Jehova Witness/the Kingdom of God

[Regardless]

…The fact that we don’t worship statues is another point she has trouble coming to terms with, It doesn’t matter how often I say something along the lines of I don’t worship it I know it’s not God, its an aid to prayer, I go on to point out the biblical instances of images in worship but she’s having none of it. but how and ever we are getting there.

Sure. I have seen Catholic churches have statues. I have visited Rome and saw lots at the vatican. People were kneeling before them and praying.
We all know the scriptures say: “Guard yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:21)
Can you see how JW confuse this?

What Biblical instances of images in worship did you show her?

 

[Regardless]

…
My view being at least try and debunk the God I believe in rather than erroneously assuming I’m a tri-theist(believe in three gods) or a modalist(one person of God with three faces) or some variation on these themes…

Modalist! That is a new word for me.
I have seen pictures of statues where there are three faces on one head, but only 4 eyes. (I find it creepy) I had thought that was from Catholic churches. What religion had those?

 

[T_More]

Modalist! That is a new word for me.

**Hardly. I’ve been using the word with you and how you’ve misinterpreted what the Trinity actually teaches for quite a while now. **

I have seen pictures of statues where there are three faces on one head, but only 4 eyes. (I find it creepy) I had thought that was from Catholic churches. What religion had those?

 

[Regardless]

Here’s a question: Does God wish his church to be a church of mysticism and mystics, that is, that He wish His church to contain the supernatural people influenced by the Holy Spirit?..
The question we must ask ourselves: Which church was Jesus Christ speaking about?

… it is considered that there are over 38,000 Christan denominational churches world-wide. Why is this? What would be the reason for this? What would be the reason for so much fragmantations in Christianity? …

Did Christ wish that there be thousands and thousands of break away churches? Of course not!

In the beginning there was the one church and it must be still here today with us. But which church was he talking about? Was he talking about the Pentecostal churches, or the Lutheran Church, or the Assemblies of God, or the Presbyterian Church, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the Catholic Church, or the other 38,000 Christian denominational churches?..

The Church Jesus Christ established over 2,000 years ago, and, can this church be separable or destroyed? Is it with us still today?

Good question. One of our recent magazines quoted a source that puts the latest number of “Christian” denominations at 42,000!

None of those churches you mention existed.
Though did the Church of Rome exist when Jesus said those words?

 

[T_More]

Good question. One of our recent magazines quoted a source that puts the latest number of “Christian” denominations at 42,000!

None of those churches you mention existed.
Though did the Church of Rome exist when Jesus said those words?

It was the Church he founded in Matthew 16. The Church he mentioned that those should take their disputes to in Matthew 18. The Church that the Holy Spirit descended upon in the upper room at Pentecost. The Church Paul said was the pillar and foundation of truth in 1 Timothy 3:15. And it was the Church that decided upon the canon of scripture that you as a JW use every day.

The JW’s certainly did not exist then, it began with Russell ( and in reality, it was actually Rutherford). So if Christ promised the Church would never fail and be guided into all truth, why are you following a church that can’t possibly be the one Christ was speaking about?

 

[Theophorus]

Sure. I have seen Catholic churches have statues. I have visited Rome and saw lots at the vatican. People were kneeling before them and praying.
We all know the scriptures say: “Guard yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:21)
Can you see how JW confuse this?

What Biblical instances of images in worship did you show her?

I can see how you get the wrong idea, the problem lies in my friend not being willing to accept any explination which is at odds with her preconceived notions, I’m not generalising this to all JW’s .

It is the verses concerning the Ark and the Temple in the OT mainly(i.e. Numbers 7:89 1 Kings 6:23-35), as with the ancient Isralites we use Physical objects as an aid to prayer, we don’t worship statues themselves or assume that they are gods, but is in keeping with the biblical practice. I also explained my thoughts on the Fact God used a pillar of smoke to signal his presence for worship in the OT as being significant as a physical aid to worship of Him(which is how we treat statues).

Likewise in the new testament presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice for spiritual worship cf. Romans 12:1 indicates to me the acceptability of physical aids. Obviously in chats or emails to my friend the reasoning was greatly expanded, I simply show the bare bones of our discussion here.

 

[Theophorus]

Modalist! That is a new word for me.
I have seen pictures of statues where there are three faces on one head, but only 4 eyes. (I find it creepy) I had thought that was from Catholic churches. What religion had those?

Modalism is the technical name for the misconception of the trinity I’m presented with most often by your co-religionists. I’ve not seen the statues you mention so I don’t know where they are from.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Watchtower makes the claim that:

“Beginning with Pentecost, 33 C.E., and continuing through the 19 centuries since then, this slavelike congregation has been feeding its members spiritually.” Watchtower 1981 Mar 1 p.24

If that is true, who was the Slave immediately preceding Russell?

That is a good question: Where was the Watchtower from 100AD to 1914AD?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Modalist! That is a new word for me.
I have seen pictures of statues where there are three faces on one head, but only 4 eyes. (I find it creepy) I had thought that was from Catholic churches. What religion had those?

Modalism is the idea that God operates in three modes, or facets, not persons. The church rejected that notion because the Father and the Son are clearly different persons.

 

[CoRedeemer]

The Watchtower makes the claim that:

“Beginning with Pentecost, 33 C.E., and continuing through the 19 centuries since then, this slavelike congregation has been feeding its members spiritually.” Watchtower 1981 Mar 1 p.24

If that is true, who was the Slave immediately preceding Russell?

Thanks T More, You’re giving me ideas to make my own Christian religion. Perhaps I myself am the Faithful and Discreet Slave. Or maybe I should establish my own church called, “The Cephas of Jesus Christ,” But that liner is a recipe to make Giga-trillions of Christian religions. Who is the Faithful and Discreet Slave? Well, it doesn’t say, therefore, anybody could say, “It is me and only me,” And so this would cause fragmantations after fragmantations of Christian sects.

This is so dangerous,

Sacred scripture says nothing about Charles Taze Russell being the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ. Where is that in the Bible?

Why are there thousands upon thousands of Christian denominational churches? Because these Christian churches do not follow the succession of the apostles, which we call, “The unbroken line of Successors.”. They don’t look-up or research the early church fathers. They don’t follow 2-Thessalonians 2:15. They have no point of origin to back-up to say that they are decended from the apostles. They have the bible, and that’s it! That’s all they have!

Well, Saint Ignatius of Antioch (born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117) was the first Bishop to have mentioned the word “The Catholic Church” around 110 AD. (Read below to see for yourself.)

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Who is Saint Ignatius of Antioch?

Saint Ignatius of Antioch also called “Theophorus” (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117. He was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius. St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. He was sentenced to be eaten by lions.

 

[Regardless]

Sacred scripture says nothing about Charles Taze Russell being the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ. Where is that in the Bible?

Jesus was the founder of the Church of Christ. Not C. T. Russell. Though I’m sure he was part of the fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus gave.

Why are there thousands upon thousands of Christian denominational churches?..They don’t follow 2-Thessalonians 2:15. They have no point of origin to back-up to say that they are decended from the apostles. They have the bible, and that’s it! That’s all they have!.

It is interesting you refer to 2 Thess 2:15, because that was a warning against being corrupted by the “apostasy.” The NIV calls it “a rebellion” and the KJV “the falling away”.

Jesus gave a parable at Matt 13:24-30. He explained it for his disciples in verses 36-43.
Briefly, - a man sowed a field with fine wheat seed, but it was also sowed with weeds by an enemy. When realised, the man stopped his servants uprooting the weeds, but at harvest time the wheat and weeds were separated for saving or destroying.

This represented Jesus planting true religion, but Satan would introduce false. The two would grow together. Jesus said until the “conclusion of the system” (the end of the age NIV). Then his angels would separate true from false.

So Jesus foretold the true religion would be infiltrated by false. Satan tried to destroy true religion, but could not. Matt 28:19, 20 said so. Instead he tried counterfeit religion. “Apostasy.”

This illustration does not portray genuine Christians who fall away from the truth. Rather, it points to a deliberate effort on the part of Satan to corrupt the Christian congregation by introducing wicked people into it. By the time that the last apostle, John, was old, this apostasy was clearly evident. (2 Pet. 2:1-3; 1 John 2:18.)

These weedlike Christians appeaed “While men were sleeping,” says Jesus. (Matt. 13:25) When was this? We find the answer in Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders: “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:29, 30) He went on to admonish those elders to keep awake spiritually.

After the apostles, who acted as “a restraint” against the apostasy, began falling asleep in death, many Christians fell asleep spiritually. (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 6-8.) That is when the “apostasy” started.

We can look to history to see the change that occurred after the death of the apostles! False teachings entered and Christendom was soon involved in politics and pagan celebrations. The numbers of “Christians” increased, but it was not the true religion Jesus set up. Jesus prophecy was accurate.

So we would have to look to the “harvest time” (the conclusion of the system) to see the difference between true and false religion.

How do we tell the difference? Jesus tells us in Matt. 7:16-23. Their fruits. What they produce. … But this post is now long enough.

 

[jessaka]

Were you ever been shunned by the JWs? Do you know what it does to your life? Did you ever try to read the OT on your own and find that the God of that OT lies, is immoral, and kills? Did you truly believe that Hades and Sheol are the common grave and to be told now that there is a hell when you know there isn’t? Or did they convince you? As a woman if you don’t wish to have children, you have them anyway, because if you do use birth control you have sinned? And how do we know that the NT was not tampered with, that the belief that Christ died for our sins is the truth? Just because the Bible says it is? If God is all powerful he doesn’t have to die for our sins to save us; he just gives the word, and it is done. And what happens when one gets excommincated? Are they shunned? Are people truly loving towards them then?

Yes, there are wonderful things about Mass and other aspects of the church, but there is also a lot of control over people’s lives. A woman on here, I believe, asked if she has to get her marriage annuled now that her husband has died. I didn’t read it all, but why would someone even think to do something like that unless it was a bad marriage? Why would I have to get my first marriage annulled in order to become a Catholic and be considered married now? These things are too private and too controlling to me. I know that there is a God, but I don’t believe this God is all that controlling.

 

[Regardless]

Why are there thousands upon thousands of Christian denominational churches? Because these Christian churches do not follow the succession of the apostles, … They have no point of origin to back-up to say that they are decended from the apostles. They have the bible, and that’s it! That’s all they have!

So are you saying above that being able to claim decent from the apostles is more important than following the Bible?

It makes me think of where the Jews listening to Jesus claimed: “we are Abrahams offspring” (John 8:33.) as if that made them the true religion.
Was that enough?
Was being able to trace their line back to Abraham a magic talisman that made whatever they did acceptable to Jehovah?

At Mark 7:13 Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid by your tradition.”

The Jewish religion had added all sorts of traditions and extra rules to their worship. In doing so they had lost the point of the law Jehovah had given them. They were even rejecting the one God was now using to reveal the truth!

So finally at Matt 21:43 Jesus said “this is why the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing it’s fruits.”

The Jews had turned from what God’s word said and added lots of traditions of their own. - so were no longer approved by him – (despite claiming descent from Abraham.) God shifted his approval to the Christian congregation instead and began using them.

If the church claims decent from the apostles but has left what the Bible says – would it still be approved by God?

 

[Church_Militant]

So are you saying above that being able to claim decent from the apostles is more important than following the Bible?

snip

If the church claims decent from the apostles but has left what the Bible says – would it still be approved by God?

Please show me anywhere in the Bible where it specifically says that all that Christians believe and practice must be found in the Bible. Having read it many times myself and continuing to do so, I don’t believe you’ll be able to offer any such passages, but please by all means take a swing at it.

The really bad news for you is that your own errant doctrines were not shared by the early church…except for the Arian heretics, and they corrected themselves, while your own modern men resurrected it and continue to preach it.

You’d have to list any so called doctrinal departures from the Bible that we Catholics supposedly hold for us to address them, though I suspect they’ve been refuted many times over, so that won’t be very hard at all. But again, please have at it, so we can deal with them.

 

[Regardless]

Indeed. If we put those two posts together (140 and 150)
– what if the foretold “revolt” , “falling away”, or “apostasy” happened among those who claimed to be the apostles descendants?
Would that nullify Jesus judgement on them?

If later – (say during the conclusion of the system of things (Matt 13:39)) a group ignored all the traditions and went back to the truth of the Bible – would God say:
“oh I can’t use you. You don’t trace your ancestry back to the apostles!”
– Or would he say – “Good, I will use you to do the preaching work due now?” (Matt 24:14)

 

[Theophorus]

So are you saying above that being able to claim decent from the apostles is more important than following the Bible?

It makes me think of where the Jews listening to Jesus claimed: “we are Abrahams offspring” (John 8:33.) as if that made them the true religion.
Was that enough?
Was being able to trace their line back to Abraham a magic talisman that made whatever they did acceptable to Jehovah?

At Mark 7:13 Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid by your tradition.”

The Jewish religion had added all sorts of traditions and extra rules to their worship. In doing so they had lost the point of the law Jehovah had given them. They were even rejecting the one God was now using to reveal the truth!

So finally at Matt 21:43 Jesus said “this is why the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing it’s fruits.”

The Jews had turned from what God’s word said and added lots of traditions of their own. - so were no longer approved by him – (despite claiming descent from Abraham.) God shifted his approval to the Christian congregation instead and began using them.

If the church claims decent from the apostles but has left what the Bible says – would it still be approved by God?

Where has the Church left that Tradition which is consigned to writing in what we call the Sacred Scriptures?

 

[Regardless]

Where has the Church left that Tradition which is consigned to writing in what we call the Sacred Scriptures?

Well, three examples that spring to mind and I have evidence on hand are:

The Immortality of the soul:

Below is a paragraph from the online encyclopedia Britannica under “Soul”.
“…Biblical references to the soul … establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.”

Of course the Trinity.

“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

And involvement in politics and war:

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius, no Christian became a soldier, and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” - The Rise of Christianity, by E.W. Barnes, p.333

This last one is because Jesus had said his followers were “no part of the world.” (John 17:14)
To Pilate Jesus said: “my kingdom was no part of the world” (John18:36) and went on to reason his followers would have fought if it were.

Please don’t take offense.
I am just working my way through a question about why Jehovah’s Witnesses consider they could have the truth when they don’t have a long history. They endeavour to go back to what Jesus and his apostles believed.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Well, three examples that spring to mind and I have evidence on hand are:

The Immortality of the soul:

Below is a paragraph from the online encyclopedia Britannica under “Soul”.
“…Biblical references to the soul … establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.”

Really? That’s mighty odd since Christ Himself says,
Matthew 22:32
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Mark 12:27
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You therefore do greatly err.

Luke 20:38
For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him.

Of course the Trinity.

“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

Yet nowhere in scripture does it say that a specific reference need exist for a concept to be true or a name to be valid. The fact that your cult rejects the clear reference to the interactions of the Trinitarian persons in scripture has long been known.

You choose to ignore the “one unity” in the Hebrew word “echad” in the Sh’ma Israel in Deuteronomy 6:4, which is the very same word used in Genesis 2:24 where it says, “and they shall be two in one [echad} flesh.”

Also, we see that in the creation of man, where the plural is used when God says in [/COLOR]
Genesis 1:26
And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

God is not some doddering old fool muttering to Himself, obviously.

Then there is Matthew 3:[16] And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The entire Trinity is here interacting.

And involvement in politics and war:

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius, no Christian became a soldier, and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” - The Rise of Christianity, by E.W. Barnes, p.333

This last one is because Jesus had said his followers were “no part of the world.” (John 17:14)
To Pilate Jesus said: “my kingdom was no part of the world” (John18:36) and went on to reason his followers would have fought if it were. :shrug:This belief is found nowhere in the Bible, and in fact we have Our Lord teaching believing soldiers in Luke 3:14 where He tells them, “And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.” He nowhere tells them to leave their service or not to join one and there is no such support for your claim anywhere else in the New Testament.Yours is clearly a new wind of doctrines of modern men.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, three examples that spring to mind and I have evidence on hand are:

The Immortality of the soul:

Below is a paragraph from the online encyclopedia Britannica under “Soul”.
“…Biblical references to the soul … establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.”

Really? That’s mighty odd since Christ Himself says,
Matthew 22:32
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Mark 12:27
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You therefore do greatly err.

Luke 20:38
For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him.

Of course the Trinity.

“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

Yet nowhere in scripture does it say that a specific reference need exist for a concept to be true or a name to be valid. The fact that your cult rejects the clear reference to the interactions of the Trinitarian persons in scripture has long been known.

You choose to ignore the “one unity” in the Hebrew word “echad” in the Sh’ma Israel in Deuteronomy 6:4, which is the very same word used in Genesis 2:24 where it says, “and they shall be two in one [echad} flesh.”

Also, we see that in the creation of man, where the plural is used when God says in [/COLOR]
Genesis 1:26
And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

God is not some doddering old fool muttering to Himself, obviously.

Then there is Matthew 3:[16] And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The entire Trinity is here interacting.

And involvement in politics and war:

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius, no Christian became a soldier, and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” - The Rise of Christianity, by E.W. Barnes, p.333

This last one is because Jesus had said his followers were “no part of the world.” (John 17:14)
To Pilate Jesus said: “my kingdom was no part of the world” (John18:36) and went on to reason his followers would have fought if it were. :shrug:This belief is found nowhere in the Bible, and in fact we have Our Lord teaching believing soldiers in Luke 3:14 where He tells them, “And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.” He nowhere tells them to leave their service or not to join one and there is no such support for your claim anywhere else in the New Testament.Yours is clearly a new wind of doctrines of modern men.

 

[Theophorus]

Well, three examples that spring to mind and I have evidence on hand are:

The Immortality of the soul:

Below is a paragraph from the online encyclopedia Britannica under “Soul”.
“…Biblical references to the soul … establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.”

Of course the Trinity.

“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

And involvement in politics and war:

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius, no Christian became a soldier, and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” - The Rise of Christianity, by E.W. Barnes, p.333

This last one is because Jesus had said his followers were “no part of the world.” (John 17:14)
To Pilate Jesus said: “my kingdom was no part of the world” (John18:36) and went on to reason his followers would have fought if it were.

Please don’t take offense.
I am just working my way through a question about why Jehovah’s Witnesses consider they could have the truth when they don’t have a long history. They endeavour to go back to what Jesus and his apostles believed.

Its not the concepts themselves which developed over time but it was our language and understanding which developed to express the realities expressed in scripture. For instance the eternity of the soul is attested to in for example both Matt. 18:8, and 25:46 it is only our ability to explain this reality that has developed over time.

The Trinitarian nature of God, again that Jesus is equal to the father and of the same nature as him is in (Jn 1:1 ff. phil 2:6-11! Jn 3:16(you can only beget something of the same natureas yourself now the nature of the Father is God, what does that make the son?), and yet how is there not three but one God?

Last point we are not of the world(jn15:19), but we are obviously in the world and we are called not to shun the world but to baptise it(cf. Mt 28:19) we are also called to give to cesar what is cesar’s(Mt. 22:21). This dynamic does create some tension but it is what our Lord gave us. That is what we work with.