Are Jehovahs Witnesses Saved?

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Good point, depending upon what exactly you mean by "originating." Given a strict definition of "originating," seems Apostolic Pentecostalism also originated in America in the 20th Century. Of course, OPs will disagree, just like JWs will disagree about where Abiding Now says they really first came from.

Considering the Long Dark Era where the most powerful winner (ie, Catholics) wrote the history books, then basically anything is unprovable and unfalsifiable regarding any sectarian claims about their origin. (That is, regarding various sects' plausible claims about what was really "original.")

So, why did an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omniloving and Omnibenovolent God allow, no rather, demonstrably intend the Long Dark Era of Catholic rule, not to mention its literary dominance?

So, in the end, the Gate of Hell really did not prevail, or at least until the Azuza Street revival and Oneness Revelations? (Yeah right.)

I am a firm believer that God's church has always prevailed. May not have been called Apostolic or Pentecostal, but there were folks receiving the Holy Ghost. Barton Stone was baptizing in Jesus name during the Cane Ridge Revival 100 years BEFORE Azuza.


The congregations where Stone labored agreed with and submitted to this new teaching on baptism. As Stone further studied, he and others came to believe that baptism “was ordained for the remission of sins, and ought to be administered in the name of Jesus to all believing penitents.”

Stone recounted a story when, at a meeting at Concord, mourners were gathering before the stand for prayers, but none found comfort. Stone pondered why they found no relief in this custom and the accompanying prayers. He recounted in his mind the words of Peter from Acts 2.38. Then he recited them in the hearing of all while reasoning, “…were Peter here, he would thus address these mourners.”

http://veritasvenator.com/2013/07/31...e-and-baptism/

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

I am a firm believer that God's church has always prevailed. May not have been called Apostolic or Pentecostal, but there were folks receiving the Holy Ghost. Barton Stone was baptizing in Jesus name during the Cane Ridge Revival 100 years BEFORE Azuza.


The congregations where Stone labored agreed with and submitted to this new teaching on baptism. As Stone further studied, he and others came to believe that baptism “was ordained for the remission of sins, and ought to be administered in the name of Jesus to all believing penitents.”

Stone recounted a story when, at a meeting at Concord, mourners were gathering before the stand for prayers, but none found comfort. Stone pondered why they found no relief in this custom and the accompanying prayers. He recounted in his mind the words of Peter from Acts 2.38. Then he recited them in the hearing of all while reasoning, “…were Peter here, he would thus address these mourners.”

http://veritasvenator.com/2013/07/31...e-and-baptism/

Ok, maybe you have pushed back a recorded account of Act 2:38 gospel (correct response) by some 60 or 80 years. No reference in the blog to WHEN this new take actually happened, but Google reveals the gentleman Barton died in 1844. So fine, let's accept this obscure account to probably predate Azuza Street by some decades. The question remains, what about the other 1800+ years where Catholics held all the cards and influence in behalf of the supposed god, and all according to the Omnipotent God's plan to reveal himself? No, all you really have to go on is your faith, ie, >> I am a firm believer that God's church has always prevailed.>>

Firm believer? Nice. Always prevailed? No, not according to what rest of the world thinks "prevailed" means. But go ahead, redefine what "prevailed" means. But I get it--preserve some kind of claimable geneology of the apostolic faith, at all costs.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Ok, maybe you have pushed back a recorded account of Act 2:38 gospel (correct response) by some 60 or 80 years. No reference in the blog to WHEN this new take actually happened, but Google reveals the gentleman Barton died in 1844. So fine, let's accept this obscure account to probably predate Azuza Street by some decades. The question remains, what about the other 1800+ years where Catholics held all the cards and influence in behalf of the supposed god, and all according to the Omnipotent God's plan to reveal himself? No, all you really have to go on is your faith, ie, >> I am a firm believer that God's church has always prevailed.>>

Firm believer? Nice. Always prevailed? No, not according to what rest of the world thinks "prevailed" means. But go ahead, redefine what "prevailed" means. But I get it--preserve some kind of claimable geneology of the apostolic faith, at all costs.

WHY would I care what "rest of the world (or you ) thinks "prevailed" means"? And I sure couldn't care less what the catholic church thinks about ANYTHING. Admitted, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you're correct about one thing, my faith tells me Jesus was right when He said in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against His church, so me being a literalist, I just take it as an absolute.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

And I sure couldn't care less what the catholic church thinks about ANYTHING.

Interesting. They are who decided what your bible would look like, more or less, with revisions through the years.

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

Admitted, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you're correct about one thing, my faith tells me Jesus was right when He said in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against His church, so me being a literalist, I just take it as an absolute.

You are therefore a true believer. Doesn't much matter that no one named "Matthew" actually wrote the gospel of Matthew, but matters only that someone said this is what Matthew said, and all that about 90 or 100 years after Jesus. Enjoy your belief.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Interesting. They are who decided what your bible would look like, more or less, with revisions through the years.



You are therefore a true believer. Doesn't much matter that no one named "Matthew" actually wrote the gospel of Matthew, but matters only that someone said this is what Matthew said, and all that about 90 or 100 years after Jesus. Enjoy your belief.

And that it says "The Gospel of Matthew"...

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Interesting. They are who decided what your bible would look like, more or less, with revisions through the years.



You are therefore a true believer. Doesn't much matter that no one named "Matthew" actually wrote the gospel of Matthew, but matters only that someone said this is what Matthew said, and all that about 90 or 100 years after Jesus. Enjoy your belief.

Thank you.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Interesting. They are who decided what your bible would look like, more or less, with revisions through the years.



You are therefore a true believer. Doesn't much matter that no one named "Matthew" actually wrote the gospel of Matthew, but matters only that someone said this is what Matthew said, and all that about 90 or 100 years after Jesus. Enjoy your belief.

Been thinking about your post and wanted to add a little something. You mentioned my "belief" and I wanted to say that it SEEMS to me that you must have a really good belief system yourself, because you evidently read somewhere in a book or on line that Matthew wasn't the writer of the book of Matthew in the Bible and you believed the author of that article/book. Now I admit that I never met Matthew to ask him about his writings, but then I doubt that you have met the author of the book/article that convinced you that Matthew didn't write the book of Matthew. So I choose to believe in the Bible and you choose to believe in the writings of other men.

[Praxeas]

B. Who Wrote Matthew?

Scholars frequently assert that the four gospels are anonymous, that is, the authors do not identify themselves by name. That claim is technically correct if the standard of comparison is, say, Paul’s letter to the Romans, where the opening lines clearly state both the author and the initial readers. The gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never explicitly say who wrote them. Nevertheless, we have no evidence that these gospels ever circulated without titles like “according to Matthew.” The titles were likely part of the works from the beginning, and the expression “according to” introduces the person understood to be the author. The one gospel circulated in four distinct forms: “according to Matthew,” “according to Mark,” “according to Luke,” and “according to John.”
The author of Matthew was likely the apostle, “Matthew the tax collector” (10:3). At one level very little hangs on the question of the authorship of this gospel. Neither its meaning nor its authority is greatly changed if one decides that its author was not an apostle.


Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2010). Introducing the New Testament: A Short Guide to Its History and Message (24). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

B. Who Wrote Matthew?

Scholars frequently assert that the four gospels are anonymous, that is, the authors do not identify themselves by name. That claim is technically correct if the standard of comparison is, say, Paul’s letter to the Romans, where the opening lines clearly state both the author and the initial readers. The gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never explicitly say who wrote them. Nevertheless, we have no evidence that these gospels ever circulated without titles like “according to Matthew.” The titles were likely part of the works from the beginning, and the expression “according to” introduces the person understood to be the author. The one gospel circulated in four distinct forms: “according to Matthew,” “according to Mark,” “according to Luke,” and “according to John.”
The author of Matthew was likely the apostle, “Matthew the tax collector” (10:3). At one level very little hangs on the question of the authorship of this gospel. Neither its meaning nor its authority is greatly changed if one decides that its author was not an apostle.


Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2010). Introducing the New Testament: A Short Guide to Its History and Message (24). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Thank you.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

WHY would I care what "rest of the world (or you ) thinks "prevailed" means"? And I sure couldn't care less what the catholic church thinks about ANYTHING. Admitted, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you're correct about one thing, my faith tells me Jesus was right when He said in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell would NOT prevail against His church, so me being a literalist, I just take it as an absolute.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I don't mean to be rude here but that is a false understanding of what Jesus was teaching. Trinitarians have tried to make that same argument, but it has nothing to do with there always being a church.

What Jesus is saying is related to death (gates of hell), not some fiery domain of a pitched fork Satan.

It means that Death has no hold over us. We will prevail over death because of the blood of the lamb

Co 15:54 But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and when this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co 15:55 O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?"
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law.
1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.