Posts Tagged ‘Trinity’

IS JEHOVAH THE SAME PERSON AS JESUS?

Is Jehovah The Same Person as Jesus?

(A discussion about terms applied both to Jehovah and Jesus)

Some terms in the Bible are used to address both to Jehovah and Jesus. These terms are the “savior”, “father”, “first and last” and “lord of lords” and “king of kings”. Let us first study the term “savior” used to address Jehovah in Isaiah 43:11 which states, “I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.

In this verse Jehovah is saying that there is no savior other than him, thus Trinitarians say that since Jesus is also called as “a savior” in Luke 2:11 he is also Jehovah. However, let us compare Isaiah 49:26 in which Jehovah is called as the “Savior” of the Israel wherein in Septuagint interlinear there is an article in the preceding of the word “Savior” and in Luke 2:11 in which Jesus is also called as “a savior” there is no article before the word “savior”. Thus, it is proper to translate it as “a savior” to emphasize that he is not the one and only Savior which is Jehovah but the savior who is appointed by Jehovah. This is in conformity with the text in Jude 1:25 in which Jehovah is said as the Savior but it is only through Jesus Christ. However in KJV it does not have Jesus Christ as acting as the savior on behalf of Jehovah. Thus if we will follow the original Greek translation of this verse (in which Jesus Christ is not written), still the one and only identified as the “savior” is only Jehovah. However, since Jesus is the one sent by Jehovah to be the savior of the world, he is therefore acting as the savior on behalf of Jehovah. A very good proof of this matter which explicitly shows that they are distinct and that Jesus is acting as the savior on behalf of Jehovah is in Acts 5:31 which states, “31 God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler.” – NWT

It is clearly said in this verse that Jesus was exalted by his Father and that he was on the right side of God. There would be no valid interpretation of it than to say that Jehovah is separate from Jesus and are both present at particular time.  The Greek text of this verse has no article before the word “Savior” making it as indefinite thus it shows it is not Jehovah and also it is clear in the text that Jehovah exalted him to be the Chief Agent and [the] Savior on his right hand. Consider also Acts 13:23 in which in Greek interlinear it has no article thus NWT renders it as “a savior” and not the savior unlike in other bible versions which renders it as “the savior”. However in John 4:42 and 1 John 4:14 Jesus was identified as to be “the savior” of the world. Should we say that he is the Savior in the Old Testament or he is Jehovah? No. In these verses it only shows that Jehovah sent his son to be “the savior of the world”. Using an article on the Greek text by the writer was valid because Jesus was the one acted as the savior of the world in “physical” sense when he offered his life for the mankind. There is no other savior in the world who came in the world and who acted as the savior of mankind literally. We can see the difference of using the word “savior” to Jesus when he was described in heaven in Philippians 3:20 which states,“But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,”. In this text we can clearly see the carefulness of the writer in addressing Jesus as a “savior” who is being compared with Jehovah as “the savior” of all since both of them are in heaven. We can see an example of this using an article in Titus 1:3 and 1 Timothy 2:3 which identifies Jehovah as “the savior”. A good verse example in the Bible that identifies Jesus as “a savior” is in Isaiah 19:20.

20 And it must prove to be for a sign and for a witness to Jehovah of armies in the land of Egypt; for they will cry out to Jehovah because of the oppressors, and he will send them a savior, even a grand one, who will actually deliver them. – NWT

The original Greek interlinear has no article before the word “man” in which in Bible translations renders it as “a savior”. This clearly identifies that Jesus is a savior on behalf of Jehovah and Jehovah is the only savior.

Another term use both to Jehovah and Jesus is the “Father”. Jehovah is address as the “Father” many times in the Bible both in Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. On the other hand Jesus was once addressed as a “Father” in Isaiah 9:6.

“6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” – NWT

Is it right to say that because of this title used to address to both of them we can say that Jehovah is also Jesus? No. Take note that Abraham was also called the “Father” of all nations and this means he is a father to God’s people. Since Jehovah is the father of all Christians (that is on the time of adoption of men) and those who will be resurrected and be saved should we say that Abraham as he is the father of all nations (God’s people) is also Jehovah? Of course not. Saying Jesus is the Father of Christians is saying also that Abraham is the Father. Abraham was called “the father of all nations” in Genesis 17:4, 5 since through him all the people on earth will be blessed – Genesis 8:18; Genesis 12:3 and Galatians 3:8. Jehovah made a covenant with him that the promise “seed” will come through his descendants and this was Jesus and there are 144, 000 who belong to this seed. They are also called the seeds of Abraham who will have the promise of God of heavenly life – Galatians 3:29.  Therefore, Jesus as a “Father” doesn’t mean that He is the Heavenly Father but rather a father to the congregation of God for he is the head of the church whom appointed by Jehovah. Jesus is called to be as n “Everlasting Father” since it is through him the people on earth will be blessed – Acts 3:25; Genesis 22:18; Galatians 3:14. Do you think Abraham could be the father of all nations if the will of God did not happen through Jesus Christ? Abraham became the father of all nations only because of Jesus’ performance who acted in the foundation of the Christian congregation of God. It was through Jesus Christ the foundation of the congregation of God was established. Just as the head of the house – the father is also concern with his children and thus he feeds them and provides them everything they need. Jesus as the head of the congregation of God provides spiritual foods through his faithful and discreet slaves and provides them physical needs through his name in relation to the requests of the Christians to his Father. Moreover, Jesus is a father to all Jehovah’s Witnesses (after the final salvation) since it is through him the salvation for them is assured and the blessings for them came after. Jesus is a father since he let feed God’s people with right instructions and words of God as well as those people who are not yet part of the congregation of God but have chance to enter into it.

Another term used to address to both of them is “first” and “last”. Jehovah used this term to identify himself in Isaiah 44:6 which states, “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.”

While the text that identifies Jesus as the “first” and “last” is in Revelation 1:17 – 18 and Revelation 2:8. Since Jesus died as a man before therefore all Christianity agreed that this is Jesus however, since he is also called as “the first and last” the same descriptions to Jehovah in Isaiah 44:6, then Trinitarians concluded that they are one or coequal. However, this cannot be true since in Revelation 3:21 Jehovah and Jesus were identified as separate individuals who are both present at the same time. This is a proof from among many verses in the bible that identifies Jesus who is in the right side of Jehovah. So definitely Jesus is not Jehovah. He is called “first” since he is the first creation of Jehovah – 1 Colossians 1:15, 17 – 18. He is “first” – the beginning of all creation of Jehovah as he was described in Proverbs 8:22 – 23. Some bible versions translated verse 22 as the wisdom [the personification of Jesus] which was not created but possessed by God showing it is an eternal nature of God which is present in him. This is not true since verse 23 in their versions and in NWT suggests that this “wisdom” was established by Jehovah and all the terms used by other bible versions shows the same meaning of producing and forming it which is really synonymous to the word “created”. That is why this wisdom was called the master worker or craftsman who is being delight with his Father and who is beside of the Father. Can wisdom as nature of God can have delight to God and act as a master worker or craftsman who is beside of God? It cannot be possible unless the wisdom is a person. Jesus is also the “first” since he was the first one resurrected from dead who have eternal life in heaven and he is the one whom Jehovah appointed to be first in all things both in heaven and on earth. But this doesn’t mean he is Jehovah who is above everything. In 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28 Jesus was described as the king who will hand over his kingdom to his God. Verse 25 clearly stated that God made him the king to put all God’s enemies under his feet but verse 27 and 28 clearly reveals that Jesus will subject himself to his God so that the God may be above in all. Thus in this verse it shows he is the “last” – the last person who will have the highest authority with everything in heaven and on earth and that he is also the last person who will subject himself to God and who will turn over his kingdom to the only true God.

What about the word “lord of lords” and “king of kings” which were used both to Jehovah (1 Timothy 6:15 – 16) and Jesus (Revelation 19:16)? Do these verses prove that they are one and coequal? No. Even Nebuchadnezzar was also called as “king of kings” in Daniel 2:37 but this doesn’t mean he is literally the king of all the other kings on earth. This only means that he is the most powerful king on earth on that time thus in his dream which was explained by Daniel that he (symbolizes by a tree in Daniel 4:4 – 37) is the most powerful on that time yet his kingdom will be taken away from him and this happened when he got sick mentally because he became too proud of himself however, he got back his power and kingdom when he recognized Jehovah as his God and humble himself in the eyes of God. This suggests also the same in reference to Jesus. He is the “king of kings” and “lord of lords” on the time it was given to him by Jehovah but Jehovah will be the King of all and Lord of all when Jesus subject himself to the God Almighty – 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28.

Advertisements

THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE TRINITY DOCTRINE

Breaking the Trinity Doctrine Through Grammatical Force of Some Verses

A possible way to identify the truthfulness of a certain matter can be found through the grammatical force of some biblical verses. In this article, we will see two examples that I have found as interesting and strong proof to discredit the doctrine of trinity. The approach of this study is based on a simple grammatical rule. The word which is use in a sentence and its usage to clarify the thought of a sentence gives us way in knowing the truth of a particular subject. For an example of a word use to identify the subject, let us quote John 3:14 – 15.

14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.

The person who was speaking on these verses was none other than Jesus. Thus the pronoun “him” which spoken about by Jesus is himself. However, when I say “You must trust him for you to have peace of mind”, of course the pronoun “him” would only refer to the speaker itself if he had just admitted to himself that he was the one whom he was referring about to the hearer. Obviously, it would have another person spoken about if the speaker would identify as to whom the word “him” really refers to. Thus the preceding statement or statements before his statement that identifies the pronoun “him” is necessary and important. Thus in John 3:15, the pronoun “him” is referring to the Son of Man which was mentioned in verse 14.

One example that gives us a revelation as to distinction and separateness of God and Jesus is from Jesus words in John 14:23 – 24 .

John 14: 23 – 24

23 In answer Jesus said to him: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him. 24 He that does not love me does not observe my words; and the word that YOU are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me.

Notice in Jesus words that he used the pronoun “we” and “him”. The pronoun “we” is the same as “I and you” when the speaker is yourself or it could be “he and they” when it is stated by another person. While the pronoun “him” suggests another person to which they will come about. Once the subjects are said to come about to another subject, it is necessary and it should only be meant that the subject or object that they will come across to is really present before them. Therefore, when Jesus said this, he and those he mentioned that will be saved or the righteous people will come to a certain person. This one example from among many verses breaks the doctrine of trinity. For how come would Jesus bring or accompany those persons to the person he is saying (that he identifies as him) if he is also that person. This is very senseless thought to say that Jesus is Jehovah just as the same senseless thought of writing it in this English grammar – “we will come to me”. This is nothing but the same as “I and you will come to me” which is too illogical, nonsense and faulty statement. “I will come to me” as if we will break the sentence in to two cannot be considered as a sentence because there is no thought within the context. The truth in grammar which is very explicit to perceive by our understanding is that when someone says “we will come to…” it requires a thing which is really separate from the one who speaks and from those his companions. This is to say that “he and his companions” will come across to a certain thing, place or person. Thus the statement of Jesus as “we will come to him” makes sure of us that he will bring those righteous people to his Father. He will bring them near or present them before his Father (either heavenly or earthly hope) after the Great Day of Jehovah.

A verse that supports this example can be seen in Revelation 3:21.

Revelation 3:21

21 To those who are victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. – TNIV

21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. –  NIV

21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. – KJV

21‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. – NASB

This verse is another proof against trinity. The preposition “with” as I discussed in my blog  explaining John 1:1 definitely requires that another thing is present with or within the subject that is spoken about. Thus in this clear verse, Jesus is described to be seated with his Father on its throne just the same as his people will be seated with him on his throne. A simple sentence that we may get the parallel thought of this verse is this “I sit with my friend”. There is no other meaning of it but to say that “I sit beside my friend”. There are many verses in the Bible use by Trinitarians though some of them are really deep in context and need an in depth study yet the examples above are very plain and obvious and have explicit thought which are undeniable and are understandable even by elementary grades which don’t need a deep explanation because the meaning is really bold in its structure. To sum up this, the grammatical structure of a sentence gives its meaning based on the strong force of meaning that it suggests which we cannot just deny or neglect whether it is literally or figuratively.

See this link for additional information that says Jehovah is not Jesus.

https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/the-underlying-truth-in-john-11/

https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/trinitya-false-doctrine-of-a-false-church/

https://fromthesunrising.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/about-john-11/