A writer on a blogsite states:
In 1913, Russell sued Baptist minister J.J. Ross in the Ontario High Court for libel for a tract Ross wrote about Russell the previous year.
 |
| Colorized by pallette.fm |
Of course, what Ross evidently was speaking of was the fact that Russell had never been appointed as "pastor" by what Ross considered to be acceptable sources for such an appointment. His idea evidently was that Russell has to be ordained by some authority that conformed to the creeds and doctrines of men and their philosophies, that is, by a Baptist or Methodist college, or similar school or sectarian organization, whom Ross evidently considered to have exclusive authority to appoint anyone to minister the Word of God. And yet, how many denominations are there that can give scriptural authority for its own ordinations and the scriptural right to forbid it to others, or to question the scripturalness of other denominations or religious groups' ordination than its own? Some have tried, but all such, in the end, leads to sectarian assumptions being read into whatever scriptures are presented.
Our own observations regarding the word "pastor" as used in the Bible: This word is not used in the Bible as designating a separate "office", such as elder, deacon, etc. The word "pastor" simply means "shepherd".
Jehovah is the Most High Shepherd (Pastor), who is the source of all power and authority (1 Corinthians 8:6); Jesus is the “genuine” (Greek, transliterated, Kalos, Strong’s #2570, genuine as opposed to the false shepherds) shepherd (pastor) appointed over the sheep by the Most High Shepherd (Pastor). The Most High Shepherd (Pastor) Jehovah judges His sheep through, by means of the genuine shepherd whom he has appointed. — Psalm 23:1; 96:13; 98:9; Ezekiel 34:2-24; John 5:22,23; 10:11-17,29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Romans 2:16; 14:10; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10.
Nevertheless, the Bible states: "He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets (public speakers); and some, evangelists (preachers of the good news); and some, shepherds (pastors) and teachers." (Ephesians 4:11, World English) "He" is evidently referring to the appointed Pastor Jesus, who had ascended to be at God's right hand (John 15:26; Acts 1:8; 2:32,33; 5:31; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; 4:10; Philippians 2:9; Hebrews 10:12), and whom God used to pour out His spirit on the church. Those whom Jesus appoints as pastors, however, are "servants", not rulers, governors or lords over the flock. -- Matthew 20:25,26.
Getting back to Russell, none of us are perfect, and Brother Russell never claimed to be perfect, or infallible. Indeed, he openly claimed that the conclusions he presented were NOT infallible, and that he could make mistakes.
During the court hearing, Brother Russell was interrogated for hours without let up. Certainly, most people often become very confused after such prolonged interrogation; one is almost bound to make some mistakes based on a misunderstanding of what he was being asked under such interrogation. At most, this appears to be what happened with Brother Russell, but he was never allowed to explain himself in court, but he did explain himself outside of court.
Russell's Education
The writer continues:
Ross accused Russell of being undereducated in areas of religious concern, such as theology, classical languages and philosophy.
The above quote represents a rewording of what Ross actually said.
Nevertheless, Russell had been educated through private tutors and had also been instructed by various ministers who had come before him. Further, through his own self-study, he educated himself regarding many subjects. The fact that he did not receive his education at the hands of humanly-recognized sectarian theological schools does not mean that he did not understand what he was writing about. Brother Russell also had the aid of Paul S. L. Johnson, who was thoroughly trained in Biblical Greek and Hebrew. That Russell did -- in his writings -- correctly present the usage of Hebrew and Greek words was confirmed, with a few minor exceptions, by Brother Johnson. Johnson graduated from Capital University in Columbus, OH on May 25, 1898. He won the valedictory and also the highest honors ever given in the history of that university. He also graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Ohio Synod of the Lutheran Church. He was thoroughly educated in both Hebrew and Greek; this gave him the skills necessary to understand the Bible from the original languages. He had been taught in the seminary the doctrine of eternal torture of those not saved; through his studies of the Bible itself, he came to understand that a God of perfect, wisdom, justice, power and love, would not, could not, punish his enemies with such a punishment as eternal roasting. He also came to see the true Biblical viewpoint of God and His Son, as opposed to trinitarianism or modalism. With few exceptions, he confirmed the conclusions that Russell had reached. (See his books "God," "Creation," "The Bible," "Christ--Spirit--Covenants," etc., in which he verifies most of Russell's conclusions and elaborates upon the Hebrew and Greek usage involved.)
Alleged Perjury
Ross is often quoted as a source of evidence that Russell had perjured himself in court. Please note that Russell was never charged with perjury by any court official, but the charge comes from Ross himself, who had already shown his dislike of Russell. Ross actually presented a false version of the hearing record so as to make it appear that Russell stated that he knew Greek. Here is what Ross wrote concerning Russell's testimony in the Hamilton County Courtroom on March 13, 1913, and which many love to quote in order to discredit Russell:
"Do you know the Greek?" asked the Attorney.
"Oh, yes," was Russell's reply.
Here he was handed a copy of the New Testament in Greek, by Westcott & Hort, and asked to read the letters as they appear on the top of page 447. He did not know the Greek alphabet. "Now,"
Mr. Staunton asked [sic], "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"
"No," said Mr. Russell without a blush.
However, what does an examination of the relevant portions of the official transcript of record actually show? We find that Ross, who accused Russell of "devising falsely" and of being "a fabricator," was himself guilty of serious dishonesty.
Before the part of the interrogation that Ross relates, we find that Russell had already stated that he had not been trained in Greek or Latin. Here is the record of the questions of Ross's lawyer, George Lynch-Staunton, and Russell's replies:
Question: "You don't profess, then, to be schooled in the Latin language?"
Answer: "No, Sir."
Question: "Or in Greek?"
Answer: "No, Sir."
It was after that Lynch-Staunton asked Russell if he knew the Greek alphabet; he did not ask, as Ross claimed: "Do you know Greek?". Here is the testimony of that record from the court transcript:
Question: "Do you know the Greek alphabet?"
Answer: "Oh, Yes."
Question: "Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?"
Answer: "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."
Question: "Would you tell me the names of the letters of those on the top of the page, page 447 I have got here [from Westcott and Hort]?"
Answer: "Well, I don't know that I would be able to."
Question: "You can't tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know."
Answer: "My way ..." [At this point he was interrupted by the court and not allowed to explain.]
It was after this that Russell was asked:
"Are you familiar with the Greek language?"
Answer: "No!"
Please note that Russell was asked several different questions, the first one being if he had been schooled in either the Greek or Latin languages, to which he truthfully stated that he had not been. He was then asked, not if he knew Greek as Ross claims, but if he knew the Greek alphabet. This question, without a given qualification, could be interpreted in different ways. One might be able to repeat the Greek alphabet without being able to recognize the alphabet in print. In Russell's mind, however, he seemed to interpret this question as to mean: Do you know the Greek alphabet so as to make use of the Greek alphabet? In the next question, he was asked if he could tell the Greek letters if he saw them, and Russell truthfully answered, "Some of them," and truthfully admitted that he might make a mistake on some of them. Most people could know some of them by name. Many without a high school education, for instance, might recognize the letter alpha as well as beta. However, then another question was asked, and some specific letters were pointed to in a Greek text. What those letters were is not revealed, but evidently, they were letters deliberately selected that were not so commonly known. The whole approach, however, is a lawyer's method of trying to paint a picture in the worst light possible. Nevertheless, it should be evident that Russell never claimed to know Greek, as Ross makes it appear to be.
Regarding Russell's answer concerning if he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell wanted to explain what he meant by his answer, but was not permitted to do so, as the court record shows. He later explained that what he meant was that he had simply developed a schoolboy's ability to recognize Greek words in Greek concordances and other scholarly works. His concern, however, was more about the meaning of the words rather than identifying the Greek characters that make up the words.
Russell did at times, evidently, after hours of interrogation, seem to be confused over some questions, but this can happen to the best of us, especially after more than two or three hours of questioning.
Nonetheless, the facts show that Ross misrepresented and rearranged the sequence of events of what actually happened in court in order to give the impression that Russell had committed perjury. See also page 41 of James Penton's book, Apocalypse Delayed, Second Edition. Furthermore, there is no court record showing that Russell was ever legally accused of, or legally charged with, perjury, nor was Russell ever accused by any court of perjury. Ross' attorney never charged Russell with perjury; the idea originated in the head of J. J. Ross himself, and evidently, he felt that the court record as it was not that convincing, so he doctored the "facts" to make it more sure to appear to support his accusation.
Russell had filed for libel under the criminal laws in Ontario. (Brother Russell did not resort to a civil action for damages, for the reason that he was advised that such an action would be useless since Ross was irresponsible financially and could not be compelled by such a proceeding to publish a retraction.) Thus, after Russell filed his complaint against Ross, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Ross. It is reported that Ross evaded the officer for some time and that he even failed to keep his appointment at his church to prevent the officer from taking him into custody. Eventually, he was taken before George E. Jelfs, Police Magistrate, on the charge of criminal libel. Upon a hearing, he was committed for trial. Upon motion, the Superior Court quashed the commitment because of a technical error in the proceedings. Ross was again taken before the Magistrate.
When the case came up for hearing the second time Pastor Russell, who was a necessary witness, was away on an extended trip in Panama and other parts of the South, filling appointments previously made, and had no notice of the date of hearing. Ross and his counsel tried to make it appear that Brother Russell was evading the hearing. As soon as Brother Russell returned to Brooklyn and heard that he was wanted he immediately notified the Magistrate that he was ready to come to Canada. Thus, once he knew that he was needed to testify, Russell did go to appear before the hearing. Again the Magistrate committed Ross to appear before the high court to answer an indictment to be preferred by the Grand Jury. When the case came before that court the Judge of the court, in charging the Grand Jury relative to its duties, among other things, said to the jury: "Unless the jury finds that this alleged libel would cause a breach of the public peace in Canada then no indictment should be returned, but the parties should resort to civil suit for damages." The jury returned "no bill," and it is manifest that they could not have done otherwise under this charge of the Court, for the reason that Pastor Russell lived in Brooklyn, New York, and Rev. Ross lived in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and it would be physically impossible for the libel to cause a breach of the public peace when the parties were so far apart. It is because of this that Russell "lost" the court case.
Thus we understand that the real issues were never actually tried in court. The matter was dropped in the hearing before it actually came to trial.
Nevertheless, after this Rev. Ross became even bolder in his desire to slander Russell so that he published another pamphlet against Pastor Russell with more unfounded falsehoods and misrepresentations of facts. Selecting various isolated paragraphs from the court records, Ross then mispresented them so as to make them appear entirely different from what was actually stated. We do not believe that this could not have been accidental on his part.
Ross charged that Pastor Russell was unlearned because he was not a graduate of some theological school. Yet there have been many people who never even saw the outside walls of a theological school who showed that they knew more about the Bible and its teaching than is taught in any theological college in the land. Pastor Russell was not a graduate of any man-made theological college, that is true. Despite what many might say, Russell NEVER claimed to have graduated from any of man's theological schools. It has been pointed out that one of the greatest U. S. lawyers -- Benjamin Harrison -- never attended a law school. Harrison learned law under the tutorage of Judge Bellamy Storer of Cincinnati. Russell also learned of the Bible from ministers who came before him and through self-study, using works of many authors and scholars. Theological colleges, however, usually teach the doctrines of men as theology, and the Bible is usually taught through the tint of those doctrines. Thus, such theological training often includes a focus on making such doctrines appear to be in harmony with the Bible. Nevertheless, before there were such sectarian theological schools, how did the followers of Jesus learn about the Bible? Pastor Russell, however, probably knew the Bible better than any other man in his day.
Ross charged that Pastor Russell was unlearned because he was not a graduate of some theological school. Yet there have been many people who never even saw the outside walls of a theological school who showed that they knew more about the Bible and its teaching than is taught in any theological college in the land. Pastor Russell was not a graduate of any man-made theological college, that is true. Despite what many might say, Russell NEVER claimed to have graduated from any of man's theological schools. It has been pointed out that one of the greatest U. S. lawyers -- Benjamin Harrison -- never attended a law school. Harrison learned law under the tutorage of Judge Bellamy Storer of Cincinnati. Russell also learned of the Bible from ministers who came before him and through self-study, using works of many authors and scholars. Theological colleges, however, usually teach the doctrines of men as theology, and the Bible is usually taught through the tint of those doctrines. Thus, such theological training often includes a focus on making such doctrines appear to be in harmony with the Bible. Nevertheless, before there were such sectarian theological schools, how did the followers of Jesus learn about the Bible? Pastor Russell, however, probably knew the Bible better than any other man in his day.
Some present the words of Dr. G.W. Bull in his treatise of "The Gospel of John," as follows:
AN IRREGULAR (John 7:15). That is what they all say. The crime of Christ was that He had not taken a course in their college. 'Whence hath He learning?' There are some professional policemen who must protect all learning; medicine, law, gospel, or what not. If you never went through their schools of learning you are a freak, and there is something suspicious about your good sense. These men thought there was only one way of learning -- they would ask a certificate of the sun! There are many schools and schoolmasters in God's universe. Cease your criticism of any Christian scholar. Let him learn in his own way; the Kingdom of God is going to make great progress when some of these high brows are removed to Heaven. Sometimes a man's utterance of profound Truths is stated in poor grammatical form, and the philosophers are puzzled by his power. They wonder where he got it: I do not know -- probably his alma mater was his mother's knees -- then let him speak. Remember today: 'God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the mighty.
(While we have no reason to doubt the above quote, so far we have not found anything about Bull's "The Gospel of John".)
Regardless, it has almost always been the rule of those entrenched in error to persecute others who bring forth light and truth, exposing error. Why was Jesus persecuted by the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees? Because He taught the people! He said to them that because of their selfishness they persecuted and killed the prophets whom Jehovah had sent to teach the people.
The apostles taught about Jesus and the resurrection of the dead, and the Priests, Sadducees and Pharisees persecuted them. Why? The scripture relates that this persecution was because "they were grieved that they taught the people." (Acts 4:1-5) Obviously, it was not just the apostles taught the people, but rather it was what they were teaching that Jewish leaders persecuted the apostles and other Christians of the first century.
Many may wish to emphasize that Russell was at one time engaged in secular business, evidently in an attempt to make it appear that this was all he knew, and thus was not qualified to teach anything about the Bible. Some like to create illusions about Russell's connections with some business corporations, and cloud the issue with such. Some would like to make much ado over his marital problems. Sadly, long after his death, many who profess Christ continue to persecute Brother Russell. And yet, none of these are the real reasons that many wish to defame Russell. We believe that the real reason is that people have been blinded by Satan so as to be inclined to believe the lies rather than the truth. Satan would like to suppress Russell's work because Russell presented to the people truths from the Bible!
Some of Brother Russell's own defenses, which contain much that he was not allowed to present in court:
A Reply By the Editor
Pastor's Russell's Reply to Critics
Russell's Responses to J. J. Ross
Some of Brother Russell's own defenses, which contain much that he was not allowed to present in court:
A Reply By the Editor
Pastor's Russell's Reply to Critics
Russell's Responses to J. J. Ross
For more concerning the alleged "perjury" of Russell:
The Ross Libel Case
The Late Walter Martin's Sham Scholarship -- by James Penton
Did Pastor Russell lie under oath about his knowledge of Greek?
Did Pastor Russell Lie Under Oath?
St. Paul Enterprise: Defences of Pastor Russell — Discusses accusations and misrepresentations made by William T. Ellis, W. B. Riley, and others. Some statements seem to exalt Brother Russell too highly, making him a prophet (which Russell himself disclaimed, QB272; 675:1), but most of it is good information.
The Late Walter Martin's Sham Scholarship -- by James Penton
Did Pastor Russell lie under oath about his knowledge of Greek?
Did Pastor Russell Lie Under Oath?
St. Paul Enterprise: Defences of Pastor Russell — Discusses accusations and misrepresentations made by William T. Ellis, W. B. Riley, and others. Some statements seem to exalt Brother Russell too highly, making him a prophet (which Russell himself disclaimed, QB272; 675:1), but most of it is good information.
************
No comments:
Post a Comment