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?

[onewithhim]

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.

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.


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

There are not "two hopes for one Christian." A single Christian has EITHER a heavenly hope OR an earthly one. There are 144,000 people with the heavenly hope, and millions with the earthly hope.

The fact that it was not a major issue with Christians until 1935 doesn't mean that the earthly hope wasn't taught. They believed that there were two groups of Christians. It's just that they all had the heavenly hope until the years leading up to 1935. Then some started thinking---am I really anointed? If someone is anointed, they know it. Those who doubted that they were were relieved to know that the "other sheep" were recognized as a growing class of Christians in 1935.

You say, "It is not said that the 'sheep' [of Matthew chapter 25] are Christians." Please tell me....what else would they be? Jesus says to them to "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." (vs.34) They are certainly Christians.

We have reached what you might call a stalemate. We will have to agree to disagree.

[tam]

[Replying to post 532 by tam]

I never said that.

The bible does not agree with your strawman, but this has nothing to do with me or anything that I said.

Then clarify. Because you're not making sense. On one hand you don't like JWs enforcing Bible commandments when it comes how to those that practice sin are handled in the congregation, then on the other you agree that a person can't slave for two masters. I don't see how you reconcile that scripture and be fine with a unrepentant sinner.

My argument from the start was with regard to you saying that A) all wts rules are bible rules (which I argue is false); and that B) anyone who leaves or is df'd, is due to their having broken a bible rule (also argued to be false).


I don't know how to clear up what you have added to my statement except suggest that you go back and quote exactly what I said so you can see for yourself, because it certainly was not what you said.

Not sure that I accept it happened exactly as it is written. Correct. Meaning it is a question for me, yes.

This is the whole issue I have been talking about this whole time when it comes to the Bible.

What? That a person can have a question about the accuracy of something written?

You know how Uzzah is written to have been struck down by God who was angry because Uzzah touched the ark? Well, Uzzah did get struck down, but not because God was angry at him. After all, Uzzah was trying to do good and protect the ark from falling. But God gave very specific instructions on how to handle the ark, and those instructions were in place for their safety. Disregard those instructions and you are bound to get hurt - not because God's anger blazed against you, but simply because of cause and effect.

Same as if you disregarded instructions on how to safely handle anything that has power in it.

But to the people (or to the later scribes) it may have seemed as though God was angry with Uzzah, because Uzzah did get struck down.

So I would suggest that the same sort of thing might have happened with Aaron's sons. I'm not positive though, hence, I said I am not sure.

Christ didn't tell us to shun anyone. Christ said that we would BE shunned.

Should the following be enforced?

"Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." - 2 John 9-11

What Christ said and did is what should be followed. All other words should be tested for understanding against Him.

Especially since letters written to certain people are rarely the entire story and things written in them can be misunderstood and taken out of context.

Oh and yes followers of Jesus are shunned. You should see how my father's inlaws treat him for being a JW this time of year.

Then that would simply make them just as wrong as your religion, in its shunning practices.

People can get baptized into a religion and realize later that the religion is wrong.

People can get baptized and leave a specific religion WITHOUT leaving Christ and God.

Do you agree or not agree?

A person can't leave the true teachings of Christ without leaving Christ.

That is not a response to the actual question I asked you.

So I disagree. So I'm looking at your teachings and I don't think they are the teachings of Christ.

Then please show something that I have said that is against the teachings of Christ. Not something that is against (some of) others' teachings. But against anything that Christ taught (by word and deed).

On your side you're thinking the same.

Yes.

But I am showing where the WTS specifically teaches something other than what Christ taught. Take a look at the discussion between me and OWH with regard to partaking. Christ told his apostles to eat and drink of Him (even said earlier that anyone may eat and drink of him, and that unless one eats and drinks of him then one has no life in oneself)... and then Christ told those same apostles to make disciples and teach those disciples to obey everything that HE had commanded THEM.


Then there is also the treatment of those who repent and wish to be reinstated. THIS TOO is against what Christ taught. I mean, this is above and beyond the shunning. This is AFTER people have repented and wish to be reinstated, yet they must PROVE that their repentance is sincere (for about a year).

Christ did not teach that. Not at all.

Marco has twice now shown what Christ DID teach on these matters, so I won't repeat them. But the prodigal son is the perfect example; and yet, the WTS does otherwise.

How do you think the truth of who is right and who is wrong will be revealed?How can it be revealed now? I say the Bible will reveal who is right and who is wrong. What say you?

I say Christ reveals what is right and what is wrong. As for who is right or wrong... well... HE is right.

Do you agree with the following?

“Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it." Matt 7:13, 14

As I said earlier, if Christ said it, then yes, I agree with it.

Some clarity on this verse however, and who exactly is the gate:

"I am the gate for the sheep..."

But if someone commits suicide over being ostracised by every person they have ever cared about, then there was no discipline, because there was no teaching, there was no compassion, there was no mercy even.

An example of following the creature and not the creator. There are JWs in prison right now and they have lost everything. No contact from friends, family and even their freedom is gone. In fact many endure for years under these conditions. Why aren't they trying to commit suicide? Where does their strength come from?

I don't think you answered the question.

And even Paul warned that the Corinthians (in his next letter at least) against allowing the one who sinned and who was being shunned to fall into despair. So even the shunning that he ordered was temporary (thankfully, he wrote and changed his 'command' - even though Christ is supposed to be our Master, not Paul, and so people should have remained doing as Christ said to do, and he did give specific instructions on how to handle a brother who has sinned against you. But Paul is a fellow brother and a man, and men make mistakes)


Plus, there is a difference between being unable to see your family for reasons beyond yours and their control; and your family choosing to shun you.

Yet what we see many times are DFed ones not turning to Jehovah but others in other religions who will accept the sin that they are practicing.

Now how do you know that when you don't know what people are being df'd for?

(Also, I believe Miriam is Moses' sister who was stricken with a skin affliction and confined outside the camp for seven days (and after that was healed). It was likened to a father spitting in his daughters face. She was not shunned by the entire community, nor even df'd.)

Ah yes it was his sister. At any rate what do you think it means to be 'confined outside the camp'? Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses saying, "“Is it only by Moses that Jehovah has spoken? Has he not also spoken through us?� (Num 12:2) Questioning if Moses should be the only one God speaks through. Perhaps inciting a change in leadership without Jehovah's approval. Aaron too was part of the sin against God but wasn't stricken with leprosy and sent away. Why not? "Immediately Aaron said to Moses: “I beg you, my lord! Please do not hold this sin against us! We have acted foolishly in what we have done." (Num 12:11) He repented. There is no record Miriam repented. Even then a person could be saved from the hardship of punishment if they repent.

Agreed, with regard to repentance (although he repented for Miriam as well; which is what a priest does - intercede on behalf of others).

But Miriam was only sent outside the camp while stricken for a short period of time, and then brought back into the camp.

Nor was there a waiting period of a year to be sure that she truly was repentant. Nor was there any command that Aaron or Moses or anyone had to shun her during that week.

It doesn't matter if it is about df'ing or not. The article IS about changing one's religion.

You're trying to say that changing ones religion from JW to something else without repercussions is ok.

No, I'm saying it is a double standard that jws use.

Not according to 2 John 9-11 quoted above. You seem to view that all religions are acceptable to God. But the Bible disagrees with you as pointed out in Matt 7:13, 14.

I don't view all religions as acceptable to God. And no religion is the truth. Only Christ is the Truth.

But a double standard is a double standard.

So yes it does matter if the article about DFing or not. What you're saying is that the person's current religion is correct. But according to Matt 7:13, 14 not all religions are correct. You're saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are not the true religion so where you see hypocrisy is your opinion because I'm guessing you are assuming the religion the person came from had God's backing.

I'm not assuming any such thing. I could not assume any such thing; since my understanding is that there is NO true religion; there is only TRUTH (Christ).

So I truly am just looking at the double standard. And I don't think a double standard cares about our POV.

Curious, are you currently a disfellowshiped member of Jehovah's Witnesses?

I am not. Did a bible study for two years. Love the dear woman who studied with me, though she has moved away and I have no contact information for her. But I did not join.



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

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 528 by Claire Evans]

Claire, I don't think you understand what disfellowshipping is in the JW religion.

What is accomplished by disfellowshipping? It keeps Jehovah’s holy name clear of reproach and protects the fine reputation of his people. (1 Peter 1:14-16) Removing an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation upholds God’s standards and preserves the congregation’s spiritual cleanness. It is also our hope it may also bring the unrepentant one to his or her senses. This only is enforced on those that have made a dedication in the way of baptize in our organization to serve Jehovah God and live by the commandments set forth in the Bible and His Son Jesus. A person that isn't a Witness can't be DFed.

Unrepentant of the WTS rules or God's? They are not necessarily interchangeable.

It doesn't take away anything except fellowship from the person. Whoever is telling you that the person's salvation is lost, is wrong. I have read the posts that JWs have posted on this board and I know none of them would say such a thing. If a person turns from their practiced sin because of their removal of fellowship, then the discipline could actually save their life.

So if one did not want anything to do with the WTS, they'd still have salvation?


The Jehovah's beliefs seem to be an amended belief to what is in the Bible. Let us look at Jesus' resurrection. I am told that Jesus did not have His body resurrected. Then what about the accounts of the empty tomb?

According to the WTS:

According to Watchtower Society teachings, Jesus' atonement only made salvation possible for those who subsequently prove themselves worthy of it by achieving perfection, and they teach that this is what Jesus' atonement made possible:

"Those who prove loyal to Jehovah will have their names indelibly written in the 'book of life,' as being perfect in integrity and worthy of the right to everlasting life on earth. Jehovah himself will then declare them righteous in the complete sense."3

http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/art ... logid=5440

Yet we have in Ephesian 2:8:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--"

Big contradiction.

Jehovah's Witnesses belief that Jesus is the incarnation of Michael the Arch Angel. He is not the Son of God. This is not biblical at all. So why is the WTS making all these false things up?

I came across what was said by ex-Jehovah's Witnesses and it's disturbing. They say it is rife with suicide and depression because of the threat of being shunned if they question the WTS. If they are rejected by the WTS, they are rejected by their family and friend. This is exactly the case in Scientology. It is ruled by guilt and fear.

It is wrong to say that only JWs get salvation and others are preaching Satanic doctrines when JWs clearly contradict the Bible.

Jehovah's witnesses MUST pledge allegiance to the WTS. They must not question why a lot of their beliefs do not reconcile with the Bible:

"The spirit that now operates in the "sons of disobedience" is so widespread that it is like the air we breathe. That spirit can cause us to think that we do not need guidance from Jehovah's organization... We need to guard against developing a spirit of independence. By word or action, may we never challenge the channel of communication that Jehovah is using today. On the contrary, we should cherish our privilege to cooperate with the slave class. And should we not strive to be obedient and submissive to those taking the lead in our local congregations?"

Slave class? Perfect love is perfect freedom. 1 John 4:

…17In this way, love has been perfected among us, so that we may have confidence on the day of judgment; for in this world we are just like Him. 18There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. The one who fears has not been perfected in love.


http://savedfromthewatchtower.blogspot. ... chive.html

Now the questions to you Claire, do you agree with 2 John 9-11 and should it be enforced?

"Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."

So those who believe in the empty tomb story in the Bible should be shunned? In fact, shouldn't you shun all none JWs? Our teachings are from the devil apparently. Are non JWs wicked? John is referring to wicked people trying to sway people away from the faith in Christ.

Commentary:


1:7-11 The deceiver and his deceit are described: he brings some error concerning the person or office of the Lord Jesus. Such a one is a deceiver and an antichrist; he deludes souls, and undermines the glory and kingdom of the Lord Christ. Let us not think it strange, that there are deceivers and opposers of the Lord Christ's name and dignity now, for there were such, even in the apostles' times. The more deceivers and deceits abound, the more watchful the disciples must be. Sad it is, that splendid attainments in the school of Christ, should ever be lost. The way to gain the full reward is, to abide true to Christ, and constant in religion to the end. Firm cleaving to Christian truth unites us to Christ, and thereby to the Father also; for they are one. Let us equally disregard such as abide not in the doctrine of Christ, and those who transgress his commands. Any who did not profess and preach the doctrine of Christ, respecting him as the Son of God,and salvation by him from guilt and sin, were not to be noticed and countenanced. Yet in obeying this command, we must show kindness and a good spirit to those who differ from us in lesser matters, but hold firmly the all-important doctrines of Christ's person, atonement, and holy salvation.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_john/1-9.htm

John is referring to to those who go against the doctrine of Christ and that includes the beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses . JWs do not believe Jesus is God but that He was created. This goes against John 1:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. …2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.…



No mention of Jesus being in the incarnation of Michael the Archangel.

http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/art ... logid=5440

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 539 by Claire Evans]

Unrepentant of the WTS rules or God's? They are not necessarily interchangeable.

God's rules in the Bible. Yet, one of God's rules is not to 'forsake the gathering of themselves together.’ (Heb. 10:25) This would be with other people that follow God's rules and love His commandments.

2timothy316 wrote:
Now the questions to you Claire, do you agree with 2 John 9-11 and should it be enforced?

"Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."

So those who believe in the empty tomb story in the Bible should be shunned? In fact, shouldn't you shun all none JWs? Our teachings are from the devil apparently. Are non JWs wicked? John is referring to wicked people trying to sway people away from the faith in Christ.

2 John 9-11 wasn't written by JWs. But we do agree with it and enforce it on those that promised they'd follow Jesus' example by their baptism but have abandoned that pursuit.

You didn't answer to my questions. I will ask once more. Do you agree with 2 John 9-11 and should it be enforced. Above you seem to be open to obeying God's rules. Isn't 2 John 9-11 one of them? Yes or no?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 538 by tam]

What caught my eye was you think that no religion has the truth right?

"Then Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.� John 8:31, 32

What about these disciples of Christ? What did these knowers of truth do?

They met together:
"And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together, to the taking of meals, and to prayers." Acts 2:42

They had men that took the lead:
"Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you." Heb 13:17

Those that took the lead presided over others and counciled them:
"Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work." 1 Thess 5:12, 13

There were overseers and ministerial servants (also translated deacons):
"Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in union with Christ Jesus who are in Phi·lipʹpi, along with overseers and ministerial servants:" Philppians 1:1

Peter was an elder and encouraged other elders caring for 'the flock of God':
"Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory." 1 Peter 5:1-4

These scriptures I quoted are from God-breathed letters to congregations in different cities.

The first century disciples built a religion. By divine providence they were called Christians. Acts 11:26. Explain this. Was this bad? When they started the Christian religion did they lose the truth?

[onewithhim]

2timothy.....you give very good comments in your last two posts about unrepentant sinners. How can someone object to following Bible counsel? It is very clear that Jesus, Paul, and John said in the Scriptures that the unrepentant person should be cleared out from the congregation. They aren't prohibited from coming to meetings, but are barred from fellowship until such time as they choose to repent of their unChristian conduct.

I wonder about these things:

(1) Considering that a person doesn't get baptized until he has completed an intense study of the Bible, which takes some people more than one or two years to do, that commitment is undergone very seriously and with full knowledge of what JWs teach.....Why would someone with any integrity go back on their commitment that they entered into---not after just a brief encounter with JWs, but---after months upon months of serious study?? I see a serious weakness of integrity there.

(2) Also, if the person who takes back his vow to Jehovah & spurns His organization, why doesn't he just SAY to the elders that he wants to be disassociated? Why do they wait until the organization disfellowships them?

I've noticed that most people don't get disfellowshiped for just disagreeing with doctrine. Usually there is a serious sin involved, and the person gets extremely upset because he can't be allowed to continue doing whatever he was doing and stay in the congregation. Time after time, that is the situation. I myself was disfellowshiped once because of fornication. Did I get mad at the WTS because I couldn't get away with it? NO. I was honest enough to admit my guilt and take my discipline. They did not want to disfellowship me; they actually begged me to reconsider.. But I didn't want to give up my relationship with a certain person. When I came to my senses five years later, I stopped an illicit relationship and repented. JWs welcomed me back, and I haven't done any serious sin since. I was reinstated in 1989. The WTS is totally fair, and if they let anyone who practices any serious sin stay within the congregation unreproved and/or undisciplined, wouldn't the congregation eventually become rife with unchristian conduct? You'd better believe it.


(3) I also don't understand why people who are disfellowshiped put up such a FUSS about friends and family members not associating with them. THEY made the choice to behave in such a way that THEY KNEW was wrong according to Christian standards, or, at least, the standards of the WTS. Didn't they KNOW that other members could not even greet such a person? Sure they did! And why would they want to stay in any relationship with people who believe differently than they (the disfellowshiped person) did? JWs honor the WTS. The person under discussion does not. So why not just leave the WTS and all of JWs alone?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 539 by Claire Evans]

Unrepentant of the WTS rules or God's? They are not necessarily interchangeable.

God's rules in the Bible. Yet, one of God's rules is not to 'forsake the gathering of themselves together.’ (Heb. 10:25) This would be with other people that follow God's rules and love His commandments.

Thank you for differentiating between WTS rules and God's rules and not saying they are one and the same.

2timothy316 wrote:
Now the questions to you Claire, do you agree with 2 John 9-11 and should it be enforced?

"Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."

So those who believe in the empty tomb story in the Bible should be shunned? In fact, shouldn't you shun all none JWs? Our teachings are from the devil apparently. Are non JWs wicked? John is referring to wicked people trying to sway people away from the faith in Christ.

2 John 9-11 wasn't written by JWs. But we do agree with it and enforce it on those that promised they'd follow Jesus' example by their baptism but have abandoned that pursuit.
You didn't answer to my questions. I will ask once more. Do you agree with 2 John 9-11 and should it be enforced. Above you seem to be open to obeying God's rules. Isn't 2 John 9-11 one of them? Yes or no?

But you ignored the context of John.

Commentary:


1:7-11 The deceiver and his deceit are described: he brings some error concerning the person or office of the Lord Jesus. Such a one is a deceiver and an antichrist; he deludes souls, and undermines the glory and kingdom of the Lord Christ. Let us not think it strange, that there are deceivers and opposers of the Lord Christ's name and dignity now, for there were such, even in the apostles' times. The more deceivers and deceits abound, the more watchful the disciples must be. Sad it is, that splendid attainments in the school of Christ, should ever be lost. The way to gain the full reward is, to abide true to Christ, and constant in religion to the end. Firm cleaving to Christian truth unites us to Christ, and thereby to the Father also; for they are one. Let us equally disregard such as abide not in the doctrine of Christ, and those who transgress his commands. Any who did not profess and preach the doctrine of Christ, respecting him as the Son of God,and salvation by him from guilt and sin, were not to be noticed and countenanced. Yet in obeying this command, we must show kindness and a good spirit to those who differ from us in lesser matters, but hold firmly the all-important doctrines of Christ's person, atonement, and holy salvation.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_john/1-9.htm

These are referring to people with the wicked intention to deceive and undermine Jesus. They are little "anti-christs". Do you really think that applies to non Jehovah's witnesses and ex Jehovah's Witnesses? We preach the gospel of Christ yet JWs believe that we are vessels for the devil. And did not Jesus keep the company of sinners? Yes or no?

I'm struggling to get an answer to my question? Is the empty tomb story a farce?

You also didn't address that, according to the Bible, it is by grace we have salvation. JWs contradict that and say it needs to be earned.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 542 by onewithhim]

Are you going to get back to my comment?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=490

[tam]

[Replying to post 538 by tam]

What caught my eye was you think that no religion has the truth right?

I said that there was no true religion.

There is only Truth: Christ.


Christ said that the kind of worshippers that the Father wants are those who worship in spirit (with the fruits of the spirit, as a dear sister shared), and in Truth (in CHRIST).

Not in Jerusalem (or on some other mountain). Not with any other mediator (as there is ONE mediator between man and God, and that mediator is Christ).

His Church is His Body (all who are part of His Body), His Bride.

"Then Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.� John 8:31, 32

YES.

So as long as one remains in His word then one truly is His disciple. That is exactly what He said. Then one will know the truth, and the truth will set that one free.


Just a couple of sentences later, Christ identifies WHO the truth IS that sets us free:

"So if the Son sets you free, you will truly be free." John 8:36


And how does one remain in His word? By listening to and obeying HIM.


If men come and teach something other than what He has taught, and we listen to them over Him, can it be said that we are remaining in His word? And if we are not remaining in His word, how can it be said that we are His disciples?

What about these disciples of Christ? What did these knowers of truth do?

They met together:
"And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together, to the taking of meals, and to prayers." Acts 2:42

Nothing wrong with anything in the above. But what might the teaching of the apostles have been?

"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching THEM to obey EVERYTHING that I have commanded YOU."

So the only thing the apostles would teach is for everyone else to listen to Christ, to follow Him, to obey Him, to do as He has said, to remain in His word. I am sure they would have borne witness to those things that Christ taught them as well.

Yes?

They had men that took the lead:
"Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you." Heb 13:17

Certainly the apostles (and so all of us as well) are meant to serve one another, as Christ taught. That may even mean admonishing a brother, or helping to expound the truth more accurately (as Priscilla and Aquinas did for Apollos), and leading by example (but there is a danger in looking to men as the example, rather than to Christ. Men make mistakes. All religion teaches error, some more than others. Christ alone is the TRUTH. So He is the One we need to keep our eye upon, and follow His example.)

This verse might help a little:

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.


Leaders, as in those who were first in Christ. Not that we are to make men our leaders.

Imitating their faith does not mean to follow them; but rather to have the same FAITH as they have... which faith would be in CHRIST.



And these are Christ's instructions:

"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ."



So I am going to suggest to you what I suggested earlier with regard to the shunning issue: that the letters that were written to various congregations dealt with specific issues and what we have are one side of a conversation. But as long as one is listening to and following Christ, then one is listening to and following TRUTH.

As long as one is IN Christ, then one is IN Truth.


Regardless of all of that - I assume you would agree in theory, that the person we are to listen to first and foremost is Christ. And if a man or a religion were teaching us to do something that was against what Christ taught, then we should disregard their teaching, and instead do as Christ said to do and remain in HIS word.

After all, He also said THIS (John 14:21, 23):

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them."

and

"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make Our home with him.



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

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 545 by tam]

You're skirting the question.

The first century disciples built a religion. By divine providence they were called Christians. Acts 11:26. Do you deny this?

Was this bad? When they started the Christian religion did they lose the truth?

Peter said that as an elder, they should Shepherd the Flock of God. Serving as overseers.

Definition of overseer: a person who oversees; supervisor; manager:

So do you agree with Peter? Yes or no? There should be elders that manage the 'Flock of God'? Yes or no? Are you going to hold on to your claim that there was not true religion, even during the days of Peter? Yes or no?