Charles Taze Russell - Examining the Facts: 2017

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

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.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Russell and the Pleiades (moved)

Moved to;
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/02/pleiades.html

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Russell on God, His Holy Spirit and His Son (Links)

Saturday, August 19, 2017

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

Thursday, August 17, 2017

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.".

Sunday, June 25, 2017

The First Watch Tower President (moved)

Moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/05/conley.html

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.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Parousia “Didn’t Happen” in 1874? (moved)

This has moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/01/parousia.html

Jonas Wendell’s 1870 Presentation (moved)

Moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/08/wendell.html

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

CTR’s Expectations Concerning 1914 (moved)

Moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2024/02/expect.html

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

If Russell Was Not a Mason, Why Are So Many Saying That He Was?

Why are people claiming that Russell was a member of the Freemasons, when the facts show that he was not a member of the Freemasons?

As far as we know, no one ever claimed that Russell was a member of the freemasons while he was alive. The first such claim we have found appears to be that of a woman by the name of Edith Starr Miller (alias, "Lady Queenborough"), who wrote a book entitled Occult Theocrasy, which was originally published in 1933. Her claim that was Russell was part of a conspiracy of Masons' alleged occult plan to rule the world. In fact, Miller totally misrepresented Russell and what Russell taught in order to make it appear that Russell was indeed an occultist, a Mason, etc.

Very few, however, took Miller's book very seriously until Fritz Springmeier and David Icke resurrected her teachings and embellished them with all kinds of other alleged "proofs" that Russell was a Freemason, and alleged that he was a member of an alleged "Illuminati" whose goal is to rule the world. From that, others who hate the truths that Russell presented have joined the misrepresentation of Russell as a Mason. Many who profess to be Christian have often supported Springmeier's theory that Russell was of some "serpentine" bloodline, evidently without realizing the contradiction of such a theory to the Bible.

In reality, none of them ever present any actual proof that Russell was Mason (nor could they, since he most definitely never was a Mason), but what they present are their own imaginations and assumptions placed over such symbols as the cross and crown symbol, the sun of righteousness symbol, some quotes of Russell taken out of context (or in some cases, totally reworded to fit the perception they are wishing to display of Russell), etc.

Why? We can only conclude that the "god of this world" is behind this, as he seeks to keep people blinded to any truths Russell taught, and just the presentation of such allegations -- even though they are false -- would certainly seem to put Russell in a bad light in the eyes of many. -- 2 Corinthians 4:4.

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

Originally published May 22, 2012; updated and republished August 2, 2015; June 14, 2017 -

Restoration Light Bible Study Services (RlBible, ResLight), Ronald R. Day, Sr.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Charles Taze Russell and the Alleged "Satanic Bloodlines" (moved)

Moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/02/bloodlines.html

Monday, April 24, 2017

The Skull and Bones Society and C. T. Russell (moved)

https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/02/skull.html

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Some Historical Errors (moved)

Moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2024/02/cetnar.html

Can The Ethiopian Change the Color of His Skin?

We are presenting below an article often being cited as proof that Russell was a racist. Of course, if one is looking for something racial, one can find something in the works of practically any author that could been imagined to be racist. Such characterization, however, does not necessarily mean that the author had actual racial intent or racial motives in what was written.

The article is related what God is able to do versus what man cannot do for himself. The title is actually a quote from the Bible itself.

Watchtower, February 15, 1904, page 52. http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Reprints/Z1904FEB.asp#Z52:13

"CAN THE ETHIOPIAN CHANGE HIS SKIN?"

We answer, No. But all will admit that what the Ethiopian cannot do for himself God could readily do for him. The difference between the races of men and the differences between their languages have long been arguments against the solidarity of the human family. The doctrine of restitution has also raised the question, How could all men be brought to perfection and which color of skin was the original? The answer is now provided. God can change the Ethiopian's skin in his own due time.

Prof. H. A. Edwards, Supt. of Schools in Slater, Mo., has written for the public press an elaborate description of how Julius Jackson, of New Frankfort, Mo., a negro boy of nine years, began to grow white in September, 1901, and is now fully nine-tenths white. He assures us that this is no whitish skin disease; but that the new white skin is as healthy as that of any white boy, and that the changed boy has never been sick and never has taken medicines. Realizing that his story would be doubted, he interested Dr. F. A. Howard, chief division surgeon of the Chicago and Alton Ry., who corroborates the statement in the following published extract from a letter:

"I am obliged to you for an opportunity of seeing and examining the negro child, Julius Jackson.

"I found his heart action, respiration and temperature perfectly normal and his mental faculties seem acute for one of his age.

"The white skin now covering at least 90 per cent. of his body is, so far as I am able to judge, in full possession of all its organs and those organs seem to be performing their natural functions – no roughness, chalky, or ashen appearance is present.

"It seems to me that the conditions warrant your opinion – the change is certainly caused by chemical conditions of the blood.

Very truly, "F. A. HOWARD."

Jeremiah 13:23 - Can the Ethiopian change his skin? -- World English

Those familiar with Brother Russell's writings know that he was always looking for news items that he could relate to prophecies and/or the coming times of restitution (restoration). (Acts 3:21) Such is the case here, for Brother Russell was not emphasizing any racial prejudice, but his intent was related to the fulfillment of what he thought could be related to the times of restitution of all things.

Some conclude from Russell's statement: "We now know the answer", that he was showing that he was a racist, for this, as they reason, means that Russell was saying that God is turning all mankind into the white race. One claims: "The reason for printing such a story, of course, is to demonstrate that God can and will change the “Ethiopian” (black man) into a white man in the New World." While Brother Russell certainly presented this to illustrate that God can certainly change the color of a person's skin, he did not say that that black people will be turned to white people in the times of restitution. In harmony with what Brother Russell presented elsewhere, we believe that he was just saying that all will eventually become one color as was Adam, whatever that original color was. The question is, was it Russell's intent to be racist in what he stated? Obviously not. Most often, Russell referred to all mankind as being "one race", regardless of color of skin. We believe, however, that Russell's point was that God can change the color of anyone's skin, if he so desires.

Elsewhere Brother Russell wrote concerning the original race as created by God:

We may suppose that they were neither as white as some of us, nor as black as the negro, but of a swarthy, tawny color. If this be true, the extreme whiteness of some peoples is not to be considered the original standard, but a deflection on the one side, as the negro and others are deflections on the other side. -- Watch Tower, July 15, 1902, page 216.

While many see "racism" in the article under consideration, if one is consistent in their reasoning, it would seem that such should also imagine such racism in the Bible itself. There are indeed some who claim the Bible is racist; such are usually not believers in the Bible, but are, in effect, opposers of the Bible. Such who claim the Bible is racist, however, are usually not believers in the Bible, but if one is a believer in the Bible, to be consistent, if they consider Brother Russell to have been a racist for his statements, it would seem to us that consistency would require them also claim that God is racist. If they are consistent, they would have to consider God to have been racist in choosing the descendants of Jacob as his chosen people. (Exodus 19:5,6; Deuteronomy 7:6; 26:18; Amos 3:2) They would have to also consider God to have been a racist for even asking the question, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin?" (Jeremiah 13:23) Additionally, one could consider Jesus as having been "racist" when he said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matthew 15:24.

Furthermore, the Bible shows that the races (and consequently the various skin colors) did come about as a result of the God's curse on the peoples at Babel (Genesis 10:1-32; 11:7), for before that dispersion all spoke one language. (Genesis 11:6) If that curse is lifted (Revelation 22:3), it would seem that the various races will no longer exist. Additionally, it is apparent from the Bible that all mankind originated from ONE man (Luke 3:38; Acts 17:26; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22,45), and that one man was one color, no matter what that color that might have been. Since mankind is to be restored to what he was originally (Acts 3:21; Romans 5:12-19), to Brother Russell it seemed reasonable to conclude that all will be restored to whatever color man was originally. We are sure, however, that Brother Russell would not at all be upset if all mankind is brought back with their separate colors, it surely was not something that he was making an issue over. Indeed, the only ones who seem to be creating a major issue over it are those who, for some reason or other, hate Russell, or hate what Russell stood for, that is: the good news of great joy that will be for all the people, and yet it is this very message that causes many others to appreciate Brother Russell's works..

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/volumes/A07.asp http://www.mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/volumes/A06.asp

At most, however, it would only be one's personal opinion that Brother Russell had an intent of being racist in the article. And to whatever extent Russell is deemed racist in his application of scripture, to the same extent one would have to consider God Himself to be racist. Nevertheless, God certainly has permitted racism to be a divisive factor among mankind, which is all part of the original curse in that, due to Adam's disobedience, God has subjected all races of mankind to vanity and corruption. -- Genesis 3:17-19; Job 7:1,3; Psalms 39:5,6; 62:9; 144:4; Ecclesiastes 1:2,8-15; 2:11,17,23; 3:19; 4:4; 7:13; 11:8; 12:8; Romans 1:18-22; 5:12-19; 8:20,22.

Much that could be said about this article, however, would be similar to what we stated concerning the earlier article, "Can Restitution Change the Ethiopian’s Skin?"

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Angels and Women (moved)

This page has been moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2022/12/angels.html

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

Monday, March 20, 2017

JW Claims and Russell's Expectations Regarding 1914 (moved)

Moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2024/04/jcre.html

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Russell and the Year 1925 (moved)

Moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/04/1925.html

Did Russell "Await the Rapture" On the Mount of Olives? (moved)

Moved to: https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2024/03/mt-olives-pic.html

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Russell's Death on Halloween and Alleged Toga Scene (moved)

Moved to:

https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/02/toga.html

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Sources For Russell's Imagery Requested

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

One presented us with several requests in the comments related to a video on Youtube entitled: "Occult Theocrasy - Charles Taze Russell A Freemason." For some unknown reason we not being permitted to respond there, so we are presenting our responses here:

Cross and Crown Symbol

Request:
"Give us the source from which Russel took the Cross and Crown (facts and few words please)"

Our response:

We do not have information as to exactly "where" Brother Russell obtained artwork for his imagery, if this is what is being requested. To us, that is not as important as is why he used the imagery. We can give you one of his statements (there are more) related to the cross and crown imagery:

The cross represents our faith in the death of Christ and our desire to walk in His steps; the crown represents the reward of glory, honor and immortality; and the wreath around the cross and crown represents the Restitution blessings coming to the world of mankind. Harvest Gleanings, Volume 3,, page 721.

All Seeing Eye Symbol

Request:
"Give us the source from which Russel took the all seeing eye He used on fotodrama of creation (facts and few words)"

Our response:

In his sermon, "Divine Omniscience and Almighty Power," Brother Russell presented Psalm 139:7,9 and Psalm 34:15 (from the King James Version).

In his sermon, "Am I My Brother's Keeper?", Brother Russell stated:

The All-Seeing eye of our Creator keeps watch over the affairs of His creatures today as it kept watch over Abel's interests. God allowed Cain to have his way; allowed him to kill his brother; allowed the righteous to suffer; yet Cain did not escape, but was held accountable for the death of his brother. God's sentence upon him separated him from his brethren until he cried out that his punishment was greater than he could bear. And, similarly, we may be sure that the Cain class of our day will be held accountable for the willful slaying of their brother, especially to the extent that the brother despised may be a child of God. As God declared that the blood of Abel cried to Him from the ground cried for justice so the intimation of the Scriptures is that all injustice of every kind, everywhere, will bring a "just recompense of reward."

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/harvest_gleanings_3/HG303.asp

Sun of Righteousness Symbol

Request:

"Give us the source from which Russel took the Egipcian (sic) Sundisk (from the bible it is not because it has 2 snake heads on it and Russel did not use a new symbol but an existent one)"

Response:

The "Sun of Righteousness" imagery that Russell used did not have 2 snake heads on it, although many claim to "see" such in the curved handles of the upside-down arrows pointing to the sun circle. We have not, however, seen this exact form used by the Egyptians, or anyone else. We do not know that Russell had the artwork especially done, but as yet, we have not found the exact artwork used by anyone else, except those who are duplicating the artwork from Russell's books.

The second sentence of Russell's book, The Divine Plan of the Ages, shows what this imagery meant to Russell:

The period in which sin is permitted has been a dark night to humanity, never to be forgotten; but the glorious day of righteousness and divine favor, to be ushered in by Messiah, who, as the Sun of Righteousness, shall arise and shine fully and clearly into and upon all, bringing healing and blessing, will more than counterbalance the dreadful night of weeping, sighing, pain, sickness and death, in which the groaning creation has been so long. "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the MORNING." Psa. 30:5

While Russell did not at this point give the scripture for "Sun of Righteousness", the term is indeed found in the Bible at Malachi 4:2. Even Fritz Springmeier realized this, but he claimed that Malachi had been influenced by the pagans. If this is true, it would mean that Malachi was a false prophet and also that Jesus was a false prophet; indeed, it would mean that the entire New Testament is false.

The Use of the Holy Name as Jehovah

Request:

"Give us the source from Jehovah use by Russel (use Russel words to explain the use of form Jehovah not third party)"

Russell was never adamant about using the form "Jehovah", nor are we. We do know that the Bible never claims that God's Holy Name or any other Biblical name has to be pronounced as it was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew. While many put forth many ideas about how it was originally pronounced, all such ideas have to be based on various assumptions. No one on earth today knows for a certainty how the Tetragrammaton of God's Holy Name was originally pronounced, nor is it important to know. Russell, however, never did much in-depth study on the Holy Name, nor did he put forth a serious effort to restore the Holy Name to the Bible. We do not know of any direct quote we could give that would be related to the question.

Russell did, at times but no always, make use of translations that presented God's Holy Name as "Jehovah." There is no reason to think that his use of such translations has anything to do with the Freemasons. Indeed, it would appear that he obtained this form "Jehovah" from its usage by many Christian scholars who had come before him.

Nevertheless, one should realize that Russell never made any issue over how one should pronounce the Holy Name, nor do we. For instance, when he presented an article written by Rev. John Urquhart, Scotland, the author used "Yahweh", not "Jehovah", but Russell gave no objection.

On another occasion, he presented a discourse by Dr. J. H. Thomas, in which Thomas used the form "Yahweh".

Russell's Mason Friends

The comment was made:

Keep in mind Russel clearly stated he had many mason friends and that He appreciated their precious truths.

Our response:

Actually, what he stated was, "In fact, some of my very dear friends are Masons, and I can appreciate that there are certain very precious truths that are held in part by our Masonic friends." ("Temple of God" sermon)

He could have said the same about his Methodist friends, his Baptist friends, his Presbyterian friends, etc. Indeed, in effect, he did say such in the same sermon:

"As Christian people, Bible Students from all denominations, it would seem that we have something in our faith that is in sympathy and harmony with each denomination, the world over. Do our Presbyterian friends speak of the election? We more. Do our Methodist friends have the doctrine of free grace? We more. Do our Baptist friends understand the importance of baptism, to some extent? We more. Do our friends of the Christian denomination, and our Congregational friends, appreciate the great privileges of individuality in church government? We more."

And then continues with the Masons:

"Do our Masonic friends understand something about the Temple, and being Knights Templars, and so on? We more."

After that he continues:

"Do our Roman Catholic and Church of England friends believe in a Universal church? We more. In other words, it would seem as though the message of God's Word has been more or less subdivided, and each denomination has taken hold of a piece of the truth, and around that bit of truth has gathered a good deal that we think is erroneous."

As many have pointed out, however, Russell seemed confused concerning several things concerning the Masons. Russell did make use of the Knights Templar as being a higher order of Mason to use for Biblical illustrations, but he evidently assumed that all Masons professed to be Christian, and thus it appears that he thought of the Masons similar to a Christian denomination.

The truth he saw in his conversation with the Masons was basically that of the usage of the temple as designating the building of character. Russell, however, often used the word "friends" very loosely, as can be seen even in his sermon, "The Temple of God", for he spoke of "Presbyterian friends," "Methodist friends," "Baptist friends," "Congregational friends," and "Roman Catholic and Church of England friends."

The Masonic Handgrips

Another comment was made:
"Russel also told He was learning the handgrips"

Before we present a quote from Russell concerning this, we believe it would be beneficial that one understand what Russell meant in the context by referring to "this order", Russell was not referring to either the Bible Students association nor was he referring to the Masons. The "order" he was referring to was the church, which he believed was not limited to any denomination, sect, movement, association, etc. With this in mind, we present what Russell stated:

"Many Masons shake hands with me and give me what I know is their grip; they don't know me from a Mason. Something I do seems to be the same as Masons do, I don't know what it is; but they often give me all kinds of grips and I give them back, then I tell them I don't know anything about it except just a few grips that have come to me naturally. ."

We do not know of any place, however, that Russell ever stated that he had a goal of learning Masonic "grips". He did state that he was, in effect, learning some of them by imitation, but without knowledge of their meaning. But to focus on the grips as such fails to realize the point that Russell was making in the context, and that was that we do not always know who truly is a member of the church, for there are many false Christians who associate with the true Christians, and such false Christians may learn to imitate a true Christian, just as he learned to imitate the grips of the Masons, although he was not a Mason.

Monday, February 6, 2017

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.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

I Am a Free and Accepted Mason (moved)

Moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/05/a-mason.html

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Isaiah 43:10 - You Are My Witnesses

This study has been moved to:

https://bible-covenants.blogspot.com/2022/11/isa43-10.html

Monday, January 9, 2017

The All-Seeing Eye (moved)

Moved to:
https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/2023/02/eye.html

Thursday, January 5, 2017

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

Pages