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]

I am not speaking solely of scripture but of actual belief of the original Church Fathers and the early church.

Arguably the Christian church was corrupted soon after its foundation. Jehovah's Witnesses refer therefore to the first century "church" as presented solely in scripture and believe the truth faith can be found therein. Possibly this is where confusion has arisen on this point.

I'm sure apostate Christianity (that emerged at the end of the first century towards the second century and onward) adopted many manmade dogmas soon after the death of the last of the Apostles, as the bible implies strongly would be the case.

We know this post apostolic age was when these so-called "christians" adopted many false teachings such as the immortality of the soul, the trinity, the belief in the eternal torture of an invisible "soul" in hellfire and many suhc manmade teachings that had their roots in paganism. That this resulted in the division of the original church as it existed under the Apostles is not really under dispute, so no, Jehovah's Witnesses are not "re-writing" history, we are simply refering to biblical history not "early church father" history which was a collage of disunity and false ideas.

JW

[2timothy316]

That this resulted in the division of the original church as it existed under the Apostles is not really under dispute, so no, Jehovah's Witnesses are not "re-writing" history, we are simply refering to biblical history not "early church father" history which was a collage of disunity and false ideas.

JW

Let's not forget power grabbing as well. Namely putting their hands in all sorts of governments.

[catnip]

I am not speaking solely of scripture but of actual belief of the original Church Fathers and the early church.

Arguably the Christian church was corrupted soon after its foundation. Jehovah's Witnesses refer therefore to the first century "church" as presented solely in scripture and believe the truth faith can be found therein. Possibly this is where confusion has arisen on this point.

I'm sure apostate Christianity (that emerged at the end of the first century towards the second century and onward) adopted many manmade dogmas soon after the death of the last of the Apostles, as the bible implies strongly would be the case.

We know this post apostolic age was when these so-called "christians" adopted many false teachings such as the immortality of the soul, the trinity, the belief in the eternal torture of an invisible "soul" in hellfire and many suhc manmade teachings that had their roots in paganism. That this resulted in the division of the original church as it existed under the Apostles is not really under dispute, so no, Jehovah's Witnesses are not "re-writing" history, we are simply refering to biblical history not "early church father" history which was a collage of disunity and false ideas.

JW

That's a fiction. St. Paul in the scriptures was already working to keep the various churches he had established orthodox. We see his argument in 1 Cor about whether to believe him or Apollos or Cephas. This is what you are doing here, as far as I am concerned. The scolding tone he adopted so often in his letters are evidence of the many ways that those who had heard the Gospel were erring.

Right away--even in the Holy Land--we see proof of syncretism by early Roman followers of Christ. What is more, each of the Apostles had established their own following including Mary Magdalen. The Gospel was taken in all directions, especially to Egypt. There were various sects including those that forbade marriage entirely and would not baptize a married member.

I do not see a church at this time that reflects the practice of worship as Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 12 through 15. The closest that any churches come to the communal Christian model described in ACTS are the monastic orders where everything is held in common and people live together.

I see Jesus preaching eternal life in the Gospels. I guess that was added later? I agree that "hell" has been greatly exaggerated and I don't think people understand what hell really is. The concept as we see it in the Gospels was basically a Zoroastrian belief as are other things we believe and find in the Gospels. But that is beside the point--enhancing the myth of hell was seen to fill the pews in medieval times. Apparently, it still does. Fear based faith is no faith at all. Do you really think that there is any religion on earth that has not been influenced by previous religions? Do you think Christianity was pulled from a void? A whole new thing? The earliest followers of Christ were all Jews and it was a Jewish sect--or you could even say it was a cult.

As far as the Bible goes, I don't think a slavishly literal belief in the scriptures and the Old Testament taken out of the context of Jewish faith works. Jesus and all of the Apostles were Jewish and schooled in Judaism. To interpret it now apart from the way they understood it is a rape of the original texts. Do you really think that the Gospel writers were well informed and that there was no manipulation of the texts or the stories told? There is a lot of Pagan Roman influence in the Gospels. Caesar--before Christ came to his ministry--had been called the Son of God. Bethlehem of Judea was not actively inhabited at the time of Jesus' birth. It was an iron aged town that was rebuilt in the 4th Century probably by Christians. He was more likely born in Bethlehem of Galilee--a few miles from the present day city of Nazareth. Was he a Nazerite and the Greeks and Romans attributed that to a place that didn't really exist rather than an order established in the time of Moses?

Interestingly, this thread pits Evangelicalism (particularly Fundamentalism) against JWs and yet BOTH are reconstructionist religions claiming that what came after the Apostolic Age is downright wrong--apostate as you wish to claim. BOTH claim to have existed before the 4th Century councils and even the formation of the Canon done about the same time--neither have their own scriptures and both cast doubt on the very men who established the Canon and BOTH slavishly follow and believe in the scriptures in a literal way that was never practiced until--viola!--the late 19th Century/early 20th. They are the most stringent against accepting the validity of any other early Christian writings and disparage even the Deuterocanonical texts (Apocrypha). And the really sad thing is that there is no verifiable record that either existed when they claim they did.

I am no fan of the early catholic efforts, either. As near as I can tell when they outlawed belief in God as one person, if I may put it that way, and then they persecuted all who didn't. Now, the claim is that they persecuted the Gnostics--but what they called Gnostics and what we call Gnostics may not be quite the same thing. That would, unfortunately, include the earliest Jewish sect(s). And they destroyed and did not protect the earliest Christian writings of which we now only have scraps.

[JehovahsWitness]

That's a fiction. St. Paul in the scriptures was already working to keep the various churches he had established orthodox. We see his argument in 1 Cor about whether to believe him or Apollos or Cephas.

All scripture is open to interpretation I'm sure you agree, and that is yours. Essentially what you are sharing is opinion and you are welcome to, but not to present your opinion (ie your interpretation) as if it were fact, when it is in reality your take on scripture. You rightly peppered your post with "I see" "I think", "as far as I'm concerned", "I'm not a fan of..." and that is fine, that is how we express OPINION... It just happens that I personnaly am not interested in the way you "see" or interpret scripture and even less on your theological conclusions on what the bible has to say about doctrine. We will simply have to agree to disagree on how we "see" certain passages of scripture without stooping to accusations of fabrication of facts.

If any witness misquotes scripture on the other hand, be sure to point that out.

JW

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 229 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, maybe in the Watchtower version of history, but definitely not in point of actual historical fact.

[JehovahsWitness]

That this resulted in the division of the original church as it existed under the Apostles is not really under dispute, so no, Jehovah's Witnesses are not "re-writing" history, we are simply refering to biblical history not "early church father" history which was a collage of disunity and false ideas.

JW

Let's not forget power grabbing as well. Namely putting their hands in all sorts of governments.

Indeed, arguably the political motivation behind many of the doctrinal contortions that preceeded it. The original "church" went from a group of people, following Christ's mandate to be "no part of the world" to being bitterly persecuted, to finally become themselves bitter persecutors, arguably to obtain power and influence.

JW

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 229 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, maybe in the Watchtower version of history, but definitely not in point of actual historical fact.

Well, please point us to the history book you get your historical information. Just saying something is not 'actual historical fact' with zero proof is called an "Argument from Ignorance" or Hitchens's razor. So please point to a real history reference work. No blogs of some biased person from the internet will be accepted. An Encyclopedia or a non-biased reference work will do.

[catnip]

That's a fiction. St. Paul in the scriptures was already working to keep the various churches he had established orthodox. We see his argument in 1 Cor about whether to believe him or Apollos or Cephas.

All scripture is open to interpretation I'm sure you agree, and that is yours. Essentially what you are sharing is opinion and you are welcome to, but not to present your opinion (ie your interpretation) as if it were fact, when it is in reality your take on scripture. You rightly peppered your post with "I see" "I think", "as far as I'm concerned", "I'm not a fan of..." and that is fine, that is how we express OPINION... It just happens that I personnaly am not interested in the way you "see" or interpret scripture and even less on your theological conclusions on what the bible has to say about doctrine. We will simply have to agree to disagree on how we "see" certain passages of scripture without stooping to accusations of fabrication of facts.

If any witness misquotes scripture on the other hand, be sure to point that out.

JW

You should do some independent research apart from JW literature. Nothing I have said above is not found in the works of biblical researchers, historians or archaeologists; nothing in that post is dreamed up by me. Is there truth in the scriptures--yes, of course. It is most useful in the way it is not used: as wisdom teachings, how to live into faith, to have a full life dedicated to God. It isn't about the study of theology. It isn't about right belief. It is about developing spirituality and discerning the voice of God.

Why do you bother to talk to me if you are going to proudly dismiss everything I say? You have done it several times before. I think if you engage someone--note that I did not engage you in this debate--you have an obligation to be respectful and respond with care instead of closing by disparaging everything across the board.

[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?

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.

You keep saying that "the early church actually did" believe that Satan was the one to whom Christ paid the Ransom. Where in Scripture does it state this? Hebrews 9:11,12 actually states the opposite---that the Ransom was paid to God. I am interested to see where the writers of the NT contradict themselves.

This is not an issue with "so little content." It is MAJOR.

And remember, after the death of the Apostles, the Apostasy set in and got worse and worse. The Church "fathers," after Ignatius, were increasingly erroneous in their ideas. If any one of them taught that Satan was the one to whom Christ offered his Ransom sacrifice, that "father" was totally influenced by the spirit of error.


"I know that after my going away, oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:29,30)

[onewithhim]

[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.

JWs study material in addition to material presented by the organization. You ASSUME that we are clueless little robots that don't think for ourselves. Far from true. We have confirmed what our organization teaches, by studying other sources as well.

No one studies other material like we do. History confirms what JWs teach. Have YOU done historical research? And how can we go to God if we don't have the right information about Him? If you prayed and Krishna answered you, would you then have found God?