'I'm confused Vic; they seem to think they are?'
Indeed they do, or at least they want others to think that they are, but using the name Jesus in a different context to that which is considered to be orthodox doesn't make you Christian and more than using Man U as a focus for ridicule makes you their supporter. But the 'Christian' claim adds, or at least attempts to add, some integrity and implicit value to a bunch of (albeit nice) people who are not, as I understand it actually Christian.
I used to have a number of friends who talked of the bloke who started the thing off some 150 years hence and was quite impressed by some of their stuff, it all started to go wrong when I read about him flooding 'miracle wheat' what wasn't- in fact it was a bit of a scam and, if I recall correctly, he was found guilty of being just a bit dodgy!
But let's no dwell in ad hominem but look at what they believe - and here it might help if we had a look at the Creed, for this is surely a benchmark document. Here we find that the Witnesses focus entirely on Jehovah (the name sort of gives it away) - just one God (without the other two persons of the Trinity) and I have a recollection somewhere that Jesus and the archangel Michael are viewed as being one and he same. I also recall a quite interesting conversation with a friend over the lack of a cross with Jesus (my witness friend called it a 'torture stake') because they deny it was the way Jesus died (so no crosses either).
Mind you, Christian bits aside, there is a great belief that the first 144,000 faithful Witnesses make it into heaven with Jesus (useful to include Him, helps to confirm the 'Christian' label) and after that, the rest end up on Earth doing the gardening (so that's a religion that would work for my Wife's Dad - Tony's Grandad)!
They tend to use The New World Translation (NWT) because it's a version that they translated from all the original texts; and yet oddly it is apparently at odd with the versions I have on my shelf in a number of places. I have always been most taken up with John 1 which tells me: 'In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.' But I find the NWT leads me to think that 'the Word was a god' and that's a big difference that supports the non-Trinitarian stance.
There's much that others point to regarding them (the Witnesses) but this (on both sides, the claims and the ridicule), stuff that is subsidiary and resides in the shadows behind the major errors - mind you they do think Jesus returned some hundred years back and this is why it's all gone Pete Tong since (was told that by a lovely bloke peddling magazines in Lichfield just after Easter - good to have no dogcollar some days!).
I guess I'll leave this short explanation as to the reasons I don't see Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian with a 'word from my sponsor' - remaining in John, this time in chapter 14:
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?
Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."
I hope this provides some explanation to your question.
