The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why should anyone explain their beliefs to you?

If they want anyone else to believe them, then they very much have some explaining to do. Very, very much.

And from what I have heard/read/experienced, JW's VERY MUCH want others to also believe their tripe. And so yes... yes they do need to explain. They have an expectation, and so theirs is the responsibility.

 

[thomas t]

But Jesus warned that the devil would sow "weeds" of false Christianity in the same "field" as he had sown the "wheat".

I'm not a weed sown by the devil. I'm a Christian. Please don't get personal.

This is why we do not accept that those who teach false doctrines can possibly be Christians...i

I don't do this.

Can I ask you what you think Jesus and his disciples thought of those who shared their Jewish faith in the first century?

the same of what's written in the Bible.

Jesus' words to those who identify as Christians, but who are not recognized by him are stinging....

I don't belong to these groups. Yet I'm a Christian.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Christians (non JW) generally believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and God himself, part of the trinity. But JW's as I know don't believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and they don't believe in the trinity as stipulated in the Athanasian Creed. They believe otherwise. Well, there will be many theological differences between the two faiths that one could not list in a post concisely.

The Nicene council in 325 as we all know was a repercussion of the divide between the eternal nature of Jesus Christ and the Arian view that he was a creation at some point though he was there before creation. Where do the JW's stand? As seen in probably all the faiths of significant numbers there are and were many theologies since the beginning, but the variance in this topic is of a curious nature where the difference is vast and stems from the same person, Jesus Christ who is a divine being considered the Son of God. Not just an adopted son or a title-given son like many in the Old Testament, but a begotten son.

Though Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves as such I have seen and heard JW's say that they are Christians or how Christians should be. But well, is not that what everyone says? Should all who call themselves Christians just be Christians anyway? Nevertheless, JW's call themselves by the divine name of God though they include the J in YHWH which some oppose to though they too had added J to Jesus's name though he is called Iesous or/and Yashua depending on the language you wish to pick. JW's don't like to call themselves protestants but they're Christians in a similar fashion to the Roman Catholics who are Christians but not protestants. Protestants are Christians but some of them deny that the others are Christians.

What is the primary question that JW's are answering in this division? Whats the Stumper? Can JW's and other Christians in the forum provide some insight?

Here is the "stumper" from 1 Tim 4:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

*** mod delete ***

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Are you a JW?

I do not think that matters but I do not belong to any church or religion. What is wrong with asking questions?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

If they want anyone else to believe them, then they very much have some explaining to do. Very, very much.

And from what I have heard/read/experienced, JW's VERY MUCH want others to also believe their tripe. And so yes... yes they do need to explain. They have an expectation, and so theirs is the responsibility.

I am sure they will happily explain to anyone who actually wants to learn. You however have already made up your mind that it is tripe so you have no intention of trying to learn anything. You just want to make fun of them or tell them how wrong you think they are. People like that are a dime a dozen ( not worth very much).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am sure they will happily explain to anyone who actually wants to learn. You however have already made up your mind that it is tripe so you have no intention of trying to learn anything. You just want to make fun of them or tell them how wrong you think they are. People like that are a dime a dozen ( not worth very much).

People who also assume that it is "oh so obvious" that anyone and everyone is free from the need to explain themselves because it is "none of their business" or some other such crap statement made in attempts to excuse their foolish behavior are also "a dime a dozen." I'm very much more glad that I am not one of those.

Also - scrutinizing and criticizing someone's ideas is not "making fun of them." I can very well be of the idea that their ideas are tripe without personally attacking them. You are not your beliefs. If you feel that you are, that's your responsibility to recognize and come to terms with, not my responsibility to tip-toe around.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I do not think that matters

Whether or not my question matters to you or not is irrelevant. My question to you matters to me: I wanted to determine whether you were a remarkably ignorant JW or just an uninformed meddler. Your answer confirms, to my satsifaction, that you are not a remarkably ignorant JW.

• In Deeje's post #24, she asked me: "what 'creeds' do you subscribe to, and do you remember the 'script' that you follow?"
• In my post #26, I responded: "How odd that you would ask."
  • Why on earth would I say that her question was odd?
    • Because she is a JW by her own confession, I knew that she is fundamentally biased against any and all Christian Creeds, without exception, before she asked her question and, therefore, she had no constructive motive in asking the question, since it is no secret--as you can easily confirm for yourself, the same way she did--that I have identified myself as a "Creedalist Xian".
    • To confirm my assumption that she is fundamentally biased against any and all Christian Creeds, read: Creeds — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
• I continued, in my post #26: "Not that I actually believe you're really interested in an answer, I subscribe to the Apostle's Creed, and yes, I remember it."
• It, therefore, came as no surprise to me when Deeje responded to my post with her post #29: "Where will I find the Apostles Creed in the gospels or any other writings of the apostles...? I can't seem to find it anywhere..."
  • Yet another disingenuous JW question seeking to lure me into a noxious exchange.
• I could have assumed that she was a remarkably ignorant JW and referred her to the www.jw.org site to relearn her JW ABCs. I assumed, instead, that she was just playing dumb, as I've noted that she likes to do from time to time, and posted my #30: "LOL! Feigned ignorance suits you well."
• To which you--woefully unaware of the little cat-and-mouse game Deeje was trying to play with me--responded with your Post #31: "I think it is a good question because there is no evidence the apostles wrote it or knew anything about it. It was probably given that name to make it sound more important. But it was really made up long after the time of the apostles."
• Which moves me to ask: "So ****ing what?" Are you assuming, as I strongly suspect Deeje does, that I am clueless about the origin and history of the Apostle's Creed? If so, get a grip, kid, I know a tad bit more about the Creed's origin and history than you think I do. Your mistake is in assuming that because I said that I subscribe to the Apostle's Creed and know the words of it, that I'm under some illusion that it has some status equal to or greater than the Bible. To me, the Apostle's Creed is just a collection of phrases that serve me as a memory aid. Do you really object to memory aids? If so, wait till you're 72 and find yourself in a store trying to remember what you wanted buy because you forgot your list of things that you wanted to buy. Maybe then, you'll view memory aids with a little more respect.
  
• As for your Post #64: "I do not belong to any church or religion. What is wrong with asking questions?"
• To which I respond:
  • Nothing at all is wrong with questions. Who said there's something wrong with asking questions? I didn't. I did try to put an end to Deeje's disingenuous cat-and-mouse game by mocking her feigned ignorance. But why does that concern you? Her questions, like yours, are off-topic in this thread, which is not about Terry's questions.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The Apostle's Creed says "I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ". Then a few lines later, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord." This sounds like both Jesus and Holy Spirit are Lord. So how is that possible if there is "one Lord, Jesus Christ"?

 

[sojourner]

See: The Great Apostasy Develops — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY a good explanation of the apostasy that developed in the Christian Church after Jesus' death.

Here is the chapter in Edward Gibbon's voluminous work that goes into some detail about this falling away and apostasy of the truth:

https://erenow.net/ancient/fallromeempire/volumei/26.php

The idea that Jesus was god was not taught by his original apostles or followers. But in the succeeding centuries after his death many sects of Christianity developed, which eventually lead to the Athanasian Creed.

The Protestant Reformation was a protest against many of the abuses of the Catholic Church and the schism was further driven among the warring sects of Christendom. But the reformations did not get rid of many of the pagan teachings that had seeped into the Church and corrupted Christianity over the centuries. It was not God's time.

Notice that it would be during the time of the end that the wheat would be separated from the weeds. The weeds appear as wheat, they are imitation Christians.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not a sect of Christendom as are the many branches of Protestants.

Rather they are a return to the original form, or true Christianity. This is a work of Jehovah God and not that of any man.

Remember the illustration of the wheat and the weeds.

This right here is the heart of the matter. The JW's separate themselves from what they term "Christendom" as a reaction to a poorly-understood "interpretation" of Matthew. It was never Matthew's intention to cause division within the Church. Matthew's inclusion of the parable isn't concerning either doctrine or theology. The Protestants, by and large, do not distance themselves from the continuity of the Faith; they still revere the saints, many ascribe to the Apostolic Succession, and they revere the church Fathers and Mothers. For the Protestants, there is no "Great Apostasy," merely somewhat of a departure on the part of the RCC (not sure where they stand on the issue of the Orthodox; their "beef" seems to be specifically with the RCC) from certain points of doctrine that the Protestants feel are "unbiblical." Most Protestants are Trinitarian.

I feel that it's their declaration of this "Great Apostasy" that separates them (and invalidates their claim to Church heritage). If, as they say, some "Apostasy" occurred, this would make the JW's little more than a "mulligan" attempt (for those of you who play golf) at being the Church. They claim to "return to the 'original form,' or 'true Xy.'" However, history makes clear that there never really was one "original form" of Xy. Each church always had its own flavor of orthodoxy and orthopraxy -- even up to the present day. Rome has never agreed with Constantinople, just as the Church in Jerusalem didn't agree with Paul in his own time. The JWs attempt to "restore" Xy to some "true" or "authentic" form, but in so doing, they completely ignore all Apostles' teaching outside their unique interpretation of the Biblical texts (which has never been the practice -- even among the first "twelve," including Paul and their immediate successors. I believe this faulty historical perspective is, in substance, a "conspiracy theory," which attempts to control or push an agenda, ultimately through fearmongering. It changes historical facts and rewrites a "new 'truth,'" in which only the theorists can provide the sure path to salvation. In this way, they are able to discredit the historic authorities as "liars" (their term is "apostates").

"True" Xy (if such a thing even exists in some definitive form) is marked by unity in diversity -- not uniformity in sameness. Most Protestants agree that other churches are valid; even the RCC acknowledges that other churches have validity in the eyes of God. Our differences are largely preferential and not ontological. But the JWs insist that only they have an existence that is "real" in spiritual terms. This utterly dismisses the validity of every other church. It is a difference of ontology. [edit] As Exchemist says, it represents a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Thanks, Exchemist!

The historic Church (including RCC, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and all Protestant bodies) is the body of Christ. Spiritually and theologically, that is our usual ontological understanding. Even among denominations that typically don't "like" each other. It is Biblical, and it is part of the Apostolic teaching since the church's inception. The JW stance denies the rest of us that ontological reality.

By doing this, the JWs are able to interpret the Biblical texts as they see fit, claim "authority" and deny the rest of us -- including what has traditionally been taught by Apostles and other authorities. I believe this is the root difference. All other differences in belief, practice, appearance, and doctrine stem from this root belief.

 

[exchemist]

good question, firedragon.
Let's go to the JW Homepage here:
" Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Christians?

Yes. We are Christians for the following reasons:
[...]
However, in a number of ways, we are different from other religious groups that are called Christian."

Here we see them refraining from calling Christian denominations in fact Christian, if they are not JW.
To me this statement comes across as saying professing Christians can only be called Christians by name, if they don't want to be JW.
I hate this attitude.
Of course I am a Christian.

A "No True Scotsman" gambit, in other words.

Yes, I hate that sort of exclusivity too.

 

[sojourner]

The Apostle's Creed says "I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ". Then a few lines later, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord." This sounds like both Jesus and Holy Spirit are Lord. So how is that possible if there is "one Lord, Jesus Christ"?

You're mistaken. The Apostles' Creed says merely, "I believe in the Holy Spirit." The Nicene Creed states, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son" (unless you're Orthodox).

Nonetheless, we also call the Father "Lord," so it makes sense that the other two persons of the Trinity would also be called "Lord."

 

[sojourner]

A "No True Scotsman" gambit, in other words.

Yes, I hate that sort of exclusivity too.

Thank you for that. I edited it into my post, giving you credit. Hope you don't mind...

 

[Deeje]

Here is the "stumper" from 1 Tim 4:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

A group that overly controls marriages--and foods--is a demonic cult and not a part of the Christian faith.

Wow, you mean that the laws of God when adhered to by a collective, makes them a demonic cult?

LOL.....that makes both God and Christ into demonic cult leaders.

Forbidding to marry might lead you to those who forbid that to their clergy.....

What rules on marriage or food did you have in mind that are not outlined in the scriptures...please be specific....

 

[Terry Sampson]

You're mistaken.

You're talking to an uninformed meddling rock, who apparently has nothing better to do than turn this thread into a wrestling match with Christians.

 

[Deeje]

I'm not a weed sown by the devil. I'm a Christian. Please don't get personal.

I don't do this.

the same of what's written in the Bible.

I don't belong to these groups. Yet I'm a Christian.

Since I spoke in generalities, I made nothing personal....if the cap fits....you know.

All points are duly noted. Thank you.

 

[exchemist]

This right here is the heart of the matter. The JW's separate themselves from what they term "Christendom" as a reaction to a poorly-understood "interpretation" of Matthew. It was never Matthew's intention to cause division within the Church. Matthew's inclusion of the parable isn't concerning either doctrine or theology. The Protestants, by and large, do not distance themselves from the continuity of the Faith; they still revere the saints, many ascribe to the Apostolic Succession, and they revere the church Fathers and Mothers. For the Protestants, there is no "Great Apostasy," merely somewhat of a departure on the part of the RCC (not sure where they stand on the issue of the Orthodox; their "beef" seems to be specifically with the RCC) from certain points of doctrine that the Protestants feel are "unbiblical." Most Protestants are Trinitarian.

I feel that it's their declaration of this "Great Apostasy" that separates them (and invalidates their claim to Church heritage). If, as they say, some "Apostasy" occurred, this would make the JW's little more than a "mulligan" attempt (for those of you who play golf) at being the Church. They claim to "return to the 'original form,' or 'true Xy.'" However, history makes clear that there never really was one "original form" of Xy. Each church always had its own flavor of orthodoxy and orthopraxy -- even up to the present day. Rome has never agreed with Constantinople, just as the Church in Jerusalem didn't agree with Paul in his own time. The JWs attempt to "restore" Xy to some "true" or "authentic" form, but in so doing, they completely ignore all Apostles' teaching outside their unique interpretation of the Biblical texts (which has never been the practice -- even among the first "twelve," including Paul and their immediate successors. I believe this faulty historical perspective is, in substance, a "conspiracy theory," which attempts to control or push an agenda, ultimately through fearmongering. It changes historical facts and rewrites a "new 'truth,'" in which only the theorists can provide the sure path to salvation. In this way, they are able to discredit the historic authorities as "liars" (their term is "apostates").

"True" Xy (if such a thing even exists in some definitive form) is marked by unity in diversity -- not uniformity in sameness. Most Protestants agree that other churches are valid; even the RCC acknowledges that other churches have validity in the eyes of God. Our differences are largely preferential and not ontological. But the JWs insist that only they have an existence that is "real" in spiritual terms. This utterly dismisses the validity of every other church. It is a difference of ontology. [edit] As Exchemist says, it represents a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Thanks, Exchemist!

The historic Church (including RCC, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and all Protestant bodies) is the body of Christ. Spiritually and theologically, that is our usual ontological understanding. Even among denominations that typically don't "like" each other. It is Biblical, and it is part of the Apostolic teaching since the church's inception. The JW stance denies the rest of us that ontological reality.

By doing this, the JWs are able to interpret the Biblical texts as they see fit, claim "authority" and deny the rest of us -- including what has traditionally been taught by Apostles and other authorities. I believe this is the root difference. All other differences in belief, practice, appearance, and doctrine stem from this root belief.

I find your point about there never having been a single "true" church a powerful one, having read Diarmaid MacCulloch's book. It's clear that it took a long time for the main strands of Christianity to crystallise and stabilise and that there was a lot of disagreement, sometimes even bloody, in the early days.

 

[Deeje]

A "No True Scotsman" gambit, in other words.

Yes, I hate that sort of exclusivity too.

And yet that was the situation in Judaism.....the religion that Jesus grew up in. Check out the laws given to Israel and see if personal preference or interpretation was ever admissible? Judaism demonstrated absolute exclusivity. The “no true Scotsman” rule applies equally to Christianity as it did to Judaism. Who told you it didn’t?

The law governed everything they did. Proselytes were accepted into the Jewish community but only with strict adherence to God’s laws. If anyone thinks that they can make their own rules, or disobey the teachings of Jesus and still pass the judgment.......I believe they need to think again. (Matthew 7:21-23)

 

[sojourner]

Nice dodge.
You haven't provided it.....if it exists and you base your own belief system on it...it should be in the scriptures.....please give me chapter and verse....I'll wait.

Actually, it is. Each statement of the Creed is lifted directly from scripture. Which biblical statements don't you believe?

 

[sojourner]

I will add this. I don't think you would argue that Jesus is God or a part of a Trinity. You seem to be more level-headed than that. I see you are an intelligent person and a thinking one.

When I do come across people who believe in the Trinity who are sincere and want a good explanation as to why we don't believe Jesus is God I use 3 things.

I ask:

1. Can God die?
2. Can God be tempted?
3. Can God learn obedience?

The answer to all three is obvious. No.

1. Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah?
O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.
-Habakkuk 1:12.

The entire Christian faith is based upon the fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins:
"...through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us."
1 Thessalonians 5:9-10.

If Jesus was God he could not have died as God cannot die. He is immortal. What is more Jehovah cannot take the form of a human. No man can look upon God's face and live he is far too powerful for us:

No man has seen God at any time.
-John 1:18.

Jehovah talking to Moses:

“You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.”
Exodus 33:20.



2.  When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone.
-James 1:13.

Jehovah God is beyond corruption.

Jesus, on the other hand, like Satan had the opportunity to rebel against God. In fact Jesus was tempted by Satan. A thing that would be impossible if he were God.

And one of the temptations was to bow down and worship Satan in return for rulership over the kingdoms of the earth.

This would not have been a temptation if Jesus was God. Why would God be tempted to worship Satan? Why would the offer of rulership over the kingdoms of the earth be a temptation to God? As if Satan could offer anything to God.

Now notice how Jesus rebeuffed Satan's temptation:

"Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.  And he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.”  Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
-Matthew 4:8-10.

Jesus, although tempted resisted, and said it is Jehovah God you must worship.

3. Who has taken the measurements of the spirit of Jehovah,
And who can instruct him as his adviser?
-Isaiah 40:13.

God is peerless. Without match or equal. There is no one that can counsel him, or question him.

Jesus, while on earth, learned obedience to God through the things he suffered:

"Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered."
-Hebrews 5:8.

Jesus did not want to go through with dying the way he was about to. If you remember on the night before his death he prayed fervently for God to remove the cup from him. That is, his having to die as a sinner, a blasphemer. Jesus was agonizing over this. And he expressed it in his prayer to Jehovah just before he died. But notice, while he expressed his strong dislike of what he had to do, he even pleaded for it to be removed from him, he said he was willing to die the way Jehovah willed for him to:

And he said: “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you; remove this cup from me. Yet, not what I want, but what you want.”
-Mark 14:36.

What a moving verse this is. It shows Jesus' own thoughts on the matter and how he pleaded with Jehovah. But also his willingness to submit to his Father's will. Not his own. He "learned obedience"through the things he suffered.

There are many many many other things I can go on to relate to show how Jesus could not possibly be his Father. But these three things alone are enough for any reasonable person to conclude that they are not the same person.

There is no way Jesus could be God if he 1) died, 2) was tempted, 3) learned obedience by what he suffered.

You're completely ignoring two key points of the doctrine:
1) Jesus is patently not the Father.
2) Jesus was fully human, making it possible to die, to be tempted, to be obedient, etc.

 

[sojourner]

God is not a God of disorder but of peace. His people are also unified in the same pure language of truth from the Bible.

God's spirit promotes peace, love, and unity. The people who have the same teaching of truth from the Bible, that are peaceful, have love among each other, and in agreement have God's blessing.

Where divisions, sects, fights, and disagreements are the spirit of God is lacking.

So, how do you justify this statement with the fact that JWs dismiss those of us in other denominations? That creates division, not unity. It creates suspicion, not love. The JWs are a comparatively recent sect of Xy, which has long been established as the Body of Christ, but the JWs seek to take that away from us. How are the JWs not divisive, a sect, and promoting division?