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.