How did a question about Fred Franz, Watchtowers' pretend Greek Scholar and 1st year college drop out, become a discussion about the Catholic Church???
Because aqwebot123 …
Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?
by SydBarrett 72 Replies latest jw friends
-
slimboyfat
-
WingCommander
Is aqwebot123 a WatchTower shit-stirrer? Could be, could be................
-
vienne
aqw is a Catholic evangelist who thinks we're all still Jehovah's Witnesses at heart. Most of us are x-Witnesses, some like me are interested parties, and the actual 'still in' people here is small.
He promotes Catholic philosophy, but much of what he writes comes from questionable sources. He does not take criticism, and he relies on the so-called fathers of the Church for his opinions. Sometimes I think he's a theology student, but if he is, he is a very poor one. He is unable to explore Christian origins outside what he finds in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
And yes, he inserts his Catholic nonsense into every discussion he can. Ultimately, I feel sorry for him. He needs a good face-to-face with an informed Witness or with someone such as Justin Peters.
-
vienne
Now back to Franz. He saw Rutherford as the lead spokesman for "the Elijah Class," apparently meaning the 'faithful' before 1942. Fitting Rutherford in to his prophetic schema, he wrote:
"On October 31, 1916, Charles T. Russell died while out on a preaching tour. Shortly J. F. Rutherford was elected to the presidency of the Watch Tower Society. Now the proof of the end of the Gentile Times as a sign from heaven became more impressive when the sixteenth nation, the United States of America, joined the world conflict on April 6, 1917. After Jehovah had answered Elijah with fire from heaven, Elijah had all the prophets of Baal there slaughtered as servants of the false god, Baal, Satan the Devil. Likewise, in July of 1917 there began a slaughter of the modern prophets of Baal in Christendom ...." - Let Your Name be Sanctified.
You'll want to read more of this to understand his rather confused presentation. But we see more of his self-serving and confused prophetic views in this:
"After Elijah slaughtered the Baal prophets, he went up to the top of Mount Carmel and prayed for rain. A rain cloud appeared and came overhead and a great downpour occurred. Correspondingly, a great spiritual blessing was poured out on February 24, 1918, which grew in proportions as the years followed. This was when the then president of the Watch Tower Society, J. F. Rutherford, delivered the famous speech in Los Angeles, California, on the startling subject f*The World Has Ended-—-Millions Now Living May Never Die.’* This talk boldly held forth the hope that the sheeplike people of earth who would turn to Jehovah and his righteousness would be hidden during the approaching battle of Armageddon and would survive into God’s righteous new world with its wonderful opportunity for everlasting life on a paradise earth governed by God’s kingdom."
He saw the transition from Rutherford's administration to Knorr's as the transition to work prefigured by the prophet Elisha.
The book is an interesting précis of Watchtower history, but set as prophetic fulfilments. Franz' writing style was effected by his beliefs. In form it emulated writers from the late 19th Century.
In the 1970s the Watchtower Society introduced a new writer. I do not know his name, and he didn't last. His grammar was atrocious and his wrting prolix. It was a change from Franz style. But thankfully who ever that was did not last.
-
slimboyfat
It’s difficult to know where aqwebot123 is coming from because it’s not clear which parts of his posts are really him and which parts are outsourced. Sometimes he posts a short reply and has a different tone and even a couple of human-like mistakes here and there.
Why Justin Peters? I looked him up and if I got the right one he’s Trinitarian, a Bible believer, and he is successful despite lifelong health condition. I guess there must be something that sets him apart but I didn’t look long enough to find it.
I read Let You Name Be Sanctified a long time ago and I had forgotten that’s where the Elijah/Elisha transition was elaborated. I think the book was good on the divine name and its importance.
There is no argument that Franz had a ton of whacky ideas and if the board of directors/governing body had more sense they would have reined it in sooner and more effectively than they did. The literature under Rutherford was wacky too but less interesting. I’d rather read a book by Franz than Rutherford.
-
aqwsed12345
@vienne
I want to begin by acknowledging something important: I completely believe you when you say you’re no longer a Jehovah’s Witness and have left behind their specific teachings. That is a significant step, and I know for many it involves pain, courage, and a long personal journey. My intention is not to dismiss your experiences or conflate your present position with the Watchtower’s doctrines. However, I do want to point out—respectfully and carefully—that even among former Witnesses, certain anti-Catholic assumptions tend to linger subconsciously. These were instilled so deeply in the JW framework that they often survive long after one has mentally rejected the organization itself. My engagement here is not about "forcing" Catholicism on anyone, but about responding to misinformation and inherited biases that continue to shape people’s thinking, even when they believe they’ve moved on from the system that planted them.
I understand that when someone defends the Catholic Church strongly and persistently, it can sound like they are dismissive of others or closed off to criticism. That’s not my intention. Rather, it’s because so many discussions—even outside the Watchtower—are already saturated with misinformation about Catholic beliefs. From false claims about idol worship, to the papacy being a "man-made invention," to simplistic caricatures of Catholic soteriology, the Catholic faith is constantly being attacked with recycled arguments that rarely engage the actual teachings of the Church. When I cite the Church Fathers, it's not out of blind loyalty but because these are the earliest Christian voices outside the New Testament—those closest in time to the apostles themselves. To ignore them is to sever ourselves from our historical and spiritual roots. These early Christians weren’t perfect, but they offer invaluable insight into how the Church understood Scripture, doctrine, liturgy, and apostolic succession long before denominationalism emerged.
You suggest that my sources are questionable or that I rely too heavily on the Catholic Encyclopedia. But what I present is not isolated to one source; it's drawn from centuries of teaching, across ecumenical councils, papal encyclicals, the Catechism, and the writings of both saints and scholars. What many ex-JWs and Protestant critics often dismiss as "Catholic nonsense" is simply the lived continuity of the Church from the time of the apostles to today—something which every Protestant denomination, no matter how sincere, cannot claim historically. I don’t expect people to accept that at face value. I argue for it because it’s a matter of historical record and theological consistency.
As for your comment that I "do not take criticism"—on the contrary, I engage with it at length. But criticism is only productive when it moves beyond name-calling and actually addresses the substance of an argument. Dismissing appeals to the Church Fathers as “Catholic nonsense” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s a slogan. To say that I need to meet someone like Justin Peters doesn’t help the conversation either. Justin Peters is a staunch Calvinist cessationist. He and I would disagree on several fundamental points—so invoking him as some kind of authoritative alternative to the Catholic faith misses the mark. If we are to take our search for truth seriously, we need to go deeper than simply jumping from one authoritative voice to another. We need to ask: which Church today most faithfully preserves the teaching, sacramental life, and structure instituted by Christ Himself?
The suggestion that I think “you’re all still Jehovah’s Witnesses at heart” is not fair. I fully acknowledge that many of you have stepped far away from the Watchtower and are seeking truth through your own discernment. But I will also point out, gently, that the anti-Catholic framework deeply built into JW theology leaves a lasting shadow. The Watchtower spent decades vilifying Catholicism—calling it "Babylon the Great," attributing to it every imaginable evil, and teaching its members that Catholic doctrines are pagan or Satanic. These ideas don’t just suddenly disappear when someone leaves the Watchtower. They often remain lodged in the subconscious, coloring how people respond to anything remotely Catholic. So when someone rejects the Watchtower and then immediately turns to aggressive Protestant critiques of Catholicism, it's worth asking: did you really escape the system, or just change uniforms?
I understand that emotions run high in these conversations, especially for people who feel hurt or betrayed by religion. But what’s at stake here is not about winning arguments or proving who’s right for the sake of pride. It’s about truth. If Christ truly founded a Church—one Church, with visible structure and enduring authority—then we must ask where that Church is today. History matters. Continuity matters. Apostolic succession matters. And while Catholics are the first to admit the personal failures and scandals of individuals within the Church, these failures do not nullify the divine promises of Christ to preserve His Church in truth (Matthew 16:18, John 16:13, 1 Timothy 3:15).
So I will keep defending the Catholic faith because I believe it is not a man-made institution, but the Church founded by Christ. Not because its leaders are flawless, but because its faith is. And I’ll continue to engage respectfully with anyone who seeks truth—even those who remain skeptical—because that’s what Christ would do. I don’t expect instant agreement, but I do hope for honest consideration.
If you think I’m mistaken, show me where the early Church taught what your current beliefs reflect. If you believe I rely on weak sources, present stronger historical and theological ones. But don’t just wave your hand and call it “nonsense.” The stakes are too high for that. The truth deserves more than slogans—it deserves serious, patient, and charitable dialogue.
-
slimboyfat
I don’t think vienne said she left JWs. I think she said she’s never been one but has close family links.
-
vienne
Though I'm being less than polite by saying so, You are profoundly idiotic. I've made it clear several times, I've never been a Witness. I'm a historian. MA WSU. I'm working on my doctorate and assisting B. W. Schulz, PhD, FRHistS with his research into Witness history. I'm a socially conservative Christian loosely associated with an Abrahamic Faith Church. I'm substitute teaching to fund that part of my studies not covered by my scholarships.
Why is it that you cannot grasp what others tell you? The same problem arises in your response to arguments present by others. You go off in a tangent, never making a concise reply. I pity you while finding you irritating.
Take a breath, grasp the arguments. stop misdirecting threads.
One irritated woman,
Annie.
-
aqwsed12345
Dear Annie,
Thank you for your reply, even if it was written in frustration. I take seriously your correction regarding your background, and I sincerely apologize for my mistaken assumption. If I misunderstood your religious history, then that is entirely my fault and not yours. Thank you for clarifying your academic credentials and affiliation. I appreciate the clarification, and I assure you that my intention was never to patronize or diminish your identity, but to respond to a broader pattern I’ve often encountered in ex-Witness or post-Watchtower contexts. In this case, I wrongly applied that frame to you, and for that, I apologize.
That said, if I may be allowed to respond with charity and precision, your tone suggests I am incapable of grasping or addressing the substance of arguments, and that I go off on tangents to avoid engaging. That’s a strong accusation, and I would like to take it seriously and respond constructively, not combatively.
The truth of a theological claim is not established by the credentials of the speaker but by the substance of the argument, the coherence of the doctrine with Scripture and apostolic tradition, and its continuity with the historic Church. Your irritation with my method suggests that I failed to communicate with the clarity or focus you expect from a conversation partner, and I am sorry if that has made dialogue with me more difficult than it should be. But I hope you’ll allow for the possibility that my approach—thorough, historical, and sourced—is not an attempt to deflect or misdirect, but to answer in the context of what I believe to be the fullness of Christian truth, which includes deep roots and long arguments.
If I emphasize the Church Fathers, the ecumenical councils, and the development of doctrine through time, it is not because I want to evade Scripture or dodge your arguments, but because—as a Catholic—I believe theology must be historically and ecclesially grounded. I do not think that responding to Protestant or post-Protestant critiques with sound bites and slogans is productive. I offer long-form replies because Catholicism is a religion of continuity, and the issues at stake are complex and demand more than proof-texting or isolated assertions.
You accuse me of failing to reply concisely. But concision, while valuable in academic writing, does not always serve truth well when the argument being made by the other side is itself built on centuries of inherited assumptions and implicit premises. When someone says “Catholicism is unbiblical,” they may be assuming an entire hermeneutical framework—sola scriptura, for instance—that I must first challenge before we can even meaningfully discuss Marian doctrines or the papacy. That’s not evasion—it’s theological groundwork.
You say I "go off in tangents," but if I reference anti-Catholic polemics, or the influence of former belief systems on someone’s present worldview, it is because those things shape how people engage with Catholic arguments. If someone quotes from an anti-Catholic preacher like Justin Peters or appeals to notions of "Babylon the Great" or dismisses the Catechism as "Catholic nonsense," then I must address not just the surface objection, but the worldview beneath it.
You say I need to “grasp the arguments.” I welcome correction if I’ve misunderstood something specific you’ve written. But so far, the majority of criticisms I’ve received (not just from you) have not directly refuted the substance of Catholic doctrine I’ve presented, but rather dismissed it as irrelevant, absurd, or misguided. Telling me that I’m irritating or “idiotic” may express how you feel, but it doesn’t actually address any claim I’ve made. You’re a historian in training. I respect that. Then let’s do what historians and theologians must do—trace ideas to their sources, test them against the documentary and doctrinal record, and argue from evidence, not emotion.
I do not pretend to be the Pope. I have no magisterial authority. I’m simply a Catholic layman trying to articulate why I believe the Catholic Church is the visible, apostolic, and sacramentally constituted Church founded by Christ. That claim is falsifiable. If you think it’s wrong, then engage the historical and theological arguments I present. Show that the early Church was Protestant in its ecclesiology or soteriology. Show that Catholic doctrines like apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, or the Eucharist as sacrifice were invented later and absent from the early centuries. If you believe the papacy is a medieval distortion, show that the evidence from Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Leo the Great, and others is misread or manipulated. I don’t think you can, but I welcome the attempt.
I understand you’re irritated. Perhaps this conversation has dragged longer than it should. If you choose to disengage, I will respect that. But know that my replies are not personal attacks or exercises in pride. They are my attempt—however imperfect—to give reason for the hope that is in me. If I sometimes fail in tone or tact, I ask your forgiveness. But I will not apologize for defending my faith with full conviction, and I will continue doing so as long as the claims of Christ and the truth of His Church are at stake.
If you ever wish to have a calmer, more measured conversation—about Church history, theology, or anything else—I would welcome it.
Peace be with you,
"aqwsed12345" -
vienne
Your reply is an example of your usual faulty reply. It is verbose, off topic and in concise.