Jehovah’s Witnesses

[RR]

Would that position not deny His Deity?

What position?

 

[Webers.Home]

.
When the Word of John 1:1-3 came into the world as the flesh of John 1:14,
he didn't come as divine flesh, rather, he came as ordinary Jewish flesh.
However, seeing as Jesus was a theophany, then he could answer as either.

His binary circumstances have led to quite a bit of unnecessary debating and
confusion; especially when it comes to Watchtower Society missionaries (a.k.a.
Jehovah's Witnesses) because they refuse to believe it's possible for someone,
anyone, even God, to exist as a spirit being and a physical being simultaneously.
_

 

[shittim]

Another way the enemy sows confusion, making us believe what we believe matters? Holy Spirit alone guides in all truth.

 

[cv5]

Since they are "antichrists" according to John, they are not the mission field. Kindly read the epistles of John. The mission field are all those who have not heard the Gospel, or not responded to it as yet. They have not attacked the deity of Christ or the Holy Trinity.

The thing is.....there are many JW's who legitimately have not heard the true gospel preached. Ever.

However, there is little doubt that the LEADERSHIP are in all likelihood "antichrist" per John.
Fully aware, fully accountable, and guilty of same.

 

[Aaron56]

What about Christ? We are talking about the antichrists of the Jehovah's Witnesses. And for those who still do not understand here is what Scripture says: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 Jn 2:18,19)

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist... Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1:7-11)

To confess that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is to profess and proclaim that God the Son (who is fully God) was manifest in the flesh -- became fully human -- in order to die for our sins. This is the doctrine of Christ (Hebrews 1:8-10; 1 Tim 3:16 KJB). The JWs reject this totally, as well as the truth of the Holy Trinity, This they corrupt John 1:1 and many other passages.

Right.
You’re disqualifying JW’s from being reached because of their doctrine claiming that, for someone to be part of a true “mission field” they cannot have “attacked the deity of Christ or the Holy Trinity”. That’s what you wrote.

So I asked, “What about Christ? Would they be disqualified for attacking Christ?”

Let me broaden the question to have it stand by itself:

“Would someone who has attacked Christ be disqualified from being included in a true ‘mission field’?

 

[TMS]

I agree with many of the JW teachings but there is a few that I can't agree with.
And they don't seem to be able to listen or hear. They are not allowed to read other books with tells me they are locked into their teaching.

The teaching.... that Jesus is not fully God. This affects lots.

 

[TMS]

“Would someone who has attacked Christ be disqualified from being included in a true ‘mission field’?

If they make Christ less then He is, how can Christ's blood and mission be enough to save us?
In order for Christ to be one with the Father, Christ needed to be equal with the Father.

 

[Bruce_Leiter]

A couple times a month, JW’s come to visit the industrial estate where I work. They’re always welcoming and we always have a healthy debate, but everytime I ask the question why they don’t believe Jesus is God they stop talking and direct me to their website.
I can’t understand how someone who reads the same scriptures that we do, does not believe that Jesus is Lord? Or are they reading different scripture? As they’re trying to convert me, I offer counterpoints to make them think about what they believe. I’m not bashing JW’s. I just can’t fathom how you can read the same book, but come to a different conclusion of who/what God is. Thoughts?

They do have a different translation that slants the key texts away from Jesus' deity.

 

[TMS]

The devil doesn't care how he affects the churches. He doesn't need to affect every doctrine as long as he can affect the teaching of who Jesus is. This is foundermental to salvation. Destroy who Jesus is and the devil destroys everything.

 

[Bruce_Leiter]

A couple times a month, JW’s come to visit the industrial estate where I work. They’re always welcoming and we always have a healthy debate, but everytime I ask the question why they don’t believe Jesus is God they stop talking and direct me to their website.
I can’t understand how someone who reads the same scriptures that we do, does not believe that Jesus is Lord? Or are they reading different scripture? As they’re trying to convert me, I offer counterpoints to make them think about what they believe. I’m not bashing JW’s. I just can’t fathom how you can read the same book, but come to a different conclusion of who/what God is. Thoughts?

The Jehovah's Witnesses are clearly a cult that persecutes and shuns people who leave them, does not believe in the Trinity (that God is one God in three Persons), that has its own translation that slants the original text to support their beliefs, and started in the late 1800s like the Mormons because of doctrinal disputes and their failure to accept the mystery of God's Triune nature.

 

[CS1]

JW's are an abusive, controlling cult. Once you start poking holes into their teaching and use their own bible and books to do so, they will question this untruth of their belief. Like all cults, they do everything together: go to meetings, go door to door, go on vacation, and eat at home. They are very close, but as soon as you qestion their untruth, they ostracize you or what is known as break fellowship and Blackball you. They will not speak to you anymore. It is a very cold and terrible experience.
They have a serious reckoning with the Lord for doing such things, and they will all witness that if they don't repent.

They deny Christ; therefore, they have the spirit of anti-Christ.

 

[williamjordan]

So did Christianity, every so-called Christian holiday can be traced to paganism. Christmas, Easter, etc. In fact even the doctrine of the Trinity predates Christianity.

The doctrine of the Trinity does predate Christianity, but not in the way you suppose, i.e., with origins rooted in paganism. There is no pagan equivalent to Trinitarianism. You will undoubtedly cite a number of tritheistic models and dub them for some kind of pre-Christian framework. But in reality, they do not run congruent or parallel one another.

You cannot even argue that "Christmas" (the birth of Christ) or "Easter" (the celebration of the resurrection) is rooted in paganism, because for one: You need to first establish that your prior Catholic convictions (that Jesus was born on Dec. 25) is actually the date He was born. In fact, the Eastern churches celebrate the birth of Christ on January 7th. And if you've managed to prove that Christ was indeed born on Dec. 25, then you have to prove that this was borrowed from a pre-Christian pagan cult.

There's a host of issues here: You assume your prior Roman Catholic convictions as the standard Christian belief, but wind up excluding half the Christian religion.

 

[RR]

The doctrine of the Trinity does predate Christianity, but not in the way you suppose, i.e., with origins rooted in paganism. There is no pagan equivalent to Trinitarianism. You will undoubtedly cite a number of tritheistic models and dub them for some kind of pre-Christian framework. But in reality, they do not run congruent or parallel one another.

Keep in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity came gradually to the Church. Debating the nature of Christ and a hundred years later adding the holy Spirit to the mix.

You cannot even argue that "Christmas" (the birth of Christ) or "Easter" (the celebration of the resurrection) is rooted in paganism, because for one: You need to first establish that your prior Catholic convictions (that Jesus was born on Dec. 25) is actually the date He was born. In fact, the Eastern churches celebrate the birth of Christ on January 7th. And if you've managed to prove that Christ was indeed born on Dec. 25, then you have to prove that this was borrowed from a pre-Christian pagan cult.

Who says I can't argue the issue? Jesus wasn't born on December 25, or on January 7th, everybody knows that. It was a date the church chose to honor it. I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, and I don't observe any of these so-called holy days. The last time I had a birthday party I was in my preteens. My refusal to not observe any of these days is my own preference not too. I just don't care for it.

There's a host of issues here: You assume your prior Roman Catholic convictions as the standard Christian belief, but wind up excluding half the Christian religion.

Most Christian religions observe Christmas, Easter and a slew of other observations.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Keep in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity came gradually to the Church. Debating the nature of Christ and a hundred years later adding the holy Spirit to the mix.

.

@RR,

There are records of plenty of churches that Believed the doctrine of the Trinity as we see in I John 5:7 among many other references OT and NT.
The Jehovah's false Witnesses happen to reject that fundamental Christian doctrine as some other false religions that reject the description of God as He gives us throughout from Genesis and ends with Revelation.

I don't believe that there's a catholic assembly called "the church ". There were plenty of churches with plenty of problems and even heresy that was addressed by the Apostles and by Christ directly. They were autonomous assemblies in various locations.

Last night I read Isaiah 40 and found another Messianic scripture about John the Baptist's ministry concerning God on earth.

Isaiah 40:3 quoted in Luke 3:4
3The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

The Holy Spirit is in verse 13
13Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?

Concerning the Word of God in the same chapter...8The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
A few days ago, Baptist historian and preacher, Phil Stringer, taught on the historical records concerning the strong Trinitarian Scripture that Wescott , Hort and many since have lied about, 1 John 5:7 KJB Those unsaved men rejected the doctrine of the Trinity as they did the inspiration/ preservation of Scriptures. One was into the occult and necromancy. They are the basis for commentators today.

 

[williamjordan]

Keep in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity came gradually to the Church. Debating the nature of Christ and a hundred years later adding the holy Spirit to the mix.

If this is the position you're going to hold, then that really does beg the question. Remember your original proposition: That the Trinity has pagan origins.

Does the Trinity have pagan origins or does it not? Arguing for a "gradual" development does nothing to help your case. Where is the pagan origins if it is a later "gradual" development?

Who says I can't argue the issue? Jesus wasn't born on December 25, or on January 7th, everybody knows that. It was a date the church chose to honor it.

What connection does the birth of Christ have to pre-Christian pagan origins, if not for the date?

Remember: You are the one that originally proposed the idea that Christian doctrine (i.e., Trinity) and holidays (Christmas) have their roots in pagan origins.

 

[awelight]

You said, cults were created by man, all I'm saying is that the man Christ Jesus created what is today known as Christianity. In fact, the first century church was labeled a sect (a cult).

Okay... That's way to many times, in your posts, referring to our Lord Jesus Christ as "a man", as if that was all He was. Jesus The Christ, was not only the perfect man but more importantly He was the Godman. The eternal son of God. Second Person of the Godhead. Creator and sustainer of all things. The Holy Logos. The high Priest. Lord of lords and King of kings.

Please do not compare Him to other mere men in your posts.

And by the way - Jesus Christ did not create "Christianity". Those that were on the outside of the faith, these gave believers this label, not Christ. Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

John of Antioch (o) gives an account of this matter in these words;
"at the beginning of the reign of Claudius Caesar, ten years after Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, was ascended up into heaven, Evodus, the first after the Apostle Peter, being chosen bishop of Antioch, the great city of Syria, became a patriarch, and under him they were called Christians: for this same bishop, Evodus, conferring with them, put this name upon them, whereas before the Christians were called Nazarenes and Galilaeans.''

(o) Apud Gregory's Notes, &c. p. 155.

 

[awelight]

The Jehovah's Witnesses are clearly a cult that persecutes and shuns people who leave them, does not believe in the Trinity (that God is one God in three Persons), that has its own translation that slants the original text to support their beliefs, and started in the late 1800s like the Mormons because of doctrinal disputes and their failure to accept the mystery of God's Triune nature.

They also deny Jesus Christ's Eternal Sonship, believing that Jesus began at his physical birth from Mary. They would therefore, have a hard time explaining this verse: Eph 1:4 According as he (The Father) hath chosen us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

And I have to add these two:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[awelight]

The doctrine of the Trinity does predate Christianity, but not in the way you suppose, i.e., with origins rooted in paganism. There is no pagan equivalent to Trinitarianism. You will undoubtedly cite a number of tritheistic models and dub them for some kind of pre-Christian framework. But in reality, they do not run congruent or parallel one another.

You cannot even argue that "Christmas" (the birth of Christ) or "Easter" (the celebration of the resurrection) is rooted in paganism, because for one: You need to first establish that your prior Catholic convictions (that Jesus was born on Dec. 25) is actually the date He was born. In fact, the Eastern churches celebrate the birth of Christ on January 7th. And if you've managed to prove that Christ was indeed born on Dec. 25, then you have to prove that this was borrowed from a pre-Christian pagan cult.

There's a host of issues here: You assume your prior Roman Catholic convictions as the standard Christian belief, but wind up excluding half the Christian religion.

If you do not mind me interjecting into the conversation, I would like to point out a couple of things about the holidays.

First - Christmas does have it's early beginnings in the Roman festival of the Sun. This was observed on December 25th. as a celebration of the renewing of the Sun, as it came out of the winter season. Today it is known as The Winter Solstice, which will take place on December 22nd, I believe.
- Christmas was also incorporated into the early Catholic church, as the celebration of Christ Mass.
- Additionally, the Bible states, that at Jesus' birth, the shepherds were tending their flocks in the field at night. (Luke 2:8) This is not done in Israel during the winter months. The sheep would have been in the sheep pens at this time.

Second - Good Friday and Easter, are all wrong.
- During Passover - Friday would have to be the wrong day for Christ to have been crucified. First, because Christ Himself said He would be in the grave three full days. He gave Jonah as an example. Good Friday evening to Sunday morning is only 36 hours, not 72 hours. This is made even worse, by a fact that many overlook. The Jews measure a day from 6:00PM to 6:00pm the next day. Why? Because the Lord said the day started with the evening. (Gen. 1:5) Therefore, Jesus Christ would have rose just after 6:00PM Saturday. The Jewish beginning of Sunday. So understanding this, Our Good Friday would have Jesus in the Ground for just a little over 24 hours.
- There are other reasons why Good Friday does not work for the Crucifixion date and they have to do with the nature of the Passover "High days" and the regular Sabbath on Saturday. It makes for a great study - if you are interested.

Third - The Lord Himself, did not ask believers to remember or celebrate a date for His birth or His Crucifixion. He did however, command us to remember Him and instituted the Lord's Super until He comes, for this purpose.

 

[Magenta]

1 John 5:10-11

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Back in the late 1960s I ran across a Watchtower publication that said Jesus could've
failed; he could've sinned. Well; their own Bible disagrees where it's said at 1John 3:9

" Everyone who has been born from God does not carry on sin, because His
reproductive seed remains in such one, and he cannot practice sin, because he has
been born from God."

That verse isn't talking about a born-again Christian because according to John 1:8-10
born-again Christians carry on sin, i.e. they are able to practice it.

Jesus is described as God's "begotten" son which is translated from a Greek word that
pertains to one's natural child rather than an adopted child and/or a foster child. For
example Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38.

Jesus is also described as God's "only" begotten son, meaning of course that Jesus is
God's sole paternal descendant (John 1:14, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1John 4:9)
whereas born-again Christians are taken into God's home by adoption. (Rom 8:15-16,
Gal 4:4-6, Eph 1:4-5)

Jesus' heredity was quite an advantage-- and easy to see why he never once
committed a sin of his own to answer for.
_