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?

[JehovahsWitness]

It is an easy mistake to make. Think about what a ransom is. Ransom is the practice of holding a prisoner or item to extort money or property to secure their release, or it may refer to the sum of money involved. The person to whom the ransom is paid, is an extortionist, "I will free the prisoner, if the ransom is paid." We don't like to think of God as being an extortionist, so many wrongly conclude that Satan is the jailer extorting the ransom.

"The extortionist" (Satan) is indeed the one that is responsible for the captivity, but in this case that one will in no way benefit from the liberation of the captives. Mankind were "sold" into sin and death by our first parents Adam and Eve, because they listened to Satan, prefering independence from God to Divine rule. The result was all their children were condemned to sin and death, unwilling victims of our Adams callousness.

Divine justice demanded that Adam and Eve face the penalty for their sins but how to liberate their children without compromise?


Further: Why did Jesus die? Beautifully illustrated explanation of the "RANSOM"
[youtube][/youtube]

[catnip]

Please really read my post. I have explained why we are "captive" to God's law that He gave to Adam (and thus to his descendants) that he would suffer DEATH if he disobeyed.

I would appreciate a thoughtful response after you have read my post, once again, meditatively. Thanks.

Also would you comment on JehovahsWitness's video about "Why Did Jesus Die?"? I look forward to your replies.

I am not at all interested in Jehovah's Witnesses or any other reconstructionist version of the faith. If there was ever truth in Christianity it would be found closest to the time of its inception. What they thought and what they believed and what they taught is important to me for that reason.

You jumped onto a post I didn't write to you because you wanted to insist on your version. I am a student of the history of the faith and I am not going around attempting to convince others of my own views, necessarily, but merely discussing the faith without rancor. This was such a case--a mere historical fact that you denied. And yet I can prove that this IS what they believed for first thousand years of the Christian faith. Period.

[onewithhim]

Please really read my post. I have explained why we are "captive" to God's law that He gave to Adam (and thus to his descendants) that he would suffer DEATH if he disobeyed.

I would appreciate a thoughtful response after you have read my post, once again, meditatively. Thanks.

Also would you comment on JehovahsWitness's video about "Why Did Jesus Die?"? I look forward to your replies.

I am not at all interested in Jehovah's Witnesses or any other reconstructionist version of the faith. If there was ever truth in Christianity it would be found closest to the time of its inception. What they thought and what they believed and what they taught is important to me for that reason.

You jumped onto a post I didn't write to you because you wanted to insist on your version. I am a student of the history of the faith and I am not going around attempting to convince others of my own views, necessarily, but merely discussing the faith without rancor. This was such a case--a mere historical fact that you denied. And yet I can prove that this IS what they believed for first thousand years of the Christian faith. Period.

You wrote it to Talishi, but isn't it expected on these threads that people can comment on any post? You indicated in that post that the Scriptures say that Jesus paid the ransom to the Devil. Wouldn't ANY Christian be extremely interested in responding to that?

You seem to believe that early Christianity taught that the ransom was paid to the Devil. I have posted why this cannot be the case. Could you comment as to why you disagree with Hebrews 9:11,12?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 220 by catnip]

Yu have my empathy. The Watchtower Society has presented a completely corrupted version of church history. The Society claims there was an original, unified church and it was all JW. Then, later, this one, unified faith was torn apart by the Trinitarians. That's a complete fabrication because, to start with, there was no unified church, just different sects that often feuded.

[JehovahsWitness]

God has held us captive, but not according to His heart-felt desire. He has been following His own rules, and He doesn't ignore His own rules. The rule applicable here is that if Adam stole fruit off the one tree in the GoE that Jehovah reserved for Himself, he would die. Adam was duly warned.

I would totally agree. The bible paints a clear picture of Divine justice being exercised and Satan, rather than being "paid" being executed for his part in mankind's fall. Jesus offered the ransom value of his life to his God Jehovah not to Satan.

JW

[2timothy316]

Then, later, this one, unified faith was torn apart by the Trinitarians. That's a complete fabrication because, to start with, there was no unified church, just different sects that often feuded.

I am guessing that you're not familiar with the 'Arian Controversy'. It was a violent feud. Can you guess what it was about? The fight was about the very thing you said was fabricated. Read more here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_controversy note the link is not to a JW publication. We don't pull this stuff from thin air we get it from the historical records just like everyone else. Christianity was united while the apostles were alive. Yet after the apostles died, yes the early church did start to fracture, this much is true. The Arian Controversy however was hands down the biggest fracture.

[catnip]

Please really read my post. I have explained why we are "captive" to God's law that He gave to Adam (and thus to his descendants) that he would suffer DEATH if he disobeyed.

I would appreciate a thoughtful response after you have read my post, once again, meditatively. Thanks.

Also would you comment on JehovahsWitness's video about "Why Did Jesus Die?"? I look forward to your replies.

I am not at all interested in Jehovah's Witnesses or any other reconstructionist version of the faith. If there was ever truth in Christianity it would be found closest to the time of its inception. What they thought and what they believed and what they taught is important to me for that reason.

You jumped onto a post I didn't write to you because you wanted to insist on your version. I am a student of the history of the faith and I am not going around attempting to convince others of my own views, necessarily, but merely discussing the faith without rancor. This was such a case--a mere historical fact that you denied. And yet I can prove that this IS what they believed for first thousand years of the Christian faith. Period.

You wrote it to Talishi, but isn't it expected on these threads that people can comment on any post? You indicated in that post that the Scriptures say that Jesus paid the ransom to the Devil. Wouldn't ANY Christian be extremely interested in responding to that?

You seem to believe that early Christianity taught that the ransom was paid to the Devil. I have posted why this cannot be the case. Could you comment as to why you disagree with Hebrews 9:11,12?

It doesn't matter if you think that it can't be the case when the early Church actually did. I do not disagree with Hebrews 9:11, 12. None of the atonement theories answer completely to what is said about atonement in the scriptures and yet atonement theories are purely theology and none are stated outright in scripture. Satan is implicated in this case due to the fact of sin causing death and being the Prince of this world and Christ having had victory over death. These are scriptural, too.

Of course, you are always welcome to jump into the fray when there is one. I am really surprised that you jumped on that seeing as how there was so little content. And I have told you before that I have an interest in the early development of the faith--so you should expect that I might say something about it that does not necessarily agree with my personal views.

If you are interested, I choose moral influence theory which was also evident in the writings of the Church Fathers. I believe that atonement is doing what Jesus taught and in becoming Christlike.

[JehovahsWitness]

Satan is implicated in this case due to the fact of sin causing death and being the Prince of this world and Christ having had victory over death. These are scriptural, too.

If I may be so bold as to interject: Of course Satan is implied in the "case" that is not the issue, but there is absolutely nothing in scripture to imply that he is the recepient of the ransom. You don't have to agree with Hebrews but this scripture is explicit in its statement. You, on the other hand have not presented a corresponding scripture in support of your conclusion and the few references you actually make to the bible you seem to be s twisted toward your own point of view.

JW

[catnip]

[Replying to post 220 by catnip]

Yu have my empathy. The Watchtower Society has presented a completely corrupted version of church history. The Society claims there was an original, unified church and it was all JW. Then, later, this one, unified faith was torn apart by the Trinitarians. That's a complete fabrication because, to start with, there was no unified church, just different sects that often feuded.

The problem with always studying material that is presented by the organization is that it is twisted toward their point of view. Other Christian churches (sects) do this too. That's what I mean by revisionist doctrine--a history written by that church for its members. If a person begins to search on their own they will find the history and the story to be a bit different.

It is easy to fall into the trap of right belief--thank God that he is far more generous and eager for us to come to him than what we are prone to think.

[catnip]

Satan is implicated in this case due to the fact of sin causing death and being the Prince of this world and Christ having had victory over death. These are scriptural, too.

If I may be so bold as to interject: Of course Satan is implied in the "case" that is not the issue, but there is absolutely nothing in scripture to imply that he is the recepient of the ransom. You don't have to agree with Hebrews but this scripture is explicit in its statement. You, on the other hand have not presented a corresponding scripture in support of your conclusion.

JW

I am not speaking solely of scripture but of actual belief of the original Church Fathers and the early church. They take a ransom to be a price paid to free a person from bondage and Paul speaks clearly of this. If God did hold us in bondage--which he does not, but only through free will--then we would already be in the right place. We would be thanking God that we were his slaves, his prisoners and we wouldn't want to be freed! As Jesus says: If the Son sets you free, you will surely be free.

ran·som
ˈransəm/
noun
noun: ransom; plural noun: ransoms

1.
a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner.
synonyms: payoff, payment, sum, price
"they demanded a huge ransom"
the holding or freeing of a prisoner in return for payment of ransom.
"the capture and ransom of the king"

verb
verb: ransom; 3rd person present: ransoms; past tense: ransomed; past participle: ransomed; gerund or present participle: ransoming

1.
obtain the release of (a prisoner) by making a payment demanded.
"the lord was captured in war and had to be ransomed"

and

bond·age
ˈbändij/
noun
noun: bondage

1.
the state of being a slave.
"the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt's bondage"
synonyms: slavery, enslavement, servitude, subjugation, subjection, oppression, domination, exploitation, persecution; More
enthrallment, thraldom;
historicalserfdom, vassalage
"our own freedom is not so gratifying when we must look upon the bondage of others"
antonyms: liberty
2.
sexual practice that involves the tying up or restraining of one partner.