Evangelicals vs. Jehovah's Witnesses

[Elijah John]

Evangelicals often call Jehovah's Witnesses, a "cult" and not Christian.

Jehovah's Witnesses, seem to consider Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox etc, "not-Christian" (JWs please correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Question for debate, why can't all of these groups rightly be considered "Christian"?

And part two of this OP question is directed primarily to Evangelicals, why don't you consider JWs to be Christian?

[onewithhim]

Evangelicals often call Jehovah's Witnesses, a "cult" and not Christian.

Jehovah's Witnesses, seem to consider Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox etc, "not-Christian" (JWs please correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Question for debate, why can't all of these groups rightly be considered "Christian"?

And part two of this OP question is directed primarily to Evangelicals, why don't you consider JWs to be Christian?

Christianity is just a name. The Vatican is Satanic yet the RCC is considered Christian.

Jehovah's Witnesses was founded by Charles Taze Russell, a 33rd degree Freemason. Freemasonry is Lucifer worship.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 ... ses/jw.htm

Basically it is Satanism under the guise of Christianity.

This is one of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses:


Heaven. Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, and the faithful angels reside in the spirit realm. * (Psalm 103:19-21; Acts 7:55) A relatively small number of people—144,000—will be resurrected to life in heaven to rule with Jesus in the Kingdom.—Daniel 7:27; 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 5:9, 10; 14:1, 3."

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... s-beliefs/


Revelation is said to be tainted with the occult. It has been tampered with.

I think the number 144 000 is an occult insertion. In Tutankhamen's sun necklace, the numbers 144 000 and 666 are encoded.

The carving of Lord Pacal had 144 000 on his forehead encoded also.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=D3F ... 00&f=false

So I think 144 000 in Revelation does not apply to those saved.

This is something new----"Revelation is tainted with the occult"! OK, everyone to his own ideas. It's your prerogative. I wouldn't give a plug nickel for that thinking.

I'm going to research Charles T. Russell's association with Freemasonry. I have read much about him, and have never heard that assertion. (The book by Frederick Zydek, Charles Taze Russell, His Life and Times/The Man, the Millennium and the Message, is excellent, and I would recommend it.) I don't remember reading anything about Bro. Russell being a Freemason.

[onewithhim]

For the time being, until I have a chance to read all of the information, I will just quote something that I read online after googled C.T. Russell and Freemasonry:

"These charges are either inferential in nature or totally false. This technique is an effort to emphasize some outward similarities without providing full analysis. It is not a valid form of reasoning and would prove guilt merely on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence."

http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.c ... freemason/

[For_The_Kingdom]

Since the serpent entered the garden with evil intent, we know that the angelic rebellion happened previously to the garden being finished yet it is the fullness of creation that GOD calls very good. This tells us that some things not morally good existed in the very good creation...which pushes the hunt for what was good about moral badness. The best solution to my mind is in the idea that when GOD said HIS physical creation was very good though it contained some very evil angels, HE meant the physical creation, especially the earth, was very good for HIS purpose which was the redemption of HIS sinful elect, the good seed that must live with the tares, the people of the evil one to learn sanctification.

I agree. I think that some misunderstand "good" in this context and mistake it for "perfection"...which is...a mistake.

So once we have the idea that some moral evil existed at the time of HIS pronouncement that everything was very good, we can re-read the story without putting upon it a pre-judgement that all must have been morally good and have a bit more critical eye. In fact, since the only reason to assume that Adam and Eve were morally good in the garden is based upon the words they were very good and that they had been supposedly just created and GOD cannot create evil people then when we look critically at some of their actions, we have more leeway in deciding what was happening.

Well said.

The indications that Adam and Eve were not pure and innocent:

1. They were called naked, the same word used to designate the serpent's evil as crafty when a perfectly good word for being uncloathed without connotation of evil was available. Since there is no sin in being naked yet it was their nakedness they saw when their eyes were opened to their sin, this nakedness must be symbolic for being unclothed before the Lord, that is, evil.

2. The sin they become aware of by eating was their nakedness which they had before they ate.

3. Adam tried to mate with the animals but did not find one suitable to be his helpmate. Was this GOD's idea? Doubtful, eh. But why did GOD not just tell him HE had a suitable mate for him, that is, Eve, if Adam was not rejecting her or the idea of her as the one who could help him? Was GOD holding back necessary input or was HE just resigned to Adam's rebellious, that is, evil pov?

4. Before they ate, they fellowshipped with the serpent, discussed theology and were inclined to follow his definitions of reality. Such an acceptance of the serpent, GOD's great enemy, is obviously idolatry even before Eve ate, a sin that is glossed over because it was already included in the word naked.

5. They were given a command 'not to eat.' The purpose of the law is to teach us (open our eyes) about our own sinfulness: Romans 7:7 ...Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. The fact of the law proves sin.

IF A&E were sinful when they were moved to the garden: (sown there, as it were, as according to Matt 13:37-39 …37 And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil,)

it is easy to see that their eating opened their eyes to their sin which they had been rejecting (they were not ashamed) so they could repent and be brought to Christ (symbolized by the skin coats). At the same time they learned the true nature of the evil of their friend and mentor, the serpent who sold them out for his own ends, and with their idolatry broken by this truth, they would never follow him again.

This event was a great blessing to them and the only reason this story is called the Fall instead of the First Great Blessing on Earth is because of the theory that they were created here on earth and therefore had to be innocent, a fallacy that has caused no end of blasphemy.

Again, well said.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to onewithhim]

As I grew up in Pittsburgh and have seen Rosemont Cemetery and Russell's gravestone and marker, I am naturally interested in all this. Also I come from a long line of Masons, including my father, though I never had time to join up. Extensive investigation via Masonic membership rolls has indicated that Russell was never an official Mason, though he did share a flair for some Masonic-like imagery. Today, it's all the rage to engage in all sorts of wild conspiracy theories, and so the Masons have been demonized in certain quarters. But their attacks really don't amount to a hill of beans, not to mention the fact that so many famous Americans and other persons, including Mozart, were Masons. From my long experience with the Masons, I can say that he organization is largely a well-respected social, charitable organization, much like the Elks, and that they do a lot of good for people.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

As I grew up in Pittsburgh and have seen Rosemont Cemetery and Russell's gravestone and marker, I am naturally interested in all this. Also I come from a long line of Masons, including my father, though I never had time to join up. Extensive investigation via Masonic membership rolls has indicated that Russell was never an official Mason, though he did share a flair for some Masonic-like imagery. Today, it's all the rage to engage in all sorts of wild conspiracy theories, and so the Masons have been demonized in certain quarters. But their attacks really don't amount to a hill of beans, not to mention the fact that so many famous Americans and other persons, including Mozart, were Masons. From my long experience with the Masons, I can say that he organization is largely a well-respected social, charitable organization, much like the Elks, and that they do a lot of good for people.

Thank you for that. I want to give a commendation where one is due.

My father was also a Mason, as high, I guess, as one could go.

I'm going to research a little more into the issue. Thank you again for your input.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 443 by onewithhim]

My goal is to be as informative as I can. Some people swear at the Shriners; but, believe me, Children's Hospital, in Pittsburgh, Pa., swears by them for all the help they have given. So did the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, whose home used to be in the Shriner's Syria Mosque, before they moved to Heinz Hall. Many members of teh PSO brass section, including one of my trumpet teachers, were Masons and played regularly with the Shrine band. So, too, did the famous Mason and trumpet virtuoso Raphael Mendez, out in LA, who was noted for his unbelievably fast tonguing.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 433 by ttruscott]

So would you say that Adam and Eve were at some point going to rebel at some point regardless if Satan lied to them or not? God said of Cain, who wanted to kill his brother, that 'sin is crouching at the entrance' for Cain. Was A&E created with this same problem or did they have this problem only after they rebelled and their 'eyes were opened'?

My goodness, how twisted the ways are...

My theology contends that Adam and Eve were already rebellious before arriving in the garden having rebelled against GOD over HIS command to 'come out from among' the reprobate so they could be judged. Instead they broke with the person they had accepted as their GOD out of love for their friends who had rejected HIM as their GOD and became evil in HIS sight. THEN they were sown into the garden by the breath of GOD as per Matt 13:36-39.

So yes, they did not need Satan to lead them into temptation because they were sinners already but they did need to learn that the serpent was not their friend, that their love for him was idolatry and learn to despise and reject HIM to stand holy with GOD. And the serpent exposed himself very well to them by his sucking them into sinning and will never fool them again.

They were not created with the problem of being rebellious but chose to go against GOD by free will for the love of the reprobate who were their friends.

IF by 'this problem' you refer to Cain's rebellion, then by the time they got to earth they were as guilty of sin as Cain was but by having chosen to become one of HIS elect, they were able to be redeemed and forgiven but as one of the reprobate who rejected YHWH's forgiveness, Cain can never be redeemed...he is condemned already.

[tam]

[Replying to post 398 by For_The_Kingdom]

onewithhim wrote:

And if the rich man was literally burning in hell-fire, how would a single drop of water cool him off?

The idea was; "This fire is causing me so much pain, so much torment, that even a single drop of water will provide SOME KIND OF RELIEF".

Now, maybe that may seem absurd to you, but you aren't the one being tormented, are you?

I am reminded of, a few years back, when the wife had a VERY BAD TOOTH ACHE. The pain was so bad that she was literally in tears. And do you know what she told me, as she described the pain that she endured...

"The pain was so bad that I thought about asking you to get a sharp knife and stabbing me in the arm, because the pain from the stab would take away from the pain of my tooth ache."

True story. In other words, any relief, regardless of how miniscule it may seem, is still "relief".

And not only that, but if you are asking "how would a single drop of water cool him off"...my question to you is, ok..so why would he say it, then? If it is so absurd to you, then why would he say it, and why would Jesus narrative the rich man as saying it?? Why?

onewithhim wrote:

It is obviously a metaphorical story meant to teach something, and it's not about hell-fire. It's about the Pharisees and their lack of responsible shepherding of the people. It's much deeper than Christendom thinks it is.

Just gonna throw that out there with no specifics whatsoever? Do I need to press you on this? What does this story have to do with the Pharisees and their lack of responsible sheherding of the people? Tell me.

Doesn't anyone wonder why the Rich man wanted that drop of water to be placed upon his tongue?


Like a man who is THIRSTY? Perhaps because there is no life in Hades (except for the time that Christ went there) and so there is no water (of life) in Hades?


And remember Christ's warning in Revelation about people thinking that they are rich, but who are actually poor, wretched, naked, etc? Well, the rich man - was not actually rich. He was poor but did not realize it.

What things appear to be in life - due to our riches or poverty in material things - has nothing to do with truly being rich or poor. As I am sure most if not everyone here will agree. It is after all a teaching of Christ.


**

It is quite correct that a drop of water would not soothe a man from the pain of burning in a literal fire. The example that for_the_Kingdom gave about his wife actually supports that. The greater pain (even if just for a moment) would have distracted her from the other pain. In fact, some people seek out physical pain to distract them from emotional pain and therefore provide some relief from that, because the physical pain is (briefly) more intense than the emotional pain. The body/mind focuses upon that which is greater.

Ask any burn victim (don't actually ask) if they would even have noticed a single drop of water while they were burning?




But if you are THIRSTING and have not drunk water in some time, then you would be begging for even a single drop of water. In this case, a single drop of the water of life would be a HUGE relief for one who is thirsting for life, and who is in a place where there is no life (or water of life).

We CAN get a sense of that from observed reality, because we can see what people will do and how they will feel if they have gone without regular water for too long (perhaps we have experienced that ourselves, if only on a smaller scale). People who have gone a few days without water are dehydrated, in torment, and will drink just about any liquid to try and relieve that torment, and would beg for even just a drop.


**

The story is not about being burned alive in hell. A single drop of water would not be noticed, if someone was on fire, much less provide any kind of relief.


Also the last part of the story is how those who do not listen to Moses and the Prophets would not listen to Him (Christ) even though He was going to come back from the dead.




Just some things that some might want to consider, especially if one is thinking that there is no other way to look at this story, other than that it is proof of the traditional doctrine of hell.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

"What did Jesus mean when he said in one of his illustrations: 'The beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell [Hades] he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom'? (Luke 16:19-31, King James Version) Since Hades refers to mankind's grave, and not to a place of torment, it is plain that Jesus was here telling an illustration or a story [similar to Aesop's Fables....stories with a moral to them]. As further evidence that this is not a literal account but is an illustration, consider this:

"Is hell literally within speaking distance of heaven so that such a real conversation could be carried on? Moreover, if the rich man were in a literal burning lake, how could Abraham send Lazarus to cool his tongue with just a drop of water on the tip of his finger? [Really, if anyone was burning alive in a lake of fire, no matter how you try to sell the idea that one drop of water would have been some relief, that single drop of water would do NOTHING.]

"The rich man in the illustration stood for the self-important religious leaders who rejected Jesus and later killed him. Lazarus pictured the common people who accepted God's Son. The death of the rich man and of Lazarus represented a change in their condition. This change took place when Jesus fed the spiritually neglected Lazarus-like people spiritually, so that they thus came into favor with the 'Greater Abraham,' Jehovah God. At the same time, the false religious leaders 'died' with respect to having God's favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ's followers exposed their evil works (Acts 7:51-57)."

So this metaphorical illustration does not teach that some dead people are tortured in a literal fiery hell.





You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, pp.88,89

[Claire Evans]

Christianity is just a name. The Vatican is Satanic yet the RCC is considered Christian.

Jehovah's Witnesses was founded by Charles Taze Russell, a 33rd degree Freemason. Freemasonry is Lucifer worship.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Jehovah Witnesses/jw.htm

Basically it is Satanism under the guise of Christianity.

Moderator Warning


Do not call other groups or religious sects "Satanic" unless, of course the group in question identifies themselves as Satanists.

You are entitled to hold that position in your heart, or on other forums, but to express it here on this site is uncivil at best, and a personal attack at worst.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

I do not mean to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are Satanic. The founder is, though. Quote:

" I am very glad to have this particular opportunity of saying a word about some of the things in which we agree with our Masonic friends, because we are speaking in a building dedicated to Masonry, and we also are Masons. I am a Freemason." Charles Taze Russell. (The Temple of God-Pastor Russell page 120)


That is a fact. It is a fact that Freemasonry is about Lucifer. That is their claim.

Satanism can infiltrate Christianity.

"Freemasons believe Lucifer (Satan) is God and the organization is Satanic to the core, despite this being evident, the Vice President of the Christian democratic party in Australia is a Masonic Lodge apologist and promotes the Freemasons as a harmless group by pretending to be ignorant of them. Gordon Moyes made this comment about Freemasons being Ministers in the Uniting Church, "I guess, although I do not know, that Ministers of the Uniting Church who are members of the Masonic Orders have an obligation to their Order while in certain places and in matters of disclosure." (Source: http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2006/01/01/parliamentarian) This mans false or genuine ignorance of the Masonic Order should definitely make the genuine Christian concerned and alarmed at this man being a Leader of a Christian Political Party."

http://proudtobeanchristian.blogspot.co ... trate.html


That doesn't mean that those Christians are Satan worshipers. For example, incense is used in churches. That is originally from witchcraft but that doesn't make Christians attending church Satanic.

So please forgive my ambiguity. I by no means believe Jehovah's Witnesses are Satanic!