Charles Taze Russell

Russel's Comments on Russellites and Russelism

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:00 +0000

The following is an article Charles Taze Russell wrote for the March 1, 1893 issue of the Watch Tower. In this article Russell firmly denies that there is anything such as "Russellism," or that he was starting a "new sect." We present this article in defense of Charles Taze Russell, who was never associated with, and did not believe in such a sectarian authoritarian organization such "Jehovah's Witnesses." We have expanded names of Bible books, and, so that honor may be clearly given to whom honor is due, the holy name has added in appropriate places.

"LIVE PEACEABLY WITH ALL MEN."

----------

[Before our February TOWER had been issued, a reporter representing a Pittsburg journal, and several others east and west, learned something concerning its contents, and applied to us for proof sheets in advance; -- proposing to call it to public attention. His report, however, was glaringly incorrect; and this led us to give to the public, through various daily news-papers, a more correct statement of our faith, and of our attitude toward fellow Christians.

Some of the friends hereabouts were quite interested in the article, and suggested that it appear in the WATCH TOWER. We have acceded to the request and reprint the article below.]

A CORRECTION

----------

NO "CHALLENGE." -- NO "RUSSELLISM." -- NO NEW SECT. -- A FAIR, CANDID REVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL TORMENT. -- ITS CLAIMED, AND ITS REAL EFFECTS SHOWN. -- LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS.

I owe it to myself and to my fellow citizens to state publicly that I wholly disclaim the "attack" and "challenge" upon the Christian ministers of this vicinity, attributed to me in the Dispatch of Tuesday. I would assure all that I have none but friendly feelings toward fellow Christians, however much I may differ from some of them regarding the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. A Dispatch reporter learned that we had on the press a pamphlet entitled, "What Saith the Scripture About Hell?" and, securing an advance copy, inquired whether we would not send a copy to the ministers of Pittsburgh and Allegheny. We concluded that the suggestion was good, and assented. This became the basis of a half column of miserable misrepresentation, and a blatant challenge, with which I have not the slightest sympathy.

As for Russellites and Russellism, we know nothing of them and never shall. I have lived in this vicinity for nearly half a century, and have published and circulated millions of tracts and pamphlets without the name of Russell being mentioned in them in any manner whatever -- a very different method from that pursued by those who seek their own name's fame. I seek not to add to the number of Christian sects, but on the contrary, I seek to present that one harmonious view of God's word upon which all true Christians might harmonize differences and unite in one Church as at the first -- "the Church of the Living God"-- whose "names are written in heaven."

True, I hold views differing considerably from those of many. But the last fifteen years have decreased these differences considerably, and the next fifteen will probably bring still greater changes. Our Presbyterian and other Calvinistic friends have approached much nearer to us on the subjects of God's elections and decrees, and a hope for the heathen and the ignorant beyond the present life. And the thinking classes of the entire church, of all denominations, are much nearer to us in our denial that eternal torment is the future for all who are not members of the church -- or more than nine-tenths of the human race. Indeed, I am confident that more than one-half of the ministers and intellectual membership of Christendom no longer believe this horrible, God-dishonoring, soul-degrading theory hatched in the dark ages.

But most of those who see the fallacy of this eternal torment theory are afraid to let others see it, lest the influence should be pernicious. I, on the contrary, show from the Scriptures that God has no such plan; that the passages of Scripture supposed to teach it are symbolical and misunderstood, and that God's plan is one of justice and love in Christ, and will embrace, with an opportunity of everlasting life, every member of the human family, either in the present or in a future life. They hold that, if the fear of eternal torment be taken away, people would hasten to become criminals. I reply that faith in eternal torment is confessed by almost all the criminals executed; and that an examination of the inmates of jails and penitentiaries has often proved that almost all of the inmates confess to faith in some of the so-called orthodox creeds. And the most casual observer of the every-day street profanity must admit that fear of hell and torment seems to have no effect upon the lower classes, who jest about such matters.

The fact is that while some feel a little timorous on the subject, no intelligent person really believes that the great Creator made a lake of fire and brimstone into which to cast nine out of ten, or any other proportion, of his creatures for preservation in torture to all eternity. And I hold that in hiding the truth on this subject, and making a false pretense of believing it, a serious error is unintentionally committed by some of God's people. Such a monstrous doctrine cannot possibly be upheld before the present nineteenth century light and intelligence. And if Christian people persist in upholding it publicly, and in claiming that it is the teaching of the Bible, while denying it privately, they will commit several serious errors.

The bad effects will be:

First -- God's name and character will be made odious in proportion as people become intelligent.

Second -- The Word of God will lose reverence and respect in proportion as intelligence increases among all who believe that the Bible is the authority for this doctrine.

Third -- With the fall of the Bible from the reverence of the intelligent comes the fall of Christianity, real and nominal.

Fourth -- With the fall of the Bible and Christianity comes the reign of infidelity--a reign of anarchy--as exhibited in France a century ago.

My teachings, both oral and by the printed page, are in harmony with this, my faith. In harmony with the general intelligence of our favored day, I believe that [Yahweh] God is granting, to all who rightly seek it, special light upon His Word -- "meat in due season" to the household of faith. I prefer to study, and think it right to interpret, the Bible in the light of its own spirit-illumined utterances (through the Apostles and Prophets), rather than in the light of creeds formulated in the dark ages, by fallible though probably well-intentioned men.

All intelligent people who accept the Bible as [Yahweh] God's inspired Word must admit that this is the correct principle in Bible study and teaching. And, if so, all true Christians should unite their hearts and heads and hands in finding out and making known that interpretation of the Scripture which harmonizes God's character and plan with the highest development of sanctified common sense.

Since, in view of the misrepresentation set forth in the Dispatch, the sending of the pamphlet which examines the entire teaching of the Bible on hell and torment to the ministers of this vicinity might be considered a discourtesy, "an attack" and "a challenge," we conclude not to do so. But we here announce our willingness to send this 10 cent pamphlet free to any minister of any denomination who will drop us a postal card requesting it. And to any one requesting it, we will send free our new 32-page pamphlet entitled, "Thy Word is Truth--A Reply to Robert Ingersoll's Charges against Christianity."

But while I make no "attack" and offer no "challenge," my conviction that the Bible does not teach eternal torment of any sort as the penalty for sin is so strong that if any minister, recognized as orthodox by the Evangelical Alliance, desires to discuss this subject with me publicly, for the truth's sake, I will take pleasure in endeavoring to set him straight on what saith the Scripture on this subject, or in being set straight by him on the same authority.

Respectfully, a minister (servant) of Christ and the Truth, C. T. RUSSELL.

CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE TEACHING

The daily papers of this week mention four cases of violent insanity resulting from misrepresentation of the divine plan -- based upon the fallacious doctrine of a hell-of-torment. One is a Mrs. W. Wilbur, of Rowan, Iowa. Of her it is said, "The preacher's description of the torments of the damned made such a vivid impression upon Mrs. Wilbur's mind that it is feared she is hopelessly insane." The other three are Mr. and Mrs. Gleason, and another person whose name we did not learn, at Burg Hill, Ohio. Two of these went ravingly insane the same night, and had to be bound hand and foot, and when, the night following, the third became insane, a "citizens committee" called upon the "Evangelist" (?) and compelled him to leave the town.

To what extent this blasphemous doctrine is accountable for all the insanity of the world, God only knows; but surely it is responsible to a considerable extent. How many children have received pre-natal mental injury through the attendance of mothers at such "revivals!" Many of those made insane are so affected from sympathy -- for companions, children or parents who have died out of Christ. One sister in the church at Allegheny told recently how the truth had reached her when her mind had almost given way under the strain of weeks of agony for her husband, who had died a moral man, but without profession of religion.

Surely the gospel of damnation and torment -- whether the vulgar theory of literal fire and flame or the more aesthetic theory of mental anguish which some say is worse -- is quite a different gospel from that preached by our Lord and the Apostles. The multitude bare our Lord witness and marveled at the gracious words which he spoke. (Luke 4:22) None of the Apostolic epistles contain one word about eternal torment, but tell of the love and peace of God which pass all understanding, which shall keep the hearts of believers. (Philippians 4:7) "Being justified by faith [in the real gospel of God's love and favor to us and toward all in Christ], we have peace with [Yahweh], through our Lord Jesus Christ." -- Romans 5:1.

We whose eyes have been opened to clearer views of our gracious Heavenly Father's plan and words do well to show our love and zeal for him and for our blinded fellows by letting our light so shine as to glorify him and bless them. Whenever you hear of a discourse about to be preached on hell, etc., send for a lot of Tract No. 1, free, and distribute to the congregation after the discourse -- keeping a reasonable distance away from the church building.

Russell's Comments on the Freemasons

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:39:00 +0000

Watch Tower June 15, 1895

R1827 : page 143

In our judgment the majority of "secret societies" are merely beneficiary and have no secret schemes antagonistic to the general public welfare, the secret rites and ceremonies being merely "boys' play," occupying the time and attention of persons who have no greater aims than those which pertain to the present life. We note, however, that several Roman Catholic Societies seem to have schemes connected with the use of fire-arms, and are therefore to be classed as malevolent rather than benevolent.

We note also that the Order of Free Masons, if judged by its past history, has some secret object or scheme, more than fraternity and financial aid in time of sickness or death. And, so far as we can judge, there is a certain amount of profane worship or mummery connected with the rites of this order and some others, which the members do not comprehend, but which, in many cases, serves to satisfy the cravings of the natural mind for worship, and thus hinders it from seeking the worship of God in spirit and in truth--through Christ, the only appointed Mediator and Grand Master.

In proportion as such societies consume valuable time in foolish, senseless rites and ceremonies, and in substituting the worship of their officers, and the use of words and symbols which have no meaning to them, for the worship of God, in his appointed way -- through Christ, and according to knowledge and the spirit of a sound mind -- in that proportion these societies are grievous evils, regardless of the financial gains or losses connected with membership in them.

The New Creation, pages 580, 581:

This brings before us the whole question of orders, societies, etc., and what privileges the New Creation has in connection with such organizations. Is it right for them to be members of these societies? We answer that while Church associations are purely religious, and labor and beneficial organizations in general are purely secular, there are still other orders which combine the religious and the secular features. As we understand the matter, for instance, the Free Masons, Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, etc., perform certain rites and ceremonies of a religious kind. Let it be understood that we are not waging any warfare upon those who hold membership in these various orders, even as we are not waging warfare against the various sectarian religious systems. We place upon one level all of those which have any religious ceremonies, teachings, etc., and consider them all as parts of Babylon, some quarters or wards of which are cleaner, and others less clean, but all, nevertheless, full of confusion, error--contrary to the divine intention, as displayed in the organization of the primitive Church and the instructions, by word and example, given to it by the inspired Founder, and his twelve apostles.

We admonish the New Creation to have nothing whatever to do with any of these semi-religious societies, clubs, orders, churches; but to "Come out from amongst them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing." (2 Cor. 6:17) Their things, their worship, their teachings, their doctrines, are unclean to us, though they may not be unclean to themselves. The eyes of our understanding have been opened, and now to us all things appear in a new light, so that things which we once loved now we hate, and things which we once hated now we love.

What Pastor Russell Said

Question 317:2 (1910)

I am not judging at all, I am merely saying, so far as I can tell. But my understanding is, that all of these are bundles, and each bundle is getting tighter. Some of you know a great deal more about Freemasonry than I do, and I am not here to say anything against it, because I do not know anything to say, and I do not know as I would say it if I did know it. The Lord did not send me to preach against Masonry or Odd Fellowship, nor against Presbyterianism or Methodism. Our opportunity is to tell the truth, to preach the true gospel of Christ, and the Lord says that this message is to have its effects on the different hearts. Now, if you find yourself in any kind of a bundle, you know that is not the program so far as the wheat is concerned. The wheat is to he gathered into the garner; it is not to be put into bundles in the present life. The wheat is to be free. If you find yourself in any kind of a bundle, better get out of the bundle. Trust in the Lord, and be in harmony with Him, and this will take you out of all kinds of bundles and human organizations, I believe.

I should, perhaps, say a cautionary word here to the effect that I would understand this would mean, for instance, that if I were a carpenter I would prefer to be at liberty, but if it were demanded of me that I should join a union before I could have work, and that I must pay so much of my money into that union's coffers, I should join. I should understand that I was making so much of a contribution to the general weal of the carpenters, and I would have no hesitation in the matter, because there is nothing of a religious kind there. There is nothing that would fetter my heart or mind. But if that organization should do anything I could not approve, I would feel perfectly free to withdraw at any time. So I would make that limitation. But, so far as wheat and tares are concerned, I think there are plenty of bundles all around you, and I notice, too, that these different worldly organizations, if we may so call them in contradistinction to church organizations, are also taking the same methods the church people are taking. It used to be very easy to withdraw from one of the churches and you could say, "I will thank you for a letter," and then they would take the letter and never deposit it, but burn it up, if they desired. And so with the Masons; they had a method by which anyone desiring to leave the order could ask for a demit and he would get that without any particular question. I have been informed that now this is changed somewhat. If you are a Presbyterian, and you wish a letter, they say, "To which church do you wish the letter addressed?" You say, "Oh, just make it out anyway." "Oh we do not do that now; we will give you a letter to a certain, particular church and it is to he deposited there--good when deposited there." And so I am informed that our Freemason friends are doing the same thing; they do not give demits now. If you wish to be transferred to another lodge they will transfer you, but they do not give demits now in the same way they formerly did.

A Brother: Brother Russell, I am a Mason and, unfortunately, hold a high position in the order, and I would like to make a little correction on that. A Mason is perfectly free to leave when he feels so disposed. No restraint whatever is placed upon him.

Brother Russell: I told you in the beginning that I did not know about it myself; I was only relating what a brother told me.

Another Brother: I was a Mason in a different jurisdiction from that of the brother. It may he all right in his particular jurisdiction, but it is not the same in other jurisdictions, as I know.

Brother Russell: You will notice that we never have anything to say against any of these. We have not said an unkind word about Freemasonry, and you never read anything unkind that we have ever said about it, and I do not wish to say anything unkind about Presbyterianism, or Methodism. I think that many of the dear friends in these denominations are good people, and I appreciate their characters. What I talk about sometimes is Presbyterian doctrine, and they talk about it, too. And I have read things they have said about Presbyterian doctrines far harder than anything I have ever said. I sometimes quote in the Watch Tower some things Presbyterians say about their own doctrine, and I occasionally quote in the Watch Tower something the Methodists say about their doctrine, because they say it stronger than I should wish to say it.

What Did Charles Taze Russell Stand For?

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:25:00 +0000

Russell gave a summation of his beliefs, what he stood for, in the January 15, 1912 issue of the Watch Tower, page 28:

I. We affirm the humanity of Jesus and the deity of Christ.

II. We acknowledge that the personality of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son; that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, and in turn from all who are begotten by it.

III. We affirm the resurrection of Christ–that He was put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit. We deny that He was raised in the flesh, and challenge any statement to that effect as being unscriptural.

IV. We affirm, with the Scriptures, that God alone possessed immortality, “dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto.” We affirm that this Divine quality has already been granted to the Lord Jesus and is to be the portion of the elect Bride, the “Body of Christ.” As for mankind, we affirm the Divine provision for these and for angels to be everlasting life for the obedient. This, by many, is mistermed immortality. We follow the Scriptures strictly.

V. We hold that the entire race lost life with Father Adam, as a result of his failure in Eden; and that Christ died to secure a second chance for Adam and an individual chance for all of his race, who lost their first chance in Adam when he sinned. “As all in Adam die, even so all in Christ shall be made alive.” (I Cor. 15:21,22.) A few of us, comparatively, having eyes of faith and ears of understanding, have had this second chance in the present life. Adam and the great mass of his posterity must get their second chance after being awakened from the tomb. But NOBODY IS TO GET A THIRD CHANCE!

VI. We believe that the soul was condemned to death. “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” We believe that this death would have been eternal, everlasting destruction, had it not been for God’s mercy in and through our Lord’s redemptive work. By reason of His death our souls do not die in this full sense of the word, but are Scripturally said to “fall asleep,” “asleep in Jesus.” The awakening will be in the resurrection morning; and the interim will be a period of unconsciousness, beautifully symbolized by a restful sleep.

VII. We believe in the “hell” of the Bible, sheol. This, the only word used for hell for four thousand years, is translated more than one-half the time grave in our Common Version, and should always be thus translated. “Hades,” in the New Testament, is its equivalent. “Gehenna fire,” of the New Testament, is a symbolical picture declared to signify the Second Death.

VIII. We believe that God is able to destroy “both soul and body” in Gehenna–the Second Death. We consider it much more sane to believe thus, as it is more Scriptural, than to believe that in creating man God did a work which He could not undo; much more reasonable also than to believe He prefers to have the incorrigible suffer eternally, when their sufferings could do neither themselves nor others any good.

IX. We believe that, like the Father and the holy angels, our Lord is a spirit being. We are convinced that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” We do not believe that our Lord has a flesh and blood body, a “little lower than the angels,” and has thus been out of harmony with His heavenly environment for nearly two thousand years. We believe the Apostle’s statement, “Now the Lord is that Spirit.” This is the Jesus who will “so come, in like manner,” quietly and unknown to the world, as He went away. We do not affirm, dogmatically, that He came in 1874, but we say that to us it is the evident teaching of the Scriptures. Our Lord warned us not to expect Him in the flesh; that men might say “Lo, here” or “Lo, there.” The Harvest work in the universal Church Nominal, the Laodicean period of the Church, well corroborates our expectations of what His work will be, as outlined in His parables, etc.

Please note that the views presented by Restoration Light do not necessarily agree with every detail of the expressions above.

"The Atonement" -- Herald of the Morning, 9/1878

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:17:00 +0000

Below is the article that Russell wrote in response to Barbour's article regarding the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

THE ATONEMENT

HERALD OF THE MORNING

September 1878 - Vol. 7 - No. 3

Unpleasant though it be, I feel it necessary to take exceptions to an article by my brother upon this subject, in the last number of this paper. I make the objection not from a spirit of controversy, but because I believe the doctrine of substitution assailed in that article to be one of the most important teachings of God’s word.

One of the beauties of our position is, that we have no creed but the Bible, and we judge of each others’ teaching and writing by the Scriptures only. If my brother can convince me that substitution is not taught in the Bible, I care not from whom it came, I do not want it; but if I can call his attention to passages in God’s word, which do teach it, I know that he is ready to bend opinion, etc., to that word.

With the latter part of that article, in which Christ is referred to as the “beginning of the New creation of God,” the spiritual man; and that this was effected by the death and resurrection of Christ; and that “it was only in this way he could become the head and impart to the creature the divine image and nature,” we fully agree, and the error we apprehend lies in the supposing that if Christ died to become “the head of the new creation,” he did nothing else by that death.

Christ accomplished various good things for us in his death and resurrection. He was our substitute in death; he died the just for the unjust – all were unjust. Jesus Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man. This dying for the guilty was one part of the work – substitution; but not all. No! He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. Here is a different work as a substitute dying in our stead – we are made nigh by the blood of Christ. He became a mediator – a go-between – making us at-one with God; hence the work is called at-one-ment – for without the Christ’s death bringing us nigh to God, it was impossible for us to obey. In a word, while Christ was the substitute for all – so that “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;” yet, Christ does not become the spiritual head to all for whom he died, but to those who believe and obey. All men get life from HIS DEATH. Some (believers) will receive eternal salvation through his life. “Because he lives we shall live also. He ever liveth to make intercession for us,” etc.

We recognize, then, these two phases to Christ’s death and resurrection:

1st . Death (substitution) “for the sins of the whole world.” Reconciliation (at-one-ment.

“For God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; but he laid upon him the iniquity of us all. “By his stripes we are healed. He died the just FOR the unjust, tasting death FOR every man.”

2d. His resurrection, by which he became the captain or leader of our salvation – the beginning of the new creation, and makes it possible for us to come into the spiritual condition – the perfect condition – the image of God. By his resurrection he became our faithful high priest – our advocate and representative in the Holy of Holies, whither he hath entered, there to appear in the presence of God for us.

THE NECESSITY FOR ATONEMENT.

Through our family head Adam, “sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Rom. 5:12.)

Here, then, we were all under condemnation, subject to death. A law of God had been violated, and God allowed justice to take its course in the punishment of the guilty. But while the justice of God was being vindicated, the mercy of God was equally active; and while mercy may not thwart justice, it may satisfy it. As none of our race could in their fallen condition keep God’s perfect law, they were unable to meet the claims of the law upon themselves, much less
satisfy the back account of the remainder of the family.

God seems to have adopted this plan to teach the righteousness of his law – the perfection of his justice, and finally his great mercy and love: “For while we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly;” and “when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.”

To redeem is to buy back. What did Christ buy back for all men? Life. We lost it by the disobedience of the first Adam. The second Adam bought it back with his own life. “By obedience unto death, even the death of the cross.” (See Rom. 5:11 to 19.) “We were sold under sin to death, but Christ hath redeemed us, not with corruptible things such as silver and gold, but with his own precious blood – as of a lamb, without blemish and without spot.”

The law, which was a shadow of good things to come declared by the death of bulls, lambs, doves, etc., that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.” The type certainly did not illustrate the reality fully, because the lambs, etc., did not die willingly, while Christ, our lamb, gave himself a sacrifice. It will be noticed, however, that in the selection of a type, such animals were chosen as make least resistance – lamb, dove, etc. “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her sheerer, is dumb,” etc.

Thus we see the justice, mercy and love of God manifested as no other way of saving the human family could display them; and the center pivot of it all is, that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture,” and Paul argues that this proves the wondrous love of God for us. “For scarcely for a righteous man will one die – yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die; but God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:7.)

Had he not died for us, we should have continued under the dominion of death. With no resurrection the first death would have been eternal death. Our works had nothing to do with bringing us under dominion of death; it was the first Adam’s – our works have nothing to do with our escape from death’s dominion; that is the second Adam’s work.

If Christ had not risen from the dead, our resurrection, and that of all men, would have been assured by his death, for as “he tasted death for every man, the claims of justice to the life of every man had been forfeited, and they must go free; but they would be only natural men still, and must fail of entering the higher plane of existence – the spiritual – without a leader, a guide, a helper, an advocate – the very thing Christ became in his resurrection. So that we can say with Peter, “Blessed be God, the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath begotten us again to a lively hope (hope of eternal life) through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.” “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of this Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved through his life.” (Rom. 5:10.)

C.T.R.

Did Russell Start the JWs?

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:32:00 +0000

This is in response to a post made at:
http://jwfaq.blogspot.com/2009/03/was-charles-taze-russell-founder-of.html

Russell was indeed a non-sectarian, and 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 after his death, 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. The JW 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 earlier Bible Students 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 name of the Bible Students movement was not changed in 1931 to "Jehovah's Witnesses", but Rutherford had the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" adopted by his organization in order to distinguish his organization from the Bible Students who continued their own work separate from the WTB&TS. 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 continues to this day separate from the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society.

Russell never made any prophecies, so there were no prophecies from him that "failed". Charles Taze Russell never claimed any direct revelation from God. His opponents, as well as some others who claimed to be his followers, have made this claim for him, but he denied such from the very beginning and continued in such denial until the day he died. He certainly never claimed to be a prophet, as did Joseph Smith.

Charles Taze Russell (although he stated his views firmly as his beliefs) was never dogmatic about his beliefs on chronology and time prophecy, nor did he demand of the Bible Students associated with him or anyone else accept his beliefs. His statements were:

"Our own views are not prophecy, but interpretations of the holy prophets of old." (Watch Tower, October 1890, page 8)

"Neither must you lean upon the DAWN and the TOWER as infallible teachers. If it was proper for the early Christians to prove what they received from the apostles, who were and who claimed to be inspired, how much more important it is that you fully satisfy yourself that these teachings keep closely within their outline instructions and those of our Lord; -- since their author claims no inspiration, but merely the guidance of the Lord, as one used of him in feeding his flock." ("The Watch Tower", June, 1893)

"We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES." (Watch Tower, January 1, 1908, page 5).

"I am not a prophet." (What Pastor Russell Said, Q272:1, 1910)

"Some people try to make out that I claim I am infallible, and know everything. You are all witnesses that that is not true." (What Pastor Russell Said, Q14:1, 1911)

"We try to be careful about every word that goes into the Watch Tower, but we do not claim to be infallible; we are doing the best we can." (What Pastor Russell Said, Q56:1, 1910)

"We have never set forth anything to indicate that our view in the matter was infallible. I do not know positively that the times of the Gentiles will end in October, 1914, or at any other particular time. We think there is strong reason for believing that the Gentile Times will end in October, 1914. We give it as our opinion, and set before you the Scriptural reason. Some may believe and some not. This is our thought and if it is correct, about that time, or shortly thereafter, a great time of trouble will come upon the world." (What Pastor Russell Said, Q313:2, 1914)
====
Many more quotes could be provided.

What one will not find anywhere in Russell's writings is that he claimed that his writings were a direct revelation from God, or that his expectations were directly from God.

I will say that, after Russell died, that Rutherford made all kinds of claims for Russell that Russell himself never claimed, including the claim that Russell was a "prophet".

Russell was expecting the "time of trouble" to begin in 1914, which indeed it did, and we have been in that "time of trouble" with its spasms ever since; he was not expecting the earth all of a sudden to become a paradise in 1914, as many have assumed, rather he was expecting almost the opposite, trouble and warfare such as the world had never seen before. Several dates were suggested for how longer after 1914 the "time of trouble" might last; Russell stated that he could not find a scripture that shows how long "the time of trouble" would last after 1914. The belief that the time of trouble was to begin was never changed after 1914, for the facts indicated that it had begun 1914. Russell certainly never concluded that the "Gentile Times" did not end in 1914, and he continued to believe that until the day he died. As far as I know, even the JWs continue to believe that the Gentile Times ended in 1914 to this day; I know that they did back in the 1990s, so if they have stopped believing this, it would have to be in the last few years, not back in 1914 as allegedly due to some imagined failing of 1914.

See my research concerning Russell's expectations for 1914 at:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=40

See also:
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=80

Christian love,
Ronald

Index

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:58:00 +0000

Index to material on Charles Taze Russell; material astrology, the Bible, the great pyramid, pyramidology, spiritsm, perjury, bible hell, deity of Jesus, divinity of Jesus, founder of Jehovah's witnesses, religion, ransom for all, Russell's tombstone, trinitarian dogma, witchcraft, watchtower, freemasons, Bible Students, and more..

Pyramidology Vs. Spiritism

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:21:00 +0000

The claim is being made that pyramidology is a "a spiritistic religion," and that assuming this to be true, therefore Charles Taze Russell was a spiritist. Those who make this claim evidently have little idea as to what true pyramidology is about, and are probably confusing true Biblical pyramidology with practices of witchcraft, occultism, "pyramid power," transcentalism, occultic freemasonry, etc., that have of late become associated with the term "pyramidology." True Biblical pyramidology has nothing to do with such practices of spiritism. The term "pyramidology" was originally defined:

Pyramidology is the science that deals with the Great Pyramid's scientific demonstration of Biblical truth, true Christianity and the Divine plan respecting humanity on this planet. One who is skilled in this science is therefore defined as a Pyramidologist. But it is necessary clearly to distinguish between a Pyramidologist and a Pyramidist. A Pyramidist is an Egyptologist who specializes in the study of the pyramids of Egypt, or in other words, a specialist on the Egyptian pyramids from the archeological standpoint. Hence we find some people who have a good knowledge of Pyramidology know little or nothing about Egyptology. On the other hand, an Egyptologist, or even a Pyramidist, may know nothing about Pyramidology. An expert Pyramidologist, however, knows the Great Pyramid in all its aspects, including the Egyptological, even though his knowledge of Egyptology in general may not be very wide. Apart from a few builders' marks, which include a dating and the cartouche of Khufu (the pharaoh in whose reign the Great Pyramid was erected), there are no hieroglyphics in the Great Pyramid. Hence to become a Pyramidologist, knowledge of hieroglyphics is not required, whereas it is essential for all Egyptologists including Pyramidist to be able to read hieroglyphics proficiently.

Rutherford, Adam. Pyramidology I, page 11.

One should be able to see that the early definition had nothing to do with spiritism, occultism, etc. It was strictly defined in corroborative terms of the Bible, and in harmony with the Bible.

Although I have not found any place that Charles Taze Russell ever used any form of the word pyramidology, in view of what wrote about the Great Pyramid, one could indeed say that Russell was a pyramidologist, according the original definition of the word.

However, the original definition has been almost totally displaced by the more recent usages of the term "pyramidology" as related to certain forms of spiritistic powers and occultism. Russell was not a "pyramidologist" according the more recent meanings given to that word.

A parallel to this might be to take the word "gay." Until recently, it was used a lot simply to denote a "having or showing a merry, lively mood." Today, the word is used almost exclusively to denote the homosexual lifestyle. The point of this is that to use the later definition of "pyramidology," and apply that definition to what Russell believed, would be like taking the words Shirley Temple sang back in the 1930s, "I've no one to be gay with," and say that Shirley Temple was singing about having no one as a homosexual partner.

The claim is made that the books on pyramidology "are usually located in the 'Occult' section of any library or bookstore." Personally, I have never seen any books in the "Occult" section related to Biblical pyramidology; indeed, I don't remember ever seeing any Biblical pyramidology books in any bookstore at all. I have had to order all the books I have regarding pyramidology, except for one or two that I purchased at conventions. I have seen books on "Pyramid Power," Spiritism, etc., in the the "Occult" section, but this is not the kind of study that Russell did regarding the Great Pyramid. However, I have been to some bookstores that have books under one section called "Religion/Occult," thus combining occultism with any kind of religious books. Amazon.com has many books on Biblical Pyramidology under the general classification of "History/Egypt."

The claim is made that Joseph Rutherford "admitted" that it was Satan who put it in Russell's mind "to figure out God's purposes by studying the Pyramid of Gizeh." Whether Joseph Rutherford actually stated this, I don't know. If he did, then it is just another of his misrepresentations of Russell, since Russell never sought "to figure out God's purposes by studying the Pyramid of Giza." Russell sought to "figure out" God's purposes by the Bible, not the Great Pyramid, as his writings demonstrate. Russell viewed the Great Pyramid as corroborative of God's plan as revealed in the Bible; he did not view the Great Pyramid as the source of learning about that plan.

We are told that Russell was embalmed and then that he "was placed in a grave that is now marked with a huge tombstone in the form of a pyramid." A few years after Russell died, Rutherford did indeed have a pyramid momument constructed in the center of the Watch Tower's plot of Rosemont Cemetery. Although this monument is near Russell's grave, Russell's grave itself is not "marked with a huge tombstone in the form of a pyramid." The pyramid monument is not a "tombstone" at all. Although Rutherford claimed that Russell had wanted such a monument built, I highly doubt it was actually Russell's idea to build such a monument.

Russell's Alleged "Perjury"

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:38:00 +0000

A writer on a blogsite states:

In 1913, Russell sued Baptist minister J.J. Ross in the Ontario High Court for libel for a tract Ross wrote about Russell the previous year.

The very titles of Ross' publications: "Some Facts (and More Facts) About the Self-Styled 'Pastor' Charles T. Russell," belies the deceptive spirit of the publications, since Charles Taze Russell was indeed appointed first as "pastor" by the Allegheny Church associated with the Bible Students, and he was later appointed as "pastor" by many other churches all over the world. Ross simply ignored those appointments. (Russell believed that every consecrated Christian, sanctified by the blood of the covenant, was "ordained," appointed by God, to a ministry.) Of course, what Ross meant by this is that Russell had never been appointed as "pastor" by what Ross considered to be accepted sources for such an appointment by men educated in the Protestant doctrines of men and their philosophies, that is, by a Baptist, a Methodist, or similar school. And yet, how many denominations that can give scriptural authority for its own ordinations and the scriptural right to forbid it to others, or to question the scripturalness of other denominations' or religious groups' ordination than its own? Some have tried, but all such, in the end, leads to assumptions being read into whatever scriptures are presented.

The writer continues:

Ross accused Russell of being undereducated in areas of religious concern, such as theology, classical languages and philosophy.

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

Russell did not perjure himself in court. He did at times, evidently after hours of interrogation, seem to be confused over some questions, but this can happen to the best of us, especially after more than two or three hours of questioning. Nevertheless, there is evidence that Ross rearranged the sequence of events of what actually happened in court in order to give the impression that Russell had committed perjury. The only court transcript was stolen from the county clerk's office in Hamilton, Ontario, evidently by Ross. Nevertheless, there is no court record showing that Russell was ever accused of, or charged with, perjury, nor was Russell ever accused by any court of perjury.

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

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

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

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

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

Upon this point we should note the words of Dr. G.W. Bull in his learned treatise of "The Gospel of John," as follows:

AN IRREGULAR (John 7:15). That is what they all say. The crime of Christ was that He had not taken a course in their college. 'Whence hath He learning?' There are some professional policemen who must protect all learning; medicine, law, gospel, or what not. If you never went through their schools of learning you are a freak, and there is something suspicious about your good sense. These men thought there was only one way of learning -- they would ask a certificate of the sun! There are many schools and schoolmasters in God's universe. Cease your criticism of any Christian scholar. Let him learn in his own way; the Kingdom of God is going to make great progress when some of these high brows are removed to Heaven. Sometimes a man's utterance of profound Truths is stated in poor grammatical form, and the philosophers are puzzled by his power. They wonder where he got it: I do not know -- probably his alma mater was his mother's knees -- then let him speak. Remember today: 'God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the mighty.

It has ever been the rule of those entrenched in error to persecute others who bring forth light and truth, exposing error. Why was Jesus persecuted by the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees? Because He taught the people! He said to them that because of their selfishness they persecuted and killed the prophets whom Yahweh had sent to teach the people.

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

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

For more concerning the alleged "perjury" of Russell:

http://tinyurl.com/4ocwz
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6444/perjury.htm
http://www.pastor-russell.com/life/lie1.html

Much of the material in this presentation has been adapted from:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/gr8%20battle.htm

Russell Questioned His Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:38:00 +0000

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

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

Russell was right in questioning his faith in the teachings of man, especially those teachings that would depict the Creator as a fiendish demon as in such doctrines as the supposed indescribable eternal sufferings of billions of men, women, children, infants, etc., who died without believing in Jesus. Of course, as he pointed out, he thought that these teachings were actually a part of the Bible, and thus, believing this, his faith concerning the Bible also came into doubt. Once he learned that the Bible did not teach such blasphemous doctrines such as the eternal indescribable suffering of most of mankind, as well as the trinitarian dogma, and that it did teach that Christ died for all, he was right in taking up the Biblical stand for the truth concerning these matters.

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

http://hereafter.reslight.net

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

http://atonement.reslight.net

For more information about the "trinity," see:

http://godanson.reslight.net

Russell, however, learned the Biblical truths about hell, the condition of the dead, and about the trinity, as well as "the ransom for all," from others who had become before him. His understanding of these matters did not originate from out of the blue, nor were they simply his own thoughts. It was the proper Biblical understand ing of these matters that led him to reaffirm his faith in the Bible, in the God of the Bible, and in Jesus as the Son of God who gave himself a ransom for all.

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

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

XF01 Catholic Church

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:20:00 +0000

This series of posts is to address "Xenophanes's Forum" blog that presents many false statements and misleading comments concerning Brother Russell. While we are not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses (nor was Russell), we do highly esteem Brother Russell and the work he did.

The first statement we wish to address is:

Unlike the founders of Catholicism, namely the Apostles and Christ himself, Charles Taze Russell (and Joseph Smith for that matter) had historically documented motives for establishing a non-traditional Christian sect.

There are three points that need to be addressed here: (1) The idea that Jesus and the apostles were the founders of Catholicism. (2) Russell's motives and (3) The idea that Russell established a non-traditional "sect."

This post will address the first point:

The word "catholic" means universal. As a generic term, we can agree that Jesus and the apostles did found the one true universal church. Brother Russell believed in that Catholic Church.

We are reproducing an excerpt from a sermon of Pastor Russell on this point:

For some unaccountable reason numerous Catholics have gotten the thought that I am their foe, just as Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc., have the impression that I am their foe. I am a foe to no human being, especially to no Christian. I believe more fully in Free Grace than do Methodists -- that ultimately God's grace will reach every human being. I believe more emphatically than do most Presbyterians that the Church is an especially elect class, and is now being gathered out of the world to be God's agents in the ultimate blessing of all the non-elect. I believe with the Baptists that only the Elect, the immersed, will constitute the Kingdom of God, although I deny their claim that baptism in water is the real immersion. I hold, with the Apostle, that it is a baptism into Christ's death. Similarly I hold to the great Catholic doctrine that there is only one true Church, founded by the Lord Jesus Christ through His Apostles, nearly nineteen centuries ago.

I am aware that several churches claim to be Catholic, each declaring itself the true Church and reprobating the others as heretical. I take the still broader catholic ground-that the word catholic means general; and that any limitation such as Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc., to that extent denies their catholicity. Perhaps, therefore, I am really saying that I am more catholic than any of these brethren.

I must prove my point or be misunderstood. I hold, and few, if any, will dispute it, that the one catholic or general Church of Christ is that mentioned in the Bible -- "the Church of the Firstborns, written in Heaven." If this be admitted, my next proposition is that the Lord in Heaven records as members of His true Church all the saintly - whether Roman Catholics, Anglican Catholics, Greek Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians, etc. -- and none others.

Have we not here the one Church, catholic, universal, the only Church which the Bible recognizes? In the past we have been too narrow and have supposed that God was as narrow as ourselves. It was on this account that Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists persecuted and were persecuted, each thinking itself the true Church. Are we not all getting broader conceptions of our God and of His Church? Do we not see that we were mistaken in calling the outward organization the Church of Christ instead of remembering that the Lord alone writes the names of the Church, that He alone reads the hearts, that He alone is the Judge, and that He alone has the right to blot out the names of reprobates?

St. Paul wrote against sectarianism, already manifest in his day-some saying :"I am of Paul"; others, "I am of Peter"; etc. The Apostle asks, "Is Christ divided:" (1 Corinthians 1:10-13) He explains that these sectarian names signified a spirit of division that failed to recognize the true Head of the Church, His true representatives and His true members. The entire foundation of divided Christianity would disappear and the true Church of Christ be speedily manifest, if true catholicity were acknowledged.

The great obstacle to unity is the erroneous doctrine of eternal torment. We must open our eyes wider and see that many of our theories were not taught by Jesus and the Apostles. We must see that the Church is a comparatively small company of Jesus' footstep followers, irrespective of sectarian lines; and that the Bible teaches not that these are to look over the battlements of Heaven to all eternity and see all others in torment, but that they are to demonstrate their loyalty unto death and in due time be associated with Messiah in His Millennial Kingdom, which will bless all the families of the earth-the living and the dead, who will then be resurrected.

THE TWELVE FOUNDATION STONES

St. Paul declared that the saints of God, the true catholic Church, "are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone." (Ephesians 2:20) The Twelve Apostles are here referred to in their double office-Apostles especially commissioned by the Lord as His representatives, and Prophets, mouthpieces, for the proclamation of His Message. Jesus pictures the Church of Glory as the New Jerusalem, and its twelve foundations as twelve precious stones, in which are the names of the TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb-no more, no less-St. Paul being God's choice to take Judas' place.

To think of St. Peter as the only foundation for the Church would be to deny Christ's teaching and St. Peter's own statement -- that the entire Church is symbolically represented as living stones built together by the Lord through the Holy Spirit. (1 Peter 2:4-10) It was a costly mistake, when our forefathers, overlooking this well-established point of Scripture, thought of their bishops as Apostolic Bishops, and took their decisions in councils assembled as the voice of God. The voice of God to and through the Church came only through "the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." All others claiming this authority are denounced by Jesus Himself as pseudo-Apostles-false Apostles. -- Revelation 2:2

POWER IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH

As St. Peter was only one of the twelve foundation stones of the Church, so, likewise, he was only one of The Twelve to whom the Lord declared, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven" (Matthew 18:18)-the same statement exactly that on another occasion He made to St. Peter only. But He gave the keys to St. Peter alone.

Would it seem reasonable that Jesus should tell His Apostles that God would do whatever they bade Him do -- taking to Heaven whom they pleased and excluding whom they rejected? Would it be wise or safe to entrust to poor humanity such dictatorial powers respecting the eternal interest of even one individual? Assuredly not! When we remember that these Apostles declared themselves men of like passions with others, that St. Peter himself dissembled on one occasion, and on another denied his Master, we are the more convinced that Jesus did not mean that God would abdicate His Divine authority and wisdom in favor of any twelve men.

What the passage implies is that the Lord would so overrule the utterances and writings of His twelve Apostles as to make them safe guides for His Church. Through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost these Apostles would be enabled to understand which things of the Jewish Law were binding upon the Church, and which not binding. Their decision would be absolutely right, and the entire Church might have confidence that what the Apostles bound or loosed on earth was equally bound or loosed in Heaven. -- See Acts 15:28, 29.

To get back into proper relationship with each other, God's people must recognize that all the words of the New Testament Apostles and Prophets are authoritative, properly representing the Divine mind. Other things men have bound or loosed on earth, without recognition in Heaven. The things necessary to the Church are found only in the Bible, as St. Paul declares. -- 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

THE CHURCH UPON THE ROCK

"Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11) In the Divine arrangement Jesus Christ is the Foundation, the Rock, upon which is built the entire superstructure of His Church-the one Catholic, worldwide Church. The New Jerusalem, the Church in glory, had twelve foundation stones, built upon the one Foundation Rock, the Lord Jesus Christ. It would manifestly be erroneous, therefore, to suppose that our Lord abdicated His own place in the Church in favor of St. Peter, as much as He loved him. St. Peter was merely one of the twelve precious-stone foundations.

What, then, did Jesus mean when He called St. Peter a stone, spoke of building His Church upon "this rock," and declares that the gates of Hell (Hades, the grave) would not prevail against it? We reply, Jesus went down into the prison house of death, Sheol, Hades, the tomb; but on the third day these gates opened, and He came forth. So likewise these gates will not prevail against the Church. This is an assurance of the resurrection of the dead.

To understand our text we should read its context. The disciples had told Jesus the common talk respecting Himself. He then asked them, "Who say ye that I am?" St. Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This was the first public declaration of Jesus' Messiahship. Even the disciples had only now come to recognize their Teacher as the long-promised Messiah. Jesus answered, "Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jesus; for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but My Father in Heaven. Thou art Peter (a stone, ready for the spiritual Temple, the first to publicly acknowledge Jesus), and upon this rock (the truth just declared, that I am Messiah) I will build My Church."

In the Greek the word Peter signifies a stone of moderate size, while the word here rendered rock signifies a mass of stone. St. Peter's statement was a recognition of Jesus as the great Foundation of the Divine Plan-Messiah. Upon that foundation truth, that Jesus is Christ, the Church is built; and St. Peter was the first living stone to build himself upon that foundation. St. Peter himself gives us the same thought. (1 Peter 2:5-9) This entire Gospel Age has been devoted to the building of these living stones upon that great Foundation Rock, Christ Jesus. When the great Temple of God is completed, the New Dispensation will be inaugurated.

"THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM"

To St. Peter our Lord said, "I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." We shall not suppose that any who hear this discourse or read it in the newspapers are stupid enough to think Jesus meant that Heaven is locked up, and that nobody could get in except as St. Peter would admit them. True, some have voiced such fantastic notions. But we refuse to believe that intelligent people could be in earnest in any such view.

St. Peter was honored in being permitted to do an opening work connected with the inauguration of the Church. The Bible shows us two different keys, A key is a symbol of power or authority or an initiative. St. Peter used his first key of privilege on Pentecost. When the Holy Spirit came upon the early waiting Church, St. Peter explained the situation and opened the door into the Church of Christ for the Jews, admonishing them to enter. He told of the merit of Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, and how forgiveness of sins was, therefore, preached in His name. -- Acts 2:14-36.

The second key to the Kingdom of Heaven-the Church, the embryo Kingdom preparing for glory -- St. Peter used three and a half years later. Then the seventieth week of Divine favor prophetically appointed to the Jews expired, and the time came that "the Gentiles might be fellow-heirs with the Jews of the same Promise." The opening work was with the household of Cornelius, to whom St. Peter preached Christ. Thus the Gentile door into the Kingdom was thrown wide open. -- Acts 10.

REPENTANCE AND REMISSION OF SINS

"That repentance and remission of sins might be preached in His name to all people." (Luke 24:47) God never gave power to bishops, priests or ministers of any denomination to forgive sins. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Nor did Jesus give authority to His Apostles to forgive sins. They might preach forgiveness, but ONLY IN HIS NAME. Nowhere in the Bible is there a statement to the effect that the Apostles undertook to forgive sins.

In proportion as God's people throw away their sectarian spectacles they can read God's Message in the words of Jesus and the Apostles. Let us hold fast the precious Word, which Jesus exhorts us to search and which is sufficient that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished.

Let us remember that there is only one true catholic, universal Church, each member of which is a saint, related to God and the Lord Jesus Christ through faith, repentance and remission of sin and begetting of the Holy Spirit; and that a member of the Body of Christ is a member of that Body anywhere, "Now are ye the Body of Christ, and members in particular." -- 1 Corinthians 12:27.

The above was printed in Bible Students Monthly, Volume 7, Number 9 (1915), Under the title, "The Catholic Church -- St. Peter's Kingdom Keys." It was reproduced in Harvest Gleanings Volume 1.

We are in general agreement with Brother Russell's statements as presented in this sermon.

Russell Comments on Freemasons

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:24:00 +0000

Watch Tower June 15, 1895
R1827 : page 143

In our judgment the majority of "secret societies" are merely beneficiary and have no secret schemes antagonistic to the general public welfare, the secret rites and ceremonies being merely "boys' play," occupying the time and attention of persons who have no greater aims than those which pertain to the present life. We note, however, that several Roman Catholic Societies seem to have schemes connected with the use of fire-arms, and are therefore to be classed as malevolent rather than benevolent.

We note also that the Order of Free Masons, if judged by its past history, has some secret object or scheme, more than fraternity and financial aid in time of sickness or death. And, so far as we can judge, there is a certain amount of profane worship or mummery connected with the rites of this order and some others, which the members do not comprehend, but which, in many cases, serves to satisfy the cravings of the natural mind for worship, and thus hinders it from seeking the worship of God in spirit and in truth--through Christ, the only appointed Mediator and Grand Master.

In proportion as such societies consume valuable time in foolish, senseless rites and ceremonies, and in substituting the worship of their officers, and the use of words and symbols which have no meaning to them, for the worship of God, in his appointed way -- through Christ, and according to knowledge and the spirit of a sound mind -- in that proportion these societies are grievous evils, regardless of the financial gains or losses connected with membership in them.

The New Creation, pages 580, 581:

This brings before us the whole question of orders, societies, etc., and what privileges the New Creation has in connection with such organizations. Is it right for them to be members of these societies? We answer that while Church associations are purely religious, and labor and beneficial organizations in general are purely secular, there are still other orders which combine the religious and the secular features. As we understand the matter, for instance, the Free Masons, Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias, etc., perform certain rites and ceremonies of a religious kind. Let it be understood that we are not waging any warfare upon those who hold membership in these various orders, even as we are not waging warfare against the various sectarian religious systems. We place upon one level all of those which have any religious ceremonies, teachings, etc., and consider them all as parts of Babylon, some quarters or wards of which are cleaner, and others less clean, but all, nevertheless, full of confusion, error--contrary to the divine intention, as displayed in the organization of the primitive Church and the instructions, by word and example, given to it by the inspired Founder, and his twelve apostles.

We admonish the New Creation to have nothing whatever to do with any of these semi-religious societies, clubs, orders, churches; but to "Come out from amongst them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing." (2 Cor. 6:17) Their things, their worship, their teachings, their doctrines, are unclean to us, though they may not be unclean to themselves. The eyes of our understanding have been opened, and now to us all things appear in a new light, so that things which we once loved now we hate, and things which we once hated now we love.

What Pastor Russell Said
Question 317:2 (1910)

I am not judging at all, I am merely saying, so far as I can tell. But my understanding is, that all of these are bundles, and each bundle is getting tighter. Some of you know a great deal more about Freemasonry than I do, and I am not here to say anything against it, because I do not know anything to say, and I do not know as I would say it if I did know it. The Lord did not send me to preach against Masonry or Odd Fellowship, nor against Presbyterianism or Methodism. Our opportunity is to tell the truth, to preach the true gospel of Christ, and the Lord says that this message is to have its effects on the different hearts. Now, if you find yourself in any kind of a bundle, you know that is not the program so far as the wheat is concerned. The wheat is to he gathered into the garner; it is not to be put into bundles in the present life. The wheat is to be free. If you find yourself in any kind of a bundle, better get out of the bundle. Trust in the Lord, and be in harmony with Him, and this will take you out of all kinds of bundles and human organizations, I believe.

I should, perhaps, say a cautionary word here to the effect that I would understand this would mean, for instance, that if I were a carpenter I would prefer to be at liberty, but if it were demanded of me that I should join a union before I could have work, and that I must pay so much of my money into that union's coffers, I should join. I should understand that I was making so much of a contribution to the general weal of the carpenters, and I would have no hesitation in the matter, because there is nothing of a religious kind there. There is nothing that would fetter my heart or mind. But if that organization should do anything I could not approve, I would feel perfectly free to withdraw at any time. So I would make that limitation. But, so far as wheat and tares are concerned, I think there are plenty of bundles all around you, and I notice, too, that these different worldly organizations, if we may so call them in contradistinction to church organizations, are also taking the same methods the church people are taking. It used to be very easy to withdraw from one of the churches and you could say, "I will thank you for a letter," and then they would take the letter and never deposit it, but burn it up, if they desired. And so with the Masons; they had a method by which anyone desiring to leave the order could ask for a demit and he would get that without any particular question. I have been informed that now this is changed somewhat. If you are a Presbyterian, and you wish a letter, they say, "To which church do you wish the letter addressed?" You say, "Oh, just make it out anyway." "Oh we do not do that now; we will give you a letter to a certain, particular church and it is to he deposited there--good when deposited there." And so I am informed that our Freemason friends are doing the same thing; they do not give demits now. If you wish to be transferred to another lodge they will transfer you, but they do not give demits now in the same way they formerly did.

A Brother: Brother Russell, I am a Mason and, unfortunately, hold a high position in the order, and I would like to make a little correction on that. A Mason is perfectly free to leave when he feels so disposed. No restraint whatever is placed upon him.

Brother Russell: I told you in the beginning that I did not know about it myself; I was only relating what a brother told me.

Another Brother: I was a Mason in a different jurisdiction from that of the brother. It may he all right in his particular jurisdiction, but it is not the same in other jurisdictions, as I know.

Brother Russell: You will notice that we never have anything to say against any of these. We have not said an unkind word about Freemasonry, and you never read anything unkind that we have ever said about it, and I do not wish to say anything unkind about Presbyterianism, or Methodism. I think that many of the dear friends in these denominations are good people, and I appreciate their characters. What I talk about sometimes is Presbyterian doctrine, and they talk about it, too. And I have read things they have said about Presbyterian doctrines far harder than anything I have ever said. I sometimes quote in the Watch Tower some things Presbyterians say about their own doctrine, and I occasionally quote in the Watch Tower something the Methodists say about their doctrine, because they say it stronger than I should wish to say it.

A New Religion?

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:20:00 +0000

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

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

Charles Taze Russell never claimed to have found a new religion, or a new church. His endeavor was to restore the teachings of Christ and the apostles, the "faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) He believed in the one true church, of which Jesus is the foundation. The Bible Students movement was never intended to be a sectarian new religion or denomination.
http://tinyurl.com/56eemf
(Articles mostly written by Russell that contain the phrase "true church.")

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

The "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization/religion did not exist in Brother Russell's day. That organization came into existence later. After Russell died, Joseph Rutherford, through deceit and legal trickery, gained control of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and used that legal entity as a means of establishing his new religion which he later called "Jehovah's Witnesses."
http://ctr.reslight.net/jws.html

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

Was Russell the Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:16:00 +0000

It has become the custom for writers to write that Russell was the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses organization. Thus, many often attribute the teachings of that organization to Russell.

In reality, Russell knew nothing of such an organization. He actively preached against the formation of such an organization of this kind until he died. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in his days was not a ruling organization, but a service organization.

After Russell died, Joseph Rutherford, by means of deceit and legal trickery, gained control of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and used that legal entity to form his new organization with its new teachings. In the 1930s, Rutherford named his new organization "Jehovah's Witnesses" in order to distinguish his organization from the Bible Students who refused to go along with his new teachings.

Did Russell Deny the Deity/Divinity of Jesus?

noreply@blogger.com (Ronald) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:18:00 +0000

One of the first charges that is usually leveled against Russell is that he denied the divinity or deity of Jesus Christ. Actually this is not so, although he did deny the trinity doctrine. Here are some quotes from Russell's writings that show that he did not deny the divinity/deity of Jesus:

Quote 1:

DIVINITY--Does Pastor Russell Deny Christ's?
Q226:2:: QUESTION (1913)--2--Do you deny the divinity of Christ?

ANSWER.--By no means, dear friends. It is a very remarkable thing that there are some who seem to greatly misunderstand what we have to say. You will find in this city and in every great city I suppose scores who will deny that Jesus ever had a virgin mother; scores who will deny that He had any prior existence. No one says anything about their denying the divinity of Jesus. I do not accuse them. Do we not claim that Jehovah was His Father? Do we not deny that Joseph was His Father? We certainly do claim the divinity of Christ; that the divine Father was His Father; that He was begotten and specially born of a virgin, and therefore, was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." Do we claim he was the Heavenly Father when a man? No, we do not claim He was His own father. That would not be Scriptural. If anyone thinks He was His own father, and His own son, he does not know what he is talking about.

As to what He is now. We believe He is divine now. The Bible says so. "Him hath God exalted and given Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." Already the angels are bowing to Him, and by and by every knee on earth will bow. Moreover, Saint Peter says the church is begotten to the divine nature. While it does not say Jesus is a partaker of the divine nature, we understand him to teach that thought.
++++++++What Pastor Russell Said, page 226

Quote 2:

(1) Ho Theios is rendered Godhead in Acts 17:29 whereas it should be "the Deity,"--"We ought not to think that the Godhead [ho Theios--the Deity] is like unto gold or silver or stone." The same word is translated divine in the only two other instances of its occurrence in the New Testament; viz., 2 Pet. 1:3,4.

(2) Theiotes is rendered Godhead in Romans 1:20; whereas it should be translated Divinity or Deity,--"God hath showed it unto them,...even his eternal power and godhead [Theiotes--Deity]." This is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament.

(3) Theotes is rendered Godhead in Colossians 2:9; whereas it should be translated Deity,--"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Theotes--Deity] bodily." This is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament.

In the glorified Christ, who is the head of the Church, dwells all fulness; plenitude of wisdom, grace and power, not only to guide all the affairs of the Church, his body, but also as the Father's representative to do any and every thing necessary to be done in carrying forward to successful completion the great divine plan committed to his care. ++++++++++The Atonement Between God and Man, page 71.

Quote 3:

Appellations of Deity in the Old Testament

(1) The name Jehovah is properly rendered only four times, where it seemed impossible to do otherwise (Exod. 6:3; Psa. 83:18; Isa. 12:2; 26:4); it is rendered God 298 times, and Lord over 5,000 times.
----------
Footnote Regarding "Jehovah":

The appearance is that the Trinitarians who translated our Common Version Bible feared to render the name Jehovah as a proper name in every instance, lest the people should realize the fact which theology denies--that the title Jehovah belongs only to the great "I AM," the Father. Similarly Leeser's English translation made for the Jews covers the word; possibly because of fear that some of the Jews might stumble over some of the few uses of the word reviewed preceding.

The Jew prefers and uses the word Lord, possibly in the hope that fellow Jews will recognize the word Lord as applicable only to Jehovah and therefore feel a resentment toward those who speak of Jesus as "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"--thinking this blasphemy.

The Trinitarian translators probably preferred to use the word Lord instead of Jehovah, in order that Christians accustomed to use the word Lord as a title for our Savior, Jesus, might in reading the Old Testament think that he, and not the Father, Jehovah, is usually referred to.

Page 66

(2) The title Adonai, generally properly rendered Lord, is once rendered God.

(3) The title Adon is rendered Sir, Master, Lord.

(4) The word elohim, with its modifications eloah, elah and el, occurs over 2,500 times. These most frequently refer to Jehovah; but in many instances with evident propriety are applied to others: hence the connections must determine who is referred to. We will give Scripture illustrations which will make the matter perfectly clear, and prove beyond a doubt that elohim signifies mighty. It is properly applied to Jehovah, because he is All-mighty, all-powerful. It is properly applied to any angel, for they are mighty, powerful, and in their visits to man recorded in the Old Testament they were specially mighty because representatives of Jehovah, the All-mighty. Great, influential men were also properly described as elohim--mighty. Like our English word "sheep," elohim is used either in the singular or plural as occasion may require.

These are facts, and our quotations from the Common Version Bible will substantiate them thoroughly; and thus will demonstrate the Scriptural propriety and consistency in referring to our Lord Jesus Christ as God [elohim] and as Adon [Master, Lord] and as Adonai [my Lord], and yet never as Jehovah.

Page 67

Elohim [Mighty] Translated "Angels"

Psalm 8:5--"Thou [Jehovah, vs. 1] hast made him a little lower than the angels [elohim], and hast crowned him with glory and honor."

That this is a proper rendering of elohim is proven by the fact that the inspired Apostle translated it thus into the Greek, angelos--when, referring to how our Lord humbled himself, he says--"Thou madest him a little lower than angels." Heb. 2:7,9

Elohim [Mighty] Translated "Gods"

In referring to false gods of the heathen, the word elohim [mighty] is used 196 times; and quite properly, too, for they were mighty or influential to their devotees.

Jehovah the [All-Mighty] Elohim Contrasted With Other Elohim [Mighty Ones]

Psalm 86:6-8--"Give ear O Jehovah unto my prayer....Among all the gods [elohim--mighty ones] there is none like unto thee."

Psalm 95:3--"Jehovah is a great God [el--mighty one] and a great King above all gods [elohim--mighty ones]."

Psalm 50:1--"The mighty God [lit. God of gods--el elohim--the mighty of the mighty], Jehovah, hath spoken."

Psalm 29:1--"Give unto Jehovah O ye mighty [el--gods], ascribe unto Jehovah glory and strength. Give unto Jehovah the honor of his name; and worship Jehovah in the beauty of holiness."

Genesis 17:1--"Jehovah appeared to Abraham and said unto him, I am the Almighty God [el]."

Exodus 15:11--"Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods [el--mighty ones]." See margin.

Genesis 14:22--"Abraham said, I have lifted up my hand unto Jehovah, the most high God [el], possessor of heaven and earth."

Page 68

Psalm 96:4--"Jehovah is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods [elohim--mighty ones.]"

These instances suffice as samples: others may be found by those who desire and seek them.

Elohim Applied to Men

In the aforementioned 196 translations of elohim by the word gods, probably fully one-half refer to men--mighty ones--kings, princes, nobles, etc., but now we notice a few instances in which elohim is applied to the Lord's people.

Genesis 23:6--Abraham is styled elohim, the word being translated mighty in our Common Version Bible. "Thou art a mighty [elohim] prince among us."

Exodus 7:1--Moses is denominated the god [elohim] of Pharaoh. "I have made thee a god [elohim] to Pharaoh."

Exodus 21:6--The judges [rulers, mighty ones] of Israel were styled elohim. "His master shall bring him unto the judges [elohim]."

Exodus 22:8,10--"If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought into the judges [elohim].... Both parties shall come before the judges [elohim]; and whom the judges [elohim] shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor."

Exodus 22:28--"Thou shalt not revile the gods [elohim--margin, judges]." Note the Apostle's sanction of this translation. Acts 23:5

The Saints Called Elohim

Psalm 82:6,7--"I have said, Ye are gods [elohim--mighty ones], all of you sons of the highest, ye yet shall all die like [other] men, falling like one of the princes [heads]." The saints must all die, but like Christ Jesus their "head," sacrificially, and not as Adam for his own sin.

This passage was quoted by our Lord Jesus, and applied to those who received the word of God at his lips--those

Page 69

having ears "to hear": and it applies still to the same class.
----------
Footnote regarding Psalm 82:

This entire Psalm (82) seems to refer to our Lord Jesus as the divinely appointed Deliverer and Judge of Christendom, now, in the time of his parousia. To Him we apply the words, "God [elohim, Christ appointed by the Father to judge the world now] standeth in the assemblage of the mighty [amongst the financial, political and ecclesiastical princes]; he judgeth among [these] gods [elohim--mighty ones]." He is represented first as reproving these princes and calling for equity, but "They heed not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness [respecting what will be the result of their policy]: all the foundations of the earth [the social world] are out of the course"; is his decision: it is useless to attempt to patch present institutions; they must all be "dissolved," that the new heavens and new earth--the new social world--may come instead. Then verses 6 and 7 are addressed to his faithful "little flock." When they are gathered--when all the "elect" Church by dying shall have passed beyond the veil--then Christ will be called upon, "Arise, O God [elohim], judge the earth: for thou hast inherited all nations." It will be to establish his Kingdom that he will let loose the judgments which in "a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," shall abase the proud and exalt the humble and usher in the "times of restitution" long promised by all the holy prophets. Acts 3:19-23
-------end of footnote

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God," reckonedly, hoping by divine grace to "become partakers of the divine nature." John 10:34,35; 1 John 3:2; 2 Pet.1:4

Elohim Rendered "Great," "Strong," Etc.

This word is sometimes rendered strong, power, great, etc., in connection with inanimate things; as "Great [elohim-- mighty] tremblings" (1 Sam. 14:15); "Great [elohim--mighty] wrestlings" (Gen. 30:8); "Great [el--mighty] mountains" (Psa. 36:6); "The strong [el] among the mighty" (Ezek. 32:21); "It is in the power [el] of my hand." Gen. 31:29

"God" and "Lord" in the New Testament

In the New Testament the matter is simplified by the use of fewer words; but it may be said that nothing whatever in the words used distinguishes the Father from the Son in the

Page 70

words rendered Lord and God. The matter is left entirely to the judgment of the reader, and indicated only by the construction of the sentence--except that where the word Theos is used twice in the same clause the Greek Prepositive Article is sometimes used, so as to give the effect of the God in contrast with a God. An illustration of this is found in John 1:1--"The Word was with the God [ho theos] and the Word was a God [theos]." But the careful student (freed from prejudice) will generally have no difficulty in determining the thought of the Apostle. Indeed, the language is so explicit that the wonder is that we were heedless of it so long.

The word God in our New Testament, whether in referring to our Heavenly Father or to his Heavenly Son, our Lord Jesus, or to false gods, is almost invariably the translation of the Greek word Theos. Exceptions are that the word kurios is once translated God when it should have been rendered Lord or Master, namely in Acts 19:20; and in Acts 17:18 daimonion is rendered gods, and should be demons.
+++++++++The Atonement Between God and Man, pages 66-70

Quote 4:

WE BELIEVE THE BIBLE

THOSE WHO OPPOSE our teaching are given to misrepresenting it. They do not wish to speak untruthfully, but desire to hinder our work, which they fail to recognize as the Lord's work. It is difficult to answer the arguments of our opponents in a few words, when they misunderstand our presentations of more than three thousand pages. If they cannot understand a detailed account, we have no hope of making a brief one satisfactory to them. However, we give here a synopsis:--

I. We affirm the humanity of Jesus and the deity of Christ.

II. We acknowledge that the personality of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son; that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, and in turn from all who are begotten
by it.
++++++++++++++The Watch Tower, January 15, 1912, page 28, Reprints 4955

Thus we show the proof of what Russell did teach concerning Jesus' divinity/deity.