“Orthodoxy” is not always a reliable base for Bible truth. “Orthodox Christianity” as it is practiced today, did not originate from first century Christian teachings, but as Jesus warned, “while men were sleeping” “the devil” sowed the “weeds” of a counterfeit form of what Jesus and his apostles began. (Matt 13:24-30; 36-42)
That is a judgment call--that is not a fact. Orthodoxy evolved as men began to translate the apostles' doctrines into a language that fit into the Roman culture. They had to explain what they saw as the Deity of the Son in terms that explained biblical references to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The devil was experienced in leading people astray as he has always done.....look what he did with the Jews. When Jesus walked the earth, he did not have a good thing to say about the corrupt religious leaders and this is what led them to hate him and want him silenced. (Matt ch 23)
Again, this is a judgment call. I would say that at times God succeeded with the Jews and at other times did not. This is the way of all nations--in fact, of all religions, including your own group. Social units corrupt because people corrupt. The corruption may begin small, but it can advance rapidly.
Christianity certainly had compromise from the start. But it also had reformers. In the end, judgment will come to all, and establish whatever units God wishes to put in place. I believe Bible Prophecy had determined that Israel and many nations will be restored after judgment.
Most of what is taught in Christendom...the very core of what is accepted truth, (no matter the denomination) finds its origin in 4th century Roman Catholicism which was a complete departure from original Christianity. A very astute Emperor made a very important decision “while men were sleeping” (spiritually) to consolidate his religiously divided empire, and introduced a State Religion to which all had to adhere.
This is yet another judgment call. Rome converted from paganism by stages--1st Christian tolerance, and then full acceptance of Christianity for the whole State. To say that the religion itself was corrupt just because pagan elements remained within the government and the people, is not accurate, in my view. Flaws or imperfections does not render a Christian populace "corrupt." It is when the standards, as well as the practices, deteriorate that the original product can be viewed as "corrupted."
Roman Catholicism was a fusion between weakened Christianity and pagan Roman beliefs. Zeus was turned into Christ and they celebrated his birth on a day that the Romans honoured their god, Mithra, blending all the customs of their Saturnalia with sun worship, and creating Christmas. The sun features very prominently in Catholic worship. Have people never wondered why there is an obelisk in St Peter’s square? It was imported from Egypt where it represented the sun god, Ra.....and why St Peter’s “Square” is not a square at all, but represents a pagan Babylonian sun wheel?
Christianity adopted things like calendars and elements of previous pagan religion as a cultural continuity and not as a corruption of its religion. For example, an eagle may have been pagan Rome's symbol for a god. But Roman Christianity could just as easily find the eagle a popular symbol for Roman culture without worshiping it as a god. In fact, Christianity did *not* worship these pagan gods. I find nothing in ancient Christianity that indicates worshiping Roman gods is okay.
I considered too that Jesus never once claimed equality with his Father, nor did he ever call himself a deity. But by confusing the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, with the Lord Jesus, they created a different god to the one taught by Jesus himself. According to Jesus, his Father was “the only true God” (John 17:3) and he was “sent” by him to fulfill a mission. Jesus is called God’s “holy servant”. (Acts 4:27) Can God be his own servant? The God of Jesus is his Father, even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12)
Yes, according to Trinitarian belief, Jesus can be both servant and lord, both human and divine. That is Trinitarianism 101.
And yes, Christians believe that Jesus claimed deity. He was nearly stoned for identifying with the great "I Am."
The name "Son of Man" may itself have had supernatural connotations from Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes down from heaven. Jews may deny this today, but I believe that in ancient times some Jews felt that the "Son of Man" was a divine figure, an anthropomorphism or angelic figure representing God, a theophany.
As such, Jesus may have been indicating his Deity. Also, his claim to be able to "forgive sin" was seen in his time to be the exclusive rights of Deity. This wasn't just "forgiving a neighbor," but much more, being in a sense the "atonement" for sin, assuming the role both of high priest and God.
Also, the Jews did not believe in an immortal soul that survived the death of the body.....and Jesus never spoke of hellfire as a place of eternal conscious torment for the wicked. The Jews accepted that when they died, they would “sleep” in death until the resurrection took place in the future, but the wicked would remain eternally in death. That was their punishment....banished from life forever.
I don't know where you get this? The Jews clearly believed in life after death, although apparently some religious leaders didn't believe in the resurrection of the body. There are a number of passages indicating this, not the least of which is Dan 12, where the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked is mentioned.
The reference to "sleep" has nothing to do with unconsciousness after death, since Saul was brought up by the witch of Endor, and he was very much *awake!* The term "sleep" refers to the appearance of the body as a lifeless hulk. It represents the person whose body is dead but whose spirit is alive and yet waiting for a future body in a conscious state. The body with eyes closed merely "looks" like its sleeping, when in reality the spirit is gone from the corpse.
If there was no belief in an immortal soul, then there was no conscious soul or spirit to experience this suffering. Everlasting life was promised only to the righteous, but in order to torment the wicked, God would also need to given them everlasting life.....so, do you see the problem? What need does God have to keep the wicked alive only to torture them? He is a God of love. All these things are accepted as Bible truth in Christendom, when they never were.
Here I will at least partly agree with you. I don't believe God tortures people. They may assume a place outside of God's city in the New Jerusalem, but the torment is of their own making--they've chosen to live outside of God's presence. "Outer Darkness" is a better term than "Hell." It just refers to living outside of the light of God's presence. I do believe there are limited forms of punishment, but they are only called "eternal" because the abandonment to being outside of the City lasts forever.
Unless you know what the truth is, as the Bible teaches it, you will fall in with what is accepted rather than what is true. Those who are deceived, do not know that they are, usually until it is too late. The devil is an expert at what he does.
Perhaps you have been listening to people who said what you wanted to hear? Who are these “experts” in describing our differences? Have you ever talked to us about them? I once held those same beliefs myself, but a study of the scriptures over many years, showed me that the devil had indeed sown his weeds and that I had been lied to my whole life by a church system that was corrupted in the very early centuries....long before any of us were born. (2 Peter 2;1-3; 1 Timothy 4:1-3)
I listened to Dr. Walter Martin, perhaps the foremost expert on what Jehovah's Witnesses are to orthodox Christianity in his time. He taught at my church down in S. CA, and I listened to his Bible Answerman radio program for hours on weekends in the late 70s. I don't think anybody ever was able to sue him for stating untruths about your religion. He was very scholarly about it. His book "The Kingdom of the Cults" is a classic. I have it in my library.
If you or anyone else would like to discuss these difference just for clarity, I would be happy to answer any questions, provided that they are civil and well meaning. I have no need to argue. The truth stands alone and the Bible is it’s only source....there can be no contradictions or it isn’t the word of God.
Of course we can discuss anything you like. I also hate hostility in arguing. It sometimes seems unavoidable. However, we can only try.
