by Amazing 18 Replies latest jw friends
Christendom...do basically have it right. They have been doing it longer. Mind you they have had there moments. Inquistions, reformation etc. But by and large they have settled down. The WTS has time to settle down also and become mainstreamish. But as far as 'truth' is concerned they all will disappoint.
ISP
Rev B,
Doctrines like trinity, immortal soul and burning hell aren't biblical true.You are right about the Trinity, I have yet to see anyone prove the Trinity using only the Bible.
Your statement is not necessarily true regarding the immortal soul and a burning hell.
A knowledgable Jehovah's Witness can show you why the Bible does NOT support the immortal soul and a burning hell.
A knowledgable born-again Christian can show you why the Bible DOES support the immortal soul and a burning hell.
It is interesting to have a knowledgable born-again and a knowledgable JW face-off over these issues.
The truth is, the Bible contradicts itself or is vague in these areas. Both sides can make reasonable arguments and "prove" their view.
I used to believe both points of view at different times. I am not interested in the issue now, as I am an atheist and have little interest in proving what the Bible says on theological topics.
SS/Richard
Amazing
You've brought up some really great points, which I agree with. I am amazed on other JW boards how many spout how the JWs are the only ones who live by their beliefs and how Christendom has it all wrong. I am amazed even more by how kind and loving those within Christendom are. I attend a church in Dallas, TX, that truly tries to live by the example that Jesus Christ taught. No, they don't always do it, but most that I know of truly want and try to live according to those rules and examples set out in the Bible. When I became a Christian, I understood that my salvation was based on believing whether or not Christ died for my sins and accepting that gift given to me. That was it. Very simple. That is all that was required of me. I didn't go through sessions with my pastor asking me questions about my bible knowledge. I didn't have to pledge my allegiance to a specific church. I didn't have to count hours of my evangelical work. I didn't have to confess my sins to a priest or elder. I didn't even have to be perfect and never swear, never get drunk, not commit other serious sins. Of course, bad behavior is never condoned, but everyone understands that my life is business only between my and my Lord. If someone loves me and tries to help me or guide me, they do so out of love and concern. I will never get disfellowshipped from my church. Interestingly enough, the times in my life (after I became a Christian) when I lived with a boyfriend, I was treated with more love and concern than ever. The members thought I could have made a wiser moral decision and tried to help me see that. But it was help out of love, kindness, and concern - to this day I'll never forget how unjudgemental and how noncondescending they were with counsel.
The only thing that I was asked was to totally turn my life over to God's care and live according to the Golden Rule. Believing the trinity, the cross v. stake, the sanctity of blood, and other doctrine was NEVER a requirement for me to become a Christian. Although those beliefs are different from religion to religion, and even church to church, those were never brought up. I was asked, "Do you believe Christ is your savior and are you willing to do all you can to follow his example." I did/do believe that and was willing to make necessary changes. It was a decision out of love and not fear of death or religious obligation. Nothing else was asked of me.
For those that make general statements that Christendom as a whole says you MUST believe in the trinity, or that you must believe Christ died on a cross, are totally wrong! Although that statement may be true for some church, the words "all" or even "most" is not correct. If anyone has had any long term experience with several mainstream religions, they would realize that.
Yadirf
Although it’s not necessary to “visit” any of Christendom’s divided denominations, because there’s other ways of familiarizing oneself with all that they do...I find this a little contradictory to the standard that JWs typically live by. Could this same comment be applied to JWs??? Any good JW would say, "You must really be involved in the life of an everyday dub to understand what dub life is." You say it's not necessary to visit other denominations to familiarize yourself? How can you understand Christendom remotely, like you mention, but you can't do that with JWs? Do you understand why I think this is a double standard? It just doesn't seem right. BTW - I'm glad to see you back on the board. I've meant to tell you earlier, but just haven't gotten around to it.
Andi
You got it 100%!
Freeman
Hi Richard,
I am really surprised that you have not encountered valid, scriptural exgesis and hermaeutics. JW single scripture exgesis does not make for any contradiction in Biblical teachings. JWs cannot prove anything, except what they happen to agree with orthodox Christianity on. Richard, if you take Randy Watter's, Jeff Schwenn or Ron Rhodes works on the doctrinal comparisons you will see that protestantism can prove it's doctrines of salvation, trinity, immortal soul and a literal hell by 'sola scriptura'.
JWs (and other cults) do not let scripture interpret scripture and they constantly twist context, so how in the world you can say they can prove anything is beyond me.
http://www.watchman.org/jw/answers.htm Answering Watchtower Objections
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/t03.html The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Robert Bowman
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/t10.html The Doctrine of the Trinity
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Trinity/beckwith.html The Trinity by Francis J Beckwith
http://www.probe.org/docs/bel-trin.html Why We Should Believe in the Trinity Pat Zuckeran
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9t8/9t8072.html Writing the Trinity Philip Yancey
http://www.atlantaapologist.org/Sharp.html A Bicentennial Defense of Granville Sharp's Argument for the Deity of Christ.
Start with these links for your basic course in "Godhead 101". When you are ready to admit that the protestants have it right, we'll go on to the next doctrine that you think JW can "disprove".
Rex
Glad to see the above links now clickable!
(edited to remove post)
For the benefit of all ex-JWs who still believe Watchtower shifting sands theology:
(From one of my previous links, cut and paste directly to you!)
Answering Watchtower Objections
David Henke
Jehovah's Witnesses will object to the Christian that the word "Trinity" is not found in the scripture, the doctrine is unreasonable, it is of pagan Babylonish origin, it was introduced as church doctrine in the fourth century, is a "complicated, freakish-looking, three-headed God" (Let God Be True, p. 83), and finally they will call it unscriptural.
Is The Word "Trinity" In The Bible?
One of the easiest objections to answer is the charge that the term "Trinity" is not found in scripture. True, it is not.
The term has been attributed to both Theophilus (116 to 181 AD), and Tertullian (160 to 220 AD). It expresses the Biblical teaching of three Persons (tri) in one God (unity).
If Jehovah's Witnesses insist that this point is important point out to them that the terms "millenium," "theocracy," and "rapture" are not found in scripture either. Will they stop believing their doctrine on these subjects because of the absence of these words in scripture?
Is It Unreasonable?
It must be kept in mind, and repeated often to the Jehovah's Witness, that the sense in which God is "one" (his nature) is different from the sense in which he is "three" (Persons).
As Rev. John S. Banks says in A Manual of Christian Doctrine, "The combination of the two elements involves no logical contradiction, because they refer to the Godhead in different respects, one to nature, the other to persons. The mere fact of incomprehensible mystery is no objection, every truth respecting God being no less mysterious" (p. 108).
God is an infinite being and man is a sin darkened finite creature so by definition man is unable to comprehend infinite perfection, regardless of whether it is the Watchtower god or the Biblical God.
A Pagan Doctrine?
>
It is true there are pagan "trinities" which date back to Babylon, but rather than this fact supporting the Watchtower contention it actually is an evidence in favor of the Biblical triune God.
Robert Watts in New Apologetic says the pagan triads are "residuary fragments of the lost knowledge of God, not different stages in a process of theological evolution, but evidence of a moral and spiritual degradation" (p. 195; as quoted in Augustus H. Strong's Systematic Theology, p. 352).
Thus, because Israel had spent four hundred years in pagan Egypt, where the triad of Osiris, Isis, and Horus held sway, God began their theological education by establishing the unity of God first. Later they would learn of the plurality of Persons within the unity of the one God. To start by revealing plurality within unity would leave an opening for interpretation consistent with the pagan counterfeits. This view is presented in the book The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop.
Hislop says concerning these pagan trinities, "All these have existed from ancient times. While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all ancient nations of the world, proving how deep-rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject, which comes out so distinctly in Genesis" (p. 18).
(Whoa, isn't this one of the publications so often referred to by JW writers?)
A Fourth Century Invention?
Jehovah's Witnesses charge that the doctrine is of late origin, a fourth century product, hence an invention of man. With the advent of Jesus, and the writing of the New Testament, God reveals clearly the plurality of Persons in the Godhead.
What we see in Church history from that point until the fourth century is a growing controversy over the person of Christ, and not whether three Persons comprise the one God.
For the most part this was a disagreement over his humanity, not his deity. The Gnosticism of the day, which influenced some of the church Fathers, did not see that God, who is pure and holy, could have any real contact with matter, which they saw as evil.
Thus the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ (Emmanuel, meaning `God with us') presented some church Fathers with problems over Jesus' true humanity. Their dilemma was to figure out how Jesus, whom they understood to be God, could take on a material body which is evil?
This was the issue John addressed in 1 John. He stated that to deny "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" is of anti-Christ (1 John 4:1-3).
When the Watchtower says the doctrine of the Trinity was "formulated" in the fourth century they are implying that it was invented then. They are wrong. The doctrine was believed by the Church from the time of the Apostles.
A doctrine is seldom defined precisely until some error comes along to force a precise definition. This defining of what the Church already believed about God was what the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople accomplished.
And do you know what? If they are wrong about the trinity they they are unreliable regarding every other main doctrine in the Bible!
Rex
Well, well Yadirf,
You, as usual, do a horrible job in trying to discredit the poster you disagree with. While I do not see eye to eye with Amazing on some issues I think this post of his is honest and heartfelt and far more enlightened than anything I have seen from you.
You blathered:
:Like I said, Amazing (you little fag of a flag-waver you), keep making a fuss. I think it’s great!
ROFL!! "Little fag of a flag-waver"???? Man, are you in about fourth grade or what?? Ah the childish mind of the loyal JW. What an effective reminder of the damage mind-control cults actually *do* to the mind. How very, very sad.
To Amazing,
While I will never talk politics with you again for various reasons I have to tell you that your posts regarding religion and faith seem quite thoughtful and heartfelt. I commend you for that.
Regards,
Julie
P.S. Amazing, I say keep waving the flag, I like it.
bump
