How can the WTS call themselves Christians when they have no Christian church?

by TTWSYF 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs


    So was Jesus a fool or a liar? He said that HIS church would last all ages, didn't he?

    MATH 16:8
    And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Acts 20:28
    Keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.

  • Crazyguy

    Church means body of people similar to that of the word congregation. This is the excuse JWs would use. You would be better off hammering home how the JWs don't follow the teachings of Christ as proof that their not gods chosen church. In fact when push comes to shove they have to admit that they for the most part are nothing but followers of the 144,000 which is in their opinion the true christians all other that are a part of the religion must follow them in order to be saved, following man instead of Christ, isn't there a scripture about that?


    Jesus specified about HIS church and those of HIS church are HIS witnesses. Doesn't that mean something to people who claim to be Christians?

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    I hate to wade into these dogma issues because my opinion on these type of things maybe different from others and I hate to start an argument about scripture. But the same claim can be made for Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists or Baptists among other Christian denominations. The only religion that feels that their authority is derived from Jesus telling Peter that is the Catholics. This is the way that I understand it, that Catholics view the pope as an extension of the authority given to Peter by Jesus. And that Luther and others had a problem with the idea of a Pope who felt that he derived that authority that way. They then created denominations that were separated from the Catholic Church.

    If I am wrong please let me know, but that is how I have always understood how Catholics view the Pope.

  • David_Jay

    The word "church" is a translation of the Greek word ECCLESIA, which refers to a group of people belonging to the same political party, or in this case following the same "king."

    The English word "church" comes from the old English CIRICE (the first C pronounced like a K), a transliteration based upon the Greek word KYRIOS, which means "Lord." It is an interpretation of the word ECCLESIA, meaning "group (or "body") of the Lord."

    From what I understand, Protestantism is not a denial or rejection of the exercise of Petrine authority by the Bishop of Rome, but the protestation of how that authority is exercised and/or what the Bishop of Rome teaches. Petrine authority is historical and generally not debated by most. Luther did not deny the need for ecclesial authority or where it came from, merely how that authority was being exercised.

    Religious movements that claim to be Christian but do not believe in the historicity of Petrine authority are not Protestant, such as the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), Seventh-Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses. A group that is Protestant has some historical connection to both the See of Peter and Apostolic authority, but these groups have no such connection. As such they cannot protest against an authority which was never over them nor can they claim to have removed themselves from historic Christianity.

    Orthodox Christianity is not Protestant, however, but it is Apostolic. While it does not deny Petrine authority, it does deny its exclusivity (mainly over politcal grounds). The Orthodox community (as well as the Oriental church bodies of old) are in a semi-communion with the See of Peter.


    It was more of a point indicating that the church Jesus started was HIS church. Not a church to Jehovah. ALSO that members of the Christian church are witnesses of Jesus, not Jehovah. Hence the question

    How Can The WTS cal themselves Christians in light of these truths?

  • David_Jay

    Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the groups that developed from the Second Great Awakening era of American religious history.

    The Second Great Awakening developed among uneducated or unlettered Christian preachers, with a great hatred for the Papacy. As a shared earmark, almost all the movements that arose from this era claimed to be either restorations of the Church established by Christ or the replacement for the Church, especially the Roman Catholic Church which these groups believed was false, even demonic. The Bible Students movement (which came from this American phenomenon and splintered into the Jehovah's Witnesses) saw things and themselves no differently.

    The Witnesses believe that during the final generation of human existence, God will introduce them as the restoration of true Christianity that would supply those who accept this restored movement with salvific entry into the coming Kingdom which would replace the current world at any moment. Many practices of Christianity of the past, including the use of the English word "church" was rejected by the Witness leaders. Seeing themselves as the restorers of original Christianity, they felt they had the authority to make such "changes." Switching the "ownership" of the congregation from Jesus to "Jehovah" was quite easy for a group that sees themselves chosen by God to make such changes.

    Those other groups, the SDA and the LDS, made similar claims and "changes" like the Witnesses. Believing that we are in the last of latter days of human existence, they each saw themselves as the assigned "restorers" of "true Christianity" and as such changed whatever they felt needed to be "adjusted" as part of their "assignment."

    All three groups share another earmark, that of claiming the right to deny anything from history or even Scripture on the grounds that it is their job to 'set matters right' in these final days.

  • oppostate

    Man oh man! D-J dude!

    Your etymologies are way off dude!

    When you start off with such an obvious fallacy it becomes very difficult to take anything else you posted seriously.


  • tepidpoultry

    My understanding from exposure to JW teaching is:

    That the Church ultimately is heavenly

    Made up of 144,000

    I'm going to take my nap now

    You may wake me in case of an emergency



  • David_Jay


    I am not sure what you mean. I have taught Biblical languages on the collegiate level for over 10 years and, though Jewish, have even done translation work for the Roman Catholic Church.

    But I am definitely not beyond being mistaken, of course.

    What I have learned and taught...The etymology of ECCLESIA, for instance, goes back to the invention of the word in Greek, used to describe the assembly of Athens, specifically as a political entity. The periodic meetings of Athenian citizens gathered to conduct public affairs is where it comes from, and thus is the origin of the word ECCLESIA as a body under a political figure or movement.

    In English the word "church" does not mean an assembly but comes from the Old English transliteration of the Greek word KYRIOS, the title given to Jesus as Christ in the New Testament. The old English word is pronounced KI-RAY-SEE but spelled "cirice" in Old English. In Middle English this became spelled with a "ch" for the K sound, and eventually the spelling "church" became pronounced dropping the K sound for a sound as the CH in the name "Charles."

    The word was KIRKE in Saxon and similar in Germanic beginnings, and it was either a reference to the "body (house or group) of the Lord" or some other connection to KYRIOS.

    But if you say that's wrong, okay. I am open to that. Feel free to give us the correction as we will be better off for it. What is the actual etymology?

Share this