Jehovah's Witnesses and other Cults

[antitox]

There's a lot of truth in that statement. It reminds me of a comment our pastor shared once on the subject of cults. I don't remember it word for word, so I won't try to quote it, but he asked: Have you ever wondered why no one has ever tried to counterfeit a $7.00 bill? Well, the answer is obvious. The point is, we can spend way too much time trying to learn everything about the cults, when in reality we must simply study God's Word throughly so we will know when someone is trying to present a false teaching.

That is what I understand. As an example, people who physically handle alot of cash become familiar with the feel of a real dollar. Whenever they come across a counterfeit they can feel the difference in the texture of the bill immediately. They know the real thing so well, it's almost second nature for them to tell the difference when a counterfeit comes along. One guy brought a counterfeit $20 bill to the department one day because the cashier at a convenience store could tell the difference. I held it and I noticed some aspects about it's feel that were different too. Then you could look at other things in it's appearance.
Anyone truly acquainted with God's nature can do the same thing when counterfeit beliefs, philosophies, and doctrines come along because they know the nature and way of God well enough.

 

[SputnikBoy]

There's a lot of truth in that statement. It reminds me of a comment our pastor shared once on the subject of cults. I don't remember it word for word, so I won't try to quote it, but he asked: Have you ever wondered why no one has ever tried to counterfeit a $7.00 bill? Well, the answer is obvious. The point is, we can spend way too much time trying to learn everything about the cults, when in reality we must simply study God's Word throughly so we will know when someone is trying to present a false teaching.

That is what I understand. As an example, people who physically handle alot of cash become familiar with the feel of a real dollar. Whenever they come across a counterfeit they can feel the difference in the texture of the bill immediately. They know the real thing so well, it's almost second nature for them to tell the difference when a counterfeit comes along. One guy brought a counterfeit $20 bill to the department one day because the cashier at a convenience store could tell the difference. I held it and I noticed some aspects about it's feel that were different too. Then you could look at other things in it's appearance.
Anyone truly acquainted with God's nature can do the same thing when counterfeit beliefs, philosophies, and doctrines come along because they know the nature and way of God well enough.

Sputnik: True, I guess. However, I would strongly suggest that the majority of Christians are limited to their understanding of the Bible based on the beliefs taught from the pulpit of the church (denomination) that they attend. People generally regard 'academics' in all fields of discipline to be the experts that they need to listen to and take it all in as 'fact'. Remember Doctor Spock? The same is true with the relationship between the minister (the expert) and the congregation ...again, generally speaking.

The Bible contains many ambiguous texts, particularly those of Paul. Remember, there are hundreds of Christian denominations. I'm sure that they all believe ..."WE have the right message." I wonder how many 'regular Christians' ever challenge the teachings of their particular denomination?

 

[Solo]

What Biblical texts by Paul are ambiguous? Peter says that Paul writes with the wisdom given him, and that some wrestle with his writings to their own destruction. Peter says that those that do not understand Paul's writings are unlearned or unstable.


9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. 2 Peter 3:11-18

 

[antitox]

Sputnik: True, I guess. However, I would strongly suggest that the majority of Christians are limited to their understanding of the Bible based on the beliefs taught from the pulpit of the church (denomination) that they attend. People generally regard 'academics' in all fields of discipline to be the experts that they need to listen to and take it all in as 'fact'. Remember Doctor Spock? The same is true with the relationship between the minister (the expert) and the congregation ...again, generally speaking.

I certainly don't deny that believers need to learn from God and be less susceptible to gullibility. It is is true that if one does learn as God has instructed, he will be wise. I am well acquainted with the overemphasis on educational authority in the church, but God's people have been known to fall into many extremes and balance in understanding is what is desperately needed.

The Bible contains many ambiguous texts, particularly those of Paul. Remember, there are hundreds of Christian denominations. I'm sure that they all believe ..."WE have the right message." I wonder how many 'regular Christians' ever challenge the teachings of their particular denomination?

I really don't see any texts as being ambiguous. It's just a matter of looking at biblical issues in light of the whole of what the bible shows us.

 

[Shellfish]

This board is infiltrated with Jehovah's Witnesses' and other cults doing their best to confuse the Christian.

Christians beware, just because this is a Christian BBS, doesn't mean everyone here are Christians. Furthermore the Jehovah Witnesses in not a Christian belief, although they like to make people think they are, they are in fact a cult. You must study God's word so you can identify false teachers, preachers.

I am really starting to see this. Unfortunately, these people that argue the most with established christian beliefs seem to have an agenda that doesn't include furthering God's kingdom. Keep up the good work Antitox, Videocrafter, Lyrics Dad and everyone that's ready to defend the Faith!

 

[videocrafter]

This board is infiltrated with Jehovah's Witnesses' and other cults doing their best to confuse the Christian...

I am really starting to see this. Keep up the good work Antitox, Videocrafter, Lyrics Dad and everyone that's ready to defend the Faith!

Thanks for the encouragement Shellfish. I'ts a long hard race. My hope is for that one day I can honestly say ; "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. (2 Tim 4:7 NIV)

 

[SputnikBoy]

What Biblical texts by Paul are ambiguous? Peter says that Paul writes with the wisdom given him, and that some wrestle with his writings to their own destruction. Peter says that those that do not understand Paul's writings are unlearned or unstable.

Sputnik: 2 Peter 3:16 - "His letters (those of Paul) contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort ..." etc. The point Peter is making and acknowledges, REGARDLESS of the fact that some WILL distort them to their own destruction, is that Paul's writings ARE difficult to understand!

Okay, having said that, let me qualify the statement of my last post, even though I believe 'ambiguous' is probably still the appropriate word. The reason that we have so many Christian denominations today is largely due to the perceived 'discrepencies' surrounding some of Paul's writings. Some people believe that Paul says 'this', other people believe that Paul says 'that', some can't make head nor tail out of what he says, others don't care one way or the other ... ...

Whether or not these epistles ARE actually ambiguous, they ARE largely responsible for having spawned some major doctrines ...doctrines that have caused and continue to cause conflict and disunity within the Christian Church. Some of the 'confusion' surrounding Paul's writings include issues such as Pentecostal 'tongues', the non-ordination of women, the state of the dead at death, and the abolition of God's Law. While the problem is not so much Paul himself but the misinterpretations of Paul by 'people', the fact still remains that the scriptures of Paul are ...well, they are ...um ...ambiguous. :o

 

[antitox]

Sputnik: 2 Peter 3:16 - "His letters (those of Paul) contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort ..." etc. The point Peter is making and acknowledges, REGARDLESS of the fact that some WILL distort them to their own destruction, is that Paul's writings ARE difficult to understand!

Okay, having said that, let me qualify the statement of my last post, even though I believe 'ambiguous' is probably still the appropriate word. The reason that we have so many Christian denominations today is largely due to the perceived 'discrepencies' surrounding some of Paul's writings. Some people believe that Paul says 'this', other people believe that Paul says 'that', some can't make head nor tail out of what he says, others don't care one way or the other ... ...

Whether or not these epistles ARE actually ambiguous, they ARE largely responsible for having spawned some major doctrines ...doctrines that have caused and continue to cause conflict and disunity within the Christian Church. Some of the 'confusion' surrounding Paul's writings include issues such as Pentecostal 'tongues', the non-ordination of women, the state of the dead at death, and the abolition of God's Law. While the problem is not so much Paul himself but the misinterpretations of Paul by 'people', the fact still remains that the scriptures of Paul are ...well, they are ...um ...ambiguous. :o

I don't think so at all. I believe Peter said that because human carnality clouds one's thinking and perception if they do not stay on the path they should. The problem is not about the scriptures, but more about people's lack of understanding because Paul had a great deal more revelation. That's why it says that the wicked and unstable distort them.

Remember, by the same token you could start your own group just as others have done. You have your belief as well, your pereception; and what you understand about it. That could form another denomination.
We live in a world where people make their own choices regardless of what we think and you are never going to have everyone in agreement or following the same belief system until the Lord changes the earth.

 

[Soma-Sight]

This board is infiltrated with Jehovah's Witnesses' and other cults doing their best to confuse the Christian...

I am really starting to see this. Keep up the good work Antitox, Videocrafter, Lyrics Dad and everyone that's ready to defend the Faith!

What are you guys talking about?

I have 2000 posts here and dont know ANY JWs?

What is that about.....

For the record I am NOT a JW! I just feel that your judging of people is a satanic quality that was associated with the pharisees of Christs day!

 

[videocrafter]

For the record I am NOT a JW! ..

For the record, why don't you tell everyone just what you are, and what you belive in? Do you have a Statement of Faith... just for the the record?

 

[SputnikBoy]

For the record I am NOT a JW! ..

For the record, why don't you tell everyone just what you are, and what you belive in? Do you have a Statement of Faith... just for the the record?

Sputnik: While your question was not directed at me, I'm affiliated with the SDA Church. I say 'affiliated' rather than 'belong' since I don't want to be pigeon-holed into any denomination. While I agree with most (perhaps) of the SDA doctrines, I still remain somewhat non-committal to others. I don't know that any denomination can claim having the answers to all things.

I'm rather surprised that the SDA Church hasn't been presented as a cult on this particular thread. Some Christians regard it as such since it deviates from a number of the traditional beliefs of the mainstream Evangelical Church. The main belief differences SDAs have, of course, are those in regard to the 7th-day Sabbath, the state of the dead, and annihilation in hell. These differences in and of themselves appear to earn the SDA Church 'cult' status, with or without Ellen White.

 

[Vic C.]

The main belief differences SDAs have, of course, are those in regard to the 7th-day Sabbath, the state of the dead, and annihilation in hell. These differences in and of themselves appear to earn the SDA Church 'cult' status, with or without Ellen White.

I wouldn't label them a cult for those doctrines. Doctrinally, I'd worry about the Michael/Jesus and Satan/Jesus relationships, denying the Deity of Christ, denying His death, resurrection and ascension, continued false prophecies and heretical teaching , etc.

 

[Solo]

The main belief differences SDAs have, of course, are those in regard to the 7th-day Sabbath, the state of the dead, and annihilation in hell. These differences in and of themselves appear to earn the SDA Church 'cult' status, with or without Ellen White.

I wouldn't label them a cult for those doctrines. Doctrinally, I'd worry about the Michael/Jesus and Satan/Jesus relationships, denying the Deity of Christ, denying His death, resurrection and ascension, continued false prophecies and heretical teaching , etc.

And beside all that, Gentry, Arkansas is a swell place.

 

[Solo]

Sputnik: 2 Peter 3:16 - "His letters (those of Paul) contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort ..." etc. The point Peter is making and acknowledges, REGARDLESS of the fact that some WILL distort them to their own destruction, is that Paul's writings ARE difficult to understand!

Okay, having said that, let me qualify the statement of my last post, even though I believe 'ambiguous' is probably still the appropriate word. The reason that we have so many Christian denominations today is largely due to the perceived 'discrepencies' surrounding some of Paul's writings. Some people believe that Paul says 'this', other people believe that Paul says 'that', some can't make head nor tail out of what he says, others don't care one way or the other ... ...

Whether or not these epistles ARE actually ambiguous, they ARE largely responsible for having spawned some major doctrines ...doctrines that have caused and continue to cause conflict and disunity within the Christian Church. Some of the 'confusion' surrounding Paul's writings include issues such as Pentecostal 'tongues', the non-ordination of women, the state of the dead at death, and the abolition of God's Law. While the problem is not so much Paul himself but the misinterpretations of Paul by 'people', the fact still remains that the scriptures of Paul are ...well, they are ...um ...ambiguous. :o

I don't think so at all. I believe Peter said that because human carnality clouds one's thinking and perception if they do not stay on the path they should. The problem is not about the scriptures, but more about people's lack of understanding because Paul had a great deal more revelation. That's why it says that the wicked and unstable distort them.

Remember, by the same token you could start your own group just as others have done. You have your belief as well, your pereception; and what you understand about it. That could form another denomination.
We live in a world where people make their own choices regardless of what we think and you are never going to have everyone in agreement or following the same belief system until the Lord changes the earth.

Perfectly stated, and that was my next point as well.

 

[SputnikBoy]

The main belief differences SDAs have, of course, are those in regard to the 7th-day Sabbath, the state of the dead, and annihilation in hell. These differences in and of themselves appear to earn the SDA Church 'cult' status, with or without Ellen White.

Vic: I wouldn't label them a cult for those doctrines. Doctrinally, I'd worry about the Michael/Jesus and Satan/Jesus relationships, denying the Deity of Christ, denying His death, resurrection and ascension, continued false prophecies and heretical teaching , etc.

Sputnik: Um ...aren't you, for the most part anyway, getting the SDAs confused with some other denomination?

Michael the Archangel? The scriptures DO appear to equate Michael with Jesus, even though this particular belief is not one that I dwell on. If you or anyone else can refute it that would be absolutely fine with me.

Denying the Deity of Jesus? Absolutely untrue, Vic! Where do you get this stuff?

Denying Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension? What? You really ARE confusing the SDA Church with some other denomination!

Satan/Jesus relationships? I have no idea what you mean by this. You'll need to be more specific.

Continued false prophesies and heretical teaching? Maybe, I'll take your word for it. But, false teaching, discrepencies, and misrepresentations of the scriptures abound in all mainline churches. Take away the traditional element and evangelicals might actually have to start getting their truths from the scriptures. : If SDAs have indeed got it wrong then they're in some pretty good company.

As for prophesies concerning future events as interpreted from the scriptures by SDAs ...they are 'on hold' for me since they haven't happened yet. We won't know how 'false' the SDA interpretations are until they DO or DO NOT occur. So why jump the gun? I really don't get that hung up on them in my daily life. Check out the threads on this forum regarding 'last day events' and you'll see all manner of weird and wonderful theories. Why single out the SDA Church? ...especially when the scriptures really DO appear to back up the SDA prophesies regarding future events!

Should Ellen White have gotten it wrong in the past or not doesn't concern me at all. And this is NOT just a cop out. It really IS of no concern to me. I've never been an EGW advocate but, by the same token, she was probably as genuine a Christian as any other professed 'Christian mortal' is. I don't know ...I never knew the woman. She may well have gotten it wrong by virtue of being human. While there probably ARE individuals in the SDA Church who DO appear to deify her, those I associate with don't do so. I certainly don't and nor would I! It's also my understanding that Ellen White never asked anyone to bestow on her this particular status.

The SDA Church is composed of mere mortals ...you know, 'people' with diverse personalities, various levels of belief, various degrees of commitment, attitudes, cultures, those who are more/less zealous in their beliefs than others, etc. In other words, the SDA Church is composed of members and affiliates that are no different than those in other mainstream churches. At the end of the day they are people looking for spiritual direction in their lives. Contrary to the opinions of some on this forum, many DO find what they're looking for in the SDA Church. The God they find is the very same one who 'lives' in your church, Vic! I realize how far-fetched that might sound!

Let us all sing to the tune of the old Kennel Ration TV commercial ...

My God's better than your God
My God's better than yours
My God's better than, my God's better than
My God's better than yours

 

[videocrafter]

Michael the Archangel? The scriptures DO appear to equate Michael with Jesus, ... If you or anyone else can refute it that would be absolutely fine with me.

Okay, I’ll take on that challenge. First of all, I’m not sure what the SDA teach, but I am aware of the Watchtower theology concerning Jesus vs Michael the archangel.

They state that Jesus Christ is a mere angel, the first one that God created at the beginning of time. The Jehovah’s Witnesses identify Christ as Michael the archangel, although they call Jesus “the Son of God†because “the first spirit person God made was like a firstborn son to him†(1982 Watchtower booklet, Enjoy Life on Earth Forever!, p. 14). They also call him “a god,†(lowercase “gâ€Â) and translate John 1:1 accordingly in their Bible.

To get to the point, the Watchtower theology teaches that Jesus first existed for billions of years as Michael the archangel. He then gave up his existence when he was transferred to Mary’s womb by Jehovah God, after his birth, he lived the life on earth as a regular human and was eventually crucified (on a stake mind you, not a cross). The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Christ’s body was a physical resurrection of material flesh, but they teach that he was re-created as Michael the archangel once again.

The JW will refer to Daniel 10:13,21; 12;1 which names Michael “one of the foremost princes.†and is also called the “prince†of God’s people in Daniel 10:21. Daniel 12:1 states, “Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people†The JW use these verses to argue that in Jesus’ pre-human state he was actually Michael who was a great prince of God’s people. The Watchtower theology also teaches that Daniel 12:1 points to Michael’s enthronement as king in heaven.

The fact is, nowhere in Daniel does it explicitly state that this is a reference to Jesus Christ. The JW will try to argue that Michael is called a “Chief Prince†therefore appealing to his authority over the other angels. They will argue that this must be speaking of Jesus. However, Daniel 10:13 refers to Michael as “one of the chief princes†not THE chief prince, which indicates that he is one among a group of chief princes. However large that group is isn’t the point, the fact that he (Michael) is one among a group shows that he is not unique. The original Greek uses the word “monogenes†in John 3:16 which means “unique†i.e. one of a kind, therefore Michael the archangel and Jesus Christ are not in fact the same person because Jesus is defiantly unique.

Furthermore, it’s a fact that the JW teaches that Jesus is the first and highest of all created beings. That being the case, if Jesus was Michael the Archangel, then why is Michael referred as “one of the chief princes†in Daniel 10:13? The fact is, this verse indicates that Michael is one among a group of equals and could therefore not be the highest of all created beings. In the entire Bible, where was Jesus ever referred to as the “Chief Prince

The complete purpose of Hebrews 1-3 is to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus Christ to include his superiority over the prophets ( Heb 1:1-4 ) , the angels ( Heb 1:5-2:18 ) and Moses ( Heb 3:1-6 ) Heb 1:5 states that no angel can ever be called God’s son: “To which of the angels did He ever say. ‘Thou art My son…’?†My point; Jesus is the Son of God, and since no angel can ever be called God’s Son, then Jesus cannot possibly be Michael the Archangel.

Hebrews 1:6 states that Christ is worshiped by angels. Christ is worshiped in the same nature as Jehovah God in chapter 5! The fact is, Jesus is not an angel, He is worshiped by the angels. Hebrews 2:5 states that the world is not (and will not be) in subjection to an angel. This makes it oblivious that no angel will rule in God’s kingdom. Revelation 19:6 says “Christ the glorified God-man will reign supreme. Scripture repeatedly points out the fact that Christ is to be the ruler of God’s kingdom (see Rev 19:6 Psalm 2:6; 2 Samuel 7:16; Luke 1:32,33; Genesis 49:10; Mat 1:1,2; Mat 9:35;) It’s clear that if no angel can rule the world, and since scripture clearly states that Christ will rule the world, then Christ cannot be Michael the Archangel.

I could go on and on, there’s plenty of Biblical facts which refute the Jehovah’s Witnesses false teaching concerning who Jesus is, but I’ll give it a break for the time being since the average JW probably hasn’t read past my first paragraph. However, let the young Christian beware, Jesus is in fact God. He is part of the doctrine of trinity whether you want to believe it or not.

I can’t fully explain the trinity, but I do accept its truth. It’s kind of like electricity “I can’t fully explain it, and I don’t fully understand it, but I’m not going to sit in the dark until I can, I’m going to flip on the switch!

BTW, This is how the American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "cult":

cult (kult) n. 1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

The following is extracted from the Watchman Fellowship’s 2001 Index of Cults and Religions found at the following link: http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm#Watchtower

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Charles Taze Russell, Brooklyn, NY: Satan is the originator of the idea of the Trinity. The Father is the supreme God whose real name is Jehovah. Jesus is a created being known originally as Michael the Archangel; he is “a god,†not Jehovah. Jesus only rose spiritually, not bodily, from the dead. The Holy Spirit is the impersonal active force of God. Only he anointed class (or little flock) numbering 144,000 will go to heaven, while faithful “other sheep†will live eternally on a paradise earth; the lost will cease to exist (annihilationism). Publishes the Watchtower and Awake! magazines, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (their own version of the Bible), as well as numerous books. Originally called International Bible Students, followers today are called Jehovah’s Witnesses. Research material available. Profile available.

 

[videocrafter]

http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm#Adventism

I'm rather surprised that the SDA Church hasn't been presented as a cult on this particular thread. Some Christians regard it as such since it deviates from a number of the traditional beliefs of the mainstream Evangelical Church. ...

Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA), Washington, DC: The largest Adventist church. Ellen G. White, who claimed to have “the spirit of prophecy,†was an important early leader of the movement and taught a number of distinctive SDA doctrines, including the Investigative Judgment and Sabbatarianism. While the church’s official theology now appears to be generally in the tradition of evangelical Christianity, certain SDA claims and unique doctrines continue to raise questions. These doctrines include the SDA belief that Sunday worship will result in the “Mark of the Beast,†imbalanced teachings on keeping the commandments (baptism, Sabbath observance) that often implies a kind of salvation by works, the “Remnant Church†doctrine that implies that the SDA is or will be God’s only true church, and the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. Profile available.

Ref: http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm#S

Adventism: Widespread trans-denominational movement inspired by William Miller's prediction that Jesus' "advent" (return) would take place in 1844. Even after the Great Disappointment (the date's failure), many people in the movement continued to believe. Some suggested revised chronologies and new dates, eventually forming groups such as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Others, notably Hiram Edson and Ellen G. White, suggested that the 1844 date was accurate but that a heavenly (thus invisible) event had taken place. Their teachings became the basis of Seventh-day Adventism, which eventually spawned its own offshoots, including Armstrongism and the Branch Davidians.

 

[Vic C.]

Sputnik: Um ...aren't you, for the most part anyway, getting the SDAs confused with some other denomination?

I'm not getting them mixed up with amything. I never even mentioned a denomination in my post.. 8-) I was just showing doctrinally, what some of my concerns are when identifying errant teaching.

 

[videocrafter]

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

Here's a profile on the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) what they believe (or what they don't believe in) and why they have been labeled as a cult.

http://www.watchman.org/profile/jwpro.htm

 

[SputnikBoy]

Michael the Archangel? The scriptures DO appear to equate Michael with Jesus, ... If you or anyone else can refute it that would be absolutely fine with me.

videocrafter: Okay, I’ll take on that challenge. First of all, I’m not sure what the SDA teach, but I am aware of the Watchtower theology concerning Jesus vs Michael the archangel.

Sputnik: Thanks for the indepth explanation regarding Michael the Archangel and the JWs. Like you, I really DON'T know what the Adventist take on this issue is either. I'll check it out.