My understanding is that the Society suggests that various Christian groups that popped up here and there during the Christian era, such as the Waldenses, etc, likely contained 'wheat-like' Christians, ie, anointed ones with the heavenly calling. The basis for assuming this is because these groups taught certain similar doctrines that JW's do today that makes them stand out from broader Christendom (anti-trinity, etc). The argument is that these groups read the bible for themselves, saw that the big churches had some things wrong, but were soon persecuted and crushed by the powerful false religious 'weeds'.
I'm not certain just how categorical the Watchtower Society has been in stating that such groups housed 'true Christians'. My feeling is that the Society is mealy-mouthed about this - hinting at them possibly being wheat but avoiding clear statements about it. (I seem to recall that they equivocate on this in relation to the Anabaptists.) If anyone can unearth any quotes from the Watchtower publications on this score they would be invaluable.
Depending on how the Society categorises these historical groups, what I'm wondering is whether any of them used the name 'Jehovah' or not? Can anyone point to any sources that shed light on this?
My feeling is they did not.
Aside from the fact that the evidence is flimsy that the first century Christians used 'Jehovah', if the Society is claiming that these more recent groups also housed genuine anointed Christians and those groups did not use the name 'Jehovah', then how does the Society insist that only those who today recognise and use that name can be 'true Christians'?
Mennonites, Waldenses, etc, didn't use the name 'Jehovah'.
by yaddayadda 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
yaddayadda
-
yaddayadda
Found this from 1965, although it seems they are less generous in more recent statements on the subject:
*** w65 3/15 191-2 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
ó Have there been witnesses of Jehovah on earth in every period of human history? What about the Dark Ages?
It does not appear wise to answer these questions dogmatically. However, it does seem that reason and the facts of history, together with what God’s Word has to say, allow for the conclusion that there have been witnesses of Jehovah on earth in every period of human history.
The mere fact that only three Witnesses are mentioned by name before the Flood does not mean that there may not have been others. It is quite probable that Abel was married at the time he was a faithful Witness and so his wife could have continued being a Witness after his death. And then there was Lamech; for him to utter the inspired prophecy about his son Noah he also must have been a witness of Jehovah.—Gen. 5:29.
After the Flood we find faithful Shem surviving until Abraham’s day. And were not Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Job faithful witnesses, even as must have been the parents of Moses? With the forming of the nation of Israel the entire nation became a nation of witnesses, even as Jehovah shows at Isaiah 43:10-12. That nation continued as witnesses of Jehovah until 36 C.E.
That Jehovah has also had witnesses on earth from Christ’s time until our day seems to be indicated by Jesus’ parable of the wheat and weeds as recorded at Matthew chapter thirteen. Therein Jesus stated that both the wheat and the weeds would continue growing together until the harvest, when a separation would take place. This parable may be taken to imply that during all this time, from the first sowing until the harvest, there would be some genuine Christians, “wheat,” even though at times their number might be exceedingly small.
Thus throughout the centuries there have been professed Christians who rejected the error of the trinity, usually called “Arians.” There were those who closely followed primitive Christianity and who were known as quartodecimans because of celebrating Christ’s memorial on Nisan 14, holding out against the paganizing trend of Rome. Then there were the Paulicians from the seventh century onward, whose teachings have been termed “genuine apostolic Bible-Christianity.” They stood solely by the “New Testament,” practiced adult baptism, believed that God in his love had sent an angel to earth who at his baptism became God’s Son. They rejected unscriptural tradition, had no clergy-laity distinction, refused to revere the cross.
Then there were the Waldenses from the twelfth century forward, who had much in common with the previous Paulicians in rejecting all false tradition such as purgatory, the mass, and so forth, and adhering closely to the Bible, although they did not limit themselves to the so-called “New Testament.” The only two ceremonies they recognized were baptism and the Lord’s evening meal. They strictly followed Bible principles regarding morality and refused to celebrate popular religious holidays such as Palm Sunday, Easter, All Saints’ Day, and so forth. Typical is the statement of one of them, who was martyred, that ‘the Cross should not be prayed to but loathed as the instrument of the Just One’s death.’
Many were the Arians, Paulicians and Waldenses, not to mention others, who because of their Bible-based religion suffered martyrdom. Not that this in itself or together with their beliefs, as noted in the foregoing, indicated that all of them had God’s approval. Why not? Because time and again not a few of these took up the sword to defend themselves against Roman Catholic crusades in violation of Matthew 26:52.
The foregoing facts therefore would appear to demonstrate two things: (1) That through all the centuries from the time of Abel to modern times there were those who adhered so closely to God’s Word as to be considered God’s witnesses that had his approval. (2) That the number of them must have been small. This would be in keeping with the limited number composing the body of Christ as well as with the fact that comparatively large numbers of these appeared at the sowing and at the harvesttime. -
greendawn
They didn't use the name jehovah, the central person in the NT is not jehovah but the Christ something that the JWs willingly ignore due to their judaizing nature. The JWs say they believe in Jesus but it doesn't show in their actions and everyday talk, jehovah's organisation unlike the church of Christ sounds very judaic. Are the JWs members of the body of Christ which is his church?
-
Gill
Most religions have more sense than to use the name Jehovah since it is a 700 year old made up name of God, devised by a Catholic Monk.
The JWs have no intellectual reason to use the name. They will not acknowledge its real source, Catholicism, and so are not real students of the Bible.
The name Jehovah, having been fabricated in this way makes a mockery of God in that the JWs grasp at this name that is historical to its sect, and since they cannot and will not publicly admit mistakes are doomed to constantly bear this mark of their misunderstanding of God, Christianity and the Bible.
To the WTBTS, the name of 'Jehovah' is much the same as an advertising brand name of any company, be it Pepsi or Coca Cola.