English isn’t your first language, or you’re illiterate. Your spelling and grammar obscure your message. But, I think we can dissect your post. You present me with comparisons between Russell and Barbour. They are false comparisons, full of factual and logical flaws.
First you compare Russell and Barbour’s trial of faith. You fault Barbour and praise Russell, but on a false basis. Barbour lost his faith in Adventism, not the Bible. We know this because he says so. When in Australia, prospecting for Gold, he continued to preach what he saw as Christian doctrine. You suggest that turning prospector, taking up the medical profession and inventing things makes Barbour something less than Russell.
Russell lost his faith in Christianity, retaining only a deist’s belief that there must be a God. We know this because he says so. To an audience in India and in other places he repeats that story and says he became an infidel, meaning that he rejected the Bible and Christianity. During that time he turned his attention to business. Russell never stopped speculating in business. He had several stores; the most at one time was five. He owned a hat store, some clothing stores, a furniture and household goods store, and a music store. He invested in oil leases; dabbled in the stock market; loaned money on interest; ran a turpentine business and a brick company. He owned a used heavy equipment and scrap iron business. He sold printing equipment. He invested in a coal mine, a soda ash mine, (someone suggested it was a gold mine, but it wasn’t.) He invested in real estate and continued to do so up to 1908 at least.
If it was wrong for Barbour to engage in business, it was wrong for Russell to do so. But where does God say a Christian must not be in business? Of the two, loss of faith was most profound for Russell. He rejected Christianity. Barbour lost faith in Millerism, but continued to preach. So your comparison, meant to pump up Russell at Barbour’s expense, is a false one.
You discuss Russell’s adventures as a Congregationalist. You seem not to know that there is no doctrinal difference between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. The two churches differed only in governance. They shared preachers in ‘union congregations.’ The Plymouth Congregational Church, the church Russell joined, was a missionary church. It appealed to Russell because of its outreach. The two ministers who served during Russell’s affiliation were both Presbyterian.
Neither Penton nor Schulz and de Vienne claim Russell was an Adventist. Schulz and de Vienne explore the origins of his theology, using Russell’s own words to prove he wasn’t an Adventist. You’re erecting a straw-man argument. However, he was exposed to prophetic exposition. Plymouth Church’s first pastor, Henry Moore, preached and wrote on prophecy. His preaching was within the millennialist (Literalist) tradition common to British, Continental, and American theology. Moore’s work finds a place in Russell’s thought.
No-one claimed Russell was involved in the 1873-4 movement, though he was certainly interested in it. He met Jonas Wendell in 1869 (not 1870 as you say). Wendell preached in Lafayette Hall, in Pittsburgh that January 17th, and then moved to Quincy Hall in Allegheny, a few steps away from the Russell’s home. Wendell introduced him to the 1873 speculation and to other similar claims. Russell read William Carr Thruman’s books with interest. His interest abated only as each speculation failed. He wrote to Adventist and millenarian papers, leaving a trail for a historian to follow.
You claim that Russell and Barbour’s association ended because of Barbour’s Adventist doctrine. This is nonsense. It ended because Barbour preached Unitarian atonement theory. Russell and Barbour both identify it as Unitarianism, not Adventism. When Russell withdrew, he continued to hold to their shared chronology and doctrine with almost no change until his death.
By the time Russell met him, Barbour was no longer an Adventist. (Russell says this.) He had moved into Age-to-Come theology. This is British Literalism. He adopted Mark Allan’s doctrine and told a newspaper reporter that his congregation in Rochester was affiliated with Allan’s Church of the Blessed Hope.
Your entire argument rests on misstated ‘facts’ and misleading statements. You’re spelling, grammar and thought are confused. You want to elevate Russell at Barbour’s expense. You’ve chosen the wrong tack. Barbour was vain, self-entitled and a thief. The difference between them when they separated was personal behavior with a mix of doctrinal difference.
Giving history lessons is my profession. You’ve just had one. I should add that you criticize Penton and Schulz and de Vienne for selling books. Original research is expensive and time consuming. The Bible principal is “to the worker belong his wages.” I’ve written a few textbooks over the years some still in use. (I’m nearly 90) And I can tell you that return on work is often small. If you don’t want to pay for a book, don’t buy it. But it is not a sin to buy and sell, even intellectual work.