I started studying apologetics in depth in 2008. Of course, I had been studying Scripture, Christianity, and Church history prior to that. The interesting thing is that I didn’t start my apologetics with Islam. I mainly dealt with non-Trinitarian cultic 19th century groups such as the Two by Two’s(Google them), Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Eventually I got interested in Old Testament Prophecy so that led me to study the Jewish objections to Jesus. I encountered the work of people like Rabbi Tovia Singer, Jews for Judaism and others.
Throughout most of this time, I was dealing with atheists as well. The head of my University’s atheist club was a fellow engineering student that I knew quite well. One time he invited me to debate a group of his fellow atheists on homosexuality. My main opponent was actually an ex-Muslim from Iran who was part of this club. Either way, dealing with popular atheist literature at the time, introduced me to Bart Ehrman. I had seen his books in the store before but now I needed to read them. I remember it was the summer of 2008 when I read God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens, read about Ehrman, then bought his latest book shortly afterwards.
In 2010 I stumbled across Dr. James White. I admired his work on the Trinity but at the same time objected to his arguments against Catholicism. I wound up reading many of his books over the next two years. I admired him for his promotion of Calvinism. He seemed to be the most hard core Calvinist out there. When studying James White, I got my first exposure to Islamic apologetics. After all, White had debated many Muslims by this point. I was familiar with Islam because I had researched it many years before. I had even done a project on Sunni Islam in my high school religion class. However, I hadn’t researched their apologetics.
Watching them was interesting because I got my first exposure to their methodology. Seeing their arguments, was interesting because I already knew the answers. They were using far left Biblical scholarship, atheistic scholarship, Jewish arguments, and Jehovah’s Witness arguments against the Trinity. All of this stuff was old to me.
Regardless, it was working. They seemed to be winning a majority of debates against those arguing for the Christian position. This was because our side didn’t know the answers to many of their objections. Being the geek I was, I had read up on all of their arguments from liberals, Ehrman, Singer and others. Watching debates was actually a bit frustrating as I would hear Muslims throw out arguments that I knew the answer to, but the debater did not.
Fast forward to today. James White recently did a Dividing Line episode on Psalm 22 and with a focus on verse 16. Muslims naturally are dabbling in Jewish apologetics for their arguments. James White pointed something out but didn’t realize where it could lead. He mentioned that it was odd that Muslims were dabbling in Jewish apologetics since Christians and Muslims both agree that Jesus was the Messiah.
Here is what I would love to see. One can go online and see many debates about whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. However, these are all from a Christian perspective. I would like to see Muslim apologists debate Jewish apologists on whether the Islamic Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. I think this would be an amazing debate. All of the prophecies in the Old Testament don’t point to the Islamic Jesus, but the Christian Jesus. However, Muslims are fully welcome to prove me wrong.
Muslims reading this, do you agree? I honestly don’t think that this would happen but I could be surprised. Shabir Ally, would you be willing to debate a Jewish apologist on if the Islamic Jesus was the one foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures? How about Adnan Rashid, Zakir Hussain, Ijaz Ahmad, or Paul Williams? I don’t think it’ll happen but I think it would show a lot to the apologetics world.
Is Jesus the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament?
Muslim vs Jew. Go!
Debate like the aforementioned would be quite interesting, second only to a debate between atheist and Muslim on the topic “Did Jesus exist”. Muslims consciously avoid both topics, realizing that Islamic sources are completely useless in these debates. Nonetheless, summary of the Islamic position on Jesus’ Messianic status could be found in these articles:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_descriptive_titles_of_jesus_in_the_quran
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_does_the_qur_an_call_jesus__pbuh___al_maseeh___by_moiz_amjad
In short, Muslims don’t know why Jesus is called “The Messiah”. They don’t even know the meaning of this title (does it mean “anointed one” or “anointing one”? Who anointed Him and why? Or who was He anointing?). This is a gigantic problem, given that the Quran boasts how detailed it is (Surahs 6:55, 6:97-98, 6:114, etc.). Worse still, the Quran mentions people that don’t really bear any significance whatsoever, like Abu Lahab, an alleged relative of Muhammad, who didn’t buy Muhammad’s claims of prophethood. Similar is the situation in the Hadith collections – there are detailed descriptions of how Muhammad was “answering the call of nature”, there are even narrations from his child bride Aisha, in which she recalls how her husband’s clothes were often covered with semen, so she had to wash them up, but among the thousands of hadiths there are none that contain Muhammad’s explanation of the “Messiah” title and why it was ascribed to Jesus. At the same time dawah-mongers constantly repeat how their religion “restores” the “true” image of our Lord Jesus: “We don’t really know what the Quran says about Jesus, but it’s surely better than the Christian version!” Yeah, right.
Hi OrangeHunter,
Hope all is well. I’m actually thinking of doing a post in the near future about the Christian vs Islamic Jesus. In Islam, Jesus carries the same externals but is completely stripped of all theology. He’s the Messiah, the Word, and born of a virgin but internally he’s just an empty shell. I suppose the same thing could be said about liberals as well. They claim to believe in Jesus Christ but it’s just the externals. No rich theology as found in the New Testament and Church tradition.
God Bless,
Some time ago a Messianic Jew made videos, analyzing the Islamic “version” of Christ and listing many of the problems that are contained therein. I think you may find these videos helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtuZj4PJibw&index=1&list=PLE9048073F3740517
Also, strongly recommended:
http://answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/jesus_miracles_quran1.html
http://answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/jesus_miracles_quran2a.html
http://answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/jesus_miracles_quran2b.html
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/messiah_dilemma.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/last_prophet.htm
Some additional points are adduced here:
https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Jesus-Right-Muslims-Islam/dp/1927355451
I typed in “Allan Ruhl” and “Jehovah’s witnesses”
I spent some of my free time looking up JWs because I am intrigued by them. (I learned about them primarily using ex-JW sources: ironically, I don’t want people to learn about Islam from ex-Muslims. But ex-JWs could be more frank about the sociology and culture of the group, which was my main interest not their doctrine, while JWs may keep to themselves about that.) I wanted to visit a Kingdom Hall yesterday, out of curiosity, to attend their weekday meetings, but it is obvious to me that my time would be better spent attending an iftar with the sisters and doing maghrib (sunset prayer) at a masjid (which I did) than to be present there at 7:30 PM.
I am too much of a philosopher, too “worldly” to even consider joining them. I don’t find them to be worthy intellectual foes. If there is something that exemplifies John Searle’s Chinese Room, it is JWs understanding of the Bible; they could give you a speech about the Greek and use of the indefinite article, but they certainly do not understand basic Biblical criticism or Greek.
Muslims really do use JW arguments? How humiliating! I haven’t focused much on anti-trinitarian polemics recently, but I would never use anything that the Watchtower has to say. I think the best anti-trinitarian arguments are formulated through historical rediscovery or reclaimation, such as finding out what early modern philosophers thought about it and studying Isaac Newton’s research, and perhaps some pagan and Arian polemics from late antiquity.
I posted this on a ex-JW website. I posted it her because it reveals my position and interest.
Perhaps I could play with JWs on soteriology. Too much agreement on the Trinity. I don’t think they really care about predestination or monergism. They probably do not have anything to say about it. I am not going to orient my NT reading program to address any of JWs peculiar concerns. I will briefly say there is patently absurd in taking the 140,000 literally while also claiming their other attributes (being virgins and being from the 12 tribes of Israel) are all symbolic.
144,000
Hi Latias,
I don’t write much about JWs. About a year ago I had a great idea for a post about JWs but something else came up and I didn’t end up writing the JW post. Also, several years ago, I used to live downtown in my city and they always used to have their booth set up close to my apartment. I would always engage them in debate. I used to have fun with them because they have only a handful of topics that they want to discuss such as the Trinity, the existence of Hell, etc.
I would always discuss esoteric topics that they had no clue about. I ask them why their Bible has the Protestant Canon of 66 books and not the Catholic Canon of 73 books of the early councils. They were like a deer caught in the headlights.
The question that they never had an answer for was: I’m a Christian living in the year 700(or any year between 100 and 1800). Where do I go to Church?
That’s a tough one for them. I don’t live there anymore so I don’t see them too often.
I wouldn’t worry about them because people usually don’t convert to that Church anymore unless they marry in. Until the internet became a thing, they were big. Now people can look up the fact that they’ve predicted the end of the world 5 times and surprise, surprise have been wrong every time. The last time was in 1975. However, if you want to learn about them, go to the local Kingdom Hall. They’ll be more than happy to fill you up with a ton of literature. That’s what I did. I even have the old and new editions of their Bible. They have their two magazines, The Watchtower and Awake. That’s what I’d do if I wanted to learn about them.
Interesting fact. I’m Roman Catholic. Only one of my eight great grandparents was Roman Catholic. He was originally from Poland. Toward the end of his life(living in Canada at this point) he left the Catholic Church for the JWs and stayed with them until he died.
If it weren’t for him, I wouldn’t be Roman Catholic, at least by birth. I would either be a Byzantine Catholic since the rest of that side of the family is Ukrainian, or a Lutheran as my entire paternal ancestry is German Lutheran(as you could probably tell by my German last name). I wouldn’t mind being Byzantine Catholic but I’m so happy I wasn’t brought up in Luther’s Church.
Something interesting that I’ve noticed when observing both Mormon and JW missionaries. The Mormons look so jolly and full of life. The JW’s look like the most depressed people on the planet. They look like they were just at a funeral.
I know that you’re a fan of James White. Have you picked up his book on the Trinity yet? He has some arguments specifically geared towards JWs.
God Bless,
Allan
I meant to say “John 1:1”. The “New World Translation” renders it as “The Word was with God. And the word was a god”. I don’t have an opinion on the use of the text.
As an aside, I would say that I would abandon my use of the criticism that many Muslims use for Matthew 28:19, since they claim that Eusebius didn’t quote it, therefore it was probably not in the manuscripts he had assess to. (Why refer to Eusebius, and not a general absence of evidence among the Church fathers?) He didn’t quote it, but he truncated the text for some other reasons. Most importantly, other earlier church fathers quoted Matthew 28:19 and used the formula of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I leave it to the burden of any apologist/polemicist to prove otherwise that Matthew 28:19 is spurious. It could be an interpolation, but it has to be a very early interpolation. In that case, there is no way to demonstrate that it was not part of the ausgangtext, but it does not seem to be a late interpolation that happened in the late third century.
I really did not use that criticism, but I floated it around here once to responses to it.
It seems to be an easy answer for a JW.
I thought they would say that Christendom has apostasized (if they want to be politically incorrect) ever since the early second century. Everyone was in apostasy! Don’t they claim that mainline Christians are apostates that deviated from the true worship of Jehovah? To them. going to Church in the 700s just reflected the sociological reality that the Church had influence in Europe, not that its doctrines were correct. It isn’t a big leap to say that whatever church that one might attend then wasn’t truly “Christian” as in following the teachings of Jehovah and Christ.
They should say that the Church prevented people from truly understanding the Bible. That might explain why Arianism may be suppressed and other Christological understandings as “heresy”, but it does not give any credence to their other beliefs, especially their eschatology.
It is similar to Islam. There was no true religion since Christianity was quickly infested with shirk. Everything was corrupted before the advent of the final Prophet, sallahu alayhi wa salaam.
Still, they have to explain why the books of the Bible are authoritative, relative to other literature that was being circulated. They consider themselves “Christians” and rely on “Sola Scriptura” although the Watchtower interpretation takes precedence.
I haven’t picked up James White’s book yet.
Hi Latias,
Regarding John 1:1, the JWs are actually inconsistent in how that translate that. They say there is no definite article yet in most places in there Bible where there is no definite article, they don’t translate it as “a god” but simply God. As for Muslim apologists using that, Sami Zaatari used to use it back in 2008 and 2009. I don’t think he’s active anymore though as I haven’t seen any videos from him lately.
Regarding, Matthew 28:19, I don’t think Muslims argue well. First of all, every manuscript has it. Also, that verse is the only explicit mentioning of the Trinitarian baptismal formula. One of the earliest documents after the NT is called the Didache and it instructs Christians to use the Trinitarian formula identical to what is found in Matthew. True, it doesn’t quote the verse, but where else did they get the formula? It’s an interesting question. Google Didache and see Chapter 7. The date of the Didache is unknown but many think it dates to about 120 AD.
It would seem like an easy answer regarding the 700 AD answer. This is known as the doctrine of the great apostasy. This doctrine is essentially that after Christ and the apostles, the true faith disappeared completely and was only resurrected by Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or someone else depending which group you follow. Even though Protestants don’t like to admit it, they essentially believe a mild version of this as well.
The problem with saying this is Matthew 16:18 talks about the Gates of Hell not overcoming the Church. This makes a great apostasy impossible. As a Muslim, you can say that this isn’t an original statement of Jesus and was put into his mouth by Matthew(although Muslims are still stuck with Surah 61:14 and 3:55 to deal with), but the JW or Mormon believes that this is authentic and has to deal with it. I have had no good answers from Mormons or JWs on this. I actually do use this against Muslims at Dawah booths and other places but they simply resort to questioning the authenticity of the statement.
Thanks again for commenting and God Bless,
Allan
as salaamu alaykum,
I think a competent Muslim who is addressing Christianity has to work both sides of the plate well. A Muslim has to be able to use liberal scholarship as a way of discrediting the text if it promotes a high Christology. (When I think about it now, Thomas’ remarks to Jesus, pbuh, [John 20:28] can also be consistent with an Arian interpretation, and the interpretation that Thomas addressed Jesus, pbuh, as “my lord” while saying “my God” as separate interjection does not make sense. A Muslim treatment of this used the liberal appeal of showing that this account is inconsistent with the other Resurrection appearances, since in the appearance in Luke in Jerusalem, I think after the Road to Emmaeus, Jesus appeared to all
twelveeleven. In John, Thomas was written out to prove a theological didactic point about faith. The Muslim also quoted the end of chapter 20, say that was written to show that Jesus is the son of God, not Yahweh or Jehovah or the God of Abraham.)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojSSkKkgdII (Zakir Hussein on my Lord and my God)
I heard this before I was committed to Islam, but I was doing salat then and avoiding alcohol and pork. I wanted to see how Muslims would respond to John 20:28, and I was actually impressed. I saw some bad forms of dawah before, but Hussein gave me the impression that he understood what he was talking about. Shortly after, I came across Ijaz Ahmad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZIfgxIyNfY (Greg Stafford in a debate with James White)
This seems to be best presentation of Arianism that I have seen. Greg Stafford seems to have been the only public JW apologist. He explicitly acknowledges that Jesus, pbuh, is “a god” but not the same as Jehovah God, since Christ is a copy of God, the image of God. That would still make him worthy of worship.
I don’t know how a complete reading of the New Testament could support a Socinian Christology [similar to what Islam claims about Jesus, pbuh]. The Pauline epistles and the Gospel of John, such as the Philippians’ hymn, supports the pre-existence of Christ, at least before the incarnation, and most likely before the creation of the universe. The deutero-Pauline epistles have an even higher Christology than what the Philippians’ hymn warrants (and I regard this as corroborating evidence against Pauline authorship). But I think a Muslim working with the text has to accede to an Arian Christology, but still, he would still be effective against the “orthodox” homoousian Christology.
Hearing James White, he does believe that John 6 actually supports his view that God has predestined an elect, and that it is only God’s actions (via the Holy Spirit for giving them faith and Christ for sacrificing his life to satisfy the Father’s grievance and provide justice) that can save one. A Muslim who wants to use a monergist view can work with the text.
Yes, I understanding that using liberal scholarship to promote the view that John had prophesied Muhammad, SWAS, is quite disingenuous, and I would not use it, yet. It seems to only good to bring it up if the Christian appeals to messianic prophesy.
Obviously, a Muslim cannot accept even an Arian Christology, and the other texts, aside from the synoptic gospels, have to be discredited to show that they are not inspired scripture that informs of the true nature of Jesus, pbuh, but a product of the ideas of men and are temporally and geographically disconnected from Jesus, pbuh, so that there is opportunity for corruption with foreign ideas. Even for Paul, this is quite easy to do. Paul claims that he has direct revelation from God (Galatians 1:12), but hasn’t even seen Jesus or had been in much contact with the disciples (I think about two weeks with Peter as stated in Galatians 2). Even in that time frame, there were more considered with legal issues, such as circumcision and eating meat, as opposed to discussing what Jesus said.
It doesn’t really matter since the Bible is corrupted, but working with the text can yield a desideratum for the Muslim: it shows the evolution of Christology that culminated as Jesus being equivalent to God the Father.
(If I remember correctly, James White said that Greg Stafford did some unusual things for a JW, such as reading outside literature, such as his book on the Trinity. He is no longer a part of mainstream JWs as he does not accept the stricture on accepting blood transfusions and disassociated himself with the Watchtower, and has his own small sect call the “Christian Witnesses of Jah” but he does still consider himself “one of Jehovah’s Witnesses”. )
I looked up “Great Apostasy” on Wikipedia. One interesting said there was that dispensationalism had softened the stance of Protestants towards the Catholic Church. I also knew that anti-Communism and the Cold War also contributed to the softening stance since the interest of the US government (bourgeois class interests) and Catholics had a new mutual enemy.
Hi Latias,
Wow, a lot to work with here. I may actually do a response to Zakir Hussain on this one. I had never seen the video but I’ve heard the argument from other apologists. Let’s just say it doesn’t take into account what Acts 1:3 says and Acts is written by the same author as Luke. What’s interesting is that Hussain is conceding that this deifies Christ since he doesn’t dispute it but tries to say it didn’t happen. It’s funny that Hussain also said the Gospel of John is unreliable since he’s more than happy to mine it for supposed prophecies about Muhammad. Not very credible in my opinion.
I personally don’t think Hussain is a good apologist. He never has cross examination in any of his debates(that I’ve seen, I could be wrong). I have many articles refuting Hussains arguments in other areas. I’m actually working on a post refuting Hussain right now, though on a completely different subject.
As for reading John 20:28 in an Arian context, note that every time Lord and God are applied to the same person at the same time, they refer to Yahweh. The best examples are Deuteronomy 6:4 and Psalm 35:23.
Regarding the Great Apostasy, I’d also be interested in how you deal with it since Islam essentially believes in a form of it. Would you just say the promise that the Gates of Hell won’t prevail against the Church is an addition by Matthew?
Anyways Latias, I’d also be interested in hearing your opinion on my post about Justin Trudeau and the refugees.
God Bless,
Allan
Acts 1:3? I think you have said that because Hussain said that in Luke Jesus, pbuh, ascended on Easter Sunday. Reading the end of Luke, it doesn’t specify which day he ascended. Luke 24:50 says that he led the disciples out to Bethany and then he ascended.
I wonder if the 40 days in Acts could be an interpolation. Ehrman does like the point out that one cannot possibly know the original text, even if all the manuscripts concur. For the most part, it should be consider to be part of the original text, unless someone has a good argument to doubt it.
For what it’s worth, The New World Translation does state “my Lord and my God”.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/20/
it also enumerates “Father, Son. and Holy Spirit” saying that the enumeration does not support the idea that they are equal in power and prominence.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/E/2018/40/28#study=discover (scroll on the right hand column)
You could bring up the Old Testament’s usage, but a Muslim could say that John’s usage of it is just bidah (innovation) and argue that his intention was henotheistic: to demonstrate that Jesus was some type of deity, but not the eternally existing creator. It is also quite consist with other verses that suggest Jesus’ divinity, such as John 8:58.
A Catholic did bring up John 8:58 in real life. When I first read that section, I discovered John 8:54.
Calvin said (Institutes 2.14.2)
John 8:58 clearly demonstrates that Jesus was more than human. I would disagree with Calvin that this establishes his eternal existence i.e. being co-eternal with the Father.
Paragraph 3 is interesting since it has Calvin’s defense of Trinitarian Christology. Paragraph 3 appeals to Christ’s role as the mediator. He has to have certain characteristics, such as receiving power from the Father and being subject to him, but those qualities, according to Calvin, do not present a contradiction between him being a co-equal member of the Godhead that existed for all (presumably timeless) eternity. One commits heretical errors because they try to fit Christ’s office as mediator with an entity that has a fully divine nature, but one that is both human and divine (on Earth), can be a mediator and be part of the co-eternal Godhead. Calvin even quotes verses that many anti-Trinitarians like such as 1 Corinthians 15:28 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. [Oddly enough Calvin does not cite 1 Timothy 2:5 to speak about Christ’s role as mediator.]
—
If I were add something, I would say that Ehrman has earned some credibility in my mind because he does not sound like a tendentious ultra-Socinian liberal. He does acknowledge that high Christology of Philippians and Colossians. He even uses the higher Christology of Colossians as a strike against Pauline authorship.
As I said before, he even said that the soteriological message of the Epistle of James and the Pauline canon were consistent.
—
On the ex-JW Reddit, not many people there become mainline Trinitarian Christians.
—
I do feel obliged to say something about social issues. I try not to say much about homosexuality and abortion, or even immigration. You asked and I will try to say something later.
Hi Latias,
“Acts 1:3? I think you have said that because Hussain said that in Luke Jesus, pbuh, ascended on Easter Sunday. Reading the end of Luke, it doesn’t specify which day he ascended. Luke 24:50 says that he led the disciples out to Bethany and then he ascended.
I wonder if the 40 days in Acts could be an interpolation. Ehrman does like the point out that one cannot possibly know the original text, even if all the manuscripts concur. For the most part, it should be consider to be part of the original text, unless someone has a good argument to doubt it.”
I was actually 90% done a post on this but you seem to have accepted the point. Acts 1:3 allows the time for John 20:28 to happen, even though you’ve speculated that it could be an interpolation.
Regarding John 8:58, James White actually has some good work on this in his book on the Trinity. He actually goes through all the I AM statements as there are many, not just John 8:58. For example, John 8:24 and John 13:19.
It seems that you would really like White’s book. You’re not a Trinitarian but you seem to be interested in the proof texts and how certain groups use them. He has specific JW arguments and goes through the I AM statements. It doesn’t directly address Islam as White first started to deal with Islam in 2005 and the book was written in 1999, long before then. White debated Abdullah Kunde (Who in my opinion is a really good Muslim apologist) once and these verses were covered in depth.
“If I were add something, I would say that Ehrman has earned some credibility in my mind because he does not sound like a tendentious ultra-Socinian liberal.”
I’m actually going to agree with you here. Ehrman has some unique views on this stuff. When I first heard that he was writing “How Jesus Became God” I thought the Muslims would jump all over it. They’ve done the exact opposite because Ehrman has strange views that don’t agree with Islam or Christianity on this topic. It’s not the classic explanation – early NT books have low Christology, later NT books have high Christology, etc.
“On the ex-JW Reddit, not many people there become mainline Trinitarian Christians.”
I’ve heard that most of them become atheist, so what you said is technically correct.
Happy Friday and God Bless,
Allan
As for this post, I think it is quite natural and easy for Muslims to use commentaries by Rabbinic Jews on scriptures such as Psalms* 91 and Isaiah 52-53. Muslims don’t think Jesus was “pierced” or that he suffered a humiliating death. The prophesies cannot be fulfilled that way, but also Muslims cannot embrace Jewish arguments against Jesus that says that the Messiah because the Messiah would usher an era of world peace, while Jesus does disavow in John (18:36) that his Kingdom is not of this world.
The Apostle actually quotes scripture showing that the Messiah would make the Jews stumble and save the Gentiles in Romans 9-11. (I haven’t studied in depth the passages cited by Paul or even Paul’s usage of them.) Ironic that as a Muslim, my first thoughts in trying to find scripture to support Jesus being the Messiah comes from Paul! But, Jesus, pbuh, really did not spread his message to the world. After all, Paul and others corrupted it!
* I actually wrote “Psalms” lol, and left it uncorrected. “Psalm”!
—
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFbXOg5Kt8M (54:00)
James White says it is highly unusual for Greg Stafford to do high-level public apologetics (debates) and engaging in other literature. He doesn’t mention his name.
47:50 (White cites an anecdote concern a JW housewife who gave him a short lecture about John 1:1)
Regardless, of what one thinks about John 1:1. It doesn’t seem that JWs really think or understand what they are talking about.
—
I meant to say that it is highly unusual for a JW like Greg Stafford to read outside literature. White said that around the time of his debate he predicted to himself that Stafford was likely to get shunned or disfellowshipped. I think that remark is interesting because it illustrates JW culture.
1:01:00 (James White says some interesting remarks on scripture memorization.)
Hi Latias,
It’s an interesting situation that you point out. How much can a Muslims use Rabbinic Judaism? After all, they don’t want to claim that Jesus isn’t the Messiah, only that he’s not the divine Son who died on the cross.
As for JW’s they’re extremely strict in their cultural practices. In the town my mom grew up in, a 12 year old JW needed a blood transfusion to save her life. They didn’t allow it and she died. Very sad in my opinion. It’s no mystery that Greg Stafford got the shaft like he did.
White says some good stuff. The Lord has blessed me with a very good memory and analytical skills. This makes me really good at debate. When I debate in person and someone says something but doesn’t cite a source, I always say “source please” and most the time they don’t have it. White is correct. Having the Word of God memorized(and many other things memorized) is key in apologetics.
Anyways, I’m off to a Calvinist Church today. Not because I’m converting, my Calvinist friend is getting married lol. He’s a White fan as well.
God Bless,
Allan
Latias,
A number of times in this thread you have asserted that the the Bible and the message of Jesus is corrupted. Those statements seem to have passed without challenge. This is a serious criticism and if true it has important implications. If unfounded it has important implications for yourself. Please would you back up your assertions with evidence?
Christopher