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?

[tam]

[Replying to post 485 by onewithhim]

Peace to you owh!

We have had this entire conversation before, lol, regarding Michael. It ended with a question that you could not answer, I can't remember exactly what that question was; perhaps something to do with Michael being described as one of the chief princes; whereas Christ is the Prince OF princes.

I beg to differ that JWs have added their own doctrines to the Scriptures. You say the doctrines are "unsupported." I have posted Scriptural support, but I guess it was overlooked.

Not overlooked; just not accepted. I mean, people find scriptural 'support' for just about anything, but they are usually interpreting OR ignoring other verses OR ignoring Christ's words (or all of the above).

As you also know, people who believe in the trinity (or hell) see it in what is written and they provide scriptures that they believe back up their doctrines as well.

JW's do the same with regard to their two hope doctrine, the rule on partaking, [Jesus] being Michael, etc.

For instance:

I appreciate your saying that Jesus did not teach that he was God. Now, Michael the archangel

He also did not teach that He was the archangel Michael. Simple enough thing for him to say, if it was true, don't you think?

He DID teach that is the Son of God, however. Seems to me that if one teaches that one should not go beyond what is written, then one should teach this and only this.

On a personal note: I kind of always thought that the teaching about Him being Michael had a defensive sort of feel to it... as though if people already believed that he was an archangel (and there is more than one), then they couldn't easily get sucked (back) into beliving Him to be part of the trinity.

seems to be a thorny subject to most people here. I have always been amazed that it is such a touchy subject.

Disagreeing with something does not mean it is a touchy subject for the person disagreeing (though I imagine it could be for someone who thinks that He is God, and where not to think that might be considered by them to be heresy).

I never had any problem with it, especially after reading Daniel 12:1-4. It is all about the Last Days and what would occur then.

I could never accept it. Specifically because Christ never taught it; and also because there is a bit of a double standard going on to accept this spin off a couple of verses, but reject [Jesus] as being God off the spin from other verses.

"Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people [who, in the Last Days would be spiritual Israel], will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people [true Christians], everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake...." (Daniel 12:1,2, NASB)


The fact that Michael "arises" or "stands up" around the time of the Great Tribulation, and that he is called "the great prince" convinces me that "Michael" is the name Jesus had while in heaven, and also after he went back to heaven after being on the earth. When Jesus gave the prophecy concerning his coming in association with the Great Tribulation, what other person is mentioned? No one. Just Jesus. (Matthew 24:21-29) Where does the "Michael" of Daniel 12:1 fit in with Jesus' prophecy of the Last Days and the Great Tribulation?

Michael is called a great prince and one of the chief princes. Which means that there is more than one chief prince. Christ is called the prince OF princes; there is only one prince of princes.

Michael is the one who announces Christ upon His return (with the voice of an archangel, the trumpet call of God).

And just because an arkangel - even the great prince as Michael is - protects Christ and those that belong to Christ, does not make him Christ.



Jude also speaks of Michael the arkangel as not rebuking the Adversary. Now if Jude spoke of Michael, don't you think it odd that he (or anyone else) never mentioned that Christ was Michael?



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

[tam]

[Replying to post 486 by tigger2]

From early Christian writings until now there have been many who understood Michael to be the archangel who became Jesus on earth.

How is that any different than those who might say:

From early Christian writings until now there have been many who understood Jesus to be God...


Why does it matter what some may or may not have understood?




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

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Elijah John]

I think the the Evangelicals have a better take on Scripture, because I find the Trinity rooted in Scripture. Note, I said "rooted", as opposed to worked out. As I have said many times, the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, and the Trinity of doctrine and dogma is a metaphysical doctrine.

Too often, faith has been allowed to collapse into intellectual ascent to dogma. It's more important to God what dogmas you ascent to than how you live. I argue the opposite. I also view God as essentially loving and therefore I believe God saves absolutely everyone, not just Bible-believing Christian fundamentalists or Witnesses, etc., everyone.

There is more than one model of the Trinity. There is the economic model, the immanent model, the social model, the modal model, the psychological model, etc. And each of these models has many variations. So there is a lot to choose from. When, how, and if the Son is considered equal to or inferior to the Father very much depends on the model you choose. I like to work with the psychological models, whereby the Trinity represents a complex social relationship God is having with himself or herself, an inner dialogue with himself or herself. The Son praying to the Father is analogous to the inner dialogues we have with ourselves, as in the hymn, one of my favorites, "Comfort me, O My Soul."

I do feel compelled to point out here that these dialogues and posts have not been truly Trinitarian; that is, they have focused almost exclusively on the Father and the Son, period. But wait a sec. That's dinatarian, not Trinitarian. There is a third party involved, the Holy Spirit. Well, it's no surprise the Third Person gets overlooked here. Historically, the Spirit has been the least-elaborated member of the Trinity. FYI: That's why I did my dissertation on process pneumatology (pneumatology meaning Holy Spirit). Loads of work in process Christology, almost nothing in pneumatology. But that is another story. I just mention it to show that so much talk, then and now, on the trinity really ends up being dinatarian.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 486 by tigger2]

From early Christian writings until now there have been many who understood Michael to be the archangel who became Jesus on earth.

How is that any different than those who might say:

From early Christian writings until now there have been many who understood Jesus to be God...


Why does it matter what some may or may not have understood?

My original intent was to show that JWs did not originate the "Michael is Christ" understanding nor are they alone in that belief.

But since you ask, it matters little when trinitarians endorse trinitarian interpretations. But when even a few trinitarian scholars reject a trinitarian interpretation (or even admit to possibility of an alternate, non-trinitarian interpretation), that is significant!

Since the possibility of Christ's pre-existence as Michael the Archangel (not God) would normally be expected to be rejected by trinitarians (and from an Ante-Nicene Christian writer), it is significant that so many have not rejected it!

[Claire Evans]

Response to post #470 by Claire Evans:

I don't know how many times I'll have to explain this....I thought that it has already been explained. That is, your comment on spirit bodies in relation to physical bodies. Paul said (ICorinthians 15) that there are physical bodies and then there are spirit bodies. "First the physical and then afterward the spirit." He was talking about those 144,000 that are called to be co-rulers with Christ. They first are humans with physical bodies, and then when they die they are to be resurrected (changed) as spirit persons.

You didn't clarify about the where you get the idea of 144 000 from. Did Paul say that?

A body is physical. There is no way around that.

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (ICorinth.15:42,44, NASB)

"Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (ICorinth.15:51,52, NASB)

Paul clearly informs his anointed brothers & sisters that they will CHANGE, not have some kind of physical body infused with spirit attributes and abilities. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus had a "spirit that entered his glorified body," as you stated. A spirit that has consciousness and separates from a body at death is not taught in the Bible. The spirit that "returns to the true God" is the breath of life that God gives to every living creature. So what would that "spirit" be that "entered his [Jesus'] glorified body"?

But a body being imperishable means it is immortal. It cannot be destroyed. That doesn't mean we don't have physical bodies anymore and are just spirits. According to the Bible, Jesus took on all of our sins and thus there was no Holy Spirit in Him. When He conquered death and sin and was raised from the dead, He had the Holy Spirit in Him. The Holy Spirit rose Him from the dead.

The glorified body was actually a SPIRIT body that could materialize as some angels did in the days of Abraham and Lot. Isn't that what some angels also did in Noah's day when they materialized to have sex with human women? They had been angels---spirit persons. And they de-materialized when the Flood came.

Let us look at this scripture:

Luke 24:39

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.�

Therefore the resurrection of Christ does not mean He rose again as a spirit It was His body that He had on earth but was now just glorified. Thomas put his finger through the hole in the wrist of Jesus that had a nail in it.

The angels mention did not have mortal bodies like Jesus had. They never were resurrected. We have mortal bodies and Jesus' resurrection shows us that even though we are mortal now, we shall be immortal when we resurrect.

A very important point was disregarded by you. If Jesus' crucified body had not risen from the dead, then the resurrection story about the empty tomb is a lie. His body should still have been in the tomb.

Paul said nothing in ICorinthians in direct reference to Gnostic beliefs, as you suggest. I don't know exactly all that the Gnostics believed, but if they believed that there is only a spiritual resurrection, then they were in agreement with Paul as far as what Paul said about the anointed Christians' resurrection. He wasn't "correcting" any idea like that. He was solely describing the resurrection of the chosen ones, the co-rulers with Christ. He said that there is no flesh in the heavenly realm of the Kingdom (verse 50) and went on to say that they would all have spirit bodies, as I quoted above.

But Paul was chastising them so therefore he was not in agreement with them:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?� 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

The Gnostics believe what you do:

For the Gnostic Christians, resurrection was also a spiritual event - simply the awakening of the soul. They believed that people who experience the resurrection can experience eternal life, or union with God, while on earth and then after death, escape rebirth. People who don't experience the resurrection and union with God on earth will reincarnate.



"People who say they will first die and then arise are mistaken. If they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once they have died they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip)



Paul was clearly chastising the Gnostic-like Corinthians. He told them their beliefs were foolish.

To elaborate further:

Kurt Rudolph explains the concept of resurrection in gnosticism, "For the Gnostic any resurrection of the dead was excluded from the outset; the flesh or the substance is destined to perish. 'There is no resurrection of the flesh, but only of the soul', say the so-called Archonites, a late Gnostic group in Palestine."(2)

http://www.seeking4truth.com/tongues_corinth.html

How can a glorified physical body be imperishable? How does any Scripture indicate that there are imperishable glorified physical bodies? Can you show this? To me, Paul drew a sharp line between perishable and imperishable bodies. You are combining them. What Scriptures back this up?

"...What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 3 "


Obviously the sown body is the body we have now. It is not the body to be in the future but the ones we have now. Therefore the physical body cannot be resurrected until it dies. The seed then gives way to a new form.

Paul did distinguish between the perishable and imperishable. But he also said, as mentioned above, that the perished sown body will be come to life in another form.

It obviously does not mean we will have original bodies. How could they? Bodies eventually disappear after death. Yet Jesus had the likeness of what we looked like on earth yet it became indestructible. He no longer looked scourged like he was.

To answer your last questions: Jehovah's Witnesses don't "pledge allegiance" to the WTS in so many words. We say that we recognize the WTS as Jehovah's organization on Earth, but our allegiance is to Jehovah and His appointed King Christ Jesus. We don't believe, either, that the WTS can "take away salvation." Only Jehovah can do that.

But they need to follow the rules of the WTS or be disowned. This is obeying every rule of the WTS. And it says that if one is disfellowed, then they lose their salvation therefore you are in disagreement with the WTS.

[2timothy316]

But they need to follow the rules of the WTS or be disowned. This is obeying every rule of the WTS. And it says that if one is disfellowed, then they lose their salvation therefore you are in disagreement with the WTS.

I find it odd that people think that the Bible's rules were made up by the WTS.

Folks these are not WTS rules.

"But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." - 1 Cor 5:11

If a person doesn't want to follow the rules of the Bible then why would a person want to be a Witness anyway? What do people mean by 'disagreement' anyway? Like if a person doesn't agree there is 'no eternal soul' and they are disfellowshipped because they do not and will not teach what the Bible says, then why do they want to stay in the JWs anyway? Telling people they are going to hell or promising them heaven is a false teaching according to the Bible. The Bible is clear that Jehovah wants only truth seekers following Him. Furthermore, why would a person agree the Bible teaches there is no eternal soul in the first place at their baptism, only to change their minds? Sounds like a person that is upset with the Bible's commandments, follow the creature and not the creator. WTS this and WTS that, like it's their words. There is nothing JW teach that can't be followed up by scripture. If they actually made the rules then I wouldn't follow them, because that would be like all other religions in the world. Making up their own rules. Allowing sin to run rampant in their midst, things that Jehovah detest. If a person wants those things in their midst, then go for it. Don't condemn JWs because they actually enforce Bible commandments. A person should ask of their own religious leaders, why aren't we enforcing Bible commandments?

Also, disfellowshipping doesn't mean that a person loses their salvation. It means they lose their fellowship...I think that is implied in the word right? If it meant a person lost their salvation the word would be 'damned' and not 'disfellowshipped'. No human on Earth of group of humans can make the judgement as to a person's salvation. I wish people would stop making false accusations.

Sadly, I know this is going in one ear and out the other for some people.

[tam]

But they need to follow the rules of the WTS or be disowned. This is obeying every rule of the WTS. And it says that if one is disfellowed, then they lose their salvation therefore you are in disagreement with the WTS.

I find it odd that people think that the Bible's rules were made up by the WTS.

Folks these are not WTS rules.

"But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." - 1 Cor 5:11

Paul changed his tune by his next letter with regard to shunning or expelling someone.

Regardless,

No smoking IS a WTS rule, and a df'ing rule at that.

No organ transplants was once a rule, because it was considered cannibalism of a sort. If that was a biblical rule though, then why does that WTS not still enforce this?

If a person doesn't want to follow the rules of the Bible then why would a person want to be a Witness anyway?

Like I said above...

What do people mean by 'disagreement' anyway? Like if a person doesn't agree there is 'no eternal soul' and they are disfellowshipped because they do not and will not teach what the Bible says, then why do they want to stay in the JWs anyway?

Maybe because they have to then choose between their religion and their families. Something the WTS says that a person should never have to do. But since the WTS employs df'ing, wherein a person is shunned, a person who disagrees (such as in the above example, or disagrees with any other doctrine of the wts, or disagrees that the GB is the FDS), that person loses their entire family.

Telling people they are going to hell or promising them heaven is a false teaching according to the Bible.

The hell part is; the heaven part is misunderstood.

But telling people that Christians should not partake of the body and blood of Christ is also a false teaching. Telling Christians that there are two hopes for them (heavenly or earthly, but certainly not both) is a false teaching. It was not taught by Christ; it was not taught by the apostles. It was not taught until Rutherford, I believe?

The Bible is clear that Jehovah wants only truth seekers following Him. Furthermore, why would a person agree the Bible teaches there is no eternal soul in the first place at their baptism, only to change their minds?

Perhaps the person sincerely believed it, then later discovered more things and understood something else?

That can be applied to any doctrine of the wts, such as the couple I mentioned above.

Perhaps a person was born-in? It can take quite some time to see something in a different light than what you have been raised in, yes?

I mean, don't you go door to door in the hopes that people will come to the (perceived) truth that you are showing them, even if that means leaving their religion and coming to yours? So you obviously know that someone can believe one thing at one point in their lives, and then come to believe another thing later in their lives. The double standard being of course that if one of your own does what you expect people in other religions to do, your religion df's them, and you shun them.

Sounds like a person that is upset with the Bible's commandments, follow the creature and not the creator.

That sounds like a self-justification that ALL groups that use shunning say about those who are shunned. Mormons. Scientiologists. JW's. Ignoring the truth that some (perhaps many) who are being df'd or shunned, simply disagreed with the religion, and perhaps even took a stand for Christ (the Christ that they truly see from what is written, perhaps as the spirit leads them as well). But that is what He said would happen to them, isn't it?

They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God.


Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil because of the Son of Man.

WTS this and WTS that, like it's their words. There is nothing JW teach that can't be followed up by scripture.

There is very little that anyone teaches that can't be 'followed up' by scripture. Followed up meaning 'interpret this or that verse however I choose'. Even if it means ignoring other verses.

If they actually made the rules then I wouldn't follow them, because that would be like all other religions in the world. Making up their own rules.

What about making a person sit at the back of the meetings for roughly a year even though that person has repented of whatever wrongdoing they may have done and wish to be reinstated? Making them wait a year, instead of forgiving at once, as Christ did and taught, and as was the example in the prodigal son returning?

Allowing sin to run rampant in their midst, things that Jehovah detest. If a person wants those things in their midst, then go for it. Don't condemn JWs because they actually enforce Bible commandments. A person should ask of their own religious leaders, why aren't we enforcing Bible commandments?

Perhaps they should.

But perhaps some see mercy as being more important than not smoking. Perhaps because some understand that the law was itself meant to be a mirror, not a pointing finger. Perhaps because some believe Christ when He said 'judge not, lest ye be judged'.

*shrugs*

Also, disfellowshipping doesn't mean that a person loses their salvation. It means they lose their fellowship...I think that is implied in the word right? If it meant a person lost their salvation the word would be 'damned' and not 'disfellowshipped'. No human on Earth of group of humans can make the judgement as to a person's salvation. I wish people would stop making false accusations.

But if your religion teaches that all those outside the organization (except those who did not get a chance to know the truth) die at Armageddon, then yes, that would be considered a judgment and loss of salvation for anyone who has been cast out. Because death at Armageddon is final. Yes?

Sadly, I know this is going in one ear and out the other for some people.

Do you not think that this could be said of you as well?


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

[2timothy316]

But they need to follow the rules of the WTS or be disowned. This is obeying every rule of the WTS. And it says that if one is disfellowed, then they lose their salvation therefore you are in disagreement with the WTS.

I find it odd that people think that the Bible's rules were made up by the WTS.

Folks these are not WTS rules.

"But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." - 1 Cor 5:11

Paul changed his tune by his next letter with regard to shunning or expelling someone.

No he didn't. Therefore the rest of your argument is invalid. Again, if you don't want to follow the rules of the Bible then don't be in a religion that follows them. Never is Jehovah fine with those that practice unrighteous acts. The history of natural Israel is proof of that. Did God ever say, 'oh you want to do whatever you want and serve me, that's cool.'? No He didn't.

[tam]

But they need to follow the rules of the WTS or be disowned. This is obeying every rule of the WTS. And it says that if one is disfellowed, then they lose their salvation therefore you are in disagreement with the WTS.

I find it odd that people think that the Bible's rules were made up by the WTS.

Folks these are not WTS rules.

"But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." - 1 Cor 5:11

Paul changed his tune by his next letter with regard to shunning or expelling someone.

No he didn't. Therefore the rest of your argument is invalid. Again, if you don't want to follow the rules of the Bible then don't be in a religion that follows them.

The rest of my argument had nothing to do with that comment. Hence the word "regardless".

I think your words speak for themselves with regard to 'avoiding' the rest of the argument.



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

[2timothy316]

But they need to follow the rules of the WTS or be disowned. This is obeying every rule of the WTS. And it says that if one is disfellowed, then they lose their salvation therefore you are in disagreement with the WTS.

I find it odd that people think that the Bible's rules were made up by the WTS.

Folks these are not WTS rules.

"But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." - 1 Cor 5:11

Paul changed his tune by his next letter with regard to shunning or expelling someone.

No he didn't. Therefore the rest of your argument is invalid. Again, if you don't want to follow the rules of the Bible then don't be in a religion that follows them.

The rest of my argument had nothing to do with that comment. Hence the word "regardless".

I think your words speak for themselves with regard to 'avoiding' the rest of the argument.



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

And your words speak for you avoiding what the Bible says. Again, if you don't want to follow what was written at 1 Cor 5:11. Then don't. If you want to shame us for following it that's fine. It's not you and your ways we are trying to serve.

So your 'regardless' means 'forget what the Bible says' to me. The rest of your argument without scriptural support is rejected and there is no need to address it. If you have something from the Bible then I'm all ears.