What's creates the difference between a JW, and a Christian (say Catholic)? Does it come from the different translations of the bible, or from their different interpretations of the same bible? I've been searching online about what theologians think of JWs but I can't find anything. Since Christians shit on them, I wanted to see what actual scholars think of them. Is there even a consensus on that topic among scholars?It feels that since JW are such a small and new sect, there'd be people "debunking" them, but I can't find much. I'm not talking about finding a debate between a Christian and a JW, I want to go to the root of the difference, look at original text and translations maybe, etc...
>>16555557When people take the bible and make stuff up like jw's and mormons there isnt much to tackle, most of it is repeat heresies that have been dealt with millenniums ago, so there is no need for theologians to say anything new.
>>16555557More like the Jew’s Witnesses I put no stock by them. The Mormons are more relevant these days
Jehovah's Witnesses are VERY cool!
>>16555585>make stuff upLike what? I'm trying to find some sources on people dissecting the JW's beliefs, and compare it to Christianity, but I can't find much online.>>16555587I'm interested in knowing more about JWs because I personally know people that are JWs
>>16555557>>16555596Lara, why are you pretending you aren't a JW? Are you ashamed of your cult (as you should be)?>>>/int/196541578
>>16555557The main difference is that the JW's are a fucking multi-generational, state approved, scam. This cult schismed off of another Doom's day cult in like the 1920s(?) which itself was just a continuation of another grift.
>>16555601Why would I pretend I'm not JW if I'm one on 4chan? I know people that are JW, and we often talk (it's more they try to get me in). I'm not even that religious. I was raised catholic.
>>16555609>they try to get me injust tell them you're not interested in a cult run by a conman who tried to predict the end of the world and got it wrong
>>16555605I care about the difference in scripture mostly. What did they have different than christians at the root of their religion that made them grow into the cult they are?
>>16555612Yeah they know I'm not interested in joining, but we often talk because I enjoy just debating and talking about religion. We're friends so it's not like they're forcing this on.I've talked about their failed predictions, but they come up with bullshit explanations. That's why I want to have some information on the root of the difference between JW and christians. What did they do at first that was considered wrong by the church? Was it the translation of their bible for example? And if so, what are sources that show that.
>>16555557>*knock knock*
>>16555557Theologians don't engage much with JWs because they're a smallish cult who don't engage with scholarly theology.Claiming that Jesus is the archangel Michael because the Watchtower said so is not a theologically defensible position.
>>16555614The dooms day bit really. They believe that Jesus came back "invisibly" in the 1800s and that we're living in the end days. They also don't believe that in the Holy Trinity. They believe Jesus is the God's son but they don't believe that him, God, and the holy spirit are the same being.
>>16555623They are neo-arianists.
>>16555637>Claiming that Jesus is the archangel Michael because the Watchtower said soOkay so how did JWs arrive to this conclusion? Is it a translation issue, or an interpretation issue, compared to christians? If it's an interpretation, based on what, and how do christians respond to that claim?>>16555643>They believe that Jesus came back "invisibly" in the 1800sHow did they arrive to such a conclusion?
>>16555671The Britannica article has a decent overview of their history. They started as an offshoot of William Miller's group, he predicted the second coming of Jesus would happen in 1843, when it didn't happen the movement split. Charles T. Russel lead one offshoot and said there was a spiritual second coming in 1843 but that Jesus would fully return in 1914, they have further explanations for why that didn't happen either. Succeeding leaders emphasised using the name Jehovah and said Jesus isn't Jehovah. I don't know too much about the primary sources for JWs, but it's mostly their leaders' interpretations of the Bible in their publications like the Watchtower periodical.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Jehovahs-WitnessesIn terms of Christians responding, their biggest problem with JWs is denying that Jesus is God. There's plenty of Christian arguments for this, but here's a fairly succinct one from an apologist that's especially aimed at JWs:https://ww.youtube.com/watch?v=v5qGGakJa1g
>>16555671>How did they arrive to such a conclusion?Sorry, I missed this one, the Britannica article explains it:>He also interpreted the Second Coming in accordance with the literal translation of the original Greek term, parousia (“presence”), suggesting that Christ would come as an invisible presence and that the Parousia, or “Millennial Dawn,” already had occurred, in 1874. The coming of Christ’s invisible presence signaled the end of the current order of society and would be followed by his visible presence and the establishment of the millennial kingdom on earth in 1914. Although the kingdom did not come, Russell’s teachings motivated a number of volunteers to circulate his many books and pamphlets and a periodical, The Watchtower, and to recalculate the time of the Parousia.
>>16555715>>16555718thanks anon, i'll be looking into all that in detail
>>16555623Main reason why they're against JWs is because they proclaim trinity to be true even if it's not biblical. Isa 43:10, 1 Tim 2:5-6, explains this extremely clearly.
>>16555557>What's creates the difference between a JW, and a Christian (say Catholic)?A number of catholic beliefs conflict with what the Bible actually teaches. For example, the Bible teaches that “there is one God,” not a Trinity. (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:28) And it clearly teaches that God punishes the wicked, not in hellfire, but with eternal destruction.—Psalm 37:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:9.>Does it come from the different translations of the bible, or from their different interpretations of the same bible? The New World Translation is based on up-to-date scholarly research and the most reliable ancient manuscripts. In contrast, the King James Version of 1611 was based on manuscripts that were often less accurate and not as old as those used in producing the New World Translation.>I've been searching online about what theologians think of JWs but I can't find anything. Since Christians shit on them, I wanted to see what actual scholars think of them. Is there even a consensus on that topic among scholars?https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/>It feels that since JW are such a small and new sect, there'd be people "debunking" them, but I can't find much. I'm not talking about finding a debate between a Christian and a JW, I want to go to the root of the difference, look at original text and translations maybe, etc...In his illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jesus foretold a great rebellion (apostasy) against true Christianity. (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) For a long period of time, true Christians and false Christians would be indistinguishable. Just as Jesus foretold, the apostasy flourished after the apostles died. (Acts 20:29, 30) Jesus also predicted that the distinction between true and false Christianity would eventually become clear. This has happened in our time, during the “conclusion of a system of things.”—Matthew 13:30, 39.
>>16556562what about the countless false predictions, what does the watchtower tell you about those?
>>16555557Scholars don't waste time on discussing great awakening apocalypse cults, they are a dime a dozen and their theology is always the same 'believe whatever the leader says'.
>>16555557The Bible is contradictive so denominations are simply just "picking the narrative you like most". When you do that, you have to explain away the things that contradict that narrative. JWs settled on the idea that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. So they have to explain away contradictions to that like John 1:1. They do this by simply inventing a translation that no objective linguist would support, etc. But it works the other way around too. Those who've settled on the idea that Jesus is God have to explain away all the contradictions to that, like Jesus saying he is no more god that anyone else in John 10:31-37.
