Sorry jgnat, that should be Apocalypse Any Day Now, and this time we REALLY mean it.
Time for JW's to make a name change, one of Rutherford few that are left
by run dont walk 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Stephanus
Changing the name is not such a bad idea. I mention the possibility in my Future Fred Diaries - in those the name is changed to Adonai's Witnesses. The reason is simple: these days there are more ex-JWs than current Dubs, an embarrassing fact in anybody's book. Changing the name would mean there are hardly any ex's, therefore they can start with a clean slate without all that apostate baggage. In a decade or so they can start claiming that nobody in "da Troof" ever called themselves JWs!
-
RR
Actually, tyhey should have never been called "Jehovah's Witnessess"
According to Isaiah 62:4 "You shall no longer be termed Forsaken, Nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate; But you shall be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; For the LORD delights in you, And your land shall be married."
-
Elsewhere
Might I suggest the Association of Holy Lies and Exaggerations? Of course they can shorten that to ASS HOLES.
Hello, I'm an Ass Hole and I was just in your neighborhood....
-
OHappyDay
"Jehovah's Witnesses" is just so Old Testament. As Christians, the title "Jesus' Witnesses" would have been better. (Acts 1:8) Jehovah said of Jesus, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him." It is as if Jehovah was stepping back in the shadows, and shining the light upon his Son.
The upshot of bringing Jehovah to the fore instead, is that the WT publications have much to say about Jehovah and little, comparatively to say about Jesus. This is not the way it should be for Christians.
Since "Christians" is the only name given "by divine providence" (Acts 11:26), any other name is presumptuous. And since Jehovah put Jesus in the forefront, to reach back into the Old Testament to find a name for a Christian organization doesn't make sense. (John 3:16)
-
figliodidante
In the tradition of their current name, in which they erroneously accept a mistransliteration of the name of God given in the Masoretic text, I have a few suggestions based on the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), using methods no less legitimate than those used to arrive at "Jehovah's Witnesses":
Allabert's Witnesses -- Praise Allabert!
Jehovah Marvin Godleski's Witnesses-- If not a first name, why not the go for whole shabang?
ASS HOLES (see above post)-- I second that motion.
"YSAJKVOJVJBVSASBJF's Witnesses"-- this last one may be a little confusing, being that it is the product of slapping the limp carcass of a woodchuck repeatedly upon my keyboard.
-
run dont walk
The Soon-ers
-
SYN
Sooners!!!!!!! LMAO! That's brilliant!
-
mizpah
Ohappyday:
I add my "amen" to your observations. Have you noticed how many cults and sects ...even some Fundamentalists....usually appeal to the Old Testament "types" to justify the severity of their faith? Certainly, this has been true in the Watchtower Society. I remember when disfellowshipping action was likened to the "stoning" of a person in ancient Israel. I would hate to think what the Watchtower Society would do if it was the ruling power over us today. I'm sure it would set up an antitype "theocratic system" with rules based on Old Testament precedents. Well, I guess we wouldn't be around long enough to protest.
-
OHappyDay
Yes, mizpah. Another thing the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" does is to make this a "works-based" religion rather than a "faith-based" one. A Witness is only as good as his last hour spent in field service.
Thus, the Witness does not have the certainty of salvation that should come from belief in Jesus Christ. "Working out one's salvation" is equated with time spent in the field, rather than time spent producing the fruits of the spirit.
A Witness must always be "witnessing," otherwise he or she is nothing.