Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
JWs are unique cult, and I say that, because they are one of the few that I know that rewrote the Bible to fit their religious beliefs. Anytime they saw something in the Bible that their leadership did not agree with, they called it an error. And because of that, they would often remove a word, or sometimes even an entire verse to get the Scripture to read to their likeing. Their Bible is called "The New World Translation", and it has been condemned by numerous world Bible scholars. And that's because it is more of a perversion, than a translation.
Wrote the Bible for the unique beliefs? No different that what most of the other Christian denominations did back in history to suit their beliefs.
Now, condemned by numerous scholars? Of course. Most scholars, for example believe in the trinity which has pagan origins, will accept Bible versions that suit their beliefs.
One example: Most scholars most likely accept Bibles that did strike the name Jehovah out of them? Why, that gives more support to the belief in the trinity. Jesus in the Lords Prayer said "Sanctified be your name", correct? What was his father's name? Jehovah who is the God he spoke of in the Old Testament. However, if you at a lot of old writings you will find the name Jehovah in the new and old testament yet that name is mostly non-existent in todays versions accepted by scholars. Why is the name of the father he came to talk about is not mentioned as Jehovah?
That is why Jehovah's Witnesses as the rest of the Christian denominations most likely committed the same thing.
Actually, before the reformation most Bibles were written by the Catholic Church but once Martin Luther separated and many other denominations separated there were more other version with some variations and wording to suit their new interpretations. Now, I agree that most present denominations do believe in the trinity and the concept of hell so most likely they will condem the witnesses version for that simple difference.
The bottom line there have been wars, bloodshed between "loving" christians simply for not interpreting the bible equally yet witnesses can not be grouped in that category. I believ it is something most scholars cannot claim. The same apply to quakers I believe.
I agree that most present denominations do believe in the trinity and the concept of hell so most likely they will condem the witnesses version for that simple difference.
JWs are considered heretical by orthodox believers, too, who condemn polytheistic trinitarianism as much as they condemn the Arianism of the JWs. Both heresies demote Christ, and are intensely blasphemous and iniquitous.
Quote:
The bottom line there have been wars, bloodshed between "loving" christians
There is nothing more dangerous than accusing the elect.
JWs are considered heretical by orthodox believers, too, who condemn polytheistic trinitarianism as much as they condemn the Arianism of the JWs. Both heresies demote Christ, and are intensely blasphemous and iniquitous.
There is nothing more dangerous than accusing the elect.
Demote Chist from what? Did he ever claim he was God? No. Did he ever say he was above his father? No. the contrary he stated.
"The History of God" by Karen Armstrong give is pretty good account of how many of present day religious belief originated from many ancient pagan beliefs and how they mingled as time passed, the trinity being one of the them.
Nothing dangerous than accusing the elect? Does the shoe fit? I simply state something that is well know in history and I have even experienced for simply stating my views so I have no problem letting be known. In this case it applies because Jehovah's Witnesses are the topic and they much more peaceful that most of the rest of 'loving' Christian churches.
I am not a Jehovah's Witness but I have read about their views and to me they are more sensible on what the Bible says. I also do not believe the Bible is the word of God but from an outsider I tend to agree how the interpret some of the Bible points. I also do disagree with some of their points too though.
From lordship of one's life. Humanity is mostly rebellious.
According to all belief either from Jehovah's Witnesses and the other organizations they all believe in Jesus also.. So I do not see how that applies as you saying they demote Jesus.
So humanity may be mostly rebellious. Ok, what does that has to do with demonting Jesus?
"The History of God" by Karen Armstrong give is pretty good account of how many of present day religious belief originated from many ancient pagan beliefs and how they mingled as time passed, the trinity being one of the them.
Sounds fascinating! I think I'm going to look into buying a copy of that one.
Muslims believe in Jesus. Mormons, even Hindus, too. Gandhi said very nice things about Jesus. Atheists agree with him.
But a miss is as good as a mile.
"Believing in" is not synonymous with "worshipping".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
