15 Dec 11
Just wondering from some of you more knowledgable commentors here if the characterization of JW in wikipedia is correct.
Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distributing literature such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and refusing military service and blood transfusions. They consider use of the name Jehovah vital for proper worship. They reject Trinitarianism, inherent immortality of the soul, and hellfire, which they consider to be unscriptural doctrines. They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity. Adherents commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth". Jehovah's Witnesses consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.
Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning. Members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals may eventually be reinstated if considered repentant.
Critics have described the religion's leadership as autocratic and totalitarian because of Watch Tower Society requirements for loyalty and obedience by Witnesses, intolerance of dissent about doctrines and practices, and the practice of expelling and shunning members who cannot conscientiously agree with all the religion's teachings. Sociologist Andrew Holden says those who choose to leave the religion "are seldom allowed a dignified exit. Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’." . . .
The Watch Tower Society's publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "God's organization". It warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil" and would "cause division". Critics charge that by disparaging individual decision-making, the Watch Tower Society cultivates a system of unquestioning obedience in which Witnesses abrogate all responsibility and rights over their personal lives. Critics have accused the Watch Tower Society of exercising "intellectual dominance" over Witnesses, controlling information and creating "mental isolation", which former Governing Body member Raymond Franz argued were all elements of mind control.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by moon1969May I add that although they also claim to be Christian they deny the
Just wondering from some of you more knowledgable commentors here if the characterization of JW in wikipedia is correct.
Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distributing literature such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and refusing military service and blood transfusions. They consider use of the name Jehovah vital fo ...[text shortened]... y member Raymond Franz argued were all elements of mind control.
Doctrines of Christianity, but do have some true non-essential teachings
that most of the main Christian churches do not share. That is, some
little known truth is mixed in with the errors to make it more appealing
to new converts.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by moon1969Hey I like your icon. I'm from Texas and I'm a big fan of the Texans.
Do Jehova Witness believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Just curious and too lazy to research it. I had a girlfriend once that was JW, and eventually she talk to the elders about me.
And yes Jesus is the son of God... Not God but the "Son of God"
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by moon19691st part is pretty much correct but the last section is not correct...as the critics explain.
Just wondering from some of you more knowledgable commentors here if the characterization of JW in wikipedia is correct.
Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distributing literature such as The Watchtower and Awake!, and refusing military service and blood transfusions. They consider use of the name Jehovah vital fo ...[text shortened]... y member Raymond Franz argued were all elements of mind control.
The best way to find out what we believe is to ask a JW.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWe completely accept the doctines and truths of the Bible. We do not follow anyone that adds to the bible with their own paganistic doctrines that anyone can find without much effort such as the trinity.. Never in the Bible at all.
May I add that although they also claim to be Christian they deny the
Doctrines of Christianity, but do have some true non-essential teachings
that most of the main Christian churches do not share. That is, some
little known truth is mixed in with the errors to make it more appealing
to new converts.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWith JWs being followers of Christ and the Bible, their doctrines are, by definition, Christian doctrines. "Christianity" is not homogeneous. The fact that you do not "share" JW teachings does not mean that the terminology "Christian" is yours to assign or withhold.
May I add that although they also claim to be Christian they deny the
Doctrines of Christianity, but do have some true non-essential teachings
that most of the main Christian churches do not share.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFPlease leave gay geniuses out of this.
With JWs being followers of Christ and the Bible, their doctrines are, by definition, Christian doctrines. "Christianity" is not homogeneous. The fact that you do not "share" JW teachings does not mean that the terminology "Christian" is yours to assign or withhold.
15 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThanks but they don't see it that way. If one does not accept the trinity and a few other topics for discussion, it doesn't fit the 4th century mold their in. Your'e out as far as they are concernd.
With JWs being followers of Christ and the Bible, their doctrines are, by definition, Christian doctrines. "Christianity" is not homogeneous. The fact that you do not "share" JW teachings does not mean that the terminology "Christian" is yours to assign or withhold.
In fact no other Christian religions accept us as Christian...
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75But do you believe the Son of God is uncreated and the only begotten
We completely accept the doctines and truths of the Bible. We do not follow anyone that adds to the bible with their own paganistic doctrines that anyone can find without much effort such as the trinity.. Never in the Bible at all.
Son of God according to Christian Doctrines.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFHow would a Muslim know anything about Christian Doctrines? You are
With JWs being followers of Christ and the Bible, their doctrines are, by definition, Christian doctrines. "Christianity" is not homogeneous. The fact that you do not "share" JW teachings does not mean that the terminology "Christian" is yours to assign or withhold.
not qualified to tell true Christian Doctrines from false teachings of the JWs.
15 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, I'm not a Muslim, as you well know. Whether you happen to think JW doctrines are "true" or "false" does not alter the fact that they are 'Christian Doctrines'. JWs are followers of Christ and the Bible, that makes them Christian and it makes their doctrines Christian doctrines regardless of whether you "share" them. Like I said, as sincere and enthusiastic as you may be, the label "Christian" is not yours to assign or withhold.
How would a Muslim know anything about Christian Doctrines? You are
not qualified to tell true Christian Doctrines from false teachings of the JWs.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFHehehe 😀
Well, I'm not a Muslim, as you well know. Whether you happen to think JW doctrines are "true" or "false" does not alter the fact that they are 'Christian Doctrines'. JWs are followers of Christ and the Bible, that makes them Christian and it makes their doctrines Christian doctrines regardless of whether you "share" them. Like I said, as sincere and enthusiastic as you may be, the label "Christian" is not yours to assign or withhold.
15 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsColossians 1:15
But do you believe the Son of God is uncreated and the only begotten
Son of God according to Christian Doctrines.
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
15He is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation.
If you have a Bible look this up. It's saying (((((((((((( 2 ))))))))))))))) things here which you do not believe. First it says he is the what? The image of God. Does it say he is God here? NO, but an image of his father!!!!
The second point which you do not believe is it says: He (Jesus ) is the what? The firstborn of all creation.
So Jesus was created and had a beginning. His Father did not have a beginning.....clear and simple.
Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is panta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to panta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar‧khe′] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of arkhe. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.&rdquo😉
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
It is you that does not believe in the Bible. But it's man made doctrines that have you blinded to the simple truths in the Bible.