by Terry 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The question about Russell's impropriety with Rose Ball was always be up for debate since
the man wasn't getting any from his wife and it was noted that Russell spent some time
in the evenings in Rose's bedroom ???
Maybe Russell didn't get his leg over but that doesn't mean he wasn't thinking about it.
Maria brought this up in court during their divorce proceedings.
Dunno. Just.....dunno.
I( am not at homwe so I don't have the links but it was proven that ROSE Ball was not an orphan. She was not adopted and she was an adult when she came to Bethel. (Check posts by Farkel and Leolaia who did amazing research and added to Farkel's work)
My assuption about the reason for the marriage was that Russell and Maria were both working together and living at Bethel. It would have been a source of speculation that an unmarried couple would be living in the same house and not be having sex. So to stop the specualation they agreed to this sexless marriage.
But later on when Maria caught him in Rose Ball's room or giving her hugs I can see that she would be jealous. He could behave the way he wanted and had to sit back and watch it. Maria was no pushover. She had enough of his flitting raround like a butterfly to see where he would land and if the woman responded he might flirt around a bit (Not exact words but he said it in the divorce court)
It seems that in regards to woman-on-the-side Russell was no better than Rutherford
BluesBrother said, They never miss a trick in massaging their past mistakes. No they dont. Here is another one, a gem of a lie, from your quote on p622 of the Proclaimer's Book,
He [Russell] discerned that Christ would return as a glorious spirit person, invisible to human eyes.
Russell discerned no such thing. The discovery of the parousia, Christ's invisible presence, was made by a man identified as Bro. Keith, and this was acknowleged in an early Watch Tower, quoted below.
The Problem: Christ didn't return in 1874
(W Feb, 1881 p188 par3 of Reprints)
"Looking back to 1871, we see that many of our company were what are known as Second Adventists, and the light they held briefly stated, was that there would be a second advent of Jesus -- that he would come to bless and immortalize the saints, to judge the world and to burn up the world and all the wicked. This, they claimed would occur in 1873, because the 6,000 years from the creation of Adam were complete then.
"But prophecies were found which pointed positively to 1874 as the time when Jesus was due to be present, and the resurrection of Daniel was also due as proved by the ending of the jubilee cycles and the 1335 days of Dan. xii.
"Carefully they [Second Adventists] examined the chronology but it seemed faultless and positively declared that the 6,000 years ended in 1873... Was an error found? No…the “1335 days” of Daniel could not possibly be prolonged beyond the fall of ‘74 or the spring 1875 and these periods were both past."
The Solution: Parousia is discovered by Bro Keith (a Second Adventist???)
(Par 6 of same article continues)
"Just at this time Bro. Keith, (one of our contributors) was used of the Lord to throw another beam of light on the subject which brought order out of confusion and caused all of the former “light” to shine with tenfold brightness. Brother K. had been reading carefully Matthew xxiv chapter, using the “Emphatic Diaglott,”…37th and 39th verses… “For as the days of Noah thus will be the presence of the son of man….thus will be the presence of the Son of Man.”
"His surprise was, at finding that the Greek word parousia which signifies presence, had in our common version been improperly rendered coming, but the new rendering showed that it was not the act of coming that resembled the days of Noah, but that as in Noah‘s days…it would be at the time of Jesus’ presence at the second advent."
Bro Keith is described by the Watch Tower as "one of our contributors" in an article that showed a relationship between Russell's followers and the Second Adventists. I'm not sure if Keith himself was a Second Adventist or not, but he followed Nelson Barbour who was.
"One of Barbour’s readers, B. W. Keith , came up with a solution. Having obtained a new translation of the New Testament, Benjamin Wilson’s The Emphatic Diaglott, Keith noticed a marginal alternative translation of Parousia, the Greek word normally translated ‘coming,’ namely ‘presence.’ " (From http://home.broadpark.no/~jhauglan/rutherford.htm#_Toc493437572 )
If Keith was a Second Adventist then the concept of Christ's invisible presence is their discovery. If Keith was not a Second Adventist then the credit goes to Keith himself, but in no case did C.T. Russell 'discern it' as the Proclaimer's Book says.
(Does anyone know whether Keith was a Second Adventist for sure?)
You can download the awake from 51 but you won't find that qoute for some reason.
The idea put forward as Keith's was of a two-stage, partially invisible presence. This can be traced back to the 1600's and was an issue among aglican expositors in the 1700s who distinguished between a "real" and a "virtual" parousia. When Keith undertook the study, Shimeall, a presbyterian minister, had just published a book that advocated the idea. Keith points to Liddell and Scotts Lexicon, the Emphatic Diaglott and D. D. Wheadon's commentary. (Wheadon was a methodist). Most of what Keith suggested comes from the pages of Wheadon's commentary on Luke. (See Schulz and de Vienne: Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's forgotten prophet. This book is on Barns and Noble as an ebook, on lulu.com as paperback. Well worth the money.)
The problem here is that some are willing to make sweeping statements without having done the research. Our arguments become weak when they're based on imagination. The strongest arguments are based on provable fact. An oft repeated mistake is still a mistake. Senic's statement is an example. Russell did discern an invisible return. The problem isn't with what the proclaimer's book said, but with what it did not say. He discerned it because he got it from others. In this case, he believed it before meeting Barbour and Keith. He tells us in To Readers of the Herald of the Morning, that he got it from Seiss's Last Times.
Russell didn't believe in a totally invisible presence until about 1880. The shift in doctrine was quietly argued among Watch Tower writers; the discussion being prompted by an article by Lizzie A. Allen.
It puzzles me that some are willing to make strong assertions without proof or in disregard to the actual meaning of words. If you want to make a strong argument, you should be accurate. If you just want to rant, then, I suppose, it does not matter.
Fascinating photos!
Keith wasn't a Second Adventist. He was a resident of Dannsville, New York, who heard Barbour in 1867 and was persuaded. The Keith's were Presbyterians first, then Methodists. Several writers have suggested that Keith was active in the Millerite movement. This is improbable, unless he was a very precocious three year old.
Adventists do in fact beleive in a burning hell. The burning hell ends some time in the future and fits in with idea of annilation when the wicked are completely destroyed. Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
