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?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 106 by onewithhim]

Checkpoint wrote:

Yes of course, proclaim the kingdom, the one Jesus and the church in Acts proclaimed.

Yes, make disciples, not of any group or individual, but of Jesus Anointed.

Not like the scribes and Pharisees model Jesus spoke of in Matthew 23:15.

You should know that "the truth" can so easily become our special treasure instead of the real pearl of great price, and in place of the one who alone is "the truth".

onewithhim wrote:

You intimate that JWs' "special treasure" replaces the one who alone is the Truth, Jesus? How can that be? Your statements at the outset of your post, I have come to realize, were said with sarcasm. Am I right?

No, you are not right about those things, but I can understand to some extent you drawing those conclusions; sorry about that.

I was not intimating anyone, I was simply suggesting possible dangers, none of which was intended to be at all sarcastic.

onewithhim wrote:

If so, why would Christians NOT proclaim the Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed?

You, Checkpoint, should know by now (as you have been on these threads for years now) that we make disciples of everyone who will be so inclined, and they will not be of the anointed. The anointed have already been JWs for many years. The number has been filled. The majority of us have the paradise-earth hope, and I'm not un-happy about that.

Well now, I for one am certainly un-happy about that.

That is because I do not believe what you are saying about the anointed and the majority is the kingdom that Jesus proclaimed.



onewithhim wrote

We are certainly not like the Pharisees.

You are now casting aspersions rather than reasoning. Will you make your points clear, please?

I did not say or intimate you are like them.

I was not castng aspersions on anyone, but sounding a warning bell to any reader.

Is that clear enough for you now, onewithhhim?

[JehovahsWitness]

Well maybe I misunderstood...I took it you were proposing it is wrong to speak about ...

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.

[...]b) That is one reason it is wrong. ...

Again maybe I misunderstood, if so I apolologise. Does that mean you do not think it is wrong to speak about what one believes to be {to quote you} the "doctrines and practices that differ from, and are more scriptural, than, any other" {end quote}?


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

As far as "should not be done" again maybe I misunderstood, I'm very sorry, I withdraw the accusation, it was wrong of me. Now to avoid further misunderstanding, perhaps you could clarify what you are saying below and what it has to do (if anything) with Jehovahs Witnesses.

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.

Emphasis MINE

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 110 by Checkpoint]

To me "church" and "congregation" are the same thing. JWs just don't use the term "church" because we want to set ourselves apart from mainstream religion. But if someone says "your church thus-and-so," or "are you on your way to church," I would not make it a point of contention. To me that is splitting hairs.

[onewithhim]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 104 by Checkpoint]

Let us leave aside the internal workings of my religious family, that's not the issue. Will you address the issue of your own written definition of what it means to "have the truth" and why according to your own words such a notion is wrong.

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.

Why don't you address the issue you raised that you hold to a particular doctrine according to what you believe to be more accurate, that you even go online and tell others about your view but you believe it is wrong to to share your beliefs about doctrine (even though you DO it yourself and are attempting to do it with me right now).

I think Checkpoint's point has been overlooked (either of you please feel free to correct me if I am wrong).


I think the difference (and the thing Checkpoint was objecting to) was someone claiming to 'have the truth'. I do not think Checkpoint ever suggested that it is wrong to share your beliefs or doctrines.


I was trying to follow the conversation when this point came up because I was interested in your (the JW) description of what it meant when a person says "I/we have the truth".


I could have missed it, but I don't think it has been answered yet.



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

I myself didn't understand exactly what Checkpoint was saying and asked him to further explain, but I haven't recognized an answer yet.

ANY faith path would surely feel that they have the truth, or else why would they be affiliated with that particular faith? If you DON"T have "the truth," then wouldn't it behoove you to put in some effort and find it?

We say we have the truth because we have studied the Scriptures long and hard, and we realize that we are the only religion that follows exactly what Christ taught. He said (1)not to kill our enemies but pray for them, therefore we don't support any nation's military and their war machines (Matt.5:44); (2) we are not to be part of the world, just as He is no part of the world, so we don't get involved in politics (John 17:16, James 4:4); Jesus never taught a literal hell-fire where people's spirits burn forever, but he taught that death is the penalty for sin, therefore we confidently teach that fact, whereas every other religion teaches literal hell-fire (John 3:16); Jesus also taught that his Father's name was to be honored and treated with respect, and we are the only religion in the world that reverently uses God's name consistently and continually (Matthew 6:9; John 17:6,26). There are other reasons, but I would say that this suffices for now.

This is why we say we have "the Truth." Others will disagree, but that doesn't make us wrong.


.

[marco]

We say we have the truth because we have studied the Scriptures long and hard,

But not as long and hard as Catholic theologians who were studying long, long before JWs were invented.

and we realize that we are the only religion that follows exactly what Christ taught.

Well it's a false realisation but it is a declaration. You follow exactly what you interpret as Christ's teaching. I have several times taken issue over the interpretation of passages. It is absurd to claim one is utterly correct when there is dispute. Perhaps it's more correct to say "we think we're right."

He said not to kill our enemies but pray for them, therefore we don't support any nation's military

This is a generalisation from a single illustration about not being aggressive. Jesus demonstrated that sometimes force is necessary to defend what is right. He used a whip against tradesmen in the temple. When someone is in need of protection do Jehovah's Witnesses side with the Levite or the Samaritan? You do understand that Christ was saying that the good neighbour steps out of his way to help those in danger or those suffering? It would seem that when millions of people were being murdered in Hitler's camps then JWs would simply sing "Let it be!" Pathetic! I've just watched a programme on Belsen where survivors were desperate for soldiers to come and help them. I guess they would have waited in vain for JWs to come.

In your summary of what "what WE do" you emphasise trivial details in much the same way as did the Pharisees whom Christ condemned. It is possible that were Christ to return he would ask: "And when as a child I was suffering in a concentration camp did you come and help?" And JWs would answer: "No, Lord, because one of our theologians told us not to use force." "And did I not speak of false teachers. Did I not say, buy a sword for protecting yourself and others?"

This is why we say we have "the Truth." Others will disagree, but that doesn't make us wrong.

And declaration does not make you right. I've illustrated how you try to keep the letter of the law and ignore the spirit, which is completely counter to what Christ advocated. I suspect you have the best intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You have not made a terribly good case for your variety of Christianity - sometimes it is better to say nothing and have others suspect you are wrong, rather than proclaim and make them certain.

[marco]

To me "church" and "congregation" are the same thing. JWs just don't use the term "church" because we want to set ourselves apart from mainstream religion.

Such a pity to go against Christ once again. "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Christ invited people to join him: he did not build artificial barriers to "set ourselves apart". That sounds like arrogance and again replicates the Pharisee who stands near the front of the "church" and proclaims his worth.

[onewithhim]

We say we have the truth because we have studied the Scriptures long and hard,

But not as long and hard as Catholic theologians who were studying long, long before JWs were invented.

This has been explained many times. Jehovah's Witnesses weren't "invented" in the 19th century by Charles Taze Russell. Jehovah's Witnesses have been here on the earth since Abel. He worshipped and was friends with Jehovah, as was Enoch, Noah, Elijah, David, and a slew of others down to our day. Read off the names of the O.T. books and you have more Jehovah's Witnesses. Jesus himself was a Witness of Jehovah (Revelation 1:5). So please, don't diminish Jehovah's Witnesses as some insignificant little group started up by one man in the late 19th century. That is not true.

Their brand of religion is much closer to Jesus Christ than the RCC or any other group.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus demonstrated that sometimes force is necessary to defend what is right.. He used a whip against tradesmen in the temple.

The accusation is that Jesus ACTED by losing his temper instead of setting an example and solving a problem without violence. There is no defence.

Emphasis MINE

So are you saying Jesus actions in the temple were "demonstrated that sometimes force is necessary to defend what is right" or an example of solving a problem with violence, for which {quote} "There is no defence"?




JW

[Checkpoint]

Well maybe I misunderstood...I took it you were proposing it is wrong to speak about ...

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.

[...]b) That is one reason it is wrong. ...

Again maybe I misunderstood, if so I apolologise. Does that mean you do not think it is wrong to speak about what one believes to be {to quote you} the "doctrines and practices that differ from, and are more scriptural, than, any other" {end quote}?
JW

No, it is not wrong to speak out what we believe is scriptural.

What is wrong is to compare oneself or our leader or group, to others in such a way as to take the highest place as the greatest in the kingdom.

That is what we do every time we say or think that we/they, "are more scriptural, than, any other."