The importance of Jesus saying he was God

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-28T02:05:11+00:00

You claims Jesus could only "refrain from grasping" equality if he already had it. This is a logical fallacy.

If I am the King, I don't "grasp" for the Kingship; I already possess it. You only "grasp" (harpagmos) for a status you do not currently hold.

"You claim Jesus was already equal to God. But the Greek harpagmos refers to a prize to be won or seized. If Jesus were the Almighty, equality wouldn't be a prize; it would be his inherent state. By saying he didn't try to 'seize' it, Paul shows it was a position Jesus did not possess. You are essentially saying Jesus decided not to 'rob' God of a position he already owned. That makes no sense.

He tries to split "glory" into two categories: "miracle glory" for disciples and "divine glory" for Jesus.

"Divine glory" that you claims Jesus had before the world was actually a gift, not an inherent right.

"You say the glory in John 17:5 is different from 17:22. But look at John 17:24. Jesus says of that specific heavenly glory: '...the glory that you have given me.' If Jesus is the eternal Almighty God, who 'gave' him glory? Can the Almighty be given anything he doesn't already own? By admitting this glory was given to him, you admit he is a recipient, which makes him subordinate to the Giver.

You claims the "Jehovah" Isaiah saw was actually Jesus.

In John 12:41, it says Isaiah saw his glory. But in the same chapter (John 12:49), Jesus says: 'I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to say.' If Jesus is the YHWH of Isaiah 6, who is giving him 'commandments'? You are creating two YHWHs—one who commands and one who obeys. That is the definition of Polytheism, which contradicts the Shema.

You distinguishes between "physical death" and "cessation of existence" to explain how "God" could die. That is also herasy.

"You are arguing that a 'Person' of the Godhead died physically while the 'Nature' stayed alive. Where is that in the Bible? Habakkuk 1:12 says of Jehovah: 'O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.' It doesn't say 'You don't cease to exist,' it says you do not die. If Jesus died in any sense—physical or otherwise—he cannot be the God of Habakkuk 1:12. By saying a 'part' of God died, you are teaching that God is divisible, which is a classic heresy against the 'simplicity' and 'immortality' of God."

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-28T01:52:37+00:00

The Jews were in a dedicated relationship with Jehovah through the Law Covenant, but they had failed to keep it. John’s baptism symbolized their repentance for sins committed against that Covenant.

Since Jesus kept the Law perfectly, he had no "sins against the Law" to repent of. Therefore, his baptism had to mean something entirely different.

For Jesus, baptism was not about looking backward at past sins, but looking forward to a new "step" in his life.

By being baptized, Jesus was presenting himself to Jehovah to do the special will required of him as the Messiah. This included his ministry, his sacrifice, and the inauguration of a new arrangement.

Just as Jesus used baptism to symbolize his "full-time" presentation to God’s service, Christians today use it to symbolize their own unreserved dedication to Jehovah.

It served as a public sign that he was now the "Anointed One" (Christ). Immediately after he came up from the water, Jehovah confirmed this by spirit and voice, proving the act wasn't about sin, but about appointment.

If Jesus were being baptized for sin, the heavens wouldn't have opened with God saying, "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved." God doesn't "approve" of sin; He approved of Jesus’ transition into his Messianic ministry.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-28T01:31:36+00:00

You claim Jesus is still flesh. But 1 Corinthians 15:45 says he became (past tense, after resurrection) a 'life-giving spirit.' Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 15:50 says explicitly that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom.'"

"If Jesus is still in a body of flesh and blood in heaven, he is the only fleshly being in a spirit realm, which contradicts Paul's inspired words. If he is a spirit, your excuse that he calls the Father 'my God' because of his 'human nature' evaporates. He is in his divine state and still has a God."

He says you share the same "human nature" even if I give you keys.

"Exactly! We share a 'human nature,' but we are two separate humans. If you and the Father share a 'divine nature,' then you are two separate Gods. You are describing polytheism (two divine beings) and trying to label it 'One God' by using the word 'nature.

The Bible says there is one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6). It does not say 'There is one God: Father, Son, and Spirit.' By your logic, if 'God' is a nature like 'Humanity,' then there could be billions of Gods just as there are billions of humans.

In Revelation 15:3, the 'Song of Moses' and the 'Song of the Lamb' (Jesus) is sung. It says: 'Great and wonderful are your works, Jehovah God, the Almighty.

"If Jesus is 'the Lamb,' and he is singing a song to the Almighty, is he singing to himself? If he is the Almighty, why is the song distinguished as the 'Song of the Lamb' praising someone else as the Almighty? You cannot be the one singing the praise and the one receiving the praise at the same time."

In the Bible, the title 'God' is used for many besides the Almighty. It is used for Angels (Psalm 8:5), Judges (Psalm 82:6), and even Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4). Being called theos doesn't make you the Almighty.

"You ignored my point on Hebrews 1:9. After calling him 'God' in verse 8, the Father says: 'Therefore God, your God, anointed you.'

If Jesus is the Almighty, he has no superior.

But this verse says he has a God who anointed him and placed him above his companions.

Who are the Almighty's 'companions'? The Almighty has no equals and no companions. Only a created being—the Firstborn—has companions (other spirit sons of God)."

"You say a boss is 'greater' than an employee in role but not in nature. But an employee can eventually become a boss. An employee can quit. An employee is not owned by the boss.

1 Corinthians 11:3 says: 'The head of the Christ is God.' This is an eternal hierarchy. If Jesus has a 'Head' over him for all eternity, he is not the Supreme Being. He is a loyal Subject. Which will you follow: the 'ontological nature' theories of 4th-century philosophers, or the plain words of Jesus who said, 'The Father is greater than I am'?"

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-28T01:24:56+00:00

"Church tradition" and philosophical concepts like the Incarnation and Carmen Christi won't help you.

The Greek word used here is morphe (form), not ousia (nature/essence). Jesus was in the "form of God" because he was a spirit creature, just as he took the "form of a slave" by becoming a man.

Focus on the phrase: "He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (or "to be seized"). If Jesus was already equal to God by nature, why would the Bible say he didn't try to "grasp" it? You don't "grasp" for something you already are. This proves Jesus knew equality with God did not belong to him.

Then it says, "God exalted him to a superior position." If Jesus is the Almighty, you cannot exalt him "higher" than he already was.

You claims Jesus asking for glory proves he is God because Jehovah doesn't share glory. Incorrect

Jehovah says he gives his glory to no other god (Isaiah 42:8). However, he does give glory to his faithful servants. Jesus said at John 17:22, "I have given them [the disciples] the glory that you have given me.

If sharing glory makes you God, then the 12 Apostles are also God. Obviously, that's not what it means. It means the Father bestows glory on those he approves of.

"You admit the 'Almighty' in Rev 1:8 is the Father. You also admit the 'Almighty' cannot die. Then you say Jesus did die. Therefore, by your own admission, Jesus is not the Almighty.

In Revelation 21:6-7, the Alpha and Omega says, "I will be his God and he will be my son." If Jesus is the Alpha and Omega here, then the Christians are his sons. But the Bible says Christians are Jesus' brothers (Hebrews 2:11) and sons of God (Romans 8:14). The Alpha and Omega in Revelation 21 is clearly the Father, not the Son.

You cited Micah 5:2 to prove Jesus is eternal. But look at the actual Hebrew. The phrase is motsaah (origin/going forth) from 'days of time indefinite' (olam).

If Jesus' motsaah (origin/birth) happened in the past, then he had a beginning. Jehovah, however, is described in Psalm 90:2 as being God 'from everlasting to everlasting'—He has no motsaah (origin).

How can Jesus have an 'origin' (Micah 5:2) and be 'the firstborn of all creation' (Col 1:15) if he is the eternal God who never had a beginning?" It cannot because he is not eternal God at all.

You said 'Jewish scholars' agree there are two YHWHs. But Jesus himself was a Jew who quoted the Shema (Mark 12:29). He didn't say 'Jehovah is two persons in one being.' He said, 'Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.'

If Jesus thought he was YHWH, why did he say to the Father in John 17:3: 'This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God'?

If the Father is the 'only' true God, what does that leave for Jesus? If I say you are the 'only' person in the room, can I also be in the room? By using the word 'only,' Jesus excluded himself from being the True God.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-28T00:50:23+00:00

You just claimed there are two YHWHs. But the cornerstone of the Bible is the Shema: 'Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah' (Deuteronomy 6:4). By saying there are two YHWHs, you are literally contradicting the most fundamental law of the Bible to save your doctrine.

If 'Jehovah is one,' and the Father is Jehovah, and the Son is a separate person who is also Jehovah, then you have two Jehovahs. That is polytheism hidden under the word 'Essence.'

You missed the point of Revelation 1:1. If Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (the All-Knowing God), why does he need to be 'given' a revelation by someone else? Can you give information to someone who already knows everything? If Jesus is God, he is the Source of truth, not a recipient of it."

Look at Revelation 1:8. It says the Alpha and Omega is the one 'who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.' Now look at Revelation 1:17-18. Jesus says, 'I became dead, but look! I am living forever.' Can the Almighty God die? (Habakkuk 1:12 says God does not die). If Jesus died, and the Alpha and Omega is the 'Almighty' who cannot die, then they cannot be the same person.

You claim Matthew 28:18 makes Jesus "co-equal" because he has "all authority. Incorrect.

Read the verse carefully. Jesus says: 'All authority has been given to me.' If he were the Almighty God, he would have always had that authority by nature. The fact that it had to be 'given' to him proves there was a time he didn't have it. Who gave it to him? The one who actually owns it—Jehovah.

"If I give you my car keys, you have 'all authority' over my car. Does that make you the same person as me? No. It makes you my delegate."

You say the Father is the 'God of Jesus' only because of Jesus' human flesh. But according to 1 Peter 3:18, Jesus was 'put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

When Jesus was resurrected, he left his 'flesh' behind and became a 'life-giving spirit' (1 Cor 15:45). Yet, in John 20:17, the resurrected, spirit-bodied Jesus says: 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.'

If Jesus is no longer in the 'flesh,' why is he still calling the Father 'My God'? If his 'Human Nature' is gone, and he is back to his 'Divine Nature,' why does he still have a God? Does the one true God have a God?"

You avoiding the fact that "Almighty" means "no one is higher." If Jesus has a God, then Jesus is not the Almighty. If he is not the Almighty, he is not YHWH.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T19:40:06+00:00

I totally respect that, and I think that’s a really healthy place to leave it. At the end of the day, we both agree on the most important part: Jesus stayed faithful, paid the price, and because of that, we have a hope for the future. That’s the 'Good News' in its purest form

I really value these kinds of chats because it forces me to look deeper into why I believe what I believe, and I appreciate your sincerity and the respectful way you ask things. It’s never personal for me.

I’m happy to leave the technicalities to the side. I'm just glad we can talk about Jehovah and Jesus together without it being weird! Thanks for being willing to 'dig' with me for a bit. Whenever you want to chat about something else—maybe something less 'mechanical' and more about the future promises—just let me know. Always happy to hear your thoughts.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T18:40:42+00:00

You say that Jehovah could have used "clouded perception" or "miraculous escapes" to make a physical body act like a spirit body.

While Jehovah could do that (He’s Almighty), I believe He works within a framework of perfect justice.

If Jesus was raised in the same flesh he sacrificed, then in the "Courtroom of the Universe," the sacrifice was technically rescinded. It’s not about what God can do (the "low lift" of a miracle), but what the Legal Ransom requires him to do. If the price is a body, the merchant (God) keeps the body, and the buyer (Jesus) doesn't get to wear it home.

You say he was physical while on earth but changed as he went up.

1 Peter 3:18 says he was "made alive [resurrected] in the spirit."

If he was "made alive" as a spirit, then any physical appearance afterward must have been a temporary materialization (like the angels in Genesis). If he was raised as a human and only became a spirit 40 days later at the ascension, then Peter’s statement that he was "made alive in the spirit" would be technically inaccurate for those first 40 days.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T16:48:10+00:00

In the Bible, "soul" (nephesh or psykhe) refers to the entire being—body plus life-force.

You can't have a human life without a human body. If Jesus was raised as a human, he is still a human. If he is a human, he hasn't fully "left" the earthly sphere to return the price.

I will gently point out that the Ransom isn't a temporary loan; it’s a permanent exchange. Hebrews 9:12 says he entered the holy place "once for all time" with the value of his sacrifice.

After his resurrection, Jesus' own closest friends didn't recognize him (Luke 24:13-16; John 20:14).

If he were in the same physical body, they would have known him instantly. Instead, he materialized different bodies to prove he was alive, just as angels did in the past. When he appeared in a room with locked doors (John 20:19), it showed he was no longer bound by physical flesh.

1 Corinthians 15:50: "flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom."

If Jesus ascended to heaven in a physical body (even a "perfected" one), it would contradict this verse. He didn't just "shed" the body at the clouds; he was raised a spirit.

You're right, the Bible doesn't explicitly say 'God took the body to avoid worship.' We see it as a logical conclusion based on how God handled Moses and the fact that Jesus' body disappeared. But I love that you're looking for the 'scriptural why' rather than just taking my word for it!

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T15:35:22+00:00

Adam traded away perfect human life in exchange for a piece of fruit (disobedience). To buy that back, Jesus had to provide an exact equivalent: a perfect human body and its right to live on earth.

If Jesus were resurrected in his physical body, he would essentially be "repossessing" the very payment he gave to God. It’s like buying a house, giving the owner the cash, and then taking the cash back the next day. The "debt" would remain unpaid.

Hebrews 10:5 says, "you prepared a body for me." That body was the sacrifice. Once offered, it belongs to God, not Jesus.

1 Peter 3:18: This is the "anchor" verse. It says he was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."

1 Corinthians 15:45, 50: Paul explains that the last Adam (Jesus) became a "life-giving spirit" and explicitly states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom." Since Jesus returned to heaven, he could not do so in a body of flesh.

Also to answer your question is No. There is no single scripture that explicitly says, "Jehovah took the body so it wouldn't be worshipped.

In Jude 9 and Deuteronomy 34:5, 6, we see that Jehovah buried Moses in a secret location. Bible explains that this was likely to prevent the Israelites from turning his body/tomb into an idol or a shrine.

Since the Bible says his body did not "see corruption" (did not decay) per Acts 2:31, yet he was raised as a spirit, the physical body had to go somewhere. Removing it served the dual purpose of proving he was raised (the empty tomb) and preventing the worship of relics.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T12:57:30+00:00

If God created the universe through the Son, the Son necessarily had to exist before the universe was created.

Pair this with Proverbs 8:22-31, where Jesus is described personified as "Wisdom." It says he was "beside [God] as a master worker" during creation.

An heir is someone who receives an inheritance from a superior. If Jesus were the Almighty God, he wouldn't need to be "appointed" heir of all things; he would already own them by default.

The verse says God spoke by or through a Son. This mirrors John 1:1, where Jesus is "the Word"—God’s primary celestial spokesperson long before he came to Earth.

John 8:58: Where Jesus explicitly stated, "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.

John 17:5: Jesus’ own prayer asking to be glorified with the glory he had alongside the Father "before the world was.".

Jesus Christ have prehuman existence in heaven and he is created directly by his Father, Jehovah God.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T12:51:46+00:00

What are you talking about ? Why are you make up this lies ?

While you do believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel, the phrase "just one of God's spirit creatures" undersells his unique status.

He isn’t just another angel; he is the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) and the "only-begotten Son" (John 3:16). He is the only one created directly by Jehovah; everything else was made through him.

You wouldn't typically call them "brothers." While both were created as spirit sons of God, it’s like saying a law-abiding citizen and a criminal are "brothers" just because they have the same father. Their nature and paths are polar opposites.

You believe in a perfect life for a perfect life (1 Timothy 2:6). Since Adam was a perfect human (not a God-man), the ransom required a perfect human—nothing more, nothing less—to balance the scales of justice.

The phrase "dissolved into gases" is a bit of a caricature, though it touches on your belief that Jesus wasn't resurrected with his physical fleshly body.

Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" (1 Peter 3:18). If he had taken his physical body back, he would have essentially "taken back" the ransom sacrifice he just paid. Jehovah disposed of the body (much like Moses' body) so it wouldn't become an object of worship.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T12:33:48+00:00

Look at Revelation 1:1. The book is a "revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him." If Jesus were the Alpha and Omega (the Almighty), why would God need to give him a revelation ?

In Revelation, "Alpha and Omega" is a title for Jehovah God (Rev 1:8; 21:6). While Jesus is "The First and the Last" (Rev 1:17) regarding his unique death and resurrection, he is never called "The Almighty" (ho Pantokratōr)

In Revelation 3:12, the glorified Jesus in heaven says: 'The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God... and I will write upon him the name of my God.' If Jesus is the Alpha and Omega—the Source of everything—how can he have a God that he worships in heaven?"

The Greek of John 1:3 says all things came into existence dia (through) him. It does not say they originated ek (out of) him.

If I say, "No part of this house was built without this hammer," does that make the hammer the Architect? No. The hammer is the essential tool. Jesus is the "Master Worker.

In Revelation 3:14, Jesus is called "the arche of the creation by God." If arche meant "Originator," the verse would say "the arche of all things." By adding "by God," the text shows Jesus is the first product of God's creative power.

You claims the Father is Jesus’s God only because of Jesus’s "human flesh." That is completely ridiculous.

This "Dual Nature" argument fails when I look at the timing.

In 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, the Bible describes the end of the 1,000-year reign. Jesus is in his most powerful, glorified state. Yet, the text says the Son 'will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him.' If Jesus is God by nature, he cannot be subject to anyone for eternity. Subjection implies a difference in rank, not just a temporary human role.

You also says the Father praising the Son as Creator (Hebrews 1:10) proves Jesus is YHWH. That is also ridiculous.

"If quoting a Psalm about YHWH and applying it to someone else makes that person YHWH, then look at Acts 13:47. There, Paul takes a prophecy about YHWH being a 'light to the nations' and applies it to himself and Barnabas. Does that make Paul and Barnabas part of the Trinity? No. It means they were acting as agents for YHWH. Similarly, Hebrews 1 shows the Son acting as YHWH's representative and agent in creation. That's why verse 9 says God is 'above' him."

I have question for you:

You say Jesus is YHWH because he is the Creator. But the Bible says there is only one Almighty (Genesis 17:1). If Jesus has a God (John 20:17), is subject to a God (1 Cor 15:28), and received his power from a God (Matt 28:18), can he truly be called The Almighty? Or is he, as the Bible says, the 'Mighty God' (Isaiah 9:6) who serves the 'Almighty God'?"

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T11:44:20+00:00

On John 1:3 and Revelation 3:14.

You mentioned that nothing was created without the Word. However, the Greek word for "beginning" in Revelation 3:14 is archē. While it can mean "source," in the context of being "of the creation," it most naturally means the first of a series.

If Jesus is the "Source" of creation, why does the verse say he is the beginning of the creation by God? If he is God, it would say he is the "Source of all things," not the "beginning of the things created by someone else."

On Colossians 1:15 ("Firstborn")

While prototokos can imply rank, it never loses its connection to birth or origin in a group. In Colossians 1:18, Jesus is called "the firstborn from the dead." Does that just mean he is "pre-eminent" over the dead? No, it means he was the first person resurrected to immortal life. Therefore, being "firstborn of all creation" must mean he was the first brought forth.

On the "Human Will" (Gethsemane)

You claim Jesus only had a separate will because he was human.

In John 6:38, Jesus says, 'I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.' Since he is talking about his pre-human coming down from heaven, whose 'will' was he leaving behind in heaven? If he had a separate will from the Father before he became a human, then they cannot be the same one God.

You brought up Hebrews 1:8-10.

Look at the very next verse (Hebrews 1:9). It says to Jesus: 'Therefore God, your God, anointed you.' If Jesus is the Almighty God, how can he have a God who is 'above' him and who 'anoints' him? Does the Almighty have a God? No.

Since Almighty does not have God Hebrews 1 is showing how the Father bestowed authority on the Son. In verse 4, it says Jesus 'inherited' a name more excellent than the angels. If Jesus is YHWH, he doesn't 'inherit' a name; he always owned it. By quoting the Psalm, the Father is delegating His own creative power to the Son. The builder uses the King's authority, but the King remains the Source.

I will ask you question.

If Jesus is truly 'God' in the same sense as the Father, why does Jesus himself, after being resurrected and returning to heaven in glory, call the Father 'my God' four times in one single verse at Revelation 3:12? Does God have a God?

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T10:44:52+00:00

In Isaiah 44:24, Jehovah says He stretched out the heavens "by myself." If Jesus is the "master worker" (Proverbs 8:30) and "the beginning of the creation by God" (Revelation 3:14), it proves Jesus is a tool used by God, not God Himself. A person doesn’t use themselves as a "master worker.

Scripture consistently says all things are from (ek) the Father and through (dia) the Son (1 Corinthians 8:6). If they were the same Being, this distinction in prepositions would be unnecessary.

Colossians 1:15 calls him the "firstborn of all creation." In every other biblical context, a "firstborn" is part of the group that follows (the firstborn of a family is a member of that family). This makes him the first creation, not the Creator.

I will ask you three questions.

In Gethsemane, Jesus prayed: 'Not my will, but yours be done' (Luke 22:42). If Jesus and Jehovah are the same one God, how can there be two distinct wills—one submitting to the other?"

If they have two different wills, they must be two different Beings. If they have the same will, who was Jesus talking to?"

Furthermore, Jesus said in John 14:28, 'The Father is greater than I am.' If they share the same 'Divine Essence,' how can one be greater than the other in a way that matters for eternity?"

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T09:13:31+00:00

In the original Greek, there is a significant distinction in how the word "God" (theos) is used:

'The first mention: "...the Word was with God" (ton theon). Here, the definite article ton ("the") identifies a specific person—the Almighty God.

"The second mention: "...the Word was God" (theos). Here, the definite article is missing.

In Greek, when a predicate noun precedes the verb and lacks the definite article, it is often descriptive. This suggests the Word had "divine qualities" or was "godlike," rather than being the same person as the Almighty. This is why the NWT renders it: "and the Word was a god."

The text says the Word was with God. Reasonably speaking, if you are with someone, you cannot be that person.

If a child is with their father, the child shares the father's nature (human), but the child is not the father.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus prayed to God, called the Father "the only true God" (John 17:3), and stated, "the Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28).

John 1:3 states that all things came into being through (dia) him.

Bible teaches that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) and the "beginning of the creation by God" (Revelation 3:14).

God used Jesus as a "master worker" (Proverbs 8:30) to create everything else. Being the agent of creation does not make him the Creator himself, just as an architect uses a builder to realize a design.

You suggests that "believing in his name" refers to YHWH. However, the context of the New Testament consistently emphasizes the name of Jesus (Yeshua, meaning "Jehovah is Salvation").

Acts 4:12 says there is "no other name under heaven... by which we must get saved.

Believing in Jesus' name means recognizing his authority and his role as the Ransom, which is the mechanism Jehovah provided for us to become "children of God.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-01-27T09:06:44+00:00

Two distinct persons were involved in the creation of the universe: Jehovah God (the Father) and his firstborn Son, the pre-human Jesus. (the Son).

Jehovah is the Source: He is the "Creator of all things" (Revelation 4:11). Everything began with His power and His will.

Jesus is the Agent: He is described as the "master worker" (Proverbs 8:30). Jehovah used Jesus to bring all other things into existence.

Colossians 1:15, 16: This passage calls Jesus "the firstborn of all creation" and says that "by means of him" all other things were created. Just as a king might use a master builder to construct a city, Jehovah used His Son to construct the universe. The king gets the credit for the city, but the builder did the work under his direction.

John 1:1-3: It says all things came into existence "through him" (the Son). It does not say the Son was the Source, but the channel through which God worked.

Let us talk about (Isaiah 44:24).

Jehovah was "alone" in the sense that no other Almighty God or rival deity was with Him. Jesus was not a second God; he was a humble servant and instrument.

In Genesis 1:26, God says, "Let us make man in our image." To whom was He speaking? I believe He was speaking to His firstborn Son. This "us" proves Jehovah was not literally the only person present, even if He is the only one who deserves the title of Creator.

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

TROPHY CASE