Did Russell Get No Birthday Beliefs from Muslim Study as a Mason?

Did Russell get any “no birthday” belief from a study with the Muslims while he was a Mason? Was Charles Taze Russell ever a Mason? Did he ever teach anyone to not celebrate birthdays?

This is in response to an article entitled "Are Brithdays Pagan?" appearing at:

http://jesus-messiah.com/html/birthdays.html

The article is addressing the Jehovah’s Witnesses belief concerning not celebrating birthdays.

First, let us say that we are not in disagreement with much of what is stated on that page.  We are mostly addressing some errors concerning the references to Charles Taze Russell and the allegations being made regarding Russell.

The statement is made:

They [Jehovah’s Witnesses] will not confess that this doctrine came from the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Charles Taze Russell got it from his Muslim studies as a member of the Masonic lodge.

It is further stated:

It is believed, and with good suspicion, that Charles Taze Russell, founder of the JWs, got his doctrine against observing birthdays from his association with the Masonic Lodge, and directly from Islamic influence.  Yes, there is an abundance of Islamic teaching veiled in many rituals of the Lodge.  Muslims do not believe in observing birthdays and devout Caliphs do not observe the birthday of Mohammed.  Russell had even more reason to crank out a doctrine against birthday celebration with his stand against Christmas, the alleged birthday of Jesus.  It was from this event on December 25 that Russell forged his doctrine against pagan holidays and birthdays, all in one neat package.  He could teach against the birthday of the Son of God and go back and pick up the ancient festival of the birthday of the sun, or sun god, and show where they were mixed.

(1) Charles Taze Russell was never associated with the organization known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. Russell did not believe in such an organization, and preached against such a sectarian organization until the day he died. After Russell died, Rutherford, by means of deceit and legal trickery, gained control of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and used that legal entity to develop the sectarian organization that is now called “Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

(2) Russell was never involved in any special studies of the Muslim religion, nor was he ever a member of any Masonic lodge, nor is there any "good reason" to suspect that he was. Many conspiracy theorists, by use of imagination, create a lot of alleged "facts" which are in reality not facts, etc.

(2) Charles Taze Russell never promoted a belief against celebrating birthdays or Christmas at all, thus he never got such an idea from any studies he might have made concerning the Muslim religion. In fact, the “Daily Heavenly Manna” book that was published by the WTS in Russell’s time carried a page for recording birthdays opposite each date. Today, The Dawn Bible Students Association continues to publish this book with the similar format.
http://dawnbible.com/dawnpub.htm

God, of course, never prohibited the celebration or observance of birthdays; nevertheless, we believe that many of God’s commands should be considered related to the mimicking of the idolatrous rituals that are often associated with such celebrations, in this case, that of making wishes (in effect, petitions, prayers) upon a cake and/or candle. The Bible tells us to make our requests known to the Heavenly Father, not to a cake or candles. — Philippians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 10:14,20.

(4) Charles Taze Russell was never a member of the Masons’ organization at all. If he had been, he certainly would not have spent nearly his entire life proclaiming a message that goes contrary to the Masonic philosophy, and especially in contradiction to conspiracy theories that many often claim to be the goals of the Freemasons..

On of the prominent promoters of such theories is Fritz Sprngmeier. We have written some responses regarding him, which may be seen at:
http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2016/12/p-springmeier.html

Those who are well-acquainted with the writings of Charles Taze Russell find all the proof they need within those writings that attests that Russell was never a member of the Masons’ organization, and we have no reason to question his statement when he said: “I have never been a Mason.” — Sermon: “The Temple of God,” 1913.

Additionally, we have never seen anything among the Masons that suggests, as an organization, that they do not celebrate birthdays, or that they hold, as an organization, to any kind of doctrine that one should not celebrate birthdays.

The Great Pyramid of Giza and the Bible Students — Interview (English/Portuguese) with Bro. Jeff Mezera (Video)

Was Charles Taze Russell Really a Freemason? (Video Response)

A video that been presented, which may have been produced by a member (or members) of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect, entitled, "Was Charles Taze Russell 'really' a Freemason?" At any rate, what is presented in the video is more or less favorable towards Brother Russell. The video does show that Russell was not a member of the Freemasons. His life works overwhelming show that he was not in favor of such goals often being attributed the "Illuminati". It is indeed non-sensical to think that Russell spent all those years from approximately 1870 to 1916 promoting a message that is contrary to what many are attributing to Russell.

However, the video presents a view often held that Brother Russell was the "founder of the Christian denomination of Jehovah's Witnesses." The fact is that Russell was a non-sectarian who did not believe in creating a sect or denomination, nor in creating an authoritarian organization, and definitely not a religious organization such as the "Jehovah's Witnesses". Russell preached against such sectarian authoritarianism throughout the years of his ministry. He also preached against the kind of "Armageddon" message that is preached by the JW organization. In effect, the scriptural glad tidings of great joy that will be for all the people that was the center of Russell's ministry, is almost the very opposite of the  JWs' "Good News" of great woe that will be for most people that they (and their children) will be eternally destroyed in Armageddon if they do not join the JW organization.

The video states that Russell had an interest in "pyramidology." As far as we can determine, Brother Russell himself never used the word "pyramidology"; of itself this word simply means "pyramid study" or "study of a pyramid". The word "pyramidology" could certainly be applied to Russell's study of God's Witness in Egypt.

The word "pyramidology" is often, however, associated with many forms of spiritistic and occult practices that Russell did not believe in. Russell's Biblical study of God's Witness in Egypt had nothing at all to do with spiritism, nor did it have anything to do what is commonly called occultism, astrology, pyramid power, etc. Russell's interest was in the Biblical study of God's Witness in Egypt; such study has been referred to as "pyamidology", but that term can be misleading, since many people may associate the term with things that Russell did not believe in. It is often claimed that Russell was obsessed with "pyramids." Russell had no general interest in "pyramids" (plural). His interest was in one pyramid, the one which bears overwhelming evidence as being God's witness in Egypt. The only interest he appeared to have in other pyramids was to show the difference between them and the one often referred to as "The Great Pyramid."

Rutherford evidently found that the abundance of evidence regarding God's Witness in Egypt would not fit his "organization" goals, so he claimed that all this "evidence" was put there by Satan in order deceive. This claim, in effect, would mean that Satan had knowledge of the Bible before the Bible was written. Rutherford did not actually address the evidence, but rather he disregarded it. Many Bible Students, such as Morton Edgar, have refuted Rutherford's claims, and as far as we can determine, Rutherford simply ignored those refutations.

The claim is presented that Russell stated that he was Freemason. This refers to something that Brother Russell said in his sermon, "The Temple of God." The quote has to be taken out of context, however, since Russell was not saying that he was a member of man's Freemason organization. Russell actually disclaimed being a member of any of man's secret organizations, and he preached against the goals of those organizations. He did, using Masonic terminology, make an analogy so as to speak of being a freemason for Christ.

Russell evidently was under the false impression that all Masons professed to be Christian, and thus he spoke of them in the sense that he spoke of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., that is as "friends" and "brethren."

The video mentions the claim may be many that Brother Russell used "Masonic symbols." The Biblical illustrations Russell used were not "Masonic symbols", although some Masons may have made use of similar Biblical imagery. Cross and Crown symbolism has been used by almost all the major denominations of Christendom, without any thought of it having anything at all to do with the Masons' organization. No shape, of itself, is pagan, or idolatrous, although many things in God's creation may be perverted for idolatrous heathen occult practices, etc.

The "TAU" is used throughout the Hebrew in the Old Testament and also in the Greek of the New Testament. Rutherford's call for an alleged non-spirit begotten class of Jehonadabs, did not fit the imagery of the cross and crown. It appears, however, that many of Rutherford's followers clung to the usage of the cross and crown, and thus Rutherford made use of works by some earlier authors and used his self-proclaimed organizational authority to dissuade further use of the cross and crown symbolism, so as to focus on building an organization with what could be considered, in effect, a governing class, such as Paul preached against in 1 Corinthians 4:8.

The video is correct about Russell's grave, although it does not appear to fully have the details correct. Russell is definitely not buried under any pyramid at all, nor is the pyramid that Bohnet designed and Rutherford authorized to be built on the WTS lot in the Rosemont Cemetery a "Masonic" pyramid. Rutherford, however, authorized Bohnet to build that pyramid replica of God's Witness in Egypt, not in the middle of the Rosemont Cemetery, but in the middle of the lot then owned by the WTS in that cemetery. There are those that claim that Russell's last will and testament stated that he wished for such a monument to be built. This is false, however, but it is true that there is no record in any of Russell's known writings that mentions the building of such a pyramid structure on the WTS lot in the Rosemont Cemetery.

The picture  presented in the video of Russell's gravestone is that which was apparently replaced several years after his death. Russell himself never claimed to be "the Laodicean Messenger.".

Russell and Peters' "The Theocratic Kingdom"

This is related a series of books entitled The Theocratic Kingdom, by George N. H. Peters. Brother Russell was acquainted with Peters, and spoke highly of him, although Russell thought Peters had not gotten rid of some the “shackles” of “Babylon”. Russell wrote comments regarding Peter’s The Theocratic Kingdom, and provided information about those books, including the purchase price. Lately, however, it is being circulated around that “the May 1883 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower criticized Peters’ work, recommending that readers not purchase the title.” Quotes are given, which on the surface, appear to support this statement; and yet, if one reads what Russell actually wrote in May 1883 concerning Peter’s books, we do not find any place where he recommended either that one should or should not purchase this series of books. Here is the entire notice that appeared in the May 1883 Watch Tower:

THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM.

Brother G. N. H. Peters, of Springfield, Ohio, is an old acquaintance and friend. He is a believer in the redemptive work of Christ, and hence a Christian brother. He is a believer in the future reign of Christ and the saints, for which cause sake he has suffered the loss of some things — some of the esteem of the nominal church. We regret to have it to state, however, that he is not free from Babylon’s shackles, being yet identified with the Lutheran sect — hence has been hindered from a fuller development in grace and knowledge of the word and plan of God than if he stood in the full liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.

Our brother has spent a large part of the past thirty years in preparing a very comprehensive work on Eschatology, entitled – -“THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM.” It treats of the kingdom of God to be established, from the standpoint known as “Premillenarian.” It gives voluminous reports of the hundreds of views entertained on this subject — advocating in the main the so-called “Pre-millenarian” view. While the author does not ignore the teachings of the Apostles, he lays greater stress and value on the opinions of the “Fathers” (the Christian teachers of the first five centuries) than we could acknowledge as proper.

The work will comprise three volumes of about 600 pages each. The publisher says that the price should be $5 per volume, but if sufficient orders — or promises at $3 per volume — are received in advance to justify, then that will be the price.

While we cannot recommend it to you more than as above, to briefly state the facts and circumstances, yet if you should conclude to order it or a prospectus of it you should address our brother and friend as above.

See this series of books online at:

https://archive.org/details/TheTheocraticKingdomPetersVols1-3

It should be obvious that in a sense, Brother Russell recommended the books, yet it was not without pointing out that it does not provide the plan of God as given in the Bible. Thus, Brother Russell could not fully recommend the book. To  say, however, that he recommended that the readers of the Watchtower not buy the books would be to distort what he actually stated. While we have not taken the time to read the book, we understand that it presents views that, in effect, deny the basis of the atonement as presented in the Bible.  Nevertheless, Brother Russell considered Peters to be a brother in Christ, a believer in the redemption through Jesus. The fact that Brother Peters presents some erroneous views does not mean that there is no helpful information to be found in his books, and thus Bible Students could find something useful in those books, just as useful information may be found in the works of many other Christian authors who do not understand the divine plan of the ages. Indeed, we do know that some Bible Students have made use of the books. For instance, Brother Donald Holliday, in study "The Secrets of the Kingdom," states:

The first seven parables of Matthew 13 describe various developments throughout the long age that was to precede the second advent of earth’s king and the coming of his kingdom. Then the “harvest,” described as the ending of the age, would take place under the auspices of the returned Lord. However, two of these parables, the ‘Mustard seed’ and the ‘Leaven,’ have sometimes been taken out of context and misapplied to a gradual process of kingdom development during this intervening age. There is some resulting confusion, therefore, as to the nature of the promised kingdom and the time of its commencement. One careful Bible scholar has regarded this error to be so serious and widespread even among Protestants that he has devoted three weighty volumes, drawing over a thousand references from Christian resources, in refuting this mistaken idea.(3)

In the footnote reference (3) we find:

3. George N. H. Peters (1825-1909), The Theocratic Kingdom (three volumes, 2,000 pages).

Brother Russell, however, probably viewed himself as having no right to tell anyone to buy or not to buy those books or any other books.  He simply left it up to each reader as to whether they should or should not buy the books. The fact that he included the purchase prices of the books shows that he expected that some of the readers may want to purchase the books.

Was Russell the Founder of a False Religion?

It was claimed on a site that evidently no longer exists that Charles Taze Russell was “the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses,” under the heading, “Jehovah’s Witnesses: False Religion.” Another site, under the title, "The Jehovah's Witnesses: A False Religious Organization," states: "The Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious organization which had its beginning in the early twentieth century. It was founded by Charles Taze Russell in the latter half of the nineteenth century."  The two statements in the latter quote appear to contradict each other. In truth, Charles Taze Russell was not the founder of the religion known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” He did not believe in such an organization, nor did he believe in the teachings of this religion. He was certainly not the founder of that which he did not believe in. 

Russell was certainly not the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization.

First, Russell was a non-sectarian who did not believe in such a sectarian organization. Russell preached against the sectarian kind of spirit that prevails amongst the JW organization. Russell, while he did not believe in denominationalism or sectarianism, believed and taught that true Christians, members of the true church, may be found amongst all denominations and sects that profess to be Christian.

Second, Russell did not believe in the kind of authoritarianism that the leadership of the JWs claim. He certainly never employed the “mind control” techniques used the by the JW leadership. Russell believed that the only authority in the church is Jesus and the apostles.

Third, Russell did not believe in the message of eternal doom for unbelievers that the JWs preach. This is related to their teaching regarding the battle of Armageddon. As far as we know, they still teach that most of earth's unregenerated population, including children, babies, etc., will be eternally destroyed during that battle. Indeed, Russell believed that all unbelievers would eventually be enlightened with the truth. Russell did not teach or believe in the kind of Armageddon that is preached by the Jehovah’s Witnesses; actually, he preached against similar teachings that existed in his day. Russell believed that Armageddon was a period during the time of trouble in which the peoples of the nations were to be chastised in preparation for the blessings of God’s Kingdom.

It is true that the "Jehovah's Witnesses" had its beginning in the early twentieth century. The founder of this organization was Joseph Rutherford, not Charles Taze Russell. Rutherford created the Jehovah's Witnesses organization by rejecting the core teachings of Russell and the Bible Students, especially as related to the basis of the atonement, Christian freedom (no centralized organization on earth clothed with authority), and many other things. 

Russell was therefore certainly not the founder of that which he did not believe in, and which he preached against.

Indeed, Russell himself never thought of himself as the “founder” of any religion; he claimed Christ as the founder of the religion that he believed in, that is, Biblical Christianity.

It is claimed that because of Russell’s “questionable character”, the Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer look at Russell as the founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Officially, the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” leadership claim that their religion goes all the way back to Abel. Individually, however, one might hear some the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” refer to the Charles Taze Russell as their founder, or as the “modern-day” founder of their religion. However, we are not aware that any of them would “no longer” claim him as their founder because of an alleged “questionable  character” that is falsely attributed to Russell. Nevertheless, the JW leadership does highly discourage study of Russell’s writings, with the claim that it is “old light.” We highly suspect that the real reason is that Russell’s writings would expose much of the teachings of the JW leadership as being false.

The true founder of the religion known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses” was Joseph Rutherford. Rutherford, after Russell died, used deceit and legal trickery to gain control of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as a basis to form his new religion which he later called “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” You will not find any reference in Russell’s writings to a Watch Tower organization, and certainly not of an organization that Rutherford conceived after Russell died. Russell refused to usurp any authority over anyone (except as that which had been given to him as the President of the Watch Tower Society itself, which pertained only the internal affairs of he Watch Tower Society, not external matters of the lives of individuals who were external to the Watch Tower Society. That Russell was still maintaining this belief until he died can be seen from his statement in The Watch Tower, August 15, 1916, page 248:

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.

Almost immediately after Russell died, however, Rutherford and his followers began to present a concept an “organization” in connection with the Watch Tower Society. (See the Watch Tower issues of December of 1916).

See also: Russell and the JWs

A Lying Spirit Lies About Charles Taze Russell

By Ronald R. Day, Senior 

We are here addressing a report claimed to have been given by Rodolfo Acevedo Hernandez, who is reported as claiming to have had an out-of-body experience during which he visited hell and heaven. This same info has also been presented in several videos on Youtube and elsewhere. Our studies of the Bible alert us that such experiences may actually be visions given by demons who wish to promote their lies. 

At any rate, Mr. Hernandez claims that he saw Jesus,  and it is claimed that Jesus showed him “many things in hell, heaven and the condition of my church on earth.” We will first state the possibility that this vision never actually took place, and that the entire story is simply made up. Indeed, from the way it reads, it does sound like something that someone fabricated. 

On the other hand, the demons evidently are indeed using such methods, often associated with a near-death experience, in order to spread their lies. Regardless, we believe that wicked spirits are behind this, since we know that the real Jesus would not tell such lies as related in this account. We should note that in Mr. Hernandez’s experience, one appeared who claimed to be Jesus Christ, but a closer examination reveals if Mr. Hernandez saw a spirit, that this spirit was actually a lying spirit pretending to be Jesus.

In what is related, Mr. Hernandez supposedly saw a man, and Mr. Hernandez states, “The Lord said that this man was the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.” In the context, this "man" is supposed to be Charles Taze Russell. That this spirit is a lying spirit pretending to be Jesus can be seen from the fact that Charles Taze Russell was NOT the founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Russell never heard of the "Jehovah's Witnesses." Russell did not believe in such an organization, and he did not believe in the message that is preached by that organization. Indeed, Russell preached against such a message as the Jehovah's Witnesses present, and he also preached against the authoritarianism claimed by the organization. After Russell died. Rutherford created the Jehovah's Witnesses by rejecting the core teachings of Russell and the Bible Students. The real founder of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” organization was Joseph Rutherford. It was not Charles Taze Russell. The real Jesus would have known these facts, and would not have made such a statement as presented. At this point, however, the fact that such a idea is presented does seem to indicate that this whole report may have been made up, since it is generally conceived that Russell was the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

For links to research related to: Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses

It is reported that "Jesus" supposedly stated:

Charles Russell is in hell because he taught lies!!

Of course, if Charles Taze Russell is now in the Bible hell, then, according to the Bible, he is unconscious and waiting for the resurrection. See our study: What Does the Bible Really Say About Hell?

This writer, for one, will be eternally grateful to the Heavenly Father for all the truths that Charles Taze Russell has brought forth from the Bible, and his defense of Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for sin. However, the JWs actually reject the core teaching of Russell regarding the atonement in Christ, replacing it with a teaching that basically states: join us, or be eternally destroyed in Armageddon. Thus, the Armageddon message preached by the JWs is almost the very opposite of the good news that will be for all the people that Russell preached.

What lies is Russell supposed to have presented? The report states that Jesus supposedly stated::

This man taught that God was only a God of love.

Anyone familiar with Russell’s teachings knows this is not true; indeed, Russell continuously presented Jehovah as being balanced in justice, love, power and wisdom, with each attribute working harmoniously together with all his attributes to bring forth the marvelous plan of redemption that is in Christ. The real Jesus would know the truth about what Russell taught, and would not need to present a fabrication.

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Sermon/sermon.asp?xRef=SM467

We are told: The Bible says that God is a consuming fire.

Yes, the Bible does say this, and Brother Russell agreed with this. For instance, Brother Russell stated:

The whole world is becoming involved, just as the Bible has predicted for this Day. As the fire of trouble spreads, the light of Truth spreads also. God represents Himself as "a consuming fire." (Heb. 12:29) We also read that "God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5) The figures of fire and light are both applicable to Him. The sun is a ball of fire, and at the same time a source of light. God is a consuming fire to every form of iniquity and injustice; and all systems founded upon selfishness and inequity must go down during this great Day of the Lord, when He has risen to shake terribly the earth. Isa. 2:12-19

In the present time of trouble and distress of nations, however, there is light for the "children of light," while the consuming fire is doing its work of destroying everything that is wrong. We have come down to "that Day," wherein "the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." The fire has already started. -- "Present Burning of False Faith Structures", sermon delivered August 6, 1916. 

One familiar with his writings would know that he on many instances spoke of God as being a "consuming fire." Again, the real Jesus would know this, so if someone actually spoke to Hernandez, it had to be a lying spirit pretending to be Jesus. 

Hernandez claimed that Jesus said:

This man Charles Russell took the word hell from the Bible

Again, this is pure nonsense. One can verify from Russell’s own works that he did not at all take the word “hell” from the Bible. Russell did explain from the Bible itself what “hell” is. See our links related to Russell and the Bible hell.

Of course, the real Jesus would know what Russell taught, and would not have to make up such a lie. However, given the fact that any wicked spirit pretending to be Jesus would also know this, it would appear that a wicked spirit would have been more cunning than to just state such an outright lie. While we would not say that a lying spirit definitely would not have spoken such, this statement does appear to support the theory that this whole report may actually be a fabrication, based on the thought that even a lying spirit would be more cunning in the presentation of his lies. But at the same time, we realize that a lying spirit may indeed present such a lie if that is what the hearer would wish to hear.

Hernandez reported that "Jesus" supposedly continued to say of Charles Taze Russell:

and he took out all the words sheol and Abaddon.

The reality is that Russell definitely never "took out: either the word “sheol” or “Abbadon,” whatever this is supposed to mean by "took out." He certainly never took these words out of the Bible. Why would he do such a thing? The statement really makes no sense. How could Brother Russell take those words out of the Bible? Again, assuming that there was actually a spirit speaking to Hernandez, the spirit certainly did not speak the truth; the real Jesus would not promote such a lie.

Hernandez further reported "Jesus" as supposedly saying:

Also, he denied the deity of Jesus Christ and also denied the deity of the Holy Spirit

Brother Russell certainly did NOT deny the deity of Christ; he did show from the Bible what the deity of Christ means.

https://rlctr.blogspot.com/2008/03/deity.html

We could not find any place that Russell specifically denied the deity of God’s Holy Spirit; we can say that Jehovah’s Holy Spirit is deity in the sense that God to whom the Holy Spirit belongs is deity. Russell certainly did not add to and read into the scriptures that the Holy Spirit of God is a person of the Supreme Being.

It is further claimed "Jesus" said of Brother Russell:

and he put only the Word Jehovah in the Bible.

We are not sure what this is meant to say. As stated, it makes no sense, and certainly does not relate to anything Russell did, said. or wrote. Brother Russell, however, certainly never put "only the Word Jehovah in the Bible," whatever this is supposed to mean. Brother Russell did often quote from various translations by others that presented the Holy Name as “Jehovah”. At any rate, the real Jesus would know exactly what Brother Russell did or did not do, and definitely would not need to create such nonsensical statements.

It claimed that Jesus said of Brother Russell:

He took out Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

This is absolutely false! All one has to do is read just a little of Russell's works and no that this is not true! Surely the real Jesus would not present such a lie! Nevertheless, the naivety of attributing such to Russell again would seem to indicate that this whole narrative is a fabrication. But still, we can say that it is possible that a lying spirit may have said such an outright lie to satisfy those who wish to hear and believe such a lie.

Hernadez next claims "Jesus" stated;

For this cursed man, all these souls are falling into hell.” (Rev 22:18-19).

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

There is nothing in these verses about the Bible hell. Nevertheless, since Russell did not take away from or add to the actual words of the prophecy as given to John, the warning spoken of here has no application to him. 

Hernandez continues:

Then the Lord said: “I curse that man”

Assuming that Hernandez actually received a message from a spirit being, whom Mr. Acevedo claims to be "the Lord", this spirit proclaims a curse on Charles Taze Russell. If this report is a fabrication, this curse would actually be coming from the ignorance of a man who does not know any better. In such a case, I am sure Russell himself would remember the words of his Lord as recorded in Luke 6:28: "bless those who curse you, and pray for those who insult you." And Russell would also remember the words of the apostle Paul: "Bless those who persecute you; bless, and don't curse." -- Romans 12;14.

Hernandez then states:

When we left this place, these prison doors closed and caught fire and this man Charles Taze Russell cried and screamed and cursed Jesus repeatedly because Jesus said “The judgment has been set for this man”.

What can we say? If Hernandez actually received a vision, then the lying spirits will give people a vision of whatever falsehood they determine the person will have a tendency to believe. It would appear that, in addition to promoting the lie that the dead are not actually dead, the real reason for this report is to try to dissuade people from reading the truths that Russell presented. The Bible nowhere presents any idea that the soul is alive while the body is dead; indeed, the Bible shows that if the body is dead, the person is a dead soul.

For links to some of our studies related to what happens when a person dies:

https://bible-hope.blogspot.com/2017/01/on-this-site.html

Russell Was Not the Founder of a False Religion

A Collection of responses to the Video "A False Religion : Jehovah's Witnesses EXPOSED - 2016 Documentary"

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

We are not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but since the video discusses much concerning Charles Taze Russell, we are responding to many things presented in the video.

1. Russell Was Not founder of JWs:

The video presents Charles Taze Russell as the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Charles Taze Russell was not the founder of the JWs. The only religion he believed in was that of Christ and the apostles. Russell preached against the kind of authoritarianism that is found in the JW org. He also preached against the kind of Armageddon message that the JWs preach. Russell was not the founder of that which he did not believe in, and which he preached against.

2. Miller a prophet?

The video presents William Miller as a prophet. As best as we can determine, Miller -- who was a Baptist minister -- never viewed himself as a prophet, or that the conclusions he reached were "prophecies". We do believe that Brother Mlller had some dates correct, but was wrong in his expectations.

3. Ellen G. White and 1874

We are not with the SDAs, but we have found no proof that Ellen White ever claimed anything at all regarding 1874. We have not looked into the details of her vision, but Satan is always ready to distort truth.

4. Sins of Mankind

I don't know if Ellen G. White actually taught that the sins of mankind would be placed on the devil himself; I do know that Russell never taught such an idea.

5. It is false that Russell founded the Jehovah's Witnesses organization

Charles Taze Russell most definitely was not the founder the Jehovah's Witnesses organization. Anyone who knows what he taught would know that he preached against such authoritarianism, and he did not allow the WTS he created to be used for such purposes. Just before his death, he reiterated this, saying, "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." (The Watch Tower, August 15, 1916, page 248.) This, however, began to change shortly after his death as Rutherford deceitfully had new by-laws passed that virtually destroyed the WTS as Russell had created it.

6. Russell did not attend any meeting of the SDAs when he was 18

There is no record at all that Russell ever attended any SDA meeting at all at any time ever in his life.. He did, around 1870, attend a meeting of the Second Adventists. At 18, Russell definitely never encountered the teachings of Ellen G. White. He did later refuted her teachings. Russell did associate with a small group of independent Christians (as far as we know, none of whom were associated with the SDA organization) in Allegheny, and as a result of those studies, he did come to realize what the Bible hell is, and what it is not. There is definitely no record that Russell ever accepted and adopted the teachings of Ellen G. White.

7. Russell was not expecting "the end of the world" in 1914

Brother Russell plainly said he was not expecting "the end of the world" in 1914. Russell, not being a prophet, never gave any prophecy that the world would end in 1914.

8. Russell's teachings definitely are not in accord with "Masonic beliefs". 

Indeed, anyone familiar with his works would know that the message he spent his adult life preaching is not at all in harmony with the goals of the Masons, and definitely not in harmony with any conspiracy theories often presented about the Masons.

9. There is no pyramid on top of Russell's grave.

The pyramid shown in the video is not "on top of" Russell's grave. That pyramid replica of God's Witness in Egypt was authorized to be constructed about three years after Russell died, in honor of the WTS. Rutherford's pyramid monument, however, has nothing at all to do with the Freemasons.

10. The Cross and Crown is not "a Masonic sign."

The Biblical Cross and Crown on Rutherford's pyramid monument and which appears on Russell's Watch Tower magazine is definitely not "a Masonic sign", although the Knights Templar, who claim to be Christian, do use similar imagery. Oddly, if Pike is correct, in reality, the cross used by any church is a phallic symbol.

11. Russell never claimed to a member of man's Freemason organization.

Since Russell never said that he was a member of the man-made Freemason organization, it is totally false that he said that he was an member of that organization. Taking Russell's quote (from his sermon, The Temple of God) out of context, and making it appear that he was claiming to be a member of man's Masonic Society, is highly deceptive. Russell was claiming to be a part of the building work of God, not a member of any of man's secret societies.

12. Russell was definitely never a member of the man-made Freemasons organization.

His teachings are in direct conflict with what is often claimed to be the goals of the Freemasons.
Russell had no special affiliation with the Freemasons, except that some of the Freemasons became associated with his work. Nevertheless, these Bible Students usually withdrew their membership with the Freemason organization.

13. Was Russell of a Satanic Bloodline?

To believe that Russell is of some kind special Satanic bloodline would not harmonize with Jesus' sacrifice and many statements in the Bible.

14. Russell's teachings were not about a New Word Order designed by man.

It is actually ludicrous to think that Russell spent his whole life preaching against what he is alleged to have been supporting by preaching against what he was actually secretly supporting. Russell did indeed, by what he presented, preach against all of man's efforts to bring about any alleged "new world order", although Russell never used the term, "new world order."

15. Nothing happened in 1914?

It is not true that "nothing happened' in 1914. Russell died in 1916 still rejoicing that the time of trouble had begun in 1914, as he had been expecting since 1904.

16. Most JWs know little about Russell.

JWs in general know very little about Russell, and are often misinformed about what he taught as well as why he believed what he believed. This misinformation about Russell often leaves them vulnerable to many who claim to know this and that about Russell, based on many assumptions, speculations, distortions, etc., which are most often presented as being fact. As a result, many have been misled by the false claims of men such as Fritz Springeier and David Icke, who have themselves grossly misrepresented Russell but in such a deceptive way that what they say "appears" to be fact to those who do not actually know what Russell believed and why he believed what he did.

17. No "governing body."

Charles Taze Russell  did not believe in any "governing body" and preached against such authoritarianism until the day he died.

18. Raymond Franz

\I highly recommend Raymond Franz' books, although there are a few things I disagree with. Overall, Franz does agree with Russell and the Bible Students on many things.

19. Armageddon 

The "Armageddon" message that the JWs proclaim is almost the very opposite of the "glad tidings of great joy that will be for all the people" that Russell held be central to Biblical teachings.

20. Deity of Christ

Russell did not reject the deity of Christ, although he did explain that diety in harmony with Biblical usage of the Hebrew and Greek words for diety.
http://rlctr.blogspot.com/2008/03/deity.html

21. Michael the Archangel 

I did my own studies related to the archangel.

22. Jesus never had two forms of being at the same time.

If Jesus was anything more than just a sinless obedient man then, rather than condemning sin the flesh, Jesus actually justified sin in the flesh. -- Romans 8:3.

23. Jesus is no longer with the glory a little lower than the angels. -- 1 Corinthians 15:39-41; Hebrews 2:9

If Jesus is now still a human being, then no sacrifice has been given for our sins. -- Luke 22:19; John 6:51; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18.

24. Russell and Salvation.

Russell did not preach that any organization or denomination is the way of salvation; he preached that Jesus is the only way of salvation from Adamic death, irrespective of what denomination, organization or sect one may otherwise belong to.

25. KJV and trinity

There is nothing in the King James Version about any alleged "Holy Trinity". The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is always presented as being one person, and is never presented as being more than one person. Although the KJV does in some verses render wording to favor the trinity, one still has to imagine that doctrine beyond what is actually stated in the KJV.

Martin: Are JWs Followers of Russell's Interpretations?

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

In the book, Kingdom of the Cults, (2003 edition), on pages 17 and 18, we find the following statement: "Jehovah's Witnesses, for the most part, are followers of the interpretations of Charles T. Russell and J. F. Rutherford." This could be misleading, since most people do not know that Rutherford created the "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization by rejecting the core teachings of the Russell and the Bible Students, especially as related to Christian liberty, organization, and the atonement. 

Along this line of reasoning, one site claims "as far as the core doctrines are concerned Jehovah’s Witnesses still believe and teach what Charles Taze Russell and the International Bible Students believed and taught." This, however, is false, as anyone truly familiar with the work of Russell and the Bible Students would know.

The Ransom For All

The Jehovah's Witnesses reject Russell's teaching that the ransom for all provides salvation for Adam as well as well as absolutely all who are dying in Adam. This is the core teaching of Russell's books: The Divine Plan of the Ages and The Atonement Between God and Man. Jehovah's Witnesses, in effect, deny the basis of the ransom as Brother Russell presented from the Bible, for they say that Adam is not covered by that Ransom. Rutherford claimed that the first man, Adam, died the second death (which would, in effect, mean that Adam did not die the "Adamic" death).  Of course, since all who are dying in Adam came under the same condemnation as Adam, then if Adam came under the condemnation of the second death, it would mean that all of Adam's descendants likewise come under the condemnation of the second death.

We have discussed this in our studies:

Adam and the Ransom Sacrifice

Did the Ransom Cover Adam's Sin, But Not Adam?

Links to Studies Related to the JWs and the Ransom

Chronology and Time Prophecies

The Jehovah's Witnesses reject practically everything Russell presented concerning Bible chronology and time prophecies. This means that they reject practically everything that Russell presented in his books The Time Is At Hand and Thy Kingdom Come. Brother Russell presented from the Bible Biblical evidence that the time of the end had begun in 1799, that Christ had returned in 1874 and that the times of the Gentiles were to end in 1914. And there are many other dates Russell believed to be designated in the Bible that the Jehovah's Witnesses reject. The Jehovah's Witnesses still accept the date 607/6 as the year of Jerusalem's destruction, but the chronology they present before that date is not in the same as that Brother Russell presented in his book The Time Is At Hand. The only prophecy that the Jehovah's Witnesses still use that Brother Russell presented in his books is that of the "seven times" of Daniel 4. Without all the supporting chronology and time prophecy applications as Russell presented, this lone application for the year 1914 would seem very paltry, as far as evidence for the date 1914. Of course, the JWs accept the date based on the authority they ascribe to their leadership.

Church Organization and Christian Liberty

And the Jehovah's Witnesses reject most of what Brother Russell presented concerning Church organization as he disclosed in his book The New Creation, as well as elsewhere. After Russell died, Rutherford created an organization dogma with a structure very similar to that of the Papacy.  See our resource page: Russell, Authority and Organization.

Armageddon

They also reject most of what Brother Russell presented concerning "Armageddon" in his book The Battle of Armageddon. Russell was never expecting an "Armageddon" that was to eternally destroy millions or billions of unregenerated men, women and children, as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach. Russell believed Armageddon was to chastise the people of the nations, not eternally destroy them.

Thus, it can be seen that the Jehovah's Witnesses reject most of the basic teachings that Russell presented in all of his six volumes of studies called the Studies in the Scriptures. Such rejection could hardly mean that that they "are followers of the interpretations of Charles T. Russell", or that the Jehovah's Witnesses still believe the core teachings of Charles Taze Russell.

Brother Russell's books online

Studies in the Scriptures - Chicago Bible Students

Studies in the Scriptures - Archive.org

Studies in the Scriptures - bible411.com

Studies in the Scriptures - mostholyfaith.com

We should point out that Brother Russell never fully edited his books to reflect the view he adopted in 1904, that is, the time of trouble was to begin, not end, in 1914. The only edition we know of that has been edited to reflect this change is Paul Johnson's edition, which may be found online:

Editions of Paul Johnson

Russell's Alleged Denunciation of "Organized Religion"

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

Walter Martin and Norman Klann make the claim that, as a result of Charles Taze Russell's alleged rejection of the doctrine of eternal punishment, Russell "entered upon a long and varied career of denunciation aimed at 'organized religion.'" Russell, of course, never rejected the Biblical doctrine of "eternal punishment." We have discussed this elsewhere.

On one site, we find the following: "Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell despised organized religion, and preached that all one needed to serve God was the Bible and Jesus Christ."

Evidently, it is thought that "organized religion" is a good thing, and that to oppose "organized religion" would be a bad thing.  Actually, it depends on what is meant by such a denunciation. Russell did not believe in sectarianism nor did believe in setting men here on the earth with authority to govern God's people.

While it is true that Russell denounced sectarian religious organizations since such organizations divide God's people and often seek subjugate them to men here on the earth, Russell, himself, possibly never used the phrase "organized religion". Indeed, we did a digital search of Russell's works, and we find that phrase only once in his Watch Tower, and this is from the Watch Tower of September 1, 1906, under the article "Views From the Watch Tower". Here Brother Russell himself did not use the phrase "organized religion," but he quotes a periodical by the name of The Christian Work and Evangelist. Possibly what he quoted was written by its editor, Joseph Newton Hallock. 

Another instance where we find the phrase "organized religion" is in the periodical entitled, Old Theology Quarterly, Volume 4, Number 5, in the "Miscellaneous Column" under the subtopic, "Waning Church Life". Again, we find that the phrase is not used by Brother Russell himself. It is contained in a quote from Rev. Dr. Waddy Moss, of Didsbury College, Manchester, England, which appeared in the Manchester Dispatch.

Other than these instances, we found no more instances where the phrase "organized religion" is used in Russell's works.

Russell, being a non-sectarian, believed that the true church consists of all who actually belong to Christ, regardless of denominational or sectarian ties. Many protestant ministers have stated the same thing, although many -- if not most -- of them would exclude any who do not believe in the trinity.

We suspect, however, that Martin and Klann may have confused Rutherford's later campaign against organized religion with the ministry of Russel. Rutherford's denunciation of "organized religion" included the promotion of his new "organization" as "Jehovah's organization." Part of Russell's dogma was that all other religions and/or religious groups are part of "Satan's organization". Rutherford began to promote the idea that anyone not of his organization would be eternally destroyed in the battle of Armageddon. In other words, Rutherford was promoting the very kind of sectarianism that Russell had preached against; indeed, Rutherford created an "organized religion" himself.

At any rate, we give links below to the only three instances wherein we could find the expression, "organized religion" in Russell's works, all three of which are actually within quotes from other authors:

WANING CHURCH LIFE WESLEYANS, IN COMMON WITH OTHERS, LOSING MANY ADHERENTS

THE LACK FELT--CRYING ALOUD

Of course, Russell did believe that sectarian Churchianity must be destroyed; God is not going to allow such divisions in His kingdom. Russell, however, was NOT teaching the eternal destruction of individuals within these sects. 

For links to what Russell taught on the true church, CLICK HERE.

============

Russell Founder of WTS - Not the JWs

One has responded to our finding that Russell was not the founder of the JWs, and several assertions have been made that are misleading, to say the least.

The claim is evidently that since Russell was the principal founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and since the JWs are now using that legal entity as their "legal instrument", that this is supposed to mean that Charles Taze Russell was actually the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization. Of course, in reality, the legal instrument as Russell envisioned it, was not designed to be the legal instrument of an organization such as the "Jehovah's Witnesses." As he designed the Society, it was a legal entity for coordinating communication among the Bible Students and as a service organization.

When Russell died, Rutherford -- by means of deceit and legal trickery -- gained control of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and almost immediately began to use that legal entity as a means of slowly producing what would become known as the JW organization. As a result many of the Bible Students rejected Rutherford's new ideas, and thus indirectly stopped supporting the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. At first, the vast majority of the earlier Bible Students did not fully realize what was happening, or simply believed that the matter would correct itself in time. Thus, as reported, on the jwfaq.blogspot.com site, about 20% of the Bible Students stopped supporting Rutherford in 1917. This does not mean, as the Watch Tower leaders later stated, that they left "Jehovah's organization". That which the JWs mistakenly call "Jehovah's organization" did not exist in 1917, although Rutherford had already begun to implement ideas as a basis for such an organization. Rutherford slowly created his organization by rejecting the core teachings of Russell and the Bible Students. What is not stated on the jwfaq site, however, is that in the years that followed, many more of the Bible Students either voluntarily stopped supporting Rutherford, or else they found themselves disfellowshipped by Rutherford's followers for not accepting Rutherford's new teachings. Thus, according to the Watchtower's own published statements, by 1928 more than seventy-five percent of the Bible Students had stopped supporting the Society. Nevertheless, there were thousands who were associated with the Watch Tower after 1914 who evidently were never fully appreciative of the scriptural testimony concerning the local church organization, nor even in the central teaching of the "ransom for all." These, along with some of the earlier Bible Students, became the followers of Rutherford, and could not actually be called "Russell's followers" as is done on one of the sites.

Russell, however, was a non-sectarian, and he was not the founder of any religion; he did not believe in such an organization as Rutherford later formed after Russell died. Rutherford, in fact, rejected the core teachings of Russell, and replaced them with his own teachings. Rutherford, not Russell, was the one who set up an authoritative organization. Rutherford evidently realized that the core teaching of the "ransom for all" would not be an effective doctrine to sustain an organization such as he envisioned, and thus he dropped that teaching to make it a ransom for some, but not all, and he adopted a teaching of eternal destruction for almost all who disagreed with him, something Russell never thought to do. Russell was certainly not the founder of that which he did not believe in.

The fact that Russell and his associates started the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society does not mean that Russell was responsible for what happened afterwards, anymore than Jesus, in instituting his church can be held responsible for others who came after to him who sought to lord it over the church, and sought to kill others who disagreed with them. That organization came into being after Russell died. At the protest of thousands of Bible Students all over the world, Rutherford, after Russell's death, proceeded to form his organization, and began to teach almost the opposite of what Russell taught concerning the atonement. Over the next 15 years, most of the Bible Students around the world no longer supported Rutherford's new organization, so that the Bible Students movement, as a whole, continued to exist separate from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

The statement is made that "Russell’s group, the International Bible Students, had their name formally changed by Rutherford in 1931 to Jehovah’s Witnesses." This is misleading since the name of the Bible Students movement itself was not changed in 1931 to "Jehovah's Witnesses." Rutherford did have the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" adopted by his followers in order to distinguish his organization from the Bible Students who continued their own work separate from the WTB&TS. This is admitted in the resolution that was printed in The Watchtower, September 15, 1931, page 279, in that the name of "Jehovah's Witnesses" was being adopted because "shortly following the death of Charles T. Russell a division arose between those associated with him in such work, resulting in a number of such withdrawing from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and who have since refused to cooperate with said Society and its work and who decline to concur in the truth as published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in The Watch Tower and the other recent publications of the said above-named corporations, end have opposed and do now oppose the work of said Society in declaring the present message of God’s kingdom and the day of the vengeance of our God against all parts of Satan’s organization; and said opposing ones have formed themselves into divers and numerous companies and have taken and now bear such names as, to wit, 'Bible Students, ' 'Associated Bible Students,' 'Russellites teaching the truth as expounded by Pastor Russell,' 'Stand-Fasters,' and like names, all of which tends to cause confusion and misunderstanding." Although I doubt that most 'Bible Students' today would agree that the statement is totally accurate, it does point out that the "Bible Students" were separate from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and that this is the reason for the "new name."

The name "International Bible Students Association" is the name of a legal entity in England; that name was never changed, and the legal entity still has that name to this day. The Bible Students movement itself continues to this day separate from the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. Brother Russell did use the term "International Bible Students" as well as "International Bible Students Association" to describe the Bible Students movement. Thus, legally, it had two different applications, one as referring to the legal entity by that name, and the other regarding the Bible Students movement as a whole. However, Russell, in the Photo Drama of Creation presentation, also spoke of the conference in Jerusalem that is spoken of in Acts 2:16-18 as the first I.B.S.A. convention. In doing so, he was not referring to the legal entity in London.

From the Photo Drama of Creation

Today, however, Bible Students rarely use "International Bible Students Association" to describe themselves, evidently because many would confuse such an expression with the legal entity that still bears that name. The phrase "International Bible Students", however, is used in reference to an international convention, not as a "name" for the movement, but simply because the convention of Bible Students is international in scope. Some Bible Students have recently put a site called "International Bible Students Association", but this is obviously not the legal entity in London that is of the same name.

----- Ronald R. Day, Sr.

This above was originally published in Aprit of 2009; it has been edited several times since. Republished in September of 2014; Updated in August, 2021.

++++++++++++++++++++