Question 41: Genesis, the Trinity and three guys walk into a bar…
Amid the 2012 Republican primary campaigns there is circulating the following story:
A liberal, a conservative and a moderate walk into a bar. The bar tender says "Hi, Mitt!"
Suddenly, I realized I had heard this story before.
In the 1954 case in Scotland of L. Strachan v. E. Walsh, on page 42 of the proceedings, Fred Franz testified as follows on initial examination by an attorney representing Edmond Walsh. L. Strachan represented the British government interest in the petition.
Q. (in examination) It is, of course, common to most, if not all forms of Christian belief that Christ promised a return to earth?
A. That is right.
Q. But I think you have gone farther, have you not, in one direction and have held that return took place in 1914?
A. Yes, it was an invisible return, because Jesus Christ is not the invisible God, and being His image, he is invisible to human eyes, the same as Jehovah God Himself, and no man can look upon Him and live. So his second coming must be invisible and when He comes into the kingdom, that is the invisible entry into this governmental function.
Q. I think this is set out, I think, isn’t it, in No. 15 of Process at page 201?
A. Yes, there is reference to it on that page.
Q. Now is that, so far as your studies indicated, a unique belief among Christian communities?
A. It certainly is.
Q. Do you regard the Trinity doctrine as one for which there is no scriptural authority?
A. No, there is not a bit of scriptural authority for the Trinity doctrine.
Q. As you interpret the Scripture?
A. That is right.
Q. And therefore, do you reject the doctrine of the Trinity?
Q. And therefore, do you reject the doctrine of the Trinity?.
A. Yes.
Q. I think you said in the course of your evidence that your regarded – I mean the association regarded the Holy Spirit as the invisible active force of God. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. The force which moves His servants to do His will?
A. That is right.
Q. Now would you look please at page 11 of No 15 of Process. Do you find your rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity there?
A. Yes. I find it on page 111.
Q. That is the conclusion of a chapter which itself is headed “Is there a Trinity?”
A. Yes.
Q. Is that also set out in No. 25 of Process at page 3, top of the page.
A. That is true.
Before proceeding myself, I note that testimony was confusing sometimes in the sense whether Mr. Franz was testifying on his own beliefs or those of the Society. But let us continue with:
In Gen 18:1-5, concerning Abraham
Yahweh appeared to him [Abraham] at the Oak of Mamre while he was sitting by the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day. He looked up, and there he saw three men standing near him. As soon as he saw them he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them, and bowed to the ground. “My lord,” he said, “if I find favor with you, please do not pass your servant by, “Let me have a little water brought and you can wash your feet and have a rest under the tree. Let me fetch a little bread and you can refresh yourselves before going any further, now that you have come in your servant’s direction.” They replied, “Do as you say.”
… and they ate while he remained standing near them under the tree.
“Where is your wife Sarah? They asked him.
---------------------------------------------------------------
While there is plenty else to think about in this chapter of Genesis, just like perhaps all the others, I have to wonder if Fred Franz had considered these passages when he gave his testimony.
There is much to consider in Franz’s testimony as well. A few lines above this entry, the Vice President of the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society discussed the origin of the name Jehovah's Witness, attributing it to the Hebrews epistle, though unsigned, often attributed to the Apostle Paul. Chapters 11 and 12 enumerate figures from Genesis through the Old Testament who acted in faith, culminating with Jesus Christ himself. But it also was stated in the Strachan vs. Walsh testimony that the line of Witnesses was unbroken from the time of Abel.
In subsequent cross examination by the crown’s attorney [page 94], Mr. Franz was asked:
Q. Do you distinguish between the body known as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New York and Pennsylvania Incorporations?
A. Jehovah’s Witnesses are the world-wide body. They are international in their composition, whereas the New York Corporation is something which has been incorporated under the membership laws of that stat, and the Pennsylvania Corporation has been incorporated under [p95] the laws of that state.
Q. Then the whole tenets and principles and beliefs of those who subscribe to the views of the Jehovah’s Witnesses do in fact come from the incorporations?
A. Not from the incorporations. They come through the directorate of the Pennsylvania Corporation.
Q. So that without the directorate the body of Jehovah’s Witnesses would be left without spiritual guidance?
A. The primitive Christian Church had a governing body composed of the apostles.
Q. I know about the primitive church..
A. And so Jehovah’s Witnesses today have a governing body which is the Board of Directors of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
Q. Now what is the answer to my question? Without that directorate the body of Jehovah’s Witnesses would be left without spiritual guidance?
A. No, they would not.
Q. Where would the guidance come from?
A. The guidance would come from the governing body. The governing body does not exist because of the incorporation of the Pennsylvania Incorporation, any more than the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost was by the Pennsylvania law.
Q. When did the movement, if I may call it, start? It was about 1870, was it?
A. Yes, that when Charles Russell began his bible studies with a group of fellow students of the Holy Scriptures. [96]
Q. Your fairly said that the purpose and principles of the Witnesses may change from time to time according to the change in light?
A. That is, those teachings which are based on fundamentals do not change, but the superstructure of faith must be over in harmony with the lines of those fundamental doctrines of the Bible.
Q. Tell me if I am right or wrong in this; that in the days of Pastor Russell, I think he was called.
A. Yes.
Q. The Fall of Satan or Christ’s Second Coming was dated for 1876, I think.
A. No. the Fall of Satan was not assigned that date.
Q. Was not something assigned to 1876?
A. No.
Q. You say no?
A. No.
Q. Pastor Russell was followed by Judge Rutherford?
A. As President of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.
Q. Was there any other President between Judge Rutherford and the present Mr. Knorr.
A. No.
Q. So that is a comparatively new body, Jehovah’s Witnesses?
A. No. It is an old body. It begins with the first Witness of Jehovah on Biblical record, Abel, and continues to the present time.
Q. But there was no person or building to which a person could go prior to 1870 and say,”I wish to join a company or congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses”?
A. It is Jehovah God who makes one his Witness and that depends on the individual’s dedication of himself to Jehovah God through Jesus Christ. Then he becomes God’s [97] by dedication. Then he must serve as his witness.
Q. Is my question susceptible [?] to a simple yes or no? Prior to 1870 was there any person or building to which an individual could go and say, “I wish to join a company of Jehovah’s Witnesses”?
A. No; because the Temple of God is not an earthly building. It is a spiritual Temple, andGod does not deal in Temples made with hands. So it is foolish to speak about a physical building here upon this Earth to which an individual must go to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Abel did not go to any.
Q. I appreciate your point of view on church buildings, but prior to 1870 was there an earthly organization in the sense that has existed since 1870?
A. No. All the Scripture show there would not be. The Scriptures show that God’s people would be temporarily in a state of captivity to the great mystic Babylon, and they would be deprived of their privileges.
--------------------
When I reviewed Hebrews 11 and 12, I went to examine the notion of Abel as a witness and the term's subsequent use with other principal figures of the Old Testament. As is quite often the case when I perform these exercises, however, I usually find something different than what I was looking for.
In the Word-Study Greek-English NT by MacReynolds and all, Heb 11:13-16 is translated as follows:
All of these died ub faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth [14] for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. [15] If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. [16] But as it is, they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed he has prepared a city for them.
The corresponding beginning of [16] in the NWT: “But now they are reaching out for a better [place], that is one belonging to heaven.
‘epouraniou in the English subtext to the Greek was “on heavenly”. Strong number 2032 gives all six uses in Hebrews as “heavenly”. A couple of “in heaven”, “of heaven” in other books or epistles. No “belong to heaven” there or elsewhere.
The NWT at 3:1 uses “of heavenly”; at 6:4 “the heavenly”, at 8:5 “the heavenly” things; 9:23 “heavenly”; 12:22, “heavenly” Jerusalem.
The anonymous translators of the NWT NT must have stumbled on something that they didn’t like.
