Hi feedm3,
I'll take you up on this; thanks for the opportunity to respond. I took the time to register here and to give some reasonably full answers, so I'm hoping this is a sincere post.
Originally, Jehovah's Witnesses were simply a non-denominational Christian movement. They rejected denominationalism which they found to be divisive and against scripture, so they resisted taking on any kind of name for themselves. When it became apparent that a name was necessary, they adopted a name that highlights God's own name, emphasizing their role as his Witnesses. This name was applauded by many, criticized by many more, but either way, it stuck.
Still, Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves fully as Christians and call themselves such. They also find scriptural backing for the Witness name not only in Isaiah but also in Hebrews 11-12 and especially in places like Revelation 1:5, where Jesus Christ is called "the Faithful Witness".
As for Isaiah 62:2, we don't really view that as having any bearing on this. The book of Isaiah is prophetic, and the context is describing, symbolically, the condition of God's people towards end times. As names back then were descriptive rather than mere labels, being given a new name here signifies, not a literal name change, but rather a change in condition, much like the 'new names' being given in Revelation 2:17 and 3:12.
First, I'd challenge your assertion that Jesus is the speaker in Revelation 22:12-13. The book of Revelation contains many quick changes between speakers. Jesus begins speaking in verse 16. Look at the parallel below:
"'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.'...
'I, Jesus...'" (Revelation 22:13, 16)
"'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'...
'I, John...'" (Revelation 1:8-9)
Now I'm sure you recognize the change in speakers in Revelation 1:8-9. The same goes for Revelation 22.
Furthermore, context is vital! Jesus is completely distinguished as an altogether different person from the Alpha and the Omega in the opening chapter. I realize most red-letter Bibles disregard this, but just look at what the text itself says:
"Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come...and from Jesus Christ." (Revelation 1:4-5)
See the two people named here? Let's read on:
"'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'" (Revelation 1:8)
That's not Jesus speaking, that's his Father. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He is also called here "the Almighty"; remember that for later.
Thus when God is spoken of as "the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end," it's in an absolute sense, referring to his Godship. Still, I agree with you that Jesus too is called the first and last in this book. Let's look at the context:
"...he laid his right hand on me, saying, 'Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.'" (Revelation 1:17-18)
"And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.'" (Revelation 2:8)
These are the two places where Jesus is called 'the first and the last', but do you notice how that's qualified each time? It's not in an absolute sense, but both times in relation to his resurrection. Elsewhere Paul refers to Jesus as "the firstborn from the dead" and "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." (Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:20) So he was the first one resurrected from death to be "alive forevermore", but in what way is he the last?
Revelation 1:18 gives us the clue. Jesus says "I have the keys of Death and Hades." Something has changed from his resurrection. When Jesus was resurrected, it was by God himself. (Acts 4:10) From now on, Jesus is the one entrusted to raise others up. Thus, he was the first and last one to be resurrected by God himself, and now that power rests solely in his hands.
So while these titles are similar, they have vastly different meanings. We'll get more into why simply matching similar titles without regard to context in order to prove identity is very faulty below, including your citations of Isaiah 44 and 48.
Well it lists 12 tribes of Israel, but this is symbolic language. One indicator of this is that the tribal listing is different from the actual 12 tribes found in the Old Testament. Here, Judah and Levi are included. But then why should just the number be taken literally?
Because it's common in the Bible for prophecies to use literal numbers right in among symbols. For example, Joseph interpreted Pharoah's dream of seven fat cows being eaten up by seven skinny cows as meaning that there were to be seven years of surplus followed by seven years of famine. (Genesis 41) Here the cows were symbolic but the number was literal.
Another example from Daniel: "I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last." (Daniel 8:3) Symbolic language, but what's the real meaning? "As for the ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia." (Daniel 8:20) That's again a literal number in along with otherwise symbolic language.
What, however, in the context of Revelation 7 would make us think to take the number 144,000 literally? Consider the previous chapter, where it says:
"When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, 'O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?' Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.'" (Revelation 6:9-11)
From there, the next chapter follows: "And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000." (Revelation 7:4) So if this number is merely symbolic and indefinite, it makes little sense to wait to have the number filled.
Again, context. If you take a look at Mounce's Dictionary of Greek words, which is popular on the bookshelves currently, under 'god' you'll find that one definition is reserved for angels and humans that are representatives of God. This is how the Bible uses the term in places:
To the judges of Israel, God says this, "I said, 'You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.'" (Psalm 82:6; ESV)
"And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." (Exodus 7:1; KJV)
Saying of man, "You made him little less than gods and crowned him with glory and honor." (Psalm 8:5; HCSB footnote) Compare this with Paul's quotation of this verse found at Hebrews 2:7 where he says, "You made him lower than the angels."
Thus, in certain contexts the term 'god' can be used in a relative sense, biblically speaking, of God's representative that exercise real power that has been given them by the Almighty God. This is not the context of 32:39, where Jehovah God is comparing himself to the rival gods of the nations, ones that do not exist and have no real power.
Here's yet more proof. Often in these discussions, Isaiah 44 and the surrounding chapters are cited because there it states unambiguously, "This is what the Lord, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, says: I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but Me." (Isaiah 44:6)
The context of these chapters is Jehovah God comparing himself, again, to the lifeless 'gods' to which the people have been turning. Notice why a consideration of this context is so important:
"I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11; ASV)
There is absolutely only one savior, correct? Yet elsewhere we read:
"And when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother." (Judges 3:9; ASV)
And again: "But when the children of Israel cried unto Jehovah, Jehovah raised them up a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed." (Judges 3:15; ASV)
If I followed the same logic of matching 'exclusive' titles without regard to context as is being done with the word 'god', then I must conclude that Othniel and Ehud are Jehovah. Jehovah is the only savior, and Othniel and Ehud are both named savior in the Bible. See the problem? Such a gloss over discounts the source of the salvation. Compared to the gods of the nations, Jehovah is indeed the only God with real power and the only one who can provide salvation. But he dispenses his power and acts of salvation through his appointed representatives, who then take on these titles in a relative sense.
As I said, simply look up 'god' in Mounce's Dictionary.
Again, Jesus is not alone in scripture as being called 'god' in a relative sense. If even Moses could be called 'god' by Jehovah, then certainly the Messiah can be called 'mighty god'. Still, only his Father, Jehovah, is called "the Almighty" God, as we got to see in Revelation above. Nowhere is Jesus, nor anyone else, referred to as the Almighty.
First,Thomas was making an exclamation, so it's not at all certain that he was directing these words solely to Jesus. If someone scares you and you shout 'Oh my God!', is this proof that you view that person as God himself? Is it proof when they don't rebuke you for 'calling them God'?
Second, if Thomas was directing these words to Jesus, again it'd be qualified by the context. John himself, just three verses later, gives us the proper interpretation that we should be taking away: "but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." (John 20:31) He does not say this is written so that you may believe that Jesus is Almighty God.
Third, consider checking your biases in this argument. Here you're effectively depending upon the confession of a godly man as proof that the person he is seeing is literally God himself. Yet does your view shift when the person being called 'God' isn't Jesus? Consider this account:
"And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the Lord went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground. The angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord. And Manoah said to his wife, 'We shall surely die, for we have seen God.'" (Judges 13:20-22)
Now you wouldn't take anyone arguing from this that the angel is literally God seriously, would you? Then why should we at John 20:28?
Thank you for your time.
