The Christian God Not Jehovah?

It is being reported that Charles Taze Russell taught that the Christian God was the devil, not Jehovah.

Did Russell Claim Infallibility?

The following are some quotes from Charles Taze Russell concerning his own view of his works, especially as related to whether he considered his works infallible:

No system of theology should be presented, or accepted, which overlooks or omits the most prominent features of Scripture teaching. We trust, however, that a wide distinction will be recognized between the earnest, sober and reverent study of prophecy and other scriptures, in the light of accomplished historic facts, to obtain conclusions which sanctified common sense can approve, and a too common practice of general speculation, which, when applied to divine prophecy, is too apt to give loose rein to wild theory and vague fancy. Those who fall into this dangerous habit generally develop into prophets (?) instead of prophetic students. -
1886; “The Divine Plan of the Ages”, pg. 13
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/htdb0068.htm

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.

***

Indeed, time and again I have seen that the teachings of those who make utterances of their own, but in the name of Christ, by claimed inspiration, or special revelations, or boasted wisdom (which is the real spirit of popery), and without proof from the Scripture, are received by many. And I am confident that the DAWN and TOWER would have many more friends and believers if they followed this (popery’s) course;–for as some one has said, “People prefer to be humbugged.” But such a course I dare not follow; I must be true to the Lord and declare his Word, and let him take charge of the consequences. -1893; letter written by Pastor Russell, published in “The Watch Tower”, June, 1893 pg. 168
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r1535b.htm

The account [of Matthew 24:45-51] contains no suggestion of either the inspiration or infallibility of “that servant.” This distinction belongs only to the Lord, the Apostles and the prophets…. There certainly is no intimation that the “household” is cut off from access to, or feeding on, the Word of God; neither by “that servant” nor by “his fellow servants.” None of the “servants” are to come between the “household” of faith and God’s Word. On the contrary, each one of the “household” is to prove all that he accepts as spiritual food, whether he gets it from the Bible himself or from “that servant” or from “his fellow servants.” None of these servants are “lords over God’s heritage”; their highest privilege will be to serve, and the only difference between “that servant” and “his fellow servants” will be that his service will be more general, a wider service.

***
More perhaps than any other servant, ZION’S WATCH TOWER has opposed the thought that the Church of Christ is composed of a clerical class commissioned to teach, and a lay class not commissioned to teach the divine Word: it specially has held up the inspired words, “all ye are brethren” and “one is your Master”; and has pointed out that all consecrated believers are of the “royal priesthood” each fully commissioned, not to “lord it” over others, but to sacrifice himself in the service of the truth, doing good unto all, especially to the household of faith. So with the servants of Matt. 24:49; service is their only commission, not lordship or self-appointment. All the members of the “body” are “anointed to preach” the gospel, and instructed to search the Scriptures, as we have heretofore clearly shown. This has been true ever since Pentecost, and is as true as ever to-day.
— Zion’s Watch Tower, June 15, 1896, pages 139,140
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r1993.htm

Please note our views concerning the servants at:
http://ctr.reslight.net/fws.html
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=466.0

We claim no infallibility for our presentations, nor do we simply offer our opinions and conjectures, after the manner of the scribes and Pharisees; but rather after the manner of the great Teacher, we seek to present to the minds of those interested the teachings of Moses and the prophets, and to voice the testimony of Jesus and the apostles, and to show the harmony of the Scriptures. — Zion’s Watch Tower, April 15, 1901, page 136
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r2800.htm

“We preach not ourself but Christ. We substantiate nothing except by his Word. We make no laws, formulate no creed, deprive no sheep of his full liberty in Christ; but merely on every question quote the Word of the Lord, through the apostles and prophets. We boast nothing, claim nothing of ourself. We are content to serve the Lord and his flock to the best of our ability–exacting no tithes, no “honor of men,” no confession of authority, no compensation; hoping merely for the love of the Lord and of those who are his children and have his Spirit. So far from forming or desiring to form a new sect, we ignore all sectarian systems and their claimed authority; we recognize only the “one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism” of the Scriptures and fellowship as a “brother” every person of decent morals who confesses faith in the “redemption through the blood of Christ,” and especially all of this class who profess a full consecration to the Lord’s will and service,– whatever sect they may be in, or outside of all” -1906; “The Watch Tower”, January 1, 1906 pg. 20
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r3704.htm

I hasten to assure you that I have never laid claim to infallibility. I do not expect to be infallible until by the Lord’s grace I shall share a part in the First Resurrection; then, that which is perfect having come, that which is in part shall be done away; we shall see as we are seen and know as we are known. We accept the writings by the twelve apostles as being so supervised of the Lord as to be free from any error. He himself said of the writers, the apostles, Whatsoever ye shall bind, enforce, on earth will be that which is recognized as bound or enforced in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose or release from on earth shall be loosed or released from in heaven. Hence we may regard the presentations of those twelve men, intended of the Lord to be his special representatives under the holy Spirit’s dispensation, as being infallible, true, inerrant. But there is no ground for believing that any others than the apostles have been so miraculously holden by the power of God as were those twelve, or that we have any authority in the Word of God for considering the words and writings of others as being above or beyond testing and proving by the Scriptures. This has invariably been our presentation. It has been our endeavor to present the Word of God faithfully as he has given us to understand it–to our own Master we stand or fall. Nevertheless we trust that our course has the approval also of such of the Lord’s dear people as, led by his Spirit, are now walking in the light of present truth.
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r3745.htm

We have urged and still urge that the dear children of God read studiously what we have presented;–the Scriptures, the applications and interpretations–and then form their own judgments. We neither urge nor insist upon our views as infallible, nor do we smite or abuse those who disagree; but regard as “Brethren” all sanctified believers in the precious blood. — Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1, 1907, page 294.
http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbnon/r4067.htm

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)

The Scriptures do indeed say that we may render honor to him to whom honor is due, and that is applicable to anybody and everybody; as, for instance, we look back and we see Martin Luther, and he did a grand work, and we thank God for him; and we might say the same of John Wesley, and very truthfully; I am glad in God’s providence he lived, and that he was a faithful man. And there were others of the Lord’s people in the past. Let us be glad and rejoice in every one, and be thankful to God he has used various agencies in helping us, and in helping others, and in bringing forward his great cause; but let us not go into anything that would be at all like man-worship, for I am sure that would be displeasing to the Lord and injurious to ourslves. I remind you again of the Scripture in Revelations where the Church is pictured, which we called attention to, I believe, thirty years ago. John, the revelator, who was seeing these things, fell down to worship the angel who showed them to him, and the angel said, “See thou do it not; worship God; I am thy fellowservant.”

And so, dear friends, if our Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Lord have used Brother Russell in any measure he is very glad and very thankful to be used. And if the Lord is pleased to use him any more, he will be glad to be used down to the last breath, but he does not want any worship, he does not want any undue adoration, he does not want any praise. He is glad to have the love of all those who are brethren of the Lord and to be considered a fellow-servant with all, striving to bring to pass all the glorious things that God has promised, striving to tell the good tidings of great joy to as many as the Lord, our God, shall call.” -1910; Convention Discourse (”Convention Report Sermons”, pg. 125)
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/Library/Russell/CONVRPRT/crs.pdf

Some people try to make out that I claim I am infallible, and know everything. You are all witnesses that that is not true. — 1911, What Pastor Russell Said, Question 14:1.
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/Whatsaid.pdf

We are expecting in October, 1914, that a great change will be due. Now, how quickly will it come? Whether on the stroke of the clock or not we do not know. We believe that it will land upon humanity by that time. Perhaps some of it will come before that, but we believe it will be stayed off until that time. Now, dear friends, what if it does not? We are just as well off as the rest. That is what the Bible states. If it does not state that to you, we have no quarrel. And if it does not come we will not try to bring it about. But, on the contrary, we will try to practice peace and holiness withal. We are children of peace and peacemakers, not strife breeders. But we believe the Bible teaches October, 1914, as the time. If that is incorrect for a year, or five, or one hundred years, no matter, it is coming some time, whether we have it right or not. — 1912, Convention Sermon Reports, page 292
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/Library/Russell/CONVRPRT/crs.pdf

If we have made some mistake in the time, it will not matter a bit; we are consecrated to Him unto death. Perhaps the Lord will test us along this line. But I should not mind; I tell you that I am enjoying the Lord, and enjoying the previous Word more and more every day, and if it gets still better by 1914, I don’t know how good it will be. So that, whether we have the exact moment is very immaterial to us; it is quite a secondary matter. But there is no doubt at all that the Kingdom will come–whether in that year, or another year–it is sure to come, “For the Lord of Hosts hath spoken it, and who shall disannul it”? — 1912, Convention Sermon Reports, page 439
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/Library/Russell/CONVRPRT/crs.pdf

We do not claim that we have any infallibility in regard to the matter and our consecration was not made until 1914; our consecration was made until death, and if in the Lord’s providence I shall live longer then the Lord be praised and then I can rejoice just as much in 1916 as 1925, rejoice as much as in this present moment and I shall anticipate that under the Lord’s providence His grace will be more abundant as the years go by and that my joy in the Lord will go on increasing to the very end, but now, so far as we know, it looks from the Scriptures as though a very little while, three years, and less, and we will be in the kingdom. There may be things about it we do not understand and we have no desire to be dogmatic in any sense of the word and do anything rash, but we are trying to learn to appreciate the value of the present things and also the value of the things to come. We are trying to learn to take such a view as Paul did when he said, “I count all these things as loss and dross that I may win Christ and be found in Him”–in the anointed–membership in the Body of that Great Mediator. If He might win that, all other things of the present time might go and this is what is coming more and more into your heart and we are getting more and more lifted out of the selfishness of the world and we are looking beyond to the heavenly things. — 1912, Convention Reports Sermons, page 328
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/bsl/Library/Russell/CONVRPRT/crs.pdf

Angels and Women (Seola)

Blizard’s site makes the following assertion:

Russell recommended his followers read the book, Angels and Women.He personally supervised its editing and said it was beneficial because it throws light on certain Biblical subjects.

What are the facts?

In 1878, a book by the name “Seola,” written by Mrs. J. G. Smith, was published. It was evidently written as a fiction novel, but some state that Smith claimed to have written it in under the influence of the spirit world. In view of what is reported to be in the book, this is very probable, since it is reported that Mrs. Smith would probably not have had the knowledge presented in the book except by such an influence. Thus, it is claimed that Mrs. Smith wrote the book through what is often called “automatic writing,” which is a form of spiritism in which a spirit actually does the writing through a human being.

In 1924, another book was published by the A.B. ABAC Company, of New York, entitled “Angels and Women,” which is based on the earlier book by J. G. Smith. As far as I have been able to determine, contrary to what is being stated on several sites, this book was never published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, nor by the International Bible Students Association.

This later book was not exactly the same as the book “Seola,” but the book “Angels and Women” is an edited version of the earlier book. I am still not sure who edited this later book, but there is a reference to a “Bible Student” who was “a personal friend of Pastor Russell.” This comes from a review of the book as presented in The Golden Age magazine (this magazine was not printed in Russell’s day), thus the “Bible Student” was probably actually a follower of Rutherford and Rutherford’s new teachings and organization. Of course, Rutherford himself had been a personal friend of Russell’s before Russell died, but we know that after Russell died, Rutherford rejected and often misrepresented what Russell taught. One author, Ken Raines, claims that a JW told him that the revisor was “Ed Brenisen,” who was indeed a follower of Rutherford, and what became “Jehovah’s Witnesses” leadership. (See Reference 1 below.)

The “Angels and Women” book has been reproduced on the Rutherford Rainbow CD-ROM, which is available from:
http://astore.amazon.com/restorationli-20/detail/0972465014 (USA)
http://astore.amazon.ca/restoratiligh-20/detail/0972465014 (Canada)
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/restoratoligh-21/detail/0972465014 (United Kingdom)
(referenced for research purposes, not recommendation of content.)

A new version of the 1924 editon has been released by Jim M. Rizoli (not associated with the JWs or the Bible Students), and can be obtained from:
http://astore.amazon.com/restorationli-20/detail/0595005160 (USA)
http://astore.amazon.ca/restoratiligh-20/detail/0595005160 (Canada)
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/restoratoligh-21/detail/0595005160 (United Kingdom)
(again referenced for research purposes, not recommendation of content.)

There is nothing in any of the writings of Russell that speaks of a book called “Angels and Women.” Indeed, this book did not exist in the days of Russell. There is no evidence at all that Russell personally supervised its editing. However, it is possible that Russell did come across a copy of the book “Seola,” written by Mrs. J. G. Smith, as a novel, and it is also possible that he might have suggested that some of his co-workers might read the book. Russell several times in his writings showed how the demons will present truths in order to get people to accept a greater lie. This does not mean that he was “recommending” the book for general approval, since he often sought to get the opinion and suggestions from others concerning if and how such items might be utilized in the pages of the Watch Tower. Evidently, Russell decided against any use of the book, since the book is never mentioned anywhere in any of Russell’s writings. However, the only book that he could possibly have recommended to his associates would have been the book, “Seola,” since the later revision did not exist in his time. Surely, however, if he had done so, there would be some record of such a recommendation in his writings, but there is no such recommendation. I could find no mention of either book in the Bible Students DVD Library. As a whole, I would say that Bible Students have nothing to do with either book.

The Golden Age, in 1924, claims that Russell personally supervised the editing of the later edition, and wished that it be published at an opportune time. I personally do not put much faith in what was being said by the leadership of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1924, since there were many statements being made after Russell died that have been proven untrue.

References (I do not necessarily agree with all the conclusions and/or statements made by these authors):

1. “Angels and Women,” Ken Raines
http://www.seanet.com/~raines/women.html

2. “The Golden Age’s Review and Endorsement of Angels and Women,” Ken Raines
http://www.seanet.com/~raines/review.html

3. “Angels and Women” threads on the “Present Truth” forum:
http://tinyurl.com/6nyrlu
http://www.network54.com/Forum/89087/thread/991353274/Angels+and+Women

4. “Anne Eliza Smith”, article in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Eliza_Smith

The Strange Teaching of Pyramidology

This is in further reply to:
http://www.freewebs.com/wwwsoundnessofmindcom/charlestazerussell.htm

Under the subheading of “Some Strange Teachings of C. T. Russell” is listed the teaching of “pyramidology.” The statement is made that certain calculations based on the Great Pyramid were “integrated into the prophecies of Russell.”

Although the Russell never used the word “pyramidology,” Russell did believe that the Great Pyramid corroborated the Bible. It has been said that truth is stranger than fiction; this, however, is because of limited perceptions of truth. Thus, unless one actually studies pyramidology, the idea of pyramidology may seem “strange,” just as many non-Christians believe that the idea of God sending a son to die for our sins is “strange,” if their minds have not been conditioned to accept this. Yet, the very fact that Jesus died for our sins is confirmed by the Great Pyramid.

Russell, of course, made no prophecies, thus the statement that calculations were “integrated into the prophecies of Russell,” is incorrect. Russell did present, however, a series of studies on Biblical time prophecies (most of Russell’s studies on time prophecies and chronology were based on earlier studies done by N. H. Barbour and some others), and he believed that the measurements of the passageways confirmed the chronology of the Bible. Russell, himself, however, spent little time and space, comparatively, on the study of the Great Pyramid. John and Morton Edgar, however, actually measured the passageways and wrote extensively on the Great Pyramid, its symbology — both scientifically and Biblically — as well as the time features. They demonstrated in great detail how the time features of the Bible are corroborated by the Great Pyramid, as well as many other things about the Bible. Whether all their conclusions are correct or not, the evidence that the Great Pyramid was indeed constructed under God’s divine guidance is overwhelming, to say the least.

Let me say, however, that the word “pyramidology” was evidently coined after Charles Taze Russell died, to distinguish the study of the Great Pyramid as related to the Bible from other studies. The word originally had nothing to do with heathen occultism, nor does such a study of the Great Pyramid have anything to do with heathen occultism, nor with “pyramid power,” etc.

For more information on the Great Pyramid, please visit:
http://gp.reslight.net

With Christian love,
Ronald

CTR Gravestone

This post is in reference to a statement made on the site:

http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/russell.html

regarding the gravestone of Charles Taze Russell

The claim is made that Russell personally chose giant pyramid weighing several tons as his “memorial stone.” A link is given providing a page written by Randall Watters. The link is titled “Russell’s Pyramid Gravestone,” making it appear that Russell’s gravestone was a pyramid. The link is provided below:

http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/russ3.html

Russell’s gravestone was not a pyramid! Russell was not buried under any pyramid. The pictures presented show that Russell’s gravestone was not pyramid. I present the link to a picture of Russell’s actual gravestone as shown on the page:

http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/pyr_1.jpg

As one can see, that gravestone/tombstone is not a pyramid.

Although there have been claims that Russell left instructions to build a pyramid on the plot, I have not found nor seen any proof that Russell left any such instructions. His instructions for his funeral are presented on the webpage linked to above, which states:

I desire to be buried in the plot of ground owned by our Society, in the Rosemont United Cemetery, and all the details of arrangements respecting the funeral service I leave in the care of my sister, Mrs. M. M. Land, and her daughters, Alice and May, or such of them as may survive me, with the assistance and advice and cooperation of the brethren, as they may request the same. Instead of an ordinary funeral discourse, I request that they arrange to have a number of the brethren, accustomed to public speaking, make a few remarks each, that the service be very simple and inexpensive and that it be conducted in the Bible House Chapel or any other place that may be considered equally appropriate or more so. (from Watchtower Reprints, 12/1/16)

Nothing is said in his instructions about building an expensive pyramid weighing several tons. The pyramid in the middle of the WTS plot was constructed by Rutherford several years after Russell died. Such a flamboyant style expressed by constructing such a pyramid seems to match Rutherford’s character more than it does Russell’s.

Of course, some time later, Rutherford claimed that the Great Pyramid was built by Satan to deceive, which, in effect, would credit Satan with knowing about the book of Revelation before it was given to Jesus! — Revelation 1:1,2.

After Russell died, Rutherford, by mean of deceit and legal trickery, gained control of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and used that legal entity as a basis to form a new organization, which he later called “Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

For more information concerning the Great Pyramid and the Bible, see:

http://gp.reslight.net/

1844 Prophecy

On the webpage at:

http://www.freewebs.com/wwwsoundnessofmindcom/charlestazerussell.htm

we are being told:

Nelson H. Barbour (1824-1908, NY)–Millerite Adventist taught that the rapture would occur in April, 1878. Paired up with Russell 1876-1881. Influenced Russell by teaching an invisible return of Christ. Split over differences after failed prophecy of Christ�s return in 1844 and debate over Christ�s ransom.

This appears to be saying that Russell split with Barbour over an alleged “failed prophecy” of Christ’s return in 1844. Could be a typo, possibly meant to be 1874. Regardless, Russell was not even born in 1844, so I do not see how he could be having any differences with anyone concerning an alleged failed prophecy concerning Christ’s return in 1844.

There was some difference, however, regarding 1878, not over Christ’s return (which neither was expecting for that year), but over what had happened on that date.

If 1874 was date meant, I believe both Russell and Barbour had agreed, at least until 1878, that Christ had already returned invisibly in 1874. Russell himself never made any predictions concerning either 1844 nor 1874. It was not until two years after 1874 that Russell accepted that Jesus had already returned in 1874. There was no failure concerning that date.

Neither Russell nor Barbour, however, ever claimed to be making any prophecies. Russell disclaimed be a prophet many times, but rather he claimed to be a student of prophecy. Thus there were no “failed prophecies”, not unless one may believe that the Bible itself contains “failed prophecy”.

See:

http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=157.0

Russell’s own words regarding his differences with Barbour may be found at:

http://ctr.reslight.net/sup1879.html

war strategy

On the website:

http://www.freewebs.com/wwwsoundnessofmindcom/charlestazerussell.htm

Brother Russell is being misrepresented as teaching that lying to people you consider to be God’s enemies is justifiable as theocratic “war strategy“. The reference given as proof of such is the Watchtower, June 1, 1960, page 352.

Immediately, most Bible Students realize that whatever was written in 1960 could not have been written by Russell, since Russell died in 1916. Russell never wrote anything to the effect that lying to ones considered to be God’s enemies was something that a consecrated child of God should do. What the writer has done to quote something as being taught by Russell when in actuality Russell never taught such a thing.

Nevertheless, I must point out that by attributing such a teaching to Russell, the writer of that webpage is himself not telling the truth. Is this a deliberate lie? I don’t know. I cannot judge if the writer actually knew or understood that something almost written 44 years after Russell died was not written by Russell, and should not be attributed to Russell. God knows, and God knows the heart of the writer, whether his writings are of a heart of hatred or simply being misguided.

A good study on this matter presented by Brother Russell is entitled “Evil Speaking and Hatred”, and can be found at:

http://www.agsconsulting.com/htdbv5/r4524.htm

---

A truth Presented by Satan

On the website:

http://www.freewebs.com/wwwsoundnessofmindcom/charlestazerussell.htm

The following is stated concerning Charles Taze Russell

Truth: “A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God. . . . Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts” (WT 7/1879, pp. 8-9).

This quotation is from Russell, and it does state a truth. However, taking the quote out of context is evidently designed to lead one to believe that Russell was in some way in agreement with, in service of, the devil. Let us look at the quote in context:

This question is one which every sincere Christian should ask and seek to answer. We should learn to love and value truth for its own sake; to respect and honor it by owning and acknowledging it wherever we find it and by whomsoever presented. A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God.

Perhaps no class of people are more apt to overlook this fact than the Christian. How often do they in controversy overlook and ignore truth presented by their opponents. This is particularly the case when arguing with an infidel. They feel at perfect liberty to dispute everything he says on religious subjects. This is not the correct principle. Many infidels are honest–as anxious to speak and believe the truth as are Christians–and if in converse with them we ignore truths which they may advance, we not only fail to convince them of our truths, but put an end to all hope of reaching them; for our failure to admit the evident truth which they advance begets in them contempt for the one who is not honest enough to admit one truth because he does not see how it can be reconciled to another. Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter what it contradicts, and rely for ability to afterwards harmonize it with others upon “The Spirit of truth, which shall guide you into all truth,” as Jesus promised.

Thus, it becomes obvious as to what Russell was saying. He is likening the infidels who are being used by Satan as though they were Satan; Jesus did something similar when he called the apostle Peter “Satan”. (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33) Peter, of course, was not literally Satan, but he was imitating Satan is speaking an untruth. Likewise, the infidels who reject the creative account of the Bible may present a lot of truths in what they say, although they may misrepresent those truths to promote what is not true.

Likewise, if Satan, or his demons speak a truth, it is still true regardless of their purposes for stating the truth. The implication of putting this quote on the site appears to be to imply that the opposite is actually the truth, thus, that absolutely everything Satan says is a lie, and that thus, Satan cannot speak one sentence without everything in that sentence being a lie. Such an idea, if extended to the demons over whom Satan is prince, then the demons lied when they called Jesus: “the son of God,” and “Son of the Most High.” (Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11; Luke 1:32; 4:41; 8:48) Thus, if they cannot tell the truth at all, then we should believe that it is a lie to say that Jesus is the “Son of God,” or that Jesus is the “Son of the Most High.”

In Job 1:7, we read:

Yahweh said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Then Satan answered Yahweh, and said, “From going back and forth in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” — World English Bible translation.

Did Satan lie when he stated the above? Did he lie to Yahweh by saying that he had been going back and forth in the earth, etc.? I have no reason to think that he did so.

But didn’t Jesus say concerning Satan that “there is no truth in him?” — John 8:44, Word English.

Actually, the translators have worded Jesus’ words to have him say this. The more direct translation would be, in reference to “the truth” that Jesus had just spoken of: “the truth is not in him.” (John 8:44) I don’t think Jesus intended to say that Satan can never tell a truth, anymore than he meant that those Jewish leaders to whom he spoke could never tell a truth. However, most often when Satan tells us a truth, it is framed in a setting of a lie, as in Genesis 3:5. By such methods he misrepresents the truth that he states with a lie.

Another motive for quoting Russell as quoted on the site may have been to leave the impression that Russell believed that what Satan says is “the truth,” which is again far from Russell’s intent in his statement. Russell’s works attest of his view concerning Satan, that he was a liar, and the father of the lie, as Jesus said.
http://tinyurl.com/5w63pp

For more concerning Charles Taze Russell, see:
http://ctr.reslight.net

---

Occultism

The claim is made that Russell “introduced occultism into his religion by teaching that the pyramids in Egypt are divine omens.”

Among other false assertions, this false statement appears on Paul Blizard’s site:

http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/russell.html

The statements appearing on this site have been quoted over and over across many forums on the web, and although many have pointed out the falsity of the statements, the site owner continues to display such statements of deception, thus promoting such false claims. However, almost every sentence on the page states an untruth, putting the matter politely.

The statement quoted above contains at least two errors, and several sides:

(1) Russell did not introduce “occultism” into his religion, as the word “occultism” is used today.

(2) Russell did not teach that “the pyramids in Egypt are divine omens.”

Russell’s study of the Great Pyramid (not “pyramids” — plural) in Egypt had nothing to do with demonic occultism, nor with pagan heathen worship. The word “occultism” is defined as “a belief in supernatural powers and the possibility of bringing them under human control.” The implication of the the word in most Christian circles is that demonic spirits are used, a form of witchcraft (crafty wisdom). Russell never believed in, nor taught such an idea. Indeed, he was very active in warning against forms of witchcraft, occultism, spiritism (talking with the dead), etc.

Russell never spoke of any pyramid in Egypt as being a “divine omen.”

It is claimed that Russell taught that “they [the pyramids of Egypt]” contained prophetic secrets known only to him.” Again, the false idea of “pyramids” — plural — is presented. Russell was interested in only one pyramid, not pyramids.

I have not been able to find where he ever made such a claim that the Great Pyramid contained prophetic secrets known only to him. Of course, in what he had found in his studies that added to, or was different from, what others had written before him, he could have claimed that what he had written did have information not found in the studies of authors before him. He never claimed sole proprietorship on the study of the Great Pyramid, however, as can be seen by his announcements and recommendations of the Edgars’ studies on the Great Pyramid (which did not fully agree with his own conclusions).

The phrase is used that Russell was “convinced of their mystic [the pyramids of Egypt] power.” First, Russell was not convinced of any mystic power of any pyramid in Egypt, and certainly not “pyramids” [plural]. He never wrote of any “mystic power” associated with the Great Pyramid, or any other pyramid. This is totally a false and misleading statement, designed to malign and misrepresent what Russell actually did teach.

1914

It is claimed on Blizard’s site that one of Russell’s “strangest” revelations from pyramids [plural] was concerning the year 1914. It is further claimed that the 1914 was “based on his measurements of the interior passageways of the pyramids [plural].” The author persists in in several false statement here. First, the years 1914 was not “based” on the interior passageways of the pyramids [plural], not even on the passageways of the Great Pyramid [singular]. Russell arrived at the date based on several prophetic statements of the Bible, not from the measurements of the Great Pyramid.

The site continues on by claiming that Russell had said that 1914 would be the end of the world. Russell never made such a statement. Search as one may, he never spoke of the “end of the world” as coming in 1914. Early in the year 1914, due to some making such a claim for him, he presented an article in “Bible Student Monthly”:

http://ctr.reslight.net/images/bsm1914.jpg

Note that Russell plainly states that he was not expecting the “end of the world” in 1914. The main things that he was expecting were the end of the Gentiles Times and the beginning of the time of trouble.

http://ctr.reslight.net/1914.html

Then we are told on Blizard’s site that “when his 1914 date for the end of the world failed, he tried to cover his tracks.” Of course, since Russell was not expecting the end of the world to come in 1914, he had nothing to cover.

As proof that Russell tried to cover up his tracks, the author of the page presents excerpts from two different editions of Thy Kingdom Come, one from 1897 and another 1916, are presented with either deliberate or ignorant misrepresentation of the facts. The end result is a deception, regardless of whether deliberate or not. The presentation of the two editions in the manner presented is with evident design to make it appear that since the end of the world did not come in 1914, that Russell, upon having realized an earlier error, changed the measurement of the floor of the descending passageway in 1916. The change was noted in the The Watch Tower of September 15, 1909. No cover-up concerning 1874 or 1914. Russell still kept both dates, and continued to believe until the day he died that Jesus had returned invisibly in 1874 and the Gentile Times did indeed end in 1914. And thus a deception is actually being presented, since this change in the book, Thy Kingdom Come, was made, not in 1916, as one is led to believe by the site, but as early as the 1905 edition of Thy Kingdom Come, nine years before, not sometime after 1914.

Then we are given reference to the “Chart of the Ages” with the explanation that this is Russell’s occultic chart that is still being used by Jehovah’s Witnesses today. Two more deceptions are being spread upon the public. The chart has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritualistic occultism, nor do the Jehovah’s Witnesses still use this chart today. The chart was Russell’s method of giving a eye’s view of the divine plan as presented in the scriptures as he understood it.

I will deal with some of the other lies, misrepresentation, false accusations and insinuations presented on the Blizard site later, God willing.

More on this can be found at:

http://reslight.net/russell-pyramid.html

Those who are imitating Satan in spreading lies about a servant of God should take heed to Jesus’ words to the Jewish leaders of his day:

John 8:44 – You are of your Father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Predicted End of the World in 1874?

Many are making all kinds of unsubstantiated claims about Charles Taze Russell. One of the claims that I keep seeing in forums, blogs and websites, is that Russell predicted the end of the world in 1874. Russell never “predicted” anything at all concerning 1874. Until 1876, he did not believe anything at all concerning the year 1874. in 1876, two years after 1874, Russell did come across N. H. Barbour’s presentation that Jesus had already returned invisibly in 1874. Having already concluded that Jesus would not return in a physical body, Russell was interested in what this said. As a result of studying with N. H. Barbour, Russell became convinced that Jesus had already returned in 1874. However, before 1876 he was held not interest in 1874, and certainly never predicted the end of the world in 1874 sometime before he ever accepted 1874 (in 1876, two years after 1874) as being the year of Christ’s return. In other words, how could he “predict” something to happen after it was supposedly to have been predicted to happen?

In reality, Russell did not even believe in the “end of the world”, as that term was usually used to mean the “end of human history,” or the end of the planet earth. He denied that there would ever be an end to “human history,” or to the planet earth.

He believed that the expression “end of the world” as it appears in the King James Version should have been rendered “end of the age”. He believed that the end of the age referred to a period of time, not to a single event. He viewed the “end of the age” as a transitional period of time “between the ages”. He believed that the “end of the age” had begun in 1874. Earlier in his ministry he did believe that the transition would be over in 1914, but in 1904 — ten years 1914 — he had come to see that the scriptures do not say exactly when the transition was to end.

Related:

http://ctr.reslight.net/1914.html
http://ctr.reslight.net/sup1879.html
http://studies.reslight.net/age.html