Are Jehovahs Witnesses Saved?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Well that would be the bottom line concerning our own hope. In the meantime I think its up to someone to preach what Yeshua himself said about it.

3 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:23-24

There is something he said we have to believe about him or we will die in our sins.

LOL. Did you really just quote John 8:23-25 as your prooftext that we need to believe that Jesus is God? John 8:23-25 is a passage about believing Jesus is the Messiah because in John 8:25 when asked about who he claimed to be Jesus says "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning." Who did Jesus say he was in the beggining? Search the scriptures for the beginning of Jesus' ministry and you will see that in the beginning he claims to be the Messiah only

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by jfrog

LOL. Did you really just quote John 8:23-25 as your prooftext that we need to believe that Jesus is God? John 8:23-25 is a passage about believing Jesus is the Messiah because in John 8:25 when asked about who he claimed to be Jesus says "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning." Who did Jesus say he was in the beggining? Search the scriptures for the beginning of Jesus' ministry and you will see that in the beginning he claims to be the Messiah only

Well yes that is my prooftext as a matter of fact!

Who is THE MESSIAH?

Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Unless one believes he is the Father and the Son guess what?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Well yes that is my prooftext as a matter of fact!

Who is THE MESSIAH?

Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Unless one believes he is the Father and the Son guess what?

He didn't say that there. He only said you had to believe he was the messiah. He didn't say you had to fully understand who the messiah was.

[Abiding Now]

The JWs and Mormons are both American religions originating in America in the last century.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by jfrog

He didn't say that there. He only said you had to believe he was the messiah. He didn't say you had to fully understand who the messiah was.

If you read the context of the discussion he said HE IS THE FATHER. He said unless you believe that you will die in sin. The text say thery understood NOT he spoke of the Father. So even tho they understood not....he still said what he said.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

If you read the context of the discussion he said HE IS THE FATHER. He said unless you believe that you will die in sin. The text say thery understood NOT he spoke of the Father. So even tho they understood not....he still said what he said.

Amazing isn't it? Religious folks didn't "get it" back then and 2000 years later religious folks STILL don't "get it". Makes me double THANKFUL!

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

The JWs and Mormons are both American religions originating in America in the last century.

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 and when 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 Gates of Hell really did not prevail against the true gospel, at least not prevailing in consideration of the Azuza Street revivals and Oneness Revelations circa 1906? (Yeah, right!)

[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.