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?

[Divine Insight]

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.

Apparently there are NONE.

Especially on this forum site. It's my understanding that if someone calls themselves a "Christian" it is considered uncivil to claim that they aren't.

As far as I can see I could easily claim to be a Christian based on what many Christians have even posted on these forum. The reason I don't claim to be a Christian is because I'm not even interested in being associated with that label.

And besides, I have ONE MAJOR REQUIREMENT that I personally consider that every "Christian" must believe in order to qualify as a Christian. And that is that they must believe that Jesus was the only begotten demigod Son of Yahweh, born specifically through a virgin woman who was magically impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who refuses to believe that has no business calling themselves a Christian. But there are people on this very forum who do precisely that. I can't officially proclaim that they are "Not a valid Christian" because that's against the rules. But I can say that I don't personally recognize or acknowledge any of their arguments or debates for "Christianity" because as far as I'm concerned they aren't even debating Christianity.

No wonder people have a hard time debating religion

Exactly. As far as I'm concerned the very moment that a so-called "Christian" rejects that Jesus was a virgin born demigod, then as far as I'm concerned they have already conceded to my position. There's no point in even bothering to argue with them beyond that since they have already conceded my major objection to the religion.

And I couldn't even care what make-believe version of "Christianity" they have invented because the BIBLE proclaims that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. Therefore once that has been rejected, as far as I'm concerned, we aren't even talking about the Bible anymore at all. Instead we are talking about someone's personal imagination that has nothing at all to do with what the Bible claims to be true.

Why should I need to debate with people's personal individual imaginations? That has absolutely nothing at all to do with "Christianity" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm here to debate how absurd and self-contradictory the Bible is. Not to waste my time debating with people over how silly their non-biblical personal imagination might be. Why should I care about that? The vast majority of "Christians" in the world would reject these non-Biblical make-believe versions of Christianity too. Just as quick as I do, if not quicker.

So that would be my number one requirement for what is required to be a "Christian".

I can easily add far more to the list as well.

1. Must believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, born of a virgin mortal woman.
2. Must believe that the Old Testament correctly describes this God.
3. Must accept every jot and tittle of the laws and directives written in the OT, because Jesus says so.

In fact, I would personally even go as far to say that every Christian must believe that the Bible is the infallible "Word of God". Because if they claim that it isn't, then they may as well toss the Bible in a dumpster at that point. Because if it's filled with errors, then it would be impossible to know which parts of it came from God and which parts are garbage. Thus making the whole canon unreliable and untrustworthy.

For example in my point #3 above, does Jesus proclaim that every jot and tittle of the old law shall not pass until heaven and earth pass, or not?

If he does, it must then be TRUE. And therefore every jot and tittle of the Old Testament Law must also be infallible and TRUE.

And if he doesn't, then the Bible contains errors and cannot be trusted, because it has Jesus making this proclamation.

I would say that the only "True Christian" I've seen to date is Ken Ham. He certainly proclaims the Bible to be the infallible word of God right down to every jot and tittle.

But ironically even most people who call themselves "Christians" see Ken Ham as an being an unreasonable hardcore fundamentalist that they would personally disagree with.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

I would agree, most trinitarians themselves admit that the teaching "developped over time" and that it didnt really become a clear Church teaching until the 3rd century.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[Checkpoint]

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.

You got that right!

Love your inclusion of atheists who use the Bible for their own ends.

Not just established churches but schools of thought that are not denominational.

To the original list I would add:

* Proclaiming some passages to be literal to create or support their theology.
* Refusing or failing to reconcile scriptures that conflict with what they are pushing.

[onewithhim]

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.

Would you please respond to my post #5? You brought the subject up about JWs, and made some unpleasant accusations. You need to back up those accusations with EXAMPLES. Will you answer my post #5 please?

[onewithhim]

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.

Yes, and Donray seems to be suggesting that JWs view Jesus as "only a prophet," which is not at all true. We view him as the Son of God, perfect and sinless, destined by Jehovah to rule over the earth from heaven.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 9 by catnip]

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.

Indeed. As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 8:

1b Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.
3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

We should always heed the lesson of the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector.

And these:

John 9:

39 And Jesus said, For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.
40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, We are not blind too, are we?
41 Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, We see, your sin remains.

Matthew 6:

22 The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.
23 But if your eye is clouded, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

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.

Interesting, thanks for giving us those details.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 9 by catnip]

You didn't explain why you agree with that list, and neither you nor Donray have provided examples of how JWs "say something is figurative when it conflicts with their doctrines." Wouldn't it be fair to explain why the list is correct? Could you respond to my post #5?

[Donray]

[Replying to post 9 by catnip]

You didn't explain why you agree with that list, and neither you nor Donray have provided examples of how JWs "say something is figurative when it conflicts with their doctrines." Wouldn't it be fair to explain why the list is correct? Could you respond to my post #5?

http://www.godandscience.org/cults/jwdiff.html

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 9 by catnip]

You didn't explain why you agree with that list, and neither you nor Donray have provided examples of how JWs "say something is figurative when it conflicts with their doctrines." Wouldn't it be fair to explain why the list is correct? Could you respond to my post #5?

http://www.godandscience.org/cults/jwdiff.html

That is not giving a response to my post. Would you please put whatever your point is---into your own words?

[Donray]

[Replying to post 9 by catnip]

You didn't explain why you agree with that list, and neither you nor Donray have provided examples of how JWs "say something is figurative when it conflicts with their doctrines." Wouldn't it be fair to explain why the list is correct? Could you respond to my post #5?

http://www.godandscience.org/cults/jwdiff.html

That is not giving a response to my post. Would you please put whatever your point is---into your own words?

Why should I have to give a response in my own words? After all, religious people give scripture responses all the time and don't know how to reply in there own words.

I gave you a response that spell the reason a lot of Christians do not consider JWs as Christians.

Do you disagree with what is contained at http://www.godandscience.org/cults/jwdiff.html

Why should write the same information contained at the WEB site in my own words when the WEB site gives a lot of information?