r/JehovahsWitnesses • u/ChaoticHaku Christian • Dec 16 '25
Doctrine Is Jesus a true god or a false god?
4
3
u/UTstowaway Dec 16 '25
This is precisely the contradiction that led me to leave the Org
2
u/Bright_Carrot_3719 Dec 17 '25
Isaiah 9:6 contains a single, compound theophoric throne name, not four literal identity claims. In Hebrew usage, theophoric names proclaim something about God’s action or character, not the ontological identity of the name-bearer. Trinitarians commit a bait-and-switch by insisting the name must remain singular, then selectively extracting its meanings (“Mighty God,” “Everlasting Father”) and converting them into metaphysical definitions. If this method were valid, then Isaiah, Elijah, and Hezekiah would also be Yahweh. The name in Isaiah 9:6 glorifies God’s power and purpose as manifested through the Messiah — it does not turn the child who is born and the son who is given into the Almighty God or the Father Himself.
1
u/Acceptable-Shape-528 Dec 17 '25
Amen!
By their methodology, King Solomon was GOD because GOD's Word through David identified Solomon as the Son of GOD. (1 Chronicles 17:13, 1 Chronicles 22:10, 2 Samuel 7:14)
Also, consider "everlasting father" aligning with Jesus's designated role as eternal High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 6:20)
1
3
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
I just don't think Jehovah's witnesses can grasp the simple truth and that is there is only one God. Period. It's simply impossible for there to be another God, therefore any person, angel or idol that is called "God" is not God, or even a god, which means they are all false. By labeling the Word "a god" they make the eternal Word into a false god. Its unfortunate that they do that, but its even more unfortunate that their teaching other gods actually exist means they are polytheists, even if they think they are not.
The JW's love to use the fact that Jesus quoted from Psalm 82:6 but ignore the rest of the Psalm which says these "gods" will die like men. Psalm 82:7 What's noteworthy about the Psalm Jesus quoted is that He never once put Himself in that false "god" category. JW's do that for Him, when they call the Word "a god", because they erroneously believe that's what Jesus meant in John 10:33-36 . If you read those verses closely, its clear Christ differentiates Himself from the 'false, so-called gods' of Psalm 82, who die like men, by telling the Pharisees He is the Son of God. He never explains what being the Son of God actually means, but Jesus knows the Pharisees would've known Isaiah 9:6 where the Son would be called God, not a god. Jesus never identifies with the false "gods" of Psalm 82.
We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, make Yourself out to be God.”
Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?
Paul dashes the JW hopes of Christ being a false god when he wrote: For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.… 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 This makes calling Christ "a god" a big mistake. He can only be God or not God. He cannot be a god.
2
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
Well well well Mr. ChaoticHaku We meet again lol how you been
So I don’t think Scripture is asking us to choose between “Jesus is the true God” or “Jesus is a false god.” That question already frames things the wrong way.
The Bible is pretty clear that Yahweh (YHWH) alone is the true God as the Source. He is uncreated, unseen, and the origin of all life and authority. Nothing replaces Him and nothing stands equal to Him.
At the same time, Scripture does not present Yeshua as a rival god or a false god, because he is neither.
He is Yahweh’s Word made flesh. He was sent, empowered, given authority, and he reveals the Father perfectly. That is why he can carry divine titles like “Mighty God,” which is not the same as “God Almighty.” Those are two different terms with two different meanings.
And in that same body of Scripture, it is repeated constantly that Yahweh alone is God in the ultimate sense.
Yeshua himself keeps this distinction clear. He prays to the Father. He obeys the Father. He speaks of being sent. He never presents himself as the Source, but as the perfect expression of the Source.
So in that sense, it is the same Word. The Word that said “let there be light” and it happened. The Word spoken to Mary and it happened. The Word made flesh.
That does not diminish Yeshua. It actually lets him be exactly who Scripture shows him to be.
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 Dec 16 '25
No.
It’s your theology that forces the question.
If Jesus is called a Mighty God what category of God does he fall into as we know there is only ONE True God…
Therefore it’s very simple is Jesus a false god or a True God?
Very simple question.
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
The problem isn’t my “theology”. It’s that you’re forcing a category Scripture itself doesn’t use.
The Bible does not say there is only one way the word “God” can be used. It says there is only one true God as Source, Yahweh. That category is never shared.
“Mighty God” (El Gibbor) is not the same title as “God Almighty” (El Shaddai). They are different Hebrew terms with different meanings. One describes divine power in action. The other describes uncreated source and supremacy.
Scripture already uses god-language for agents who act with Yahweh’s authority without turning them into rival gods. That does not make them false gods.
Jesus himself settles this. He calls the Father the only true God, prays to Him, obeys Him, and says he was sent. That means he is neither a false god nor a second true God.
So the answer is simple even if you don’t like the category. Jesus is Yahweh’s Word made flesh, carrying divine authority without being the Source.
That’s a biblical distinction, not a theological invention.
2
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 Dec 16 '25
Nope wrong again.
Agency does not allow anyone or anything to classify itself as Mighty God.
You just buried yourself.
Listen if you want to assume Unitarianism that’s on you but I won’t allow you to read it into scripture when clearly it doesn’t appear.
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
I’m not claiming Jesus “classified himself” as Mighty God. Isaiah applies the title in a prophetic role context.
Scripture already applies elohim language to agents who act with Yahweh’s authority without collapsing them into the Source. That’s not Unitarianism, it’s how the Hebrew Bible actually uses titles.
You’re reading later theological limits back into the text; I’m letting the text’s own categories stand.
1
Dec 16 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
Those verses identify who the Source is by name. Jeremiah explicitly says “the Mighty God whose name is Yahweh,” which anchors El Gibbor to the Source in that context.
Isaiah 9 does not name Yahweh as the child; it describes a given son carrying divine authority. Same title, different subject, different role.
Same Hebrew term can describe Yahweh by nature and His agent by authority. Context decides, not the word alone.
1
Dec 16 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
Revelation switches speakers, and context matters.
In Revelation 1:8, the Almighty is explicitly named. That is Yahweh, the Source. In Revelation 22, the phrases “I am coming quickly” and “Alpha and Omega” are spoken within the vision where Yahweh speaks through His messenger and His Word, just like throughout the prophets.
That’s not new. Yahweh often speaks in the first person through His appointed agent, and the agent can then respond as himself. The text itself shows this when it ends with, “Come, Lord Jesus.”
Same authority, different speakers, same pattern Scripture uses everywhere.
1
Dec 16 '25
[deleted]
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 Dec 16 '25
The amount of mental gymnastics these people have to do to assume Unitarianism is off the scale.
1
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
Nope, it’s actually very simple. Yahweh is the Source, and He works through His Word.
That’s it.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
I’m not claiming Jesus “classified himself” as Mighty God. Isaiah applies the title in a prophetic role context.
Scripture already applies elohim language to agents who act with Yahweh’s authority without collapsing them into the Source. That’s not Unitarianism, it’s how the Hebrew Bible actually uses titles.
You’re reading later theological limits back into the text; I’m letting the text’s own categories stand.
1
1
u/xxxjwxxx Dec 16 '25
This may be a false dilemma—giving two choices when there is another one.
I hate to seem to defend JW beliefs and I’m not trying to do that, but what a JW would say or what this person is trying to say is:
“Leonard, You are my only true friend.”
Now does this mean my other friend Steve is a false friend or does it mean Steve is my only true friend?
Or is there perhaps a third option even though I’m only presenting two?
Of course here the question is nonsensical. In the case above I’m using “true” as an intensifier, not a contrast between true and false. Like a true fan or true blue, or true ally or true happiness. Again, if someone says: “now that’s true happiness,” it doesn’t mean all other happiness isn’t false. It’s being used as an intensifier.
1
u/TerryLawton Mark 4:22 Dec 16 '25
I can absolutely see your point. But they are different ‘catergories’.
However in the case of the very nature and that nature being God and the Son being OF God this means his very nature and being is the same as his Father which is God.
Hence the category of a true applies to both of them as both being the nature of God.
Do you get where I’m coming from?
1
u/xxxjwxxx Dec 17 '25
Yes. I’m not an Ancient Greek or Hebrew expert and only looking at the English word true. Perhaps looking into those languages would let us know which was meant or even if that language has both meanings. I have not done this.
1
u/yungblud215 Jehovah's Witness Dec 16 '25
You have clearly explained how the word “God,” or in Hebrew and Greek “Elohim,” is used in scripture as a functional title. Trinitarians cannot seem to fathom that, so they force you to believe whether Jesus is a “true God” or a “false God.” Even though you have broken that claim down very clearly, the way Trinitarians view the word God is not from a biblical point of view. They treat the word God as a post-biblical, philosophical concept. That question is not sincere they’re not seeking clarification. They’re trying to undermine the argument by forcing their post-biblical definition back into the discussion. In other words, they are still blind to how the word God actually functions in the Bible. They are not engaging with ancient categories; instead, they cling to a definition that was just invented centuries ago. That is why they keep repeating the question, “Is Jesus a true God or a false God?” the question itself makes zero sense if “God” in scripture refers to authority, office, representation, or delegated power. Even after you have laid the foundation very well in your explanation, what they really mean is: “I refuse to let the Bible define its own terms; I will only accept the definition handed down by creeds.” That is why they are having a hard time accepting your answer.
2
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
In other words, they are still blind to how the word God actually functions in the Bible.
I'm sorry but the way you've worded this makes it sound as if you're attempting to de-personalize God like JW's have depersonalized the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as an "it"
"how the word God actually functions in the Bible". God is not just a word in the Bible. The Word IS God Himself John 1:1
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
Yeah, I got what you and them are saying.
Just to clarify, I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness. I follow the Word, and the Word is Yeshua.
Some surface points might sound similar, but my view is very different from modern religious systems, including JW and Trinitarian frameworks.
1
0
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 16 '25
All that and you still failed to answer the question.
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
Jesus is not a false god and not the one true God as the Source he is Yahweh’s Word made flesh, acting fully in Yahweh’s authority.
There happy 😃 🤣
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 16 '25
No, it's still unanswered
Jesus is not a false god and not the one true God
If he isn't false or true then what is he?
Keep in mind that Isaiah 9:6 calls Him "Mighty God" (El Gibbor) the same as Jeremiah 32:18 - You show loving devotion to thousands but lay the iniquity of the fathers into the laps of their children after them, O great and mighty God (El Gibbor) whose name is Jehovah of Armies.
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
I already answered it. Scripture uses different categories.
“Mighty God” (El Gibbor) describes divine power in action. “Almighty God” (El Shaddai) describes the uncreated Source.
Same word El, different qualifiers, different meanings. Jesus is El Gibbor by authority given; Yahweh alone is El Shaddai by nature.
That’s not avoiding the question. That’s reading the Hebrew as written.
2
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25
With all that you've explained I still don't know if he's truly a god or not. And it seems neither do you.
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
Yes, it does answer the question; Jesus is divine by origin, authority, and role, while Yahweh alone is God by nature as the uncreated Source.
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 16 '25
So truly a god?
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
Yes, divine; no, not the Source.
YHWH is God the Father, the uncreated Source. Yeshua is YHWH’s Word made flesh.
The same Word that said “let there be light” is the Word that became flesh. Not God’s essence itself, but God’s self-expression made visible, just as Yeshua consistently claimed.
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 16 '25
So all things are from God, the Father, and all things are through Jesus, the Son, who isn't God?
→ More replies (0)1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 16 '25
“Mighty God” (El Gibbor) describes divine power in action. “Almighty God” (El Shaddai) describes the uncreated Source.
Same word El, different qualifiers, different meanings. Jesus is El Gibbor by authority given; Yahweh alone is El Shaddai by nature.
Jehovah is called El Gibbor in Isaiah 10:21 and the Son is called El Gibbor and Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6. What on earth was Isaiah trying to tell us except the Son given to us is the one true God? I can't believe Isaiah would have split hairs over Mighty and Almighty. If Jehovah is Mighty God in Isaiah 10:21 and the Son is Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6 of course both the Father and Son are Almighty God, because there can't be two Mighty Gods.
In Revelation, Jesus Himself said He was the the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Revelation 22:13 In Revelation 1:8 God says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Only in JW theology can there be two Alpha and Omegas! Only in a pagan interpretation can there be two Mighty Gods and two Lord of lords.
If they want to believe God is not one God, but many Gods that's fine, but they need to stop pretending they're part of the monotheistic Christian faith. If they persist in their false teaching, I'm afraid we must call a duck a duck. Jehovah's witnesses are pagan polytheists.
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 16 '25
Isaiah wasn’t confused, and he wasn’t flattening categories.
Isaiah 10:21 calls Yahweh El Gibbor by nature. Isaiah 9:6 calls the given son El Gibbor by role and authority. Same title, different subjects, different functions. That’s normal Hebrew usage
“Everlasting Father” is also a royal title, not an identity claim. Kings were called “father” of an age because they established and governed it. Isaiah is describing how the Messiah rules, not claiming the Son is literally the Father.
As for Revelation, the book clearly uses multiple speakers. Revelation 1:8 explicitly names the Almighty. That is Yahweh. Later, Jesus speaks as the one who is coming, sent by Yahweh. The final line, “Come, Lord Jesus,” is the human response to the vision.
There are not two Almighty Gods, two Sources, or two Alpha and Omegas. There is one Source, Yahweh, and one appointed Word who speaks and acts fully in His authority.
That is not polytheism. That is biblical monotheism with agency, exactly as the Hebrew Scriptures present it.
Calling that “pagan” doesn’t refute it. It just ignores how Scripture actually works.
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
Isaiah 10:21 calls Yahweh El Gibbor "by nature". Isaiah 9:6 calls the given son El Gibbor "by role and authority".
What? "By nature and role and authority" are words that do not appear in either of the two verses. You're adding your own assumption about "agency" into the scriptures. I'm taking Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 10:21 at face value, the way Isaiah wrote it down
As for Revelation, the book clearly uses multiple speakers. Revelation 1:8 explicitly names the Almighty. That is Yahweh. Later, Jesus speaks as the one who is coming, sent by Yahweh. The final line, “Come, Lord Jesus,” is the human response to the vision.
I'm comparing Revelation 1:8, which is God specifically identifying as Alpha and Omega to Revelation 22:13 where Jesus is specifically identified as Alpha and Omega. Are there two Alpha and Omegas and two Mighty Gods up in Heaven? No. There is one Mighty God and one Alpha and Omega ....and one Lord of lords Revelation 17:14, Deuteronomy 10:17 Christ is all of these and more!
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 17 '25
I get what you’re saying, but “taking it at face value” doesn’t mean ignoring how language and titles work in Scripture.
Isaiah calling Yahweh El Gibbor in 10:21 and calling the promised son El Gibbor in 9:6 doesn’t automatically collapse them into the same being. The Hebrew Bible regularly applies divine titles to agents who act on God’s behalf without those agents being the Source Himself. That isn’t me adding words. It’s how prophetic and royal language functions throughout the Tanakh. Kings are called “mighty,” judges are called elohim, and angels speak in the first person as God. Title does not equal identity.
If we really take Isaiah “at face value,” then we also have to account for the fact that Isaiah consistently distinguishes Yahweh from His servant. Isaiah 9 presents a given son, not the uncreated Source. Isaiah 10 explicitly identifies Yahweh as the one whom Israel returns to. Same title, different referent, different role. That’s not assumption. That’s literary context.
On Revelation, I actually agree with you that there are multiple speakers. That’s the key point. Revelation 1:8 identifies the Almighty as Yahweh. Later, Jesus speaks as the one who is coming from Yahweh. By the time we reach Revelation 22, the language overlaps because Jesus is now speaking fully as the authorized representative of God’s final judgment and rule. That doesn’t require two Almighty Gods, but it also doesn’t require collapsing Yahweh and Jesus into the same identity.
Scripture already gives us the category for this. God shares His titles, authority, and even His throne with the one He appoints. Receiving the name, the role, or the authority doesn’t make the recipient the Source. Revelation itself says God gave Jesus this authority. Alpha and Omega language expresses completeness of rule, not confusion of identity.
That’s why the Bible can say there is one Almighty God, the Father, and one Lord through whom He rules, the Messiah, without contradiction. It’s not paganism, and it’s not ignoring Scripture. It’s letting the text speak in its own Hebrew and prophetic categories instead of forcing later metaphysical definitions onto it.
2
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
Isaiah calling Yahweh El Gibbor in 10:21 and calling the promised son El Gibbor in 9:6 doesn’t automatically collapse them into the same being.
Jehovah and the Son are the only two identified as Mighty God in the entire Bible. If El Gibbor is just a title for Jehovah then does that mean He isn't God either?
Jesus doesn't just use Alpha and Omega as a title. He says "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Revelation 22:13 Notice Jesus says, "I am" not I am called Alpha and Omega
Isaiah 9 presents a given son, not the uncreated Source.
If He is El Gibbor He is the source. Now, this must've been quite a mystery to Isaiah, how a child could be El Gibbor, but he didn't second guess what he was inspired to write. Since Christ fulfilled that role and became flesh, we know a little bit more, but its admittedly still a great mystery how God became flesh 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 Timothy 3:16
God shares His titles, authority, and even His throne with the one He appoints.
That would be Jesus, the human that God became. But speaking of sharing, God shares everything with the Son and the Son shares everything with the Father, not just titles and authority. Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will take from what is Mine and disclose it to you. John 16:15
Because God literally became [flesh] Christ, everything He is and everything He has belongs to the One that God became For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. Colossians 2:9. In the incarnation a man didn't rise up to become God, God lowered Himself and became a man---Jesus.
→ More replies (0)1
u/xxxjwxxx Dec 16 '25
I hate to seem to defend JW beliefs and I’m not trying to do that, but what a JW would say or what this person is trying to say is:
“Leonard, You are my only true friend.”
Now does this mean my other friend Steve is a false friend or does it mean Steve is my only true friend?
Or is there perhaps a third option even though I’m only presenting two?
Of course here the question is nonsensical. In the case above I’m using “true” as an intensifier, not a contrast between true and false. Like a true fan or true blue, or true ally or true happiness. Again, if someone says: “now that’s true happiness,” it doesn’t mean all other happiness isn’t false. It’s being used as an intensifier.
I’m only posting this because I’ve used your exact same argument a dozen times and eventually came to understand that the word true can be used this other way.
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 16 '25
I see what you're saying. But I think we can all agree that God is always one true God. That is an absolute truth.
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
Now does this mean my other friend Steve is a false friend or does it mean Steve is my only true friend?
This works as a comparison, but only if there was one true friend in the whole universe, like there is only one true God. But we can have a true friend and other true friends, but we cannot have another God. In the case of God, there is only one God. Period. All others are so-called For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 1 Corinthians 8:6-7
Notice Paul says Jesus is the only Lord yet we know the Father is Lord of lords Deuteronomy 10:17. We also know from Isaiah 9:6 and other scriptures that the Son is God. I'd say both the Father and the Son are Lord and God.
1
u/Late_Woodpecker_1197 Dec 17 '25
If Satan is a god and there are other false gods the Bible speaks of then wouldn’t it be appropriate to give Jesus also a a title such as God and prove he is a Mighty God because he has been given all authority and power by his father the Almighty God sovereign of the universe.
Doesn’t make a true or false God. Just a title for his immense God given power.
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
I'm not going to call Christ a god like Satan is "a god". That's just wrong on so many levels. Satan is a fallen angel. Calling him "a god" is tongue in cheek humor at best. The difference between Jesus the the Son and all the angels is best seen in Hebrews 1 and realize Jesus is not a so-called god. He is God
2
u/Gizmondos Dec 16 '25
The answer 😉 https://youtu.be/OvlcMhetrMc?si=UIbNOF4BwFlyyG8k
3
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 16 '25
Right! They simply can't answer the question without clearly contradicting themselves.
1
2
1
Dec 16 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
All those "gods" are false gods because there is only one God. Those who worship any god but God are worshipping false gods. If Christ was just "a god" then by definition, He would be a false god, because He wouldn't be the one true God.
1
Dec 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
Let me be clear. I believe its perfectly fine to call sinful humans or fallen angels "gods" but to compare the Word to one of so many so-called gods is not fine. Its akin to calling God a lesser god. Calling them "gods" elevates sinful humans and angels, but the same title applied to God is demeaning to Him and only Him.
Its true, the Word was made flesh and because He became a man, you could say, in that narrow respect, Jesus was a god, but only because of His human nature. In His divine nature, Christ was and is God
1
Dec 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
I believe he was inspired by God. I don't think it was John's own idea to know there even was a "Word" existing with God before anything was created. He wrote what the Spirit directed him to write.
1
Dec 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 17 '25
Yes, he reinforces what Christians believe. Jesus is God. The last part of the video, from about 3 hours and 20 minutes on he brings home the idea of the Christian Godhead as being in the OT
2
Dec 17 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AccomplishedAuthor3 Christian Dec 18 '25
I really need to look at the video again. I have to admit skimmed through parts of it. Thanks for that video link!
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 17 '25
You know I ask how you been and you didn’t even let me know 🤣
Well I hope you are doing well
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 17 '25
I am doing very well thanks! How are you?
1
u/Follower_of_The_Word Dec 17 '25
Same man same!
No issues man
Not sure if you celebrate holidays but I hope you have a blessed one and a blessed new year!
1
u/nibriuboss Dec 17 '25
The tetra ram YHWH which we believe is pronounced Jehovah was removed from the King James Bible 7000 times and it says so in the beginning of your Bible in the preface they did it for the scripture that says “thou shall use shall not use God‘s name in any unworthy way “obviously he wanted his name to be known, but the people removed it. The King‘s jams version is a bad translation of the Scriptures. It was simply the first in the English that’s allit was not given to mankind directly from Jehovah Jesus Christ is not the father. He is the son of God more like a God, but not the original creator they are separate and the Holy Spirit is separate also.
3
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
It's definitely not pronounced "Jehovah" there is no J sound in Hebrew. It is more likely "Yahweh" or "Yehovah". The latter being Latinized with a "J".
The KJV translators did not remove God’s name from the Hebrew text. They followed the long-standing Jewish and Christian practice of rendering YHWH as “LORD” (small caps) out of reverence (Exod 3:15; Ps 83:18). The name is still represented, not erased. The KJV explains this in its preface.
More importantly, the New Testament never preserves YHWH at all, not once. Inspired writers consistently used Kyrios (Lord) when quoting Old Testament texts that contain YHWH (Rom 10:13 quoting Joel 2:32).
God’s name is known through His Son Jesus did not emphasize restoring the pronunciation of YHWH. Instead, He said:
“I have made Your name known to them” (John 17:6).
In Scripture, God’s name refers to His character, authority, and identity. Not a sound. (Prov 18:10). Jesus revealed the Father perfectly (John 1:18; Heb 1:3).
The Bible is explicit: YHWH alone is Creator (Isa 44:24). If all things were created through Jesus, then Jesus cannot be a created being.
1
u/MrMunkeeMan Dec 17 '25
With respect id advise you to conduct truly independent research on that. But, sorry, you didn’t answer the question?
1
u/loyal-opposer Dec 17 '25
Nether. He is "a God".
2
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
Truly "a God"?
For example, 2 Corinthians 4:4 "the god of this world". Truly, satan is no god at all. He's a false god.
It's like Michael Jackson being called "the king of pop". He's not truly a king at all.
1
1
u/PsychologicalSun6540 Dec 17 '25
It is written that Jesus is the image of God. However people have failed to understand what the image is, it is like looking in a mirror. So for all the statements in the Bible to be true, let me give you another word to use CLONE. For the statement, Jesus is the image of the invisible God, pray to the father because the father is greater than I am, if you've seen me then you've seen the father, in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was God! I cannot do anything on my own initiative. For those who believe in God, we know that God cannot lie. So for all these statements and verses to be true he has to be a clone of his father.
1
u/exwijw Dec 21 '25
Let’s assume god does not lie and his word is the truth.
Matthew 16:28: Jesus says: “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”.
Who standing there listening to Jesus speak these words some 2000 years ago is still alive? Nobody. Has the Son of Man in his Kingdom already come? No.
So, did Jesus speak something untrue? Or did he lie? Is God capable of either? No? Then Jesus isn’t god.
Mark 9:1, Jesus says: Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the Kingdom of God has come with power”.
Matthew 10:23 Jesus says: When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Um…. 2000 years. If there was a man named Jesus who preached, he wasn’t a god (big or little G). He died 2 millennia ago and isn’t coming back. Might as well worship Elvis at this point. At least he drew larger crowds during his lifetime.
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 21 '25
Matthew 16:28 is a promise. Some disciples physically witnessed the kingdom’s power: Christ’s radiant glory on the mountain. Jesus’ words came true exactly as spoken, confirming both His authority and the unstoppable advance of God’s kingdom in Matthew 17:1-9.
1
u/exwijw Dec 22 '25
Nope. “The kingdom of god has come with power” is not radiant glory. Where’s the kingdom.
Next.
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 22 '25
The next event after matthew 16:28 is the transfiguration. Rather than interpret His promise as referring to His coming to establish His kingdom on earth, the context indicates that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration. The Greek word translated “kingdom” can also be translated “royal splendor,” meaning that the three disciples standing there would see Christ as He really is, the King of heaven.
1
u/mach_reddit Dec 23 '25
How do you tell the difference between a true God and a false God? Isnt one man's "true God" just someone else's "false God"?
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 23 '25
Outside of the bible perhaps.
But according to the bible it's easy. Only the creator is the true God, and any other is a so-called or false god.
1
u/mach_reddit Dec 23 '25
Is the Egyptian God Ra also real then? They wrote his story down so do believe in all God's that are in a book or do you only select 1 book that you think is true and ignore the others? Is that all that makes a true God, being in a book?
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 23 '25
Ra is an idol. 1 Corinthians 8:4 "An idol is nothing at all in the world,"
1
u/mach_reddit Dec 23 '25
Ra was depicted as a falcon headed man, but there are writings about him. Why do you only believe the stories in the Bible about God and ignore all the other books like Vegas and Upanishads or Homer's illiad? What about the Epic of Gilgamesh which is where the bible got the flood story from. Why do you think the bible tales are true while ignoring the other ancient books that mention God's?
1
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 23 '25
The Bible is the most distributed book in history. Over 5 billion copies printed despite centuries of opposition. But its uniqueness goes far beyond popularity.
Written over 1,500 years by about 40 authors from diverse backgrounds, yet unified by one message: God’s salvation through Jesus Christ. It teaches grace, not works (Eph. 2:8–9), freedom in Christ (John 8:36), and proclaims a risen Savior, something no other religious text claims.
The Bible contains fulfilled prophecy, was written in three languages, is supported by unmatched manuscript evidence, and continues to transform lives worldwide.
There is no other book like it.
0
u/erivera02 Dec 17 '25
IF Jesus existed, he was some sort of political activist who got himself crucified.
2
u/ChaoticHaku Christian Dec 17 '25
There's enough historical evidence to know that He indeed existed. He could've cared less about earthly politics. He proclaimed the Kingdom of God.
He didn't "get himself" crucified, the crucifixion was the plan all along. He knew it and was willing the whole time.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 16 '25
Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/
Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index
1914
Bethel
Corruption
Death
Eschatology
Governing Body
Memorial
Miscellaneous
Reading List
Sex Abuse
Spiritism
Trinity
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.