Are Jehovah's witnesses real Christians?

[marks]

What test of Christianity is it that JW's fail? Please cite a Scripture verse to support your answer.

It's all already in the thread.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

It's all already in the thread.

Much love!

Then it should be easy for you to give a concise answer.

 

[marks]

Given, JW's consider themselves Christian, doesn't it stand to reason that Jesus plays a prominent role in the religion they hold dear?

You can't just go around announcing that so and so from 1000's of years supports your POV.

Jesus told us His teachings in the Scriptures. We find His thoughts there.

And I think I can be pretty certain that Jesus was not in fact a "Jehovah's Witness", "Jehovah" is not God's Name, it's a conjoining of letters from two different words, and there isn't even a "J" sound (soft G) in Hebrew. However you may pronounce YHWH it's pretty clear that Jehovah isn't it.

I can declare Budda supports my view, or that Methuselah is a "Baptist Believer", that doesn't make it true. What it most likely means is that I don't have a valid argument, and I'm grasping at straws, which will not hold me up.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

What test of Christianity is it that JW's fail? Please cite a Scripture verse to support your answer.

You can't just go around announcing that so and so from 1000's of years supports your POV.

Not an answer to my question!

Also, there is NO reason one cannot realize the ancients held the same view you today. None.

And I think I can be pretty certain that Jesus was not in fact a "Jehovah's Witness",

Agh, you are confusing common with proper nouns. @Robert Gwin never claimed Jeuss was a member of the organization formed in the 19th century known as 19th century "Jehovah's Witness" but that Jehovah had a witness recorded in Rev 1:5 who is explictly said to be Jesus. And your erudite, considered response ...

Actually Marks, Jehovah had witnesses even prior to humans sir, were you aware that Jesus was His very first witness? Rev 1:5 Jehovah has had covenanted witnesses since before 1500 BCE sir, yes we have been around quite a while.

To be honest, when I 1st read your post, I though you were referrring to GE "our image." Far better is what you pulled out (below is the VOICE translation). No wonder you got @marks all flustered! He can't acknowledge Biblical support for a doctrine he does not hold.

and from Jesus the Anointed, the Witness who is true and faithful, the first to emerge from death’s cold womb, the chosen Ruler over all the kings and rulers of the earth.

To the One who loves us and liberated us from the grip of our evil deeds through His very own blood​

 

[Dropship]

..We are not told to commemorate Christ's resurrection and we see that satan turned it into a chocolate egg and rabbit festival..

Christians celebrate Jesus's birth and resurrection, we don't give a hoot about eggs and rabbits..:)

 

[Dropship]

..It was not understood at the time, but we no longer display religious symbols. You do realize that in these last days our knowledge will increase correct Dan 12:4; Isa 2:2,3; Pro 4:18

JW's stopped using the cross on the cover of their publications, and if they're going to do similar chopping and changing in the future people might say they're not a stable religion..:)

 

[Dropship]

What test of Christianity is it that JW's fail?..

Only God himself knows if they're Christians, it's all up to him to decide..:)



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Continued From No.775

I have studied religions and carefully studied what Jesus teaches--The teachings of
Jesus and the facts of true God worship history back my teachers 100% with 0 doubt.

I assume you are not one of the anointed folks spoken of by 1John 2:26-27.
If so, then you are deprived of the advantages that the anointing provides;
which are:

1» Protects people from deception

2» Enables people to comprehend Jesus Christ's teachings the way he wants
them comprehended.

3» Makes it possible for people to remain in union with him.

Ergo; if you are satisfied with JW teachers, then it can mean but one
thing: they don't have the anointing any more than you do, because if they
really did, then you wouldn't be listening to their teachings, i.e. birds of a
feather flock together.

I'd imagine that quite a few ordinary Witnesses sincerely believe that their
association with the Watchtower Society keeps them in union with Jesus
Christ; but according to 1John 2:26-27, union with God's son isn't
accomplished on the coattails of an organization; it's accomplished by means
of the anointing.
_

 

[tigger 2]

And every single one of these passages which is a dynamic subjective translation still say what is said in actual translations.

Jesus name is above every single other name without exception. Even these passages with "other" added still show that every Galilean without exception was included! It is accepted grammatically in English when one remembers that the context here is every single Galililean is in mind without any single exception.

In english, all has two meanings.

1. Every single thing mentioned of a particular item.
2. Everything period!

Examples:

1. Wife asks husband," did you invite all the children to the party?" context shows that this means everyone of a specific group and there are exceptions (every child not on the initiation list)

2. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. This means every singly person is a sinner! No excpetions.

In Greek they give teh context by the word spelling and construct of the particular passage in mind! That is why all linguistic tranlsations simply say all because the passage means every name that is named!

...................................
Your reply is supposed to be to my request (#759) for you to identify "which of the following are 'dynamic translations' and which are not"; apparently you are incapable.

As for your statement above ("Jesus [sic] name is above every single other name without exception") that would mean that his name is above the Father's name. Clearly the intended meaning is "The name which is above every other name [excluding his own and his Father's -- Holy Spirit has no personal name for obvious reasons]."

 

[Wrangler]

Only God himself knows if they're Christians, it's all up to him to decide..:)

Yet you imply these cultural norms rise to the level of Scriptural mandate. Not cool.

 

[marks]

Also, there is NO reason one cannot realize the ancients held the same view you today. None.

I'm not sure about your grammar here, what you mean to be saying, but appropriating some historical name claiming they would agree with you isn't a valid argument.

Not an answer to my question!

Your question was non-sequitor to my statement.

Robert was saying that Jesus was a JW, no, that's not so. Near and dear? Sure! That's speaking for themselves. We hold Jesus near and dear. But that Jesus picked his sect of religion to adhere to, no, that's not valid.

Agh, you are confusing common with proper nouns. @Robert Gwin never claimed Jeuss was a member of the organization formed in the 19th century known as 19th century "Jehovah's Witness" but that Jehovah had a witness recorded in Rev 1:5 who is explictly said to be Jesus. And your erudite, considered response ...

Look at what he said, look at what he was expressing. He was divvying up people into "his group" and "not his group", and claimed Jesus for "his group". There isn't any mystery here to me about what was being expressed. Do you truly not see this?

It's just like Catholics defending the current Pope by saying Peter was the first Pope. No different. Identifying someone in history as if they were to be catagorized by your own set of beliefs, to link them to your group today.

To be honest, when I 1st read your post, I though you were referrring to GE "our image." Far better is what you pulled out (below is the VOICE translation). No wonder you got @marks all flustered! He can't acknowledge Biblical support for a doctrine he does not hold.
and from Jesus the Anointed, the Witness who is true and faithful, the first to emerge from death’s cold womb, the chosen Ruler over all the kings and rulers of the earth.

God's Name, however you pronounce YHWH, is not "Jehovah". That word does not follow Hebrew pronounciation, and was formed by combining the spelling of God's Name with the vowel points from another word in later Hebrew. It's not a Biblical name of God, plain and simple, and is in fact a word formed for the purpose of altering the Name. So to say that Jesus was one of Jehovah's Witnesses is to say that Jesus testifies to the name people made up for YHWH, as if He were in agreement with those who do so today.

Jesus is the Faithful and True Witness, but not of "Jehovah", not of a false religion. This is misappropriation.

And in doing so to testify to the false teachings of these who seek to gain Jesus' identification with them by this sort of verbal manipulation. For instance Jesus does not testify that He is Michael, a created angel.

Considering this is Jesus Christ, the Faithful and True Witness - this is after He returned to heaven - and not Michael, Jesus testifies that it is Jesus Christ, and not Michael, showing that teaching to be error, unless you reject His testimony.

There is no Biblical support to claim Jesus as "Jehovah's witness", and it's only done to attempt to give support to this modern day Christianity-based religion. It's a word game, in short.

Whereas the very passage used to promote that idea specifically denies the teaching of that religion. Talk about irony!

Much love!

 

[marks]

we don't give a hoot about eggs and rabbits..:)

Actually, I like to eat both of those!

Much love!

 

[tigger 2]

Well you need to remember that the word "other" appears in no Greek manuscript. The two greek words we translate as other are "heteros" and "allos" and neither are in any Greek text. those only appear in either paraphrase bibles or what are known as "dynamic translation" bibles, which are just a little above a paraphrase.

...................................
Just look in Strong's or The New American Standard concordances under "other." Allos is identified as #243, and heteros is identified as #2087. Allos is shown to be in dozens of places in the NT Greek text, starting with Matt 4:21. And heteros is found in dozens of places, starting with Matt. 6:24.

Your "research" and "knowledge" of NT Greek is, as usual, ridiculously wrong!

 

[Webers_Home]

.
Continued From No.788

Clearly the intended meaning is

Intended meanings aren't translations, rather: they are interpretations.

Here's an excellent example of a so-called intended meaning.

• Gen 3:2-3 . . The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat of the fruit of
the other trees of the garden. It is only about fruit of the tree in the middle
of the garden that God said: "You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die."

Is that really what God said? No, that's not what God said. He forbade Adam
eating the fruit, yes; but said nothing about touching it. (Gen 2:16-17)

The woman failed to repeat exactly what God said, rather, she interpreted
what He said. Consequently; her humanistic reasoning put a spin on God's
instructions so that instead of following them to the letter, the woman
revised them to mean something that God didn't actually say. Caveat Lector.
_

 

[marks]

Including JW, right?

When I speak of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, I'm referring the beliefs and whatnot of the religion, as taught by it's founders and adherants, if you will. I'm talking about the institution, not individual members. People have all kinds of ideas about things that are right and wrong and mixed bags. The lot of us! I don't think anyone gets it all right.

Only God knows how committed we really are to truth. How honest we are to ourselves and others. and who is truly trusting in Him. Those who seek, find. But what they will find is truth if they are seeking truth, and truth is found in the Bible, not these things that are contrary to the Scriptures.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

I'm not sure about your grammar here, what you mean to be saying, but appropriating some historical name claiming they would agree with you isn't a valid argument.

You are right; It's not an argument but a matter of fact.

I recently read a book, Atheism on Trial. The author made the point that modern say atheists are basically making the same claim as atheists from 2300 years ago.

If you adhere to School of X and another adheres to the School of Y, both originated in ancient times, it is just a fact of that lineage.

It seems like you are the one making an invalid argument. By denying the lineage, you seem to be discrediting the history of the concept being advocated. What's up with that?

 

[Wrangler]

Your question was non-sequitor to my statement.

Robert was saying that Jesus was a JW, no, that's not so. Near and dear? Sure! That's speaking for themselves. We hold Jesus near and dear. But that Jesus picked his sect of religion to adhere to, no, that's not valid.

BS. My question reveals insight into the foolishness of your statement.

Robert was NOT saying Jesus was a JW corporate member. He proved Jesus was a witness to Jehovah using Scripture. All you got is this ridiculous claim, judging the proved argument invalid. Where is your response to Rev 1:5? Cricket ... Cricket ...Cricket ...

 

[Wrangler]

God's Name, however you pronounce YHWH, is not "Jehovah".

It is the English name for God. Just like Yeshua, the name of our lord, is not Jesus in the original text. Jesus is the English name for our lord.

For the record, I do not like such name changes but I recognize this is how people use language. Another example is the capital city of Italy, in the native language is Roma. For some reason, we change the name to Rome.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus is the Faithful and True Witness, but not of "Jehovah"

Jehovah Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Jehovah
noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In

Je·ho·vah | \ ji-ˈhō-və \
Definition of Jehovah


: GOD sense 1a

 

[marks]

You are right; It's not an argument but a matter of fact.

I recently read a book, Atheism on Trial. The author made the point that modern say atheists are basically making the same claim as atheists from 2300 years ago.

If you adhere to School of X and another adheres to the School of Y, both originated in ancient times, it is just a fact of that lineage.

It seems like you are the one making an invalid argument. By denying the lineage, you seem to be discrediting the history of the concept being advocated. What's up with that?

Actually, you can be an athiest having never read an history book, or theological treatise, whatever.

The fact that my POV may appear similar to someone else's POV does not mean that mine POV was derived from their POV.

But even so . . . Jesus most pointedly did not originate the teaching that He did not rise with His Own body, or that He is in fact Michael, a created angel.

And that's what Robert was attempting to connect the dots on.

Much love!