THE STORY IS IN THE DETAILS
Thank you Bruce and Rachael for sharing this also. Fine to see your progression of thought, which makes good sense.
Great update Bruce and Rachael.
What a brilliant analysis. No, seriously.It certainly reinforces the credibility of this work to see how you re-structured your presentation after considering Zoe Knox's observations.Am I correct that the "Restoration" movement of which you speak includes the Campbellites an their allies, such as the Churches of Christ (non-instrumental) and Disciples of Christ? In the past, I was impressed by the emphasis on Bible study and Biblical morals by members of the Churches of Christ whom I knew.As far as the term "Orthodoxy", do you limit it to the mainstream Protestant churches, as opposed to those now considered Evangelical, such as Southern Baptists? Indeed, Walter Martin was not the champion of orthodoxy that he was touted as being, most notably in his acceptance of Seventh-Day Adventists as 'eccentric Christians', if I remember his term correctly.Ihanks for confirming that Russell did not teach Arian doctrine. Just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine was told at the door by a Catholic man that he was holding on to the old Arian heresy, that had died off a few centuries later. Anyone who promotes that view is either woefully misinformed, or just intellectually dishonest! Thanks also for clarifying the religious background of writers such as Clark, Stroup, and Daniels, especially "purposeful misrepresentations" by Stroup and Daniels.I appreciate the charitable view you take toward some of the historical errors in WT from the 1950s until 1990. You've demonstrated in the past how some of their internal research was faulty, largely due to unfamiliarity with what was written in the past (I'm thinking particularly of their denunciation, then later use, then still later complete renunciation of Greber's rendering of John 1:1).I hope to comment further at a later date. Thanks again for your thorough and impartial research.
Post a Comment