Do you consider the JWs as Christians?

by logansrun 42 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  logansrun

  Interestingly, JWs are calling themselves more and more as the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." That is the official name for one of their corporations (geez, there are so many now!) and the letterhead for some of the letters sent out from the Society. Similarly, the Mormons years ago decided to change their name from "The Church of Latter Day Saints" to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." It would not surprise me to see the JWs eventually change their name to "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses."

  Bradley
• 

  dedalus

  That argument is crushed by Jesus words to open the topic, "You heard it was said you must not commit adultury..."

  It's hardly crushed, Bradley. Jesus here is saying that other people have said not to commit adultry. He's not saying that. What he's saying is something different. I agree that this one fictional character's interpretation is just a little too clever. But I also think you're being too readily dismissive.

  Dedalus
• 

  logansrun

  Dedalus,

  He said it by implication. He instructed his followers not to even look at a woman (passionately) and said it was adultury in their hearts. Only by strained sophistry would one be able to tangle this up into something it is not. Furthermore, Jesus told the woman at the well (if such an exchange actually occurred) that "the man you are now living with is not your husband" and then, "go and sin no more." It really couldn't be any clearer. Jesus was a Jew who held to the Jewish law that adultury, fornication and even "unclean" thoughts were to be avoided. But, we're getting off subject.

  Bradley
• 

  IslandWoman

  Bradley,

  Furthermore, Jesus told the woman at the well (if such an exchange actually occurred) that "the man you are now living with is not your husband" and then, "go and sin no more."

  Jesus did not say to the Samaritan woman at the well, "go and sin no more", he did not condemn her at all. You are mixing up your scriptures. :)

  IW
• 

  dedalus

  Logansrun,

  What a cheerless poster you are today! Literalists are no fun. This is just the Bible, remember? It's a plaything; regarding it with too stern a face is like reasoning with a beach ball.

  Dedalus
• 

  dedalus

  Just give the whole thing up and stop feigning knowledge of things you know not.

  Is this directed at me? What did I do to piss you off?

  Dedalus
• 

  dedalus

  You're right, IW. Bradley is thinking of John 8:11.

  9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
  11 "No one, sir," she said.
  "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

  He calls it sin, but doesn't condemn her, leaving the door open, if only a crack.

  Adultery, Updike's protagonist says, is our human condition.

  Dedalus
  
  
• 

  logansrun

  Dedalus,

  I wasn't irritated with you at all, nor was my comment directed at you. I don't have a problem with people coming up with "novel" interpretations of scriptures as long as they don't take them seriously. To me, the writer's conception of what the verse was intended to mean is the most honest way of approaching Biblical exegesis in a formal/debate setting.

  Bradley
• 

  dedalus

  Bradley,

  Okay, thanks! I've always liked your posts (despite your uncanny resemblance to my devout Witness father), so I was worried for a minute.

  To me, the writer's conception of what the verse was intended to mean is the most honest way of approaching Biblical exegesis in a formal/debate setting.

  But therein lies the basic problem of all written literature: you can never know for certain what the writer's conception was. This problem is especially compounded in the Bible, where you have different men, none of whom are Jesus, recording what Jesus said. The problem is further complicated by the fact that the Bible as we read it is translated from languages remote from our English, from copies of nonexistent originals, many years after the supposed events.

  All this to say, I prefer tongue-in-cheek exegesis to earnest exegesis. Exegesis lite, if you will. I'll take the Bible as a mentally stimulating playground, but not a book of rules or absolute truths or conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever.

  But I didn't mean to derail your thread. I'm done now.

  Dedalus
• 

  willy_think

  No, Christians have one God, the WT has two.