6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[zone]

Hello Jordache,


I've argued my points here all throughout using translations such as the ESV, NIV, KJV, etc. I have no problem using other Bibles. But it's worth noting this point from Dr. Jason BeDuhn (not one of Jehovah's Witnesses), who examined particular scriptures in nine translations (including the NWT) and came to this conclusion:

"The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, are more similar to the Protestants [than Catholics] in their view that the Bible alone must be the source of truth in its every detail. So you might expect translators from this sect to labor under the Protestant Burden. But they do not for the simple reason that the Jehovah's Witness movement was and is a more radical break with the dominant Christian tradition of the previous millennium than most kinds of Protestantism. This movement has, unlike the Protestant Reformation, really sought to re-invent Christianity from scratch. Whether you regard that as good or a bad thing, you can probably understand that it resulted in the Jehovah's Witnesses approaching the Bible with a kind of innocence, and building their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there. Some critics, of course, would say that the results of this process can be naive. But for Bible translation, at least, it has meant a fresh approach to the text, with far less presumption than that found in many of the Protestant translations.

"Since the Jehovah's Witnesses are well outside of the Christian mainstream, the impression among the general public, and among several important biblical scholars, is that the differences of the NW from other translations are due to the peculiar ideas and biases of the Witnesses. I have identified a handful of examples of bias in the NW, where in my opinion accuracy was impaired by the commitments of the translators. But the biases of the NW translators do not account for most of the differences of the NW from the other translations. Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers." (Truth in Translation, pp. 164-5)

z-z-z-z-z-z.




John 8:24
That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

I am he (ἐγώ εἰμ&#953

He is inserted in the versions and is not in the text. By retaining it, we read, I am the Messiah. But the words are rather the solemn expression of His absolute divine being, as in John 8:58 : "If ye believe not that I am." See Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; and compare John 8:28, John 8:58 of this chapter, and John 13:19.

 

[Bowman]

TJ,

Can we conclude that your story does not have a happy ending?

Finish your story and draw a conclusion.

Simple.

 

[hopesprings]

Hello hopesprings,


Well yes, but you also said he didn't believe Jesus was God. It's awfully strange that Jesus would overlook 'mistake' this when the man is sincerely asking for correction.[/color][/size]

Jesus ‘overlooked’ nothing. Did the young man obey Jesus’ teaching? No. Did he sell all that he had to follow the Savior? No. Does that mean that the man lacked love for Jesus? Yes. Does that also mean that the man lacked love for God? Yes. So the man’s heart wasn’t right even before he came to Jesus to ask the question about eternal life...and Jesus knew that…that’s why he talks about it. Jesus’ statement “then sell all that you have and follow me”, was a loaded statement. Would the man’s heart suddenly be changed if he saw Jesus for who he was? Remember the referenced scriptures, where Jesus commanded those who did know him not to tell ANYONE who he was? Jesus is dealing with the deep issue of the man’s heart. Think of Peter and his adamant refusal of being told he would deny Christ…he was full of pride, and Jesus dealt with it…in a very real and heartbreaking way. This is what he always deals with, the thing we don’t want to give up…the thing that is keeping us from ‘selling all’ for him.

I've already answered this. Jesus was objecting to the title because it was the type of hyper-flattering titles commonly given to the religious leaders that didn't overstepped God's glory. In his humility, Jesus said that sort of thing should be for God alone. It's that simple.

You have not answered it adequately. Your answer does not explain how Jesus can rebuke someone for calling him something that he calls himself. Is only God good, TJ? Jesus said that only God is good…he didn’t say that only God is the ‘Good Teacher’. He said only God is GOOD…then he turns around and calls himself GOOD. So… first Jesus is humble in saying ‘don’t call me good’ (since he doesn’t want to take glory away from God), then he must be arrogant in saying ‘I am the good shepherd’ (since he takes glory away from God here). Your explanation doesn’t cover this. Your example of Barnabas was faulty and I showed you where it lacked. I told you that I found your answer insufficient and even explained clearly why that is…so please offer a more complete explanation that covers these contradictions that have been brought up.


I've answered this as well. God's form is a spirit. Jesus is also said to be in the image of God. What you continue to miss is that even by comparing him to God, that in itself distinguishes Jesus from God.

Nevertheless, Paul's straightforward model in Christ is to reject selfish ambition. If Jesus was God himself, then it was in no way selfish of him to grasp at equality with God (nor does it make sense that he'd grasp at something he already has). The model breaks down.

You answered this using John 4:24 and 1Cor. 15…yet you have not replied to my rebuttal of your usage of these passages. Please defend your answer. Is God bound to a body? How can someone who is everywhere present be bound to anything? God is not ‘a spirit’ (one of many – for who can be like God except God?). You used 1Cor 15 to show…what exactly? That we will be resurrected with a celestial body, since the entire chapter has human resurrection in view? How does any of that bring you to the conclusion that angels have the same form as God? So…I’m sorry…but your answer has no scriptural support thus far. No one has God’s form except God, and you have not proved otherwise by your misuse of scripture. Paul’s straightforward model is the humility that Christ showed in humbling himself, in Phil. 2. You are hung up on your ‘one definition’ to the word grasped, when that word has two definitions. You are favoring your definition (seizing something that didn’t belong to him) at the reckless abandon of the first half of the verse because you have not explained scripturally how Jesus can have the same form as God and not be God. Defend your answer.


Can you tell me who is described as becoming a "multitude" in LXX Genesis 48:19? I'm just interested to see if you have a problem with answering that.

I don’t know who ‘multitude’ is referring to in LXX Genesis 48:19…guess I’m going to have to look that one up sometime. There’s my honest answer…what is your point of asking me this?

It was an exclamation (and has been explained).

You have given your answer to this question, now you need to defend your answer because some of us have found your answer wanting. Is there any other time in scripture where someone says OMG? Isn’t OMG a modern expression…are there any historic writings that give evidence to this expression being used in bible times? No one is obligated to believe what you say just because you say it. Defend it…or are we stuck having to take your word for it?

His body. Question back at you, how many times was the actual Temple in Jerusalem rebuilt in scripture?

Thanks for answering the question about the temple Jesus was speaking of…pretty clear by the text - His body. I would like to know (since I do not want to assume that you believe something just because other Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it) if you believe that Jesus was resurrected in his physical body or as a ‘mighty spirit creature’? In answer to your question about the earthly temple: it was built once by Solomon, then it was rebuilt by the Israelites as recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, then Herod rebuilt the second temple years later. Why do you ask?
hopesprings

 

[GreenNnice]

Hi GreenNnice,


Well I appreciate the sentiments of your prayer, but scripture plainly says that there will be those who "are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." (Romans 10:2) You're in a difficult position because your claim is that your beliefs are upon scripture alone, when really they rely upon creeds formulated centuries after the completion of the Bible, made by men that had infused worldly philosophical concepts with scripture.

You cannot show me plainly from the Bible that there are three persons in one God because scripture does not teach it. If he wanted to, couldn't Jesus have found the words to explain these things clearly, or do you really think he needed the elite theologians of the fourth and fifth century to explain the things he could not? Jesus said this clearly: "Father...this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:1,3) I will believe this over the tradition of later centuries.

Yeah, sigh, yea, guess all it is is 'sentiment' to you

Jesus walked the Earth, and, was sinless and perfect, He, unlike you and I, was born of God , born with NO sinful nature, He was man though , but with God (Holy Spirit) in Him, showing us His power of HS in Him driven in wilderness, rebuking Satan, all in preparation by Him to save the children He Loved dearly BUT has to have consequences, punishment, for the earthly sins man committed 2000+ years before He , our Saviour arrived, and, some, TJ, like to say the Jesus living SINLESS was not a big deal on Earth by him/Him, for 33 years NO sin. Does THIS almost
sink
in?

TJ, a lot of people want to say God Loves ALL His children the SAME,but, I ask you, how can this be TRUE !
IF God MADE Jesus die on a cross to save us, this 'man' of sinless perfection, who hung CURSED on a tree, not by rope either,eh. But, yeah, WHY did Jesus put Himself on the cross ?
Why did Jesus go through with this act, WOULD any normal man do this, or, 'prophet' as you call 'Jesus.?'

Would he?

And, WHY did Jesus go onto 'the tree' because He LOVED us . But, to think 'the Cross' doesn't unfold the Trinity , from birth to (sinless) death truly flabbergasts me of your ivory stone denial of both our Lord of Lords and King of Kings, if He who RULES the world with grace and Truth, why can't you see Jesus' perfect sinless rule on earth, as the form of a humble bond servant, who 'red-letters' for us that once He goes, MUST go, Scripture says, that He comes into the form of the Holy Spirit. Is there no logical gap seen in this time-break from Jesus ascension, Acts 1, to the immediate thereafter giving of the Holy Spirit.

What about the Trinity can't you see that God is not saying 'I am Jesus,' but He, indeed, shows us He IS the Truth, the Way, and, the Life, through His Son .

Just don't get why you can't see that Christ died on the cross , that Christ HAD to die, and, His sacrifice gave us access to Him, to His presence, through Jesus, just like God gave Himself, visibly, Scripture says, He was with them. But, yes, God , through Jesus, gave us relationship access to Him. The Israelites air out God's last 'patience,' but the Cross, His sending the seed of Himself, in Holy Spirit form, changed everything.

Do you pray to God to change everything, TJ, for opportunity to be a change channel for or Agent?
Don't you then see clearly that God is everywhere, His power is everywhere. God, singular, like 10 commandments says, we are to worship God . If we are to worship only God, and, not Jesus, like sooo many others have said to you, like feedm, with Thomas' doubting, and, Scripture that specifically speaker of 'my Lord was to my Lord,' I just don"t understand while you resist this unerstanding from Truth.

I am not amswering any of your questions anymore, so you know, the Lord, I pray leads me, but your belied in God is incomplete, there is no JESUS in your belief This is scary, like Chrislam, but different, that is, unless your now studying the Koran side by side with the bible. Dear Lord, amen, I just prayed your unorthodox doctrine has not begun to take you there .

God is NOt a prophet, He is NO Mohammed either, He is God the Father, He is the Son of God, and, He is the Spirit of God, all holiness of three making One. One who is the one, true God, of the old testament writings, new testament writings. He is nothing more than all this, but 'this' is nothing less than every thing. God is everything to me, He created all things, His ways and thoughts, and, peace, all mere fodder to 2%-brained, mere mortal, man. Transcend your thinking, TJ, of Who God really is, and, YOU will fill your mind . Sorry, I spoke a lot, thanks for reading. Again, unless I am led, I will be led, I know, away, from this 'divisiveness,' I'm sick and tired (said in Love ) of your spewed falsifying and downright denial of Christ. I wish you well, the Lord will bring you to understand all Truth when you let Him lead your life. And, you surely want Him to lead you. The Lord leads.

 

[loveme1]

Now if a fellow sheep goes wandering to eat pasture of another field.

Let us call that sheep back by pointing to the Good Shepherd who awaits his call so that he knows he wants to be found.

These groups have been formed by men who did not seek Salvation but a High position of authority believing they have the 144,000 thousand within their group is not humble at all.

Let us not use the Bible to volunteer ourselves for the position of the 144,000 that is exalting but to learn the Truth and seek forgiveness.

For through Faith in Yahshua the Messiah shall we be forgiven and reconciled with Yahvah God being purged of sin and made servants of the Most High.


Now if the sheep is of the Good Shepherd he will hear his voice and call out to be found.

 

[GreenNnice]

Now if a fellow sheep goes wandering to eat pasture of another field.

Let us call that sheep back by pointing to the Good Shepherd who awaits his call so that he knows he wants to be found.

These groups have been formed by men who did not seek Salvation but a High position of authority believing they have the 144,000 thousand within their group is not humble at all.

Let us not use the Bible to volunteer ourselves for the position of the 144,000 that is exalting but to learn the Truth and seek forgiveness.

For through Faith in Yahshua the Messiah shall we be forgiven and reconciled with Yahvah God being purged of sin and made servants of the Most High.


Now if the sheep is of the Good Shepherd he will hear his voice and call out to be found.

I think their are 485 posts, LoveMe1, that demonstrably prove Jesus is Lord , Hmm, minus the 100 or so babels of those not grasping Jesus, sinless Jesus, was no mere MAN, even with the Spirit, man still SINS ! Covered by the Blood, so, yes, sinning man after saved, sure, , sure. But covered. But, not Jesus ! He was sinless to begin with, fully man, fully God, Scripture is clear , Jesús is God manifested unto flesh, through the 'third Queso,' of the Holy Spirit that IS who is Jesus' seed !

Cfultz emphatically, yet gently, explained this to TJ , feed tried but was turned away, hopesprung, too, spranf life if the 'good' of God, and, more, and, alzó, many more presentéd poignant proof (Scripture!) that Jesús is God is Holy Spirit. Sinless Jesús could not have been sinless , even with Spirit in Him, we ALL aré born with sullen, sinful nature. All ! That's how it's been planned by God, we aré to come to Him, and, He will CRUCIFY that sinful nature on the cross.

But, Yes, I will not put up with dialogiue with divisiveness, miles from my heart, I TJ props for boldness, but he needz to now be convicted by the Spirit of God for this false teaching and that is the CRY of my prayers for this night, that He sees the Deity , He will show him, will he be open to seeing this Truth?

Be blessed, TJ, for using your gift of 'debate' for God's good, this the Holy Spirit is a free gift, this 'gift' is Jesús, bien in a manger, ausente men come, bearing gifts for the greatest gift ever given man in what is known worldover of this man, Jesús, a prophet. Could this man be the both actor and author of the greatest story ever told

 

[loveme1]

I think their are 485 posts, LoveMe1, that demonstrably prove Jesus is Lord , Hmm, minus the 100 or so babels of those not grasping Jesus, sinless Jesus, was no mere MAN, even with the Spirit, man still SINS ! Covered by the Blood, so, yes, sinning man after saved, sure, , sure. But covered. But, not Jesus ! He was sinless to begin with, fully man, fully God, Scripture is clear , Jesús is God manifested unto flesh, through the 'third Queso,' of the Holy Spirit that IS who is Jesus' seed !

Cfultz emphatically, yet gently, explained this to TJ , feed tried but was turned away, hopesprung, too, spranf life if the 'good' of God, and, more, and, alzó, many more presentéd poignant proof (Scripture!) that Jesús is God is Holy Spirit. Sinless Jesús could not have been sinless , even with Spirit in Him, we ALL aré born with sullen, sinful nature. All ! That's how it's been planned by God, we aré to come to Him, and, He will CRUCIFY that sinful nature on the cross.

But, Yes, I will not put up with dialogiue with divisiveness, miles from my heart, I TJ props for boldness, but he needz to now be convicted by the Spirit of God for this false teaching and that is the CRY of my prayers for this night, that He sees the Deity , He will show him, will he be open to seeing this Truth?

Be blessed, TJ, for using your gift of 'debate' for God's good, this the Holy Spirit is a free gift, this 'gift' is Jesús, bien in a manger, ausente men come, bearing gifts for the greatest gift ever given man in what is known worldover of this man, Jesús, a prophet. Could this man be the both actor and author of the greatest story ever told

My friend indeed much has been said here, but if the heart is not willing we could type out another 485 and he will not accept it.

If people believe they can have the Father without the Son then they Love neither the Son or the Father.

 

[GreenNnice]

My friend indeed much has been said here, but if the heart is not willing we could type out another 485 and he will not accept it.

If people believe they can have the Father without the Son then they Love neither the Son or the Father.

The Lord leads, LoveMe1, I MUST follow Him, in spirit, this includes vigor, energy, to glory God, and, Truth, this includes belied faith in Him who sent Him, in Him who is 'Lord God' in the beginning, has been 'Lord God' in the middle and will be 'Lord God' in the end, this includes acknowledgment of my ONLY way Home, this includes devotion to His given text of understanding , through His Spirit of grace showing me , per John 16:13. And, too, of course, there is FULL FAITH in His power, of which there is no end , His covenants changed some through the years, thanks to man's violation of them, but the law of Mosaic time EXISTS but through the channel of God's Holy Spirit given the believer quickly following The Cross.
The Lord leads, milady, indeed, He leads, and, God's ALWAYS pointed the Way Home is for all believers by but by doing things in ONE way, through Him , with Him, in Him, of Him, ah, yes, the power of what was NAILED to that ole rugged cross was a whole lot more than a dead man raised by a live man,cab, Yes, Christ peeps, sooo much more .

 

[Bowman]

I've noticed that TJ's responses have slowed way down now that he has to actually put some thought into his replies instead of asking if we can confirm his position for him...

 

[GreenNnice]

I've noticed that TJ's responses have slowed way down now that he has to actually put some thought into his replies instead of asking if we can confirm his position for him...

I don't think we need to say ^ this, the Lord leads, but, yes, I know you engaged in fervent debate with TJ, God bless you for your boldness when you are serving Him, bow.

 

[loveme1]

The Lord leads, LoveMe1, I MUST follow Him, in spirit, this includes vigor, energy, to glory God, and, Truth, this includes belied faith in Him who sent Him, in Him who is 'Lord God' in the beginning, has been 'Lord God' in the middle and will be 'Lord God' in the end, this includes acknowledgment of my ONLY way Home, this includes devotion to His given text of understanding , through His Spirit of grace showing me , per John 16:13. And, too, of course, there is FULL FAITH in His power, of which there is no end , His covenants changed some through the years, thanks to man's violation of them, but the law of Mosaic time EXISTS but through the channel of God's Holy Spirit given the believer quickly following The Cross.
The Lord leads, milady, indeed, He leads, and, God's ALWAYS pointed the Way Home is for all believers by but by doing things in ONE way, through Him , with Him, in Him, of Him, ah, yes, the power of what was NAILED to that ole rugged cross was a whole lot more than a dead man raised by a live man,cab, Yes, Christ peeps, sooo much more .

Though i was not specifically talking to you mi'man, you are right we must listen and follow the Spirit.

With post 485

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

[FONT=&quot]It’s been two to three weeks since I’ve last posted. With it being that special time of the year (and not to mention that in the midst of the chaos my father had come down with pneumonia, and has been in and out of the hospital due to terminal melanoma), I’ve kept busy to say the least. [/FONT]

Just to make this clear, again, saying person X did event Z and person Y did event Z, does not make person X the same as person Y. I've demonstrated this many times, in many ways.

[FONT=&quot]Yet a little reflection demonstrates the error. It is true that drawing a parallel between an Old Testament person, or YHWH Himself, does not indicate identity. If one drew a parallel between YHWH being faithful and someone in the New Testament likewise being faithful, we would not necessarily see a direct one-to-one identification of YHWH with that person. Similarly, paralleling an Israelite king with Christ does not make Jesus that particular king. But it is precisely here that we see the problem: kingship was not unique to Solomon. There were many kings in Israel. Quoting a passage about kingship does not necessarily indicate the identity of a person, because the quality being paralleled was not unique to the original person. Psalm 102.25-27 (c.f. Hebrews 1.10-12), however, is about the completely unique character of YHWH as the eternal, unchanging Creator of all things! No one else can be said to have such qualities. While kingship has been shared by men, unchanging eternity and creatorship are unique attributes of YHWH Himself. Therefore, quoting a passage about a king in the Old Testament does not mean Jesus is that particular person, but quoting a passage about the unique aspects of YHWH’s character and applying it to Jesus does indicate identity with YHWH.[/FONT]

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

So you're defining "the beginning" in Revelation 3:14 as meaning "the originator". Please show me one example where 'arche' ever has this meaning in scripture! It everywhere means 'the first part' of something.

[FONT=&quot]Of course, as I previously stated, this is John’s consistent use of the term when it is applied to an individual (see Revelation 21.6, 22.13), and it certainly makes the most sense considering the prologue of John’s gospel, as well as the interchangeable language John uses of Christ throughout the epistle. When John speaks of Christ as "the First and the Last” (Revelation 1.17, 2.8, 22.13 [c.f. Isaiah 41.4]), he does not mean anything substantially [/FONT][FONT=&quot]different from "the Alpha and the Omega" or "the Beginning and the End," it is simply sequentially alphabetically expressing the same thing that was expressed sequentially numerically and sequentially temporally. Never does the Apostle, when applying this term to an individual, does arch refer to a "first part in a series" so to speak, nor do any of the authors of the NT use it in such a way when applying this term to persons -- to insist that it does so here is irregular. With that said, I of course, do not think we’d see you argue that God the Father is the first in a series when He is referred to as “the Beginning (arch)." [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I am advocating a view which represents John’s consistent use of the term throughout his epistle, and one that is consistent with his overall theology. [/FONT]

 

[know1]

My friend indeed much has been said here, but if the heart is not willing we could type out another 485 and he will not accept it.

All too true loveme1.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

No, I never said that it was true of all the instances found in the LXX, but you don't find it the least bit significant that in the NT, written hundreds of years after the LXX, whenever the term is used in this secondary sense (meaning the first among the people), it is

always in company with related terms except in this one instance?
The meaning "beginning", as in the first in terms of time, is the primary meaning of 'arche'. There should be good, solid reasons that cause us to understand it differently than the primary sense. Given that "beginning" makes sense in the immediate context, and that John (and really Jesus, the speaker) seems to be alluding to Proverbs 8:22, I see no reason to overturn the default meaning.

(1) Of course this totally begs the question. Only immediate contextual factors can determine the “primary” reading to any given term. In the vast majority of the instances (79%) where Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during the time that the NT was written, uses arch it has something to do with “authority” or “rulership,” whereas only 10% of the time he uses the term it is in reference to “beginning” in the sense that something is the first in a series. My question to you is what exactly in the immediate context demands Revelation 3.14to refer to Christ as the first thing in a series? We have already seen in the previous two chapters that John refers to Christ as “the First and the Last” (which by the way is never applied to anyone other than YHWH, unlike other terms such as “King,” “Savior”), which are clear allusions to the Old Testament texts which speak of YHWH’s unique characteristics as Creator, and Consummator. Secondarily, as I have previously pointed out, John paints a unique picture in Revelation 5 of Christ being given worship in the same manner, and to the same degree that the Father is just one chapter prior. We see the elders, the angels, and all other creatures prostrating themselves before the Lamb to worship. Most striking is the comprehensive description of those who were worshiping the Lamb: every single creature. If the Lord Christ was a mere creature He would have been included among those worshiping, but instead He is declared to be the object of worship of all of creation.

(2) Or we could look at this from a totally different perspective. You don’t find it at all peculiar that,

(a) When this term is applied to persons throughout the NT that it always speaks to the individual’s authority, or in the case of the John’s apocalyptic literature, their Deity?

(b) When this term is applied to persons (regardless of related terms) throughout both, the pre-NT (LXX, Deuterocanonical, Philo, Thucydides), and the post-NT era (Josephus, Plutarch, Plato), it, like in the NT, speaks to one’s rulership and authority. However, what is quite interesting, is that when these authors apply this term to YHWH, it always speaks to His uniqueness as the Originator, the Beginning (seePhilo, Who is the Heir of Divine Things, section 172, “arch men gar genesws o qeos (“for God is the Beginning of all generation”).

(c) Nowhere else in the catena of John’s works is Christ spoken of as God’s first-created?

(d) In 106AD, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to one of the very same audiences that the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation to: The Church of Ephesus (see Revelation 2). The Church of Ephesus was entrenched in Apostolic teaching, Timothy had died at Ephesus in the mid-80’s, the Apostle John had essentially retired at Ephesus around the year 101. And here in the year 106AD, approximately 10 years after the Book of Revelation was written, Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Church of Ephesus, and how do you think he referred to Christ? As God’s first-created? Oh contraire,

“For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom you must flee as you would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom you must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 7)


​

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

One last thing. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 181AD), as well other Early Church Fathers of this period used Revelation 3.14 in their writings to refer to Christ as the Ruler over all, "God, therefore, having His own Word [the Son] internally in His very organs, begot Him, emitting Him along with His own Wisdom [the Holy Spirit], before all things. He had this Word for a Helper in the things which He made, and through Him were all things created. He is called Beginning (arch) because He rules and has dominion over everything fashioned by Him... ."

 

[bluebonnet]

I want to add some more information in response to your request for an answer as to why Jehovah's Witnesses use this name and whether they are called Christians. I am new and so did not see if this information was addressed since you posted. The concept of witnessing or being a witness is one theme that is addressed in the Scriptures. Hebrew chapter 11 has a list where Paul talks about a cloud of witnesses starting with Abel so this idea goes back to the earliest parts of the Bible. We know this because Hebrews 12:1 identifies those in chapter 11 as a 'great cloud of witnesses.' We know that Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc. were not Jewish witnesses nor Christian witnesses since they lived before those arrangements came into existence. So going back to this theme, the Scriptures have identified this 'great cloud of witnesses' down throughout history and then under this identification comes more specifically which time period and arrangement (to use a general, easy to understand term) one lives under. However all throughout history they were still witnesses whether living under a patriarchal, Jewish or Christian system, arrangement or covenant however one is identified. So Jehovah's Witnesses can properly also be called Jehovah's Christian Witnesses and do so although they are known for the more general name Jehovah's Witnesses showing they continue the lineage outlined by Paul in the book of Hebrews and properly in the New Testament and down until today where Christians are to be witnesses also. In fact, Revelation identifies Jesus himself as "the faithful and true Witness" at Rev. 3:14. Interestingly, Jesus never called himself a Christian since the book of Acts tells us that this term came to be applied by Divine Providence to Jesus' followers after the time of Christ. But he did identify himself in Rev. as a witness so it is entirely scriptural, appropriate and not unchristian for Jehovah's Witnesses to be identified as such since they are following in the footsteps of Jesus who called himself a witness. In fact, we consider ourselves to be Jehovah's Christian Witnesses following in a long line of witnesses going back to Abel. Thank you for the opportunity to address this further.

 

[jimmydiggs]

@Bluebonnet

Problem: You deny the very one you claim to witness for.

 

[bluebonnet]

How does the answer I gave deny him?

 

[PS]

Hi GreenNnice,


Well I appreciate the sentiments of your prayer, but scripture plainly says that there will be those who "are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge." (Romans 10:2) You're in a difficult position because your claim is that your beliefs are upon scripture alone, when really they rely upon creeds formulated centuries after the completion of the Bible, made by men that had infused worldly philosophical concepts with scripture.

You cannot show me plainly from the Bible that there are three persons in one God because scripture does not teach it. If he wanted to, couldn't Jesus have found the words to explain these things clearly, or do you really think he needed the elite theologians of the fourth and fifth century to explain the things he could not? Jesus said this clearly: "Father...this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:1,3) I will believe this over the tradition of later centuries.

With regard to John 17:3

The only true God - The only God, in opposition to all false gods.

What is said here is in opposition to idols, not to Jesus himself, who, in 1Jo_5:20, is called “the true God and eternal life.”