Is Jesus Jehovah? Ask the New World “Translation” (part three)

Christians may find it difficult to testify of the truth to members of the cult which calls themselves “Jehovah’s Witnesses.”  The cult has its own “translation” of the Bible which changes important verses to support their false teaching.  These posts give verses we can use which, even in the “Jehovah’s Witness” translation, show the errors of the cult.

Previous Posts

The cult teaches rightly that God’s name is Jehovah, but wrongly that Jesus is not Jehovah, not God.  Thus, they do not witness to the true Jehovah, the great Three-in-One described in Scripture, but rather to a Jehovah constructed from a misunderstanding of the Bible and from their own thinking.  Their New World “Translation” changes key verses showing Jesus is Jehovah, one with the Father.

In part one we looked at the dishonesty of this mistranslation and the difficulty of trying to speak about the Lord to someone in this cult because of it.  But we also saw that even their “version” shows Jesus as THE one true Shepherd, the owner of the sheep — and also shows Jehovah as the true Shepherd, thus demonstrating that Jesus is Jehovah.

In part two we looked at Psalm 110 in the New World “Translation,” which says that Jesus, on the throne with the Father, is “at the right hand” but in verse five names the One at the right hand as Jehovah.  Thus, Jesus is clearly named as Jehovah, just as the Father is.

How Many Names?

Matthew 28:19 (New World “Translation”)

Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,

This is quite simple.  This instruction to baptise is accurately translated by the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” (though they wrongly dishonour the Holy Spirit by using lower-case).

The verse does not say to baptise in the “names” but the “Name.”  It directly links that Name to each of three Beings with the words “of the.”  “Of the Son” and “of the Holy Spirit” can refer only to that same “Name.”   Jesus could have said “names” but He didn’t — “name” is singular, which tells us the Three all have the same Name.

Any “Jehovah’s Witness” can tell you — the Father’s Name is Jehovah, and Jesus makes clear that His Name is also Jehovah (as is the Spirit’s).  When born, He was given another Name, Jesus (as Saviour), and He was also called Lord, Christ, and Immanuel.  But His name before birth, through all eternity, always was and remains Jehovah.

Side note:  The reference to only one name in this passage helps explain why there is no contradiction with Acts 2:38 and 19:5, where baptism is in the name of Jesus.  When we baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) we baptise in a single name.  To baptise in the name of the Three is to baptise in the name of One of the Three, as well.  Thus there is no contradiction between a passage that says to baptise in the name of all Three and a passage that says to baptise in the name of One of the Three.

The “Jehovah’s Witnesses” have no explanation for the difference between Matthew and Acts, but the fact that Father, Son, and Spirit are One and bear the same Name removes any confusion.

Question for “Jehovah’s Witnesses”:  Were you baptised in one name, or in three names?  Why does your own translation say that the Name of the Father is also the Name of the Son and the Holy Spirit?

Refuting Error

I’ll have one more post on this, but I want to mention an article refuting “Jehovah’s Witness” errors by Glenn Chatfield.  Those who deny the doctrine which has come to be known as “The Trinity” will dispute parts of his post, but the volume of evidence is overwhelming.  His post also refers to Matthew 28:19.

I won’t do many series like this on cults.  Sites like Glenn’s are very useful for this.  If I need to research a group that teaches serious error, Glenn often has them on his side bar with at least some information.  He seems careful to get it right — whether one agrees with his assessments or not, his facts are generally accurate.  A site called “The Watchman’s Bagpipes” can’t be all bad, can it? 🙂 Especially since you don’t actually have to hear them!  (Just joking, pipe lovers!)

Next: Jesus is Jehovah Creator

About Jon Gleason

Pastor of Free Baptist Church of Glenrothes
This entry was posted in Rightly Dividing and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Is Jesus Jehovah? Ask the New World “Translation” (part three)

  1. Hi Jon,
    Wow – thanks for the recommend!

    For those who haven’t read my blog – or at least about my testimony – the reason I became interested in exposing the cults is because I was once a Mormon. When I became a Christian, my first desire was to reach the Mormons. And then I met some Jehovah’s Witnesses at the door, and they seemed so odd with the ideas they were telling me that I determined to study about them also. And from there it just kept building until I had a ministry teaching about cults and false teachers.

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Hi, Glenn. Funny thing about the Mormons. As I understand it, they teach that Elohim in the Old Testament (typically translated as “God”) is the Father, and Jehovah is the Son. So they affirm that Jesus is Jehovah, but still say He is separate from the Father, while the JWs deny that Jesus is Jehovah.

      Both split the unity of God, just in different (and contradictory) ways. So the verses that we can use to refute the JW errors, the Mormons would often applaud, since they show that Jesus is Jehovah.

      For them, Isaiah 45:6 is awkward, where Jehovah says there is no Elohim beside Him, that there is none else.

      There really is no way to accept all the truths of Scripture other than to acknowledge a Unity of Three, with both distinction between the Three and union that is beyond our limited human understanding. As the cultists will readily tell us, the word “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture, but the doctrine which it describes is completely Biblical.

  2. Yes, the Mormons have three gods, which conflicts with the JW’s “two” gods, both of which conflict with other cults – all who claim to have the truth. I think the real Christian faith is so much simpler!

  3. UK Fred says:

    Thanks for this series, Jon.

    I plan to send the links to each of these posts, and also to Glenn’s site to one of the members of the Bible Study Group who keeps getting visited by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I think I know why they miss our house when they come down our road, these days. I’d dearly love them to visit when we were having a group social, because that *would* be fun.

  4. Pingback: Jehovah’s Witness Members – Why are they so hard to reach? | Jlue’s Weblog

  5. Chris says:

    The fact that “name” is singular at Matt. 28:19 is only further proof that “authority” or “power” was meant and not a personal name. If more than one person is involved, then the plural “names” would be used (compare Rev. 21:12). Even trinitarians admit that their God is composed of 3 separate persons. And each one of those “persons” has his own personal name (except, as we have seen, the holy spirit really does not)! Therefore, if personal names were intended here for these three different “persons,” the plural “names” would have been used in this Scripture.

    Since it clearly means “in recognition of the power, or authority of,” it is perfectly correct to use “name” in the singular. In fact, it must be used that way. We even recognize this in our own language today. We say, for example, “I did it in the name [singular] of love, humanity, and justice.”

    It is significant that Scriptures show that the personal name of God and the personal name of Christ are two distinctly separate names. It is also significant that there is no mention in the entire Bible of any personal name for the holy spirit.

    If Jesus were really saying that Jehovah, Jesus, and the holy spirit had personal names and these names must be used during baptism, he would have used the plural word “names” at Matt. 28:19. And we would see the Father’s personal name (“Jehovah” – Is. 63:16; 64:8 – Ps. 83:18 and Luke 1:32 – Exodus 3:15 and Acts 3:13) and the Son’s personal name (“Jesus” – Luke 1:31, 32) and the holy spirit’s personal name (“?”) all being used in Christian baptism ceremonies for the past 1900 years.

    In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian “evidence” for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian “proofs”! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity!

    • Chris,
      I find that passage just part of a voluminous amount of biblical evidence for the Trinity. I suggest you look at the link Jon gives for my article about the Trinity proven by logic.

      • Chris says:

        I have. Jesus is not God according to his own words at John 17:3 where he said that his father is the only true god.

      • Jesus was referring to God the Father. CONTEXT.

        In John 8:58-59 Jesus called himself “I AM” — it was understood by the Jews that he was claiming to be God because they picked up stones to stone him.

        In John 8:24 he said that “Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.” You must believe that he is God or you will die in your sins.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Chris, you can’t set one verse against another. All are true. The Father is the only true God, but Jesus and the Father are One. So Jesus is the only true God as well, as even the New World “Translation” says in multiple places.

        Jesus did not say “names” in Matthew 28:19 because the one true God, though Three in One, yet has one name — Jehovah.

        Your explanation is bizarre. You are saying that the authority and power of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is one, but they are not One?

        If, as Jehovah’s “Witnesses” teach, the Holy Spirit is not a Person at all, how does the Spirit have any authority or power?

        Why, according to your teaching, is the authority of Jesus and the authority of Jehovah linked together in this verse?

        The Holy Spirit is Jehovah. Note that David attributes his Psalms to the Spirit of Jehovah, II Samuel 23:2. Peter attributes them to the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:16).

        Those who follow the Jehovah’s “Witnesses” teaching tend to do two things, and we see them both here.

        1) They tend to set one Scripture against another, rather than find the explanation that fits all of Scripture. The only explanation that fits the whole testimony of Scripture is a God Who is Three in One.

        2) They tend to emphasise the name of Jehovah except when it creates a problem for them. Thus, “name” in Matthew 28:19 becomes not really “name” but authority. “Jehovah” when attributed to the Spirit is not really attributed to Him. When John says He is the forerunner of Jehovah, suddenly it isn’t talking about the One whose way John came to prepare.

  6. Chris says:

    1). You just used faulty logic. You stated “Yes the father is the only true God and Jesus is one with the father so Jesus is the one true God too”. Why would this verse say the father specifically. Jesus is not the father he is the son therefore not the one true God.

    2.) For example: “My Father is greater than I” – John 14:28And Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” (“who alone art truly God”! – NEB) – John 17:3. And Jesus’ Father is the God of Jesus – John 20:17 and Rev. 3:12. 1 Cor. 11:3 tells us that Jesus is head over the men of the Christian congregation (they are certainly not equal to him), and in a like manner, God is head over Jesus. Obviously they are not “one” in the same sense of being “equally God” as trinitarians insist.

    3). Yes Jesus and God are one. But John 17:22 says that he prays that the apostles be as one as they are one. Does this mean they will be one in nature or be one apostle? No it means one in agreement and purpose. God is always referred to as the father (1 Cor 8:6). John 17:3 says that Jesus called the Father the only true God why did he not include himself in this? And where is the Holy Spirit in this? Don’t don’t give that typical lame excuse stating that we’ll this is in human form here and God here. Jesus wouldn’t tell us something that only pertains to his 33 years. He told us eternal truth. God is not three. God is one (Deut 6:4). The bible says that “There is one God and one mediator between God and man a man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5). Even after his ascension to heaven the father is the only God. And Jesus mediates for God and man. He is not God. He is the Son of God. Not God the Son.

    And for your John 10:1

    • Jon Gleason says:

      No one disputes that there are distinctions between the Father and the Son, including distinction of authority. No one except heretical modalists claim that Jesus is the Father. No one teaches that the Holy Spirit should appear in every passage discussing these matters, since He does not speak of Himself, but of Christ (John 16:13-14).

      When you argue these things, you affirm the Christian doctrine of the Tri-unity of God. If you think these things refute that doctrine, it just shows you don’t understand it.

  7. lyn says:

    Do read this, from Hebrews 1:8, ” but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Christ is called ‘God’ here by God Himself. He is the exact equal to and of the Father, as we see in Hebrews 1:3, ” who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” All false religions deny the deity of Christ.
    Back to verse 8, John Gill states “Deity is here ascribed to the Son of God; he is expressly called God”.
    Matthew Henry’s commentary is equally worthy of sharing, “Thy throne, O God. Here one person calls another person God, O God. And, if God the Father declares him to be so, he must be really and truly so; for God calls persons and things as they are. And now let who will deny him to be essentially God at their peril, but let us own and honour him as God; for, if he had not been God, he had never been fit to have done the Mediator’s work nor to have worn the Mediator’s crown. Secondly, God declares his dignity and dominion, as having a throne, a kingdom, and a sceptre of that kingdom. He has all right, rule, authority, and power, both as the God of nature, grace, and glory, and as Mediator; and so he is fully adequate to all the intents and purposes of his mediatorial kingdom. Thirdly, God declares the eternal duration of the dominion and dignity of Christ, founded upon the divinity of his person: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, from everlasting to everlasting, through all the ages of time, maugre all the attempts of earth and hell to undermine and overthrow it, and through all the endless ages of eternity, when time shall be no more. This distinguishes Christ’s throne from all earthly thrones, which are tottering, and will at length tumble down; but the throne of Christ shall be as the days of heaven. Fourthly, God declares of Christ the perfect equity of his administration, and of the execution of his power, through all the parts of his government: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom, Heb_1:8. He came righteously to the sceptre, and he uses it in perfect righteousness; the righteousness of his government proceeds from the righteousness of his person, from an essential eternal love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity, not merely from considerations of prudence or interest, but from an inward and immovable principle: Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity, Heb_1:9. Christ came to fulfil all righteousness, to bring in an everlasting righteousness; and he was righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works. He has recommended righteousness to men, and restored it among them, as a most excellent and amiable thing. He came to finish transgression, and to make an end of sin as a hateful as well as hurtful thing. Fifthly, God declares of Christ how he was qualified for the office of Mediator, and how he was installed and confirmed in it”.
    Christ is God the Son, for surely God’s word is true – “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.

    If God the Father calls God the Son ‘God’, who are you, oh man, to say otherwise?

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Yes, Hebrews 1:8 is compelling, thanks Lyn. So also is Hebrews 1:6, since only Jehovah is to be worshiped. Unfortunately, the NWT messed with Hebrews 1:6, but the Greek word is the same they translate “worship” elsewhere.

      Yes, Jesus is to be worshiped, and He is called God by the Father Himself.

      • Chris says:

        However, there is more evidence, evidence which shows not only that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but, indeed, should be so translated!

        Notice the context. Heb. 1:8 and 1:9 are being quoted from Ps. 45:6 and 45:7. In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite King, it says: “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” – RSV. Just as this makes it clear that the ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, his God, to a position above his fellows, so does Heb. 1:9, as figuratively applied to Jesus, show that he is not God, but was anointed by his God to a position above his fellows! Context, then, shows that the person addressed in Heb. 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God!

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Again (your 8:28 reply), you misunderstand the Tri-unity of God. Jesus became fully human (Hebrews 2). He pre-existed as Spirit but became a man. Thus, He did indeed have “fellows” for He became like us that we might be His brethren. The fact that Jesus was anointed above His fellows in no way lessens His divinity.

      • Chris says:

        So what if it’s a click and paste. Doesn’t deny the validity if it’s content. Its backed up with references and scriptures usually when people are proven incorrect they tend to attack things as a click and paste or attract the grammar of person speaking or call it propaganda. If the information is valid why would I need to summarize when it’s done.

      • Chris says:

        Jesus didn’t create everything.

        American Std Vs

        ” All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.”

        Sort of like my custom built
        Home is my creation even though I hired construction workers to do it

      • Jesus didn’t create everything.

        Try Colossians 1:16
        “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” NIV

        “For by him all things were created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible an invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” KJV

        “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him.” NAS

        “by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him.” Darby

        I have numerous other English translations all saying essentially the same thing, BUT The NWT, without any manuscript support, changes this passage as follows so as to support the false teachings of the JW:
        “by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.”

        This is rank dishonesty so as to prop up false teachings.

      • Chris says:

        Jesus is not the creator the bible affirm this at John 1:3. I will use the NIV. “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Through him. The creation is the fathers alone. Colossians 1:6 says that all things were made “by” him. Or by means of him. By means by means of because as John 1:3 says they were made through him.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        If “by” means instrumentality, and Jesus was not really the Creator but a mere instrument, then what does “by” mean in Jude 1 where we are sanctified “by” (same Greek word) God the Father? Is He just an instrument of sanctification or is He the sanctifier?

        Trying to build an argument based on the word “by” is going to fail. It is interesting that this group used to call Jesus “the created creator.” Now, they’ve moved to denying Him as creator at all, I guess. Still doesn’t solve the “by myself” problem.

      • Chris says:

        “By” means by means of. Everything was created by him. And other verses use the Greek word dia. So we must harmonize when all the other verses say “through him”

        But hey. I’m responding to your 1-4. So give me some time. It may not be until after Kingdom Hall

      • Jon Gleason says:

        No, Chris, Jude 1 that I cited does not use dia. It uses “en” just like the verse you are discussing.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        OK, in the interest of fairness, I want to clear this up. Glenn referred to Colossians 1:16, which says “by Him (Jesus) were all things created.” That verse uses the Greek preposition “en” for “by.”

        Chris argued that “by” means merely instrumentality. He referred to John 1:3, which uses a different Greek word, dia, often translated “through”.

        I cited Jude 1 as an example where “by” using “en” is clearly NOT instrumentality. That verse says we are sanctified by (en) the Father.

        Therefore, you cannot argue instrumentality in Colossians 1:16 based solely on the word “by” (en), as Chris did.

        Anyway, Chris was right that John 1:3 uses dia. I do not want to leave this thread with the perception that Chris was lying about dia/en. He just obviously misunderstood the point I was making, and was using John 1:3 to make a point about Colossians 1:16 that it does not make. The fact that Scripture portrays Christ in one verse as the Creator and in another as the instrument of the Father in creation is not a problem for us — it fits entirely with the Trinitarian understanding of Biblical teaching.

        For Jehovah’s Witnesses, they take the verses which speak of instrumentality (showing the Father’s role) and reinterpret the others to be saying exactly the same thing. Actually, those verses reveal different facets of the working of the Triune Jehovah.

    • Chris says:

      1 Corinthians 8:6 says only the father is God. If Jesus is not the father then he is not God. Easy!!

      Hebrews 1:8 “Thy throne, O God”
      HEB. 1:8 – Some trinitarians insist that Hebrews 1:8 which is addressing Jesus Christ (and Ps. 45:6 which it is quoting) must read: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever.”

      However, many trinitarian scholars freely admit the honest possibility of alternate, non-trinitarian interpretations and renderings for this verse.

      Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated as it is in the NWT makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid! Even famed Southern Baptist New Testament Greek scholar and trinitarian Dr. A. T. Robertson (who is even willing to sometimes go to ridiculous – and often provably wrong – lengths to support trinitarian “proof texts”) admits:

      “It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [`your throne, O God’] … or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (‘is’) understood: `God is thy throne’ or `Thy throne is God.’ Either makes good sense.” – p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

      We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for Ps. 45:6:

      “45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.'” – Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible.

      And we have the statement by one of the greatest scholars of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6 [or 45:7 in some Bibles],

      “thy throne shall be a divine throne.” – #433.

      Obviously, then, the charge sometimes made that the NWT is “not being honest or scholarly” with its rendering of Heb. 1:8 is simply untrue, and it certainly may be honestly translated “God is your throne forever.”

      However, there is more evidence, evidence which shows not only that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but, indeed, should be so translated!

      Notice the context. Heb. 1:8 and 1:9 are being quoted from Ps. 45:6 and 45:7. In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite King, it says: “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” – RSV. Just as this makes it clear that the ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, his God, to a position above his fellows, so does Heb. 1:9, as figuratively applied to Jesus, show that he is not God, but was anointed by his God to a position above his fellows! Context, then, shows that the person addressed in Heb. 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God!

      The renowned trinitarian Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, wrote:

      “The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (`thy throne, O God, …. therefore, O God, thy God…’) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (`God is Thy throne,’ or `Thy throne is God…’), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (`Therefore God, even Thy God…’) …. It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX [Septuagint]. Thus on the whole it seems BEST to adopt in the first clause the rendering: `God is thy throne’ (or, `Thy throne is God’), that is, `Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.'” – The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.
      For much more evidence that Heb. 1:8 is properly rendered “God is your throne” see the HEB study paper.

      A. Translations of Heb. 1:8 by trinitarians:

      “God is your throne” – AT (Dr. Goodspeed)
      “God is thy throne” – Mo (Dr. James Moffatt)
      “God is your throne” – Byington
      “God is your throne” – Dr. Barclay
      “God is thy throne” – Dr. Westcott
      “God is thy throne” – A. T. Robertson (Alternate translation)
      “God is thy throne” – Dr. Young (Alt.)
      “God is thy throne” – RSV (Alt.)
      “God is your throne” – NRSV (Alt.)
      “God is thy throne” – NEB (Alt.)
      “Thy throne is God” – ASV (Alt.)

      B. Translations of Ps. 45:6 by trinitarians:

      “Your Divine throne” – RSV
      “Your throne is like God’s throne” – NEB
      “God is your throne” – Byington
      “The kingdom that God has given you” – GNB
      “God has enthroned you” – REB
      “Your throne is from God” – NJB
      “Your throne is a throne of God” – NRSV (Alt.)
      “Thy throne is the throne of God” – ASV (Alt.)

      Yes, again, even the trinitarian (and Bowman-approved) Dr. Goodspeed renders this the very same as the NWT:

      “God is your throne forever and ever”

      So, again, how is it that the NWT is to be condemned for its “dishonesty,” “bias,” etc. when the much-acclaimed (and Bowman-approved) trinitarian scholar Dr. Goodspeed (and many others) renders it the same?

      • Jon Gleason says:

        This is obviously a cut-and-paste from Jehovah’s “Witness” propaganda.

        First, it appeared within minutes of my clearing Lyn’s comment — couldn’t have been composed that fast. Second, it speaks of the NWT being condemned for “dishonesty” and “bias” when Lyn’s comment made no such charges against the NWT on Hebrews 1:8.

        Just saying.

        Yes, the Greek could theoretically be rendered as the NWT has it in Hebrews 1:8. It doesn’t work because of the context. Jesus is identified as the Creator, as the One who upholds all things by the word of His power. It is Jehovah that created ALONE as I already noted and to which you can’t respond. He is the One who upholds the earth (Neh. 9:6, Psalm 75:3). Jesus purged our sins by Himself (Hebrews 1:3), yet Jehovah is our Redeemer (Isaiah 44:24 and many other passages in Isaiah).

        If Jesus is not Jehovah, then Jehovah misled us by specifically saying that He alone possesses many attributes which the Bible also tells us Jesus possesses. And there are many of these in Hebrews 1. Verses 10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27, which is speaking to Jehovah, yet Hebrews 1 says it is speaking to Jesus.

        In context, the NWT rendering of Hebrews 1:8 simply doesn’t fit. Everything else here is telling of His deity.

        I do condemn the NWT for dishonesty in its mistranslation of Hebrews 1:6.

      • I’d like to point out also that in John 20:28 Thomas called Jesus “My Lord and my God.” Literally, “the Lord of me and the God of me”

    • Chris says:

      God didn’t call Jesus God oh man to exalt him to so. Jesus is the Son. Jesus called the father “the only true God” (John 17:3). And the bible says “There is one God the father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). But you say there is one God Father And Son”. You add to scriptures.

    • Chris says:

      Jon- The bible directly says who
      god is. 1 Cor 8:6- only the father is God.

      1 Tim 2:5- Jesus Mediates for God and man. Not Father and man. So here only the father is God.

      John 17:3- Jesus called God the only true god.

      Psalms 110:1- Jesus sits next to God.

      The scriptures I give are clear cut. Trinitarians require hopping scriptures and citing mistranslated ones like Zec 12:10 where it says “me” when the hebrew says Him. To say Jehovah is Jesus.

      Trinitarian create Hypostases and all these theories and analogies like water being ice steam and liquid. Or an egg is yoke egg white and shell.

      Trinitarians read assumption like “Let us make man in our own image” (Genesis 1:26) while ignoring that through the rest of the bible God is a Him and a He. The very next verse says “HE created them and in HIS image”.

      The verse y’alls quotes are weak and have to have a Trinitarian mind to be able to see it.

      Like I had one Trinitarian tell me “Holy Holy Holy is Jehovah God almighty.”(Rev 4:8). “see how holy is used three times to show the trinity”. My respond is “are you freaking kidding me.” That’s your logic.

      Or Jesus said “I am” and Jehovah said “I Am” so Jesus is Jehovah. Well the apostle said “I am” is he God too?
      (Gal 4:12)

      Trinitarian logic was never based on the bible. They try to find this to make Jesus God they find a position and they try to find scriptures which are usually weak.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Chris, compare I Corinthians 8:6 and Romans 11:36 (speaking of God) with Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 2:10 (speaking of Christ).

        The point of I Timothy 2:5 is that Jesus became a man so He could be the mediator. It’s exactly the same as Hebrews 2. It isn’t saying Jesus isn’t God.

        Glenn mentioned Thomas calling Jesus “God”. And Jesus accepted it. Why do you focus on I Corinthians 8:6 but not on John 20 or even John 1:1 where Jesus is called “God”? Even under your mistranslation, which calls Jesus “a god” in that verse, why does it do that, if there is only one true God? I Corinthians 8:5-6 proves that the NWT is wrong on John 1:1.

      • Chris says:

        To take a title used to Jehovah and one from Jesus and equate them doesn’t make them the same person. You say that because Jesus Judges and Jehovah Judges then Jesus is Jehovah right? Not necessarily. Yes Jehovah will judge and Jesus will judge but does that mean they are the same? Romans 2:16 states “This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.” God judges through Christ. So its Jehovah who will judge. Also, didn’t Jesus at Luke 22:30 tell the apostles that they would judge the 12 tribes of Israel? Does this make them Jehovah too? No. This is just and example of titles applied to two people doesn’t make them the same person.

        1. To-do obeisance is a perfectly good translation. It just doesn’t fit your doctrine so you don’t like it. Nothing to debate there. To do obeisance is to honor someone. So the angels can do it.

        2. One thing you have to realize is that Jehovah was the all of those things to ancient Israel. Jesus is these things to us. Jehovah saved Israel many times and is called the savior. Jesus is our savior and saves us in the end. So of course they are both called savior. Doesn’t make them the same person. So linking titles that Jehovah gave himself in the OT to Jesus in the NT is not logical.

        3. Let’s flip this question around it’s “by myself” then where is the father. Now we have a case for modalism. Jehovah many times says he does something “alone” and yet we find that he used humans and angels to actually do the work. The context of Isaiah is not addressing the issue of whether Jehovah used someone else in creation or not.

        De.32:12 says: “Jehovah alone (BAD) kept leading him.” Was Jehovah the “only one” leading Israel? Ex.32:32-34 says that Jehovah used Moses and an angel to lead Israel! (cf. 1Sam.9:16; 13:13-14; 2Sam;5:1-2). Again, there is no contradiction here. Jehovah used his representatives to lead his people, but He “alone” was the SOURCE of direction!

        The context was a comparison between the true Creator and false Gods. BDB lexicon on page 94 gives one definition of the Hebrew BAD (alone) as that of “acting independently.” In this sense Jehovah needed no assistance from the false Gods in the context to create. But Christ’s activity in creation is never described as acting independently.

        .BDB lexicon lists the use of BAD in Isa.63:3 where Jehovah indicates that he “alone” acted when He exacted retribution upon Edom. But, it was not Jehovah who personally punished these people but He used men as agents. So, is there a contradiction here? Or does it just mean that Jehovah as the SOURCE of retribution?!!

        4) now this question be be asked about the logic you just used. Is Jesus the Father?

      • Trinitarian logic was never based on the bible. They try to find this to make Jesus God they find a position and they try to find scriptures which are usually weak.

        My article about the logic of the Trinity is based 100% on the Bible:
        http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/trinity-proven-by-logic.html

      • Chris says:

        Glenn it is not based on the bible. The doctrine didn’t come into existence until 300-400 AD mod the research mid you use a bible translated by a trinitarian he will make those translations with a bias. For example KJV 1 John 5:7 “these three are one”. Not in any of the manuscripts. Easy logic Jesus is not the father and 1 Cor 8:6 say the father is the only God therefore Jesus is not God meh is the Sn OF God. The title God the Son conflicts with the Son of God. You can’t be both. And if you haven’t noticed there is no God the Son in the Bible.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Three points.

        First, we’re not going to argue history here. No one can prove historical assertions about when a doctrine was first believed. It’s a fool’s game.

        Second, we’re not going to argue manuscripts on this post. This is about the fourth or fifth time that you’ve referred to Trinitarian arguments that no one on this post has argued. I don’t need I John 5:7 to see the Trinity in the Bible, and I certainly won’t use it to try to convince you. Maybe I’ll write an article on that verse sometime, but I haven’t yet, and I’m not intending to now.

        Third, if our translations are so full of Trinitarian bias, why didn’t they change I Corinthians 8:6 and a few others? How about some specific examples of Trinitarian bias, since you think it is there? I’ve cited one glaring one (the translation of proskuneo) in the NWT. Another is John 1:1, which is an absurd rendering of the Greek. Another is the translation of “Jehovah” in NT texts, but not consistently. I could go on….

        Whatever you think of I John 5:7, it was not a translator’s bias, it was in the text they were translating. Where is the pattern of Trinitarian bias — specifics, please. If you are going to make this charge, you need to back it up. The very fact that you’ve been able to make as many arguments as you have gives the lie to it, unless you can provide enough specifics to show a pattern. And really, the NWT is worse than bias, on some points it is blatant dishonesty. I know of nothing in any major translation that compares to the proskuneo fiasco.

      • Chris says:

        Let’s stick to one topic. The 1-4 we discussed.

        I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say that it does mean worship. Please read number 1 all the way through.

        1. One thing that you have to realize that the word proskuneo doesn’t always mean worship. And worship wasn’t always given to God. The “worship” given to Jesus means no more than the “worship” given to king David as God’s representative. “And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.” — 1 Chronicles 29:20, KJV

        The “worship” given to king David did not prove that he was God. But like David, as God’s representative, Jesus is given deference and respect, “worship” in that form as God’s resurrected Son and heavenly King, but not as God. The act described by proskuneo (or shachah) was of bowing or kneeling, and it generally indicated an act of respect and a display of one’s willingness to submit to or serve another person who occupied a superior position, regardless of his nature (somewhat similar to a salute in the military today).

        The Hebrew word most often translated “worship” is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: “Shachah … ‘to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.'” And, “The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David ‘bowed’ himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8).

        2. The Bible says that we are saved through Jesus by God. Jude 25 ASV “the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, beglory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, and now, and for evermore. Amen.” Remember Jesus is given authority. So something that is solely the fathers in the OT is given to Jesus in the New Testament. Like how I explained how judgement is by Jehovah in the OT, Jesus in the NT. However, doesn’t this mean the Apostles are Jehovah too because Jesus Gave them the authority to judge according to Rev 20:4 and Luke 22:30.

        3. You stated that by myself means that no on was with him. Why is God an “Us” and a “We” in Genesis 1:26 by a “myself” in Isaiah? Were the angels not with him as in Job 38:7? When I say I make alone it can mean in a room full of people or by myself so by myself and alone can mean the same thing. I think my response from earlier still stands. He was contrasting in the Book to the pagan gods, who usually are many gods over creation. But if it was to harmonize with Genesis 1:26 then it would say “ourselves” and “who was with us.” Seems like a problem.

        4. As I have stated before, all authority is given to Jesus. Remember Jehovah didn’t save you or me from Egypt with Moses. But he has sent one to save us from death (spiritual). Thus Jesus can be called the savior because he saves us from death. The bible says there are many saviors. (Obadiah 21, and Nehemiah 9:27). You just have to look at what type of savior we are discussing. Many try to point to Isaiah 43:11 because it says Jehovah is the savior. Yes but in that context it was the savior of the nation is Israel. So you cannot try to place am OT title on a NT person. Jesus became our savior.

    • Chris says:

      It’s actually translated as “God is thy throne forever and ever”. What is the throne a symbol of ? Power and Glory1. God is his power and glory forever. Look at all the translation above I listed that support my view.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Arguably, the Greek could be translated that way, but it is false to say it is “actually translated” that way. The context does not fit that translation well at all.

  8. Let’s see, Chris is a member of a group who continually gives false prophecies, twists the Scripture into pretzels, who claim Jesus was an angel (Michael) prior to being born contrary to Hebrews 1 which says all angels must worship Christ, and contrary to the fact that Christ CREATED the angels (Rev 22:8-9 has angels refusing worship), won’t allow their members to read the Bible by itself without the use of Watchtower publications, that salvation is found ONLY in the Watchtower organization (yet tell people they can’t know if they are saved),

    Marks of a cult include claiming to be the only true faith, having their own prophets, having their own Bible translation (which no scholar commends), have extra-biblical writings on par with scripture, control their people’s lives, claim to have direct revelations from God, and have salvation based on works. JWs fit every one of these markers.

    Chris, I’d really like to challenge you to examine my article on the Trinity and demonstrate where there is error in it. And I’d like you to look at this article I wrote about the JWs and tell me where I err. http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/08/jehovahs-witnesses-do-they-really.html

    • Chris says:

      I’ve examined the trinity so many ways over from both sides before picking one. Also, Rev 22:8,9 doesn’t say Created the angels. I think you wrote down the wrong one.

      • Chris,

        I did NOT say that the Rev passage stated Christ created the Angels. My point was that Christ cannot be an angel because he created the angels. Rev. 22:8,9 was placed in parentheses with the comment that it says that angels refuse worship. Christ can’t be an angel and accept worship.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Hi, Glenn. I approved this, but since I’m not letting Chris respond anymore, I think further responses to him are not necessary. I think both of us have adequately answered his errors. I’m sure he doesn’t think so, but the Lord is going to have to deal with him. I’m willing to address further questions on this, but I’m not willing to continue to give a forum to a confirmed false teacher.

      • Hi Jon,

        I am trying to catch up with all the e-mails showing the comment string. I guess I missed where Chris was no longer allowed. Sorry about that last one.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        You should see MY inbox. 🙂 No problem.

  9. lyn says:

    What does every false religion do? Deny the deity of Jesus Christ! The Bible keeps it plain and simple, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.” Matthew 1:23.
    “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isa 9:6
    “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” John 20:27-28
    ” And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. ” Luke 1:47
    “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Tim. 3:16
    “looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” Titus 2:13

    More names can be studied at https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral19.cfm

    • Chris says:

      Lyn the bible says in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that only the father is God. Jesus is not the father thus is not God. John 17:3 has Jesus saying that only the Father is the One true God. Theses are Jesus words. If I say my mom and dare they one person? Of course not. So to state Titus 2:13 doesn’t mean one person. I can’t refuse those but I’ve already got too much with Jon. Just read our response.

      • Chris,

        1 Cor 8:6 does not say only the Father is God. It says that there is only one God, the Father. Jesus is not another God, he is one of three persons in the ONE God.

        But, according to JW, John 1:1, you have two gods because without Scriptural support the NWT added the word “a” to make Jesus “a god.” So you have God the Father as one God and Jesus as another “god.”

      • Chris says:

        And yes 1 Cor 8:6 does say only the father is God it says “One Gid the father”. Not father son Holy Spirit as u say

      • Jon Gleason says:

        I’ve responded to this on your comment to Lyn which says the same thing.

      • lyn says:

        I just supplied you with multiple verses that prove you wrong. You are calling God a liar, you deny the plain teachings of His holy word and defend your false religion because you’ve been taught wrongly. Only God the Spirit can teach you correctly, and that will not happen unless you have been born again by the supernatural power of God. You will die in your sins if you continue to cleave to your dead religion. I find it very telling that, when asked by His disciples what would be the sign of His coming and of the end of the age, Christ responded first and foremost with this, “Take heed that no man lead you astray.” Matt. 24:4 Deception and delusion are the two key things that Satan uses to lead sinners astray. Deception is powerful, as your comments attest to. I do pray God will have mercy on you, and that He will reveal Himself to you.

      • Chris says:

        Lyn I’m not going to argue with you. Jesus didn’t claim to be God. This issue is over. I’ve refuted everyone if your verse but if you want to cling to the trinity and others modalism be my guest. Jesus called God the only true God at John 17:3. If you want to believe in the trinity fine. I don’t. CT Russell refuted the trinity using the KJV and ASV. So claiming that the NWT is wrong is fighting uphill because that’s not whete our belief system understood the trinity. 1 Cor 8:6 says only the father is God. Jesus is not the father. Therefore not God. That’s more explicit than finding titles and drawing a conclusion.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Chris, I’m not going to allow this. There is only one true God. The Father is the one true God. So also is Jesus. They are Three in One. The distnction between them does not eliminate the unity. You cannot refute the Trinity with I Corinthians 8:6. All you can refute is the straw man that you’ve created.

        I Corinthians does not say only the Father is God. It just doesn’t. It’s a lie to say that. It says there is only one God, but no one here disputes that.

        I’m going to close off this discussion in a few minutes. But I’m not going to allow you to present a dishonest view of the Trinity, through around “modalism” when no one is presenting it, and then claim that I Cor. 8:6 refutes it.

  10. Jon Gleason says:

    I’ll add this, which may be my last response to Chris. I know why the verses you cite are there. They are there because God wanted us to understand the distinctions within the triune God. But you have no real explanation for all of the following. If God did not want to confuse us, why are these present?

    Jehovah is the Judge of all the earth. Jesus is the Judge.
    Jehovah is my Shepherd. Jesus is the good Shepherd.
    I am the sheep of Jehovah’s hand (Psalm 95:7). I am the sheep of Jesus’ hand (John 10:27-28).
    Jehovah created by Himself. Jesus created.
    Jehovah alone is to be worshipped. Jesus was worshipped, and all the angels were told to worship Him.
    John the Baptist was to prepare the way of Jehovah, and he came preparing the way for Jesus.
    Jehovah is the Redeemer. Jesus is the Redeemer.
    Jehovah preserves creation. Jesus upholds creation by the word of His power.
    God raises Jesus from the dead. Jesus said He would lay down His life and take it back up Himself.

    You say Trinitarian logic was never based on the Bible. That’s obviously false. These things are in Scripture. If you were honest you would admit that this teaching is indeed based on the Bible, even if you think it is wrong.

    I have limited time, and don’t want an endless back and forth, nor do I wish to provide a forum for an endless stream of false doctrine.. I’m not going to post any further responses from you until you address the following questions:
    1. Why would Jehovah say that He alone is to be worshipped, and then tell the angels to worship Jesus, if Jesus is not Jehovah? Even if the pathetic NWT mistranslation of Hebrews 1:6 is accepted, why would He tell the angels to do obeisance to Jesus? Does God want angels or us to do obeisance to anyone but Himself? Didn’t Jehovah say not to bow down to any other god?
    2. Why would He allow Jesus to call us His sheep and say;we are in His hand, if Jesus is not Jehovah? (Psalm 95:7 / John 10).
    3. Why would He say He created “by Himself” (Isaiah 44:24) and then say that Jesus created all things (John 1:3 and several other passages), if Jesus is not Jehovah?
    4. Why are all things of God and to God, and all things are by Jesus and for Jesus, if Jesus is not Jehovah.

    You cannot ignore those questions, and your teachers have no good answers to them. You will have to answer to those questions before Jesus when you fall before Him as your Judge. You have to answer those four direct questions before I will post any further comments from you. You can answer them in one comment, or in individual comments, I don’t care. Any digressions from those four questions will be deleted until there is at least an honest attempt to address each of them.

    • Chris says:

      To take a title used to Jehovah and one from Jesus and equate them doesn’t make them the same person. You say that because Jesus Judges and Jehovah Judges then Jesus is Jehovah right? Not necessarily. Yes Jehovah will judge and Jesus will judge but does that mean they are the same? Romans 2:16 states “This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.” God judges through Christ. So its Jehovah who will judge. Also, didn’t Jesus at Luke 22:30 tell the apostles that they would judge the 12 tribes of Israel? Does this make them Jehovah too? No. This is just and example of titles applied to two people doesn’t make them the same person.

      1. To-do obeisance is a perfectly good translation. It just doesn’t fit your doctrine so you don’t like it. Nothing to debate there. To do obeisance is to honor someone. So the angels can do it.

      2. One thing you have to realize is that Jehovah was the all of those things to ancient Israel. Jesus is these things to us. Jehovah saved Israel many times and is called the savior. Jesus is our savior and saves us in the end. So of course they are both called savior. Doesn’t make them the same person. So linking titles that Jehovah gave himself in the OT to Jesus in the NT is not logical.

      3. Let’s flip this question around it’s “by myself” then where is the father. Now we have a case for modalism. Jehovah many times says he does something “alone” and yet we find that he used humans and angels to actually do the work. The context of Isaiah is not addressing the issue of whether Jehovah used someone else in creation or not.

      De.32:12 says: “Jehovah alone (BAD) kept leading him.” Was Jehovah the “only one” leading Israel? Ex.32:32-34 says that Jehovah used Moses and an angel to lead Israel! (cf. 1Sam.9:16; 13:13-14; 2Sam;5:1-2). Again, there is no contradiction here. Jehovah used his representatives to lead his people, but He “alone” was the SOURCE of direction!

      The context was a comparison between the true Creator and false Gods. BDB lexicon on page 94 gives one definition of the Hebrew BAD (alone) as that of “acting independently.” In this sense Jehovah needed no assistance from the false Gods in the context to create. But Christ’s activity in creation is never described as acting independently.

      .BDB lexicon lists the use of BAD in Isa.63:3 where Jehovah indicates that he “alone” acted when He exacted retribution upon Edom. But, it was not Jehovah who personally punished these people but He used men as agents. So, is there a contradiction here? Or does it just mean that Jehovah as the SOURCE of retribution?!!

      4) now this question be be asked about the logic you just used. Is Jesus the Father?

      Glenn E. Chatfield on 23 July, 2014 at 10:02 pm

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Hello, Chris. Thank you for interacting with these verses.

        1) The Greek word is proskuneo, to kneel in homage. That is what Satan wanted Jesus to do to him. In Matthew 4:10, Jesus said you shall only worship (proskuneo) Jehovah. I don’t care what you use to translate it, The only One who can properly receive proskuneo is Jehovah. Jesus said so. Yet the angels were told to proskuneo Jesus. Either Jesus lied, or the Father wrongly commanded the angels, or Jesus is Jehovah. The NWT translates proskuneo as “worship” in Matthew 4 and other places but “do obeisance” when Jesus is the object of worship. This is blatant dishonesty.

        2. There is only one Saviour. The 25th verse of Jude says the only wise God is our Saviour. You just said Jesus is our Saviour, Jehovah was the Saviour of the Jews. Of which is Jude speaking, Jesus or Jehovah? If Jehovah, and Jehovah is not Jesus, then you just lied in saying that Jesus is our Saviour. If Jude was speaking of Jesus, well then, of course, Jesus is the only wise God.

        3. There is no modalism in the Trinitarian understanding of Isaiah 44:24. It is not the Father or the Son speaking, but the Triune God, Jehovah. It is inclusive of Father, Son, and Spirit, who all had a role in creation (Genesis 1:2). You are correct that “alone” could refer to the lone executive / planner, but “by myself” is much stronger. There was no need to say “by myself” to communicate what you are saying Jehovah intended, and it would be contradictory. I occasionally will fully design a programming project for one of our programmers — but if they code it, it would be dishonest for me to say I did the job by myself. I can certainly claim a lot of credit for it, but “by myself” is contrary to the consistency with which the Father ensures that Jesus DOES receive recognition and praise for the work of creation. Your response makes no sense.

        4. No, Jesus is not the Father, but all things are of, by, for, and to Jehovah. Thus, that which is said of the Father can rightly be said of Jesus, and vice versa.

        Very, very few people of your religious group will interact with these verses. I find your answers completely unacceptable for the reasons I’ve given, but at least you’ve tried to reconcile them with your beliefs. I wonder if you really believe the things you’ve just said. I actually wonder how anyone could. I recognise that in verses like Hebrews 1:8, the NWT translators have translated within the scope of what the grammar allows, although influenced by their theological biases. That is bias, but not necessarily dishonesty. Their dishonesty in the way they translate proskuneo, however, should turn the stomach of even Jehovah’s Witnesses, if they are sincere.

        Nevertheless, I do thank you for interacting with the verses rather than just giving counter proof texts.

  11. The doctrine [trinity] didn’t come into existence until 300-400 AD mod the research mid you use a bible translated by a trinitarian he will make those translations with a bias.

    Wrong. The doctrine is IN the Bible, as I proved from my logic exercise. Any translation you want to use (other than the NWT false translation) will give you the same readings I posted.

    The Doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible and was understood, but was finally defined 300 years later in order to counter the false teachings being propagated about Jesus not being God – the same heresy that the JWs decided to teach.

  12. Chris says:

    And yes Jon I really believe the things I’ve listed. I love that doctrine that Jesus is Jehovah. My reason is because I studied with the Mormons who taught the same thing. Although they say that Jesus is Jehovah and the Father is Elohim. So it’s different but it is an awesome doctrine. However I don’t see anything saying that Jesus is Jehovah other the titles and assumptions based on words like “I am.” But I love the doctrine but it doesn’t make sense n

    • Chris says:

      And yes Col 1:16 says “by” Christ all things were made. But Hebrews 1:2 shows perfectly what “By” means.

      ” Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

      It says “by whom also he (the father) made the worlds.

      So it says by Christ the father created all things by Christ.

  13. Jon Gleason says:

    Chris, I’m not intending to clear any more of your comments through moderation. I recognise and appreciate that you have in general not engaged in disrespectful language. However, you are violating the comment policy on point #4, which is pushing an agenda contrary to the purpose of this blog. Not only is your doctrine not consistent with that purpose, but your involvement turns this into a debate chamber, which is also contrary to purpose.

    Second, your use of the charge of modalism is unfounded, and thus disrespectful. There is a significant difference between modalism and the historic Trinitarian view presented here by me and others.

    Third, you said something very revealing here. You said that you studied various doctrines and chose one. That reveals one of the greatest problems of the Jehovah’s Witnesses — an exaltation of the human mind and human logical ability over the revealed Word of God. You read of one true God and so logically conclude certain things from that. You’ve made your decision of what you think. What you should have done was said, “Every word of God is true. I must believe all of them. If I can find an explanation that fits them all, good, but if not, I still must believe them.”

    Fourth, you effectively say that Jesus has taken the place of Jehovah in the New Testament. This is not taught anywhere in Scripture. It flies in the face of God’s immutable nature. It flies in the face of Jehovah’s clear statement that He will not give His glory to another. You say He gave His glory to Jesus, over and over and over again. Thus, your view diminishes Jehovah by saying He gave His glory to a lesser being, and diminishes Jesus by making Him a lesser being.

    You could certainly explain one of the titles shared by Jesus and Jehovah, or two of them, but when the list goes on and on, then one has to ask why God gave Jesus so many of His own titles. You have no answer as to why God would do that. Jehovah gave His glory to Jesus. Even you admitted that by admitting that Jesus took the place of Jehovah in many ways in the New Testament. That is heresy, and I must close out this discussion.

    • Jon Gleason says:

      I’d like to add one other point in the interests of fairness. Chris objects to being accused of debating when I and others are debating him back. I don’t deny that I’ve debated him back, and allowed others to do so.

      Note, though, that the first reason I’ve given for closing the discussion with Chris down is not that he’s debating, but that he’s pushing an agenda contrary to the purpose of the blog. That is what turned it into a debate chamber.

      But I certainly don’t want to give the impression that Chris is just arguing for argument’s sake. I don’t for a second believe that to be the case. He is obviously very determined to communicate and convince others of his doctrine, and that is clearly his purpose. That actually makes his propagation of false doctrine even more dangerous, of course, but I would not want to give the impression that he was being flippant or arguing for argument’s sake.

Comments welcome! (but please check the comment policy)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s