In the field of apologetics (defending the faith), there is an endless stream of books that combat an endless stream of pseudo-Christian sects (cults). Within all of these books, there are tips and tactics that are designed to equip the orthodox Christian on how to effectively witness to those that are affiliated with the pseudo-christian sect in question.
Many such Christians have compiled an extensive library (myself included) on such books as these, and have entered into the ministry of apologetics looking to plant seeds (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:6-9) within those that come knocking on our doors on early Saturday mornings, be they Jehovah's Witnesses, and or, Mormons.
In facing such people, many Christians have applied these same-said tips and tactics that are suggested by these books, which are focused on equipping the Christian with tools to help reach those that are affiliated with such groups, and in many a cases the theory that is presented in the particular book, seems to become less than initially thought to be as effective in reaching out to the guest at the door.
Though the tips and techniques that are presented within the books are sound, what the Christian is in short of is that of experience, or, that of facing questions and providing answers that are not addressed within such books. It is this wanting that I am hoping to be of some service to the body of Christ.
In this writing, I will present a *real* conversation that I have had with one particular pseudo-Christian, commonly known as a Jehovah's Witness. What you will see is how I have utilized the tips and techniques that are mentioned within such books like:
· Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses by Dr.Ron Rhodes
· The Watchtower Files: Dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness by Duane Magnani
· Who is Johannes Greber? by Jay Hess
I will show that if properly used tips and techniques are followed, in a non-defensive way, using leading questions and *always* referring to the actual Watchtower and Awake magazine articles, that a person can effectively plant a seed within a Jehovah's Witness, without the same said Witness going into defensive mode, losing any chance of having to had listened to the questions and evidence that will led him, or her, to the truth behind the deception of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.
This *real* conversation that I have had, was conducted on an on-line chat program called mIRC (Internet Relay Chat). Within such a program, there are thousands of chat channels which people make themselves. It is those channels that are created by Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, that I was able to come in conduct and apply the theory behind such books as aforementioned.
The name of the Jehovah's Witness (WackyBack) that you will see within the dialogue exchange, is an actual person who uses such a name (or what is referred to as nicknames) on mIRC. I have used, and I continue to do so, the name (nickname) of cunninham. So, should you wish to download and set up mIRC (see my article: mIRC for Dummies), you can put into practice the same type of approach that I have found that works best in engaging a Jehovah's Witnesses into using their critical thinking ability, that has been hampered by the Watchtower Society.
It is my hope and prayer that many Jehovah's Witnesses, if not all, will become aware of the falseness that they unwittingly bring to you, your loved ones, your neighbor's, and my own door on early Saturday mornings. It is through having the ability to express factual evidence that reveals the Watchtower's fallacies, that a Christian can break down the trust that a Jehovah's Witness has placed in the Society, where the real trust should have been placed in Christ Jesus in the first place, and by doing this, such a person will be one in which you and I have brought forth into the Kingdom of God.
With the Internet becoming more and more of a tool of communication, such a chance for us to reach untold thousands has never before been afforded to the body of Christ, but then on the other-hand, never before has there been a way in which those that teach pseudo-christianity, can proclaim their fallacies in such a way that reaches untold numbers of people, unaware of the deceptive tactics that such groups employ on a daily basis.
In having an opportunity to reach, confront, and expose such groups, it is in great joy and anticipation that I may be but one that can help prepare those that are signing on-line everyday, under the auspicious of entering into the ministry of apologetics, to bring home to Christ Jesus those that are lost.
Here now is the exchange that I have had on-line, in the chat-line program called mIRC:
Session Start: Sun Sep 28 22:26:30 1997
* Logging #markc to: [#markc.log]
cunninham> hi
cunninham> can you define what you mean by: Jehovah's Organization
cunninham> believe that last time we talked you indicated that an organization was that of a nation: Israel
WACKYBACK> he has always had an appointed people to fulfill his purpose
cunninham> is that what you call an organization than: appointed people to fulfill his purpose
WACKYBACK> he has a heavenly organization and an earthly one
cunninham> is that always been the case?
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> umm, I have been told that such was not always the believe
cunninham> belief
cunninham> did you know that early Watchtower literature it was claimed that Charles Taze Russell was Gods faithful and discreet slave?
Thousands of readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," and that his great work was giving to the Household of Faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation. (The Watchtower; 12/1/1916; pp. 357)
The evidence is overwhelming concerning the Lord's second presence, the time of the harvest, and that the office of "that servant" has been filled by Brother Russell. This is not man-worship by any means. ... Brother Russell was the Lord's servant. Then to repudiate him and his work is equivalent to a repudiation of the Lord. (The Watchtower; 5/1/1922; pp. 132)
The second presence of Christ dates from about 1874. From that time forward many of the truths long obscured by the enemy began to be restored to the honest Christian. As William Tyndale was used to bring the Bible to the attention of the people, so the Lord used Charles T. Russell to bring to the attention of the people an understanding of the Bible, particularly of those truths that had been taken away by the machinations of the Devil and his agencies. Because it was the Lord's due time to restore these truths he used Charles T. Russell to write and publish books known as Studies in the Scriptures by which the great fundamental truths of the divine plan are clarified. (Creation; 1927; 2,175,000 ed.; pp. 120-121)
WACKYBACK> do you think by any possible means that we can understand all of Jehovah's ways all at once?
cunninham> how do you explain that such has always been the case when it was not always believed?
No matter where we may live on earth, God's Word continues to serve as a light to our path and a lamp to our roadway as to our conduct and beliefs. (Ps. 119:105) But Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, his "faithful and discreet slave," made up of spirit anointed ones, to help Christians in all nations to understand and apply properly the Bible in their lives. Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do. (The Watchtower; 12/1/1981; pp. 27)
They have a modern Governing Body of older Christian men from various parts of the earth who give needed oversight to the worldwide activities of God's people. These men, like the apostles and older men in Jerusalem in the first century, are anointed members of the faithful and discreet slave class designated by Jesus to care for all of his Kingdom interests here upon earth. History has proved that they can be trusted to follow the direction of the holy spirit and that they do not rely on human wisdom in teaching the flock of God the ways of genuine peace. - Matthew 24:45-47; 1 Peter 5:1-4 (The Watchtower; 12/15/1989; pp. 6)
Confident of the loyalty of his faithful creatures, Jehovah delegates authority. So does his Son. From among his anointed followers, "the faithful and discreet slave," he has chosen a few to serve as a visible governing body. (Matthew 24:45) In the first century, this group was composed of the apostles and several older men in Jerusalem. (The Watchtower; 1/15/1990; pp. 26)
WACKYBACK> our human mind will not allow us to do that
cunninham> nope...Jehovah is infinite
cunninham> we are finite
cunninham> amen:our human mind will not allow us to do that
cunninham> we are finite
WACKYBACK> therefore you have the answer to your question
cunninham> so I see, then what you said before was not entirely the case then
cunninham> is that always been the case?
WACKYBACK> yes
WACKYBACK> Jehovah brings about his purpose in his own due time
cunninham> amen
cunninham> but you would agree that what you said before was not the case
WACKYBACK> so the changes in his organization are to be expected
WACKYBACK> men are imperfect
cunninham> so...you are affirming that He has always had an organization?
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> so...the early belief by the Watchtower was not correct than?
WACKYBACK> Do you feel you have all the answers? RESPECTFULLY
cunninham> umm, on the essentials I do
cunninham> God's Truth does not change...that is what makes it the truth, no?
WACKYBACK> If you are not part of His organization tho... You are blinded
cunninham> if you are unsure on the very issue of who are God's ppl, how than can you be sure on any other of your beliefs
cunninham> define for me more of what is it that qualifies as one being His organization
WACKYBACK> I never said that I was unsure of who is people are.
cunninham> after all, I dont wish to be blind
WACKYBACK> living up to his will
cunninham> I see..so one qualification is living up to His will...can you elaborate
cunninham> does that mean following His Word
WACKYBACK> telling others about his kingdom and yes.. Following his word
cunninham> ok...so one that doesn't follow His Word would not be as you said: His organization
cunninham> would you agree
cunninham> let me give you an example of what I am saying
cunninham> you are familiar with the LDS
cunninham> they are obvious polytheists, no?
WACKYBACK> Would you think that DAVID was Jehovah's servant?
cunninham> sure...David was most certainly that of His servant
WACKYBACK> did he follow Jehovah's word?
cunninham> would you say that Mormons are God's Servant
cunninham> David was a man after God's own heart
WACKYBACK> yes but he committed murder and immorality
cunninham> but am trying to distinguish as to what you say is one that qualifies as being God's Servant
WACKYBACK> I am trying to tell you
cunninham> that he did...and though he did...he openly repented did he not?
cunninham> David openly repented did he not
WACKYBACK> yes he did
cunninham> cool...so one more qualifying distinguishing feature is repentance openly
WACKYBACK> but he did not follow Jehovah's word on those occasions
cunninham> David openly repented did he not
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> we all sin...we are though not forgiven if we do not repent
cunninham> would you not agree
cunninham> would you also agree that one that refuses to repent when showing to have disobeyed is one that is a true servant
cunninham> or would you say that such is not a true servant but that of a false one
cunninham> like you said...David gives us a great example of how one that is truly a servant of God, can fall into sin...and yet be forgiven if one openly repents
cunninham> amen?
cunninham> would you not agree
WACKYBACK> yes but he would have to be part of Jehovah's organization. It is not enough to have knowledge. Jehovah and Jesus must know and recognize you.
cunninham> as I am sure you would agree...no?
cunninham> was Jesus around during David's reign?
WACKYBACK> in heaven he was
cunninham> are you sure
WACKYBACK> sure? Are you?
WACKYBACK> who is Jesus
cunninham> while if I was affiliated with the watchtower I would have to say that no Jesus was not around
There is Scriptural evidence for concluding that Michael was the name of Jesus Christ before he left heaven and after his return. (The Watchtower; 5/15/1969; pp. 307)
"Jesus Christ further deserves honor because he is Jehovah's chief angel, or archangel. On what basis do we reach that conclusion? Well, the prefix "arch," meaning "chief" or "principal," implies that there is only one archangel. God's Word speaks of him in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. We read: "The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first." (1 Thessalonians 4:16) This archangel has a name, as we read at Jude 9: "When Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses' body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: 'May Jehovah rebuke you.'" In not running ahead of Jehovah by daring to bring judgment against the Devil, Jesus thus honored his heavenly Father." (The Watchtower, February 1, 1991, p. 17)
WACKYBACK> GOd son Correct?
cunninham> Jesus did not come into existence until the time of the incarnation, no?
WatchTower December 15th 1984, Page 29, it says; "Indeed, Michael the great prince' is none other than Jesus Christ Himself." So I know what you say is really what you as a JW believe. So in actuality you are saying that this was not an incarnation (God in the flesh). Rather, Jesus becoming a perfect human being, nothing more nothing less. He was equal in every way to Adam prior to the fall. Lived His life as a human being, fulfilled the ministry appointed to Him by Jehovah, and died faithfully for the ransom of mankind.
Then at the resurrection Jesus was not physically raised from the dead as a glorified human being, but rather, Jesus was "put to death in the flesh and was resurrected an invisible spirit creature, (that's from the Aid to Bible Understanding). Also in the WatchTower book "Let God Be True" it tells us that Jehovah God raised [Jesus] from the dead, not as a human Son, but as a mighty immortal spirit Son (lbid. Page 40).
cunninham> If this is true, then what became of Jesus? According to the WatchTower literature, Jesus Christ resumed His identity as Michael the archangel at the resurrection (which is obviously more of a re-creation). The WatchTower book "Aid to Bible Understanding" explains that "by retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Acts 9:5), the "Word" shows that he is identical with the Son of God on Earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and title, or name, "The Word of God" Rev. 19:13 ties him in with his prehuman existence (page 1152, Aid to Bible Understanding). I am aware of the supporting verse that is quoted to prove that what you believe about Jesus on this subject, it is Heb. 10:5. So in view of this, it would follow that "Christ could not take his body back again in the resurrection, thereby taking back the sacrifice offered to God for mankind. Besides, Christ was no longer to abide on earth. His home is in the heavens with His Father, who is not flesh, but spirit. (Page 1396, Aid to Bible Understanding).
cunninham> But if Christ was not physically raised from the dead, then what happened to His human body? I have found conflicting answers in the WatchTower's literature. That is some have said "dissolved into gasses (this was Russell's view) some say "It was persevered as a memorial of God's love (Vol 2 Studies in the Scripture, page 1888). But in 1975 the WatchTower affirmed that "Jehovah God disposed of the sacrificed body of His Son (the WatchTower August 1st 1975, Page 479)
cunninham> So if Christ was not physically raised from the dead, then how did He prove His resurrection to the disciples and His followers? I have been told by some JW's that Jesus "Materialized" bodies? Saying like the angels, he had the power to construct and disintegrate those fleshly bodies at will, for the purpose of providing visibly that he had been resurrected.
cunninham> So in summery you and other JW's have been telling me that; Jesus existed for billions of years in His prehuman state as an archangel Michael ... He gave up His spirit existence as an angel when His life force was transferred to Mary's womb.By Jehovah, and, following His birth, He lived a normal human life and was eventually crucified.
cunninham> At the resurrection, He was not raised from the dead in physical, bodily form but rather re-created as the archangel Michael.
WACKYBACK> Jesus is the first born of all creation.
cunninham> first born from the dead
WACKYBACK> no firstborn in the heavens
cunninham> can we direct our attention back to the matter of God's organization...we are leading to another discussion
WACKYBACK> Jehovah and Jesus are in charge of the Organization
cunninham> if that is ok..unless you wish too talk about Jesus vs. Michael
cunninham> ok...given that point:Jehovah and Jesus are in charge of the Organization<---how are we to know if one is apart of the organization
cunninham> think that we agreed that following God's Word is 1st) qualification
cunninham> 2) open repentance when we have fallen short
WACKYBACK> there are certain Identifying characteristics
cunninham> what would be another qualifying feature of one that is apart of this organization
cunninham> would you agree with the two qualifications that I have outlined above
WACKYBACK> about repentance?
cunninham> yeah...that and following God's Word
cunninham> would you agree with the two qualifications that I have outlined above
WACKYBACK> Yes but that is only part of the Equation
cunninham> could you elaborate on more
cunninham> those being qualifications
cunninham> if you would that is
WACKYBACK> Jehovah's organization must exalt Jehovah as the only true God
cunninham> ok...great...another qualification...monotheism
cunninham> One True God
cunninham> amen
WACKYBACK> and fully recognize the vital role of Jesus Christ
cunninham> amen: the vital role of Christ
WACKYBACK> as the vindicator of Jehovah's Sovereignty
WACKYBACK> and head of the Christian congregation
cunninham> those 4 qualifications are what shows us how and what is God's Organization, no?
WACKYBACK> How it can be identified
cunninham> would you affirm that those 4 qualifications are indicators of God's organization, correct?
WACKYBACK> yes I think I did
cunninham> ok...and you would say that God has a visible organization here on the earth?
WACKYBACK> His org. also must adhere closely to his word the Bible
WACKYBACK> yes he does
cunninham> amen...that was our 1st point
cunninham> what is the name (if any) of this organization
WACKYBACK> dont follow you
cunninham> well you said that God has a visible organization, no?
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> what is the name (if any) of this organization
cunninham> does this organization have a name
WACKYBACK> yes Jehovah's organization
WACKYBACK> his people have a name too
cunninham> and that is?
WACKYBACK> Jehovah's Witnesses
cunninham> I see...Mormons also call themselves God's organization
cunninham> they also call themselves witnesses for God
cunninham> are you saying that the Mormon church is this origanization
WACKYBACK> what other people do you know that preaches about the kingdom of G0d as the witnesses do and are so organized?
WACKYBACK> are you Mormon?
WACKYBACK> what do you think the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus is?
cunninham> nope..I am not Mormon...but I see no difference in what you have said in pronouncing a worldly work as what the LDS do
cunninham> certainly you dont believe that the LDS are God's organization, do you?
cunninham> I dont
WACKYBACK> Jehovah is using his people to do his will
WACKYBACK> who are his people?
WACKYBACK> Jehovah's witnesses
cunninham> the Mormons fail the 4 qualifications of being that in what we have outlined
WACKYBACK> plain and simple
WACKYBACK> now we get to the nitty gritty
cunninham> yes indeed...the nit and gritty
WACKYBACK> if uncleanness in found among Jehovah's witnesses what happens?
cunninham> you are saying then that the Watchtower (WT) meets the 4 qualifications that we have outlined, correct?
WACKYBACK> yes it most certainly does
cunninham> ok...can we test that claim
WACKYBACK> uncleanness?
cunninham> 1) the WT follows God's Word
cunninham> can we test that
cunninham> 1) the WT follows God's Word
cunninham> I am sure that you are aware of the Book of Exodus Chapter 20
WACKYBACK> you haven't answered my question
cunninham> can you read Exodus 20:16
WACKYBACK> answer my question please...
cunninham> we arent talking about disfellowshipping...even the LDS do that
cunninham> and the LDS arent God's ppl, for they fail the qualifications
WACKYBACK> please....
cunninham> please read Exodus 20:16
cunninham> what does it say
cunninham> we are testing the 1st qualification as it applies to the WT
WACKYBACK> I do not know your qualifications to be preaching
cunninham> following God's Word
cunninham> I am not preaching anything...am testing as did the Bereans in Acts 17:11
cunninham> we are told too also in 2 Corinthians 13:5
cunninham> please read Exodus 20:16
cunninham> what does it say
WACKYBACK> I read it
WACKYBACK> should not bear false witness
cunninham> righty oh
cunninham> can you read also Deut 18:10-13
cunninham> if you would please
WACKYBACK> yes
WACKYBACK> your point?
cunninham> did you read Deut 18:10-13
WACKYBACK> yes your point?
cunninham> well this is my point...why would the WT lie about their awareness in citing a known spiritis in the 1983 WT Questions to Readers
cunninham> the WT knew about Greber in 1955 and 1956
cunninham> do a word search on Greber on the Wt's CD-ROM...you will see
cunninham> the WT said that they were only aware in 1980
cunninham> this is an outright lie
WACKYBACK> the Society used to celebrate Christmas too!!!
cunninham> that is not the issue...the issue is breaking God's Word and then lying about it
WACKYBACK> they used to smoke cigarettes too!
cunninham> that is not the issue...the issue is breaking God's Word and then lying about it
WACKYBACK> lying about what
cunninham> we agreed beforehand that such is not possible with one that is apart of God's organization
cunninham> the WT lied about Greber and their awareness of his spiritism
WACKYBACK> thats your belief
cunninham> the WT cited Greber as an authortive Bible translator in numerous occasions on varies passages
cunninham> not my belief
cunninham> do a word search on Greber on their CD...you will see
WACKYBACK> certain members of the Wt have also had to be removed because of their sin
cunninham> read the 1955 WT and the 1956 WT
WACKYBACK> it still does not mean that Jehovah is not using them
cunninham> were these those that are apart of the Governing Body
WACKYBACK> thats Why I brought up DAVID earlier
cunninham> umm, so you sar saying then that covering up (lying) about a known spiritis is ok?
cunninham> David repented
cunninham> where is the Wt's repentance
cunninham> you said that they disfellowshipped some ppl...are we to assume that the same were responsible for the matter of Greber?
WACKYBACK> no it is not... But how do you know that the men that covered up the truth have not been dealt with?
cunninham> how do you know that they haven't
cunninham> it should it be made clear
cunninham> David repented in open
WACKYBACK> Jehovah has his own timetable for dealing with certain ones
cunninham> I see, so these same ones are still the head of the organization until Jehovah dispels them?
WACKYBACK> yes but David had to have it brought to his attn. before he repented....
cunninham> is that what you are saying?
WACKYBACK> I didn't say the same ones you did.
cunninham> the WT did have the matter of Greber brought to their attention...and they openly lied about it
cunninham> have you the WT CD?
WACKYBACK> I said that Jehovah will deal with ones like that in his own due time. You cant rush it and neither can I
cunninham> is best if you read it yourself...we can read along together
cunninham> I see...so the head of your organization is corrupt
cunninham> is not the visible organization run by the Governing Body (GB)?
cunninham> does not the GB aware of what they publish
WACKYBACK> Stop... For a moment and look at all the sins you've committed in your life. Have you ever lied? does that in itself make you worthless and unworthy?
cunninham> yes...but I have repented
WACKYBACK> unworthy?
cunninham> has the WT repented?
WACKYBACK> Just like David?
cunninham> why didn't the WT say they were wrong instead of lying about their past?
WACKYBACK> Haven't you ever lied about your past?
cunninham> yes...I have repented just like that of David...why hasn't the WT?
cunninham> yes...and I have repented...why hasn't the WT?
cunninham> why didn't the WT say they were wrong instead of lying about their past?
WACKYBACK> how do you know they haven't?
cunninham> read the 1983 WT Questions to Readers
cunninham> there they talk about their awareness of Johannes Greber
WACKYBACK> how do you know they haven't? you have no proof for any of your accusations thus far.
cunninham> they say that they were aware only in 1980
cunninham> yes I have...let me get you the actual article...with the reference
WACKYBACK> ill gladly look it up.
cunninham> February 15, 1979, The Watchtower, page 8
cunninham> This article appears to say that if a Christian were to consult a spirit medium he would not be fighting the demons as he should. Any books that quote from a demon-influenced spirit medium should be destroyed. Christians should shun anyone that claims to get communication from the invisible spirit world, even if the person thinks it is God's spirit world
cunninham> February 15, 1956 The Watchtower pages 110, 111
cunninham> This next article in paragraph 10 mentions a reference to Johannes Greber ("Yo-han-ness Gree-ber") and how he was a spirit medium that communicated with the spirit world. It also says he did a translation of the New Testament in 1937. The next paragraph quotes from his demonic Bible and says the spirits helped him do his translation.
cunninham> WT 1959 October 1. pp. 607-608
cunninham> The literature...is published in the name of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Regardless of who may write certain articles they are checked carefully by members of the Governing Body before they are published. So they are properly viewed as coming from the Society.
cunninham> that above is from WT 1959 October 1. pp. 607-608
cunninham> these are all the times above that the WT referred to Greber as a Bible translator
cunninham> April 1, 1983 The Watchtower page 31
cunninham> this is from the 1983 WT as referred to above
cunninham> Why, in recent years, has the Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber?"
cunninham> "This translation was used occasionally in support 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 forward 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
cunninham> 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." (Deut. 18:10- 12)
WACKYBACK> ok thats enough
cunninham> here is the issues that are involved
cunninham> The Watchtower knew all along that Greber was a Spiritist. They even stated as much in their Watchtower article of 1956. Knowing this, they still went against Deut. 18:10-12 and used him as scholarly support of their own translation of God's word. Why did they continue to use him as scholarly support until 1980? Why didn't they admit that they knew he was a spiritist all along and actually agreed with his occultic stance in their 1956 Watchtower article?
WACKYBACK> I dont want to read your book
cunninham> Another example of Watchtower cover-up?
WACKYBACK> nice trick
cunninham> you dont have too...read the WT CD in its reference to Greber
WACKYBACK> Ill do that
cunninham> simply do the word search
cunninham> I am glad that you will...test what I have showed you
WACKYBACK> but your missing the whole point
cunninham> what point am I missing?
WACKYBACK> many mistakes have been made by Jehovah's servants in the past
cunninham> yes..amen
cunninham> when mistakes have been made by them...what have they done?
cunninham> in all cases what have they done
WACKYBACK> but that doesn't mean that Jehovah doesn't use them
cunninham> have they not repented?
cunninham> yes..Jehovah sometimes uses pagans
cunninham> case in point the re-construction of Jerusalem
cunninham> funds offered by a pagan king...so yes..sometimes God will use a pagan
cunninham> but the pagan is not a servant of Jehovah..for the pagan is not a true servant
WACKYBACK> are you saying that Jehovah's witnesses are pagan?
cunninham> well...we can talk about their paganist teaching of Being vs. Becoming if you like
WACKYBACK> what are trying to say?
cunninham> am saying that the teaching that is taught by the WT is but a return to the platonic concept of God
cunninham> have you read Plato
WACKYBACK> no
cunninham> well..being that the WT mistakenly makes the claim that the Trinity is from that of platonic concepts, you should read his writings out...start with Plato's Dialogue
WACKYBACK> I dont want to read alot of writing again
cunninham> ok...have you ever heard of the name Arius
cunninham> he lived in the 2nd century CE
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> ok...have you heard of the name of Origen
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> are you familiar to what Origen taught
WACKYBACK> no
cunninham> ok...let me explain..
* cunninham says that Origen was an early church father, he was denounced as heretical in the 6th century.Origen taught the threeness of God, but he was a graded trinity-the Father is greater then the Son which is greater then the Holy Spirit, he taught that the Father only was the true God. The Son is the same as the Father but at a lower level.thus Origen's Trinity was three-tier, God at 3 different levels,
* cunninham says in the following century Arius would take this further, concluding that the Father was the only true God and the Son and the Holy Spirit were but creatures.
WACKYBACK> trinity?
cunninham> Origen was a one that was of the Greek racial background...as what most of the early fathers of the church were
WACKYBACK> do you believe in the trinity?
cunninham> he (Origen) tried to colour the NT revelation of Christ with that of the Greek concept of Being vs. Becoming
cunninham> would you like for me to continue
cunninham> or
WACKYBACK> you sound like a smart guy. But your stuck trying to prove things that cant be proven.
WACKYBACK> dont you believe the bible?
cunninham> really? in what am I trying to prove to you other than the matter of what the WT teaches is but that of platonic concepts
cunninham> yes..I believe fully in the Bible
* cunninham is a historical/grammatical literal interpreter of the ' Word of God ' who is blood bought/covered through the cross of Christ Jesus because there He died for all of humanity so that by His grace am I saved, not because of something that I did, for He paid a debt that He did not owe, and, I owed a debt that I could not pay. ( I am non-denominational ).
WACKYBACK> thats what Jehovah's witnesses believe.
cunninham> well...if you fully believed in the Bible than I doubt that you would believe such a thing as what the WT teaches
WACKYBACK> interpretations belong to Jehovah
cunninham> really? is that how Christ viewed Scripture
WACKYBACK> how old are you?
cunninham> did not Christ refer to Scripture authoritative and said that such spoke of Him?
cunninham> if interpretation is that of a closed order...than you certainly couldn't have believed in what Christ believed about the Bible
WACKYBACK> how long have you spent digging up all these things?
cunninham> the fact that you would say that the Bible is but a closed book (interpretative) means that Origen has truly influenced the WT for it was Origen that used allegorical interpretation, hence his mix of Greek into the NT
cunninham> I have been a student of the Bible since Nov 14, 1994 at 11:15 EST PM
* cunninham says ok-that was when I personally came to accept Christ as my Savior, I repented of my shortcomings (unrighteous living), asked for forgiveness and made Christ Lord over my life, making covenant relations with Him in that I would give my life for Him spreading the Gospel and the Truth of Scripture to all that I come across. He has changed my life, and my family as well.
WACKYBACK> hey. would you mind not flashing your book across the screen?
WACKYBACK> how many followers do you have?
cunninham> that is not my book...that is when I was *born-again* (cf.John 3:6-9)
cunninham> I have no followers...for I am but one of countless throughout the ages who are followers of Christ Jesus
WACKYBACK> how could you possibly spread the good news of the Kingdom all by yourself as were commanded to do?
cunninham> the WT makes many a claim...I would suggest that you seriously look into what they claim...start by researching the matter of Johannes Greber from their 1983 WT April 1, Questions to Readers
WACKYBACK> I have it written down
cunninham> there are countless orthodox Christians in the world that are doing such
cunninham> I am but one of the many
WACKYBACK> do you have your own church?
WACKYBACK> how do you meet?
WACKYBACK> heb 10:24,25
cunninham> nope...there is but One Church...that of what Christ built.....for He is the head.....I am but one piece of the body within the Universal Church that had its beginning on the day of Pentecost
WACKYBACK> do you speak in tongues?
cunninham> well...I meet in my own home at times...sometimes at the varies orthodox Churches...and at other times on-line
cunninham> nope...I dont speak in tongues
WACKYBACK> Matt 24: 14
WACKYBACK> MT 28:19,20
cunninham> NAS - matt 24:14: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come
cunninham> NAS - matt 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
cunninham> NAS - matt 28:20: teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
cunninham> amen...the great commission
WACKYBACK> uh oh.... left out Heb 10:24,25....
cunninham> Hebrews 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
cunninham> Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
cunninham> ahh, the last verse above is my point on the matter of Greber and the WT : )
WACKYBACK> verse 24
cunninham> tell me...where did the early followers of Christ meet?
cunninham> nope: Hebrews 10:26
cunninham> nope: Hebrews 10:26
cunninham> Hebrews 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
cunninham> have you read the early church fathers
WACKYBACK> no I read the Watchtower and the Awake
cunninham> if you are interested in doing as much...you have the chance to download the entire 38 volume set of the church fathers from the first 800 yrs
cunninham> well you see, you should read what the WT claims
cunninham> I was speaking to another one that is affiliated with the WT, and he claimed that the early church fathers never had a concept of Christ being Almighty God...he (JWs) quoted from some of the WT and Awake mags....I showed him the actual quotes from the early fathers and he refused to listen nor read any more
WACKYBACK> Mr. cunningham, Im sorry to say.. But I feel that I have let Jehovah down just talking to you.
cunninham> umm, have you? here, this is what Jehovah has claimed in His Word about doing just that
cunninham> NAS - 2cor 13:5: Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you unless indeed you fail the test?
cunninham> NAS - act 17:11: Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
cunninham> you see...we are to test what is said...all things we are to test
cunninham> I have claimed and have shown that the WT has openly cited a known spiritis as a Bible translator and that they have lied about doing so when they were asked about it, saying that they only knew in 1980....please...I hope/pray that you check this out: test all things
WACKYBACK> Jehovah's witnesses are the most loving, trustworthy, and honorable people that I have ever had the pleasure of being associated with. What purpose do you serve in downgrading us?
cunninham> I am not downgrading any one person...as the JWs go...I admire their zealousness and their morality...that is not the question...the question is what they claim...is it the truth?
cunninham> my own beloved sister is still affiliated with the JWs, but she is in-active...after reading my research (in which she is the direct cause of doing so), she sees that my claims are factual...tis up to her as to what she decides to do...she has many friends within the organization
cunninham> my goal is simply to present the truth of the matter...with love and with respect to those that will hear and research...the ultimate goal is to have that same person come to know Christ and what He has done for them...eternal salvation in paradise
cunninham> my challenge to you is to research out what I have said today: Greber
WACKYBACK> Anyone can dig up things and twist them around to suit himself... and anyone can find fault... It takes real loyalty to stick Jehovah and his organization. If I used everytime I became offended about things Ive seen and heard and read I would be without Jehovah and his spirit. When you downgrade Jehovah's organization, you downgrade me and whatsmore you show your lack of loyalty to Jehovah God.
cunninham> well 1st) the WT has failed the qualifications of being used by Jehovah, and hence I have not brought about disloyalty to Him
cunninham> 2nd) I am sorry that you have taken offense with what I have shown to be true
WACKYBACK> But it is your truth... which isn't truth at all.
cunninham> 3rd) you have made the claim that I have twisted matters...the burden of showing that I have done so lies on you for I have quoted in entirety the WT articles
cunninham> show me where I have erred on the matter of Greber and on the qualifications that we *beforehand* agreed upon
cunninham> have you the WT CD-Rom?
cunninham> have you the Bound Volumes?
cunninham> any of the two will do...if you have the Bound Volumes back to 1955 that is
cunninham> if you have the CD, such goes back to 1955
cunninham> actually it goes back to 1950
WACKYBACK> If you were true.. You would be part of Jehovah's Grand organization which is growing in leaps and bounds... which prophecy is being fulfilled at Isa 60:22.
WACKYBACK> the churches are falling away because of all the hypocrisy and murder and lies they have expounded upon their "flock" Jehovah's people are not that way. They love their neighbor in the best way possible... By sharing the good news of Gods kingdomw with others.
cunninham> ok..seems that you are saying that because of growth...that also marks as one being used by Jehovah
cunninham> have you looked into the growth of the LDS?
cunninham> or the Roman Catholic Church?
WACKYBACK> no as usual you do not get the point
cunninham> elaborate on what your point is
WACKYBACK> The roman catholic church is the biggest fomenter of murder and lies of all time and yes their flock is leaving
WACKYBACK> The Mormons look to one man as their inspiration and not to Jehovah God
cunninham> really? the # in the RCC is declining?
cunninham> and the JWs do not look to man?
This is proof that the interpretation of prophecy does not proceed from man, but that the Lord Jesus, the chief one in Jehovah's organization, sends the necessary information to his people by and through his holy angels. (Preparation; 1933; pp. 28)
Certain duties and kingdom interests have been committed by the Lord to his angels, which include the transmission of information to God's anointed people on the earth for their aid and comfort. Even though we cannot understand how the angels transmit this information, we know that they do it; and the Scriptures and the facts show that it is done. (Preparation; 1933; pp. 36-37)
Enlightenment proceeds from Jehovah by and through Christ Jesus and is given to the faithful anointed on earth at the temple, and brings great peace and consolation to them. Again Zechariah talked with the angel of the Lord, which shows that the remnant are instructed by the angels of the Lord. the remnant do not hear audible sounds, because such is not necessary. Jehovah has provided his own good way to convey thoughts to the minds of his anointed ones. (Preparation; 1933; pp. 64)
Those of the remnant, being honest and true, must say, We do not know; and the Lord enlightens them, sending his angels for that very purpose. (Preparation; 1933; pp. 67)
"Avoid independent thinking...questioning the counsel that is provided by God's visible organization." (Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1983 pg. 22)
"Fight against independent thinking." (Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1983 pg. 27 )
To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it. (Watchtower; Feb. 15, 1983; p. 12)
"Faith in Jehovah, faith in those whom he is using as spokesmen, yes, faith in his organization! As we 'go out' to Jehovah's service today, how important it is that we exercise such faith!" (Watchtower July 1, 1984 p17)
We have the opportunity to show love for our brothers who take the lead in the congregation or in connection with Jehovah's visible organization worldwide. This includes being loyal to "the faithful and discreet slave." (Matthew 24:45-47) Let us face the fact that no matter how much Bible reading we have done, we would never have learned the truth on our own. (Watchtower; Dec. 1, 1990; p. 19)
Channel to understanding the Bible... 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. (Watchtower; Oct. 1, 1994; p. 8)
WACKYBACK> yes
WACKYBACK> no
cunninham> you said that interpretation is not given to man
WACKYBACK> they look to Jehovah God and Jesus Crist as head of the Christian Cong
cunninham> as you said: "interpretations belong to Jehovah"
WACKYBACK> and as usual you have twisted what I said
cunninham> tell me, who is it that is doing the looking? the GB?
cunninham> I have twisted nothing
WACKYBACK> Yes you have
cunninham> you said that interpretation is not given to man...but by way of Jehovah, no?
WACKYBACK> I said that Interpretation belongs to Jehovah
cunninham> tell me, by way of Jehovah, who then is receiving the proper translation?
cunninham> are you saying that the GB is receiving the proper translation?
WACKYBACK> GB?
cunninham> GB=Governing Body
WACKYBACK> The Society has more translations and a wealth of literature
WACKYBACK> You must admit yourself that the NEW WORLD Translation is a literal translation
cunninham> really? tell me, these translations that the Society has, how do they rate within the Greek and Hebrew scholarly communities? are they verifiable?
cunninham> really? a literal translation?
cunninham> would you care to show me backing for the NWT
WACKYBACK> not a version of another translation
cunninham> whom has declared the NWT as being credible
WACKYBACK> King James has spurious texts in it and you know it.
cunninham> really?
"Doubtless there has never been a more masterful and perfect english publication than the Authorized Version of the Bible." [King James Version] (Creation; 1927; p. 117)
cunninham> Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
WACKYBACK> Its men that have twisted the scriptures over the years
cunninham> if men have twisted the Scriptures, then how can one say that the Bible is trustworthy?
WACKYBACK> Probably a Trinitarian
cunninham> umm, then tell me what you think of this scholar?
WACKYBACK> Such a big guy Dr. Mantey.
WACKYBACK> excuse My sarcasm but really....
WACKYBACK> No lets go back to Dr. Mantey
WACKYBACK> He obviously doesn't believe in the indefinite article "a" at John 1:1
cunninham> Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible -The committee worked under him.]
cunninham> can you tell me, one notable Greek scholar that agrees with the NWT
cunninham> yes...on the matter of Dr.Mantey...did you know that the WT misquoted him badly
WACKYBACK> John L McKenzie, Philip B. Harner
cunninham> Dr.Julius R. Mantey-a Greek scholar who is the co-author of the authoritative text A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament-is cited as supporting the Watchtower translation, the Word was a god
cunninham> yeah...all of those Greek scholars were misquoted...here is what they have written
cunninham> Dr.Mantey was personally interviewed by Dr.Walter Martin of the Christian Research Institute. In the interview, Martin asked Mantey about the Watchtower translation of John1:1, The Word was a god. Mantey responded "The Jehovah's Witnesses have forgotten entirely what the order of the sentence indicates-that the Logos (or Word) has the same substance, nature, or essence as the Father. To indicate that Jesus was just ' a god ', the Jehovah's Witnesses would have to use a completely different construction in the Greek.
cunninham> Dr.Mantey then responded," Well...I was disturbed because they had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified-yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of a pagan concept".
cunninham> that pagan concept is that of Being vs. Becoming that Mantey is alluding too
cunninham> please check this out
cunninham> Philip B.Harner, whom you referred too, is another scholar who has been misquoted in favor of the New World Translation's rendering of John1:1. Not only does Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature not support the Watchtower's rendering of John1:1, he emphatically argues against it!(Robert M.Bowman, Jehovah Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John,pg.70-73).
WACKYBACK> Do you believe in the trinity?
WACKYBACK> Mr. Cunninham?
cunninham> By citing McKenzie out of context and by quoting only a portion of his article, he is made to appear to teach that the Word (Jesus) is less than Jehovah because he said "the word was a divine being (Ibid. 80-81). The Watchtower reasoning seems to be that since Jesus was just a ' divine being, ' He is less than Jehovah (Ibid.). However, as apologist Robert M.Bowman correctly notes,"On the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal being '; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called ' GOD ' in both John20:28 and Titus2:13 and that John1:1-18 expresses ' an identity between God and Jesus Christ (Bowman, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity,pg.95). So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower's position.
WACKYBACK> are You?
cunninham> as you see...what you have cited as scholarly support for the NWT by the WT writers, are but misquotes
cunninham> please check this out
cunninham> ok...you asked if I was a Trinitarian, correct?
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> can you tell me what a Trinitarian believes so as I know whether I fit such a belief
WACKYBACK> dont play games.... Do you believe in the HOLY TRINITY?
cunninham> well, if you are referring to the distorted view that the WT gives of the Trinity...no...if however you are familiar with the orthodox belief of the Holy Trinity, than yes..I am a Trinitarian
cunninham> can you tell me what a Trinitarian believes so as I know whether I fit such a belief
cunninham> the WT defines a triad: From the WT tract "Should You Believe In The Trinity?"
cunninham> >>>EXHIBIT A :
cunninham> WT: "This confusion is widespread. The 'Encyclopedia Americana' notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be 'beyond the grasp of human reason.'" (p. 4)
cunninham> Did they accurately represent the writers? What do you think? It actually reads:
cunninham> SOURCE: "It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind." (p. 116)
cunninham> >>>EXHIBIT B:
cunninham> WT: "But do theologians and historians say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?A Protestant publication states: 'The word Trinity is not found in the Bible... It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.' (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) (p. 5)."
cunninham> The lots-o-dots REMOVED the following:
cunninham> " .. and though used by Tertullian in the last decades of the 2nd century,..." and several sentences later, the publication states (and the WTobviously never quoted): "Though it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the OT, and explicit in the NT." (on p. 1597)
cunninham> >>>EXHIBIT C:
cunninham> WT:"'The New Encyclopedia Britannia' observes 'Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament." (p. 6).
cunninham> Hmmmm. Let's review that ..
cunninham> SOURCE: "'Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them - i.e. the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' (Matt. 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction; 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all' (II Cor. 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the
Trinity." (p. 928).
cunninham> They left off a bit there didn't they? I wonder why.
cunninham> >>>EXHIBIT D:
cunninham> WT: "Bernhard Lohse says in 'A Short History Of Christian Doctrine' : 'As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity.'" (p. 6)
cunninham> EHHH! Oh, I'm sorry! Let's read that again! ..
cunninham> SOURCE: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity. This does not mean very much, however, for generally speaking the New Testament is less intent upon setting forth certain doctrines than it is upon proclaiming the kingdom of God, a kingdom that dawns in and with the person of Jesus Christ. At the same time, however, there are in the New Testament the rudiments of a concept of God that was susceptible of further development and clarification along doctrinal lines." (p.38)
cunninham> >>>EXHIBIT E:
cunninham> Quoting Edmund Fortman's "The Triune God":
cunninham> WT: "'Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intents of the sacred writers.'" (p.6)
cunninham> Presto chango. Another lack of citation ... Immediately after this sentence, Fortman sez:
cunninham> SOURCE: "Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to the Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament." (p. 9)
cunninham> >>>EXHIBIT F:
cunninham> WT: "'At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian ... It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings.' -- 'Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.'" (pp. 6-7)
cunninham> Here we go AGAIN ..
cunninham> SOURCE: "At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian IN THE STRICTLY ONTOLOGICAL REFERENCE (emphasis mine). It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writings." (p. 461). Preceding this well-qualified statement which the learned sages at Bethel did some qualifying work of their own upon are these:"And so, when the early Christians would describe their conception of God, all the three elements - God, Christ, and the Spirit - enter into the description and the one God is found to be revealed in a threefold way." " If the passage (2 Co. 13:14) contains no formulated expression of the Trinity, it is yet of great significance as showing that less than thirty years after the death of Christ, His name and the name of the Holy Spirit could be employed in conjunction with the name of God Himself." (p. 458).
cunninham> >>>EXHIBIT G:
cunninham> WT: "In 'Origin And Evolution of Religion,' E.W. Hopkins answers: 'The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.'" (p. 9).
cunninham> Again, if we will read the finely omitted print on the previous page, we might get a better view of what the writer was saying..
cunninham> SOURCE: "But the first Christian theology was given in the words 'I and my Father are one' and the plain faith of the early church members who were not doctrinaires was just this and nothing more. Jesus is God. So proclaimed the first hymns, sung by the early Church." (p. 338).
cunninham> >>>EXHIBIT H:
cunninham> WT: In 'A Dictionary Of The Bible,' William Smith says: 'The fanciful idea that [elo-him] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of powers displayed by God.'" (p. 13)
cunninham> OOPS. I think they dropped something! Like two sentences later ..
cunninham> SOURCE: "The name (Jehovah) is never applied to a false god, nor to any other being except one, the ANGEL-JEHOVAH (emphasis author's) who is thereby marked as one with God and who appears again in the New Covenant as 'God manifested in the flesh.'" (p. 220)
cunninham> I could go on, but I think we get the point, don't we? For such a fearless Society on a quest for truth, they have a warped way of making A mean B and 1+1 to equal 3.
cunninham> Here are some more misquotes from the "Trinity" broucher. The nice part about these quotes is that you only need other Watchtower magazines to show the misquote.
cunninham> The first misquote:
cunninham> *** ti 28 What About Trinity "Proof Texts"? *** Violating a Rule? SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek [1] (a predicate noun) "has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb." [2] (By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article ("the") in front of it). At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os'), the predicate, precedes the verb-"and [the·os'] was the Word." So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read "and [the] God was the Word.
cunninham> Notice number 1 and number 2? Look at number 1 and number 2 in the following.
cunninham> *** w75 11/15 702-3 Questions from Readers *** The problem, they say, is word order. Back in 1933 Greek scholar E. C. Colwell published an article entitled "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." In it he wrote: [1]"(A definite predicate nominative) has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article....
cunninham> Do these statements of Colwell prove that "a god" is a mistranslation at John 1:1? Perhaps you noticed this scholar's wording that an anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb should be understood as definite "if the context suggests" that. Further along in his argument Colwell stressed that the predicate is indefinite in this position "only when the context demands it." [2](Nowhere did he state that all anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek are definite nouns.) Not any inviolable rule of grammar, but context must guide the translator in such cases.
cunninham> In the Trinity brochure on the "number one" they left out the word "definite". This changes the entire meaning. For number two, in the Trinity brochure they said that E. C. Colwell ment that all predicate nominatives preceding the verb are definite. However, in the 75 WT they say that he never stated that.
cunninham> Quote 2
cunninham> *** ti 3 How Is the Trinity Explained? *** How Is the Trinity Explained? THE Roman Catholic Church states: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion [1]( . . .) Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent."-The Catholic Encyclopedia.
cunninham> Notice #1 above? They left out an entire phrase. This phrase is important because it helps separate trinitarianism from modelism (I might have misspelled the names). The Watchtower will go on and try to fight against "trinitarinism" , however, they only fight modelism.
WACKYBACK> Ok.... Do you believe that the Father, Son and Holy spirit are all coeternal and coequal?
cunninham> that is the Holy Trinity: Deut 6:4
WACKYBACK> Jehovah Our God is one Jehovah
cunninham> yes: all, co-eternal, co-equal
WACKYBACK> I C. Ok
cunninham> are you familiar with the terms of Elohim, anthropomorphic, theophany
WACKYBACK> brb
WACKYBACK> were not even gonna go there
WACKYBACK> ok?
WACKYBACK> Ive talked with many a Trinitarian and they all have one thing in common
WACKYBACK> they wont budge
cunninham> ok...tis up to you...will see where you take me....but tell me...what translation do you wish for us to use? if you dont mind...how about using the KJV being that the WT used such before the NWT came out, as I have shown above, the WT gives the KJV a highly favored review.
cunninham> well...have you proven that the Christ of God had a beginning
WACKYBACK> col 3:15
WACKYBACK> ooops
cunninham> think you mean col 1:15
cunninham> KJV - col - 3:15: And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> thought as much
WACKYBACK> my point is though that I can talk to you until Im blue in the face and your not gonna change your belief in the trinity right?
cunninham> KJV - col - 1:15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
cunninham> if you show me that I am biblically wrong...I will, for I worship not ideology
WACKYBACK> Ok.... Who was Jesus praying to while he was on earth?
cunninham> read Rev 3:14
cunninham> KJV - rev - 3:14: And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
WACKYBACK> why did he ask that Not MY WILL take place but "YOURS"
cunninham> see the word: the beginning
WACKYBACK> this is getting nowhere...
cunninham> Christ was talking from His position within the Godhead
cunninham> certainly you dont think that I believe that Christ and the Father are the same in position?
cunninham> that is not what a Trinitarian believes
cunninham> they are the same in nature....but not in position within the Godhead...much like a man and a woman...same in nature but positionally different are they not?
WACKYBACK> "firstborn" means firstborn everywhere else in the BIBLE. Why do trinitarians try to make it different at COL 1:15?
cunninham> no it doesn't
cunninham> read Rev 3:13
cunninham> KJV - rev - 3:14: And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
WACKYBACK> have you ever been part of Jehovah Organization?
cunninham> The English word archbishop is related to this sense of the Greek word arche. An archbishop is one who is in authority over other bishops. He rules over other bishops.
WACKYBACK> brb
cunninham> read Ephesians 3:10
cunninham> NAS - eph 3:10: so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.
cunninham> see: rulers
cunninham> is the same as that of firstborn
cunninham> "ruler" is the correct meaning for arche in Rev 3:14, then it means that Christ has authority over all creation. This meaning is reflected in the New International Version, where we read that Christ is the ' ruler of God's creation '(Rev 3:14).
cunninham> will quote the NIV
cunninham> Revelation 3:14 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.
cunninham> see
cunninham> the ruler of God's creation
cunninham> And a second possible meaning is that in the case of Christ, both senses are intended inasmuch as Christ is elsewhere portrayed in Scripture as both the Creator (Hebrews 1:2) and Ruler (Rev 19:16) of all things.
WACKYBACK> Mr. Cunninham you keep doing your research and maybe one day you'll see the light
cunninham> umm, am I not sharing my research with you
cunninham> tell me if I am incorrect
cunninham> am I?
cunninham> KJV - heb - 1:2: Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
cunninham> KJV - rev - 19:16: And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
cunninham> see: firstborn is that of authoritative position
cunninham> KJV - col - 1:15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
cunninham> see: firstborn is ruler of every creature
cunninham> tell me...was Isaac the firstborn son
cunninham> or was Ishmael
cunninham> KJV - gen - 17:20: And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
cunninham> KJV - gen - 17:21: But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
cunninham> see: Isaac is called the firstborn: for he is ruler over Abraham's possession
WACKYBACK> we cant go on arguing Mr. Cunninham
cunninham> umm, I am not arguing...am revealing to you Biblical truths
cunninham> why do JWs seek to deny the rulership of Christ over His creation
cunninham> did not Christ create all things
WACKYBACK> Who created Jesus?
cunninham> NWT - john - 1:3: All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.What has come into existence
WACKYBACK> other things
cunninham> no one created the Christ of God
cunninham> umm, the NWT says all things above
cunninham> but then the NWT contradicts itself with Colossians 1:16,17
cunninham> can you show me where Christ was created?
cunninham> I now the fleshly temple that Christ veiled Himself in was created when incarnated
cunninham> but
cunninham> I now the fleshly temple that Christ veiled Himself in was created when incarnated
cunninham> can you show me where Christ was created
cunninham> now=know
cunninham> typos again
cunninham> : (
WACKYBACK> excited?
cunninham> no...am going a bit fast as all...I get that way when I am bragging on Christ as it were
cunninham> can you show me where Christ was created
WACKYBACK> If you didn't rely on a version of a literal translation which has spurious texts in it you would know that Jesus had to have a beginning and that he was created by Jehovah
cunninham> can you show me where Christ was created
cunninham> btw...I am 28yrs old...believed you asked me that earlier
* cunninham lives in Southwestern Ontario Canada in the city of Chatham, eh.
cunninham> you claim that He (Christ) had a beginning...where might such be indicated?
cunninham> what book(s) of the Bible indicate such
WACKYBACK> the one I showed you earlier. But I am not going to continue this conversation. You seem sincere. But so was Saul before he became Paul and saw the Light of truth.
WACKYBACK> It serves no purpose to argue like this.
WACKYBACK> I sorry.
cunninham> umm, I have shown that the verse that you have referred to is incorrect and denies the whole of Scripture
cunninham> tell me, do you believe that Christ created the heaven and the earth
WACKYBACK> Jehovah used Jesus to create the heavens and earth. But before creation of his son Jesus, Jehovah was alone.
cunninham> really? read John 1:1
cunninham> says that the Word was with God
cunninham> how can one be with another if the one did not exist before creation?
cunninham> you say that there was another that created the heaven and the earth...is that what the Word says?
WACKYBACK> Read 1 cor 15: particularly verses 24-28
cunninham> KJV - isai - 43:10: Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, andunderstand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me
cunninham> ok...will get them now
cunninham> KJV - 1cor - 15:24: Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
cunninham> KJV - 1cor - 15:25: For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
cunninham> KJV - 1cor - 15:26: The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
cunninham> KJV - 1cor - 15:27: For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
cunninham> KJV - 1cor - 15:28: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
WACKYBACK> now is Jesus according to the context of this scripture coequal with the father?
cunninham> I must emphasize that the word "subject" in Corinthians 15:28 has nothing to do with Christ's essential nature or being. Rather, the word points to Christ's functional subjection to God the Father as the Godman and Mediator int the outworking of the plan of salvation.
cunninham> suject=subject
cunninham> remember what I said earlier about *arche*
WACKYBACK> what does it usually mean when one is suject to another?
cunninham> the same is conveyed here
cunninham> is your wife subject to you?
cunninham> are you subject to the Law of the courts?
cunninham> are you subject to your congregational elders?
cunninham> same thought is conveyed
WACKYBACK> yes that means that they have authority over me as Jehovah does Jesus
cunninham> this as I said says nothing about Christ's eternal nature
cunninham> you and all of the others are still the equal in nature, no?
cunninham> all but Jehovah that is
cunninham> but you are the same nature as me and all others human
WACKYBACK> vs 25 says that Jesus is to rule until Jehovah puts all enemies under his feet.
cunninham> that is correct, as what I said before
cunninham> he is the firstborn over all creation
cunninham> read the last verse: then shall the Son also himself besubject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
cunninham> God may be all in all
WACKYBACK> yes all things to everyone
cunninham> Jesus still retains His human nature-for Christ as a man (today and forever) will always be in subjection to the Father.
cunninham> I must point out, that Christ was raised immortal in the very same human body in which He died (Luke 24:37-39; Acts 2:31; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7
cunninham> that is why He is and will always be in subjection to the Father
cunninham> what you have been told by the WT says nothing about His divine nature
WACKYBACK> yes subjected
cunninham> amen: subjected
cunninham> like I said before
cunninham> but you are the same nature as me and all others human
cunninham> are you subject to your congregational elders?
cunninham> I must point out, that Christ was raised immortal in the very same human body in which He died (Luke 24:37-39; Acts 2:31; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7
cunninham> that is why He is and will always be in subjection to the Father
WACKYBACK> He is called Mighty god, Eternal father , prince of peace but nowhere in the Bible does it ever refer to Jesus as THE ALMIGHTY.. Only JEHOVAH Deserves this description
cunninham> really?
WACKYBACK> That is correct
cunninham> you haven't read the whole of Scripture....read these verses
WACKYBACK> even Satan can quote scripture but miss the whole point
cunninham> and so far you have done that I am afraid to say (read)
cunninham> KJV - jer - 32:18: Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,
cunninham> if you like...the same in the NWT
cunninham> NWT - jer - 32:18: the One exercising loving-kindness toward thousands, and repaying the error of the fathers into the bosom of their sons after them, the [true] God, the great One, the mighty One, Jehovah of armies being his name,
WACKYBACK> you are relying on a bible that was written in the 1600s...in old english... and supports the trinity by using spurious texts
WACKYBACK> I have not misquoted one scripture to you
WACKYBACK> are you going to give me the egg theory now?
WACKYBACK> Men are condemned for adding or taking away from Gods word
WACKYBACK> and thats what the trinity does. DEUT 6:$
WACKYBACK> 4
WACKYBACK> Jesus is given undue honor by the trinity. Only Jehovah deserves such honor
cunninham> Jesus is not given any undue honour
WACKYBACK> yes he is
cunninham> how can one say such a thing to ones own Savior?
WACKYBACK> he is put in the same position as the father
cunninham> is not Christ your Savior?
cunninham> that He is not
WACKYBACK> Yes he is
cunninham> that He is not, not according to what the WT teaches...here read for yourself:
As they were baptized into Moses in the sea and in the cloud, the acceptance of Christ as instead of Moses would imply that they were in Christ as members of his body, under him as their head, and, through association with him, ministers of the New Covenant, of which the complete, glorified Christ, head and body, will be the Mediator. (The New Creation; 1899; 1915 ed.; pp. 432)
It seems quite certain from the Scriptures that when the new covenant is inaugurated and begins to function, the church, which is the body of Christ, will have part in the mediatorial work. (The Watchtower; 5/1/1928; pp. 135)
Hence the Christ, or the Anointed One, is a collective or composite company, Christ Jesus being the head and the 144,000 members of his church being the body. (The New World; 1942; 2,000,000 ed.; pp. 96)
However, suddenly, there came an end to World War 1. It did not lead on, as Bible students expected, into world revolution and anarchy or the battle of Armageddon. And the sincere worshippers of Jehovah who were in the new covenant with him through his Mediator Jesus Christ, found themselves still in the flesh on the earth. (Man's Salvation Out Of World Distress At Hand; 1975; pp. 98)
The new covenant will terminate with the glorification of the remnant who are today in that covenant mediated by Christ. The "great crowd" of "other sheep" that is forming today is not in that new covenant. However, by their associating with the "little flock" of those yet in that covenant they come under benefits that flow from that new covenant. (The Watchtower; 4/1/1979; pp. 31)
What, then, is Christ's role in this program of salvation? Paul proceeds to say: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men [not, all men], a man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.." (The Watchtower; 11/15/1979; pp. 26)
In what sense does Paul use the term "mediator" when referring to Jesus at 1 Timothy 2:5-6? In this text, Paul uses the Greek word [ me-si` tes] for "mediator," which term has a legal significance, so he is not using this word in the broad sense common in many languages. Hence, Paul is not saying that Jesus is Mediator between God and all mankind. Rather, he is referring to Christ as legal Mediator of the new covenant, which laid the basis for Christ's anointed followers to share with him in his heavenly Kingdom. (The Watchtower, 12/15/1989; pp. 30)
WACKYBACK> by your teaching
cunninham> check these articles out and you will see that I am correct to say that the WT teaches that Christ is not your mediator
cunninham> I have not said that He and the Father are one in position
cunninham> I have expounded at great length that they are not
cunninham> they are of the same nature...but not of the same position
WACKYBACK> you said that they were coequal and coeternal
cunninham> yes: coequal in nature
cunninham> yes: coeternal for they have not a beginning nor an end
cunninham> they are both: the First and the Last
WACKYBACK> Jesus had a beginning
cunninham> show me where such is taught
cunninham> you have said that but you have not showed me such a concept
WACKYBACK> to "beget" means to father as you would father a son
cunninham> that is correct
cunninham> is Christ begetten or begotten
WACKYBACK> Jesus is Jehovah's only "begotten" son
cunninham> see
cunninham> Begotten
cunninham> not beget
cunninham> there is a difference
WACKYBACK> Only a father can "BEGET"
WACKYBACK> You have children?
cunninham> note that Isaac was not Abraham's "only-begotten" son in the sense that Isaac was the only son Abraham begat. Abraham had a number of sons, including Ishmael, whose birth preceded Isaac's. It is clear from the full Scriptural context that Isaac was Abraham's "only-begotten" son in the sense that he was Abraham's unique son.
cunninham> have you not been reading what I have stated in relation to the whole of Scripture
WACKYBACK> They are made of the same material as you... and yet without you they would not exist would they?
cunninham> yes...and Christ is of the same substance of the Father.....and hence Christ's uniqueness
WACKYBACK> Without Jehovah, Jesus would never have come into existence.
cunninham> that is why Christ is coeternal
cunninham> without Christ there would be no Father...was there a time when the Father was not
cunninham> Is it not clear from the context that since God's covenant purposes were to be carried out through Isaac and his family line, Isaac was called" only-begotten" in the sense of his uniqueness?
WACKYBACK> thats like saying without your children you are not
WACKYBACK> you were there first
WACKYBACK> not the children
cunninham> no...we are talking about ones nature
cunninham> we are talking about ones *uniqueness*
cunninham> Christ is unique for He shares the same nature as His Father
WACKYBACK> Jesus is unique in that he is God's only begotten son the firstborn of all creation
WACKYBACK> At best your talkin bout a Duity
cunninham> could not it be said about Isaac that he was Abraham's only begotten son for he was the ruler over all of Abraham's goods?
cunninham> as I have shown: firstborn=ruler
cunninham> Christ is the ruler over Creation
WACKYBACK> Listen Ive been round and round with you and your not going to change my beliefs
WACKYBACK> is that what you want?
cunninham> For if God is Jesus' Father in the same sense that an earthly father...begats a son, then it would seem Jesus must have had a heavenly Mother, as well as a heavenly Father
WACKYBACK> because it aint gonna happen
cunninham> is that what you believe?
WACKYBACK> whats your plan man?
WACKYBACK> whats your purpose?
cunninham> do you believe that the same term is applied in equal setting to what your reference to that of Isaac
cunninham> him being *begat* by his father Abraham
WACKYBACK> dont try to draw me in agin
cunninham> am not...am following your line of reasoning
cunninham> if I use the same line of reasoning...I am forced to such a heretical view
cunninham> that being
cunninham> For if God is Jesus' Father in the same sense that an earthly father...begats a son, then it would seem Jesus must have had a heavenly Mother, as well as a heavenly Father
WACKYBACK> you dont have full sense of whats being said. You take bits and pieces and try to make them fit
cunninham> do you see the fallacies of such a line of reasoning
cunninham> really? I have been using the whole focus of scripture
WACKYBACK> there is no fallacies in my reasoning
WACKYBACK> but u focus on teachings that are not based on the whole meaning and context of the bible
cunninham> there is: read what you wrote: WACKYBACK> yes......
WACKYBACK> point?
cunninham> tell me that first-begotten is not the same as being unique in position?
cunninham> tell me that firstborn is not meaning that of rulership?
cunninham> your point is simply as I stated above
cunninham> For if God is Jesus' Father in the same sense that an earthly father...begats a son, then it would seem Jesus must have had a heavenly Mother, as well as a heavenly Father
WACKYBACK> when Pharaohs firstborn had to die by divine decree wasn't that his begotten son?
cunninham> such is heretical and is smacking of LDS theology
cunninham> doesn't say his first begotten...says ever first son
WACKYBACK> no.... Jehovah is the father and Jesus is the son
cunninham> doesn't
cunninham> lets read Exodus
WACKYBACK> Jehovah/father Jesus/son
cunninham> says firstborn
WACKYBACK> normal you see?
cunninham> not first-begotten
WACKYBACK> you had a father
WACKYBACK> I had a father
cunninham> yes...and we have a mother
cunninham> KJV - exo - 11:5: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
WACKYBACK> everyone living had a father
cunninham> yes...and we have a mother
cunninham> For if God is Jesus' Father in the same sense that an earthly father...begats a son, then it would seem Jesus must have had a heavenly Mother, as well as a heavenly Father
cunninham> do you still not see the fallacies of such a line of reasoning?
WACKYBACK> Jesus had an earthly mother.... her name was Mary
cunninham> The words "only begotten" do not mean that Christ was created (as the heretic Arius taught). Rather they mean that He was 'unique ', specially blessed, or favored
WACKYBACK> not A heavenly mother
cunninham> yes...the fleshly temple of the Christ of God had a beginning
cunninham> there is no disagreement with that:Jesus had an earthly mother.... her name was Mary
cunninham> but does that suggest that the Christ of God did not exist before the incarnation? no
cunninham> Christ is coeternal
WACKYBACK> Im just trying to get you to realize that its not so hard to understand if you pray to Jehovah and listen he will help you see the light.
cunninham> "the thought is clearly that Christ is the Begotten of God in the sense that no other is."
cunninham> I do pray every night
cunninham> tell me, what do you think that these mean: "sons of the prophets" meant "of the order of prophets"(1 Kings 20:35).
WACKYBACK> who do you pray to?
WACKYBACK> Prayer?
cunninham> NAS - 1Kings 20:35: Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to another by the word of the Lord, "Please strike me." But the man refused to strike him.
cunninham> the term: the sons of the prophets<------what do you think it means
WACKYBACK> prayer?
cunninham> you think that it means prayer?
WACKYBACK> no I asked you who do you pray to?
cunninham> I pray through Christ to reach the throne room of the Father
cunninham> as we are told to
WACKYBACK> who is the father?
cunninham> for Christ is the only mediator between God and man
cunninham> the Father is the 2nd Person in the Godhead
WACKYBACK> what is his name?
cunninham> He has many names
cunninham> God of Abraham
cunninham> God of Isaac
cunninham> God of Jacob
cunninham> ABBA
WACKYBACK> those are titles
WACKYBACK> just like president
cunninham> YAHWEH
WACKYBACK> Good
cunninham> Adonia
cunninham> Yahweh
WACKYBACK> now what is the most Accepted way of pronoucing those consonants?
WACKYBACK> since the original pronunciation was lost
cunninham> well since that of the 16th Century when a Catholic Spanish Priest, Jehovah has been the english pronunciation
WACKYBACK> Fine
WACKYBACK> now I want you to do something for me K?
cunninham> but there is debate over the J or Y in Yahweh
WACKYBACK> I know I know....
cunninham> sure...if it is on the sacred name...I may have already done it
WACKYBACK> but do this for me
cunninham> sure
WACKYBACK> please
cunninham> ok....
WACKYBACK> when you go to bed tonight
WACKYBACK> Pray to Jehovah using his personal name.. as we know it
cunninham> I have done as much before
cunninham> I like using the name Father
WACKYBACK> and ask him to let you see the right way.
cunninham> Christ referred us to using such
WACKYBACK> either mine or yours
WACKYBACK> and see what happens
WACKYBACK> yes he did.
cunninham> umm, you still dont believe in all that I have been saying do you about the WT and the matter of Greber and the Greek scholars that they misquoted, the misquotes in the Trinity booklet that the WT puts out, and the matter of Christ not being your mediator?
WACKYBACK> well, Im going to look up the info
cunninham> tell me, would the *right way to see things* be for me to forget about my findings
WACKYBACK> no
cunninham> good...glad that you agree
WACKYBACK> just to let Jehovah guide you... you cant go wrong
WACKYBACK> like I said
WACKYBACK> let him guide you
cunninham> I have been doing as much since Nov 14, 1994 at 11:15 p.m. EST
* cunninham says ok-that was when I personally came to accept Christ as my Savior, I repented of my shortcomings (unrighteous living), asked for forgiveness and made Christ Lord over my life, making covenant relations with Him in that I would give my life for Him spreading the Gospel and the Truth of Scripture to all that I come across. He has changed my life, and my family as well.
WACKYBACK> dont rely upon your own understanding
cunninham> in that I dont...for we have finite minds
WACKYBACK> but in all your ways take notice of him
cunninham> in that I have...but can I ask you something before we close out for this evening
WACKYBACK> Prov. 3:5,6
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> actually there are three things, but they are short
cunninham> 1) have you family that are JWs
WACKYBACK> yes
cunninham> 2) how old are you
WACKYBACK> 34
cunninham> 3) what will you do when you find out that my claims are factual concern the matter of the WT's lies and misquotations, and misinterpretations
WACKYBACK> I will let Jehovah guide me in what to do
cunninham> amen
WACKYBACK> pray about it
cunninham> amen : )
WACKYBACK> :)
cunninham> you are truly a man who looks to serve Him
WACKYBACK> thank you
cunninham> I am thankful for your patience
cunninham> I am thankful for your time
cunninham> I am thankful for your effort
cunninham> I am thankful for your love
cunninham> thanks for sharing with me
cunninham> my name is Mark Cunningham
WACKYBACK> ok. Please do as I ask of you
cunninham> and no, I have never been affiliated with the WTB&TS
cunninham> therefore...I am not an apostate as defined by the WT
How could one become guilty of partaking of the table of demons in our day? By serving the interests of anything opposed to Jehovah. The table of demons includes all demonic propaganda, which is designed to mislead and turn and to turn us away from Jehovah. Who would want to feed his heart and mind on such poison? (The Watchtower; 7/1/1994; pp. 9)
We would not knowingly want to be partaking of the table of demons. To do that would cost us the favor of the only true and living God, Jehovah. (The Watchtower; 7/1/1994; pp. 9)
Food on the table of demons is poisonous. Consider, for example, the food dispensed by the evil slave class and the apostates. It does not nourish or build up; it is not wholesome. It cannot be, for the apostates have stopped feeding at Jehovah's table. As a result, whatever they had developed of the new personality is gone. What motivates them is, not holy spirit, but vitriolic bitterness. They are obsessed with only one aim - beating their former fellow slaves, as Jesus foretold. (The Watchtower; 7/1/1994; pp. 11)
Yes, apostates publish literature that resorts to distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehood. They even picket Witness conventions, trying to trap the unwary. (The Watchtower; 7/1/1994; pp. 12)
And while the apostates may also present certain facts, these are usually taken out of context with the goal of drawing others away from the table of Jehovah. All their writings simply criticize and tear down. (The Watchtower; 7/1/1994; pp. 12)
WACKYBACK> Prov. 3:5,6 Remember OK. and GOOD
cunninham> guess the proper terminology would be that of a heretic
WACKYBACK> maybe too harsh
cunninham> NAS - pro 3:5: Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.
cunninham> NAS - pro 3:6: In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.
cunninham> amen
WACKYBACK> very good
WACKYBACK> good night
WACKYBACK> must go
cunninham> whats your name
cunninham> if you dont mind
WACKYBACK> Elvin
* cunninham wishes Elvin's_family all the blessings from Him who holds the seven seas in the palm of His hands. May He pour out a blessing that you cannot contain (cf.Isaiah 40:12).
* cunninham says good-bye to Elvin. Let your Light Shine.
* cunninham says Keep the Faith!
WACKYBACK> thank you
cunninham> : )
cunninham> Jehovah bless you richly
WACKYBACK> good night
Session Close: Mon Sep 29 00:16:35 1997
In reaching out to Jehovah's Witnesses, it has been my experience that we must approach them, not as enemies per sa, but as simply that of lost and deceived people, whom have been duped into thinking that what they have been told by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is "Truth". What you have read in the above exchange, is the complete opposite of what the Watchtower actually claims is accurate within their magazines, in which those that come knocking on our doors on Saturday mornings, wish to leave in our hands.
If you are one that wishes for further information as to reaching out too Jehovah's Witnesses, you can either contact me via e-mail (mcunning@ciaccess.com), or you can write me at the following address:
Mr.Mark Cunningham
66 Blythewood Cres
Chatham, Ontario, Canada
N7M 5N6
Or, last but not least, you can download the chat program mIRC, and connect to one of the many servers on mIRC and simply look for me on-line. I will be more than happy to share all of my research and resources with you.
May Christ Jesus bless you and your ministry to Jehovah's Witnesses
a friend, and a brother in Christ Jesus
Mark Cunningham : )