by Jokemyster 44 Replies latest jw friends
RHW,
There are so many embarrasing things that were taught by the WT that I have read from that site, I think I will join the Mormon church.
Just Kidding!
I have read as much rediculous teachings by the LDS recently. I am amazed that one remains a Mormon if they understand that the Book of Mormon contradicts not only the Bible, but also the Mormon churches main works, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Seems their so called prophets like Joseph Smith was nothing but a con-man.
Jokemyster
You said:
Since the WT organization claims "apostolic succession"….
Please show us where the Society teaches apostolic succession. So far as I can tell the Society denies the notion outright. Quite explicitly the Society teaches that doctrines of "apostolic succession" are unscriptural. The Society also teaches that, without divine intervention such a succession would become an impossibility. Can you evidence that the Society has changed its teachings on this subject?
Friend
Friend, Just to butt in here for a minute------
The Society, to my limited knowlege, does say that they are the only true organization (religion) just like the first century christians. Why, they, the 144,000, are even anointed like the first century christians, unlike us of the other sheep. And the 144,000 are the only ones on the earth that are anointed like the first century christians.
The Society also says that they teach directly the Bible truths like the first century christians. Like my post above brought out - I, like you, do not believe that the Society believes that they have a continuous thread of popes or leaders throughout the entire 2,000 years since Christ.
The Society has lead us to believe, through the pages of the Watchtower and Awake articles about the faith of small groups thoughout these 2,000 years, that there has been "a" witness for God on the earth most, if not all, of these same 2,000 years.
And since there has always been "a" witness on the earth for God, why, yes, the Society can claim, if they wanted to, that there has always been Jehovah's Witnesses on the earth for God. This has been brought out in quite a few articles over the years on these Dark Ages witnesses. Remember the Gutenburg (forgive my spelling) press articles? "I'll put a bible in every plowman's hands." BTW, that is not an word-for-word translation - but the thought is correct, as I'm sure you'll agree.
The Catholic church teaches that since Peter (Saint), there has been an apostalic succession of popes to present day. This is probably not true - if you're arguing for the true religion.
But they can claim a lot of popes throughout history.
Could it be that there has always been people, even a person, on earth somewhere that has loved God just because they loved God? And they wanted to share that love with others? No need for apostalic succession - just people?
Good points waiting. I would add more to this, but I have to meet some friends in about 15 minutes. The Society does claim that they are the only true religion. If this is true and the apostles were the ones that followed Christ and carried on the vital work of the ministry, then the organization claims apostolic succession. I will try to add more to this later.
Re: Apostolic Succession
Apostolic Succession is a teaching that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment down until today. Unequivocally the Society teaches that Apostolic Succession is an unscriptural doctrine. As such, the Society does not apply notions of Apostolic Succession to itself or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Sometimes persons confuse the historical and religious connection that Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to have with first century Christians as though it were some sort of Apostolic Succession doctrine. However, historical or religious connection with a people is very different from a succession. One is based upon similarities and the other upon lineage of a sort.
Jehovah’s Witnesses will represent that their ranks go back to Abel. That position depends in part upon the text of Hebrews 11:4 through Hebrews 12:1. That text speak of persons faithful to God and they are termed "witnesses." Since Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to have the same basic religious ideal as those "witnesses" had then they claim an association with them. They claim to be of the same brotherhood as such persons of faith. Again, this is a historical and religious connection, not one of succession.
Is there an unbroken history of "witnesses", such as Abel, from Abel to the writing of Hebrews? No, there is not. That fact is easily demonstrated in that the biblical record is the only authority for such a conclusion and there is no biblical record for hundreds of years before Christ. That demonstrates that showing an unbroken lineage is unnecessary for there to be an association between faithful persons from era to era.
In that case modern day "witnesses" can quite legitimately claim that their history goes back to Abel as long as they manifest the same "witness" behavior.
As for the period between the writing of Hebrews until today, Jehovah’s Witnesses will claim that their history lay disbursed in the ranks of Christendom until the early part of this century. Jehovah’s Witnesses today hold that up to 1918 Christendom still had a standing before God. So, until that time discernible "witnesses" remained in Christendom. On occasion such ones will be highlighted in our publications.
So, in the strictest sense, Jehovah’s Witnesses will maintain 1) that their most ancient history goes back to Abel, 2) that their modern history has roots into the late 19th century, and 3) that their independent representation as "witnesses" was not until 1918/1919.
In short, Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that their history is intertwined with that of faithful pre-Judaism, Judaism and Christendom. In that case, Jehovah’s Witnesses history goes back to Abel.
Friend
Dear Friend,
Thank you for your post which does make sense - in the "strickest" way.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim "similarities" back way past Christ all the way to Abel as faithful Witnesses. Catholics have a "lineage of a sort."
Really, the two are "suggesting" a similar thing - but coming from a different angle.
JW's go back to Abel, almost back to Jehovah's creation of Adam. Catholics go back to Jesus.
JW's go back to Jehovah - Catholics to Jesus - in their claim to similarities and sortof lineage.
Thank you for this post - it helped to see the differences - and the sameness - of these two religious organizations.
Friend,
If Jehovah's Witnesses history goes back to the time of Abel, then where did the 7th day Adventist history start as well as the Baptist? After all C.T.Russell was the founder of the WT Society and did not consider himself a Jehovah's Witness but Considered himself a Bible Student. The term Jehovah's Witness did not take effect till The Rutherford era. Russell was actually an Adventist before starting the WT and his own religion. The Adventist movement he supported got its start from the Baptist William Miller.
Are you saying that the Baptists were actually Jehovah's Witnesses as well as the Adventist?
Oh what a terrible, tangled web we weave....
Frenchy,
You said it. Maybe we are in that web and don't realize it. Just hope that big spider don't eat us.
waiting
You said:
Really, the two are "suggesting" a similar thing….
Well, no, the two approaches are actually very different. For instance, John the Baptist was like Noah not because of any sort of lineage but because of his disposition toward the Only True God.
SC
You said:
If Jehovah's Witnesses history goes back to the time of Abel, then where did the 7th day Adventist history start as well as the Baptist?… Are you saying that the Baptists were actually Jehovah's Witnesses as well as the Adventist?
Go back and read what I said about witnesses being disbursed in the ranks of Christendom. If you think that over it should answer your questions. The Society teaches that "witnesses" (as in Heb. 12:1 witnesses) were dispersed amidst various Christian religions between the first century and our modern era. So, for instance, that did not make Baptists or Adventists Christians but it does mean that there were Christians amidst Baptists and Adventists.
Please keep in mind here that I am only putting forth what the Society teaches versus what was first represented on this thread. Whether I agree with every iota of it is another thing entirely.
Friend
