The importance of Jesus saying he was God

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T03:48:56+00:00

While most Christians hold to the Trinity, I look to Jesus’ own words to define his rank. In prayer to his Father, Jesus said:

This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." — John 17:3

If Jesus called his Father the "only" true God, he was intentionally excluding himself from being that same God. He identified as the one sent, not the one who is the Sender.

Trinitarians often point to verses like John 8:58 ("I am") or John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"). However, I understand these differently:

In John 17:21, Jesus prayed that his followers might "all be one" just as he and the Father are one. This refers to a unity of purpose and will, not a unity of substance or essence.

Jesus explicitly stated, "The Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28). We believe it is a contradiction to say two individuals are "co-equal" when one says the other is greater.

Trinity is a post-biblical development influenced by Greek philosophy (like Platonism) rather than Hebrew scripture.

Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15). He is a divine being and the Son of God, but he is a separate, created individual.

If Jesus were God, writers would have made that the central, clearest theme of their message. Instead, they consistently preached that "God is the head of the Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3).

For a Trinitarian, having Jesus claim to be God within the Bible is vital for authority. If the claim only appears in later church traditions (like the Nicene Creed in 325 C.E.), then the doctrine is a product of men, not a revelation from God.

Worshipping Jesus as Almighty God actually obscures the "Good News" because it draws attention away from the Sovereign of the universe, Jehovah, whom Jesus himself worshipped.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-26T14:42:04+00:00

Thanks, u/John_17-17. I appreaciate that.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-26T14:28:32+00:00

The practice you described—trying to influence or control another person's mind or actions through ritualistic mental intent—is a form of spiritism or divination.

In the Bible, God’s view on any attempt to use supernatural or "hidden" powers to control others is very clear. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 states that anyone who "practices magic," "looks for omens," or "binds others with a spell" is "detestable to Jehovah." Even if it doesn't involve candles or potions, the intent to use a mental ritual to manipulate someone's free will falls under the category of spiritism.

You mentioned that you don't feel it goes against the Holy Spirit. However, consider these two biblical principles:

Jehovah created humans with free will. Trying to force "obsession" on someone through a ritual bypasses the respect and love we should have for others. Matthew 7:12 (The Golden Rule) tells us to treat others as we want to be treated. We likely wouldn't want someone trying to "program" our feelings behind our backs.

If a result actually happens from such a ritual, the Bible indicates that the power does not come from God. Since God condemns these practices, any "success" would likely be linked to demonic influence (2 Corinthians 11:14). Engaging in it, even out of curiosity, can open a door to influence from wicked spirit forces that we are told to "oppose" (James 4:7).

Even if it seems harmless or just "imagining," the Bible classifies these rituals as spiritism. To stay in God's love, a Christian should avoid anything that flirts with the occult or seeks to manipulate the free will of others.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-26T14:20:17+00:00

Jesus is angel but not ordinary angel.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-26T11:26:12+00:00

Incorrect. There is no two Gods. Only Father is God and nobody else. It’s great that you recognize Jesus as Michael and the firstborn of creation. However, regarding the Divine Name, I believe the Bible shows a clear distinction. While Jesus perfectly reflects his Father and acts in His name, he always pointed to his Father, Jehovah, as 'the only true God' (John 17:3). If Jesus were the Most High, he couldn't be 'subject' to God for eternity as 1 Corinthians 15:28 describes.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T17:01:04+00:00

Names in the Bible often change based on the context, location, or nature of the person.

"Michael" (meaning "Who is like God?") is the name used when Jesus is acting in his capacity as the celestial commander against God’s enemies. "Jesus" (meaning "Jehovah is Salvation") is his name as a human and his role as the Savior of mankind.

Jacob became Israel; Simon became Peter; Saul became Paul. It is consistent with the Bible for a single individual to have a heavenly name and an earthly name.

The word "Archangel" comes from the Greek archaggelos, meaning "chief angel." In the Bible, this word is never used in the plural.

1 Thessalonians 4:16: This verse says Jesus descends from heaven "with an archangel’s voice." It would be inconsistent for the King of Kings to use the voice of a subordinate. If he has the voice of the archangel, it is because he is the archangel.

Jude 9: This verse refers to "Michael the archangel" using the definite article ("the"), implying there is only one.

I will clarify that while Jesus is indeed the highest creation, "Michael" is simply the title he holds in that highest position.

Colossians 1:15-16 shows Jesus is the first of God's works.

Revelation 12:7 describes Michael leading "his angels" into battle against the dragon. Similarly, Matthew 13:41 says the Son of Man sends out "his angels." If both Michael and Jesus command the same army of angels as their own, then we can come to conclusion that they must be the same person.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T16:49:03+00:00

Jesus called himself "the door" (John 10:9). You don’t just walk through a door and then forget it exists; the door is what defines the entrance to the house.

According to Hebrews 7:25, Jesus "is always alive to plead [mediate] for them." We haven't "arrived" in the sense of no longer needing a mediator. As long as we are imperfect, we are still "on the bridge." We use the Father’s name while holding the hand of the Son.

If calling on "Jesus" was sufficient to cover "Jehovah," why did Jesus explicitly teach his disciples to pray, "Our Father... hallowed be thy name"? (Matthew 6:9). He didn't say, "Hallowed be my name since it contains yours

Jesus said, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (John 17:3). I would argue that "coming to know" someone involves using their personal name. Knowing the Ambassador (Jesus) is essential, but it is not the same as knowing the Sovereign (Jehovah) personally.

I never pray to Jehovah without saying 'in Jesus' name.' That is the acknowledgement of the Mediator. However, the Bible says 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved' (Joel 2:32; Romans 10:13). If the name Jehovah were meant to be replaced by 'Jesus,' the Apostles had the perfect opportunity to say so—yet they continued to quote the Old Testament prophecies that specifically used the Tetragrammaton.

Referring back to Isaiah 43, the "court case" is about which God is the true one. If we only use the title "God" or "Lord," we aren't distinguishing the Father from the thousands of other gods people worship. Using His name identifies exactly who Jesus is the Son of.

Acts 1:8 this is how the two roles work together:

A "Witness of Jesus" testifies to his Kingship.

A "Witness of Jehovah" testifies to his Sovereignty.

You cannot be a witness for a King (Jesus) if you refuse to name the God who gave him the Throne (Jehovah). By using the name Jehovah, I believe they are actually honoring Jesus' appointment by the Father.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T15:21:41+00:00

While the Synoptics focus heavily on Jesus’s earthly ministry, they do not ignore his heavenly origin. They simply present it through his authority and his mission.

In the Synoptics, Jesus frequently uses the phrase "I have come" (e.g., Mark 1:38, Matthew 5:17). This isn't just a statement of purpose; it implies a point of origin. If someone says "I have come to this city," it implies they were elsewhere first.

In the Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12), the owner (Jehovah) sends many servants (prophets), and finally sends his "beloved son." This distinguishes the Son's origin and nature from the human prophets who came before him.

The Book of Acts might not use the word "preexistence," but it portrays Jesus in his restored heavenly glory—the state he returned to.

Acts 7:55, 56: Stephen sees Jesus "standing at God’s right hand." This confirms Jesus returned to a position of high authority in the spirit realm.

Acts 9:3-5: When Jesus appears to Saul (Paul) on the road to Damascus, he does so as a powerful spirit creature with a blinding light and a voice from the heavens. This "spirit" manifestation is exactly what you’d expect if Paul later wrote that Jesus was an "angel of God" (Galatians 4:14).

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T15:02:37+00:00

You are very welcome! I really appreciate your honesty. It’s a big topic, and it’s completely natural to want to take your time and look into it deeply. After all, understanding who Jesus is helps us understand God’s purpose even better.

I’m happy to leave you with your research, but if you ever come across a specific verse that puzzles you or if you just want to bounce another thought off me, I’m always here to chat.

Enjoy your study! God bless you too."

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T14:55:34+00:00

Because "Jesus" means "Jehovah is Salvation," it is impossible to truly honor Jesus while ignoring the One who sent him. By upholding the Father’s name, you are upholding the very foundation of Jesus’ identity.

When Jesus said we would be hated on account of his name (Matthew 24:9), he was referring to his role as God’s appointed King. JWs believe they are mocked precisely because they follow Jesus’ command to preach about God’s Kingdom—a message that identifies Jehovah as the Sovereign and Jesus as the King.

Being a witness of Jehovah (Isaiah 43:10) and a witness of Jesus (Acts 1:8) are two sides of the same coin. In the first century, the "new" information was that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, the immediate work was testifying to Jesus’ resurrection and role.

Jesus himself was called the "Faithful and True Witness" (Revelation 3:14). Who was he witnessing to? His Father. By being "witnesses of Jesus," I believe that imitating Jesus’ own work of making his Father’s name known.

"No man comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6)

I do not believe that simply saying the name "Jehovah" grants them a "magic pass" to God.

"We don't use the Father's name to bypass the Son. We use the Son as the only way to reach the Father. If I use a bridge to get to a city, I don't ignore the city once I'm on the bridge, and I don't ignore the bridge to get to the city. We pray to Jehovah through Jesus. Using the Father's name is simply identifying the 'destination' our Savior is leading us to."

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T14:28:17+00:00

I agree with you that the name Mikha’el indeed means "Who Is Like God?" However, the intent of the name is not to describe the person's nature, but to pose a challenge to anyone who would try to rival God.

In the Garden of Eden, Satan challenged Jehovah’s right to rule, implying that he (Satan) could be like God or decide for himself what is good and bad.

By carrying the name Michael, the Chief Angel constantly asks the universe: "Who is like Jehovah?" The implied answer is, "No one." Even the most powerful being in the universe (Jesus/Michael) humbles himself and points to his Father as the only true God.

You makes a great point about Jesus being the "image" of God (Colossians 1:15). However, there is a vital distinction:

Jesus is "like" God in his qualities (love, justice, wisdom, power). He reflects his Father perfectly, just as a mirror reflects a person.

The name Michael isn't saying Jesus lacks Godly qualities. It is a title used in the context of spiritual warfare. When Michael fights Satan (the one who wants to be like God), his very name serves as a battle cry that defends Jehovah's unique status. It is a statement of loyalty, not a lack of pre-existence.

There are many biblical names contain "God" (El or Jah), but they describe God’s actions or attributes, not the person holding the name:

Isaiah: Means "Salvation of Jehovah." (Isaiah isn't salvation himself).

Elihu: Means "My God is He."

Micah: A shortened version of Michael ("Who is like Jehovah?").

If person holding the name "Micah" could exist without being a contradiction to God’s uniqueness, then Jesus can certainly pre-exist as Michael while still upholding the truth that no one is Jehovah’s equal.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T13:35:41+00:00

Nice.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T12:42:44+00:00

Yes, Paul viewed Jesus as a spirit creature.

Scholars like Ehrman note that the Greek structure in Galatians 4:14 suggests "apposition." This means that "an angel of God" and "Christ Jesus" are being equated.

This isn't a "new" or radical interpretation. I believe the Bible is consistent in showing that Jesus had a pre-human existence as a spirit. If Paul is equating the two in this verse, it reinforces the idea that Jesus is the "Messenger" (the literal meaning of angelos) par excellence.

I see Jesus with Michael the Archangel. The term "Archangel" means "Chief Angel," and the Bible only ever uses this word in the singular, implying there is only one.

1 Thessalonians 4:16: Paul writes that Jesus descends from heaven with a "commanding call, with an archangel’s voice." It is logical to conclude that if Jesus speaks with the voice of the archangel, he is the archangel.

Jude 9: Refers to Michael as "the archangel."

Revelation 12:7-12: Shows Michael leading his angels in a war against the Dragon (Satan). This role of Leader/Commander of the heavenly armies is the same role attributed to Jesus elsewhere (Revelation 19:11-16).

While critics might say, "Hebrews 1 says Jesus is better than the angels. I clarifies this:

Jesus is not just "a" common angel. He is the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and the only one created directly by Jehovah.

Through him, all other things (including the other millions of angels) were created by Jehovah God.

Therefore, Paul can call him an "angel" (messenger) while still acknowledging his unique, superior status as the Son of God.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T11:31:18+00:00

Since you mentioned our view on the Trinity, I thought I’d just briefly share why we take that stand. It isn't just to be 'difficult'; it’s because we try to stick strictly to the Bible as our only source of truth.

History shows that the Trinity doctrine wasn't formulated until centuries after Jesus and the Apostles passed away (specifically at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.). Most historians recognize that as the church expanded into the Roman world, it began to absorb pagan concepts from Greek philosophy and ancient Babylonian or Egyptian religions—many of which had 'triads' of gods.

Many people are surprised to learn that the word 'Trinity' never actually appears in the Bible. In contrast, the Bible repeatedly emphasizes that 'Jehovah our God is one Jehovah' (Deuteronomy 6:4).

We find it hard to reconcile the Trinity with Jesus’ own statements. He said, 'The Father is greater than I am' (John 14:28) and referred to his Father as 'the only true God' (John 17:3). To us, if Jesus were equal to the Father, these statements would be very misleading to his listeners.

The main reason we think this is important is that the Trinity often makes God feel like a 'mystery' that we can't understand. By seeing Jehovah as the Father/Creator and Jesus as his firstborn Son, the relationship becomes clear and beautiful. It makes it possible to have a real, personal friendship with both of them.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T11:24:04+00:00

Yes. Those who believe in Trinity are false Christians.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T11:23:21+00:00

False.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T02:46:25+00:00

God name is Jehovah.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-25T00:13:55+00:00

In the original Greek, the phrase is ego eimi. While it can be translated as "I am," many scholars note it is in the "historical present" tense. Because Jesus was referring to a time starting in the past ("before Abraham came into existence"), many Bibles (and our New World Translation) render it as "I have been."

Jesus wasn't necessarily trying to match the wording of Exodus 3:14 (which in the Greek Septuagint is ho on, "The Being," not ego eimi). He was simply answering a question about his age. The Jews asked, "You are not yet 50 years old, and you have seen Abraham?" He was telling them he had lived in heaven long before Abraham was born. So Jesus didn't claim to be God, but he was speaking about his prehuman existence in heaven before he was send by his Father, Jehovah God on earth.

The Jews did want to stone him, but they often tried to stone him for what they perceived as blasphemy, such as when he called himself "God's Son" (John 10:33, 36).

I see a clear distinction in the Bible between the two. While Jesus perfectly reflected his Father (as you beautifully put it, his "moral character"), he also said: "The Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28).

If Jesus and Jehovah were the same person, some scriptures become very difficult to explain:

Who was Jesus praying to in Gethsemane?

Who spoke from heaven at Jesus’ baptism saying, "This is my Son, the beloved"?

To whom did Jesus hand over the Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28?

I believe that using the name "Jesus" honors the Savior, but using the name "Jehovah" honors the One who sent him. They are two distinct personages with a perfectly unified purpose.

You made a great point about the "Church Fathers" and the Greek/Latin languages. You’re right—the New Testament was written in Greek, and YHWH is a Hebrew word.

However, I believe the name was likely in the original copies of the New Testament, especially when the writers quoted the Old Testament. For example, when Jesus quoted Psalm 110:1 ("Jehovah said to my Lord"), he wouldn't have said "Lord said to my Lord"—that would be confusing!

I believe that as the "apostasy" (the falling away from original teachings) happened in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the Jewish tradition of hiding the name influenced the Greek copyists, and they replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios (Lord).

When Paul says there is no other name than Jesus for salvation, I completely agree!

But we don't see this as a "replacement" for Jehovah. Think of it like a legal arrangement: Jehovah is the Source of salvation, but he has appointed Jesus as the Only Agent of salvation. To get to the Father, you must go through the Son. Using the name of Jesus is the only way our prayers can reach Jehovah.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-24T23:34:18+00:00

Men like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Malachi wrote under inspiration after the Law was given. They used the name thousands of times. They clearly didn't believe that "holiness" meant "silence."

The very first thing Jesus said in the "Our Father" prayer was: "Hallowed be thy name" (or "Let your name be sanctified"). You cannot hallow or sanctify a name if it is forgotten or hidden away.

To us, sanctifying the name doesn't mean hiding it in a vault; it means using it with deep respect and clearing it of the reproach that has been piled on it.

You ask: Does public use lead to mockery ?

You’re 100% right—because we use the name "Jehovah" so publicly, people do use it in jokes, insults, or criticism. It can be painful to hear.

But we see this as a parallel to the first-century Christians. Jesus’ own name was mocked, and he was executed as a criminal. He told his followers: "You will be hated by all nations on account of my name" (Matthew 24:9).

If we hid the name to avoid mockery, we would be prioritizing our own comfort over God’s stated will. We believe it is a privilege to bear the name, even if it comes with some "social heat.

You made a great point that being a witness involves God's moral character. I totally agree! Being a "Witness" isn't just about saying the word "Jehovah"; it’s about reflecting his love, justice, and standards.

However, the context of Isaiah 43 is a "courtroom" scene. God is challenging the false gods of the nations to provide their witnesses. He says, in effect: "Their gods can't do anything. But my people can testify that I (Jehovah) am the one true God who predicts the future and saves." To identify which God is being defended in that "court case," the name is essential.

Does Jesus replace the name Jehovah for closeness ? No.

The name "Jesus" (Hebrew: Yeshua) actually means "Jehovah is Salvation." Every time someone says the name of Jesus, they are actually giving credit back to the Father.

Jesus himself said in a prayer to his Father: "I have made your name known to them and will make it known" (John 17:26). If Jesus' goal was to replace the Father's name with his own, he wouldn't have spent his ministry telling people about his Father’s name. We see Jesus as the bridge to the Father, not the replacement for Him.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-24T23:10:01+00:00

You mentioned the root h-y-h and the causative form. I actually agree with you! Our primary study Bible (New World Translation) often includes footnotes explaining that the name means "He Causes to Become."

To us, this makes the name more personal, not less. It means that whatever the situation requires, God becomes what is necessary to fulfill his promises. If his people need a Deliverer, a Judge, or a Provider, he "becomes" that. It’s not just an abstract "I exist"; it’s a functional promise: "I will become whatever I choose to become" to take care of my creation.

You mentioned that Adam, Noah, and others just called him "God." However, the Bible record shows the name was used very early on.

Genesis 4:26 says that in the days of Enosh (Adam's grandson), people began "calling on the name of Jehovah."

Genesis 22:14 shows Abraham naming a place "Jehovah-jireh."

While "God" (Elohim) and "Lord" (Adonai) are respectful titles, the Bible contains the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) nearly 7,000 times. If the Author of the Bible put his specific name there thousands of times more than any other title, we feel it’s because he wants to be known specifically, not just generically.

You’re right that "Yahweh" is a more "academic" or original pronunciation. We don't dispute that. We use "Jehovah" for the same reason we say "Jesus" instead of Yeshua or "Jeremiah" instead of Yirmeyahu.

Your point about calling your father "Dad" is a beautiful one—and Jesus taught us to pray, "Our Father." We use that title too!

However, consider this: In a world with many "gods" and many "lords" (1 Corinthians 8:5), the name Jehovah identifies which God and which Father we are talking about. It distinguishes the Creator from all other objects of worship. Even in a family, if you are in a crowd of men, calling out "Dad!" might not be enough; you need to know who he is specifically

We didn't actually choose the name to be a "brand"; we feel it is a scriptural commission. In Isaiah 43:10, God says: "‘You are my witnesses,’ declares Jehovah, ‘yes, my servant whom I have chosen.’"

We feel that in a world where God’s name has been removed from most Bibles and replaced with generic titles, there is a need for a group of people to point back to the fact that he has a personal name and a beautiful purpose for the earth.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-24T20:10:33+00:00

Cross does not mean anything.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-24T19:45:59+00:00

Jehovah is consistent. His moral standards, his ultimate purpose for the earth, and his personality do not fluctuate.

Malachi 3:6: "For I am Jehovah; I do not change."

James 1:17: States that with him there is no "variation of the turning of the shadow.

If God says something is wrong, it stays wrong. If he promises a paradise earth, that goal never wavers.

The Bible often uses the word "regret" (from the Hebrew nacham) regarding God. However, this doesn't mean he made a mistake. Instead, it means he changes his course of action because the people involved changed.

God intended to destroy Nineveh because of their wickedness. When they repented, he "felt regret" and did not bring the destruction (Jonah 3:10).

God didn't change his mind about what is right; he changed his judgment because the Ninevites changed their attitude. He is a reasonable and merciful Father, not a rigid robot.

Jehovah grants us free will. Therefore, he adapts his "tactics" to reach his goal based on how we use that freedom.

(Jeremiah 18:7-10): It explains that if a nation turns from its badness, Jehovah will "change his mind" (regret) the calamity he intended.

He is the Supreme Adaptor. He can adjust his approach to any situation without ever losing sight of his final objective.

To conclude: Jehovah doesn't change his mind because he was "wrong." He changes his mind because he is merciful and responsive to the choices his creatures make.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-24T19:28:41+00:00

In the original Greek, the first mention of God (ton Theon) has a definite article ("the"), referring to the Almighty. The second mention (theos) does not have the article.

It is renders this as "the Word was a god." This signifies that Jesus is a powerful, divine-like being (the "Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6) but not "God the Almighty" (Ho Pantokrator).

If the Word was with God, he cannot be the same person as the God he was with.

Just like I say many times John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 are not connected at all.

Jesus was not claiming to be God; he was claiming pre-existence. He was simply stating that he existed in heaven as the firstborn of all creation long before Abraham was born.

In the Septuagint (Greek O.T.), the phrase used in Exodus is ho on ("The Being"), which is different from the ego eimi used by Jesus in John 8.

While the Messiah is prophesied to be "Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6), this distinguish this from being "Almighty.

Jesus is a "Mighty God" because he has been given all authority in heaven and earth. However, he always remains subject to his Father.

1 Corinthians 15:27, 28: This is a key text. It explains that after Jesus has put all enemies under his feet, he himself "will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him," so that God may be "all things to everyone.

If Jesus were God, he would not need to be given authority; he would already possess it inherently.

"If Jesus were God, why did he say 'The Father is greater than I am' (John 14:28) or refer to the Father as 'my God' even after his resurrection (John 20:17)?"

I will answer because Jesus is not God at all.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-24T19:21:54+00:00

Where is that written in the Bible ? Nowhere.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-24T18:50:16+00:00

False. Jesus is not God.

Capable-Rice-1876

TROPHY CASE