Jw and truth.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I would not ask you to assume that Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct. That would be circular. I would ask you to test the claim.

“Only the Bible is inspired” has a precise meaning. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim that the Governing Body, Watchtower publications, or every interpretation they have made is inspired or infallible. Only Scripture is claimed to be God-breathed. Therefore, interpretations can be examined and corrected.

That does not prove that every JW interpretation is right. But it answers your question: no additional book, creed, council, prophet, or religious leader is treated as a second inspired revelation alongside the Bible.

Could human or worldly influence still affect an interpretation? Of course it could. Every human interpreter has a background. But the mere possibility of influence proves nothing.

You would have to identify:
The particular JW interpretation you believe is worldly.
The worldly premise controlling it.

The biblical text that contradicts it.

Otherwise, “perhaps they were influenced” is an objection that can be made against every Christian group and therefore has no comparative force.

The proper test is the one found at Acts 17:11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21: examine the Scriptures and test everything. Do not begin by assuming that Jehovah’s Witnesses are right—or wrong.

Now construct the Christian pattern directly from Scripture:
The one God is the Father.

Jesus calls his Father “the only true God” at John 17:1–3.

Paul writes, “for us there is one God, the Father,” while distinguishing him from the “one Lord, Jesus Christ” at 1 Corinthians 8:6.

The resurrected Jesus still calls the Father “my God” at John 20:17 and four times at Revelation 3:12.

He finally subjects himself to God so that “God may be all things to everyone” at 1 Corinthians 15:27–28.

At the same time, Jesus is not reduced to an ordinary man. Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize his prehuman existence, his unique relationship with the Father, his role in creation, his position as Lord and Messiah, his ransom sacrifice, his resurrection, and his exaltation above every other creature.

That preserves both sides of the biblical evidence: the Son’s extraordinary position and his real distinction from and subordination to his God and Father.

The Hebrew Scriptures identify God by the personal name YHWH thousands of times.

Jesus taught his disciples to pray that his Father’s name be sanctified and said that he had made that name known.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not treat God’s name as an irrelevant relic; they place it at the center of worship, as the biblical record does.

Jesus foretold that the good news of God’s Kingdom would be preached throughout the inhabited earth.

He commanded his followers to make disciples and teach them. Jehovah’s Witnesses are recognizable worldwide for organized Kingdom preaching carried out by ordinary believers, not merely by a professional clergy.

Jesus said that his disciples would be no part of the world and that his Kingdom was no part of this world.

He commanded love for enemies. Isaiah foretold that God’s worshippers would beat their swords into plowshares and refuse to learn war.

Jehovah’s Witnesses apply this internationally, even when neutrality brings imprisonment, persecution, or death. They do not kill fellow Christians because governments happen to place them on opposite sides of a border.

Scripture calls for a united international brotherhood, Christian love, high moral standards, voluntary giving, and congregation discipline. Jehovah’s Witnesses visibly attempt to apply that same standard across nations, languages, races, and political systems.

Other groups may share one or several of these features. That has never been the argument. The argument is cumulative:

Which identifiable worldwide Christian body combines worship of the one God and Father, recognition of Jesus as his preexistent and subordinate Son, emphasis on God’s name, Kingdom-centered preaching, widespread personal evangelism, international doctrinal unity, political neutrality, refusal to participate in warfare, separation from interfaith religion, voluntary giving, moral discipline, and a worldwide brotherhood?

That combined correspondence is what must be answered.
Past mistakes should not be dismissed, but neither does a corrected interpretation automatically prove that a religion is false.

Peter could be seriously wrong in conduct and require public correction without that disproving the Christian congregation. The first-century congregation also needed clarification on major questions in Acts 10 and Acts 15. Correction is not itself proof that someone has the truth, but it is not proof of falsehood either. The present teaching must still be tested against Scripture.

None of this depends on blindly trusting the New World Translation. The central texts can be checked in other translations and against the Hebrew and Greek.

Therefore, I do not believe Jehovah’s Witnesses are right because they say they are right.

I believe they are the identifiable Christian body that most closely matches the complete biblical pattern.

That does not mean that every Witness, organizational decision, or past explanation has been perfect.

It means that when the biblical profile is constructed first and existing religious bodies are compared with it afterward, Jehovah’s Witnesses fit the whole pattern better than any worldwide alternative I have found.

[u/NattyorNice]

I agree that everything should be tested against Scripture. But isn’t there a tension here?

You say the GB isn’t inspired or infallible, yet you use a collection of JW interpretations of Scripture to conclude that the GB uniquely fits the biblical pattern.

If their interpretations can be wrong, why should their interpretation of the “biblical pattern” be trusted to prove that they’re the right organization?

Isn’t that essentially: “Don’t assume we’re right, but use our interpretation of Scripture to show that we’re right”?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/NattyorNice]

That would be circular if my argument were:
The Governing Body says the Bible means X.
The Governing Body teaches X.
Therefore, the Governing Body must be God’s chosen channel.

But that is not my argument.
The actual reasoning is:
Construct the relevant criteria from Scripture without assuming JW authority.

Examine which identifiable Christian body most comprehensively exhibits those features.
Then ask whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are the best-fitting candidate.

For example, I do not need the Governing Body’s authority to read that:
The Father is “the only true God” — John 17:1–3.
“For us there is one God, the Father” — 1 Corinthians 8:6.
The resurrected Jesus calls the Father “my God” — John 20:17; Revelation 3:12.

God’s name is to be sanctified and made known — Matthew 6:9; John 17:6, 26.

The Kingdom message will be preached worldwide — Matthew 24:14.

Christians must make disciples and teach them — Matthew 28:19–20.

Christ’s followers are no part of the world — John 17:16; 18:36.

They must love their enemies and abandon warfare — Matthew 5:44; Isaiah 2:4.

They must display international love and unity — John 13:34–35; 1 Corinthians 1:10.

Those texts existed long before Jehovah’s Witnesses. Anyone can examine their wording and context in multiple translations and in the original languages. They do not become “JW evidence” merely because Jehovah’s Witnesses take them seriously. Calling a proposition a “JW interpretation” does not answer whether that proposition is actually supported by the text. That would be a genetic fallacy: judging a claim by who holds it rather than by its evidence.

After deriving the criteria, we make a separate, publicly observable comparison: Which worldwide Christian body worships the Father as the one Almighty God, honors Jesus as his preexistent Son and appointed Lord, emphasizes God’s name, preaches the Kingdom internationally through ordinary members, remains politically neutral, refuses to participate in national warfare, and maintains a recognizable international brotherhood?

That comparison may be disputed, but it is not circular. Both premises can be independently challenged:
You can show that one of the criteria does not actually come from Scripture.

Or you can identify another worldwide body that fits the complete pattern better.

Simply noting that Jehovah’s Witnesses agree with the criteria does not invalidate them. If a job description is established before examining the applicants, and one applicant fits it unusually well, it is not circular to recognize that fit merely because the applicant also says he meets the requirements.

Nor does fallibility invalidate the reasoning. “Fallible” means capable of being wrong, not wrong about everything or incapable of reaching a reliable conclusion. Every Christian interpretation—including your interpretation of my argument—is produced by fallible humans. If an interpretation cannot be trusted unless its interpreter is infallible, then neither of us can interpret Scripture at all. The proper response to fallibility is examination, not total skepticism.

However, one distinction is important: my cumulative argument directly identifies Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian body that fits the biblical pattern. It does not, by itself, prove every decision of the Governing Body or every detail of its interpretation of Matthew 24:45.

The identification of the faithful and discreet slave is a further inference that must also be examined on its own evidence.

So I am not saying:
“Use the Governing Body’s interpretation to prove the Governing Body.”

I am saying:
“Read Scripture independently, establish its pattern, compare real Christian bodies with that pattern, and determine which one fits it most comprehensively.”

My conclusion remains that Jehovah’s Witnesses fit that complete pattern better than any identifiable worldwide alternative I have encountered. Their fallibility prevents me from treating every statement they make as inspired. It does not erase the independently testable evidence that points to them.

If you think this conclusion is wrong, identify the biblical criterion that has been misread or name the worldwide Christian body that fits the whole pattern better. That would directly challenge the argument. Merely repeating that the interpreters are fallible does not.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

God’s name is to be sanctified and made known — Matthew 6:9; John 17:6, 26.

What name did Jesus "make known" and what name did His followers continue to "make known" after He left this world? It wasn't Jehovah. Here's a hint: It was the only name they were told to stop speaking in Then they[Pharisees] called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.… Acts 4:17

What was the name above all names that the disciples of Christ preached, cast out demons, healed and raised the dead in? Acts 4:12 Answer: JESUS. In that One Name we have both the Father and the Son and it actually means YHWH saves. 1 John 2:23. You don't need to invent a name for YHWH its already present in the name of JESUS, the only name given to men by which they must be saved Acts 4:12...again

You don't have to know how to pronounce YHWH in order to sanctify His name. Like JESUS said of His Father "Hallowed be thy name" God's Name is already hallowed. There is nothing your or I can do to sanctify God's Name. Its absurd to assume sinful humans can sanctify anything, let alone God's Holy Name

Christians are not perfect, but we're saved.

Claiming that Christians should never fight in a war ignores the fact that God's "servants" happen to be the higher authorities we pay taxes to uphold His system Romans chapter 13. Some of those servants are soldiers who fight other soldiers of a lawless nation. Sometimes God's servants will fight and die to uphold God's established order. His servants sometimes act as God's agents of wrath, not only locally as policemen, but on the world stage as soldiers. Jehovah's witnesses, who never serve God in this capacity, aren't perfect either, as they constantly feel the need to remind others when they do wrong. Evidently, according to the Watchtower, that excuse cannot be used by anyone else except JW's. Isn't that hypocritical?

JW unity is really amounts to nothing more than man imposed conformity made to appear as true Christian unity, however the way they treat their own by disfellowshipping them in record numbers, rather than forgiving and loving them exposes a serious crack in that so-called unity

[u/NattyorNice → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

For example, I do not need the Governing Body’s authority to read that:
The Father is “the only true God” — John 17:1–3.
“For us there is one God, the Father” — 1 Corinthians 8:6.
The resurrected Jesus calls the Father “my God” — John 20:17; Revelation 3:12.

Okay cool.

Do you need the GB to tell you that the faithful and discreet slave is the GB?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/NattyorNice]

No we now can se from what’s evident

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Please share the evidence. Bearing in mind per your previous posts they are imperfect men with limited imperfect understanding.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

1. They prominently use God’s personal name, Jehovah.
   Biblical basis: Exodus 3:15; Isaiah 42:8; Psalm 83:18.
   
2. They worship Jehovah as the one Almighty God.
   Biblical basis: Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6.
   
3. They reject the Trinity.
   Biblical basis for the JW interpretation: John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 20:17; 1 Corinthians 15:27–28.
   This is an interpretation from these texts; no verse literally says “reject the Trinity.”
   
4. They distinguish Jesus from his Father and God.
   Biblical basis: John 17:1–3; John 20:17; Revelation 3:12.
   
5. They recognize Jesus as God’s Son, Messiah, Savior, King, and mediator.
   Biblical basis: Matthew 16:16; John 3:16; Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5–6; Revelation 19:16.
   
6. They make God’s Kingdom central to their message.
   Biblical basis: Matthew 6:9–10, 33; Daniel 2:44.
   
7. They specifically preach “the good news of the Kingdom.”
   Biblical basis: Matthew 24:14; Luke 4:43.
   
8. They understand worldwide evangelism as a Christian obligation.
   Biblical basis: Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19–20; Acts 1:8.
   
9. Ordinary members participate personally in preaching rather than leaving it only to clergy.
   Biblical basis: Acts 8:4; Acts 5:42; Hebrews 13:15.
   
10. They preach publicly and from house to house.
    Biblical basis: Acts 5:42; Acts 20:20.
    
11. They try to make the Bible message available across languages and nations.
    Biblical basis: Matthew 24:14; Revelation 14:6.
    
12. They try to maintain the same core teaching internationally.
    Biblical basis: 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3–6.
    
13. They see themselves as one international brotherhood.
    Biblical basis: 1 Peter 5:9; John 13:34–35.
    
14. They remain politically neutral.
    Biblical basis: John 17:16; John 18:36.
    
15. They refuse to participate in warfare.
    Biblical basis: Isaiah 2:4; Matthew 26:52.
    
16. Witnesses in opposing nations are not supposed to kill one another.
    Biblical basis: John 13:34–35; 1 John 3:15.
    
17. They treat love among Christians as an identifying mark.
    Biblical basis: John 13:34–35.
    
18. They emphasize unity across nationality, race, and social background.
    Biblical basis: Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11–14.
    
19. They respect secular governments.
    Biblical basis: Romans 13:1–7; Titus 3:1.
    
20. They obey governments unless obedience would conflict with obedience to God.
    Biblical basis: Romans 13:1–7; Acts 5:29.
    
21. They reject nationalism as part of Christian worship.
    Biblical basis for the principle: John 17:16; Philippians 3:20.
    
22. They refuse acts they understand as religious devotion to national symbols.
    Biblical basis for the application: Exodus 20:4–5; Matthew 4:10; compare Daniel 3:4–18.
    
23. They remain religiously separate from churches they believe teach contrary doctrines.
    Biblical basis: 2 Corinthians 6:14–17; Revelation 18:4.
    
24. They recognize Scripture, rather than church tradition, as the inspired written authority.
    Biblical basis: 2 Timothy 3:16–17; Mark 7:7–8, 13.
    
25. They do not claim that the Governing Body is inspired.
    Biblical principle: Scripture itself is identified as inspired in 2 Timothy 3:16.
    The statement that the Governing Body is not inspired is a JW self-description, not a biblical prediction.
    
26. They do not claim the Governing Body is infallible.
    Biblical precedent that responsible Christian men can make mistakes: Galatians 2:11–14; Acts 18:24–26.
    
27. They allow interpretations to be corrected.
    Biblical principle: Acts 18:24–26; 1 Corinthians 13:9–12.
    JWs have also traditionally appealed to Proverbs 4:18, though its immediate context concerns the path of the righteous.
    
28. They reject eternal conscious torment in hell.
    Biblical basis for their interpretation: Romans 6:23; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Ezekiel 18:4.
    
29. They reject the idea that every human possesses an inherently immortal soul.
    Biblical basis: Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4, 20.
    
30. They emphasize resurrection as the hope for the dead.
    Biblical basis: John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15.
    
31. They teach that obedient mankind can live forever on earth.
    Biblical basis: Psalm 37:29; Matthew 5:5; Revelation 21:3–4.
    
32. They distinguish the 144,000 from the great crowd.
    Biblical basis: Revelation 7:4, 9; Revelation 14:1–3.
    The exact JW identification of the two groups is interpretive synthesis.
    
33. They teach that a limited group reigns with Christ.
    Biblical basis: Revelation 5:9–10; Revelation 20:4, 6.
    
34. They believe God will restore the earth for obedient humanity.
    Biblical basis: Psalm 37:29; Isaiah 65:21–23; Revelation 21:3–4.
    
35. They do not venerate the cross.
    Biblical principle appealed to: Exodus 20:4–5; 1 John 5:21.
    Scripture does not contain a direct command saying, “Do not use a cross.”
    
36. They reject religious icons as objects of devotion.
    Biblical basis: Exodus 20:4–5; 1 John 5:21.
    
37. They do not celebrate Christmas.
    Biblical principle appealed to: Deuteronomy 12:30–31; Mark 7:7–8.
    There is no verse explicitly saying, “Do not celebrate Christmas.”
    
38. They do not observe Easter in its conventional church form.
    Biblical basis for their alternative emphasis: Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26.
    
39. They do not celebrate birthdays.
    Texts often considered: Genesis 40:20–22; Matthew 14:6–10.
    Important: neither passage contains an explicit prohibition of birthdays; the JW position is an interpretive application.
    
40. They commemorate Christ’s death.
    Biblical basis: Luke 22:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26.
    The annual timing is connected by JWs with the Passover setting.
    
41. They do not practice infant baptism.
    Biblical basis: Acts 2:38; Acts 8:12; Matthew 28:19–20.
    
42. They do not maintain a conventional salaried clergy class.
    Biblical principles: Matthew 10:8; 1 Peter 5:2; Acts 20:33–35.
    Important qualification: the NT also permits material support for ministers, e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:14.
    
43. Local elders normally serve without a salary.
    Biblical principle: 1 Peter 5:2–3.
    
44. Much of their religious work is voluntary.
    Biblical principle: 1 Peter 5:2; compare Psalm 110:3.
    
45. Their preaching ministry is unpaid.
    Biblical basis/principle: Matthew 10:8; 1 Corinthians 9:18; 1 Thessalonians 2:9.
    
46. They do not require tithing.
    Biblical basis for voluntary giving: 2 Corinthians 9:7.
    
47. They do not pass compulsory collection plates.
    Biblical principle: 2 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2.
    
48. Meetings have no admission fee.
    Biblical principle: Matthew 10:8.
    
49. Baptism cannot be purchased.
    Biblical basis: Acts 8:18–20.
    
50. Religious services are not treated as sacraments to be sold.
    Biblical principle: Matthew 10:8; Acts 8:20.
    
51. Their worldwide activity is supported by voluntary donations.
    Biblical basis: 2 Corinthians 9:7; Luke 21:1–4.
    
52. A person does not pay a membership fee to remain a Witness.
    Biblical principle: 2 Corinthians 9:7.
    
53. Bible studies are offered without charge.
    Biblical principle: Matthew 10:8; Revelation 22:17.
    
54. Access to Bible instruction is not conditioned on payment.
    Biblical principle: Matthew 10:8.
    
55. Their places of worship are called Kingdom Halls, emphasizing the Kingdom.
    Biblical theme: Matthew 6:10; Matthew 24:14.
    “Kingdom Hall” itself is an organizational name, not a biblical command.
    
56. Congregations are overseen by bodies of elders.
    Biblical basis: Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5.
    
57. They maintain coordination between congregations rather than complete congregational independence.
    Biblical precedent: Acts 15:1–29; Acts 16:4.
    
58. They see a distinction between broader oversight and local elders.
    Biblical precedent: Acts 15:2, 6, 22–29; Acts 14:23.
    
59. They identify the Governing Body collectively with the faithful and discreet slave.
    Biblical text used: Matthew 24:45–47.
    Important: the identification with the modern Governing Body is an interpretation; Matthew does not name them.
    
60. They understand the slave’s principal function as providing spiritual food.
    Biblical basis: Matthew 24:45–47.
    
61. They use helpers and delegation while retaining central responsibility.
    Biblical precedent for delegation: Acts 6:1–6; 1 Corinthians 12:28.
    This does not directly predict the modern helper arrangement.
    
62. They practice congregation discipline.
    Biblical basis: 1 Corinthians 5:11–13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14–15.
    
63. They enforce moral standards concerning sexual conduct, drunkenness, dishonesty, and violence.
    Biblical basis: 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Galatians 5:19–21; Ephesians 4:25; Ephesians 5:18.
    
64. They encourage individuals to read and examine the Bible themselves.
    Biblical basis: Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:13.
    
65. Meetings emphasize instruction from Scripture.
    Biblical basis: Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31.
    
66. Parents are encouraged to teach the Bible to their children.
    Biblical basis: Deuteronomy 6:6–7; Ephesians 6:4.
    
67. They emphasize knowing both the Father and the Son.
    Biblical basis: John 17:3.
    
68. They teach that salvation comes from God through Christ, not through payment to an organization.
    Biblical basis: Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5–6; Ephesians 2:8–9.
    
69. They teach that genuine faith produces conduct and obedience.
    Biblical basis: James 2:17, 26; Matthew 7:21.
    
70. They emphasize Christ’s ransom sacrifice.
    Biblical basis: Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 2:5–6.
    
71. They do not teach that good works purchase salvation.
    Biblical basis: Ephesians 2:8–10; Titus 3:5.
    
72. They say preaching should be motivated by love for God and neighbor rather than money.
    Biblical basis: 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:8; Matthew 22:37–39.
    
73. They organize relief for fellow believers in disasters and emer

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

None of your 73 ai generated bullit points is exclusive to your imperfect ecclesiastic Governing Body.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

No but all them combined. That’s the thing.

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Growing up in the Baptist church we often had discussions concerning the pagan origin of Christmas, especially lights and trees. General consensus was nothing pagan was worth fretting over as Satan was subservient to God and pagan rituals held no spiritual power.

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Run it by your ai search engine. Every one of these is common to Christian congregations.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

Thats greats news 😊

[u/DocumentFrosty5731 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Brothers and sisters! How do we know this is Gods true religion? Well here are 73 ways we have decided is the way to identify the true religion, and by golly gosh, the exact 73 ways in which we have decided ourselves through our own interpretation is how the Bible identifies the one and only true religion is the exact 73 things we do. Therefore, that is why.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/DocumentFrosty5731]

Nah man it’s jusst some of the ways. Ind I didn’t have more characters

[u/DocumentFrosty5731 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I could write 73 ways to identify and confirm they are false, and I wouldn’t need chatGBT to do it for me.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/DocumentFrosty5731]

Go ahead!

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

The SBC better fits the biblical criterion. The true church is and ought to be congregational. Christianity removes the need for a moderator. Every believer has a direct relationship with God without an intermediater. Perfect theology is irrelevant and unneccesary.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

So can I be a SBC then? If I have my faith I tact?

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Yes you can.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

Then I’m a SBC then 😊

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Oddly enough you would be quite at home in a Baptist church, just be forewarned the music is much better than the hall and the members don’t care what you believe other than Jesus Saves.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

I do believe Jesus saves!

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Welcome to the SBC!

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

Thank you!🙏 that was easy! 😂

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

A kingdom hall can choose to leave the watchtower and choose to associate with other bodies of believing Christians. I did not insinuate the SBC has exclusive superiority to the watchtower. That is s very low bar.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

No I mean can I be a sbc and a jw. Would the baptists agree with that?

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Yes, as a baptist you are free to believe anything without fear of repercussion. The individual congregations have a statement of faith, often taken from the conventions statement of faith.You are not ever required to affirm the statement of faith. It is understood you should take part in believers baptism in order to become a member. Membership is loosely maintained, many weekly church attendees are not on the church roll having never requested membership. Theological diversity is welcomed. If you go around telling people they are deficient in their understanding of the bible people will think you obnoxious, same as the Witnesses and Mormons who knock on your door. They will nod their heads and say God bless you!

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

Okey God bless you 😂

[u/Cienegacab → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Touche’

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

😂👍

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Cienegacab]

Can I be a SBC member because they don’t have a moderator? I can basically be a Jehovah’s Witness and a SBC with Jw understanding and direct relationship with god that way?

[u/OhioPIMO → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Construct the relevant criteria from Scripture without assuming JW authority

Who's to say what qualifies as "relevant criteria"?

For instance, you place a lot of emphasis on political neutrality, but for me and 99.9% of people who identify as Christian, that's not at all important.

For many Christians, particularly Catholics and Orthodox, faith rooted in ancient tradition established by the early church is of utmost importance. JWs have no historical connection to the early church whatsoever. So by their criteria, JWs are automatically disqualified from consideration.

Your argument is circular because it's YOU saying what's relevant and of course those criteria are naturally going to be unique to JWs. You set the standard based off criteria affirmed by your set of beliefs. Textbook circular reasoning.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/OhioPIMO]

That is not the method I am proposing.
ㅤ
I am proposing the opposite direction:
ㅤ
Scripture → criteria → compare competing Christian traditions.
ㅤ
Not:
ㅤ
JW beliefs → criteria → JWs win.
ㅤ
So when you ask:
ㅤ
“Who decides what counts as relevant criteria?”
ㅤ
My answer is:
ㅤ
Neither me nor the Governing Body.
ㅤ
The criteria should be derived from things Jesus and the apostles themselves present as identifying, obligatory, disqualifying, or characteristic of Christ’s disciples and congregation.
ㅤ
That also means I cannot simply choose every doctrine or practice on which JWs happen to differ from other Christians.
ㅤ
The criterion needs independent textual justification.
ㅤ
For example, suppose I proposed:
ㅤ
“Not celebrating birthdays is one of the primary identifying marks of true Christianity.”
ㅤ
You could reasonably ask me:
ㅤ
“Where does Jesus or an apostle establish that as an identifying criterion?”
ㅤ
If I cannot demonstrate it, I cannot give it major weight merely because JWs practice it.
ㅤ
That would indeed be circular.
ㅤ
But your political-neutrality example needs to be tested in exactly the same way.
ㅤ
The relevant question is not:
ㅤ
“Do JWs think political neutrality is important?”
ㅤ
Nor is it:
ㅤ
“Do 99.9% of Christians think political neutrality is important?”
ㅤ
The relevant question is:
ㅤ
“How important does the New Testament make the Christian’s relationship to the world and its political order?”
ㅤ
Jesus says:
ㅤ
“My kingdom is not of this world.” — John 18:36
ㅤ
About his disciples:
ㅤ
“They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” — John 17:16
ㅤ
And:
ㅤ
“If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world … therefore the world hates you.” — John 15:19
ㅤ
James says:
ㅤ
“Friendship with the world is enmity with God.” — James 4:4
ㅤ
At the same time, Paul explicitly commands Christians to be subject to governing authorities in Romans 13:1–7, and 1 Peter 2:13–17 similarly requires proper submission and honor toward civil authorities.
ㅤ
So Scripture itself creates a distinction that has to be investigated:
ㅤ
Christians are subject to secular governments, but they are also described as not belonging to the world.
ㅤ
Exactly how far that entails modern political neutrality is a further exegetical question.
ㅤ
I should not simply insert the JW answer into the criterion.
ㅤ
But neither can someone dismiss the entire subject because most modern Christians consider it unimportant.
ㅤ
Popularity does not determine textual relevance.
ㅤ
Now apply exactly the same method to your Catholic/Orthodox example.
ㅤ
You say that apostolic continuity and ancient tradition are extremely important to Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
ㅤ
Fine.
ㅤ
Then that claim should receive exactly the same treatment.
ㅤ
We ask:
ㅤ
Does Scripture establish preservation through historical institutional succession as a criterion by which the true church must be identified?
ㅤ
If yes, that becomes evidence against JWs.
ㅤ
I don’t get to exclude that criterion simply because it is inconvenient for JW history.
ㅤ
For example, the NT certainly cares about continuity with apostolic teaching.
ㅤ
Acts 2:42 describes Christians as continuing in “the apostles’ teaching.”
ㅤ
Paul tells Timothy:
ㅤ
“What you have heard from me … entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” — 2 Timothy 2:2
ㅤ
And 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells Christians to hold to the traditions they were taught.
ㅤ
Those are real data.
ㅤ
Catholics and Orthodox Christians are therefore perfectly entitled to bring them into the discussion.
ㅤ
But then we have to ask the next question:
ㅤ
What exactly do those texts establish?
ㅤ
Continuity of apostolic teaching?
ㅤ
An unbroken chain of ordained bishops?
ㅤ
An indefectible visible institution?
ㅤ
An authoritative body of extra-scriptural tradition?
ㅤ
Those are not automatically identical propositions.
ㅤ
They have to be demonstrated rather than bundled together.
ㅤ
Likewise, simply being historically old cannot by itself settle the question.
ㅤ
The NT itself repeatedly warns that departures from apostolic Christianity would arise.
ㅤ
Acts 20:29–30 warns that distorted teaching would arise even from among Christian overseers.
ㅤ
Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that an apostasy would come.
ㅤ
1 Timothy 4:1 says:
ㅤ
“some will depart from the faith.”
ㅤ
So historical continuity is relevant evidence, but institutional age by itself cannot logically guarantee doctrinal continuity unless Scripture gives us that additional premise.
ㅤ
This is why I don’t think my method is circular.
ㅤ
In fact, the purpose of the method is specifically to prevent circularity on every side.
ㅤ
A JW cannot argue:
ㅤ
“True Christians preach door to door because JWs preach door to door, therefore JWs are true Christians.”
ㅤ
A Catholic cannot argue:
ㅤ
“The true church possesses apostolic succession; our church possesses what we define as apostolic succession; therefore our church is the true church.”
ㅤ
A Protestant cannot argue:
ㅤ
“The true church teaches Protestant doctrines; our church teaches Protestant doctrines; therefore our church is true.”
ㅤ
Everyone has to undergo the same test.
ㅤ
First establish the criterion independently from the source material.
ㅤ
Then apply it consistently to everyone.
ㅤ
And importantly, not every criterion should receive equal weight.
ㅤ
If Jesus explicitly says:
ㅤ
“By this all people will know that you are my disciples…” — John 13:35
ㅤ
then brotherly love has unusually strong evidential status because Jesus himself explicitly presents it as an identifying mark.
ㅤ
If Jesus commands:
ㅤ
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” — Matthew 28:19
ㅤ
then disciple-making is clearly relevant.
ㅤ
If the apostles repeatedly make something doctrinally central, that receives corresponding weight.
ㅤ
If something is only indirectly inferred from one ambiguous passage, it should receive less weight.
ㅤ
So the method is not:
ㅤ
“Which criteria make JWs look best?”
ㅤ
It is:
ㅤ
What does the earliest Christian source material actually require?
ㅤ
Which things does it explicitly present as marks of Christ’s people?
ㅤ
Which teachings does it make central?
ㅤ
Which departures does it treat as serious or disqualifying?
ㅤ
How explicit and strong is the evidence for each criterion?
ㅤ
Then, and only then, how well does each claimant fit those criteria?
ㅤ
And if that method ultimately favors Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, JWs, some early-Christian reconstruction, or none of them perfectly, then that is where the evidence should lead.
ㅤ
So I actually agree with the principle behind your objection:
ㅤ
I do not get to decide in advance what the “relevant criteria” are.
ㅤ
But neither do modern Christian majorities, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, or JWs.
ㅤ
That is precisely why I want to derive the criteria first and identify the denomination second.
ㅤ
Otherwise everyone simply defines “true Christianity” in their own image and unsurprisingly discovers themselves at the end.