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?

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Warning

Your Ph.D. in "Christian" theology means nothing.
All that theology is misleading and spurious.
It is the teaching of "wolves that will enter in among you,"
You have clung to the twisted falsehoods of the men who started the great Apostacy
You didn't get a Ph.D. in true Christian teaching, so don't brag about that.
The pagans of the 1st century would be giving you a high-five.

This entire post is nothing but a personal attack. You previously received a Final Warning (also for a personal attack). This Warning makes you eligible for probation vote by the Admin / Moderator Team.

You are entitled to THINK that you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong; however, you are NOT entitled to claim special privilege or status for yourself or to say that someone's education is meaningless, their theology is misleading or twisted falsehoods, not 'true Christian', or allied with pagans.

Kindly review and learn to abide by Forum Rules.
.

_____________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Such demonization of scholars is totally inappropriate in theological discussion groups.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 358 by Elijah John]

How are you seeing traditional Christendom as denying Shema monotheism? Are you pointing to problems in the Trinity? At the moment, I am thinking of how certain Trinitarian formulas can easily lapse into polytheism. Is that it? That is a subject I would be very interested in discussing, but is this the right sub-forum, or should it be done in another sub-forum that I think deals with the Trinity?

You raised a good point about my previous post, so let me clarify. What I was responding to is the fact the Watchtower Society loudly denounces traditional Christianity as heretical, as it is Trinitarian. In fact, the Trinity is the centerpiece in Christendom. Consequently, I have received posts here and elsewhere, and find in the Society literature, claims that the original, "pure" church is, of course, represented by the Society, whereas this "pure" church was soon corrupted by the influx of Trinitarian thinking, which, in itself, is not an accurate historical account at all. Hence, Witnesses have told me that every single church father, from end of the first century onward, was a heretical child of the Devil. And then in publications, such as "Reasoning from the Scripture," Witnesses are instructed to emphasize, at least in conversations with Buddhists, that they (the Witnesses) are "not part of Christendom." What I wanted to remind Witnesses and other admirers of teh Society is that the shoe can be on the other foot. From the standpoint of traditional Christianity, the Witnesses are viewed as the heretics, a theme strongly emphasized in conservative Christian quarters then and now.

From my perspective, the problem is that too many individuals want to assume that their church, and theirs alone, has an exclusive monopoly on all the truth, is the one and only true path to salvation. This overlooks the fact that Christianity is not a monolithic religion, just one way. Christianity is and always has been a plurality, a rich tapestry of diverse approaches that often do conflict with one another. For many, such plurality is overwhelming and leads to spiritual confusion. But for me, I like it, I love it, I want some more of it. It means we have freedom, choices. If one church or option doesn't work for you, you can try another. No two people are alike. Different strokes for different folks. One God, many paths. No one church or religious organization can hope to meet every persons' spiritual, emotional, and intellectual needs. That's why I like to remind conservative or right-wing Christians that not all Christians can be or should be on the right. God doesn't want people on the right, God wants people following the right approach for their individual needs. For example, fundamentalist Christianity and also the Watchtower Society may well work well for some, may well by the way they relate best to God. But they certainly do no work for everyone, no can they hope to. I found neither approach came anywhere near to meeting any of my emotional and intellectual needs, so I moved way over to the left, into liberal Christianity. My agenda calls for a healthy skepticism about tradition, an emphasis on creativity, an emphasis on personal experience over dogma and the "holy books," and an emphasis on interreligious dialogue based on mutual respect and understanding, not finger-pointing and condemning as lost souls those of other faiths and religions. I welcome and see as valid any and all religions that understand God as positive, that is, God as loving and saving everyone, not just those, and only those, who hold to certain dogmas, or those who are Bible-believing Christians, or those who are Witnesses of the Watchtower Society, etc.

[2timothy316]

Sure, hell doesn't exist and is a false Biblical teaching...yet, Jesus went out of his way to tell a story about a man who died and went to hell (Luke 16:19-31).

Makes no sense.

Yes the account Jesus told was a story, meaning not a real account. An illustration. That makes perfect sense. Hell, makes no sense.

or everyone has an eternal soul?

Biblical teaching.

Wrong again! The Bible says that dead people know nothing at all.

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun." - Ecc 9:5, 6

The Bible also says that God can "destroy both soul and body". Matthew 10:28

Yet you teach that people keep on living. The above scriptures is what the Bible teaches, what you teach are your own teachings, not Bible teachings.

[marco]

Wrong again! The Bible says that dead people know nothing at all.

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun." - Ecc 9:5, 6

This is a simple statement about corpses knowing nothing; there are no pockets in a shroud; all our efforts to achieve finish with our final breath. These are platitudes, often uttered. The corpse itself rots; but nothing is said here about the undead soul. There are theories that the soul moves elsewhere but the person it once occupied has no memory, no emotions. Some believe that the soul occupies a new body and acts without recollection of its former temple.

I think we go too far if we construct a theology on platitudes.

Yet you teach that people keep on living. The above scriptures is what the Bible teaches, what you teach are your own teachings, not Bible teachings.

The above scriptures are subject to interpretation. The lesson they teach depends on that interpretation.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

The ones that came to Jesus in the early part of his ministry were the disciples, others were called 'followers or believers'. It was later, in Antioch that these ones were called "Christians".

CHRISTIAN

The Latinized Greek term Khri-sti-a-nos, found only three times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, designates followers of Christ Jesus, the exponents of Christianity."Ac 11:26; 26:28; 1Pe 4:16.

It was first in Antioch [Syria] that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians. (Ac 11:26) It is possible, then, that this name was used as early as the year 44 C.E. when the events surrounding this text occurred, although the grammatical structure of this phrase does not necessarily make it so; some think it was a little later. At any rate, by about 58 C.E., in the city of Caesarea, the term was well known and used even by public officials, for at that time King Herod Agrippa II said to Paul: In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian."Ac 26:28.

[2timothy316]

The above scriptures are subject to interpretation. The lesson they teach depends on that interpretation.

Everything is subject to interpretation. Yet, should it be interpreted is the real question. This goes back to the 'Truth' thread. Some want to interpret Ecc 9:5 and some say it should be taken for what it is. There is only one way that can be true. The two approaches can't both be right.

So why interpret Ecc 9:5 to mean the exact opposite? Is there someone telling you to do so? A preacher? Your parents? Who and why? Is it the tradition of doctrine outweighing what you plainly read? We should always pay careful attention why we see a need to interpret the Bible.

Personally I have no reason to change what the Scripture at Ecc 9:5 says. No one in the Bible says that Solomon's words need interpretation. There are no accounts in the Bible of people coming back from the dead saying they saw anything...ever! Even Jesus' friend Lazarus who was dead for 3 days...nothing about what he saw while dead. So, I just leave Ecc 9:5, 10 as it is. I'm completely comfortable as dead meaning what it means...in no way alive.

[marakorpa]

[Replying to post 383 by marco]

The statement here was accurate, it was inspired by Jehovah as no living person would know how it was after death as none had come back to tell them.

Consider Lazarus he died, he was dead for 4 days and then Jesus resurrected him. Wouldn't his "soul" been unhappy with being dragged back from heavenly bliss? Wouldn't Lazarus have been excited about his soul being in the heavens and would speak about this experience to the ones around him? No, he wouldn't, simply because he was dead as Solomon said , he would have had no memory of the past 4 days.

Tell me, why would Jehovah create perfect humans with the mandate to live in a Paradise Earth, never to die forever and then give them an immortal soul for when they died.

From JW.org


A girl, a living soul, looking at a butterfly, another living soul
What Is the Soul?
Download
Audio recordings download options

MP3

The Bibles answer

The word soul in the Bible is a translation of the Hebrew word nephesh and the Greek word psy-khe. The Hebrew word literally means a creature that breathes, and the Greek word means a living being. * The soul, then, is the entire creature, not something inside that survives the death of the body. Consider how the Bible shows that the human soul is the whole person:
Adam, a living soul, at the time of his creation

Adam was not given a soul"he became a living soul

When Jehovah God created the first man, Adam, the Bible says that man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7, King James Version) Adam was not given a soul"he became a living soul, or person.

The Bible says that the soul can work, crave food, eat, obey laws, and touch a dead body. (Leviticus 5:2; 7:20; 23:30; Deuteronomy 12:20; Romans 13:1) Those activities involve the entire person.

Is the soul immortal?

No, the soul can die. Dozens of Bible verses refer to the soul as being mortal. Here are some examples:

The soul that sinneth, it shall die."Ezekiel 18:4, 20, King James Version.

In ancient Israel, the punishment for the most serious offenses was that the soul shall be cut off. (Exodus 12:15, 19; Leviticus 7:20, 21, 27; 19:8, King James Version) The person would be put to death."Exodus 31:14, King James Version.

After a person dies, the literal term dead soul is used for the corpse in some Bible verses. (Leviticus 21:11, footnote; Numbers 6:6, footnote) Although many Bible translations use the terms dead body or dead person in those verses, the original Hebrew uses the word nephesh, or soul.

Soul can mean life

The Bible also uses soul as a synonym for life. For example, Job 33:22 uses the Hebrew word for soul (nephesh) as a parallel for life. Similarly, the Bible shows that a persons soul, or life, can be risked or lost."Exodus 4:19; Judges 9:17; Philippians 2:30.

This use of the word for soul helps us to understand verses in which the soul is said to be going out or departing. (Genesis 35:18; King James Version) This figure of speech indicates that the persons life is ending. Some translations render this expression at Genesis 35:18 as she breathed her last."Good News Translation; New Jerusalem Bible.
Where belief in an immortal soul comes from

Christian denominations that believe in an immortal soul get this teaching, not from the Bible, but from ancient Greek philosophy. The Encyclopdia Britannica says: Biblical references to the soul are related to the concept of breath and establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks.

God does not condone merging his teachings with human philosophies, such as belief in an immortal soul. Instead, the Bible warns: Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition."Colossians 2:8.

[onewithhim]

Answering post #369 by For_the_Kingdom:

You can close all the cases you want.....you would still be in error. It's useless discussing anything with you because you either don't bother to read a person's post, or you completely ignore it.

How am I not reading/ignoring a person's post when I am quoting what the person said and responding directly to it?

I commented on exactly why the WTS cannot be considered "prophets," yet you ignored that. No comment from you on reasoning about that.

Um, I believe I did.

A prophet is someone directly communicated to by God Almighty.

Thats the point, Charles Taze Russell was NOT directly communicated by God...so he had no BUSINESS whatsoever making prophecies about anything. Charles Russell is rightfully called a false prophet, because he made prophecies that simply did not come to past.

The WTS does not claim to be directly instructed from God.

Sure, but you guys claim to be God's organization, his faithful and discreet slave...the visible governing body of God on Earth. You guys claim to be and to HAVE the TRUTH. You guys claim to be able to understand the Bible, and a person cannot understand the Bible without assistance from the WTS (their word's, not mine).

You guys make all of these radical claims, just to admit that you aren't directly instructed by God...and you practically admit that they were wrong about those prophecies.

Yet, you guys are the truth, and the only truth on Earth?

They pray to Jehovah and then search the Scriptures for an answer. Sometimes in the past they have not fully understood the Scripture that applied to their issue. This doesn't make them false "prophets."

So, you say "sometimes in the past they have not fully understood the Scripture that applied to their issue"

Hmm..lets see..

"Yes, besides having God's spirit of illumination, a Christian needs Jehovah's theocratic organization in order to understand the Bible. (The Watchtower; 6/15-1951; pp. 375)

So, according to the excerpt from that article, we can't understand the Bible without help from the WTS. Yet, you just admitted that "sometimes they didn't fully understand the Scriptures".

Hmmm. Sounds like the blind leading the blind, eh?

1) They are not prophets.

Non-prophets shouldn't be making Biblical prophecies, should they?

2) They only tell people what is ALREADY said in the Bible

Nonsense. I was told some spiel about a "second chance after you die"...and I was told this despite it NOT being in the Bible.

and to their merit they see where they may have erred and admit it

Then you (JWs) shouldn't be going around saying you are the truth (your organization), if the history of the organization has been plagued with prophecies that didn't come to past and also doctrine flip-flops over time. How is that the "truth"?

continue to seek direction from the Scriptures

Jehovah's Witnesses don't seek direction from the Scriptures, they seek them from Watchtower magazines. Sad and unfortunate truth.

and try to understand where they went wrong.

Do JW's try to understand where the Watchtower went wrong? Or you just believe everything that they tell you?

3) This is admirable, and unparalleled by any other religion.

More boastful "we are better than everyone else" talk.

SMH.

You obviously did not read my previous post where I explained why the WTS is not a prophet, or, prophets. If you had, you would not have made the exact same disparaging remark (that they are "false prophets" in big black letters) in your most recent post. Do you understand the difference between a "prophet" and someone who is merely telling people what was already said in the Bible?

Brother Russell didn't make PROPHECIES. He told others what he believed that the Bible was saying. That's not prophesying. He didn't fully understand the Scriptures at that time, just as Jesus' disciples didn't fully understand what "the Kingdom" really meant, as he was ascending to heaven. (Acts 1:6,7) They would understand more LATER. In fact, Jesus' disciples were STILL working on understanding things about the Kingdom in the late 1800s when Bro. Russell was forming the group of the true sons of the Kingdom (Wheat) of Matthew 13, which would make knowledge abundant in the last days (Daniel 12:4).

Yes, I say they didn't fully understand the Scriptures, and I will also say this: No other religion has understood the Scriptures and then preached them to their flocks. None have gotten the BASIC TRUTHS out of the Scriptures, as have Jehovah's Witnesses. No other religion has gleaned from the Scriptures that there is no hell-fire, that God is not a Trinity, and that there is no immortal soul. At least Bro. Russell got THAT out of the Scriptures. To bring him down because he misunderstood that there was A LOT MORE PREACHING TO DO after 1914, is to say the least, counter productive.

Jehovah, God Almighty, IS a lot better than your Trinity god. So I CAN say that His worshipers do have the best religion.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Yes the account Jesus told was a story, meaning not a real account. An illustration.

So let me see if I get this straight; According to WatchTower theology, there is no life after death, and there is no hell....WHATSOEVER, right?

So my question is, if there is no life after death, and there is no hell...why would Jesus TELL A STORY about a man who experienced life after death, in hell??

Makes no sense.

Wrong again! The Bible says that dead people know nothing at all.

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all

Sure, go down to the cemetery and ask any of the dead bodies something. Do you think you will get an answer? No, because dead bodies cannot speak, can they. No. What does that have to do with the soul? Nothing.

, nor do they have any more reward

More reward in what sense? Obviously, Solomon is talking about earthly rewards, because he wrapped up the verse by talking about things that happen under the sun. "Under the sun" means ON EARTH..and he obviously couldn't have been implying that the saved won't receive a reward after death, could he? I mean after all, he wouldn't want to contradict what Jesus said in Rev 22:12 when he said "Behold, I am coming soon, my reward is with me".

Hmm.

, because all memory of them is forgotten.

I remember all four of my grandparents that passed away.

Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun." - Ecc 9:5, 6

I agree with everything that ^ scripture says about DEAD, PHYSICAL bodies. Sure.

The Bible also says that God can "destroy both soul and body". Matthew 10:28

Point?

Yet you teach that people keep on living.

That is kinda what Jesus was alluding to when he spoke of Lazarus' condition after his physical death...the message was not only that people keep on living, but some people that keep on living after death find themselves in pretty bad predicaments.

Not to mention the fact that Paul stated "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord".

"We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord". (2 Corin 5:8)

Kinda hard to be at home with the Lord if you cease existing after you die, as Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

The above scriptures is what the Bible teaches, what you teach are your own teachings, not Bible teachings.

Bruh, all jokes aside, the WTS have no divine authority or inspiration from God. Do your own research, check youtube for testimonials of ex-witnesses who are speaking out against the lies and deceptions of the WTS.

Be an independent thinker. Interpret Scriptures for yourself. Get out of that organization.