The article is presented in the form of a dialogue between a publisher named Anthony and his return visit, Tim. Unfortunately, Tim is not terribly well prepared so as to test the inspired expression. (1 John 4:1) If he were, the conversation might have gone a little differently. It might’ve gone like this:
Tim: The other day, I was speaking with a coworker. I told him about the pamphlets you gave me and how interesting they are. But he said that I shouldn’t read them because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in Jesus. Is that true?
Anthony: Well, I’m glad you asked me. It’s good that you’re going straight to the source. After all what better way is there to find out what a person believes then to ask him yourself?
Tim: One would think so.
Anthony: The truth is that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in Jesus very much. In fact, we believe that only by exercising faith in Jesus can we attain to salvation. Notice what John 3:16 says: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”
Tim: If that’s the case, then why don’t you call yourself Jesus’ Witnesses?
Anthony: The fact is we imitate Jesus who made it his goal to make known the name of God. For instance at John 17:26 we read, “I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”
Tim: Are you saying that the Jews didn’t know God’s name?
Anthony: It seems that in those days people had stopped using the name of Jehovah out of superstition. It was considered blasphemous to use the name of Jehovah.
Tim: If that’s the case, why didn’t the Pharisees accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he used God’s name? They wouldn’t have missed out on an opportunity like that, would they have?
Anthony: I don’t really know about that. But it’s very clear that Jesus made his name known to them.
Tim: But if they already knew God’s name, he didn’t need to tell them what it was. You’re saying they did know his name but were afraid to use it, so surely they would have complain about Jesus breaking their tradition with regard to God’s name, right? But there’s nothing in the New Testament where they accuse him of that. So why do you believe that was the case.
Anthony: Well, it must be something like that, because the publications have taught us that and those brothers do a lot of research. Anyways, it doesn’t really matter. What’s important is that Jesus helped them to understand what God’s name represented. For example in Acts 2:21 we read, “Everyone who calls the name of Jehovah will be saved.”
Tim: That’s odd, in my Bible it says that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” In the New Testament, when it uses Lord, isn’t it referring to Jesus?
Anthony: Yes for the most part, but in this case, it refers to Jehovah. You see, the writer is referring to a quote from the book of Joel.
Tim: Are you sure about that? In Joel’s time, they didn’t know about Jesus, so they would use Jehovah. Maybe the writer of Acts is just showing his readers that there is a new truth. Isn’t that what you Jehovah’s Witnesses call it. New truth or new light? ‘The light gets brighter’, and all that? Maybe this is just the light getting brighter in the New Testament.
Anthony: No, it’s not the light getting brighter. The writer said “Jehovah”, not Lord.
Tim: But how do you know that for sure?
Anthony: Will we’re pretty sure he did, but God’s name was removed from the Christian Greek Scriptures by superstitious copyists in the second and third centuries.
Tim: How do you know this?
Anthony: It has been explained to us in the Watchtower. Besides, does it make sense that Jesus wouldn’t use God’s name.
Tim: I don’t use my father’s name. Does that make sense?
Anthony: You’re just being difficult.
Tim: I’m just trying to reason this out. You told me that God’s name appears almost 7,000 times in the Old Testament, right? So if God could preserve his name in the Old Testament, why not in the New. Surely he’s capable of that.
Anthony: He left it to us to restore it, which we’ve done in almost 300 places in the New World Translation.
Tim: Based on what?
Anthony: The ancient manuscripts. You can see the references in the old NWT. They’re called J references.
Tim: I already looked those up. Those J references you talk about are to other translations. Not to original manuscripts.
Anthony: Are you sure. I don’t think so.
Tim: Look it up for yourself.
Anthony: I will.
Tim: I just don’t get it Anthony. I did a count and found seven different places in the book of Revelation where Christians as called witnesses of Jesus. I couldn’t find even one where Christians are called witnesses of Jehovah.
Anthony: That’s because we take our name from Isaiah 43:10.
Tim: Were there Christians in the time of Isaiah?
Anthony: No, course not. But the Israelites were Jehovah’s people and so are we.
Tim: Yes, but after Jesus came, didn’t things change? After all, doesn’t the name Christian refer to a follower of Christ? So if you follow him, aren’t you bearing witness about him?
Anthony: Of course we bear witness about him, but he bore witness about God's name and so we do the same.
Tim: Is that what Jesus told you to do, preach the name of Jehovah? Did he command you to make known God's name?
Anthony: Sure, he is Almighty God after all. Shouldn’t we emphasize him more than anyone else.
Tim: Can you show me that in Scripture? Where Jesus tells his followers to bear witness about God's name?
Anthony: I'll have to do some research and get back to you.
Tim: I mean no offense, but you've shown me in your visits that you know the Bible very well. Given that the name you've adopted is "Jehovah's Witnesses", I would think that the scriptures were Jesus is telling his followers to bear witness to the name of God would be at your fingertips.
Anthony: Like I said, I'll have to do some research.
Tim: Could it be that what Jesus told his disciples to do was to make his name known? Could that be what Jehovah wanted. After all, Jesus said that "it is my Father that glorifies me". Maybe we should be doing the same thing. (John 8:54)
Anthony: Oh, but we do. It's just that we give more glory to God, as Jesus did.
Tim: But isn't the way to give glory to God by promoting the name of Jesus? Isn't that what the Christians in the first century did?
Anthony: No, they made known the name of Jehovah, just like Jesus did.
Tim: So how do you account for what it says in Acts 19:17?
Anthony: Let me look that up: "...This became known to all, both the Jews and the Greeks that dwelt in Eph′e·sus; and a fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus went on being magnified." I see your point, but really, being called Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't mean we don't magnify the name of Jesus. We do.
Tim: Okay, but you still haven't answered the question of why we are not called Jesus' Witnesses. Revelation 1:9 says that John was imprisoned for "bearing witness to Jesus"; and Revelation 17:6 talks about Christians being killed for being witnesses of Jesus; and Revelation 19:10 says that "bearing witness to Jesus inspires prophesying". Most important of all, Jesus himself commanded us to be witnesses of him "to the most distant part of the earth." Since you have this command, and since there is nothing like these verses telling you to bear witness to Jehovah, why don't you call yourselves Jesus' Witnesses?
Anthony: Jesus wasn't telling us to call ourselves by that name. He was telling us to do the work of bearing witness. We chose the name Jehovah's Witnesses because all other religions in Christendom have hidden and rejected God's name.
Tim: So you are not called Jehovah's Witnesses because God told you to, but because you wanted to stand out as different from the rest.
Anthony: Not exactly. We believe that God directed the faithful and discreet slave to take that name.
Tim: So God told you to call yourself by that name.
Anthony: He revealed that the name Jehovah's Witnesses would be appropriate for true Christians to carry in the time of the end.
Tim: And this Slave fellow who leads you told you this?
Anthony: The faithful and discreet slave is a group of men we call the Governing Body. They are God's appointed channel to direct us and reveal Bible truth to us. There are eight men making up the slave.
Tim: So it was these eight men who named you Jehovah's Witnesses?
Anthony: No, we took on the name in 1931 when Judge Rutherford headed up the organization.
Tim: So was this Judge Rutherford the faithful slave back then?
Anthony: Effectively, yes. But now it's a committee of men.
Tim: So one guy, speaking for God, gave you the name Jehovah's Witnesses.
Anthony: Yes, but he was led by holy spirit, and the growth we've had since then proves that it was the right choice.
Tim: So you measure your success by growth. Is that in the Bible?
Anthony: No, we measure our success by the evidence of God's spirit on the organization and if you were to come to the meetings, you would see the evidence in the love that is demonstrated by the brotherhood.
Tim: I may just do that. Anyway, thanks for coming around. I enjoy the magazines.
Anthony: My pleasure. See you in a couple of weeks.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Bobcat on 2014-03-19 11:08:50
Some material for reference on this subject (compiled by someone else, I merely came into possession of his research):
Matthew 10:18 - ". . . for my sake, for a witness to them and the nations.
Matthew 10:22 - ". . . And YOU will be objects of hatred by all people on account of my name"
Mark 13:9 - ". . . before governors and kings for my sake, for a witness to them."
John 1:15 - "John bore witness about him..." [JESUS]
John 5:37 - "the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me."
John 8:18 - "the Father who sent me bears witness about me."
John 15:26,27 - ". . . will bear witness about me; and YOU in turn, are to bear witness."
Acts 1:8 - "You will be witnesses of me . . ."
Acts 4:17,18 - . . .upon the basis of this (Jesus') . . . upon the basis of the name of Jesus.
Acts 10:39 - "And we are witnesses of all the things he [Jesus] did . . ."
Acts 10:43 - "To him [Jesus] all the prophets bear witness . . ."
Acts 11:26 - ". . . the disciples were by divine providence called Christians."
Acts 13:31 - ". . . who are now his (Jesus') witnesses to the people.
Acts 22:15 - "because you are to be a witness for him [Jesus] to all men . . ."
Acts 22:20 - ". . . the blood of Stephen your [Jesus'] witness was being spilled . . ."
Acts 23:11 - ". . . a thorough witness on the things about me in Jerusalem. . ."
Acts 26:16 -"I [Jesus] choose you as an attendant and a witness . . . respecting me"
1 Corinthians 1:6 - "even as the witness about the Christ . . ."
1 Tim. 2:6 - ". . . what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times."
2 Timothy 1:8 - ". . . of the witness about our Lord . . . [Christ]"
1 John 5:9 - "the witness God gives . . . the fact that he has borne witness concerning his Son."
Revelation 1:9 - ". . . for speaking about God and bearing witness to Jesus."
Revelation 3:8 - ". . . and you kept my word and did not prove false to my name."
Revelation 12:17 - ". . . and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus."
Revelation 17:6 - ". . . and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus."
Revelation 19:10 -". . . the work of witnessing to Jesus . . . bearing witness to Jesus."
Revelation 20:4 - ". . . for the witness they bore to Jesus."Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-19 19:37:53
I really appreciate your sharing this list with us. It clearly puts things into their proper perspective. Of course, Jehovah has called out a people for his name. This people isn't a particular religious organization, but rather individuals who accept his as their God and submit to his rulership, which means, submitting to his Son as Lord and King. It is heartening to see how much importance is placed in Scripture into the idea of bearing witness to Jesus. Even Jehovah bears witness about his Son.
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-19 11:31:51
I doubt I've ever met such an astute return visit. Perhaps we are being trained to actually think for ourselves, and ask ourselves the same kind of honest questions as do they. Is it just my sneaking hunch or is it true that our hierarchy has finally realized that mindless obedience is no defense of the truth?
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-19 12:11:50
Well that's what I get for giving this a quick read before reading the actual magazine. You tricked us Meleti by injecting "It might’ve gone like this:" ha ha!
So we are still being dumbed down. Sad :(
Comment by menrov on 2014-03-19 13:05:40
Meleti, i am working in the office now but reading your dialogue gave me a big smile on my face. Not sure what kind of work or job you have but writing plays would be an option if ever required :-)
Still need to read the real article but I am convinced it will not be half as enjoyable.
Comment by menrov on 2014-03-19 13:20:11
OK, just read it. Indeed, not half as enjoyable.Nothing really new, same standard arguments that in fact do not represent how in formal worship in our meetings Jesus is "highlighted".
I like to compare it with the argument that the Catholic pastors use when being asked about all these statues and relics they use in worship and that the bible teaches not to use them. Their answer always is, we do not pray to them but we use them as a means to visualize our religion. In other words, people like to be able to touch something but of course we do not pray to them.......
About using names. If it was indeed important to know Moses by name (which it is of course), why can we not know who translated the (R)NWT, who wrote the letters to our congregation, the articles in the WT??
If names are important (and I agree they are as it provides confidence about what is being done or said), why start the article with:
Let us imagine that a Witness named Anthony has come to the home of a man named Tim.
Why imagine? Has this not happened? And if it did happen, why not use the real name?Reply by umbertoecho on 2014-03-19 18:18:59
menrov,
Don't you know how important it is to rely upon "imagination" "likeliness" "supposing" and "presuming" in this religion? It is an integral part of their language structure, a means employed to convey an idea or plant information that is not backed up in scripture and often misused in quoting from some authority.
It is a very effective method for saying something and remaining distant from it at the same time, should the need arise. Outright statements are becoming a rarity these days....as I read it. They have to consider the times they have looked very silly in some court cases, unable to prove many of their doctrinal positions and laws.
This, I am sure you are aware of. All of us are.
Comment by on 2014-03-19 13:34:55
What about acts 15 v 14 god turned his attention to the nations to take out a people for his name Kev c
Comment by menrov on 2014-03-19 13:40:46
Coming back to the argument in the hypothetical conversation around the promotion of faith in Jesus. Here is what is currently printed as objective of the magazine:
THIS MAGAZINE, The Watchtower, honors Jehovah God, the Ruler of
the universe. It comforts people with the good news that God’s heavenly Kingdom will soon end all wickedness and transform the earth into a paradise. It promotes faith
in Jesus Christ, who died so that we might gain everlasting life and who is now ruling as King of God’s Kingdom. This magazine has been published continuously since 1879 and is nonpolitical. It adheres to the Bible as its authority.
In 2010, the objective of the magazine was this:
THE PURPOSE OF THIS MAGAZINE, The Watchtower, is to honor Jehovah God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe. Just as watchtowers in ancient times enabled a person to observe developments from afar, so this magazine shows us the significance of world events in the light of Bible prophecies. It comforts
people with the good news that God’s Kingdom, which is a real government in heaven, will soon bring an end to all wickedness and transform the earth into a paradise. It promotes faith in Jesus Christ, who died so that we might gain everlasting life and who is now ruling as King of God’s Kingdom. This magazine has been published by Jehovah’s Witnesses continuously since 1879 and is nonpolitical. It adheres to the Bible as its authority.
From supreme ruler to just ruler, no more a view on bible prophesies, I guess the purpose of the magazine will be different over the decades. In 1949 it was:
THIS journal Is published for the purpose of enabling the
people to know Jehovah God and his purposes as expressed
In the Bible. It publishes BIble Instruction specifically
designed to aid Jehovah's witnesses and all people of good-will.
It arranges systematic Bible study for Its readers and the Society supplies other literature to aid In such studies. It publishes
suitable material for radio broadcasting and for other means of public Instruction In the Scriptures.
It adheres strictly to the Bible as authority for its utterances.
It Is entirely free and separate from all religion, parties, sects or other worldly organizations. It is wholly and without reservation
for the kingdom of Jehovah God under Christ his beloved King.
It Is not dogmatic, but Invites careful and critical examination
of Its contents In the light of the Scriptures. It does not indulge in controversy, and Its columns are not open to personalities.
Comment by menrov on 2014-03-19 13:47:38
Just before I close my laptop to go home: in the statement of the objective of the magazine, it says the Jehovah is (supreme) ruler of the universe. Not sure what is referred to a universe because the bible learns as that Satan is ruler, as also described in 1949 Watchtower:
The Scriptures are clear on the point that Satan is the invisible ruler of this present evil world. That is why he is also referred to as "the prince of this world".Reply by hezekiah1 on 2014-03-19 14:49:18
Thanks Meleti. Great article. Wish I could go on this return visit with you. I would love to see this happen in real life.
Comment by KeepOnSeeking on 2014-03-19 13:55:11
Spot on, Meleti. This closely resembles my thoughts when reading this article in the WT as well as my general thoughts for some time now.
Comment by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-03-19 16:16:16
That is the most funny thing I read in a long time. I never understood why they printed these little articles publicly. It's one thing to train internal JW how to preach, and in that regard it could indeed be helpful. But to print it for the general public however.. It reads too much as propaganda.
Comment by Sargon on 2014-03-19 16:37:41
Update: 7 men now. Word is Guy Pierce died. I wonder how they will handle that. Condolences to his family.
Comment by umbertoecho on 2014-03-19 17:59:58
I asked my sister why we avoid using Christ Jesus' name when talking about the truth one day.
I had, at the time been pointing out that Jesus had come along to show any who would better their lives; a way to do so. I spoke of the incredible love and patience that Jesus showed when he was speaking with those he preached to and how well he dealt with the personalities of his disciples.
Throughout this short conversation, for every time that I mentioned the Sons name, my sister would counter it with Jehovah in an almost frightening manner as though I were in some way dishonoring Jehovah God by speaking of His beloved Son.
Finally I said.." What's wrong with you (name). Why do you; a long time witness, prevent me from speaking about Jesus? He is the second most integral person in the bible isn't he? His role in our future is well established in the bible, so why are you looking at me as though I am saying something wrong, and why are you getting annoyed with me?"
She said ...and this is a paraphrase......" We are very careful not to mention Christ's name too much in the organization, because we don't want to be like the rest of Christendom. We have to keep ourselves separate and pure, and if we use the name of Christ like all the other religions, then we will sound just like them. You need to remember, that Jesus was here on the authority of Jehovah and subject to His Father's will. You..(name), although you are my sister, are in danger of making Christ out to be more important than Jehovah, you sound like you are starting to worship Jesus as though he were the main God, like the rest of false religion"
This was from my sister who has been in the "truth" for over fifty years and is so cold and judgmental toward any outside of this religion. She cares not one wit about the struggles of those in the world and sneers at any organization that assists in helping others. She ghoulishly awaits Armageddon without regard for the implications of such an event, as long as she is here to see it.
She also went to the Salvation Army for food hand outs about ten years ago, when they were strapped for cash, during some legal matter the family were involved in.....
I am truly confused about this religion that I once believed in so completely. I had left it for many years and when I returned it was so legal, so "organized" so full of regulations and so suspicious of anyone who did not comply...I was fully prepared to get baptized in the name of the Father. the Son and the Holy spirit, but the wording had changed and now I faced this new thing of having to incorporate my fealty to this society on earth as proof of my sincerity.
I backed out at the last minute as I could not pretend to agree.Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 09:49:16
That's one woman view and not one I have every heard in my Kingdom Hall
Comment by kev on 2014-03-19 18:01:37
What about acts 15 v 14 god took out a people for his name
Reply by Anonymous on 2014-03-20 09:53:38
Ok Kev, about Acts 15:14: When did Acts 15:14 start having fulfillment? Wasn't it back in the first century when the remnant of Jews were joined by gentiles in true worship as Christians? The context of Acts 15:14 shows that the inspired writer was applying that prophecy to their time. Therefore, if Acts 15:14 meant that the Christians would be literally called by God's name, then how is it they were not? How is it they were called instead, "The Way", "Christians" and 'Witnesses of Jesus'? It is therefore obvious that the statement 'a people for his name' does not mean that they will be literally called by his name. It seems that the use of name in that scripture refers to reputation rather the written or spoken label. It is referring to a people that would live up to, glorify, God's name by their way of life. Remember also that the name Jesus is intimately linked to the name Jehovah. So in a semi literal sense, by being known as witnesses of Jesus or Jesus' disciples, they also bore God's name and reminded the people that "Jehovah is salvation" - the meaning of the name Jesus. Thus they were a people for God's name and were called by God's name.
Reply by menrov on 2014-03-20 10:53:41
I support this view. Also, I read one comment on this verse that said it could also mean People to his honor. Not necessarily that the people would be called by His name. The Gentiles were not a group of people in honor to Jehovah but now Jehovah would also have Gentiles honoring him.
Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-20 10:55:36
A name in the Hebrew tongue meant far more than that of GrecoRoman. From a Jewish perspective a name represented the entire character and history of the one bearing it. Why the wise man said, "a name is better than good oil and the day of death better than one being born." If we can understand this about Jehovah and Jesus, we wouldn't be so hung up on which name goes where. Jesus became the "exact representation" of his Father and therefore could bear his Father's name (and character) in the precise way his Father intended.
Another way to look at it is Exodus 7:1. If Jehovah could make Moses God to Pharaoh, could He not make Jesus God to the entire world?Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-20 11:08:51
SW1-
“Another way to look at it is Exodus 7:1. If Jehovah could make Moses God to Pharaoh, could He not make Jesus God to the entire world?”
Amen! As you probably already know I definitely agree with that line of reasoning.
I really appreciate your comments regarding the Hebrew language/translation. Your comments have definitely enriched my reading of scriptures especially the OT .
Reply by on 2014-03-20 12:25:39
Hey thanks anonymous for the reply by the wayi totally agree with your line of reasoning .there .its dead right what you said the fullfillnent is in the first century and followers of jesus have always been known as christians i raked that one up because if i had been antony thats one scripture i personally would have qouted as i used to beleive it justified the name jehovahs witnesses .I think its great when we can openly raise these objections and have them answered as you brothers and sisters have done there And im the type of person that will not ignore scripture because i find them difficult or dont like what it seems to be saying .if it doesnt fit our argument then we have to ask the question why .thanks very much again for your detailed explaination and if any of our organisationalists are reading this they now know that that scripture doesnt mean what they think it means kev
Reply by Anonymous on 2014-03-20 10:28:43
The fact that there are so many scriptures in the NT that refer to Christians as Witnesses of Jesus and bearing Witness to Jesus, while Jehovah's Witnesses focus very little on bearing witness to Jesus is very revealing of the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses have their witnessing priorities wrong.
Jehovah's Witnesses, in trying to defend their position, would say that Jesus was a witness of Jehovah and Christians are to imitate Jesus and thus be witnesses of Jehovah too. This is a poor argument with an unacceptable implication. It is true that Christians are to imitate Jesus but does that mean that they're to do everything that Jesus did?
We must remember that Jesus' mission was a singular and unique one. There were aspects to Jesus' mission that Christians are not to, and cannot, imitate. As examples, Christians are not to claim that they're The Life and The Truth and that no one can come to the Father except through them. Christians are not to give their life as a propitiatory offering to cover for the sins of all who would exercise faith in them.
In a similar vein, Jesus' role as a witness of Jehovah was and is to remain, without parallel. Jesus was the oldest and most intimate personal associate of Jehovah. Jesus' witnessing about Jehovah wasn't limited by a knowledge of the scriptures. Jesus spoke from personal first hand experience! Jesus was sent as Jehovah's representative! (John 7:29) Which Christian today is qualified to be witnesses of Jehovah as Jesus was? Who are Christains to be representatives of? (2 Corinthians 5:20)
So you see while it is true that Christians will also bear witness to Jehovah it would be disingenuous to try to suggest that this is their primary role based on Jesus' being a Witness of Jehovah. Jesus was specially commissioned as God's representative and was uniquely qualified to be his Witness. When Jesus' earthly mission ended, his very unique Witnessing to Jehovah also ended. Jesus explicitly told his followers that they're to be Witnesses of him (Jesus)! So Jesus is to be the focus of their witnessing. It doesn't mean they're aren't to Witness to Jehovah. It means Witnessing about Jesus is the priority because this is what Jesus commanded and this is what God wills as revealed in the NT.Reply by Anonymous on 2014-03-20 10:32:59
I forgot to mention the unacceptable implication of the argument that Christians are to be witnesses of Jehovah as Jesus was. The NT reveals that first century Christians were witnesses of Jesus, not Jehovah (primarily speaking). Thus according to their argument, one would have to conclude that 1st century Christians - including the writers of the NT - failed to imitate Christ in being witnesses of Jehovah.
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-20 11:47:19
“In a similar vein, Jesus’ role as a witness of Jehovah was and is to remain, without parallel. Jesus was the oldest and most intimate personal associate of Jehovah. Jesus’ witnessing about Jehovah wasn’t limited by a knowledge of the scriptures. Jesus spoke from personal first hand experience! Jesus was sent as Jehovah’s representative!”
“Throughout this short conversation, for every time that I mentioned the Sons name, my sister would counter it with Jehovah in an almost frightening manner as though I were in some way dishonoring Jehovah God by speaking of His beloved Son”
This morning during my Bible reading, I felt so moved by Jesus’ passion as I listened to his exciting exchange with the Pharisees at John 8:31-59. I was astounded at how forcefully he replied to the Pharisees . Jesus told them that either , in a roundabout way, they did not get the point that Jehovah was directing them to Him or they were refusing to because they did not want to accept Jesus’ direction while he was on earth . In VERSE 49 after they accused him of having a demon he replied "I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me."
We cannot replace him ( he is a mediator to all) or bypass him to get to Jehovah ( apparently , according to the recent WT, the GB believes that they are going to receive “lifesaving direction” from Jehovah himself in the future.) When we try to replace or bypass Jesus in anyway … We dishonor Him and Jehovah. The Father does not take kindly to that. I certainly do not take kindly to anyone dishonoring my son in anyway and I am only human.
The Pharisees’ accused Jesus of making himself equal to God although Jesus always referred to himself as the Son of God. They knew the law/prophecy better than anyone else . They accused them of that for a reason. They knew what acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah meant. Jesus knew they were aware too and called out them out on their willful and wicked disbelief.
Reply by Chris on 2014-03-22 17:55:51
Does it really matter what we call ourselves. It's just a name. It doesn't reflect everything we do. Jehovah is the most high over all the earth. Therefore I would love to be called Jehovah's Witness. A rose by any other name...... Yes Jesus is his Son. But like I said it's just a name.
Reply by Chris on 2014-03-23 17:34:10
On the face of it that is a fair comment, except the WTS has gone beyond what is written by claiming to be exclusively appointed by Jehovah and/or Jesus.
That is a remarkable and bold claim don't you think other Chris?
Like many here I have tested this claim against what the scriptures say and found it to be false and misleading.Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-23 21:09:09
I agree with both Chris 1 and 2 :)
We should want to be called by whatever God wants us to be called( if He has a name for His people at all). It appears that we were given this name (JW) by a divine revelation given to Rutherford. In all fairness many sects of Christendom feel the need to separate themselves( Protestants, Mormons, JW's , Baptist , etc.) (1 Cor. 1:12)
I am not sure , based on the scriptures , that the disciples of Christ ever took out a name for themselves. It appears that "Christian" and/or the "Nazarenes" were names that the nations gave them. (Acts 11:26) (Acts 24:5) (Acts 9:2)
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-23 22:39:20
I'm a little confused - How can the divine name of God be "just a name"?
If you take a name, you should 1) have permission and 2) make sure that you do nothing to taint it. I would be engaged in a lot of reflection before taking it upon myself to bear Gods name. When I finally asked the question "where does the bible instruct Christians to build an organisation around Jehovahs name?" - I could not find the answer and I do not believe that an adequate answer is forthcoming. That alone gives me sufficient cause for concern. When I also realised in tandem how little emphasis is put on Jesus, it was like a wake up call for me. Early Christians were called "Christians" and the publicised Jesus. When I ask someone "How often do you think Jesus name comes up in our meetings, compared with say "faithful slave"? - I am met with silence and a sideways look, but never an answer. I have come to believe that is a very real problem.Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 05:34:46
I'm saying for us it's Just a name of a group. It's not like since we are JWs that we don't witness about Jesus. People are hanging in the eords
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-24 07:56:27
"I’m saying for us it’s Just a name of a group."
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but based on my understanding of your comment, I respectfully disagree, simply because we do not just use the name. Our literature does not only very frequently and specifically state we are Jehovahs chosen people and Gods appointed channel of communication, these are central tenets. For such a claim, we should look for proof, which is what many are now trying to do.Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 08:00:10
I disagree. Even if we're were called Jesus Witnesses it's still just a name. It won't change our activities. So disagree all you want but even if we change it we are the same group teaching the same thing. God won't look at us with more favor and worthiness just because we are called by a different name.
Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 09:55:22
I'm just saying I disagree because the name of the Group is not affecting our salvation.
Reply by on 2014-03-24 09:48:12
It still doesn't matter no matter what scripture you quote. The name does not affect Salvation is what I am getting at. When we are Judged, is Jesus doing to say "You were called Jesus' Witnesses and you were called Jehovah's Witnesses so you go tp Paradise and you don't." Absolutely not. IT'S JUST A NAME. The bible does not say what Christians should be called. It was used in the bible. It's just a name. No one's salvation is lost or gained over it. Here's my question for a lot of you. If you don believe in the FADS, 1914,, the name Jehovah's Witness, the end-time prophesies, the Watchtower being God's appointed Channel, The way the Lords evening meal or any of that, then why do you stay. That would be like me being a Mormon who rejects Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, Temples, and Pre existence of human spirits. Why stay? Complaining about it on a website (which is your freedom of choice) is as good as "Take Back America" bumper stickers. Like that's working. Disagree all you want but like I said it doesn't matter because my salvation does not depend on it.
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-24 15:40:50
Well going along with that reasoning, does anything matter? If using Jesus name is so unimportant, then how would you explain Matt 7:21?
21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.+ 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord,+ did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’+ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!
in YOUR name 3 times followed by "I" never knew you, get away from "me"
What about Luke 9:49 ?
49 In response John said: “Instructor, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he is not following with us.”
Again using "your" name.
Jesus indicated a great many things were tied up with salvation, surely? Are we þhe judges of what is and isn't now? So we can decide our own outcome? Salvation is not the point here though - obedience is the point.
1 Samuel 15
22 Samuel then said: “Does Jehovah take as much pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices+ as in obeying the voice of Jehovah? Look! To obey is better than a sacrifice,+ and to pay attention than the fat+ of rams; 23 for rebelliousness+ is the same as the sin of divination,+ and pushing ahead presumptuously the same as using magical power and idolatry.
Amos 5:18
18 “‘Woe to those who are craving the day of Jehovah!+ What, then, will the day of Jehovah mean to YOU people?+ It will be darkness, and no light,+ 19 just as when a man* flees because of the lion, and the bear actually meets him; and [as when] he went into the house and supported his hand against the wall, and the serpent bit him.+ 20 Will not the day of Jehovah be darkness, and not light; and will it not have gloom, and not brightness?+ 21 I have hated, I have rejected YOUR festivals,+ and I shall not enjoy the smell of YOUR solemn assemblies.+ 22 But if YOU people offer up to me whole burnt offerings,+ even in YOUR gift offerings I shall find no pleasure,+ and on YOUR communion sacrifices of fatlings I shall not look.+ 23 Remove from me the turmoil of your songs; and the melodious sound of your stringed instruments may I not hear.+ 24 And let justice roll forth just like waters,+ and righteousness like a constantly flowing torrent.+ 25 Was it sacrifices and gift offerings that YOU people brought near to me in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel?
Amos talking to people who say "its alright, we've got it covered" who believe they have a sure hope and Jehovah tells them otherwise, just as Jesus will with the sheep and goats.
Samuel also says that pushing ahead invalidated all other worship. Do you not think that is important? That is why I personally believe it is only ok to take a name and teach you are gods chosen people - if there is proof.Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 15:44:13
Still no proof. The name we call ourselves doesn't matter. It's not salvation in the name of the society. It's our faith. Quote all you want. But until there is a scripture that says we must be called Jesus Witnesses, the name of our group doesn't matter.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-24 16:40:44
In Chris' defense, I do not believe he is saying that names are not important. Rather, he is saying is that whatever label we attach to our organization has nothing to do with our individual salvation. I concur.
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-24 11:10:36
Anonymous -
We are probably on this website for the same reasons that you have visited . We all have our own personal reasons why we stay or choose to leave . Are you suggesting that we all leave like you obviously have ?Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 11:46:14
I only disagree with the Memorial Partaking. But it seems to me that if you disagree with the current teaching od the Watchtower then go to the bible students. You are part of the new covenant and you can partake and run the race to be on of the 144, 000. While rejecting the trinity and the holidays. You can have the best of both worlds. Why stay. I stay because I agree with the majority of it. I expressed my concerns with the 1914 and my elder told me that it doesn't matter is it Is 1914 o4 1878, the developments in these end days are what we are considering. It was stated earlier that when we call ourselves Jehovah's Witnesses and not just Christians then we become a denomination. I disagree. Just because something is called "Non denominational" doesn't mean that their beliefs differ to be considered a denomination. If Jehovah's Witnesses are a denomination and just changed their name to Christians doesn't mean they are not a denomination.
Reply by menrov on 2014-03-24 11:57:38
I agree that one should do what he/she believes is best. If one believes that what is being taught by the organisation is correct, then by all means continue to support them. I know the expression, what's in a name. Point is that in the bible, names do have a meaning. So, the name Jehovah witnesses does mean something, otherwise they would have continued with Bible Students. For the organisation, it surely did make a big difference to take up a new name. Will it save one? No, that I agree. The name itself will not condemn or save but how one lives and teaches others, does make a difference.
I guess you'd agree that the organisation finds it most important how they are called.
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-24 11:57:13
“I only disagree with the Memorial Partaking. But it seems to me that if you disagree with the current teaching of the Watchtower then go to the bible students”
With all due respect you also disagree with the GB’s view on posting or viewing “Apostate” websites ….such as this one. Everyone is entitled to make whatever decisions their conscience allows them to make including staying a JW. The opinions expressed on this site are not the view of all. The freedom to express open disagreement with those who decide doctrine (GB) is a freedom that we do not currently have in our religion. I am sure that we can agree on that …..Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 14:54:07
The others in the congregation know that I don't have but I have issues with some of the material bit of condemning for it I guess that each congregation is different you some that are strict old by the book witnesses then you have us who if I disagree with something then they respected
Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 15:07:15
Sorry. Was driving. I don't consider this apostate. It's truth. Charles Taze Russell even said even if truth were from the devil truth is truth. My elders know I research. They don't question me for it. They know I have questions. They don't care. Each is different
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-24 16:02:49
Chris-
I
do not consider this site “apostate” either. However you and I both know that the GB does . My overall point is that you stated that you only disagree with the GB ( who decides doctrine) regarding “Memorial Partaking” and that is not the case . You obviously also disagree with the GB’s view of “apostate” material because of your presence on this site. Apparently anyone else on this site who disagrees with the GB with say …..More than one doctrine, in your view they should take a hike. The fact is if the Elders in your congregation ( no matter how sincere they are) knew that you were researching an “ apostate” site like this one you would be counseled .We recently studied the WT that cautioned all of us against this very thing “Avoid Being “Quickly Shaken From Your Reason”! (w13 12/15)
It is not up for me to decide which GB teachings you should or should not accept. It is certainly not my place to tell you to stay a Witness or not. Frankly, the GB has the it’s our way or the highway mentality. If they did not none of us would be on this site today and neither would you . No one is “complaining” on this website. It is dedicated to Bible research.
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-24 18:03:29
"Quote all you want. But until there is a scripture that says we must be called Jesus Witnesses, the name of our group doesn’t matter."
Unfortunately you are totally ignoring the fact that I am not just talking about the use of the name, but the claim that is attached to using the name. Those are 2 different things, but I have said enough on that.
I know what are driving at, but you seem to ignore the wider implication and to be honest it is an illogical conclusion. If the name and the usage of the name is completely unimportant and uncoupled from "salvation" as you keep circling back to, then perhaps we should start a new group called "Chosen Ones" (same implication), or even "Care Bears" - I mean does it matter?Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 18:37:09
I can't stand when people make a ridiculous claim to drive a point. Like call ourselves "Care Bears". It wouldn't happen so you're not validating any point.
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-24 19:11:44
"I can’t stand when people make a ridiculous claim to drive a point. Like call ourselves “Care Bears”. It wouldn’t happen so you’re not validating any point."
You may call me "people" if you wish. I will not proceed any further than this comment, unless you are interested in making some scriptural points, because it is gradually becoming argumentative and in the wrong forum, but I feel I must defend my against your assertion of "ridiculous claim".
I didn't make any claims. It is called hyperbole when you you use an exaggerated example to drive home a point and it is a valid form of linguistic expression. You say the usage of the divine name outright doesn't matter, you keep circling back to "salvation" and I am simply trying to move things along to the point that not just I, but others have made. You neglect to respond to my example of "Chosen Ones" and instead chose to focus on "Care Bears" so as to deflect from providing an actual answer.
Please see the following examples:
Luke 14:26
26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate* his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life,*+ he cannot be my disciple.+
Luke 6:41
41 Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye but do not notice the rafter in your own eye?+
Do you find these examples of hyperbole equally problematic?Reply by on 2014-03-24 19:18:05
Ok so why not be called the chosen ones. The Bible does say "4 just as he chose us in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love" (Ephesians 1:4) there is is. We can be called chosen ones.
I've said it and I will say it again. The name of what we call our group doesn't matter. We are Christians. Look at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just because they have the name Christ in it doesn't make them Christians. So what makes you think that just because we have Jehovah in our names doesn't make us Christians? It doesn't. It's just a name. So frivolous on the scale of salvation as a name.Reply by menrov on 2014-03-25 08:37:38
Let's be clear, being a Christian is determined by behavior not by name. That is something we all agree. Also, one is a Christian as an individual not because of his/her membership to an organisation.
I guess the discussion here is whether a name of an organisation makes its member a Christian. I guess we all agree that that is not the case. But the influence of the organisation on its members does have an impact to what extend one is developing Christian behavior and qualities and faith in / respect for Jesus Christ. Someone who is a Muslim will have a completely different view on Christ, as Mormons have as well as various so-called Christian organisations. Their thinking is very much influenced, to say the least, by the teachings of their organisation. These organisations choose a name that represents how they view their beliefs and also a name that best represents their purpose.
When the WTS decided to rename their organisation to Jehovah Witnesses, they did this to show their conviction and their purpose. And they expect the same from its members. Below the original resolution that was presented when they changed the name.
So, it is expected, based on the name and how they support that name in their teachings, that its members are (far) less focused on Jesus and (far) more on Jehovah than members of other organisations that have a stronger emphasis on Jesus and less on His Father.
THE RESOLUTION (1931):
Since the Lord came to his temple for judgment the flashes of lightning have enlightened and are continuing to enlighten
our pathway. It has pleased the Lord to use tile columns of The Watch Tower and the other publications of the Watch Tower Blble & Tract Society to refresh, comfort and strengthen his faithful witnesses.We believe that the Society, composed of all the faithful anointed on earth, is the visible part of Jehovah's organization,
and that said organization IS proclaiming "this gospel of the kingdom" as foretold by our Lord in Matthew 24: 14.
We further believe that without participating in said witness work no one can be called Jehovah's witness. In view of the above facts, be it resolved that we, heretofore known as International Bible Students, assembled in convention at Detroit, Michigan, on this second day of August, 1931, unanimously adopt and confirm the resolution passed at the Columbus convention, to wit: That henceforth we shall be known as Jehovah's witnesses, a name which we recognIze as coming from Jehovah God, as pointed out in the Scriptures, through his great chief executive officer, Christ Jesus our Lord.-Isa. 43: 10. We rejoice in this greatly, as it further confirms our faith and confidence that Jehovah God is supervising the affairs of the
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY, and is guiding Brother Rutherford, its president, in directing the Lord's work throughout the whole earth. Be it known, then, to all men that we, as followers of our Lord Jesus Christ, assembled in convention at Detroit, declare our full allegiance to Jehovah God as his witnesses, and
that, by his grace, we shall stand shoulder to shoulder With Brother Rutherford and the faithful workers at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, in sending forth the message of truth to all the peoples of earth. Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to Brother Rutherford as an expression of our personal esteem for him and our full confidence in his leadershipReply by Chris on 2014-03-25 10:47:54
I think the name still doesn't matter. But going along the lines of wage you just said if we take our focus mostly of Jehovah and preached Jesus and changed our name to Jesus' Witnesses then we would be like most of Christendom. They worship him and make him God. Jehovah said "I am Jehovah. Beside me there is no other God." So why would I want to be under a name of his Son who is lesser than he is. We witnesses for Jehovah mostly because He is the highest in all the earth. He will not give his glory or praise to anyone else. He is the Most High.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-25 07:38:42
Brothers, we have a better forum for this type of discussion. www.discussthetruth.com. Why not open a topic there? As I see it there is some misunderstanding about what each one of you really means when discussing the importance of the usage of God's name. Are we saying that use of God's name doesn't matter, or are we saying that it doesn't matter whether or not the name of our particular religious denomination includes God's name? Two very different points, wouldn't you agree?
Both are valid questions, but the Discuss the Truth forum is the best place to address them. For one reason, because it allows you to edit your comments after posting them to get rid of those nagging SICs. :)
Comment by Ross on 2014-03-23 18:58:43
Any person wanting to get to know God is always referred by Him to
His Son Jesus to learn, and it is only when Jesus decides that the person
is ready for it, that He reveals the Father to him.
Hence we are to preach Christ impaled, and teach people even the least
of the commandments of the law, that through them they might get an
accurate knowledge of their own sinfulness and see a need for Christ’s
sacrifice, to set them right with the Father.
1 Cor 1:23; Mat 5:17-19; Ro 3:20
Only those anointed with the Holy Spirit have authority to act as God’s
ambassadors, substituting for Christ here on earth, with authority to
forgive sins and ability to reconcile people with God by means of Him.
2 Cor 5:20; Mat 18:18; Jo 20:23Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-24 08:59:15
“Only those anointed with the Holy Spirit have authority to act as God’s
ambassadors, substituting for Christ here on earth, with authority to
forgive sins and ability to reconcile people with God by means of Him.”
We are not “substitutes” for Christ in this sense. (John 20:23) The anointed are not given authority to forgive sins in Jesus’ place (nor the apostles). All authority to forgive sins has been given to Jesus’ by the Father. (Matthew 9:6)
We are representatives of Christ ( like the apostles) and proclaim the forgiveness of God to the world through our ministry ( preaching and teaching). Only Jesus can reconcile people to God by his ransom . There are no substitutes for Christ.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-24 09:11:25
I am not taking sides in this discussion. However, I would like to point out that Ross quoted two scriptures that appear to support his point of view. To reply with a contrary viewpoint requires one to address those scriptures--specifically: Mat 18:18; Jo 20:23
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-24 11:35:11
Well perhaps after re-reading his comments it depends on what he means by “forgiving” sins. We all have the ability to forgive the sins and offenses of others- whether you are “anointed” or not.
Jesus was speaking to his disciples about what the scope of their responsibilities would be in connection to the Christian congregation. I believe in context of Mat 18:18 is that Jesus was speaking about entrusting them the keys of the heaven at Matthew 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Jesus also told them that “if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:19-20). He was entrusting the apostles with the authority to preach, teach and make decisions in his absence .
I believe that at Matthew 9:1-8 even when Jesus healed the paralyzed man’s sins it was the consequences of sin (that led him to be disabled)that Jesus forgave. That is the limitation to what we ( humans ) can forgive. The healing of this man did not guarantee salvation for this man or a spot in heaven. Only on the basis of Jesus’ ransom sacrifice can we ask for own sins to be pardoned . (Matthew 9:6)
For what it is worth, there are no instances in the Bible (that I can think of ) that the Apostles declared upon healing others that the sins of that one were forgiven like Jesus did . The apostles were authorized to proclaim the basis of which others can obtain forgiveness.( just like we are) Based on my conversation with a Catholic out in service he believed that this scripture was a precedent ,given by Jesus , for people to confess their sins to priests and ask them for forgiveness of their sins.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-24 14:32:54
Nicely explained and you've countered the points well. Thank you. I agree with your assessment as to how these texts apply.
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-24 14:46:12
Meleti -
You are making me dig deep ! I am becoming better for it ;) Thanks!
Reply by Ross on 2014-03-25 19:26:43
‘GodsWordIsTruth,’
the forgiving of sins by the anointed has got to do with their being indwelled by Christ, having His mind on things, and thus being privy to what sort of sins they should forgive because they were already thus viewed by Christ Himself, and those for which they should not even try to intercede on behalf of their brothers as sins that incur death, which is clearly a priestly
function exercised by Christ through His anointed disciples here on earth as His substitutes.
Eph 3:17; 1 Cor 2:10,16; 1Jo 5:16,17; 2 Cor 5:20
Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-03-25 22:21:44
Ross-
So the anointed are already priests?
Based on your comments in the past , it appears that you believe anointed will be equal to Christ because they share his nature. I have a feeling you believe that the anointed substitute for Christ as Co-mediators of the new covenant.
Reply by Ross on 2014-03-26 01:08:18
Yes, the anointed will become sharers of God's
immortal nature and sit with Christ on His throne
to judge the world and angels, but they obviously
are not co-mediators with Christ over the new
covenant, which is between them and the Father.
It is not for no reason that they are called holy ones,
although I do not see the WT anointed as those in
whose 'mouth no falsehood was found,' since they
teach that the parousia of Christ has already been
going on for a century now, which is clearly a lie,
and therefore does not make them fit the profile of
the 144000, according to Scripture.
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-03-23 23:40:34
(Proverbs 22:1) . . .A name is to be chosen rather than abundant riches; favor is better than even silver and gold.
(Ecclesiastes 7:1) . . .A name is better than good oil, and the day of death than the day of one’s being born.
What I find incredible is the emphasis the organization has put on using the divine without living up to its character and truthfulness. We will be sadly mistaken if we think we can teach error alongside Jehovah's character.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-03-24 08:43:09
I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with Christians having a name other than Christians. The moment we call ourselves something, we become a religious denomination. Russell expresses the reasons why this is a bad thing better than I could. You can find them here.
Rutherford ignored this wisdom and everything Russell said would happen did indeed happen.Reply by Christian on 2014-03-24 16:41:52
Meleti and others are quite right. The only genuine claim that a Christian can have to a name issued by God is "Christian" (Acts 11:26)
If the WTS wanted to make a distinction and break away from the Bible Students then they could have called themselves Jehovah's Witnesses or JF Rutherford's Traveling Banana Salesmen for all intents and puposes
The point is that Rutherford claimed it was by divine appointment!
I can't think of another 'Christian' group today apart from the Mormons who claim to have been given their name by a divine source.
On that thought I am going to change my nom de plume to 'Christian' to avoid confusion with the other 'Chris' :)Reply by Chris on 2014-03-25 06:55:40
Then don't. Just remember Christ died so we can live. Not just be called Christians. A lot a groups only call themselves Christians but they have the trinity and hellfire. Did their name make then true? No. The name doesn't matter
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-24 18:43:13
"I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with Christians having a name other than Christians."
It seems the most honest answer to me also. Russells comments prove very relevant with hindsight. I think the danger of entrusting your faith and salvation to another is very well described in Matt 23:15:
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!+ because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte,* and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·hen′na* twice as much so as yourselves.Reply by Chris on 2014-03-24 18:52:19
The name still remains. He stated that calling ourselves anything other than Christians makes is a denomination. We are separated by beliefs not by name titles.
Comment by kev c on 2014-03-24 17:08:27
This ones for chris. WOW chris you say that you have differences of opinion and the brothers are ok and respect it. Have i got that right. How long have you been a witness. Your congregation sounds good .keep it going brother. Keep on with your bible research. Read the. Christian scritures in context as much as you can. Keep praying for understanding. Well done. Kev c
Comment by Chris on 2014-03-24 19:30:11
I highly disagree that the name is what's making groups denominations. If Catholics switch their name to Christians and Mormons and Mormons do they same are they not still two different denominations? The names don't make them denominations but the beliefs and actions do. Even if the Governing Body were to switch our name to Jesus Witnesses we wouldn't change a thing. The name is not important. I see people on her quoting stuff about casting out demons in Jesus name. That's what we would do. I'm not saying Jesus and Jehovah's names are not important I'm saying the name of the people in organization doesn't matter on the over all scheme of things. I feel like there are so many issues in the organization. What we should call ourselves does not mean we are more true and less false vice versa.
Comment by Joel on 2014-03-25 11:20:22
Meleti,
Thank you for pointing out the appropriate forum for discussions and topics. I was unaware it was ready!
Chris,
If you (or others) are interested in transferring and continuing to discuss further in a new thread, I have opened a topic (to be approved by moderator) under General Chat called "What's in a name?"
menrov,
Thank you for your insightful comments. I agree with you completely. The resolution you quoted personally makes my heart sink and I don't recall ever reading it before. If I did, it makes me wonder how many times I have agreed to something like this without really understanding the full statement. This part in particular made mevery uncomfortable: "Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to Brother Rutherford as an expression of our personal esteem for him and our full confidence in his leadership"
Perhaps it is just hindsight ....?
Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-25 13:02:25
Joel,
I am shocked at this line , "We rejoice in this greatly, as it further confirms our faith and confidence that Jehovah God is supervising the affairs of the
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY, and is guiding Brother Rutherford, its president, in directing the Lord’s work throughout the whole earth...."
This brothers name is littered through this "resoulution"! I wonder if Iwould it have pricked my conscience or would I have pledged alleigiance to the WTBS and Rutherford along with the others.....Reply by Joel on 2014-03-25 14:29:31
With the internet it is incredibly easy to cross-compare documents and records to build a more complete picture for ourselves. I don't want to show disrespect to those living at that time, sitting in that audience and passing that resolution. To be fair to them, it isn't like these resolutions are passed around prior to the convention so you have time to mull it over, or you even have a printed copy in front of you as you do in a business meeting. The resolutions are always fairly lengthy and if you even had the time or inclination to latch on to a phrase, you would 1) feel predisposed to say "yes" and 2) be actually saying yes before you even had a chance to ask a question about it. With the excitement, days of convention behind you and going back to your daily life, I sincerely doubt that the nuances of the resolution would be kicking around anyone's head for too long at the end. They had also been somewhat galvanised I'm sure, by the major split in the bible student movement just prior to this event.
Even though I am not too happy now with the overall legacy, they were the ones to be fair to them, who were shaking off the orthodox churches, some facing fierce opposition, refusing military service, disowning public "christian" holidays and they also worked very very hard at that time. I think it was also a different time. We live in a world of independence and me-ism. I don't think it would be unfair or untrue to say their world was more "king and country".
So we really have the benefit of starting a little further along thanks to them, albeit we may have been brought up to believe and agree with certain things from infancy, but it is our job to decide what we believe now and figure it out - all over again! :)
Reply by Joel on 2014-03-25 14:33:35
Yes, I also couldn't quite get over how many times his name came up, but also the final line about sending up appreciation and trust in his leadership is ......
Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-03-25 15:06:50
Joel -
I definitely agree with your comments. I probably would have said "yes" along with everyone else in the crowd. I am definitely glad that the scales are falling from my eyes.
“They had also been somewhat galvanized I’m sure, by the major split in the bible student movement just prior to this event.”
I guess this was a split from the Bible Student movement .
Rutherford basically founded a new religion after Rutherford died. Perhaps changing the name of the Bible Students to JW’s was inevitable.Reply by menrov on 2014-03-25 16:24:43
Yes and this practice to present resolution to the audience without any documentation and without any explanation nor any time for discussion is still common.
And yes, Rutherford wanted to distinguish from Russell. Not only the name but also many of the beliefs of Russell
Reply by BeenMislead on 2014-03-26 12:30:30
That resolution just reinforces in my mind that Jehovah and/or Jesus was not directing the organization then and he is not directing the organization now. Because Jehovah and/or Jesus would not and does not direct in falsehoods!!
The fact is there is overwhelming evidence that they are not being directed by Jehovah and/or Jesus.
They teach that they were appointed as God’s channel of communication (the “faithful and discreet slave”) starting in 1919. See the January 15th 2014 Watchtower:
“Jesus then used his kingly authority to appoint a “faithful and discreet slave.” This slave would provide a regular supply of wholesome spiritual food to all who make up the “one flock” under Jesus’ care. (Matt. 24:45-47; John 10:16) Since 1919, a small group of anointed brothers have loyally carried out the weighty responsibility to feed the “domestics.” – (w14 1/15, Pg. 13, 100 Years of Kingdom Rule—How Does It Affect You?)
That being said it would be in keeping with the scriptural admonition of Acts 17:11 and 1 John 4:1 to examine what was being taught by the organization in 1919.
In 1919 Rutherford was president and in charge of the organization. Here is some of what he was teaching:
- Millions now living will never die
- Armageddon was coming in 1925
- The faithful ones of old such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were going to be resurrected in 1925.
These were all falsehoods. Would Jesus appoint a slave that was teaching falsehoods?
Here is proof from the organizations own publications:
"The period must end in 1925. The type ending, the antitype must begin; and therefore 1925 is definitely fixed in the scriptures. Every thinking person can see that a great climax is at hand. The Scriptures clearly indicate that the climax is the fall of Satan's empire and the full establishment of the Messianic kingdom. This climax being reached by 1925, and that marking the beginning of the fulfillment of the long promised blessings of life to the people, millions now living on earth will be living then and those who obey the righteous laws of the new arrangement will live forever. Therefore it can be confidently said at this time that millions now living will never die." - (Golden Age, Jan. 4, 1922, Pg. 217, Rutherford at the Hippodrome)
“Seventy jubilees of fifty years each would be a total of 3500 years. That period of time beginning 1575 before A.D. 1 of necessity would end in the fall of the year 1925, at which time the type ends and the great antitype must begin. What, then, should we expect to take place? In the type there must be a full restoration; therefore the great antitype must mark the beginning of restoration of all things. The chief thing to be restored is the human race to life; and since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favor, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth.” - (Book - Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1920, Pg. 89)
The following scriptures reinforce the fact that Jehovah and/or Jesus does not direct in falsehoods:
“Into your hand I entrust my spirit. You have redeemed me, O Jehovah the God of truth.” - Ps. 31:5
“upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting,” - Titus 1:2
“in order that, through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to the refuge may have strong encouragement to lay hold on the hope set before us.” - Heb. 6:18
___________________________________________________________
And of course this is not to mention all the falsehoods that were being taught in the late 60’s and early 70’s about 1975 being the end of this system of things.
____________________________________________________________
Comment by Chris on 2014-04-10 13:59:14
Did y'all see that they have a new Watchtower article called "You will be witnesses of me" Those are Jesus' Words. I am so happy because maybe its an article about a name change. IDK I haven't read it. It just came out today on the JW website. It's in the July 15, 2014 maganzine
Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-04-10 16:52:35
Hi Chris,
I am going to take a look at that article in that magazine.
I was turned off by yet another “apostate” warning in the article “Jehovah Knows Those Who Belong to Him”
10. How did the actions of apostates affect faithful ones in Paul’s day?
10 Timothy and other faithful ones were likely perturbed by the actions of apostates in their midst. Some Christians may have questioned why such individuals were allowed to remain in the congregation. Faithful ones might have wondered whether Jehovah really distinguished between their resolute loyalty to him and the hypocritical worship of apostates.—Acts 20:29, 30.
12 Jehovah never changes; he is dependable. He hates unrighteousness, and in due time he brings unrepentant wrongdoers to justice. As one “calling on the name of Jehovah,” Timothy was also reminded of his own responsibility to reject the unrighteous influence of counterfeit Christians. *
This whole article has a creepy and negative tone. It’s like they are constantly reminding us “Jehovah is watching YOU!!!”Reply by Chris on 2014-04-10 17:42:12
I think that the whole organization has a negative tone. I am partaking for the memorial. And I told a friend that I disagreed with the GB position on the memorial partaking. He dumped me automatically. He said that he wanted everlasting life and couldn't associate with someone who disagrees with the GB. I just responded with "My salvation comes through Jesus Christ. Not the Governing Body". The CO came and bashed homosexuals which I struggle with those feelings. He said it's disgusting and gross sin. He bashed us in so many examples. Never alcoholics and adulterers. The whole society is negative. We preach unconditional love but it's really love those who are in the truth, are in good standing, and are what the watchtower says is good association. I went to an LDS church last night and the love there was every powerful. I would not join their religion for I know it's false by studying their doctrine but I began to think: 1) Jesus didn't die so I could join a certain denomination. 2) 1 John 5:1 says that EVERYONE who believes Jesus is the Christ is born of God. So why can't members of other faiths be considered Christians and God's Children? I don't think that we are any more righteous because we have different beliefs. Beliefs are passive. It's the persons heart Jehovah looks for. Correct me if you disagree.
Comment by June 2015 TV Broadcast on tv.jw.org | Beroean Pickets on 2015-06-03 13:29:09
[…] See: http://meletivivlon.com/2014/03/19/do-jehovahs-witnesses-believe-in-jesus/ and […]