The Apostles Creed vs. Watchtower

by Sea Breeze 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Sea Breeze

  The Apostles Creed could be recited in less than a minute in Latin. It was like an ancient YouTube video clip: Christianity in less than a minute. It is very ancient, reaching back to the 200's. But, Watchtower would have a problem with most of it.

  1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

  Right off the bat, there is a problem. Wt would never use the phrase God the father

  2. I believe in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord.

  Wt. is uneasy about referring to Jesus as "our Lord".

  3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

  This one OK

  4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

  Wt doesn't like the word "crucified" or cross

  5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.

  Wt. would never accept that Jesus went to hell after he died.

  6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

  Wt believes only a spirit creature who looks like Jesus went to heaven - Michael the Archangel

  7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

  Wt. teaches that the dead atone for themselves and will not be judged for their sins.

  8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,

  Wt. believes the Holy Spirit is like electricity

  9. the holy catholic (universal) Church, the communion of saints,

  Wt. would never accept the concept of a universal body of believers known only to Christ.

  10. the forgiveness of sins,

  Wt. teaches that since 1935 new believers are not justified (forgiveness of sins)

  11. the resurrection of the body,

  Wt. teaches that people are not resurrected in their body, but are recreated as spirits.

  12. and the life everlasting.

  Wt teaches "life everlasting" is postponed until after you have been good for 1000 years if you wre lucky enough to survive Armageddon.

  Amen.

  Wt is at odds with the Apostles Creed, which was a pity statement of faith regarding what it meant to be a Christian.
• 

  joey jojo

  

  I preferred this movie :)
• 

  punkofnice

  The Creed, Nicean or otherwise is packed with meaning.

  The GB want all glory for themselves.

  Anything associated with Christianity, like the Creed, will be avoided because they don't want anyone thinking they are connected with the Catholic or Anglican Churches. Where's the money and exclusive power trip in that?

  I first came across the Creed at Evensong in Peterboro' Cathedral many years ago here in the UK. I did think it was powerful stuff.

  Mind you, the Jobots don't even say the Lord's prayer.

  I'm surprised they haven't invented their own mantra to praise the GB and the Corporation.....he said sarcastically.
• 

  Longlivetherenegades

  @ punkofnice some of the songs used currently already have special stanza for the GB praise and worship
• 

  slimboyfat

  Many of your observations are not factual or miss the point. For example, Watchtower has described Jesus as “our Lord” many hundreds of times, as any search will show.

  And JWs do use the biblical phrase “God the Father”. What they don’t do is follow the Trinitarian inflection of pairing it with the non-biblical phrase “God the Son”, and the habit of divorcing the phrase from its context, such as instances where Paul refers to “God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” showing that even as Lord, Jesus looks to another as his God; or 1 Cor 8.6 where “God the Father” is equated with the “one God” of the Bible, rather than merely one person of the one God, as per Trinitarian dogma.

  And JWs agree that Jesus was in Hell/Hades for three days, they just have a different understanding of what that means.

  In all I think JWs could agree with most of the Apostles Creed. There’s no Trinity in it at all, which is striking, but should not be entirely surprising because the Trinity hadn’t been invented yet.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  @ SBF

  I have never heard a Jehovah's Witness say the words: "I believe in Jesus our Lord", except when challenged by Christians they are encountering.

  When JW's talk among themselves, it's all Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah.

  "He descended into hell".

  JW's would NEVER say this. His tomb was above ground. There was nothing to descend into according to WT indoctrinated JW's.

  I couldn't help but notice how you forgot the most important point that applies to us:

  10. the forgiveness of sins,

  Wt. teaches that since 1935 new believers are not justified (no forgiveness of sins).

  JW's believe in working for their Salvation and reject the New Covenant for the forgiveness of sins, like you.

  I have asked you many times to justify your personal rejection of the new covenant "for the forgiveness of sins" Jesus offered in Mt. 26: 27-28. But you refuse to defend your position. Why?

  Why not just come out and say that you believe in another way of Salvation other than the new covenant, the one that carries the blood value of God's only-begotten?

  Isn't that an accurate evualation of your position?
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Apparently JWs don't need Jesus to pay for their sins since their death does that for them. Romans 6:7
• 

  Blotty

  Where do JW's say either of these things Vanderhoven and Seabreeze?

  I ask this because the simplest of research shows you both to be wrong.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  While JWs may have referred to Jesus as “our Lord” in a limited sense, their theology fundamentally denies the full implications of Christ’s lordship. In Scripture, the title Kyrios (Lord) is used in a divine sense, especially when applied to Jesus (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11, Romans 10:9-13). The early Christians, drawing from the Septuagint, applied Kyrios—the term used for Yahweh—to Jesus, indicating His divine nature. JWs, by contrast, reduce this title to mean a mere exalted role for Jesus as a created being, which is far from the early Church’s understanding of the term. The Catholic Church, in line with the Church Fathers, affirms that Jesus’ Lordship is not secondary or derivative but fully divine.

  The claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses use the phrase “God the Father” is technically true, but misleading in how it’s presented. The distinction made between “God the Father” and “God the Son” is not arbitrary but reflects the biblical and traditional understanding of the relationship within the Trinity. The phrase “God the Son” may not appear verbatim in Scripture, but the concept is undeniably present. John 1:1 explicitly calls the Word (who is identified as Christ in John 1:14) Theos, and Jesus is repeatedly identified as divine (John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6). The early Church formulated the term “God the Son” to reflect the truth that the Son is fully divine yet distinct in personhood from the Father. The Jehovah’s Witness argument that 1 Corinthians 8:6 equates the Father alone with “one God” is an oversimplification. This passage mirrors the language of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), but Paul integrates Jesus into the divine identity by pairing Him with the Father as the “one Lord,” drawing directly from Old Testament references to Yahweh. This does not exclude Jesus from being God; rather, it affirms His role within the divine unity.

  Christ’s descent into Hades as an active proclamation of victory over death and His liberation of the righteous souls (1 Peter 3:19, 1 Peter 4:6). JWs, by contrast, hold an annihilationist view, rejecting the traditional understanding of the intermediate state of the dead. Their belief that Jesus was simply unconscious in nonexistence for three days is irreconcilable with the Christian doctrine that Jesus, as the God-man, was conscious and active even in death. This again highlights their misunderstanding of Christ’s divine nature.

  The Apostles’ Creed affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus and believers, yet Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the physical resurrection of Christ, teaching instead that He was recreated as a spirit creature—an idea entirely foreign to Christian tradition. Likewise, their denial of the communion of saints, their refusal to acknowledge a universal (catholic) Church beyond their own organization, and their rejection of the Holy Spirit as a divine person all place them in direct opposition to historic Christianity.

  Finally, the claim that the Creed lacks any reference to the Trinity because the doctrine had not yet been “invented” is historically inaccurate and theologically naïve. The Apostles’ Creed reflects an early baptismal formula that implicitly supports Trinitarian belief. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all affirmed, reflecting Matthew 28:19’s Trinitarian baptismal command. The formulation of the Nicene Creed in 325 AD was not the “invention” of the Trinity but a precise articulation of what the Church had always believed, in response to heretical distortions. The early Church Fathers—long before Nicaea—testified to Trinitarian belief. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) calls Jesus "our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 7:2), and Tertullian (c. 200 AD) explicitly uses the term “Trinity.”
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  @ Blotty

  From their website: You have paid for your sins by your death.

  • w63 8/1 pp. 453-456
  • Do You Pay for Your Sins After Death?

  The testimony of the Bible is unequivocal, reasonable and just. The idea that you pay for your sins after death, and that by suffering, is pagan, not a Scriptural teaching. Man pays for his sins with death. Yes, “sin offers death, for wages.”—Rom. 6:23, Knox.

  
  

  Romans 6:23—“The Wages of Sin Is Death, but the Gift of God Is Eternal Life”

  “The wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.”—Romans 6:23, New World Translation.

  “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”—Romans 6:23, New International Version.

  Meaning of Romans 6:23

  With these words, the apostle Paul explains that humans die because they are sinful. However, God offers his faithful worshippers a wonderful prospect—the gift of everlasting life.

  “The wages sin pays is death.” All people are born imperfect and thus have a tendency to sin. a (Psalm 51:5; Ecclesiastes 7:20) Because they are born in a sinful state, humans inevitably grow old and die.—Romans 5:12.

  To illustrate this point, Paul compares sin to a master who pays wages. Just as a worker expects a wage for his work, so humans can expect to die because of their imperfect condition.

  However, Paul also explains that a person “who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” (Romans 6:7) When a person dies, he is set free, or released, from any sins he has committed.