Conference yukon::christian_v7

Doctrine of God
---------------
JW - The doctrine of the Trinity is "a false, unbiblical doctrine" originated by
     Satan (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., p. 386; Let God Be True, p. 101).
Bible - There is one God (Deut. 6:4), but three distinct Persons in the Godhead,
        the Father (Philippians 2:11), Jesus Christ the Son (John 5:18), and
        the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4,9).

JW - Christ the Son was originally the first created being of Jehovah God (Let
     God Be True, p. 32).
Bible - Christ the Son is eternal, uncreated God (John 8:58, Revelation 1:17-18,
        and Isaiah 44:6).

JW - Jesus Christ was actually the incarnation of Michael the Archangel; Christ
     resumed the name Michael when He ascended to heaven (Your Will Be Done On
     Earth, p. 316-7; New Heavens and a New Earth, p. 30).
Bible - Nowhere is Michael said to have become Christ or vice versa; the Bible
        sharply distinguishes between angels and the exalted office of Christ
        (Hebrews 1:1-4).  Scripture tells us that Jesus is God (John 1:1), that
        He created all things and is before all things (Colossians 1:15-17),
        and that He was never al angel (Hebrews 1:5).

JW - Jesus Christ arose from the grave as a spirit person, Jehovah allowing Him
     to materialize a different body in which to appear to His disciples (Your
     Will Be Done On Earth, p. 143; Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., p. 314).
Bible - Jesus Christ arose in the same body that was laid in the tomb, which
        explains the marks of crucifixion, the empty tomb, and the empty burial
        wrappings (Luke 24:39, John 2:19-22, 20:20,25,27, John 20:1-9,
        respectively).

JW - The Holy Spirit is not a Person, but rather the impersonal, active force of
     God (Let God Be True, 2nd ed., p. 108; The Watchtower, June 1, 1952, p.24).
Bible - The Holy Spirit is an eternal Person, possessing all the essence of God
        (John 14:16-17,26; Acts 5:3-4).

Doctrine of Man
---------------
JW - A person's soul is an inseparable part of the body, so that when a person
     dies there is no continued existence of the soul (Make Sure of All
     Things, 1953 ed., pp. 349,352).
Bible - Christ taught that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31), Christ
        promised continuing life the same day after death (Luke 23:39-43), and
        Paul taught an independent existence apart from the body after death
        (II Corinthians 5:5-8; Philippians 1:19-24).

JW - The doctrine of immortality of the soul finds its origin with Satan (Let
     God Be True, 2nd ed., pp. 74-75).
Bible - The immortality of the soul is a God-inspired truth (Ecclesiastes 12:7,
        II Corinthians 5:1,6-8).

JW - Since there is no continued existence of the soul after death, Jehovah's
     Witnesses who die will eventually be recreated from Jehovah's memory to
     inhabit His kingdom (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., p. 311).
Bible - The resurrection is a returning of the soul back to its body (I Kings
        17:17-24, Luke 7:11-17), and will happen when Christ returns
        (Luke 24:36-43, Philippians 3:20-21, I Corinthians 15:39-54).

Doctrine of Salvation
---------------------
JW - Christ's death only purchased for mankind the earthly life and earthly
     blessings lost when Adam sinned (Studies in Scriptures, v5, p. 145).
Bible - Christ's death purchased present forgiveness of sins and blessings
        beyond this earthly existence (Ephesians 1:3-14).

JW - Christ's death only provides an opportunity for a person to attain eternal
     life through obeying God's laws.  There is no assurance of eternal life
     (Studies in Scriptures, v1, pp. 150,152).
Bible - Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
        His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9).  The
        eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God
        (I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29).  God saves us because He loves us
        (John 3:16).

JW - Christ's blood shed on Calvary applies only to 144,000 elite JW's (the
     "Israel of God") and not for the "great crowd," the remainder of JW's
     (Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 389).
Bible - Christ died on behalf of all men (I Timothy 2:5-6, I John 2:2,
        II Corinthians 5:15, Hebrews 2:9) and said He is preparing a place for
        those who trust Him, and that place will be with Him (John 14:1-3).

JW - One can live in God's paradise only through (1) studying the Bible, (2)
     associating with Jehovah's Witnesses, (3) changing living habits from the
     former way to God's way (requiring JW baptism), and (4) being a preacher
     and a witness of God's kingdom (From Paradise Lost to Paradise
     Regained, pp. 242-249).
Bible - Salvation is offered only through trusting Jesus Christ as Savior (Acts
        4:10-12, 10:42-43, Romans 3:21-24).

JW - The doctrine of a burning hell where the wicked are tortured eternally
     after death is false (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., pp. 154-55).
Bible - Hell is a place of everlasting torment for the unrepentant wicked
        (Revelation 20:11-15, Matthew 13:41-42,49-50, Mark 9:47-48).

JW - Claim to be the only true Christian Witnesses of Jehovah God.
Bible - We are all to be witnesses of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8).

JW - The Bible can't be understood without their teachings and literature and
     that your only hope is to worship Jehovah God through the Watchtower
     Society.
Bible - Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will teach us (John 14:26), and Paul
        wrote, "...we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand"
        (II Corinthians 1:13).  Additionally, Jesus said, "I am the way, the
        truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me"
        (John 14:6).

Awake! - a Watchtower periodical used to introduce Jehovah's Witnesses to the
         public and arouse interest in the organization's local meetings.

Goats - refers to all those outside the Jehovah's Witnesses, those who will be
        judged by God as in Matthew 25:31-46.

Great Crowd - also "sheep," refers to the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses who
              will not live in heaven but rather will inhabit restored
              Paradise Earth after Christ's return.

Jehovah - said to be the only correct name for Almighty God.

Jehovah's Witnesses - a term coined from Isaiah 43:10 in 1931 as the official
                      title of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society.

Kingdom Hall - a local meeting place of Jehovah's Witnesses used for instruction
               of its members.

Little Flock - also the "144,000" and the "anointed class," this refers to the
               elite group of Jehovah's Witnesses who will live in heaven
               after this life and reign with Christ.

Michael - the archangel who was supposedly Jehovah's first creation and who
          later became the man Jesus.

New World Translation - the official Watchtower Bible characterized by
                        mistranslations and deliberately designed to support
                        Watchtower theology.

The Watchtower - a Jehovah's Witness' publication for instruction of its
                 members.

Prophets, Promises, Problems
----------------------------
Did Jesus really return to the earth in October, 1874?  And did His kingly
office date from April, 1878?  Was Armageddon, the final worldwide war, to
happen in October, 1914?  Or did Jesus come back in 1914 and Armageddon take
place in 1915?  Or, was Armageddon to happen in 1916? 1918? 1925? 1975?

In each of these years the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, better known as
Jehovah's Witnesses, prepared their followers for a new world order that never
materialized.  But despite these blows to their credibility, the Jehovah's
Witnesses have grown to well over 3� million adherents in 212 countries
worldwide.  From their Brooklyn headquarters, known as "Bethel," the governing
body was wielded absolute authority over its compliant servants and popularized
its doctrine by mass distribution of magazines like "The Watchtower" and
"Awake!"  To date they are the world's largest private publisher, having printed
over one billion pieces of literature since 1920.

The aggressive proselytizing of the Witnesses is often viewed with envy by many
committed Christians.  But a closer look at the Jehovah's Witnesses' background
and doctrine reveals fatal flaws in their polished exterior.

A History of Disappointments
----------------------------
Charles Taze Russell was born in Allegheny, PA, on February 16, 1852.  Troubled
by various church doctrines, such as teachings on hell, he became a skeptic at
age 17.  In 1870 he was exposed to the teachings of William Miller, one of the
originators of the Second Adventist movement.  Miller had originally taught that
Christ would return in October, 1843.  When this event failed, his followers
continued to set new dates, each a complete failure as a prophecy of "things to
come."  But the Millerites provided Charles with (1) a religious denial of hell,
and (2) stimulating studies in end-of-the-age prophecies.

Russell gradually popularized his end-time studies and founded the International
Bible Students Association.  On December 18, 1884, Zion's Watch Tower Tract
Society became a publishing subsidiary of the Association, extending Charles'
influence through works like "Millennial Dawn" and "Studies in the Scriptures."
By 1886 Russell had published "The Divine Plan of the Ages," projecting that
1914 would witness Armageddon and the dawn of Christ's thousand year rule on
earth.  He also taught that the "end times" started in 1799 and that Christ had
returned in 1874.  These dates were later changed when Armageddon failed to
appear in 1914.

After a legal separation from his wife in 1906 and the failure of his 1914 and
1915 prophecies, Russell died on October 31, 1916.  Joseph ("Judge") Rutherford
emerged as the new head.  Reworking Russell's chronologies, he falsely predicted
Armageddon would be in 1918, then 1925.  Still expecting the resurrection of Old
Testament saints to take charge of God's new world order, the Society erected a
house in San Diego, CA, in 1929.  The house, called Beth Sarim ("House of
Princes"), would shelter these coming "princes of the earth," among whom would
be King David, Samson, and Joseph.  Again, this prophecy also failed.  Under
Rutherford the publishing organization merged with the church proper and gave
birth to the present religious corporation.  In 1931 the title "Jehovah's
Witnesses" was adopted.

A Lot of Publicity, A Lack of Integrity
---------------------------------------
In 1942 Nathan H. Knorr stepped into Rutherford's position.  Knorr's most
memorable accomplishment was overseeing the completion of "The New World
Translation" of the Bible in 1961.  Of the four members of the translation
committee (Frederick Franz, Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and George Gangas),
Frederick Franz was the only one with any exposure to the biblical languages,
having studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but being
self-taught in Hebrew.  Franz, chairman of the committee, eventually took the
helm of the organization in 1977.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' growth increased dramatically when in 1966 Franz, in
his "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God," determined that "the
seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of
1975 CE (Christian Era)" (p. 29).  This intimation became a full-blown
expectation of Armageddon and the visible establishment of Christ's reign on
earth.  In 1974 many Witnesses even sold their homes and property in
anticipation of the event.  But like all the other dates set by the Watchtower,
1975 came and went uneventfully.

Despite the subsequent disillusionment of many and an internal "purging of
apostates" in the Brooklyn headquarters, the Jehovah's Witnesses still continue
to grow in numbers.  Indicative of this growth is the massive circulation of
"The Watchtower" magazine, a major Witness periodical, which by September of
1990 had ballooned to 13,950,000 copies per issue.

The Jehovah's Witnesses also reject the doctrine of God's triune nature as
portrayed in the Bible.  Let's examine what their Bible, the New World
Translation (NWT) says about God's nature.

Who is Jesus?
-------------
When Jesus came to Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, "Who are men
saying the Son of man is?"  Then He asked His disciples, "YOU, though, who do
You say I am?" - Matthew 16:13,15 (NWT)

Let's start at the very beginning
---------------------------------
1. There is a God.
   Genesis 1:1 (NWT) "In the beginning God..."

2. There is only 1 God.
   Isaiah 44:8b (NWT) "Does there exist a God besides me?  No..."
   (See also Isaiah 43:10-11, 44:6, 45:5).

3. He is identified as Jehovah.
   Isaiah 43:12b (NWT) "'So you are My witnesses,' is the utterance of
   Jehovah, 'and I am God.'"  Isaiah 43:3 (NWT) "For I am Jehovah your God..."

4. He is our father.
   Isaiah 64:8 (NWT) "And, now, O Jehovah, you are our father..."
   (See also Isaiah 63:16, Psalm 89:26).

5. There is only ONE father.
   Ephesians 4:6 (NWT) "One God and Father of all..."

6. God is eternal.
   Psalm 90:2 (NWT) "Before the mountains themselves were born... Even from
   time indefinite to time indefinite you are God."

7. He is identified as the "Mighty God."
   Isaiah 10:21 (NWT) "A mere remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the
     Mighty God."
   Jeremiah 32:18 (ASV) "...the great, the mighty God, Jehovah of hosts is his
     name."

8. God is called the "first and the last."
   Isaiah 44:6 (NWT) "This is what Jehovah has said,...'I am the first and I am
   the last, and besides me there is no God.'"

9. God is the "Alpha and the Omega."
   Revelation 21:5-7 (NWT) "And the one seated on the throne said...I am the
   Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.  To anyone thirsting I will
   give from the fountain of water of life free.  Anyone conquering will
   inherit these things, and I shall be his God and He will be my son."
   (See also Revelation 1:8).

10. God is the "beginning and the end."
   See Scripture quoted above.

11. God is the Lord of lords.
   Deuteronomy 10:17 (NWT) "For Jehovah YOUR God is the God of gods and the Lord
   of lords, the great, might..."

12. God is the creator.
   Isaiah 45:12 (NWT) "I myself have made the earth and have created even man
   upon it.  I--my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of
   them I have commanded."
   Isaiah 45:18 "For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the
   heavens..."

13. God is the ONLY Savior.
   Isaiah 43:11 (NWT) "I--I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior."

14. Jehovah is my shepherd.
   Psalm 23:1a (NWT)

15. Jehovah is the "Rock."
   Isaiah 44:8b (NWT) "...Does there exist a God besides me?  No, there is no
   Rock.  I have recognized none."
   (See also Deuteronomy 32:4).

What does the Scripture really say concerning Jesus?
----------------------------------------------------

When Jesus was talking to his disciples, especially in answer to Philip's
question, He said, "Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip you
have not come to know me?..." - John 14:9a (NWT)

1. Jesus is God.
   Titus 2:13 (NAS) "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory
   of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus."
   2 Peter 1:1 (NAS) "Simon Peter,...to those who have received a faith of the
   same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:"
   (See also John 1:1, 1 John 5:20).

2. Jesus is Jehovah.
   a. In Exodus 3:14, God refers to Himself as "I AM."  This is because "I AM"
      has the same root as Jehovah.  It is from the verb "to be."  In John
      8:51-59, Jesus says, "...before Abraham was born, I AM."  Note: Jesus
      quoted directly from the Septuagint, a translation from the Old
      Testament Hebrew (~300 B.C.) into Greek, the world's language in those
      days.  This version was in common use then.

      So in actuality, Jesus was really saying, "I AM Jehovah!"  Those Jews
      caught the message, for the next verse (59) says, "They took up stones
      therefore to cast at him..." (ASV).  See also John 8:24-28, John 18:5-6
      where Jesus says, "I AM."

   b. In John 10:30-33 we see that the Jews understood Jesus' message.  Verse
      33, "...for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and
      because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (ASV).  See also
      John 5:18.

   c. Peter, in his great sermon on the day of Pentecost quotes Joel, Acts 2:16
      (ASV) "but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel."
      At this point Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32.

      Joel 2:32 (ASV) "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on
      the name of Jehovah shall be delivered.

      Acts 2:21 (ASV) "And it shall be that whosoever shall call on the name of
      the Lord shall be saved."

   d. The New Testament writers quote Isaiah to show that John the Baptist was
      the "voice in the wilderness."  Matthew 3:3a (ASV) "For this is he that
      was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet..."  At this point Isaiah 40:3
      is quoted:

      Isaiah 40:3 (ASV) "The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the
      wilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert a highway for
      our God."

      Matthew 3:3b (ASV) "The voice of one crying in the wilderness.  Make ye
      ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight."

   e. Paul, in Philippians chapter 2, quotes Isaiah 45:23.

      Isaiah 45:23 (ASV) Jehovah speaking, "By myself have I sworn, the word is
      gone forth from my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that
      unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

      Philippians 2:10-11 (ASV) "that in the name of Jesus every knee should
      bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
      and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
      glory of God the Father."

   f. Compare                             With
      Isaiah 43:15     "Holy One"         Mark 1:23, John 6:69, Acts 2:27
      Isaiah 6:1-5,10  "His" Glory        John 12:40-41
      Isaiah 44:6      "Redeemer"         Titus 2:14

3. Jehovah only to be worshiped.
   a. Jesus declares that Jehovah only is to be worshiped in Matthew 4:8 (NWT)
      "Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed
      him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and he said to him,
      'All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of
      worship to me.'"  Then in verse 10, Jesus said to him, "Go away, Satan!
      For it is written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is
      to Him alone you must render sacred service.'"

      NOTICE Hebrews 1:5-6.  For example, to which one of the angels did he ever
      say, "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father?"  And again, "I
      myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son."  But
      when he again brings his first-born into the inhabited earth, He says,
      "And let all God's angels worship Him."

      Luke 4:8 In reply Jesus said to him, "It is written, 'It is Jehovah your
      God you must worship, and it is Him alone you must render sacred
      service.'"

      Revelation 19:10 At that I fell down before his feet to worship him.  But
      He tells me "Be careful!  Do not do that!  All I am is a fellow slave of
      you and your brothers who have the work of witnessing to Jesus.  Worship
      God; for the bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying."

   b. Jehovah says in Exodus 20 that man is to have no other gods before Him.
      "...you must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I
      Jehovah your God..." (NWT)

   c. Yet Jesus was worshiped.
      1. Matthew 8:2 "There came to Him a leper and worshiped Him, saying, if
         thou wilt..."
      2. Matthew 9:18 "There came a ruler and worshiped Him, saying, my
         daughter..."
      3. Matthew 14:33 "And they that were in the boat worshiped Him, saying,
         'Of a truth thou art...'"
      4. Matthew 15:25 "But she came and worshiped Him saying, 'Lord help me'"
      5. Matthew 20:20 "Then came to Him the mother of the sons of Zebedee with
         her sons, worshiping Him, and asking..."
      6. Matthew 28:9 "And behold, Jesus met them, saying, 'All hail." And they
         came and took hold of His feet, and worshiped Him."
      7. Matthew 28:17 "And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him..."

   d. What was Paul and Barnabas' attitude when the people started saying, "The
      gods are come down to us in the likeness of men?"  Acts 14:11  "They
      rent their garments and sprang forth among the multitude crying out...We
      also are men of like passions with you..." Acts 14:14-15.

   e. What happened to Herod in Acts 12:21 when "Herod arrayed himself in royal
      apparel, and sat on the throne, and make an oration unto them.  And the
      people shouted, saying, 'The voice of a god, and not of a man.'
      Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the
      glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."

   f. Thomas, finally, when he believed said, "My Lord and my God."  Did Jesus
      correct him?  No, he blessed him.

   g. Notice Revelation 19:10.  Was John to worship an angel?  NO!
      "...Worship God..."

   NOTE: John 1:1 says that the Word, Jesus, was god!  This is an accurate
   translation, and in strict harmony with the rules of Greek grammar.  See any
   competent Greek Grammar, for example: "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
   Testament" by Dana and Mantey, p. 138-140, and "Essentials of New Testament
   Greek by Summers," p. 129-130.

   The title "Son of God" (although it can mean relationship) can mean, and in
   several cases does mean that "He, Jesus, was a manifestation of God in human
   form."  ("An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words" by W.E. Vine, p.
   48).

Some people say that God created Jesus, according to Revelation 3:14 and
Colossians 1:45.  The Greek contradicts this teaching clearly.  So do the
Scriptures.  See Isaiah 43:10.  The use of the word Lord can be applied to
Jehovah in the Old Testament.  See Isaiah 65:13, and is used in reference to to
BOTH God, and Jesus in the New Testament.  In 2 parallel passages, one writer
uses "Lord" and one uses "God," yet Ephesians 4:5 says there is ONE Lord.  (Mark
5:19 and Luke 8:39).

4. Jesus is identified as the "Father."
   Isaiah 9:6 (NWT) "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son
   given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder, and his
   name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince
   of Peace." (only one Father - Ephesians 4:6).

5. Jesus is eternal (everlasting).
   Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which are little to be among the
   thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be
   ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting." (ASV)

6. Jesus is identified as the "Mighty God."
   see Isaiah 9:6 above.

7. Jesus is the first and the last.  Jesus is the "Alpha and the Omega."
   Jesus is the "beginning and the end."

   Revelation 22:12-13 (NWT)  "Look!  I am coming quickly, [who is coming
   quickly? see verse 16,20] and the reward I give is with me, to render each
   one as his work is.  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last,
   the beginning and the end."

8. Jesus is the Lord of lords.
   Revelation 17:14 (NWT) "These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is
   Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them..."

9. Jesus is the creator.
   Colossians 1:16 (ASV) "for in Him [Jesus] were all things created, in the
   heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether
   thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been
   created through him, and unto him;"  (See also John 1:1-4 and Hebrews 1:1-3).

10. Jesus is the Savior.
   1 John 4:14 (NWT) "In addition, we ourselves have beheld and are bearing
   witness that the Father has sent forth His Son as Savior of the world."

   Acts 4:12 (NWT) "Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there
   is not another name under heaven that has been given among me by which we
   must get saved."

11. Jesus is the Shepherd.
   John 10:11 (NWT) Jesus speaking, "I am the fine shepherd; the fine shepherd
   surrenders his soul in behalf of the sheep."

   Hebrews 13:20 (NWT) "Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead
   the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an everlasting covenant,
   our Lord Jesus."

12. Jesus is the Rock.
   1 Corinthians 10:4 (ASV) "and did all drink of the same spiritual drink; for
   they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ."
   (see also Romans 9:33, 1 Peter 2:6-8, Matthew 16:18).

    
    I was speaking with a member of my church who had been a Jehovah's 
    Witness for many years and asked her to describe what enabled her to
    break with them and how they viewed outsiders, especially other
    "Christians".
    
    She described her own pivot point as being the lack of sense in the
    JW's concept of the goats, great crowd, and little flock.  A fellow
    JW member and her began to discuss this concept causing more doubt in
    them both.  She was witnessing to a Methodist minister once who was
    patient and kind with her but who was capable of explaining to her an
    orthodox Christian view of the biblical goats, great crowd, and little
    flock.  This made much more sense to her than the JW's explanation. 
    She broke from the JW very soon after.
    
    non-JW Christians are what JW's call "Christendom".  They are not
    really Christians at all.  Only JW's are truly Christians.
    
    I praise God that he can draw anyone he chooses out of any situation no
    matter how powerful.
    
    jeff

    Jill, (and others) if you have access to the WWW, you might want to
    check out the site http://www.ultranet.com/~comments/
    
    It's a ministry of ex-JW's to JW members.
    
    Mike

    Here's the relevant portion of a mailing-list exchange I came across; 
    perhaps this will also be useful to someone.
    
-----
    
>>Do not even the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses baptize in the name
>>of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?   Certainly their theology is
>>heretical, but the formula they use is not.  Are their baptism
>>valid too?

>I do not believe that the JW's baptize w/ the Trinitarian formula, it
>would seem inconsistent w/ what I know of their errors.

It would seem inconsistent to us that they would, but they do not
understand the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a Trinitarian way --
so they have no problem using it with their heretical understanding
of it.

In one of my encounters with Jehovah's Witnesses I asked one of them
about their views on this.  And finally asked him point blank, "So
you Baptize in the name of God the Father, a created being, and an
impersonal force?"  He gave no answer, but if they did not baptize this
way, he would have had an easy come back -- "No!"    The problem is
that Christ said very clearly to baptize in the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit -- so they can't just dismiss it out of hand, they
instead redefine it.

-----
    
    Dick

    The latest CRI newsletter contained some info about a prophecy that
    Watchtower recently rejected and have dropped from their support. 
    Anyone recall the details?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

re .7

Dick,

Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses have a different understanding on what
is meant by baptising "in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the holy spirit.". The best way of helping you to
understand our viewpoint, is the term "in the name of the law".
Now if a statement like "In the name of the Queen of England and 
the law" one wouldn't neccessarily interpret that the "law" was
a person, rather what it stands for, it's authority.

For example, as you know we view God's holy spirit as his "active 
force" (Compare Genesis 1:2) which he uses to make things happen 
remotely from his residence in heaven. Now Bible writers bore 
witness that they were moved by holy spirit in their writing 
(1 Peter 1:20,21) which in turn gives the Bible authority as being 
God's Word and not man's (thorough study and application confirms
this). Those being baptised would have to recognise this otherwise 
they would not be allowed to be baptised as a Jehovah's Witness,
that is the Bible is indeed God's Word. 

Hope this helps 

Phil.

    Phil, the Bible also calls the Holy Spirit "God," not a force.  Acts
    5:3-4, Isaiah 63:10, Job 33:4, Psalm 139:7.
    
    Mike

re .10

Mike,

Thanks for posting the verses. If you feel such verses are solid 
argument for your interpretation then fine, but I was far from
convinced.

Phil.

Acts 5:3-4

	Peter told Ananias that Ananias had "lied to the Holy Spirit".
One can "resist" an impersonal force, but not lie to it.  From this we
know that the Holy Spirit is a Person with an Intellect.

Isaiah 63:10

	"Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit.  So he turned
and became their enemy, and he himself fought against them."  From this
we know that the Holy Spirit is a Person with Emotions.

Job 33:4

	"The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me
life."  This verse, taken in isolation, does not seem to indicate whether
the Holy Spirit is a person, as far as I can tell.

Psalm 139:7

	"Where can I go from your Spirit?  Where can I flee from your
presence?"  This strongly implies a connection between the Spirit of God
and the presence of God.

	Here are some more verses.  Feel free to debate/discuss them.
Sorry, though, "I was not convinced" is not a very persuasive argument.
I happen to be using NIV.  Yes, I have done some checking for accurate
translation.

Genesis 6:3

	"My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his
days will be a hundred and twenty years."  "Contend" here can mean rule,
judge (as umpire), strive (as at law), contend, execute (judgement), judge,
administer judgement, plead (the cause), strive.

John 4:24

	"God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in
truth."  "PNEUMA O THEOS"; a spirit God [is].

John 14:26

	"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have
said to you."

Acts 13:2

	"While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit
said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have
called them.'"

Romans 8:16

	"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's
children."

II Corinthians 3:17

	"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom."  "O DE KURIOS TO PNEUMA ESTIN"; now the Lord the Spirit
is.

Ephesians 2:22

	"And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling
in which God lives by his Spirit."

Ephesians 4:30

	"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were
sealed for the day of redemption."

Hebrews 10:29

	"How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished
who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy
thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted
the Spirit of grace?"

Revelation 2:7

	"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the
churches.  To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree
of life, which is in the paradise of God."

Revelation 22:17

	"The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!'  And let him who hears say,
'Come!'  Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take
the free gift of the water of life."

      Hi Phil,
    
        While I do differ significant theologically with you in certain
        standpoints I was very impressed with the courtesy of your reply.
        (Especially given the context of how the denomination you belong 
        to is being described.)
    
        As to the general discussion...I think when any group has a certain  
        position that everyone knows stands very contrary to what most
        others believe, it might be better not to discuss that position.
        For some reason, I am most attracted to discussing the humanity of
        Jesus Christ with Witnesses, i.e. showing them that Jesus took 
        fallen, sinful flesh in the incarnation.
    
        I think its probably refreshing for them not to get knocked over
        the head over the deity of Jesus Christ issue!
    
    						Take Care and God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    
     Regarding note 903.1 .. I found it interesting you quoted the "JW"
    book references but not the Bible regferences contained in those books
    to support the doctrine; yet you then cite your viewpoint using Bible
    scripture. Kind of puts an off light on the "JW" doctrine unless
    someone cared to look up your reference books. So.... If anyone if 
    interested in researching the quoted "JW" doctrine contact me off-line
    and I'll try to provide the reference material quoted in 903.1.
     Regarding 903.2; I don't agree with all of the definitions provided.
    If you want to know how "JW"'s define something; ask them when they 
    come visting you.
    
       robin - a Jehovah's Witness
    

    
    Again; some of the facts stated aren't accurate.. I.E. The number of
    Jehovah's Witnesses. In the January 1st, 1996 issue of the Watchtower
    magazine there is a report of the 1995 Service Year of Jehovah's
    Witnesses Worldwide. It breaks out the various countries and also
    provides a total. As of this report there was a peak of 5,199,895
    publishers in 132 countries with an average of 4,865,060 Bible Studies
    being conducted. No doubt the numbers have increased since then; with
    Jehovah's blessing and direction.
    
    robin

    Re: .15
    
    Robin, the Bible *IS* the source that contrasts the JW writings.
    
    Re: Mr. Sampson
    
    The Apostle Peter said in Acts 5 that when you lie to the Holy Spirit,
    you lie to God (try NAS or KJV versions).  You can't get any clearer
    than that.
    
    Mike

Phil,

I heard recently that JW's beleive that everyone who calls themselves a
 christian but is not a JW is demon possessed. 

I don't know if I got this exactly right so could you clarify this for
me?

Thx,
ace

	_Demon_possessed?_




                                                                
  ,                            /\                               
 ||   '                       ||                      _         
=||= \\ \\/\\/\\  _-_        =||=  /'\\ ,._-_        < \, \\/\\ 
 ||  || || || || || \\        ||  || ||  ||          /-|| || || 
 ||  || || || || ||/          ||  || ||  ||         (( || || || 
 \\, \\ \\ \\ \\ \\,/         \\, \\,/   \\,         \/\\ \\ \\ 
                                                                


                                                     
	   ,- _~,                                          /\ 
	  (' /| / ,                       '                \/ 
	 ((  ||/= \\ /`  /'\\ ,._-_  _-_ \\  _-_, \\/\\/\\ }{ 
	 ((  ||    \\   || ||  ||   ||   || ||_.  || || || \/ 
	  ( / |    /\\  || ||  ||   ||   ||  ~ || || || ||    
	   -____- /  \; \\,/   \\,  \\,/ \\ ,-_-  \\ \\ \\ <> 
                                                     
                                                     

	Re: .17:

>The Apostle Peter said in Acts 5 that when you lie to the Holy Spirit,
>you lie to God (try NAS or KJV versions).  You can't get any clearer
>than that.
    
	Can't believe I missed that!  Thanks, Mike, for pointing it out.
Any discussion on the other verses?

re .18

Ace,

;I heard recently that JW's beleive that everyone who calls themselves a
; christian but is not a JW is demon possessed. 

;I don't know if I got this exactly right so could you clarify this for
;me?

We do believe people can be demon possessed, there are Bible passages
that show this, however we don't believe that all those that profess 
to be Christian and are not Jehovah's Witnesses are so. But, I need 
to clarify that by saying that we do believe they are being misled 
and or influenced by Satan the Devil (compare 2 Corinthians 4:4, 
Revelation 12:9). Likely, you feel the same way about Jehovah's
Witnesses.

Phil.

Hi Phil,

Thanks for the clarification.

Ace

Acts 5:3-4
5:3  But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the
 Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
5:4  Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it
 not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?
 thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

|	Peter told Ananias that Ananias had "lied to the Holy Spirit".
|One can "resist" an impersonal force, but not lie to it.  From this we
|know that the Holy Spirit is a Person with an Intellect.

    As I said, verse 4 shows that when you lie to the Holy Spirit, you lie
    to God.  Thus they have to be the same being.
    
Isaiah 63:10
63:10  But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to
 be their enemy, and he fought against them.

|	"Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit.  So he turned
|and became their enemy, and he himself fought against them."  From this
|we know that the Holy Spirit is a Person with Emotions.
    
    Check the use of the pronouns in this verse and verse 11.  It's is
    God's own Spirit!  See also John 4:24.  God is the one performing the
    action here.

Job 33:4
33:4  The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given
 me life.

|	"The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me
|life."  This verse, taken in isolation, does not seem to indicate whether
|the Holy Spirit is a person, as far as I can tell.
    
    Who is the Creator?  The Holy Spirit or God?  The answer is both, they
    are the same person.  He has breathed into the dust that we are and
    given us life.  His fingerprint is on the soul of every person and
    contains a yearning for a personal relationship that only He can
    satisfy.

Psalm 139:7
139:7  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy
 presence?
139:8  If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell,
 behold, thou art there.

|	"Where can I go from your Spirit?  Where can I flee from your
|presence?"  This strongly implies a connection between the Spirit of God
|and the presence of God.
    
    Here the Holy Spirit is shown to have omnipresence, a characteristics
    that only God is supposed to have.  Therefore, they are the same being.
    
    There is much to be found in God's precious Word when we dive into the
    text and analyze it!  Always ask: 1.) What is it saying?  2.) What does
    it mean?  3.) How does it apply to me?  
    
    From the above we know that we have a God who loved and cared for us so
    much that He personally performed the work of salvation for us so that
    we may be saved by simply acknowledign Him or who He is!  It wasn't
    just a son, or a spirit that saves and ministers to us.  They are
    manifestations of the same Almighty God!
    
    Mike

	Do you have anything to say about the other verses that I selected?

    Of the others you posted, I think these verses do a fine job of speaking 
    for themselves.
    
John 4:24
	"God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in
truth."  "PNEUMA O THEOS"; a spirit God [is].

II Corinthians 3:17
	"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom."  "O DE KURIOS TO PNEUMA ESTIN"; now the Lord the Spirit
is.

Ephesians 2:22
	"And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling
in which God lives by his Spirit."

Ephesians 4:30
	"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were
sealed for the day of redemption."

Revelation 22:17
	"The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!'  And let him who hears say,
'Come!'  Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take
the free gift of the water of life."

    I hadn't noticed this one before, but usually the Lamb or Christ is
    associated with the Bride.  Here you have the Spirit, yet another
    implication of the compound unity.
    
    Mike

Acts 20:28  
    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
 which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which
 he hath purchased with his own blood.
    
    When did God shed His blood to purchase the church?  Obviously He did
    it on the cross.

john 20:28 "...my Lord and my God"




 

RE:    <<< Note 903.21 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>

	Please see 219.125

	God's peace.

	TonyC

re .28

  TonyC,

  I do remember reading this note 219.125, did you want me to comment
  on it? for I don't see the relevance between note 903.21 and your
  note 219.125.

  Phil.

RE:    <<< Note 903.29 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>

	Sorry, Phil, it wasn't 903.21 to which I was referring.

	Regards,
		TonyC

	RE: 903.30

	I had meant to respond to "Note 903.9 by RDGENG::YERKESS"

	Apparently, you will remain unmoved.  I do admire your tenacity.

	Peace to you and yours,
		TonyC
		

re .31

;	Apparently, you will remain unmoved.  I do admire your tenacity.

	TonyC,

	Thank you for your compliment, but I owe this to the teachings
	of Jehovah's Witnesses and the love and things learnt from my 
	brothers & sisters.

	I am impressed by your strong convictions as well, and in your
	note 219.125 I feel you convey the seriousness of choosing the
	correct doctrine in this case. Having been brought up in the
	Church of England and much later becoming one of Jehovah's
	Witnesses I have learnt to follow Jesus' teaching in that by
	their fruit you will know them (Mathhew 7:20). To me, good
	fruit is a tangible sign that one is following true doctrine. 
	The love experienced from brothers and sisters, earthwide, has
 	been a major factor that gives me confidence that I have made
	the right choice (John 13:34,35). Further I have come to realise
	the futility of long drawn out debates on doctrine, so I don't
	feel I need to give an answer to all the comments made in this 
	and other note strings. Even so, thank you for your concern.

	Phil.

RE:  <<< Note 903.32 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>

>>	Further I have come to realise
>>	the futility of long drawn out debates on doctrine,

	Amen.

                But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and
                contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are
                unprofitable and vain.
		-- Titus 3:9

        However, the doctrine of the true nature of God, and Messiah, and
        the Spirit of God, can mean the difference between eternal life and
        eternal death.  

        As for brothers and sisters in the Lord, I know what you mean.
        Wherever we go, we have a home.  I have seen this on business trips
        and in other travels.  We have never wanted for love or a place to
        refresh ourselves or even a place to stay a spell.  And we enjoy
        providing hospitality to our brothers and sisters, as well.  We
	don't even have a denominational tag.  In fact, we differ in
	practise from many of our brothers and sisters.

        But what we have most in common is salvation by grace alone through
        faith alone in Christ alone.

	God's peace to you,
		Tony

re .33

;        However, the doctrine of the true nature of God, and Messiah, and
;        the Spirit of God, can mean the difference between eternal life and
;        eternal death.  


	Tony,

	Fully agree with your statement (John 17:3), and therefore I respect 
        your position eventhough I disagree with the Trinity doctrine.

	What confuses me, is that many speak of the Trinity as a mystery that
	one cannot understand and yet eternal life depends on knowing the
	true nature of God. Being the type of God he is, one would expect that
	he would make clear statements about his true nature which we believe
	he does. This would be especially true for the nation of Israel
	eg Deuteronomy 6:4.

;        As for brothers and sisters in the Lord, I know what you mean.
;        Wherever we go, we have a home.  I have seen this on business trips
;        and in other travels.  We have never wanted for love or a place to
;        refresh ourselves or even a place to stay a spell.  And we enjoy
;        providing hospitality to our brothers and sisters, as well.  We
;	don't even have a denominational tag.  In fact, we differ in
;	practise from many of our brothers and sisters.

	It's good to hear that you display a spirit of hospitality. I hope
	you don't mind me asking you a question, what would happen if conflicts
	arise between countries. Where would ones loyality be, with ones 
	country or brothers and sisters in the foreign land ?.
 
	Phil.

RE:    <<< Note 903.34 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>

>>	What confuses me, is that many speak of the Trinity as a mystery that
>>	one cannot understand and yet eternal life depends on knowing the
>>	true nature of God. Being the type of God he is, one would expect that

        God's trichotomous nature is not a mystery, having been revealed
        quite extensively in the Scripture. Here is Deuteronomy 6:4 with
        phonetic Hebrew where God's name and titles appear.

		Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our Elohim is one Adonai.

	Elohim is plural, Yahweh and Adonai are singular, and the verb form
	is singular.

	Indeed, Yahweh is One Adonai, and He is Elohim.

		For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
		the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name
		shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The
		everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
		Isaiah 9:6

	Messiah is "the mighty God, the everlasting Father".  Shows
	divinity to me.
		
        We are made in the likeness and image of Yahweh Elohim.  We are
        manifest in three parts: body, soul, and spirit.  Each of these has
        a will of its own.  To see your body's will in action, try dieting. 
        To observe the workings of the will of your soul (mind), try
        redirecting your thoughts.  To see the working of your spirit's
        will, experience the joy when you are unified, however briefly,
        with the Spirit of God.   We ourselves are trichotomous beings. 
        Indeed, this is a mystery.  But the trichotomous nature of God is
        not a mystery.

        You have probably heard all these things and many others before and
        are quite bored with them, having, I'm sure, very acute and
        intellectual responses to all of them.  Not to disparage intellect,
        but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the
        wise.  Whose wisdom is being applied to these things?  Man's or
        God's?

                For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit
                of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth
                no man, but the Spirit of God.

                Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the
                spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that
                are freely given to us of God.

                Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's
                wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
                comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

                But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
                of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
                know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

                But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself
                is judged of no man.

                For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may
                instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
		-- 1st Corinthians 2:11-16
			    
        For the record, I do not celebrate Christmas or Easter.  I do
        observe the feasts and Sabbaths ordained by God.  And while I am
        not afraid to eat the shewbread, I don't believe that it should be
        a steady diet, either.  Neither do I condemn any for not living as
        I do, as my attempts at obedience and holiness are clumsy and puny
        at best. For God, it must be like a father watching his toddler son
        try to help carry firewood into the house. Nevertheless, obedience
        originates from a heart that seeks after the things of God.

>>	It's good to hear that you display a spirit of hospitality. I hope
>>	you don't mind me asking you a question, what would happen if conflicts
>>	arise between countries. Where would ones loyality be, with ones 
>>	country or brothers and sisters in the foreign land ?.

        My loyalty is to Christ, not to nations or flags.  I am inclined
        towards non-participation, seeing that "the most high ruleth in the
        kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up
        over it the basest of men."  

		This world is not my own, I'm just a-passing through.
		My treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue.
		The angels beckon me from Heaven's open door,
		And I can't feel at home in this world anymore.

		(from an old spiritual, with apologies to the Copyright
		owners, if there be any)

	God's peace,
		TonyC

    re: Deut. 6:4 (Sh'ma of Israel)
    
    as noted before the one here is "echad" for compound unity, not 
    "ychad" for the number one.
    
    Mike

re .35

	Tony,

;        You have probably heard all these things and many others before and
;        are quite bored with them, having, I'm sure, very acute and
;        intellectual responses to all of them.

	Not really, my problem is that I have never received satisfactory answers.
	Take for example:


;		Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our Elohim is one Adonai.

;	Elohim is plural, Yahweh and Adonai are singular, and the verb form
;	is singular.

;	Indeed, Yahweh is One Adonai, and He is Elohim.

	Now as I understand the trinity doctrine, God is one God. Now Elohim is 
	translated God, no?, so by saying Elohim is plural, in the sense of more 
	than one, one isn't teaching the trinity doctrine at all, for there is 
	one God not a number of God's or am I misunderstanding what is being said?. 
	If I have the correct understanding on the trinity, then I would expect
	this verse to speak of plural in persons, yet Yahweh (Or Jehovah) our
	God is one Yahweh (Adonai, came from a tradition of the Scribes who 
	eventually replaced God's name the Tetragrammaton.) This scripture tells
	me that God is one person and has a personal name. 

	Btw, Elohim can be explained as an intensive plural, denoting Jehovah's
	greatness and majesty. Rather like the royal "we", eg Queen Victoria's 
	is often quoted as having said "We are not amused". If you want further
	proof that it can be singular, then check out "Dagon their god [eloheh]"
	Judges 16:23,24, Baal is called "a god [elohim]" and Moses was told to
	serve as "God [elohim]" to Aaron and to Pharoah Exodus 4:16;7:1.

	Phil. 

	Resource material is a brochure "Should You Believe In The Trinity"

RE:    <<< Note 903.37 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>

>>	Resource material is a brochure "Should You Believe In The Trinity"

	Dear Phil,

	The following is not meant as an attack on you, neither is it meant
	to injure you.  In my heart I pray that you can be moved into
	submitting your evident intellectual strengths to the guidance of
	the Holy Ghost.

        Please seek your resource material from the Bible under the
        guidance of the Holy Ghost, in prayerful submission, not from an
        organization whose prophecies have demonstrably failed, one of
        whose ostensible translators could not correctly render a primitive
        Hebrew phrase in a courtroom.

        The closest phonetic rendering of the Holy Name is YaHWeH, not
	Jehovah.  

        My first loyalty must be to Messiah, not to a denomination, or
        organization, or congregation, or nation, or flag, or community, or
        job, or even family.  If I can keep the first and greatest
        commandment, then I will be able honorably and correctly to keep
        the second, which is like unto it.

	God's peace to you,
		TonyC
	

       I think the "Trinity" is a mystery to us in so much as it is outside
       our experiential knowledge.  Something we cannot quite grasp because 
       there is nothing like it in our day to day experience.  We try to draw
       analogies, such as a person is body, mind, and spirit, but none of the 
       analogies I've heard quite fit.  Infinity is also outside my experience.
       Vastness I can grasp, infinity has a mystery to it.

       Leslie

RE:     <<< Note 903.39 by CPCOD::JOHNSON "A rare blue and gold afternoon" >>>

	Well said, Leslie.

	Amen.

	TonyC
	

    How many parts in an egg?  How many eggs does that make?

re .39


; We try to draw analogies, such as a person is body, mind, 
; and spirit, but none of the analogies I've heard quite fit. 

   Leslie,

   Which begs the question, why use them? for we are told that
   "God is a spirit" John 4:24 and being made of flesh this is
   difficult to comprehend. Therefore, throughout the Bible God 
   describes himself in terms that we can comprehend. Why the 
   need to go beyond this? for the answers to the knowledge of
   God are contained in the Bible, we don't need to look or
   explain from elsewhere.

   Phil.

RE:    <<< Note 903.42 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>
     -< Need not be a mystery, in fact it's vital it's not (compare John >-

        And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
        manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
        preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up
        into glory.
	-- 1st Timothy 3:16

re .43

Tony,

Yes, for 4 Thousand years since the fall of Adam, godly devotion was
a mystery or a sacred secret. However, God is a revealer of secrets
(Daniel 2:20,21) and through his Son, Jesus Christ, godliness was
revealed to us. In fact, Jesus left a model for all his disciples
to follow his steps closely (1 Peter 2:21). So I'm not sure what
point your making as this is no longer a mystery for Jesus' 
disciples as brought out by the Apostle Paul. Also consider verse 
15 as well as 1 Timothy 3:16 for Paul was exhorting Timothy on how
he should conduct himself. So by studying Jesus' life and ministry
and applying his teachings and following his example, godliness 
(or godly devotion) will not be a mystery for as brought out by 
John 17:3 knowing the one God sent forth, Jesus Christ, is as vital 
as having the knowledge of the only true God.

Btw most modern translations, translate "God was manifest in the
flesh" as "He was manifested in the flesh," RSV the foot note reads
"Greek Who; other ancient authorities read God; other Which".  It's
my understanding that for many years the Alexandrine codex, currently
in the British museum, caused much controversy over this as it 
conflicted with the trinity doctrine in this case and how the KJV
rendered this verse. Until in modern times and older manuscripts were 
found confirming it's accuracy.

Phil. 

    G'day ... On a side-issue ...
    
    Re: Note 903.42 by RDGENG::YERKESS
    
>   Which begs the question, why use them? [analogies]
    
    Analogies are used to verify the understanding of a truth during
    communication.  They are never complete; if they were they would cease
    to be analogies and would be the truth.  There is no difference between
    a complete analogy and the truth.
    
    In forums such as this, where participants time and desire for
    effective communication is limited, analogies serve to increase the
    rate of communication at the cost of small recoverable errors.
    
    They are also excellent devices for proving or disproving the existence
    of common definitions of words.  It is common for an analogy to be
    rejected due to a disparity in a word definition.
    
    Here is a definition of the word "analogy" from Websters on the web...
    
    anal.o.gy \*-'nal-*-je-\ n[oun] 1: inference that if two or more things
    agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
    2: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike :
    SIMILARITY [...]
    
    James

re .45

James,

To clarify, I'm not advocating that one shouldn't use analogies, 
I use them all the time, it's just that many that are put forward 
for the trinity doctrine have little if any resemblance, eg Mike's 
egg anology. Though there might be 3 parts to an egg, but there 
certainly isn't 3 distinct personalities or similar. Well that's 
my opinion, though I'm sure many of you will differ.

The main thrust of my reply, was that God has already described
himself in terms that we can comprehend shouldn't any analogy 
that we use be based on this?, eg God is like a loving father. 

Phil.

    Re: Note 903.46 by RDGENG::YERKESS
    
    I agree, Phil.

RE:   <<< Note 903.44 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>

	Hi, again, Phil.

        So be it.  It is up to the Holy Ghost to reach you.  

	And thanks for the confirmation that it's a good idea to shun "most
	modern versions."
	
	There's no room for doubt of what 1st Timothy 3:16 means in the AV.

                Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted,
                and were destroyed of serpents.
		--1st Corinthians 10:9

		For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
		-- Colossians 2:9
		
	Peace,
		TonyC

  Hi,

    My $0.02 on the divinity of Christ.

    I believe the Father foreknew the sin problem.  He knew that part of
    redemption required one who would walk as man walked and render a 
    perfect obedience "even unto death," a death much more than physical
    death.

    This one would thus have to depend entirely by faith in the Father.

    Foreknowing all of this (and much more), the Father gave birth to the
    Son.  I believe that essence of divine essence proceeded forth from
    the Father and there was the Son.  (I think Micah has a verse on this.)

    As divine essence is preexistent, even though I believe the Father
    caused the Son to proceed forth from Him, the Son, being of same essence
    of the Father had the same characteristics - one of which is preexistence.

    Freely, a mystery I cannot fathom; I just accept.

    Why give birth to the Son?  Because God must do two things.  He must 
    be that actual demonstration of His love *AND* be One in whom that
    demonstration must rely on in faith!

    Eventually, the Son is incarnated as a man; emptied of ALL divine
    attributes (I believe), but faith reliant on the Father from His 
    incarnation.  There are NO divine qualities to be seen in Jesus at this
    time as He must (and does) walk AS A MAN.  (And here I must say it is
    incorrect to assert Jesus is not divine on the basis of His humanity
    during His earthly ministry.)

    What is the main point to me???

    Paul longed for us to comprehend agape.

    Did God Himself suffer to be made a curse or did He have a created 
    being do so?

    The thing that grips my heart most is the condescension of Christ.  
    If from one who is "one like God," this condescension is infinite.
    Agape is so much more appreciated where it is more correctly under-
    stood.  If Christ was a created being, his condescension is from
    finite to 'lesser' finite - or a finite condescension.  As He is God,
    His condescnsion is from infinite to finite or infinity.

    Thus, the doctrine that Jesus is not God produces a condescension that
    is finite while the doctrine that Jesus is God produces a condescension
    that is infinite.  

    Those (ultimately) are the scales I see.  Appreciation, among other
    things, is dependent on degree of agape seen which is dependent among
    other things on condescension seen.

    Appreciation must suffer correspondingly (with the Jesus is not God
    belief).

    Righteousness by faith is smothered for faith rests on so little.

    The main point of condescension that grips me is not Christ emptying
    Himself of omnipotence or omnipresence or omniscience.  It is Christ,
    who is of essence "agape", being willing to feel from the top of
    His head to the tip of His toes to be the most evil, wretched, vile
    creature on the face of the universe.  Unbelievable.  What contradiction
    of sinners against Himself!  To be love and thus find sin all the
    more repulsive and yet to feel to be the most heinous sinner (yet 
    without sin).  This is like an overload to my mind!

    I also believe there is a reality implicit in the existence of sin
    and righteousness (and sinful flesh).  And that Jesus had to be God
    so that He could show that even He is bound to this reality - which
    is the perceptual fact that if one has sin in the heart, seeing love
    causes sin to be revealed and pain is a sure inevitable result.  Having
    sinful flesh (being made sin), Jesus felt to be that sinner when all
    the lusts and passions of the flesh He took were exposed.  Thus He
    could feel to be that sinner and yet be without sin.

    Anyway, the doctrine that Jesus is not God hits the jugular of 
    Christian belief for it obliterates any right conception of the
    agape of Christ.

    It just lays it low.

							Tony

    Simple observation of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ shows that
    this was no simple man.  It's illogical to believe that He wasn't God
    just based on the many things that He did that no man could do.  I've
    had 6 year olds logically deduce on their own that He must be God just
    because He went 40 days without eating and drinking.
    
    Mike

> I've had 6 year olds logically deduce on their own that He must be God just
>   because He went 40 days without eating and drinking.

The 40 days without eating part isn't all that remarkable.  But while 40 days
without water certainly cannot be done without God's intervention, it doesn't
mean you have to be God to do it.  Moses did it.  (Ex 34:28).

Besides, it doesn't say that Jesus didn't drink, only that He didn't eat.

Paul

    Yeah, that is a technicality worth mentioning ;-)  Messiah did succeed
    where Moses failed though.  Moses didn't walk on water, God had to part
    it for him ;-)

      Peter walked on water tho.  
    
      If the Father was willing, He could certainly enable Jesus to
      walk on water if Jesus was faithful.
    
      Jesus said, "Of Mine own self, I can do [How much?] NOTHING."
      Hebrews says He learned obedience by the things which He
      suffered (not by being divine) and also says He was made
      perfect through suffering.  It also says He is our *faithful*
      High Priest.
    
      We can look at all things Jesus did while on earth.  Whether
      the Father worked out all things through Jesus as Jesus was
      entirely faith-reliant on His Father or whether Jesus did it
      via His own innate divinity, I think we can all agree that
      all things He did we do-able either way.
      
      I choose to rest my faith on the word which quotes Jesus 
      Himself stating, "I can of Mine own self do nothing."
    
    						Tony

    the tomb is empty

    Actually Mike, Hebrews tells me that we need to consider our High
    Priest (3:1/8:1).  The context (such as Heb 2,5) includes Jesus
    suffering in the days of His flesh - and enduring.
    
    Before a group inhabits Mount Zion, its 'consideration' of its 
    faithful High Priest will be sufficiently mature such that it will
    clearly know whether Jesus endured in the days of His flesh as a
    result of His innate divinity or whether He endured as a result
    of complete faith reliance on His Father.
    
    						Tony

Re: .1  (Mike Heiser)

Regarding your comment about the "empty tomb" in .-2, that reminds me...

>JW - Jesus Christ arose from the grave as a spirit person, Jehovah allowing
>     Him to materialize a different body in which to appear to His disciples

I claim that this is actually an inaccurate statement of what they believe.
I have taken a stronger stand by stating that they do not really believe that
Jesus rose from the grave at all, and I debated Phil Yerkess, Larry Ross, and
Steve Hayes at length on the subject in ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6 note 23.* ("Do
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus rose?"). 

The basis for my stand is the fact that they deny that either Jesus' body, or
Jesus' soul, or Jesus' spirit rose up the grave.  In reality, they depict the
man Jesus as having been replaced by the archangel Michael, effectively
re-created _ex nihilo_ from God's "memory".  I insist that "replacement"
or "re-creation" is something different from "resurrection".  "Resurrection"
means to bring to life something that died.  Since to the Jehovah's Witness
nothing that died rose, it is at best a misuse of the English language and at
worst outright deceptive for them to claim that they believe in the
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the most central docrine of
the Christian faith. 

As my time to contribute to this conference is currently very limited, I urge
the interested reader to refer to the exhaustive discussion on this point in
ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6 note 23.*, and not reply on this point unless you have
something new to add. 

      Why is it that most people, when referring to the death and
      resurrection of Christ refer to His physical death and resur-
      rection and not the *spiritual* one that preceded???
    
      Jesus' death was feeling the full weight of sin.  His resurrection
      was conquering the overwhelming temptation to despair by faith
      and in subsequently achieving perfect peace and commending His
      entire being to the Father.
    
      All this took place while Jesus was conscious on the cross.
    
      God's word is spirit.  The physical death and resurrection are
      physical schoolmasters (object lessons if you will) pointing to
      other realities.
    
    						Tony

Re: .57  (Tony Barbieri)

Huh??

    Hi, Tony.
    
    Would you provide the Scripture references from which your
    understanding of Christ's spiritual resurrection derives?
    
    Thanks.
    
    /Wayne

re .56 Garth's comments

Mike's comments are fairly accurate to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

Though I know Garth contends this, and to be honest I can't understand
why. We believe that God resurrects, raises up, the person that died.
As Job once said "O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou
wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest
appoint me a set time, and remember me!" Job 14:13 KJV. Now Job's body
has under gone corruption and may even be part of other living organisms.
But our bodies aren't important for our cells are dieing and being 
replaced all the time. It's the person, his thoughts, his personalty the
inner person, that Job wanted his God to remember. Many persons have died
from diabilitating diseases, would a loving God resurrect a person into
the same body they died with?. It would seem reasonable that God would
raise persons up in bodies that are healthy but even so would resemble 
the person whom died (yes, we have a different view with Jesus but he was 
raised a spirit person and his perfect human body was given as a
sacrifice, compare Hebrews 10:5-10.)

Jesus, existed long before he became a human. so his existence as a
person is not dependent on having a certain body whether physical or 
spiritual. So just to correct Garth's understanding, we believe that 
Jesus was Michael the archangel before he came to earth and continued 
to be so after his resurrection to the heavenly realm. Even so we still
refer to him as Jesus.

Further, we have different understandings on what is a soul and spirit.
For example, Garth speaks of Jesus as having a soul yet we believe that
each person or animal *is* a soul, that is the whole breathing person
or animal. Once the person ceases to breath that is dies, then the
person ceases to be a living soul hence is deceased. For proof, that
the Bible teaches that we *are* souls rather than having a soul, check
out the Genesis 2:7 KJV "And the LORD God planted the man of dust of
the ground, and breathed into his notrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul." When we die, that is our soul gives out,
then the spirit, "breath of life", returns to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7). 

I think Garth, may have problems on our understanding, for we believe
that it is the inner person that is raised up something that is not
very tangible with humans. Not so with God whom knows us better than 
we know ourselves, whom can raise up a dead person in what ever body
he chooses.

Phil.

    Hi, Phil.
    
    Would you provide Scripture references from which your belief that
    Jesus was/is Michael the Archangel derives?
    
    Thanks.
    
    /Wayne

|Jesus, existed long before he became a human. so his existence as a
|person is not dependent on having a certain body whether physical or 
|spiritual. So just to correct Garth's understanding, we believe that 
|Jesus was Michael the archangel before he came to earth and continued 
|to be so after his resurrection to the heavenly realm. Even so we still
|refer to him as Jesus.
    
    Phil, some SDA members believe in the Jesus->Michael connection too.
    There are some major problems with this in light of scripture.
    
    1. Angels are created beings, Jesus is the Creator - Colossians 1:16
    2. Jesus is above all angels - Hebrews 1:4-13
    3. Angels refuse worship, Jesus is worshiped - Colossians 2:18-19
    4. We're told never pray to angels, yet Jesus is prayed to - 1 Timothy 2:5
    
    Mike

    what the hebrew states is acurate.Eloheim is plural,Adonai and yahweh
    are singular but,your reasoning is found wanting.Nebuchednezzar
    realized that the the Spirit of God(Eloheim;plural form) wass upon him.      
    In the Psalms there is a verse that makes reference to the fate
    Sodom,exacted by God.It states,"God on earth rained fire from God in
    Heaven.In the Hebrew it would read,"Jehova on earth rained fire from
    Jehova in heaven."

re .61

	Wayne,

	Our interpretation is based on comparing Scriptures....

	Jude 9 and 1 Thess 4:16

	Daniel 10:13 and Isaiah 9:6 (princely rule, KJV says government)

	Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:3,21,30

	Revelation 12:7,8 and 1 John 3:8

	Phil.
	

    Thanks, Phil.
    
    Are there any passages directly referring to Michael as either the Son
    of God or the Son of man?
    
    Also, how do you interpret 1Jn.5:20?
    
    /Wayne

re .62

	Mike,

;    Phil, some SDA members believe in the Jesus->Michael connection too.

	Yes, I have got this understanding from Tony, difference that
	I have seen is that they view Jesus as God.

;    There are some major problems with this in light of scripture.
    
;    1. Angels are created beings, Jesus is the Creator - Colossians 1:16

	Doesn't it say that all things were created by means of him, 
	*through* him and for him?, this is not quite the same as saying 
	Jesus is the Creator rather it implies that he was involved in 
	the creation event. We believe that he was the master worker spoken
	of in Proverbs 8:30, that is God was the Architect and his Son
	the firstborn of his creation (Col 1:15) was the master worker. 
	I have heard it said that in Hebrew firstborn can mean preeminent 
	one, but as a friend of mine pointed out this isn't translated from 
	Hebrew but from Greek which does not allow for it to be understood 
	in that way. There are other scriptures such as John 1:18 that show 
	that Jesus was created for he is spoken of as "only-begotten" 
	(compare Hebrews 11:17). I am often confused why people change the 
	meaning of words because it doesn't fit into their doctrine.

	By "only-begotten" and "firstborn of creation" we understand that
	Jesus was the only part of creation that was created solely by Jehovah
	God. The rest of creation was created by Jehovah through Jesus.

    2. Jesus is above all angels - Hebrews 1:4-13

	An archangel is the leader of the angels, we believe that the Bible
	discusses only one archangel who is Michael. However, the apocrypha
	does mention other archangels but as you know it's authenticity is 
	questioned as being God's Word. 

	We see in verse 9, that God annoints Jesus that is gives him the
	authority over the angels. That is authority is given to him, who
	gave it to him was God.


    3. Angels refuse worship, Jesus is worshiped - Colossians 2:18-19

	As a quick response, Jesus is not to be worshipped, however he
	should be shown proper reverence or obeisance as Jehovah's Anointed 
	One and king. I know in many translations render the Greek word 
	'proskyneo'as worship in Hebrews 1:6, but it can also be "used to 
	designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person and 
	kissing his feet, the hem of his garment, the ground." ('A 
	Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian 
	Literature' Chicago, 1979, Bauer, Arndt, Gringich, Danker; second 
	edition; p716)

	Proskyneo is used the the Greek Septuagint to describe the prophet
	Nathan's action in approaching King David (1 Kings 1:23) 

    4. We're told never pray to angels, yet Jesus is prayed to - 1 Timothy 2:5
    
	1 Timothy 2:5 tells me that Jesus is a mediator, between God and man.
	A mediator is an intercessor between aleast two grieving parties. Jesus'
	disciples asked how they should pray, in response we have the model
	prayer at Matthew 6, in verse 9 Jesus tells them not to address their
	prayers to himself but to his Father. But after Adam's fall how can
	a person approach Jehovah who is a holy God? Well all prayers should 
	be addressed to our heavenly Father but done so through Jesus' name.
	For he is the highpriest and mediator between God and man, hence
	Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6b

	It would be wrong to pray to Jesus, for he instructed his followers 
	to pray to his and their heavenly Father as well as setting the pattern 
	for others to follow closely (compare John 17 and 1 Peter 2:21).

	Phil.

	Reference material from book Reasoning from the Scriptures.

    I can see the confusion in Daniel 10 if you don't have a picture of the
    supernatural vs. the natural world.  Just as the nations have demon
    rulers, they also have angelic rulers.  Michael is the angelic ruler of
    Israel, not the spiritual one.  The entire chapter gives a glimpse into
    the supernatural warfare that occurs.
    
    Mike

Phil,
    
|;    1. Angels are created beings, Jesus is the Creator - Colossians 1:16
|
|	Doesn't it say that all things were created by means of him, 
|	*through* him and for him?, this is not quite the same as saying 
|	Jesus is the Creator rather it implies that he was involved in 
|	the creation event. We believe that he was the master worker spoken
    
    You're twisting the text to fit your theology.  It says all things were
    made *BY* Him.  Period.  Be true to the text.
    
    Colossians 2:9 says the fullness of the the godhead dwells in Christ. 
    No need to pick in choose how you want to apply that.  Fullness
    includes the Creator.  
    
|    2. Jesus is above all angels - Hebrews 1:4-13
|
|	An archangel is the leader of the angels, we believe that the Bible
    
    True, but in Hebrews 1:8, the OT is quotes where God calls the Son
    "God."  Now I know you wouldn't go as far as to say that an archangel
    is God (and neither would I), but you are here.  Within the context of
    this passage, and in your belief, you are actually calling an angel
    "God."
    
    As for Isaiah 9:6, this has been a purely Messianic passage since it
    was written.  If Michael is the Prince of Peace in Israel, why have
    they not had peace for the 5700+ years on their calendar?  Obviously,
    the Messiah isn't the same person as the archangel.
    
|    3. Angels refuse worship, Jesus is worshiped - Colossians 2:18-19
|
|	As a quick response, Jesus is not to be worshipped, however he
    
    Then why are there precedents and hundreds of passages in scripture
    that admonish us to do just that?  Do you have some special revelation
    that first-century Christians with first-hand knowledge didn't?  I
    think it's time we evaluate scripture based on what it says, not what
    the Watchtower tells us it says.
    
|    4. We're told never pray to angels, yet Jesus is prayed to - 1 Timothy 2:5
|    
|	1 Timothy 2:5 tells me that Jesus is a mediator, between God and man.
|	A mediator is an intercessor between aleast two grieving parties. Jesus'
    
    Context, Phil, context.  Look at verse 6.  Why would an intercessor for
    grieving parties need to give Himself as a ransom?  Look at verse 4. 
    It is speaking of God's desire for all to be saved and come to the
    knowledge of His truth.  What do grieving parties have to do with
    self-sacrifice and salvation in God's truth?  You make it sound like
    a business liasion for a financial transaction.  There's no way that
    the mediation here is anything else but propitiation.
    
|	a person approach Jehovah who is a holy God? Well all prayers should 	
    | be addressed to our heavenly Father but done so through Jesus' name.
    |
|	For he is the highpriest and mediator between God and man, hence
|	Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6b
    
    Okay, on this we agree.  He has provided the way of salvation and
    covers us with His righteousness.  This is the only way we have access
    to the Father.

|	It would be wrong to pray to Jesus, for he instructed his followers 
|	to pray to his and their heavenly Father as well as setting the pattern 
|	for others to follow closely (compare John 17 and 1 Peter 2:21).
    
    I agree with the scriptural model, but I disagree that it is wrong 
    to pray to Jesus.  Every time you pray to God, you pray to Christ. 
    When you pray in Jesus' name, how does God get the message if our only
    access is through Him?  How do we access the Father without going
    through Christ?  We can't.  How do we pray to the Father without
    praying to Christ?  We can't.  Only His righteousness and atonement
    makes this possible.

|	Reference material from book Reasoning from the Scriptures.
    
    I have this book too.  I really think you would be better off using the
    intelligence God blessed you with to read His Word on your own.  
    
    Re: only begotten
    
    Any scholarly work on Greek-English will tell you that "monogenes"
    means "only or unique, the only member of a kin or kind, hence
    generally only."  It doesn't not mean "only generated."
    
    re: first born
    
    "Prototokos" may also be correctly rendered as "first begetter" or
    "original bringer forth" (Erasmus), a term of preeminence.  In
    Colossians 1 Christ is being compared to created things.  Paul first
    says that Christ is before all things and establishes the fact that the
    eternal Word of God (John 1:1) existed before all creation (Hebrews 1),
    that He is preeminent over all creation by virtue of the fact that He
    is Deity; and He is the Creator of all things.  He Himself is not one
    of the things created!  In Colossians 1:18 we learn that Christ is also
    the firstborn of the dead.  Again, the context is preeminence or the
    right to rule over death.  Christ most certainly wasn't the world's 
    first to die.
    
    Mike

re .68

Mike,

There is a chasm between us, for example

;    You're twisting the text to fit your theology.  It says all things were
;    made *BY* Him.  Period.  Be true to the text.

Now I know that an architect is not neccessarily the same as a builder. One 
might build a house, but if one is using someone elses blue print then can one 
be considered the creator of that house?. Jesus always gave the glory to his
Father (John 17:4), shouldn't we do likewise especially when we consider 
Revelation 4:11?. Now the One on the throne couldn't be Jesus because the Lamb 
is mentioned as someone different in chapter 5.

To be honest, I find it hard discussing most things with you. You likely feel
the same. We could continue debating this until Armageddon comes, but what 
would be the point?. 

As you own the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures", there is not much I can
add that you can't look up for yourself. 

Phil. 

    Re: -1
    
    Phil, the problem with rationalizing passages is that you wind up with
    contradictions elsewhere.  Since God's Word is infallible, apparent
    contradictions are our responsibility to research and resolve.
    
    Similar questions in Revelation 2 arise in passages that are clearly
    about Christ.  If Christ isn't the first and last, the one who died and
    rose again, who owns the keys to death and hell, then you are forced to
    ask yourself "When did God die?"  Likewise for Acts 20:28.  If Jesus is
    not God, when did the Father shed His blood to purchase the redemption
    of the church?
    
    If you don't care to continue, I understand, but these are important
    questions that you will need to pray about.
    
    Mike

re: death and resurrection of Jesus Christ

  Hi Garth and Wayne,

    I don't have a Concordance handy, but the following, I believe, is
    some support.

    First, God's word is spirit.  An excellent example is John 6 where
    Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or else we 
    have no *life*.

    Question: Was the flesh and blood of Jesus and the life He spoke of
    physical things or things of Spirit?

    I believe they are all spiritual terms.  Drinking in Jesus' blood 
    and eating His flesh refers to nonphysical experiences.  They are
    experiences of the heart.  I believe it pertains to partaking of
    the message of the cross by faith - drinking in that revelation.  The
    life discussed, I believe, refers to "newness of life."  One is
    already a living creature before one partakes of the blood, but one
    may not be 'spiritually' alive.

    Now, right off the bat, with the above in mind, I would personally be
    inclined to believe the death and resurrection of Christ would most
    likely refer to spiritual themes.  Not some physical death and resur-
    rection, but rather some *spiritual* death and resurrection.

    So this idea is based on the global theme that God's word is spirit and 
    in seeing first hand evidence of this - even including Jesus' blood!

    Romans 6:23 mentions a death we all attribute to the death of the cross,
    i.e. "the wages of sin is death."  Romans 7 continues with this discus-
    sion and (get this!) refers to a death wherein the person is physically
    alive!  Paul says, "The commandment came, sin revived, and *I* died."
    [Interesting, by the way...Paul is dying the death of Romans 6:23.]
    Note that Paul is physically alive during this entire experience.

    This is EXTREMELY important to me.  Not only is Romans referring to a
    death that is not inclusive of physical death, it is the same death as
    Romans 6:23.  This is obvious as the context of Romans 7 is still law,
    sin, and death - same context entirely as Romans 6:23 as well we might
    expect for the author is simply continuing his discussion.

    So, in the context of Romans 6:23, we have just seen a death that is 
    one wherein the person dying is not physically dying - it refers to
    something going on in the consciousness.

    Realizing that God's word is spirit and that God uses physical terms as
    metaphors for spiritual realities, which death would one expect the 
    efficacious death of the cross to refer to???  (I believe Romans 7:9.)

    I'll continue...

Continuing on...

    I did a topical study on the resurrection once where I went through the
    NT and jotted down all texts I saw that referred to the resurrection.
    I observed one principle thing: ~95% of the resurrection texts referred
    to a spiritual experience and not physical resurrection.

    Just a couple examples:

    Ephesians 2:1
    And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

    Romans 8:9-11
    But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of
    God dwells in you.  Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ He
    is not His.
    And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit
    is life because of righteousness.
    But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,
    He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal
    bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

    Ephesians 5:14
    There He says, "Awake you who sleep, arise from the dead and Christ 
    will give you light."

    In order to be somewhat brief, I will just summarize what I believe.

    The Christian walk is one of dying and living.  Each dying and living 
    is like a birth pang and as we progress, the pangs get more and more
    frequent and more and more intense.

    The love of God exposes sin and the revelation of sin to our heart is
    *painful*.  (I hope we all can attest to this!)  It hurts to see our
    sin.  After the beautiful experience of repentance, peace results.

    Hebrews 12:11
    Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but grievous
  [death]
    Neverthless afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness
    to those who have been trained by it.
  [resurrection]

    Hosea 6:1-3
    Come and let us return to the Lord
    For He has torn [death], but He will heal us.  [resurrection]
    He has stricken [death], but He will bind us up.  [resurrection]
    After two days He will revive us [death]; On the third day He will 
    raise us up that we may live in His sight.  [resurrection]

  I'll continue...

  Continuing on...

    So what of Christ?  I believe He was made sin at the incarnation for
    He was laden with the flesh that has the lusts and passions as discussed
    in Galatians 5 (though He never submitted to them).

    Jesus grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) and KNEW what is in man
    (I think its John somewhere).

    I believe that as Jesus progressively saw His Father's love, He saw 
    evil via the Father's love exposing the lusts and passions resident in
    sinful flesh; "And those are Christ's who have crucified the flesh 
    with its passions and lusts" (Gal. 5:24).

    As Jesus saw this evil, HE FELT TO BE THAT SINNER (yet without sin).
    Thus He experienced the exact same weight of guilt.  He thus experienced
    the death of Romans 7:9.

    This was a progressive experience.  Before the cross, Jesus was perfected
    by suffering (Heb. 5:8-9).  Now, He was prepared to go behind the veil
    and see virtually the fullness of the lusts and passions of our sinful
    flesh.  At the physical event of the cross, Jesus endured a spiritual
    experience.  The Father unveiled the glory that exposes sin and Jesus saw
    the lusts and passions of sinful flesh to the maximum.  He saw evil in
    its totality.

    Jesus saw Himself as being that evil person.  He felt to be that rapist,
    that murderer, that child molestor, that crucifier of God even.  From 
    the top of His head to the tip of His toes as all the evil passions of 
    sinful flesh were exposed to Jesus, He felt to be that evil person.  But, 
    He was not evil.  He just felt it.  He was love.  The flesh He took was 
    indeed crucified and His heart was spotless.  He never consented to these 
    awful pulls.

    This 'feeling' was the death of the cross.  It presses home to the heart
    the seemingly overwhelming conviction that YOU'VE HAD IT.  The Father
    could not show Jesus His acceptance of Him.  He had to veil it.  Jesus
    had to bridge an atonement between this chasm.  He had to demonstrate 
    the survival characteristics of His righteousness.

    Psalm 22 depicts this death and resurrection of Christ.  We see Jesus
    feeling forsaken, but by the end, He overcomes all of this alienation
    and is victorious over it.  

    Jesus' victorious response to this weight of guilt is the resurrection.
    The weight of guilt was the death.  

    Note that the three day experience is characterized as the cross exp.
    Note also that it is mentioned several times in the scriptures and all
    other times as an experience endured fully while one is alive.  Hosea
    6:1-3 is one example.  Ezra 10 is a beautiful example.  Esther in the
    presence of the King is another.  All three day time periods of incredible
    revelation *and* trial.  (Abraham up Mount Moriah, Joseph's brothers in
    prison.)

    This three day observation is SOLID support, imo.

    When man has all the lusts and passions of His flesh exposed and is 
    victorious over the temptation to despair, He will enjoy a peace that
    surpasses all heretofore known by him.  This is the final birth pang that
    gives birth to a newborn creature.  This is the experience of seeing 
    the King in His beauty and of reading the terrifying report.  This is the
    chastening of the Lord which leads to inhabiting Mount Zion where our God
    is a consuming fire.  This is Jacob's time of trouble, but he shall be
    saved out of it.

							Tony

| <<< Note 903.71 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>


| Hi Garth and Wayne,


	Wow... a flashback to the Wayne's World movies! Party on Wayne....
party on Garth! :-)

    Hi, Tony.
    
    What exactly happened in Luke 23:46?
    
    /Wayne

      Can you quote it Wayne?  I'm in the fab and no paper is allowed
      in here!
    
      Not even Bibles!!!
    
    						Tony

    Luke 23:46
    Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit
    my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
    
    

    Thomas placed his finger in Christ's physical hand before exclaiming "My
    Lord and My God!"

      Hi Wayne,
    
        I believe Jesus commended His entire being to His Father.  That
        sense of alienation/forsakeness was beaten back by a faith made
        perfect.  Jesus believed in His Father's love and acceptance of 
        Him and thus His faith broke through the darkness.
    
        I believe Jesus had perfect peace and happiness when He commended
        Himself to His Father.
    
        He also said, "It is finished."  Hos sacrificial work was complete;
        both death *and* resurrection.  They were not yet unfinished.
    
        Only as shadows pointing to larger (and previous) realities.
    
    						Tony

    Well whattaya know ... this conference finally got it's own JW topic
    after all this while.
    
    -mark.

    Hi Mark!
    
    

    re .2 (by PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
    An interesting choice of terms to define.
    
>Goats - refers to all those outside the Jehovah's Witnesses, those who will be
>        judged by God as in Matthew 25:31-46.
    
    Just out of curiousity, what is the non-JW (Mike Heiser) definition of
    who the "goats" of Jesus' parable are?  Though giving the definition
    like this is sure to give offense to non-JWs, surely the non-JW
    ("Christian") definition can't avoid giving similar offense to others.
    
>Jehovah - said to be the only correct name for Almighty God.
    
    Not quite.  "Jehovah" is one of, if not THE, most widely recognized
    forms of God's name in the English language, and it has a history of
    literary use that dates back more than 500 years (and happens to be the
    form used in the King James Bible in a few select passages, like Ps
    83:18).  "Jehovah" in English translates the proper Hebrew noun
    transliterated as YHWH (which is also called The Tetragrammaton).
    
    The form "Jehovah" originated from Catholic Latin writings which 
    rendered it as "Iehovah."  In other languages there are many variations; 
    but all of them preserve the underlying Tetragrammaton (with variations
    of transliteration).
    
>Jehovah's Witnesses - a term coined from Isaiah 43:10 in 1931 as the official
>                      title of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society.
    
    Also not quite.  "Jehovah's Witnesses" is the official name of us as a
    religious group.  Before that we called ourselves International Bible
    Students.  "Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society" is the name of one of the
    early incorporated legal agencies that the early Bible Students founded
    to publish their views.
    
>Michael - the archangel who was supposedly Jehovah's first creation and who
>          later became the man Jesus.
    
    I'm not going to argue this now, but another question, just out of
    curiousity:  what was the Son's name before he came to earth?  
    Also, is "Jehovah" only the name of the Father, or is it the name of
    the entire trinity?
    

    re .5 (by ALFSS1::BENSON)
    
>    I was speaking with a member of my church who had been a Jehovah's 
>    Witness for many years and asked her to describe what enabled her to
>    break with them and how they viewed outsiders, especially other
>    "Christians".
>    
>    She described her own pivot point as being the lack of sense in the
>    JW's concept of the goats, great crowd, and little flock.  A fellow
>    JW member and her began to discuss this concept causing more doubt in
>    them both.  She was witnessing to a Methodist minister once who was
>    patient and kind with her but who was capable of explaining to her an
>    orthodox Christian view of the biblical goats, great crowd, and little
>    flock.  This made much more sense to her than the JW's explanation. 
>    She broke from the JW very soon after.
    
    Without arguing specifics at the moment, this also fits the general
    pattern of, and reason for, many becoming JWs, that they don't feel
    their current religious beliefs 'make sense,' and they come to feel
    that the teachings of JWs do.  Whereas this woman's talk with a
    Methodist minister is said to have been the catalyst which instigated
    or accelerated her change of views, similarly, it's often a simple talk
    with a JW that moves people along the road to becoming a JW.
    
    The "little flock" (Luke 12:32 RSV), the "goats" (Matt 25:32 RSV), and
    the "great crowd" (NWT) or "great multitude" (Rev 7:9 RSV) are all
    terms which, as you can see, come from the Bible.  Is the argument that
    JWs interpret these terms in a way that is too exclusive (i.e., only
    with respect to themselves), or that they shouldn't be interpretted to
    exclude anyone at all?
    
>    non-JW Christians are what JW's call "Christendom".  They are not
>    really Christians at all.  Only JW's are truly Christians.
    
    For the record, "Christendom" is what the majority of the world
    considers to be "the part of the world in which Christianity prevails"
    (Merriam-Webster dictionary), so on the whole, it's a recognized
    socio-political term for a large segment of the world's population.
    
    One doesn't have to be a JW to ponder whether the part of the world
    that is recognized to be "Christendom" is really "Christian" through-
    and-through in strictly Biblical terms.  Do you suppose God looks down
    at the nominally Christian lands and says to himself, "Yep, all the
    people down there are truly followers of my Son."?  If not, on what
    basis does he make his judgments?
    
    Even many non-JWs who call themselves Christians would readily argue
    that many others in the lands of Christendom are not "saved".  And if
    they are not "saved" (according to the criteria of the one who feels
    that way), are those who are not "saved" therefore, by definition, not
    Christians?
    
    Arguments against JWs, like the one above, have a rhetorical form that
    readily applies to at least some of the more accepted forms of
    Christianity, as well, including those represented by regular members
    of this notes conference.
    
    
    -mark.

    re .7 (posted by EVMS::LYCEUM::CURTIS)
    
>In one of my encounters with Jehovah's Witnesses I asked one of them
>about their views on this.  And finally asked him point blank, "So
>you Baptize in the name of God the Father, a created being, and an
>impersonal force?"  He gave no answer, but if they did not baptize this
>way, he would have had an easy come back -- "No!"    The problem is
>that Christ said very clearly to baptize in the name of the Father, Son
>and Holy Spirit -- so they can't just dismiss it out of hand, they
>instead redefine it.
    
    The question posed is cleverly slanted with such heavy-handed rhetoric
    that it's likely that the Witness on the receiving end just saw no
    point in arguing.  A JW might turn that around and ask, "So you baptize
    in the name of a mysterious and incomprehensible mystery that wasn't
    even defined (as the trinity) until centuries after Jesus gave the
    command?"  A JW might even ask a trinitarian, "How is you baptize
    people in the name of the Father but take his name out of your Bible
    translations, or even say he has no name?"
    
    Both sides can fire heavy-handed rhetoric, for JWs can easily claim and
    prove that it's trinitarians who are redefining the Biblical terms of
    Father, Son, and holy spirit, to fit the trinity doctrine
    after-the-fact.
    
    -mark.

    Reminds me of a recent praise report at our church...
    
    One Sunday night a month we have church outdoors in a metro area
    ampitheatre.  With the PA system, the worship and teaching are easily
    heard in the surrounding area.  Last month, a Mexican couple were
    walking in the park nearby during the service.  They said afterwards
    that though they didn't understand what was being said, they felt the
    Holy Spirit telling them "This man is speaking the truth!"  (in
    reference to our pastor who was giving the teaching).  It also
    turns out that the couple was being regularly visited by some JW
    missionaries and the Holy Spirit confirmed to them that they were not
    teaching truth.  To make a long story short, they approached our
    service, met with some prayer counselors and accepted Christ as their
    Lord and Savior.  Both are growing wonderfully in our Spanish ministry
    under the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and their personal relationship 
    with the living God.
    
    Mike

    re .85
    
>    that though they didn't understand what was being said, they felt the
>    Holy Spirit telling them "This man is speaking the truth!"  (in
>    reference to our pastor who was giving the teaching).
    
    	Exactly what did it mean for "the Holy Spirit [to be] telling them"
    that what they were hearing was the truth?
    
    	I also find it interesting that you say that they didn't understand
    what was being said, yet they were compelled to believe it was the
    truth.  That reminds me of what the apostle Paul said about the limits
    on the value of speaking in tongues, particularly when no one is
    available to translate, so that others -- and particularly unbelievers
    -- might understand.  He said:
    
    		"if you in a tongue utter speech that is not 
    		intelligible, how will any one know what is said?  
    		For you will be speaking into the air."  (1Cor 14:9 RSV)
    
    Clearly, God wishes people to understand what they are hearing before
    putting faith in it as the truth.
    
        If they didn't understand what they heard, really there was no
    Scriptural basis for them to know that what was being said was the
    truth.  When judgments on what is or is not the truth is based solely
    on feelings (even claims that the feelings are the product of holy
    spirit), that opens the door for justifying anything on a very
    arbitrary basis.
    
>    reference to our pastor who was giving the teaching).  It also
>    turns out that the couple was being regularly visited by some JW
>    missionaries and the Holy Spirit confirmed to them that they were not
>    teaching truth.  To make a long story short, they approached our
    
    	Again, what does it mean for "the Holy Spirit [to] confirm to them"
    that what they were hearing was NOT the truth?  Are they really hearing
    a spirit voice?
    
    -mark.

    The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a powerless gospel, but a life-changing 
    one.
    
12:1  Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
12:2  Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even
 as ye were led.
12:3  Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of
 God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord,
 but by the Holy Ghost.
12:4  Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
12:5  And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
12:6  And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which
 worketh all in all.
12:7  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit
 withal.
12:8  For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the WORD
 OF KNOWLEDGE by the same Spirit;
12:9  To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by
 the same Spirit;
12:10  To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another
 DISCERNING OF SPIRITS; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the
 interpretation of tongues:
12:11  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to
 every man severally as he will.

    re .87 (PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
        Is this your answer to my questions in .86?  If so, it's a bit of a
    dodge, for Paul was addressing those who were already his "brethren"
    (1Cor 12:1), not those who only had the potential to become such.
    
        Additionally, Paul was being very specific in his discourse on
    exactly what he meant by "spiritual gifts" (vs 8-10), so I think it
    reasonable to ask:  how, specifically, did "the Holy Spirit" convey the
    notion that what that couple was hearing (from the "Christian"
    minister, not the JWs) was true, given that they didn't really
    understand what they were hearing, especially because, at that point,
    they were not 'believers'?
    
        In fact, I think it interesting that this experience suggests that
    a person can become a 'true believer' while not knowing (or
    understanding) what one is 'believing in,' which thus moves faith into
    the realm of feelings, and away from genuine belief.
    
        
        							-mark.

John 6:44  
    No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and
 I will raise him up at the last day.

14:25  These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in
 my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
 remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

16:7  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
 away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I
 depart, I will send him unto you.
16:8  And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of
 righteousness, and of judgment:
16:9  Of sin, because they believe not on me;
16:10  Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
16:11  Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

    re .89
    
        That's still not a definite answer to my questions.
    
>John 6:44  
>    No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and
> I will raise him up at the last day.
    
        True enough, but how does that happen?  Paul wrote in Romans that
    it was through the following process:
    
        	"how are men to call upon him in whom they have
    		not believed?  And how are they to believe in him 
    		of whom they have never heard?  And how are they to 
    		hear without a preacher? ... So faith comes from
    		*what is heard*, and what is heard *comes from the
    		preaching of Christ*." -- Rom 10:14,15a,17 RSV
    
    Faith, coupled with belief in the truth, doesn't just magically pop
    into a person's head by miraculous induction by way of holy spirit.  It
    stems from having "heard" -- and understood -- the truth from a
    "preacher", a real human.
    
>14:25  These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
>14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in
> my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
> remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
    
        This is an action that would benefit those who were ALREADY
    believers -- in particular his apostles -- who would later be charged
    with teaching (and writing down) what they had personally heard from
    Christ; and thus the need for "remembrance."  Later, they were also
    given miraculous knowledge (inspiration); but again, it was given to
    those who were *already believers*, so that they could teach others by
    word of mouth (and writing).
    
>16:7  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
> away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I
> depart, I will send him unto you.
>16:8  And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of
> righteousness, and of judgment:
>16:9  Of sin, because they believe not on me;
>16:10  Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
>16:11  Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
    
        And again, the "Comforter" was sent to those who were already
    believers.
    
        Existing believers might, at God's choosing, be privileged to
    receive miraculous 'gifts of the spirit', which -- depending on what it
    was -- would then be used to advance the "preaching" done by them. 
    However, the truth was always brought to new one's by human-to-human
    contact.  Holy Spirit never short-cut the process of people teaching
    (new) people the truth.
    
        							-mark.

|        True enough, but how does that happen?  Paul wrote in Romans that
|    it was through the following process:
    
    God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and draws people to Himself.  
    
|        And again, the "Comforter" was sent to those who were already
|    believers.
    
    The Holy Spirit has several purposes as Christ outlined in the passage
    in John 16.  One of which is to convict the world of sin and of the
    truth - the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.  This part of His ministry
    is for the lost, not the believers.
    
    Mike

    re .91 (PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
>    God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and draws people to Himself.  
    
        I agree; but he draws people to himself through Christ, who in turn
    is using his earthly disciples to preach about him to the world, that
    they might know both God and Christ through the word preached.  God
    being a Spirit doesn't mean that he short-cuts around his Son, or the
    'church' that his Son is using to preach the word.
    
>|        And again, the "Comforter" was sent to those who were already
>|    believers.
>    
>    The Holy Spirit has several purposes as Christ outlined in the passage
>    in John 16.  One of which is to convict the world of sin and of the
>    truth - the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.  This part of His ministry
>    is for the lost, not the believers.
    
        In the Oxford Annoted RSV, the footnote on John 16:4-11 claims this
    discribes "the work of the Counselor (Holy Spirit) through the church."
    
        So, at least some in Christendom (who might be recognized as
    'orthodox believers) believe that this whole passage applies to the way
    "Holy Spirit" works through believers ("the church"); thus the role it
    plays in "convicting" (or "convincing" RSV) the world of sin, and etc.,
    is accomplished, not directly, but indirectly, again through the
    intermediary of the believing "church".
    
        You may, in fact, be asserting what *you* and/or your church
    believes, that Holy Spirit interacts directly with non-believers; but
    other 'mainline' religions teach differently on this point, that it
    operates *through* the body of existing believers, who comprise "the
    church".
    
        But, be that as it may, my question still stands; how, in your
    view, does the "Holy Spirit" interact with people (non-believers) in
    order to "convict" them "of sin and of the truth".  How is a
    non-believer, who evidently would not have had any previous interaction
    with holy spirit, to recognize it for what it is; and how would such a
    one be able to discriminate against a 'false spirit,' having no genuine
    frame-of-reference (such as a knowledge of God's Word, for instance)?
    
        It seems to me that this would be putting "the cart before the
    horse."
        
        
        							-mark.

    the "non-believers" (at the time at least) were walking by the church
    (outdoor service) when the Holy Spirit started to convict them (through
    our witness).  God drew them to Himself and to others that were
    worshiping Him.
    
|        In the Oxford Annoted RSV, the footnote on John 16:4-11 claims this
|    discribes "the work of the Counselor (Holy Spirit) through the church."
    
    I'm not one for liberal translations.  Any translation that is used at
    a major university (and this one is used at mine) automatically falls
    into a negative light with me.  Secular universities are the exact
    opposite of a missions field.  They turn more people against God than
    anything else and they use the above translations as one of their
    tools.
    
|        You may, in fact, be asserting what *you* and/or your church
|    believes, that Holy Spirit interacts directly with non-believers; but
|    other 'mainline' religions teach differently on this point, that it
|    operates *through* the body of existing believers, who comprise "the
|    church".
    
    I don't care what other churches do.  The Bible says one of the
    ministries of the Holy Spirit is to convict the *WORLD* of sin.  This
    is the same *WORLD* that Jesus Christ shed His blood for as their
    propitiation.  God draws the lost to Him through God the Spirit and God 
    the Son.
    
|        But, be that as it may, my question still stands; how, in your
|    view, does the "Holy Spirit" interact with people (non-believers) in
|    order to "convict" them "of sin and of the truth".  How is a
|    non-believer, who evidently would not have had any previous interaction
|    with holy spirit, to recognize it for what it is; and how would such a
|    one be able to discriminate against a 'false spirit,' having no genuine
|    frame-of-reference (such as a knowledge of God's Word, for instance)?
|    
|        It seems to me that this would be putting "the cart before the
|    horse."
    
    First of all, you are assuming that the Holy Spirit hasn't tried to
    draw people to Himself before.  You are also negating the Holy Spirit's
    use of a person's conscience and placing their soul under conviction.  
    How do you know something is wrong?  How do you know you are lost and in 
    need of a Savior?  The Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that there is 
    nothing we can do to save ourselves.  God not only draws the lost to 
    Himself, but also gives them the faith to accept Him as Savior.  This 
    isn't putting the cart before the horse because you need to know you are 
    a sinner and in need of a Savior via the Holy Spirit's conviction before 
    you can become born again.
    
    As for testing the spirits (i.e., 1 John 4), I agree that rightly
    dividing the Word of God for sound doctrine and teaching may be the
    only way to verify this.  I can't think of any other way at the moment.
    
    Praise God for saving this precious couple though!  They can know now
    with full assurance that they are saved and are getting the sound
    doctrine to verify that their experience was a very real one with the
    living Lord and Savior!
    
    Mike

    re .93 (PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
>    the "non-believers" (at the time at least) were walking by the church
>    (outdoor service) when the Holy Spirit started to convict them (through
>    our witness).  God drew them to Himself and to others that were
>    worshiping Him.
    
    OK ... so how did the Holy Spirit start to convict them through your
    witness?  Did it actually talk to them, or just make them feel that
    what they were hearing (at the outdoor service) was right?  Or in some
    other way?  (And again, you said that they didn't understand what they
    were hearing.)
    
    How is the action of the Holy Spirit convicting them through your
    witness any different than what I described previously (using the
    footnote reference from that annotated Bible), that it operates
    "through the church"?  Wasn't the outdoor service being given a service
    put on "through the church" (your church, which you believe to be true)?
    
>|        In the Oxford Annoted RSV, the footnote on John 16:4-11 claims this
>|    discribes "the work of the Counselor (Holy Spirit) through the church."
>    
>    I'm not one for liberal translations.  Any translation that is used at
>    a major university (and this one is used at mine) automatically falls
>    into a negative light with me.  Secular universities are the exact
>    opposite of a missions field.  They turn more people against God than
>    anything else and they use the above translations as one of their
>    tools.
    
    It wasn't my intention to start a translation war.  What translation or
    translations are acceptible to you?  Which one's are "liberal" and
    therefore bad?
    
    Are other Christians (non-JWs) who use these "liberal translations"
    actually "against God" too, and really not Christians at all?
    
>    I don't care what other churches do.  The Bible says one of the
>    ministries of the Holy Spirit is to convict the *WORLD* of sin.  This
>    is the same *WORLD* that Jesus Christ shed His blood for as their
>    propitiation.  God draws the lost to Him through God the Spirit and God 
>    the Son.
    
    OK, but it must mean that it does this in some identifiable way --
    otherwise, if it makes its convictions by 'secret trials,' there would
    always be some who would claim that the method of "conviction" was
    never made apparent to them.
    
>    First of all, you are assuming that the Holy Spirit hasn't tried to
>    draw people to Himself before.
    
    I haven't assumed that at all.  (You are assuming that I've assumed
    that).  I wasn't asking about people in general, but rather, how "the
    Holy Spirit" interacted with the particular couple you spoke about.
    
>                                    You are also negating the Holy Spirit's
>    use of a person's conscience and placing their soul under conviction.  
    
    No I'm not.  I'm asking you for specifics on your beliefs on how t/H/S
    interacts with people.  Now you've given me a specific.  It interacts
    with a person's conscience.  I believe that too.  Now, the question is,
    is an unbeliever's conscience -- in its raw, spiritually untrained
    state -- a sufficient basis for making a final, up-front, judgment on 
    what is or is not the truth?
    
>    How do you know something is wrong?
    
    Obviously some people don't know that certain things are wrong, which
    is due to their ignorance.  Thus, a conscience only works after it's
    been primed with an education of what is right and wrong.
    
>    How do you know something is wrong?  How do you know you are lost and in 
>    need of a Savior?
    
    How do *I* know, or how to people in general know?  Many people (in
    general) do NOT know this, or appreciate this (if they know it).
    
>                       The Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that there is 
>    nothing we can do to save ourselves.
    
    Paul wrote to Timothy:
    
    		"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; 
    		continue in them: for in doing this thou
    		shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
    		1Tim 4:16 KJV
    
    (I assume the KJV is sufficiently non-liberal for me to quote.)  So, if
    one takes "heed ... unto the [true] doctrine" and "continue[s] in
    them", one can save oneself, and save those that "hear thee".  Thus,
    one can, and really, MUST take *some* action on one's own to be saved.
    
    	However, "the doctrine" one must heed comes from God and Christ, so
    obviously they are doing the actual saving;  "heeding" them is like
    taking hold of the saving life-line that they are extending, correct?
    Or does God actually 'rope us' himself so that we don't even have to
    'grab the line'?
    
>    nothing we can do to save ourselves.  God not only draws the lost to 
>    Himself, but also gives them the faith to accept Him as Savior.
    
    So then, why doesn't God give everyone this faith?  Why doesn't
    everyone have it?  Isn't everyone who isn't already drawn to him
    "lost"?  Or is there a distinction between the "lost" who might yet be
    drawn to him and the "lost" who will not be drawn to him (for whatever
    reason)?
    
    What is the basis for that faith (to distinguish it from blind, or
    credulous faith)?
    
    Can a person think he (or she) is saved but actually be lost?
    
>                                                                     This 
>    isn't putting the cart before the horse because you need to know you are 
>    a sinner and in need of a Savior via the Holy Spirit's conviction before 
>    you can become born again.
    
    Now you're getting way ahead of the discussion, for we were only
    speaking about what led the aforementioned couple to conclude that your
    church was teaching the truth, and JWs were not.  JWs also teach that
    all people are sinners and need a Savior -- so if that's the basic
    'starting criteria,' then both JWs and your church provide the same
    basis for t/H/S to "convict" a person of the truth.
    
>    As for testing the spirits (i.e., 1 John 4), I agree that rightly
>    dividing the Word of God for sound doctrine and teaching may be the
>    only way to verify this.  I can't think of any other way at the moment.
    
    OK, so now we're back to specifics.  A person who is ignorant of the
    Word of God has no sound means to "divide the Word of God" in order to
    "test the spirit".  He must learn the Word of God first, by being
    taught it (taught by people, that is) so that after after having read it, 
    he has a basis for judging "sound doctrine" from false.
    
    Yet in your story, the couple apparantly hadn't gotten to this point,
    but rather were first 'led by spirit' to make their decision; and THEN
    they proceeded to accept the doctrines your church was teaching.  Is
    this correct?
    
    If this is so, then isn't this "putting the cart before the horse," as
    I said?
    
>    Praise God for saving this precious couple though!  They can know now
>    with full assurance that they are saved and are getting the sound
>    doctrine to verify that their experience was a very real one with the
>    living Lord and Savior!
    
    With all due respect, this sounds very self-referencial.  Before
    knowing the truth, they were lead by t/H/S to your church, which has
    assured them that they have been lead to the right place.  They were
    "convicted" first, BEFORE they actually learned what they were to be
    convicted of.  And of course the doctrine they have learned has taught
    them that they've come to the right place.
    
    An interesting discussion.
    
    -mark.

    Your many questions can be answered by asking yourself one simple 
    question:  When is the Holy Spirit wrong or deceiving?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    re .95 (PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
>    Your many questions can be answered by asking yourself one simple 
>    question:  When is the Holy Spirit wrong or deceiving?
    
    		"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying 
    		spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and 
    		the LORD hath spoken evil against thee."
    		(2Chr 18:22 KJV)
    
    -mark.

    That's a pretext.  Within context the seer's emphatic phrase "these
    prophets of yours" underlines their differentiation from God's true
    prophets.  God doesn't lie, is never wrong, and never deceives.  God is
    not the author of confusion.
    
    Mike

    re .97 (PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
>    That's a pretext.  Within context the seer's emphatic phrase "these
>    prophets of yours" underlines their differentiation from God's true
>    prophets.  God doesn't lie, is never wrong, and never deceives.  God is
>    not the author of confusion.
    
    Yes, the prophets who were "these prophets of yours" (the king's
    prophets) were not God's true prophets, but the point is that God used
    one of his *faithful* spirits to fool the false prophets by feeding
    them false information.  Yes, there was a pretext, but in this
    particular instance, it wasn't Satan and/or his demons who were behind
    the words of the king's (preferred) prophets, but it was God himself. 
    
    You asked me:
    
    		When is the Holy Spirit wrong or deceiving?
    
    and I gave you an example of proof that God himself has, on at least
    one occasion, approved of deception -- though we might call it a 
    righteous deception -- which was instigated by his *faithful* spirit
    servants.  (But, we also note that he was deceiving the wicked, not the
    righteous.)
    
    This whole note-string was started based on the assumption of the
    base-noter that JWs are deceived (and are deceivers).  If I said, in
    defense of JWs, "When is the Holy Spirit (operating through JWs) wrong 
    or deceiving?", I doubt very much that that would convince many that
    the religion/faith of JWs is the truth.
    
    -mark.

|    Yes, the prophets who were "these prophets of yours" (the king's
|    prophets) were not God's true prophets, but the point is that God used
|    one of his *faithful* spirits to fool the false prophets by feeding
    
    God only has 1 Spirit.  In addition, your example and interpretation 
    don't apply (James 1:13).  
    
|    This whole note-string was started based on the assumption of the
|    base-noter that JWs are deceived (and are deceivers).  If I said, in
|    defense of JWs, "When is the Holy Spirit (operating through JWs) wrong 
|    or deceiving?", I doubt very much that that would convince many that
|    the religion/faith of JWs is the truth.
    
    Galatians 1:6-9.  There have been several areas listed where JW and 
    Biblical doctrine depart from one another.
    
    Mike

    re .99
    
>|    Yes, the prophets who were "these prophets of yours" (the king's
>|    prophets) were not God's true prophets, but the point is that God used
>|    one of his *faithful* spirits to fool the false prophets by feeding
>    
>    God only has 1 Spirit.  In addition, your example and interpretation 
>    don't apply (James 1:13).  
    
    		"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels 
    		spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire."  
    		(Heb 1:7 KJV)
    
    All of God's angels are spirits.  However, they obviously work under
    direction of his Holy Spirit (do you agree)?
    
    James 1:13 notwithstanding, 2Chr 18:18-22 *is* in the Bible.  God
    allowed one of his faithful spirits to put a deceptive word in the
    mouths of the false prophets.
    
    When writing about the coming "man of sin" (2Th 2:3 KJV), and those
    mislead by him, Paul said (2Th 2:11,12 KJV):
    
              11 And for this cause God shall send them strong
              delusion, that they should believe a lie: 
              
              12 That they all might be damned who believed not
              the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 
    
    I assume that you accept the wording of the KJV, yes?  So note that it
    says, "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a
    lie."
    
    If a person doesn't first have knowledge of God's Word as a
    'touch-stone,' he could well be much more susceptible to the
    compulsion of such a "strong delusion," wouldn't you say?
    
>|    This whole note-string was started based on the assumption of the
>|    base-noter that JWs are deceived (and are deceivers).  If I said, in
>|    defense of JWs, "When is the Holy Spirit (operating through JWs) wrong 
>|    or deceiving?", I doubt very much that that would convince many that
>|    the religion/faith of JWs is the truth.
>    
>    Galatians 1:6-9.  There have been several areas listed where JW and 
>    Biblical doctrine depart from one another.
    
    I'm glad to see you get back to the Bible -- back to what is written,
    what can be studied, verified, and understood by anyone with a
    functioning human mind.
    
    Gal 1:6-9 reads:
    
         "6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called
         you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is
         not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would
         pervert the gospel of Christ.  8 But though we, or an angel
         from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which
         we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  9 As we said
         before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other
         gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be
         accursed." (KJV)
    
    What was the 'other gospel' that the Galatians were falling victim
    to?  The Oxford Annotated RSV (pardon me for using it again, but
    it's the only reference I have handy) summarizes the problem as
    follows:
    
    		"Certain Judaizing teachers had infiltrated the
    		churches of Galatia ... declaring that in addition 
    		to having faith in Jesus Christ a Christian was 
    		obligated to keep the Mosaic law.  Paul insists, on 
    		the contrary, that a man becomes right with God only 
    		by faith in Christ and not the the performance of good
    		works, ritual observances, and the like."
    
    JWs are not 'Judaizers' who promote the idea that Christian faith
    must be coupled with the keeping of the Mosaic Law.  JWs believe
    the gospel that faith and salvation come through Christ, and that
    works of Law do not 'earn' one 'righteousness points' that one can
    cash in for salvation.
    
    This passage also comes back to my point, that the truth is based on
    the 'touch stone' of what has already been preached and recorded
    in the Bible.  Not even a message from an "angel" (or a "spirit")
    is valid *if it contradicts* the Bible.
    
    But, again, if one doesn't have a knowledge of the Bible first,
    how is one to know that a 'spirit of conviction' has really come
    from God, or not?
    
    How did the couple in your story *know* their choice was the right
    one if they didn't first have an understanding of what was being
    said, and an understanding of the Bible itself, so that they
    could know if they weren't hearing "another gospel" when they came
    to your church?
    
    -mark.

    What do JW's believe is the role and ministry of the Holy Spirit and
    how does He empower you to live a victorious life as a believer in
    Jesus Christ?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

RE:    <<< Note 903.94 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>
    
>>    OK, so now we're back to specifics.  A person who is ignorant of the
>>    Word of God has no sound means to "divide the Word of God" in order to
>>    "test the spirit".  He must learn the Word of God first, by being
>>    taught it (taught by people, that is) so that after after having read it, 
>>    he has a basis for judging "sound doctrine" from false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Learning the Scripture is important and good, but so doing does
        not, of itself, bring salvation.

                "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom
                knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of
                preaching to save them that believe."
		1st Corinthians 1:21

                "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word
                of God."
		Romans 10:17

        "Hearing", not necessarily "learning", the Word of God, brings
        conviction.  "He who hath an ear to hear, let him hear."  There are
        many learned scholars, thoroughly furnished with an intimate
        knowledge of the scriptures, who don't believe in salvation by
        grace through faith in Christ, neither do they believe that Christ
	is "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."
	If you "read" it without "hearing" it, that is hearing in the
	figurative sense, it won't do you any good.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Conviction brings the cry of the sinner for deliverance and
	salvation, and with salvation we receive the Spirit of God.

                "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall
                be saved."
		Romans 10:13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Deliverance and salvation brings the anointing of the Holy Ghost,
	who is then able to "shew you all things."
	
                "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in
                you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the
                same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth,
                and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall
                abide in him."
		1st John 2:27

                "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the
                spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that
                are freely given to us of God. 

                "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's
                wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
                comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 

                "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit
                of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
                know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

		1st Corinthians 2:12-14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        God's ways are not our ways, so they are likely to be
        counterintuitive.

                "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
                confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of
                the world to confound the things which are mighty;

                "And base things of the world, and things which are
                despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not,
                to bring to nought things that are:

		"That no flesh should glory in his presence."
		1st Corinthians 1:27-29

	Peace to all,
		TonyC
	

    re .102 (STAR::CAMUSO)
    
>        Learning the Scripture is important and good, but so doing does
>        not, of itself, bring salvation.
> ... (verses deleted)
>        "Hearing", not necessarily "learning", the Word of God, brings
>        conviction.  "He who hath an ear to hear, let him hear."  There are
>        many learned scholars, thoroughly furnished with an intimate
>        knowledge of the scriptures, who don't believe in salvation by
>        grace through faith in Christ, neither do they believe that Christ
>	is "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."
>	If you "read" it without "hearing" it, that is hearing in the
>	figurative sense, it won't do you any good.
    
    I don't think any JW would argue with you on this.  Really, you're
    making my point, that faith, or conviction, doesn't come first
    from a miraculous feeling that holy spirit gives one, but rather,
    it comes from "hearing" (which includes studying) the Word of God.
    
>        God's ways are not our ways, so they are likely to be
>        counterintuitive.
>
>                "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
>                confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of
>                the world to confound the things which are mighty;
    
    Yes God's ways aren't our ways, and yes, they can be counter-
    intuitive, if one judges them by man's thoughts.  But still, God
    does want us to know and understand his ways, and make his ways
    our ways, and his thoughts our thoughts.  So, it ISN'T true that
    all his ways are shrouded in mystery.  Clearly by the preaching
    work that was instigated in the first century, God made it clear
    that he wanted the world to know and understand his ways ("faith
    comes from hearing the message" -- Ro 10:17 NIV).
    
    
    								-mark.

RE:   <<< Note 903.103 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>

>>    I don't think any JW would argue with you on this.  Really, you're
>>    making my point, that faith, or conviction, doesn't come first
>>    from a miraculous feeling that holy spirit gives one, but rather,
>>    it comes from "hearing" (which includes studying) the Word of God.

        Then why can two people hear the same sermon, or read the same
        passage, and one be convicted unto salvation and the other remain
        unimpressed?  The Scriptures show that conviction, repentence, and
        faith unto salvation do not require a formal 40-lesson course.
	None come unto the Father but those whom He calls through His
	Spirit.

        I have read and heard testimonies of people that had gone to
        churches or tent meetings for a laugh, to mock and scoff at the
        rubes that would be so foolish as to believe in that stuff. Only
        they, themselves, were convicted by the Spirit of God and confessed
        their folly unto salvation, right there and then, becoming,
        themselves, that which they had sought to mock.

        The Scriptures also show that, upon receiving salvation, the new
        saint receives also the Holy Ghost, who will guide him into all
        truth, and that he need not that any man teach him.  Our divisions
        come from our pride and haughty insistence that we know something
        better than someone else.  Better that we should listen to the Holy
        Ghost, without filtering His input through our own junk, but
        through the scripture, instead, comparing spiritual things with
        spiritual.
    
	Peace,
		TonyC
		

    re .104 (STAR::CAMUSO)
    
>>    I don't think any JW would argue with you on this.  Really, you're
>>    making my point, that faith, or conviction, doesn't come first
>>    from a miraculous feeling that holy spirit gives one, but rather,
>>    it comes from "hearing" (which includes studying) the Word of God.
>
>        Then why can two people hear the same sermon, or read the same
>        passage, and one be convicted unto salvation and the other remain
>        unimpressed?  The Scriptures show that conviction, repentence, and
>        faith unto salvation do not require a formal 40-lesson course.
>	None come unto the Father but those whom He calls through His
>	Spirit.
    
    Why two people can hear/read the same thing (sermon, Bible, etc)
    and come to different conclusions (one true, one not) is a
    separate issue to the one I've been talking about, which, again,
    is that one has to read/hear the Scriptures first.  Do you agree?
    
    Your question doesn't have just one answer, for there may be many
    reasons why someone doesn't "hear" the truth when it's presented
    to them.  However, since God deals with all people on an equal
    basis (i.e., he gives them the same opportunities to learn the
    truth -- it's really man who gets in the way), why one person
    rejects the truth when another accepts it must have something to
    do with the person.  What that something is, however, isn't the
    same for each person.
    
    It could be pre-conceived (religious) notions, pride, sinful
    conduct, a complete disbelief in God, a lack of spirituality,
    influence of spiritism, or maybe it's just a bad day for the
    person, and they can't concentrate on what is really being said,
    so as to grasp its meaning.  And there are obviously many other
    possible reasons.  However, that's not to say that at a
    *different* time, a given person might not be more receptive.
    
>
>        I have read and heard testimonies of people that had gone to
>        churches or tent meetings for a laugh, to mock and scoff at the
>        rubes that would be so foolish as to believe in that stuff. Only
>        they, themselves, were convicted by the Spirit of God and confessed
>        their folly unto salvation, right there and then, becoming,
>        themselves, that which they had sought to mock.
    
    I can say the same thing.  I've read may similar testimonies about
    people deciding to really give my religion a look-see to prove it
    wrong, and then end up being convinced that it's right.  Each one
    would say something similar, that their challenge lead to their
    'coming to salvation'.
    
>        The Scriptures also show that, upon receiving salvation, the new
>        saint receives also the Holy Ghost, who will guide him into all
>        truth, and that he need not that any man teach him.  
    
    I'm familiar with that scripture.  But yet, the writings of Paul,
    in particular, show that Christians back then DID need human
    teachers (in the congregation) to continue teaching them (under
    guidance of holy spirit).  In fact, Hebrews 5 points out how
    seriously some had backslid, and were in need of being taught even
    the elementary things again.  
    
    Really, the existence of the writings of Paul, Peter, James, John,
    and Jude all prove that Christians as individuals and collectively
    still needed to be taught by others, for holy spirit clearly
    didn't just infuse the contents of their epistles into the minds
    of each one -- but rather, these individuals were inspired to
    record God's teachings, which they then passed along in writing
    and by oral exposition.  The need to be taught was met by God's
    having more inspired Scriptures to be written, which were in turn
    circulated and studied.
    
    Even you, and those of your faith, would have to admit that after
    the initial point where you consider yourself saved, you *still*
    have to read and study the Bible (and listen to sermons, or read
    them in print), to increase your understanding of God's Word and
    how to apply it.  The action of holy spirit doesn't replace the
    need for you to read the Bible does it?  And it doesn't replace
    the need to 'go to church' for further instruction, does it? 
    Particularly if you admit this last one, then you admit that even
    believers still have a need to be 'taught by men,' that is, the
    men who are appointed as overseers and shepherds.  Do you
    disagree?
    
>                                                             Our divisions
>        come from our pride and haughty insistence that we know something
>        better than someone else.  Better that we should listen to the Holy
>        Ghost, without filtering His input through our own junk, but
>        through the scripture, instead, comparing spiritual things with
>        spiritual.
    
    It's easy to give what you say a nod of agreement, but are you, or
    the non-JW, "true believing" members of this conference really
    doing this?  Are all non-JWs who consider themselves to be
    believers really united in belief and action?  Since I know this
    isn't the case, how is it that "the Holy Ghost" -- whom each one
    believes is working through them -- hasn't taught you all the same
    truth?
    
    This topic note takes the form of "us" (believers) against "them"
    (JWs) -- but you (collectively) clearly aren't united as "one"
    among yourselves.  How could that be if you're all being lead by
    "the Holy Ghost"?
    
    On the other hand, I can say with certainty that JWs all believe
    the same thing, and that we are NOT divided in belief and action by 
    personal opinion.    We consider this to be a fruitage of God's
    spirit active among us.
    
    -mark.

    |    On the other hand, I can say with certainty that JWs all believe
|    the same thing, and that we are NOT divided in belief and action by 
|    personal opinion.    We consider this to be a fruitage of God's
|    spirit active among us.

    Ironically enough, there is some dissension about all the false
    prophecies on Christ's second coming.  In addition, the JW missionary
    that visited us on Saturday and ended up accepting Christ as his
    personal Lord and Savior would disagree too.

    Can you answer my question yet on the JW view of the Holy Spirit?
    
    Mike

    re .106 (by PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
>|    On the other hand, I can say with certainty that JWs all believe
>|    the same thing, and that we are NOT divided in belief and action by 
>|    personal opinion.    We consider this to be a fruitage of God's
>|    spirit active among us.
>
>    Ironically enough, there is some dissension about all the false
>    prophecies on Christ's second coming.
    
    	As in the first century, there are some who have chosen to
    become dissenters, but they eventually choose to break away.  They
    don't remain as JWs.  There are not many factions of JWs.
    
>    prophecies on Christ's second coming.  In addition, the JW missionary
>    that visited us on Saturday and ended up accepting Christ as his
>    personal Lord and Savior would disagree too.
    
    "JW missionary" ... you mean someone going door-to-door, or
    someone who identified himself as having graduated from the
    missionary school sponsored by the WTS?
    
    What did that mean for him to "accepting Christ as his personal
    Lord and Savior"?  All JWs "accept Christ as our personal Lord and
    Savior" -- though we don't usually use that phrase, for to us,
    it's more important for God and Christ to accept us (i.e., as we
    change to please them), rather than for us to accept them (as
    though they had to please us).  After all, are humans really in a
    position to judge God and Christ as acceptible or not?
    
>    Can you answer my question yet on the JW view of the Holy Spirit?
    
    Yes I can.  Can you answer the questions I asked you first?
    
    
    -mark.

*>|    On the other hand, I can say with certainty that JWs all believe
*>|    the same thing, and that we are NOT divided in belief and action by 
*>|    personal opinion.    We consider this to be a fruitage of God's
*>|    spirit active among us.
*>
*>    Ironically enough, there is some dissension about all the false
*>    prophecies on Christ's second coming.
*    
*    	As in the first century, there are some who have chosen to
*    become dissenters, but they eventually choose to break away.  They
*    don't remain as JWs.  There are not many factions of JWs.
    
    Which is it, Mark?  First you lead us to believe that you are all just
    a peacful loving bunch that agree on everything, then you say "There 
    are not many factions of JWs."
    
*    "JW missionary" ... you mean someone going door-to-door, or
*    someone who identified himself as having graduated from the
*    missionary school sponsored by the WTS?
    
    door-to-door.  
    
*    What did that mean for him to "accepting Christ as his personal
*    Lord and Savior"?  All JWs "accept Christ as our personal Lord and
*    Savior" -- though we don't usually use that phrase, for to us,
*    it's more important for God and Christ to accept us (i.e., as we
*    change to please them), rather than for us to accept them (as
*    though they had to please us).  After all, are humans really in a
*    position to judge God and Christ as acceptible or not?    
    
    Well it was the usual discussion I have with such JW visitors.  He was
    stressing works and I was telling him about Christ's wonderful love and
    grace.  He started getting a little boisterous and was loudly reading 
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10
    
6:9  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
 not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
 effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

6:10  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,
 shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    I was outside doing yard work when he came up so naturally my neighbors
    found this a curious sight.  He loudly reads it and says, "Okay Mike, 
    now read it out loud for all the hear!"  So I read the 2 verses.  Then
    for context I told him, "Now I want you to read verse 11.  Read it loud
    for all the here."  This is what it says:
    
6:11  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but
 ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
    
    Notice the tense of the verbs.  His jaw dropped and he said, "I've been
    looking for something like this for 20 years."  We prayed together and
    he accepted Christ as his savior, asked Him to come into his life and
    save him.  We were rejoicing afterwards.
    
    *    Yes I can.  Can you answer the questions I asked you first?
    
    I plan on it, but I don't see what benefit it is without you sharing
    the JW view on the Holy Spirit first.  
    
    In Christ,
    Mike

    re .108 (by PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
>*    	As in the first century, there are some who have chosen to
>*    become dissenters, but they eventually choose to break away.  They
>*    don't remain as JWs.  There are not many factions of JWs.
>    
>    Which is it, Mark?  First you lead us to believe that you are all just
>    a peacful loving bunch that agree on everything, then you say "There 
>    are not many factions of JWs."
    
    Pardon me for leaving an ambiguous thought.  Either of the
    following are what I meant:
    
    		"There are not ANY factions of JWs", or
    		"There are not many factions of JWs like there
    		 are factions of born-again believers."
    
    Paul wrote:
    
    		"As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him 
    		once or twice, have nothing more to do with him"
    		(Titus 3:10 RSV)
    
    If a JW promotes his own views, so as to create a division or
    faction, JWs follow this councel to "have nothing more to do with
    him" if he fails to heed admonishion against being divisive.
    
    	Thus, JWs don't recognize other slip-off groups, whereas
    born-again Christians apparantly do.
    
    
>    Well it was the usual discussion I have with such JW visitors.  He was
>    stressing works and I was telling him about Christ's wonderful love and
>    grace.  He started getting a little boisterous and was loudly reading 
>    1 Corinthians 6:9-10
    
    	All the JWs I know appreciate "Christ's wonderful love and
    grace."  I personally try to avoid appearing to "stress works"
    because so many are wont to misinterpret it as a belief that works
    can gain one salvation.
    
    	Re 1Cor 6:9-10, before a person becomes a JW, he has to stop
    practicing any of the sins mentioned here.  However, perhaps a
    person can become a born-again Christian while he (or she) is
    still practicing them.  You tell me.
    
    
>6:11  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but
> ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
>    
>    Notice the tense of the verbs.  His jaw dropped and he said, "I've been
>    looking for something like this for 20 years."  We prayed together and
>    he accepted Christ as his savior, asked Him to come into his life and
>    save him.  We were rejoicing afterwards.
    
    	Well, I must say that that's very unusual, for all the JWs *I*
    know know what 1Cor 6:11 says.  Are you sure he wasn't pulling
    your leg?  Are you sure he was a JW?
    
    	
>    *    Yes I can.  Can you answer the questions I asked you first?
>    
>    I plan on it, but I don't see what benefit it is without you sharing
>    the JW view on the Holy Spirit first.  
    
    	That's funny, since that's the way I feel about answering your
    questions.
    
    								-mark.

    I cannot speak for the other moderators but I do wish to let you know
    that I have not been reading the dialogue in this note with any great
    detail... It appears as though things are going well.  
    
    It's good to see this... if I've missed something towards the contrary,
    please forgive me.  
    
    Appreciative of the maturity exhibited,
    Nancy

      Actually, it seemed to me the JW's were getting a little
      picked on above and beyond differences in belief.
    
      Read that way to me.
    
    						Tony

    re .18 (SUBSYS::LOPEZ)
    
>I heard recently that JW's beleive that everyone who calls themselves a
> christian but is not a JW is demon possessed. 
>
>I don't know if I got this exactly right so could you clarify this for
>me?
    
    I realize that Phil already answered this (JWs do NOT believe that
    all non-JWs are demon possessed), but just a question out of
    curiousity:  where did you hear this from?
    
    Does your source consider all JWs to be demon-possessed?
    
    -mark.

RE:   <<< Note 903.105 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>

>>    It could be pre-conceived (religious) notions, pride, sinful
>>    conduct, a complete disbelief in God, a lack of spirituality,
>>    influence of spiritism, or maybe it's just a bad day for the
>>    person, and they can't concentrate on what is really being said,
>>    so as to grasp its meaning.  And there are obviously many other
>>    possible reasons.  

	Or it could be that ...

        "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw
        him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
	-- John 6:44
    
>>    I can say the same thing.  I've read may similar testimonies about
>>    people deciding to really give my religion a look-see to prove it
>>    wrong, and then end up being convinced that it's right.  

        Dear Mark, please beware of religion.  It is far better to have
        Christ than any religion.  That is why you see so many flavors of
        Christianity among those that are saved by grace.  The Spirit of
        God is working on all of us.  The decision has been made in our
        hearts to abandon our old ways and seek God's ways and God's
        thoughts.  We do this by studying the Word, seeking His Spirit,
        drawing nigh unto Him in prayer through His Son and praise in
        worship, exhorting one another, attending assembly, listening to
	preaching, preaching in turn, etc.  

        God's Spirit works in each of us, giving us the light that He knows
        we need for the things we most need to work upon.  He does not show
        everybody exactly the same thing at the same time, because we are
        not all exactly the same.  When He shows us a truth, a prayer, a
        revelation, a conviction, an observance, we then share it with our
        brothers and sisters, who may or may not receive it.  Whether they
        receive it or not is between them and Yahweh Elohim.  We do not (or
        certainly should not) judge another man's servant.

        As to the fundamentals of the Faith, that salvation is obtained by
        grace alone, through Faith alone in Christ alone, that Christ is
        the "Mighty God, the Everlasting Father", that Yahweh was manifest
        in the flesh in the person of Yahshua Messiah, seen of angels, and
        preached unto the gentiles, that He was crucified, died, and was
        buried, that He arose again on the Third day and is ascended up
        into Heaven, and that His crucifiction atones for our sins, we
        Christians agree.  We may differ in practice, but we certainly
	agree in faith.

	Peace,
		TonyC
    

    re .113 (STAR::CAMUSO)
    
>        "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw
>        him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
>	-- John 6:44
    
    I agree with this.  Now, the question is, what means does the
    Father use to draw people to Christ?
    
    The context of John 6:44 was that "the Jews" (v.41) were murmering
    against him over his saying that he was 'the bread from heaven,' and
    that to them he was but a local man (v.42) whom they knew as he
    grew up (for they knew his parents).  To them, Jesus didn't seem
    special (because, perhaps, God didn't miraculously announce Jesus
    to them, as he did to John the Baptizer).
    
    Jesus, however, pointed them to the scriptures in the very next
    verse:
    
    		"It is written in the prophets ..."
    
    The Oxford Annotated RSV footnote says:
    
    		"Had they *heard* and *learned* God's voice in their
    		scriptures, they would have recognized its accents in
    		him who alone has direct communion with God."
    
    So, what Jesus was telling them was that by ignoring the
    true meaning of the Scriptures which prophecied about him, they were 
    ignoring the Father's method of drawing them to Jesus.
    
    So, a person cannot truly get to know Christ if he doesn't first
    get to know the Scriptures which the Father had recorded in
    advance (and afterwards) which teaches us about His Son.
    
>        Dear Mark, please beware of religion.  It is far better to have
>        Christ than any religion.  That is why you see so many flavors of
>        Christianity among those that are saved by grace.  The Spirit of
>        God is working on all of us.  The decision has been made in our
>        hearts to abandon our old ways and seek God's ways and God's
>        thoughts.  We do this by studying the Word, seeking His Spirit,
>        drawing nigh unto Him in prayer through His Son and praise in
>        worship, exhorting one another, attending assembly, listening to
>	preaching, preaching in turn, etc.  
    
    Dear Tony,  thank you for your concern about my getting entangled
    in "religion."  Many years ago JWs had similar concerns that their
    faith not be identified as a "religion" (they used to engage in
    sidewalk advertizing campaigns using sandwhich signs which read,
    "Religion is a snare and a racket").
    
    However, there's nothing wrong with referring to one's system of
    beliefs, as it defines their relationship with God, as their
    "religion" -- for that's what many people understand by the term.

    As for the rest of what you say, if that's your conviction that
    "The Spirit of God is working on all of us," that's fine by me;
    but your conviction admits that "Christ [is] divided" (1Cor 1:13)
    among you.
    
>        God's Spirit works in each of us, giving us the light that He knows
>        we need for the things we most need to work upon.  He does not show
>        everybody exactly the same thing at the same time, because we are
>        not all exactly the same.  When He shows us a truth, a prayer, a
>        revelation, a conviction, an observance, we then share it with our
>        brothers and sisters, who may or may not receive it.  Whether they
>        receive it or not is between them and Yahweh Elohim.  We do not (or
>        certainly should not) judge another man's servant.
    
    And what then, when some truth is revealed and your brothers and
    sisters do "not receive it"?  If they have the holy spirit working
    with them, how can they NOT receive it?  Does the holy spirit NOT
    "convict" all believers in the same way?  Why does it
    discriminate?  When one says "A is the truth," and another says,
    "B is the truth," when BOTH say that holy spirit revealed it to
    them, what then?
    
    Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God's spirit works through us to
    give light to the world (through or world-wide organization of
    believers).  Obviously you don't believe that.  You don't view us
    as just another groups of "servants" of the Lord, for you judge us
    as being altogether false.  Yet, among your own brothers and
    sisters, aren't you judging some of them as "false," if they teach
    that which is different than what has been revealed to you?  Why
    is it that you (Tony) have the truth with assurity, but others of
    your own spiritual brothers and sisters do not (or may not)?
    
    How can your conviction by spirit be right and theirs wrong, at
    least on some things?
    
>        We may differ in practice, but we certainly agree in faith.
    
    I'm sure you do agree on many things.  But it's not true that you
    agree on EVERYTHING.  You do not, as Paul counseled, "all speak
    the same thing" (1Cor 1:10 KJV), despite the fact that you all
    speak *some* of the same things.
    
    
    -mark.

      I think 903.49 hits the jugular.  Of course, the fact that
      I wrote it and that I think so might have a slight correlation!
    
      ;-)
    
      Agape and the faith which works by agape.  Those are a couple
      basics.
    
      The extent to which we can appreciate by faith the agape of God
      as revealed on the cross...that is getting to a real basic.
    
      Oh well, carry on...
    
    						Tony

RE:   <<< Note 903.114 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>

>>    And what then, when some truth is revealed and your brothers and
>>    sisters do "not receive it"?  If they have the holy spirit working
>>    with them, how can they NOT receive it?  Does the holy spirit NOT
>>    "convict" all believers in the same way?  Why does it
>>    discriminate?  When one says "A is the truth," and another says,
>>    "B is the truth," when BOTH say that holy spirit revealed it to
>>    them, what then?

        Is any of us blameless?  Is any perfect?  Do we all receive all
        Godly teaching because we are indwelled by the Holy Ghost?  Or are
        we encompassed with sinful flesh, the pride of life?  Does any of
        us listen to every whisper or cry or groan of God's Spirit?

        "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of
        this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with
        the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law
        of sin."  Romans 7:24-25

>>    Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God's spirit works through us to
>>    give light to the world (through or world-wide organization of
>>    believers).  Obviously you don't believe that.  You don't view us
>>    as just another groups of "servants" of the Lord, for you judge us
>>    as being altogether false.

        This is because The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies the
        very nature of Yahweh Elohim and has revealed itself to be a false
        prophet.

        "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing
        follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath
        not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou
        shalt not be afraid of him."  Deuteronomy 18:22

>>    Yet, among your own brothers and
>>    sisters, aren't you judging some of them as "false," if they teach
>>    that which is different than what has been revealed to you?  Why
>>    is it that you (Tony) have the truth with assurity, but others of
>>    your own spiritual brothers and sisters do not (or may not)?

	The Truths I share with others in this conference are those
	enumerated in .113 - that Messiah is Yahweh manifest in the flesh,
	that the Holy Ghost is Yahweh manifest in the Spirit, that the
	Father is Yahweh manifested as Elohim, and that salvation is by
	grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  Rejection of these TRUTHs
	is rejection of Yahweh Elohim as revealed through the prophets and
	Jesus Christ.

        As for practise, we may differ.  People in Paul's day differed in
        practise, but it was not the differences in practise that grieved
        him.  It was the differences in the principals of the faith (see
        above) that grieved him.  When he grieved at the Galatians, it
        wasn't so much because of what they practised, it was because they
        had started to believe that their practises were causes, not
        effects, of salvation.

        As for my brothers and sisters in this conference, we all speak the
        same thing concerning the Godhead and salvation by grace through
        faith in Yahshua.  We differ in our practise, which Jesus clearly
        established as a second-order concern.  His first order concern was
        that we love God and love one another.  I confess to having
        exhibited a judgemental and critical spirit in the past, and for
        this I am sorry and have resolved to mend my ways.  This does not
        obviate sharing new convictions with my brothers and sisters, it
        just precludes bludgeoning them with my convictions.

	I pray that you do not feel that you have been bludgeoned.

	Grace and peace be multiplied,
		TonyC
			

RE:   <<< Note 903.114 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>

>>        "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw
>>        him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
>>	-- John 6:44
    
>    I agree with this.  Now, the question is, what means does the
>    Father use to draw people to Christ?

        "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not
        God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
        that believe."
	-- 1st Corinthians 1:21

	This is what I believe happened to the couple that Mike talked
	about at his church.

	I also know people who came to Christ by reading and studying the
	Scriptures.

	I also know people who came to Christ by a witness at the door or
	in the street or train station or public beach or jail.

        I came to Christ, not by hearing preaching in a church, not by a
        witness at the door, not by reading or studying the Scriptures,
        but, at a time of distress, from a desperate cry from the heart to
        give my life to God and ask Christ to come into my life and into my
        heart that I may live more according to the will of God.  I cannot
        remember any one teaching me that prayer or salvation by grace
        prior to that time.  It was two years before I knew the full
        implications of that confession, during which time I saw miracles
        in my life - bad habits falling away, the beginning of the process
        of healing in my marriage, the birth of a child we thought we could
        never have, and more.  All this without studying, or even reading,
        scripture during those two years.
     
	Grace to you all,
		TonyC
		    

    re .116 (STAR::CAMUSO)
    
>        Is any of us blameless?  Is any perfect?  Do we all receive all
>        Godly teaching because we are indwelled by the Holy Ghost?  Or are
>        we encompassed with sinful flesh, the pride of life?  Does any of
>        us listen to every whisper or cry or groan of God's Spirit?
    
    Well, evidently JWs have to be perfect ...
    
>        This is because The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies the
>        very nature of Yahweh Elohim and has revealed itself to be a false
>        prophet.
    
    Are you telling me that all attempts, by trinitarians, to understand
    and explain Bible prophecy have all been 100% accurate, and have never
    had to be revised?  Do all trinitarians (and especially born-again
    Christians) all agree on one meaning of all the prophecies, as
    published by various Christian publishers?
    
    
    The Watchtower Society isn't a "false prophet."  It's goal has
    always been to understand and declare the meaning of the
    prophecies that are already in the Bible.  It has never professed
    to be conveying newly inspired information, as a true prophet is
    able to do.
    
    Like you and your religion, the WTS has also made its mistakes in its
    earnest efforts to discern the leading of holy spirit;  but those
    mistakes don't invalidate all the other truths that it's learned and
    declared.  You easily excuse yourself and your religion by asking, "Is
    any of us blameless?  Is any perfect?"  Well, then, cannot JWs do the
    same thing for ourselves?
    
    
    As for denying "the very nature of Yahweh Elohim" ... I respectfully 
    beg to differ.  JWs teach the truth about the nature of Jehovah God.
    From our point of view, your religion is a false prophet for teaching
    the falsehood of the trinity.  But then, this isn't exactly a new
    thought for you, is it (as your of my faith isn't new to me)?
    
    Most of the religions in Christendom (i.e., mainline Christianity) are
    also false prophets for mixing in politics, and urging their flocks to
    look to men in political offices as the ones who will solve man's
    problems (through earthly political means), rather than having them
    look to God and his Kingdom ruled by Christ.  [Attempts to vote
    Christianity into law by worldly elections is particularly blasphemous
    (in my opinion).]  How should we judge the "prophets" of trinitarian
    religions who, from the pulpit, urge their flocks to vote for men who
    promise a "new world order," but who, after they have served in office,
    prove that they are hardly saviors themselves, and are hardly truly
    doing the will of God?
    
    So, from my point of view, you're throwing stones [at the 'house' of my
    faith] while living in a glass house [of your faith].
    

>	I pray that you do not feel that you have been bludgeoned.
    
    Most JWs have a pretty thick skin.  And really, we hardly expect
    anything else in a conference like this.  But we do appreciate all
    attempts at civil discourse.
    
    -mark.

RE:   <<< Note 903.118 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>
    
>    The Watchtower Society isn't a "false prophet."  It's goal has
>    always been to understand and declare the meaning of the
>    prophecies that are already in the Bible.  It has never professed
>    to be conveying newly inspired information, as a true prophet is
>    able to do.

        To set a date for the return of Christ is to profess to convey
        newly inspired information, as no date for His return was given in
        Scripture.  All such predictions, whether from Trinitarian or
        Unitarian sources, have failed.  The promulgators of these
        predictions are, by definition, false prophets.  They should
	confess their error and repent.  

>    Like you and your religion, the WTS has also made its mistakes in its
>    earnest efforts to discern the leading of holy spirit;  but those
>    mistakes don't invalidate all the other truths that it's learned and
>    declared.  You easily excuse yourself and your religion by asking, "Is
>    any of us blameless?  Is any perfect?"  Well, then, cannot JWs do the
>    same thing for ourselves?
    
        Certainly, as long as they don't pose as though they posess a
        complete understanding of prophetic revelation.  

	Yours in Christ,
		TonyC
    

On the topic of the Watchtower Society and prophecy, I want to point the
interested reader to ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6 note 489.*, entitled "JWs and
1874, 1914, 1925, 1975, etc."  Within the topic string is a debate between
myself and Mark Sornson on the subject of whether the Watchtower Society
is to be considered a "false prophet".

Again, I have little time to contribute to this conference right now, so
I would ask that the interested reader refer to that discussion and not
reply to me unless they have something new to add.

    re .119 (STAR::CAMUSO)
    
>        To set a date for the return of Christ is to profess to convey
>        newly inspired information, as no date for His return was given in
>        Scripture.  All such predictions, whether from Trinitarian or
>        Unitarian sources, have failed.  The promulgators of these
>        predictions are, by definition, false prophets.  They should
>	confess their error and repent.  
    
        JWs have no problem with confessing their error (of having been
    mistaken) and repenting of it.  But the WTS isn't going to show its
    repentance by shutting down and going out of business, or by starting
    to teach the trinity or other false doctrines that it has rejected long
    ago.
    
        The Bible itself *does* predict "the return of Christ" -- and it
    *does* provide prophetic clues for believers to recognize *at the time
    of his return*.  Though we may argue that technically, it is a sin to
    have been mistaken about the meaning of those prophetic clues, it's NOT
    a sin for having had an earnest desire to understand them, and to have
    acted in overall harmony with God's will in expectation of the
    fulfillment of prophecy.  After all, God makes far more use of those
    with a willing spirit, but a few mistaken ideas, than he does with
    those who have no willing spirit for fear of making a mistake.
    
>>    Like you and your religion, the WTS has also made its mistakes in its
>>    earnest efforts to discern the leading of holy spirit;  but those
>>    mistakes don't invalidate all the other truths that it's learned and
>>    declared.  You easily excuse yourself and your religion by asking, "Is
>>    any of us blameless?  Is any perfect?"  Well, then, cannot JWs do the
>>    same thing for ourselves?
>    
>        Certainly, as long as they don't pose as though they posess a
>        complete understanding of prophetic revelation.  
    
        As JWs have been actively studying prophecy for more than 100
    years, we feel that we've made significant progress, so that we feel
    confident that we possess a *more* "complete understanding of prophetic
    revelation" than ever before, especially since over time (and by
    experience) we've also shed preconceived notions that we've inherited
    from Christendom that wrongly influenced our understanding of prophecy.
    It therefore goes without saying that we feel we have a more complete
    understanding of Bible prophesy than anyone else.  But, no, we don't
    possess *a fully complete* understanding of it, as there are many
    things yet to take place that we can only guess at.
    
        However, we know that God does not fail, and thus we are confident
    that as long as we are actively seeking to do his will, he'll keep
    using us, and keep correcting us as necessary.  I'm sure you feel the
    same way about your faith, no?
    
        
        							-mark.

    re .120 (YIELD::BARBIERI)
    
        For some reason I couldn't send e-mail to you (at this address --
    YIELD is evidently a cluster alias, and Mail reported that your
    username didn't exist on the actual node that it used to resolve the
    alias name).
    
    >                   -< Silence Gets Pretty Loud After Awhile >-
    
        Then you'll have to speak up louder.  I don't quite understand your
    point.  You mean silence about your replies (that no one is replying to
    them)?  To whom are they addressed?  (No offense intended, but I've
    only had time to single out a few postings to reply to.)
    
        
        							-mark.

    re .121 (NETCAD::WIEBE)
    
>On the topic of the Watchtower Society and prophecy, I want to point the
>interested reader to ATLANA::CHRISTIAN_V6 note 489.*, entitled "JWs and
>1874, 1914, 1925, 1975, etc."  Within the topic string is a debate between
>myself and Mark Sornson on the subject of whether the Watchtower Society
>is to be considered a "false prophet".
>
>Again, I have little time to contribute to this conference right now, so
>I would ask that the interested reader refer to that discussion and not
>reply to me unless they have something new to add.
    
        I don't remember if that topic was shut down, or whether I just
    lost the desire to keep arguing, but I do recall that I left a number
    of loose ends untied.  Though I don't have time at the moment to pick
    up where that note left off, perhaps in the future we can use this
    topic to tie things up.
    
        
        							-mark.

    re .117 (STAR::CAMUSO)
    
>        "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not
>        God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
>        that believe."
>	-- 1st Corinthians 1:21
>
>	This is what I believe happened to the couple that Mike talked
>	about at his church.
    
        The phrase "... the foolishness of *preaching*" makes it clear that
    belief follows having heard what was preached.  As Paul wrote to the
    Romans, "faith comes from what is heard" (Rom 10:17 RSV) -- which
    implies obviously understanding what is heard.  Yet in Mike's story of
    that couple, he said that they didn't understand what they heard.  So,
    how could there have been a basis for belief, if they hadn't really
    "heard" with understanding?
    
>	I also know people who came to Christ by reading and studying the
>	Scriptures.
    
        No argument that that is what should be done.
    
>	I also know people who came to Christ by a witness at the door or
>	in the street or train station or public beach or jail.
    
        Assuming the witness wasn't trivial, that also follows the
    Scriptural pattern of faith resulting from hearing, and understanding,
    what is preached.
    
>        I came to Christ, not by hearing preaching in a church, not by a
>        witness at the door, not by reading or studying the Scriptures,
>        but, at a time of distress, from a desperate cry from the heart to
>        give my life to God and ask Christ to come into my life and into my
>        heart that I may live more according to the will of God.  I cannot
>        remember any one teaching me that prayer or salvation by grace
>        prior to that time.  It was two years before I knew the full
>        implications of that confession, during which time I saw miracles
>        in my life - bad habits falling away, the beginning of the process
>        of healing in my marriage, the birth of a child we thought we could
>        never have, and more.  All this without studying, or even reading,
>        scripture during those two years.
    
        A very interesting story.  Certainly God is pleased when anyone
    quits bad habits, and when a marriage is healed.  And God certainly
    wishes all parents well, to find the most joy in the gift of their
    children.
    
        But yet, I find no precident in the Bible that shows that God deals
    with people who don't read his Word and study it, or that Christ
    accepts, as disciples, those who don't know the implications of their
    confession of faith.
    
        When discussing the implications of what it means to be one of his
    followers, Jesus made it plain that he *wanted* his disciples to know
    what was expected of them.  By way of illustration, he asked,
    
        		"For which of you, desiring to build
    			a tower, does not first sit down
    			and count the cost, whether he has
    			enough to complete it?"  (Luke 14:18 RSV)
    
    Jesus also said, in his 'great commission,' that his apostles were to:
    
        		"make disciples ... teaching them to
    			observe all that I have commanded you ..."
    			(Matt 28L19,20 RSV)
    
    How unusual that Jesus would make such an exception to his explicit
    command for you, that you should become a disciple of his without first
    having been taught his commands (and God's Word), or having even read
    the Bible, and that you didn't first know what the "cost" of becoming 
    a disciple was.
    
        Why, just think, if Jesus works that way, then there's really no
    need for the preaching at all.  If a person can be his disciple without
    reading the Bible or studying for the first two years, perhaps a person
    could be his disciple without EVER having to read or study the Bible.
    
        Perhaps you're on to something, and have discovered a spiritual
    efficiency that makes the Bible unnecessary!
    
        
        							-mark.

    re .119 (STAR::CAMUSO)
    
>        To set a date for the return of Christ is to profess to convey
>        newly inspired information, as no date for His return was given in
>        Scripture.
    
        I just realized that I hadn't addressed this specific point.
    
        JWs never, and I repeat, NEVER, claimed that the dates they came up
    with were the result of inspiration.  God never sent his angel, or gave
    them dreams which literally specified those dates.
    
        They've always only been attempts to interpret prophetic language
    that is already in the inspired Bible.  There are prophesies in the
    Bible which Christians have long recognized as having 'temporal'
    meaning, particularly in Daniel.  The problem is that the symbolic
    language has always made it difficult to determine literal meanings to
    the start-times, and the actual time-spans involved.
    
        Yet, the fact that these prophesies are in the Bible means that God
    *has* provided them for man to understand, at the proper time.  And the
    angel assured Daniel that the prophetic words given to him would be
    "shut up and sealed *until the time of the end*" (Dan 12:9 RSV).
    
        Is your religion encouraging an active investigation into these
    prophesies, so that those of your faith will benefit by them in "the
    time of the end"?
    
        And, if you happen to misunderstand them before hand, because the
    time isn't right to understand them, would that *really* make you
    guilty of being a false prophet?  Or would you just be guilty of not
    having understood the words of God's true prophets who wrote the Bible?
    
        							-mark.

|    implies obviously understanding what is heard.  Yet in Mike's story of
|    that couple, he said that they didn't understand what they heard.  So,
|    how could there have been a basis for belief, if they hadn't really
|    "heard" with understanding?
    
    You are assuming that their testimony is void of prior contact with
    God's Holy Word and you are also negating the power of the Holy Spirit
    drawing and convicting the lost.
    
    Mike

RE:   <<< Note 903.125 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>

	Mark, why was Peter sent to Cornelius of the Italian band?

	Regards,
		TonyC
		

|            But yet, I find no precident in the Bible that shows that God deals
|    with people who don't read his Word and study it, or that Christ
|    accepts, as disciples, those who don't know the implications of their
|    confession of faith.
    
    What did Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Moses do before God revealed the
    Law?  I find plenty of precedent there.  These great men of God has the
    same privilege that the believer has today: direct communication with
    God.  Abraham was drawn by God to be chosen and righteous without
    benefit of studying and reading His Word (which hadn't been written
    yet).
    
    Mike

|        Is your religion encouraging an active investigation into these
|    prophesies, so that those of your faith will benefit by them in "the
|    time of the end"?
    
    We most certainly investigate them but we are not into the seriousness
    of date setting.  First of all, no man knows the hour so date setting
    is pointless.  Secondly, false prophecies, which these date settings
    are, is a serious offense in God's Word and it also destroys your
    witness, testimony, and credibility.
    
    Mike

    re .128 (STAR::CAMUSO)
    
    >	Mark, why was Peter sent to Cornelius of the Italian band?
    
        Tony,  you couldn't have picked a better example.  Acts 10:2 says
    Cornelius was:
    
        	"a devout man who feared God with all
    		his household, gave alms liberally to all
    		the people, and prayed constantly to God." (RSV)
    
    So, evidently, although he wasn't a Jewish proselyte (i.e., a Gentile
    who had officially become a Jew), he must -- though a Gentile --
    already have had faith in the God of the Jews.  Being "devout," he must
    also have known the Jewish scriptures, at least to some extent.
    
        If he wasn't actually the centurion mentioned in Luke's gospel, he
    must have had a similar background, for Jesus was told by other Jews
    that that centurion:
    
        	"is worthy to have you do this [miracle] for
    		him, for he loves our nation, and he built for
    		us our synagogue."  (Luke 7:4,5 RSV)
    
    Before Jesus got to the man's house, the centurion sent word to Jesus
    that he shouldn't trouble himself to actually come to the man's house
    (for he didn't feel worthy), but rather, Jesus' was asked just to heal
    the man's slave from afar.  Jesus exclaimed:
    
        	"I tell you, not even in Israel have I found
    		such faith."  (vs.9)
    
    So clearly there were non-Jews who had faith in God (while Christ was
    on earth), and both God and Christ knew who they were.  When Peter was
    sent to Cornelius, God was making it clear to the Jewish Christians
    (for that's all there were, at first), that it was now time for him to
    start gathering in disciples from among the nations.  To begin with,
    the one chosen was already a worshiper of Jehovah, who simply needed an
    education in who Christ was.
    
        As this account shows, EVEN THOUGH Cornelius himself received a
    divine vision (of an angel -- Acts 10:3-6), God didn't use that vision
    to teach Cornelius the truth, all by his lonesome, and without help
    from another who was already Christian.  But rather, the vision told
    Cornelius to send for Peter, whom God would use to teach him the truth.
    
        Divine intervention -- God's angel -- made it clear, in this
    particular case, that Peter was the one who had the truth, but God
    still used this man, Peter, to give Cornelius the witness to the truth
    that he needed.  After this point, the Jewish Christians began
    preaching to all the nations (and not just to Jews), and thus the
    nations received the witness the 'regular way,' through the preaching
    (i.e., God didn't continue to send angels to other Gentiles in a
    similar fashion as he sent one to Cornelius).  We might say that in the
    case of Cornelius, divine intervention was needed to 'bootstrap the
    preaching work beyond its original Jewish bounds.
    
        So, Peter was sent to Cornelius to open up the preaching work to
    the nations.  Thus, God was following the pattern of spreading the
    truth by person-to-person contact, with people teaching people.
    
        
        							-mark.

    re .129 (PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
>|       But yet, I find no precident in the Bible that shows that God deals
>|    with people who don't read his Word and study it, or that Christ
>|    accepts, as disciples, those who don't know the implications of their
>|    confession of faith.
>    
>    What did Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Moses do before God revealed the
>    Law?  I find plenty of precedent there.  
    
        Precident in Christian times.
    
        However, all of these men you mention ALREADY were worshippers of
    Jehovah, though true worship was obviously defined only to the extent
    that it was known at each point in time.
    
    
>                                             These great men of God has the
>    same privilege that the believer has today: direct communication with
>    God.
    
        Not so.  Hebrews 1:1,2 says:
    
        	"In many and various ways God spoke of old to 
    		our fathers by the prophets; but in these last 
    		days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed 
    		the heir of all things, through whom also he
             	created the world." (RSV)
    
    So, although God communicated with men in pre-Christian times by direct
    means, with the Christian era, he was now communicating with men
    through his Son.  Jesus' great commission in Matt 28 shows that Jesus
    would from that point on speak to the world through his disciples.  He
    also made this point just before his death, when he said to his
    apostles:
    
        	"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth
    		whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth 
    		me receiveth him that sent me."  (John 13:20 KJV)
    
    People would "receive" Jesus by receiving those whom he was going to
    send out preaching.  In turn, people would "receive" the Father by
    receiving Jesus in that manner.  Those who were privileged to be
    inspired directly were *already* Christian by the time they were
    inspired -- they weren't ignorant people of the world who hadn't yet
    heard and accepted the basic truths that were known up to that point
    in time.
    
    
>    God.  Abraham was drawn by God to be chosen and righteous without
>    benefit of studying and reading His Word (which hadn't been written
>    yet).
    
        But Abraham had the traditions of true worship that were passed
    down to him through the line of Hebrew-speaking men in post-Flood,
    post-Babel times, who (evidently) didn't have their language confused
    along with those who defied God at Babel.  Abraham knew Melchizedek,
    who was a priest of God.  And Abraham may also have known Noah's son,
    Shem, who Bible chronology shows lived into his day. (Jewish tradition
    actually identifies Melchizedek as being Shem, though the Bible doesn't
    say that.)
    
        Obviously God himself made the decision to deal with Abraham on the
    basis of his spiritual status of the time.  Are you saying that now
    that the Bible is written, and now that the the 'Christian church'
    exists (in whatever form or forms are true -- according to your way of
    thinking), that God is using methods for drawing people to him which
    'shortcut' both the Bible and the 'church'?  What's wrong with the
    Bible and 'the church' that he doesn't use those means?
    
        That sounds like a "different gospel" to me.
    
        							-mark.

RE:   <<< Note 903.132 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>

	"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..."
	-- Acts 16:31

	"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shal be saved."
	-- Romans 10:13

	"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
	that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have
	everlasting life."
	-- John 3:16

	Salvation comes before sanctification.  Sanctification is the
	effect of salvation, not the cause.

        When a person calls upon the Lord Jesus Christ to save him, the
        sanctification process begins.  Bad habits start to fall away. 
        Good deeds are purposefully done.  Church attendance begins. 
        Scripture is sought.  Conviction about obedience to God's
        commandments sets in.  These things may start to happen at once, or
        they may happen more slowly.  All will be measured according to the
        talents meted to them by Yahweh Elohim.  We are not to judge, but
        it is by their fruit that we shall know them, and by the fact that
	they love one another, regardless of their faults, warts and all.

	Shalom,
		TonyC
		

RE:   <<< Note 903.131 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>

	If Cornelius was not a Jewish proselyte, how did he come to know
	about Yahweh Elohim?

        In our day-to-day lives, we encounter many people of many
        persuasions who bear witness to us of one thing or another.  We
        hear alot of things.  Some of us, when we were younger, attended
        the churches of our parents on Sundays while attending public
        schools during the week.  Our parents' religion, and religion in
        general, began to look like little more than superstition based on
        fanciful myth.

        Many of us have heard the Gospel without really hearing it in the
        heart.  Some have had intellectual acknowledgement without
        spiritual commitment.  Some have even had intellectual assent
        without spiritual commitment.  In a particularly stressful
        situation, one may call out from his heart, "Lord, save me!"  I
        believe that the Father draws people to Christ.  What Jesus said
        concerning this stands alone and needs no context.
	
        "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw
        him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
	-- John 6:44

	The ways in which the Father draws a person are myriad.  It could
	even be through a formal, 40-lesson, 16-week course.

	In His way.

	In His time.

	God's peace,
		Tony

    re .134 (STAR::CAMUSO)
    
>	If Cornelius was not a Jewish proselyte, how did he come to know
>	about Yahweh Elohim?
    
        The Bible doesn't say specifically how he came to know the God of
    the Jews.  All it says is that he knew him.  The three men who were
    sent to fetch Peter told him:
    
        	"Cornelius, a centurion, an upright man
    		who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish
    		nation, was directed by a holy angel to
    		send for you ..." (Acts 10:22 RSV)
    
    Clearly he wasn't considered part of the Jewish nation, which he would
    have been, had be been a Jewish proselyte.
    
        When Peter arrived at his home, he told him:
    
        	"You yourselves know how unlawful it is for
    		a Jew to associate with or to visit any one
    		of another nation ..." (v.28 RSV)
    
    So again, Peter knew him not as a fellow Jew, but as a Gentile, or man
    "of another nation."  If he had been a proselyte, it would not have
    been "unlawful" for Peter to have been there.  Really, the whole point
    of the vision God gave to Peter in the preceding verses (9-15) was to
    help Peter appreciate that God was now breaking down the distinction
    between those who were Jewish (and circumcised) and those who were of
    the nations (and uncircumcised, and hence "unclean").  
    
    	Later, when the controversy over admitting Gentiles who were
    uncircumcised came to a boil, which required the apostles and elders to
    be conviened in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1ff), Peter testified about his
    earlier experience in being the one who brought the gospel to the
    Gentiles (though not mentioning Cornelius by name).  Overall, by
    context, it's clear that Cornelius was, in fact, an uncircumcised
    Gentile.  If he had been a Jewish proselyte, he would have been
    circumcised, and thus his 'conversion experience' would not have been
    a credible piece of evidence as presented by Peter, who argued against
    the need for Gentiles to be circumsized according to the Law.
    
>        In our day-to-day lives, we encounter many people of many
>        persuasions who bear witness to us of one thing or another.  We
>        hear alot of things.  Some of us, when we were younger, attended
>        the churches of our parents on Sundays while attending public
>        schools during the week.  Our parents' religion, and religion in
>        general, began to look like little more than superstition based on
>        fanciful myth.
>
>        Many of us have heard the Gospel without really hearing it in the
>        heart.  Some have had intellectual acknowledgement without
>        spiritual commitment.  Some have even had intellectual assent
>        without spiritual commitment.  In a particularly stressful
>        situation, one may call out from his heart, "Lord, save me!"  I
>        believe that the Father draws people to Christ.  What Jesus said
>        concerning this stands alone and needs no context.
    
        But now you're admitting that *some* prior knowledge of the Bible,
    and who is who, is really necessary.  Even if it really hadn't 'sunk in'
    in the past, it still counts as needed knowledge.
    
        Those who cry out, "Lord, save me!" aren't really suddenly
    professing Jesus from a truly 'cold start.'  They (allegedly) really
    know who he is on an intellectual basis -- due to knowledge absorbed in
    the past though not applied.  So for them, it's assumed that their
    background knowledge is sufficient, and that all that's needed is for
    it to be put to use (or made real).
    
    ----
    
        The overall point that JWs profess is that the 'background
    knowledge' that is nominally taught in Christendom is wrong.  Sure, one
    can 'base a faith upon it', but it's the sort of faith that will
    underlie the adverse words of Jesus:
    
        	"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall 
    		enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will 
    		of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will 
    		say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your 
    		name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many 
    		mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to 
    		them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'"
    		(Matt 7:21-23 RSV)
    
    I don't mean to offend (for I imagine that you feel these words apply
    to JWs).  But the cry of "Lord, Lord ..." (or even, "Lord, save me!")
    may be rejected by Jesus, even if those crying it truly feel they have
    all the evidence in the world to prove themselves sincere.
    
        
        							-mark.

      Hi Mark,
    
        Yeah, Yield is a cluster.  I was referring to .49 which is
        a reply that I have not received a response to from one who
        is a Jehovah's Witness.
    
        Thanks for responding to .120 tho!
    
    						Tony

    re .136 (YIELD::BARBIERI)
    
    Hello Tony,
    
>        Yeah, Yield is a cluster.  I was referring to .49 which is
>        a reply that I have not received a response to from one who
>        is a Jehovah's Witness.
>    
>        Thanks for responding to .120 tho!
    
    Oh, well ... just because your note didn't get replied to doesn't mean
    that a JW might not having something to say about it (if we wanted to
    argue with you).
    
        Really, this topic was started for people to post information that
    argues *against* what JWs believe in.  Thus, I think that JWs aren't
    necessarily obligated to reply to any note in particular, since the
    whole premise of the topic is intrinsically hostile to JWs.   We know
    most in this conference believe differently than we do.  So there isn't
    always a compelling reason to 'step into the ring' just because a given
    person (like yourself) posts a 'position statement' that differs from
    JW views.
    
    	I'm sure that some hope that JWs will drop by from time to time;
    but I think it's fair for us (JWs) to be judicious, and choose to 'turn
    down fights' as we see fit.  Don't you?
    
        Or is this topic note a kangaroo court which all passing JWs must
    be dragged into and interogated by (a harsh metaphore, I know), such
    that we're compelled to answer every posting?
    
        However, if you ask nicely (for you didn't really ask us any
    questions, did you?), perhaps one of us will have time to reply.
    
        Gotta go.
    
        							-mark.

      Hi Mark,
    
        I guess I wouldn't mind your comments to .49.  I feel like you
        are very fair in your writing style and that you guys are often
        critiqued in a way that goes beyond just doctrinal differences.
    
        As far as my reply (.49) goes, I think it is an extremely impor-
        tant one.  It calls to mind (for me anyway), the Phillipians
        text which I have heard suggested may have been Paul's favorite
        sermon - the condescension of Jesus Christ.
    
        It really hits a jugular.  Makes me think of Galatians 5:5-6
        (paraphrasing - no Bible handy):
    
        For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by
        faith for neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything,
        but faith which works by love (agape).
    
        Faith works by a revelation of the love of God.  So, I think .49
        really hits on some of the basics of that love which our faith 
        can work by as our hearts are warmed by a heaven-sent revelation
        of that love.
    
    						Take Care and God Bless,
    
    						Tony

|    I don't mean to offend (for I imagine that you feel these words apply
|    to JWs).  But the cry of "Lord, Lord ..." (or even, "Lord, save me!")
|    may be rejected by Jesus, even if those crying it truly feel they have
|    all the evidence in the world to prove themselves sincere.
    
    1.  Experiences are judged by the Word of God.
    
    2.  John 6:37  
     All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me
     I will in no wise cast out.
    
    Mike

|>    same privilege that the believer has today: direct communication with
|>    God.
|    
|        Not so.  Hebrews 1:1,2 says:
|    
|        	"In many and various ways God spoke of old to 
|    		our fathers by the prophets; but in these last 
|    		days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed 
|    		the heir of all things, through whom also he
|             	created the world." (RSV)
    
    The access is direct because He is our mediator, but He is also God 
    the Son.  Probably just semantics for the former point.  Same book 
    and chapter:
    
    1:8  But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and
         ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
    
    YHWH calls the Son "God."
    
|    People would "receive" Jesus by receiving those whom he was going to
|    send out preaching.  In turn, people would "receive" the Father by
|    receiving Jesus in that manner.  Those who were privileged to be
|    inspired directly were *already* Christian by the time they were
|    inspired -- they weren't ignorant people of the world who hadn't yet
|    heard and accepted the basic truths that were known up to that point
|    in time.
    
    Receiving an evangelist/missionary/disciple doesn't save you.  Asking
    Jesus Christ to come into your heart as Lord and Savior does (Romans
    10:9-13, Ephesians 2:4-9, John 3:16, etc.).
    
|    along with those who defied God at Babel.  Abraham knew Melchizedek,
|    who was a priest of God.  And Abraham may also have known Noah's son,
|    Shem, who Bible chronology shows lived into his day. (Jewish tradition
|    actually identifies Melchizedek as being Shem, though the Bible doesn't
|    say that.)
    
    Interesting character in Melchizedek.  I won't rathole this anymore,
    but I will say that I don't agree with the Jewish tradition.
    
|        Obviously God himself made the decision to deal with Abraham on the
|    basis of his spiritual status of the time.  Are you saying that now
|    that the Bible is written, and now that the the 'Christian church'
|    exists (in whatever form or forms are true -- according to your way of
|    thinking), that God is using methods for drawing people to him which
|    'shortcut' both the Bible and the 'church'?  What's wrong with the
|    Bible and 'the church' that he doesn't use those means?
    
    I'm saying that an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God can lead
    people to Him in any way He desires, but He won't contradict His Word.
    
|        That sounds like a "different gospel" to me.
    
    Only in the way you presented it.  
    
    Mike

RE:   <<< Note 903.135 by ILLUSN::SORNSON "Are all your pets called 'Eric'?" >>>
    
>        But now you're admitting that *some* prior knowledge of the Bible,
>    and who is who, is really necessary.  Even if it really hadn't 'sunk in'
>    in the past, it still counts as needed knowledge.
>    
>        Those who cry out, "Lord, save me!" aren't really suddenly
>    professing Jesus from a truly 'cold start.'  They (allegedly) really
>    know who he is on an intellectual basis -- due to knowledge absorbed in
>    the past though not applied.  So for them, it's assumed that their
>    background knowledge is sufficient, and that all that's needed is for
>    it to be put to use (or made real).
    
        I don't believe that I said that there was no prior knowledge of
        the Bible on my part.  What I said is that nobody taught me a
        "sinners' prayer", neither was I involved in any Bible study at the
        time, neither was I aware of salvation by grace.  I had no intimate
        knowledge of Scripture, just the 10 Commandments and who Jesus is,
        Psalm 23 (which was read to us every day in Public School), Psalm
        22, and some reading of Revelation, though at the time, which was
        years before I gave myself to God, I understood very little of it.

	As for the meaning of the vision of Peter in Acts, we agree.  As a
	matter of fact, I do not take this to mean that we can eat whatever
	we want.  I do not eat those things which Yahweh identified as
	unclean.

        As touching involvement in politics, I am currently studying it.
        The Mennonites do not participate at all in politics.  I am not a
        Mennonite, but I ascribe to their desire for holiness living.  I do
        not think it is wrong to write letters to those in power or to
        participate in polls to make known to them what God has to say
        about certain things, like abortion and welfare.   Consider the
        following.

        "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any
        wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him."
	-- Leviticus 19:17

        "And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a
        witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter
        it, then he shall bear his iniquity."
	-- Leviticus 5:1

	"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but
	rather reprove them."
	-- Ephesians 5:11

	"Preach the word; be instant in seasson, out of season; reprove,
	rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."
	-- 2nd Timothy 4:2

	"And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.  This saith the LORD
	God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered
	thee out of the hand of Saul;
	"Wherefore has thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do
	evil in his sight?  thou has killed Uriah the Hittite with the
	sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him
	with the sword of the children of Ammon."
	-- 2nd Samuel 12:7,9

	"... the most high ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to
	whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."
	-- last part of Daniel 4:17

        Though we are not to participate in evil, neither are we to allow
        it to occur without reproof.  Indeed, God sets up our rulers.  We
        get the rulers we deserve.  But if we fail to reprove injustice and
        murder on the part of our God-appointed leaders, then we bear their
        iniquity.  And we get the rulers we deserve.  It can be a vicious
        cycle.

        Whether we should vote, and whether voting is participating in the
        unfruitful works of darkness, I am inclined to believe that voting
        is a way in which we can provide reproof to those in leadership who
        would do evil.  But and if we vote, we must be careful to vote for
	those who would seek to abide by God's commandments.  This means
	that, if I vote in the coming elections, I will have to leave a lot
	of boxes blank.  A "None of the above" option on the ballot would
	be extremely welcome.

	Shalom,
		TonyC
		

    re .139 (PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
>|    I don't mean to offend (for I imagine that you feel these words apply
>|    to JWs).  But the cry of "Lord, Lord ..." (or even, "Lord, save me!")
>|    may be rejected by Jesus, even if those crying it truly feel they have
>|    all the evidence in the world to prove themselves sincere.
>    
>    1.  Experiences are judged by the Word of God.
    
        Yeeees ... that's true; but there's a difference between judging
    and experience by the Word of God, and simply rubber-stamping an
    experience with the Word of God.  It's too easy for anyone to say, "My
    experience fits what I read in the Word of God, therefore it must be
    valid."
    
>    2.  John 6:37  
>     All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me
>     I will in no wise cast out.
    
        But this doesn't invalidate what Jesus said above, did it, that
    some, by outward appearances -- or by the estimation of their own minds
    and hearts -- would appear to have been 'given to Jesus by the Father',
    such that they feel justified in crying, "Lord, Lord," yet Jesus would
    reject them for not truly doing the will of his Father, despite their
    claims to 'many powerful works' as proof of God's backing.
    
        
        							-mark.

|        Yeeees ... that's true; but there's a difference between judging
|    and experience by the Word of God, and simply rubber-stamping an
|    experience with the Word of God.  It's too easy for anyone to say, "My
|    experience fits what I read in the Word of God, therefore it must be
|    valid."
    
    I don't see where that was done.  For instance, charismatic phenomena
    like "laughing in the Spirit" or "slain in the Spirit" do not have
    Scriptural support therefore I reject them.  God drawing the lost with
    His Holy Spirit and saving them under the Messiah's atoning sacrifice does.
    
|        But this doesn't invalidate what Jesus said above, did it, that
|    some, by outward appearances -- or by the estimation of their own minds
|    and hearts -- would appear to have been 'given to Jesus by the Father',
|    such that they feel justified in crying, "Lord, Lord," yet Jesus would
|    reject them for not truly doing the will of his Father, despite their
|    claims to 'many powerful works' as proof of God's backing.
    
    I don't understand what you're saying here.
    
    Mike

    re .143 (PHXSS1::HEISER)
    
>|        Yeeees ... that's true; but there's a difference between judging
>|    and experience by the Word of God, and simply rubber-stamping an
>|    experience with the Word of God.  It's too easy for anyone to say, "My
>|    experience fits what I read in the Word of God, therefore it must be
>|    valid."
>    
>    I don't see where that was done.  For instance, charismatic phenomena
>    like "laughing in the Spirit" or "slain in the Spirit" do not have
>    Scriptural support therefore I reject them.  God drawing the lost with
>    His Holy Spirit and saving them under the Messiah's atoning sacrifice does.
    
    OK, so you can identify spirit-related, charismatic practices, that you
    reject as authoritative.  Obviously, however, many do consider these
    things as valid, and they probably accept many of the same basic
    notions that you do, like the trinity, for instance.  If they read what
    you say here, they might feel that *you* are rejecting various 'works
    of the spirit.'
    
    What I'm really getting at, however, is the question of whether the
    experiences that *you have had*, and accept as true, are really valid
    [for people who experience being 'slain in the Spirit' obviously think
    that their experience validates their position, regardless of whatever
    the Scriptures say].
    
    I've been asking for specific descriptions of how the "Spirit"
    "convicts" people; but when pressed, I've so far been given answers
    that are somewhat vague, and thus not really 'testable' against
    Scripture in the manner that things like being "slain in the Spirit"
    are -- or else are general enough to be less than miraculous means of
    forming a conviction.
    
>|        But this doesn't invalidate what Jesus said above, did it, that
>|    some, by outward appearances -- or by the estimation of their own minds
>|    and hearts -- would appear to have been 'given to Jesus by the Father',
>|    such that they feel justified in crying, "Lord, Lord," yet Jesus would
>|    reject them for not truly doing the will of his Father, despite their
>|    claims to 'many powerful works' as proof of God's backing.
>    
>    I don't understand what you're saying here.
    
    What I'm getting at is that many of your answers are self-referencial,
    and say, "I'm right and am obviously doing God's will because the
    Spirit has convicted me; and the Spirit has convicted me because I'm
    right and am obviously doing God's will."  
    
    Jesus said that many would similarly claim various forms of
    self-reference as proof of their being genuine Christians, but would be
    found wanting, whereas judgment is truly based on the absolute frame of
    reference of what God's will really is.
    
    Of course, just to make things interesting, it's hard for anyone to
    avoid the connundrum of being accused of following an *interpretation*
    rather than the real thing, because from just about any frame of
    reference, what the other guy is following is merely an
    *interpretation*.
    
    Of course, there is a lot to be said about putting faith into practice,
    for over time, the act of *doing* God's will acts as a sieve, such that
    experience itself helps one sift out man-made interpretations from the
    genuine article (but, then, such experience often takes a fair amount
    of time, and while one is waiting for such experience to accrue, one
    may fall victim to the mistaken ideas of the present).
    
    								-mark.

|    OK, so you can identify spirit-related, charismatic practices, that you
|    reject as authoritative.  Obviously, however, many do consider these
|    things as valid, and they probably accept many of the same basic
|    notions that you do, like the trinity, for instance.  If they read what
|    you say here, they might feel that *you* are rejecting various 'works
|    of the spirit.'
    
    Well we've had some of those discussions in here while you've been
    away.  I just reference 1 John 4 and ask "Which spirit?"  God won't
    contradict His Word when it comes to salvation and other critical
    doctrines like the deity of Christ, the nature of man, God revealing
    Himself in scripture, etc.  Some of what is practiced in the name of
    charismania today has no mention in scripture.  This is a rathole, but
    I thought you should know that I do uphold the ministry of the Holy
    Spirit as defined in scripture.
    
|    What I'm really getting at, however, is the question of whether the
|    experiences that *you have had*, and accept as true, are really valid
|    [for people who experience being 'slain in the Spirit' obviously think
|    that their experience validates their position, regardless of whatever
|    the Scriptures say].
    
    They are valid according to Scripture.  God's Word declares that Jesus
    Christ is the only way by which we may be saved and that the Holy
    Spirit draws and convicts the lost to Himself.  God is not the author
    of confusion.  He is true to His Word.
    
|    I've been asking for specific descriptions of how the "Spirit"
|    "convicts" people; but when pressed, I've so far been given answers
|    that are somewhat vague, and thus not really 'testable' against
|    Scripture in the manner that things like being "slain in the Spirit"
|    are -- or else are general enough to be less than miraculous means of
|    forming a conviction.
    
    As previously quoted, John 16:7-15.  See also John 8:9 for an example
    of how God convicted sinners.  Righteousness sears the conscience.
    
|    What I'm getting at is that many of your answers are self-referencial,
|    and say, "I'm right and am obviously doing God's will because the
|    Spirit has convicted me; and the Spirit has convicted me because I'm
|    right and am obviously doing God's will."  
    
    The Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin.  If you are right and doing
    God's will all the time, the Holy Spirit would probably be ministering
    through you in other ways.
    
    Didn't mean to give a wrong impression.  Despite my shortcomings, I
    strongly believe in the authority of Scripture.  The Bible, and 
    nothing/nobody else is our final authority.  With God's Word we are 
    commanded to read, study, pray for discernment, and apply it to our 
    lives.  Nobody else can do this for us.  It is part of a growing process 
    where God spiritually strengthens us. 
    
|    Jesus said that many would similarly claim various forms of
|    self-reference as proof of their being genuine Christians, but would be
|    found wanting, whereas judgment is truly based on the absolute frame of
|    reference of what God's will really is.
    
    Yes, but praise God that I'm covered with the atoning blood of Jesus
    Christ and am saved according to the scriptures.
    
|    Of course, just to make things interesting, it's hard for anyone to
|    avoid the connundrum of being accused of following an *interpretation*
|    rather than the real thing, because from just about any frame of
|    reference, what the other guy is following is merely an
|    *interpretation*.
    
    That can be true.  However, when you have a personal relationship with
    Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit offers you incredible discernment for His
    Word (1 Corinthians 12).  When He validates His Word in your own life,
    without contradiction, it is POWERFUL!
    
|    Of course, there is a lot to be said about putting faith into practice,
|    for over time, the act of *doing* God's will acts as a sieve, such that
|    experience itself helps one sift out man-made interpretations from the
|    genuine article (but, then, such experience often takes a fair amount
|    of time, and while one is waiting for such experience to accrue, one
|    may fall victim to the mistaken ideas of the present).
    
    I agree with you here.  The experiences should follow the believer; not
    the believer following the experiences.  Experiences must also be
    judged according to God's Word.  This is our authority against
    deception.
    
    Mike

      Hi,
    
        I just want to reiterate that my personal belief is that
        .49 is too important to not be addressed.
    
    						Tony

      Going once...

    re .147 (YIELD::BARBIERI)
    
>                      -< Apparently Not Important Enough >-
>
>      Going once...
    
        Where's the fire?  When someone has time to reply, they'll reply.
    There's no harm done by this topic being on hold for a while.  Practice
    patience, my friend.
    
        But for now, look on the bright side.  If no one answers, then you
    "win" by default.
    
        							-mark.