Is the Jehovah Witness Religion a Christian Religion?

[polonius]

Do Jehovah Witnesses consider Jesus Christ to be God? If so, does it maintain that there are two divine persons? God and Jesus Christ?

Are both God and Jesus eternal and coequal?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 66 by marco]

When we set ourselves up as outstanding examples of piety we become like the Pharisee who proclaimed his own worth.

Precisely.

A truth Jesus often warned us about.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses


DOES THE TEACCHING OF "THE GREAT APOSTACY" CONTRADICT JESUS STATEMENT AT MAT 16:18?

MATTHEW 16:18 ESV

I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus was indicated that the results of his earthly ministry would be compromised very early on, and that this situation would continue for a significant period of time (see Matthew 13).

• The first century church "leaders" reflected this inevitability in their writings. Paul and John, for example spoke of individuals that sought to enter the Christian community and pervert its teachings from within and warned towards the end of the first century they were already at work. While they (The Apostles charged by Jesus to safeguard the congregation) where alive, such unscrupulous individuals were held at bay. But after the death of John, held to be the last of the Apostles, the rot set in with "wolves in sheep's clothing" progressively corrupting the pure teachings of Christ.
  
  By the end of the second century the church Christ founded was hardly recognisable, with the adoptions of teachings such a the trinity, eternal torture of immortal "souls" and an oppressive "clergy class" (man of lawlessness) that would eventually lay claim to infallibility, and involements in politics. Indeed by the 3rd and 4th century, false religion had given birth to its newest and most reprehensible "baby" "the mother church" who would, like Babylon, give birth in turn to thousands of illegitimate denominations. And with that, true Christianity as an organzed body *faded from the earthly scene and the antichrist mother church took center stage.

*individual spirit anointed Christians would continue to serve God as best they could but there would no longer be an international organization for them to gather in.

DOES THIS NOT MEAN THAT THE TRUE CHURCH DID NOT PREVAIL?

• No, to PREVAIL means "prove more powerful or superior", Merriams parelels it with to "triumph". Both indicate the final outcome of a struggle or challenge. Ceding place, not entering into a struggle, or refusjng to fight as a tactical measure during the course of a confrontation is not being beaten or prevailed over. Jesus indicated that his allowing the aforementioned situation was for a specific reason.
  

  To illustrate: If a boxer, aware the match is 12 rounds, decides to assume a defensive position throwing few, if any punches until round 11 and then knocks his opponent out winning the match, which of the two "prevailed"?

  Jesus indicated in his illustrations of the wheat and the weeds that he would wait for the "harvest season" to reorganisation his followers in time for his return. This would allow the world's inhabitants that love truth to distingish themselves from those that do not. The "harvest season" (which began in 20th century) would be round 11 and Babylon (false religion) and her prostitute daughter (the mother church) indeed began to take some severe blows to the head at that time. Her final "knock out" soon awaits (see Revelation 17).

CONCLUSION


Matthew 13 and Matthew 16:18 harmonize entirely when we understand the battle may have began in the first century but the war is still on. Only at the end of this system will we see who "prevailed" (triumphed). Spoiler: It will be Christ's True church revealed for the world to see.

FURTHER READING

Do You Need Organized Religion?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... -religion/[

Recommended Reading "Mankind's search for God"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 859#816859

RELATED POSTS

Who are the wheat and who are the weeds in Jesus illustration?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 074#922074

Is "docrine" and "denomination" important?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 991#846991

Do all Christian denomination have Gods approval?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 193#996193

Who or What is "Babylon the Great"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 185#917185

Do Jehovah's witnesses accept the concept of "true religion"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 330#861330

Go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY and ...JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

Beautiful post, JW. That sums it up very nicely.

Jesus further indicates that the end times would be a long time off, in the parable of the 5,2, and 1 talents. He said: "After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them." (Matt.25:14-19)

[onewithhim]

[T]here was always someone on Earth that believed as we do now. So we are not a "new" sect.

Who in late Antiquity believed as you do now? Who in the High Middle Ages?

I believe that Sir Isaac Newton is very possibly one of the persons that believed as we do.

I asked for examples from late Antiquity and the High Middle Ages.

So who were the people on earth that could be called the "fine wheat," or, "the sons of the Kingdom," throughout the centuries? We don't know.

Then how can you claim that there was always someone on Earth that believed as you do now?

We can't prove it. It makes sense. We know that the RCC isn't the church Jesus claimed as his own because of the very sinful things she's done through the centuries. So what was left, up to the Reformation? Then even after Martin Luther, most doctrines did not add up to what Jesus taught.



.

[onewithhim]

I will add to this discussion that the Followers of the Way of Christ began this religion. I think we all can agree on that thing.

They were predominately Jews. They worshipped in the synagogues and observed the Holy days. This is why Peter was not concerned with the new gentile converts as "moses has had those who teach him in every synagogue". Act 15.

They continued in the Hebrew tradition until at least 135 AD. The Bar Kochba revolt cause those of the way to have to make a choice of continuing with Yeshua or declaring a new Messiah. They were rejected for choosing christ. The rebellion was crushed, Rome had already sacked Jerusalem and then the Apostles died off or were killed.

So, the Jews went back into the norm of their day and the Greeks and Romans created what we have today under the pain of death.

True followers of the Way of Christ, follow Christ.(Israelite religion without traditions of men, pure Torah) What was nailed to the cross was "the Handwriting of Ordinances against Us". This was written on parchment and placed outside the ark of covenant. Rules(Torah) written in stone(in the ark) and punishment for trangressing(sin) them on paper. Christ erased the paper.

So, if we wish to follow Christ, should we not follow his way? He gave no instruction otherwise. In fact, he said not one jot or tittle would pass till all the law prophets come to pass. They have not. Logically, we have the Torah to follow.

Interesting, brian. Where does your info come from?

I'm wondering what Christ meant when he said that there are just 2 commandments to follow (Matt.22:37-40).

I see that the verses you refer to are not exactly what you post. They say: "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pas away than for one stroke of a letter [jot or tittle] to pass away from the Law until all things take place." (Matt. 5:17,18, NWT)

Now this is how I understand those statements. Jesus came to FULFILL the Law and the Prophets. Now, he has fulfilled the Law ALREADY, though not all of the Prophets. For instance, Isaiah prophesied things that he hasn't fulfilled yet, such as actually ruling over the earth in righteousness with the animals becoming tame and living in harmony with humans (chapter 11). This is ahead. But the Law was fulfilled, when he died.

Therefore, the fulfillment of the Law has taken place, but not the complete fulfillment of the Prophets.


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

Jesus indicated in his illustrations of the wheat and the weeds that he would wait for the "harvest season" to reorganisation his followers in time for his return.

Nope. There is no such indication in that parable or in its explanation.

Didn't Jesus say that the "weeds" would be revealed at "harvest time," and the true sons of the Kingdom would "shine brightly?" There is definitely a differentiation between the weeds and the wheat.


.

What Jesus did not say is "the "harvest season" to reorganisation his followers in time for his return.

Of course there is differentation between weeds and wheat. Not one between true and false Christians, but between sons of the kingdom and sons of the evil one.

Reorganization is just a logical action that would come after Jesus taking his throne in 1914. Of course he would make sure that things were to his ultimate liking.

Why would you say that the "sons of the Kingdom and the sons of the evil one" are NOT true and false Christians? What are sons of the Kingdom other than followers of Christ?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 55 by Checkpoint]

We can't say with certainty who any of the true Christians were. But we sure know who HASN'T been.

Have you ever looked up the histories of the individual popes? I thought the Borgias were bad, and then I read about most of the other popes, and they were just as bad. Murder, immorality in spades, scheming to destroy people in their way, greed....they were almost all guilty of every one of the deadly sins.

So who were the people on earth that could be called the "fine wheat," or, "the sons of the Kingdom," throughout the centuries? We don't know. Someday I'm confident that we will find out.

God, I understand, has always worked through imperfect vessels. David would answer to your description of nastiness as well. Of course there have been bad popes and there have been good popes. Place a man in the spotlight and you will see blemishes. I wonder what murderous deeds the present pope has done.



When we crudely use the word "all" we should be alerted to error. In all places, in all religions, there are good people and bad people. When we set ourselves up as outstanding examples of piety we become like the Pharisee who proclaimed his own worth.

1) Well, Pope Francis is a Jesuit, and Jesuits push an agendum that involves overpowering people who are too sheep-like for the benefit of the powerful, and advancing the communist precepts. I read a book on the Jesuits and I was stunned. Many an innocent child has been destroyed by the hand of a Jesuit.

2) You could argue that the Pharisaical Jews in Jesus' day had some good in them as well as bad. I guess Jesus should have been kinder and softer with them, right? I seem to remember a scathing denunciation in Matthew chapter 23. Was Jesus actually like the Pharisee that you mention because he condemned the Jewish leaders' hypocritical shepherding of the people?


.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

Jesus indicated in his illustrations of the wheat and the weeds that he would wait for the "harvest season" to reorganisation his followers in time for his return.

Nope. There is no such indication in that parable or in its explanation.

Didn't Jesus say that the "weeds" would be revealed at "harvest time," and the true sons of the Kingdom would "shine brightly?" There is definitely a differentiation between the weeds and the wheat.


.

What Jesus did not say is "the "harvest season" to reorganisation his followers in time for his return.

Of course there is differentation between weeds and wheat. Not one between true and false Christians, but between sons of the kingdom and sons of the evil one.

Reorganization is just a logical action that would come after Jesus taking his throne in 1914. Of course he would make sure that things were to his ultimate liking.

None of which is even implied in the parable., let alone stated.

^he parable says and means "harvest", not "harvest season". The harvest is the gathering in of both the weeds and the wheat, to each receive their just due.

the "sons of the Kingdom and the sons of the evil one

Why would you say that tthe "sons of the Kingdom and the sons ohey are NOT true and false Christians? What are sons of the Kingdom other than followers of Christ?

Because "true and false Christians" only is not the difference stated and described.

You yourself correctly stated the difference as "

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

Jesus indicated in his illustrations of the wheat and the weeds that he would wait for the "harvest season" to reorganisation his followers in time for his return.

Nope. There is no such indication in that parable or in its explanation.

Didn't Jesus say that the "weeds" would be revealed at "harvest time," and the true sons of the Kingdom would "shine brightly?" There is definitely a differentiation between the weeds and the wheat.


.

What Jesus did not say is "the "harvest season" to reorganisation his followers in time for his return.

Of course there is differentation between weeds and wheat. Not one between true and false Christians, but between sons of the kingdom and sons of the evil one.

Reorganization is just a logical action that would come after Jesus taking his throne in 1914. Of course he would make sure that things were to his ultimate liking.

Why would you say that the "sons of the Kingdom and the sons of the evil one" are NOT true and false Christians? What are sons of the Kingdom other than followers of Christ?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 52 by JehovahsWitness]

Jesus indicated in his illustrations of the wheat and the weeds that he would wait for the "harvest season" to reorganisation his followers in time for his return.

Nope. There is no such indication in that parable or in its explanation.

Didn't Jesus say that the "weeds" would be revealed at "harvest time," and the true sons of the Kingdom would "shine brightly?" There is definitely a differentiation between the weeds and the wheat.


.

What Jesus did not say is "the "harvest season" to reorganisation his followers in time for his return.

Of course there is differentation between weeds and wheat. Not one between true and false Christians, but between sons of the kingdom and sons of the evil one.

Reorganization is just a logical action that would come after Jesus taking his throne in 1914. Of course he would make sure that things were to his ultimate liking.

All of that is read into the parable. None of it is there!

It says "harvest", not "harvest season".

What is the harvest? The gathering and separation of the weeds from the wheat, by angels, to receive whatever is their just due.

Why would you say that the "sons of the Kingdom and the sons of the evil one" are NOT true and false Christians? What are sons of the Kingdom other than followers of Christ?

Sons of the kingdom are indeed true followers of Christ; that's not who the problem is with.

Sons of the evil one are who? "everything that causes sin and all who do evil"(v 41).

The field is not the Christian world, Christendom; it is the world itself, this system of things and people.

[brianbbs67]

I will add to this discussion that the Followers of the Way of Christ began this religion. I think we all can agree on that thing.

They were predominately Jews. They worshipped in the synagogues and observed the Holy days. This is why Peter was not concerned with the new gentile converts as "moses has had those who teach him in every synagogue". Act 15.

They continued in the Hebrew tradition until at least 135 AD. The Bar Kochba revolt cause those of the way to have to make a choice of continuing with Yeshua or declaring a new Messiah. They were rejected for choosing christ. The rebellion was crushed, Rome had already sacked Jerusalem and then the Apostles died off or were killed.

So, the Jews went back into the norm of their day and the Greeks and Romans created what we have today under the pain of death.

True followers of the Way of Christ, follow Christ.(Israelite religion without traditions of men, pure Torah) What was nailed to the cross was "the Handwriting of Ordinances against Us". This was written on parchment and placed outside the ark of covenant. Rules(Torah) written in stone(in the ark) and punishment for trangressing(sin) them on paper. Christ erased the paper.

So, if we wish to follow Christ, should we not follow his way? He gave no instruction otherwise. In fact, he said not one jot or tittle would pass till all the law prophets come to pass. They have not. Logically, we have the Torah to follow.

Interesting, brian. Where does your info come from?

I'm wondering what Christ meant when he said that there are just 2 commandments to follow (Matt.22:37-40).

I see that the verses you refer to are not exactly what you post. They say: "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pas away than for one stroke of a letter [jot or tittle] to pass away from the Law until all things take place." (Matt. 5:17,18, NWT)

Now this is how I understand those statements. Jesus came to FULFILL the Law and the Prophets. Now, he has fulfilled the Law ALREADY, though not all of the Prophets. For instance, Isaiah prophesied things that he hasn't fulfilled yet, such as actually ruling over the earth in righteousness with the animals becoming tame and living in harmony with humans (chapter 11). This is ahead. But the Law was fulfilled, when he died.

Therefore, the fulfillment of the Law has taken place, but not the complete fulfillment of the Prophets.


.

Mostly, known history and the bible. Fulfilling does not mean something ends because you have done it correctly. I fulfill my mortgage ever month and when the next month comes I fulfill it again. I fulfill my marriage vow every day, yet another comes and I fulfill it again. Christ never taught such nonsense. Not one time. Go ahead and look for him saying when I die for you the law will be abolished.

Christ didn't ever say there were only 2 commandments. He said the law was summed up by those direct quotes from deuteronomy 6:4 and his own words. Its called the Shema. The Israelites didn't believe this negated the rest of the law. It just summed it up. This was common practice by the Hebrews. To summarize the law with as few words as possible. It negated no thing..

"ALL THINGS TAKE PLACE" All things have not taken place. Even if you say the law is ended(which it isn't and never will be), the prophecies have not happened. Christ's statement required both to be done.