Aren't Jehovah's Witnesses people truthful witnesses?

[paarsurrey1]

Aren't Jehovah's Witnesses people truthful witnesses, please?

1 Corinthians

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God* that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
http://biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/15.htm

Jesus did not die on the Cross, he survived, so as per Paul's own argument Pauline-Christianity's "faith is futile". Right, please?
Please correct me if I am wrong with reasonable arguments.
________
*Jehovah

This entails that the Jehovah-Witnesses' people who believe in Paul and the Pauline-Christianity, are false witnesses as long as, and if they have no concrete evidence/s of Jesus, not dying on the Cross.Right, please?
Please correct me if I am wrong with reasonable arguments.

Regards

[tam]

Peace to you timothy!

Peace to you timothy,

[Replying to post 65 by 2timothy316]

It's not the mistakes that a religion makes that I personally look at. Religions are made up of people and since there are no perfect people there are no perfect religions. However, what that group of people do when they have been proven to make a mistake is highly important to me. Even when it comes to my personal friendships, what a person does after they make a mistake is also very important to me.

So when a religion is still trying to push Hellfire even though it has been shown to be unsupported by the Bible, to me this is way more unacceptable than people getting a date for the Day of Jehovah wrong.

And what about false doctrines that the WTS pushes that are not supported by the bible (nor by Christ - that are in fact refuted by Christ directly)?

For instance, the two-hope doctrine: a doctrine that we can KNOW is wrong because it is used to convince people that they should disobey Christ.

Apparently you don't understand what the Bible teaches therefore do not understand what JWs teach.

I suppose I could be mistaken that the two-hope doctrine is a 'reason' that the WTS teaches (the majority of) its members not to partake of the body and blood of Christ. But the two things are at least connected, yes?

And although you did not address it, that was the point: the WTS teaching people not to eat or drink of the body and blood of Christ. From my post:

****

Christ who says, 'keep doing this (eating and drinking of his body and blood) in remembrance of me'; where the WTS says that most Christians are NOT to eat or drink of Him.

But how can that be?!

Did Christ not say to His apostles, 'Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you."


He told them to eat and drink of His body and blood, yes? So why are people listening to a religion now telling them to do the exact opposite?


*****

I am pretty sure that I have seen you recently use this exact same reasoning for someone else advocating not doing something that Christ commanded. Yet you stop applying that same reasoning when it comes to your own religion, why?


Christ commanded the apostles to do something and to keep doing it. He then told them to go and make disciples of all nations and teach those disciples to do everything that He commanded them (the apostles). Hence, those disciples would have done and taught the same, and so on, and so on, and so on...

I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd. (John 10:16)

Both folds listen to Jesus' voice so your statement above is incorrect about what we teach and you are misrepresenting what JWs teach on purpose or you still can't grasp it.

So everyone in the WTS does partake of the body and blood of Christ as He commanded His sheep to do?

At any rate, what you are calling false is your opinion because you are falsely saying that you know, but saying that you know is not true. You can only have an opinion because the proof will not come until the Great Tribulation then we will really know who is right and who is wrong.

So if you think everyone is just giving their opinion (including yours right here), why in the world would you (or anyone) listen to someone or something over Christ, Himself? Did Christ not say that those who love HIM will obey HIS commands?


How can anything true teach disobedience to Christ (the TRUTH)?




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

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

Jehovah's Witnesses pretty much believe the following:

The Bible is clear there are two groups. One that is numbered and one that is not.

Agreed... although the one group (the 144 000) is part of the other group ...

To be clear, there are indeed two such groups: some who reign with Christ (the Bride, the Body of Christ, all of whom who take part in the first resurrection); and some who enter as subjects of the Kingdom.

This pretty much sums up the Jehovah's Witness "two group" belief (although we don't call it two groups (as you TAM do) we believe in "one flock". So when and how did you TAM come up with your "two group" doctrine? One that reigns (rules/is over) and one the subject (sub meaning "under" in English)?



JW

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

Jehovah's Witnesses pretty much believe the following:

The Bible is clear there are two groups. One that is numbered and one that is not.

Agreed... although the one group (the 144 000) is part of the other group ...

To be clear, there are indeed two such groups: some who reign with Christ (the Bride, the Body of Christ, all of whom who take part in the first resurrection); and some who enter as subjects of the Kingdom.

This pretty much sums up the Jehovah's Witness "two group" belief (although we don't call it two groups (as you TAM do) we believe in "one flock".

Thank you for the explanation. Whoever I was responding TO claimed that the bible states there are two groups. Since I'm not sure where this quote is from, I don't know if I was responding to a JW member of this forum or not.


I know it sounds the same as your theology as it is written above; but I think the similarity ends at one group of people reigning as kings and priests and another group being the subjects of that Kingdom.

Regardless, the point of my post on this thread was with regard to the command Christ gave to eat and to drink of Him.

So when and how did you TAM come up with your "two group" doctrine? One that reigns (rules/is over) and one the subject (sub meaning "under" in English)?

That there are those (the Body/Bride of Christ) who reign as kings and priests with Christ in his kingdom is not my doctrine. Christ is the one who teaches it; and I believe we both know that Revelation records this quite specifically.


As for some people being subjects of the Kingdom - the reasoning seems sound that if some reign as kings and priests in the Kingdom; then some are subjects of the Kingdom. But sound reasoning or not... I learned from my Lord (Christ Jaheshua) who those subjects were: those people of the nations (not Christians) who reveal that the law of love is written naturally upon their hearts; who have unknowingly done good to Christ by having done good to even the least ones of his brothers (as described in the sheep and the goats parable).

Why would He have taught me who these subjects were, if there were no subjects to begin with?


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

[JehovahsWitness]

Thank you for the explanation. [...]

No, thank YOU, they are after all your words I quoted not mine.

[...] I know it sounds the same as your theology as it is written above but I think the similarity ends at one group of people reigning as kings and priests and another group being the subjects of that Kingdom. [...] That there are those (the Body/Bride of Christ) who reign as kings and priests with Christ in his kingdom is not my doctrine. Christ is the one who teaches it

Well I personally like to concentrate on what holds us together rather than what divides us; you say that this "two group" doctine is based on the bible, so thank you again for that affirmation, and the additional explanations you here provide.


JW

[brianbbs67]

What or who are the WTS? Not familiar.

[JehovahsWitness]

What or who are the WTS? Not familiar.

The WTS stands for The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, this is the a publishing company run by Jehovah's Witnesses used to produce bibles and bible based literature.

click the picture to enlarge


Read more...
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... r-society/

Regards,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS



FURTHER READING: Jehovah's Witnesses Who Are We?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/vide ... -we-intro/

RELATED POSTS

What is the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 41#p898341

What year as the WBTS formed?
viewtopic.php?p=1022875#p1022875

Are all of Jehovahs Witnesses part of the Watchtower Society? [WTS]
viewtopic.php?p=1045242#p1045242

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 76 by JehovahsWitness]


OK, I wondered about the"S". I could see the Watch Tower. As to the subject at hand, there will always be people over and under us. So that doesn't bother me. Thinking one is the Elect does. I humble myself to the Lord and let Him assign my station. Your church, once it had gathered 144,000 members went to the current doctrine of 2 groups. "a new vision was received." Which could be possible , but like the Mormons, probably isn't. In fact what the bible tells us is, we don't know the true path to Him and never will. We don't know completely who wrote it. We don't know if its inspired or conveneint. The end result is we don't know. So, to claim such is something everyone has done, ad naseum. Doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong.

Last thought, the paths are many, the gate is narrow , but, we have a gate. I don't think there is one path, but many, and we all come to the gate. Thank God for the gate.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]



"He told them to eat and drink of His body and blood, yes? So why are people listening to a religion now telling them to do the exact opposite? "

Sounds rather crass drinking blood and eating human flesh. Jesus did not put it those words - He broke the bread which 'represented' His body also the wine which 'represented' His blood.

If this is not part of people's belief system they certainly should not partake.
it would be mockery of something considered holy by its representation.

[JehovahsWitness]

If this is not part of people's belief system they certainly should not partake.
it would be mockery of something considered holy by its representation.

I agree it shouldn't be something done ritualistically or out of habit but in full consciousness and in accord with ones beliefs. Too many people don't take their religion seriously, or just go through rituals for ritual's sake.

People should be free to make religious choices.

Personal opinion,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[tam]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]



"He told them to eat and drink of His body and blood, yes? So why are people listening to a religion now telling them to do the exact opposite? " - tam

Sounds rather crass drinking blood and eating human flesh. Jesus did not put it those words - He broke the bread which 'represented' His body also the wine which 'represented' His blood. - monta

Actually He did put it exactly in those words. Your reaction to them seems to be similar to the reaction of the disciples at that time.


Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

John 6:53-56


Many of His disciples turned away from Him after this, not truly having had faith in Him. Because the apostles truly had faith and remained with Him, they learned that He was going to give them bread and wine that meant His body and blood.

If this is not part of people's belief system they certainly should not partake.
it would be mockery of something considered holy by its representation.

Christ is the One who said to do this (eat and drink of Him), and to keep doing it in remembrance of Him. A religious organization is telling people to do the exact opposite; teaching people to disobey Christ; making this false teaching a part of their belief system.

Now, who or what people choose to believe and to obey is entirely up to them. I have only pointed out what Christ said to do.

As He also said, "He who is faithful in what is least is also faithful in much." Luke 16:10


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