Russell’s Alleged Connection With Freemasonry

Posted on November 23, 2010. Filed under: Is it true what they say? | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Another video, aimed at Jehovah’s Witnesses, but mostly attacking Charles Taze Russell, has been put on Youtube entitled: Jehovah Witnesses- Freemasonry Jesuit Connection Exposed Edited and Compiled by David J. Stewart. At least one other site has embedded the video.

As I have pointed out many times, Charles Taze Russell was never associated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization. That organization was created by Rutherford after Russell died. The Jehovah’s Witnesses preach an message that is almost the opposite of that which Russell preached.

See:
Was Russell the Founder of What is Now Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Russell — Founder of the JWs?

Russell Was Not the Founder of the JWs

Is Russell Responsible for the JWs?

In the video, we are first asked to notice “the Masonic Cross” that appeared on the Watch Tower in the days of Russell. I notice that there is a cross, crown and wreath symbol; I do not notice any “Masonic” cross on the old Watch Tower; the idea of “the Masonic Cross” has to be imagined and assumed.

See:
Masonic Symbols?

It is bluntly stated that “Russell was a 33rd Degree Freemason.” Having studied Russell’s writings for almost 50 years, I can say without a doubt at all that Russell was not a member of the Freemasons’ organization.

See:

The Watchtower and the Masons

I am a Free and Accepted Mason

Search Links of Russell’s Works Regarding Freemasonry

Russell’s Comments on the Freemasons

Reply to: “Charles Taze Russell Founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses was a Mason”

Charles Taze Russell – Freemasons (Links)

Next a picture of a Masonic Center is displayed with the words “Russell and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the Greatest Masonic Center Cemetery”. In reality there is no such cemetery as “The Greatest Masonic Center Cemetery.” The technique being used is highly deceptive and leaves one with the thought that that Russell is buried in a cemetery by the name of “The Greatest Masonic Center Cemetery.”

Russell is not buried in a “masonic cemetery” at all. The United Rosemont Cemetery that exists across the street from the Masonic Center that is displayed in the picture is not a Masonic cemetery, although there a masons buried in that cemetery. Indeed, the Masonic Center in the picture did not exist in when Russell was buried in the Rosemont Cemetery. That Masonic building was constructed decades after Russell had died.

Next we are shown a picture of Rutherford’s pyramid monument and are asked to “notice the Illuminati pyramid.” Actually, all that is shown is Rutherford’s pyramid monument; I do not notice any Illuminati pyramid. The idea of “Illuminati pyramid” has to be imagined and assumed. Russell is NOT buried in or under that pyramid, however.

See:

Russell’s Pyramid Tomb?

CTR’s Gravestone

Pyramidology Vs. Spiritism

In the video, we are given a picture of the inscription of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society on the side of Rutherford’s pyramid monument, and are told that “this is irrefutable proof that Jehovah Witnesses are inseparably linked to Satanic Freemasonry.” And yet, not one proof has been give of this alleged “irrefutable” proof. All that has been presented is what has been imagined and assumed.

We are next presented a picture and told to note the Freemasonry cross, the Knights Templar symbol. I see that the Knights Templar have a symbol that is similar, although not exactly the same, as that used by Russell; that symbol itself, however, is not “the Freemasonry cross” (there really is no such thing), but it is used the Knights Templar who claim to be Christians who are also Freemasons. The idea that this symbolism IS, of itself, exclusively a Freemasons’ or even Knights Templar symbol, is being imagined and assumed.

We are next asked to note the “Masonic Cross” in a Freemasons Hall. Evidently this hall is used by the Knights Templar. We can see a crown and crown symbol, but it is evidently being imagined and assumed that this symbol is of and exclusive to the Freemasons, which assumption, to be consistent, would lead one to believe all the Christians (practically all of the Christian denominations) down through the centuries who have used similar symbolism must be also be Masons.

Focus on Charles Taze Russell » Cross and Crown

We are next presented the ridiculous idea that of an illuminati bloodline, and the claim that Russell of this bloodline. The assumption seems to be that anyone who of this alleged bloodline cannot possibly be removed from whatever curse or evil is being attributed to the alleged bloodline, and that since Russell, unlike most people, was born of that bloodline, he was already condemned to be Satanic and there was no way to escape such a destiny. This, of course, is antichrist, as opposed to the redemption that is spoken of in the Bible. There is what one could call a scriptural “illuminati” bloodline, but that bloodline began in the Garden of Eden, when man, represented in Adam and Eve, began “professing themselves to be wise” (Romans 1:22), which led to them becoming by nature of their disobedience, sons of wrath. (Ephesians 1:2,3) Thus the whole human race from Adam became of this scriptural illuminati bloodline through the sin of Adam, but not without remedy, since Christ took the condemnation upon himself, so that one, in becoming a new creation, can escape from the condemned bloodline. — Roman 5:12-19; 8:19-21; 2 Corinthians 5:17; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Ephesians 2:1-10.

The Illuminati bloodline implication as presented in the video and by Fritz Springmeier would thus seem to deny that the blood of Christ could purchase those under this alleged bloodline, and would thus be antichrist, denying the main purpose for which Christ came in the flesh. — John 3:16,17; 6:51; 12:46,47; 1 John 2:2; 2 John 1:7.

See:
Focus on the Atonement

In the video, we are presented with the statement that Charles Taze Russell was a Satanist. In reality, it is imagined and assumed that Russell was a Satanist, and what has been imagined and assumed is presented as though fact. Anyone genuinely familiar with Russell’s writings KNOWS that he was not a Satanist.

We are also told that Russell was “a pedophile according to his wife.” Mrs. Russell did present some claims that Russell’s behavior was inappropriate as related to several women, but her statements do not include any accusation of his being a pedophile, and she actually denied that she was accusing her husband of adultery.

We are told that Russell was a friend of the Rothschilds. Russell sent at least one letter to one of the Rothschilds; I have never seen any proof, however, that he had any close friendship with the Rothschilds. The Rothchilds most certainly did not fund the Watch Tower Society in its beginning. Such an idea comes from what some imagine, not from actual facts.

See:

Rothschild – Searches of Russell’s Writings

We are told that Russell promoted Zionism. This seems to imply that there would be something wrong in promoting Zionism. The statement also leaves me with a feeling of antisemitism. It seem to imply that anyone who would promote Israel’s return to Palestine must be Satanic. Russell did recognize that the Zionist movement is part of fulfillment of Bible prophecy, and he believed that Christians should, as the Bible states, speak consolingly to Israel along this line, if that is what is meant by promoting Zionism. However, if Russell was a Satanist for doing this, then the Bible itself is Satanism. (Indeed, Springmeier seems to think the Bible, at least as we have it, is a product of the Freemasons, although I am not sure that he directly ever stated such.)

To search Russell’s works for the word “Zionism”, CLICK HERE! Please note that many of the results are not Russell’s words, but statements made by others.

The video quotes from Fritz Springmeier’s book, “The Watchtower and the Masons.” Springmeier notes that Russell spoke unfavorably of the Freemasons organization, but passes it off as being a “smokescreen.” In effect, this would mean that Russell spent most of his life sabotaging what he was supposedly promoting by sabotaging what he was allegedly promoting, which is totally ridiculous. We have tens of thousands of pages of Russell’s works that present overwhelming evidence that Russell was not a Freemason. Almost all, if not all, of Russell’s known works are online at:
http://mostholyfaith.com/

As I stated before, anyone truly familiar with Russell’s writings KNOWS that Russell was not a member of the Freemasons. Knowing his writings, I can say that he was definitely not a member of the Freemasons’ organization.

The video next drifts away from Russell and starts presenting the ideas concerning the New World Translation, partly true, most of which is distorted. I will not address much of what is stated, except to say that I do not believe that Westcott and Hort were “Satanists” as that term is often used. Of course, all of us, if we obey Satan rather than God, and all of us have done this many times in our lives, it could be said that by such an act we are Satanists, although that is not the way the word “Satanists” is usually used in common language. In other words, if you have ever told a lie, scripturally, in that act itself, you would be Satanist, following the father of the lie. (Matthew 6:24; John 8:44) The only escape from this is the new creation that is created by means Christ.

See:
Westcott and Hort – Were They Spiritualists?

We are still living in what the Bible calls the “present evil age.” (Galatians 1:4) Satan is still deceiving the entire world. (2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 12:9) Even many of Christ’s own servants are being deceived to some degree. (Luke 12:48) It is indeed true that people often “”love evil more than good, Lying rather than speaking the truth.” — Psalm 52:3.

Many people are fascinated by the imaginative and assumptive, and seem to like to approve of such, and broadcast such, far and wide, and advocates of such deceptions are many, whereas only a few endeavor to seek out the truth beyond the assertions based on assumptions, and there are even fewer who publicly broadcast the truth as opposed to the wide broadcast of the distortion of truth. It is sad to see, however, Christians who claim to believe in the Bible rebroadcasting such statements that would, in effect, deny the redemptive blood of Christ.
For more information about Russell, see:

Focus on Charles Taze Russell

=========

I am presenting some sites below that are spreading the idea that Russell was a member of the freemasons, was a some kind of Satanic bloodline, etc. PLEASE NOTE! Most of these sites are filled with distortions and misrepresentations of Russell.

http://atrueott.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/agenda-the-sordid-russell-bloodline-central-to-mormonism-scientology-and-jehovahs-witness/

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 13 so far )

Russell a Deceiver and Antichrist?

Posted on April 13, 2010. Filed under: Is it true what they say? | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

This is in response to a post that appears at:

http://euro22.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/charles-t-russell-a-deceiver-and-antichrist/

The author claims that Russell was a deceiver and antichrist, and yet in reality the real deceiver is the one who is responsible for the misleading statements made on the blog page concerning Russell.

Charles Taze Russell did not believe in an organization such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor in the teachings of that organization; Russell was not the founder of that which he did not believe in and which he preached against.
Focus on Charles Taze Russell, Category: Church Organization

From 1904 to 1914, Russell was not expecting the Gentile kingdoms to suddenly disappear in 1914, but rather that the time of trouble was to begin in 1914. What Russell wrote for the Bible Examiner basically reflected the views of N. H. Barbour regarding 1914, which views Russell later rejected.
See”
1904 and Russell’s Changes to the Studies in the Scriptures

The statements are deceptive concerning Russell and the year 1874 since it would leave the reader with the assumption that before 1874 Russell was expecting that Christ would return in the flesh in 1874, but when he didn’t happen, that he came up with the idea that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874. Actually, it was not until 1876, two years after 1874, that Russell became interested in 1874, and that due to the fact that he had already come to the conclusion that Jesus would not return in the flesh that had been sacrificed. However, long before 1876, and even before 1874, Russell had evidently already concluded that Jesus’ return would not be in his physical body, since Jesus had sacrificed his body for our sins.

See:
Supplement to the First Issue of the Watch Tower

The statement concerning 1915 and 1918 is also deceptive, since Russell never changed the date 1914 itself to either 1915 or 1918; Russell died believing that the Gentile Times had ended in 1914, and the time of trouble had begun in 1914. He did not change the date 1914 to 1915 nor to 1918. 1915 (along with the date 1920) was suggested as possible dates for the end of the time of trouble, but these dates were suggested almost ten years before 1914, and thus had nothing to do with changing the date 1914 to 1915. There had been many dates suggested by various Bible Students long before 1914 regarding when the time of trouble could end; as far as I know, all were based on parallels. These suggestions were not replacing 1914 but rather were offered as suggestions as to how long the “time of trouble” might last after 1914. Russell, long before 1914, sometimes presented the arguments for a date, or made reference to those dates. One of these dates was 1918. Just before he died, Russell suggested 1918 as a possible date for the end of the harvest; however, in the same article he stated that there is no time limit set for the garnering, thus Russell was still not setting a date for the passing away of the present heavens and earth.
See:
Focus on Charles Taze Russell: Archive for the “1915” Category

Matthew 24:35,36 speaks of the hour when the present heavens and earth are to pass away; this is not speaking of the beginning of the parousia (1874), nor to the ending of the Gentiles and the beginning of the time of trouble. (1914) Indeed, from Russell’s standpoint, neither would any date suggested for the end of the harvest necessarily mean that the heavens and earth would pass away on that date.

The matter concerning 2 John 7 is deceptive, for it assumes that John was speaking of Christ’s return as being in the flesh and overlooks the context. John’s reference to Jesus’ coming in the flesh (2 John 7) is related to the purpose of his coming in the flesh, to give that flesh for the life of the world. (Luke 22:19; John 1:29; 4:42; 6:51; 12:47; 1 Corinthians 11:24; Hebrew 10:5,10) To deny that Jesus came as a man, in the flesh, having the sinless glory a little lower than the angels (1 Corinthians 15:40; Hebrews 2:9), would be to deny the atoning sacrifice of Jesus church and for the world. (1 John 2:2; 4:9,10)  To claim that Jesus will return in the flesh, would, in effect, deny the purpose for of Jesus’ coming in the flesh, since it would either be the same as saying that Jesus did not complete the offering of his flesh, or that he took back that offering, thus nullifying the offering for sin. Russell, by the way, came to realize this before he accepted (in 1876) that Christ has returned in 1874.
http://atonement.reslight.net

The idea that he “cannot be a prophet of God” is deceptive, since Russell never made any such claim, nor could be said that he “prophesied falsely”, since he never “prophesied” anything at all. Rather, Russell disclaimed being a prophet:
http://ctr.reslight.net/2009/01/25/direct-revelation.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...