A Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

[Berean]

Jesus is our example to follow, listen to and obey.( that is the meaning of being a christian) He was a Jew thus a Jehovah witness as are all of his followers. One can be witness about both.

But we're not Jewish, so we can't be Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Berean]

Modern Jews are not Jehovah's Witnesses...they don't even mention His name, if someway they even know how it was pronounced in Hebrew. Who thinks that modern Jews can be witnesses to someone they don't even know?

Well, JEHOVAH isn't the name either. You do realize that a Catholic priest came up with that name in the 1500s.

 

[Keiw]

Jesus was JW? Nah, He is God. He warned JW's of the EVERLASTING fire that they reject.

Rev 1:5--who do you think Jesus was a witness about?His Father is the answer=YHVH(Jehovah)

 

[Keiw]

No, you replied to my comment, but not to the initial post by RR

If you have a specific ? ask it.

 

[Keiw]

But we're not Jewish, so we can't be Jehovah's Witnesses.

God never changed. The Jewish served the only true living God, Jesus served the only true living God, Every real follower serves the only true living God.

 

[Wrangler]

Even their name is very deceptive.

How so?

How long do you want to read? Michael is the JW savior, for starters.

Not relevant to your claim that their name is very deceptive.

 

[RedFan]

Well, JEHOVAH isn't the name either. You do realize that a Catholic priest came up with that name in the 1500s.

"The origin of the word Jehovah can be traced to the late Middle Ages (around the year 1500), when Jewish scribes began inserting the vowels from the Hebrew word adonai (“my Lord”) into the name YHWH. The insertion resulted in the hybrid term YaHoWaH. Scribes wanted this new word to remind readers that God’s name was too holy to pronounce, so they should substitute adonah for it when reading biblical passages aloud. Then, when the term YaHoWaH was Latinized, the “Y” and “W” were changed to “J” and “V”—resulting in Jehovah. In other words, Jehovah is a mistransliteration, compounded by the fact that, while “J” has a “Y” sound in Latin, it has a very different sound in English—as in the word jam. Jehovah appears in no literature earlier than about the thirteenth century, and it began to be popularized in the sixteenth century by well-meaning but mistaken Christians."

-- Richard Abanes, The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code

 

[Keiw]

Well, JEHOVAH isn't the name either. You do realize that a Catholic priest came up with that name in the 1500s.

Gods name in Hebrew-YHVH--In the language our bible is written in is Jehovah. That Catholic priest is full of ----, Just like that religion.

 

[Berean]

Gods name in Hebrew-YHVH--In the language our bible is written in is Jehovah. That Catholic priest is full of ----, Just like that religion.

YAHWEH is the closes to the original name

 

[Cassandra]

I just call the LORD Father, but there is a gentleman by the name of Nehemiah Gordon, who is a Pharisee, (truly) book author, and he believes he has found very early documents which gives God's name pronounced as Yehovah.

Yehovah Research Update (2018) - Hebrew Voices - NehemiasWall.com

A brief update on our research on Yehovah in ancient Hebrew manuscripts, interesting anomalies we found, and Yehovah with full vowels in the New Testament.

www.nehemiaswall.com

 

[Runningman]

This is a summary of the testimony of Geoffrey Jackson, a member of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, before Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse on 14th August 2015.

While under oath, Governing Body member, Geoffrey Jackson was asked by Australia’s Angus Stewart: “Do you see yourselves as Jehovah God’s spokespeople on earth?” Jackson answered as follows:

As a body the JWs are more along the lines of being on the right track than the Catholics or Protestants. Someone wouldn't be wrong for joining the JWs, but as going as far as to say they are the definitive spokespeople for God, I don't know, but then again that would be a better question to ask God if one were so inclined.

 

[Keiw]

YAHWEH is the closes to the original name

They are not sure if its YHWH or YHVH.

 

[Jack]

If Michael was the prince of Daniel's people before Christ, like the angel said Daniel here:

Dan. 10:21 However, I will tell you the things recorded in the writings of truth. There is no one strongly supporting me in these things but Michael, your prince.

... what is the problem with him also being, under the name of Jesus, the King of the new nation of God?

Dan. 12:1 “During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.

Daniel 12:1 refers to true Christians as modern "Daniel's people", not modern Jews.

God COMMANDED Michael to worship Jesus! Heb 1 Let all God's angels worship him.

 

[Jack]

As a body the JWs are more along the lines of being on the right track than the Catholics or Protestants. Someone wouldn't be wrong for joining the JWs, but as going as far as to say they are the definitive spokespeople for God, I don't know, but then again that would be a better question to ask God if one were so inclined.

That might be the worst mistake of their lives.

 

[Jack]

Rev 1:5--who do you think Jesus was a witness about?His Father is the answer=YHVH(Jehovah)

Well yeah, but Jesus is still God.

 

[Jack]

Not relevant to your claim that their name is very deceptive.

Having the right Savior, Jesus, is the most important thing in the Bible. Michael is not the Savior.

 

[Wrangler]

Having the right Savior, Jesus, is the most important thing in the Bible. Michael is not the Savior.

Agreed. Just has nothing to do with their very name being deceptive.

I don't get the passion for bashing denominations who have theological differences with. To paraphrase the great Thomas Jefferson, that JW's beliee Michael is the preincarnate Messiah, it neither breaks my bones nor picks my pocket.

 

[Jack]

Agreed. Just has nothing to do with their very name being deceptive.

I don't get the passion for bashing denominations who have theological differences with. To paraphrase the great Thomas Jefferson, that JW's beliee Michael is the preincarnate Messiah, it neither breaks my bones nor picks my pocket.

Michael is an angel. God COMMANDED His angels to worship Jesus. All the diff in the world. Michael worships Jesus.

 

[marks]

Revelation 1:5 KJV
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

The claim is Michael was Jesus for the sake of living and dying, and then returned to being Michael, however, in the Revelation, which we are specifically commanded not to add to or take away from, the Faithful Witness declares He is Jesus. Not Michael.

So who will you believe?

Much love!

 

[Runningman]

That might be the worst mistake of their lives.

Well, the same could be said of anyone. Christianity is so divided on perspective that one person's heretic is another person's saint across the board.