Are the Jehovah"s Witnesses Christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bill_Pick

Guest
Do the JW say they are Christian.
Man does not have a soul
the Trinity is a fabrication of the RCC.
Jesus is a god
Jesus is a Archangel MICHAEL Jesus was not raised from rthe dead
Man does not have a soul
and we have No hell.

I think with all of this They are not Christians,do you think of them as Christian and the name Roman Cathloic Church did not come along until 1051,I think thats the right date.may 1054
 
Bill_Pick said:
Do the JW say they are Christian.
Man does not have a soul
the Trinity is a fabrication of the RCC.
Jesus is a god
Jesus is a Archangel MICHAEL Jesus was not raised from rthe dead
Man does not have a soul
and we have No hell.

I think with all of this They are not Christians,do you think of them as Christian and the name Roman Cathloic Church did not come along until 1051,I think thats the right date.may 1054
Click to expand...
JW are not christian, in order to be Christian you HAVE to Believe that there is a Soul, and that Jesus is the son of God.
 
Bill Pick
Do the JW say they are Christian.

Man does not have a soul
**
Dan:**
We teach what bible writers teach about the soul. In Genesis Adam is said to have become a living soul, not that he was given a soul
DRA Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. If a man has a dog, is that the same thing as him being a dog?

Jesus frequently quoted Scripture and did not contradict it. Christians today do the same and say man is a soul, not that he has a soul. (Note: sometimes soul means life in scripture, but I am sure that is not what you meant).

the Trinity is a fabrication of the RCC.

Dan:
I don’t find that any bible writer teaches the Trinity. I am not so sure I would credit the RCC for it, though. Please see the link in my post on monotheism. Bible writers teach in context that monotheism means ‘one God’ or ‘only God’ and always identify the Father as that one God.

Jesus is a god

Dan:
Jesuit McKenzie said that in John 1:1 it should be rendered the Word was “a divine being.” McKenzie was a Trinitarian but he is closer to us in terms of the translation of that passage than you who claim to be Catholic. I have his dictionary and just checked it. It has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

Jesus is a Archangel MICHAEL

Dan:
Milito of Sardis said Jesus was Archangel. So do many protestant scholars including Wesley and Calvin. We don’t claim they believe he was a created angel.

Jesus was not raised from the dead

Dan:
That is a false accusation. We do teach he was raised from the dead, that his ransom is the only hope for mankind and that he is the Savior.

Man does not have a soul

Dan:
See above

and we have No hell.

Dan:
Sheol is the Hebrew word frequently rendered as Hell, and Hades is the Greek word. We do believe hell literally exists as the place where the dead go. Jesus went there when he died. (Acts 2:27). We consider it to be a literal place. Ironically, while Catholics used to teach it was a literal place of fire and brimstone they now say it is the state of separation from God. So really you are the ones who don’t beleive in Hell 🙂

We believe in the Hell Jesus spoke of and don’t confuse it with Gehenna. They are different words.
 
No Dave they do not call them self Christian because they are not Christian they are a organization out to make money.
 
Dan_Parker said:
Bill Pick
Do the JW say they are Christian.

Man does not have a soul
**
Dan:**
We teach what bible writers teach about the soul. In Genesis Adam is said to have become a living soul, not that he was given a soul
DRA Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. If a man has a dog, is that the same thing as him being a dog?

Jesus frequently quoted Scripture and did not contradict it. Christians today do the same and say man is a soul, not that he has a soul. (Note: sometimes soul means life in scripture, but I am sure that is not what you meant).

the Trinity is a fabrication of the RCC.

Dan:
I don’t find that any bible writer teaches the Trinity. I am not so sure I would credit the RCC for it, though. Please see the link in my post on monotheism. Bible writers teach in context that monotheism means ‘one God’ or ‘only God’ and always identify the Father as that one God.

Jesus is a god

Dan:
Jesuit McKenzie said that in John 1:1 it should be rendered the Word was “a divine being.” McKenzie was a Trinitarian but he is closer to us in terms of the translation of that passage than you who claim to be Catholic. I have his dictionary and just checked it. It has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

Jesus is a Archangel MICHAEL

Dan:
Milito of Sardis said Jesus was Archangel. So do many protestant scholars including Wesley and Calvin. We don’t claim they believe he was a created angel.

Jesus was not raised from the dead

Dan:
That is a false accusation. We do teach he was raised from the dead, that his ransom is the only hope for mankind and that he is the Savior.

Man does not have a soul

Dan:
See above

and we have No hell.

Dan:
Sheol is the Hebrew word frequently rendered as Hell, and Hades is the Greek word. We do believe hell literally exists as the place where the dead go. Jesus went there when he died. (Acts 2:27). We consider it to be a literal place. Ironically, while Catholics used to teach it was a literal place of fire and brimstone they now say it is the state of separation from God. So really you are the ones who don’t beleive in Hell 🙂

We believe in the Hell Jesus spoke of and don’t confuse it with Gehenna. They are different words.
Click to expand...
 
You have your cult les down very good I got this aff your web site are you out of your mine to now say this is not true It said big and loud
Thrinity a RCC fabrication
man does not have a soul
Jesus was not raised from the dead, I,am looking right at the paper I wrote it on and now you are saying it is not true.
 
I’ll tell you, Bill, I’m glad to be Catholic! This way, I know I have a chance of getting into Heaven! 🙂
 
40.png
Bill_Pick:
Dane You do not believe the Bible because you are using a book fron two diff cults you are using the BOM and that book from the JW the most corrupt in the world the people that put the book together did not know Greek from Ding do are Ynetdr, LOL Now you tell me what I said, that just what the Bible is and makes as much sense
 
Hi Dan,

Good to see you here! I wish more JWs would be willing to explain and defend their beliefs on public forums like this.

My best friend is a JW. We met in the Navy in 1974. At that time his dog tag read: “Protestant, no preference,” which is the military euphemism for: “Not Catholic, not Jewish and doesn’t go to church.”

He became a fervent member of your faith around 1983 and has tenaciously clung to it despite tremendous trials he has endured because of his religion and because of unrelated tragedies. He never tires of trying to convert me; thus, I have a much better understanding of your beliefs, and the underlying reasons for them, than do most non-members of your faith.

I think the JWs take unwarranted liberties from the original text in a few (but important) instances with your NWT; most notably John 1;1, and also the verses where Jesus admonishes: “This is my body.”

Despite the fact that in your own interlinear (which, by the way, was (curiously) written by Trinitarians) upon which the NWT was based, renders it *as such *in the original Greek and does not include the word “as,” you render it (I believe, I don’t have the NWT before me): “This is as my body.” Certainly one can make a case that the Lord was speaking metaphorically in this instance, but it seems wrong to add a word in translation that does not appear in the original text to make it seem that your interpretation is unquestionable.

I also have some other issues, such as overreaching within certain of your interpretations. However, I do admire the zeal a great many have manifested in regard to your faith; something that is sadly lacking within my own of late.

Best wishes to you,

Don Schneider
 
Bill_Pick said:
…and the name Roman Cathloic Church did not come along until 1051,I think thats the right date.may 1054
Click to expand...
Actually, the term originated in the 17th Century. The term was invented and used by early protestants (who argued that there could be more than one “Catholic” Church, and added “Roman” as a means to distinguish the Catholic Church from “other catholic churches”). The Catholic Church does not use the term (and, in fact, repudiates it). Individual Catholics should not refer to themselves or their Church as “Roman” Catholic.
 
Don_Schneider said:
Hi Dan,

Good to see you here! I wish more JWs would be willing to explain and defend their beliefs on public forums like this.

My best friend is a JW. We met in the Navy in 1974. At that time his dog tag read: “Protestant, no preference,” which is the military euphemism for: “Not Catholic, not Jewish and doesn’t go to church.”

He became a fervent member of your faith around 1983 and has tenaciously clung to it despite tremendous trials he has endured because of his religion and because of unrelated tragedies. He never tires of trying to convert me; thus, I have a much better understanding of your beliefs, and the underlying reasons for them, than do most non-members of your faith.

I think the JWs take unwarranted liberties from the original text in a few (but important) instances with your NWT; most notably John 1;1, and also the verses where Jesus admonishes: “This is my body.”

Despite the fact that in your own interlinear (which, by the way, was (curiously) written by Trinitarians) upon which the NWT was based, renders it *as such *in the original Greek and does not include the word “as,” you render it (I believe, I don’t have the NWT before me): “This is as my body.” Certainly one can make a case that the Lord was speaking metaphorically in this instance, but it seems wrong to add a word in translation that does not appear in the original text to make it seem that your interpretation is unquestionable.

I also have some other issues, such as overreaching within certain of your interpretations. However, I do admire the zeal a great many have manifested in regard to your faith; something that is sadly lacking within my own of late.

Best wishes to you,

Don Schneider
Click to expand...
Hi Don, nice to meet you.

You might want to read the post that I saved in my link on John 1:1 and how McKenzie renders it as the Word was “a divine being.” Also, that the word ESTIN having the significance “means” as a “representation of” something, see BDAG which was financed by LCMS.

The Greek Lexicon Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich (BDAG) says of the verb to be (EINAI):
a. to show how someth. is to be understood is a representation of, is the equivalent of; EIMI, here, too, serves as copula; we usually translate mean, so in the formula TOUT ESTIN this or that means, that is to say …he field means the world Mt 13:38; cp. vss. 19f, 22f; Mk 4:15f, 18, 20; Lk 8:11ff (cp. Gen 41:26f; Ezk 37:11; Ath. 22, 4 [Stoic interpr. of myths]). On TOUTO ESTIN TO SWMA MOU Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19 and its various interpretations

You may not agree with BDAG but it is a reasonable position considering the examples, but also see what Paul says using the same word:

NJB 1 Corinthians 11:25 And in the same way, with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is = ESTIN the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’

Arguably, the cup itself is not the covenant.
 
Thank you, Dan. I must retire now but first I shall print out your referenced note and this one for study. I do thank you and wish you the best. I hope to encounter you again here.

Best regards,

Don Schneider
 
A belief in the Trinity is essintial to Christianity.
“Go forth and baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Not names, but name.
“The Father and I are One”
 
40.png
Bill_Pick:
Dave Here is what you do not understand the Bible you are reading is NOT a Christian bible it was written by your cult member, get a christian bible and read JOHN 1:1

PS< Please read and try to understand / In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
 
Can i ask you to atleast name me one Greek Scholar who agrees with the JW translation of the bible??? Not to be overly criical but i heard that argument posed before.
 
GeorgeSword said:
A belief in the Trinity is essintial to Christianity.
“Go forth and baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Not names, but name.
“The Father and I are One”
Click to expand...
Jehovah’s Witnesses do baptize in the name of the Father, the name of the Son and the name of the holy spirit, although we don’t view this as a formula which must be repeated as a mantra. In fact the early Christians did not do so either. For example:


  1. ]DRA Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
    ]DRA Acts 8:12 But when they had believed Philip preaching of the kingdom of God,     in the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized**, both men and women
    *]DRA Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

    You claim that name is singular in Mt 28:19-20, but be careful with that argument. Some argue that this single name is Jesus Christ because of all the passages in Acts and then claim that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the single person of Jesus Christ.

    In fact the Greek word ONOMA (name) does not always mean ones given name. Sheriffs say to open the door in the name (ie authority) of the law, for example.

    Also along these lines some interpret John 10:30 to mean that Jesus claimed that he and his Father were one person. To address that, see John 17:21-23 where the disciples are one just as he and his Father are one.
    DRA John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one

    Oh, and BTW, merely mentioning three together in the same context does not make them the same being, see Peter, James and John for details. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top