I.B.S.A. members were witnesses of Jesus Christ.-JW`s members are witnesses of Jehovah.

by smiddy3 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    At Isaiah 43, the people were chastised because they had witnessed YHWH yet they had remained defiant. Hence they were being punished. So the "witness" referred to their having seen (witnessed) YHWH's goodness, but they were condemned because they had failed to respond accordingly. At least, that was the story being put out by the scribes who wished to create a benefit for their (monotheistic) cause.

    Secondly, the concept of "name" went far beyond a sound or a written text. To them, a "name" was a person's very being. Hence the need at times for a person's name to be changed (Simon=>Peter, etc., etc.)

    Thirdly, the name "Jesus" is a Latin distortion of "Yeshua", which in English would be rendered as "Joshua". A study of the Hebrew person named Joshua should be instructive.

    As I have previously stated, I find the concept of a spirit being crawling into Mary's egg and emerging as a "human" beyond belief. I suggest that prior stories in their mythology of angels having sex with women is relevant.


  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason


    I fully agree that one has to recognise the evolution of thought, especially within the communities of the Jesus-followers (the first century followers were not Christians; Jesus was not a Christian).

    The genuine writings of Paul predate any of the Gospels, and his material reflects earlier mythologies. And where did he get his views from? Where did he spend those years following his experience on the Damascus road?

    Further, there was no uniformity of ideas; there was not one set of agreed beliefs -- just look at the problems Paul encountered.


  • WTWizard

    Either way, I witness jesus as a fictitious being that is the archetype of the perfect slave. Follow this character, you will also be a slave.

  • smiddy3

    There is much to think about with all of the comments so far,it almost got me to thinking the Bible had Jehovah and Jesus as the same being ,or at least his equal previiously in coming to earth and the only inferiority attributed to Jesus was when he came to earth and was born as a human. Gen.1:26

    You do make an interesting argument SBF in defense of the NT jews understanding what Jesus name signified ,however unlike the explicit scriptures stated throughout the NT highlighting the name of Jesus ,there still is no such scripture in the NT that explicitly states that Christians are to be witnesses of Jehovah.

    And I believe that is a very important point to make.One that every Jehovah`s Witness should be aware of.

    This quote from Coftys earlier post some years ago.

    it would seem reasonable to say that Jehovah's Witnesses do not speak about Jesus in the same manner as early Christians did. The apostles described themselves as witnesses of Jesus, they called him their only owner and Lord, and the one to whom they belonged. They were baptised in his name, led by his Spirit, rejoiced in his blessing and overflowed with praise for him. All of these statements are incompatible with the beliefs and practice of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    And Jehovah`s Witnesses claim they have based their religion on 1st century Christianity .

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason


    Research the origin of Yahweh.

    Research how the Hebrews had monotheism imposed upon them by the minority that could write. (Isaiah 40ff was largely written by these monotheists. Deuteronomy was also a creation of that 7th to 6th century BCE period.).

    Research Second Temple Judaism to see its direct impact on New Testament thinking.

    As a thought: The name "Immanuel" invokes the "EL", the name of the main God that the Hebrews adopted from the Canaanites (along with his wife Asherah and their 70 sons, including Baal).

    It's all mythology built on top of other mythologies.

    Paul's ideas about Jesus are more reflective of the earlier views, and are some 50 years earlier than the ideas created by the writers of "John's" Gospel.


  • Finkelstein

    Both religious sects had their core doctrines set in bullshit theology ie. knowing exactly when Christ would appear and proclaimed when Armageddon would come, but then again both had a religious publishing house operating and selling literature.

  • JoenB75

    The Son can do nothing by himself is not more important than the incredible "whatever the Father does the Son also does." It is found in John 5:19 as well. His revelation bears witness of the Father. But tell how could a creature do the same as the Father? How could all authority be given unto him, how could he be the heir of all things. Jehovah is old light so to speak. I think the new divine revelation is Jesus

  • BluesBrother

    SBF is correct in emphasizing that worship is exclusive to God ( Yahwah, Jehovah, what you will)...

    I do agree , however, and thought so before I left them that the JWs make less of Jesus than is rightly due.

    Jesus is the name they tag onto the prayers, by rote. But they never give any credit to him , even for things that The Bible says have been delegated by God to him.

    Their own teachings say that ,it is Christ's return in kingly power that makes their New World possible. They should be talking about the return of Christ rather than their own sunny oaradise. He will rule for 1000 years so they are his sublects ... but you would never know it,

  • JoenB75
    He is perfect subject in the Org. Imagine being so powerful you created all other things, yet being considered just a good angel. Then being created a second time dying for mankind's sins. Then being created a third time and going back to heaven living in the shadows and only being highlighted in the sense of the greatest servant in the universe and getting approving nods from the JWs.
  • Anna Marina
    Anna Marina

    I just remembered, years ago (in 90s) a bro told me about a talk which said all the angels had probably been involved in creation. He said the different qualities of each creature, plant or whatever, probably reflected qualities of the angel that designed it.

    I had never heard such a view before and just found his expression interesting. But if they were doing talks like that, then Jesus would be relegated to just another angel doing his little bit.

    I never felt comfortable viewing Jesus as the Archangel Michael - I could see their reasoning. Yes of course Jesus would be the head angel. But Jesus is referred to as the Son of God. Even Adam could be referred to as the Son of God but not in the way that Jesus was. Jesus Christ has a very special position.

Share this