The JWs claim that they are a faithful copy of the early Christian apostolic church however there are numerous differences between the two eg in the way Christ was perceived, the apostles thought of him as a Lord to be worshipped and be invoked, something that the JWs loath doing. And also all the baptised participated in the bread and wine ritual weekly, rather than a handful participating yearly . Does anybody know of any other differences in belief or behaviour or overall structure?
JWs and early christians.
by greendawn 14 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
mrsjones5
i do! i do! *raises her hand*
the men could have beards
Josie
-
Leolaia
There was a fluid theology and eschatology. Many early Christians, especially Jews, still followed the Torah. Some Christians, like Paul, had no problem in principle with eating blood (cf. Paul's discussion of meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians). Many freely confessed Jesus as "Lord", some confessed him as "God". None used "Jehovah" to refer to God, and probably none used YHWH either in common speech. There was no concept of a "Bible" as it is today, and what was considered part of "Scripture" varied (often including books considered noncanonical today). In no sense were the erstwhile epistles of Paul or other new writings considered part of "Scripture", tho they were of great importance. Also, there was a large body of tradition and common cultural knowledge that was assumed by the early Christians which has been lost today. There was a sacramental importance to baptism, the Eucharist, etc. which is not found among JWs. All Christians partook of the bread and wine during the Eucharist, and neither was there any concept of two classes of Christians, one dependent on the other. Nor were all Christians expected to preach and those who did preach probably did not have quotas. Rather, different Christians had different functions owing to their gifts...some teached, some prophesied, some spoke in tongues, some cared for widows and the poor, etc. I could go on but that's a start...
-
logansrun
There are differences, and then there are similarities.
The over-riding theme of Jesus preaching was the coming, physical Kingdom of God and the apocalyptic judgment which would precede it. The earliest forms of Christianity had no conception whatsoever of a Trinity, nor did Jesus think of himself as God. The earliest Christians did not take part in earthly politics, for their political "solution" would come from the sky. The Witnesses come pretty close to mirroring these beliefs/practices.
Sometimes I feel like I was part of something similar to the most primitive strands of Christianity. Then I open up the latest Awake! with the article on tamales and I the thought fades. :)
Bradley
-
logansrun
One other difference that I can think of is not so much of substance but of style. The early Christians -- of all the various Christianities -- seem to me to be more of an emotional and visceral bunch. Witnesses seem to have reduced passion down to a system.
Next paragraph...
Bradley
-
greendawn
Leolaia so it is obvious that the JWs are a world apart from the early church and their claim of being its modern version is another blatant lie of theirs, even though they would fit in more with the jewish christian church and its emphasis on the letter of the law. Compelling all people to preach is for increasing the slave workforce selling their literature, and there was no intricate hierarchy with a number of levels of overseers and GB. There is no end to their lying.
-
greendawn
Logansrun indeed Jesus didn't think of himself as God but the apostles did think of the ressurected glorified Jesus as someone to be worshipped whether they perceived him in the Trinitarian or Arian way it makes no difference. The JWs have dethroned him from that very central position, they never say things like we are Christ's organisation/people, may Christ bless you or help you, let's honour Christ's name etc it's always Jehovah, Jehovah (and the early Christians did not even use this name) as if they are some sort of Jews. What is "tamales" by the way.
-
logansrun
LOL, "tamales" are a Mexican food. Popular in the US, at least where I'm from (Chicago). The "tamales" reference was just a typical type of article one would find in the Awake. Perhaps it's just an inner joke for me.
The difficulty is that there were several different types of Christianities around just after Jesus death. There is no unanimity between the books of the New Testament. Paul would have probably been shocked by the Christology and theology of the Gospel of John. And Jesus would have been shocked by Paul!
I do believe that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who believed in a coming, earthly kingdom of God (located in the physical territory of Israel). That being said, the JWs come quite a bit closer to what Jesus preached than, say, the Catholic or Anglican Church.
B.
-
Narkissos
About the early "christian" diversity that several posters highlighted, I would add that it was far from peaceful and tolerant, as the many mutual condemnations by different groups in the NT (by Paul on the Judeo-Christian apostles, by Judeo-Christians on Paul, by 1-2 John on those leaving the Johannine community, etc.) clearly show. There was no unity of organisation, practice or belief (as the calls to unity by different sections actually prove), no central authority recognised by all. The smooth development of a basically united Christian church as appears in Acts is a later fiction, largely contradicted by the individual writings from the various early groups, and resulting from a negotiation between the weightiest (in Church politics) movements, leaving aside others (in particular Gnostic Christians and Judeo-Christians).
-
greendawn
Logansrun so why did they condemn the tamales, do they contain blood?