The Watchtower, September 1, 1997, page 23
Anyone who consults a spirit medium is detestable to Jehovah. –Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (NWT), paraphrase.

Dialogue with a JW Regarding the Watchtower Society's Relationship with Johannes Greber

The following is Jehovah's Witness Heinz Schmitz's response to my rebuttal of his defense of the Watchtower Society's relationship with Johannes Greber, along with the ensuing dialogue. The rebuttal that spawned this discussion can be found here.

In retrospect, this discussion (for lack of a better word) is fairly typical of those I have had with Jehovah's Witnesses over the years. The Witness displays an obvious inability to either construct or respond to a logical argument, resorting instead to slander and ridicule (even leading with these tactics). In the mind of the Witness, the prerequisite for any debate pertaining to the Watchtower Society is that the Watchtower Society is right. Logic, truth, reason, and evidence, while fundamental to most, are all unnecessary to the Witness, since to them the outcome of the debate is already determined. In a battle of truth and logic versus the Watchtower Society, it is the sad truth that in the mind of a Jehovah's Witness, the Society wins virtually every time.

Note that I have identified Heinz's comments with a distinctive font and color.


First response from Heinz:

I don't download attachments from strangers, especially hostile ones. If you ever wanted to make a webpage with this, let me know

My reply:

Hello,
I did not send you an attachment. I simply sent my email in RTF format, to preserve your formatting.
(And why do you call me hostile? Is no one permitted to disagree with your views, unless they be a 'hostile opposer'?)
I'll include my original comments in this email as plain text instead since you are averse to RTF format, and give you an opportunity for rebuttal. I may choose to post this on the Web.
Regards,
Trevor Scott.

Second and third responses from Heinz:

What a bunch of tripe. This is not really good, and it is you that is making assumption based on very little. I realize you people desperately need Greber to further your bias and bigotry, but you do so in a way that is dangerous to the Christian faith and mocks God.
You don't really deal with the evidence, do you. Take note:
> "Opposers"? Why must they be "opposers"? Need I remind you that "it is not persecution for an informed person to expose a certain religion as being false"? (The Watchtower, 11/15/63, p. 132.)
Who said anything about persecution? I said OPPOSER. Also, there is no page 163 in the Watchtower, 11/15/63.1 The article you are referring [sic] actually destroys your point, as the next sentence says:
"But in order to make the exposure and show the wrong religions to be false, the true worshiper will have to use an authoritative means of judgment, a rule of measurement that cannot be proved faulty."
Our rule of measurement is the Bible, and your argument is that the Greber bible is faulty, thereby casting aspersions on God's ability to protect His word. I have an "authoritative means of judgment", and you do not. I can hold the Greber Bible and say that it is the word of God, you cannot.
> Have you truly analyzed over 100 websites such that you can categorically state that these are by "opposers", "condemning the Watchtower Society"?
Yes! So now what?
> You go on to categorically state that "the opposers that DO mention him know embarrassingly little of him". You seem to be given to gross generalizations.
Not really. I have contacted many of these, and all them have never even seen a Greber bible. They are merely puppeting the statements of others.
This is basically the substance of everything else you have written. It is simply a waste of my time to proceed further.

My reply:

Hello again,
You said:
> What a bunch of tripe. This is not really good, and it is you that is making assumption based on very little. I realize you people desperately need Greber to further your bias and bigotry, but you do so in a way that is dangerous to the Christian faith and mocks God.
I'm sorry, but who exactly are "you people"?
> "you people desperately need Greber to further your bias and bigotry,"
Do you realize that we don't know one another? You and I have never met. Yet I've already been labelled a bigot, biased, and "hostile" by you.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of these words. Let me tell you that they accurately describe your attitude during our brief interaction.
You truly don't seem capable of constructing a logical argument. All you do is throw around slurs presumably in the hopes that you will convince yourself and others that there is no need to respond to the actual argument. This is called an ad hominem. It is used by people when they know they cannot win an argument based on logic and truth.
You also said:
> The article you are referring actually destroys your point, as the next sentence says:
"But in order to make the exposure and show the wrong religions to be false, the true worshiper will have to use an authoritative means of judgment, a rule of measurement that cannot be proved faulty."
It certainly doesn't destroy my point. My point is that it is not persecution (or an unkindness, or necessarily even OPPOSITION) to expose a certain religion as being false. My point stands.
In way of an "authoritative means of judgment, a rule of measurement that cannot be proved faulty", I have offered Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 1 Timothy 4:1, and 1 John 4:1. This is enough to condemn the Watchtower Society in this instance.
You also said:
> I can hold the Greber Bible and say that it is the word of God, you cannot.
That's your choice. And as you said, I cannot. To call a "bible" that was translated in part by spirits (read: demons) the "word of God" is a ridiculous claim. At best, Greber's bible is in part a conventional bible translation.
You also said:
>> [my statement:] You go on to categorically state that "the opposers that DO mention him know embarrassingly little of him". You seem to be given to gross generalizations.
> Not really. I have contacted many of these, and all them have never even seen a Greber bible. They are merely puppeting the statements of others.
Yes this is a gross generalization, and you just affirmed it. You just confessed that you contacted many of these, yet you stated that ALL (which is logically implied in your initial statement) "the opposers that DO mention him know embarrassingly little of him". There is a big difference between "many" (which is honestly how many? 3? 5?) and ALL ("at least a 100"). Gross generalization.
You accuse them of puppeting the statements of others, but perhaps you should address the plank in your own eye. You're simply puppeting the statements of the WTS in their 1983 magazine where they lie about Greber.
You also said:
> This is basically the substance of everything else you have written. It is simply a waste of my time to proceed further.
Appeal to ridicule. You ridicule the argument because you know you cannot refute it logically. This is the response I expected from you, and I think it'll be apparent to any who read it.
Curious though how you take the time to respond to trivial introductory statements that have nothing to do with Greber, but claim it's a waste of time to respond to the meat of the argument.
Bottom line my friend, the Watchtower Society is guilty of consulting a spirit medium and lying to cover their tracks. These are just facts and no matter how much slander you throw around, and no matter how many red herrings you drag into it, these will not change. I challenge you to prove me wrong on these two points.
I said initially about my rebuttal take it or leave it - it is your call to make. If you were honestly a truth-seeker, I think you'd have found the truth a long time ago without my intervention. The way you blow off the facts of the WTS-Greber relationship proves fairly conclusively to me that you are not interested in truth - just in maintaining the whitewashed image of your leaders. (Matthew 23:27) Guess what? I think they need a fresh coat.
If you decide to take a crack at answering my argument, email me.
Regards,
Trevor Scott.

Fourth response from Heinz:

>> I can hold the Greber Bible and say that it is the word of God, you cannot.
> That's your choice. And as you said, I cannot. To call a "bible" that was translated in part by spirits (read: demons) the "word of God" is a ridiculous claim. At best, Greber's bible is in part a conventional bible translation.
And I guess that would be the parts that you decide, right?
>>> You go on to categorically state that "the opposers that DO mention him know embarrassingly little of him". You seem to be given to gross generalizations.
>> Not really. I have contacted many of these, and all them have never even seen a Greber bible. They are merely puppeting the statements of others.
>> Yes this is a gross generalization, and you just affirmed it.
No, it is not. Over the years, I have received thousands of emails similar to yours and I know from experience of what I speak. You are the one given to gross generalizations, and you are ignorant of the facts involved. You are the puppet, and you are wasting my time, and smacking God in the face by telling Him He is a weakling where His word is concerned. Don't write to me anymore.

My reply:

Hello again,
You said:
> And I guess that would be the parts that you decide, right?
Umm, no. As I said in my rebuttal to your fallacious "argument", Greber identified those doctrines that were given to him by demons. This was in his book, Communication with the Spirit World. One of these doctrines was that Jesus is not God, but only "a god" (viz. John 1:1). So you see, I don't need to "decide" which parts are acceptable. All I need to decide is to flee from spiritism/demonism, as commanded. If you choose to embrace it that's up to you.
You said:
> No, it is not. Over the years, I have received thousands of emails similar to yours and I know from experience of what I speak. You are the one given to gross generalizations, and you are ignorant of the facts involved.
You just don't get it, do you? Do you understand the difference between a true statement and a false one? I'm beginning to suspect you don't, which would certainly explain your "defense" of Greber and the WTS.
I will break it down for you: You implied that ALL "the opposers that DO mention [Greber] know embarrassingly little of him". You then stated that you have only spoken to "many" of them.
Do you grasp this? All does not equal many. Thus, your initial statement is a gross exaggeration.
It's hardly a point worth debating, but it is becoming quite humorous.
You said:
> ...and smacking God in the face by telling Him He is a weakling where His word is concerned.
Am I? And what are you doing when you tell God He is too weak to retain His own name (which is necessary for salvation, right?) in His word? According to you God was too weak to retain His name in even a single (of the thousands) of Greek NT manuscripts.
What are you doing to God when you tell Him He is a weakling where the entire Christian faith is involved? According to you, true worship literally disappeared off the face of the earth for ~1800 years, only to be revived by "Pastor" Russell and friends just in time for Armageddon. Funny, I don't see that suggested in Matthew 16:18.
Divine providence has maintained the purity of God's word, and the purity of the Christian faith. However, as foretold, in later times some have indeed fallen away, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.
Once again, the bottom line is this: The Watchtower Society is guilty of consulting a spirit medium, and they are guilty of lying to hide the facts. Secondly, you are guilty of lying in your preposterous "defense" of the WTS.
My invitation remains open. If my argument is as weak as you contend (though refuse to demonstrate), you should have no problem refuting it.
Regards,
Trevor Scott.
(1 Peter 3:15)

Click here for the rebuttal that spawned this dialogue. Click here and here for more on Johannes Greber and the Watchtower Society. Click here for more on the slander tactics of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Footnotes

1. A typo on my part. The correct page in the 11/15/63 Watchtower is 688.

1