since 1931, they have called themselves jehovah’s witnesses.
founded in 1879 by charles taze russell (1852-1916).
jw’s publisher is the watchtower bible and tract society, and their publications include "the watchtower" and "awake!
You wrote: "Their teachings deny every essential point of Christianity, so it is enough to mention the most important heresies."
Do you see yourself as a scholar or a polemicist? No ethical scholar would define Witness doctrine as a heresy. A polemicist would. If you're reaching for a scholarly presentation, then write something like: "Witness doctrine differs substantially from main-stream Christianity." Opinions creep in? Scholarship flees.
since 1931, they have called themselves jehovah’s witnesses.
founded in 1879 by charles taze russell (1852-1916).
jw’s publisher is the watchtower bible and tract society, and their publications include "the watchtower" and "awake!
Your wrote: "Russell was a childless, divorced clothing manufacturer and merchant, originally a Presbyterian, then a member of an Adventist group expecting the end times ..."
Of which Adventist group was Russell a member? Got any primary source reference for that. It is not a sustainable claim.
since 1931, they have called themselves jehovah’s witnesses.
founded in 1879 by charles taze russell (1852-1916).
jw’s publisher is the watchtower bible and tract society, and their publications include "the watchtower" and "awake!
Vienne isn't a "he." I'm a "newly minted" MA (history) and a certificated teacher. And not at all a he.
since 1931, they have called themselves jehovah’s witnesses.
founded in 1879 by charles taze russell (1852-1916).
jw’s publisher is the watchtower bible and tract society, and their publications include "the watchtower" and "awake!
Way too long for this type of forum. The refutations are poor. Rewrite this. Edit it down to 170 words or less. Or divide it into parts. Dear LORD man, assuming you identify as a man, didn't your professors teach you how to write an essay? Maybe, since you essentially cut and paste, you were not exposed to a university setting.
https://wawa-news.com/index.php/2024/06/14/episode-1-of-jesus-christ-series-set-for-release-at-gfl-memorial-gardens-june-14-16th/ .
episode 1 of jesus christ series set for release at gfl memorial gardens june 14 – 16th.
in new south wales, australia, there exist replicas of regions once visited by the most notable prophet who ever lived.
I watched it and liked it. My one criticism is the dialogue. It's not conversational, but is very stilted. It's as if they're addressing a slow-learning four year old.
yeah wow women can finally wear pants and men beards...but 1914 is still a date not accepted since charles russell times and blood fractions are evil!!.
are they crazy!!!
!.
I agree, they should seriously reconsider 1914. But calling them names is off-putting and solves nothing.
john 14:6 - "jesus said to him, “i am the way, the truth, and the life.
no one comes to the father except through me.".
certain christian denominations lie & contradict jesus' crystal clear statement, by promoting the following dogma:.
I seldom read what asq writes. He copies it from Catholic sources, ignores the Bible's content, advocates a religion that isn't Christian except in name only. I think he fears the Bible.
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
aqwsed12345 perhaps if you stuck the the Scriptures alone instead of reading The Catholic Encyclopedia, you might occasionally make a valid point.
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
Three states does not represent the Trinity doctrine. Trinitarians do not teach that Father, Son, Holy Ghost are one person in three states.
there was on older white-haired circuit overseer in houston around 1989 or 1990. last name started with a w i think.... not sure though.
even the most brain-dead robotic elders told me he was offensive.
.
Nonsense. If you're saying Witnesses do not believe that the New Covenant is for forgiveness of sins, you're wrong. And you miss the point of my post. Simply condemning Witness theology without refutation is a waste of time and a false path. That will not change a Witness' belief, especially if she is moderately informed. Within their explanations of New Covenant doctrine is I John 2:1-3, which says according to their Bible: "My little children, I am writing you these things that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s. And by this we have the knowledge that we have come to know him, namely, if we continue observing his commandments."
They emphasize "our sins" in contrast to "the whole world's." Their belief is that the "our" addresses anointed Christians, and 'the whole world" everyone else, making or marking two groups. Good theology? Simply shrugging this off as wrong-headed theology is insufficient. Refute scripturally, or anything said in rejection is meaningless
In their favor here is the difference between a propitiatory sacrifice and a covenant. A propitiatory sacrifice is "peace making." A covenant is an agreement between carefully defined parties. An example is the Law Covenant made between the descendants of Jacob and God. Others benefited from it - the strangers in the land for instance - but were not parties to the covenant.
The issue here is: Is the New Covenant between a closely defined group within Christianity or does it encompass all Christians? Even if we thoroughly disagree with Witness doctrine here, we cannot say they limit forgiveness of sins only to the anointed. Clearly they do not.
There are other issues, of course. Sanctification, justification, new birth. But when considering between whom the New Covenant was made, those are a bit irrelevant. We fail if we limit our message to ranting condemnation and do not scripturally refute. Just saying, "Bad, bad, bad" is insufficient.
