Posts by stev

11

CT Russell - No Need to study Bible languages to know the Bible

by VM44 in

charles russell wrote in the sep 15, 1914 issue of the watchtower (pages 286-7):

as respects my education in greek and hebrew: not only do i not claim very special knowledge of either language, but i claim that not one minister in a thousand is either a hebrew or a greek scholar.

to be able to spell out a few greek words is of no earthly value.

stev

Certainly the subject of this thread - no need to study Bible languages to know the Bible - is correct. Anyone can know the Bible by reading a translation. That's true.

It is to Russell's credit that he admitted that he did not know much Hebrew and Greek. BTW, I don't believe he committed perjury in that Rev. Ross trial. I think James Penton somewhere on the internet has answered this well. It is to his credit that he took advantage of lexicons, and concordances, and Bible translations. It seems that he acted responsibly in making up for his lack of knowledge of the original languages. It is true what he said that most ministers were not Hebrew and Greek scholars. Very few would have the knowledge and time to write commentaries, or teach the subjects, or write professional books. Yet they had enough training to use the helps and read the original languages in preparing their sermons. Russell is be commended for doing this to the best of his ability.

However, in my opinion, his lack of knowledge and training was a liability for him, that no matter how much he tried to overcome, was still a handicap for someone who was looked up to as a great Biblical interpreter, even "that servant" and a special messenger of God. There were great preachers that also lacked the training, but they did not preach unusual doctrines. He had only an 8th grade education, and lacked a college education and a seminary education. Perhaps if he had better training, he would have avoided some of the mistakes that he made, such in chronology, with the 607 B.C. date, and date-setting. He might have been exercised better critical thinking and judgment and avoided following the teachings of others, like Barbour and Pyramidists. It is my impression that when he tries to interpret alone from the Hebrew or Greek, he was prone to make mistakes. He drew many ideas from others who were more fluent than him, and was better off then, but went astray when tried to go it alone. This is my opinion, and others might differ.

BTW, he considered "parousia" to mean "presence". He wasn't alone in this. Carl Olaf Jonsson explains somewhere in his books that others, like Rotherham, translated it this way. But they were influenced by the doctrine that Christ would return invisibly and be present to rapture the saints.

Steve

24

Love & Affection Shown Between Charles Taze Russell and Judge JF Rutherford

by West70 in

i am posting this for the consideration of those who "assume" and "rumor" that charles taze russell and j.f.

rutherford were no longer friends in 1916. .

this article by judge j. f. rutherford was published in the december 1, 1916 issue of the watch towe magazine.

stev

This can be interpreted at another level as indicating Russell's relationship with his followers. Rutherford's outpouring of love and affection was not unique, but one expression of many that occurred at Russell's funeral. Russell seemed to have possessed a charismatic personality, piercing eyes, an attractive saintly appearance, was warm and approachable and affectionate, and visionary and inspiring in his oratory. His funeral and the book "The Laodicean Messenger", and the laud and praise he received after his death suggest that there was a "personality cult" dynamics at work here. He was the wise and loving father (guru?) and his followers were his adoring children. He was skilled at drawing people to him, persuading them to willingly do his bidding, and make them appreciate doing it at the same time. I don't understand why he could not convince his own wife, but he told her there were many women that would do his bidding, although she would not.

This charisma is not necessarily evil, and many great leaders have possessed it. I suspect that Russell was at times motivated by geniune love and concern, and other times was manipulative.

Steve

24

Love & Affection Shown Between Charles Taze Russell and Judge JF Rutherford

by West70 in

i am posting this for the consideration of those who "assume" and "rumor" that charles taze russell and j.f.

rutherford were no longer friends in 1916. .

this article by judge j. f. rutherford was published in the december 1, 1916 issue of the watch towe magazine.

stev

This quote is very unusual, and it can be interpreted at different levels.

It can be interpreted in the light of the mixture of religious mysticism and sexuality that can be found in the expressions of Catholic saints of mysticism who practiced celibacy and channeled their sexual energy into their mysticism, or German Pietism, or the interpretations of the Song of Solomon.

Or it can be interpreted favorably that Russell was a physically affectionate man, who was not afraid to show affection toward other men. I know that in France and Poland it is common for men to kiss each other as a greeting.

Or it can interpreted in light of the Rose Ball story and Russell's celibate marriage and his seeming lack of affection toward his wife. This raises more questions to this complicated set of events.

This story is related by Rutherford, and the expressions of love and affection seem quite uncharacteristic of him. Did he ever again express such love toward anyone? If one views him as a liar and plotter, than his words would seem to be calculated toward establishing a personal bond with Russell to stake a claim to succeed him. The geniuneness of his story could be called into question. After all, Russell was died, and Rutherford could say anything.

Or perhaps, Rutherford himself idolized and adored Russell, defended him in court, and wrote a booklet in his defense. He identified with the man of power, the object of love and hero worship, he perhaps identified with him so much that he wanted to follow him and take his role and succeed him.

Steve

27

Was Charles Taze Russell A Drug User, Drug Abuser, or Even An Addict?

by West70 in

in his lengthy address at russell's funeral, menta sturgeon disclosed the following: .

"you know that our dear brother was so considerate of the feelings of others that he never drew much on the sympathy of the friends --so considerate was he, that but few knew that he had been a physical sufferer for thirty years.".

only a few months after sturgeon made the above disclosure at russell's funeral, this "different version" was published on page 57 of the finished mystery book: .

stev

The quote below comes from the book "The Laodicean Messenger", a tribute to Russell. It confirms that he indeed did suffer from physical complications for more than 40 years, yet he claimed to have only spent one day in bed due to sickness. However by 1913, he collapsed, his heart stopped for several seconds, and had to be revived. The doctors were astonished at his "worn out" physical condition. Although it would probably not be expected here, it should be noted that there is no mention of any medications or drugs.

Steve

==================================================================

Enduring Monument

CHAPTER XXVI-PASTOR RUSSELL IS DEAD!

EARTHLY TABERNACLE WORN OUT

LM243

In the summer of 1912 Brother Russell made the statement at the Bethel table that during the forty years just past he had been kept in bed but one day, as a result of sickness; then, after a moment’s pause, he corrected himself by saying it had been forty-five years; yet he had been a constant sufferer from physical complications for more than forty years, before he passed into glory. Futhermore, he said, that during all the years he had been traveling and preaching he had never missed a meeting through inability to serve, though frequently, he stated, it took all the strength he could command for him to get to the platform, but as he argued, it was his business to get upon the platform, if he could, then it was the Lord’s business to give him the strength to speak if he wished him to do so.

In the Fall of 1913 he had made his usual trip to Europe, and there for the first time, he missed, not one, bur many appointments, through, or as a result of, physical collapse, and several of his appointments were filled by others. While in London his collapse was complete for a time. To such an extent was this true that it was told me by his traveling companion of that time, as stated by the specialist in charge, that his heart did not beat for five seconds. He was revived by the use of mechanical contrivances, known to the medical profession. A consultation

LM244

was then held by two of the most noted specialists of London. They pronounced his case the strangest they had ever known, or of which there was any record, saying, "The man’s body was worn out but his mind was clear and vigorous." Brother Russell did not like to have his personal affairs discussed amongst the friends, especially those relating to his physical condition, and for this reason such matters were kept very quiet; hence, these things here related were never mentioned to any one until after Pastor Russell’s death. But the body that was pronounced in 1913, by noted specialists, as "worn out," was forced to serve that "clear and vigorous mind" for three years thereafter. Few indeed knew the inside history of the life of the modest man of God, who literally laid down his life for the brethren.

27

Was Charles Taze Russell A Drug User, Drug Abuser, or Even An Addict?

by West70 in

in his lengthy address at russell's funeral, menta sturgeon disclosed the following: .

"you know that our dear brother was so considerate of the feelings of others that he never drew much on the sympathy of the friends --so considerate was he, that but few knew that he had been a physical sufferer for thirty years.".

only a few months after sturgeon made the above disclosure at russell's funeral, this "different version" was published on page 57 of the finished mystery book: .

stev

The quote below comes from the Dec. 1, 1916 WT, and was spoken at the time of Russell's funeral. I find this testimony credible, and not supportive of the topic of this thread. First, it was spoken shortly after Russell's death, so is a contemporary account. It is spoken by a doctor that treated Russell. The doctor acknowledges that Russell had a peculiar ailment, which the doctor does not reveal, but must have known more about it if he treated it. He also acknowledges that Russell "suffered," was "very, very weak", "could hardly go on with his discourses for pain", and "was usually under stress and pain." Certainly this is told to invoke sympathy from the audience for Russell. However, it is also revealed that Russell failed for two years to take the medicine that the doctor prescribed. Russell's admission seems credible, because he is admitting that he failed to take the doctor's prescription, and subjecting himself to the criticism of the doctor for not taking care of his health. The doctor's admission of this failing is also credible, for some in the audience might also fault Russell for not taking the medicine. That Russell failed to take the medicine available to him for two years, and had a "grin and bear it" attitude seems credible, and would not support the allegation made on this thread.

Steve

::R6010 : page 372:: RENEWAL OF CONSECRATION DAILY BY DR. E.A. McCOSH--DETROIT I esteem it an honor to be here on this occasion. I wish to convey to you from the Detroit Church their greeting and their desire to let you know that they will be loyal to the memory of our dear Pastor. It was my privilege to know our dear Brother personally; and I wish to state one thing with regard to him that possibly not all know. For years he suffered with a peculiar ailment, which rendered him very, very weak at times; and he could hardly go on with his discourses for pain. We can better appreciate the wonderful character of our beloved Pastor when we know that he was usually under stress and pain. I prescribed for him at one time; but when two years after, I asked him if he had taken the medicine, he remarked, "Dear Brother, I have not had time."

39

Rumors about Russell

by Lady Lee in

i am getting rather tired of all the russell scandals.

however, if there is something to find out i'm all for it.

i have a connection to one of russell's followers.

stev

This quote is from Rutherford's funeral oration for Russell. In light of the Rose Ball story, I post it to indicate what Russell said about himself. I am not sure what the attacks were. He insisted on his innocence, and I find it to be a frank and yet embarrassing admission for a man to make. Although it was meant to answer questions and clear his name, for some it would raise other questions and reflect poorly on him. It is puzzling.

Truly it can be said that Pastor Russell's character was and is without blemish. He was the cleanest, purest and best man I ever knew. His enemies sought to make him of no reputation. By insinuation--the most cruel of weapons--they sought to destroy his power and influence, and hence his work. They utterly failed. I feel constrained, under the circumstances, to read to you a paper signed by Pastor Russell.

In the year 1911 he was starting on a trip around the world. At that time the fiery darts from the enemy were coming thick and fast. He wrote out this instrument, made oath to it, and placed it in my hands, saying, "You may

::R6015 : page 376::

make it as public as your judgment dictates." It reads:

"In view of my soon departure for a foreign shore, and in view of the increasing virulence and threats of my enemies, and under the assumption that they may await my absence to make a fresh attack, by advice of my counsel I make under oath the following sweeping statement; namely,

"THAT I never was guilty of immorality toward any person.

"FURTHERMORE, I never cohabited with any person at any time and,

"FURTHER, I have never desired so to do.

"WITNESS my hand and seal to this declaration this Twenty-Eighth day of Sept., 1911, at Brooklyn, N.Y.

(Signed) CHARLES T. RUSSELL.

"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of October, 1911. C.H. MERRITT,

"Commissioner of deeds for the City of New York."

[Seal.]

39

Rumors about Russell

by Lady Lee in

i am getting rather tired of all the russell scandals.

however, if there is something to find out i'm all for it.

i have a connection to one of russell's followers.

stev

Of all of these "rumors", the Rose Ball story is the only one that I suspect that there are more clues left to be discovered that will reveal what actually happened. Russell sued a Washington newspaper twice over the "jellyfish" story, which Maria claimed that Rose told her that he said, and Russell won the suit both times. I would be interested in reading what was said during the court case. And I understand Barbara Anderson is writing on the Russells, and I hope that she will have more details about this.

Maria's Rose Ball story, if true, could lead the charge of sexual harassment, minister sexual abuse, a mutual affair, or a flirtation. The implications of the story could be serious, and Maria would surely have known that, and might have surmised that this would be enough to destroy his ministry. I question her fairness then in telling the story in court and NOT making it a part of her suit. Maria about 1903, I believe, had publicly written her grievances against her, at that time, present husband, which was distributed publicly. A Bible Student on the internet had a zip file of this that I downloaded, and Maria failed to mention the Rose Ball story at that time, and I wonder how she could fail to mention this when she was willing to mention her other grievances. When she filed for suit in 1903 she did not begin her complaint in 1894 with the Rose Ball story, but in 1897. It appears that she mentioned it for the first time in court in 1906. Maria was morally outraged at her husband's wrongdoings toward her, was willing to air publicly her grievances against him as a husband to discredit his ministry. However, the most damaging piece of evidence against him and the most morally outrageous to her as a wife - his unfaithfulness to her - she neglected to mention until 12 years later in 1906, nor did she make it a part of her suit, and it was stricken from the records. To me this undermines the credibility of her story. However, Charles's story does not make sense either. I don't know who is telling the truth.

Yes, Charles admitted that Rose Ball kissed him, but he placed the event shortly after she arrived, which would have been around 1888 or 1889, when she was about 19. Then she kissed them both for several years. Maria's story occurred in 1894, when she would have been 24.

Steve

39

Rumors about Russell

by Lady Lee in

i am getting rather tired of all the russell scandals.

however, if there is something to find out i'm all for it.

i have a connection to one of russell's followers.

stev

On the pyramid in the cemetary: the quotes above do not say that Russell ordered the pyramid to be built, only that he thought a fitting symbol. Who instructed it to be built? Rutherford? There is no mention of a pyramid in Russell's funeral instructions.

On the murder story: even assuming that Russell had been poisoned before, that does not necessarily prove that he died by poisoning. How did the writer of that murder story possibly know he was murdered? He does not know who committed the crime, or there is no mention of what poison was used. There is a lack of specific details other than what can be found alfready in Menta Sturgeon's account.

On his being a drug addict: it first has to established that he took a drug that was addictive.

On his being a Mason: Russell himself said "...I have never been a Mason."

Steve

27

Was Charles Taze Russell A Drug User, Drug Abuser, or Even An Addict?

by West70 in

in his lengthy address at russell's funeral, menta sturgeon disclosed the following: .

"you know that our dear brother was so considerate of the feelings of others that he never drew much on the sympathy of the friends --so considerate was he, that but few knew that he had been a physical sufferer for thirty years.".

only a few months after sturgeon made the above disclosure at russell's funeral, this "different version" was published on page 57 of the finished mystery book: .

stev

West70 writes:

FACT: He diagnosed minor health problems and acted as drug dispenser for his ow family and other relatives. It is a reasonable assumption then, that Russell did the same for himself, which means that he self-medicated with painkillers his entire adult life.

Here is where you are making an assumption.

Steve

39

Rumors about Russell

by Lady Lee in

i am getting rather tired of all the russell scandals.

however, if there is something to find out i'm all for it.

i have a connection to one of russell's followers.

stev

If I am not mistaken, in libel and slander cases, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. I recently saw the movie "Good night, and Good Luck" It was about Edward R. Murrow. He did a TV program back in the 1950's about Senator Joe McCarthy, who was accusing people of being Communists based on innuendo and guilt by association. Murrow exposed McCarthy's tactics. Murrow wished that all be given a fair trial. Against McCarthy, he said "accusation is not proof."

In the book
"The Art of Reasoning" by David Kelley, pages 120-123, the fallacy of the ad hominem argument is discussed:
"An ad hominem argument rejects or dismisses another person's statement by attacking the person rather than the statement itself...But the goal is always to escape the responsibility of dealing with a statement logically, and the method is always to try to discredit the speaker. The ad hominem argument has the form: (X says p) + (X is a bad person)/ ---> p is false. This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a statement, or the strength of an argument for it, has nothing to do with the character, motives, or any other trait of the person who makes the statement or argument....In its crudest form, the fallacy involves nothing more than insults - calling one's opponent an idiot, slob, lowlife, airhead, fascist, pinko, nerd, fairy, bleeding heart, wimp, Neanderthal, and so on through the rich vocabulary of abuse our language offers. "

Steve