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?

[tigger2]

Also, Christians sin. I mean, if Christians were not sinners, then they would have no need of Christ.


Peace again!

We're not talking of a sin. We're talking of continuing sin by a fellow Christian..

Footnote for 1 Cor. 5:11 in NIV Study Bible:

"With such a man do not even eat. Calling oneself a Christian while continuing to live an immoral life is reprehensible and degrading, and gives false testimony to Christ. If the true Christian has intimate association with someone who does this, the non-Christian world may assume that the church approves such immoral, ungodly living and thus the name of Christ would be dishonored. Questions could arise concerning the true character of the Christian's own testimony. (cf. Ro 16:17-18; 2 Th 3:6, 14-15)."

[2timothy316]

Also, Christians sin. I mean, if Christians were not sinners, then they would have no need of Christ.


Peace again!

We're not talking of a sin. We're talking of continuing sin by a fellow Christian..

Even then it's gross sin. Unyielding. Unrepentant. Willful. No remorse. This is a complete disregard for the lifestyle Jesus left for us to follow. It's not talking about the time we hit our knee on the coffee table and drop a salvo of curse words. Though consent, willful, unremorseful and unrepentant cussing after many corrections by one person, then 3 people, then elders, the whole congregation. Only then yes, even cussing could end in DFing. These things like this though are very very rare. If a person goes so far as to reject a group of 3 people telling them of their cussing problem, then certainly there is more than just cussing that person has problem with. The number one reason for DFing is unrepentant immorality.

[tam]

Just for clarification:

I asked if you would not shun them.

I believe you answered yes... but meant that you would shun them. Yes?

In which case, the distinction that tigger made in the post I responded to is rather meaningless. Yes?

If a person was a baptized member and they said to the elders that they no longer want to be a Jehovah's Witness, then yes, 2 John 9 would apply to that person. They would be DFed. Any person that knows the Bible knows what they are asking for when they say they no longer want to be a JW.

But then the distinction that it only applies to one who is a Christian, is meaningless. Yes?


Your point, however, brings me straight back to my post that you do not wish to address or read. That you expect people from other religions to do what you refuse to allow people from your own religion to do: change their beliefs and/or religion.

You will say that you allow this. Yes, but at the cost of their loved ones who are told to shun them. (and THAT goes against 'do not turn your back on your own flesh and blood')

Even the WTS states:

No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251

Yet this is exactly what your religion forces upon its own people. That is a pretty big double standard.



But yes, I think you and yours have made it very clear that if anyone joins your religion, and later realizes that the WTS is not the truth, they cannot later change their mind EVEN IF they realize the WTS is not the truth; not without being shunned by every member of the religion, including their own families.

Not because they broke a rule or were unrepentant sinners... and... even if they follow Christ and obey all that HE commanded.


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

[2timothy316]

Just for clarification:

I asked if you would not shun them.

I believe you answered yes... but meant that you would shun them. Yes?

In which case, the distinction that tigger made in the post I responded to is rather meaningless. Yes?

If a person was a baptized member and they said to the elders that they no longer want to be a Jehovah's Witness, then yes, 2 John 9 would apply to that person. They would be DFed. Any person that knows the Bible knows what they are asking for when they say they no longer want to be a JW.

But then the distinction that it only applies to one who is a Christian, is meaningless. Yes?

Pay close attention to the following scriptures I will be paying close attention on how you respond to them.

If a baptized Christian of Jehovah's Witnesses decides they don't want to be a Jehovah's Witness any more. They are marked as disfellowshipped. No buts, no 'only applies if'. If at some point they come back and they are ready to accept the teachings left to us by Jesus and the inspired Bible writers then that person will be reinstated.

Your point, however, brings me straight back to my post that you do not wish to address or read. That you expect people from other religions to do what you refuse to allow people from your own religion to do: change their beliefs and/or religion.

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Matt 6:24. Do you agree with that scripture?

You will say that you allow this. Yes, but at the cost of their loved ones who are told to shun them. (and THAT goes against 'do not turn your back on your own flesh and blood')

Recall the account of Aaron and his sons?

Later Aaron’s sons Naʹdab and A·biʹhu each took his fire holder and put fire in it and placed incense on it. Then they began offering before Jehovah unauthorized fire, which he had not commanded them to do. At this a fire came out from before Jehovah and consumed them, so that they died before Jehovah. Then Moses said to Aaron: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘I will be made holy among those near to me, and I will be glorified before all the people.’� And Aaron kept silent." - Lev 10:1-3

Do you agree with Aaron's response? Do you agree with Jehovah's actions? Did Aaron leave Jehovah God?

Do you agree with this scripture?
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate* {love to lesser degree} his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

Do you believe this scripture to be true?
"For the Lord disciplines whom He loves, and He scourges every son whom He receives." - Heb 12:6

Even the WTS states:

No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251

That is correct. We don't expect someone who doesn't love what the Bible teaches to keep doing it. This is called freewill. Everyone has the right to reject Jehovah God.

Yet this is exactly what your religion forces upon its own people. That is a pretty big double standard.

“You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of ‘the table of Jehovah’ and the table of demons.� (1 Cor. 10:16-21) Do you agree?

But yes, I think you and yours have made it very clear that if anyone joins your religion, and later realizes that the WTS is not the truth, they cannot later change their mind EVEN IF they realize the WTS is not the truth; not without being shunned by every member of the religion, including their own families.

If someone made as far as baptism and never took what they learned from the Bible into their heart and decides they want to do their own thing, that is their choice. If a person loves the creature [family] more than their creator [Jehovah] then I guess they think their family is what will lead to everlasting life. But the Bible doesn't say that. “This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.� (John 17:3)

[onewithhim]

[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

Yes, I remember that Daniel 10:13 was a verse that I couldn't come to terms with. Since then I have discussed it with others to see if I could find any agreement with their views, and I think one of my brothers' explanations was acceptable: Michael was "one of" the chief princes, but that wording doesn't mean that he was EQUAL to the other chief princes. He was one of them but also the highest one of them...higher than they were. This makes sense.

I agree that people find Scriptures that seemingly back up their views, and that they do IGNORE other Scriptures. I can honestly say that I haven't run across anything that JWs ignore. They always harmonize all Scriptures together. People who believe, for instance, in hell-fire, ignore many passages throughout the Bible that conflict with their thinking.

There is ample evidence for "the two-hope doctrine" and also the view that the other sheep should not partake of the emblems at the Memorial. I choose to consider all Scriptures to understand the truth of a matter. I have provided reasonable Scriptural evidence for those things. It seems that you consider yourself as one of the people anointed by God who are going to heaven to rule with Christ. But why argue with people who DO NOT consider themselves as anointed to go to heaven? If they are NOT anointed, then you would be doing a great DISSERVICE to them by insisting that they should partake.

I don't understand your thought that believing that Michael is the Christ is a "defensive" belief. Sorry, I don't follow you. As I said, I never had a problem with believing that and I gave reasons why.

Tigger posted a completely scholarly and compelling list of persons who have also come to the conclusion that Michael and Christ Jesus are the same. Why continue to blast JWs alone for this understanding, as if we are pulling it out of thin air? There is an impressive list of persons who have said that they believe that Michael is Jesus: Joseph Benson and E.W. Hengstenberg in the 1800s; J.P. Lange; Adam Clarke; the Geneva Study Bible; the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia; and more.

W.E. Vine wrote that the "voice of the archangel" at IThessalonians 4:16 was "apparently the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ."

John Wesley (founder of Methodism) said, "there will be yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your prince, the Messiah, shall appear for your salvation." He also said, "Christ alone is the protector of his church."

So it's not something new that JWs believe. Re-read tigger's post and review all of the examples there that show belief in Michael as the Archangel goes back quite a ways. (BTW, there is only ONE Archangel. None others are named in the Bible, nor is any other referred to.)

Where does it say that Michael announces Christ? Not at IThess.4:16. And why would anyone else besides Christ be given the role that Michael has of "standing up for his people"? That is the highest of honors, one that was given to Jesus. No other person is given that recognition in the Scriptures.


[/b]

[tam]

Just for clarification:

I asked if you would not shun them.

I believe you answered yes... but meant that you would shun them. Yes?

In which case, the distinction that tigger made in the post I responded to is rather meaningless. Yes?

If a person was a baptized member and they said to the elders that they no longer want to be a Jehovah's Witness, then yes, 2 John 9 would apply to that person. They would be DFed. Any person that knows the Bible knows what they are asking for when they say they no longer want to be a JW.

But then the distinction that it only applies to one who is a Christian, is meaningless. Yes?

If a baptized Christian of Jehovah's Witnesses decides they don't want to be a Jehovah's Witness any more. They are marked as disfellowshipped. No buts, no 'only applies if'. If at some point they come back and they are ready to accept the teachings left to us by Jesus and the inspired Bible writers then that person will be reinstated.

Accept those teachings as interpreted by the WTS, and only after a sufficient amount of time has passed (about a year, wherein they must sit at the back of the hall, still be shunned) that some elders deign them as having proven their sincerity or repentance or whatever the criteria is.

Nothing like the prodigal son that Christ showed us as an example. Nothing like repenting and simply be forgiven (such as the steps that Christ laid out for us if a brother does sin against us). Nothing like what Christ taught. Nothing even biblical about that.

Now maybe someone in the religion recognizes this (and a few other things like it) and realizes, you know what? I was wrong. This religion does not follow Christ, and I need to follow Him.

That would be someone who leaves (or is df'd if they state this openly) because they wish to follow Christ and not because they wish to break a 'bible rule'.

Your point, however, brings me straight back to my post that you do not wish to address or read. That you expect people from other religions to do what you refuse to allow people from your own religion to do: change their beliefs and/or religion.

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other." Matt 6:24. Do you agree with that scripture?

Absolutely.

Christ - the TRUTH - the One I serve and follow - is the One who said this.

You will say that you allow this. Yes, but at the cost of their loved ones who are told to shun them. (and THAT goes against 'do not turn your back on your own flesh and blood')

Recall the account of Aaron and his sons?

Later Aaron’s sons Naʹdab and A·biʹhu each took his fire holder and put fire in it and placed incense on it. Then they began offering before Jehovah unauthorized fire, which he had not commanded them to do. At this a fire came out from before Jehovah and consumed them, so that they died before Jehovah. Then Moses said to Aaron: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘I will be made holy among those near to me, and I will be glorified before all the people.’� And Aaron kept silent." - Lev 10:1-3

Do you agree with Aaron's response? Do you agree with Jehovah's actions? Did Aaron leave Jehovah God?

Aaron did not respond. Not sure I accept that this happened just as written, but I can comment on a related account that I do accept: fire comes down from heaven and consumes Gog and Magog. Sad as it is that these ones do not repent but must instead be destroyed, I do agree with God for protecting the innocent from those who wish to destroy them.

Aaron did not leave God, and I am not sure what that has to do with anything I stated. Perhaps you could elaborate on that point?

Do you agree with this scripture?

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate* {love to lesser degree} his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

Of course. Christ said it. I even understand why it is true.

Do you believe this scripture to be true?
"For the Lord disciplines whom He loves, and He scourges every son whom He receives." - Heb 12:6

I do. This is confirmed in Christ who said: those I love I rebuke and discipline. (rev 3:19)

Discipline has to do with teaching. Not punishment, though sometimes (often) people mix up the two. You can't really teach someone you shun, nor can you teach someone who is dead. Destruction is judgment, not discipline (I think you agree with that; I could be mistaken).

Even the WTS states:

No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family.

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251

That is correct. We don't expect someone who doesn't love what the Bible teaches to keep doing it. This is called freewill. Everyone has the right to reject Jehovah God.

Someone rejecting the WTS and its interpretation of the Bible does not mean that someone is rejecting God. That is what the WTS teaches you, but that is false; as some (many) who leave do so in order to OBEY God (and listen to His Son, as commanded).

That being said I think you missed the second part of that statement:

OR BE MADE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HIS BELIEFS AND HIS FAMILY

So I think you missed the point that this is a double standard. Because you praise those who leave their former religion to come to yours. But if someone from your religion changes their belief, then they must choose between their beliefs and their family.

They could believe whatever they want and pretend to believe the WTS. But that would be living a lie, and as Christ said, "One cannot serve two masters."

Yet this is exactly what your religion forces upon its own people. That is a pretty big double standard.

“You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of ‘the table of Jehovah’ and the table of demons.� (1 Cor. 10:16-21) Do you agree?

I do. (well, without the insertion "Jehovah", but the point is unchanged either way). But my point was the double standard being applied.

But yes, I think you and yours have made it very clear that if anyone joins your religion, and later realizes that the WTS is not the truth, they cannot later change their mind EVEN IF they realize the WTS is not the truth; not without being shunned by every member of the religion, including their own families.

If someone made as far as baptism and never took what they learned from the Bible into their heart and decides they want to do their own thing, why is our fault?

You keep assuming that they want to 'do their own thing' rather than that they may have seen something later that they did not see earlier (especially if they were born in, as it is difficult to see something different than what a person was raised to believe in), and so they wish to align themselves NOW with the truth.

No different than the householder you hope will reexamine their beliefs and come to (what you believe to be) the truth.

So you can understand that even though someone sincerely believed something, they might just as sincerely recognize that they were wrong (and taught wrong)... that they were once blind, but now can see, per se.

If a person loves the creature [family] more than their creator [Jehovah] then I guess they better hope their family can give them salvation.

I'm not going to disagree with you here. But the quote from the wts states that no one should be made to choose between their beliefs and their family. Certainly there will be disagreements and family members will be turned against one another, as Christ said. Indeed, many may well be forced to choose between their faith and their families (if only for a period of time), but NOT because THEY (who choose Christ) shun their family members; but because those family members may choose to shun THEM.

But the wts states that no one should be made to choose between belief and family... yet that is exactly what the wts forces its members to do. Either the wts statement is wrong (designed to encourage someone outside the religion to do something that is not permitted to those inside the religion); or the practice of shunning those who have a different belief is wrong; or both are wrong.


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

[tam]

Peace to you onewithhim!

[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

Yes, I remember that Daniel 10:13 was a verse that I couldn't come to terms with. Since then I have discussed it with others to see if I could find any agreement with their views, and I think one of my brothers' explanations was acceptable: Michael was "one of" the chief princes, but that wording doesn't mean that he was EQUAL to the other chief princes. He was one of them but also the highest one of them...higher than they were. This makes sense.

So perhaps the next question then would be "what is a chief prince?"

I think 'one of' a group (wherein they are all given the same title) might imply equality among them. Like "one of the apostles". But I respect that you researched the matter, even if we yet disagree.

My main reason for disagreeing that Christ and Michael are the same being is that Christ never taught it and neither did His apostles, and it would have been a simple enough thing for any of them to say. Especially Jude, since Jude mentioned Michael specifically and still did not mention or even imply that Michael and Christ were the same being.

I agree that people find Scriptures that seemingly back up their views, and that they do IGNORE other Scriptures. I can honestly say that I haven't run across anything that JWs ignore. They always harmonize all Scriptures together. People who believe, for instance, in hell-fire, ignore many passages throughout the Bible that conflict with their thinking.

Yes. And I hope that I do not give the impression that it is jws that I am against or singling out. I would argue just as strongly against that false doctrine (hell-fire) as any other false doctrine. (and did, as you did as well, on the two threads specifically created to debate that doctrine, some time back).

There are a couple passages that are ignored with regard to the rule on partaking however, and the two hope doctrine (although mainly there is no verse or teaching from any of the apostles or from Christ that states that some Christians are to eat of Christ and others are not; or that some Christians will be with Christ and some will not).

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Then later, he institutes the practice of eating his body and drinking his blood, commanding his apostles to do this in remembrance of Him.

Later than that, He says to His apostles:


"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:20, 21


Did He not command His apostles to eat and drink of Him and to keep doing that in remembrance of Him until He returns?

There is ample evidence for "the two-hope doctrine" and also the view that the other sheep should not partake of the emblems at the Memorial. I choose to consider all Scriptures to understand the truth of a matter. I have provided reasonable Scriptural evidence for those things.

Whatever you have provided must ignore that above instructions by Christ. Also, nowhere can you provide any explicit teaching of two hopes for one Christian. But there are passages that speak to one hope, one faith, one body, etc. Nowhere is there listed two different rules for Christians either; and yet, the two hope doctrine insists upon different rules (some partake and others watch some partake).

It seems that you consider yourself as one of the people anointed by God who are going to heaven to rule with Christ. But why argue with people who DO NOT consider themselves as anointed to go to heaven? If they are NOT anointed, then you would be doing a great DISSERVICE to them by insisting that they should partake.

Christ is the one who said TO do this (eating and drinking) in remembrance of Him. No one should insist that there are some Christians who have a different hope and so are not to partake.

When Christ says that unless one eats and drinks of Him, one has no life in them, then isn't the one teaching NOT to eat and drink who his doing such people a disservice (especially when those people WANT to obey Christ, but have been misled).

Also, the apostles were not anointed when Christ had them eat and drink of the bread and wine that represented His body and blood.

Also, “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much..."

The two hope doctrine requires that people do not listen to Christ on this matter. This is one way that a person might see that there is something with the doctrine itself.

Tigger posted a completely scholarly and compelling list of persons who have also come to the conclusion that Michael and Christ Jesus are the same. Why continue to blast JWs alone for this understanding, as if we are pulling it out of thin air?

I'm not blasting jws, and certainly not stating that you pulled it out of thin air. I am aware that others think it. I disagree with the doctrine, regardless of who is preaching it.

A list of scholars endorsing something does not make it true, as you have said yourself with regard to those scholars who endorse the trinity or the rendering of the John 1:1 (and some/many/most of the scholars in that list also endorse - thinking that Michael is Christ is God; I am sure that you do not agree with that despite the "impressive list of persons")

Re-read tigger's post and review all of the examples there that show belief in Michael as the Archangel goes back quite a ways. (BTW, there is only ONE Archangel. None others are named in the Bible, nor is any other referred to.)

Some might think that the voice of AN archangel implies that there is more than one archangel - or the verse should read the voice of THE archangel.

From the NWT:

because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice




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

[onewithhim]

Peace to you onewithhim!

[Replying to post 485 by onewithhim]


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

My main reason for disagreeing that Christ and Michael are the same being is that Christ never taught it and neither did His apostles, and it would have been a simple enough thing for any of them to say. Especially Jude, since Jude mentioned Michael specifically and still did not mention or even imply that Michael and Christ were the same being.

I agree that people find Scriptures that seemingly back up their views, and that they do IGNORE other Scriptures. I can honestly say that I haven't run across anything that JWs ignore. They always harmonize all Scriptures together. People who believe, for instance, in hell-fire, ignore many passages throughout the Bible that conflict with their thinking.

Yes. And I hope that I do not give the impression that it is jws that I am against or singling out. I would argue just as strongly against that false doctrine (hell-fire) as any other false doctrine. (and did, as you did as well, on the two threads specifically created to debate that doctrine, some time back).

There are a couple passages that are ignored with regard to the rule on partaking however, and the two hope doctrine (although mainly there is no verse or teaching from any of the apostles or from Christ that states that some Christians are to eat of Christ and others are not; or that some Christians will be with Christ and some will not).

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Then later, he institutes the practice of eating his body and drinking his blood, commanding his apostles to do this in remembrance of Him.

Later than that, He says to His apostles:


"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:20, 21


Did He not command His apostles to eat and drink of Him and to keep doing that in remembrance of Him until He returns?

There is ample evidence for "the two-hope doctrine" and also the view that the other sheep should not partake of the emblems at the Memorial. I choose to consider all Scriptures to understand the truth of a matter. I have provided reasonable Scriptural evidence for those things.

Whatever you have provided must ignore that above instructions by Christ. Also, nowhere can you provide any explicit teaching of two hopes for one Christian. But there are passages that speak to one hope, one faith, one body, etc. Nowhere is there listed two different rules for Christians either; and yet, the two hope doctrine insists upon different rules (some partake and others watch some partake).

Tigger posted a completely scholarly and compelling list of persons who have also come to the conclusion that Michael and Christ Jesus are the same. Why continue to blast JWs alone for this understanding, as if we are pulling it out of thin air?

I'm not blasting jws, and certainly not stating that you pulled it out of thin air. I am aware that others think it. I disagree with the doctrine, regardless of who is preaching it.

A list of scholars endorsing something does not make it true, as you have said yourself with regard to those scholars who endorse the trinity or the rendering of the John 1:1 (and some/many/most of the scholars in that list also endorse - thinking that Michael is Christ is God; I am sure that you do not agree with that despite the "impressive list of persons")

Re-read tigger's post and review all of the examples there that show belief in Michael as the Archangel goes back quite a ways. (BTW, there is only ONE Archangel. None others are named in the Bible, nor is any other referred to.)

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

All of the Biblical references to disciples "eating" Jesus' body and blood are directed to the 144,000 anointed followers of Christ that have the heavenly hope. EVERYONE back then would be anointed, and it was only in 1935 that official recognition was given to those people who didn't want to go to heaven. There are around 8 million people now on Earth that want to stay on the earth. Do you insist that they should have heaven as their goal? Do you understand what I'm saying? I don't want to go to heaven and millions of other people don't. Why insist that they should want to go to heaven?

I think it is pretty explicit in the Scriptures that there are two groups of Christians. This has been explained before, but I'll go over it again. One place that shows the difference between two groups is Matthew 25:31-41. Within those ten verses Christ clearly has differentiated between his brothers and the "sheep." There you have two different groups of Christians. His "brothers" are those who are anointed and will rule with him; they have the heavenly hope. The "sheep" are all those people who are following him as their Lord & Savior, but we can see that they are not of the heavenly class because it is by how they treat Christ's anointed brothers that they will be judged as either a "sheep" or a "goat."

Group (1): Christ's brothers

Group (2): the "sheep"


Jesus called his anointed brothers a "little flock." (Luke 12:32) Why would he refer to them as a LITTLE flock? Aren't there billions of people claiming to be Christians? It's because there is indeed a small number who are going to heaven, relative to a much larger crowd of those who are NOT of the "little flock."

Jesus also said, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold [of his brothers]; I must bring them ALSO, and they will hear my voice; and they will become one flock with one Shepherd." (John 10:16, NASB) Two folds; two groups; two classes, any way one wants to put it.

We also have the testimony in Revelation that there are two groups of Christians. John says: "I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of Israel [meaning: Spiritual Israel]....After these things I saw and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all the nations and tribes and peoples & languages....'These are the ones that come out of the Great Tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.'" (Revelation 7:4,9,14) TWO DISTINCT GROUPS OF CHRISTIANS. One group standing with Christ on the heavenly Mt. Zion (Rev.14:1), and the other "before" God's throne and "before" the Lamb, and we know this need not be a literal standing in front of the throne in heaven, because God and Jesus are "with" us even now. (Matthew 28:20) Their loyal followers are even now standing "before" the throne while still being on the earth.

So I think we can see that it is scriptural to say that there are two groups of Christians. Also, I listed the "impressive" writings of various scholars who thought that Michael was Jesus because you and others have seemed to think that it is JWs' own doctrine, and you single us out for taking responsibility for it. I merely wanted to show that this is not true. There are many other people, of various denominations, who believe Michael is Jesus.

[tam]

Peace again to you onewithhim!

Peace to you onewithhim!

[Replying to post 485 by onewithhim]


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

My main reason for disagreeing that Christ and Michael are the same being is that Christ never taught it and neither did His apostles, and it would have been a simple enough thing for any of them to say. Especially Jude, since Jude mentioned Michael specifically and still did not mention or even imply that Michael and Christ were the same being.

I agree that people find Scriptures that seemingly back up their views, and that they do IGNORE other Scriptures. I can honestly say that I haven't run across anything that JWs ignore. They always harmonize all Scriptures together. People who believe, for instance, in hell-fire, ignore many passages throughout the Bible that conflict with their thinking.

Yes. And I hope that I do not give the impression that it is jws that I am against or singling out. I would argue just as strongly against that false doctrine (hell-fire) as any other false doctrine. (and did, as you did as well, on the two threads specifically created to debate that doctrine, some time back).

There are a couple passages that are ignored with regard to the rule on partaking however, and the two hope doctrine (although mainly there is no verse or teaching from any of the apostles or from Christ that states that some Christians are to eat of Christ and others are not; or that some Christians will be with Christ and some will not).

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Then later, he institutes the practice of eating his body and drinking his blood, commanding his apostles to do this in remembrance of Him.

Later than that, He says to His apostles:


"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:20, 21


Did He not command His apostles to eat and drink of Him and to keep doing that in remembrance of Him until He returns?

There is ample evidence for "the two-hope doctrine" and also the view that the other sheep should not partake of the emblems at the Memorial. I choose to consider all Scriptures to understand the truth of a matter. I have provided reasonable Scriptural evidence for those things.

Whatever you have provided must ignore that above instructions by Christ. Also, nowhere can you provide any explicit teaching of two hopes for one Christian. But there are passages that speak to one hope, one faith, one body, etc. Nowhere is there listed two different rules for Christians either; and yet, the two hope doctrine insists upon different rules (some partake and others watch some partake).

It seems that you consider yourself as one of the people anointed by God who are going to heaven to rule with Christ. But why argue with people who DO NOT consider themselves as anointed to go to heaven? If they are NOT anointed, then you would be doing a great DISSERVICE to them by insisting that they should partake.

Christ is the one who said TO do this (eating and drinking) in remembrance of Him. No one should insist that there are some Christians who have a different hope and so are not to partake.

When Christ says that unless one eats and drinks of Him, one has no life in them, then isn't the one teaching NOT to eat and drink who his doing such people a disservice (especially when those people WANT to obey Christ, but have been misled).

Also, the apostles were not anointed when Christ had them eat and drink of the bread and wine that represented His body and blood.

Also, “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much..."

The two hope doctrine requires that people do not listen to Christ on this matter. This is one way that a person might see that there is something with the doctrine itself.

Tigger posted a completely scholarly and compelling list of persons who have also come to the conclusion that Michael and Christ Jesus are the same. Why continue to blast JWs alone for this understanding, as if we are pulling it out of thin air?

I'm not blasting jws, and certainly not stating that you pulled it out of thin air. I am aware that others think it. I disagree with the doctrine, regardless of who is preaching it.

A list of scholars endorsing something does not make it true, as you have said yourself with regard to those scholars who endorse the trinity or the rendering of the John 1:1 (and some/many/most of the scholars in that list also endorse - thinking that Michael is Christ is God; I am sure that you do not agree with that despite the "impressive list of persons")

Re-read tigger's post and review all of the examples there that show belief in Michael as the Archangel goes back quite a ways. (BTW, there is only ONE Archangel. None others are named in the Bible, nor is any other referred to.)

Some might think that the voice of AN archangel implies that there is more than one archangel - or the verse should read the voice of THE archangel.

From the NWT:

because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice




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

All of the Biblical references to disciples "eating" Jesus' body and blood are directed to the 144,000 anointed followers of Christ that have the heavenly hope. EVERYONE back then would be anointed,

First, there are no biblical references to the disciples eating and drinking of Christ being related only to the 144 000. That is an interpretation (unique or not to the WTS, I do not know).

Second, the fact that it was not taught by a religion until 1935 makes it a different gospel from what was taught at first.

and it was only in 1935 that official recognition was given to those people who didn't want to go to heaven. There are around 8 million people now on Earth that want to stay on the earth. Do you insist that they should have heaven as their goal? Do you understand what I'm saying? I don't want to go to heaven and millions of other people don't. Why insist that they should want to go to heaven?

I'm not insisting that you must go where you do not want to go. Not at all.

I am insisting that the doctrine itself is false; that there are not two hopes.

You may partake or not as you wish. You can obey Christ in this matter or not, as you wish. You can have faith in Him that no matter where you spend eternity (on earth, in heaven, or both as you desire) you will be happy - or you can not have faith in that.

And again, the apostles were not anointed at the time that Christ had them partake.

I think it is pretty explicit in the Scriptures that there are two groups of Christians. This has been explained before, but I'll go over it again. One place that shows the difference between two groups is Matthew 25:31-41. Within those ten verses Christ clearly has differentiated between his brothers and the "sheep."

Yes. Exactly. He has differentiated between His brothers and the sheep. Christians are His brothers; the sheep are not.

But aren't all Christians his brothers (and sisters)? Don't they all have the same Father?

There you have two different groups of Christians.

No, there you have two different groups. It is not said that the sheep are Christians.

His "brothers" are those who are anointed and will rule with him; they have the heavenly hope.

This is not in the passage.

The "sheep" are all those people who are following him as their Lord & Savior,

Why do you suggest that the sheep are those people who are following Him as their Lord and savior?

but we can see that they are not of the heavenly class because it is by how they treat Christ's anointed brothers that they will be judged as either a "sheep" or a "goat."

Or... we can see that they are not Christian because it is how the sheep treat even a least one of Christ's brothers (which may include his brothers in the flesh, as well as Christians).

And the sheep did not know that they had done for Christ what they did for His brothers (anointed or not).

Group (1): Christ's brothers

Agreed.

Group (2): the "sheep"

Agreed.

Jesus called his anointed brothers a "little flock." (Luke 12:32)

Actually, to be accurate, He called His disciples (the ones He was speaking to at that time) a little flock.

Why would he refer to them as a LITTLE flock? Aren't there billions of people claiming to be Christians?

You and I both agree that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian truly is a Christian.

It's because there is indeed a small number who are going to heaven, relative to a much larger crowd of those who are NOT of the "little flock."

This is purely interpretation.

Even 8 million compared to billions would be considered a little flock. 144 000 is microscopic.

Jesus also said, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold [of his brothers]; I must bring them ALSO, and they will hear my voice; and they will become one flock with one Shepherd." (John 10:16, NASB) Two folds; two groups; two classes, any way one wants to put it.

Except where He says in that very verse that they will become ONE FLOCK. Emphasis on ONE.

We also have the testimony in Revelation that there are two groups of Christians. John says: "I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of Israel [meaning: Spiritual Israel]....

That "meaning" is an interpretation. But twelve tribes specifically listed, with a literal number of 12000 from each tribe, suggests that the tribes are also literal.

That's not an interpretation. That is what the text states. 12 000 from each of those 12 tribes.

After these things I saw and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all the nations and tribes and peoples & languages....'These are the ones that come out of the Great Tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.'"

Yes, from EVERY tribe, nation, people and tongue. There is the set number guaranteed from literal Israel, and then there are also those from EVERY tribe nation tongue and people. Same wording as is used to describe those who rule with Christ in His Kingdom, whom He purchased from men. Revelation 5: 9, 10

(Revelation 7:4,9,14) TWO DISTINCT GROUPS OF CHRISTIANS.

Christians from different tribes, nations, tongues and people... some of which number is reserved specifically for literal Israel. God did after all say that He had reserved a remnant from among Israel for Himself.

One group standing with Christ on the heavenly Mt. Zion (Rev.14:1), and the other "before" God's throne and "before" the Lamb, and we know this need not be a literal standing in front of the throne in heaven, because God and Jesus are "with" us even now. (Matthew 28:20)

Again, interpretation. You must waive away the words that they are standing before the throne and before the Lamb, just as you must waive away the literal tribes of Israel (though you keep the number as being literal), to maintain the doctrine from the WTS.

You must also waive away Rev 5:9 which states that those purchased from every tribe, nation, people and tongue (such as those in the great crowd) rule with Christ.

This interpretation requires that you not do what Christ said to do, including obeying everything that He commanded the apostles.

And no one taught this until 1935. As you seem to be agreeing, every disciple in the gospels were of the one hope, and there was no teaching or claiming of a different hope.

Their loyal followers are even now standing "before" the throne while still being on the earth.

Assuming that this verse is not literal.

So I think we can see that it is scriptural to say that there are two groups of Christians.

You did not address the exact thing that contradicts the teaching that some should partake and some should not.

I will repeat:

There are a couple passages that are ignored with regard to the rule on partaking however, and the two hope doctrine (although mainly there is no verse or teaching from any of the apostles or from Christ that states that some Christians are to eat of Christ and others are not; or that some Christians will be with Christ and some will not).

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Then later, he institutes the practice of eating his body and drinking his blood, commanding his apostles to do this in remembrance of Him.

Later than that, He says to His apostles:


"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:20, 21


If every disciple was supposed to obey everything that Christ commanded the apostles, how could any disciple suddenly jump in and change that and teach something else?


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

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 523 by tam]

Yes, some Bible translations render it "an archangel's voice." However many of the more respected (by trinitarians) Bibles render it as follows.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: - KJV.

No, the Lord himself will come down from heaven at the word of command, at the sound of the archangel's voice and God's trumpet" - NAB.

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. - NIV.

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. - NRSV.

With a shout of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of God’s trumpet, the Lord himself will come down from heaven, and the dead who belong to the Messiah will rise first. - ISV.

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. - HCSB.

The problem is that "archangel" is without the article in the Greek, but it is also a genitive case noun and in a prepositional phrase. Either of these conditions allow it to be understood as either definite or indefinite.

I believe it should probably be rendered "the archangel" because the Greek phrase is "in voice of archangel." The governing noun "voice" is more likely to be understood as "the voice." And since the governing noun is without the article, but still understood as definite ("the voice"), it is not unusual for the following anarthrous genitive to be the same "the archangel."

Moulton's Grammar of New Testament Greek uses this example: "Thus aggelos kuriou is not 'an angel' but 'the angel,' [and the following anarthrous genitive kuriou is 'of the Lord'] .... It usually happens that the second noun is also anarthrous". - Vol. 3, p. 181.

"APOLLONIUS' CANON: "Apollonius of Dyscolus was a second century A.D. Greek grammarian who stated that, usually when a noun is modified by another noun in the genitive case, both nouns will have the article prefixed to them or neither will have the article. When both nouns are anarthrous, usually they are both mutually definite or both indefinite" - http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-g ... 5383.html