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?

[JehovahsWitness]

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. [/u]

Because if I understand correctly, this is a debating forum and posting links without actively furthering the debate or making a comment not further or contribute to the debate. However I am not a moderator and will be watching this point very closely because I have literally thousands of links at my disposal and if just posting a link and saying nothing is permissible I will start doing that with great pleasure.

I also understand that posting a scripture with no comment (I don't think "see scripture counts as a valid" comment) is also permissable, but again I am NOT a moderator. Still I would love to know what a moderator thinks because if either is okay in this forum I will happily cover the forum with links and scripture with zero debating or commenting on my part without fear of sanction.


JW

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

Moderator Intervention

I am a moderator and I reported the post. Unless a post gets reported how can we know? It's actually preferred if you report posts as it helps us help you. I've got no doubt Donray's post will get a comment.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Elijah John]

http://www.godandscience.org/cults/jwdiff.html[/quote]

Moderator Comment

Links posted without comment can be considered a form of "one-liners" and should be avoided. Even when one believes the link or illustration "speaks for itself".

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[catnip]

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

This is true. And yet, it is possible that it was in keeping with inspiration. I see it as a mystical tool. In fact, it came along rather quickly as:

God, His Wisdom and His Word. But that is a much clearer statement as to the nature of God and how we know Him.

But division is never an objective and for the Christ follower it should be seen to be impossible.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 24 by catnip]

I suppose it is possible, I don't believe so personally. My view is that while later bible writers (inspired bible writers whose work ended up as part of the bible canon) were there to develop and apply the truths Jesus taught, but Jesus' teachings were complete. That he (Jesus) at no time made any explicit statement that his nature was trinitarian or that he was indeed YHWH the Almighty and Creator of the universe (if he HAD it wouldn't have taken three centuries to develop), is enough for me to believe there is something deeply suspect about it being (as some claim) a central tenate of Christianity.

JW

[tam]

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?

They are as Christian as any other sect or denomination.

Many points in your list mean the same thing: interpreting and translating with bias of theological position.

All denominations do this.

For example, the WTS has created and teaches the error of a two-hope/two-class set of Christians (taking a couple of verses out of context, and ignoring the verses that contradict such); as well as stating that [Jesus] is the archangel Michael (again taking an obscure verse out of context, and ignoring verses that contradicts such).


Other sects and denominations teach the trinity - also an error and interpretation (an interpretation supported by inaccurate translations, while ignoring the verses that contradict it); and they have created and supported the false doctrine of eternal torment in hell.


Then there is your final point:

Adding to the Word of God


I am assuming that you are referring to the Bible when you refer to adding to the Word of God. Because that is what most of Christendom believes and teaches.


This - believing the Bible to be the Word of God - is one error that many have in common, and part of what leads to some of the other errors.


The Bible is not the Word of God.

The Bible is not what God gave us to listen to.


God did not give us a WHAT to listen to.... He gave us a WHOM to listen to, a WHOM to come to.

Christ is the Word of God.

He is not the 'once living and soon to be living again' Word of God. He is the LIVING Word of God.


He lives. He speaks. He teaches. He guides us. His sheep hear and know His voice.


THIS is the faith; this is what this faith is supposed to BE. Faith in a living God, who has a living Image and Word and Truth - Christ Jaheshua. This is the faith of Abraham, of Moses, of the prophets, of Noah, of Isaac, of Jacob, of the Apostles, and of all who hear and obey.





So as you ask:

For debate are the Jehovah Witness Christian?

They are as Christian as any other sect or denomination.



May those with ears hear. May those who wish them be given ears to know the truth of these things, and to hear as the Spirit and the Bride say to you, "Come!" May any who thirst and any who wish, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of life!"


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

[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.

To Donray: Please answer these questions in your own words. The website you provide the link to has not considered my specific questions. It hasn't come here to discuss the subject as you have. So discuss.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 27 by onewithhim]

Lets take the major item. JW does not believe that Jesus is God as spelled out in the trinity. Since the Catholic Church established the Orthodoxy for the Christin religion how can the JW be Christians? I guess one could say anyone can declare that they are a Christin Religion, but does that make them a Denomination of THE CHRISTION RELIGION (the Roman Catholic Church)?

The New World Translation renders the Greek term word staurs ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The New World Translation does not translate the words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as "hell because Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe in hell. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of coming for the Greek word parousia because Jehovahs Witnesses believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900s. In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word other despite its being completely absent from the original Greek text. It does this to give the view that all other things were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, all things were created by Christ. This is to go along with their belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.

The translators that created the New World Translation have not identified with there qualifications. As far as I can tell one person had two years of Greek and no Hebrew so how can this translation be accurate?

Now, answer my question. Name five items that all Christin Religions must believe.

[JehovahsWitness]

Since the Catholic Church established the Orthodoxy for the Christin religion how can the JW be Christians?

The Catholic Church did not "establish the orthodox of the Christian religion" Jesus Christ did (hense the name "CHRIST-- ian").

Jesus (and not the Catholic Church, which did not exist until hundreds of years after Jesus walked the earth) never mentioned or even arguably alluded to having a truine nature. It can hardly be reasonable to argue that a "Church" that came into existence hundreds of years after Jesus had finished his earthly ministry and that even by their own admission developed a dogma gradually, well after first century christianity, can legitimately propose a central tenet of that faith.

To do so would imply that Peter, The Apostles and other faithful followers of Christ that never mentioned the word trinity much less taught, explained or promoted it was a central belief of the Christian faith, were "not real Christians".

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The New World Translation renders the Greek term word staurs ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross.

.

No, that is incorrect. The NWT renders the greek stauros as "stake" because that is a perfectly legitimate English translation of the world; indeed arguably a more accurate reflection of the original meaning of the word


QUOTATIONS FROM NON-WITNESS LITERATURE

There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary [stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross . . . . -- The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896)

"The bible uses the word "Xylon" which simply means timber, and by implication a stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance. -- The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Strong.


Jesus died on a simple deathstake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early Church fathers. ---The Cross and Crucifixion, Hermann Fulda.

"STAUROS....denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors ware nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross." - --Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words s:

Although the ROMANS did uses crosses it was not commonly used until later periods.

"Descriptions of crucifixions contained in the thousands of Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek manuscripts [...] examined most commonly referred to dead prisoners being placed on some form of suspension device, or living captives skewered on stakes..."If you search for ancient texts that specifically mention the act of crucifixion [as we understand it today]" he says, "you will end up with only two or three examples." -- Gunnar Samuelsson, the University of Gothenburg

"Even amoungst the Romans the crux{Latin from which our cross is derived}appears to originally been an upright pole". -- The Imperial Bible-Dictionary

"When it comes to the individual terms, some conclusions can be drawn. A is a pole in the broadest sense. It is not the equivalent of a 'cross' ( ). In some cases, it is a kind of suspension device, used for the suspension of corpses, torture or in a few cases executionary suspensions. Very little or nothing is said about what it was made of or how it looked." -- Gunnar Samuelsson, "-- Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion" (Gothenburg University, 2010)