"Mighty God" vs "Almighty God."

[Ninjalan]

I had a debate with a good online JW buddy of mine a while back. It involved the deity of Jesus.
Of course I won (heheheh), but one thing stuck with me after the debate that has boggled me about the JW's ever since. He made a distinction between Jesus, who he called "Mighty God," and YHWH, who he called "Almighty God."

This seemed to root from the prophecy in Isaiah that mentions the Christ as "Mighty God." I suppose that in his mind, a way to explain this without admitting that Christ was, in fact, YHWH, was to distinguish between the two. My question, then, is this: Do mainstream JW's make this distinction as well? If not, how do they reconcile the Isaiah prophecy? If they do make the distinction, how do they reconcile their distinction with passages in the OT where YHWH is called "Mighty God"? Also, is their reconciliation anything more than baseless and grasping for something that is not there?

I'm not looking for a debate here, I'm just curious if anyone knows. Thanks!

[xcav8tor]

Hi Ninjalan,

Sorry no one has responded to your question yet. I was assuming you wanted to hear from a JW so I was holding off, but as none of them seem to around, I figure I'll give you my two cents worth.

Yes, I have heard this "argument" from several JWs over the years. Since Isa. 9:6 clearly attests to the Messiah's deity, and the Watchtower denies this, they are forced to try to explain it away. Since they can't get away from the wording of the text "Mighty God," they have to try to show that this does not mean Jehovah God. Their "solution" - Jehovah God is "The Almighty" and the Messiah is called "Might God," so Jesus must be a "little god" by comparison (in keeping with their mistranslation of The Word as "a god" in John 1:1 NWT).

Of course, then you would have genuine 2 gods, which flies in the face of Biblical monotheism. When you press them on this, they then proceed to "explain" that "Might God" is applied to Jesus in the sense of "a might one," more along the lines of a powerful angel. In other words, if they dilute the term to the extent it really has lost its force, they feel the problem has been removed. We have to at least give them credit for their fancy footwork.

They might even be able to slide this one past except for the fact that IN THE VERY NEXT CHAPTER by the VERY SAME AUTHOR, Isaiah refers to Jehovah as "The Mighty God." Isa. 10:20-21 reads:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD [YHWY in the Hebrew], the Holy One of Israel, in truth. The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.

Since the title of "Mighty God" is (from Isaiah's POV) obviously another title for Jehovah (Who is "God Almighty"), then we cannot avoid the implications of 9:6 that the Messiah is ALSO Jehovah God. Besides, Isaiah, as a MONOTHEISTIC JEW whose ONLY GOD is Jehovah, any reference to "Mighty God" MUST be referring to "The Almighty." The Watchtower's desperate attempt to avoid the clear meaning of the passage is just that - an act of desperation.

Btw, have you pointed out to your friend that his very own NWT shows that while there is only one real God there are at least 2 persons who are Jehovah? Ask him to try to "explain" Gen. 19:24:

Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sodom and Gomorrah. NWT

It's a bit more clear in the KJV.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven. KJV

What is important to keep in mind is that 3 persons had just finished speaking to Abraham, one of which he addressed as Jehovah. Two of the three went to rescue lot from S&G (and are later identified as angels), but the third person Who was Jehovah remained with Abraham. So we have ONE Jehovah ON EARTH calling down fire and brimstone from a SECOND Jehovah UP IN HEAVEN. Gen. 18:1-4, 20-22, 32-33

In particular note the following in vs 20-22:

And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down NOW, and SEE whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

In verses 32-33,

And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

Presumably the LORD went over to S&G as was His stated intention in verses 20-22, so JUST PRIOR to the destruction, we still have one LORD (Jehovah) ON EARTH. This would be a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus as the physical manifestation of Jehovah in the OT (called a theophany).

There are other instances of 2 "Jehovah"s as well, (Zec. 3:1-2 for example) but you get the idea.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[Ninjalan]

Genesis 19.24 just sounds to me like typical Hebrew parallelism, but I wonder how they reconcile Isaiah 10:20-21 with their claims?

Thanks for the response, btw.

[evantisin]

There is a definite distinction between Jesus and God, especially with the titles they bear. God does have the titles of "mighty God" (Luke 22:69) and "Almighty God" (Exodus 6:3) attributed to him in the Bible. Jesus also has "mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6) attributed to him as a title.

However, "Almighty God" is never a title Jesus holds. Even in Luke 22:69, where it attributes "mighty God" to God, it is not necessarily a title, because it says "the mighty God" and could just simply refer to God as "the mighty god" without intentionally saying that it's God's title. In fact, God specifically claims the name "Almighty God" in Exodus 6:3. God is beyond simply being a "mighty God." God is Almighty!

In revealing God's name in the book of Exodus, there is another noteworthy distinction. First of all, it's apparent from Exodus that Moses had never seen God (Exodus 33:20, 1 Timothy 6:16, 1 John 4:12, John 1:18). In Exodus 3:2, it shows that an angel appeared, and in Acts 7:30, Acts 7:35, and Acts 7:38, it specifically states that an angel was used by God to show himself to Moses. As in, Moses saw that angel as a proxy; Moses never saw God. It was a theophany made possible by use of that angel.

The discussion that follows Exodus 3:2 may hint at this distinction. In Exodus 3:14-15, God claims the name "I AM THAT I AM," he claims the name "LORD, the God of your Fathers....", saying "this is my name forever."

However, he does not make such a claim on "I AM."

Consider the discussion of Exodus 3 on God's name. Exodus 3:13 from the KJV poses the question:

when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

What I bolded is answered with "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus 3:14. That is the name that God wanted to be known by.

What I underlined is answered with "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you " in Exodus 3:14. That is what God says Moses should say.

What I italicized is answered by "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers,.....this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" in Exodus 3:15. This is the name of God revealed to the fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and claims as him name forever.

The bolded question of what God's name is is answered with a name. The italicized answer claims a name. The underlined question and answer do not directly ask for or claim a name at all. It is possible that it's only implied, but that's not even certain.

Consider what's said in Exodus 3:15 again. When God "appeared" to Abraham (Genesis 12:7), Isaac (Genesis 26:2), and Jacob (Genesis 35:9), he revealed to them a name that God brings back here in Exodus 3:15. (God recalls the name he revealed to them in Exodus 6:2-3).

God did not reveal himself as "I AM" to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. We know that God did not claim the name "I AM" as his title because, in Exodus 6:2-3, God says that he revealed himself by the name "God Almighty" to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and he spoke to them "in person" a number of times, as recorded in Genesis), but he says he did not reveal himself to them by another name ("JEHOVAH" in the KJV and "Lord" in the NIV).

It is also apparent that God's name by the Tetragrammaton, "YHWH", "Yahweh", "Jehovah", etc. does not mean "I AM." That is a misunderstanding developed from the abbreviation and shorthand of God's name.

With God telling Moses to say that "I AM hath sent me unto you" and the fact that he does not specifically claim the name "I AM", it is almost as if God is referring to a subordinate (like when he says "I am sending an angel ahead of you" Exodus 23:20), and I would suggest that "I AM" is the alias of God's proxy angel. As in, that "the angel of Lord" that God used to appear to Moses (Exodus 3:2-4) in this Exodus 3:13-15 discussion is now indirectly mentioned as that proxy, holding the subordinate name "I AM."

Keep in mind that "Jesus" did not exist in the Old Testament times, but "the Word" (the pre-incarnate Jesus) did.

Now, God specifically claims "I AM THAT I AM" and "the Lord, God of your Fathers" (and elsewhere in the scriptures).

In the New Testament, the closest claim to this that Jesus makes is in John 8:58, where Jesus says "before Abraham was, I AM."

Why not "I AM THAT I AM?"
Why not "the Lord, God of your Fathers?"
Why not "Yahweh?"
Why not "Jehovah?"
Why not the Tetragrammaton?
Why not "God?"

No where in the Bible does Jesus claim the names "I AM THAT I AM," "the Lord, God of your Fathers," "Yahweh," "Jehovah," the Tetragrammaton, or "God."

Just "I AM."

In fact, the rendering "before Abraham was, I AM" isn't even a direct claim of possessing a name, but ungrammatical way to state one's name or title. Why not "before Abraham was, I am?" Could it have simply meant that?

Nevertheless, if "before Abraham was, I AM" is Jesus' claim of a title, that does make some sense and fits in.

The thing is, "I AM" is not God's name. It would make better sense if Jesus Christ, by "I AM," is claiming to be that angel used for a theophany from Exodus 3:2, "the angel of the Lord."

Consider the discussion of John 8. John 8:31-58 is a discussion over the patriarch Abraham and Jesus talks about having known Abraham in John 8:56. Who other than God, the Holy Spirit, and the angels of all sorts would have been able to exist from around Abraham's time to this time of the discussion with Jesus?

In fact, Genesis 22:11 and Genesis 22:15 show "the angel of the Lord" talking to Abraham.

Could "the angel of the Lord" used in Genesis 22:11 and Genesis 22:15 to speak to Abraham have been "the Word," the pre-incarnate Jesus?

Could it have been the same one used in Exodus 3:2?

Could "the word of the Lord" used in Genesis 15:1-7 to speak to Abraham have been an angel? The same one as "the Word" from John 1:1?

We know that when God appeared to Abraham (Genesis 12:7), Isaac (Genesis 26:2), Jacob (Genesis 35:9), and Moses (Exodus 3:16), it was a theophany; a theophany that involved an angel of one sort or another.

Again, it is a fact that no human being has ever seen God (Exodus 33:20, 1 Timothy 6:16, 1 John 4:12, John 1:18). God himself never appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses; only an angel that acted as a theophany. After all, it is said in Hebrews 1:3 that the Son is an exact representation of God, and therefore, as "the Word," acted as a theophany a number of times throughout the Old Testament.

Still, no, Jesus Christ was not an angel. Jesus Christ was a man. "The Word" could very possibly have been a unique angel that took part in the theophany of God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Although God claims names like "I AM THAT I AM," "the Lord, God of your Fathers," "God," the Tetragrammaton, and possibly even "I AM," the title of "I AM" is the closest one and only one near such a title which Jesus may have claimed (John 8:58).

In other words, it appears as though Jesus Christ had gone no where near claiming to be God, but claimed a subordinate title that was not even stated to be God's name.

There is one other distinction in titles I'd like to mention, and I apologize if this sounds redundant since I've just mentioned it a bit in another thread.

God is called "the God of gods," "the Lord of lords," and "the King of kings" in the following passages of the Old and New Testament:
Deuteronomy 10:17, Psalm 136:1-3, and 1 Timothy 6:13-16

However, "the God of gods" is never attributed to Jesus at all in the Bible. Only the titles of "the Lord of lords" and "the Kings of kings" in these verses of the Revelation of John, which is a bit eery as it's part of a vision:
Revelation 17:14, Revelation 19:13-16

Furthermore, such a title as "the Lord" or "the King" wasn't always a title Jesus/the Word would bear. Acts 2:36 says that "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." This is a testimony to the fact that Jesus became the Messiah (was given the title "Christ," had become anointed to inherit King David's throne) and that Jesus became the Lord (inherited the title of Lord as a distinction among all other lords). I say that Jesus became a distinct "lord" because other angels were called lords (e.g. "my lords" in Genesis 19:2).

In fact, Jesus was called "Lord" by Paul (Saul) before he knew who it was in Acts 9:5 (keep in mind that he said "Who are you, Lord?," which shows he didn't know it was Lord Jesus). This indicates there indeed was a custom of calling angels "Lord" well into the Apostolic age. Acts 10:3-4 is another example, where a different angel appeared and Cornelius called him "Lord."

There must be a distinction between Jesus being called "Lord" and angels being called "Lord," especially when it occurs around in such a short timeframe. In a sense, with Jesus' titles of "the Lord of lords" and "the King of kings," it may mean that Jesus is given authority as King over human beings and Lord over the angels, but is still subordinate to God. As in, that the title reflects a subjective degree of authority; not universal and objective over all things. After all, Jesus was made "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36) and thus didn't always have these titles and authorities. Also, Jesus would inherit the throne of King David, as promised by God in 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, meaning that Jesus didn't always bear the title of "King." It is not complete authority over the entirety of all existence, but is a bit subjective in the amount of authority Jesus would have.

Even as Jesus is "Lord of lords" and "King of kings," God still has authority over Jesus; a level of authority he does not give to anyone. God reigns sovereign and supreme over the subordinate Jesus/Word/Son.

Btw, have you pointed out to your friend that his very own NWT shows that while there is only one real God there are at least 2 persons who are Jehovah? Ask him to try to "explain" Gen. 19:24:

.....

What is important to keep in mind is that 3 persons had just finished speaking to Abraham, one of which he addressed as Jehovah. Two of the three went to rescue lot from S&G (and are later identified as angels), but the third person Who was Jehovah remained with Abraham. So we have ONE Jehovah ON EARTH calling down fire and brimstone from a SECOND Jehovah UP IN HEAVEN. Gen. 18:1-4, 20-22, 32-33

.....

Presumably the LORD went over to S&G as was His stated intention in verses 20-22, so JUST PRIOR to the destruction, we still have one LORD (Jehovah) ON EARTH. This would be a pre-incarnation appearance of Jesus as the physical manifestation of Jehovah in the OT (called a theophany).

There are other instances of 2 "Jehovah"s as well, (Zec. 3:1-2 for example) but you get the idea.

When there is a theophany, you're supposed to talk to it as if it were God or assume it were God.

However, no theophany that occurred in the scriptures, whatever the theophany itself was, is actually God. The context of every theophany that occurs in the scriptures is that actions and appearances of God are done in God's name or by God's command; they're attributed to him indirectly.

Therefore, there isn't actually "two 'Jehovah's'" or two gods at all. Even the pre-incarnate Jesus ("the Word") was no actual god.

[JWDisciple]

When GOD states that He is the only GOD , what He is saying is that there is no other being in existence , like Him . There is no other source or causeless cause of reality , no other unconditional reality , other than Him .



All other beings , whether they are animal , human or angel ( divine ) , are contingent realities or conditional realities , their existence and nature , all of their attributes and powers , rely on another being ..namely GOD ..the Supreme Deity / Divinity . This is the ancient Hebrew - Israelite view of God , as far as Him being the "Only God "... the exclusivity or uniqueness of GOD , is in the fact that He is the Ultimate Source of EVERYTHING...


That said , the Hebrew bible identifies angels as divine beings of great power and authority ...Angels are "gods " ( little g ) , immortal creatures , that receive their divine - immortal nature , from GOD ( JEHOVAH ) , the absolute and supreme Source of all powers ( life , consciousness , powers , authority , it all descends , finds it's origin in Jehovah ) .

It's simple to understand , however Trinitarian Evengelical Christians , for one reason or another , choose not to understand ..They will emphasize the fact that God says there is no other God ..but refuse to deal with those passages that clearly state that there are other legitimate divine beings ...It's almost as if they believe that if they avoid the verses that identify angels , and other individuals as gods , they will somehow disappear and go away . Jehovah's Witnesses , reconcile this apparent paradox or "contradiction" , by simply putting these passages in their proper context and setting ..

In conclusion ..

When God proclaims that there is no other EL or Elohim than HIM , what He is saying is that there is no Elohim like Him ..This is true , on account of the fact that Jehovah is the only uncreated being in existence , actually He is , as noted earlier , the original , absolute , causeless cause and source of everything .. However , this being the case , does not undermine or disqualify the fact that angels are identified as elohim or divine beings .."gods" .

There is a reason for this , and I can explain why in subsequent posts , but for now I will leave it at that .


I always receive complaints from Trinitarians , pointing out that God's original name is not "Jehovah" , because there is no "J" in Hebrew ..I am aware of that ..Most of these same individuals have no objection or issue with using the name " Jesus " ...There is no "J" in Hebrew , hence there is no " Jesus " , which is a translation from the Greek ...His Name is Yehoshua or Yeshua . So clean your own tent first , before you resort to such petty criticism ...



JWdisciple

[Sparko]

its more than just "no J"

Jehovah is a mixture word from YHWH and the vowels of "Adonai" (Lord) so it clearly is not God's "Name" which is YHWH.

[JWDisciple]

Right right , so start using Yehoshua or Yeshua and not "Jesus" , because it's WRONG to say " Jesus " ............ and Jesus wont answer your prayers ...right ? That's NOT HIS NAME " JESUS "...so he wont answer your prayers , sorry .

[Sparko]

Right right , so start using Yehoshua or Yeshua and not "Jesus" , because it's WRONG to say " Jesus " ............ and Jesus wont answer your prayers ...right ? That's NOT HIS NAME " JESUS "...so he wont answer your prayers , sorry .

Hey I just wanted you to know the reason why "Jehovah" came to be. I am sure God can hear the prayers of anyone he wants to, since he is omnipotent and knows everything, including your thoughts.

besides, most mainstream Christians don't get worked up about calling God by his name, we call him "Father" - it is the Jehovah's Witnesses that make a big deal about calling God by his "proper" name, and they got it wrong after all that.

PS - the letter J in German sounds like a "Y" and in Latin, Jesus is Iesus, "yesus" and when Martin Luther wrote his protestant bible in German, he used the "J" because it made the "Y" sound in German. so basically "Jehovah" should be pronounced "Yehovah" if you want to get technical.

[xcav8tor]

Hi JWDisciple,

When GOD states that He is the only GOD , what He is saying is that there is no other being in existence, like Him . There is no other source or causeless cause of reality , no other unconditional reality , other than Him .

Absolutely right. I agree. Jehovah alone is INHERENTLY GOD BY NATURE, The Self-Existent One.

All other beings , whether they are animal , human or angel ( divine ) , are contingent realities or conditional realities , their existence and nature , all of their attributes and powers , rely on another being ..namely GOD ..the Supreme Deity / Divinity . This is the ancient Hebrew - Israelite view of God , as far as Him being the "Only God "... the exclusivity or uniqueness of GOD , is in the fact that He is the Ultimate Source of EVERYTHING...

Again, absolutely correct. I agree. This means He is the ONLY REAL GOD that exists.

That said , the Hebrew bible identifies angels as divine beings of great power and authority ...Angels are "gods " ( little g ) , immortal creatures , that receive their divine - immortal nature , from GOD ( JEHOVAH ) , the absolute and supreme Source of all powers ( life , consciousness , powers , authority , it all descends , finds it's origin in Jehovah ).

I think a little clarification is in order. Angels are called "sons of God" (by creation) and "gods" in the sense of "powerful ones" but I think it is stretching it to suggest it is the Bible's INTENT to identify them as "REAL DIVINE beings" just because they are in some ways god-like. By definition, a "divine being" IS a God, and you have already clarified above that Jehovah is the ONLY REAL GOD who is the "causeless cause of reality" upon which "all other beings... are contingent." The Bible is clear that ONLY ONE REAL GOD EXISTS (I'm sure you are as well acquainted of the relevant texts as I am). The fact that the OT sometimes uses the lesser GENERIC term "elohim" for The Almighty does NOT mean that when used of creatures that it validates or legitimizes them as REAL GODS.

It's simple to understand , however Trinitarian Evengelical Christians , for one reason or another , choose not to understand ..They will emphasize the fact that God says there is no other God ..but refuse to deal with those passages that clearly state that there are other legitimate divine beings ...It's almost as if they believe that if they avoid the verses that identify angels , and other individuals as gods , they will somehow disappear and go away . Jehovah's Witnesses , reconcile this apparent paradox or "contradiction" , by simply putting these passages in their proper context and setting ...

That is not an accurate representation of our position. We recognize that IN ADDITION TO THE FATHER being JEHOVAH, Jesus is identified in Scripture as JEHOVAH God, as is the Holy Spirit. Since the Bible clearly teaches that there is ONLY ONE REAL GOD, then the only view which accepts the truth of ALL these scriptures is that God is a TRIUNE Being.

IN CONTRAST, all other so-called "gods" are either FALSE GODS usurping the worship that belongs to God alone (like Satan - the "god of this world," demons, idols, "lords many and gods many") OR "GODS" IN A REPRESENTATIVE SENSE (like Moses represented God's authority to Pharaoh, or the unjust judges in Ps. 82 who though they are godlike in their position of authority over other men, will die just like the men they are). NONE of these are GODS BY NATURE as all are derivative beings who exist by God's grace, and the CONTEXT of the verses which apply "elohim" to created beings NEVER SUGGESTS ANYTHING DIFFERENT, so when the Bible teaches throughout that there is ONLY ONE REAL GOD, it means EXACTLY THAT.

What the Watchtower has done is try to have it's cake and eat it too. It refuses to accept the Bible's testimony that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is by virtue of being God's ONLY BEGOTTEN is ALSO GOD (John 5:18 NASB). Since the apostle John clearly identified the WORD as having the NATURE of God (John 1:1 NASB) and this did not agree with their doctrine, they had to mis-translate the passage as "The Word was a god" NWT. Problem now is they have TWO GENUINE GODS being ACKNOWLEDGED by their NWT translation (a BIG ONE, "The Almighty," and a LITTLE ONE, The Word - "a Mighty God") - but that would be POLYTHEiSM - "the worship of or belief in more than one God," in the face of the Bible's MONOTHEISM - "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God." Hmmm. What to do.... what to do?

Their solution - MONOLATRY - to teach "the worship of a SINGLE god but without claiming that it is the ONLY god." This way, it was believed that they could say there is only one BIG ALMIGHTY GOD (JEHOVAH) but that He also created a Son Who He OFFICIALLY recognizes as "A GOD - little g" who He in turn "used" to create other LEGITIMATE (your word) GODS (angels, and "lords many and gods many")... but they don't really count so we don't have to worship them. This position boils down to a belief of TWO "LEGITIMATE" CLASSES OF GENUINE GODS: UN-CREATED and CREATED - the first group consisting of ONE REAL GOD (Jehovah), the second group consisting of MANY REAL GODS (including JESUS and SATAN). No matter how you try to "spin it," this is nothing but POLYTHEISM.

SUCH IS NOT the teaching of the Bible. In order to try to save face they have to water down the term "God" so it does not really mean "God" and water down the Bible's "monotheism" so it does not really mean "monotheism." The Trinity doctrine on the other hand affirms BIBLICAL MONOTHEISM by saying that THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD, and that THE FATHER, THE SON and THE HOLY GHOST TOGETHER ARE THIS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD.

In conclusion ..

When God proclaims that there is no other EL or Elohim than HIM , what He is saying is that there is no Elohim like Him ..This is true , on account of the fact that Jehovah is the only uncreated being in existence , actually He is , as noted earlier , the original , absolute , causeless cause and source of everything .. However , this being the case , does not undermine or disqualify the fact that angels are identified as elohim or divine beings .."gods" .

But the fact that they ARE NOT identified as GOD BY NATURE shows they are NOT REALLY GODS, which takes us back to the truth that there is ONLY ONE REAL GOD - and JESUS is the INCARNATION and physical manifestation of JEHOVAH.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[JWDisciple]

Hey I just wanted you to know the reason why "Jehovah" came to be. I am sure God can hear the prayers of anyone he wants to, since he is omnipotent and knows everything, including your thoughts.

besides, most mainstream Christians don't get worked up about calling God by his name, we call him "Father" - it is the Jehovah's Witnesses that make a big deal about calling God by his "proper" name, and they got it wrong after all that.

PS - the letter J in German sounds like a "Y" and in Latin, Jesus is Iesus, "yesus" and when Martin Luther wrote his protestant bible in German, he used the "J" because it made the "Y" sound in German. so basically "Jehovah" should be pronounced "Yehovah" if you want to get technical.

Actually it's the Evangelicals like yourself that get all worked up and make a big deal about JWs using the word " Jehovah " , rather than " Yahweh " ..Most Hebrew scholars will admit that we really dont know how YHWH was actually pronounced ...

Those Evangelicals that have an issue with the use of "Jehovah" are the same ones that have no problem whatsoever , using "Jesus " , rather than the Hebrew : Yehoshua ...

It's not Jesus , or Yesus , but Yehoshua , look it up in any Hebrew dictionary or encyclopedia ..It translates " Joshua " , not "Jesus" , yet you and other Evangelicals criticize us ? We don't go around telling Christians they must prounounce : " YHWH " = " Jehovah " ..It's Evangalicals / " Sacred Namers" , that get all worked up , not us ..

..And anything you say in contrary to what I just pointed out , is just your opinion , some private incident you supposedly had with a JW that supposedly criticized you for not pronouncing YHWH = " the right way " , or some article you supposedly read somewhere where JWs criticize others for not using the term : " Jehovah " ...I'm not buying it , and I doubt anybody else who has spent some time with us will buy it ...

We don't grind the "Sacred Name" axe , criticizing others for not pronouncing certain words " our way " , the way we want them too ..that's your baby , not ours .

JWdisciple

[JWDisciple]

Hi JWDisciple,



Absolutely right. I agree. Jehovah alone is INHERENTLY GOD BY NATURE, The Self-Existent One.



Again, absolutely correct. I agree. This means He is the ONLY REAL GOD that exists.



I think a little clarification is in order. Angels are called "sons of God" (by creation) and "gods" in the sense of "powerful ones" but I think it is stretching it to suggest it is the Bible's INTENT to identify them as "REAL DIVINE beings" just because they are in some ways god-like. By definition, a "divine being" IS a God, and you have already clarified above that Jehovah is the ONLY REAL GOD who is the "causeless cause of reality" upon which "all other beings... are contingent." The Bible is clear that ONLY ONE REAL GOD EXISTS (I'm sure you are as well acquainted of the relevant texts as I am). The fact that the OT sometimes uses the lesser GENERIC term "elohim" for The Almighty does NOT mean that when used of creatures that it validates or legitimizes them as REAL GODS.



That is not an accurate representation of our position. We recognize that IN ADDITION TO THE FATHER being JEHOVAH, Jesus is identified in Scripture as JEHOVAH God, as is the Holy Spirit. Since the Bible clearly teaches that there is ONLY ONE REAL GOD, then the only view which accepts the truth of ALL these scriptures is that God is a TRIUNE Being. IN CONTRAST, all other so-called "gods" are either FALSE GODS usurping the worship that belongs to God alone (like Satan - the "god of this world," demons, idols, "lords many and gods many") OR "GODS" IN A REPRESENTATIVE SENSE (like Moses represented God's authority to Pharaoh, or the unjust judges in Ps. 82 who though they are godlike in their position of authority over other men, will die just like the men they are). NONE of these are GODS BY NATURE as all are derivative beings who exist by God's grace, and the CONTEXT of the verses which apply "elohim" to created beings NEVER SUGGESTS ANYTHING DIFFERENT, so when the Bible teaches throughout that there is ONLY ONE REAL GOD, it means EXACTLY THAT.

What the Watchtower has done is try to have it's cake and eat it too. It refuses to accept the Bible's testimony that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is by virtue of being God's ONLY BEGOTTEN is ALSO GOD (John 5:18 NASB). Since the apostle John clearly identified the WORD as God (John 1:1 NASB) and this did not agree with their doctrine, they had to mis-translate the passage as "The Word was a god" NWT. Problem now is they have TWO GENUINE GODS being ACKNOWLEDGED by their NWT translation (a BIG ONE, "The Almighty," and a LITTLE ONE, The Word - "a Mighty God") - but that would be POLYTHEiSM - "the worship of or belief in more than one God," in the face of the Bible's MONOTHEISM - "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God." Hmmm. What to do.... what to do?

Their solution - MONOLATRY - to teach "the worship of a SINGLE god but without claiming that it is the ONLY god." This way, it was believed that they could say there is only one BIG ALMIGHTY GOD (JEHOVAH) but that He also created a Son Who He OFFICIALLY recognizes as "A GOD - little g" who He in turn "used" to create other LEGITIMATE (your word) GODS (angels, and "lords many and gods many")... but they don't really count so we don't have to worship them. This position boils down to a belief of TWO "LEGITIMATE" CLASSES OF GENUINE GODS: UN-CREATED and CREATED - the first group consisting of ONE REAL GOD, the second group consisting of MANY REAL GODS (including JESUS and SATAN). No matter how you try to "spin it," this is nothing but POLYTHEISM.

SUCH IS NOT the teaching of the Bible. In order to try to save face they have to water down the term "God" so it does not really mean "God" and water down the Bible's "monotheism" so it does not really mean "monotheism." The Trinity doctrine on the other hand affirms BIBLICAL MONOTHEISM by saying that THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD, and that THE FATHER, THE SON and THE HOLY GHOST TOGETHER ARE THIS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD.



But the fact that they ARE NOT identified as GOD BY NATURE shows they are NOT REALLY GODS, which takes us back to the truth that there is ONLY ONE REAL GOD - and JESUS is the INCARNATION and physical manifestation of JEHOVAH.

Regards,
xcav8tor

-------------

You wrote :

I think a little clarification is in order. Angels are called "sons of God" (by creation) and "gods" in the sense of "powerful ones" .......

"Benai Elohim" or sons of God , can be translated as " those of the order of divinity / elohim " ..In Hebrew the word " Benai " can be translated " children " , however it can also denote membership , being part of a certain catagory , order , guild .etc

The Bible uses the term elohim and el for angels ...more in the LXX , and in other ancient translations , they are also called "gods" ( theos .etc ) ....

So , all of your tap-dancing and side steppen , won't change that ...We were created a little lower than the elohim / angels , not a little lower than ELOHIM ..GOD / Jehovah .

Evangelicals insist that YHWH is the only EL or Elohim , will yes and no ..That depends on how you approach the issue ....Heavenly creatures are elohim , humans commissioned by YHWH , functioning as YHWH , either as judges who judge for YHWH or who sit on His thrown in Jerusalem , are all "elohim " ...

The principle is YHWH , and when the principle or source of authority and power deputizes , ordains one of His creatures to represent Him , that creature becomes as YHWH ..He is YHWH with us , sitting there on the throne ..To obey Jehovah's official rep , is to obey Jehovah ..

Angels are not ontologicaly Jehovah , they are not divine in the same sense that Jehovah is , our heavenly Father ( Source ) , but they are divine ...The fire has it's own nature , let's assume there was this original source , let's call it a "Fire" ( capital "F" ) and this Fire transfers it's energy to a piece of iron ..that iron becomes red hot , it adopts , in a way , the nature of "The Fire" ...

The iron is not literally , "ontologically " , Fire .. , however if one was to identify the object that has absorbed a measure of The Fire's energy , as "fire" , you would not , necessarily , be incorrect . It all depends on how you approach the issue ..Are you making a proper distinction between " The Fire " ( The absolute source / Fire with a capital "F" ) and the fire (fire with a little "f" ..conditional , contingent on something outside of itself ... fire ..) ...

Angels are full of YHWH's glory , power and authority ...They are divine , however they are not DIVINE , in the sense that they are self-subsisting , unconditional realities ..beings that do not rely on another , for their existence and power .

That other is JEHOVAH , Our Heavenly Father ( Source ) ..In order for creatures to relate to Him , and have an intimate , meaningful relationship with Him , they must become like Him ..In almost every way ... except one and that is ..No creature will ever be able to become an unconditional , self-subsisting reality ..

Angels are gods / divine by grace ..By divine fiat ...Not from within themselves ..nonetheless it is not incorrect , wrong ..blasphemous to identify the heanvely , holy angels as "gods" ..It does not take anything away from Jehovah to use such terms ..

As JWs we believe that Jesus holds the highest rank in heaven ( the spiritual realm ) , there is no creature , being , intelligence , superior to Christ ..It is not inappropriate to identify Jesus as a god , not only that , but one could even go further and say that when Jesus stands before us , it is Jehovah who is standing before us ..Jesus is Jehovah with us ...

However , unlike the Trinitarians , who believe Jehovah is ontologically three hypostacia or persons , we say no ..Jehovah is One Person , and Jesus , His Son , is the means through which Jehovah relates with His creation/s ..

There are many creatures , of different "races" , who are now angels ( messengers ) and " Bnai Elohim " ( of the order of divinity / immortals ).. and one day members of the human race will join this order ...however most of us , will receive the gift of eternal life , in a new earth ..a new world where there will be no death , disease , crime .etc

As to what happends after that ,or what else awaits us , Jehovah knows ..


JWdisciple

[faithymom]

We don't grind the "Sacred Name" axe , criticizing others for not pronouncing certain words " our way " , the way we want them too ..that's your baby , not ours .

I think I just choked on something...

[IncRus]

That is not an accurate representation of our position. We recognize that IN ADDITION TO THE FATHER being JEHOVAH, Jesus is identified in Scripture as JEHOVAH God, as is the Holy Spirit. Since the Bible clearly teaches that there is ONLY ONE REAL GOD,

There is NO verse in the Bible which clearly identifies Jesus as "JEHOVAH God" NOR is there a verse in the Bible which clearly identifies the Holy Spirit as JEHOVAH God as well. Therefore, the above statement is a MISREPRESENTATION.
.

then the only view which accepts the truth of ALL these scriptures is that God is a TRIUNE Being.

Therefore, the "view" (opinion or interpretation) that "God is a TRIUNE being" is a man-made CONCLUSION to force the above MISREPRESENTATION to fit the Bible's CLEAR teaching that there is ONLY ONE REAL God.

What the Watchtower has done is try to have it's cake and eat it too. It refuses to accept the Bible's testimony that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is by virtue of being God's ONLY BEGOTTEN is ALSO GOD (John 5:18 NASB).

Your MISUNDERSTANDING of John 5:18 leads you to this FALSE interpretation that "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is by virtue of being ONLY BEGOTEN is ALSO GOD."

Compared to what Jesus CLEARLY declared in John 17:3, that the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God," your FALSE interpretation MISLEADS people to eternal destruction instead of eternal life!

The Trinity doctrine on the other hand affirms BIBLICAL MONOTHEISM by saying that THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD, and that THE FATHER, THE SON and THE HOLY GHOST TOGETHER ARE THIS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD.

As I said numerous times on numerous threads, the Trinity doctrine which teaches that "the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit ARE the ONLY ONE true God" is NOT Biblical, and therefore, FALSE!

It even goes against the rules of grammar. Look at your post. You started by saying "there IS only one true God" and you ended up by saying "....ARE this only one true God." The Bible correlates the words "ONLY ONE" to a SINGLE item. The Trinity doctrine, on the CONTRARY, correlates the words "only one" to MORE THAN one items. Sadly, FANATICS are blind to these subtle differences!

But the fact that they ARE NOT identified as GOD BY NATURE shows they are NOT REALLY GODS, which takes us back to the truth that there is ONLY ONE REAL GOD - and JESUS is the INCARNATION and physical manifestation of JEHOVAH.

Again, this is an UNBIBILICAL statement. The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus is the INCARNATION of JEHOVAH. The Bible also does NOT tach that Jesus is the "physical manifestation" of JEHOVAH. Obviously, everything that is said to defend the FALSE Trinity doctrine is pure and simple interpretation or opinion that is NOT supported by the Bible.

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

As I said numerous times on numerous threads, the Trinity doctrine which teaches that "the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit ARE the ONLY ONE true God" is NOT Biblical, and therefore, FALSE!

It even goes against the rules of grammar. Look at your post. You started by saying "there IS only one true God" and you ended up by saying "....ARE this only one true God." The Bible correlates the words "ONLY ONE" to a SINGLE item. The Trinity doctrine, on the CONTRARY, correlates the words "only one" to MORE THAN one items. Sadly, FANATICS are blind to these subtle differences!

Do the inspired scriptures lie when they say that man and woman are to be one flesh? Genesis 2:24

[xcav8tor]

Hello again IncRus,

There is NO verse in the Bible which clearly identifies Jesus as "JEHOVAH God" NOR is there a verse in the Bible which clearly identifies the Holy Spirit as JEHOVAH God as well. Therefore, the above statement is a MISREPRESENTATION.

Ignoring the evidence isn't going to make it go away IncRus. Since you have ignored it in the past, there is no point repeating it again here.

As I said numerous times on numerous threads, the Trinity doctrine which teaches that "the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit ARE the ONLY ONE true God" is NOT Biblical, and therefore, FALSE!

And undoubtedly you will continue to say it numerous more times. Repetition, however, will not make a false statement any less false in the future.

It even goes against the rules of grammar. Look at your post. You started by saying "there IS only one true God" and you ended up by saying "....ARE this only one true God." The Bible correlates the words "ONLY ONE" to a SINGLE item.

Context means nothing to you, does it? What I said IN CONTEXT was:

"The Trinity doctrine on the other hand affirms BIBLICAL MONOTHEISM by saying that THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD,... "

This part of my statement is talking about the NUMBER OF BEINGS, therefore IS was the correct word to use.

"and that THE FATHER, THE SON and THE HOLY GHOST TOGETHER ARE THIS ONLY ONE TRUE GOD."

This part of my statement is talking about the NUMBER OF PERSONS, therefore ARE was the correct word to use.

Once again, your objection is based on faulty reasoning and lack of consideration for context.

The Trinity doctrine, on the CONTRARY, correlates the words "only one" to MORE THAN one items. Sadly, FANATICS are blind to these subtle differences!

Wrong again. The Trinity, when understood, refers to ONLY ONE Being, or "item" as you put it. There is nothing to be gained by misrepresenting the doctrine IncRus. It only hurts your credibility.

xcav8tor

PS TO JWDisciple - I stand by my post. If one of us is "side-stepping" the issue, it is not me.