Is the Jehovah Witness Religion a Christian Religion?

[polonius]

Do Jehovah Witnesses consider Jesus Christ to be God? If so, does it maintain that there are two divine persons? God and Jesus Christ?

Are both God and Jesus eternal and coequal?

[marco]

John Assheton was the first recorded English anti-trinitarian.

Would this be the John Assheton who admitted his former doubts about the Trinity to Cranmer and recanted those doubts?

The threat of death for reading the Bible in another language other than Latin was trailing off. We are in agreement with Assheton and all those nontrinitarians, there is no trinity.

Was anyone ever aware of this threat? The Vespasian Psalter from the 8th century could be read in Old English as well as Latin. You are probably confusing the Church's objection to erroneous translations but there's no mention of any executions for not reading in Latin.

Remember, the weeds were choking out the wheat during these years.
While there are very few that boldly spoke up, there must have been some that knew what was right but didn't say anything about it.

What nice poetry! It will always be problematic to identify the weeds. I think the RC identification wouldn't be the same as the JW modern take and Mormons and Baptists, Muslim and Jew would have their own ways of identifying the weeds.

[historia]

I just asked for examples from late Antiquity and the High Middle Ages of people who believe as you do now.

Oh you mean during the days of the Inquisition.

I'm asking about two different time periods: late Antiquity and the High Middle Ages. There was no Inquisition in late Antiquity.

When the RCC killed people and destroyed (covered up) any theology against the RCC. Riiiiight like that is going to be easy to find.

If there is a dearth of historical evidence in a particular time period, the prudent action would be to qualify any claims about that period, or to not make a claim in the first place, rather than offer a sweeping assertion for which there is insufficient evidence.

Though there are a few out there.

William Tyndale is one. He believed that all people should have access to the Bible and be allowed to read it. We as Jehovah's Witness completely agree with that.

Ludwig Haetzer, wrote that images like crosses shouldn't be used in worship. He also believed that Jesus wasn't God and shouldn't be worshiped.

John Assheton was the first recorded English anti-trinitarian.

Again, I asked for examples from late Antiquity and the High Middle Ages. None of these men lived in either time period.

Yet the Inquisition itself is how we know there were those that believed what Jehovah's Witnesses believe too. Because if they didn't there would be no need for an inquisition.

That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

The Inquisition targeted people who didn't share the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. That could have (and clearly did) include ideas and practices that are contrary to both Roman Catholicism and Watchtower teachings.

Therefore, the mere fact that there was an inquisition does not, in and of itself, entail the further conclusion that its targets must have believed as Jehovah's Witnesses do. Without further evidence to substantiate that claim, this is merely an unfounded assumption.

[historia]

I write this to draw the attention of all to JW's post 62, which clarifies and qualifies the claims under discussion.

Much appreciated, Checkpoint.

What we are saying is there have been individuals that have studied the holy bible and have understood some of the truths we (JW) hold today. If only, as was the case of many of the Catholic and Protestant translators, that the bible (not the church) is the ultimate dictate of religious truth or that Jesus is not part of a trinity.

Thanks for the clarification, JW. This is, of course, a more defensible historical claim.

But this would seem to undercut the overarching point onewithhim was making, which was again (bold added):

[T]here was always someone on Earth that believed as we do now. So we are not a "new" sect.

If a fourth century Arian held to a similar Christology to that of Jehovah's Witnesses today, but otherwise had starkly different beliefs and practices, can we realistically claim they are part of the same sect?

If, on the other hand, the claim here is simply that Jehovah's Witness beliefs and practices are not completely novel, that point is certainly well taken. Russell was heavily influenced by earlier Adventists, of course. And the Witnesses share much of Anglo-American Protestant thought.

In fact, I suspect Jehovah's Witnesses inherited this idea that there have always been those who believed as they do from earlier radical Protestants, as it looks very much like Baptist Successionism.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 90 by historia]

Exactly, the bible always been there for anyone to read, and various groups and individuals have, over the ages grasps some of its truths. Russell openly acklwoleged his gratitude to various prostestnt teachers including Baptist Pastor Henry Grew and Methodist, George Storrrs. He collaborated for a time with Aventist Nelson Barbour and was no doubt influenced in his studies by many other bible students (past and present).

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 91 by JehovahsWitness]

ARE JEHOVAHS WITNESSES A CHRISTIAN SECT

The word "sect" has quite a broad meaning, which includes ...

SECT
A group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader

Merriams Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sect

So depending in the definition being used, we may or may not be thus described. Usually though people use the word to mean a "break away" group, that splintered from a main body and in this regard the Watchtower September 15, 1983 states the following.

They [Jehovah Witnesses] are not a sect, inasmuch as they are neither the disciples of some human teacher or leader nor an offshoot of any one church or sect.

Further, we don't view ourselves as a "sect" (new or otherwise), not because of what various groups or individuals have believed over the centuries, but because we see our organization as the resstablishment of Christianity as an organised body, as established by Christ, 2000 years ago. If the French monarchy had managed to get itself resestablish a century after the French revolution, it wouldn't have been a royal "sect" it would have simply been a restablishment of royalty.

WHEN IS A SECT NOT A CHRISTIAN SECT?

• One cannot rightly be described as a "buddhist sect" when you break away from Islam. So that which breaks off from that which is not Christianity cannot rightly be described as a "Christian sect". The Jehovahs Witness position is there was no main body of Christianity for many centuries (only paganism masquarding as Christianity) and that which breaks away from paganism is a pagan sect not a Christian one*. Thus the only "Christian" sects would have been those that broke away from the first century congregation or from Jehovahs Witnesses themselves (or IBSA as they were formerly known) in the 20th century.

*NOTE This is not to say there were no genuine, spirit anointed Christians, serving God individually as best they could under the existing arrangements

CONCLUSION Jehovah's are not a "sect" as in "a splinter group or a denomination", they are the Christians that represent the resstablishment of Christianity as an organised body started by Jesus two thousand years ago

JW

To read more please go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY and ...JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 90 by historia]

Exactly, the bible always been there for anyone to read, and various groups and individuals have, over the ages grasps some of its truths. Russell openly acklwoleged his gratitude to various prostestnt teachers including Baptist Pastor Henry Grew and Methodist, George Storrrs. He collaborated for a time with Aventist Nelson Barbour and was no doubt influenced in his studies by many other bible students (past and present).

JW

Yes, most if not all of us, have been influenced in some way by others. By individuals and by organizations.

The claim, however, to have "the truth" , is not one we should make ourselves, or accept from others, whether that be from an individual or an organization.

[JehovahsWitness]

The claim, however, to have "the truth" , is not one we should make ourselves, or accept from others, whether that be from an individual or an organization.

Why?

a) What does it mean to "have 'the truth'" ? and

b) why would it be wrong to claim to have it?


JW

[Checkpoint]

The claim, however, to have "the truth" , is not one we should make ourselves, or accept from others, whether that be from an individual or an organization.

Why?

a) What does it mean to "have 'the truth'" ? and

b) why would it be wrong to claim to have it?


JW

Good questions!

a) When folk claim they have, or have found, "the truth", they basically mean a set of doctrines and practices that differ from, and are more scriptural than, any other.

Such a claim is not provable. It is, at most, little more than opinion that has become preference, based on how the Bible is thought to be interpreted and understood.

It has the credibility of a prophecy prediction date and its reasoning.

b) That is one reason it is wrong. Another is that it fosters pride and superiority.

Further, it inevitably results in a "two masters" dilemma. "You cannot serve God and..."(Matthew 6:24)

[JehovahsWitness]

a) When folk claim they have, or have found, "the truth", they basically mean a set of doctrines and practices that differ from, and are more scriptural than, any other.

What is a religion if it's not adhering to a set of doctrines and practices, and if one doesnt believe one's religion (doctrines and practices) is more scriptural than any other why be in it?

If doctrines and practices didn't differ from each other they would be indistinguishable. Aren't Catholic, Catholics because they believe the Catholic doctrines and practices are more scriptural than say Mormons? Aren't Seven day Adventist, in that religion because that religions doctrines and practices differ from those of Baptists? Arent independent Christians that believe you don't need to belong to any organized religion effectively saying "my practices differ from those that are part if an organised religion... and my way is better"?

You seem to be condemning something all of us do (including yourself, I presume) , namely analyse the doctrines and practices of another individual or group and adopt those which we believe to be "more scriptural".




JW

[Checkpoint]

a) When folk claim they have, or have found, "the truth", they basically mean a set of doctrines and practices that differ from, and are more scriptural than, any other.

What is a religion if it's not adhering to a set of doctrines and practices, and if one doesnt believe one's religion (doctrines and practices) is more scriptural than any other why be in it?

If doctrines and practices didn't differ from each other they would be indistinguishable. Aren't Catholic, Catholics because they believe the Catholic doctrines and practices are more scriptural than say Mormons? Aren't Seven day Adventist, in that religion because that religions doctrines and practices differ from those of Baptists? Arent independent Christians that believe you don't need to belong to any organized religion effectively saying "my practices differ from those that are part if an organised religion... and my way is better"?

You seem to be condemning something all of us do (including yourself, I presume) , namely analyse the doctrines and practices of another individual or group and adopt those which we believe to be "more scriptural".

JW

I do that personally in my own walk, yes; but not in my walk with other believers(other than on this forum!).

Not regarding those I gather with each week, or the denomination they are part of.

Here are two relevant passages:

John 5:39

You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!

James 1:

26 If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not bridle his tongue, he deceives his heart and his religion is worthless.

27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.