Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult, but are a worldwide Christian Congregation numbering in excess of 6 million members.

They use the Bible as their authority and they use the scriptures as the basis for both their beliefs and their way of life.

As they follow the scriptures closely and accurately, they do not adhere to teachings and traditions of men and this is what separates them from other religious denominations.

Here we go again...

While you argue about the existence of heaven and hell,
Jesus's message goes unnoticed.

While you defend which denomination is right or wrong,
Jesus's message goes unheeded.

Over and over, the same discussion.
Over and over, the same result.

Who benefits from this?

Open your eyes, people.

you know, if people don't discuss things, no one will ever get any answers. open YOUR eyes. peace.

Most true Christians do not consider the JW's Christians because everything they teach contradicts their beliefs.
Charles Taze Russell the founder avocated that divorced people will not go to heaven. Yet he divorced his wife.
Do as I say and not as I do?

*** Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in an immortal soul. Furthermore they fully believe in divorce in certain circumstances such as fornication and death.

He rewrote his own version of the bible. For those that have never read any bible can easily be mislead.

*** Charles Taze Russell did not 'write' the New World Translation. Jehovah's Witnesses DO NOT have their own, re-written Bible. They have merely produced their own translation that is in modern language and that restores the divine name. The NIV, Jerusalem and New King James Bibles are ALL TRANSLATIONS. All Bible translations differ slightly. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, therfore all Bibles in English or any other language are translations.***


For someone to say that they are not a cult is misleading also. Scientology is also a cult. Do not attach a negative conotation to the word. The Mormans bible was also written by a man.

***The Holy Bible was written by men, under divine inspiration. Comparing Jehovah's Witnesses to Mormons is fruitless. Jehovah's Witnesses will study from ANY avaliable translation of the Bible. In fact, they regularly quote other Bibles in their publications and use them for cross-reference. Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily Bible Students. They have not created their own book.***

Who wrote the bible? the last verse says not to change or add to this book. I guess alot of people didn't get that far.

can someone who is a knowledgeable jehovah's witness please answer this for me?:
why do JWs acept the authority of the bible, yet reject the church that declared those books to be authoritative?
the earliest christians received the good news about jesus via apostolic preaching, when there ws no 'bible' to speak of. the church officially accepted the 27 books that make up the new testament to be 'inspired scripture', i. e., the word of god, in the 4th century (at least that's when they are mentioned as such - see athnasius' paschal letter of 325). they judiciously chose from amongst hundreds of writings, all claiming to be authoritative. what determined whether or not something was actually 'inspired scripture' or not was if the writings agreed with what the church had already learned via the apostolic preaching.
so, my question is, why accept the bible at all if you reject the church that declares it to be authoritative?

Jehovah's Witnesses are not a cult, but are a worldwide Christian Congregation numbering in excess of 6 million members.

They use the Bible as their authority and they use the scriptures as the basis for both their beliefs and their way of life.

As they follow the scriptures closely and accurately, they do not adhere to teachings and traditions of men and this is what separates them from other religious denominations.

THE 'APOSTOLIC' CHURCH-

I do not accept that the Catholic Church is the original Apostilic Church. Nor that it is the body of congregations explained in Acts.

The Catholic Church was founded hundreds of years after Christ 'died'. In addition its doctrines have been altered to such an extent that it no longer resembles the original Catholic Church.


The current Catholic Church does not match the arrangement mentioned in the New Testament, nor does it follow Biblical teachings. The scriptures do not mention 'Purgatory', 'limbo', nor the need for the position of a Pope or hierachy. The scriptures also condemn the worship or bowing before statues and images. They also condemn directing prayers to the dead (i.e 'Saints' 'Mary' etc). Eph 5:23, JB 'Christ is the head of the Church'. Christ is also the only mediator between God and men. Priests niether have a scriptural right or an ability to forgive.

In addition there is little evidence to suggest that the Catholic Church is Apostolic;

'Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority' -John McKenzie, prof of Theology, 'The Roman Catholic Church', pg4.

'The scarity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate' - The Catholic Encylopedia, 1969, p696.

The Catholic Church has a long and bloody history. It has become involved in wars and has blessed weapons of war.

Claims of divine or apostolic appointment mean very little if those who claim to be the sucessors to the Apostles have not taught or practiced what jesus and his apostles did.

THE BIBLE-

Far from being responsible for the Bible, it is the Catholic Church which has hidden and supressed the scriptures. If you study the history of the English Reformation, you will find that many other christian denominations were formed in opposition to Catholic teachings that they felt were unbiblical. This was largely because men began to print and distribute the bible widely at risk to their own lives (The Catholic Church was responsible for many murders of those who read the scriptures and promoted them).

The Bible is God's revelation to man. It is the guidebook for humans written by the creator. Therefore there is a need to study it. The very reason that Protestantism and nearly all other christian denominations began today, was that people wanted greater access to the scriptures. In addition, when many of these people actually read the scriptures they found that the Catholic Church and its practices and traditions were contradicted not reinforced by God's word. That is why the Catholic Church kept the Bible in latin and to this very day, discourages Catholics from reading it without 'catholic interpretation'.

Jesus shared his knowledge with the ordinary people of the day. He did not restrict it to religious leaders. Nor did he live in the billionaire surroundings of the current 'leaders' of the Catholic Church. jesus openly condemned the hierachy, righteousness and secrecy of the religious leaders of his day.

The Bibles contents were written by men, under divine inspiration from God. The Catholic Church had NO INVOLVEMENT in the writing of the scriptures.

This claim is just another example of the Catholic Church attempting to elevate itself above the Scriptures. It also attempts to achieve this by placing its traditions equal to scripture. This is also contrary to scripture which warns us to beware the 'traditions of men'.

The Bible makes it blatantly clear that the Old Testament (or parts therof) was fully avaliable to the Christians of the New Testament. Jesus quotes from Scripture himself.
This directly contradicts the claim that the Catholic Church chose the scriptures.

Mr7 said:

we should really define our terms here. there is a difference between the terms 'scripture' and 'bible'. i said that there was no bible, per se, for early christians to read. by bible, i mean the hebrew scriptures and the greek scriptures bound together in one book. of course the hebrew scriptures existed during jesus' day - in fact, everything jesus did that shows he is the messiah is done 'according to the scriptures'.

i did not say the church had a hand in the writing the new testament, but rather in the selection of the books. why matthew, mark, luke and john? it's not some arbirary choice, nor did the new testament fall out of the sky fully endorsed with god's divine approval. no, the early christian church decided what was and what was not holy scripture from among hundreds of writings all claiming to be sacred and authoritative. where else would the decision about what was canonical scripture and what was not come from?

all i am asking you is under what authority do you, as someone who rejects the church, believe that the bible is god's word. i know why i believe it, but why do you?

please read 2 timothy 2:1-2.

is church hierarchy really not scriptural? read 1 timothy 3:1-13, which describes the qualities that priests/bishops and deacons should possess if they wish to serve christ's church.

my point is that everyone learns from someone else. we only believe what we have been taught. the orthodox church knows its teaching well (it hasn't changed in 2000 years); it also knows the source of those teachings.

what is the source of JW's understanding and interpretation of christian doctrines, which go completely against what the orthodox church has believed, understood, upheld and preached for thousands of years?

if you say 'the bible', then we are back to square one, and i have to ask you again why you believe the bible and not the church?

fms said:

***

I do not accept that the Catholic Church selected the scriptures, nor that the church follows scripture. This is a fallacy promoted by the Catholic Church. The first Church may have selected scripture, but as I have already confirmed I do not believe that the Catholic Church is the original, apostilic Church, nor do I believe that this church exists today. From historical research and studying the scriptures I have concluded that the Catholic church is a departure from the Christian congregation described in the Bible. In fact, many of the greatest and most treasured translations of the Bible have originated from non-catholic sources. These translations contain all of the writings we read in the Bible today. In addition, manuscripts pre-dating the alleged 'selection' of the manuscripts exist, in which the non-catholic authors name all and/or most of the New Testament books. In addition, even if one were to accept that the Church was responsible for binding the scriptures in one volume or book, it does not follow that one has to accept their teachings. This is particularly true if their teachings do not correspond with what they themselves have 'selected' as 'inspired scripture'. Perhaps my greatest question would be why the Catholic Church is not following the teachings of the Bible if it selected the writings within it?

To prove my point even further The Catholic Church does not even follow the very scriptures you have indicated as the Priests are forced to remain Celibate:

1 TIM. 3:2, JERUSALEM BIBLE (i,e 'Catholic' Edition) -

'It behoveth, therefore a bishop to be ... THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE' ('MARRIED ONLY ONCE' NAB version)

1 TIM. 4:1-3, JB -

'The spirit has explicitly said that during last times there will be some who will desert the faith and chose to listen to deceitful spirits and DOCTRINES that come from devils; ... THEY WILL SAY MARRIAGE IS FORBIDDEN'.

1 COR. 9:5, NAB-

'Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the APOSTLES and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?' (CEPHAS is an Aramaic name given to Peter; see John 1:42 and Mark 1:29-31.

The original meaning of the greek word for bishop is an Elder or over-seer. Such duties are far removed from the superior, elevated positions Catholic Bishops adopt. In addition Peter never refered to himself as a Priest, but as a 'Fellow Elder'-1Peter 5:1.

There are many, many, more examples of where Catholicism blatantly contradicts scripture (The worship of Mary, that Mary was an eternal virgin etc, etc), but I have very little interest in writing them here.

If one was to follow your argument then there would be no other valid Churches than the Catholic one. Today, we can see a wide variety of Christian Churches which are not Catholic and do not accept Catholic dogma, nor that the Catholic Church selected scripture. There is obviously a reason for this, which you really should conclude for yourself. Far from being responsible for the Bible, the Catholic Church has added to it with the APOCRYTHA, which is NOT part of the biblical canon.

I firmly believe in the Bible alone and NOT traditions or teachings of men. This is firmly reinforced by scripture;

'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy or vain deceit, after the tradition of man ... and not after Christ' - Colossians 2:8.

'In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men' Matthew 15:9.

I am not alone in this nor is it restricted to Jehovah's Witnesses, the entire Protestant movement and practically every other Christian denomination apart from Catholicism agrees with me. The term is known as SOLA SCRIPTURA.

The bible owes itself to God, not to any Church.

For more information please follow the links below. They contain far more information than time allows me to permit:

www.users.on.net/mec/answers/64a_ro.htm

www.bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm

www.daveandangel.com/CRN/...hurch.html





[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 12:42:24 PST 2002 by Mr7]
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 12:46:31 PST 2002 by Mr7]
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 12:48:41 PST 2002 by Mr7]
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 12:58:00 PST 2002 by Mr7]
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 13:09:10 PST 2002 by Mr7]

childofthedawn said:

Sorry but i have 2 disagree here! JW r not a Christian organisation, they deny the deity of Christ so they cannot b called Christian. They do not follow the scriptures accuratley the very thing they r know 4 ie knocking on doors, is done in a bid 2 achieve a good work in order 2 progress 2 heaven. This is totally against scripture, arent all our good works like rags? The only way 2 enter heaven is 2 believe Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God and 2 accept that he died for us, no amount of good work can get u there! There r so many "holes" in the JWs doctrine that im really suprised people get involved in it, that sounds harsh but i dont mean 2 offend. I think Jw is very very far from the truth!

Dear All,

Going back to the original post asking whether Prince is a Witness or not, I would like to add a few points.

His mode of communication is through his music and lyrics--where he has never mentioned belonging to any group, apart, maybe, from the Rainbow Children ("the minority become the majority in the wink of an eye").

Prince, listening to his message, seems to be something more than all the religious denomination, cults.

Prince uses his lyrics brilliantly. The song 'Come' is not about the body, but about coming into the Spirit ("Spirit's calling"). He refers to the misinterpretation of his lyrics in 'Sexy MF' where he declares, "No not your body, your mind you fool."

Prince has always, it seems to me, had his own mind. Perhaps he has evolved as a human and spiritually, but his message has always been there, both in his lyrics and album sleeve. See the NPGMC essay "Retrospeculation." Where he is now is a natural progression from where he was yesteryear.

To recap, I think all we need to know about Prince spiritually has been, is and will be in his lyrical message. We may all be surprised just how far up the 'Ladder' this man is--if we keep listening.

regards,

andyf

All of this energy being spent on who is doing what where and why...

Dontcha think we as our own individual free will choice should take account for our own what where and why's?

The energy Being spent on what Prince or any other spiritual being is their responsibility to themselves to act towards others...

So perhaps, we as in u & me, should take a look at our what where and why's and simply get back to basics with >>>thee all mighty father and the cherished son so that we can answer the what where and why's when we will be asked someday to speak up for our actions of ourselves and towards others.

Thank U.

Im checkN my actions as I am stepn on myself and myself alone...so I don't step on nobody outside of me.

with Love Honor and Respect

SingMia~Arjuna

I know the somebody's somebody has to start with the Somebody me, first. So I can support the other somebody who will be my somebody's somebody someday with me with heaven.

Here we go again...

While you argue about the existence of heaven and hell,
Jesus's message goes unnoticed.

While you defend which denomination is right or wrong,
Jesus's message goes unheeded.

Over and over, the same discussion.
Over and over, the same result.

Who benefits from this?

Open your eyes, people.