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]

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.

Firstly you are in no position to know if I have done any independent research or not and it is therefore presumptuous and somewhat insulting on your part to imply that I have not. I do not take kindly of accusations of pride or arrogance and do not come to this forum for posters to make such personal remarks.

Further I did not dismiss the authenticity of your factual references, indeed I agreed with you as to the evident disunity that existed in the early church. I only presented some clarification as to what Jehovah's Witnesses reference when seeking to understand the beliefs and organization of the first century Christians and offered some framework in this regard as a possible explanation as to any discrepancies you may or may not have noted as to our considerations.

Nobody in this forum is obliged to accept opinion as fact so if you believe that expressions that reflect this to be uncivil then a debating forum might not be the best place for you. You are of course free to express your personal conclusions as to what you believe to be "truth" "wisdom" "dedication" "faith" etc. but that remains your opinion and just as you are not interested in the conclusions drawn on such matters by Jehovah's Witnesses and expressed this without offense being taken, so I reserve the right to do the same.

I can assure you I take great care in what I post and nothing therein is written without a large degree of forethought on my part. That said, feel free to report any posts I make that you feel fails to respect forum guidelines as regards civil exchange; I am more than happy to confirm to the moderators judgements in this regard.


JW

[catnip]

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.

Firstly you are in no position to know if I have done any independent research or not and it is therefore presumptuous and somewhat insulting on your part to imply that I have not. I do not take kindly of accusations of pride or arrogance and do not come to this forum for posters to make such personal remarks.

Further I did not dismiss the authenticity of your factual references, indeed I agreed with you as to the evident disunity that existed in the early church. I only presented some clarification as to what Jehovah's Witnesses reference when seeking to understand the beliefs and organization of the first century Christians and offered some framework in this regard as a possible explanation as to any discrepancies you may or may not have noted as to our considerations.

Nobody in this forum is obliged to accept opinion as fact so if you believe that expressions that reflect this to be uncivil then a debating forum might not be the best place for you. You are of course free to express your personal conclusions as to what you believe to be "truth" "wisdom" "dedication" "faith" etc. but that remains your opinion and just as you are not interested in the conclusions drawn on such matters by Jehovah's Witnesses and expressed this without offense being taken, so I reserve the right to do the same.

I can assure you I take great care in what I post and nothing therein is written without a large degree of forethought on my part. That said, feel free to report any posts I make that you feel fails to respect forum guidelines as regards civil exchange; I am more than happy to confirm to the moderators judgements in this regard.


JW

Perhaps you need to go out of your comfort zone, then. I can read material that supports my point of view, but does that test my point of view? What is the real history of the religion? What was it like early on? What changes took place, when and how? Who were the authors of the Gospels--not the ones claimed, but the real ones? Where were they from? What language did they speak? What version of the Bible did they consult? What Greek philosophers did they trust?
I could go on and on. There is syncretism in the faith. And some of it began before Christ among the Jews in Babylon. It may not have the sources you think it has and the faith may never have been as pure as you want to think it is.

[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?

Replying to post #240, to catnip:


Hello. What "comfort zone" are we now talking about? As you can see from my post (and JW's, if you look closely), we study everything.... and back up whatever our organization has said with independent research, when it regards History. We even have done so in past years concerning doctrine. We leave no stone unturned.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 235 by 2timothy316]

I have a Ph.D. in theology. My dissertation was in pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit). Consequently, I did considerable research on the early history of Christianity.

Now since you asked me, let me ask you: Just what is your educational background?

[onewithhim]

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.

Firstly you are in no position to know if I have done any independent research or not and it is therefore presumptuous and somewhat insulting on your part to imply that I have not. I do not take kindly of accusations of pride or arrogance and do not come to this forum for posters to make such personal remarks.

Further I did not dismiss the authenticity of your factual references, indeed I agreed with you as to the evident disunity that existed in the early church. I only presented some clarification as to what Jehovah's Witnesses reference when seeking to understand the beliefs and organization of the first century Christians and offered some framework in this regard as a possible explanation as to any discrepancies you may or may not have noted as to our considerations.

Nobody in this forum is obliged to accept opinion as fact so if you believe that expressions that reflect this to be uncivil then a debating forum might not be the best place for you. You are of course free to express your personal conclusions as to what you believe to be "truth" "wisdom" "dedication" "faith" etc. but that remains your opinion and just as you are not interested in the conclusions drawn on such matters by Jehovah's Witnesses and expressed this without offense being taken, so I reserve the right to do the same.

I can assure you I take great care in what I post and nothing therein is written without a large degree of forethought on my part. That said, feel free to report any posts I make that you feel fails to respect forum guidelines as regards civil exchange; I am more than happy to confirm to the moderators judgements in this regard.


JW

Perhaps you need to go out of your comfort zone, then. I can read material that supports my point of view, but does that test my point of view? What is the real history of the religion? What was it like early on? What changes took place, when and how? Who were the authors of the Gospels--not the ones claimed, but the real ones? Where were they from? What language did they speak? What version of the Bible did they consult? What Greek philosophers did they trust?
I could go on and on. There is syncretism in the faith. And some of it began before Christ among the Jews in Babylon. It may not have the sources you think it has and the faith may never have been as pure as you want to think it is.

I meant to be replying to this post of yours, and I clicked on the wrong quote. Please read my post above.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 241 by onewithhim]

I find it hard to believe that the Watchtower Society is doing anything near serious scholarly research. It's materials show no real degree of scholarship and it is noted for its vicious anti-intellectual propaganda, raving against higher education, which views as a thing of the Devil. Rev. Russell, one of the founders, wrote, "I advise all Christians not to send their children to colleges or universities; for it they do, they will risk great harm through infidelity and unbelief..." "Watchtower," 1969 Mar. 15, p. 171, states," Many schools now have student counselors who encourage one to pursue higher education after high school. Do not let them brainwash you with the Devil's propaganda. Do not be influenced by them."

It's no surprise, then, that the Pew Foundation, 2008, concluded, after extensive research, that Jehovah's Witnesses have the lowest educational level and lowest level of income of any religious origination in the US. And it's no surprise that none of the "translators " or NWT possessed a university degree. Franz, one of the lynchpins in the 'translation" committee, admitted he couldn't read Hebrew. And its no surprise that major New Testament scholars, such as Bruce Metzger, have denounced their "translation"'a frightful mistranslation,""pernicious, "reprehensible," etc.

The Watchtower Society is hardly a model of higher education. Quite the contrary. It is a top-down, do-what-you-are-told, no-questions-asked approach. Hence, its "Reasoning from the Scriptures," p. 433, states, "Women are counseled 'to learn in silence with full submissiveness' at congregational meetings, in that they do not raise questions challenging the men in the congregation."

So I find it the epitome of arrogance that the Watchtower or any of its supporters would even think of claiming they are engaging in anything remotely related to serious scholarly research.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 240 by catnip]

Thanks for sharing, and how do you know what I have or have not read?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 235 by 2timothy316]

I have a Ph.D. in theology. My dissertation was in pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit). Consequently, I did considerable research on the early history of Christianity.

Good for you. In the 1960's people with Ph.D.s tried to tell people cigarette smoking didn't cause cancer. So your Ph.D. means nothing to me. However, you're deflecting the question. You say you did considerable research on the history of Christianity, cool, then name your sources for this research. Go back and re-read the post so that you can remember what we are talking about. The debate is not about your education nor mine. This debate is about how the feud over if Jesus was equal to his Father (part of the trinity doctrine) known as the Arian Controversy snuffed out unity was the crushing blow of what was taught in 1st century Christianity.

Now since you asked me, let me ask you: Just what is your educational background?

I didn't ask you about your education. I asked you name your sources. Books that I can examine where you learned your history from. I even gave you examples of valid works you could give me like the encyclopedia. Stating your educational background is insufficient.

[Elijah John]

Moderator Intervention

Thread getting a little contentious here, needlessly personal on both sides. Let's not challenge/question each other's credentials. Instead, let's stick to the topic at hand.

Reminder, which group best represents true, authentic Christianity? Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, or both groups? And why.

Make your case without getting personal please.

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.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 246 by 2timothy316]

Very well then. However, I would encourage you to follow the moderator's suggestion and not use this as a platform to snipping away at those of us coming out of higher education. The minute I see that kind of thing I automatically write it off as some sort of anti-intellectual propoganda that isn't worth bothering with. So let's get down to business.

You asked what sources I used and the list is rather long to type out here. To name a few, I mention the NT, gnostic gospels, early Christian writings such as First and Second Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, early Christian thinkers such as Aristides, the Montanists, Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, Arius, Plotinus, Novatian, Hippolytus, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, etc. All told, my dissertation used over three hundred major sources. And I'm not about to type out the bibliography here.