Jehovah)
Is Jesus the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Additionally, Russell realized that the "triune God" concept annuls the fact that through Jesus, the one true God remained just, while justifiing the sinner. (Romans 3:26) If the triune God concept is added to and read into the Bible, not only is it adding to what God has revealed of Himself in the Bible, it would mean that Jesus, being God Almighty in the flesh, rather than condemning sin the flesh (Romans 8:3), actually justified sin the flesh. Why? Because such would prove that no sinless man of flesh could obey God except that he be God in the flesh.
See:
How God’s Son Condemned Sin in the Flesh


The Biblical provision of redemption through Jesus is based on what Paul wrote, that all are condemned in one man; thus only one sinless man would be needed to satisfy God's justice. That one sinless man would pay the wages of sin -- death -- on behalf of Adam and all who are condemned in the one man. -- 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Romans 5:12-19; 6:23; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
See:
Basis For Atonement
Did Jesus Have to be Both God and Man?
Did Jesus Neeed to be Uncreated to Pay for the Sin of the World?
Jesus' Sacrifice for Sin
The Price of Redemption – God or Man?



Add to this that man's self-appointed "orthodoxy" claims that Jesus is still a human being in the flesh to this day. If this is true, then Jesus either never completed his sacrifice for sin, or else he took back that sacrifice for sin; either way, the provision of salvation through Jesus would be annulled.


See:
Jesus Died a Human Being – Raised a Spirit Being
Raised in the Spirit
The Man Jesus — Still a Man?
Jesus’ Appearances in the Locked Room

See also:
The (Alleged) Facts on Jehovah's Witnesses

Monday, March 26, 2012

Another "Close Examination" of Russell's Writings

Some time ago one wrote a claim to have "closely examined" Charles Taze Russell's Studies in the Scriptures; nevertheless, to whatever extent the Studies on the Scriptures were examined, it is lacking in giving the full story behind what was going on in the days of Russell. The title of the blog was "A Close Reading of "Studies in Scripture" by Charles Taze Russell." We examined the claims presented several years ago, but the blog has since been removed. We did not present documentation in our replies, but rather we presented links to where we have documented research related to the claims, which links we are updating at the time of this edit (2/2021). The author did provide a few quotes from Russell; nevertheless, even a "close examination" of the Studies in the Scriptures would fall short of expressing Russell's conclusions between the years 1904 up to 1914, since Russell never updated his Studies to reflect what he had been saying from 1904 to 1914. One should recognize that in 1904 Russell reversed his former conclusion that 1914 would see the end of the time of trouble; in 1904 he came to realize that the end of the Gentile Times was to see the beginning, not the end, of the time of trouble.
See:
The Beginning of the Time of Trouble - Quotes From Russell
1904 and Russell's Changes to the Studies in the Scriptures

It was claimed that Russell started the started the "International Bible Students Association" in 1872 and that this is the "pre-1930 name of the organization now known as Jehovah's Witnesses." We are not sure where this date 1872 is coming from, nor what is thought to have happened in 1872 that would mean that Russell started the "International Bible Students Association". Possibly 1872 is given because some appear to think that in that year Brother Russell began a Bible class in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Actually, the Bible class was stated around 1869 or 1870. There have been some who have falsely reported that the book, "The Three Worlds" was published in 1872. Actually, this book was not published until 1877. It was written, not by Russell, but Nelson Barbour; Russell provided the funds for the book to be published.
See:
Pastor Russell Histories

On the other hand, it is misleading to say that what Russell started is the "the organization now known as Jehovah's Witnesses". Russell started no organization such as the Jehovah's Witnesses; indeed, he preached against calling any "outward organization" the only true church. The Bible Students' movement that developed due to work of Russell, however, did NOT take the name "Jehovah's Witnesses". By 1928, as a whole (represented by the majority), the Bible Students movement rejected Rutherford's new organization, and never became members of his "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization.
For documentation related to above, see:
C. T. Russell: Authority and Organization
Russell and the JWs

The "Backpack" author then presented a quote from Russell from the book "The Time is At Hand". The author calls this quote a prophecy, whereas in reality Russell disclaimed that he was a prophet, or that any of his conclusions regarding his study of the Bible prophecies were to be considered "prophecy."
See:
Did Russell Claim to be a Prophet?
Did Russell Claim Infallibilty?

The quote of the 1911 edition from the bottom of page 76 extending to the top of page 77, however, basically related Russell's view before 1904; although Russell made a few changes in the 1905 and 1915 editions to reflect his new view that he adopted in 1904, he never attempted a total overhaul of the Studies in the Scriptures to reflect that change. A change was made, either in the 1914 or 1915 edition, that brought page 77 into harmony with Russell's change of view that he expressed in the year 1904. At any rate, what he stated was not a prophecy, and he had continuously advised his readers not take what he stated as prophecy, or infallible, etc. He was only presenting "Studies in the Scriptures" that included studies of prophecies in the Scriptures.
See:
Was Charles Taze Russell a Prophet?
Russell and 1914

Despite the gross changes that Rutherford and later JW leaders have made, many Bible Students continue to hold to the basic position that Russell stated in 1904, that 1914 was to see the beginning of the time of trouble, and that the time of trouble would last for some time after 1914; this writer believes we have been in the time of trouble ever since 1914 and may still be in it for many decades, until the nations have learned their lesson. Russell, however, did not believe in the kind of "Armageddon" that the Jehovah's Witnesses preach; indeed, what he preached, that Armageddon was to be a chastisement to peoples of the nations, was almost the opposite of the "join us or you may be eternally destroyed" message that the JWs preach.
See:
The JW Organization, Armageddon, 1914, and Russell

The writer of article seemed to be under the assumption that Russell was expecting Jesus to make a visible return in 1914. Russell never spoke of Jesus as returning in 1914 at all. In 1876 -- about two years after 1874 -- Russell accepted Barbour's conclusion that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874.

Please note, however, Russell stated that he had no interest in the Adventists' dates until 1876. Before that date he had set no time for Christ to return.

Russell died in 1916 still with the belief that Jesus had returned invisibly in 1874; he was never expecting Jesus to return in the flesh in 1914. Thus, the article is a little misleading on the way it presents this matter; this may be due to what some of the JW publications have stated that presents a false history about what Russell taught. Again, many Bible Students, myself included, still believe that Jesus did return in 1874.
See:
JW Claims and Russell's Expectations Regarding 1914

Russell's acceptance, in 1876, that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874, was not when Russell came understand that Christ would return in the spirit, not in his former flesh. Russell, somewhere around 1872, came to believe that Jesus has sacrificed his flesh forever; Russell realized that Jesus did not take back that which he sacrificed, but that he was raised a spirit being. Thus, from around 1872, Russell was not expecting to literally see Jesus return in his former body of flesh, although he did accept that Jesus may eventually make his presence known in ways that could be seen.

The Backpack author stated:
Brother Russell set forth 1914 as the date when all things will be restored and God’s rule  on earth will begin.
As pointed out before, this was Russell's earlier view on this matter, but in 1904, Russell no longer held to his view. Instead of expecting peace and all things to be restored in 1914, Russell stated in 1909 regarding what he was expecting for 1914:
We do not expect universal peace to immediately ensue because Christ is styled the Prince of Peace. On the contrary, to our understanding the collapse of the nations will be through a fierce strife, “a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation,” in which “there shall be no peace to him that goeth out, nor to him that cometh in,” because God will set every man’s hand against his neighbor. Our belief is that the warfare between capital and labor, emperors and peoples, will be short, sharp, decisive, and bring untold calamity upon all concerned. If people could only discern it, they would avoid it, but their eyes are holden; they see not, neither do they understand. All the parties to the conflict are plunging into it, each intent on gaining its point, and each oblivious to its own best interests. — “Times of the Gentiles”, The National Labor Tribune, July 11, 1909.
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/Newspaper_Sermons/NS46.asp
Again, one needs to understand that Russell was not prophesying, nor was he saying "This is what Jehovah (Yahweh) has said to me to say to you", etc. Nor was Russell speaking as a member of any JW governing body. Nor was he demanding that all Christians had to accept his conclusions or else they may be eternally destroyed as the JWs teach. Indeed, many of the Bible Students in Russell's days had different conclusions from Russell on several things. Russell even presented some of those conclusions in the pages of the Watch Tower, even though he himself did not agree with them. This is quite a bit different from the sectarianism of the JW organization and its leadership.

Russell was expecting that there would be a manifestation of God's kingdom being set up in Israel; this did not take place as he was expecting, and thus he admitted that he was wrong in this expectation. Although before 1914 had arrived he stated that there was no scripture that directly states that the ending of the Gentiles Times would see the church changed from flesh to spirit beings, he did believe that there grounds for expecting such; he admitted later that he was wrong in this expectation. Russell never, however, admitted that he was wrong in expecting that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914, and he died in 1916 still holding to that belief.

The Backpack author claims to be closely examining Russell's Studies in the Scriptures, but states something that let's us know that he does not actually know what Russell did teach. A quote is made from "The Time is At Hand":
"the worldly and overcharged ones, the full ones, will not discern either the prophecies or the signs of the times fulfilling them, until the harvest is past and the summer of special favor is ended.”
And then the Backpack author states:
In other words, they won’t know the truth until it’s too late and it will be their own fault.
The way this is stated appears to be assuming that Russell taught the same thing that the JWs preach, that is, if effect, 'you must believe what we say or else it will be too late, because you will be eternally destroyed in Armageddon.' But that is almost the opposite of what Russell taught, since Russell taught that it was simply not yet the "due time" for the worldly and overcharged ones to understand. Russell never said that because they do not at this time understand, that they when they do understand, it will be too late for them to benefit from that understanding. For the overcharged Christian, and worldly-minded Christian, though he be consecrated to God, such are to some extent, still like babes in Christ; Russell was not consigning them to some eternal doom because of their unbelief, for he believed that they would still be raised in the resurrection.  These simply lose out on the call that for which they were called to. After the harvest, Russell believed that these still receive a reward in the kingdom, but they do not receive the reward of joint-heirship with Christ.

Additionally, Russell believed that if they were not consecrated, but tares, false Christians, he still was not consigning to them to some eternal doom, for he believed that they would be blessed by God's kingdom in the age to come, after Satan is no longer around to deceive them. After the harvest, the special favor of attaining the reward of joint-heirship with Jesus will be gone, but then the favor of a different kind than is given now will be given to those unconsecrated who are now 'the worldly and overcharged ones"', that may receive the blessings of the God's kingdom without the blinding influence of Satan, and learn the ways of Jehovah at that time. -- Isaiah 2:2-4.

Nor was he, as the JWs often do, laying down a rule by which we could determine whether one is a member of the joint-heirs are not. Elsewhere, he stated many times that it is not for any of us while yet in the flesh to try to make such a determination.

The Backpack author cites several scriptures that Russell gave, although I am not certain that the Backpack author understands what Russell taught on those scriptures. Below we give links that provide more links to Russell's works regarding the scriptures given:

Psalm 2:9
See:
https://www.mostholyfaith.com/beta/bible/ScripturexRef.asp?parm=KJV^Psalms^2^9

Daniel 2:34
See:
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/beta/bible/ScripturexRef.asp?parm=KJV^Daniel^2^34

 Romans 11:25
See:
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/beta/bible/ScripturexRef.asp?parm=KJV^Romans^11^25

Revelation 2:27
http://www.mostholyfaith.com/beta/bible/ScripturexRef.asp?parm=KJV^Revelation^2^27

We do not believe that author the "Backpack" blog was intentionally trying to misrepresent Russell; much of what he stated appears to be similar to what others have stated, and to a great extent we believe was done in ignorance of what Russell actually taught.

Please note that in defending Russell, we are not saying that we agree with all he said or did. We do believe that he had the basic concept of the atonement and many other things correct, although we believe he had to some errors in the details.

Above was originally published 3/26/2012; updated and republished 2/2021.