Is Jehovah's Witness Christain

[Donray]

The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith

.

Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:
Taking verses out of their immediate context.
Refusing to read verses in the entire Biblical context.
Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
Changing the meanings of words.
Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
Adding to the Word of God.

I thought that any Christina church needed to believe in the Trinity otherwise they are not Christian.

For debate are the Jehovah Witness Christian?

[Elijah John]

The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith

.

Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:
Taking verses out of their immediate context.
Refusing to read verses in the entire Biblical context.
Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
Changing the meanings of words.
Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
Adding to the Word of God.

I thought that any Christina church needed to believe in the Trinity otherwise they are not Christian.

For debate are the Jehovah Witness Christian?

Yes, they are Christians, as are the Mormons. A Christian is a follower of Christ, and they are followers of Christ as much as the Evangelicals, the Roman Catholics, the Mainline Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox, etc.

Where does Jesus ever say one needs to believe he is God, or believe in the Trinity in order to be Christian?

Even Paul does not suggest these things.

The earliest Christian sects, the Ebionites and others, did not believe Jesus was God.

And for the purposes of these here forums, anyone who regards themself as a Christian, is a Christian. So this is not the place to say others are "not true Christians" when they say they are.

Now whether any given denomination is the "one true church" is a whole 'nother debate.

[Divine Insight]

Where does Jesus ever say one needs to believe he is God, or believe in the Trinity in order to be Christian?

There was no such thing as a "Christian" when Jesus was living. That entire concept didn't evolved until much later.

In fact, why anyone who simply wants to believe in Jesus would feel a need to call themselves a "Christian" is beyond me. There is nothing in anything that Jesus taught that would require identification with that label.

In fact, it's pretty clear that in today's world the very term "Christian" is absolutely meaningless in any coherent or consensual way. Even the people who call themselves "Christians" don't agree with each other on what the term even means.

[Elijah John]

Where does Jesus ever say one needs to believe he is God, or believe in the Trinity in order to be Christian?

There was no such thing as a "Christian" when Jesus was living. That entire concept didn't evolved until much later.

In fact, why anyone who simply wants to believe in Jesus would feel a need to call themselves a "Christian" is beyond me. There is nothing in anything that Jesus taught that would require identification with that label.

In fact, it's pretty clear that in today's world the very term "Christian" is absolutely meaningless in any coherent or consensual way. Even the people who call themselves "Christians" don't agree with each other on what the term even means.

OK let's go with this, where does Jesus ever say one must believe he is God in order to be his disciple? Or the necessity of believing in the theological contstuct known as "the Trinity"?

And even Paul, or the books of Acts, which DO record the name Christians, as being followers of "the Way"...never suggest that one must believe that God is Trinity or that Jesus is God to be an actual Christian.

I somewhat agree with your concluding statements here. The tendency to more and more narrowly define what it means to be a Christian by various sects leads to great divisiveness. Seems the earliest understanding of the name "Christian", was the broadest.. simply a follower of Jesus.

[onewithhim]

The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith

.

Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:
Taking verses out of their immediate context.
Refusing to read verses in the entire Biblical context.
Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
Changing the meanings of words.
Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
Adding to the Word of God.

I thought that any Christina church needed to believe in the Trinity otherwise they are not Christian.

For debate are the Jehovah Witness Christian?

Yes, we do deny everything you listed in your first paragraph, except salvation by grace through faith. We believe that, 100%. We are very definitely Christian, and there is nowhere in the Bible that says a person has to believe that Jesus is God to be saved. In fact, there is no place that says Jesus is God Almighty .

As for your list of what cults do....(1) JWs do not "take verses out of immediate context." That is, actually, what most other religions do. We encourage everyone to read the verses before and after a verse. Can you give an example of JWs taking a verse out of context?

(2) When did a JW "refuse" to read a verse in the entire Biblical context? Example?

(3) Tell me, who DOESN'T insert their theological presuppositions into a text on occasion? Do you want me to list the times other self-proclaimed Christians have blatantly inserted their bias into a text? It happens all the time on these forums.

(4) How have JWs "altered the Biblical text to suit their needs"? That is just not true. We go back to the original Hebrew and Greek and translate as close to the original as possible. One scholar has said that the New World Translation is the best translation available. His name is Jason BeDuhn and he wrote Truth in Translation, an excellent commentary; and he is not affiliated with JWs.

(5) Can you give an example of how JWs "latch onto one verse to interpret a host of others" please?

(6) An example of JWs changing the meaning of words?

(7) What are their reasons for claiming a passage is figurative? Have you thoughtfully considered whether or not their reasoning makes sense, and if not, why do you disagree?

(8) How have JWs "added to the Word of God"?


You make some pretty dire accusations, and I think you need to back up those accusations with examples.

[Donray]

From what Christians have said that a Christin church can just believe that Jesus was only a prophet then Islam is a Christin religion.

Could some Christian list about five requirements to be classified as Christin. Since it appears from some response that all you need to do is call yourself a Christians and bam your Christian.

No wonder people have a hard time debating religion.

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Were you to ask John Q and/or Jane Doe Watchtower Society missionary if they believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, I can assure you they would answer in the affirmative. However, what you may not know is that you and they would not be on the same page as the conversation would be talking about two very different processes that go by the same name. In other words: you would find yourself thrown off by semantic double speak.

The standard Christian understanding of Christ's resurrection is common throughout the gospels; viz: Jesus Christ's crucified body was restored to life as per John 2:19-22.

But according to the Watchtower Society's way of seeing things; Christ's crucified body didn't return to life at all; and here's why.

In Watch Tower Society theology, an angel named Michael volunteered to come to the earth to die for humanity's sins. But in order to do so; he had to relinquish his angel existence to become a human being seeing as how in Society theology it is impossible for someone to exist as a spirit being and a human being simultaneously. Thus when Michael's so-called "life force" was transferred to flesh and given the name Jesus; he became not only a different species of life, but a whole other person too; viz: except for his so called "life force" Michael the angel ceased to exist.

"He had to become a perfect man and yet not lose his continuity of life. His life-force was not to be extinguished but would be transferred to the ovum of the virgin girl, Mary." (Watch Tower magazine, 2-15-82, p.7)

But Michael's existence as a human being was only temporary. When his human existence passed away on the cross, the Society claims that God transferred Michael's life force back into his angel corpse and restored him to his former spirit existence; thus leaving his human corpse in a permanent state of decease.

Thus Michael's human remains are squirreled away on earth somewhere in a condition and a location known only to God.

"If Jesus were to take his body of flesh, blood, and bones to heaven and enjoy them there, what would this mean? It would mean that there would be no resurrection of the dead for anybody. Why not? Because Jesus would be taking his sacrifice off God's altar." (page 237 of the April 15, 1963 issue of the Watchtower magazine)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[Elijah John]

From what Christians have said that a Christin church can just believe that Jesus was only a prophet then Islam is a Christin religion.

Could some Christian list about five requirements to be classified as Christin. Since it appears from some response that all you need to do is call yourself a Christians and bam your Christian.

No wonder people have a hard time debating religion.

The difference is the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be Rabbi, Prophet and Messiah, their primary prophet, in effect, the decisive revelation of God. (as some scholars put it). But Jesus earliest followers did not consider him Almighty God.

Muslims also consider Jesus a prophet, but secondary in importance to Mohammad.

[catnip]

The Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians because they believe they are serving the true and living God. Like many cults, they think they are the only true church on earth. Yet, they deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' physical resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith

.

Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:
Taking verses out of their immediate context.
Refusing to read verses in the entire Biblical context.
Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
Changing the meanings of words.
Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
Adding to the Word of God.

I thought that any Christina church needed to believe in the Trinity otherwise they are not Christian.

For debate are the Jehovah Witness Christian?

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was established particularly to claim one group to be right and the other to be heretics. Yet it is not scriptural. It takes efforts to twist things and put together the doctrine. I am still a member of a Trinitarian church, but I see it as a line in the sand to cause division in the body of Christ.

All these different sects and denominations are attempting to claim their version superior or worse--that others are not Christian. Note that I think that anyone who claims Jesus Christ is a Christian. If there is an evil act it is to think that we could possibly declare that someone else does not belong to Him. It is not our judgement. We can be wrong and he will forgive us. But if we dare judge others, we will be judged as hypocrites for anything in which we ourselves were mistaken. First remove the beam from your own eye.

Off my soapbox!

Now for the list against cults. I do agree with that list. The one I might be partially against is this one: "Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines." It implies that the scriptures should be read woodenly and literally. I think that is the basis for the charge. All scripture, by ancient tradition, is to be read and understood at more than one level. The Jews followed PaRDeS. The early Christians used a very similar form of four levels of scripture.

Here is the Jewish list:

The fourfold method of textual interpretation [hermeneutics] in Judaism is implicit in the Mishnah, the Baraitot [the external tractates] and the Talmud. The four levels of interpretation are:

Peshat = Literal meaning; the contextual, philological level
Remez = Allegorical meaning; cross-reference to other texts; rational or philosophical level
Derash = Moral or homiletic meaning; aggadic level; midrashic [= interpretation via derash] level
Sod = Mystical or anagogic meaning

For more information: http://www.kheper.net/topics/hermeneutics/PaRDeS-1.htm

Here is the Patristic list (from the early Church):

THE LITERAL LEVEL

In the most basic sense, an audience will enjoy a good story (e.g., the Old Testament tale of Jonah being swallowed by a whale -- or, actually, a big fish).

THE TROPOLOGICAL LEVEL

For a story to have any value, it is commonly expected to provide an edifying moral (e.g., as in the Jonah story, there is no escaping divine imperatives).

THE ALLEGORICAL LEVEL

Here is where the Robertsonians and modern interpretation part ways. Patristic exegesis would insist that the stories prefigure even more crucial scriptural material (e.g., Jonah in the whale's belly allegorically anticipating Christ's descent into hell prior to his resurrection).

THE ANAGOGICAL LEVEL

Ultimately all stories illuminate heaven's divine plan and contain a message relevant to Christian spiritual salvation. Robertson was convinced that this message inevitably involved the doctrine of caritas -- Christian charity (e.g., the Jonah story finally denotes Christ's active message of redemption through his willing descent which served as a manifestation of divine charity).

For more information (from Washington State University):
http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/medieval/exegesis.html

[ttruscott]

Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a host of interpretive errors:
Taking verses out of their immediate context.
Refusing to read verses in the entire Biblical context.
Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
Changing the meanings of words.
Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
Adding to the Word of God.

It seems to me that this list applies to all the established churches in defending their doctrine AND to the atheists who use bible quotes to "prove" an anti-Christian pov.