The Jehovah’s Witness Cult Jehovah's Witness Blog.com

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

The Jehovah’s Witness Cult
by Teeny

The Watchtower Society wins the 'Cult of the Year' award again!I don’t
know about you, but when I first started to do some research into what
we believe, I found it so hard to accept that I had been lied to all
these years. I wanted to find out more and more and couldn’t stop
researching every little thing.

Most Jehovah’s Witnesses have no idea how important the 607 B.C.E.
date is to their own beliefs. I was no different. But when I did find
out when Jerusalem was actually destroyed (not 607 B.C.E. by the way),
the deal to leave was clinched for me. I even found myself researching
topics that hadn’t interested me when I was going to the meetings,
which is why I now – as a so-called ‘Apostate’ – know more than your
average JW about their own religion.

As I continued my exit strategy, I was told by a few former Jehovah’s
Witnesses that I was part of a cult. This entire concept wasn’t just
new to me, but exceedingly baffling too. I thought cult members wore
tunics, carried daggers, and sacrificed virgins. Who would have
thought that a group of loving, smiling people from all nations were
actually part of a cult? No, there had to be some mistake!

There was no mistake. In 2009, I purchased the Steven Hassan book,
Combatting Cult Mind Control, which made me aware of how high control
groups (cults) work. I want to share with you some of the points that
I found really interesting. If you’ve read this fascinating book,
you’ll know all about the BITE model. If you’re unsure, here’s a
summary of it:

Behavioural Control
Information Control
Thought Control
Emotional Control

Now then, let’s see if the BITE model can be found in the Watchtower
Society’s publications.
Behavioural Control

The book defines Behavioral Control as a group that places stringent
schedules on its members. Basically, there’s always something to do in
these groups. The majority of these groups have their own distinctive
set of behaviors that bind it together. Do you think the Jehovah’s
Witness religion displays any of these characteristics?

We must prepare for and attend weekly congregation meetings. We
are encouraged not to let a week go by without having some share in
the field ministry. Sufficient time must be regularly set aside for
personal and family Bible study. Elders and ministerial servants have
many congregation assignments. At times we are asked to help worthy
ones in need.

Occasionally, some of us may feel overwhelmed by all that we have
to do. Yet, the busiest people can be among the happiest if balance
and proper perspective are maintained.

There is an added benefit in having plenty to do. When we are busy
pursuing a healthy spiritual routine, time seems to go by much faster.
Realizing that each day that passes brings us closer to the new world,
we gladly accept the full life we enjoy now. We also realize the
wisdom of staying busy, inasmuch as we have less time to get involved
in futile worldly pursuits. – Kingdom Ministry, January 1995, “Always
Plenty To Do”.

If you’re honest, I think you’ll agree that there are definitely
elements of Behavioural Control being transmitted quite openly in the
Kingdom Ministry. If that hasn’t satisfied you, we’ll now take a
closer look at Information Control.
Information Control

Combatting Cult Mind Control says that Information Control is when
important information, which is available to the general public, is
withheld from members and potential members. Hassan also says that
cults discourage members from researching their cult using outside
influences.

Hmm, does that sound familiar?

But in Jehovah’s organization it is not necessary to spend a lot
of time and energy in research, for there are brothers in the
organization who are assigned to do that very thing, to help you who
do not have so much time for this, these preparing the good material
in The Watchtower and other publications of the Society. – Watchtower
1967 June 1 page 335 – “Move Ahead with Jehovah’s Organization”.

Thought Control

So then, what is “Thought Control”? After all, unless I missed the
memo, Leo Di Caprio can’t actually carry out Inception, can he? Well a
sort of inception can happen when leaders of cults repress questions
by conditioning their members to employ “thought-stopping” statements
to drown out doubt, questions, anxiety or uncertainty, such as “I
can’t think about that.” “How can you question (the leaders) after all
they have done?” etc. The intention is to stop questions regarding the
system or leaders.

Now we all know the Watchtower Society isn’t guilty of Thought
Control, right?

If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization,
we should ask ourselves: “Where did we learn Bible truth in the first
place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for
guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the
direction of God’s organization?” No, we cannot! – Watchtower 1983
January 15 page 27 – “Fight Against Independent Thinking”.

Huh? Thought that was bad?

Rather than challenge their authority, we truly appreciate our
hard-working elders! Their record of faithful service, often over many
decades, inspires our trust. They faithfully prepare for and conduct
congregation meetings, work side by side with us in preaching the
‘good news of the Kingdom’, and provide Scriptural advice when we need
it. They visit us when we are sick and comfort us when we mourn. They
loyally and unselfishly support Kingdom interests. Jehovah’s spirit is
upon them; they have his approval. – Watchtower 2002 August 1 page
9-14 – “Loyally Submit To Godly Authority”.

So far, we’ve seen that the Governing Body has used Steven Hassan’s
book more like a cult handbook rather than what it was originally
intended for. The final point in the BITE model is Emotional Control.
Do you think the Watchtower Society has achieved a 4 out of 4 rating?
Let’s see.
Emotional Control

The Combatting Cult Mind Control book tells us that fear is used to
manipulate the cult member in two distinct ways. The first way is
called Siege Mentality – us versus them. I was going to give you an
example of this, but then realised the Watchtower Society could paint
an even better picture of siege mentality for you:

Satan is doing all in his power to bring persecution, opposition,
and pressure from all quarters upon Jehovah’s people. He tries to
disrupt our peace and destroy our fine standing with our God. –
Watchtower 2002 October 15, page 18 – “Jehovah Cares for You”.

Oh, if you didn’t see the siege mentality in that, take a look at this
fine quote:

This fact cannot be overemphasized: We are in a war with
superhuman foes, and we constantly need to be aware of this. Satan and
his demons are real; they are not mere figments of the imagination.
They are “the world rulers of this darkness,” and we have a spiritual
fight against them. (Ephesians 6:12) It is absolutely vital that we
recognize their subtle designs and not allow ourselves to be
overreached by them. Very appropriately, then, we will next consider
how we can arm ourselves to fight against these wicked spirits. –
Watchtower 1983 January 15 page 22 – “Exposing the Devil’s Subtle
Designs”. I find the sub-title of this section in the Watchtower most
fitting – “Avoid Independent Thinking”.

The second fear tactic is the Fear of Punishment. Who punishes you
though? Oh, that’ll be the leaders of the cult. If you’re not good
enough, you will be punished. You need to accept all the teachings of
the group without question! Surely the Watchtower doesn’t tell us to
accept all their beliefs if we are to continue associating with them,
right?

Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting
the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those
Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. –
Watchtower 1986 April 1 page 30-31 – “Questions From Readers”.

I was being sarcastic by the way…

Cults like to tell their members that there’s nothing for them if they
leave the group. Thankfully that’s something the Watchtower Society
has never done:

But if we were to draw away from Jehovah’s organization, there
would be no place else to go for salvation and true joy. – Watchtower
1993 September 15 page 22

I think we’ve seen that the Watchtower Society is a cult. If you still
think they’re not, we’d really like to hear from you. Pop us an email
and let us know what reasons you have for thinking it’s not a cult.

http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/cult/jehovahs-witness-cult/

[dolf]

On 19/05/13 11:52 AM, jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> Most Jehovah’s Witnesses have no idea how important the 607 B.C.E.
> date is to their own beliefs. I was no different. But when I did find
> out when Jerusalem was actually destroyed (not 607 B.C.E. by the way),
> the deal to leave was clinched for me. I even found myself researching
> topics that hadn’t interested me when I was going to the meetings,
> which is why I now – as a so-called ‘Apostate’ – know more than your
> average JW about their own religion.

Most of the weeks/days prophecies in the Bible refer to a 364 days in
the year calendar and not the tropical year of 365.2524 days.

Thus in computing a year for a day principle such as the 70 weeks
prophecy is 70 x 7 of 364 days or 10 Jubilees is 1.34 years less than
490 years.

You might be tempted to side step that fatal error as no big deal
because you fail to realize it is part of the temple service to which
Zacharias (division of Abijah) was aligned.

Hence this chronology was used at the time of Herod and before the birth
of John the Baptist and Jesus.

And 2300 days is 2300 x 364 days and not 2300 x 365.3534 days and gives
an error of about 7.8 years.

So major is the problem that the Church's prophetic beliefs in which
they trust are wrong.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

Jim wrote in message news:

>The Jehovah�s Witness Cult

LOL!
At least they are authentically baptised [ FULLY WET ] by immersion in water
["Being buried with him in baptism" ] AFTER coming to believe in Christ.]
Thus they have a covering for their sins, if repented of.

Being unscripturally man-concocted 'christened' as an unbelieving baby,
will not save anyone!
For they have refused and rejected Christ's formula for their salvation.

"16 He that believeth and is [1]baptized shall be saved;"
Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Jeff...
[1] [(Bapto); to make whelmed (i.e. FULLY WET); used only (in the N.T.) of
ceremonial ablution, especially (technical) of the ordinance of Christian
baptism :- baptist, baptize, wash.�Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew
Dictionary]

[James]

dolf <dolf...@hotmail.com>

>On 19/05/13 11:52 AM, jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>> Most Jehovah�s Witnesses have no idea how important the 607 B.C.E.
>> date is to their own beliefs. I was no different. But when I did find
>> out when Jerusalem was actually destroyed (not 607 B.C.E. by the way),
>> the deal to leave was clinched for me. I even found myself researching
>> topics that hadn�t interested me when I was going to the meetings,
>> which is why I now � as a so-called �Apostate� � know more than your
>> average JW about their own religion.

I will comment on your first one.

The reason the secular date differs is because they do not use the
Bible as a trustworthy source. Genuine Christians take the Bible over
secular history. Thus the dates are different. Here is why:

""Your Word Is Truth"

When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?

SECULAR historians usually give the year 586 B.C.E. as the correct
date for the desolation of Jerusalem. Why, then, do Jehovah's
Christian witnesses speak of this event as occurring in 607 B.C.E.? It
is because of confidence in what the Bible says about the duration of
Jerusalem's lying desolate.

The Scriptures assign a period of seventy years to the desolation of
Judah and Jerusalem. After describing the Babylonian conquest of
Jerusalem, 2 Chronicles 36:21 reports: "All the days of lying
desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years." By means of his
prophet Jeremiah, Jehovah had declared: "All this land must become a
devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will
have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."-Jer. 25:11.

Was this really a period of seventy literal years? Yes, that is the
way the prophet Daniel, toward the close of the period of Jerusalem's
desolation, understood it, saying: "I myself, Daniel, discerned by the
books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had
occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of
Jerusalem, namely, seventy years." (Dan. 9:2) Note that here Daniel
speaks of the "number of the years" of devastation as seventy. Surely
he could not have done so if the seventy years were symbolic or an
inflated round number.

Additional evidence is provided in the book of Zechariah. We read:
"When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the
seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me,
even me?" (Zech. 7:5; 1:12) The way this question is framed, with
reference to specific months, certainly indicates that a period of
seventy literal years was involved.

That the Jews in ancient times understood the seventy years as being
literal and involving a total devastation of the land is apparent from
the works of Josephus, a Jewish historian. In his Antiquities of the
Jews, Book X, chap. 9, par. 7, he tells that "all Judea and Jerusalem,
and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years."

When the Israelites were able to return to Judah and Jerusalem, that
desolation ended. There is general agreement that Babylon fell to
Cyrus on October 5/6, 539 B.C.E. From the Scriptural record at 2
Chronicles 36:21-23 and Ezra 3:1-3, which tells of Cyrus' decree
liberating the Jews and their return to their homeland, the
indications are that the Jews arrived back in their homeland around
the early part of October of 537 B.C.E., ending the seventy years of
desolation. Jerusalem must, therefore, have been destroyed seventy
years earlier, in 607 B.C.E.

Various attempts to harmonize the date 586 B.C.E. with what the Bible
says are therefore unsatisfactory. None of such attempts fit the
Bible's testimony that Jerusalem and Judah lay desolate for seventy
years.

The 586 B.C.E. date is based primarily on what is known as "Ptolemy's
Canon," which assigns a total of 87 years to the Babylonian dynasty
beginning with Nabopolassar and ending with Nabonidus at the fall of
Babylon in 539 B.C.E. According to this Canon, the five kings that
ruled during this period were Nabopolassar (21 years), Nebuchadnezzar
(43 years), Evil-merodach (2 years), Neriglissar (4 years) and
Nabonidus (17 years). In line with the number of years thus assigned
to each ruler, Jerusalem's desolation in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth
year (nineteenth year if counting from his "accession year") would
fall in 586 B.C.E.-2 Ki. 25:8; Jer. 52:29.

But how dependable is Ptolemy's Canon? In his book The Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Professor E. R. Thiele writes:

"Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not
historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of
all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day
of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made
possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of
certain astronomical data which were then available. Kings whose
reigns were less than a year and which did not embrace the New Year's
day were not mentioned." (Italics ours.)

So the very purpose of the Canon makes absolute dating by means of it
impossible. There is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct in
assigning a certain number of years to various kings. For example,
while Ptolemy credits Evil-merodach with only two years of rule,
Polyhistor assigns him twelve years. Then, too, one cannot be certain
that just five kings ruled during this period. At Borsippa, for
instance, were found names of a number of Babylonian kings that do not
appear elsewhere.

Nevertheless, someone may ask, Is there not an ancient astronomical
tablet, "VAT 4956," that places the thirty-seventh year of
Nebuchadnezzar's reign exactly in the same year as does Ptolemy's
Canon?

It should not be overlooked that the source of corroborative evidence
should bear the earmarks of dependability. Can this be said about "VAT
4956"? Not really. The text is not an original and it contains
numerous gaps. Certain terms found therein cannot even be understood
now. Twice in the text the notation hi-bi (meaning "broken off,
obliterated") appears. Thereby the scribe acknowledged that he was
working from a defective copy.

Even if, despite these problems, the astronomical information presents
a true picture of the original, this would not establish the
correctness of the historical data. As Ptolemy used the reigns of
ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which
to place astronomical data, so the copyist of "VAT 4956" may, in line
with the chronology accepted in his time, have inserted the
'thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar.' As admitted by the German
scholars Neugebauer and Weidner (the translators of this text), the
scribe evidently changed words to conform with the abbreviated
terminology common in his day. But he was both inconsistent and
inaccurate. So he could just as easily have inserted other information
to suit his purposes. Hence both Ptolemy's Canon and "VAT 4956" might
even have been derived from the same basic source. They could share
mutual errors.

Opposed to Ptolemy's Canon and "VAT 4956" stands the unanimous
testimony of Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel and the writer of 2
Chronicles, that Judah and Jerusalem lay desolate for seventy years.
Thousands of ancient manuscripts of these writings contain the
identical testimony. So, because of the problems inherent in Ptolemy's
Canon and "VAT 4956," it takes more faith to accept them than it does
to accept the Bible's testimony, which would place the desolation of
Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E." (1972 Awake, 5/8, pp.
27,28)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

>The Jehovah�s Witness Cult
> by Teeny

Instead of focusing on anti-JW propaganda, try going to their web page
and check them out. If you still think they are some kind of evil
cult, then at least you got it from the horses mouth, instead of some
hate group.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org










>

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 19, 2:11 am, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"

<jnhickl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

16 He that believeth and is [1]baptized shall be saved;"
Mark 16:16 (KJV)

You left off
but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Look out
Revelation Chapter 22
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in
this book.


Acts 16:15
And when she was baptized, and her household,
she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the
Lord,
come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.


Mark 10:15
Verily I say unto you,
Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.


Luke 1:41
And it came to pass, that,
when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary,
the babe leaped in her womb;
and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:


Luke 1:44
For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears,
the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

If you are a Jehovah's Witness, please read this first.

by Matt Slick

If you are a Jehovah's Witness please understand that I am not against
you as an individual. I am not an apostate from the Watchtower
organization and, of course, I was never baptized as a Jehovah's
Witness. However, when I was 17, I studied with the Jehovah's
Witnesses for a couple of months, but quit. Unfortunately, they used
the Watchtower Magazine equally, and sometime more than the Bible and
they couldn't answer all my questions. All I wanted to study was the
Bible since that is God's word.

As a Jehovah's Witness you have been taught from the Bible and the
Watchtower organization. You’ve attended numerous meetings, and are
convinced that what you believe is the truth. You also believe the
Trinity is a demonic doctrine and that Christendom is an apostate
group preaching a false gospel. Additionally, you are taught the
Watchtower organization is the true channel of God’s revelation to His
church on earth. You are taught that you are in "The Truth."

But believing it does not make it so. I am sure you agree with this
and respond by saying that your beliefs are in agreement with the
Bible. After all, you study it deeply and often and have validated
your beliefs with the word of God. I don’t deny that you study. But
when you study, you study under the Watchtower's guidance and allow it
to shape your understanding and thinking of the Bible and its
doctrines.

Please consider these quotes from the Watchtower Magazine that verify
what I am saying:

"All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the
"greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through
Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave."1
"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the
Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals,
regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret
the Bible."2

In short, you are led by what the Watchtower says the Bible says. But
if the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is from God, then...

Why has it made false prophecies?
Why has it altered the translation of the Bible?
Why does the Watchtower say you will fall into apostasy if you
read the Bible without the Watchtower? See their quotes
Why are you not allowed to examine your own organization and its
problems?
Why does it tell you what to think and do?

Have you checked the documentation from the Watchtower Magazine? How
do you know that the Watchtower is correct? Because it says it is?

Please don’t be offended by this. But when a group claims to be the
prophet of God, yet mistranslates the Bible, takes verses out of
context, makes false prophecies, and misquotes authorities all to make
its position valid, its credibility is lost. It cannot be from God.

But you will never know that unless you "examine ALL things."
Unfortunately, as a Jehovah's Witness, you are only encouraged to
study what the Watchtower and Awake magazines tell you to study. That
means you can't really check up on its false prophecies on your own.
Instead, you must trust what it tells you about its own false
prophecies. In addition, you are instructed to not take any literature
from "apostate Christendom." This way, you will have far less
opportunity to be challenged, something the Watchtower organization
doesn't want to happen.

The Watchtower Magazine teaches by asking the questions and giving the
answers. Sometimes it even uses a Bible reference (often out of
context) to back up what it says. It all looks good and sounds good
from your perspective. But it is a false method of study. The
Watchtower organization tells you what to think and what to do; if you
say that isn't true and that the Watchtower Organization is God's
organization on earth, then you are simply repeating what the
Watchtower tells you.

The Bible alone is sufficient. But the Watchtower denies this:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of
Jehovah's people those who, like the original Satan, have adopted an
independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to
read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home.
But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right
back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's
clergy were teaching 100 years ago..."3

What are the apostate doctrines: Trinity? Hell? Jesus is God? Funny
thing is that, according to the Watchtower, if you study the Bible by
itself, you will come to believe these things! Could it be that apart
from the selected questions, answers, scripture quotes, and direction
of the Watchtower teaching, that the Bible actually does teach these
"apostate doctrines"? If you don't check for yourself, and only
believe the Watchtower, you'll never know.

Do you want to trust your eternal soul to the teachings of several men
headquartered in Brooklyn, New York who claim to be the directors of
God's organization on earth? Do you? Eternity is a long time to be
wrong.

1. The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1994, p. 8.
2. The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967, p. 587.
3. The Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1981, emphasis added.

http://carm.org/read-this-first-jehovahs-witnesses

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

>
>If you are a Jehovah's Witness, please read this first.
>
>by Matt Slick
>
>If you are a Jehovah's Witness please understand that I am not against
>you as an individual. I am not an apostate from the Watchtower
>organization and, of course, I was never baptized as a Jehovah's
>Witness. However, when I was 17, I studied with the Jehovah's
>Witnesses for a couple of months, but quit. Unfortunately, they used
>the Watchtower Magazine equally, and sometime more than the Bible and
>they couldn't answer all my questions.

Sorry to hear that. No they don't put the Watchtower Bible-aid
magazine above the Bible since the Watchtower magazine in not
inspired, whereas, the Bible is. (see 2 Ti 3:16)

>All I wanted to study was the
>Bible since that is God's word.
>As a Jehovah's Witness you have been taught from the Bible and the
>Watchtower organization. You�ve attended numerous meetings, and are
>convinced that what you believe is the truth.

We believe the Bible is the truth (see Joh 17:17) And yes, just like
any religion, we believe we have the truths from the Bible.

>You also believe the
>Trinity is a demonic doctrine

I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:

John 14:28- God is greater than Jesus

Mr 13:32- God and Jesus have two separate minds. They are unified in
their beliefs and goals etc (Joh 10:30), but still are not the same
person.

The Trinity of the 4th century says that God and Jesus (and the Holy
Spirit) are all co-equal. That is not what the apostle Paul wrote
under inspiration at 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

Paul made that statement AFTER Jesus was already resurrected and went
back to Heaven to be with God again.

>and that Christendom is an apostate
>group preaching a false gospel.

Not completely false, no. But if for example they teach the Trinity
(which most all do), then yes they are teaching falsehoods.

>Additionally, you are taught the
>Watchtower organization is the true channel of God�s revelation to His
>church on earth. You are taught that you are in "The Truth."

Like I said above, I am sure that if you are in a religion, you
believe it is speaking Bible truths. Otherwise I assume you would get
out of it.

>
>But believing it does not make it so. I am sure you agree with this
>and respond by saying that your beliefs are in agreement with the
>Bible. After all, you study it deeply and often and have validated
>your beliefs with the word of God. I don�t deny that you study. But
>when you study, you study under the Watchtower's guidance and allow it
>to shape your understanding and thinking of the Bible and its
>doctrines.

When a student goes to school, he gets the information based on some
text book. Now he can either just accept the text book as truth, or he
can try to verify for himself, truth of that textbook.

We do the same thing with the Watchtower magazine. If it presents new
truths, then we look them up in the Bible to verify them, just as the
ancient Bereans did with Paul. Ac 17:11,

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians,
for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the
Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV)

>
>Please consider these quotes from the Watchtower Magazine that verify
>what I am saying:
>
> "All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the
>"greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through
>Jehovah's channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave."1

You left out the fact that the Bible talked about the faithful and
discreet slave class that Jesus would give his belongings to. Here is
more context from the Watchtower you quoted:

"CHANNEL TO UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE
JESUS assured us that after his death and resurrection, he would
raise up a �faithful and discreet slave� that would serve as his
channel of communication. (Matthew 24:45-47) The apostle Paul
identified this channel to the Ephesian Christians when he wrote that
�there might be made known through the congregation the greatly
diversified wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose that he
formed in connection with the Christ, Jesus our Lord.� (Ephesians
3:10,�11) It was the congregation of anointed Christians, born at
Pentecost 33�C.E., that was entrusted with the �things revealed.�
(Deuteronomy 29:29) As a group, anointed Christians serve as the
faithful and discreet slave. (Luke 12:42-44) Their appointed
assignment from God is to provide spiritual understanding of the
�things revealed.�
Even as Bible prophecy pointed forward to the Messiah, it also
directs us to the close-knit body of anointed Christian Witnesses that
now serve as the faithful and discreet slave. It helps us to
understand the Word of God. All who want to understand the Bible

should appreciate that the �greatly diversified wisdom of God� can
become known only through Jehovah�s channel of communication, the

faithful and discreet slave.�John 6:68."

> "Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the
>Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals,
>regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret
>the Bible."2

"Thus" is drawing a conclusion from something said. You left out the
whole argument. Here it is in context:

"As the canon of books of God�s Word was expanded and the Christian
Greek Scriptures were added to complete the Bible, each book was
written directly to the Christian congregation or to a member of the
Christian congregation in its behalf. Thus the Bible is an

organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an
organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may

believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible
cannot be properly understood without Jehovah�s visible organization
in mind."


That is true. If you are in the "one faith" religion of the Bible (Eph
4:5), then only though that organization can you extract real Bible
truths. Now to some people that would be the Catholic faith, for
others some Protestant faith. For JW's it is the JW faith.

>
>In short, you are led by what the Watchtower says the Bible says. But
>if the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is from God, then...
>
> Why has it made false prophecies?

Like any religious institutions, it is not perfect. But the true
religion according to the Bible, gets better and better as time goes
on. Pr 4:18,

"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." (NIV)

> Why has it altered the translation of the Bible?

You need to be more specific on what you mean by 'ALTERED". You need
to address that to Christendom's Bible translators, who took out God's
name of around 7000 times, and INSERTED the words "LORD" or "God"
instead. Now that is some tampering.

I stand by the New World Translation 100%. I have investigated many of
the alleged changes it made, and find in EVERY instance (except one),
where I agree with those changes.

> Why does the Watchtower say you will fall into apostasy if you
>read the Bible without the Watchtower? See their quotes

I have never heard of that before, so it is certainly not stressed at
today's meetings. But if God's organization is directing Bible truths,
just like the Ethiopian eunuch who needed help in reading the book of
Isaiah, we have education people who assist us in understanding the
Bible. Notice very carefully this happening: Ac 8:30,31,

"30. Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading
Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip
asked.
31. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he
invited Philip to come up and sit with him." (NIV)

Thus at times we need help from God's organization for precise
understanding.

> Why are you not allowed to examine your own organization and its
>problems?

We are encouraged by the Bible to look into things and verify them. 1
Th 5:21,

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (KJV)

> Why does it tell you what to think and do?

See above where we are guided by it, but since it is not inspired, we
go to the Bible as the final word on a subject.

>
>Have you checked the documentation from the Watchtower Magazine? How
>do you know that the Watchtower is correct? Because it says it is?

See above where it shows we look up and VERIFY such things.

>
>Please don�t be offended by this. But when a group claims to be the
>prophet of God, yet mistranslates the Bible, takes verses out of
>context, makes false prophecies, and misquotes authorities all to make
>its position valid, its credibility is lost. It cannot be from God.

I fully agree. But that is not JW's.

>
>But you will never know that unless you "examine ALL things."
>Unfortunately, as a Jehovah's Witness, you are only encouraged to
>study what the Watchtower and Awake magazines tell you to study. That
>means you can't really check up on its false prophecies on your own.

See above where we verify things taught to us. As a reminder read Acts
17:11 again.

>Instead, you must trust what it tells you about its own false
>prophecies.

Do you trust your mother and father? I would assume you do not look up
every thing they tell you. I did a lot of research on the JW's in the
beginning, and found them to be wholly sincere and true at the time. I
still verify Bible Scriptures but when they talk about wild geese in
the Awake! magazine I don't have the time to verify every word said.

>In addition, you are instructed to not take any literature
>from "apostate Christendom." This way, you will have far less
>opportunity to be challenged, something the Watchtower organization
>doesn't want to happen.

Nonsence. For an extreme example, would you let your daughter go for a
ride with one of Hell's Angels? She could say you are being prejudiced
against them. But I doubt that you would still give her permission.

It is similar with getting bad literature. I have read it before and
have no desire to read the many falsehoods it puts out. If one got out
of the fire, he don't want to just jump into it again. But no, I have
not been instructed not to take any literature. We are not
pre-programmed robots.

>
>The Watchtower Magazine teaches by asking the questions and giving the
>answers. Sometimes it even uses a Bible reference (often out of
>context)

Now you are sounding prejudistic. All the Scriptures I have read are
in context. Perhaps you are thinking of some other journal.

>to back up what it says. It all looks good and sounds good
>from your perspective. But it is a false method of study.

Sorry, but it is a great way to study. I once had a teacher that told
us how to study. The teacher said to ask questions before reading the
articles, then go searching for the answers. You can retain the most
that way. Also pay attention to the topic sentence.

>The
>Watchtower organization tells you what to think and what to do; if you
>say that isn't true and that the Watchtower Organization is God's
>organization on earth, then you are simply repeating what the
>Watchtower tells you.

Like I said, we are not robots, but reasoning beings who look up
things to verify them. (1 Th 5:21)

>
>The Bible alone is sufficient. But the Watchtower denies this:
>
>"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of
>Jehovah's people those who, like the original Satan, have adopted an
>independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to
>read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home.
>But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right
>back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's
>clergy were teaching 100 years ago..."3
>
>What are the apostate doctrines: Trinity? Hell? Jesus is God? Funny
>thing is that, according to the Watchtower, if you study the Bible by
>itself, you will come to believe these things! Could it be that apart
>from the selected questions, answers, scripture quotes, and direction
>of the Watchtower teaching, that the Bible actually does teach these
>"apostate doctrines"? If you don't check for yourself, and only
>believe the Watchtower, you'll never know.

I have verified such false doctrines. God is not Hitler and fries
people to crispy critters. The word "hell" in the Bible means the
common grave of dead mankind. That is why the righteous man Job wanted
to GO TO HELL to get RELIEF from his pain. Job 14:13,

"Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell [sheol],
and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt
remember me?" (Douay) (brackets mine)

See above about Jesus being God.

>
>Do you want to trust your eternal soul

The Bible "soul" is not immortal. It can be killed. Eze 18:4,

"Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the
soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." (KJV)

>to the teachings of several men
>headquartered in Brooklyn, New York who claim to be the directors of
>God's organization on earth? Do you? Eternity is a long time to be
>wrong.

Or to be right. Those men are experienced Bible researchers. They
spend more time than I ever could on research. Just as there may be
one or more authors on some science text book, likely you don't
doublecheck every word they write. It is similar with the articles in
the Watchtower magazine. At times I have had some disagreements, but
usually things get cleared up later.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org








>

[.."".]

"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"

Here is the creed with each phras of it illustrated in scripture.

Holy Scripture References to the Creed

I believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
One God (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Creator of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible; (Colossians 1: 15-16) and in
one Lord, Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God (Matthew 14: 33; 16: 16)
begotten (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
begotten of the Father before all ages; (John 1: 2)
Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5)
of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)
through Whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us and for our salvation (I Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from the heavens ((John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
Crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; I Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 1: 14)
He suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried; (Luke 23: 53; I Corinthians 15: 4)
Rising on the third day according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1; 1
Cor. 15: 4)
And ascending into the heavens, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
He is seated at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7:
55)
And coming again in glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and dead, (Acts 10: 42; 2 I Timothy 4: 1)
His kingodom shall have no end; (2 Peter 1: 11)
And in the holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord (Acts 5: 3-4)
the Giver of life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father, (John 15: 26)
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
(Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets; (I Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5, 13)
In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (I Peter 2: 5, 9)
catholic (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church; (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; (Ephesians 4: 5)
I expect the resurrection of the dead; (John 11: 24; I Cor. 15: 12-49)
And the life of the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)
Amen. (Psalm 106:48)

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 21, 4:55 pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"

Gen 18
1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat
in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass
not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Notice: three persons, one Lord

Matt 28
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Notice: Name singular, three persons

Jim
The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
Mystery of the Trinity.
http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/rublevs_icon/rublev.htm

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"James" wrote in message news:j8rnp8h4b3olak3f5...@4ax.com...

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

>>If you are a Jehovah's Witness, please read this first.

>>by Matt Slick

>>If you are a Jehovah's Witness please understand that I am not against
>>you as an individual. I am not an apostate from the Watchtower
>>organization and, of course, I was never baptized as a Jehovah's
>>Witness. However, when I was 17, I studied with the Jehovah's
>>Witnesses for a couple of months, but quit. Unfortunately, they used
>>the Watchtower Magazine equally, and sometime more than the Bible and
>>they couldn't answer all my questions.

> Sorry to hear that. No they don't put the Watchtower Bible-aid
> magazine above the Bible since the Watchtower magazine in not
> inspired, whereas, the Bible is. (see 2 Ti 3:16)

So, just for the sake of clarity, do the Watchtower organisation now accept
that

1) A person can be a saved Christian and not be a Jehovah's Witness?
2) That there is no inspired text apart from scripture?
3) That their own publications (including "Reasoning from the Scriptures")
are fallible, contain errors and are unnecessary for a person to understand
the scriptures?

regards

Phil

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

>On May 21, 4:55�pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
>doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"
>
>Gen 18
> 1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat
>in the tent door in the heat of the day;
> 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
>him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
>and bowed himself toward the ground,
> 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass
>not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
>Notice: three persons, one Lord

They nowhere say they are 3 co-equal persons in one God.

>
> Matt 28
> 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> baptizing them in the name
> of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
> Notice: Name singular, three persons

If the Holy Ghost is a person, what is his name?

>
> Jim
> The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
>It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
>but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
>It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
>The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
>Mystery of the Trinity.

Its a mystery all right. Its a mystery how anyone can accept that
false doctrine, after studying the Bible.



>http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/rublevs_icon/rublev.htm
>
>
>

[//."".]

>"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
>doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 22, 9:36 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>

>
> >On May 21, 4:55 pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> >"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
> >doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"
>
> >Gen 18
> > 1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat
> >in the tent door in the heat of the day;
> >   2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
> >him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
> >and bowed himself toward the ground,
> >   3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass
> >not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
> >Notice: three persons, one Lord
>
> They nowhere say they are 3 co-equal persons in one God.
>

Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria (born 15–10 bc,
Alexandria—died ad 45–50, Alexandria), saw a type of Trinity.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus

Philo writes:

...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of a
trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
[else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
"Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
[triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)

http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/kabbalah/kabbachurch.htm

>
>
> > Matt 28
> > 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
> >       baptizing them in the name
> >      of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
> > Notice: Name singular, three persons
>
> If the Holy Ghost is a person, what is his name?
>

Name singular, three persons, to paraphrase
Groucho Marx, I should believe you not my
lying eyes.


John Chapter 14
16 And I will pray the Father,
and he shall give you another Comforter,
that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:
but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you,
and shall be in you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things
to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Notice: him,him,him,he,he

>
>
> > Jim
> >  The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
> >It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
> >but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
> >It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
> >The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
> >Mystery of the Trinity.
>
> Its a mystery all right. Its a mystery how anyone can accept that
> false doctrine, after studying the Bible.
>

Well,about 2 billion do believe the Trinity,maybe
the problem is with you.

Heb 12:1 -
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of
witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so
easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set
before us,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/rublevs_icon/rublev.htm

You didn't answer Phil

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

wrote in message
news:62d65f81-8930-447d...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

On May 22, 9:36 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>
>> >On May 21, 4:55 pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>> >"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
>> >doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"

We

>> >Gen 18
>> > 1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat
>> >in the tent door in the heat of the day;
>> > 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
>> >him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
>> >and bowed himself toward the ground,
>> > 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass
>> >not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
>> >Notice: three persons, one Lord

>> They nowhere say they are 3 co-equal persons in one God.

> Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria (born 15�10 bc,
> Alexandria�died ad 45�50, Alexandria), saw a type of Trinity.

> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus

> Philo writes:

> ...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
> they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of a
> trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
> [else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
> Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
> "Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
> vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
> [triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
> (Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)

Only 2 points

"No man has at any time seen God" Who said that? Jesus. So if Jesus is God,
as you say, then either he wasn't at Mamre or he was at Mamre and he forgot.

What did Philo really say? Well we cannot tell by what you have quoted since
a good deal of the text is missing.

http://www.archive.org/stream/questionsanswers00philuoft/questionsanswers00philuoft_djvu.txt

Here is the whole text and it does not in any way suggest a trinity.

regards

Phil

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 22, 1:55 pm, <philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"No man has at any time seen God"

Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel:
for I have seen God face to face,
and my life is preserved.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

John 14:7
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:
and from henceforth ye know him,
and have seen him.

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.

Definition of THEOPHANY

: a visible manifestation of a deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theophany

Chapter 18: The Theophany at Mamre

Abraham's Theophany of the Lord at the grove of Mamre was a visitation
that had an impact on all of salvation history. It was in this
uniquely personal visit that Yahweh announced to his faithful servant
that the time had come for the birth of the promised son (Gen 17:19).
The Catechism addresses these remarkable visual experiences with the
Divine as markers that point to the coming of the Redeemer-Messiah:
Theophanies (manifestations of God) light up the way of the promise,
from the patriarchs to Moses and from Joshua to the visions that
inaugurated the missions of the great prophets. Christian tradition
has always recognized that God's Word allowed himself to be seen and
heard in these theophanies, in which the cloud of the Holy Spirit both
revealed him and concealed him in its shadow (CCC 707).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18&version=NIV

Here are some informative passages from Philo
regarding God the Father, God the Word, and God the Holy Spirit:

http://thriceholy.net/philo.html

> wrote in messagenews:62d65f81-8930-447d...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> On May 22, 9:36 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>
> >> >On May 21, 4:55 pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> >"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
> >> >doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"
> We
> >> >Gen 18
> >> > 1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat
> >> >in the tent door in the heat of the day;
> >> >   2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
> >> >him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
> >> >and bowed himself toward the ground,
> >> >   3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass
> >> >not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
> >> >Notice: three persons, one Lord
> >> They nowhere say they are 3 co-equal persons in one God.

> > Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria   (born 15–10 bc,

> > Alexandria—died ad 45–50, Alexandria),  saw a type of Trinity.

> >http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus
> > Philo writes:
> > ...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
> > they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of a
> > trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
> > [else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
> > Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
> > "Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
> > vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
> > [triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
> > (Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)
>
> Only 2 points
>
> "No man has at any time seen God" Who said that? Jesus. So if Jesus is God,
> as you say, then either he wasn't at Mamre or he was at Mamre and he forgot.
>
> What did Philo really say? Well we cannot tell by what you have quoted since
> a good deal of the text is missing.
>

> http://www.archive.org/stream/questionsanswers00philuoft/questionsans...

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> wrote in message
> news:62d65f81-8930-447d...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 9:36 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
> >
> >> >On May 21, 4:55 pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> >> >"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
> >> >doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"
> We
> >> >Gen 18
> >> > 1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat
> >> >in the tent door in the heat of the day;
> >> > 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
> >> >him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
> >> >and bowed himself toward the ground,
> >> > 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass
> >> >not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
> >> >Notice: three persons, one Lord
>
> >> They nowhere say they are 3 co-equal persons in one God.
>

> > Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria (born 15–10 bc,

> > Alexandria—died ad 45–50, Alexandria), saw a type of Trinity.

> > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus
>
> > Philo writes:
>
> > ...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
> > they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of a
> > trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
> > [else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
> > Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
> > "Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
> > vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
> > [triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
> > (Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)
>
> Only 2 points
>
> "No man has at any time seen God" Who said that? Jesus. So if Jesus is God,
> as you say, then either he wasn't at Mamre or he was at Mamre and he forgot.
>
>

AH AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now he reveals more heresy--he doesn't even have the right Christ! He
denies the DEITY of Christ. He has a false Christ just as his brethren
in the Watchtower Society.


Now we see he more of what he really is.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

You never heard anyone say "Look at my car, isn't 'she' a beauty"?

It is called personification. The Bible uses that occassionally. For
example, "wisdom" is personified at Prov 8:22-31.

The "Holy Spirit" is also personified in a number of places. And that
arrangement didn't take place till the 4th century. That is when the
Holy Spirit was defined as a person by some church officials. For more
details:

"Justin Martyr of the second century�C.E. taught that the holy spirit
was an �influence or mode of operation of the Deity�; Hippolytus
likewise ascribed no personality to the holy spirit. The Scriptures
themselves unite to show that God�s holy spirit is not a person but is
God�s active force by which he accomplishes his purpose and executes
his will." (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, p.1019)

Notice BEFORE the 4th century, it had no such definition. Do the
research yourself.

>
>>
>>
>> > Jim
>> > �The icon of the Trinity was painted around 1410 by Andrei Rublev
>> >It depicts the three angels who visited Abraham at the Oak of Mamre -
>> >but is often interpreted as an icon of the Trinity.
>> >It is sometimes called the icon of the Old Testament Trinity.
>> >The image is full of symbolism - designed to take the viewer into the
>> >Mystery of the Trinity.
>>
>> Its a mystery all right. Its a mystery how anyone can accept that
>> false doctrine, after studying the Bible.
>>
> Well,about 2 billion do believe the Trinity,maybe
> the problem is with you.

That is about right. The true religion has fewer people than all those
false religions combined. Mt 7:13,14,

"13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is
the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But
small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a
few find it." (NIV)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


>

[vince garcia]

Since you respect Justin Martyr so much, then you certainly respect
THESE quotes from him as well, right?

"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."
Oh look--not "God is your thone" Guess he wasn't a JW heretic

"Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts."

"The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten
Word of God, is even God."

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that
he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and
the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness,
saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the
unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are
ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5-6).


Now here are some other quotes...

"I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the
everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to
you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen"

Polycarp 150 AD



Irenaeus

"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither
had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God
did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had
himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did
not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present
the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely
and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying,
‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]" (Against
Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189]

Tertullian

"While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be
place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of
various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is
not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so
in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself
to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the
one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and
Spirit are the selfsame PERSON. As if one were not all . . . through the
unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 [A.D. 216]).



"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they
confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the
idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of
Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. .
. . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons—namely,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are declared to possess the one Godhead:
for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the
Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature" (gregory the
Wonderworker--A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).

"no such definition" of the Spirit as a person before the 4th century
you JW liar?

I DID do the research myself, and found you to be a lying mouthpiece of
your father the devil

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

It isn't talking about a car,but another like Jesus.
Again to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I am to believe

you not my lying eyes.

Since you want to quote Church Fathers, you from
a cult started in 1872 A.D., Irenaeus who knew
Polycarp who knew John says,

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church,
who may
wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the
apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a
position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted
bishops
in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to
our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like
what
these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden
mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect"
apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them
especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches
themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very
perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving
behind
as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to
these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly,
would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away,
the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as
this,
to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to
confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil
self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion,
assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by
indicating
that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome
by
the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing
out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity
that
every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-
eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the
apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those
[faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the
Church,
committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of
this
Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him
succeeded
Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles,
Clement
was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed
apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have
the
preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their
traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there
were
many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.
In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred
among
the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most
powerful
letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their
faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from
the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of
heaven
and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called
Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses,
set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for
the
devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so,
may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached
by
the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of
the
Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are
now
propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god
beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this
Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus;
then,
sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus,
who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then
after
him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now,
in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the
episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical
tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have
come
down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the
same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the
apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and
conversed
with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia,
appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early
youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very
old
man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,7 departed this
life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the
apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are
true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also
those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man
who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth,
than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was
who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away
from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he
had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely,
which is handed down by the Church.8 "


Irenaeus Book III, Chapter III

[";; "".]

Who did that translation and what were their qualifications to do so?

["".]

"That is about right. The true religion has fewer people than all those
false religions combined. Mt 7:13,14,

"13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is
the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But
small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a
few find it." (NIV)"

Then the jw must be tossed and some smaller cult chosen to make sure we
have the narrow path? Which is the smallest, jw or mormon or oneness
pentecostal or christdelphian or any number of cults?

["".]

"The "Holy Spirit" is also personified in a number of places. And that
arrangement didn't take place till the 4th century. That is when the
Holy Spirit was defined as a person by some church officials. For more"

Scripture provides the great commission long before the 4th century, to go
to all the world baptising in the name of the father and the son and the
holy spirit. The HS is not in the commission a figure of speech.

Also a document written at the time of scripture, the Didache, says that
baptism is done using the above formulation, again not a figure of speech.

At the baptism of Christ the HS appeared, along with the presence of the
father and son as individuals.

["".]

Mr. russel in the past 125 or so years first proposed the newly invented
doctrines that would lead to the jw as we now know them. It appears he
made of Christ a liar when He said the gates of hell would not prevail
against His church. To make mr. russel's new doctrines valid then for 1875
years the gates of hell prevaled.

Mr. russel as an individual proposed his new interpretation, which
scripture says such private interpretation is to be avoided. The model in
scripture is for decisions concerning doctrine to be done in an collective
manner, such as the first council in Acts.

Mr. russel fits perfectly the sevral warnings about individuals to come who
would distort and decieve.

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:519DF0...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

> wrote in message
> news:62d65f81-8930-447d...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 9:36 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>

snip

>> Only 2 points

>> "No man has at any time seen God" Who said that? Jesus. So if Jesus is
>> God,
>> as you say, then either he wasn't at Mamre or he was at Mamre and he
>> forgot.

> AH AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Now he reveals more heresy--he doesn't even have the right Christ! He
> denies the DEITY of Christ. He has a false Christ just as his brethren
> in the Watchtower Society.

> Now we see he more of what he really is.

When Jesus said that no man had seen God I believe him.

Why do you deny that what Jesus said is true?

Phil

[James]

;;; "".

>
>"The "Holy Spirit" is also personified in a number of places. And that
>arrangement didn't take place till the 4th century. That is when the
>Holy Spirit was defined as a person by some church officials. For more"
>
>Scripture provides the great commission long before the 4th century, to go
>to all the world baptising in the name of the father and the son and the
>holy spirit. The HS is not in the commission a figure of speech.

What is the name of the Holy Spirit, if it is indeed a person?

Yes, it mentioned three items there. 2 persons and God's active force,
the Holy Spirit. And it doesn't say all three are co-equal there,
according to the Trinity doctrine. On the contrary, after Jesus was
resurrected and went back to Heaven to be with God, Jesus was still
inferior to God. 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)


>

>Also a document written at the time of scripture, the Didache, says that
>baptism is done using the above formulation, again not a figure of speech.
>
>At the baptism of Christ the HS appeared, along with the presence of the
>father and son as individuals.

Yes, the Holy Spirit decended like a bird. (dove) Does that sound like
a person to you?

Look up the Hebrew word for "spirit", and you will not have it defined
as a person, but rather a force in motion, like the wind. The Bible
does not teach that the Holy Spirit it is a real person, or any part
of a triad God. The Bible words for "spirit" come from "ruach"
(Hebrew) and "pneuma" (Greek). One of the definitions of "pneuma" is:

"a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze". (Strong's
Concordance)

Thus it is 'a force in motion' like a breeze etc.

And based on the context etc, it is in this way that the Scriptures
apply God's Holy Spirit. It is the all-powerful moving force that He
has to accomplish His will, whether it is bringing about creation, or
fulfilling prophecies, etc..

[James]

;; "".

>
>Mr. russel in the past 125 or so years first proposed the newly invented
>doctrines that would lead to the jw as we now know them. It appears he
>made of Christ a liar when He said the gates of hell would not prevail
>against His church. To make mr. russel's new doctrines valid then for 1875
>years the gates of hell prevaled.

???

>
>Mr. russel as an individual proposed his new interpretation, which
>scripture says such private interpretation is to be avoided.

Sometimes we need help in understanding the Scriptures. We have the
example of the an Ethiopian eunuch who was trying to understand some
verses in the book of Isaiah. When Philip joined him, Philip said":
�Do you actually know what you are reading?� 31?He said: �Really, how
could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?"

Yes, there is nothing wrong with having spiritually experienced people
guide a person in understanding the scriptures. (Acts 8:26-31)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Parakletos Noun Masculine

http://classic.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=3875

Strong's Number: 3875 para/klhtov
Original Word Word Origin
para/klhtov a root word
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Parakletos par-ak'-lay-tos
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Masculine 5:800,782
Definition
summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for
defense, legal assistant, an advocate
one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor
of Christ in his exaltation at God's right hand, pleading with God the
Father for the pardon of our sins
in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant
of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the
apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper
knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to
enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine
kingdom

Translated Words
KJV (5) - advocate, 1; comforter, 4;
NAS (5) - Advocate, 1; Helper, 4;

The word translated Comforter is used in the New Testament five times.
In four instances it is applied to the Holy Spirit-- John 14:16; 26;
15:26; 16:7. In the other instance it is applied to the Lord Jesus--1
John 2:1: "We have an advocate (Paraclete -- Comforter) with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

http://classic.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=14&verse=16#Joh14_16

In other words a lawyer, you just can't accept
facts because of your cult. Your pride keeps
you from admitting you are wrong.

Pr 16:18 -
Pride goeth before destruction,
and an haughty spirit before a fall.

[James]

";; "".

>
>Who did that translation and what were their qualifications to do so?

It is usually called the New World Translation. (NWT) It is one of the
most accurate translations you will come across.

How accurate is the NWT? Notice this comment from Jason BeDuhn,
associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona
University, who compared eight major Bible translations, including the
NWT. He said it was

"remarkably good" and "better by far" and "consistently better".

He also said, "the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal,
conservative translation of the original expressions of the New
Testament writers."

And he concluded that the NWT (NT):

"is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament
currently available" and "the most accurate of the translations
compared". (Truth in Translation:Accuracy and Bias in English
Translations of the New Testament)

[info taken from the Watchtower magazine, 12/1/04, P. 30.]

From "All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial", 1963, 1990,
pp. 308,309.

"Sources for the Text of the New World Translation-Hebrew Scriptures

Original Hebrew Writings and Early Copies

Aramaic Targums
Dead Sea Scrolls
Samaritan Pentateuch
Greek Septuagint
Old Latin
Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian
Hebrew Consonantal Text
Latin Vulgate
Greek Versions-Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus
Syriac Peshitta
Masoretic Text
Cairo Codex
Petersburg Codex of the Prophets
Aleppo Codex
Ginsburg's Hebrew Text
Codex Leningrad B 19A
Biblia Hebraica (BHK), Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (BHS)

Sources for the Text of the New World Translation-Christian Greek
Scriptures

Original Greek Writings and Early Copies

Armenian Version
Coptic Versions
Syriac Versions-Curetonian, Philoxenian, Harclean,
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
Old Latin
Latin Vulgate
Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
23 Hebrew Versions (14th-20th centuries), translated either from the
Greek or from the Latin Vulgate, using Tetragrammaton for divine name"

"Who were the translators?

When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation,
the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members
remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of
Pennsylvania has honored their request. The translators were not
seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author
of the Holy Scriptures.

Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view.
For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition (1971)�of the New
American Standard Bible states: �We have not used any scholar�s name
for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God�s Word
should stand on its merits.�

Is it really a scholarly translation?

Since the translators have chosen to remain anonymous, the question
cannot here be answered in terms of their educational background. The
translation must be appraised on its own merits.

What kind of translation is this? For one thing, it is an accurate,
largely literal translation from the original languages. It is not a
loose paraphrase, in which the translators leave out details that they
consider unimportant and add ideas that they believe will be helpful.
As an aid to students, a number of editions provide extensive
footnotes showing variant readings where expressions can legitimately
be rendered in more than one way, also a listing of the specific
ancient manuscripts on which certain renderings are based.

Some verses may not read the same as what a person is accustomed to.
Which rendering is right? Readers are invited to examine manuscript
support cited in footnotes of the Reference edition of the New World
Translation, read explanations given in the appendix, and compare the
rendering with a variety of other translations. They will generally
find that some other translators have also seen the need to express
the matter in a similar manner." (Reasoning from the Scriptures,
p,276)

Notice that JW's are not the only ones to remain anonymous.

I hope this has helped to answer some of your questions.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

The Personality of the Holy Ghost




A Sermon
(No. 4)
Delivered on Sabbath Morning, January 21, 1855, by the
REV. C. H. Spurgeon
At New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,

that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom

the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth

him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."—
John 14:16-17
ou will be surprised to hear me announce that I do not intend this
morning to say anything about the Holy Spirit as the Comforter. I
propose to reserve that for a special Sermon this evening. In this
discourse I shall endeavor to explain and enforce certain other
doctrines, which I believe are plainly taught in this text, and which
I hope God the Holy Ghost may make profitable to our souls. Old John
Newton once said, that there were some books which he could not read;—
they were good and sound enough; but, said he, "they are books of
halfpence;—you have to take so much in quantity before you have any
value; there are other books of silver, and others of gold; but I have
one book that is a book of bank notes; and every leaf is a bank-note
of immense value." So I found with this text: that I had a bank-note
of so large a sum, that I could not tell it out all this morning. I
should have to keep you several hours before I could unfold to you the
whole value of this precious promise—one of the last which Christ gave
his people.
I invite your attention to this passage because we shall find in it
some instruction on four points: first, concerning the true and proper
personality of the Holy Ghost; secondly, concerning the united agency
of the glorious Three Persons in the work of our salvation; thirdly we
shall find something to establish the doctrine of the indwelling of
the Holy Ghost in the souls of all believers; and fourthly, we shall
find out the reason why the carnal mind rejects the Holy Ghost.
I. First of all, we shall have some little instruction concerning the
proper personality of the Holy Spirit. We are so much accustomed to
talk about the influence of the Holy Ghost and his sacred operations
and graces, that we are apt to forget that the Holy Spirit is truly
and actually a person—that he is a subsistence—an existence; or, as we
Trinitarians usually say, one person in the essence of the Godhead. I
am afraid that, though we do not know it, we have acquired the habit
of regarding the Holy Ghost as an emanation flowing from the Father
and the Son, but not as being actually a person himself. I know it is
not easy to carry about in our mind the idea of the Holy Spirit as a
person. I can think of the Father as a person, because his acts are
such as I can understand. I see him hang the world in ether; I behold
him swaddling a new-born sea in bands of darkness; I know it is he who
formed the drops of hail, who leadeth forth the stars by their hosts,
and calleth them by their name; I can conceive of Him as a person,
because I behold his operations. I can realize Jesus, the Son of Man,
as a real person, because he is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.
It takes no great stretch of my imagination to picture the babe in
Bethlehem, or to behold the "Man of sorrows and acquainted with
grief," of the king of martyrs, as he was persecuted in Pilate's hall,
or nailed to the accursed tree for our sins. Nor do I find it
difficult at times to realize the person of my Jesus sitting on his
throne in heaven; or girt with clouds and wearing the diadem of all
creation, calling the earth to judgment, and summoning us to hear our
final sentence. But when I come to deal with the Holy Ghost, his
operations are so mysterious, his doings are so secret, his acts are
so removed from everything that is of sense, and of the body, that I
cannot so easily get the idea of his being a person; but a person he
is. God the Holy Ghost is not an influence, an emanation, a stream of
something flowing from the Father; but he is as much an actual person
as either God the Son, or God the Father. I shall attempt this morning
a little to establish the doctrine, and to show you the truth of it—
that God the Holy Spirit is actually a person.
The first proof we shall gather from the pool of holy baptism. Let me
take you down, as I have taken others, into the pool, now concealed,
but which I wish were always open to your view. Let me take you to the
baptismal font, where believers put on the name of the Lord Jesus, and
you shall hear me pronounce the solemn words, "I baptize thee in the
name,"—mark, "in the name," not names—"of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost." Every one who is baptized according to the
true form laid down in Scripture, must be a Trinitarian: otherwise his
baptism is a farce and a lie, and he himself is found a deceiver and a
hypocrite before God. As the Father is mentioned, and as the Son is
mentioned, so is the Holy Ghost; and the whole is summed up as being a
Trinity in unity, by its being said, not the names, but the "name" the
glorious name, the Jehovah name, "of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost." Let me remind you that the same thing occurs each
time you are dismissed from this house of prayer. In pronouncing the
solemn closing benediction, we invoke on your behalf the love of Jesus
Christ, the grace of the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy
Spirit; and thus, according to the apostolic manner, we make a
manifest distinction between the persons, showing that we believe the
Father to be a person, the Son to be a person, and the Holy Ghost to
be a person. Were there no other proofs in Scripture, I think these
would be sufficient for every sensible man. He would see that if the
Holy Spirit were a mere influence, he would not be mentioned in
conjunction with two whom we all confess to be actual and proper
persons.
A second argument arises from the fact that the Holy Ghost has
actually made different appearances on earth. The Great Spirit has
manifested himself to man: he has put on a form, so that, whilst he
has not been beheld by mortal men, he has been so veiled in appearance
that he was seen, so far as that appearance was concerned, by the eyes
of all beholders. See you Jesus Christ our Saviour? There is the river
Jordan, with its shelving banks and its willows weeping at its side.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, descends into the stream, and the holy
Baptist, John, plunges him into the waves. The doors of heaven are
opened; a miraculous appearance presents itself; a bright light
shineth from the sky, brighter than the sun in all its grandeur, and
down in a flood of glory descends something which you recognize to be
a dove. It rests on Jesus—it sits upon his sacred head, and as the old
painters put a halo round the brow of Jesus, so did the Holy Ghost
shed a resplendence around the face of him who came to fulfil all
righteousness, and therefore commenced with the ordinance of baptism.
The Holy Ghost was seen as a dove, to mark his purity and his
gentleness, and he came down like a dove from heaven to show that it
is from heaven alone that he descendeth. Nor is this the only time
when the Holy Ghost has been manifest in a visible shape. You see that
company of disciples gathered together in an upper room; they are
waiting for some promised blessing, and bye-and-bye it shall come.
Hark! there is a sound as of a rushing mighty wind; it fills all the
house where they are sitting; and astonished, they look around them,
wondering what will come next. Soon a bright light appears, shining
upon the heads of each: cloven tongues of fire sat upon them. What
were these marvelous appearances of wind and flame but a display of
the Holy Ghost in his proper person? I say the fact of an appearance
manifests that he must be a person. An influence could not appear—an
attribute could not appear: we cannot see attributes—we cannot behold
influences. The Holy Ghost must, then, have been a person; since he
was beheld by mortal eyes, and he came under the cognizance of mortal
sense.
Another proof is from the fact, that personal qualities are, in
Scripture, ascribed to the Holy Ghost. First, let me read to you a
text in which the Holy Ghost is spoken of as having understanding. In
the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. ii., you will read, "But as
it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepare for
them that love him. But God have revealed them unto us by his Spirit:
for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For
what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is
in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of
God." Here you see an understanding—a power of knowledge is ascribed
to the Holy Ghost. Now, if there be any persons here whose minds are
of so preposterous a complexion that they would ascribe one attribute
to another, and would speak of a mere influence having understanding,
then I give up all the argument. But I believe every rational man will
admit, that when anything is spoken of as having an understanding, it
must be an existence—it must, in fact, be a person. In the 12th chap.,
11th verse of the same Epistle, you will find a will ascribed to the
Holy Spirit. "But all these worketh that one and the self-same spirit,
dividing to every man severally as he will." So it is plain that the
Spirit has a will. He does not come from God simply at God's will, but
he has a will of his own, which is always in keeping with the will of
the infinite Jehovah, but is, nevertheless, distinct and separate;
therefore, I say he is a person. In another text, power is ascribed to
the Holy Ghost, and power is a thing which can only be ascribed to an
existence. In Romans 15:13, it is written, "Now the God of hope fill
you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope
through the power of the Holy Ghost." I need not insist upon it,
because it is self-evident, that wherever you find understanding,
will, and power, you must also find an existence; it cannot be a mere
attribute, it cannot be a metaphor, it cannot be a personified
influence; but it must be a person.
But I have a proof which, perhaps, will be more telling upon you than
any other. Acts and deeds are ascribed to the Holy Ghost; therefore,
he must be a person. You read in the first chapter of the Book of
Genesis, that the Spirit brooded over the surface of the earth, when
it was as yet all disorder and confusion. This world was once a mass
of chaotic matter, there was no order; it was like the valley of
darkness and of the shadow of death. God the Holy Ghost spread his
wings over it; he sowed the seeds of life in it; the germs from which
all beings sprang were implanted by him; he impregnated the earth so
that it became capable of life. Now, it must have been a person who
brought order out of confusion: it must have been an existence who
hovered over this world and made it what it now is. But do we not read
in Scripture something more of the Holy Ghost? Yes, we are told that
"holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." When
Moses penned the Pentateuch, the Holy Ghost moved his hand; when David
wrote the Psalms, and discoursed sweet music on his harp, it was the
Holy Spirit that gave his fingers their seraphic motion; when Solomon
dropped from his lips the words of the proverbs of wisdom, or when he
hymned the Canticles of love, it was the Holy Ghost who gave him words
of knowledge and hymns of rapture. Ah! and what fire was that which
touched the lips of the eloquent Isaiah? What hand was that which came
upon Daniel? What might was that which made Jeremiah so plaintive in
his grief? or what was that which winged Ezekiel and made him like an
eagle, soar into mysteries aloft, and see the mighty unknown beyond
our reach? Who was it that made Amos, the herdsman, a prophet? Who
taught the rugged Haggai to pronounce his thundering sentences? Who
showed Habakkuk the horses of Jehovah marching through the waters? or
who kindled the burning eloquence of Nahum? Who caused Malachi to
close up the book with the muttering of the word curse? Who was it in
each of these, save the Holy Ghost? And must it not have been a person
who spake in and through these ancient witnesses? We must believe it.
We cannot avoid believing it, when we read that "holy men of old spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
And when has the Holy Ghost ceased to have an influence upon men? We
find that still he deals with his ministers and with all his saints.
Turn to the Acts, and you will find that the Holy Ghost said,
"Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work." I never heard of an
attribute saying such a thing. The Holy Spirit said to Peter, "Go to
the Centurion, and what I have cleansed, that call not thou common."
The Holy Ghost caught away Philip after he had baptized the Eunuch,
and carried him away to another place; and the Holy Ghost said to
Paul; "Thou shalt not go into that city, but shall turn into another."
And we know that the Holy Ghost was lied unto by Ananias and Sapphira,
when it was said, "Thou hast not lied unto man, but unto God." Again,
that power which we feel every day, who are called to preach—that
wondrous spell which makes our lips so potent—that power which gives
us thoughts which are like birds from a far-off region, not the
natives of our soul—that influence which I sometimes strangely feel,
which, if it does not give me poetry and eloquence, gives me a might I
never felt before, and lifts me above my fellow-man—that majesty with
which he clothes his ministers, till in the midst of the battle they
cry aha! like the war-horse of Job, and move themselves like
leviathans in the water—that power which gives us might over men, and
causes them to sit and listen as if their ears were chained, as if
they were entranced by the power of some magician's wand—that power
must come from a person; it must come from the Holy Ghost.
But is it not said in Scripture, and do we not feel it, dear brethren,
that it is the Holy Ghost who regenerates the soul? It is the Holy
Ghost who quickens us. "You hath he quickened who were dead in
trespasses and sins." It is the Holy Spirit who imparts the first germ
of life, convincing us of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to
come. And is it not the Holy Spirit, who, after that flame is kindled,
still fans it with the breath of his mouth and keeps it alive? Its
author is its preserver. Oh! can it be said that it is the Holy Ghost
who strives in men's souls; that it is the Holy Ghost who brings them
into the sweet place that is called Calvary—can it be said that he
does all these things, and yet is not a person? It may be said, but it
must be said by fools; for he never can be a wise man who can consider
these things can be done by any other than a glorious person—a divine
existence.
Allow me to give you one more proof, and I shall have done. Certain
feelings are ascribed to the Holy Ghost, which can only be understood
upon the supposition that he is actually a person. In the 4th chapter
of Ephesians, v. 30, it is said that the Holy Ghost can be grieved:
"Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day
of redemption." In Isaiah, chap. lxiii, v. 10, it is said that the
Holy Ghost can be vexed: "But they rebelled, and vexed his Holy
Spirit; therefore he was turned to be their enemy., and he fought
against them." In Acts, chap. vii. v. 51, you read that the Holy Ghost
can be resisted: "Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,
ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye."
And in the 5th chapter, v. 9, of the same book, you will find that the
Holy Ghost may be tempted. We are informed that Peter said to Ananias
and Sapphira, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the
Spirit of the Lord?" Now, these things could not be emotions which
might be ascribed to a quality or an emanation; they must be
understood to relate to a person; an influence could not be grieved,
it must be a person who can be grieved, vexed, or resisted.
And now, dear brethren, I think I have fully established the point of
the personality of the Holy Ghost; allow me now, most earnestly, to
impress upon you the absolute necessity of being sound on the doctrine
of the Trinity. I knew a man, a good minister of Jesus Christ he is
now, and I believe he was before he turned his eyes unto heresy—he
began to doubt the glorious divinity of our blessed Lord, and for
years did he preach the heterodox doctrine, until one day he happened
to hear a very eccentric old minister preaching from the text, "But
there the glorious Lord shall be unto us a place of broad rivers and
streams, wherein shall go no galley with oars, neither shall gallant
ship pass thereby. Thy tacklings are loosed; they could not well
strengthen their mast, they could not spread the sail." "Now," said
the old minister, "you give up the Trinity, and your tacklings are
loosed, you cannot strengthen your masts. Once give up the doctrine of
three persons, and your tacklings are all gone; your mast, which ought
to be a support to your vessel, is a rickety one, and shakes." A
gospel without the Trinity! it is a pyramid built upon its apex. A
gospel without the Trinity! it is a rope of sand that cannot hold
together. A gospel without the Trinity! then, indeed, Satan can
overturn it. But give me a gospel with the Trinity, and the might of
hell cannot prevail against it; no man can any more overthrow it than
a bubble could split a rock, or a feather break in halves a mountain.
Get the thought of the three persons, and you have the marrow of all
divinity. Only know the Father, and know the Son, and know the Holy
Ghost to be one, and all things will appear clear. This is the golden
key to the secrets of nature; this is the silken clue of the
labyrinths of mystery, and he who understands this, will soon
understand as much as mortals e'er can know.
II. Now for our second point—the united agency of the three persons in
the work of our salvation. Look at the text, and you will find all the
three persons mentioned. "I"—that is the Son—"will pray the Father,
and he shall give you another Comforter." There are the three persons
mentioned, all of them doing something for our salvation. "I will
pray," says the Son. "I will send," says the Father. "I will comfort,"
says the Holy Ghost. now, let us, for a few moments, discourse upon
this wondrous theme—the unity of the three persons with regard to the
great purpose of the salvation of the elect. When God first made man,
he said, "Let us make man," not let me, but, "Let us make man in our
own image." The covenant Elohim said to each other, "Let us unitedly
become the creator of man." So, when in ages far gone by, in eternity,
they said, "Let us save man:" it was not the Father who said, "Let me
save man, "but the three persons conjointly said, with one consent,
"Let us save man." It is to me a source of sweet comfort to think that
it is not one person of the Trinity that is engaged for my salvation;
it is not simply one person of the Godhead who vows that he will
redeem me; but it is a glorious trio of Godlike ones, and the three
declare, unitedly, "We will save man."
Now, observe here, that each person is spoken of as performing a
separate office. "I will pray," says the Son; that is intercession. "I
will send," says the Father; that is donation. "I will comfort," says
the Holy Spirit; that is supernatural influence. O! if it were
possible for us to see the three persons of the Godhead, we should
behold one of them standing before the throne, with outstretched
hands, crying day and night, "O, Lord, how long?" We should see one
girt with Urim and Thummim, precious stones, on which are written the
twelve names of the tribes of Israel; we should behold him, crying
unto his Father, "Forget not thy promises, forget not thy covenant;"
we should hear him make mention of our sorrows, and tell forth our
griefs on our behalf, for he is our intercessor. And could we behold
the Father, we should not see him a listless and idle spectator of the
intercession of the Son, but we should see him with attentive ear
listening to every word of Jesus, and granting every petition. Where
is the Holy Spirit all the while? Is he lying idle? O no; he is
floating over the earth, and when he seas a weary soul, he says, "Come
to Jesus, he will give you rest;" when he beholds an eye filled with
tears, he wipes away the tears, and bids the mourner look for comfort
on the cross; when he sees the tempest-tossed believer, he takes the
helm of his soul and speaks the word of consolation; he helpeth the
broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds; and, ever on his mission
of mercy, he flies around the world, being everywhere present. Behold,
how the three persons work together. Do not then say, "I am grateful
to the Son"—so you ought to be, but God the Son no more saves you than
God the Father. Do not imagine that God the Father is a great tyrant,
and that God the Son had to die to make him merciful. It was not to
make the Father's love towards his people. Oh, no. One loves as much
as the other; the three are conjoined in the great purpose of rescuing
the elect from damnation.
But you must notice another thing in my text, which will show the
blessed unity of the three—the one person promises to the other. The
Son says, "I will pray the Father." "Very well," the disciples may
have said, "we can trust you for that." "And he will send you." You
see, here is the Son signing a bond on behalf of the Father. "He will
send you another Comforter." There is a bond on behalf of the Holy
Spirit too. "And he will abide with you forever." One person speaks
for the other, and how could they, if there were any disagreement
between them? If one wished to save, and the other not, they could not
promise on another's behalf. But whatever the Son says, the Father
listens to; whatever the Father promises, the Holy Ghost works; and,
whatever the Holy Ghost injects into the soul, that God the Father
fulfils. So, the three together mutually promise on one another's
behalf. There is a bond with three names appended—Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost. By three immutable things, as well as by two, the
Christian is secured beyond the reach of death and hell. A Trinity of
securities, because there is a Trinity of God.
III, Our third point is, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in
believers. Now, beloved, these first two things have been matters of
pure doctrine; this is the subject of experience. The indwelling of
the Holy Ghost is a subject so profound, and so having to do with the
inner man, that no soul will be able truly and really to comprehend
what I say, unless it has been taught of God. I have heard of an old
minister, who told a fellow of one of the Cambridge colleges, that he
understood a language that he never learned in all his life. "I have
not," he said, "even a smattering of Greek, and I know no Latin, but
thank God, I can talk the language of Canaan, and that is more than
you can." So, beloved, I shall now have to talk a little of the
language of Canaan. If you cannot comprehend me, I am much afraid it
is because you are not of Israelitish extraction; you are not a child
of God, nor an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.
We are told in the text, that Jesus would send the Comforter, who
would abide in the saints forever; who would dwell with them, and be
in them. Old Ignatius, the martyr, used to call himself Theophorus, or
Godbearer, "because," said he, "I bear about with me the Holy Ghost."
And truly every Christian is a Godbearer. "Know ye not that ye are the
temples of the Holy Ghost? for he dwelleth in you?" That man is no
Christian who is not the subject of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit;
he may talk well, he may understand theology, and be a sound
Calvinist; he will be the child of nature finely dressed, but not the
living child. He may be a man of so profound an intellect, so gigantic
a soul, so comprehensive a mind, and so lofty an imagination, that he
may dive into all the secrets of nature, may know the path which the
eagle's eye hath not seen, and go into depths where the ken of mortals
reacheth not, but he shall not be a Christian with all his knowledge,
he shall not be a son of God with all his researches, unless he
understands what it is to have the Holy Ghost dwelling in him and
abiding in him; yea, and that for ever.
Some people call this fanaticism, and they say, "You are a Quaker; why
not follow George Fox?" Well, we would not mind that much: we would
follow any one who followed the Holy Ghost. Even he, with all his
eccentricities, I doubt not, was, in many cases, actually inspired by
the Holy Spirit; and whenever I find a man in whom there rests the
Spirit of God, the spirit within me leaps to hear the spirit within
him, and we feel that we are one. The Spirit of God in one Christian
soul recognizes the Spirit in another. I recollect talking with a good
man, as I believe he was, who was insisting that it was impossible for
us to know whether we had the Holy Spirit within us or not. I should
like him to be here this morning, because I would read this verse to
him, "But ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."
Ah! you think you cannot tell whether you have the Holy Spirit or not.
Can I tell whether I am alive or not? If I were touched by
electricity, could I tell whether I was or not? I suppose I should;
the shock would be strong enough to make me know where I stood. So, if
I have God within me—if I have Deity tabernacling in my breast—if I
have God the Holy Ghost resting in my heart, and making a temple of my
body, do you think I shall know it? Call it fanaticism if you will,
but I trust that there are some of us who know what it is to be
always, or generally, under the influence of the Holy Spirit—always in
one sense, generally in another. When we have difficulties, we ask the
direction of the Holy Ghost. When we do not understand a portion of
Holy Scripture, we ask God the Holy Ghost to shine upon us. When we
are depressed, the Holy Ghost comforts us. You cannot tell what the
wondrous power of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is; how it pulls
back the hand of the saint when he would touch the forbidden thing;
how it prompts him to make a covenant with his eyes; how it binds his
feet, lest they should fall in a slippery way; how it restrains his
heart, and keeps him from temptation. O ye, who know nothing of the
indwelling of the Holy Ghost, despise it not. O despise not the Holy
Ghost, for it is the unpardonable sin. "He that speaketh a word
against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but he that speaketh
against the Holy Ghost, it shall never be forgiven him, either in this
life, or that which is to come." So saith the Word of God. Therefore
tremble, lest in anything ye despise the influences of the Holy
Spirit.
But before closing this point, there is one little word that pleases
me very much, that is "forever." You knew I should not miss that; you
were certain I could not let it go without observation. "Abide with
you forever." I wish I could get an Armenian here to finish my sermon.
I fancy I see him taking that word "forever." He would say, "for—
forever;" he would have to stammer and stutter; for he could never get
it out all at once. He might stand and pull it about, and at last he
would have to say, "The translation is wrong." And I suppose the poor
man would have to prove that the original was wrong too. Ah! but
blessed be God we can read it—"He shall abide with you forever." Once
give me the Holy Ghost, and I shall never lose him till "forever" has
run out; till eternity has spun its everlasting rounds.
IV. Now we have to close up with a brief remark on the reason why the
world rejects the Holy Ghost. It is said, "Whom the world cannot
receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him." You know what
is sometimes meant by "the world"—those whom God in his wondrous
sovereignty passed over when he chose his people: the preterite ones;
those passed over in God's wondrous preterition—not the reprobates who
were condemned to damnation by some awful decree; but those passed
over by God, when he chose out his elect. These cannot receive the
Spirit. Again, it means all in a carnal state are not able to procure
themselves this divine influence; and, thus it is true, "Whom the
world cannot receive."
The unregenerate world of sinners despises the Holy Ghost, "because it
seeth him not." Yes, I believe this is the great secret why many laugh
at the idea of the existence of the Holy Ghost—because they see him
not. You tell the worldling, "I have the Holy Ghost within me." He
says, "I cannot see it." He wants it to be something tangible—a thing
he can recognize with his senses. Have you ever heard the argument
used by a good old Christian against an infidel doctor? The doctor
said there was no soul, and asked, "Did you ever see a soul?" "No,"
said the Christian. "Did you ever hear a soul?" "No." "Did you ever
smell a soul?" "No." "Did you ever taste a soul?" "No." "Did you ever
feel a soul?" "Yes," said the man—"I feel I have one within me."
"Well," said the doctor, "there are four senses against one; you only
have one on your side." "Very well," said the Christian, "Did you ever
see a pain?" "No." "Did you ever hear a pain?" "No." "Did you ever
smell a pain?" "No." "Did you ever taste a pain?" "No." "Did you ever
feel a pain?" "Yes." "And that is quite enough, I suppose, to prove
there is a pain?" "Yes." So the worldling says there is no Holy Ghost,
because he cannot see it. Well, but we feel it. You say that is
fanaticism, and that we never felt it. Suppose you tell me that honey
is bitter, I reply, "No, I am sure you cannot have tasted it; taste it
and try." So with the Holy Ghost; if you did but feel his influence,
you would no longer say there is no Holy Spirit, because you cannot
see it. Are there not many things, even in nature, which we cannot
see? Did you ever see the wind? No; but ye know there is wind, when
you behold the hurricane tossing the waves about, and rending down the
habitations of men; or when, in the soft evening zephyr, it kisses the
flowers, and maketh dew-drops hang in pearly coronets around the rose.
Did ye ever see electricity? No; but ye know there is such a thing,
for it travels along the wires for thousands of miles, and carries our
messages; though you cannot see the thing itself, you know there is
such a thing. So you must believe there is a Holy Ghost working in us,
both to will and to do, even though it is beyond our senses.
But the last reason why worldly men laugh at the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit, is, because they do not know it. If they know it by heartfelt
experience and if they recognized its agency in the soul; if they had
ever been touched by it; if they had been made to tremble under a
sense of sin; if they had had their hearts melted, they would never
have doubted the existence of the Holy Ghost.
And now, beloved, it says, "He dwelleth with you, and shall be in
you." We will close up with that sweet recollection—the Holy Ghost
dwells in all believers and shall be with them.
One word of comment and advice to the saints of God, and to sinners,
and I have done. Saints of the Lord! ye have this morning heard that
God the Holy Ghost is a person; ye have had it proved to your souls.
What follows from this? Why, it followeth how earnest ye should be in
prayer to the Holy Spirit, as well as for the Holy Spirit. Let me say
that this is an inference that you should lift up your prayers to the
Holy Ghost: that you should cry earnestly unto him; for he is able to
do exceeding abundantly above all you can speak or think. See this
mass of people. What is to convert it? See this crowd? Who is to make
my influence permeate through the mass? You know this place now has a
mighty influence, and, God blessing us, it will have an influence not
only upon this city, but upon England at large; for we now employ the
press as well as the pulpit; and certainly, I should say, before the
close of the year, more than two hundred thousand of my productions
will be scattered through the land—words uttered by my lips, or
written by my pen. But how can this influence be rendered for good?
How shall God's glory be promoted by it? Only by incessant prayer for
the Holy Spirit; by constantly calling down the influence of the Holy
Ghost upon us; we want him to rest upon every page that is printed,
and upon every word that is uttered. Let us then be doubly earnest in
pleading with the Holy Ghost, that he would come and own our labors;
that the whole church at large may be revived thereby, and not
ourselves only, but the whole world share in the benefit.
Then, to the ungodly, I have this one closing word to say. Ever be
careful how you speak of the Holy Ghost. I do not know what the
unpardonable sin is, and I do not think any man understands it; but it
is something like this: "He that speaketh a word against the Holy
Ghost, it shall never be forgiven him." I do not know what that means;
but tread carefully! There is danger; there is a pit which our
ignorance has covered by sand; tread carefully! you may be in it
before the next hour. If there is any strife in your heart to-day,
perhaps you will go to the ale-house and forget it. Perhaps there is
some voice speaking in your soul, and you will put it away. I do not
tell you will be resisting the Holy Ghost, and committing the
unpardonable sin; but it is somewhere there. Be very careful. O, there
is no crime on earth so black as the crime against the Holy Spirit! Ye
may blaspheme the Father, and ye shall be damned for it, unless ye
repent; ye may blaspheme the Son, and hell shall be your portion,
unless ye are forgiven; but blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and thus saith
the Lord: "There is no forgiveness, either in this world nor in the
world which is to come." I cannot tell you what it is; I do no profess
to understand it; but there it is. It is the danger signal; stop! man,
stop! If thou has despised the Holy Spirit— if thou hast laughed at
his revelations, and scorned what Christians call his influence, I
beseech thee, stop! This morning seriously deliberate. Perhaps some of
you have actually committed the unpardonable sin; stop! Let fear stop
you; sit down. Do not drive on so rashly as you have done, Jehu! O
slacken your reins! Thou who are such a profligate in sin—thou who
hast uttered such hard words against the Trinity, stop! Ah! it makes
us all stop. It makes us all draw up, and say, "Have I not perhaps so
done?" Let us think of this; and let us not at any time stifle either
with the words or the acts of God the Holy Ghost.


http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0004.htm

[''"".]

>>"The "Holy Spirit" is also personified in a number of places. And that
>>arrangement didn't take place till the 4th century. That is when the
>>Holy Spirit was defined as a person by some church officials. For more"
>>
>>Scripture provides the great commission long before the 4th century, to go
>>to all the world baptising in the name of the father and the son and the
>>holy spirit. The HS is not in the commission a figure of speech.
>
>What is the name of the Holy Spirit, if it is indeed a person?

John 14:

=26] But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance
all that I have said to you.

Commentary upon same:

http://biblehub.com/john/14-16.htm

The word used here,
signifies an advocate, counsellor, monitor, and comforter. He would
abide with the disciples to the end of time; his gifts and graces would
encourage their hearts. The expressions used here and elsewhere,
plainly denote a person, and the office itself includes all the Divine
perfections. The gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed upon the disciples
of Christ, and not on the world. This is the favour God bears to his
chosen. As the source of holiness and happiness, the Holy Spirit will
abide with every believer for ever.

I will take the word of a greek scholar on this point of what is denoted.
As for a name, pick one of the above. Which begs the question, why is a
name required?

Note the great comission has thre not two with some attribute of the father
not denoting some "force" of the father as the third.

Note no names there either, only role and relationship of three
individuals.

[//"".]

> Re: Russel, was ""The Jehovahs Witness
>
> From: James <1ri...@windstream.net>
> Reply to: James
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:15:30 -0400
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Newsgroups:
> alt.religion.christian.episcopal,
> alt.bible,
> alt.christnet.christianlife,
> england.religion.christian,
> aus.religion.christian
> Followup to: newsgroups
> References:
> <1murp8pnn06f7sekp...@4ax.com>
> <519e2ec4$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>

You did not address my point of history that for 1875 years there was no
valid church until mr. russel invented his doctrines. Every cult to come
down the pike fits your description of needing a "ghide", all of them. In
fact one hallmark of most cults is that it is and individual man with his
private spin on scripture. He gives himself the sole authority in this
activity to do so. This in contrast with the clear process as in Acts for
deciding upon doctrines of faith and practice.

[//"".]

>>Who did that translation and what were their qualifications to do so?
>
>It is usually called the New World Translation. (NWT) It is one of the
>most accurate translations you will come across.

You did not answer my questions. "Who" means which individuals such as
might be listed by name, no?

The rest of the post snipped for being irrelevant to the questions put to
you.

The official brooklyn answer is not to say who. Now why would that be?
Could it bring some light on their qualification? But it is now known
exactly who did it, 5 individuals and 1 doing most of it. Here is a short
youtube video on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjtBq5mG_Wg

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

Jim wrote in message news:

> The Personality of the Holy Ghost

Has in certain passages been personified as a person, just as has 'Wisdom'
and the 'Devil' and 'Satan' have been throughout the Bible.

Jeff...

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE
THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION
by M. Kurt Goedelman
The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is the name of
the Bible used worldwide by members of the Jehovah's Witness sect. The
Watchtower Society claims this work to have been made directly into
English from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages.

This translation, they claim, was made by "a committee of anointed
witnesses of Jehovah,"but the Society refuses to divulge the names and
credentials of the men who comprised this committee.

The work was originally released in six volumes starting in 1950. In
1961 the entire Bible had been completely "translated" and thus
released in a one volume publication. Since that time many additional
editions of this Bible have rolled off the Watchtower's presses,
complete with changes and alterations.

Who Were the translators?

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has failed both the public and
its own followers at this most crucial point, as they refuse to give
the names and credentials of the translators of The New World
Translation. The Watchtower's Bible subject index handbook, Reasoning
from the Scripture, states: "When presenting as a gift the publishing

rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee
requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and

Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request" (pg. 277).

The reason cited is because the "translators were not seeking
prominence for themselves." However, the fact is that the men who
comprised this committee had no adequate schooling or background to
function as skilled critical Bible translators.

The translation committee was headed by (then vice -president of the
Jehovah's Witnesses)Frederick W.Franz. Other members included Nathan
H. Knorr (then president of the Jehovah's Witnesses),AlbertD.
Schroeder, Ceorge D. Gangas and Milton Henschel.

The information as to the identity of the translation committee was
made known by former Jehovah's Witness William Cetnar. (See further,
We Left lehovah's Witnesses, A Non-Profit Organization Edmond C.
Gruss.) Cetnar was to supply this information as he worked at the
International Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses during the time the
translation was being prepared.

In addition, former member of the Watchtower's Governing Body, Raymond
V. Franz, in his book, Crisis of Conscience, lists the translators'
names as Franz, Knorr, Schroeder and Cangas. His list omits Henschel.
Franz further acknowledges his uncle Frederick Franz as the "principal
translator of the Society's New World Translation" (Crisis, pg. 50).

Yet, Frederick Franz's translation ability is open to serious
question.

During a court trial held in Scotland in 1954 (during the same period
that the New World Translation was being made) Franz was asked if he
had made himself familiar with Hebrew. His reply was "Yes." Healso
acknowledged under oath that he could read and follow the Bible in
Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French. The
following day, during the same court trial, his linguistic abilities
were put to the test.

He was asked to translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew. He failed the test
as he was unable to do so. In fact he did not even try, but rather
stated "No, I wouldn't attempt to do that."(See, Court of Session,
Scotland - Douglas Walsh vs. The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde -
November 1954.)

Is It Really a Scholarly Translation7

To this question the Watchtower has led its followers to believe that
although the backgrounds of its translators are not made known, the
translation will stand on its own. It does not.

The translation committee is guilty of inventing non-existent Greek
grammar (and then follows these made up rules only when necessary to
support the theology of the Watchtower) and inserting words into
Scripture that change the meaning of God's Word.

The 1985 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures states for its readers the guidelines and goals endorsed by
the translation committee. The Society claims that, "We offer no
paraphrase ofScripture. Our endeavor throughout has been to as literal
a translation as possible where the modern English idiom allows for it
or where the thought content is not hidden due to awkwardness in the
literal rendition" and that" To each major word we have assigned one
meaning and have held to that meaning as far as context
permitted" (pp. 9-10, 1985 ed.; pg. 10, 1969 ed.).

However, based on these claims for its translation of the Bible, the
committee has failed miserably.

Considering the Watchtower's first point, "We offer no paraphrase of
Scripture," one need only examine the NWT renderings of John 15:4,5;
John 17:26; Galatians 1:16; Romans 8:10; Colossians 1:27 and 2
Corinthians 13:5 to find that the translation committee has
paraphrased Scripture to deny the indwelling of Christ in the
believer.

Each of the aforementioned verses speaks of Christ living within the
Christian ("in him" or "in you"), yet these verses found in the NWT
have been paraphrased to read in union with you (him)" (emphasis
added).

Regarding the second point,"Our endeavor throughout has been to give
as literal a translation as possible...," this criterion likewise
misses the mark of honest scholarship.

An examination of Colossians 1:16, 17 and Philippians 2:9 demonstrates
through the addition of words that the committee has not presented "as
literal a translation as possible. "

In both verses cited one finds the word "other" added. (Christ created
all "other" things, meaning he is also a creature, a created being.)
Thus we find divine attributes of the Lord Jesus Christ removed,
namely that He is the creator of all things and that He possesses the
name that is above every name.

Finally, the third point, "To each major word we have assigned one
meaning and have held to that meaning as far as context permitted,"
fairs no better than the previous statements. The translation
committee has again let their theological bias bend their rules for
translating.

In Matthew 25:46, 2 Peter 2:9 and Acts 4:21 we find the Greek word
kolaoontai that refers to punishment.

However, since the Watchtower denies the teaching of eternal
punishment we find the committee rendering two of the passages, those
in Matthew and 2 Peter (which refer to eternal punishment) as "cutting
off" and the Scripture found in Acts (which refers to physical
punishment) as "punish."

Since the Kingdom Interlinear Translation provides a between the lines
literal Greek-English Translation and the text of the New World
Translation (located in the right hand column), we recommend its use
for the documentation of the above Scriptural citations.

Why is the Name "]ehovah " Used in the Christian Greek Scriptures?

The Watchtower Society leads its followers to believe that its
translation is also superior on the basis that it has restored the
divine name ]ehovah (Yahweh) to the pages of the Bible. The
Watchtower's publication, "The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever"
announces that it was a "apostate" Christian church that removed the
divine name and has substituted " Lord" in its place.

However, they have based, in part, this erroneous idea on some
guesswork published by Professor George Howard in an article in the
March 1978 issue of Biblical Archaeological Review. Howard's evidence
was slim and in a more detailed article published the previous year in
The Journal of Biblical Literature he sets forth what he proposes as
"a theory." The question that the Watchtower leaders never considered
is whether Howard's guesses are supported by the evidence.

This question was addressed by Dr. Albert Pietersma of the University
of Toronto. Writing in De Sepuaginta, a collection of scholarly
articles, by experts in Septuagint studies, Piertersma carefully
reviews Howard's use of the three Old Testament manuscript fragments.
He finds that a careful examination does not support Howard's theory.

Further the Watchtower's Reasoning book announces, "The divine name
appears in translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew,
in passages where quotations are made directly from the inspired
Hebrew Scriptures. This is merely a rephrasing of the "Restoring the
Divine Name" concept found in the Forward of the Kingdom Interlinear
Translation (pp. 10ff).

The translation committee has set forth the proposition that a modern
translator may render the Greek words Kyrios and Theos as the divine
name Jehovah (Yahweh) when the inspired Christian writers have quoted
from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name appears.

Regrettably, once again the translation committee has followed this
rule only when it does not contradicttheir theology. Philippians
2:10,11 serves as a perfect example. Scripture is clear that one day
every knee will bow and every tongue confess that "Jesus Christ is
Lord." However the Philippians passage is quoted from Isaiah 45:23 and
here we are told that to Jehovah every knee will bow.

Therefore based on the Watchtower's own translation rule, the Lord
spoken of in Philippians is none other than Jehovah. Further it is of
interest to note that the 1950 edition of the New World Translation of
the Christian Scriptures, which contained marginal cross references,
cited Isaiah 45:23 as a cross reference to the Philippians 2:11
passage.

Numerous scholars with true credentials in the Biblical languages have
condemned the Watchtower's New World Translation as a fatal distortion
of God's written Word. For example, see The Bible Collector (luly-
December, 1971) issue which devotes three articles evaluating the
Watchtower scripture.

Thus it has been demonstrated above that the Watchtower Society has,
by its own standards, proven its Bible translation to be unreliable
and untrustworthy. Those desiring a modern translation would do well
to invest in either the New American Standard Version or the New
international Version of Scripture to escape the theological prejudice
and Biblical untruths found in the New World Translation.

If a Jehovah's Witness Would Say...

"Our Bible is Reliable." The Christian should respond that no
reputable Greek or Hebrew scholar has given an endorsement of the New
World Translation. The Society has at times used both out-of-context
quotations from scholars and antiqued statements to make it appear
that there are those who give credence to this translation, but this
version is only used by Jehovah's Witnesses to promulgate their
doctrines.

You may also wish to note that it would be most beneficial if we could
check out the scholarly abilities of the men who comprised the
translation committee, but the Watchtower organization refuses to
release their names or credentials. While some have stated that this
is due to the humility of these men, others have made the claim that
it is because these men have no qualifications to serve as accurate
Bible translators.

Therefore the evidence found both within the Society's own Kingdom
Interlinear Translation and other non-Watchtower sources, the latter
claim appears to be most true. Remember it is not a sin to "make sure
of all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21) nor to try "them which say they
are apostles" (Revelation 2:2).

An additional suggestion: If a Jehovah's Witness should ask who
comprised the translation committee of the Bible you use, tell him you
will be happy to find out. Inform the Watchtower follower that this
information is available and accessible to those who desire to find it
out. It is not hidden from nor denied to those who seek it. Some
modern day versions of the Bible even include this information in the
introduction section of the publication. The names and scholarly
credentials for the translators of The New King James Version, The New
International Version, The Revised Standard Version and The King James
Version are all easily accessible.

The ]ehovah's Witnesses have and do use this type of smoke screen to
catch Christians off guard. When Christians respond by providing the
names and credentials of the men who comprised the various
translations of Scripture, it again demonstrates the deceptiveness of
the Watchtower Society.

One note of exception: The Watchtower's Reasoning book has cited the
New American Standard Version as an example of a translation committee
who refuses to divulge the identity of its members. While the Lockman
Foundation, the publisher of the New American Standard Version, has,
to date, not made known the names of its translation committee, it has
provided its readers with numerous facts concerning the making of this
translation as found in the preface.

Further, the Lockman Foundation has, over the past few years,
increasingly made known more facts concerning the translation of the
New American Standard Version. The Watchtower, unlike the Lockman
Foundation, has consistently stated when challenged, that its
translation will stand on its own. If the need arises the Christian
may simply state that he (or she) will be happy to make use of a
translation whose translation committee names are available -- if
the]ehovah's Witness will find out the names of the NWT's translation
committee.

For additional information dealing with the Jehovah's Witnesses' New
World Translation see: The lehovah's Witnesses'New Testament by Dr.
Robert Countess (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company) and
Apostles of Denial by Edmond C. Gruss (Baker Book House).

Kurt Goedelman is director of Personal Freedom Outreach, A Christian
research ministry in St. Louis, Missouri.



The Religious Research Project • 1276 New York Avenue • Logan, OH
43138

http://ittsy.com/focusonthefaulty/Pages/jehovahs.html

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"''." wrote in message news:519e643d$0$2654$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

>>>"The "Holy Spirit" is also personified in a number of places. And that
>>>arrangement didn't take place till the 4th century. That is when the
>>>Holy Spirit was defined as a person by some church officials. For more"
>>>
>>>Scripture provides the great commission long before the 4th century, to
>>>go
>>>to all the world baptising in the name of the father and the son and the
>>>holy spirit. The HS is not in the commission a figure of speech.
>>
>>What is the name of the Holy Spirit, if it is indeed a person?

>John 14:
> =26] But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
> my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance
> all that I have said to you.

Actually the word 'HE' can just as correctly be 'IT' !

[He, It, the other —Strong's Greek & Hebrew Dictionary]

Thus it can be read as:
"But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, IT will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance

all that I have said to you."

Jeff...

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 23, 2:24 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"

John 14:16

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,
that he may abide with you for ever;

Jesus is refering to Himself not to to some inaninate object.
Parakletos Noun Masculine

summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for
defense, legal assistant, an advocate
one who pleads another's cause with one,

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/parakletos.html


Another cultist(christadelphians) founded
in the 19th century.

Dr. John Thomas Biography
Dr. John Thomas, Founder of the Christadelphians
(1805-1871),

http://christianity.about.com/od/christadelphians/a/drjohnthomas.htm

[vince garcia]

Why do you let a demonic spirit lead you into deception when you read
the scripture?


It is as I said about you.

Like EVERY false teacher, you think you understand.

[Rod]

On 5/23/2013 4:39 PM, Pete wrote:

> Seen
> Properly to stare at (compare G3700), that is, (by implication) to discern
> clearly (physically or mentally); by extension to attend to; by Hebraism to
> experience; passively to appear: - behold, perceive, see, take heed.
>
> Moses saw the back side of God on the Mountain Top.
> He also saw him so that he knew which rock on the Mountainside to strike
> with his Staff.

>
>> Why do you deny that what Jesus said is true?

Why are those sure of the truth not answering this question ?





>>
>> Phil
>
>
>
>

[Rod]

On 5/23/2013 6:48 PM, vince garcia wrote:
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>>
>> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519DF0...@ix.netcom.com...
>> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>>
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:62d65f81-8930-447d...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 22, 9:36 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>> Only 2 points
>>
>>>> "No man has at any time seen God" Who said that? Jesus. So if Jesus is
>>>> God,
>>>> as you say, then either he wasn't at Mamre or he was at Mamre and he
>>>> forgot.
>>
>>> AH AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> Now he reveals more heresy--he doesn't even have the right Christ! He
>>> denies the DEITY of Christ. He has a false Christ just as his brethren
>>> in the Watchtower Society.
>>
>>> Now we see he more of what he really is.
>>
>> When Jesus said that no man had seen God I believe him.
>>
>> Why do you deny that what Jesus said is true?

Why haven't you answered this question ?

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 23, 8:08 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:

"When Jesus said that no man had seen God I believe him.

Why do you deny that what Jesus said is true?

Why haven't you answered this question ?

John 14:7
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:
and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which
believe not,
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
who is the image of God,
should shine unto them.

Ans) in Christ we see God.

Meditate on:

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ.

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[Barry OGrady]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 23:11:52 -0700, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

>I did. Did you notice the definition of seen as used in that day? The only
>thing I left out is that God is a spirit, and at that time most people
>could not see in the spirit.

The spirit must be Vodka.
You also left out that God does not exist.

==============
This sig intentionally left blank

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"Pete" wrote in message news:N0wnt.5179$ZU7....@newsfe28.iad...

On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:54:22 +0100, <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519DF0...@ix.netcom.com...
>> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

>>> wrote in message
>>> news:62d65f81-8930-447d...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 22, 9:36 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>

>> snip

>> When Jesus said that no man had seen God I believe him.

> Seen
> Properly to stare at (compare G3700), that is, (by implication) to discern
> clearly (physically or mentally); by extension to attend to; by Hebraism
> to
> experience; passively to appear: - behold, perceive, see, take heed.

1) to see with the eyes
2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know
3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience
4) to see, to look to
a) to take heed, beware
b) to care for, pay heed to
5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared

The women said they had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead
Jesus said that the disciples had seen him after he rose

Phil

[vince garcia]

Rod wrote:
>
> On 5/23/2013 6:48 PM, vince garcia wrote:
> > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> >>
> >> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519DF0...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> wrote in message
> >>> news:62d65f81-8930-447d...@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On May 22, 9:36 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >>>> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >>>> Only 2 points
> >>
> >>>> "No man has at any time seen God" Who said that? Jesus. So if Jesus is
> >>>> God,
> >>>> as you say, then either he wasn't at Mamre or he was at Mamre and he
> >>>> forgot.
> >>
> >>> AH AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >>> Now he reveals more heresy--he doesn't even have the right Christ! He
> >>> denies the DEITY of Christ. He has a false Christ just as his brethren
> >>> in the Watchtower Society.
> >>
> >>> Now we see he more of what he really is.
> >>
> >> When Jesus said that no man had seen God I believe him.
> >>
> >> Why do you deny that what Jesus said is true?
>
> Why haven't you answered this question ?
>

BEcause his thinking is skewed and two-dimensional, and he will
automatically deny any answer that does not agree with his delusion.

the answer is, no man has "seen" God in His absolute fullness as He
truly is.

All sorts of people have "seen" appeaances of god from Adam down,
including abraham, and including people like Daniel who in a vision saw
both Father AND Son

But HIS delusion, and the delusion of people like the JWs, would hold:
"Since Jesus said 'no man has seen God,' and people have seen Jesus,
then Jesus cannot be God"

That is delusional thinking, and I will waste no further time with him.
as paul said:

A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

It doesn't say waste time pointlessly debating him.

[vince garcia]

James wrote:
>

>
> You never heard anyone say "Look at my car, isn't 'she' a beauty"?
>
> It is called personification. The Bible uses that occassionally. For
> example, "wisdom" is personified at Prov 8:22-31.

>
> The "Holy Spirit" is also personified in a number of places. And that
> arrangement didn't take place till the 4th century. That is when the
> Holy Spirit was defined as a person by some church officials. For more

> details:
>
> "Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit
> was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus
> likewise ascribed no personality to the holy spirit. The Scriptures
> themselves unite to show that God’s holy spirit is not a person but is
> God’s active force by which he accomplishes his purpose and executes
> his will." (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, p.1019)
>
> Notice BEFORE the 4th century, it had no such definition. Do the
> research yourself.
>


Since you respect Justin Martyr so much, then you certainly respect
THESE quotes from him as well, right?

"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."
Oh look--not "God is your thone" Guess he wasn't a JW heretic

"Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts."

"The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten
Word of God, is even God."

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that
he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and
the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness,
saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the
unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are
ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5-6).


Now here are some other quotes...

"I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the
everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to
you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen"

Polycarp 150 AD



Irenaeus

"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither
had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God
did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had
himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did
not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present
the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely
and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying,
‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]" (Against
Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189]

Tertullian

"While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be
place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of
various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is
not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so
in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself
to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the
one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and
Spirit are the selfsame PERSON. As if one were not all . . . through the
unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 [A.D. 216]).



"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they
confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the
idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of
Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. .
. . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons—namely,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are declared to possess the one Godhead:
for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the
Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature" (gregory the
Wonderworker--A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).

"no such definition" of the Spirit as a person before the 4th century
you JW liar?

I DID do the research myself, and found you to be a liar

[vince garcia]

James wrote:

> Yes, there is nothing wrong with having spiritually experienced people
> guide a person in understanding the scriptures. (Acts 8:26-31)
>

Yes there is if they are JWs like YOU--because they wind up deceiving
people as you do below!!!!!!!!!!!

Read for yourself

[vince garcia]

jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:

> In other words a lawyer, you just can't accept
> facts because of your cult. Your pride keeps
> you from admitting you are wrong.
>
> Pr 16:18 -
> Pride goeth before destruction,
> and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Did you notice how I nailed the liar's bluff, who said:

>> Notice BEFORE the 4th century, it had no such definition. Do the
>> research yourself.

His pride AND his lies have been exposed

[///"".]

>>>> When Jesus said that no man had seen God I believe him.
>>>>
>>>

>>> Seen
>>> Properly to stare at (compare G3700), that is, (by implication) to discern
>>> clearly (physically or mentally); by extension to attend to; by Hebraism to
>>> experience; passively to appear: - behold, perceive, see, take heed.
>>>

>>> Moses saw the back side of God on the Mountain Top.
>>> He also saw him so that he knew which rock on the Mountainside to strike
>>> with his Staff.
>>>

>>>> Why do you deny that what Jesus said is true?
>>

>> Why are those sure of the truth not answering this question ?
>>
>
>I did. Did you notice the definition of seen as used in that day? The
only
>thing I left out is that God is a spirit, and at that time most people
>could not see in the spirit.

One of the most basic rules of interpretation is to first take the common
sense meaning. This Entire bit about not "seeing in the spirit" is ad hoc
speculative nonsense to reverse introduce a doctrine not inherent in it.
What part of "no man has seen" escapes common understanding?

The range of definitions by usage given fully accounts for the common sense
meaning of "no man has seen".

[Rod]

He needs someone to show him why he is wrong !

[Rod]

On 5/24/2013 1:11 AM, Pete wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 20:08:00 -0500, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> I did. Did you notice the definition of seen as used in that day? The only
> thing I left out is that God is a spirit, and at that time most people
> could not see in the spirit.
>

He was referring to the face of the Father, not his backside!!!

[Rod]

On 5/24/2013 6:48 AM, vince garcia wrote:

He is confused between God and god. They are the same in substance but
not in authority or person. Jesus was the same substance as his
Father, god but not God. The Father spoke thru him and was in him speaking.

This guy doesn't understand it yet.

[vince garcia]

very nicely put.

But his problem is not lack of knowledge. His problem is deception. No
matter how you lay it out, he will counter with his own false doctrine
and refute it that way, and remark "you have not shown me how i am
wrong"

That's how all deceived people operate

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 24, 6:58 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com wrote:
> > In other words a lawyer, you just can't accept
> > facts because of your cult. Your pride keeps
> > you from admitting you are wrong.
>
> > Pr 16:18 -
> > Pride goeth before destruction,
> >  and an haughty spirit before a fall.
>
> Did you notice how I nailed the liar's bluff, who said:
>

Yes, I did and God bless you for it.

> >> Notice BEFORE the 4th century, it had no such definition. Do the
> >> research yourself.
>
> His pride AND his lies have been exposed

In theology, it is called invincible ignorance.

[Rod]

On 5/24/2013 11:39 AM, Pete wrote:

> Who was? If one reads the account of Moses and God on the mountain top, God
> specifically said not to look at His face.
>
> I see nothing in the post referring to the face of the Father.
>


Use some common sense pete ! Are you going to recognize God
on the street by looking at His back ?????

[Rod]

But how do you know this guy will do that ? It doesn't cost YOU
anything to give him the benefit of the doubt...it isn't like
the problem won't be viewed by people here.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

But Scripture does.
"I show kindness and mercy to anyone I want to. 20 But you may not see the
glory of my face, for man may not see me and live. 21 However, stand here on
this rock beside me. 22 And when my glory goes by, I will put you in the
cleft of the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed. 23 Then I
will remove my hand, and you shall see my back but not my face."
Ex 33:19-23 (TLB)

Jeff...

[vince garcia]

;;, . wrote:
>
> Who did that translation and what were their qualifications to do so?

The question is a red herring. You can be a PhD and be totally
imcompetant. James the JW regularly quotes incometant "scholars" with
degrees

[vince garcia]

It costs me time. I've already been dealing with him, and he's already
been doing that on other issues like trying to make john the baptist's
teachings confliict with Jesus' to fit his agenda. He's reading this
thread. Do you think he's going to chime in with an admission of being
wrong? Of course not

[Mordecai]

I ask once again - about the psychology.

Here, in the three verses you have chosen to prove your contention, two
verses have JC denying that he was G_d, and the third verse has the author
denying that JC is G_d.

With the question - what do people do when their beliefs are in conflict
with reality?


--
Mordecai!

When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.

[//"".]

"I ask once again - about the psychology.

Here, in the three verses you have chosen to prove your contention, two
verses have JC denying that he was G_d, and the third verse has the author
denying that JC is G_d."

No, they do not. When Christ declared himself God at two seperate events
the jews present rose up to kill Him for doing so.

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>

>On May 23, 6:37 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 22, 9:36 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>>

>> >> >On May 21, 4:55 pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
>> >> >doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"
>>
>> >> >Gen 18
>> >> > 1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat
>> >> >in the tent door in the heat of the day;
>> >> >   2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
>> >> >him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
>> >> >and bowed himself toward the ground,
>> >> >   3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass
>> >> >not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
>> >> >Notice: three persons, one Lord
>>
>> >> They nowhere say they are 3 co-equal persons in one God.
>>
>> >  Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria   (born 15–10 bc,
>> >Alexandria—died ad 45–50, Alexandria),  saw a type of Trinity.
>> >  http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus
>>
>> >   Philo writes:
>>
>> >...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
>> >they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of a
>> >trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
>> >[else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
>> >Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
>> >"Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
>> >vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
>> >[triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
>> >(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)
>>
>> >  http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/kabbalah/kabbachurch.htm
>>
>> >> > Matt 28
>> >> > 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
>> >> >       baptizing them in the name
>> >> >      of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
>> >> > Notice: Name singular, three persons
>>
>> >> If the Holy Ghost is a person, what is his name?
>>
>> >   Name singular, three persons, to paraphrase
>> >   Groucho Marx, I should believe you not my
>> >   lying eyes.
>>
>> >  John Chapter 14
>> >   16 And I will pray the Father,
>> >and he shall give you another Comforter,
>> > that he may abide with you for ever;
>>
>> >17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
>> > because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:
>> >but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you,
>> >and shall be in you.
>>
>> >26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
>> >send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things
>> >to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
>>
>> >Notice: him,him,him,he,he

>>
>> You never heard anyone say "Look at my car, isn't 'she' a beauty"?
>>

> It isn't talking about a car,but another like Jesus.
> Again to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I am to believe
> you not my lying eyes.

Personification doesn't have to be a car. It can be about anything,
esp the Holy Spirit. That it is a person, was defined in the 4th
century, long after the Bible was written.

>
> Since you want to quote Church Fathers, you from
> a cult started in 1872 A.D., Irenaeus who knew
> Polycarp who knew John says,

I quote whatever resources are availible to give support to my
statements.


>
> 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church,
>who may
>wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the
>apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a
>position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted
>bishops
>in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to
>our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like
>what
>these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden
>mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect"
>apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them
>especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches
>themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very
>perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving
>behind
>as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to
>these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly,
>would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away,
>the direst calamity.
>2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as
>this,
>to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to
>confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil
>self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion,
>assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by
>indicating
>that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
>ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome
>by
>the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing
>out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
>of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity
>that
>every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-
>eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the
>apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those
>[faithful men] who exist everywhere.
>3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the
>Church,
>committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of
>this
>Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him
>succeeded
>Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles,
>Clement
>was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed
>apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have
>the
>preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their
>traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there
>were
>many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.
>In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred
>among
>the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most
>powerful
>letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their
>faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from
>the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of
>heaven
>and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called
>Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses,
>set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for
>the
>devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so,
>may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached
>by
>the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of
>the
>Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are
>now
>propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god
>beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this
>Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus;
>then,
>sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus,
>who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then
>after
>him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now,
>in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the
>episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical
>tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have
>come
>down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the
>same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the
>apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
>4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and
>conversed
>with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia,
>appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early
>youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very
>old
>man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,7 departed this
>life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the
>apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are
>true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also
>those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man
>who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth,
>than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was
>who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away
>from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he
>had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely,
>which is handed down by the Church.8 "
>
>
> Irenaeus Book III, Chapter III

"We must obey God rather than men.”—Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 24.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[Mordecai]

I am not interested in the times when he said he was ... I am interested in
the times he said he does not.
And your reactions to them.

I note you removed the verses in your reply ...
And "ASSERTED" that they do not deny it.
No explanation of course.
And "out of sight, out of mind" which is why they are removed ... lest
another might look and ask ... and question.

The psychology ... not the theology, is important.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

And ignore sources that refute your sources,
as Vince Garcia showed.

That's why I follow the Bible and not the Columbia Heights Cult.

Like Thomas,I say to Jesus,my Lord and my God.
That's found in the Bible,so I believe it.

[James]

'' "".

>
>>>"The "Holy Spirit" is also personified in a number of places. And that
>>>arrangement didn't take place till the 4th century. That is when the
>>>Holy Spirit was defined as a person by some church officials. For more"
>>>

>>>Scripture provides the great commission long before the 4th century, to go
>>>to all the world baptising in the name of the father and the son and the
>>>holy spirit. The HS is not in the commission a figure of speech.
>>
>>What is the name of the Holy Spirit, if it is indeed a person?
>
>John 14:
>
> =26] But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
> my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance
> all that I have said to you.
>
>Commentary upon same:
>
>http://biblehub.com/john/14-16.htm
>
>The word used here,
> signifies an advocate, counsellor, monitor, and comforter. He would
> abide with the disciples to the end of time; his gifts and graces would
> encourage their hearts. The expressions used here and elsewhere,
> plainly denote a person, and the office itself includes all the Divine
> perfections. The gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed upon the disciples
> of Christ, and not on the world. This is the favour God bears to his
> chosen. As the source of holiness and happiness, the Holy Spirit will
> abide with every believer for ever.
>
>I will take the word of a greek scholar on this point of what is denoted.
>As for a name, pick one of the above. Which begs the question, why is a
>name required?
>
>Note the great comission has thre not two with some attribute of the father
>not denoting some "force" of the father as the third.
>
>Note no names there either, only role and relationship of three
>individuals.

It is kind of insulting to be a person, and not have a name. Comforter
etc, in the Bible, is not a person's name, but a description of what
something does. In this case, it is God's active force.

Again, look up the definition of the Greek word for "spirit" (Greek
"pneuma")) and tell me what you find. (or the Hebrew word "ruach")

[James]

> Re: Russel, was ""The Jehovahs Witness
>
> From: James <1ri...@windstream.net>
> Reply to: James
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:15:30 -0400
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Newsgroups:
> alt.religion.christian.episcopal,
> alt.bible,
> alt.christnet.christianlife,
> england.religion.christian,
> aus.religion.christian
> Followup to: newsgroups
> References:
> <1murp8pnn06f7sekp...@4ax.com>
> <519e2ec4$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>
>;; "".
>>Mr. russel in the past 125 or so years first proposed the newly invented
>>doctrines that would lead to the jw as we now know them. It appears he
>>made of Christ a liar when He said the gates of hell would not prevail
>>against His church. To make mr. russel's new doctrines valid then for 1875
>>years the gates of hell prevaled.
>
>???
>
>>
>>Mr. russel as an individual proposed his new interpretation, which
>>scripture says such private interpretation is to be avoided.
>
>Sometimes we need help in understanding the Scriptures. We have the
>example of the an Ethiopian eunuch who was trying to understand some
>verses in the book of Isaiah. When Philip joined him, Philip said":
>Do you actually know what you are reading? 31?He said: Really, how
>could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?"

>
>Yes, there is nothing wrong with having spiritually experienced people
>guide a person in understanding the scriptures. (Acts 8:26-31)
>

>James
>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org
>
>
>

>>The model in
>>scripture is for decisions concerning doctrine to be done in an collective
>>manner, such as the first council in Acts.

Today, that is done by a group of spiritually educated men who meet to
discuss doctrinal topics, such as was done by the central governing
body in the 1st century. They are called by JW's, the Governing Body.

>>
>>Mr. russel fits perfectly the sevral warnings about individuals to come who
>>would distort and decieve.

>You did not address my point of history that for 1875 years there was >>no
>valid church until mr. russel invented his doctrines. Every cult to come
>down the pike fits your description of needing a "ghide", all of them. >>In
>fact one hallmark of most cults is that it is and individual man with his
>private spin on scripture. He gives himself the sole authority in this
>activity to do so. This in contrast with the clear process as in Acts for
>deciding upon doctrines of faith and practice.


You are living in the distant past. Mr Russel is dead. Today, there is
no one individual who declares what is doctrine and what is not. Today
it is decided by a group of men, as in the 1st century. JW's have come
a long way since then. They are now fulfilling Scripture at Mt 24:14.
Just look at the cover of any Watchtower magazine for proof.

[James]

// "".

>
>>>Who did that translation and what were their qualifications to do so?
>>

>>It is usually called the New World Translation. (NWT) It is one of the
>>most accurate translations you will come across.
>
>You did not answer my questions. "Who" means which individuals such as
>might be listed by name, no?

I already answered your question in the last posting. Just review the
material.


>
>The rest of the post snipped for being irrelevant to the questions put to
>you.

You snipped out the answer to your question above. Naughty, naughty.


>
>The official brooklyn answer is not to say who. Now why would that be?
>Could it bring some light on their qualification? But it is now known
>exactly who did it, 5 individuals and 1 doing most of it. Here is a short
>youtube video on the topic:

If you know the answer, why ask the question?

By the way, you also snipped the fact that the NASB had their
translators remain anonamous also, so as not to bring praise upon
themselves. The jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New
American Standard Bible states:

“We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations
because it is our belief God’s Word
should stand on its merits.”

Did you condemn them for doing the same?

You also snipped out a commentary by associate professor of religious
studies Jason BeDuhn, who concluded about the NWT Bible:

"is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament
currently available" and "the most accurate of the translations
compared". (Truth in Translation:Accuracy and Bias in English
Translations of the New Testament)"

You also snipped out some sources for the text of the New World
Translation Bible:

Original Hebrew Writings and Early Copies

Aramaic Targums
Dead Sea Scrolls
Samaritan Pentateuch
Greek Septuagint
Old Latin
Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian
Hebrew Consonantal Text
Latin Vulgate
Greek Versions-Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus
Syriac Peshitta
Masoretic Text
Cairo Codex
Petersburg Codex of the Prophets
Aleppo Codex
Ginsburg's Hebrew Text
Codex Leningrad B 19A
Biblia Hebraica (BHK), Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia (BHS)

Sources for the Text of the New World Translation-Christian Greek
Scriptures

Original Greek Writings and Early Copies

Armenian Version
Coptic Versions
Syriac Versions-Curetonian, Philoxenian, Harclean,
Palestinian, Sinaitic, Peshitta
Old Latin
Latin Vulgate
Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts
Greek Cursive MSS.
Erasmus Text
Stephanus Text
Textus Receptus
Griesbach Greek Text
Emphatic Diaglott
Papyri-(e.g., Chester Beatty P45, P46, P47; Bodmer P66, P74,P75)
Early Greek Uncial MSS.-Vatican 1209 (B), Sinaitic (<H<!>H>),
Alexandrine (A), Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), Bezae (D)
Westcott and Hort Greek Text
Bover Greek Text
Merk Greek Text
Nestle-Aland Greek Text
United Bible Societies Greek Text
23 Hebrew Versions (14th-20th centuries), translated either from the
Greek or from the Latin Vulgate, using Tetragrammaton for divine name"

Doesn't look to me like they were a bunch of morons or something. But
if that is your opinion, so be it.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


>

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjtBq5mG_Wg

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Who was there to name God,that is why He tells
Moses I Am sent you, in other words God has
being,He must be, while we are accidents, we only
exist because God wills it.

> Again, look up the definition of the Greek word for "spirit" (Greek
> "pneuma")) and tell me what you find. (or the Hebrew word "ruach")
>

Jesus uses parakletos which is masculine is another
helper like Jesus who is a person.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and

and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19 )

Notice: Name singular, three persons.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 25, 9:34 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >                     Re: Russel, was ""The Jehovahs Witness
>
> >   From: James <1ri...@windstream.net>
> >   Reply to: James
> >   Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 12:15:30 -0400
> >   Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> >   Newsgroups:
> >          alt.religion.christian.episcopal,
> >          alt.bible,
> >          alt.christnet.christianlife,
> >          england.religion.christian,
> >          aus.religion.christian
> >   Followup to: newsgroups
> >   References:

> >          <1murp8pnn06f7sekp482up2un20grc2...@4ax.com>
> >          <519e2ec4$0$2661$1c468...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>

Simple fact Jesus never rebuked Thomas
when he said My Lord and My God to Jesus.
I stand with Thomas and the Bible, your cult
rejects a statement accepted by Jesus, so
you follow men not the Bible.

[//"".]

> "When Jesus said that no man had seen God I believe him.
>
> Why do you deny that what Jesus said is true?
>
> Why haven't you answered this question ?
>
> John 14:7
> If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:
> and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
>
> John 1:18
> No man hath seen God at any time;
> the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,
> he hath declared him.
>
> 2 Corinthians 4:4
> In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which
> believe not,
> lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
> who is the image of God,
> should shine unto them.
>
> Ans) in Christ we see God.
>
> Meditate on:
>
> 33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,
> and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
>
> 34. Who, although He is God and man,
> yet He is not two, but one Christ.
>
> http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

I ask once again - about the psychology.

"Here, in the three verses you have chosen to prove your contention, two
verses have JC denying that he was G_d, and the third verse has the author
denying that JC is G_d."

You must do better then that. Do explain why you conclude that, explain
the language that makes it so in your assertion.

Christ said twice He was God andd those jews present rose to kill Him with
no doubt what He said.

[vince garcia]

James wrote:
>

>
> You never heard anyone say "Look at my car, isn't 'she' a beauty"?
>

> It is called personification. The Bible uses that occassionally. For
> example, "wisdom" is personified at Prov 8:22-31.

>
> The "Holy Spirit" is also personified in a number of places. And that
> arrangement didn't take place till the 4th century. That is when the
> Holy Spirit was defined as a person by some church officials. For more

> details:
>
> "Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit
> was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus
> likewise ascribed no personality to the holy spirit. The Scriptures
> themselves unite to show that God’s holy spirit is not a person but is
> God’s active force by which he accomplishes his purpose and executes
> his will." (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, p.1019)

>
> Notice BEFORE the 4th century, it had no such definition. Do the
> research yourself.
>

Since you respect Justin Martyr so much, then you certainly respect
THESE quotes from him as well, right?

"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."
Oh look--not "God is your thone" Guess he wasn't a JW heretic

"Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts."

"The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten
Word of God, is even God."

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that
he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and
the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness,
saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the
unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are
ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5-6).


Now here are some other quotes...

"I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the
everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to
you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen"

Polycarp 150 AD



Irenaeus

"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither
had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God
did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had
himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did
not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present
the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely
and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying,
‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Gen. 1:26]" (Against
Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189]

Tertullian

"While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be
place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of
various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is
not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so
in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself
to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the
one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and
Spirit are the selfsame PERSON. As if one were not all . . . through the
unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 [A.D. 216]).



"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they
confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the
idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of
Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. .
. . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons—namely,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are declared to possess the one Godhead:
for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the
Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature" (gregory the
Wonderworker--A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).

"no such definition" of the Spirit as a person before the 4th century
you JW liar?

I DID do the research myself, and found you to be a liar

[vince garcia]

[/]

I repeat, i take the word of a scholar of greek who is in a position to
make the above conclusion about the Holy Spirit. This compared to the jw
working backwards 1875 years later to pour new doctrine into greek words.

That you conclude as you do about having a name is not relevant is it? That
a word in greek can have multiple uses with differing meanings is of no
avail. Again I take the word of the greek scholar over such superficial
knowledge.

Mr. russel who invented this kind of thing did not know greek to read it.
He took the ambiguity that translation into english can introduce and
invented his own opinion willy nilly. I take the word of a greek scholar
above over his johnny come lately opinion formed entirely ignorant of the
greek.

["".]

>You did not address my point of history that for 1875 years there was >>no
>valid church until mr. russel invented his doctrines. Every cult to come
>down the pike fits your description of needing a "ghide", all of them.
>>In
>fact one hallmark of most cults is that it is and individual man with his
>private spin on scripture. He gives himself the sole authority in this
>activity to do so. This in contrast with the clear process as in Acts for
>deciding upon doctrines of faith and practice.


"You are living in the distant past. Mr Russel is dead. Today, there is no
one individual who declares what is doctrine and what is not. Today it is
decided by a group of men, as in the 1st century. JW's have come a long way
since then. They are now fulfilling Scripture at Mt 24:14. Just look at the
cover of any Watchtower magazine for proof."

The distant past was when Christ and the writers of the bible lived, no?
The very description you give of affairs now also applies to cultis started
by individual men. The mormon and muslim and oneness penetcostal and a
host of other cults also fit what you descirbe. A group based on the
heretical ideas of a single man can assume the trappings of group action,
but it is still built on a lie and a corruption of that single man.

So you would have us to believe that when Christ said there was to be a
church He meant it would be 1875 years in the future? Did He say a single
man in pittsburgh pa. would then bring the real church?

Or did Christ say He was establishing the church with the apostles and the
gates of hell would not prevail against it? If the latter then mr. russel
and those buying into his invented doctrines say Christ was a liar.

The Matt. 24:14 is a perfect example of how mr. russel took bits of
scripture, poured his own meaning into it. There is the "kingdom" and his
"kingdom hall" and his obsession with end times. Te latter about which the
several predictions failed to happen, no?

So the jw excuse now is that the Matt. is speaking of a time 1875 years in
the future? If so the jw spin on it makes Christ a liar. Also the many
examples of the writers of the NT speaking of the kingdom being present in
their time makes them a liar also.

[//"".]

Regarding who did the "translation"?

>The official brooklyn answer is not to say who. Now why would that be?
>Could it bring some light on their qualification? But it is now known
>exactly who did it, 5 individuals and 1 doing most of it. Here is a short
>youtube video on the topic:


If you know the answer, why ask the question?"

To expose you and what you don't know that brooklyn hides from its
customers. "By the way, you also snipped the fact that the NASB had their

translators remain anonamous also, so as not to bring praise upon

themselves. The jacket of the Reference Edition (1971)M- of the New
American Standard Bible states:

We have not used any scholars name for reference or recommendations because
it is our belief Gods Word should stand on its merits."

Did you condemn them for doing the same? "

When in a corner of great embarasment you change the subject is it? The
question is why brooklyn does it and is it because the qualification of the
"scholars" could be examined?

"You also snipped out some sources for the text of the New World
Translation Bible:"

Did you watch the youtube video, I think not. The first part was the
testimony of a previous insider in brooklyn that the people who produced
the "translation" were not scholars. The main person doing the most work
did not know hebrew and greek. The 5 people were known personally by the
person in the video at the time of the "translation".

So the long list of sources said to be consulted are meaningless if they
can not be consulted in the original, no?

No, you did not watch it, all your quibbles ar with my words not the
content of the video. Have you been instructed not to consult such
material? Please don't play games, have such instruction that would have
you or any jw avoid such things been given?

Watch the video and come back if you want to disscuss the content. Its
content is independent of myself and what I did or did not do in bringing
it to your attention.

[//"".]

When it became obvious our friend James did not watch the youtube video
about the jw dubious "translation" of the bible, I asked him to do so and
return for a discussion on its content. I failed to include the link
again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjtBq5mG_Wg

If he doesn't watch it and come back to discuss the content, it is a self
confession, no?

["".]

Our friend James mentions a greek scholar in support of the jw bible
"translation".

Here is a very short video about the jw use of such scholars and what they
actually say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GIGMiSzmw8

When our friend returns to discuss the content of the video previously
given him, he can now include this as well.

["".]

>> I repeat, i take the word of a scholar of greek who is in a position to
>> make the above conclusion about the Holy Spirit. This compared to the jw
>> working backwards 1875 years later to pour new doctrine into greek words.
>

>You have no 1875 year old scholar to speak to, so who are you kidding? And
>anybody that old still did not speak Koine Greek naturally as the language
>was dead well before then.

That old language perception problem again, sigh. It was in reference to
c. russel who invented the jw about 1875. He completed 7th grade but spoke
as though he had discovered new meaning in scripture about in this case the
Holy Spirit. I gave the commentary of one greek scholar on scripture from
which he concludes the greek clearly speaks of the HS as an individual and
divine.

It is interesting that our friend James and yourself agreeing with each
other on the same heritical doctrines. He from a point starting 185 years
after the fact, you 1900 years after the fact in your respective groups.

The 19th and early 20th century was a hot bed of such "new" takes on
scripture started by one man,ie. mormons and others coming out of the
woodwork.

Interesting how much our friend James and you agree with each other, using
the same historical excuses and similar uses of scripture in new and unique
ways. Perhaps you have found your true home at last.

[r]

Many years ago a ACC participant used to describe the Holy Spirit as
'energy' per Redfield's THE CELESTINE PROPHESY.

I think there's a POV that: God has a spirit, Jesus has his spirit,
and we have our spirit; and that spirit is the Holy Spirit.

r

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

The 19th Century: The Spawning Ground of the Cults and the Occult
By Dr. Robert A. Morey
Introduction
While secular humanism claims that history manifests only chaos, the
bible teaches that history manifests order. Thus if you look closely
at history, you will find that things do not happen willy nilly.
There
is always a reason why things happens.
Why was the 19th century the spawning ground of the cults and the
occult? To answer this question we must understand what influenced
people at that time to leave Christianity and to embrace cultic and
occultic teachings.
As we do this, we will discover that the rise of the cults and the
occult did not happen in a vacuum but in the midst of a mega-shift in
western culture.
A mega-shift takes place when a culture is radically altered by new
advances in economics, politics, religion, information, war, etc.
The
mega-shifts which took place in the 19th century created a situation
which was conducive to the rise of the cults and the occult.
The rise of the cults and the occult also happened because the
Christian Church was not aware that mega-shifts were taking place in
western culture. Because the Church was not aware of the mega-shifts
taking place all around it, it lost millions of people to the cults
and the occult.
1.The industrial revolution was a mega-shift. The population centers
moved from the farm to the city as society moved from an agricultural
economy to an industrial economy. The population mega-shift created
the cheap labor force needed for the factories.
2.This mega-shift was disastrous for the local church because people
moved either to the big cities or they emigrated to North America.
They no longer had the traditional ties to their local church.
3.Because of the new economic base, the small farm was no longer
needed. The new vast “single product” farms created famines which
forced mass migrations from Europe to North America. Famines in
Ireland, Italy, Germany, etc. , forced millions of people to
emigrate.
4.There was a mega-shift in philosophy and religion. The bible,
Christianity, and religion in general came under fierce attack by
secular thinkers . Religious liberalism joined secular scholars in
attacking the bible. Christianity was discredited in most
universities.
5.There was a mega-shift in information technology. With the
invention
of the telegraph and the daily newspaper, news began to travel
quickly
from country to country.
6.A mega-shift took place when the steam engine was invented. Not
only
did steam run the new factories but millions of people could now
emigrate to America on huge steamships.
7.There was a mega-shift in politics as the reign of kings came to an
end and democracies began to flourish. Freedom of religion was
allowed
in many countries for the first time.
8.There was a mega-shift in which the industrial/military complex
introduced new weapons of mass destruction. The 19th century had more
wars and battles than any century preceding it. Reports of these
battles were in the newspapers daily. The end time “wars and rumors
of
war” seem to be fulfilled.
9.On Nov. 13, 1833 a spectacular meteor shower hit the earth. On that
one night over 200,000 brilliant shooting stars lit up the sky.
People
thought that these were “signs in the sky.”
10.The dust from the eruptions of large volcanoes in 1815 and 1883
darkened daylight and turned the moon blood red . People began to
think that these were definitely “signs in the sky.”
11. The “end of the world” became a popular topic . Date setting
became the rage in religious circles .
12.False prophets stepped into this situation with the claim that
they
alone knew the exact date for the end of the world and how best to
prepare for it.
13.The mega-shift in information technology meant that for the first
time a false prophet could cheaply print and distribute magazines and
books.
14.The mega-shift in politics created the necessary freedom of
religion which allowed false prophets to spread their teachings
worldwide.
15.The mega-shift in population centers gave them a “Churchless”
audience.
16.The grinding poverty, the abysmal ignorance, the savage wars, the
relentless crime, the filthy slums, the brutal factories, etc. , made
it appear that things could not get any worse. The end is near!
Conclusion
The rise of the cults and the occult in 19th century was due to the
mega-shifts and the natural phenomenon which together created a
perfect climate for false prophets to win converts .
Whether we like it or not, a mega-shift is taking place in our
culture
today. Will the Christian Church arise to the occasion and deal with
the issues raised by this new mega-shift?
The timeline of 19th century false prophets
1763 Thomas Campbell (1763-1854)
1772 Charles Fourier (1772-1837)
1782 William Miller (1782-1848)
1788 Alexander Campbell (1888-1866)
1801 Brigham Young (1801-1877)
1802 Phineas Quimby (1802-1866)
1805 Joseph Smith (1805-1844)
1805 John Thomas (1805-1871)
1809 Albert Pike (1809-1891)
1819 Mirza Ali Muhammad (1819-1850)
1821 Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910)
1827 Ellen G. White (1827-1915)
1831 Madame Blavatsky (1831-1891)
1836 Margaret Fox
1839 Kate Fox
1845 Myrtle Fillmore (1845-1931)
1852 Charles T. Russell (1852-1916)
1854 Charles Fillmore (1852-1948)
1877 Edgar Cayce (1877-1945)
Etc.
http://www.faithdefenders.com/articles/cults/spawning-grounds.html

[Mordecai]

The question remains ...
When you find things which disagree with your beliefs - what do you do.

Example, if you add two positive numbers, you get a positive number.
If you add two negative numbers, you get a positive number.
You might conclude that if you add any two numbers, you get a positive
number. You might believe it. It might be taught to you. You might teach
others.

But if you add a positive number and a negative number, you get a negative
number.
It is at this point you can look and see the error, not before.
And it is at this point you can see.

So you have verses which say that JC is G_d.
NOW you are shown verses where he himself (and others) deny it.
What do you do?

The other issue raised - these three verses which deny that JC is G_d ...
you have read them hundreds or thousands of times.
Why have you not seen this ... contradiction before?

Surely if there is no contradiction - you can explain? They are not new
verses.
Indeed, they were presented by Jim to prove a point on the deity of JC.

And ... nobody said diddly squat - so everyone accepted his argument.
Except me.
And now ... no explanation is forthcoming.
WHY?

This is a very important lesson.
It is the way humans think.
If you cannot learn this - you will be trapped in the ideas of others.

As this is not about theology but psychology, it is not about right or
wrong, but the way humans think. Everyone needs to know the way they think
... and thus how they can be manipulated by others or deceived.
And you are a human - therefore you think as a human and therefore the way
you think will be similar to all humans.

Here is what you are doing.
There are reasons.
Why?
As there is an error - what should you do?
Why do you behave like this in an instinctive way?
Is there another solution?

Understand yourself.

And now a few answers.
We are taught many ideas - many of them are not looked at critically. The
ideas we learn as a child are not examined critically as we lack the use of
parts of the brain to do such thinking.
Some we accept because our teachers taught us ...
Some we accepted because others taught us by only presenting a few facts
and ignoring others.
And we accepted them.

This is normal.

But having re-examined as many of the ideas I was taught - I can announce a
100% failure.
Some were from me, accepting without understanding the ideas taught because
I did not look critically.
Some of the ideas are false.
Some of the ideas are partly true.

The next part - we seek to affirm these ideas taught to us. We have adapted
to them and do not actually think about them. We react as though the ideas
are true as we have already accepted them.
We literally do not see the contradictions.

Look at yourself. Did you not read the contradictions? But before I spoke -
they were invisible to you. It was a shock to you when someone said "they
deny the very things you believe."
Because ... this is the way humans work. "Seeing they did not see, hearing
they did not hear."
We can only see what we look for ... and we are looking to find, in this
case ... trinity ... so you only find what you are seeking.

So it is quite a shock when someone says "These deny JC is G_d."

But now, instead of it being an accusation that you are wrong, silly,
incompetent ... it becomes wonder. Oh ... I do this because this is the way
humans are made. Wow ... look at the way we humans are made.

The next step is again ... what do we do?
We have one idea of the world and we have evidence which says we are wrong.

The easy way, the natural way, is to deny the evidence and continue as
before.
But this is not possible.
As soon as the question is raised - choices have to be made. You cannot go
back to ignorance.

People try, It is a trap.
DO NOT WALK this path.
If you do - you end up like the flat earthers.
Or as my friend says "they formed their opinion in 1931 and have not let
another idea into their minds since then."
You can find individual politicians on both the left and the right like
this.
You can find this in the uneducated.
You can find this in the learned, and the wise.

It is a solutions which many people use. Humanity survives. They survive. I
guess ten percent of the population chooses this path.
DON'T walk it.

The next choice is to test.
You have an existing idea ... you have a reason to believe.
Give the reason you have to believe.
In your case - you have two verses which tell you JC is G_d.
You looked and said "See - there is a reason to believe."
And the corollary "I do not have to change."

This is another of the traps.
You have still to reconcile the negative information.

And again a choice. Ignore the things which disagree ... or explain why
they are wrong.
One is a denial and a retreat from the conflict.
The other is to establish truth.

If you choose truth - I will predict what will happen. You will set these
verses aside as they are obviously wrong and wait for an answer.
Over the next month or so, I will present ... oh another couple of hundred
verses where JC denies he is G_d.
I know this because I have looked (past tense) for myself.

We humans are deigned to resist change which is actually good.
But ... it is a great thing to change when the facts disagree with you.
Changing quickly is not good, then you are being manipulated into a belief.
Changing slowly is to accept new truth when you have no alternative than to
change.

Truth is what happens when our ideas are proved to be wrong.
If you wish to know the truth - try to destroy it. That which stands is
truth.
And this is the way we humans seek truth. We oppose it.

Some get stuck in the "oppose" stage and do not go forward.
But humanity survives.

So in this case ... you have progressed to the stage where your ideas are
under threat and you have stated why your ideas are true ... and thus
"know" that the contradictions must be false.

They are not ... but you do not know that yet.
Eventually you will. And we will jump forward to the next phase.

The next phase is to try to reconcile all the facts.
That is "the claim that JC is deity" as opposed to the itemized account
that JC does not claim to be so.
And one way is to change the doctrine of Trinity to suit.

I know. I tried it.
Seven times. Each of the trinity doctrines being different.
You thought that there was one doctrine of trinity and can give the
formulae? Each of these seven doctrines obeyed the formulae. And one ...
only one ... fitted the facts.
But that one no trinitarian would like.

Again - this is the way new ideas come. We seek to reconcile what we
believe with what we observe.
This is the wonder of being a human. It is a powerful tool. And a good one.
We are able to change and not throw out the baby with the bath water.

The next step is when all else fails, to examine the data which caused you
to come to the wrong conclusion.
And you find that JC did not call himself G_d.
And deeper - that the only reason you call him deity is because of another
error ... in this case, the definition used to define "deity."

And you build first a new theory, then a new way of looking at life.

And still, changes occur. In some cases, it takes generations to get to the
new truth.

In my grandparents day, the new truth was "women's emancipation" and the
vote.
In my day it is "women's liberation" and equal pay for equal work.
My children have other needs in everything from marriage, work and how to
live. I wonder what they will call their movement? I wonder what they will
need to change?
Changes to society takes time. And the new needs can only be revealed when
the culture has changed ... and then and only then can they be dealt with.

You do not come to a state of enlightenment.
You start a process of change that causes your view of the world to alter.
And you see things you have not seen before.

You can live in the new world or go back to the old.

The process of change is long and involved.
This is a very, VERY short and incomplete set of ideas. I cannot take you
too far beyond "where you have already walked."
It is something to be experienced.
And ... for truth ... each must walk alone. Others can guide, but each must
choose.

So the question I asked is quite real.
What do you do when the verses you quote conflict with your ideas?
And the question is psychological and not theological.

The answer ... is as individual as there are people.
Each must answer it for themselves.
And that is the greatest wonder.
Look at how humans are created and how we do what we do!

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 25, 6:00 pm, Mordecai <"mldavis(please dont

spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote:

"If you add two negative numbers, you get a positive number. "

Adding two negative numbers together? Just add the absolute value of
each number together, put a negative sign in front, and you have your
answer!

http://www.virtualnerd.com/pre-algebra/algebra-tools/add-subtract-integers/add-integers/negative-number-addition

[Mordecai]

Should have been odd numbers ... and even numbers.
Sorry.

[dolf]

Nous: #32
Time: 04:20 hrs
Date: 2013.5.26
Torah: #80 #5 #30 %81 = #34
Dao: Natural Guide, Virtue of Holiness
Tetra: #43 - Encounters
I-Ching: H44 - Coming On
DNA: vBlack: #32 vYellow: #11 vCyan: #48 vCoral: #79
Latin: Bonus {Redemptor God} Alt: Chabaoyah {Hide Within God} {
1. AIDS IN CONVERSIONS OF HEATHENS TO CHRISTIANITY
2. THEOLOGY & RELIGION
3. CHASTITY & MORALS
4. Sothis - The Opener of the Year with the rising of Sirius {the
Dog-Star} as the Star of Isis-Sothis on whose rising the Great Bear
cycle was founded
}
Abraham {Father of a multitude, chief of multitude}

- http://www.dolfboek.com/grapple.html?zen:1,row:2,col:8

Male Idea #372

#6, #70, #200, #6, #40, #10, #40
וערומימ `aruwm (H6175): 1) subtle, shrewd, crafty, sly, sensible; 1a)
crafty; 1b) shrewd, sensible, prudent;

"Now the serpent was more subtle {`aruwm-prudent [H6175]: #6, #70, #200,
#6, #40, #10, #40 = #372} than any beast of the field which the LORD God
had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not
eat of every tree of the garden?" [Genesis 3:1]

Female Idea #448

#400, #8, #40
תחמ yacham (H3179): 1) to be hot, conceive; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to be
hot, become hot; 1a2) to mate (of animals); 1a3) to be or become hot
(fig. of anger); 1b) (Piel); 1b1) to conceive (sexually); 1b2) to be in
heat (of animals);

19:5 "As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew
wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree,
and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour,
that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:"
[Deuteronomy 19:5]
19:6 "Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his
heart is hot {yacham-conceive [H3179]: #400, #8, #40 = #448}, and
overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not
worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past."
[Deuteronomy 19:6]
19:7 "Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three
cities for thee." [Deuteronomy 19:7]

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"James" wrote in message news:1vi1q8lob7v4chvg5...@4ax.com...

snipped

> You are living in the distant past. Mr Russel is dead. Today, there is
> no one individual who declares what is doctrine and what is not. Today
> it is decided by a group of men, as in the 1st century. JW's have come
> a long way since then. They are now fulfilling Scripture at Mt 24:14.
> Just look at the cover of any Watchtower magazine for proof.

Hi James

Here are some of the problems with what you have said, perhaps you would
care to consider them.

1) When the JW's were first about they declared that they had the truth,
that they were the only people that had the truth and that the bible alone
was insufficient.
2) Later the organisation changed some doctrines but still declared the same
things
3) Again they changed some doctrines and still stuck to the claim to have
the truth and be the only people to have it.
4) And again and again and again they do this.

Now putting aside all the false prophecies and stuff can you not see how
they cannot possibly be right?

I know what you will say, you will talk about "new light" etc etc but here
is the probloem with that.

If I declare x to be true, say that I am God's only source of truth on earth
and that this is the truth as God has told me then I may or may not be
right. If I then declare that x is not true and still claim the same claim
then clearly either I was wrong then or I am wrong now or I have always been
wrong.

There are many things that the Watchtower Organisation has changed.

1) It has changed it's bible (which it claimed was without error) many many
times.
2) It has changed doctrine many many times.
3) It has changed what a person can be disfellowshiped for and what
disfellowshipping means many many times.#

Now why would anyone believe a prophet who keeps changing what he is saying
and never, at any stage, being ready to admit he may have been wrong then
and even be wrong now?

I won't belabour this point because a bright guy like you knows that what I
am saying is true.

Would we have believed Albert Einstein if he had told us that he could never
be wrong but changed his equation from E=MC2 to E=MC2+Z to E=MCZ?

regards

Phil

[Sam Taylor]

An interesting note on Greek, and Latin Usage
is that the Holy Spirit is either an "IT" or a "SHE"
it can never by a He in either, even if called the
Holy Ghost.
Sam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"." wrote in message news:519e2d30$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

"The "Holy Spirit" is also personified in a number of places. And that
arrangement didn't take place till the 4th century. That is when the
Holy Spirit was defined as a person by some church officials. For more"

Scripture provides the great commission long before the 4th century, to go
to all the world baptising in the name of the father and the son and the
holy spirit. The HS is not in the commission a figure of speech.

Also a document written at the time of scripture, the Didache, says that
baptism is done using the above formulation, again not a figure of speech.

At the baptism of Christ the HS appeared, along with the presence of the
father and son as individuals.

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"James" wrote in message news:6sj1q8h7ljpaikthd...@4ax.com...

snip

> By the way, you also snipped the fact that the NASB had their
> translators remain anonamous also, so as not to bring praise upon
> themselves. The jacket of the Reference Edition (1971) of the New
> American Standard Bible states:

> “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations
> because it is our belief God’s Word
> should stand on its merits.”

> Did you condemn them for doing the same?

We are not happy about it and we do indeed judge the translation on it's
merits and it turns out that it is fairly good. I am not a fan of the NASB
as there are better translations available.

> You also snipped out a commentary by associate professor of religious
> studies Jason BeDuhn, who concluded about the NWT Bible:

> "is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament
> currently available" and "the most accurate of the translations
> compared". (Truth in Translation:Accuracy and Bias in English
> Translations of the New Testament)"

Even if this were true that still wouldn't help your case.

You don't claim that it is "one of the most accurate currently available".
What you claim is that it is the only accurate one.

The problem you have is that you claimed that when it was first produced
and have made major changes to it since then while still holding to the same
claim.

Also where the "authority" you have chosen is critical of your NWT you say
he is wrong, so if he cannot get a lot right how can you trust him when he
say that you are? Is he an authority or not?

But I guarantee this, when the man is shown to be wrong (which he will be)
you will still be quoting him.

Phil

[r]

On May 26, 10:26 am, Pete <n...@nya.biz> wrote:

> We have a born again spirit that is from God, but it is who we are in
> Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit can reside where our spirit is when one is
> baptized in the Holy Spirit per the Bible.

Two residing spirits?

> Jesus had to leave so that the Holy Spirit would be able to be the
> comforter of all who believed God through Jesus Christ his son.
>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV

[James]

"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com>
>On May 25, 7:38�am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 23, 6:37�am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>>
>> >> >On May 22, 9:36�am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >> >> "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
>>
>> >> >> >On May 21, 4:55�pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >"I don't recall it put quite that way, but yes we believe the Trinity
>> >> >> >doctrine is not taught in the Holy Bible. For example:"
>>
>> >> >> >Gen 18
>> >> >> > 1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat
>> >> >> >in the tent door in the heat of the day;
>> >> >> > � 2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by
>> >> >> >him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door,
>> >> >> >and bowed himself toward the ground,
>> >> >> > � 3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass
>> >> >> >not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
>> >> >> >Notice: three persons, one Lord
>>
>> >> >> They nowhere say they are 3 co-equal persons in one God.
>>
>> >> > �Philo Judaeus, also called Philo of Alexandria � (born 15�10 bc,
>> >> >Alexandria�died ad 45�50, Alexandria), �saw a type of Trinity.
>> >> > �http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456612/Philo-Judaeus
>>
>> >> > � Philo writes:
>>
>> >> >...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for
>> >> >they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes the appearance of a
>> >> >trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen in his oneness without something
>> >> >[else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him... the
>> >> >Creative, which is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called
>> >> >"Lord"... [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine
>> >> >vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity
>> >> >[triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
>> >> >(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)
>>
>> >> > �http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/kabbalah/kabbachurch.htm
>>
>> >> >> > Matt 28
>> >> >> > 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
>> >> >> > � � � baptizing them in the name
>> >> >> > � � �of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
>> >> >> > Notice: Name singular, three persons
>>
>> >> >> If the Holy Ghost is a person, what is his name?
>>
>> >> > � Name singular, three persons, to paraphrase
>> >> > � Groucho Marx, I should believe you not my
>> >> > � lying eyes.
>>
>> >> > �John Chapter 14
>> >> > � 16 And I will pray the Father,
>> >> >and he shall give you another Comforter,
>> >> > that he may abide with you for ever;
>>
>> >> >17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
>> >> > because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:
>> >> >but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you,
>> >> >and shall be in you.
>>
>> >> >26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
>> >> >send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things
>> >> >to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
>>
>> >> >Notice: him,him,him,he,he

>>
>> >> You never heard anyone say "Look at my car, isn't 'she' a beauty"?
>>

>> > � �It isn't talking about a car,but another like Jesus.
>> > � �Again to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I am to believe
>> > � �you not my lying eyes.
>>
>> Personification doesn't have to be a car. It can be about anything,
>> esp the Holy Spirit. That it is a person, was defined in the 4th
>> century, long after the Bible was written.
>>
>
> It isn't talking about a car,but another like Jesus.
>� �Again to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I am to believe
> � �you not my lying eyes.

Actually you are to believe the Bible. (2 Ti 3:16)

>>
>>
>> > � �Since you want to quote Church Fathers, you from
>> > � �a cult started in 1872 A.D., Irenaeus who knew
>> > � �Polycarp who knew John says,
>>
>> I quote whatever resources are availible to give support to my
>> statements.
>>
> And ignore sources that refute your sources,
> as Vince Garcia showed.

I think you meant to say, 'I support sources that refute your
sources'.

And I can say to that: vice-versa.


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > � � �1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church,
>> >who may
>> >wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the
>> >apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a
>> >position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted
>> >bishops
>> >in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to
>> >our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like
>> >what
>> >these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden
>> >mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect"
>> >apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them
>> >especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches
>> >themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very
>> >perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving
>> >behind
>> >as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to
>> >these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly,
>> >would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away,
>> >the direst calamity.
>> >2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as
>> >this,
>> >to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to
>> >confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil
>> >self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion,
>> >assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by
>> >indicating
>> >that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
>> >ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome
>> >by
>> >the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing
>> >out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
>> >of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity
>> >that
>> >every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-
>> >eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the
>> >apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those
>> >[faithful men] who exist everywhere.
>> >3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the
>> >Church,
>> >committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of
>> >this
>> >Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him
>> >succeeded
>> >Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles,
>> >Clement
>> >was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed
>> >apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have
>> >the
>> >preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their
>> >traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there
>> >were
>> >many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.
>> >In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred
>> >among
>> >the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most
>> >powerful
>> >letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their
>> >faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from
>> >the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of
>> >heaven
>> >and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called
>> >Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses,
>> >set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for
>> >the
>> >devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so,
>> >may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached
>> >by
>> >the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of
>> >the
>> >Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are
>> >now
>> >propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god
>> >beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this
>> >Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus;
>> >then,
>> >sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus,
>> >who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then
>> >after
>> >him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now,
>> >in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the
>> >episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical
>> >tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have
>> >come
>> >down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the
>> >same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the
>> >apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
>> >4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and
>> >conversed
>> >with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia,
>> >appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early
>> >youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very
>> >old
>> >man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom,7 departed this
>> >life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the
>> >apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are
>> >true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also
>> >those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man
>> >who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth,
>> >than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was
>> >who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away
>> >from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he
>> >had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely,
>> >which is handed down by the Church.8 "
>>
>> > Irenaeus Book III, Chapter III
>>
>> "We must obey God rather than men.��Eusebius, Book 5, chapter�24.
>>
> That's why I follow the Bible and not the Columbia Heights Cult.
>
> Like Thomas,I say to Jesus,my Lord and my God.
> That's found in the Bible,so I believe it.

I believe it to, but have a different interpretation on its meaning.
Come the end, we will both find out what he really meant there.

[James]

/; "".

Alright, here is a well known Greek scholar James Strong S.T.D.,
L.L.D. He wrote "The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible". Here is
what he says the Greek word for "spirit" is.

"Strong's Ref. # 4151

Romanized pneuma
Pronounced pnyoo'-mah

from GSN4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by
analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by
implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or
(superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ's spirit, the
Holy Spirit:"

The main definition is "a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a
breeze;"

Thus it is a FORCE in motion, like a breeze. God's Holy Spirit is God'
active force used to accomplish things. Or God "poured" out His Holy
Spirit on people. (Titus 3:6) Can you 'pour out' a person?

>This compared to the jw
>working backwards 1875 years later to pour new doctrine into greek words.
>
>That you conclude as you do about having a name is not relevant is it? That
>a word in greek can have multiple uses with differing meanings is of no
>avail. Again I take the word of the greek scholar over such superficial
>knowledge.
>
>Mr. russel who invented this kind of thing did not know greek to read it.

The New World Translation Bible has been revised since Russell's time.
It is now more accurate than ever.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/watchtrin.htm by Michael J. Partyka


Now that we’ve explored the testimony of the ante-Nicene Church
Fathers concerning the Trinity, what can we conclude?

First, given the overwhelming evidence, we must conclude that the
doctrine of the Trinity was not “unknown” for several centuries after
biblical times, as the Watchtower would have us believe. We must
additionally conclude that, contrary to the Watchtower’s implications,
the ante-Nicene Church Fathers cited by them – Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen –
were all Trinitarians, as all of them believed that Jesus is of the
same substance as God, thereby making him co-equal and co-eternal with
the Father.

Given these conclusions, it is now appropriate to ask a critical
question: Why would the Watchtower attempt to use the writings of
these Church Fathers to support their anti-Trinitarian views? Did
they simply not know that these Fathers were Trinitarians – i.e., can
the Watchtower claim ignorance for an excuse?

Let’s look at some of the quotations selected by the Watchtower and
see if the excuse of ignorance holds up.



Justin Martyr…called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is “other
than the God who made all things.” He said that Jesus…“never did
anything except what the Creator…willed him to do and say.”

These quotes are taken from Chapter 56 of Justin’s Dialogue with
Trypho, but, as we have shown above, this chapter is the exact same
passage in which Justin Martyr interprets Gen 19:24 to assign the name
“Jehovah” to both God the Father and Jesus! Moreover, just a few
chapters from this one we see Justin say, “God begat before all
creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding]
from Himself…. this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the
Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father
communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear,
that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before
all His creatures and as Offspring by God….He [is] God, Son of the
only, unbegotten, unutterable God.”

Irenaeus…showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only
God.”

This quote is taken from Section 3:8:1 of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies,
and the full quote is, “…it is clearly proved that neither the
prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call [him]
Lord, except the true and only God.” But just a couple chapters back
Irenaeus says, “Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit,
nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely,
him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have
named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling
over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over
all creation….” And, within the very same chapter as that from which
the quote was taken, leading into the chapter just following, he says,
“He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word,
properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made
cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly
assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator. This,
therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be
so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles,
nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord
or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles
confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and
confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His
disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is
God and ruler of all;-it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their
disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect.” Finally, just a
few chapters forward from this, we have Irenaeus saying, “…they who
were the preachers of the truth and the apostles of liberty termed no
one else God, or named him Lord, except the only true God the Father,
and His Word, who has the pre-eminence in all things….”

Clement of Alexandria…called Jesus in his prehuman existence "a
creature”….

I myself was not able to find any verbatim reference in all of
Clement’s writings in which he referred to Jesus as a creature.
However, I did find that in Book 5, Chapter 14 of his work The
Stromata he says, “Wisdom…was the first of the creation of God.” But,
if the Watchtower were to claim this particular reference as the
source of their quotation, we would be obligated to ask them how they
could have possibly missed Clement’s words in the very same chapter:
“And the address in the Timœus calls the creator, Father, speaking
thus: ‘Ye gods of gods, of whom I am Father; and the Creator of your
works.’ So that when he says, ‘Around the king of all, all things
are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause
of all good things; and around the second are the things second in
order; and around the third, the third,’ I understand nothing else
than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit,
and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to
the will of the Father.”

Tertullian…observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another),
as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is
begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also
said: “There was a time when the Son was not….Before all things, God
was alone.”

The first quote is taken from Chapter 9 of Tertullian’s Against
Praxeus: “Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater
than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten
is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another;
and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made
is another.” Ironically, Tertullian’s Against Praxeus is one of the
first comprehensive apologetic defenses of the Trinity in Christian
literature, so it astounds me that the Watchtower would choose to
quote from such a source, especially seeing as how in the very second
chapter of the work we find Tertullian expounding, “We…believe that
there is one only God, but under the following dispensation…that this
one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by
whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made…. who
sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise,
the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those
who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost…. All
are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the
dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a
Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons-the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree;
not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one
substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is
one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned,
under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

The second quote is taken from Chapter 3 of Tertullian’s Against
Hermogenes, in which he says, “I maintain that the substance existed
always with its own name, which is God….but He has not always been
Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God.
For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge
previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed
with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord
a Judge, and the latter a Father.” A cursory reading of this quote,
devoid of context, would appear to provide us with a clear-cut
profession on Tertullian’s part that there was a time that the second
person of the Trinity did not exist. However, if we take this quote
within the context of Tertullian’s whole body of work, we find that
the topic at hand in this particular quote is the names of God, not
the existence of the Son. According to Tertullian, it was not until
Jesus proceeded forth from God to create the world that Jesus properly
took for himself the name “Son,” and therefore it was not until the
creation of the world that God could be properly termed “Father.” In
other words, the second person of the Trinity, according to
Tertullian, has always existed, only under names other than
“Son” (e.g., “Reason,” “Word,” “Wisdom.”) That Tertullian believed in
the eternal, uncreated existence of Christ is apparent from the
opening chapter of Against Hermogenes, in which he criticizes the
heretic Hermogenes: “[Hermogenes] does not appear to acknowledge any
other Christ as Lord, though he holds Him in a different way; but by
this difference in his faith he really makes Him another being – nay,
he takes from Him everything which is God, since he will not have it
that He made all things of nothing. For, turning away from Christians
to the philosophers, from the Church to the Academy and the Porch, he
learned there from the Stoics how to place Matter (on the same level)
with the Lord, just as if it too had existed ever both unborn and
unmade, having no beginning at all nor end, out of which, according to
him, the Lord afterwards created all things.” Here Tertullian holds
that Jesus is “ever both unborn and unmade, having no beginning at all
nor end.”

The last quote from Tertullian selected by the Watchtower is perhaps
the most damning against any excuse they might offer that their errors
concerning the position of the Church Fathers on the Trinity are based
in ignorance. For the source of this quote we return to Tertullian’s
Against Praxeus, Chapter 5 this time: “For before all things God was
alone – being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all
things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to
Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him
that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason.
For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things
were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness)
which the Greeks call ‘logos’, by which term we also designate Word….I
may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed
principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was
not alone, since He had within Himself…His Word, which He made second
to Himself by agitating it within Himself.” Now, given that the
Watchtower use quotes from both Chapters 5 and 8 of Against Praxeus to
attempt to support their anti-Trinitarian views, I would think it
reasonable to presume that their researchers must have read Chapters
5, 6, 7, and 8 in their entirety. How in the world, then, did these
researchers miss these very Trinitarian propositions put forward by
Tertullian a mere two sentences away from the words they judiciously
selected to support their anti-Trinitarian views?

Hippolytus…said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One,
the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [of equal age]
with him….But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called
into being what had no being before,” such as the created prehuman
Jesus.

Both quotes come from Chapter 28 of Hippolytus’ Refutation of All
Heresies: “The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of
all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor
measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor
refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But
He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created
things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He
willed to make them.” Just one chapter following, however, we find
Hippolytus adding, “Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an
exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in
the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the
universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He
produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted
existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things
that are produced….The Logos alone of this God is from God himself;
wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the
world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because
this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it.”

Origen…said that…“compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small
light.”

Again I could find no verbatim quotation for this particular
reference. This may owe to the fact that Origen was an incredibly
prolific writer, so I was only able to get access to a selection of
his works. However, I did find a sort of parallel to the above quote
in Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 7 of Origen’s De Principiis, which
reads, “According to John, ‘God is light.’ The only-begotten Son,
therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from
(God) Himself, as brightness does from light, and illuminating the
whole of creation. For, agreeably to what we have already explained
as to the manner in which He is the Way, and conducts to the Father;
and in which He is the Word, interpreting the secrets of wisdom, and
the mysteries of knowledge, making them known to the rational
creation; and is also the Truth, and the Life, and the Resurrection –
in the same way ought we to understand also the meaning of His being
the brightness: for it is by its splendour that we understand and
feel what light itself is. And this splendour, presenting itself
gently and softly to the frail and weak eyes of mortals, and gradually
training, as it were, and accustoming them to bear the brightness of
the light, when it has put away from them every hindrance and
obstruction to vision, according to the Lord's own precept, ‘Cast
forth the beam out of thine eye,’ renders them capable of enduring the
splendour of the light, being made in this respect also a sort of
mediator between men and the light.” I suppose that one might look at
this analogy and interpret it to mean that “compared with the Father,
the Son is a very small light.” However, if one were to look a mere
four sections ahead, one would also find Origen having some rather
Trinitarian things to say about this “smaller light,” such as, “…
wisdom is called the splendour of eternal light….That is properly
termed everlasting or eternal which neither had a beginning of
existence, nor can ever cease to be what it is. And this is the idea
conveyed by John when he says that ‘God is light.’ Now His wisdom is
the splendour of that light, not only in respect of its being light,
but also of being everlasting light, so that His wisdom is eternal and
everlasting splendour. If this be fully understood, it clearly shows
that the existence of the Son is derived from the Father but not in
time, nor from any other beginning, except, as we have said, from God
Himself.”



So, what must we conclude from all this? We see that for almost every
quotation judiciously selected by the Watchtower from the ante-Nicene
Church Fathers, there is a wealth of material often within the same
book, sometimes within the same chapter, and in some cases even within
the same paragraph, which contradicts the Watchtower’s assertion that
the doctrine of the Trinity was “unknown” to these Church Fathers.

What are we supposed to think? That the Watchtower’s researchers took
Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho and read Chapter 56 but not
Chapter 61? That they perused Chapter 28 of Hippolytus’ Refutation of
All Heresies but skipped Chapter 29? That they read a mere five
sentences into Chapter 5 of Tertullian’s Against Praxeus and stopped
reading there, a mere two sentences before their anti-Trinitarian
views could be refuted by Tertullian’s further teaching, miraculously
choosing instead to skip to Chapter 8 and pull another quote out of
context?

It is, unfortunately, impossible to ascribe either ignorance or
carelessness to the Watchtower’s research – unfortunate, I say,
because the only option left for us to believe is that the Watchtower
has selected these quotes from the ante-Nicene Church Fathers and
placed them on their web site in support of their anti-Trinitarian
stance for the sole purpose of deliberately misleading visitors to
their web site into thinking that the early Christians had no
knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity, when in fact the ante-Nicene
Church Fathers were Trinitarian through and through.

You’ve seen the evidence. Now judge for yourself. Is the Watchtower
being honest concerning the views of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers?
And, if not, what else are they being dishonest about?

Remember, Jesus taught, “The person unrighteous in what is least is
unrighteous also in much.” If we can’t trust the Watchtower to be
honest in their presentation of the views of the ante-Nicene Church
Fathers, can we trust them with matters of larger importance – for
example, the translation of the Scriptures? We’ve already seen how,
in the case of John 1:1, the Watchtower’s translating abilities have
been called into question by none other than the very same ante-Nicene
Church Fathers whose teachings the Watchtower deceptively attempted to
claim for their own anti-Trinitarian cause! Now, if the Watchtower
can be trusted with neither the writings of the early Church Fathers
nor the translation of the Scriptures, is there any reason to trust
them with the interpretation of the Scriptures, or with determining
the rules for Christian living, or, most importantly, with the
salvation of our very souls?



If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, I beg you to take this paper to your
elders and ask them to explain the basis of the Watchtower’s
misleading statements concerning the views of the ante-Nicene Church
Fathers. Take it all the way to the governing body themselves if you
have to. But please, please do not dismiss the evidence you have just
seen. The Watchtower’s web site contains deliberate misinformation,
and, if you are a person of good conscience, then you cannot allow
this deliberate misinformation on the Watchtower’s part to continue.
The ante-Nicene Church Fathers were not anti-Trinitarians, and the
Watchtower web site should not attempt to mislead people into
believing that they were.



APPENDIX 1: EVIDENCES OF THE CROSS



Part A: Textual Evidence



As I mentioned at the beginning of this paper, I stumbled across the
Watchtower’s misleading claims concerning the ante-Nicene Church
Fathers because I was “hopping around the Watchtower’s official web
site looking for articles supporting their rejection of the cross as a
Christian symbol – Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was put to
death on an upright torture stake, not a t-shaped cross.” The reason
I was looking for such articles was that, during my ongoing study of
the writings of the Church Fathers, I had discovered several
references to the cross that appeared to me to be far too early to
support the Watchtower’s claim that the cross is a pagan symbol which
entered into Christianity only after much time had passed since the
death of the apostles.

Actually, the matter of whether Jesus died on a t-shaped cross or an
upright torture stake is utterly irrelevant to fundamental Christian
doctrine. However, the Watchtower uses the argument of the torture
stake over the cross to create feelings of uncertainty in people about
mainstream Christianity. After all, if mainstream Christianity is
wrong about the origin of their most cherished symbol, what else could
they be wrong about? Although the “stake vs. cross” argument is
shabby at best, it remains one of the Watchtower’s primary points of
attack on the Christian faith, and for this reason I have decided to
include as an appedix the earliest evidences for the Christian cross
which I have found in the Bible and in the literature of the ante-
Nicene Church Fathers.



The Gospel According to John (New Testament):



John 20:25 (NWT) – “Consequently the other disciples would say to
him: ‘We have seen the Lord!’ But he said to them: ‘Unless I see in
his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of
the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not
believe.’” [Emphasis added]

Episite of Barnabas (100 C.E.):

“…the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter
Τ….”

“Here again you have an intimation concerning the cross, and Him who
should be crucified….in Moses, when Israel was attacked by
strangers….the Spirit speaks to the heart of Moses, that he should
make a figure of the cross, and of Him about to suffer thereon….Moses
therefore placed one weapon above another in the midst of the hill,
and standing upon it, so as to be higher than all the people, he
stretched forth his hands….”

Justin Martyr (died 165 C.E.):

“[The cross], as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His
power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our
observation. For consider all the things in the world, whether
without this form they could be administered or have any community.
For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail
abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it:
diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which have
this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational
animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands
extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is
called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living
creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so
it was said by the prophet, ‘The breath before our face is the Lord
Christ.’ And the power of this form is shown by your own symbols on
what are called ‘vexilla’ [banners] and trophies, with which all your
state possessions are made, using these as the insignia of your power
and government, even though you do so unwittingly. And with this form
you consecrate the images of your emperors when they die, and you name
them gods by inscriptions.”

“…that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of
the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb,
which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross.
For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to
the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of
the lamb.”

“Moses himself prayed to God, stretching out both hands…. if he gave
up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the
people were beaten, as is recorded in the writings of Moses; but if he
remained in this form, Amalek was proportionally defeated, and he who
prevailed prevailed by the cross. For it was not because Moses so
prayed that the people were stronger, but because, while one who bore
the name of Jesus (Joshua) was in the forefront of the battle, he
himself made the sign of the cross.”

“And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the
cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, ‘…
Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is [like] the
firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an unicorn: with these
shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.’ Now,
no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any
other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the
one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised
up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends
appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part
which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are
crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn
conjoined and fixed with the other horns.”

Irenaeus of Lyons (died 200 C.E.):

“The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length,
two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person
rests who is fixed by the nails.”

“And since He is the Word of God Almighty, who invisibly pervades the
whole creation, and encompasses its length, breadth, height, and depth
– for by the Word of God everything is administered – so too was the
Son of God crucified in these fourfold dimensions…that He might
demonstrate, by His visible form on the cross, His activity which is
on the invisible level, for it is He who illumines the ‘heights’, that
is, the things in heaven, and holds the ‘deeps’, which is beneath the
earth, and stretches the ‘length’ from the East to the West, and who
navigates the ‘breadth’ of the northern and southern regions, inviting
the dispersed from all sides to the knowledge of the Father.”

“And again, concerning His cross, Isaiah says, ‘I stretched out my
hands all the day to a disbelieving and contrary people,’ for this is
a sign of the cross.”

Octavius of Minucius Felix (210 C.E.):



“Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who
consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your
gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of
your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your
victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross,
but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a
cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling
sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the
military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man
adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign
of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own
religion is formed with respect to it.” (Octavius, Chapter 29)



Tertullian (died 230 C.E.):



…it might be no slight solace to us in all our punishments, suffering
as we do because of these same gods, that in their making they suffer
as we do themselves. You put Christians on crosses and stakes: what
image is not formed from the clay in the first instance, set on cross
and stake? The body of your god is first consecrated on the
gibbet.” (Apology, Chapter 12)



“Every stake fixed in an upright position is a portion of the cross;
we render our adoration, if you will have it so, to a god entire and
complete. We have shown before that your deities are derived from
shapes modelled from the cross. But you also worship victories, for
in your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. The camp
religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a
setting the standards above all gods. Well, as those images decking
out the standards are ornaments of crosses. All those hangings of
your standards and banners are robes of crosses. I praise your zeal:
you would not consecrate crosses unclothed and unadorned.” (Apology,
Chapter 16)



“Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect
position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its
mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse
beam, of course, and its projecting seat. Now you have the less to
excuse you, for you dedicate to religion only a mutilated imperfect
piece of wood, while others consecrate to the sacred purpose a
complete structure. The truth, however, after all is, that your
religion is all cross, as I shall show. You are indeed unaware that
your gods in their origin have proceeded from this hated cross. Now,
every image, whether carved out of wood or stone, or molten in metal,
or produced out of any other richer material, must needs have had
plastic hands engaged in its formation. Well, then, this modeller,
before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross,
because even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent
and concealed outline of a cross. Since the head rises upwards, and
the back takes a straight direction, and the shoulders project
laterally, if you simply place a man with his arms and hands
outstretched, you will make the general outline of a cross. Starting,
then, from this rudimental form and prop, as it were, he applies a
covering of clay, and so gradually completes the limbs, and forms the
body, and covers the cross within with the shape which he meant to
impress upon the clay; then from this design, with the help of
compasses and leaden moulds, he has got all ready for his image which
is to be brought out into marble, or clay, or whatever the material be
of which he has determined to make his god. (This, then, is the
process: ) after the cross-shaped frame, the clay; after the clay, the
god. In a well-understood routine, the cross passes into a god
through the clayey medium. The cross then you consecrate, and from it
the consecrated (deity) begins to derive his origin….Since, then, in
the production of your gods, you worship the cross which originates
them, here will be the original kernel and grain, from which are
propagated the wooden materials of your idolatrous images. Examples
are not far to seek. Your victories you celebrate with religious
ceremony as deities; and they are the more august in proportion to the
joy they bring you. The frames on which you hang up your trophies
must be crosses: these are, as it were, the very core of your
pageants. Thus, in your victories, the religion of your camp makes
even crosses objects of worship; your standards it adores, your
standards are the sanction of its oaths; your standards it prefers
before Jupiter himself, but all that parade of images, and that
display of pure gold, are (as so many) necklaces of the crosses. in
like manner also, in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers
guard with no less sacred care, you have the streamers (and) vestments
of your crosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and
simple crosses.” (Ad Nationes, Book 1, Chapter 12)



“Joseph, again, himself was made a figure of Christ….For Joseph is
withal blest by his father after this form: ‘His glory (is that) of a
bull; his horns, the horns of an unicorn; on them shall he toss
nations alike unto the very extremity of the earth.’ Of course no one-
horned rhinoceros was there pointed to, nor any two-horned minotaur.
But Christ was therein signified: ‘bull,’ by reason of each of His
two characters – to some fierce, as Judge; to others gentle, as
Saviour; whose ‘horns’ were to be the extremities of the cross. For
even in a ship's yard – which is part of a cross – this is the name by
which the extremities are called; while the central pole of the mast
is a ‘unicorn.’” (An Answer to the Jews, Chapter 10; repeated in
Against Marcion, Book 3, Chapter 18)



“But, to come now to Moses, why, I wonder, did he merely at the time
when Joshua was battling against Amalek, pray sitting with hands
expanded, when, in circumstances so critical, he ought rather, surely,
to have commended his prayer by knees bended, and hands beating his
breast, and a face prostrate on the ground; except it was that there,
where the name of the Lord Jesus was the theme of speech – destined as
He was to enter the lists one day singly against the devil – the
figure of the cross was also necessary, (that figure) through which
Jesus was to win the victory?” (An Answer to the Jews, Chapter 10;
repeated in Against Marcion, Book 3, Chapter 18)



“Premising, therefore, and likewise subjoining the fact that Christ
suffered, He foretold that His just ones should suffer equally with
Him – both the apostles and all the faithful in succession; and He
signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spake: ‘The Lord
said unto me, Go through the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and
set the mark tau upon the foreheads of the men.’ Now the Greek letter
tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He
predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic
Jerusalem, in which, according to the twenty-first Psalm, the brethren
of Christ or children of God would ascribe glory to God the
Father….” (Against Marcion, Book 3, Chapter 22)

Part B: Archaeological Evidence



The archaeological evidence in favor of the early Christians’ usage of
the cross is even stronger than the textual evidence.



From www.geocities.com/faithinevidence/evidence.html:



“Many ossuaries were discovered that date to the 1st century in a cave
near Bethany. Inscribed in Greek and Hebrew with names of many
Christians listed in the New testament (NT). Some had inscribed
crosses, some not. Listed names in Hebrew include: Salome, wife of
Judah (with a cross); Judah (with a cross); Simeon the Priest; Martha,
daughter of Pasach; Eleazar, son of Nathalu; and Salamston, daughter
of Simeon the Priest. In Greek: Jesus (twice repeated with a cross);
Nathaniel (with a cross)….Another found several years ago: Inscribed
with ‘Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene,’ as well as a cross….In 1945,
many more found with crosses, 2 inscribed with name of Jesus, and one
had a coin minted in A.D. 41 for King Herod Agrippa I, indicating it
was sealed by A.D. 42.”



From http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html:



“The first century catacomb uncovered by archaeologist P. Bagatti on
the Mount of Olives contains inscriptions clearly indicating its use,
‘by the very first Christians in Jerusalem.’ A ‘head stone’, found
near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the
sign of the cross.”




From http://www.bible.ca/D-crucifyJesus.htm:

““Historical findings have substantiated the traditional cross. One
finding is a graffito1 dating to shortly after 200 A.D., taken from
the walls of the Roman Palatine. It is a drawing of a crucified ass;
a mockery of a Christian prisoner who worships Christ. The Romans
were no doubt amused that Christians worshiped this Jesus whom they
had crucified on a cross.” In 1873 a famous French scholar, Charles
Clermant-Ganneau, reported the discovery of a burial chamber or cave
on the Mount of Olives. Inside were some 30 ossuaries (rectangular
chests made of stone) in which skeletal remains were preserved after
their bodies had disintegrated….One (ossuary) had the name ‘Judah’
associated with a cross with arms of equal length. Further, the name
‘Jesus’ occurred three times, twice in association with a cross….In
1939 excavations at Herculaneum, the sister city of Pompeii (destroyed
in 78 A.D. by volcano) produced a house where a wooden cross had been
nailed to the wall of a room. According to Buried History, (Vol. 10,
No. 1, March 1974 p. 15): ‘Below this (cross) was a cupboard with a
step in front. This has considered to be in the shape of an ara or
shrine, but could well have been used as a place of prayer….If this
interpretation is correct, and the excavators are strongly in favor of
the Christian significance of symbol and furnishings, then here we
have the example of an early house church.’”

Part C: What does the Watchtower say?

From http://www.watchtower.org/library/rq/article_11.htm:



“Jesus did not die on a cross. He died on a pole, or a stake. The
Greek word translated ‘cross’ in many Bibles meant just one piece of
timber. The symbol of the cross comes from ancient false religions.
The cross was not used or worshiped by the early Christians.”

The Watchtower is correct in a couple of things.



First, the word stauros does generally mean “stake” rather than
“cross”, but, according to every source I’ve come across, there was no
Greek work for “cross”. Hence, the word for “stake” was used by Greek
speakers as the closest approximation to “cross”, and it was
understood by the first-century audience of the NT that “cross” was
what was meant by stauros. (And, of course, anybody in the first
century with access to either a living apostle or a witness to Jesus’
execution could have received clarification if they needed it.)



Second, it is true that the cross was not “worshipped” by the early
Christians, but that’s because the cross has never been worshipped by
any Christians at any time, even today. God alone is an appropriate
object of Christian worship.



As for whether the early Christians used the cross, we have seen both
archaeological and textual evidence that they did indeed.
Interestingly, the archaeological evidence had been known both before
the Watchtower’s ban on the cross in 1931 (with the 1873 discovery of
cross-inscribed ossuaries in Bethany) and after the ban (with the 1939
discovery of a first-century Christian home church in Pompeii with a
wooden cross hanging on the wall, and with the 1945 discovery of more
cross-inscribed ossuaries definitively dated to 42 C.E. – a mere
twelve years after Jesus’ crucifixion).



As for the textual evidence, the Apostle Thomas’ words in John 20:25
provide an indication of the cross, as he says in that verse, “Unless
I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the
print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly
not believe.” (In the depictions of Jesus’ death I’ve seen on the
Watchtower web site, only one nail is used to fasten both of Jesus’
wrists to the stake, but Thomas indicates the use of more than one
nail, which would be more reasonably expected if Jesus were nailed to
a cross rather than a stake.) The Epistle of Barnabas, dated 100
C.E., demonstrates belief that the cross was the instrument of Jesus’
execution only a few years after the death of the Apostle John. And
moving forward into the second and third centuries of Christianity,
still more textual evidence supporting the cross can be found in the
works of Justin Martyr – “For the lamb…is roasted and dressed up in
the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from
the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are
attached the legs of the lamb” – Irenaeus of Lyons – “The very form of
the cross…has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one
in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the
nails” – and Tertullian – “Now the Greek letter tau and our own letter
T is the very form of the cross.” (Ironically, all three of these
ante-Nicene Church Fathers belong to that same group improperly cited
by the Watchtower to support their anti-Trinitarian views!)



So, the notion that the symbol of the cross was not a part of
Christianity until the fourth century (which is what the average
Jehovah’s Witness believes) is easily disproved by textual and
archaeological evidence that is not only readily available to us today
but has also been available to Watchtower scholars and officials for
over 100 years.



Given this, what rational basis does the Watchtower give its adherents
for their rejection of the cross as a Christian symbol? It would be
understandable if the Watchtower were to say, “Yes, Jesus died on a
cross – the textual and archaelogical evidence affirm this – but
because Christendom has become so corrupt that the cross has lost its
meaning, we’re going to discontinue the use of the cross in our
worship and imagery.” That would be a plausible explanation.
However, that’s not what the Watchtower professes to believe on its
web site (and according to the home page http://www.watchtower.org/,
“This is the authoritative web site about the beliefs, teachings, and
activities of Jehovah's Witnesses”). It professes instead:



1) Jesus did not die on a cross. He died on a pole, or a stake.

2) The cross was not used by the early Christians.



As we have seen, neither of these statements is true according to all
the textual and archaeological evidence.



For the Watchtower to, in spite of all the readily-available textual
and archaeological evidence, deny – and, moreover, force their
adherents to deny – that (1) Jesus died on a cross and that (2) the
early Christians used the cross as a symbol of Christianity is,
frankly, both dishonest and wrong.



APPENDIX 2: SUGGESTED READING



www.ccel.org – Christian Classics Ethereal Library: contains a wealth
of online resources, including an online copy of all 38 volumes of the
Early Church Fathers, including works from the Ante-Nicene, Nicene,
and Post-Nicene eras. All quotes from the Fathers which I pulled into
this document came from CCEL.



The Forgotten Trinity by Dr. James White – An excellent, concise book
which both explains and defends the doctrine of the Trinity.



A Brief Description of the Trinity – A short excerpt from The
Forgotten Trinity which gives the basics of Trinitarian doctrine.



Historical Dishonesty and the Watchtower Society – One thing that
caught my eye about the Watchtower’s article is that it didn’t attempt
to reference any Church Fathers prior to Justin Martyr, although the
writings of several – e.g., Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp,
Mathetes, “Barnabas,” Hermas, and Papias – are still extant.
Apparently, the reason for this is that the Watchtower had tried
appropriating the earlier Fathers for themselves once before and had
been soundly trounced for it. This article tells the particular story
of the Watchtower’s mishandling of the works of Ignatius, a first
century bishop of Antioch.