Jehovah`s Witness/Christian brothers
I cannot tell you how good it is to hear you say you are saved. I know its a silly thing to some but to me it is a miracle. Not that you are a bad person. Its just that it gives me hope that is God can speak into the life of one person he can do the same with other too even if they are surrounded on all sides by false teaching and doctrine. Praise God
I do see what you are saying concerning the JW rending of having a knowledge of God and the Christian understanding 'knowing God'. I could not agree more that knowledge of God is no substitute for knowing God personally. Amen.
I have been bugging Grunbaum for a while now under a new title I think it is NWT and John 1:1 I will have to have another look at it. Anyway I went to a website and found a list of scholars who deny the NWT rendering of John 1:1 as a God.
In Bens first responce to me he came back with a name I didn't know, E.C Colwell. He told me that according to his list the NWT scored the highest of all modern English translations and the KJV scored the lowest. I checked it out on line and it seemed to be accurate. However I trust nothing that the WT produces since they make out rageous claims. I do however get a bee in my bonet over such things and investigate them.
One source I found claims that the list is bias as it seems to favor Westcott and Horts new Greek NT which is what the NWT was based upon. I still need to look into the authentisity of the statement but it was interesting.
Along the same lines it also turns out that the List Grunbaum claimed rated the NWT as best English translation came out before the NWT was published. Perhaps I read his responce wrong but I was under the understanding that the NWT was reviewed by E.C Colwell? Apparently not.
Furthermore in my list of scholars on John 1:1 E.C Colwell and clairfies that Jesus is God (pertaining to the rendering of the passage).
Greater still Dr. Westcott himself also comments on the passage and states that Jesus is of the same substance as God the Father.
Grunbaums retort was simply that they were all bias and that since there are 'scholars' that agree with the NWT I lose. The kicker is that he called the very man who wrote the Greek Text the WT uses for their translation 'bias'. I enlightened him of his error I could not help it.
Johannes Gerber is one of the Scholars Grunbaum list. According to one source this man recieved his enlightement concerning translating John 1:1 from divine revealation. However JWs site him as a Scholar. Grunbaum is going to get this in sterio as I am going to post the info in my next responce to him.
like you said, it is the history of the WT and bible tract society and their origions that intrests me since it is quite incriminating.
I was raised Penticostal PAOC. Then I took a bit of a detour to a Church of Christ. I spent six years there since I came to believe that we needed to get it right scripturally to be saved and honor God. I had nothing but spiritual termoil the entire time. I eventually left and ended back at the Penticostal Church, it is where my wife and I attend currently. Much of what I have said concering 'knowing God' has to do with why I left, I can expand on this more an other time.
While I was seeking answers I came across a sermon from a baptist minister who had the history of the CC laid out. I will not try to bore you with to much detail but the CC was founded by Alexander and Thomas Campbell in the mid to late 1800s. What made him signifcant was his discovery that one must be baptized in water in order to be saved. For scriptural backing he quoted Acts 2:38 and other such passages that mension baptism.
Now this is significant according to what I witness online as it was one of his followers that took up with Joseph Smith and gave this doctrine to the Latter day Saints. Another Follower hooked up with the Christedelphians and passed it on to them. Charles Taze Russel 'founder' of the Dawn Bible Students and off shoot Jehovahs Witness hooked up with a fellow named Nelson Barbour (Second Day Adventist). Nelson then introduced him Wilsons Emphatic Diaglot. Mr. Wilson was a Christadelphian. Information I referenced is found at Let Us Reason Ministeries.
I can think really of only one Scholar who has was an early Church father and was well though of that stood by the rending of John 1:1 the JWs hold. Origen, and perhaps Arius. Although I don't know if Arius was a Scholar. I do know that he was defeated in Nicea.
Anyway neglecting my fam so I must go.
ANSWER: Good afternoon, Brother Shane. I hope you are doing well today.
Yes, your comments about Greber are right on. That is one of the reasons I mentioned to you, about the questions Mr. Grunbaum has been getting, regarding his list of "scholars". It has been rightly pointed out in those questions, under the titles "YOUR LIST OF SCHOLARS", that both Greber and John Thompson were both in touch with demonic spirits, and demonic spirits were in favor of reducing Jesus to "a god".
Hmm...Wonder why? Futhermore, why would we expect a demon to TELL THE TRUTH, regarding the Person of Jesus Christ? He has been getting questioned pretty hard, in regards to his listing of Greber, Thompson, and other completely unqualified, and sometimes Bible-denying, "scholars". I guess when there isn't much REAL support, that is what is left to use.
Check out those posts...you will find them interesting.
YOU: "I cannot tell you how good it is to hear you say you are saved. I know its a silly thing to some but to me it is a miracle. Not that you are a bad person. Its just that it gives me hope that is God can speak into the life of one person he can do the same with other too even if they are surrounded on all sides by false teaching and doctrine. Praise God"
REPLY: You are correct, as I too look at salvation as a miracle. How God can take a wretched sinner such as myself, and make that person into a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17), is truly mind-boggling. When I got saved, my desires changed, my views changed, and my life changed. Hey, I don't take it personally, when you mention about being a "bad person". I know exactly what you mean. I wasn't a "bad person" in human terms, but compared to God's holiness, we all are "bad people". The Scripture says that there is "none that doeth good, no not one" (Rom. 3:12).
He came to call sinners to repentance, which I certainly fit that category.
I appreciate your comments regarding the Church of Christ. I was aware of the background history, being founded by the Campbell brothers, and their view that baptism is necessary for salvation. Obviously, I would disagree Scripturally with that viewpoint. I was also aware that there was some connection between the COC and the Mormon Church, but wasn't sure exactly what it was, until you explained it.
By the way, was the Baptist minister that you mentioned who wrote the book on the COC, named Hugh Pyle, by any chance?
YOU: "I can think really of only one Scholar who has was an early Church father and was well though of that stood by the rending of John 1:1 the JWs hold. Origen, and perhaps Arius. Although I don't know if Arius was a Scholar. I do know that he was defeated in Nicea."
REPLY: Yeah, I am not sure about Arius' education level either. I do know that he was an unbiblical heretic, in his attempt to reduce Jesus to a creation. Here's the funny thing, that I don't think has ever occured to most JWs, when they erroneously claim that the Trinity was not a teaching of the early Church, and that it came into being at the Council of Nicea.
This is completely false....If the early Church was not Trinitarian, then Arius' view would have been the commonly accepted view, but it was not. History shows that Arius was viewed by early Christians, as a promoter of a false view. If his view were the commonly held view of the early Church, then the opposition makes no sense.
Besides, there is much evidence that the early Church WAS Trinitarian, in that numerous statements are found stating this to be the case. History is not on the WT's side. Granted, what is important, is what the BIBLE says...but they should not make bogus claims about history, as if it validates them. It does not, and Arius was a false teacher. If I'm not mistaken, Arius was also a student of Origen, though not holding to all of Origen's views. That is not a very good foundation.
As for Colwell's supposed validation as the NWT being the best "bible", this is not true, and is very misleading in the way Grunbaum stated it. I would suggest you read the link that he gave, for it shows the whole story about Colwell's supposed comment. You are correct...the comparison was done BEFORE the NWT was even complete. Futhermore, it was done based on the ASSUMPTION that the Westcott/Hort text was the most accurate (which it isn't), and was based only on select verses. Personally, I would worry if my King James Bible agreed fully with the Westcott/Hort text, as these men were not Bible-believing Christians. They believed in Mariolatry, and denied the first 3 chapters of Genesis, as being a historically accurate account of creation. Why the JWs' use a Bible based on this text, and then criticize them, is a mystery to me.
Its odd how Grunbaum says they are all "biased" when they disagree with the WT, but then use their text as a basis for the NWT.
You must understand how JWs do things....If a "scholar" refutes the NWT or some aspect of JW doctrine, then that is of no consequence to them, because that "scholar" is merely some product of "Babylon the Great", and is a member of the "great harlot" of false religion. So, what does their opinion matter, anyway?
HOWEVER, if that same "scholar" happens to agree or validate some aspect of WT teaching, then for that MOMENT, he is quoted as a "Biblical authority" or "qualifed scholar".
Basically, they pick and choose whatever suits their convenience.
One question...You said: "Penticostal PAOC"
Is that the "Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada"?, and isn't that the Canadian branch of the Assemblies of God? Or am I mistaken on that?
Anyway, good to hear from you, and God bless.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
Good to hear from you. I must go so I will try to make this brief.
PAOC does stand for Penticostal Assemblies of Canada and yes they are the Canadian brance of the Assemblies of God. I attended this organization with my Mother when I was four or five years old, met Christ and got saved at five. I have been in this family of believers up until my early thirties when I decided to take a detour with the COC. I thought the Penticostals were not obeying God from his word so I tried to find a church that did.
I ended up there. In retrospect this really may have come from influence from my JW friend Paul. He and I use to argue and I guess he got me thinking about a some things. I was never going to join the JWs since I could see the errors in their rendition of the scriptures. However I stll felt a few of his points were accurate and looked for green pastures.
God is funny sometimes since he knows what we need and what we are looking for, even though the two things may be vastly different. So my fiancee and I took a gander one Sunday to a CC and found it very 'dry'. In fact my wife (now) really hated it and we both thought it was spritually dead. It sounds bad I know and I am not saying it is only that this is what came to our minds at the time. So why did I stay? I investigated it and it seemed that they praticed in argeement with the Bible as it litteral reads. I wanted a bible based church and so I got one that fretted over getting every last 'I' dotted and 'TEE' Crossed.
I felt in my heart that spiriturally something was really needed like perhaps Christ. What didn't make sence was that they sang praises to him, gave sermons, did communion, etc. The order was fairly normal. I just never felt the fulfillment of Gods power like I took for granted in the PAOC. I also had major issues with the teaching that baptism was nessary for salvation since I could no swallow it and be good with it. It just kept repeating on me like a strong chunk of garlic and I had to eventually deal with it. I tried to force feed their passages to make me accept it but I felt like I was lying to say I was saved at baptism when I knew it was when I was five and asked Christ to come forgive me and be my lord and saviour.
Fast forward. My wife and I have been attending the Penticostal Church now for a year and a half and are loving it. It is great. God is good.
I am not sure of the baptist pastors name who had the history but he is on you tube with the info. It was some time ago now but I can try to find it if you wish.
I did actually email a baptist named Bob.L Ross who publicly debated the CoC leaders in Texas. I was astounded by his knowledge of CC history. He and I had some interesting emails. However I think it was his connnection to the Holy Spirit that drew me in more then his arguments against the CC. You can also watch these debates. They are a little dry but if you get into them some of the frustration on the part of the CC leaders will make you laugh. Bob likes to toy with them a little. I believe Larry Westles is the one who put it on and they are dated. I can find it for you if you like or you can go to You tube and look up Bob Ross debates with CC and see it. Your Call.
I will check out the link Grunbaum posted. I did scan over Scotts conversation with Grunbaum too. It astounds me the level of Ignorance this man exibits. He may be able to spell better then me but boy is he lost, and seemingly happy to be there. Other then for the sake of those following the conversations I am not sure what point their is in continuing with him.
Lastly I would like to ask you what propose Grunbaum has in calling himself a 'prophet/prince'? Does this mean that he is apart of the 144000? I would think it would since he calls Joseph and Rutherford both 'prince' as well. I would guess that this is the title he gives to the ruling class? That said I guess that is why it was 'perfectly alright' with him that Rutherford sat up in Beth Sarim and drove a rolls royce during the great depression while his people starved?
Anyway I hope this helps.
Good afternoon, Shane. I thought that was the case, but it has been a long time since I was in the A/G. It was an A/G church where I first heard the Gospel, and came to know Christ. I remembered hearing of the PAOC at that time. I even went to an A/G college in Florida for a time, many years ago.
I agree with what you said about the COC, and something "being missing". I know they have a philosophy about being Biblical in all things, and that is a good philosophy. Unfortately, I believe they have missed it, on a number of key doctrines. The baptismal regeneration doctrine is one of them, and also, their amillenial approach to prophecy and the Book of Revelation. I believe they are a million miles off base on that one. I do believe that Scripture, and not feeling or emotion, is to be the final authority on all things that we believe. However, I can't say the COC quite gets it right, either.
Don't get me wrong...I have some family (by marriage) in another state, who are COC, and they are fine people. Interestingly, the COC they go to, uses musical instruments, but is identical in doctrine to the other Churches of Christ that I am acquinted with, except on this one issue. She explained to me, that there are "instrumental" and "non-instrumental" Churches of Christ. I had no idea, until she explained that to me.
I have heard of Bro. Bob Ross, but did not know he did a debate with a COC minister, but that is DEFINITELY something I would love to watch. I will search it on YouTube after I send this reply to you. Thanks for letting me know about it.
YOU: "I will check out the link Grunbaum posted. I did scan over Scotts conversation with Grunbaum too. It astounds me the level of Ignorance this man exibits. He may be able to spell better then me but boy is he lost, and seemingly happy to be there. Other then for the sake of those following the conversations I am not sure what point their is in continuing with him."
REPLY: I am assuming you are referring to Grunbaum being lost, and happy to be there. I thought he SHOULD have been called out for using Greber and Thompson, especially, as scholarly references. Along with the others he listed, which too were mostly unqualified, or Bible-deniers. I think it is grasping, when a person has to resort to people like that as "authorities". Must not have much else.
YOU: "Lastly I would like to ask you what propose Grunbaum has in calling himself a 'prophet/prince'? Does this mean that he is apart of the 144000? I would think it would since he calls Joseph and Rutherford both 'prince' as well. I would guess that this is the title he gives to the ruling class?"
REPLY: Well, I have had others tell me that Grunbaum does believe himself to be of "the anointed", or the 144,000. If he has stated this publicly, then I missed it. I cannot say that I have personally seen him make this claim, but I suspect that he does view himself this way, and that may partly explain his use of the term "Prince". He himself has justified using the word "prophet", in that JWs are "prophets" in the sense of making known Biblical teachings and prophecies. He denies making any NEW prophecies, although the Organization has a history of doing this.
Still, you are correct that this is NOT a common way for JWs to refer to themselves. In all my association with them, I have never heard it done, until Grunbaum did it first. Even since then, I have only seen it ONE other time...on another JW forum. In fact, he has even had JWs write him about it, and question whether he is an actual JW, because they themselves had never heard or seen it done.
I can tell you that it is not common-place for a JW to refer to themselves in this way.
Well, I have to close for now...Gonna check out that debate. Take care, and God bless.