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

by TTWSYF 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel
    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. (Matthew 6:8)
    He said that HIS church would last all ages, didn't he?

    Your point is well taken in that Jesus did institute a church. Whether you want to call it a Congregation or a French Poodle really makes no difference. Paul was writing epistles to those under his charge who were organized into units. The New Testament mentions specific offices such as bishops, elders, priests, deacons, teachers, apostles, prophets (not really an office), priests, evangelists and seventy. Of these, the JWs have only a fraction.

    The Governing Body will tell you the priesthood was abolished when Christ came, but that's not what Paul states. He said the priesthood was "changed," but didn't say how.

    Regarding whether the church would last throughout the ages, I'm afraid the Society was correct, but only accidentally on its part. They were correct about the apostasy, or the loss of the Church.

    But how about the gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church? Actually, this verse contains two subjects: 1) the Church and 2) the gates of Hell. Most people believe that it's Hell besieging the Church, and that it won't succeed. In this sense, however, Hell is "Death," and it's being besieged by the Church, and that throws an entirely different spin on things. Instead of the Church being hammered by Death, Death is being hammered by the Church, and Death will not prevail.

    Prophecy does state rather unequivocally that the Church will not survive, and that there will be an apostasy. That was the entire reason why Jesus spent forty days with his apostles following His resurrection. He was preparing them for what the Church termed the "rule of the Cosmoplanes," an event the Church looked ahead of with horror. But it perceived it would come from without when, had it been paying attention, it would have seen that it was coming about from within!

    Not only was there prophecy stating that the apostasy would come, Peter looked ahead to the days of the "restoration of all things." (Acts 3:18-20) "And [the Father] shall send Jesus Christ...whom the Heavens must receive until the times of the restoration of all things." I suppose this is how the JWs justify their 1914 "invisible return," but I honestly don't believe they know anymore.

    In any event, if Jesus did actually form a church, how did it end up in the hands of Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Rutherford? And how did they learn to administer the church? And how did it manage to make itself any different than any other manmade church?

    TTWSYF » 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?

    Yes, but just calling one's self a "witness" isn't enough, right? "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established," the Law states. But calling one's self a witness and actually being a witness are two different things. And that's where the sub hits crush depth! No one saw Jesus return in 1914. No one saw Him choose the Bible students in 1918. No one knows whether its doctrines are correct or whether they're completely out of whack.

    If the Adventist doctrines are wrong on a single point, what does that do to the entire fabric? If the soul sleeping doctrine is wrong and people (and animals) have spirits that escape their bodies at death, I'd think most JWs would be overjoyed. (Who wants to cease to exist, even for a short period?) But just being wrong on one doctrine could carry on to many other doctrines!

    The Society can call itself Witnesses all it wants, but if you were a JW, and died, then suddenly discovered life continues, even though you were dead, how would you feel? Would you immediately lose faith in the entire religion?

  • Crazyguy

    The original poster is right, there are a ton of scriptures that state the church and the followers were following Christ. It's his and they are to worship him he's been exalted. True christians and worshippers and followers of Christ. The New Testament is all about Christ and that's why you never see the fathers name written in the New Testament. They were promoting a new god which in all reality is a old god.

  • Vidiot

    They have lots of churches.

    They're even listed under "churches" in the Yellow Pages.


  • LoveUniHateExams

    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." - not sure about the etymology but I don't believe OE cirice was pronounced with a k.

    In OE, the letter c was usually pronounced 'soft' before or after so-called front vowels - i.e. it was pronounced as Mod E 'ch' or 'tch'.

    OE Mod E

    cild child

    cirice church

  • kepler

    Chruch or congregation, the implications sound the same. Peter is called aside for a conference and

    given the keys to the executive office of an organization that will be around for a while.

    Did I say organization? Well, it appears that there are a number that have edited this picture out of the script.

    I think David-Jay's survey of the Protestant spectrum of though is spot on. Before coming into contact with JW, it puzzled me how so much of this thought was based on the notion that Christianity had been hijacked for a millenium and a half - and that nothing of value was there until it was filtered through a succession of Central European clerics and allied princes. Subsequently those that would save us from the hijacking used Biblical translations and anthologies as inerrant sources of doctrine in their mouths. Which meant an even longer interregnum until things could get even further re-organized in North America...

  • Saename

    According to the Dictionary of Fairies,

    • Christianity – the ability to bend backwards

    If you claim to be Christian, you're Christian, yo.

  • David_Jay


    You are actually correct, except you a describing how the word ended up becoming pronounced in Middle and Modern English.

    I was describing the philology behind how the C went from being the K sound of a transliteration of the K in KYRIOS to the eventual CH in "church." We are actually describing the same things, just that I am talking about how the word started and you are talking about how the word eventually was pronounced.

    The old English is based on the Dutch and German words. In Dutch the word was KERK and the German was KIRCHE. All three words are transliterations (which are different from translations) of the Greek KYRIOS. The old English CIRICE has also been found as being written as CYRICE or even CYRCE to be better match KYRIOS.

    Originally the C was intended to be pronounced as a K sound, as in KERK, KIRCHE, and KYRIOS. But you are correct, that didn't stick which is why we have the current pronunciation. But the C originally had a K sound, as even the Old Saxon was written as KIRKA. In fact, the modern English word "curriculum" retains the old English pronunciation of C as a K (though the words are not related).

    You are welcome to double check my claims as we can only benefit from that, but in the end you would only be showing that I made an error which, being human, is always possible and clearly quite apt to happen by me on a regular basis. It will not be the first time nor the last for imperfect ol' me.

    The really important thing is the issue of how the Watchtower has made claims of being the true "church of Christ" when it is opposed to such vocabulary at the same time. That is the real "camel" that should be strained, not my "gnat" of whether a C was pronounced one way or another in a transliteration of the word KYRIOS. Any mistake I may have made, if I have, is quite insignificant by comparison to the falsehood of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

  • Heaven

    Christians forget that Jesus was Jewish.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    You are welcome to double check my claims as we can only benefit from that - yes, I'll do that if I have time.

    I was just pointing out that c, when preceded or followed by front vowels such as e, i, or y, was mostly pronounced soft, as 'ch' or 'tch'.

    The first person pronoun in OE was 'ic' - the equivalent of Mod E 'I'. We know it wasn't pronounced with a hard K as 'ick' because Middle English (ME) manuscripts spell this word 'ich'. So how was it pronounced? As 'itch', 'ish', or possibly with a sound like the ch in Scottish loch/German machen?

    even the Old Saxon was written as KIRKA - not sure about this.

    Here's a comparison of the word for 'cheese' in several Germanic languages:

    German: Kaese (hard k)

    Dutch: kaas (")

    West Frisian: tsiis (soft)

    English: cheese (")

    Any mistake I may have made, if I have, is quite insignificant by comparison to the falsehood of the Jehovah's Witnesses - of course. It's just that I'm a bit of a geek, being interested in languages.

  • Vidiot
    Heaven - "Christians forget that Jesus was Jewish."

    Oh, yeah.

    Claims of having "restored" First-Century Christianity kinda deflate when you realize that its founder actually practiced... Judaism. :smirk:

Share this