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?

[tam]

[Replying to post 545 by tam]

You're skirting the question.

I will endeavor to be more clear. Though I think if one were listening to Christ first and foremost, then His words would be all that matter.

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

Even if the first statement were true, these two things (building a religion and being divinely called Christian), are not related.

Some may have built a religion (and no doubt that men looked for other men to lead them, as that is the way of this world, and that is what men want, that is what men are comfortable with... but Christ said that true worship would be done in spirit and in truth). See my post above for Christ's directions.

One is not a Christian just because one joins or starts a religion. One is a Christian if one is in Christ. You seem to be conflating being divinely called Christian (meaning it is not just some title men took upon themselves), with being a member of a religion. I just don't understand why you are doing that?


So:

According to Christ, one is a true disciple of Him if one remains in His word and obeys His commands. And as He has also said, if one truly loves HIM, then will WILL do these things. Then His Father will love them and come and make their home with them (and that is done by means of holy spirit, the anointing, and this is by divine providence).

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

I can't answer this question. Because while you seem to conflate being a Christian with being in a religion, I do not.

I conflate being a Christian with being in Christ. One does not need to be in a religion to be in Christ. (indeed, often being in a religion will require that one try to serve two masters, which as we both agree, one cannot do without hating one of the two)

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:

This is responded to in the post above, with regard to leaders, elders, etc. I have nothing more to add at this time, except that of course we are also to be our brother's keepers.



**

Would not a true religion need to be TRUE?


I have asked you a few questions regarding some practices of the WTS that are not what Christ taught: the reinstatement process of the WTS versus the welcoming back immediately of the prodigal son (who was not cast out, but who himself chose to leave); the baptismal questions; the teaching that most jws should not partake though Christ said TO partake and taught His apostles to make disciples and teach them to obey everything that He had commanded them; that only the 'anointed' should partake, even though the apostles were not anointed when they partook; etc?


How could something true have teachings that are in contradiction to the Truth (Christ)?



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

[tam]

Peace to you OWH,

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.

Perhaps some realize that they made a mistake, even after months upon months of serious study. Perhaps upon entering the religion, they see things that were not fully disclosed during their study period? Perhaps some see that the fruits that are supposed to be produced are absent? Perhaps some begin to see elders and leaders and the religion itself teaching and doing things that are not as Christ taught and did?

For instance, when I did my study, the df'ing (and reinstatement) process was barely touched upon, and it was described as necessary and good. Had I SEEN it in practice though (where people are literally shunned, not even greeted, and even after repenting, must prove their repentance to be be true, sit at the back of the meetings, still being shunned, for an average of a year), then I HOPE that would have woken me up (if I had joined).

Then there are also the change in teachings. New light so to speak, rendering former teachings untrue? Since we are supposed to be testing the inspired expressions, what if the wts comes out with that is against Christ and what He taught? Something that was not part of them at the first? Should someone remain in something that one can see is no longer in line with Christ? Or should one follow Christ?


Perhaps they were born into the religion... and had little opportunity to see with unbiased eyes being baptized, including that some were baptized while still very young (minors even).

For the same reasons that others will leave other religions (even after intense study), some might leave the jw religion.

There are multiple reasons one might leave the religion, even though that does not mean that one is leaving Christ and God.

Unless one specifically states that they no longer believe in God or His Son... in which case on is at least being honest (and is no longer calling themselves a brother in Christ, and so the words that are to the effect: have nothing to do with one who calls oneself a brother... would not apply to them).

(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?

A - should the WTS be requiring people to make a vow that requires association with or obedience to an organization? Were the apostles instructed to baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and in association with the apostles? Were they instructed to require people to make such a vow, themselves?


I'm not sure how the WTS baptism goes, or what the baptismal questions are. I have been told that even these have changed somewhat (but I don't remember what they once were or are now). Could you list them?

B - disassociation and disfellowshipping reap the same 'rewards' do they not? The announcement is the same either way, isn't it: so and so is no longer one of jehovahs witnesses?

C - perhaps the person in the religion wishes to bear witness to the truth that they have received with their loved ones (which would include those who have been their brothers and sisters in the organization)? And for not keeping silent about their disagreements, they are cautioned, perhaps marked, perhaps disfellowshipped.

I've noticed that most people don't get disfellowshiped for just disagreeing with doctrine.

Not if they keep it to themselves, no.

But I must ask the same question to you that I have asked to others: how do you know what people are getting df'd for when this is not supposed to be announced?

(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.

Maybe some of that fuss is for the benefit OF those loved ones? Because they have learned that it is wrong, and that some of those loved ones are in pain because they feel they have no choice but to shun their own loved ones?

Maybe because they learned that God desires MERCY, and not sacrifice?

Maybe because they did not realize what they had taken part in before, but experience is a good teacher?

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?

"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same?"

JWs honor the WTS.

Yes, they honor the WTS.

Some have found that they cannot honor the WTS and Christ (and God) at the same time. That 'two masters' thing.

The person under discussion does not. So why not just leave the WTS and all of JWs alone?

One reason?

Love.

For mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, friends. Including elderly family members who require assistance in their daily lives. (In fact, some have said that they stay in and pretend to believe the wts, so that they can be available to help their aging parents.)

Love.

For Christ and for God. So that one does not hide their lamp, but places their lamp upon a stand for all to see.



Just some things to consider in addition to the one single reason and motives that you guys promote with regard to people who leave or who are df'd from your religion.




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

[onewithhim]

Response to post #470 by Claire Evans:

I don't know how many times I'll have to explain this....I thought that it has already been explained. That is, your comment on spirit bodies in relation to physical bodies. Paul said (ICorinthians 15) that there are physical bodies and then there are spirit bodies. "First the physical and then afterward the spirit." He was talking about those 144,000 that are called to be co-rulers with Christ. They first are humans with physical bodies, and then when they die they are to be resurrected (changed) as spirit persons.

You didn't clarify about the where you get the idea of 144 000 from. Did Paul say that?

A body is physical. There is no way around that.

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (ICorinth.15:42,44, NASB)

"Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (ICorinth.15:51,52, NASB)

Paul clearly informs his anointed brothers & sisters that they will CHANGE, not have some kind of physical body infused with spirit attributes and abilities. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus had a "spirit that entered his glorified body," as you stated. A spirit that has consciousness and separates from a body at death is not taught in the Bible. The spirit that "returns to the true God" is the breath of life that God gives to every living creature. So what would that "spirit" be that "entered his [Jesus'] glorified body"?

But a body being imperishable means it is immortal. It cannot be destroyed. That doesn't mean we don't have physical bodies anymore and are just spirits. According to the Bible, Jesus took on all of our sins and thus there was no Holy Spirit in Him. When He conquered death and sin and was raised from the dead, He had the Holy Spirit in Him. The Holy Spirit rose Him from the dead.

The glorified body was actually a SPIRIT body that could materialize as some angels did in the days of Abraham and Lot. Isn't that what some angels also did in Noah's day when they materialized to have sex with human women? They had been angels---spirit persons. And they de-materialized when the Flood came.

Let us look at this scripture:

Luke 24:39

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.�

Therefore the resurrection of Christ does not mean He rose again as a spirit It was His body that He had on earth but was now just glorified. Thomas put his finger through the hole in the wrist of Jesus that had a nail in it.

The angels mention did not have mortal bodies like Jesus had. They never were resurrected. We have mortal bodies and Jesus' resurrection shows us that even though we are mortal now, we shall be immortal when we resurrect.

A very important point was disregarded by you. If Jesus' crucified body had not risen from the dead, then the resurrection story about the empty tomb is a lie. His body should still have been in the tomb.

Paul said nothing in ICorinthians in direct reference to Gnostic beliefs, as you suggest. I don't know exactly all that the Gnostics believed, but if they believed that there is only a spiritual resurrection, then they were in agreement with Paul as far as what Paul said about the anointed Christians' resurrection. He wasn't "correcting" any idea like that. He was solely describing the resurrection of the chosen ones, the co-rulers with Christ. He said that there is no flesh in the heavenly realm of the Kingdom (verse 50) and went on to say that they would all have spirit bodies, as I quoted above.

But Paul was chastising them so therefore he was not in agreement with them:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?� 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

The Gnostics believe what you do:

For the Gnostic Christians, resurrection was also a spiritual event - simply the awakening of the soul. They believed that people who experience the resurrection can experience eternal life, or union with God, while on earth and then after death, escape rebirth. People who don't experience the resurrection and union with God on earth will reincarnate.



"People who say they will first die and then arise are mistaken. If they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once they have died they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip)



Paul was clearly chastising the Gnostic-like Corinthians. He told them their beliefs were foolish.

To elaborate further:

Kurt Rudolph explains the concept of resurrection in gnosticism, "For the Gnostic any resurrection of the dead was excluded from the outset; the flesh or the substance is destined to perish. 'There is no resurrection of the flesh, but only of the soul', say the so-called Archonites, a late Gnostic group in Palestine."(2)

http://www.seeking4truth.com/tongues_corinth.html

How can a glorified physical body be imperishable? How does any Scripture indicate that there are imperishable glorified physical bodies? Can you show this? To me, Paul drew a sharp line between perishable and imperishable bodies. You are combining them. What Scriptures back this up?

"...What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 3 "


Obviously the sown body is the body we have now. It is not the body to be in the future but the ones we have now. Therefore the physical body cannot be resurrected until it dies. The seed then gives way to a new form.

Paul did distinguish between the perishable and imperishable. But he also said, as mentioned above, that the perished sown body will be come to life in another form.

It obviously does not mean we will have original bodies. How could they? Bodies eventually disappear after death. Yet Jesus had the likeness of what we looked like on earth yet it became indestructible. He no longer looked scourged like he was.

To answer your last questions: Jehovah's Witnesses don't "pledge allegiance" to the WTS in so many words. We say that we recognize the WTS as Jehovah's organization on Earth, but our allegiance is to Jehovah and His appointed King Christ Jesus. We don't believe, either, that the WTS can "take away salvation." Only Jehovah can do that.

But they need to follow the rules of the WTS or be disowned. This is obeying every rule of the WTS. And it says that if one is disfellowed, then they lose their salvation therefore you are in disagreement with the WTS.

Sorry, Claire! I am surprised that I missed your post. I'm getting old, and keep having brain farts.

You asked where JWs get the idea of the 144,000. Paul didn't enumerate the co-rulers with Christ. He just talked about them and what they were going to do. We get the number from Revelation 7 and 14.

The Bible says that a body can be physical OR spirit. Did you have a chance to read I Corinthians 15:40-44? It couldn't be clearer. Am I correct in saying that you don't think a spirit person has a body? But what does Paul say there?

You are correct. When Jesus' co-rulers are resurrected to heavenly life in their spirit bodies, they are immortal, just as Christ is immortal.

You change a whole truth that has been shown to you from several scriptures by elaborating on what Jesus said to Thomas and the others after his resurrection. He obviously had to be a glorious spirit person again (as he was in heaven before he came to the earth) to get through a locked door. And what of the quite clear verses that I posted? Are we to rip them out of our Bibles?

"So also it is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving SPIRIT." (I Corinth.15:45, NASB)

"For Christ also died for sins once for all...having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the SPIRIT." (I Peter 3:18, NASB)


Also, did you forget that Paul explained that when the co-rulers are resurrected they would CHANGE? I guess Jesus' physical body changed itself right out of existence. He GAVE UP that physical human body FOR US. Do you appreciate that?

Who said that Paul was chastising the Gnostics? I don't know how you came up with anything in reference to the Gnostics. I commented about that, and I stand by what I said. And no, I don't believe what the Gnostics believe. Not at all. And you quote the "Gospel of Philip"? That's not in the Bible, and I don't recognize it as reliable.


Now, I've commented on your post, so will you now comment on my post #542? It goes into the subject that you bring up again in the post I just responded to.

[onewithhim]

Peace to you OWH,

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.

Perhaps some realize that they made a mistake, even after months upon months of serious study. Perhaps upon entering the religion, they see things that were not fully disclosed during their study period? Perhaps some see that the fruits that are supposed to be produced are absent? Perhaps some begin to see elders and leaders and the religion itself teaching and doing things that are not as Christ taught and did?

For instance, when I did my study, the df'ing (and reinstatement) process was barely touched upon, and it was described as necessary and good. Had I SEEN it in practice though (where people are literally shunned, not even greeted, and even after repenting, must prove their repentance to be be true, sit at the back of the meetings, still being shunned, for an average of a year), then I HOPE that would have woken me up (if I had joined).

Then there are also the change in teachings. New light so to speak, rendering former teachings untrue? Since we are supposed to be testing the inspired expressions, what if the wts comes out with that is against Christ and what He taught? Something that was not part of them at the first? Should someone remain in something that one can see is no longer in line with Christ? Or should one follow Christ?


Perhaps they were born into the religion... and had little opportunity to see with unbiased eyes being baptized, including that some were baptized while still very young (minors even).

For the same reasons that others will leave other religions (even after intense study), some might leave the jw religion.

(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?

A - should the WTS be requiring people to make a vow that requires association with or obedience to an organization? Were the apostles instructed to baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and in association with the apostles? Were they instructed to require people to make such a vow, themselves?


I'm not sure how the WTS baptism goes, or what the baptismal questions are. I have been told that even these have changed somewhat (but I don't remember what they once were or are now). Could you list them?

B - disassociation and disfellowshipping reap the same 'rewards' do they not? The announcement is the same either way, isn't it: so and so is no longer one of jehovahs witnesses?

C - perhaps the person in the religion wishes to bear witness to the truth that they have received with their loved ones (which would include those who have been their brothers and sisters in the organization)? And for not keeping silent about their disagreements, they are cautioned, perhaps marked, perhaps disfellowshipped.

I've noticed that most people don't get disfellowshiped for just disagreeing with doctrine.

Not if they keep it to themselves, no.

But I must ask the same question to you that I have asked to others: how do you know what people are getting df'd for when this is not supposed to be announced?

The person under discussion does not. So why not just leave the WTS and all of JWs alone?

One reason?

Love.

For mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, friends. Including elderly family members who require assistance in their daily lives. (In fact, some have said that they stay in and pretend to believe the wts, so that they can be available to help their aging parents.)

Love.

For Christ and for God. So that one does not hide their lamp, but places their lamp upon a stand for all to see.



Just some things to consider in addition to the one single reason and motives that you guys promote with regard to people who leave or who are df'd from your religion.




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

(1) The whole purpose of taking one's time to make up his mind to be baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses is so that he/she can do exactly what you said---see how things work and what goes on on an everyday basis, and the ability to see for themselves the fruits of the organization. It is a decision not to be taken lightly. So the people you know DIDN'T take their time to see what was going on in the congregations? That is odd. They committed to something very serious without really checking it out. I don't understand that. I checked it out before I got baptized. There were no new things that popped up for me after I got baptized. The people you know of were immature and unwise, to be so nonchalant about something so important.

You have talked about the changes in teachings over and over. I also have discussed that with you. I stand by what I said previously, and as I said recently, we will have to agree to disagree.

It is RARE for a minor to be baptized. It is a most serious and sacred step to take, and if a parent isn't a total toast-head, he wouldn't allow his child to take something so serious so lightly.


(2) Whether or not the WTS SHOULD is not the issue here. The WTS DOES. And a person knows that when he decides to get baptized. If he disagrees with what the WTS says, he shouldn't get baptized! It's that simple.

Yes, disassociation and disfellowshiping reap the same rewards. My point was---if someone is so disgusted with the organization after he has made his vow to God and the organization, why not just say, "I want out."? Why would he care that he would be shunned by all those people who he now thinks are so stupid?



I know what certain people have been disfellowshiped for because I knew them. It was not announced, but we see them in action. I have been privy to their conversations before they are actually announced as disfellowshiped. My late husband was good friends with a person who was disf'd and even before he was disf'd he would come over and say things about the organization, and he told my husband all about what he was doing as far as fornicating and stealing his tenants' money from social security checks. Another woman was my close friend, and in the end she admitted that she was having sex with a man besides her husband and she bragged about it in front of me and other people. She proudly uttered a little ditty that I had never heard before in completion: "Curiosity killed the cat; Satisfaction brought him back." I was astounded.


All you said about the people who stay in the religion just to take care of aging parents, etc., is out in left field. None of that makes any kind of sense to me. I can't even wrap my mind around it. And the business about disf'd people being upset because they LOVE the people still in the organization that really don't want to be there......help! I can't even figure out what on earth you can possibly see in that reasoning. I don't even know what you are saying. Please....I have given my thoughts on it and it doesn't do any good to keep beating the proverbial dead horse. LOVE has nothing to do with the venom that disf'd people spew out about the WTS. Nothing. That is a cop-out and a lie. They've got no integrity and neither are they being honest. They can't man-up or woman-up and accept responsibility for their own failings and lack of a spine.

[Claire Evans]

Response to post #470 by Claire Evans:

I don't know how many times I'll have to explain this....I thought that it has already been explained. That is, your comment on spirit bodies in relation to physical bodies. Paul said (ICorinthians 15) that there are physical bodies and then there are spirit bodies. "First the physical and then afterward the spirit." He was talking about those 144,000 that are called to be co-rulers with Christ. They first are humans with physical bodies, and then when they die they are to be resurrected (changed) as spirit persons.

You didn't clarify about the where you get the idea of 144 000 from. Did Paul say that?

A body is physical. There is no way around that.

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (ICorinth.15:42,44, NASB)

"Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (ICorinth.15:51,52, NASB)

Paul clearly informs his anointed brothers & sisters that they will CHANGE, not have some kind of physical body infused with spirit attributes and abilities. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus had a "spirit that entered his glorified body," as you stated. A spirit that has consciousness and separates from a body at death is not taught in the Bible. The spirit that "returns to the true God" is the breath of life that God gives to every living creature. So what would that "spirit" be that "entered his [Jesus'] glorified body"?

But a body being imperishable means it is immortal. It cannot be destroyed. That doesn't mean we don't have physical bodies anymore and are just spirits. According to the Bible, Jesus took on all of our sins and thus there was no Holy Spirit in Him. When He conquered death and sin and was raised from the dead, He had the Holy Spirit in Him. The Holy Spirit rose Him from the dead.

The glorified body was actually a SPIRIT body that could materialize as some angels did in the days of Abraham and Lot. Isn't that what some angels also did in Noah's day when they materialized to have sex with human women? They had been angels---spirit persons. And they de-materialized when the Flood came.

Let us look at this scripture:

Luke 24:39

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.�

Therefore the resurrection of Christ does not mean He rose again as a spirit It was His body that He had on earth but was now just glorified. Thomas put his finger through the hole in the wrist of Jesus that had a nail in it.

The angels mention did not have mortal bodies like Jesus had. They never were resurrected. We have mortal bodies and Jesus' resurrection shows us that even though we are mortal now, we shall be immortal when we resurrect.

A very important point was disregarded by you. If Jesus' crucified body had not risen from the dead, then the resurrection story about the empty tomb is a lie. His body should still have been in the tomb.

Paul said nothing in ICorinthians in direct reference to Gnostic beliefs, as you suggest. I don't know exactly all that the Gnostics believed, but if they believed that there is only a spiritual resurrection, then they were in agreement with Paul as far as what Paul said about the anointed Christians' resurrection. He wasn't "correcting" any idea like that. He was solely describing the resurrection of the chosen ones, the co-rulers with Christ. He said that there is no flesh in the heavenly realm of the Kingdom (verse 50) and went on to say that they would all have spirit bodies, as I quoted above.

But Paul was chastising them so therefore he was not in agreement with them:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?� 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

The Gnostics believe what you do:

For the Gnostic Christians, resurrection was also a spiritual event - simply the awakening of the soul. They believed that people who experience the resurrection can experience eternal life, or union with God, while on earth and then after death, escape rebirth. People who don't experience the resurrection and union with God on earth will reincarnate.



"People who say they will first die and then arise are mistaken. If they do not first receive resurrection while they are alive, once they have died they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip)



Paul was clearly chastising the Gnostic-like Corinthians. He told them their beliefs were foolish.

To elaborate further:

Kurt Rudolph explains the concept of resurrection in gnosticism, "For the Gnostic any resurrection of the dead was excluded from the outset; the flesh or the substance is destined to perish. 'There is no resurrection of the flesh, but only of the soul', say the so-called Archonites, a late Gnostic group in Palestine."(2)

http://www.seeking4truth.com/tongues_corinth.html

How can a glorified physical body be imperishable? How does any Scripture indicate that there are imperishable glorified physical bodies? Can you show this? To me, Paul drew a sharp line between perishable and imperishable bodies. You are combining them. What Scriptures back this up?

"...What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 3 "


Obviously the sown body is the body we have now. It is not the body to be in the future but the ones we have now. Therefore the physical body cannot be resurrected until it dies. The seed then gives way to a new form.

Paul did distinguish between the perishable and imperishable. But he also said, as mentioned above, that the perished sown body will be come to life in another form.

It obviously does not mean we will have original bodies. How could they? Bodies eventually disappear after death. Yet Jesus had the likeness of what we looked like on earth yet it became indestructible. He no longer looked scourged like he was.

To answer your last questions: Jehovah's Witnesses don't "pledge allegiance" to the WTS in so many words. We say that we recognize the WTS as Jehovah's organization on Earth, but our allegiance is to Jehovah and His appointed King Christ Jesus. We don't believe, either, that the WTS can "take away salvation." Only Jehovah can do that.

But they need to follow the rules of the WTS or be disowned. This is obeying every rule of the WTS. And it says that if one is disfellowed, then they lose their salvation therefore you are in disagreement with the WTS.

Sorry, Claire! I am surprised that I missed your post. I'm getting old, and keep having brain farts.

You asked where JWs get the idea of the 144,000. Paul didn't enumerate the co-rulers with Christ. He just talked about them and what they were going to do. We get the number from Revelation 7 and 14.

But don't Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the 144 000 will only be Jehovah's Witnesses and they only will go to heaven?

"The “Jehovah’s Witnesses� have almost no concept of the distinction between the literal and the figurative language in the Bible. And so, they literalize the number 144,000 in these two contexts, and ridiculously argue that only 144,000 people will gain heaven.

A Watchtower publication states that “the final number of the heavenly church will be 144,000, according to God’s decree� (Let God Be True, p. 113). The balance of saved humanity, they contend, will live on God’s glorified earth.

It should be noted that the term “thousand� is used nineteen times in the book of Revelation, but not once is it employed literally in this document.


Others, like J. W. Roberts (biblical scholar), felt that this company is spiritual Israel, i.e., the church (71). Some think this group represents the martyrs who have given their lives for the cause of Christ.

Be that as it may, it is generally acknowledged that:

“The number is obviously symbolic. 12 (the number of the tribes) is both squared and multiplied by 1,000 — a twofold way of emphasizing completeness� (Mounce, 168).

https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... n-7-and-14

We need to realize that number 144 000 is not limited to Revelation but other ancient figures who preceded Jesus:

In Tutankhamen's sun necklace, the numbers 144 000 and 666 are encoded.

The carving of Lord Pacal had 144 000 on his forehead encoded also.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=D3F ... 00&f=false

The Bible says that a body can be physical OR spirit. Did you have a chance to read I Corinthians 15:40-44? It couldn't be clearer. Am I correct in saying that you don't think a spirit person has a body? But what does Paul say there?"

Of course I believe that a spirit body, or a glorified one, has a physical one, too! Jesus look at Jesus. He had a glorified body but it came from the body He had!

Paul said that in order for a body to come to life, it must be die in first. We aren't going to have the real bodies while we had on earth but Paul is suggesting we will have our likeness, just perfected.

You are correct. When Jesus' co-rulers are resurrected to heavenly life in their spirit bodies, they are immortal, just as Christ is immortal.

So only 144 000 are going to heaven? No Paul, for example?

You change a whole truth that has been shown to you from several scriptures by elaborating on what Jesus said to Thomas and the others after his resurrection. He obviously had to be a glorious spirit person again (as he was in heaven before he came to the earth) to get through a locked door. And what of the quite clear verses that I posted? Are we to rip them out of our Bibles?

"So also it is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving SPIRIT." (I Corinth.15:45, NASB)

Yes, the key is "living". He had a physical body which had a soul. Like we do today.

Commentary:

the last Adam was made a quickening spirit:
by "the last Adam" is meant Jesus Christ, called Adam, because he is really and truly a man, a partaker of the same flesh and blood as the rest of mankind; and because he is the antitype of the first man Adam, who was a figure of him that was to come; and therefore called Adam, for the same reason as he is called David and Solomon: he is said to be "the last", in distinction from the first Adam, with respect to him he stood, (Nwrxa) , last upon the earth, as in ( Job 19:25 ) to which passage some think the apostle here alludes; and because he appeared in the last days in the end of the world, and is the last that shall rise up as a common head and representative of the whole, or any part of mankind: now he is made "a quickening spirit"; which some understand of the Holy Spirit, which filled the human nature of Christ, raised him from the dead, and will quicken our mortal bodies at the last day; others of the divine nature of Christ, to which his flesh, or human nature, was united; and which gave life, rigour, and virtue, to all his actions and sufferings, as man; and by which he was quickened, when put to death in the flesh, and by which he will quicken others another day: though rather I think it is to be understood of his spiritual body, of his body, not as it was made of the virgin, for that was a natural, or an animal one; it was conceived and bred, and born as animal bodies are; it grew and increased, and was nourished with meat and drink, and sleep and rest; and was subject to infirmities, and to death itself, as our bodies be; but it is to be understood of it as raised from the dead, when it was made a spiritual body, for which reason it is called a "spirit": not that it was changed into a spirit, for it still remained flesh and blood; but because it was no more supported in an animal way; nor subject to those weaknesses that animal bodies are, but lives as spirits, or angels do; and a quickening one, not only because it has life itself, but because by virtue of the saints' union to it, as it subsists in the divine person of the Son of God, their bodies will be quickened at the last day, and made like unto it, spiritual bodies; also because he lives in his body as a spiritual one, they shall live in theirs as spiritual ones: and so the apostle shows, that there is a spiritual, as well as an animal body; that as the first man's body, even before the fall, was an animal or natural one; the last Adam's body upon his resurrection is a spiritual and life giving one, as the Syriac version renders it; so the Cabalistic writers F2 speak of

``Adam; who is the holy and supreme, who rules over all, and gives spirit and life to all.''

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commenta ... 15-45.html

"For Christ also died for sins once for all...having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the SPIRIT." (I Peter 3:18, NASB)

Did Jesus not have a spirit body which comprised of His old one, too? I'm getting frustrated that no one is answering my question on the empty tomb. Do you believe the empty tomb account is false?

Also, did you forget that Paul explained that when the co-rulers are resurrected they would CHANGE? I guess Jesus' physical body changed itself right out of existence. He GAVE UP that physical human body FOR US. Do you appreciate that?

Who said that Paul was chastising the Gnostics? I don't know how you came up with anything in reference to the Gnostics. I commented about that, and I stand by what I said. And no, I don't believe what the Gnostics believe. Not at all. And you quote the "Gospel of Philip"? That's not in the Bible, and I don't recognize it as reliable.

Can you give me scripture which says only the 144 000 will be resurrected?

Please read my comments properly. Did He not call the Corinthians foolish?

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?� 36 How foolish!

You do believe what the Gnostic believe regarding the resurrection of Christ:

In light of these differences, the significance of Jesus’ literal and physical resurrection should be clear. For the Gnostic who abhors matter and seeks release from its grim grip, the physical resurrection of Jesus would be anticlimactic, if not absurd. A material resurrection would be counterproductive and only recapitulate the original problem.

Therefore they do not believe that Jesus' physical body resurrected. Is this your belief?

He is an interview with a Gnostic Christian:

Matt: Jesus said he would raise his body in John 2:19-21 . . . he retained the scars after his resurrection. it was the same body. 1 Cor. 15:20-581 speaks of a resurrected body. It is different, yet it is the same body--only resurrected.

Gnostic: It also speaks of two bodies, a spiritual body and a physical body.

Matt: Yes . . . but take it with all of the Bible . . . they are the same thing . . . like a butterfly was once a caterpillar . . . they are they same life--only transformed.

Gnostic: Yes, I would agree with you absolutely that that is what Paul is ultimately teaching. I am just using his metaphor as a jumping-off point but I would go beyond it and say that they are two different things.

Matt: But to do that is an error . . . I mean no offense. Jesus said he'd raise the same body he died in. He did.

Gnostic: And that resurrection can only take place when the spirit is free from the flesh, free from the pain and the pleasures of physical existence . . . and that separation of spirit from flesh at the crucifixion is how a Gnostic would describe Jesus' resurrection.

Matt: He retained the scars . . . it was the same body . . . yet he was able to do 'weird' stuff.
Gnostic: Not a resurrection of a mass of flesh and sinful temptations, but an rising of the spirit up out of the physical nature.

Matt: That isn't what Jesus said about his own body. Why would it be different for others? He is, after all, the first-fruits of the resurrection.

Gnostic: Yes! and just as he shed physicality and arose as a "life-giving" spirit, so will we . . . he is the prototype of our "resurrection", of our ascension past the flesh.

Matt: But, he rose in the same physical body he died in. John 2:19-21 prophesied that. Jesus said it.

Gnostic: No, but Gnostics never accepted most of the canonical scriptures as actually being the word of God.

Please answer, do you agree with the answer of this Gnostic Christian?

https://carm.org/discussion-gnostic-jesus-resurrection

Now, I've commented on your post, so will you now comment on my post #542? It goes into the subject that you bring up again in the post I just responded to.

It's post 460.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=450

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 543 by Claire Evans]

Quite the slippery answer. It is not what asked for.

Context doesn't change the fact that "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

I will ask once more. Do you agree that the above should be enforced? Only yes or no answers, anything else will be considered evading the question.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 545 by tam]

I said that there was no true religion.

There is only Truth: Christ.

Just so we are clear, you're saying that 12 apostles were not practicing the true religion? I'm not sure you know what word religion means.

Religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

So you're saying that Jesus' followers did not serve and worship God, they didn't commitment or devote themselves to a certain faith or observance? You're off the reservation if you have convinced yourself that all those 1st century Christians were not devoted to a particular service and worship to God. I mean what else do you call a group of people that all follow the same faith and devotion? In the first century they even had a name for that group who followed that certain faith. Christians. Yet you still claim that those Christians did have the true religion? Then what did they have? A false religion?

This is responded to in the post above, with regard to leaders, elders, etc. I have nothing more to add at this time, except that of course we are also to be our brother's keepers.

If you agree you are to be your brother's keeper, when one your brothers leaves the teachings of Jesus do you enforce the following, "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

Yes or no answer please.

[marco]

Question for debate, why can't all of these groups rightly be considered "Christian"?

I think Christianity is characterised by love rather than hostility. I've just read the testimony of a very intelligent former member of the JW organisation. Because he no longer accepted their views, his own family wrote letters to him cutting him off. How very, very sad that a faith can do this to families.

Jesus tells us that we will know the tree by its fruit and if the fruit brings out dissension in families and unforgiving attitudes, what can we say of the tree?

[2timothy316]

Question for debate, why can't all of these groups rightly be considered "Christian"?

I think Christianity is characterised by love rather than hostility. I've just read the testimony of a very intelligent former member of the JW organisation. Because he no longer accepted their views, his own family wrote letters to him cutting him off. How very, very sad that a faith can do this to families.

Jesus tells us that we will know the tree by its fruit and if the fruit brings out dissension in families and unforgiving attitudes, what can we say of the tree?

“Everyone, then, who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in the heavens. But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." Matt 10:32-36

Indeed we will know a tree by it's fruits.
Do you agree the scripture above to be true? Your answer will reveal what fruit you yield.

Also, your friend, what did he not accept anymore?

[marco]

“Everyone, then, who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in the heavens. But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." Matt 10:32-36

I thought you might quote this passage but I was hoping you would not. It is certainly contentious and is used to place Christ in a dark light. Were someone to suggest that I should split from my daughter, I would certainly move away from such wicked advice. As for making an enemy of one's parents, this is against the commandment of the Decalogue.

Various interpretations of Christ's meaning are possible; the nicest perhaps is that he had come to show LOVE, to demonstrate that instead of hating our neighbour we should befriend them. This is his core teaching. But they would meet resistance, and in return for love would find hatred, even death, and this metaphorically is what he means by the split up of bonds we usually rely on. Christ urged Peter not to think in terms of the perishable. But underlining everything is his advice about giving a cup of water in his name. Christ did not advocate cruel division; he merely pointed out that the road to perfect love was thorny.


The person wasn't a friend. I was reading posts here and noticed one referring to ex-clergy who needed support. I read some of the stories of people who had moved from the faith they had been deeply involved with, and one was a JW. Here's the reference.
Go well.

http://clergyproject.org/about-the-clergy-project/