Jehovah's Witnesses

[Javl]

Russell was not being sued, but rather, Russell had filed criminal charges against Ross for libel. Russell never claimed that he could read and understand Greek.

The questioning of Russell being referred to, which lasted many hours, was not by the prosecuting attorney, but by Ross’ defense attorney:

Here is the record of the questions of Ross’s lawyer, George Lynch-Staunton, and Russell’s replies:

It was after that Lynch-Staunton asked Russell if he knew the Greek alphabet. Here is the testimony of that record from the court transcript:

It was after this that Russell was asked:

Russell’s reply was an emphatic “No!”

Please note that Russell was asked several different questions, the first one being if he had been schooled in either the Greek or Latin languages, to which he stated that he had not been. He was then asked if he knew the Greek alphabet. This question, without a given qualification, could be interpreted in different ways. One might be able to repeat the Greek alphabet without being able to recognize the alphabet in print. In Russell’s mind, however, he seemed to interpret this question as to mean, do you know the Greek alphabet so as to make use of the Greek alphabet? In the next question, he was asked if he could tell the Greek letters if he saw them, and Russell truthfully answered, “Some of them,” and truthfully admitted that he might make a mistake on some of them. Most people could know some of them. Many without a high school education, for instance, might recognize the letter alpha as well as beta. However, then another question was asked, and some specific letters are pointed to in the Westcott & Hort text. What those letters were is not revealed, but evidently they were letters deliberately selected that were not so commonly known. The whole approach, however, is a lawyer’s method of trying paint a picture in the worst light possible. Nevertheless, it should be evident that Russell never claimed to know Greek, as Ross made it appear to be.

Then whatever Dr. Walter Martin, in his book " Kingdom of The Cults", reported about Russel was completely false?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Wesley7]

If they came to my door, I would be prepared to talk to them.

 

[T_More]

Reslight, I understand your conviction about the Trinity and how you feel about it. But let me ask, although the bible may not be clear to you about Christ’s divinity, the ones that were taught by the Apostles were quite clear about who Christ was. Why does Russell’s opinion take precedence over ones from almost 2000 years ago? It seems to me that the water is cooler and cleaner from the source than way down stream.

 

[Javl]

If they came to my door, I would be prepared to talk to them.

Pray to the Holy Spirit for knowledge and wisdom when you do, for they are a very tough nut to crack. I have been witnessing to them for over 35 years. I don’t know if I was able to get any one of them to think for themselves, but at least I presented the truth to them. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Bill_Pick]

there is nothing about three persons in one god in john 20:28.

I wrote on this in post # 250. I have written a detailed study on this at:

godandson.reslight.net/archives/339.html

john 8:19 reads (douay-rheims): They said therefore to him: Where is thy father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my father. If you did know me, perhaps you would know my father also.

Definitely nothing there about a trinity, but jesus does explain that, as john stated, that he had come to reveal his god and father to them. Jesus certainly came declare his god and father, thus to know jesus is also to know the only true god who had sent him.

There are only ten verses in 1 john 1, so i am unsure as to what 1 john 1:17 might be.

However, john 14:7seems to be alluded to:

If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my father also: And from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him. – douay-rheims.

Again, there is definitely nothing in this about three persons in one god. Indeed, while i have often seen trinitarians quote or refer to this verse as alleged proof of the trinity, i have never seen any genuine explanation as to how this is thought to support the trinity. I can see how a oneness believer might misuse this to support the idea that jesus is the father, but i see nothing at all in jesus’ words that could apply to the trinitarian doctrine. The same goes for john 8:19.

John stated: “no man hath seen god at any time: The only begotten son who is in the bosom of the father, he hath declared him.” (john 1:18, douay-rheims; see post 283) it should be self-evident that when john wrote “no man hath seen god,” john was speaking of one person, not three persons. Thus, when jesus said “and you have seen,” jesus was not saying that they could literally see the only true god standing there before them, but it is obvious that he was speaking of seeing with eyes of understanding. And jesus himself explained what he meant, when he said: “the words that i speak to you, i speak not of myself. But the father who abideth in me, he doth the works.” (john 14:10, douay-rheims) it is by means of the works of the father that jesus performed that one could “see” the father, and this agrees with what john said, that jesus had declared god, since no man has seen god. – john 1:18.

wrong, wrong and wrong

 

[Fidei]

Reslight seem to have this high regards to Charles T. Russel’s “theological skills”–having only limited educational status himself.

What makes CTR fit enough to interpret the bible on his own? how does he stand out from his contemporaries, Ellen White, Joseph Smith, William Miller?

This “religious freedom” (not that theres anything wrong with that) that spouted out from American ideologies since the 18th century has given out strange brands of “christianity”. The JW’s or bible students are no more American than baseball and hotdog where everything is modernized thus losing its authenticity. Believing in an organization/bible students like this, is for me, a sin in itself where the ancient traditions, both Hebrew and Christian are being thrown away with the personal whims of these modern false prophets.

Maybe what i am looking for in a Church (aside from doctrinal evidence) is its authenticity and the feeling as if you are living the very moments they are instituted 2000 years ago. Not in a “hall” acting as if you’re attending a meeting.

 

[Javl]

Reslight seem to have this high regards to Charles T. Russel’s “theological skills”–having only limited educational status himself.

What makes CTR fit enough to interpret the bible on his own? how does he stand out from his contemporaries, Ellen White, Joseph Smith, William Miller?

This “religious freedom” (not that theres anything wrong with that) that spouted out from American ideologies since the 18th century has given out strange brands of “christianity”. The JW’s or bible students are no more American than baseball and hotdog where everything is modernized thus losing its authenticity. Believing in an organization/bible students like this, is for me, a sin in itself where the ancient traditions, both Hebrew and Christian are being thrown away with the personal whims of these modern false prophets.

Maybe what i am looking for in a Church (aside from doctrinal evidence) is its authenticity and the feeling as if you are living the very moments they are instituted 2000 years ago. Not in a “hall” acting as if you’re attending a meeting.

Very Well Said!!!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

Reslight seem to have this high regards to Charles T. Russel’s “theological skills”–having only limited educational status himself.

What makes CTR fit enough to interpret the bible on his own? how does he stand out from his contemporaries, Ellen White, Joseph Smith, William Miller?

This “religious freedom” (not that theres anything wrong with that) that spouted out from American ideologies since the 18th century has given out strange brands of “christianity”. The JW’s or bible students are no more American than baseball and hotdog where everything is modernized thus losing its authenticity. Believing in an organization/bible students like this, is for me, a sin in itself where the ancient traditions, both Hebrew and Christian are being thrown away with the personal whims of these modern false prophets.

Maybe what i am looking for in a Church (aside from doctrinal evidence) is its authenticity and the feeling as if you are living the very moments they are instituted 2000 years ago. Not in a “hall” acting as if you’re attending a meeting.

Very Well Said!!!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

TO ALL:

One scriptural proof that there is a Holy Trinity is Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE.”. In Hebrew it is known as the Sh’ma: “Sh’ma Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai ekhad”.

For those that know Hebrew, the words Adonai, Eloheinu, and ekhad, are all plural. A direct translation is “Hear Israel, my Lords our Gods my Lords one.” This is not a matter of semantics or a play on words, for if our God were not triune the Hebrew would read “Sh’ma Israel, Adoni Elenu, Adoni yakhid”.

And again, in Ex 34:6 we read in Hebrew “YHWH, YHWH, Elohim”: “He is, He is, Gods”. which also points to the trinity, for if it did not it would read “YHWH, YHWH, Eli”.

The scriptures abound with examples such as this. All point to the existence of a Blessed and Holy Trinity and the unity of God. Think about it.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[raqrodriguez]

TO ALL:

One scriptural proof that there is a Holy Trinity is Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE.”. In Hebrew it is known as the Sh’ma: “Sh’ma Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai ekhad”.

For those that know Hebrew, the words Adonai, Eloheinu, and ekhad, are all plural. A direct translation is “Hear Israel, my Lords our Gods my Lords one.” This is not a matter of semantics or a play on words, for if our God were not triune the Hebrew would read “Sh’ma Israel, Adoni Elenu, Adoni yakhid”.

And again, in Ex 34:6 we read in Hebrew “YHWH, YHWH, Elohim”: “He is, He is, Gods”. which also points to the trinity, for if it did not it would read “YHWH, YHWH, Eli”.

The scriptures abound with examples such as this. All point to the existence of a Blessed and Holy Trinity and the unity of God. Think about it.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

this will always be the problem … JW’s translation of the bible is inaccurate and they do not want to hear anything that discredits the WT or NWT

 

[Bill_Pick]

this will always be the problem … JW’s translation of the bible is inaccurate and they do not want to hear anything that discredits the WT or NWT

AMEN

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]

this will always be the problem … JW’s translation of the bible is inaccurate and they do not want to hear anything that discredits the WT or NWT

[/SIGN]

One thing is sure: Trinitarians who believe in the doctrine of a trinity will not like the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. You point out that the title El•o•him′, as applied to the Creator, is in the plural number and literally means “Gods” and claim that this is a proof of the teaching of a trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures, namely, that there are “three Persons” in one God. But your own argument recoils against yourself in disproof, for, as Trinitarians point out, El•o•him′ means “Gods”, and not “Persons”. So, to follow through with your own argument, the title El•o•him′ would teach that there are two or more Gods in one, instead of “three Persons in one God”. Thus all Trinitarians would be guilty of arguing that there is a multiplicity of gods, contrary to their insistence that there are not three Gods, but only one God, except that this one God has three Persons in himself. Right at the start the footnote of the New World Translation at Genesis 1:1 knocks the ground from under the trinity champions by saying: “The form of the title El•o•him′ is plural, the plural of excellence or majesty and not to denote a multiple personality. The Greek LXX [Septuagint] renders El•o•him′ as ho The•os′, showing that it means an individual ‘God’. Compare Judges 16:23, 24,Footnote: “Their god.” Heb., ’elo•heh•hem′, pl. to denote excellence, applying to Dagon and with a sing. verb; LXXA(Gr.), the•oi′; Lat., de′o. See 1Sa 5:7; 2Ki 19:37.

This footnote shows that El•o•him′ does not mean a plurality of gods or persons, because at Judges 16:23, 24, el•o•him′ is applied to the false god Dagon, just one false god, not many, and hence the title el•o•him′ must be in the plural of excellence or majesty. (Like a King would say “we are not pleased”) Also, el•o•him′ is followed by a singular verb, showing only one god is meant. In fact, when Micah 4:5 (AS) says, “All the peoples walk every one in the name of his god,” the Hebrew word translated “god” is this el•o•him′ in the plural of excellence or majesty.

 

[Javl]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

One thing is sure: Trinitarians who believe in the doctrine of a trinity will not like the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. You point out that the title El•o•him′, as applied to the Creator, is in the plural number and literally means “Gods” and claim that this is a proof of the teaching of a trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures, namely, that there are “three Persons” in one God. But your own argument recoils against yourself in disproof, for, as Trinitarians point out, El•o•him′ means “Gods”, and not “Persons”. So, to follow through with your own argument, the title El•o•him′ would teach that there are two or more Gods in one, instead of “three Persons in one God”. Thus all Trinitarians would be guilty of arguing that there is a multiplicity of gods, contrary to their insistence that there are not three Gods, but only one God, except that this one God has three Persons in himself. Right at the start the footnote of the New World Translation at Genesis 1:1 knocks the ground from under the trinity champions by saying: “The form of the title El•o•him′ is plural, the plural of excellence or majesty and not to denote a multiple personality. The Greek LXX [Septuagint] renders El•o•him′ as ho The•os′, showing that it means an individual ‘God’. Compare Judges 16:23, 24,Footnote: “Their god.” Heb., ’elo•heh•hem′, pl. to denote excellence, applying to Dagon and with a sing. verb; LXXA(Gr.), the•oi′; Lat., de′o. See 1Sa 5:7; 2Ki 19:37.

This footnote shows that El•o•him′ does not mean a plurality of gods or persons, because at Judges 16:23, 24, el•o•him′ is applied to the false god Dagon, just one false god, not many, and hence the title el•o•him′ must be in the plural of excellence or majesty. (Like a King would say “we are not pleased”) Also, el•o•him′ is followed by a singular verb, showing only one god is meant. In fact, when Micah 4:5 (AS) says, “All the peoples walk every one in the name of his god,” the Hebrew word translated “god” is this el•o•him′ in the plural of excellence or majesty.

Now you are playing with semantics and are reading into scripture what is not there. This makes for a weak arguement. First off, sorry to say, the NWT is not an accurate and true interpretation and translation of scripture.When the majority of expert scholars and theologians make that statement it must have a modicum of truth in it. Or is it that these scholars and theologians are out of step with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and that the Watchtower alone has the correct translation?

Second, the Watchtower is preaching and trying to promulgate Arianism ( the denial of Jesus divinity and the existence of the HolyTrinity ) which had been refuted and proven a heresy by the Council of Nicea.

Third, before you start to misquote the Watchtower’s brand of scripture, please make sure you read the writings of Athanasius, Alexander of Alexandria, Augustine, Aquinas, Ignatius, Jerome, etc. every one of whom prove the divinity of Jesus, as God the Son, and the existence of the Holy Trinity, from scripture… Read all this without predjudice and then make your claims. Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

 

[Vasian]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

One thing is sure: Trinitarians who believe in the doctrine of a trinity will not like the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. …

In fact, when Micah 4:5 (AS) says, “All the peoples walk every one in the name of his god,” the Hebrew word translated “god” is this el•o•him′ in the plural of excellence or majesty.

Another nice cut-n-paste. At east try to comment even a little on your own:thumbsupnot your own words at all) that also plays a great game of semantics.
Furthermore, by their own admission the NWT was primarily written by one man and that was none other than the man himself, Frederick William Franz. His main aid at the time was Reinhard Lingtadt (spelling) and he himself stated that “Franz had a habit of playing fast and loose with HIS discernment of scripture and then having us write it down to be used in the NWT…”

Hmmm…

Also read Fanz’s nephew’s book (if you have the spiritual courage to read it) “Crisis of Conscience” where it states…
“The publisher of this version has never made public the names of the translators. But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. According to Raymond V. Franz, the “principal translator of the Society’s New World Translation” was Frederick W. Franz. (1) According to M. James Penton, “to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz.” (2) Franz afterwards became the President of the organization, from 1977 to 1992, and was responsible for the revisions”

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Also read Fanz’s nephew’s book (if you have the spiritual courage) “Crisis of Conscience” where it states…
“The publisher of this version has never made public the names of the translators. But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. According to Raymond V. Franz, the “principal translator of the Society’s New World Translation” was Frederick W. Franz. (1) According to M. James Penton, “to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz.” (2) Franz afterwards became the President of the organization, from 1977 to 1992, and was responsible for the revisions”

I’m not following this thread, but I just wanted to say that I read “Crisis of Conscience” and it changed my life. I had been baptized with the JW’s when I was in my early teens. By a miracle of God I ran across that book and it changed my life. I’d highly recommend it to anyone considering becoming a JW. Praise God, I finally found the truth! That being the Catholic Church, of course.

 

[T_More]

I’m not following this thread, but I just wanted to say that I read “Crisis of Conscience” and it changed my life. I had been baptized with the JW’s when I was in my early teens. By a miracle of God I ran across that book and it changed my life. I’d highly recommend it to anyone considering becoming a JW. Praise God, I finally found the truth! That being the Catholic Church, of course.

Amen. I know what you mean and where you’ve been and where you’re heading.

 

[Vasian]

I can remember getting my copy whilst I was still an elder JW, and feeling the fear of what I was doing.
I left the book down at my place of business, and did not say a word to my wife until I read it, made extensive notes, did research on my notes in an attempt to prove it wrong.
Then opposite happened a sit was factually true.
I ended up writing a few letters back and forth with Mr. Franz, and through him met one of “the” most prominent bible scholars who lived at the headquarters for over 35 years, who walked away from the WTS over the wrongs that were being printed by the Governing Body.

 

[Palaeologos]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

One thing is sure: Trinitarians who believe in the doctrine of a trinity will not like the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

One thing is sure : trained classicists who have studied Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew will not like the New World Translation of the Bible.

No scholar takes the JW translations seriously. The only way you can get your translations (which are, unlike most other translations of Scripture, unsigned) is by sending your proselytes to school to learn the languages in order to find ways to twist the original texts into conformity with Russell and Rutherford’s idiosyncratic interpretations. The existence of the NWT on its own partially justifies the 16th-century RCC’s unwillingness to allow vernacular translations of Scripture.

And please don’t tell me you just cited a sectarian footnote from your translation as though it were Scripture…!

 

[Javl]

Is the rumor true that Fredrick Franz rejected the Watchtower teachings ( his own ) and became a real Christian? Or is it just that, a rumor? My curiosity has been peaked.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Vasian]

Is the rumor true that Fredrick Franz rejected the Watchtower teachings ( his own ) and became a real Christian? Or is it just that, a rumor? My curiosity has been peaked.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

No, that was Ray Franz who authored the book we speak of. Ray was Fred’s nephew.
Both were on the Governing Body.
Fred never rejected His bible translation or anything WTS.