This is the question raised by one of our enemy here in The Philippines. Hoping for your immediate response!

Two points come to mind immediately:

1. Christ spoke in the Father's name, and taught what the Father taught him to teach. Jesus witnessed for his Father. Jesus called himself the "faithful and true witness." (Rev. 1:5; 3:14)

2. At the first Christian council in Jerusalem, it was said that Christians would be a "people for [God's] name." (Acts 15:14)

If Jesus was one of Jehovah's witnesses, and Christians are to be a people for God's Name, it is proper -- indeed, Scripturally necessary -- to call true Christians, "Jehovah's Witnesses."

And don't forget Isaiah 43:10,12


Isaiah 43:10 “YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none.....12 “I myself have told forth and have saved and have caused [it] to be heard, when there was among YOU no strange [god]. So YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I am God.

The purpose of the question is that they wanted to point out that early Christians called by names such as: church of Christ, church of the Lord, church of God, church of the first-born, etc. And these are all names attributed to first century christians. But never they were called Jehovah's Witnesses. Any answers....By the way, thanks for the answers!

http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/2009/07/xx.html


Sherlock

Amos 9:11 In that day I will raise up the tent of David who is fallen, and close up its breaches, and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old;

Amos 9:12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations who are called by my name,” says Jehovah who does this.

Amos prophesied that Christians would be called by Jehovah's name.

And if you need to prove that this scripture is talking about the Christian congregation then you have this:

Act 15:14 Simeon has reported how God first visited the nations, to take out of them a people for his name. "

Act 15:15 This agrees with the words of the prophets. As it is written,"

Act 15:16 ‘After these things I will return. I will again build the tabernacle of David, which has fallen. I will again build its ruins. I will set it up, "

Act 15:17 That the rest of men may seek after the Lord; All the Gentiles who are called by my name, Says the Lord, who does all these things.

Clearly Amos' prophecy is applied to the Christian congregation.

This message was last edited at

One argument people try to employ is to say that Christians should be witnesses of Jesus and not Jehovah.

But being a witnesses of Jesus or Jehovah is not what you are called but what you do.

Jehovah's Witnesses do bear witness to Jesus Christ as well as to Jehovah. So they are also witnesses of Jesus.

This message was deleted at

In the entire realm of Christendom, there's nobody bearing witness to Jesus or Jehovah .....

....because they haven't correctly identified either of them...who either them are, or their purposes.....

that makes it impossible for them to be "a witness" of either...



This message was last edited at

Again, thank you very much with your answers...but is there an evidence or a hint that 1st century christians were called JWs? Thanks

I'm not sure Noel but I doubt it

I've read that the early Christians referred to it as "The Way" much the same way as we call it "The truth"......Recognition of the pronunciation or the "jargon"of a period is meaningless unless it somehow translates or conveys the ACTUAL specific substance of the thought. So if for example "The Way" is used in the same context as we use "The Truth" today ...and it conveys the exact same thing ..then so what?

....and consider - Jehovah hadn't been "confused" with Jesus at that point in history. The early Christians being mostly Jewish knew the difference between the two....from their perspective Jesus was "bearing witness" about his Father and his purposes. So being Jews, whose "witnesses" WOULD they call themselves back then, if they were going to call themselves anybody's witnesses? In fact, at first, why would they think of themselves as anything BUT ... Jews ... that believed that Jesus was the "messiah"? Much like the "bible students" of the mid to late 1800's, thought of themselves as "Christians" that knew that Jesus and Jehovah were not one and the same. At some point the need to distinguish ourselves from "Christendom" in name, needed to convey the main substantive difference, much the same way that it no doubt did in early Christianity. Maybe by calling themselves "Christians" in the 1rst century it conveyed the necessary distincions needed at the time....it certainly carried a much different meaning to the Roman culture and and Jewish society and culture. Much the same way the name "Jehovah's Witness" is viewed today by western culture and modern day "Christendom" in general....

I'd like to "flip" the question and ask others why anyone would think it imperitive to be "called" by the same exact name...or use the exact same lexicon as was in use in the 1rst century. There would be no way to be able to, no matter how hard one tried...


interesting things to think about though...

This message was last edited at

Thanks agrarian. Very informative info.
Actually for us JWs we dont have any problem regarding this. However, here in the Philippines, a lot of religion (Christendom in particular) the title or name of the organization is something very important for salvation.

Now, usually here in the Philippines we use 2 Bible text, Jeremiah 30:20 and Daniel 9:19.

Agape!
Noel

P.S. Beware of religions that originated here in the Philippines, they usually use this tactic.



This message was last edited at