# Enter Reality

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by GregStafford [GregStafford] on November 06, 1999 at 19:07:43 {p8g/8h8r5Q0hi4VK0MIQXxZ4XktaQ.}:

Let me explain two things first: I have agreed to limit my participation on discussion boards and in chat rooms for the benefit of my brothers and sisters. I do not agree entirely with the reasoning behind it, but I will go along with the wishes of others whom I respect, to a degree. I am not in “danger” as Alan and others suggested. I will have more to say about their imaginings below. But when I see out and out dishonest vilification taking place when those performing such devilish acts of slander are totally unaware of what REALLY happened, then I believe it is necessary for me to offer some additional comments.

Do any of you, except Adam Covington, AF, and possibly a few others, realize that there were TWO Travis posts? Did you not realize that the second post was where I made it as clear as I could what was going on, under the circumstances, and even requested that those who did not understand what I said email me? BOTH posts were deleted for some unknown reason.

Now, if you did not see the second post, then when AF MISLEADINGLY reposted my deleted POST (note the use of the singular) below, then of course you would have been and likely were utterly confused. Don’t get me wrong, I should never have attempted to post under another name to get around the attempt to limit my online activities, but I did. However, what has happened here over the past two or three days is far more ludicrous than anything I tried to do. Let me share some FACTS with you that you just might have overlooked. In what follows I will comment primarily on posts by AF, JH, Gedanken, RW, and a couple other matters. If this does not make it clear that folks like these are fooling you, nothing will. Please, consider:

AF
Stafford's Deleted Post
Posted by AF [AF] on November 04, 1999 at 07:53:14 {yxewwqp4aADjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

END OF QUOTE

Here is the misleading repost of my deleted material, with only ONE of the posts! What happened to the other one, AF? Of course, even though you misled people here, you at least admitted certain things that were completely ignored by others, which I will discuss below, and for that I give you some credit. But since there were TWO deleted posts, your new thread is without question misleading and irresponsible, and has led to the false conclusions, such as the following post, made in response to Adam Covington:

Posted by Julie [Julie] on November 06, 1999 at 14:12:35 {p8g/8h8r5QT.q0qzQJj2RyqclwWKXQ}:
Af is just too gracious about the whole thing, IMO. As for you, I'm sure Greg is a personal hero of yours so you can't possibly be expected to be objective.
Julie

END OF QUOTE

It has nothing to do with that, Julie. AF KNOWS what happened and he is, indeed, at least admitting as much in certain replies on certain threads (see below). But you are not aware of what truly happened since BOTH posts were deleted, and therefore, to use your own words, you “can't possibly be expected to be objective.”

On the one hand, it is hard to imagine how so many people could present a one-sided view of my mistake. But on the other hand I am speaking partly in reference to persons like Gedanken and JH, both of whom specialize in misinformation (supporting facts to follow). Gedanken does not offer any scholarly reply to the material and instead proceeds based on a misunderstanding of the issues, and he defamed me publicly. Consider, please, his reply to barJonah:

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54 {6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by barJonah on November 05, 1999 at 02:20:20:
bJ
:If nothing else, I hope this message from Greg will give pause to some of those who were so quick to jump all over him in the last few days.
I don't see why it would. He deserves all he has received and more. The man has shown himself to be (a) deceitful, (b) an arrogant and boastful liar and (c) an idiot by doing what he did. He could make some amends by apologizing but he is, evidently, too arrogant even to do that. Let's put things in perspective; an author of a book tries to pose as an independent and unbiased onlooker on a noticeboard and then proceeds to label his critics liars while declaring himself the "winner." At the same time he indulges in a level of self-praise that can only be described as nauseating.

END OF QUOTE

JH added his own highly unusual (!) personal attack, in response to Cygnus:

Posted by J.H. [JH] on November 05, 1999 at 16:41:22 {6xiCHW3gJ2wxcT1WLj/AHR5JhS9/hc}:
In Reply to: **AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Cygnus on November 05, 1999 at 15:27:09:
: Greg's maneuver was one of desperation, and I think you can grant him that, can't you?
Not at all. There was nothing in his situation
Remember: We can talk with authority on the matter, because we were where Greg is now, and we did not practice intellectual dishonesty, deceit and most recently, outright intentional fraud with the petty motive of self-congratulation.
What he did is more pathetic, ridiculous and dishonest than anything people like YK or ABK has ever done here. Stafford deserves to be taken less seriously than them.

END OF QUOTE

So even though barJonah and Cygnus, while they themselves were concerned about the nature of my use of a different name, which I will explain, again, in just one moment, could see the poor nature of what Gedanken and JH has said. I appreciate the fact that, while they do not agree with my course of action, they were at least understanding enough to realize that these two fellows were at least partially out of line. The truth is, they stepped out of bounds a long time ago.

Indeed, I would have to argue that JH and Gedanken revealed just how ignorant they truly are, given the FACTS surrounding my situation. Both of these good-natured fellows, with only the best of intentions, of course, chose to attack me based on their false understanding of what happened, after I decided to depart. Of course, this is the same JH who was caught hiding in the corner with his tail between his legs after getting utterly humiliated (by his doing) on issues involving the pronunciation of the divine name several months back. His act was one of the more memorable an unfortunate displays of pseudo-scholarship I have ever seen. No doubt that is why he is all too happy to jump the gun in attacking me now. More recently I offered him another opportunity to defend his indefensible and contradictory claims about the divine name, but he did not want any part of that unsalvageable operation. If you think I am being hard on JH, let me introduce you to a quintessential JH argument:

JH (Posted by [JH] on November 05, 1999 at 16:48:08 {6xiCHW3gJ2wxcT1WLj/AHR5JhS9/hc}:
I did, already then, consider Stafford to be a total joke in every acedemic regard. He had learned a lot of fancy words to pull the wool over your eyes (and, even more, the rank & file JWs eyes!), and you didn't believe me when I told you he was a 100% bluff and a fraud, so intellectually dishonest he's way beyond debate.
Well, I think I got that one right :-)

END OF QUOTE

Those familiar with this joker know that the above is quite representative of his “acedemic” prowess. Actually, he was a bit toned down in his above remarks, from his usual demeanor. As for being a “bluff” and a “fraud,” if JH has the gumption to reenter the debate over the divine name, I will gladly bring everyone up to speed by showing you what a fraud he truly is, and then proceed to address whatever else he has to say. If anyone is interested in the posts we exchanged, I will gladly supply them. Just send me an email.

But here he is, on the bandwagon of misunderstanding and deceit being driven into the ground by Gedanken.

Let me further explain why these two are as about as low as you can go on the honesty meter:

I have already said that it was not a good decision on my end, to try and stay involved in the discussion by assuming a different name, but that was not meant to fool any of YOU! How is it that my follow-up message to my first one is being so conveniently ignored? Why was it deleted AND NOT REPOSTED along with the first message? I there made it clear, or at least tried to make it clear, that I was now posting under a new name. I created a character for myself who stood up for the issues that I wanted to continue to discuss, namely, those issues expressed in my debate with AF, and essentially TOLD YOU that that is what I was going to do, from now on. I even asked you to email me if there were any questions about it. I did not even know that my name was still there, until after posting the SECOND message, the one many of you are ignoring, for obvious reasons.

In the first message I was, of course, highlighting my response in a positive light, but I purposely limited my negative remarks about AF and his material. I said he had lost to this point, and that is quite true, and I said it so “Travis” could then defend these claims by assuming the debate! I also said that AF was A BIT arrogant, and that is demonstrably true in view of his repeated attempts to prove things about the INTENTIONS of persons who wrote for the Society, which he cannot prove, and his purposefully limiting the options to incompetence and deception, when other possibilities exist. Indeed, he BARELY allowed for the incompetence option. But I am sure we will hear his reasoning on this in his forthcoming reply, which I eagerly await.

But, again, how else could I have masked my presence, with the intentions I previously stated, and still have drawn the fire of the discussion? Could I have said, "I am now going to take Greg's place in the debate, I am ..."? Yes, maybe I could have, and should have. But would that not have sounded a LITTLE bit suspicious? Would you not have found yourself wondering, “WHO is this guy?” The events that happened early that morning no doubt distorted my better judgment. But these claims of dishonesty, of being a charlatan, etc., are a joke. They are the meaningless and insupportable cries of victory from those of Gedanken's ilk (see below, please). I mean, think about, what I did was so I could CONTINUE talking with you folks at H2O! Actually, I guess that probably should give me cause for pause, and serious reevaluation. It has.

I will, however, continue the debate with AF. Why was that ever in doubt? Why would I let him go, now? I look forward to his reply. As I have said several times already, if you think there is a portion of the debate that I have not adequately handled, EMAIL ME! I have only received a couple of emails, neither of which contained any direct reference to anything in the debate, but only a summary of the person's opinion. So, instead of taking cheap shots at me, tell me something worthwhile. Show me something other than your ability to dismantle and mishandle my TWO posts, which, when taken together, are quite clear, or should have been.

HOWEVER, while JH’s and Gedanken’s utter failure to perceive the clear meaning of the second Travis post (again, why has that been lost by everyone?) is one thing, how could they not have picked up on the two people who seemed to have understood my intent rather clearly, namely, AC and AF. Consider:

Posted by Adam Covington [AdamCovington] on November 05, 1999 at 01:36:08 {6xiCHW3gJ2/CPYT8orz2qRFwJ6xIkI}:
In Reply to: Stafford's Deleted Post posted by AF on November 04, 1999 at 07:53:14:
AF,
I have been away from this board for a few days, and could not understand what had transpired. After reading the TravisJ45 post, I now see what the fuss was all about.
I did find a post from Greg stating the following:
:Since I am involved in this discussion with AF, I decided to use another name for a JW participant, with which I could continue my discussion with AF, having stood up for "Greg's" material, and thus drawing his attention to the "new kid" on the block. In using a friend's email address I had hoped to be able to continue in this manner, but without stumbling my brothers.:
From what I gather, Greg purposely posted the TravisJ45 so as to continue the discussion under an assumed name, in hopes of concealing his identity. I now believe he felt it best not to do so. I do not believe that the TravisJ45 post was made for any other reason, than what he stated above.
AC

END OF QUOTE

AF responded with the following:

Posted by AF [AF] on November 05, 1999 at 06:00:52 {6xiCHW3gJ2DjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: *Stafford's Deleted Post posted by Adam Covington on November 05, 1999 at 01:36:08:
: I do not believe that the TravisJ45 post was made for any other reason, than what he stated above.

I think you're right. However, it's pretty obvious that he went off the deep end under the stress of threats from the Society. Had he been thinking clearly, he would have seen that a simple "I agree with Greg and disagree with AF, and will state my reasons in subsequent posts" would have been sufficient. That would have been appropriate even when he messed up on hiding his identity.
As for the stress, I suspect you're still a JW, so you have no idea how shocking it is when Mommie takes off the velvet glove and bashes you upside the head. People have been known to do far worse than merely embarrass themselves by exposing their arrogance for the world to laugh at.
AF

END OF QUOTE:

So while AF accepts what AC says, he then adds his own perspective on the matter, in relation to the action taken by the Society, which I will further explain below. As for the “arrogance for the world to laugh at,” please, get real. If you think that using a different name, and telling those on the board, or at least hoping to, selectively, that this is what I have chosen to do in order to remain involved in the debate, in the cyberworld OF different names and aliases, is ‘embarrassing,’ then you should think again.

The only thing that is embarrassing is how a number of people on this board have twisted the facts about the situation, and the glee with which they have launched personal attack after personal attack. I mean, these guys have not just said, “Well, that was stupid,” or “C’mon, Greg, use what little brains you’ve got,” no, they have gone far beyond even their previously known abilities for substituting legitimate argumentation with character assassination.

What is even more revealing is that AC posted the essence of what he told AF, to Gedanken:

Posted by Adam Covington [AdamCovington] on November 05, 1999 at 19:57:16 {6xiCHW3gJ2/CPYT8orz2qRFwJ6xIkI}:
In Reply to: *AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Gedanken on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54:
Gedanken,
I dont agree with your handling of Greg Stafford's posting under the name "TravisJ45". It is rather obvious was his intentions were as he himself said:
:Since I am involved in this discussion with AF, I decided to use another name for a JW participant, with which I could continue my discussion with AF, having stood up for "Greg's" material, and thus drawing his attention to the "new kid" on the block. In using a friend's email address I had hoped to be able to continue in this manner, but without stumbling my brothers.:
As I stated to Alan, from what I gather, Greg purposely posted the TravisJ45 so as to continue the discussion under an assumed name, in hopes of concealing his identity. I now believe he felt it best not to do so. I do not believe that the TravisJ45 post was made for any other reason, than what he stated above.
Alan himself agreed to the above, and would hope that others would stop the whining and screaming and notice the real intent of that post.
AC

END OF QUOTE

Gedanken has yet to reply to this post from AC, even though he has replied to several others. Indeed, Gedanken makes a very interesting admission. I am sure you will find it interesting, too:

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 15:50:57 {6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: **AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Cygnus on November 05, 1999 at 15:27:09:
Cygnus,
My problem is not with him trying to post under a different identity but with his using the opportunity to dump on Alan while praising himself.

END OF QUOTE

Well, that is sure a switch (see below)! From the above we see that Gedanken’s “problem” is “with [my] using the opportunity to dump on Alan while praising himself.” Of course, while my statement about Alan being arrogant may have been new, in terms of my opinion, if anyone here thinks I do not believe Alan has lost and continues to lose in this debate, what did you think I thought? Not only that, but I TOLD YOU that **I** was the one who thought it!

The only embarrassing part about this whole thing is that I regret my brothers and sisters may have been confused about why I did what I did, namely, to keep the knowledge of my posting to this board from them. For that, I am truly sorry, but please be assured that I did what I THOUGHT was best, and erred in my judgment, under the circumstances (see below), in order to defend the truth. But Gedanken is either lying or trying to get out of the embarrassing situation of having totally overshot his mark, by failing to accept or by ignoring my intent, as stated above by AC, and confirmed by AF. Gedanken wrote in response to barJonah:

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54 {6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by barJonah on November 05, 1999 at 02:20:20:
bJ
:If nothing else, I hope this message from Greg will give pause to some of those who were so quick to jump all over him in the last few days.

I don't see why it would. He deserves all he has received and more. The man has shown himself to be (a) deceitful, (b) an arrogant and boastful liar and (c) an idiot by doing what he did.

END OF QUOTE

Well, where would the deceit have been if not in using a different name? So, when he says, “My problem is not with him trying to post under a different identity but with his using the opportunity to dump on Alan while praising himself,” he is lying to try and cover over the fact that he completely mishandled the Travis posts. Of course, his vilification continued, in spite of his misguided attack:

Gedanken (Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 17:13:07 {6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:

Jan,
That was my opinion too after reading his book. Every single thing he has said on this board has only served to confirm that opinion. I sometimes think that too many people on this board view academic integrity and intellectual honesty as being optional. It is beyond me how anyone could have anything at all positive to say about such a pompous fraud. If the guy were a physician he would be selling snake oil.
Gedanken

END OF QUOTE

Also, according to Gedanken:

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 18:15:04 {6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: ****AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Rick on November 05, 1999 at 17:55:57:
Rick,
Is it true or is it not? He is a published author and he is propagating many things that the Society teaches which we know to be lies, plain and simple. Further, and by necessity, he uses lying and deceit to do this under the guise of being a "scholar." How else can one say it?
Gedanken

END OF QUOTE

Funny, I do not recall proclaiming myself to be anything special. Why the quotes around “scholar,” Gedanken? Is that “scholar” in a quasi sense? Or are you quoting something I said? Of course, you know where this is going to lead, do you not (see below)? My books stands on its own, and you have certainly done nothing to argue effectively against it, as I will show momentarily, after further exposing your double-talk.

If you ask Gedanken about what he thinks concerning the debate and how he views himself, he will tell you:

Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 12:06:54 {6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by barJonah on November 05, 1999 at 02:20:20:

However, I have no interest whatsoever in debating someone as intellectually dishonest as is Stafford. In any case, only a half-wit could conclude that AF did not only win the debate but did so by several miles. As an academic myself I cannot begin to describe how appalled I am by the way that Stafford has misused and sullied the mantle of scholarship. He is a disgrace and a charlatan.

END OF QUOTE

There are a number of problems with the above: 1) He claims to have “no interest” in debating with me because I am “intellectually dishonest.” But from his own mouth he convicts himself of asininity, saying:

Gedanken (Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 05, 1999 at 17:13:07 {6xiCHW3gJ2HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:

Jan,
That was my opinion too after reading his book. Every single thing he has said on this board has only served to confirm that opinion. I sometimes think that too many people on this board view academic integrity and intellectual honesty as being optional.

END OF QUOTE

So Gedanken knew after reading my first edition, and from everything I have said on this board since I have been here, that I am “intellectually dishonest”! If that is the case, and if he is being truthful when stating that he has “no interest whatsoever in debating someone as intellectually dishonest as is Stafford,” then why did he write a response to my Chapter 9 back on October 11: Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on October 11, 1999 at 18:12:51 {mEtmxYJNyoHdgEG/iekYGxDfY}?

Gedanken does not know which way is up, and that is why he merely shows himself capable only of insulting remarks over an issue he has horribly misunderstood and miscommunicated to others. Below I will consider a part of his October 11 reply, a full consideration of which will follow my discussion with AF, as I previously stated. But we also learn from Gedanken’s above remarks that “only a half-wit could conclude that AF did not only win the debate but did so by several miles.” Of course, Gedanken does not even give ONE example from my rather lengthy discussion with AF thus far, to support his claim. I doubt he even read them.

Given Gedanken’s mishandling of the Travis posts and his failure to take notice of things that were pointed out to him on the board (though he may have noticed them and instead of openly acknowledging his error he merely covered it up by claiming that his problem was not with my “trying to post under a different identity,” which is not true, according to his own words [see above]), it is no wonder he apparently has not noticed the many problems that exist with respect to AF’s responses to date, namely:

FROM PART ONE OF MY SECOND RESPONSE TO AF:

ALAN_2
on page 270:
The March 15 article, on page 187, states that the "fact that Jehovah appeared to him [Ezekiel] in a remarkable vision (and later in the vision revealed things to him that could not otherwise have been known by Ezekiel), also that Jehovah commissioned him directly -- all these things prove that what Ezekiel said and wrote in prophecy was inspired by Jehovah." Yet, when speaking of those who are needed today to speak as a "true representative of God," the article states: . . .
Clearly, you know very well that Ezekiel's being directly commissioned by Jehovah proved that Ezekiel was inspired by Jehovah, according to The Watchtower, and therefore that he was a "true representative of God." Yet when I asked a terse question containing exactly the same ideas - "Do you accept the Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?" you beat around the bush and avoided a direct answer.

GREG_2
Your question has nothing explicitly to do with what I wrote two years ago, and you did NOT reference any WT article such as the above, so that your claim might have been properly qualified. Do you honestly think I am going to pick up on your use of “directly” in an unqualified statement such that which you gave, and tie that in with a WT article from the 70s?! Being “God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind” is hardly the same as being directly commissioned by Him! In the first instance, in your false claim, “direct” modifies “representative,” but in the WT article the adverb “directly” modifies the commissioning. There is not even a grammatical parallel to what is said, let alone a semantic one! Also, and perhaps most importantly, my rejection of your false claim was primarily in relation to your inappropriate use of EXCLUSIVE. Where does the WT article on say anything about that? I think you should give up this hopeless attempt to justify your false claim, admit you were wrong, and then we can discuss your new question, based on a ‘rephrasing’ of your false claim.

ALAN_2
:: So, given all of the above, let me rephrase my question:
(2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that "anointed ones" among Jehovah's Witnesses, represented by those on the Governing Body, are God's only directly empowered representatives, where "empowered" means that Jehovah has actively and therefore directly appointed them to their claimed position of spiritual oversight over all true Christians, which position began in 1919?

GREG_2
First let us compare the above with your original question, as the differences are highly revealing:

ALAN’S ORIGINAL QUESTION:

(2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that those on the Governing Body are God's direct and exclusive representatives to the world of mankind?

ALAN’S ‘REPHRASING’ OF THE ABOVE:

(2) Do you accept the Society's teaching that "anointed ones" among Jehovah's Witnesses, represented by those on the Governing Body, are God's only directly empowered representatives, where "empowered" means that Jehovah has actively and therefore directly appointed them to their claimed position of spiritual oversight over all true Christians, which position began in 1919?

GREG_2
Now, I guess Alan thinks most of you are of very average or even below average intelligence, since he expects you to swallow his claim that his original question is semantically equivalent to his rephrasing of the original. I think it is rather obvious that he has abandoned his first claim, as it was shown to be in serious error, and is now moving in another, more specific direction. That is fine, but you should primarily take note of the hard time he is having in admitting his error, which should be an indication that he is not about to admit his mistakes without a fight, and therefore you are not likely to obtain any objective conclusions about his analysis, from Alan himself. If you doubt what I say, just read his two questions above a few more times, and ask yourself, “Does Alan really expect me to believe this”?

In answer to your new question, Alan, I see no reason to reject the Governing Body as a group of representatives from those substituting for Christ, who are guided by God in accordance with their correct interpretation of His Word, in dispensing healthful words of truth to mankind, and particularly to their Christian brothers and sisters, and thus they do indeed have a position of spiritual oversight. They are “empowered” to the extent that they act in harmony with what God has revealed in His Word. When and if they should stray from this source, they are acting on their own power, not with God’s.

END OF QUOTE

FROM PART TWO OF MY SECOND RESPONSE TO ALAN:

ALAN_2
:: You said, on page 269 of JWD1, that "this commission is given to all who will accept and fulfill it." To be fair, then, you'd have to admit that Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Mormons, etc., who "accept and fulfill" Christ's commission to preach have just as much right as do Jehovah's Witnesses to claim that God gave this commission to them, and just as much claim to "divine direction".

GREG_2
Just prior to your quotation of my “this commission is given...” are the words, “But they have been ‘commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of God’s Messianic kingdom and to give a warning to Christendom.’” So, of course, any Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Mormons, or person from any other religious group may accept this commission. But that would mean they are no longer Evangelicals, Pentecostals, or Mormons, for they would be warning those in Christendom, which includes Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Mormons! I am not sure how you missed my/our understanding of what this commission involves, since, again, it is in the sentence just prior to the one which you quoted, but you did.

END OF QUOTE

ALSO FROM PART TWO

ALAN_2
:: In fact, your own argument presented on page 281of JWD1, along with the above Watchtower quote, proves that Watchtower leaders do in fact claim for themselves something far beyond a good ability to understand the Scriptures - for all practical purposes they claim inspiration. Here's what you wrote:
It cannot truthfully be said that to be inspired by God to produce flawless information is the same as being guided or lead [sic] by a flawless source, whether that source be the Scriptures or an angel sent by God. Why? Because in the former case the person is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance. The person then receives God's thoughts and will, which are then channeled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known. However, in the latter case one could simply misunderstand or ignore the directions given, which would make the accuracy of what they do or say dependent upon whether or not they correctly understood the inspired source.
Note the bolded phrase above: "providing information he or she would otherwise not have known". An inspired person certainly receives such information. Conversely, anyone who receives such information is inspired.

GREG_2
It is hard to imagine how you could read the above, and even quote it for all to see, and then offer such a horribly inaccurate conclusion. Alan, were my remarks on what constitutes an inspired person limited to receiving “information he or she would otherwise not have known”? It is so transparently obvious from the above quote from my book that what constitutes an inspired person is one who “is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance.” So, you have not followed the simply logic of what I wrote, which would be, “anyone who is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance, and who under such conditions receives information he or she would otherwise not have known, is inspired.”

Notice also how the end of the bolded portion of your quotation of my book connects with the next sentence: “The person THEN receives God's thoughts and will, which are then channeled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known.” You are so hopelessly out of touch with my arguments that I regret having spent five minutes going over this with you.

END OF QUOTE

FROM PART THREE OF MY SECOND REPY TO ALAN

ALAN_2
:: Taking your implication to its logical conclusion results in the trivial case: the literal year 1914 was forseen. This is trivial because, for example, calendar makers "foresee" every year - in this sense every year is "foreseen" by being marked on a calendar.

GREG_2
You are not focussed at all on your own arguments, let alone those I am offering to you. REFOCUS: You are claiming that page 105 of the Revelation book deliberately deceives people by claiming that “World War I and its aftermath, was clearly foreseen by C. T. Russell and the Bible Students.” You make this charge with direct reference to the statement in par. 5, namely, “Indeed, the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914 was so far-reaching that many longstanding monarchies disappeared.” Then reference is made to “the overthrow of czardom” in 1917, and other politically unstable situations that have since followed. My response to you was, in part, to redirect you attention to page 105, where the box above pars. 4 and 5 makes it quite clear that Russell foresaw the year 1914 as one where the Gentile Times would end, which would be marked by certain “catastrophic events.” You are confusing these events with the “worldwide upheaval” that not only began in 1914 (which is parallel to Russell’s view), but that continued after it, as the book goes on to discuss. So, since it is very clear indeed that the Revelation book rightly portrays Russell’s view as one where “catastrophic events would start in 1914 and would mark the end of the Gentile Times,” then if it can be shown that this was in fact Russell’s view, you have failed to prove your point, for absolutely nothing is said about Russell having foreseen that what BEGAN in 1914, and what would mark “the end of the Gentile Times,” continued long after 1914, affecting various monarchies such as czardom. It rather easy to show that Russell, at various times and in various publications leading up to 1914, spoke about “catastrophic events” that would mark the end of the Gentile Times, as I am sure you know. True, he changed his views here and there because he was dealing with admittedly uncertain events. But that is not the point at issue, here.

When Russell saw the political chain-reaction that began in 1914, that is what prompted him to make his announcement at Bethel, and the Society recognizes his acceptance that catastrophic events did indeed begin in that year, but they nowhere imply that Russell foresaw WWI as such, though his reference to “world-wide reign of anarchy” is not very far from the mark! Neither did they imply that the “aftermath” of WWI was foreseen by Russell. Still, Russell said: “So when October, 1914, comes, or October, 1915, or some other date (the Lord knoweth) and the Gentile times terminate, it does not follow that there will be an outburst that will revolutionize the world, all in a day. But we believe that it will do so not very long thereafter.” --- “Resume of the Ending of the Times of the Gentiles,” WT (1913), reprint page 5328. Russell knew the world would be ‘revolutionized’ by the events that he believed marked the end of the Gentile Times; he just did not fully understand what kind of ‘revolution’ would take place, nor did he fully understand the aftermath of this ‘revolution.’

END OF QUOTE

FROM PART FOUR OF MY SECOND REPLY TO ALAN

: GREG
: and that he and his associates did not "fully understand" just what it would mean. The ONLY thing they acknowledge Russell having a 'full' understanding of is that 1914 would be a significant date, marking the end of the Gentile Times.

ALAN_2
:: No, not just that it would be a significant date, but that it would be significant because of the occurrence of events that Russell had predicted long in advance.

GREG_2
Alan, please stop misquoting me. I did not simply say, as you have me saying, that it would “JUST . . .be a significant date.” I said, “1914 would be a significant date, marking the end of the Gentile Times.” When you quote and understand what I say in context, you might see where you are in error. If you don’t, well, there is little else that I can do to help you see it.

END OF QUOTE

ALSO FROM PART FOUR

ALAN_2
:: Contrast the confident statements above [which I have deleted (GREG_2)], about having had so much truth revealed to him by "the Lord," with Russell's statement in the September 15, 1910 Watch Tower (pp. 4684-5 Reprints), by which time he had seen many time prophecies and teachings fall by the wayside. Judge whether his confident statement that Jesus "himself has been our teacher and served us" was true, or whether all along he was really speaking "man-made theories and guesses". See his doubletalk for yourself:
. . . .
We think that we get the right conception to thus view it rather than to think that we had some great power which enabled us to put together a great system of theology, more wonderful than all other systems of theology put together -- a thousand times more wonderful. Therefore, the simplest way to explain the matter is to acknowledge that the Lord's due time has come and that he has guided to the right understanding.
If, then, the Lord has provided us with something in our day that other days than those of the Apostles knew nothing about, no matter how good nor how wise they were -- for us to ignore the line of teaching which has been thus developed would be, in our judgment, to ignore the Lord's providences. It is for each one to think for himself, however, and to guide his conduct in every way accordingly.
Note that last bolded statement carefully. It says clearly that "the Lord" has given Russell knowledge that was denied even to the wisest of men before him, even the Apostles. Since the Apostles and other wise Christians certainly had a measure of God's holy spirit, Russell is again claiming to have "divinely given" knowledge above and beyond that which he could have obtained by his own unguided study of the Bible. Hence, he is once again for all practical purposes claiming inspiration. Russell's statement meets your own definition of inspiration: "The person then receives God's thoughts and will, which are then channeled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known." (p. 281 JWD1)

GREG_2
You are having real trouble with very basic material, Alan, and that should raise red flags for everyone reading this exchange. I believe you misquoted this part of my book earlier, also, but note carefully that in JWD1, on page 281, I specifically and VERY CLEARLY said: “In the former case the person is TAKEN OVER BY GOD, GIVEN A VISION, REVELATION (sometimes in a dream), or PUT INTO A TRANCE. The person THEN receives God’s thoughts and will which are then channeled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known.”

The only excuses I can think of in explaining your misquoting my book, in line with your apparent preferences, deception or incompetence. If you can think of some other reason for your horrific (mis)use of my book, please let me know. I am sure you and others reading this can see why I have lost my tolerance with your material, especially where it repeats errors and misquotations. Thus, my part four has ended.

END OF QUOTE

That is not even close to the extent of the problems Alan has had in Parts One through Four of my last response, and I did not even get to what happened in Parts Five and Six! But somehow Gedanken and others who spin for Alan missed all of these problems, and failed to provide even one example upholding their claims. When you combine this with the fact that no one here took Alan to task for spreading lies about my relationship with Brother Schroeder, it is not hard to see the spin that permeates the writings of those on this board.

And this leads us to a very important comment made by Alan, in an attempt to justify his spreading of lies about me, here on H2O. Read the following post VERY carefully, please:

Posted by AF [AF] on November 05, 1999 at 21:34:58 {6xiCHW3gJ21EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ****AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by Adam Covington on November 05, 1999 at 20:01:38:
You should note that, while Greg blew a lot of smoke, he did not quite deny anything about being involved with Schroeder. In fact, when I posed a number of specific questions that would have required simple yes-no answers, he answered none of them.
Furthermore, I now have the testimony of two independent sources that my statement was correct. Have you ever heard of "at the mouth of two witnesses let every matter be established"?
Additionally, via private email I have invited Greg to discuss these and certain private matters so as to "check with him" and find out what he might call "the truth of the matter". As of this writing he has not responded, and it has been two full days since I invited this dialog. Perhaps he's tied up with his PO, or perhaps he's "seeing to a matter".
AF

END OF QUOTE

Now, I contend that the above comments from AF prove that he is either completely incompetent (which I doubt), had a momentary lapse into incompetence (to which we are all subject (except Gedanken and JH), or thinks that everyone reading his reply is so utterly incompetent that we will not notice the deception. Did you notice that AF appeals to “the testimony of two independent sources” to establish the veracity of his claims? Did you further notice that he asked, in reference to Deuteronomy 17:6 (or 19:15), “Have you ever heard of ‘at the mouth of two witnesses let every matter be established’"?

Why, YES, Alan, we have heard of that. Now, WHERE are these witnesses?! WHO are they?! That you would try to pull a fast one by claiming to have held to a biblical principle that refers to two KNOWN witnesses, and apply it to your mystery witnesses, is amazing. It is just this type of illogical reasoning that forms the basis for many of the arguments you put forth in your replies (but not all of what you say can be so characterized). At this point, I no longer believe you have any such witnesses, for you have not produced anyone at all. Until you do, it is you who are responsible for lying to everyone on this board about my relationship with Brother Schroeder. As if that were not bad enough, you claimed: “In fact, when I posed a number of specific questions that would have required simple yes-no answers, he answered none of them.” I answered the precise points you made in your email about having submitted my manuscript to Brother Schroeder for review, by saying that NONE OF it was true!

Now, since you have appealed to the biblical principle of two or more witnesses to support your view, BRING THEM FORTH! Give us their names. Surely you can do that, right? I mean, how would it have looked if an accused person in ancient Israel came before the court and said, “I have two or more witnesses. I really do. But I cannot tell you their names. I cannot bring them forward. You will just have to take my word that they support what I say.”

That you would even try to justify yourself my misusing biblical principles like this should tell any thinking person on this board all he or she needs to know about how you handle biblical data, and how you try to justify the spreading of lies on this board.

Of course, Alan has compounded his problems by stating:

Posted by AF [AF] on November 06, 1999 at 01:58:46 {p8g/8h8r5Q1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ******AF-GREG DEBATE BACK ON!!! posted by AdamCovington on November 06, 1999 at 00:09:17:
If Greg decides to speak with me personally about my sources and convinces me that they're wrong, then I'll change my mind and publicly apologize. Otherwise, because my sources have proved completely reliable in the past, and Greg has been caught in a direct lie here on H2O, and has demonstrably stretched the truth beyond the breaking point in his book chapter on "JWs are not false prophets", I'll trust my sources over Greg's statements on H2O or in private email.

END OF QUOTE

What “direct lie”? I have done no such thing. YOU have! Your replies to me also reveal a clearly disingenuous element in view of your flagrant misquotation of the material, as we can see from the above quotes. You asked me to CALL you to discuss these issues, and you REFUSED to discuss them via email. Why? How hard can it be to type a few lines explaining yourself, Alan? Is it because recorders do not work with email? Is it because Caller ID does not work via email?

If you think I am going to CALL you to discuss what can easily be communicated via email, then you had better think again. As it is, you have spread lies to the board, without even checking with the person involved, who at the time was active on the board! So either you are a liar, or your sources are liars. Either way you are incredibly irresponsible, and have no business commenting on my clearly stated actions, the other day. In fact, you seem to have attempted to mislead others by implying that there was only one deleted post, when you now full well there were two.

The final problem with my earlier reference to Gednaken’s H2O post has to do with his claims: “As an academic myself I cannot begin to describe how appalled I am by the way that Stafford has misused and sullied the mantle of scholarship. He is a disgrace and a charlatan.”

In view of what we have already discussed, and what we will consider below, Gedanken has shown that he is anything but an academic. Indeed, for someone who has made such an issue about his mishandling of my use of a different name, might I suggest that Gedanken use his REAL NAME? Is that not what ‘academics’ are known to do? That is certainly my preference, aside from my previously STATED purpose involving the Travis posts. But, more to the point, let us examine this ‘academic’s’ holding of the “mantle of scholarship.”

As I mentioned earlier, on October 11 Gedanken wrote the following in response to a portion of Chapter 9, in my first edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended. His words will be prefaced by GED and a double colon. My response will be prefaced with RESPONSE. This is only a partial response, with a larger one waiting in the wings, for the completion of my discussion with AF.

GED
:: Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on October 11, 1999 at 18:12:51 {mEtmxYJNyoHdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
1. A prophet was among them. P. 266
Stafford starts out by referring to the following paragraph from the 1972 Watchtower
*** w72 4/1 197 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them' ***
A third way of coming to know Jehovah God is through his representatives. In ancient times he sent prophets as his special messengers. While these men foretold things to come, they also served the people by telling them of God's will for them at that time, often also warning them of dangers and calamities. People today can view the creative works. They have at hand the Bible, but it is little read or understood. So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?
Unfortunately Stafford fails to provide the reader with the entire paragraph---a practice he decries when critics do the same (e.g., see his "rebuttal" of Rhodes on p. 307). I have italicized those parts of the paragraph that Stafford actually provides. This is a significant point because the bulk of this paragraph defines what the functions and credentials of a modern day prophet would be. Thus the paragraph indicates that this prophet would, like the ancient prophets, be a special messenger of God. The defining quality of the modern day prophet would not only be his foretelling of things to come but also his acting as a messenger from God with a warning. Note, too, that the Society emphasizes that this prophet would be needed despite the fact that the Bible is generally available. This again underscores the special messenger aspect of the modern day prophet. ::

RESPONSE:
Gedanken does not seem to recognize that the portion of the paragraph above what he italicized speaks in reference to what was done in “ancient times.” How does this modern-day “prophet” correspond to the ancient prophets of old? As I said:

QUOTE FROM PAGES 266-269 OF JWD1:

On the same page that the Witnesses are identified as a "prophet" paralleling the work of Ezekiel, we are told: "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a ‘prophet’ of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?"

Next, we will quote the paragraphs that are given as proof that they act "as a ‘prophet.’" Let us see what this involves:

During the World War I period this group, the International Bible Students, was very active in preaching the good news of God’s kingdom, as their Leader Jesus Christ had set this work before them in his prophecy at Matthew 24:14. They took literally Jesus’ words to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate: "My kingdom is no part of this world." (John 18:36) They also took to heart Jesus’ words to his followers: "You are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." They expected to suffer for living according to that rule, just as Jesus went on to say, "on this account the world hates you." (John 15:19) Hatred toward them grew into violence during World War I.
These Bible Students had long been concerned with Ezekiel and his prophecy. In 1917 they published a book entitled "The Finished Mystery," explaining the book of Ezekiel as well as that of Revelation. This book criticized the clergy as false to the Word of Jehovah. Within nine months a ban was put on its circulation in the United States and Canada. Then eight members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, including its president and secretary-treasurer, were sentenced to prison in the Federal penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
Though the work of these Christians was crippled for a while, after only nine months the eight men were freed from prison, in March 1919. They accepted this as an answer from God to their prayers. Their work was revived, much to the consternation of the clergy, who had been behind the banning.
Accordingly, their magazine The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, in its issues of August 1 and 15, 1919, encouraged vigorous resumption of the work of preaching the good news free from the fear of men. Under the subject "Blessed Are the Fearless," the following statements were made:

There is a fear which is very proper, and which everyone must have who is pleasing to God, and this is known as ‘Godly fear’. It means a holy reverence for Jehovah and a fear lest we should displease him and come short of the blessings he has promised us. . . . The Scriptures abound with testimony that those whom God approves do not fear man nor any other creature, but have a holy, reverential fear of Jehovah. In times of old Jehovah justified some men to friendship with him, and the record of his dealing with them was written for the benefit of the church.

Ezekiel was one of these men so used by God, and not only his prophecies, but also Ezekiel himself and his acts were pictorial of things to come. ("‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them,’" The Watchtower, 1 April 1972, 197-198.)

We can see that the proof offered in support of their contention that they acted like a "prophet" for God did not involve the proclamation of inspired messages that originated with them; rather, "preaching the good news of God’s kingdom," and "explaining [emphasis added] the book of Ezekiel as well as that of Revelation" is how they act like a prophet for God. [ADDITOINAL POINT: Elsewhere in Watchtower literature we find the reference to Jehovah’s "prophetLIKE organization," which proclaims "the prophecies written in God’s Word" ("Pay Attention to Prophecy," The Watchtower, 1 October 1964, 601).] Let us look further, and see what else the article says regarding this body of men and women who act like a "prophet":

The League of Nations came into being in 1919 and began really to function when it was ratified by the signatory powers at Paris on January 10, 1920. But Jehovah’s servants continued to proclaim the Messianic kingdom of God. When the ban on The Finished Mystery was lifted, they resumed its circulation and, with it as a textbook, they continued to study the book of Ezekiel. As time went on and further developments fulfilled the prophecy of Ezekiel, a three-volume set of books titled "Vindication" provided an up-to-date understanding, showing more fully the application of the prophecy.
Thus this group of anointed followers of Jesus Christ, doing a work in Christendom paralleling Ezekiel’s work among the Jews, were manifestly the modern-day Ezekiel, the "prophet" commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of God’s Messianic kingdom and to give warning to Christendom. It is significant that, in 1931, after twelve years of faithful service despite the opposition of Christendom’s clergy, these followers of Christ embraced the name ‘Jehovah’s witnesses’ at the same convention at which the book Vindication was released.—Isa. 43:10-12, American Standard Version. (Ibid., 198-199.)

From the above we can see that rather than utter inspired prophecies of their own, this "prophet"
"continued to study the book of Ezekiel," and as "time went on and further developments fulfilled the prophecy of Ezekiel, a three-volume set of books titled ‘Vindication’ provided an up-to-date understanding, showing more fully the application of the prophecy." This is hardly equivalent to the reception of inspired messages directly from God, as was the case with those messages received by Ezekiel. Rather, the belief expressed is that this modern-day "prophet" did "a work in Christendom paralleling Ezekiel’s work among the Jews."

This "prophet" has not been given inspired messages like Ezekiel, apart from those written in the Bible. But they have been "commissioned by Jehovah to declare the good news of God’s Messianic kingdom and to give warning to Christendom." (NOTE: In the article, "When Jesus Comes in Kingdom Glory," The Watchtower 15 May 1997, p. 13, par. 17, a parallel is drawn between the encounter Elijah had with Jehovah on Mount Sinai and the years following World War I, when the "faithful anointed servants of Jehovah heard his voice FROM THE PAGES OF THE BIBLE” [emphasis added].)

END OF QUOTE FROM JWD1

As you can see, Gedanken, even though he almost gets the right view from the article (see his comments below) he nonetheless tries to spin it in such as way so as to make it seem as if I have not given the right view of the material, when, as you can see from the above, I quoted a large portion of the article and basically let them explain it themselves! Here is what Gedanken says:

GED
:: Stafford continues his discussion by showing that the article emphasizes only certain aspects of Ezekiel's being a prophet, namely his warning work, or, his work as a watchman. Given that the series of articles in this issue of The Watchtower magazine are entitled (and note the quotation marks in the second article): (i) The Time for a Watchman like Ezekiel, (ii) Do You Appreciate "The Faithful and Discreet Slave," (iii)The Light's Increase in Modern Times not much can be read into this emphasis, other than that the Society was here claiming that, like, Ezekiel, it was a special messenger from God with a warning to declare. The whole point of this series of articles was to make the point that, like Ezekiel Jehovah's Witnesses are special messengers from God with a warning for humanity. That the foretelling work of a prophet is not emphasized is neither here nor there. If someone declares themselves to be an alcoholic and then goes on to talk mainly about their love for wine does that mean that they won't drink beer? That is the essence of Stafford's argument.

RESPONSE
“That the foretelling work of a prophet is not emphasized is neither here nor there”? That is precisely the point at hand, which is why this article is frequently used in association with predictions made by the Society! If anyone can figure out the relationship between Gedanken’s false analogy regarding alcoholics and the WT article we are discussing, be sure and let me know.

Still, he continues:

GED
:: That the role of "prophet" goes beyond simply being a watchman is evidenced by the following statement in the same series of articles in the 1972 Watchtower on p. 200.
** w72 4/1 200 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them' ***
The scroll was doubtless delivered to Ezekiel by the hand of one of the cherubs in the vision. This would indicate that Jehovah's witnesses today make their declaration of the good news of the Kingdom under angelic direction and support. (Rev. 14:6, 7; Matt. 25:31, 32) And since no word or work of Jehovah can fail, for he is God Almighty, the nations will see the fulfillment of what these witnesses say as directed from heaven.
Here the Society states without qualification that, just as Ezekiel's work was directed by angels then so too would be the Society's. Note the explicit statement that what these witnesses say is directed from heaven. Would it be true to say that someone who repeats merely what they read in the Bible is being directed from heaven? Not at all. Given that Jehovah's Witnesses say much that is not contained in the Bible then, this statement amounts to their claiming that their novel understanding of scripture is due to present day dispensations from heaven.

RESPONSE:
I will ignore Gedanken’s weak personal attack at the end of the above paragraph, and point out that I address this very issue on pages 283-284 of my book, which Gedanken has either not read, or he intentionally omitted my response TO THIS VERY ISSUES, indeed, THIS VERY QUOTATION, trying to mislead others into thinking that I have not addressed this point about angelic direction. Now, I will here quote that which Gedanken omitted, from my first edition, but I should mention that I have included even more information on this subject of the Witnesses and angelic direction, in my second edition:

QUOTE FROM JWD1, PAGES 283-284, WHICH GEDANKEN COMPLETELY IGNORED:

According to one issue of The Watchtower ("‘They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them,’" 200), "Jehovah’s witnesses today make their declaration of the good news of the Kingdom under angelic direction and support. (Rev 14:6, 7; Mt 25:31, 32)" And just what is meant by "angelic direction and support"? Certainly not the reception of inspired information at the hands of an angel. Right after the word "support" in the above quote, Revelation 14:6-7 and Matthew 25:31-32 are cited. These scriptures show that the angels are involved in the proclamation of the good news, and in the separating work soon to take place at Christ’s Judgment. Also, on the following page (201) of this Watchtower, Hebrews 1:14 is cited: "Are they [angels] not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister to those who are going to inherit salvation?" Yes, angels, through their public service to God’s people, certainly have a direct involvement in the affairs of Jehovah’s servants, even as they did in the lives of the first-century Christians (compare Ac 12:6-11).

END OF QUOTE FROM JWD1

See pages 284-285 of my first edition for more on this subject of angelic direction.

So much for Gedanken being a self-proclaimed (nameless) “academic.”

There is one other person who decided to join this party of misunderstanding and lies, and that is RW. He wrote:

Posted by [2bithonky] on November 04, 1999 at 09:02:44 {yxewwqp4aAdhQe9/FouQQNyTO0grzY}:
In Reply to: **RE: Stafford Issues posted by Bethel dejavu on November 04, 1999 at 08:27:42:
I forgot to mention that it is no secret why Ray called his book, "Crisis of Conscience." He managed to escape with his fairly intact. :-))
I agree with AF on the issue of honesty and Greg. Total deja vu back to 1979-1980 when Lyman Swingle pulled a cowardly act by letting Franz and Dunlap take the heat, while he himself was of the same views regarding 1914, the f&ds, etc. I would sit at the head of the table every morning during this time and have to listen to each GB member (Schroeder, Barry, Poetzinger, Kline, and Barber) week by week use names like "spiritual fornicators," "mentally diseased," "liars," and "worms" in reference to those who were leaving. Yet these same ones had their own damning doubts. Swingle tucked tale and lashed out at the "apostates." I went to the secret Bethel elders meetings during this time and wrote down everything I could, which statements I later printed in my 1981 tract, "What Happened At The World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Spring of 1980?" long before Ray wrote his book or any other JW told his story publicly. We have all gone our own way in terms of association, interpretation, etc. but you can see how people like AF, Franz, myself, Tom Cabeen, and many others still do not allow our own personal beliefs to color the facts just because we want to preserve our arses.
Take note that when you have people you look up to as mature men in the "body of Christ" and they fall to the pressure of other leaders to be loyal followers of men, the right decision is to stick to what you know the Word of God is saying and what your heart is telling you regarding truth and falsehood; the path you take is, to me, a measure of the man.
Compare the style of reasoning and argumentation in Ray Franz' book with that of Greg Stafford and Firpo Carr and others who are the self-styled Watchtower apologists. Style also reveals the character of a man in the end. Truth and honesty stand out as simple and uncomplicated in comparison to the flip-flop nature of circular apologetics. A person who loves the truth is willing to go wherever that truth leads him, even though it will cost him in terms of friends, position, authority and respectability. Doing so has cost me plenty in terms of the same since 1980, but I could not live with myself if I was a respecter of persons. If you lie to yourself, the mechanics of it will sooner or later be obvious to others, assuming they are not equally desirous of lying to themselves. If they are as well, you now have a following, and the more converts you get, the more it seems to bolster the "reality" of your facade. - RW

END OF QUOTE

I feel sorry for you, RW, I really do. I almost sympathize with your situation. But then I read the literature you have produced and the stuff you got on your web page, and that sympathy vanishes like JH’s credibility in the face of logical argumentation. Recall that you wrote: “Truth and honesty stand out as simple and uncomplicated in comparison to the flip-flop nature of circular apologetics.”

There are so many things I could use from your materials that would shock those who look to you for “inside” information, but here I will draw your attention to but one, which I hope will give you an opportunity to show us just how hard it is that you search for truth and accuracy.

In your “Thus Saith...,” page 77, you copy the first page of "An Extract out of Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades," found in recent editions of Whiston’s English translation of Josephus’ works. On the side of the copy are your words, “No coincidence that the Jews’ belief about death fit Jesus’ words!” And, “Jesus’ listeners had little doubt what he was talking about!”

Thus, you are here presenting material allegedly from Josephus, as representative of the JEWISH view, that you advance in support of your two-compartment view of Hades so often presented by those who misunderstand the reference to “paradise” in Luke 23:43. What you DO NOT tell your readers is that in Whiston’s Sixth Dissertation in the Appendix to his English translation, he sets out to defend this "Extract" as an authentic work of the Jewish historian, claiming that it was written by him while he was "Bishop of Jerusalem, about the end of Trajan." According to Whiston, then, Josephus converted to Christianity and wrote this Extract while serving as a bishop in Jerusalem. It would not necessarily, then, have anything to do with the views of the Jews living during the time of Jesus’ ministry!

In reading through the Extract it is practically impossible to miss the many references to the NT. Whiston himself highlights a number of these, including parallels to Matthew 23:13 and 25:30, Luke 16:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:37-38, 2 Corinthians 5:2 and others. In fact, the author of the Extract even refers to "God the word; for to him hath the Father committed all judgment; and he in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ" (compare Joh 1:1; 5:22, 27).

Additionally, it is uncertain whether the author of the Extract is in fact the historian Josephus. Indeed, it is attributed to Hippolytus (170-236 CE) in ANF 5, 221-223, under the name, "Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe." The fragment is also available on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae D CD ROM (Los Altos, CA: Packard Humanities Institute, 1993), under Hippolytus. But there is no question that the Extract is the result of a "Christianized" view of Hades, as understood nearly a century (if not longer) after Jesus gave his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Thus, this Extract does not tell us the view of Jewish groups prior to and during the ministry of Jesus Christ; rather, it communicates the views of later Christian interpreters of NT writings.

Is this the kind of “truth and honesty” that you had in mind? Why don’t you stick the above on your web site, and offer an apology to your readers, for misinforming them about this issue? After all, you are after “truth and honesty,” right?

I believe I have gone far beyond the call of duty in bringing some clarity to the issues that several H2O luminaries have darkened. While I greatly regret my decisions regarding how to discuss matters of importance on the Internet, I believe it has ultimately served to show how dishonest, hypocritical and inaccurate several persons on this board are, and that is well worth the lesson I learned.

Greg

Follow Ups:

- *Enter Reality Randall Watters 12:28:48 11/07/99 (5)
  - **Enter Reality WotrldlyWitness 14:08:38 11/07/99 (0)
  - **Enter Reality StillTheMaster 14:06:13 11/07/99 (0)
  - **Enter Reality WW 13:55:43 11/07/99 (0)
  - **Enter Reality Farkel 13:18:12 11/07/99 (1)
    - ***Enter Reality Randall Watters 13:35:10 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality Gedanken 10:06:16 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality I Repeat... © 09:35:36 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality Observer 08:05:59 11/07/99 (14)
  - **Enter Reality What?-WW 13:37:58 11/07/99 (0)
  - **Enter Reality 5GJW 08:59:24 11/07/99 (1)
    - ***Enter Reality YaYa 09:31:35 11/07/99 (0)
  - **Enter Reality Beaver 08:30:40 11/07/99 (10)
    - ***Enter Reality Observer 09:34:19 11/07/99 (9)
      - ****Enter Reality WW 13:42:46 11/07/99 (0)
      - ****Enter Reality Beaver 09:58:32 11/07/99 (4)
        - *****Enter Reality Tantalus 11:35:46 11/07/99 (3)
          - ******Enter Reality Beaver 15:17:57 11/07/99 (2)
            - *******Enter Reality AF 16:49:33 11/07/99 (1)
              - ********Enter Reality Beaver 17:19:05 11/07/99 (0)
      - ****Enter Reality COMF 09:53:11 11/07/99 (2)
        - *****Enter Reality Observer 12:12:07 11/07/99 (1)
          - ******Enter Reality Beaver 15:23:37 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality 5GJW 07:27:09 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality WW 06:33:49 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality Farkel 06:32:33 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality AF 06:13:21 11/07/99 (2)
  - **Enter Reality FRED HALL 06:39:05 11/07/99 (1)
    - ***Enter Reality 5GJW 07:08:24 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality Kent 05:57:12 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality Tantalus 05:15:36 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality YaYa 05:05:34 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality J.H. 04:33:29 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality barJonah 03:11:20 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality Cygnus 02:14:34 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality chappy 21:06:12 11/06/99 (1)
  - **Enter Reality Beaver 04:57:31 11/07/99 (0)
- *Enter Reality mntzion 20:50:23 11/06/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Enter Reality

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]