Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a Protestant Religion?

they differ from Protestant religions in many significant ways. In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion refers to Jehovah’s Witnesses as being “distinctive.” Consider three ways in which they are different.

First, although Protestant faiths reject certain features of Catholic worship, Reformation leaders retained certain Catholic dogmas, such as belief in the Trinity, hellfire, and the immortality of the human soul. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, believe that those doctrines not only contradict the Bible but also promote a distorted view of God.—See Exposed: Six Myths About Christianity.

Second, the religion that Jehovah’s Witnesses advocate is, not one of negative protest, but one of positive instruction. They take seriously the Bible’s counsel: “A servant of the Lord is not to engage in quarrels, but has to be kind to everyone, a good teacher, and patient. He has to be gentle when he corrects people who dispute what he says.” (2 Timothy 2:24, 25, The Jerusalem Bible) Jehovah’s Witnesses do point out contradictions between what the Bible says and what many religious groups teach. Yet, their goal in doing so is not to reform other religious organizations. Rather, their goal is to help sincere individuals to gain accurate knowledge of God and of his Word, the Bible. (Colossians 1:9, 10) When people of other persuasions insistently disagree with them, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid engaging in fruitless debates.—2 Timothy 2:23.

Third, unlike the Protestant movement, which has splintered into hundreds of denominations, Jehovah’s Witnesses have maintained a united global brotherhood. When it comes to Bible doctrine, Jehovah’s Witnesses in over 230 countries follow the apostle Paul’s counsel to “speak in agreement.” There are no divisions among them. Instead, they are genuinely “united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10) They strive within their own ranks “to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace.”—Ephesians 4:3.

“I may not understand it, but I must obey it if I am to remain in subjection to God’s authority on the matter.”

I was just telling my daughter that - that there are a lot of things in the Bible that are hard to believe. And yes, sometimes I have a doubt planted that wonders if they are just “stories”. And in some sense they may be told in layman’s terms as they didn’t even have the proper knowledge to fully comprehend what had been revealed to them. (I’m thinking of the Creation story primarily there).

But I told her, as hard as some of them are to understand - the one that is just as - or even most difficult to understand is - that our God came to live on this sinful earth, struggle through life for 30+ years, then preach His gospel, get persecuted and crucified, and then resurrected.

I figure if I can believe that, and by faith and my life’s experiences know that it is true, I can believe everything else in the Bible as well. (Although I still have some doubts on some of them - like that 3 days in the fish, etc.)

You'll have to be a bit more specific about the connection with the meaning of “eikon” and “charakter”.

It was probably the Hebrew 1:3 reference with the others as variations on the theme.

Again, Elizabeth's declaration, in the context of her being the wife of a Jewish priest, that her cousin Mary was the mother of her Lord is a straightforward declaration at the very beginning of the gospel of Luke that Jesus was Immanuel, God with us, Yahweh, the God of Israel born into human flesh, tabernacling, so to speak, amongst his people as a human (John 1) as he had once dwelt amongst them as a presence in and over the tabernacle in the wilderness (Leviticus 16), now become the image of the invisible God (Colossians), the exact representation of his being (Hebrews), God taking on a human body (I Timothy) and, as Jesus said to Philip who asked him to show him the Father, "Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?. (John14)"

It's taken for granted that God by definition is self-existent. Notice what Jesus says about his own nature in the passage below. Also note, in the context of why the Jewish leaders were trying to kill him--his claimed equality with God--his repeated underscoring of this by his use of equivalencies with respect to the Father. Jesus caps it all with a reference to the resurrection and final judgment which was understood by those who were plotting to kill him as something that was going to be effected by Yahweh and claims that it will be at the sound of his voice that the dead will be raised and upon his authority that the good and evil will be judged. This was also a slam against the Sadducees who claimed there was no resurrection: "Yeah, there is. And I'm the one whose going to do it and I'm going to judge you!"

It's actually a pretty funny scene, because just as he did at the healing of the paralytic, he took what was in their hearts and acknowledged it publicly--"Yeah, you're right, who can forgive sins but God alone" and went on to rub their noses in it again and again and again. He didn't say, "Oh, I'm sorry for having given you the impression that I was claiming equality with God. I am but a demiurge."
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.
John 5

These were, no doubt, the same ones that accused Jesus of being a drunk and demon possessed.
But Jesus made no declaration of equality with God here.

The ability to resurrect and judge, Jesus says is an ability given to him by God, a grant, something Jesus did not have until it was given him. Jesus does not act on his own initiative but as was granted him.

In fact, Jesus adds that having life in himself was a gift, a possession given him from God, not something Jesus already had.

So in everything there quoted Jesus is saying he is in a subservient position to his Father. Jesus’ ability to resurrect, to judge, to have life in himself, to work on the sabbath...all these are grants or gifts given him, something he doesn't possesse until they are given him.

John's words about Christ reflect just what Paul said about “eikon” and “charakter”, it shows what something is like, an image, picture, a likeness like an engraving, not the same as or equal to the thing represented.

There in those verses from John you quote you'll note that it was Jesus’ enemies that made an accusation that Jesus was making himself equal to the Father by Jesus saying he was doing what his Father had been doing all along, working, “My has kept working and I keep working”.

You didn't see what Jesus did to reinforce that he considered himself exactly what they had said about him. He said that they should honor him in the same way they honor the Father. True, these things like raising the dead and judging everyone are things given him. That doesn't mean that at one point Jesus or the Son of God did not have them and then at another point he did. They are offices that pertain to who he is. Like the firstborn from the dead and the firstborn over all creation. The latter doesn't mean he was created first before the rest of creation but that he has preeminence and authority over all creation. This point is hammered again and again throughout the gospels and the various letters. The other, JW idea, that Jesus was a demiurge, is nowhere to be found. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

Again, to draw you back to something both you and the other guy never focus on: Elizabeth, the wife of a Jewish priest, acknowledged that Mary was the mother of her Lord. The only Lord for a Jewish priest was Yahweh, maker of heaven and earth, the king of the universe, the one who delivered their people from Egypt, who gave Moses the law, who established his covenant with Abraham and later with the other patriarchs. You just cannot get around that.

When you quote:

“... as Jesus said to Philip who asked him to show him the Father, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?. (John14)”

Was Jesus claiming to be the Father, God the Father, Yahweh? The Father in the flesh?
Or did Jesus say he was the son of the Father, one who demonstrated what his father was like? An “eikon” or “charakter”?

As Jesus said back in John 5,

“And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape” (John 5:37) “shape”, “form”, “eidos”, that which the eye perceives.

But I have a question that may be pertinent to Lev. 16 and the Shekinah light:

When Moses approached the burning bush did God speak to Moses or did an angel speak to Moses?

As you say:
“He said that they should honor him in the same way they honor the Father”.

In the preceding verses Jesus says the reason judging ability was given him was in order that all may honor him just as they honor the Father. It is the same principle Jesus set forth in saying that how one treats his brothers is how he is being treated. We recognize that principle today, that how a representitive is treated is how the one that sent them is being treated as in a country's ambassador.

You said:
“True, these things like raising the dead and judging everyone are things given him. That doesn't mean that at one point Jesus or the Son of God did not have them and then at another point he did”.

What? That is the sense of the term “given”, something passes from one to another. If Jesus already had the ability to judge and resurrect how and why would such be given him? No, that grant or given here doesn't mean grant or given just makes no sense in any language.

“Again, to draw you back to something both you and the other guy never focus on: Elizabeth, the wife of a Jewish priest, acknowledged that Mary was the mother of her Lord.”

Yes, let's..before I have demi urge of some kind, maybe a mega urge too.

I assume a Jewish priest would be familiar with Psalm 110.
According to the NAB, vs. 1 says,

“The LORD says to you, my lord, “Take your throne at my right hand while I make your enemies your footstool”.

One is Yahweh, the other the Messiah. The two are not the same. You remember Jesus’ question at Matt. 22:43?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.