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?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 246 by 2timothy316]

Very well then. However, I would encourage you to follow the moderator's suggestion and not use this as a platform to snipping away at those of us coming out of higher education. The minute I see that kind of thing I automatically write it off as some sort of anti-intellectual propoganda that isn't worth bothering with. So let's get down to business.

You asked what sources I used and the list is rather long to type out here. To name a few, I mention the NT, gnostic gospels, early Christian writings such as First and Second Clement, the Shepherd of Hermes, early Christian thinkers such as Aristides, the Montanists, Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch, Arius, Plotinus, Novatian, Hippolytus, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, etc. All told, my dissertation used over three hundred major sources. And I'm not about to type out the bibliography here.

Then explain the Arian controversy as you learned it from your sources.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 249 by 2timothy316]

The Arian controversy was a direct result of the incorporation of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection, which enshrined the immune and the immutable, into the early Christian community. From the scattered excerpts that remain of Arius' writings, it is obvious that his primary objective was to establish firmly the unity, simplicity, and radical aloofness of the immutable Godhead. Hence, Arius stated that "as monad and beginning of all so God is before all. Wherefore he is also before the Son. The monad was, but the dyad was not before it came to be." To Arius and his followers, change and suffering demote and degrade God. Thus, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria noted that "the Arians remember all the passages concerning the Savior's passion, both the humiliation, the emptying, and what is called his impoverishment...but of those sayings which are indicative of his nature and glory and nobility and unity with God, they are forgetful." Athanasius makes a similar point, stating, "Because of his coming down...and looking on him as suffering...they did not believe him to be the incorruptible Son of the incorruptible Father." Hence, the Arians ask, "How do you dare to say that the one having a body is the proper Word of the Father's essence, so that he endured such a thing as this? How is he able to be Logos or God who slept as a man, wept, and had to learn by inquiry?" Ironically, the traditional response to such objections also stressed the radical aloofness of God, adding that Christ had two separate, independent natures, one human, one God. The human nature suffered and changed, whereas the God part remained impassible and immutable.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 246 by 2timothy316]

Very well then. However, I would encourage you to follow the moderator's suggestion and not use this as a platform to snipping away at those of us coming out of higher education.

Moderator Clarification

My intervention applied to you as well. Please refrain from assuming the role, or commenting on moderator action. Better just to just abide by the rules and moderator decisions.Or contact the moderation team via PM or report.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[arian]

[Replying to post 249 by 2timothy316]

The Arian controversy was a direct result of the incorporation of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection, which enshrined the immune and the immutable, into the early Christian community. From the scattered excerpts that remain of Arius' writings, it is obvious that his primary objective was to establish firmly the unity, simplicity, and radical aloofness of the immutable Godhead. Hence, Arius stated that "as monad and beginning of all so God is before all. Wherefore he is also before the Son. The monad was, but the dyad was not before it came to be." To Arius and his followers, change and suffering demote and degrade God. Thus, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria noted that "the Arians remember all the passages concerning the Savior's passion, both the humiliation, the emptying, and what is called his impoverishment...but of those sayings which are indicative of his nature and glory and nobility and unity with God, they are forgetful." Athanasius makes a similar point, stating, "Because of his coming down...and looking on him as suffering...they did not believe him to be the incorruptible Son of the incorruptible Father." Hence, the Arians ask, "How do you dare to say that the one having a body is the proper Word of the Father's essence, so that he endured such a thing as this? How is he able to be Logos or God who slept as a man, wept, and had to learn by inquiry?" Ironically, the traditional response to such objections also stressed the radical aloofness of God, adding that Christ had two separate, independent natures, one human, one God. The human nature suffered and changed, whereas the God part remained impassible and immutable.

So what exactly are you saying? Do you believe Jesus was God?

Thanks hoghead1.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 252 by arian]

Yes, I hold with the Trinity. However, that doesn't mean I agree with all models of the Trinity. One of the problems I have with Watchtower material is that it just speaks of the Trinity, lumps all Trinitarian thinkers together. It fails to address the fact there are many models or theories of the Trinity. There is no Trinity (singular). There are Trinities. There is the immanent theory of the Trinity, the economic Theory of the Trinity, the social theory of the Trinity, the modal theory of the Trinity, the psychological theory of the Trinity, the process theory of the Trinity, the relational theory of the Trinity, to name but a few. And then each of these models has different variants. It would be off the OP and too complicated for me to go into any further detail here, other than saying some Trinitarian thinking I disagree with, others I agree with. I have no doubt that the Trinity is rooted in Scripture. But Scripture is not a book of systematic theory or metaphysics. The Bible really tells us very little about how God is built, so t speak. What we get are snap shots of God as he or she is in his or her own essence, and these snap shots often seem to conflict. It's up to us to piece all this together into a unified whole, which isn't easy.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 249 by 2timothy316]

The Arian controversy was a direct result of the incorporation of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection, which enshrined the immune and the immutable, into the early Christian community. From the scattered excerpts that remain of Arius' writings, it is obvious that his primary objective was to establish firmly the unity, simplicity, and radical aloofness of the immutable Godhead. Hence, Arius stated that "as monad and beginning of all so God is before all. Wherefore he is also before the Son. The monad was, but the dyad was not before it came to be." To Arius and his followers, change and suffering demote and degrade God. Thus, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria noted that "the Arians remember all the passages concerning the Savior's passion, both the humiliation, the emptying, and what is called his impoverishment...but of those sayings which are indicative of his nature and glory and nobility and unity with God, they are forgetful." Athanasius makes a similar point, stating, "Because of his coming down...and looking on him as suffering...they did not believe him to be the incorruptible Son of the incorruptible Father." Hence, the Arians ask, "How do you dare to say that the one having a body is the proper Word of the Father's essence, so that he endured such a thing as this? How is he able to be Logos or God who slept as a man, wept, and had to learn by inquiry?" Ironically, the traditional response to such objections also stressed the radical aloofness of God, adding that Christ had two separate, independent natures, one human, one God. The human nature suffered and changed, whereas the God part remained impassible and immutable.

Then you realize that this violent conflict was the turning point between what Christianity used to teach and what it teaches today?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 254 by 2timothy316]

I'm puzzled how you came up with that idea because it does not at all fit with the actual history of Christianity. I suspect you have fallen victim to the Watchtower propaganda machine, which claims that there was first a united, Jehovah's Witness church, which was later torn apart by the mean, nasty Trinitarians. Forget, forget all the Watchtower propaganda. Let's get down to the historical facts of the matter. While we are all in the habit of speaking of the early church and early Christianity, this is largely a myth. There was no early Christianity; there were Christianities. We area accustomed to thinking of only four gospels, but we really don't know how many there originally were. There could have been 40 or more. Who knows? In the 1940's, we found around 42 Christian gnostic gospels that tell a radically different story of the life of Christ. We are dealing with originally are a number of sects which often feud among themselves. We find that in the letters of Paul, who is continually battling with other Christian movements that he feels deviate from his teachings. We find that in the first-hand sources, which present many conflicting viewpoints. Marcion, for example, is said to have taken a pair of scissors and cut out the OT. Irenaeus insists there are only four gospels, explaining that some Christian sects follow only one gospel, whereas others seem to follow more than just four. Constantine may well have sought to bring order to this chaos, but he achieved that only in part. After he died, his son came to power and then promptly dumped the Creed, embracing Arianism. Later on, Emperor Julian once complained that Christians fight among themselves like wild animals. St. Augustine was involved with at least three major schisms within the Christian world. Truth is, Christianity has never been a monolithic religion, just one way. It has always been a plurality, a rich tapestry of divergent viewpoints that often conflict with one another.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 254 by 2timothy316]

I'm puzzled how you came up with that idea because it does not at all fit with the actual history of Christianity.

Where? You're kidding right?

From the New World Encyclopedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Arianism

An excerpt: "The controversy involved not only emperors, priests, and bishops, but also simple believers throughout the Christian empire. Bitter disputes among popular church leaders led to mob violence and political turmoil, and thus Emperor Constantine was moved to convene the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325."

Do you deny the above? Yes or no answer please. Anything other than a yes or no will be accepted as a no.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 256 by 2timothy316]

I don't think we may be on the same page here at all. So I'll try and clarify. First off, however, you post sounds a bit like Stevenson yelling at the Russians: "A simple yes or no answer will do. Don't wait for the translation. Just answer yes or no" Please, I'm not the Russians during the Missile Crisis.

If you agree with me that the early church or Christianity is a misnomer, that we're dealing with Christianities, then we're on the same page. If you agree with me that Constantine, at Nicaea, represented the earliest attempt to unify Christianity on the subject of the Deity of Christ and certain other matters, then we are also on the same page. If, however, you are trying to argue that Constantine succeeded, that that was that, case closed, then we are not on the same page. The debate over the Deity of Christ has persisted right up to the present. When Constantine died, his son reinstated Arianism, which flourished among the northern tribes up through the sixth century. Gnosticism also flourished up through the Middle Ages, and there are still strong residuals of it today. Again, we often talk about Christianity (singular), the church (singular), but really we should speak of Christianities. The Christian religion has always been a plurality of diverse POV's. That's why we have so many different churches and denominations.

[arian]

Or can someone here, those of you who have read and studied the Bible for all them years, .. PLEASE explain to me where I have failed to distinguish our God who rules from Heaven He calls His home, and His Son Word in the Bible, from the Deities who divine their half truths and lies from the supernatural realm, that you guys worship!?

Well, I don't know who you are addressing when you say "you guys" are so obviously I cannot speak for them, but I'm happy to share what I know about the bible, maybe it can be of some help. Firstly, lets identify the parties concerned shall we.

-- You refer to "our God that rules from heaven" does this God (in the heavens) in your opinion have a NAME? Yes or No?

Sorry for the late response JW, please forgive me, I'm trying to catch up.

You cannot name someone you, or anyone (including His Son Word AKA Jesus Christ - and earned many other names) has never seen, nor can be seen.

I also refer to, or know my Infinite, Eternal Creator Spirit/Mind "I Am" as: "My Lord and my God" and to His Son Jesus as "my Lord and Savior" because God has raised him above all principalities and powers.
Jesus is now "King of kings, and Lord of lords" and His Father remains the only Lord/God/YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh/"I Am" for there is no other God besides Him! Any other god/gods, no matter what their names, are imitations, with terrible limitations.

-- If yes, has he in your opinion revealed this name to anyone past or present?

Exodus 6:3 And God spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am the Lord.

- Wait, .. what did the Bible writer just say: "And God spoke to Moses"?? .. how could he refer to Jehovah simply as God, when Moses knew very well there were thousands of God/gods out there!? Boy, Moses would not be welcomed in the Watchtower that's for sure, not unless he accepts the Watchtower god Jehovah first, right?

Exodus 3:6 Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.� And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

See that, .. God, God, God, .. and not Jehovah of your fathers Abraham, Isaak and Jacob.

... 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Lord I was not known to them. 4 I have also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, in which they were strangers.

Also keep in mind that God appeared to Moses "As a Fiery Angel" in a bush, and NOT as Jehovah, but a Fiery Angel. So the next time someone sees a Fiery Angel, or an Angel of Fire, are we to call him Jehovah?

-- If yes, do we have any idea what it might be today?

Let me guess, .. Jehovah? No wait, the American Jews refer to Him as G_d, I refer to Him as my Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am", since you cannot have another Infinite besides "I Am", and for me, this will be seared into my heart, soul and mind, this will be His name forever, just as He told Moses.

Exodus 6:13 Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?�

14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.� And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’� 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

Remember, once you "name" Infinite, .. not just refer to Him by a descriptive name, but actually put a name on God, He is no longer the Only possible; Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit God "I Am"! With a name, an actual name like we give to our children and pets, .. He is just another god from the tens of thousands of gods, backed up by each of the tens of thousands of religions out there!

The answers to the above will go a long way to help identify where you {quote} "have failed to distinguish" between two (or more) entities.

JW

So you worship a god named Jehovah, .. that's nice! Here is Jesus, you can meet him in person in Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cv5hZfOmk
Just ask him and the thousands of his followers all around the world as to what is his name?

Also, .. I asked if your God/god is a Deity who lives in the supernatural realm or not, you haven't answer yet!?

May my God, the Infinite and Eternal Creator "I Am", whose Throne and Home is in Heaven, .. through His Only Begotten Son Word, who is also now called Jesus Christ (not a created Cherubim, even though there are those winged Cherubim in Gods Heaven, only none of them are; Gods Only Begotten Son) bless you my friend!