Hey AA, --You must know a lot of JW's, because you're really good at that. That's exactly what a JW would say --Positively nauseous. This is too good, I can't resist......
Jeff's challenge was to "prove without asserting" and by this I presume he means to prove without making blind, or unsubstantiated assertions. As you show with your parody, JW's don't do this...
Jehovah/Jesus saw that the organization of worshippers in 1919 known as Bible Students were sincerely trying to serve him acceptably.
A JW can claim that the Bible Students were "sincere" all he or she wants. Whether Jehovah/Jesus agree with that claim and even if they do, whether they valued this sincerity over and above whatever any other group may have had is another matter ---one that no human can objectively know short of a Divine revelation
He credited 'holiness' to this group and accepted them as his own.
Another claim to know the mind of God. Taken together these two assertions amount to an a priori assumption of the correctness of that which was in question in the first place. --In other words, a circular argument.
The history of the organization has shown that it took this appointment seriously. Truly, as Jesus said, by their fruits you will know them.
The history of the organization could just as easily be used to make an opposing case. The JW organization has done some good things, but they've done a fair number of bad things as well. Their stubborness in the face of overwhelming evidence that the transfusion medicine taboo is in error is a good example of the latter. Ignoring the bad when the JW faith is compared to others amounts to a double standard --and more circularity in the argument.
Non-sequitors 1, 2 & 3
Who else is performing the preaching work in a united way on a worldwide scale? What other organization has upheld the Bible's moral code to the scripturally-sanctioned point of shunning unrepentant wrong doers? Who else is remaining separate from the world's politics and warfare?
Even if we ignore the fact that the JW's are not completely unique here, the positions the JW organization has adopted in the years following 1919 is neither here nor there as far as the original question is concerned.
Truly, it is clear that the organization today known as Jehovah's Witnesses has acted and continues to act as Jehovah's representatives on earth.
This is simply begging the question since this is exactly what is in contention in the first place. The only thing that could make such an appointment clear is objective evidence, yet the only thing a JW can bring to the table is subjective evidence.
That was cathartic --- Thank you AA.