My wife told me one time that I would make a better Jehovah's Witness than she would. It is somewhat of a scary thought that I seem to know their theology better than she does and quite frankly I wish I did not know any of it. But I guess in the end it is good as it helps me to see if there are indeed errors in it and it forces me to look for the truth in a fundamental sense.
Perhaps the most difficult belief for a witness to prove besides 1914 is the teaching that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. I recall asking my wife to show me where in the Bible does it teach Jesus as Michael and she could not show any definitive proof from the text. I even let her use her material so that she can get the Bible verses referenced. None of it could provide convincing proof.
JW's like to rail against Trinitarians because they say that the Bible does not really show that Jesus is God in form and substance. Yet the Bible would show more proof text concerning the diety of Jesus Christ than it does Him being Michael the Archangel. Only the WT Bible minimizes the verses proving Christ's deity and the WT publications make the 'leap of faith' to indicate He is Michael.
The thought of Jesus being Jehovah was pointed out to me on an evangelical christian website. I pointed out the verses that show that a) no one has seen God and lived and, b) no one has seen God at anytime, except the begotton Son. Following this with the reasoning that if no one has seen God expect the Son, who were the old testament saints conversing with? On her own, my wife came up with Jesus. Of course, she backpeddled on it (or so it seems) when it became clear that this contradicts her doctrine.
|One must be called of God, anointed and ordained and commissioned by Christ.|
Ah, but according to the April 1st, 2006 WT, a baptize publisher is an "ordained minister who bears Jehovah's name."