The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1913-05-08

RuSSellS teaching, which Mr.. weber
object to. therefor, no one has the
spirit of Christ who exposes the falstiY
of Russellism. He, Weber, believes it,
therefore it is true and whoever denies
it has not the spirit of Christ. want
to remind Mr.. Weber that it is not
speaking evil of man to tell the truth
or expose his errors.
As to Pastor Russell's six volumes,
&c, Weber says any one who reads
them will testify to the correctness of
his statements. Then he claims that
Russell sis setting forth his teaching of
Scriptures as they were taught by Jesus
and the Apostles. | think must refer
him to one of his own quotation, 81 wot
that in ignorance We did it!'' Who said
that Jesus and the Apostles taught it as
Russell teaches it-Russell claims it,
Weber swallows it, and | suppose be-
lieves it. Are we to accept it because
Russell or Weber says so.
OF course if you accept his interpreta-
tons of the Scripture then you will be-
lieve his teaching. But his interpreta.
ton is contrary to the rules that govern
all Interpretation of language. 1t is
rejected by the best Biblical scholars of
the world, it is opposed by all christen-
dom and by every prominent church in
the land. You can prove the devil is
an angel of light if you are willing to
pervert the Scriptures and wrest them
from their true setting. Mr. Weber
states what Russell teaches. Is that all
of it? You would infer so from what
he says, then he quotes, ITO Us mote
the capital u the Scriptures clearly
teach, " ii. e. to Russell; that is his in
depreciation of Scriptures. 1T may be so
to him, but it is not so to the best scholars
in the world. Of course he has some
truth. No body dispute that the church
is the body of Christ, that He is taking
out of the world His body, that the
church will be taken to Himself at the
First Resurrection, and it will reign
with Christ during the millennium. Acts
15:14. / Thess. 4:16; Rev. 20:6.
l2stated that he denied the deity of
Christ, teaching that He was not the
Eternal Son of God; but creature.
See vol. page ia, l76, 1S2 of Russell's
works. He teaches that we are as
divine as He was. He teaches on page
1S2 of vol. l, that Jesus was changed
from one nature to another. This, he
says, was an exceptional case for an
exceptional purpose. But it is contrary
to John l L. lisa. $50, 40:3; Nal. 81.
would not Intentionally give false
statement concerning the teaching of
any man, though | believe | gave fair
statement of facts, which can easily be
verified, by the universally accepted
teaching of orthodox and scholarly
christendOm.
| said he denied the resurrection of
Christ. OF course we mean His body
Vol. 2, p. l2S, he says we know nothing
about what became of it tour Lords
BODY except it did not decay or corrupt.
Whether 1t was dissolved ngtO gases or
is still preserved somewhere, &c, no
one knows.
But Jesus said He would rise from
the dead in the body in which he would
die John 2:l9-22 He speaks of His
body being a temple or dwelling place
for His soul. Paul speaks of it as a
'tent habitation" And Peter calls it
"a tabernacle. The Lords body would
be killed, and like temple taken down
and laid in the dust, Fbut He would raise
the same in which He died-which had
flesh and bones. Luke 24:29.
we know nothing about what be-
came VI IT, ct jesus Sdlu 70 Ills
disciples handle Me and Sre. He
teaches that the body in which Christ
appeared to His disciples was not the
one in which he died. 1t was created
for the occasion and dissolved into air.
Vol. 2, p. l27, he speaks of creating and
dssolving the clothing He wore, and
creating and dissolving Of their assumed
bodies. Page l28, he says the cloth
ing in which our Lord appeared must
has been specially created, &c.
Page l28. he says many have idea
that our Lord's glorious spiritual body
is the very same body that was crucifed.
This is great mistake.
when he was raised to life again by
the power of the Father. it was not to
human existence. Vol. ., p. 129. He
/ is no longer a man but a spirit being
Page 131.
Was not correct then in saving that
Millenial Dawnlsm denies the resurrec-
ton of Jesus. How can you resurrect that
which does not exist and he says death
means leasing to exist" Jesus died,
therefore He ceased to eXist-was an
nihilated-hence could not rise again.
| could back up every statement | made
whit references from his works and;sub-
stantiate every one made by the Bible.
but every one of them would be denied
because only his Interpretation would
be accepted. | refer your readers to
my former articles.
Let me ask Mr.. Weber to answer
briefly and fairly some questions and
then your readers can Judge as to the
correctness of my statements.
/. Does Russellism teach that Jesus.
as to his personality, is from everlast-
ing the Son of Cod equal with the
Father; the very God the Word, from
eternity God the Son?
2. Does it believe and teach the virgin
birth of Christ; that He is the seed of
the woman; God manifest in the flesh:
God and man, one person in two natures;
so that He shed the blood of God when
He shed His blood to redeem the
chur oh; see Acts POPS?
3. Or was He created as the angels
were?
A. When then did Christ become God?
5. Is Jesus the uncaused self existent
second person of the Eternal and
Triune Godhead?
6. Was there a time when the person
atty of Christ did not exist?
7. Did He have a beginning; if so
when; and was His personality created;
if so when?
s. Did Jesus have one nature or two
natures in one person; or was He chang
ed from one nature to another?
9. When He was upon the earth was
He man only. or God and man, the
God man?
10. Was He God before HIS incarna-
ton, or during His incarnation; is He
God now equal to the Father, or mere
ly spirit being of higher order than
when He came.
II. What is the meaning of death ac-
cording to Millennial Dawn?
Perhaps these will suffice for the pres