Thursday, February 21, 2013
Are Jehovah's Witnesses outlawed from witnessing online?
Does the Our Kingdom Ministry flier of November 1997 p. 3 "Good News on the Internet" article outlaw Jehovah's Witnesses from witnessing online?
It says:
Our Internet Web site has the address http://www.watchtower.org and contains a selection of tracts, brochures, and Watchtower and Awake! articles in English, Chinese (Simplified), German, Russian, and Spanish, as well as in other languages. The publications on this Web site are already available through the congregations and are in use in the ministry. The purpose of our Web site is, not to release new publications, but to make information available to the public in electronic format. There is no need for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs. Our official site presents accurate information for any who want it. (end quote)
Someone claimed on this question http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am84oIrzoFkCDfEupHOrIjnsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120120080726AAj3HgF that this outlaws Witnesses from witnessing online.
Does it do that, OR does it mean that there is no vacuum to fill as there is an official website?
Additional Details
Edit: XXXXX said: "It keeps hammering in how you should not associate online, even with fellow witnesses." Actually, it does no such thing. Discussing dangers is not the same as outlawing. The article also said: "Jehovah wants you to exercise discernment. Why? Because he knows that it will safeguard you from various dangers." That's the whole point of that article. Thanks for your encouragement!
Hi -----! You said: "This does not say anything about witnessing". Well, having a witnessing website is an act of witnessing. Additionally, you said "we are not to create sites about our beliefs because the site www.watchtower.org does a much better job than we can do." That's what my question is about. Are we outlawed from making websites or blogs of a witnessing nature OR is it just that there is no rush to fill a vacuum as there is an official website? (Whether or not the official website does a better job is outside the scope of this question.)
Let me illustrate: If the US government in 1961 said: "Since we have NASA and its Apollo program, there is no need for any individual or corporation in the US to try to beat the Soviets to the moon," would that be the same as outlawing the construction of a rocket to go to the moon? Or say the government issued a brochure discussing the dangers of cell-phone use. Would this be the same as a ban on all cell-phones? :-)
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The specific part of the quote in question is as follows:
"The purpose of our Web site (the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses) is, not to release new publications, but to make information available to the public in electronic format. THERE IS NO NEED for any individual to prepare Internet pages about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our activities, or our beliefs."
The Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses have made "information available to the public in electronic format." But it would be a stretch to say that the wording "there is no need" is a *direct prohibition* on anyone who would also desire to make "information available to the public in electronic format." The wording "there is no need" means exactly what it says - that additional information posted on-line concerning Jehovah's Witnesses is *NOT NECESSARY* when one can simply refer an interested one toward the relevant article already available at the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses pertaining to the topic at hand. What better place to refer interested ones than to the Official or Authorized Websites of Jehovah's Witnesses themselves?
One thing about the internet is the problem of anonymity. I have seen many websites that claim to be favorable toward Jehovah's Witnesses but were actually set up by apostates looking to fool unsuspecting ones. If one wishes to not fall for this trap, then they should by all means always stick to what they know they can depend on - the *Official* Website of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Because the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society does not have any control over the content of other websites on the internet, it is very understandable that the WBTS does not want to be associated in any way with unauthorized websites, favorable or unfavorable. With this in mind, the managers of several pro-Witness websites have posted the following disclaimer (or wording like it):
"This website is NOT an official website of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website.
"Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research.
"To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org." [Now jw.org]
ME:
"But it would be a stretch to say that the wording "there is no need" is a *direct prohibition*." Thank you! We have a "fire shut up on our bones" as Jeremiah said. So of course some will want to express themselves online!
(Names have been replaced.)
Link
Labels:
Questions
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Mormon Questions Ask Here!!?
Ok so I watched the BBC Programme on Mormonism and it is COMPLTED CRUPTED.. I as where many others shocked when it came out with so much lies... So I have had a lot of questioned about it all... So this page is for me and other LDS to answer as many question as we can to put the facts right... SO ASK AWAY!!! :D
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Hi,
(1) If Heavenly Father took back the plates for their own protection, then why did he not do the same for all other Bible manuscripts like the biblical documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Why did he not preserve them instead of letting them rot in caves?
(2) Mormonism makes salvation impossible for this reason: It has a 'no blood before Adam's Fall' doctrine, including no children or death in the pre-Fall Animal Kingdom.[1] Additionally, the Fall is described as a blessing in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 2:22-5. The problem is that it presents blood as a product of Adam's transgression, yet Jesus had blood,[2] but he was free of the affects of Adam's transgression. (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 4:15) Therefore, what we have here may be called a soteriological contradiction, for Jesus was holy and sinless—he did not have any products of Adam's transgression, but Mormonism gives him just that, blood from Adam's transgression.
Edit:
@ phrog: Hi there!
(1) Hiding them is both inconsistent and illogical for a loving God. A loving God would have the "gold" plates (or gold-plated tumbaga plates if you will) on public display for scientific examination. Thus, the fatal problem remains.
(2) It's from the official LDS website, as well as from your leaders such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Russell M. Nelson who published these views in the The Ensign of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So yes, serious Mormons have to believe the above about blood. Thus, the fatal contradiction remains.
@ Marco/phrog: Hi there!
If you are having trouble following my thinking, then how do you know I'm "making a pretty big assumption on this"? :-) Looks like this is something you need to take more seriously. In the meantime, the fatal problems remain.
[This Mormon claimed circuitously that Adam received blood, not due to transgressing, but due to becoming human.]
To this, I replied:
The LDS Adam became human because of his transgression. I'm afraid you're clearly arguing in circles, dancing around this fatal soteriological contradiction.
(1) If Heavenly Father took back the plates for their own protection, then why did he not do the same for all other Bible manuscripts like the biblical documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Why did he not preserve them instead of letting them rot in caves?
(2) Mormonism makes salvation impossible for this reason: It has a 'no blood before Adam's Fall' doctrine, including no children or death in the pre-Fall Animal Kingdom.[1] Additionally, the Fall is described as a blessing in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 2:22-5. The problem is that it presents blood as a product of Adam's transgression, yet Jesus had blood,[2] but he was free of the affects of Adam's transgression. (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 4:15) Therefore, what we have here may be called a soteriological contradiction, for Jesus was holy and sinless—he did not have any products of Adam's transgression, but Mormonism gives him just that, blood from Adam's transgression.
Edit:
@ phrog: Hi there!
(1) Hiding them is both inconsistent and illogical for a loving God. A loving God would have the "gold" plates (or gold-plated tumbaga plates if you will) on public display for scientific examination. Thus, the fatal problem remains.
(2) It's from the official LDS website, as well as from your leaders such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Russell M. Nelson who published these views in the The Ensign of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So yes, serious Mormons have to believe the above about blood. Thus, the fatal contradiction remains.
@ Marco/phrog: Hi there!
If you are having trouble following my thinking, then how do you know I'm "making a pretty big assumption on this"? :-) Looks like this is something you need to take more seriously. In the meantime, the fatal problems remain.
[This Mormon claimed circuitously that Adam received blood, not due to transgressing, but due to becoming human.]
To this, I replied:
The LDS Adam became human because of his transgression. I'm afraid you're clearly arguing in circles, dancing around this fatal soteriological contradiction.
Source(s):
[1] "Fall of Adam." http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/fall-of-ada… This is taught elsewhere too.
[2] "Christ." http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/christ?lang… In order for Jesus to be the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), he would have to be what Adam lost and voluntarily sacrifice that to be the ransom. Mormonism makes that impossible.
Link
[2] "Christ." http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/christ?lang… In order for Jesus to be the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), he would have to be what Adam lost and voluntarily sacrifice that to be the ransom. Mormonism makes that impossible.
Link
Friday, June 8, 2012
Why do Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus?
![]() |
| Jesus as the resurrected divine Son of Man |
During His earthly life and ministry He did the very things we would expect the Creator God to do.
He did miracles. He raised people from the dead, turned water into wine.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -John 1:1
Additional Details
It's a shame you guys had to re-edit your own bible.
Answer:
Hi there! He did those miracles because "God was with him." (Acts 10:38, see also 1Cor. 1:24)
Additionally, you may be surprised to learn that the Trinitarians changed John 1:1c to read "the Word was God," as the Greek text literally reads "the Word was a god," as corroborated by a translation of John from Greek 1,700 years ago, as it reads the same as discovered only after the NWT was published.[1]
To address your initial question, far from denying the divinity or deity of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses affirm it with the loudest voice! This is clearly seen in the scripture you referenced: John 1:1, where you dispute the translation of "a god." Here we affirm in the clearest way that Jesus is divine.
Perhaps this question arises over a common misunderstanding about monotheism. Monotheism includes the existence of other inhabitants in heaven. But we don't give exclusive devotion to those, we give exclusive devotion to the almighty Creator, Jehovah God.
Ironically, it is the Trinitarians who deny the divinity of Christ. For instance, it is believed by them that Jesus is fully man and fully divine in heaven. Yet this is an abstraction that violates what Jesus and Paul taught about heaven. (Matthew 16:17; John 8:21, 23; 1 Corinthians 15:50; see also Psalm 115:16) So since the Trinitarian divinity of Christ is a clear violation of both the Scriptures and universal laws that God established, it cannot exist. Thus, Trinitarianism has defined the divinity of Christ out of existence.
Consider also how Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus was an incarnation on earth and how this violates the scriptures and nullifies Jesus' sacrificial death:
Thus we can be most thankful that Jesus was not an incarnation but was born from a woman as Paul told us at Galatians 4:4. Any religious system that denies this basic teaching is condemned per Galatians 1:8.
Thank you for asking this question and I hope you give some prayerful attention to the reasoning here.
Additionally, you may be surprised to learn that the Trinitarians changed John 1:1c to read "the Word was God," as the Greek text literally reads "the Word was a god," as corroborated by a translation of John from Greek 1,700 years ago, as it reads the same as discovered only after the NWT was published.[1]
To address your initial question, far from denying the divinity or deity of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses affirm it with the loudest voice! This is clearly seen in the scripture you referenced: John 1:1, where you dispute the translation of "a god." Here we affirm in the clearest way that Jesus is divine.
Perhaps this question arises over a common misunderstanding about monotheism. Monotheism includes the existence of other inhabitants in heaven. But we don't give exclusive devotion to those, we give exclusive devotion to the almighty Creator, Jehovah God.
Ironically, it is the Trinitarians who deny the divinity of Christ. For instance, it is believed by them that Jesus is fully man and fully divine in heaven. Yet this is an abstraction that violates what Jesus and Paul taught about heaven. (Matthew 16:17; John 8:21, 23; 1 Corinthians 15:50; see also Psalm 115:16) So since the Trinitarian divinity of Christ is a clear violation of both the Scriptures and universal laws that God established, it cannot exist. Thus, Trinitarianism has defined the divinity of Christ out of existence.
Consider also how Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus was an incarnation on earth and how this violates the scriptures and nullifies Jesus' sacrificial death:
- An incarnation could never offer himself as a corresponding ransom for the sins of humanity like Jesus did. (1 Timothy 2:5, 6)
- An incarnation could never fully "sympathize with our weaknesses" like Jesus did. (Hebrews 4:15)
- An incarnation is not "lower than angels" like Jesus was, but is still a spirit. (Hebrews 2:7, 9)
- An incarnation could instantly heal injuries no matter how serious, as Jesus could not without his God's power. (Acts 10:38)[2]
Thus we can be most thankful that Jesus was not an incarnation but was born from a woman as Paul told us at Galatians 4:4. Any religious system that denies this basic teaching is condemned per Galatians 1:8.
Thank you for asking this question and I hope you give some prayerful attention to the reasoning here.
Source(s):
[1] Coptic John 1:1 and the New World Translation http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/09/coptic-john-11-and-new-world.html[2] Additional reading: Jesus: a Spirit Born on Earth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2011/02/jesus-spirit-born-on-earth-jesus-was.html
Do You Reject Trinitarianism? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html
LINK
Labels:
Answers
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
If there was no rain before the flood?
how did the plants receive moisture? How did inland lakes receive water? What happened in the process of making rain? If so, where did the water vapour go? What happens to the water vapour in the clouds? Did god somehow absorb it out? Shouldn't there be NO plants? There are studies showing that the Sahara was once a large rainforest, now its a wasteland. Why? Lack of rain. Was the entire world a desert then?
My Answer:
A consideration of Genesis 2:5, 6 addresses your question.
“Now there was as yet no bush of the field found in the earth [erets] and no vegetation of the field was as yet sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain upon the earth [erets] and there was no man to cultivate the ground [adamah]. 6 But a mist would go up [or, “springs would well up”—NET Bible] from the earth [erets] and it watered the entire surface of the ground [adamah].”
Verse 7 is necessary to read in order to place these verses into their chronological sequence. It informs us that “God proceeded to form the man [adam] out of dust from the ground [adamah].” This is more significant than many realize. Verses 5, 6 are thus placed before the creation of Adam, during the second creative day described at Genesis 1:10-13. It was this watered soil, adamah, that Adam was created from. Thus, it must have preceded Adam. Significantly, when God told Noah at Genesis 7:4 that he would ‘make it rain on the earth,’ Noah did not seek clarification as if he never experienced that before.
Thus, we may safely reason that:
(1) it had rained during the antediluvian period.
(2) Genesis 2:5, 6 refers to a very early time in earth's history, likely during the Precambrian.[1]
Genesis was not written with modern scientists in mind, but it does harmonize with modern science.
“Now there was as yet no bush of the field found in the earth [erets] and no vegetation of the field was as yet sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain upon the earth [erets] and there was no man to cultivate the ground [adamah]. 6 But a mist would go up [or, “springs would well up”—NET Bible] from the earth [erets] and it watered the entire surface of the ground [adamah].”
Verse 7 is necessary to read in order to place these verses into their chronological sequence. It informs us that “God proceeded to form the man [adam] out of dust from the ground [adamah].” This is more significant than many realize. Verses 5, 6 are thus placed before the creation of Adam, during the second creative day described at Genesis 1:10-13. It was this watered soil, adamah, that Adam was created from. Thus, it must have preceded Adam. Significantly, when God told Noah at Genesis 7:4 that he would ‘make it rain on the earth,’ Noah did not seek clarification as if he never experienced that before.
Thus, we may safely reason that:
(1) it had rained during the antediluvian period.
(2) Genesis 2:5, 6 refers to a very early time in earth's history, likely during the Precambrian.[1]
Genesis was not written with modern scientists in mind, but it does harmonize with modern science.
Source(s):
[1] A History Channel video I have states that during the late Hadean when the earth had cooled and the crust had formed, that trapped water escaped and watered the earth.
Labels:
Answers
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Based on the teachings of Christ and the Bible, which is the way Luke 23:43 should ACCURATELY be translated?
1)
"And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” "
~ Luke 23:43 (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/...
Or...
# 2)
"Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” "
~ Luke 23:43 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea…
For those of you who for whatever reason can't see the difference, the difference is in the position of the comma. Should the comma be placed AFTER the word "today" (# 1), or should it be placed BEFORE the word "today" (# 2).
The entire meaning of the scripture is affected by the comma placement.
When answering, please keep in mind that the Bible shows. reveals and teaches that after Jesus was executed he was dead for 3 days BEFORE he was resurrected to life.
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Number 1. Supporting this, Abernathy stated:
(quote) It is the most "common" in that most Bible translations put the comma before the word "today." But Bible translation accuracy is not a democracy.
The original Greek did not have punctuation, and the original writer and readers wouldn't have had any problem understanding the verse. But today this placement of comma (required in English translations) is not so straightforward.
In favor of placing the comma before "today," I have only heard the explanation that it would have been superfluous for Jesus to tell the criminal that he was telling him something that day.
In favor of placing the comma after today, it is pointed out this was a common semitic idiom, used to show the certainty of something. A similar idiom is used some 40 times in the book of Deuteronomy.
The accusation that this is a JW specific issue is easily proved wrong. For example, the best manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic version, perhaps made in the late 2nd century says this at Luke 23:43:
ϩΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΑΚ ΜΠΟΟΥ ϪЄ ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ ΝΜΜΑΙ ϩΜ ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС
Truly I am telling you today that you will be with me in paradise.
The Coptic particle ϪЄ (je) means "that" and can function as a comma in Coptic. It is placed after, not before, "today." The Sahidic Coptic is the translation closest in time to when Luke was written, and reflects a translation similar to the NWT at Luke 23:43. (end quote)[1]
Trinitarianism however depends on Jesus not really sacrificing his life to provide a ransom, therefore it cannot except that Jesus was really dead,[2] as the link to the Trinitarian explanation that BibleChooser provided explains. Consequently, Trinitarianism must ultimately deny the ransom sacrifice. Therefore, the Insight article stands correct: "Jesus himself was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the resurrection. (Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:20; Col 1:18) He ascended to heaven 40 days later.--Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9."
@ BenjaminTapia, hi there. Well, we're created with the power of reason (1 John 1:4) to be able to sort everything out. Others remain behind in the darkness, but Christ's true followers bear the distinctive emblem of light.
(quote) It is the most "common" in that most Bible translations put the comma before the word "today." But Bible translation accuracy is not a democracy.
The original Greek did not have punctuation, and the original writer and readers wouldn't have had any problem understanding the verse. But today this placement of comma (required in English translations) is not so straightforward.
In favor of placing the comma before "today," I have only heard the explanation that it would have been superfluous for Jesus to tell the criminal that he was telling him something that day.
In favor of placing the comma after today, it is pointed out this was a common semitic idiom, used to show the certainty of something. A similar idiom is used some 40 times in the book of Deuteronomy.
The accusation that this is a JW specific issue is easily proved wrong. For example, the best manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic version, perhaps made in the late 2nd century says this at Luke 23:43:
ϩΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΑΚ ΜΠΟΟΥ ϪЄ ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ ΝΜΜΑΙ ϩΜ ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС
Truly I am telling you today that you will be with me in paradise.
The Coptic particle ϪЄ (je) means "that" and can function as a comma in Coptic. It is placed after, not before, "today." The Sahidic Coptic is the translation closest in time to when Luke was written, and reflects a translation similar to the NWT at Luke 23:43. (end quote)[1]
Trinitarianism however depends on Jesus not really sacrificing his life to provide a ransom, therefore it cannot except that Jesus was really dead,[2] as the link to the Trinitarian explanation that BibleChooser provided explains. Consequently, Trinitarianism must ultimately deny the ransom sacrifice. Therefore, the Insight article stands correct: "Jesus himself was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the resurrection. (Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:20; Col 1:18) He ascended to heaven 40 days later.--Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9."
@ BenjaminTapia, hi there. Well, we're created with the power of reason (1 John 1:4) to be able to sort everything out. Others remain behind in the darkness, but Christ's true followers bear the distinctive emblem of light.
Source(s):
[1] http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
Edit: [2] Slick, Matt. “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.”
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-d…
Regarding this, consider the conversation Jesus had with Peter recorded at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33. Here, Jesus made it very clear that he would be killed. But Peter rebuked him, saying: “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” (Matthew 16:22, NASB) Here, Trinitarianism appears to agree with Peter’s rebuke. But Jesus called such reasoning satanic, and thoughts of men alienated from God.
Edit: [2] Slick, Matt. “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.”
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-d…
Regarding this, consider the conversation Jesus had with Peter recorded at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33. Here, Jesus made it very clear that he would be killed. But Peter rebuked him, saying: “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” (Matthew 16:22, NASB) Here, Trinitarianism appears to agree with Peter’s rebuke. But Jesus called such reasoning satanic, and thoughts of men alienated from God.
LINK
Also note that even if the #2 example above is correct, that this could simply mean that the criminal was as good as being in paradise with Jesus that very day, that as far as he knew, it would appear that he was with Jesus that very day—even though it was not literally that day. This idiomatic way of speaking would in no way be insincere. (1 Peter 2:22) Thus, no matter how you slice it, Luke 23:43 does not support the immortality of the soul nor Trinitarianism.
See also:Appendix
Interlinear translation of the Sahidic Coptic Luke 23:43:
Compact:
ΠЄϪΑϤ ΔЄ ΝΑϤ ϪЄ
He said however to him,
ϩΑΜΗΝ ϮϪШ ΜΜΟС ΝΑΚ ΜΠΟΟΥ ϪЄ ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ ΝΜΜΑΙ ϩΜ ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС.
truly I say it to you today, you will be with me in the paradise.
Parsed:
| ΠЄϪΑϤ | ΔЄ | ΝΑϤ | ϪЄ. |
| he said | however | to him | , |
| ϩΑΜΗΝ | ϮϪШ | ΜΜΟС | ΝΑΚ | ΜΠΟΟΥ | ϪЄ |
| truly | I say | it | to you | today | , |
| ΚΝΑϢШΠЄ | ΝΜΜΑΙ | ϩΜ | ΠΠΑΡΑΔЄΙСΟС. |
| you will be | with me | in | the paradise. |
Also note that even if the #2 example above is correct, that this could simply mean that the criminal was as good as being in paradise with Jesus that very day, that as far as he knew, it would appear that he was with Jesus that very day—even though it was not literally that day. This idiomatic way of speaking would in no way be insincere. (1 Peter 2:22) Thus, no matter how you slice it, Luke 23:43 does not support the immortality of the soul nor Trinitarianism.
- Coptic John 1:1 and the New World Translation
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/09/coptic-john-11-and-new-world.html - When will the evildoer be in Paradise? (Reasoning From the Scriptures)
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989252#h=18
Labels:
Answers
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Trinitarians who hold that Jesus is divine only: do you realize that your position is heretical?
| "Chalcedonian Box" by a Trinitarian |
Thus, I'm wondering if the Trinitarians who reject the Hypostatic Union here on Y!A know that they are spreading monophysite heresy?
Note: I'm talking about Trinitarians who reject the Hypostatic Union, not Oneness believers.
Quotes from Trinitarians I'm referring to:
"after the resurrection, he had a "glorified" body, a body made not of flesh, and not subject to the same laws of physics"
"he had blood when human but not anymore...HE WAS BOTH but now spirit.."[Found in response to my question "Two questions for Trinitarians?"]
(Not included is one who deleted his comment and another who had his comment deleted when the question he was responding to was deleted.)
[Referring first to my question "Trinitarians: How can Jesus be fully man outside of earth's atmosphere?" and second to my question "Jehovah's Witnesses, why do you reject the Trinity?", where user Surfari [AKA Crosseyed] said according to what I remember, in substance: "As if he (Slick) is the authority of the church!"]
Additional Details
@ David H: I'm not talking about "sincere ignorance" but willful rejection of the Hypostatic Union. They read Trinitarian apologetics like Matt Slick's on carm.org on the Hypostatic Union and reject it. One vocal Trinitarian [Surfari/Crosseyed] here even mocked him and his apologetics.
Labels:
Questions
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Extent of involvement with spiritist Johannes Greber?
Greber's NT was used occasionally **in support** [NOTE: not as a source] of renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1, as given in the New World Translation and other authoritative Bible versions. But as indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition[1] of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on “God’s Spirit World” [as opposed to Bible scholarship] to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: “His wife, a medium of God’s Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God’s Messengers to Pastor Greber.”[2] The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) The scholarship that forms the basis for the rendering of the above-cited texts in the New World Translation is sound and for this reason does not depend at all on Greber’s translation for authority. Nothing is lost, therefore, by ceasing to use his New Testament.[3]
Source(s):
[1] The 1937 edition was previously used. (The Watchtower, 1962 9/15 p. 554 “The Word”—Who Is He? According to John.)
[2] A careful reading of this statement only shows that they had both editions, with the latest one retaining this admission.
[3] The Watchtower, 1983 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers.
[2] A careful reading of this statement only shows that they had both editions, with the latest one retaining this admission.
[3] The Watchtower, 1983 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers.
Appendix
- From BAR-ANERGES
- From JWD2: The Watchtower and Johannes Greber
- My Summary
- Related news: The Vatican commissioned "teams of psychics"
- See also:
Greetings,
Anyone who continues to claim that Witnesses are associated with the occult are spreading blatant falsehoods. This question only reveals what the questioner desperately wants to believe and its sole purpose is to prejudice others.
Jehovah's Witnesses condemn divination and spiritualism in all its forms. They have done this from their inception as Bible Students down to today.
This question’s false accusation is a misrepresentation based on the Witnesses simply citing the Catholic translator J. Greber as one of many scholars who had translated Jn.1:1 as the NWT did.
The fact is that Greber's translation had no connection with the translation of the NWT nor was it ever consulted. It was simply listed along with other versions which similarly translated Jn.1:1.
Claiming that Witnesses had some “involvement” with Greber or spiritism is a reprehensible and hypocritical slander.
First, Greber was a Catholic and the church NEVER condemned him nor distanced themselves from his scholarship!
Second other Trinitarian scholars have used Johannes Greber for support (see Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament", Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation and Duthie's How to Choose Your Bible Wisely).
And third, criticizing the Witnesses because of Greber's spiritism is hypocritical because almost all modern translations make use of the text by Westcott and Hort. Yet, these two Greek scholars belonged to a club called the Ghostly Guild. They were actually fathers of the New Age channeling movement. The Ghostly Guild evolved into the infamous Society for Psychical Research.
The fact is that almost EVERY translation can be linked to scholars who were involved in spiritism.
The NIV used Dr. Virginia Mollenkott as a consultant throughout its creation. Yet her book, Sensuous Spirituality, tells of her spirit guide and contact with her dead mother and she admits use of Tarot cards and the I Ching.
Even older versions like the KJV/NKJV have links to scholars who were involved in the occult in their textual ancestry. For example, Origen's OT, the Hexapla makes use of texts by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.
Look at the NKJV logo. It is a symbol which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by Satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the covers of New Age books.
It is generally true that when someone cannot defend their theology from the Scriptures they usually distract by presenting slanted, incomplete and outright false accusations of what other religions teach. This type of question is promoted by biased individuals because they cannot defend their own beliefs with Scriptures, logic or facts.
Yours,
BAR-ANERGES
(Ron Rhoades)
From Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 2nd edition: Appendix C: The Watchtower and Johannes Greber
In 1955 The Watchtower magazine published a series of articles on the subject of life after death. In Part 3 of this series we read: "It comes as no surprise that one Johannes Greber, a former Catholic clergyman, has become a spiritualist and has published the book entitled ‘Communication with the Spirit World, Its laws and Its Purpose.’ (1932, Macoy Publishing Company, New York) In its Foreword he makes the typical misstatement: ‘The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible; for its principal contents hinge upon the messages of the beyond to those existing in the present.’"[1]
A few months later The Watchtower referred to several clergymen who agree with and support spiritism. The article makes this reference to Greber: "Says Johannes Greber in the introduction of his translation of The New Testament, copyrighted in 1937: ‘I myself was a Catholic priest, and until I was fortyeight years old had never as much as believed in the possibility of communicating with the world of God’s spirits. The day came, however, when I involuntarily took my first step toward such communication, and experienced things that shook me to the depths of my soul. . . . My experiences are related in a book that has appeared in both German and English and bears the title, Communication with the Spirit-World: Its Laws and Its Purpose.’ (Page 15, ¶ 2, 3) In keeping with his Roman Catholic extraction Greber’s translation is bound with a gold-leaf cross on its stiff front cover. In the Foreword of his aforementioned book ex-priest Greber says: ‘The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible.’ Under this impression Greber endeavors to make his New Testament translation read very spiritualistic."[2]
Thus we can see that Jehovah’s Witnesses knew full well that Johannes Greber was involved in spiritistic practices. That is why, in response to the question, "Why, in recent years, has The Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber?" The Watchtower replied: "As indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on ‘God’s Spirit World’ to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: ‘His wife, a medium of God’s Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God’s Messengers to Pastor Greber.’ The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)"[3] But if Jehovah’s Witnesses knew back in 1955 that Greber was a spiritist, why is Greber’s translation cited with approval for its renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1 in editions of The Watchtower between 1955 and 1983?[4]
First it must be stated clearly and emphatically that such citations of Greber’s New Testament in no way lend support to occultism or those who embrace it. From its beginning, The Watchtower magazine has opposed spiritism and it continues to do so.[5] The simplest explanation for The Watchtower’s citation of Greber’s translation is that those writers who used it in certain articles were unaware of the articles that had previously discussed Greber’s involvement with spiritism.
It is also possible that certain Watchtower writers believed that Greber’s translation was the work not only of a spiritist, but of a man who had a good grasp of ancient Greek grammar. (I personally do not have much confidence in Greber’s translation skills.[6]) That is perhaps one reason why Bruce Metzger chose to cite Greber’s New Testament translation when discussing Codex Bezae, which is the principle text used by Greber for his translation.[7] It is a fallacy to argue that Greber, being a spiritist, is therefore incapable of apprehending the sense of the original language of the New Testament, at least in some instances. (underline added)
Witness critics would do well to ponder the account in Acts 16, where a demonized girl followed Paul and Silas shouting, "These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing to you the way of salvation." (verse 17) Indeed, Paul did not get tired of her until she kept doing this "for many days," and finally he exorcised the demon from her. (verse 18) Even though the girl "had a demon of divination" and "used to furnish her masters with much gain by practicing the art of prediction" (verse 16), Paul tolerated her for some time. No doubt he realized that even though what she said was correct, her association with the spirit world could no longer be tolerated.
It is similar with the Watchtower’s use of Greber’s translation. In their case, however, those who cited Greber’s translation, among others, as supporting what they considered to be an accurate translation of certain passages, likely did so without knowing the details of Greber’s involvement with spiritism, even though other Watchtower writers knew and wrote about it.
Footnotes:
[1] "What Do the Scriptures Say About ‘Survival After Death’?" Part 3. The Watchtower, 1 October 1955, 603.
[2] "Triumphing over Wicked Spirit Forces," The Watchtower, 15 February 1956, 110-111.
[3] "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 1 April 1983, 31.
[4] See, for example, "‘The Word’—Who is He? According to John," The Watchtower, 15 September 1962, 554; "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 15 October 1975, 640; "Insight on the News," The Watchtower, 15 April 1976, 231.
[5] References proving this point are so numerous that the reader is best referred to the Watchtower Publications Index 1930-1985 and the 1986-1990 Index (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1986, 1990).
[6] See, for example, John 17:3, 20:28; 1Jo 5:20 and Rev 1:17, 18, to name a few.
[7] Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed. (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 50-51, note 2. It could be that Metzger is simply making reference to a translation of Codex Bezae, without regard to its accuracy.
[This footnote refers to the third edition of 1992, but it was also in the second edition of 1968:
In closing, I want to stress that Johannes Greber never claimed that he used demonism to translate Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1. The Watchtower was thus only using his translation to show that its translation in the NWT was not alone.
Final points:
The end!
Related news: The Vatican commissioned "teams of psychics":
Meet the Fantastically Bejeweled Skeletons of Catholicism's Forgotten Martyrs
Imagine that: official, unapologetic sanction of uncanny power!
Anyone who continues to claim that Witnesses are associated with the occult are spreading blatant falsehoods. This question only reveals what the questioner desperately wants to believe and its sole purpose is to prejudice others.
Jehovah's Witnesses condemn divination and spiritualism in all its forms. They have done this from their inception as Bible Students down to today.
This question’s false accusation is a misrepresentation based on the Witnesses simply citing the Catholic translator J. Greber as one of many scholars who had translated Jn.1:1 as the NWT did.
The fact is that Greber's translation had no connection with the translation of the NWT nor was it ever consulted. It was simply listed along with other versions which similarly translated Jn.1:1.
Claiming that Witnesses had some “involvement” with Greber or spiritism is a reprehensible and hypocritical slander.
First, Greber was a Catholic and the church NEVER condemned him nor distanced themselves from his scholarship!
Second other Trinitarian scholars have used Johannes Greber for support (see Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament", Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation and Duthie's How to Choose Your Bible Wisely).
And third, criticizing the Witnesses because of Greber's spiritism is hypocritical because almost all modern translations make use of the text by Westcott and Hort. Yet, these two Greek scholars belonged to a club called the Ghostly Guild. They were actually fathers of the New Age channeling movement. The Ghostly Guild evolved into the infamous Society for Psychical Research.
The fact is that almost EVERY translation can be linked to scholars who were involved in spiritism.
The NIV used Dr. Virginia Mollenkott as a consultant throughout its creation. Yet her book, Sensuous Spirituality, tells of her spirit guide and contact with her dead mother and she admits use of Tarot cards and the I Ching.
Even older versions like the KJV/NKJV have links to scholars who were involved in the occult in their textual ancestry. For example, Origen's OT, the Hexapla makes use of texts by Theodotian, Symmachus, and Aquilla. All three were Gnostic occultists.
Look at the NKJV logo. It is a symbol which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by Satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the covers of New Age books.
It is generally true that when someone cannot defend their theology from the Scriptures they usually distract by presenting slanted, incomplete and outright false accusations of what other religions teach. This type of question is promoted by biased individuals because they cannot defend their own beliefs with Scriptures, logic or facts.
Yours,
BAR-ANERGES
(Ron Rhoades)
From Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, 2nd edition: Appendix C: The Watchtower and Johannes Greber
In 1955 The Watchtower magazine published a series of articles on the subject of life after death. In Part 3 of this series we read: "It comes as no surprise that one Johannes Greber, a former Catholic clergyman, has become a spiritualist and has published the book entitled ‘Communication with the Spirit World, Its laws and Its Purpose.’ (1932, Macoy Publishing Company, New York) In its Foreword he makes the typical misstatement: ‘The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible; for its principal contents hinge upon the messages of the beyond to those existing in the present.’"[1]
A few months later The Watchtower referred to several clergymen who agree with and support spiritism. The article makes this reference to Greber: "Says Johannes Greber in the introduction of his translation of The New Testament, copyrighted in 1937: ‘I myself was a Catholic priest, and until I was fortyeight years old had never as much as believed in the possibility of communicating with the world of God’s spirits. The day came, however, when I involuntarily took my first step toward such communication, and experienced things that shook me to the depths of my soul. . . . My experiences are related in a book that has appeared in both German and English and bears the title, Communication with the Spirit-World: Its Laws and Its Purpose.’ (Page 15, ¶ 2, 3) In keeping with his Roman Catholic extraction Greber’s translation is bound with a gold-leaf cross on its stiff front cover. In the Foreword of his aforementioned book ex-priest Greber says: ‘The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible.’ Under this impression Greber endeavors to make his New Testament translation read very spiritualistic."[2]
Thus we can see that Jehovah’s Witnesses knew full well that Johannes Greber was involved in spiritistic practices. That is why, in response to the question, "Why, in recent years, has The Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber?" The Watchtower replied: "As indicated in a foreword to the 1980 edition of The New Testament by Johannes Greber, this translator relied on ‘God’s Spirit World’ to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: ‘His wife, a medium of God’s Spiritworld was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God’s Messengers to Pastor Greber.’ The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)"[3] But if Jehovah’s Witnesses knew back in 1955 that Greber was a spiritist, why is Greber’s translation cited with approval for its renderings of Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1 in editions of The Watchtower between 1955 and 1983?[4]
First it must be stated clearly and emphatically that such citations of Greber’s New Testament in no way lend support to occultism or those who embrace it. From its beginning, The Watchtower magazine has opposed spiritism and it continues to do so.[5] The simplest explanation for The Watchtower’s citation of Greber’s translation is that those writers who used it in certain articles were unaware of the articles that had previously discussed Greber’s involvement with spiritism.
It is also possible that certain Watchtower writers believed that Greber’s translation was the work not only of a spiritist, but of a man who had a good grasp of ancient Greek grammar. (I personally do not have much confidence in Greber’s translation skills.[6]) That is perhaps one reason why Bruce Metzger chose to cite Greber’s New Testament translation when discussing Codex Bezae, which is the principle text used by Greber for his translation.[7] It is a fallacy to argue that Greber, being a spiritist, is therefore incapable of apprehending the sense of the original language of the New Testament, at least in some instances. (underline added)
Witness critics would do well to ponder the account in Acts 16, where a demonized girl followed Paul and Silas shouting, "These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are publishing to you the way of salvation." (verse 17) Indeed, Paul did not get tired of her until she kept doing this "for many days," and finally he exorcised the demon from her. (verse 18) Even though the girl "had a demon of divination" and "used to furnish her masters with much gain by practicing the art of prediction" (verse 16), Paul tolerated her for some time. No doubt he realized that even though what she said was correct, her association with the spirit world could no longer be tolerated.
It is similar with the Watchtower’s use of Greber’s translation. In their case, however, those who cited Greber’s translation, among others, as supporting what they considered to be an accurate translation of certain passages, likely did so without knowing the details of Greber’s involvement with spiritism, even though other Watchtower writers knew and wrote about it.
Footnotes:
[1] "What Do the Scriptures Say About ‘Survival After Death’?" Part 3. The Watchtower, 1 October 1955, 603.
[2] "Triumphing over Wicked Spirit Forces," The Watchtower, 15 February 1956, 110-111.
[3] "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 1 April 1983, 31.
[4] See, for example, "‘The Word’—Who is He? According to John," The Watchtower, 15 September 1962, 554; "Questions from Readers," The Watchtower, 15 October 1975, 640; "Insight on the News," The Watchtower, 15 April 1976, 231.
[5] References proving this point are so numerous that the reader is best referred to the Watchtower Publications Index 1930-1985 and the 1986-1990 Index (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1986, 1990).
[6] See, for example, John 17:3, 20:28; 1Jo 5:20 and Rev 1:17, 18, to name a few.
[7] Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3d ed. (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 50-51, note 2. It could be that Metzger is simply making reference to a translation of Codex Bezae, without regard to its accuracy.
[This footnote refers to the third edition of 1992, but it was also in the second edition of 1968:
It may be mentioned that English translations of codex Bezae have been published by William Whiston (The Primitive New Testament [London, 1745] and by Johannes Greber (The New Testament: a New Translation and Explanation based on the Oldest Manuscripts [New York, New York, 1937).The Text of The New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. By Bruce M. Metzger. Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. Princeton Theological Seminary. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 1968, p.50, note 2, p.51. (Note however that the first edition of this book is 1964 and the first Watchtower corroborative citation of Greber is 1962.)]
In closing, I want to stress that Johannes Greber never claimed that he used demonism to translate Matthew 27:52, 53 and John 1:1. The Watchtower was thus only using his translation to show that its translation in the NWT was not alone.
Final points:
- Even the esteemed Bible scholar Bruce Metzger cited his translation.
- The Watchtower was only using his translation to show that its translation in the NWT was not alone.
- When the Watchtower staff compared notes, it was seen that Greber claimed uncanny influence, thus it was inappropriate for the Watchtower to make any more use of it, and Metzger provided the bad example of citing his translation.
- Greber claimed to be influenced by angels, not demons. (In reality, I think he was a sham.)
The end!
Related news: The Vatican commissioned "teams of psychics":
Meet the Fantastically Bejeweled Skeletons of Catholicism's Forgotten Martyrs
In identifying the remains of martyrs, the Vatican commissioned "teams of psychics": these "would journey through the corporeal tunnels, slip into a trance and point out skeletons from which they perceived a telling aura. After identifying a skeleton as holy, the Vatican then decided who was who and issued the title of martyr."http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/meet-the-fantastically-bejeweled-skeletons-of-catholicisms-forgotten-martyrs-284882/?no-ist
Imagine that: official, unapologetic sanction of uncanny power!
See also:
Jehovah's Witnesses. Why do demons hate the "Trinity" doctrine? http://jimspace3000-ya.blogspot.com/2014/10/jehovahs-witnesses-why-do-demons-hate.html
LINK (Proceed at your own risk)
Labels:
Answers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








