Just the Facts

Christ is God

To remove any doubt so the wrong ppl don't follow me, I am anti-Masonic, anti-Nazi, anti-Communist, and non-Zionist.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

The biggest revelation in today's world is that the entire Global Order is run by Freemasons. Not a single country escapes the Masonic control framework.

This includes Russia and China.

They don't hide it either; they show you who they serve with their hand symbols.

The MOST shocking revelation of who is a Mason is President Xi (image below is proof).

Xi is performing the Master of the 2nd Veil of the Royal Arch Mason degree just as he turns to Putin (another Mason) to give him a "Friendship Badge" in a very strange pomp and circumstance ritual - video linked below.

Xi is not doubt a Mason; he also has a claim to one of the 13 Royal Bloodlines through the Xia dynasty.

While all TV and disinfo has you believing that the world is at war with each other, they are all secretly promoting a New World Order to usher us into a One World Government (hence why US Masons, such as Fauci worked so closely with China to create COVID-19).

The Masonic end goal is to usher the world into a 10-Kingdom control framework which outlined in Bible prophecy per Book of Daniel and Revelation.

10 Kings are much easier to control for the Antichrist than conquering all 197 nations globally.

The Antichrist emerges out of one of the 13 Royal Bloodlines within this 10 Kingdom System.

The final One World Order AC will make a genetic claim to the throne through a Davidic, Merovingian, and 13 Royal Bloodline association.

https://t.co/VkdEbrMc4y

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

You’re still misusing "strawman"

I never said Elohim in Genesis 1 is a problem for you.

My point was that you already conceded a title can identify the true God without saying YHWH so you cannot suddenly dismiss God/Lord as “generic” when those titles are applied to Christ.

That is your inconsistency, not a strawman.

And yes, the Father is “his God” Christians have never denied that.

The incarnate and risen Son remains the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5).

“My God” establishes distinction and Christ’s mediatorial relation to the Father; it does not establish that Christ is a creature.

You keep asserting “therefore inferior in nature” without proving it.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

You’re reading verse 45 as though “life-giving spirit” means Christ ceased to be human and became a disembodied spirit creature.

But Paul has already defined the resurrection in verse 44 “It is raised a spiritual BODY”

Not “raised as a spirit”

Raised a spiritual body.

“Spiritual” describes the glorified resurrection body; it does not erase the noun body.

And two verses later Paul still calls Christ “the second man” (1 Cor. 15:47).

So your own passage says:

v.44 - spiritual BODY
v.47 - the second MAN

That is glorification, not dehumanization.

That is exactly why the risen Jesus says, “a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Luke 24:39), and shows Thomas His actual hands and side (John 20:27).

And even after the ascension, Paul still calls Him “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5), while Acts 17:31 says God will judge the world “by that man whom he hath ordained”

Gal. 1:1 doesn’t help you either.

Paul contrasts appointment “of men, neither by man” with appointment “by Jesus Christ, and God the Father”

You’re trying to use that verse to prove Jesus ceased being human when that is not Paul’s point at all.

So Eph. 1:17 and Rev. 3:12 do not prove Jesus became some non-human spirit creature. The risen Christ is still man, now glorified.

And that is why His saying “my God” does not disprove His deity. The same risen Jesus is addressed by Thomas as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

Still man. Still glorified. Still called God. Your argument only works by reading JW theology into “life-giving spirit” while ignoring Paul’s own words “spiritual BODY” and “second MAN”

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

If you ever debate a Jehovah’s Witness, this thread gives the issue in one sweep.

The core problem is circular reasoning built on a non-sequitur.

The Watchtower begins by assuming that the NT originally contained YHWH, even though no extant Greek NT manuscript contains YHWH/ΙΑΩ in those places. It infers this from textual variation in the Greek OT, then “restores” Jehovah into NT passages that actually read Kyrios/Theos, and finally uses that altered translation as evidence that Jehovah = the Father alone and Jesus cannot be God.

That's circular. The theology determines the reconstruction and then the reconstruction is cited as proof of the theology.

It's also a non sequitur. Evidence that some Greek OT manuscripts represented YHWH differently does not prove that the independently transmitted Greek NT originally contained YHWH.

And even “Jehovah” itself isn't a recovered ancient pronunciation. The Hebrew text gives יהוה YHWH; its exact ancient pronunciation is uncertain, with Yahweh being the dominant scholarly reconstruction. Jehovah is a later European/Latinized form.

The bigger problem for JW theology remains the NT itself, it repeatedly applies to Jesus the titles, works, worship, and OT YHWH passages belonging to God.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

You're building far too much theology around the assumption that YHWH is the only legitimate biblical word that can designate the true God, because the Bible itself disproves that immediately.

Start at Genesis 1:1:

“In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth”

The Hebrew there is אֱלֹהִים Elohim, not YHWH.

Nobody concludes from that that Genesis 1 is talking about some lesser deity because it says Elohim instead of YHWH. It is obviously speaking about the one true Creator.

The same thing happens in the Greek New Testament. θεός Theos, “God” is freely used for the true God.

So the argument cannot be, “If the word isn't YHWH, it isn't really God's name/title and therefore cannot identify someone as truly divine” Scripture doesn't use divine vocabulary that way.

And before we even get into the New Testament, there's a major problem with your argument about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

You're talking as though modern English Bibles simply translated both Testaments straight through from those 4th Century Greek codices and therefore inherited their use of Kyrios in the Old Testament.

That's historically false.

Take the King James Bible (written in 1604). Its Old Testament was translated primarily from the Hebrew Masoretic textual tradition, not from the Greek OT of Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus wasn't even brought to modern scholarly attention until the 19th century, more than two centuries after the KJV was published.

The Geneva Bible likewise translated the Old Testament from Hebrew.

And what does that Hebrew Masoretic Text actually contain? יהוה YHWH

Thousands of times.

So when the KJV prints LORD in small capitals, the translators very often have YHWH sitting directly in front of them in the Hebrew source text.

They're not getting “Lord” from some supposed 4th century corruption in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

They're looking directly at יהוה and choosing to render it conventionally as LORD.

In fact the KJV makes this completely obvious because in several places it explicitly prints JEHOVAH:

Exodus 6:3 - “by my name JEHOVAH…”

Psalm 83:18 - “whose name alone is JEHOVAH…”

Isaiah 12:2 - “the LORD JEHOVAH…”

Isaiah 26:4 - “the LORD JEHOVAH…”

So the translators obviously knew perfectly well that YHWH was in the Hebrew text.

This proves something very simple.

A source text can explicitly contain YHWH while an English translation renders it LORD.

So “LORD” by itself does not prove God's name was removed from the underlying manuscript.

And that's a completely different situation from the NWT's New Testament.

Hebrew OT: יהוה → English LORD

versus

Greek NT: κύριος / θεός → NWT Jehovah

In the 1st case, YHWH is physically present in the source text.

In the 2nd case, the extant Greek NT manuscripts say Kyrios or Theos, and the NWT replaces those with “Jehovah” because the Watchtower believes an earlier lost form of the NT originally contained the divine name without having a single copy or fragment of any earlier lost form of the NT....

That’s not simply translating the word in front of you. That’s reconstructing a hypothetical earlier text, inserting that reconstruction into the translation, and then using the resulting translation as theological evidence that Jesus is not God and that only the Father is YHWH.

In other words, the theological conclusion is being built into the translation and then cited back as proof of the theology which is Circular Logic.

In other that's a non sequitur based on a false analogy. Evidence that some Greek OT manuscripts changed how YHWH was represented does not prove that the independently transmitted Greek NT originally contained YHWH. Without a single Greek NT manuscript showing that reading, the further claim becomes an argument from silence, not textual evidence.

And there's another irony in putting so much weight on the particular pronunciation “Jehovah” which is a much later Latinized / Anglophone transliteration of YHWH.

The Hebrew Bible does not actually contain anywhere the English word “Jehovah” It contains the four consonants יהוה YHWH which no one actually knows how to pronounce properly.

Yod He Waw He are the names of those Hebrew letters. The ancient pronunciation is not preserved with certainty, although Yahweh is the standard scholarly reconstruction.

“Jehovah” is a much later European form. Jewish scribes preserved the consonants YHWH while supplying vowel cues reminding the reader to say Adonai “Lord” instead.

Later Christian readers combined those consonants and vowel cues, producing forms such as Yehowah/Jehovah. Even reference works explaining the history of the word acknowledge this.

So there's something rather strange about claiming that the Watchtower is “restoring God's original name” when Jehovah itself is not the ancient Hebrew pronunciation being restored.

It is an established traditional English form of YHWH, and there's nothing inherently wrong with using it as an English convention, but don't confuse that with reproducing the pronunciation spoken by Moses or Abraham.

More importantly, all of this still avoids the actual New Testament question.... What does the New Testament say about Jesus' relationship to the God identified as YHWH in the Old Testament?

Because the apostles repeatedly place Jesus inside the very divine identity that the Old Testament attributes to YHWH.

Take John 8:58:

“Before Abraham was, I AM”

Jesus does not merely say, “I existed before Abraham.” He uses ἐγώ εἰμι egō eimi, “I am”

There is an obvious conceptual connection with God's self-revelation in Exodus 3:14, “I AM THAT I AM”

John's Gospel repeatedly uses absolute egō eimi language for Christ, and that language also appears in the Greek Isaiah where YHWH declares:

“that ye may know and believe me … that I am he” - Isaiah 43:10

Then look at what happens immediately after Jesus' statement in John 8:58

"they [the Pharisees] pick up stones to stone him"

Why would the Pharisees want to stone Jesus at this point? Because He is claiming the same Ontological essence as the Father

Look at what Jesus says in John 10:30:

“I and my Father are one”

And again, the Pharisees response was:

“thou, being a man, makest thyself God” - John 10:33

That doesn't mean Jesus is claiming to be the Father.

Christianity has never taught that.

The Father and Son are personally distinct. The issue is that Jesus continually identifies Himself with the divine prerogatives and identity of the Father in a way no created angel or prophet does.

And Revelation makes this impossible to avoid.

YHWH says in Isaiah 44:6:

“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Notice the context and yet another name for the true God that isn't rendered YHWH... “First and Last” isn't merely a nice title. YHWH is using it to declare his unique divine identity:

"I am the First and Last and besides me there is no God."

Then Jesus says in Revelation 1:17-18:

“Fear not; I am the first and the last I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore.”

Revelation then uses the corresponding Greek alphabet imagery:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” - Revelation 22:13

And here's another interesting point concerning the very divine name you're making your argument about.

At least one pre-Christian Greek Old Testament manuscript, 4Q120 (written in 100BC), represents YHWH as ΙΑΩ or Iaō

So Greek-speaking Jews already knew ΙΑΩ as a representation of the divine name before Christianity even began.

ΙΑΩ contains ΑΩ Alpha and Omega adjacent within the name. Some modern scholars have even suggested that this may have contributed to the Alpha and Omega imagery in Revelation. I wouldn't pretend that proves John's intention by itself, because it doesn't need to.

The explicit connection is already made:

YHWH in Isaiah = First and Last

Jesus in Revelation = First and Last

But the idea that knowledge of the divine name somehow disappeared from Christianity until the Watchtower “restored” it is historically impossible.

Irenaeus, writing around 180AD, explicitly knows the form ΙΑΩ. In Against Heresies 1.30.5 he records ΙΑΩ among divine names being used in the religious systems he is describing.

This proves that ΙΑΩ was already known in the 2nd Century Christian intellectual world, 1,700 years before the Watchtower.

And Irenaeus is especially important because he personally knew Polycarp, who belonged to the generation immediately after the apostles. Irenaeus says Polycarp had been instructed by apostles and had associated with John and others who had seen the Lord.

Polycarp's own Christian environment actually exposes the false dichotomy in your argument.

The early account of his martyrdom records him praying

Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ “O Lord God Almighty”

That's Kyrios + Theos

In other words, Christians standing extraordinarily close to the apostolic generation could know perfectly well who the God of Israel was while freely calling Him Kyrios and Theos.

So this either/or argument of "Either Christians explicitly write YHWH every time, or they have forgotten/corrupted God's name by using Kyrios" does not work.

Early Christianity shows those are not the only options.

They could know YHWH perfectly well and still use the ordinary Greek biblical title (Kyrios Lord)

Origen's writing around 248AD makes the historical point even clearer. In Against Celsus 6.32 he explicitly discusses “ΙΑΩ or Jah” as a name drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures, alongside names such as Sabaoth and Adonai, and treats them as referring to the same God.

So Christians did not need Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Rutherford or the New World Translation to tell them that YHWH existed or that forms such as ΙΑΩ (YHWH) were associated with the biblical God because early Christians already were using those terms in relation with Kyrios and Theos (Κύριε θεὸ).

They were already discussing these things concurrently with the Apostles in the 1st Century.

But that historical point about ΙΑΩ is secondary to the actual argument from Revelation. So returning to the text itself, the reason Revelation's “Alpha and Omega / First and Last” language matters is not dependent on any proposed ΙΑΩ wordplay. The direct biblical connection is between the title YHWH claims in Isaiah and the title Jesus claims in Revelation.

YHWH says in Isaiah 44:6:

“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God”

And Jesus says in Revelation 1:17-18:

“I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore”

Revelation 22 then brings those same divine titles together:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” - Revelation 22:13

The immediate context repeatedly speaks of the one who is “coming quickly” and only a few verses later we read:

“I Jesus have sent mine angel…” - Revelation 22:16

Revelation 1:17-18 already tells us who the speaker is.

Jesus = “the First and the Last”

and vs 18 says "and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore."

That can only be Jesus.

So the comparison remains:

YHWH in Isaiah 44:6 = “the First and the Last”

Jesus in Revelation 1:17-18 = “the First and the Last”

That is the Christological problem the Watchtower interpretation can not explain.

And John doesn't stop there. He closes his Gospel with Thomas looking directly at the risen Jesus and saying:

“My Lord and my God” - John 20:28

Greek:
ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου

Literally “My Lord and my God”

Jesus doesn't correct him and say

“No, Thomas, only Jehovah is God and I am Michael the archangel.”

He accepts the confession.

And John already told you why in the opening verse of the Gospel:

“the Word was with God, and the Word was God” - John 1:1

That one sentence simultaneously destroys two errors.

“The Word was with God” = the Son is personally distinct from the Father.

“The Word was God” = the Son is not merely a creature.

Then John 1:3 places Christ on the Creator side of the Creator/creation distinction:

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

John separates "everything that was made"

from

the Word through whom everything that was made came into existence.

That's also why inserting “other” into Colossians 1 matters.

The Greek says:

τὰ πάντα “all things”

The Watchtower needs Jesus to belong to the category of created things, whereas John explicitly distinguishes the Word from everything that came into existence through Him.

So constantly arguing about whether English Bibles print YHWH as LORD doesn't solve the Christological problem.

I have no objection to saying the Hebrew text actually contains YHWH.

Our Bibles are based on this and every Christian knows that it does thousands of times.... we've known this since Polycarp and Irenaeus in 100AD

I also have no objection to someone preferring Yahweh rather than LORD in an OT translation.

I have no objection to acknowledging that some ancient Greek OT manuscripts preserve the Tetragrammaton and that at least one writes ΙΑΩ.

What I object to is taking those facts and then constructing a historical sequence the evidence does not demonstrate:

JW Positioning:

“Early LXX had YHWH → 4th Century Christians removed it and substituted Kyrios → they simultaneously did the same thing to the New Testament → therefore the NWT is merely restoring the apostolic text”

That chain is not demonstrated by the manuscript evidence. To sustain it, you have to assume that the New Testament underwent the same textual change as certain Greek OT manuscripts, the very point you are trying to prove. That is where the argument becomes circular.

A hypothetical lost NT reading is assumed, inserted into the translation, and then the resulting translation is cited as support for the theology that required the reconstruction in the first place.

In fact, your Vaticanus/Sinaiticus argument collapses immediately because those translations' Old Testaments derive from a Hebrew textual tradition that still physically contains YHWH, yet they normally translate it LORD anyway.

So “LORD” is not evidence by itself that God's name disappeared from the source text.

And with the New Testament, the evidentiary problem is even worse.

You still cannot produce an early Greek NT manuscript containing יהוה or ΙΑΩ where the extant manuscripts contain Kyrios or Theos.

An early Greek manuscript of Leviticus containing ΙΑΩ proves something about the textual history of Leviticus.

It does not prove that Paul wrote ΙΑΩ in Romans.

And none of it removes the larger Christological problem I mentioned above.

The New Testament writers repeatedly take titles, descriptions, works, worship, and Old Testament passages belonging to YHWH and apply them directly to Jesus.

That is the issue your theology can not answer. You cannot solve the Christological evidence by hypothesizing an unattested earlier NT text and then treating that hypothesis as proof.

That is circular reasoning layered on top of a non-sequitur. Variation in the Greek OT does not establish that the Greek NT originally contained YHWH.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

1) Read Isaiah 44:24 more carefully.

YHWH says He is “he that formed thee from the womb” where parents obviously function as secondary causes and then specifically says He “stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE” and “spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF”

Isaiah himself makes the distinction your analogy erases.

And your “created agent” explanation only makes the problem worse. Hebrews 1:10 does not merely say God created through the Son. It addresses the Son.

“THOU, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of THINE hands”

If a created being literally laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the works of his hands, then “alone” and “by myself” have been emptied of their meaning.

John 1:3 closes the door "without him was not any thing made that was made."

If the Son were made, he'd have made himself. That's why the NWT has to insert "other" four times into Col 1:16-17. Without it, the text puts the Son outside the category of created things.

2) "If proskuneo has a range it can't be your proof"

That is a non sequitur. The fact that a word has a range of meanings does not mean it can never establish anything. It means context determines which meaning is intended.

I already conceded that proskuneo can describe ordinary obeisance. That is why your appeal to Abraham bowing before the Hittites in Genesis 23 proves nothing about Hebrews 1:6.

The question is not, “Can proskuneo ever mean bowing before a human?” Of course it can.

The question is what does it mean here, when God commands His heavenly angels to render it to the Son in a passage drawing on OT language of worship directed to God?

You keep pointing to a different use of the word while refusing to deal with the context actually under discussion. That is equivocation, not exegesis.

A word having multiple meanings does not make context irrelevant. It makes context decisive.

3) “Jesus is on God’s throne… so angels bow to him”

You have conceded more than you realize. Revelation ultimately speaks of “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev. 22:1, 3).

The Father and Son are distinct; Trinitarians have never denied that. What you still have not established is creaturehood.

And 1 Corinthians 15:27 concerns the Son’s mediatorial reign and His relation to the Father. Order of role is not proof of created nature.

Meanwhile you quietly left these untouched.

Hebrews 1:8 the Father addresses the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”

Your own organization’s earlier NWT editions rendered Hebrews 1:6, “Let all God’s angels worship him”

And now the question you have dodged repeatedly.

“Unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son?” - Heb. 1:5

“To which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand?” - Heb. 1:13

The Watchtower teaches that Jesus is Michael the archangel, and this is the point you keep conspicuously dodging because Hebrews 1 directly puts that doctrine under pressure.

Hebrews’ entire opening argument distinguishes the Son from the angels.

So is Jesus an angel or isn’t He?

If He is, explain why Hebrews says God addressed no angel this way.

If He is not, then the Watchtower’s identification of Jesus as Michael is false.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

@jbulldogs4 💯 and his kid named X

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

I said I was done, but this one answers itself, so I'll make it quick.

You: "What you posted above doesn't disprove it"

Read it again. Heb 1:10 doesn't say the heavens are the work of the Father's hands "through" the Son.

It says to the Son: "the heavens are the work of YOUR hands"

And YHWH says He stretched out the heavens "alone" and spread out the earth "by myself" (Isa 44:24).

If the Son was a created instrument, YHWH didn't create alone.

Your agency theology contradicts Isaiah.

And "through" doesn't make anyone a lesser tool.

Heb 2:10 says all things exist "through" the Father, using the same Greek word.

You: "Jesus isn't worshipped. Angels bow down to Him. He's the king"

Heb 1:6 quotes Deut 32:43 (LXX), where the angels worship GOD, and applies it to the Son. Hebrews takes worship given to God and directs it to the Son.

Yes, proskuneo has a range, and context decides. So look at what angels do with it.

When John gives an angel proskuneo, the angel refuses: "Do not do that… worship God" (Rev 19:10, 22:9).

Angels refuse it for themselves and are commanded to give it to the Son.

Abraham bowing to the Hittites in Gen 23:7 isn't angels in heaven worshipping at God's command. That's equivocation.

And if you want LXX usage, look at Psalm 97:7 (96:7 LXX) 'Worship Him, all you His angels.' The same word, the same angels, worshipping God.

Hebrews 1:6 takes that and gives it to the Son."

In Rev 5:13-14, every creature gives the same blessing, honor, glory, and might "to Him who sits on the throne AND to the Lamb," and the elders fall down and worship. Same worship, same moment, both recipients.

You "He's the king"?

Two verses later, Heb 1:8 addresses that king: "Your throne, O God, is forever."

And "your Bible renders it worship"? So did yours.

Early editions of the NWT read Heb 1:6 "let all God's angels worship him."

The Watchtower changed it when the theology required it.

Which brings us back to the question you've now dodged three times...

"To which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are My Son'?" (Heb 1:5)

"To which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at My right hand'?" (Heb 1:13)

The Watchtower says Jesus is Michael the archangel.

Hebrews says God never said these things to any angel. Either Jesus is not an angel, or Hebrews is wrong. Pick one.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

Again, I don't think you understand what that word means. A strawman is misrepresenting someone's argument to refute it.

I quoted your verses and answered them. You can't be strawmanned on what you "meant" but didn't write.

As for "superior" 1 Cor 11:3 says "the head of Christ is God" and "the head of the woman is man."

A wife is not a lesser kind of human.

Headship is order, not nature. Christ would be 2nd in the Ontological Order of the Trinity.

Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit

Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

The Son is not a lesser kind of God.

Superior in role is not superior in being. Until you can tell the difference, you'll keep calling every answer a strawman.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

I don't think you understand what a strawman is. Adding words to your quote doesn't change my point. It makes it worse for you.

You said there's "no need of restoring YHWH into NT to prove only the Father is YHWH."

So by your own admission, the NWT's 237 insertions aren't needed to establish your doctrine.

That leaves them nothing to stand on. There's no Greek NT manuscript containing YHWH, and by your own words no doctrinal need for them either. So why rewrite 237 verses?

And if the name really was removed and 'must be restored,' how is it that you can prove your doctrine without it?

You can't have it both ways. Either the insertions are essential and you need a manuscript you don't have, or they're unnecessary, and the NWT altered the text anyway.

Your argument without YHWH still fails too.

It proves the Father is YHWH, which I've never denied. It doesn't prove ONLY the Father is YHWH.

And by your own method. Ps 102:25, YHWH laid the foundation of the earth. Heb 1:10, the Father says to the Son, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth."

So the Son is YHWH.

You still haven't answered that.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

Notice what you skipped. I posted Hebrews 1:13 with a screenshot "To which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool'?"

That verse is your own Psalm 110:1, the one you drew arrows around.

Hebrews uses it to prove the Son is above every angel. The Watchtower falsely teaches Jesus is Michael the archangel (there's not a single biblical text that mentions this btw).

So your own proof text, in the hands of an inspired author, says God never spoke those words to any angel. Your arrows proved the Father is distinct from the Son.

Hebrews uses the same verse to prove the Son is not an angel.

Now to what you did say.

You keep quoting verses about His humanity and ignoring the verses about His deity.

Christians hold both. JW hold half and the entire existence of this cult depends on this fundamental misunderstanding. See the difference?

I've provided numerous verses for you to understand this but you continually ignore them.

You're misunderstanding two basic things about what Christians actually believe.

First, Jesus is both fully God and fully man.

The Son became a true man, and a true man has a God. That's why He prays, worships, and says "my God."

Christianity has taught that for 2,000 years. Eph 1:17 and Rev 3:12 aren't problems for the incarnation.

They ARE the incarnation.

And He is still a man in heaven, "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).

So Rev 3:12 changes nothing.

But He didn't become man by ceasing to be God.

Phil 2:6: He existed "in the form of God" and did not consider equality with God something to grasp.

You don't humble yourself from a status you never had.

And Heb 1:3 calls Him "the exact imprint of His nature," using the Greek word hypostasis.

Not similar to God's nature. The exact representation of it.

Hebrews 1 seems to be written specifically for JW.

Second, order in the Trinity is not a difference in nature.

1 Cor 15:27 shows order, not nature. Paul says "the head of Christ is God" in the same verse as "the head of the woman is man" (1 Cor 11:3).

A wife under her husband's headship isn't less human. The Son under the Father's headship isn't less divine.

The Father sends, and the Son is sent. The Son submits, and the Father is not subject to Him. None of that makes the Son a creature, any more than a wife's submission makes her a different species from her husband.

"Superior in role" does not mean "superior in being"

You keep collapsing the two and for a cult to work, every verse you've cited depends on that confusion.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

I'm ending this here. Everything I have to say is in the full breakdown linked below.

I'll leave the last word to Scripture. The Father says to the Son, 'You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth' (Hebrews 1:10), and 'Let all God's angels worship Him' (Hebrews 1:6).

No angel is worshipped. No creature laid the earth's foundation.

https://t.co/3k1U2mvIYJ

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

You're building far too much theology around the assumption that YHWH is the only legitimate biblical word that can designate the true God, because the Bible itself disproves that immediately.

Start at Genesis 1:1:

“In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth”

The Hebrew there is אֱלֹהִים Elohim, not YHWH.

Nobody concludes from that that Genesis 1 is talking about some lesser deity because it says Elohim instead of YHWH. It is obviously speaking about the one true Creator.

The same thing happens in the Greek New Testament. θεός Theos, “God” is freely used for the true God.

So the argument cannot be, “If the word isn't YHWH, it isn't really God's name/title and therefore cannot identify someone as truly divine” Scripture doesn't use divine vocabulary that way.

And before we even get into the New Testament, there's a major problem with your argument about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

You're talking as though modern English Bibles simply translated both Testaments straight through from those 4th Century Greek codices and therefore inherited their use of Kyrios in the Old Testament.

That's historically false.

Take the King James Bible (written in 1604). Its Old Testament was translated primarily from the Hebrew Masoretic textual tradition, not from the Greek OT of Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus wasn't even brought to modern scholarly attention until the 19th century, more than two centuries after the KJV was published.

The Geneva Bible likewise translated the Old Testament from Hebrew.

And what does that Hebrew Masoretic Text actually contain? יהוה YHWH

Thousands of times.

So when the KJV prints LORD in small capitals, the translators very often have YHWH sitting directly in front of them in the Hebrew source text.

They're not getting “Lord” from some supposed 4th century corruption in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

They're looking directly at יהוה and choosing to render it conventionally as LORD.

In fact the KJV makes this completely obvious because in several places it explicitly prints JEHOVAH:

Exodus 6:3 - “by my name JEHOVAH…”

Psalm 83:18 - “whose name alone is JEHOVAH…”

Isaiah 12:2 - “the LORD JEHOVAH…”

Isaiah 26:4 - “the LORD JEHOVAH…”

So the translators obviously knew perfectly well that YHWH was in the Hebrew text.

This proves something very simple.

A source text can explicitly contain YHWH while an English translation renders it LORD.

So “LORD” by itself does not prove God's name was removed from the underlying manuscript.

And that's a completely different situation from the NWT's New Testament.

Hebrew OT: יהוה → English LORD

versus

Greek NT: κύριος / θεός → NWT Jehovah

In the 1st case, YHWH is physically present in the source text.

In the 2nd case, the extant Greek NT manuscripts say Kyrios or Theos, and the NWT replaces those with “Jehovah” because the Watchtower believes an earlier lost form of the NT originally contained the divine name without having a single copy or fragment of any earlier lost form of the NT....

That’s not simply translating the word in front of you. That’s reconstructing a hypothetical earlier text, inserting that reconstruction into the translation, and then using the resulting translation as theological evidence that Jesus is not God and that only the Father is YHWH.

In other words, the theological conclusion is being built into the translation and then cited back as proof of the theology which is Circular Logic.

In other that's a non sequitur based on a false analogy. Evidence that some Greek OT manuscripts changed how YHWH was represented does not prove that the independently transmitted Greek NT originally contained YHWH. Without a single Greek NT manuscript showing that reading, the further claim becomes an argument from silence, not textual evidence.

And there's another irony in putting so much weight on the particular pronunciation “Jehovah” which is a much later Latinized / Anglophone transliteration of YHWH.

The Hebrew Bible does not actually contain anywhere the English word “Jehovah” It contains the four consonants יהוה YHWH which no one actually knows how to pronounce properly.

Yod He Waw He are the names of those Hebrew letters. The ancient pronunciation is not preserved with certainty, although Yahweh is the standard scholarly reconstruction.

“Jehovah” is a much later European form. Jewish scribes preserved the consonants YHWH while supplying vowel cues reminding the reader to say Adonai “Lord” instead.

Later Christian readers combined those consonants and vowel cues, producing forms such as Yehowah/Jehovah. Even reference works explaining the history of the word acknowledge this.

So there's something rather strange about claiming that the Watchtower is “restoring God's original name” when Jehovah itself is not the ancient Hebrew pronunciation being restored.

It is an established traditional English form of YHWH, and there's nothing inherently wrong with using it as an English convention, but don't confuse that with reproducing the pronunciation spoken by Moses or Abraham.

More importantly, all of this still avoids the actual New Testament question.... What does the New Testament say about Jesus' relationship to the God identified as YHWH in the Old Testament?

Because the apostles repeatedly place Jesus inside the very divine identity that the Old Testament attributes to YHWH.

Take John 8:58:

“Before Abraham was, I AM”

Jesus does not merely say, “I existed before Abraham.” He uses ἐγώ εἰμι egō eimi, “I am”

There is an obvious conceptual connection with God's self-revelation in Exodus 3:14, “I AM THAT I AM”

John's Gospel repeatedly uses absolute egō eimi language for Christ, and that language also appears in the Greek Isaiah where YHWH declares:

“that ye may know and believe me … that I am he” - Isaiah 43:10

Then look at what happens immediately after Jesus' statement in John 8:58

"they [the Pharisees] pick up stones to stone him"

Why would the Pharisees want to stone Jesus at this point? Because He is claiming the same Ontological essence as the Father

Look at what Jesus says in John 10:30:

“I and my Father are one”

And again, the Pharisees response was:

“thou, being a man, makest thyself God” - John 10:33

That doesn't mean Jesus is claiming to be the Father.

Christianity has never taught that.

The Father and Son are personally distinct. The issue is that Jesus continually identifies Himself with the divine prerogatives and identity of the Father in a way no created angel or prophet does.

And Revelation makes this impossible to avoid.

YHWH says in Isaiah 44:6:

“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Notice the context and yet another name for the true God that isn't rendered YHWH... “First and Last” isn't merely a nice title. YHWH is using it to declare his unique divine identity:

"I am the First and Last and besides me there is no God."

Then Jesus says in Revelation 1:17-18:

“Fear not; I am the first and the last I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore.”

Revelation then uses the corresponding Greek alphabet imagery:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” - Revelation 22:13

And here's another interesting point concerning the very divine name you're making your argument about.

At least one pre-Christian Greek Old Testament manuscript, 4Q120 (written in 100BC), represents YHWH as ΙΑΩ or Iaō

So Greek-speaking Jews already knew ΙΑΩ as a representation of the divine name before Christianity even began.

ΙΑΩ contains ΑΩ Alpha and Omega adjacent within the name. Some modern scholars have even suggested that this may have contributed to the Alpha and Omega imagery in Revelation. I wouldn't pretend that proves John's intention by itself, because it doesn't need to.

The explicit connection is already made:

YHWH in Isaiah = First and Last

Jesus in Revelation = First and Last

But the idea that knowledge of the divine name somehow disappeared from Christianity until the Watchtower “restored” it is historically impossible.

Irenaeus, writing around 180AD, explicitly knows the form ΙΑΩ. In Against Heresies 1.30.5 he records ΙΑΩ among divine names being used in the religious systems he is describing.

This proves that ΙΑΩ was already known in the 2nd Century Christian intellectual world, 1,700 years before the Watchtower.

And Irenaeus is especially important because he personally knew Polycarp, who belonged to the generation immediately after the apostles. Irenaeus says Polycarp had been instructed by apostles and had associated with John and others who had seen the Lord.

Polycarp's own Christian environment actually exposes the false dichotomy in your argument.

The early account of his martyrdom records him praying

Κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ “O Lord God Almighty”

That's Kyrios + Theos

In other words, Christians standing extraordinarily close to the apostolic generation could know perfectly well who the God of Israel was while freely calling Him Kyrios and Theos.

So this either/or argument of "Either Christians explicitly write YHWH every time, or they have forgotten/corrupted God's name by using Kyrios" does not work.

Early Christianity shows those are not the only options.

They could know YHWH perfectly well and still use the ordinary Greek biblical title (Kyrios Lord)

Origen's writing around 248AD makes the historical point even clearer. In Against Celsus 6.32 he explicitly discusses “ΙΑΩ or Jah” as a name drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures, alongside names such as Sabaoth and Adonai, and treats them as referring to the same God.

So Christians did not need Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Rutherford or the New World Translation to tell them that YHWH existed or that forms such as ΙΑΩ (YHWH) were associated with the biblical God because early Christians already were using those terms in relation with Kyrios and Theos (Κύριε θεὸ).

They were already discussing these things concurrently with the Apostles in the 1st Century.

But that historical point about ΙΑΩ is secondary to the actual argument from Revelation. So returning to the text itself, the reason Revelation's “Alpha and Omega / First and Last” language matters is not dependent on any proposed ΙΑΩ wordplay. The direct biblical connection is between the title YHWH claims in Isaiah and the title Jesus claims in Revelation.

YHWH says in Isaiah 44:6:

“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God”

And Jesus says in Revelation 1:17-18:

“I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore”

Revelation 22 then brings those same divine titles together:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” - Revelation 22:13

The immediate context repeatedly speaks of the one who is “coming quickly” and only a few verses later we read:

“I Jesus have sent mine angel…” - Revelation 22:16

Revelation 1:17-18 already tells us who the speaker is.

Jesus = “the First and the Last”

and vs 18 says "and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore."

That can only be Jesus.

So the comparison remains:

YHWH in Isaiah 44:6 = “the First and the Last”

Jesus in Revelation 1:17-18 = “the First and the Last”

That is the Christological problem the Watchtower interpretation can not explain.

And John doesn't stop there. He closes his Gospel with Thomas looking directly at the risen Jesus and saying:

“My Lord and my God” - John 20:28

Greek:
ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου

Literally “My Lord and my God”

Jesus doesn't correct him and say

“No, Thomas, only Jehovah is God and I am Michael the archangel.”

He accepts the confession.

And John already told you why in the opening verse of the Gospel:

“the Word was with God, and the Word was God” - John 1:1

That one sentence simultaneously destroys two errors.

“The Word was with God” = the Son is personally distinct from the Father.

“The Word was God” = the Son is not merely a creature.

Then John 1:3 places Christ on the Creator side of the Creator/creation distinction:

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

John separates "everything that was made"

from

the Word through whom everything that was made came into existence.

That's also why inserting “other” into Colossians 1 matters.

The Greek says:

τὰ πάντα “all things”

The Watchtower needs Jesus to belong to the category of created things, whereas John explicitly distinguishes the Word from everything that came into existence through Him.

So constantly arguing about whether English Bibles print YHWH as LORD doesn't solve the Christological problem.

I have no objection to saying the Hebrew text actually contains YHWH.

Our Bibles are based on this and every Christian knows that it does thousands of times.... we've known this since Polycarp and Irenaeus in 100AD

I also have no objection to someone preferring Yahweh rather than LORD in an OT translation.

I have no objection to acknowledging that some ancient Greek OT manuscripts preserve the Tetragrammaton and that at least one writes ΙΑΩ.

What I object to is taking those facts and then constructing a historical sequence the evidence does not demonstrate:

JW Positioning:

“Early LXX had YHWH → 4th Century Christians removed it and substituted Kyrios → they simultaneously did the same thing to the New Testament → therefore the NWT is merely restoring the apostolic text”

That chain is not demonstrated by the manuscript evidence. To sustain it, you have to assume that the New Testament underwent the same textual change as certain Greek OT manuscripts, the very point you are trying to prove. That is where the argument becomes circular.

A hypothetical lost NT reading is assumed, inserted into the translation, and then the resulting translation is cited as support for the theology that required the reconstruction in the first place.

In fact, your Vaticanus/Sinaiticus argument collapses immediately because those translations' Old Testaments derive from a Hebrew textual tradition that still physically contains YHWH, yet they normally translate it LORD anyway.

So “LORD” is not evidence by itself that God's name disappeared from the source text.

And with the New Testament, the evidentiary problem is even worse.

You still cannot produce an early Greek NT manuscript containing יהוה or ΙΑΩ where the extant manuscripts contain Kyrios or Theos.

An early Greek manuscript of Leviticus containing ΙΑΩ proves something about the textual history of Leviticus.

It does not prove that Paul wrote ΙΑΩ in Romans.

And none of it removes the larger Christological problem I mentioned above.

The New Testament writers repeatedly take titles, descriptions, works, worship, and Old Testament passages belonging to YHWH and apply them directly to Jesus.

That is the issue your theology can not answer. You cannot solve the Christological evidence by hypothesizing an unattested earlier NT text and then treating that hypothesis as proof.

That is circular reasoning layered on top of a non-sequitur. Variation in the Greek OT does not establish that the Greek NT originally contained YHWH.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

Your arrows prove that Paul echoes Psalm 110 and that the Father is distinct from the Son. I've said that from the start. Distinct persons, not different natures.

But notice what you drew around. Ephesians 1:21, right in your screenshot, puts Christ above "every name that is named." No creature sits above all created names.

And Hebrews 1:13 quotes your exact verse...Psalm 110:1

....to prove the Son is not an angel: "To which of the angels has He ever said, 'Sit at my right hand'?"

The Watchtower says Jesus is Michael the archangel.

Your own proof text says no angel ever received what Jesus received.

Jesus Himself used Psalm 110 in Matthew 22 to show the Messiah is David's Lord, not merely his son.

And the Father of glory you circled calls that same Son "God" and "Creator" in Hebrews 1:8-10.

More arrows, same fallacy.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

I strawmanned nothing. You committed 10 fallacies, and this tweet adds two more.

You said there's "no need of restoring YHWH into NT."

Then by your own admission, the NWT's 237 insertions are unnecessary and exist only to serve Watchtower theology.

Your logic proves the Father is YHWH. I agree. It doesn't prove only the Father is YHWH. That "only" is nowhere in your premises. Non sequitur.

Now use your own method.

Gen 1:1 - Elohim created the heavens and the earth.

Isa 44:24 - YHWH made all things, stretching out the heavens "alone" and spreading out the earth "by myself"

John 1:3 - All things came into being through the Word.

Heb 1:10 - The Father says to the Son "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth."

YHWH created alone. The Son created... He clearly didn't create Himself, that would be illogical.

So the Son is not a creature standing beside YHWH as His helper. He is included in the one Creator.

And you already conceded Elohim is a proper title for the true God. So is Theos "the Word was God (θεός)" (John 1:1), "my Lord and my God (θεός)" (John 20:28).

https://t.co/IFqSOVzDup

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

You complained my response was long. Blame the Watchtower. When a cult organization rewrites 237 verses, the correction takes more than a tweet.

Let's start with Genesis 1:1, because your answer to it gives away the rest of your argument.

I pointed out that the first verse of the Bible calls the Creator Elohim, not YHWH. Your response was, "I never said YHWH is the only legitimate word that can designate the true God," and that titles like God and Lord are "proper" for the Creator.

Good. Then you've conceded the point that dismantles your case.

The entire creation account, Genesis 1:1 through 2:3, never uses YHWH once. It calls the Creator Elohim 35 times. YHWH doesn't appear until Genesis 2:4. The first 34 verses of Scripture reveal the true God as Creator of heaven and earth without His name, and no reader in history has been confused about who is speaking. Titles identify the true God perfectly well when the context defines them.

Now apply your own concession to the New Testament.

If Elohim in Genesis 1 unmistakably identifies the true God, then Theos does in John 1:1: "the Word was God." It does in John 20:28, when Thomas calls the risen Jesus "my Lord and my God." And it does in Hebrews 1:8, where the Father addresses the Son with Psalm 45:6: "Your throne, O God," Elohim in the Hebrew.

You can't say titles are "proper" for the true God in Genesis 1, then treat the same titles as "generic" the moment the NT applies them to Jesus. That's special pleading.

And that exposes the heresy at the center of your Romans 10:13 argument. You wrote, "Calling the name of the true God saves, not calling on generic title LORD." That makes salvation depend on vocabulary, as if the right four letters save and the wrong word damns. Scripture teaches no such thing. This is pure heresy.

You refute it yourself. You wrote that God's name "isn't simply some group of sounds," and that Lord is a "proper" title for the Creator. Then you claim calling on that proper title doesn't save. Which is it?

Jesus refutes it too. In His recorded prayers He calls God Father, Abba, and on the cross Eloi. Never YHWH. The apostles pray "Lord" (Acts 1:24) and "Sovereign Lord" (Acts 4:24). By your standard, Jesus and the apostles failed to call on the right name.

And Scripture tells you exactly which name saves. "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). That name is Jesus.

That's your real problem. It isn't that you're using the wrong word. It's that you don't know who you're calling on. In Romans 10, the Lord confessed in verse 9, believed on in verse 11, and called upon in verses 12-13 is Jesus. Paul takes Joel's promise about calling on YHWH and points it at Christ.

You've kept the four letters and rejected the One Paul applies them to. And Jesus said, "Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him" (John 5:23).

You can recite "Jehovah" every day of your life. If you deny the Son the honor Scripture gives Him, you are not honoring the true God.

Then you lectured me that the Hebrew OT contains YHWH 6,828 times. I stated that explicitly in my last reply. That is a strawman.

You refuted something I never said because you can't refute what I actually said, and it sets the pattern for everything that follows.

1) Your "redaction" theory collapses on the manuscripts you ignored

You claim the NT in the 4th–5th century codices "went through the same redaction" as the LXX and had God's name removed. But the Greek NT papyri are generations older than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. P46, from around 200 AD, contains Paul's letters, including Romans 10. P66 and P75, from the late 2nd to early 3rd century, contain John and Luke. Not one of them has YHWH or ΙΑΩ. Neither do the Old Latin, Syriac, or Coptic translations spread across three continents.

For your theory to work, scribes on every continent, in every language, erased the name so thoroughly that not one copy, fragment, or protest survived. That is an argument from silence propped up by a conspiracy theory.

You skip the earliest evidence entirely because it destroys your timeline, which is suppressed evidence.

It gets worse. Those early scribes wrote Jesus' name with the same sacred abbreviations (nomina sacra) they used for God and Lord: ΙΣ alongside ΘΣ and ΚΣ. The earliest Christian copyists placed Jesus in the same sacred category as God.

2) Your leap from the LXX to the NT is a non sequitur, and you conceded my KJV point without noticing

Some Greek OT manuscripts vary in how they represent YHWH. Therefore the original NT contained the name? That is a non sequitur. The textual history of Leviticus tells you nothing about Romans. Yet your claim requires exactly that. If the name was "removed" from Romans 10:13, Paul must have written it there. Show me the manuscript.

I showed that the KJV translators had YHWH in front of them and still wrote LORD. You didn't dispute it.

You complained instead that this misleads readers at Exodus 6:3. So you now accept that a translation can say "Lord" while its source contains the name. The LXX is a translation too. Kyrios in the LXX codices is no more proof of removal than LORD in the KJV. Your own concession sinks your inference.

Your Exodus 6:3 complaint is also a red herring. How English Bibles render the OT is a debate about translation style. It has nothing to do with whether any apostle wrote the Tetragrammaton.

3) The Tosefta is textbook special pleading, and look who you're siding with

You told me Church Fathers "aren't authority" and I must "stick to the Bible." Then, with no Greek NT manuscript to support you, you cite Tosefta Shabbat 13:5. That is a rabbinic text compiled well over a century after Paul, by a tradition that rejected Jesus as Messiah and denied His deity (something JW has in common with other Heretics)

So notice what you've done. You dismiss Irenaeus, who learned from Polycarp, who learned from the apostles. Then you reach for a source that shares your denial of Christ's deity and treat it as a trustworthy guide to what the apostles wrote. You throw out Christian witnesses and bring in rabbinic ones the moment they seem useful. That is special pleading again.

And read the passage you cited. Tosefta Shabbat 13:5 says the books of the minim are not to be rescued from fire on the Sabbath, even though they contain divine names. Rabbi Tarfon says he would burn them, names and all. Your "evidence" for the apostolic text is a ruling about which heretical books to let burn.

Even taken at face value, it never identifies a single NT book, verse, or manuscript containing YHWH. "Some books the rabbis considered heretical contained divine names, therefore the apostles wrote YHWH in the NT" is another non sequitur.

4) The NWT's "restorations" are circular reasoning

The Watchtower assumes a lost NT text contained YHWH, inserts "Jehovah" on that assumption, and then cites the resulting NWT wording as proof that Jehovah is distinct from Jesus. The conclusion produces the text, and the text proves the conclusion.

That is circular reasoning, pure and simple.

5) You cherry-picked Romans 10:13 and ignored Paul's own usage

As shown above, the Lord called upon in Romans 10 is Jesus. And in 1 Corinthians 1:2, Paul describes Christians as those who "call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" That is the exact Joel formula, applied to Jesus. You quote one verse through the NWT's lens while ignoring that Paul directs to Jesus the very act you say saves only when directed to YHWH. That's cherry-picking.

6) Psalm 110, Ephesians 1, and Revelation 3:12 attack a position nobody holds

Every one of these shows the Father is distinct from the Son. I have said repeatedly that the Son is not the Father.

You are refuting modalism and calling it a refutation of the Trinity, which is another strawman.

And "distinct person, therefore not the same God" is a non sequitur. Distinction of persons is not difference of nature.

7) John 8:58: "too general" is hand-waving

If "I AM" was too general to mean anything, why did they pick up stones? People don't try to execute a man for a vague remark about his age. You've offered no explanation of their reaction, only a bare assertion.

8) "First and Last" is equivocation, and Isaiah 9:6 sinks you

Isaiah 44:6 defines the title itself "I am the first and the last; besides me there is no God."

It is an exclusivity claim. Comparing it to flexible words like "father" is equivocation. You swap in a generic sense where the text has defined a unique one. If Jesus is "First and Last" in some lesser sense, there are two First-and-Lasts, and Isaiah is false.

Then you cited Isaiah 9:6. That verse calls the Son El Gibbor, "Mighty God." One chapter later, Isaiah 10:21 uses that identical phrase, El Gibbor, for YHWH himself.

You handed me that 😊

9) Moses and Solomon are a false analogy

Agents act on God's behalf; nobody disputes that. But no agent is called the First and the Last, confessed as "my Lord and my God," worshipped alongside the One on the throne (Rev 5:13), or described as the one apart from whom nothing that came into existence came into existence (John 1:3, your own NWT).

Comparing them is a false analogy.

And your agency model can't survive Hebrews 1:10. The Father doesn't call the Son His instrument. He addresses Him with a psalm to YHWH the Creator: "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." Moses never received that. Jesus did.

Your fallacy count in one reply:

1) - Strawman: the 6,828 YHWH claim, and the "refutation" of a Trinity that teaches Son = Father.

2) - Special pleading: titles are proper for God in Genesis 1 but "generic" when applied to Jesus; Church Fathers rejected, Tosefta accepted.

3) Non sequitur: LXX variation, therefore NT redaction; heretical books with divine names, therefore NT had YHWH; distinct person, therefore not God.

4) Argument from silence: a lost NT text with no manuscript evidence.

5) Suppressed evidence: ignoring P46, P66, and P75.

6) Red herring: shifting from NT manuscript evidence to how English Bibles render the OT.

7) Circular reasoning: the NWT inserts "Jehovah," then cites itself.

8) Cherry-picking: Romans 10:13 without 1 Corinthians 1:2.

9) Equivocation: "First and Last" treated like "father."

10) False analogy: Moses and Solomon.

That's ten fallacies. Not one manuscript.

And consider whose authority you're trusting over every Greek manuscript on earth.

Charles Taze Russell built his end-times chronology on measurements of the Great Pyramid, which he called God's witness in stone. He fixed 1914 as the end of the present world order. It didn't end! 😧😳

His successor Rutherford declared "millions now living will never die" and pointed to 1925. Those millions died. The Watchtower then stoked expectations around 1975, and families sold homes and gave up careers waiting for an end that never came. The pyramid teaching itself was quietly abandoned. 🫥

Scripture has a test for this, and it's in the Torah you keep telling me to respect🫣. "When a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH, and the thing does not come to pass, that is a word YHWH has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously" (Deuteronomy 18:22).

In the name of YHWH. The very name you've built this entire argument around.

An organization that claims to be God's channel on earth, speaks in His name, and has failed that test again and again has told you exactly what it is. By the Bible's own standard, it's a false prophet. And a movement that demands your trust over Scripture, the manuscripts, and the entire witness of the early church, while its own predictions keep collapsing, is a cult.

And that is the organization telling you the apostles' text was secretly corrupted, and that it alone has "restored" it.... 😬

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

You complained my response was long. Blame the Watchtower. When a cult organization rewrites 237 verses, the correction takes more than a tweet.

Let's start with Genesis 1:1, because your answer to it gives away the rest of your argument.

I pointed out that the first verse of the Bible calls the Creator Elohim, not YHWH. Your response was, "I never said YHWH is the only legitimate word that can designate the true God," and that titles like God and Lord are "proper" for the Creator.

Good. Then you've conceded the point that dismantles your case.

The entire creation account, Genesis 1:1 through 2:3, never uses YHWH once. It calls the Creator Elohim 35 times. YHWH doesn't appear until Genesis 2:4. The first 34 verses of Scripture reveal the true God as Creator of heaven and earth without His name, and no reader in history has been confused about who is speaking. Titles identify the true God perfectly well when the context defines them.

Now apply your own concession to the New Testament.

If Elohim in Genesis 1 unmistakably identifies the true God, then Theos does in John 1:1: "the Word was God." It does in John 20:28, when Thomas calls the risen Jesus "my Lord and my God." And it does in Hebrews 1:8, where the Father addresses the Son with Psalm 45:6: "Your throne, O God," Elohim in the Hebrew.

You can't say titles are "proper" for the true God in Genesis 1, then treat the same titles as "generic" the moment the NT applies them to Jesus. That's special pleading.

And that exposes the heresy at the center of your Romans 10:13 argument. You wrote, "Calling the name of the true God saves, not calling on generic title LORD." That makes salvation depend on vocabulary, as if the right four letters save and the wrong word damns. Scripture teaches no such thing. This is pure heresy.

You refute it yourself. You wrote that God's name "isn't simply some group of sounds," and that Lord is a "proper" title for the Creator. Then you claim calling on that proper title doesn't save. Which is it?

Jesus refutes it too. In His recorded prayers He calls God Father, Abba, and on the cross Eloi. Never YHWH. The apostles pray "Lord" (Acts 1:24) and "Sovereign Lord" (Acts 4:24). By your standard, Jesus and the apostles failed to call on the right name.

And Scripture tells you exactly which name saves. "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). That name is Jesus.

That's your real problem. It isn't that you're using the wrong word. It's that you don't know who you're calling on. In Romans 10, the Lord confessed in verse 9, believed on in verse 11, and called upon in verses 12-13 is Jesus. Paul takes Joel's promise about calling on YHWH and points it at Christ.

You've kept the four letters and rejected the One Paul applies them to. And Jesus said, "Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him" (John 5:23).

You can recite "Jehovah" every day of your life. If you deny the Son the honor Scripture gives Him, you are not honoring the true God.

Then you lectured me that the Hebrew OT contains YHWH 6,828 times. I stated that explicitly in my last reply. That is a strawman.

You refuted something I never said because you can't refute what I actually said, and it sets the pattern for everything that follows.

1) Your "redaction" theory collapses on the manuscripts you ignored

You claim the NT in the 4th–5th century codices "went through the same redaction" as the LXX and had God's name removed. But the Greek NT papyri are generations older than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. P46, from around 200 AD, contains Paul's letters, including Romans 10. P66 and P75, from the late 2nd to early 3rd century, contain John and Luke. Not one of them has YHWH or ΙΑΩ. Neither do the Old Latin, Syriac, or Coptic translations spread across three continents.

For your theory to work, scribes on every continent, in every language, erased the name so thoroughly that not one copy, fragment, or protest survived. That is an argument from silence propped up by a conspiracy theory.

You skip the earliest evidence entirely because it destroys your timeline, which is suppressed evidence.

It gets worse. Those early scribes wrote Jesus' name with the same sacred abbreviations (nomina sacra) they used for God and Lord: ΙΣ alongside ΘΣ and ΚΣ. The earliest Christian copyists placed Jesus in the same sacred category as God.

2) Your leap from the LXX to the NT is a non sequitur, and you conceded my KJV point without noticing

Some Greek OT manuscripts vary in how they represent YHWH. Therefore the original NT contained the name? That is a non sequitur. The textual history of Leviticus tells you nothing about Romans. Yet your claim requires exactly that. If the name was "removed" from Romans 10:13, Paul must have written it there. Show me the manuscript.

I showed that the KJV translators had YHWH in front of them and still wrote LORD. You didn't dispute it.

You complained instead that this misleads readers at Exodus 6:3. So you now accept that a translation can say "Lord" while its source contains the name. The LXX is a translation too. Kyrios in the LXX codices is no more proof of removal than LORD in the KJV. Your own concession sinks your inference.

Your Exodus 6:3 complaint is also a red herring. How English Bibles render the OT is a debate about translation style. It has nothing to do with whether any apostle wrote the Tetragrammaton.

3) The Tosefta is textbook special pleading, and look who you're siding with

You told me Church Fathers "aren't authority" and I must "stick to the Bible." Then, with no Greek NT manuscript to support you, you cite Tosefta Shabbat 13:5. That is a rabbinic text compiled well over a century after Paul, by a tradition that rejected Jesus as Messiah and denied His deity (something JW has in common with other Heretics)

So notice what you've done. You dismiss Irenaeus, who learned from Polycarp, who learned from the apostles. Then you reach for a source that shares your denial of Christ's deity and treat it as a trustworthy guide to what the apostles wrote. You throw out Christian witnesses and bring in rabbinic ones the moment they seem useful. That is special pleading again.

And read the passage you cited. Tosefta Shabbat 13:5 says the books of the minim are not to be rescued from fire on the Sabbath, even though they contain divine names. Rabbi Tarfon says he would burn them, names and all. Your "evidence" for the apostolic text is a ruling about which heretical books to let burn.

Even taken at face value, it never identifies a single NT book, verse, or manuscript containing YHWH. "Some books the rabbis considered heretical contained divine names, therefore the apostles wrote YHWH in the NT" is another non sequitur.

4) The NWT's "restorations" are circular reasoning

The Watchtower assumes a lost NT text contained YHWH, inserts "Jehovah" on that assumption, and then cites the resulting NWT wording as proof that Jehovah is distinct from Jesus. The conclusion produces the text, and the text proves the conclusion.

That is circular reasoning, pure and simple.

5) You cherry-picked Romans 10:13 and ignored Paul's own usage

As shown above, the Lord called upon in Romans 10 is Jesus. And in 1 Corinthians 1:2, Paul describes Christians as those who "call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" That is the exact Joel formula, applied to Jesus. You quote one verse through the NWT's lens while ignoring that Paul directs to Jesus the very act you say saves only when directed to YHWH. That's cherry-picking.

6) Psalm 110, Ephesians 1, and Revelation 3:12 attack a position nobody holds

Every one of these shows the Father is distinct from the Son. I have said repeatedly that the Son is not the Father.

You are refuting modalism and calling it a refutation of the Trinity, which is another strawman.

And "distinct person, therefore not the same God" is a non sequitur. Distinction of persons is not difference of nature.

7) John 8:58: "too general" is hand-waving

If "I AM" was too general to mean anything, why did they pick up stones? People don't try to execute a man for a vague remark about his age. You've offered no explanation of their reaction, only a bare assertion.

8) "First and Last" is equivocation, and Isaiah 9:6 sinks you

Isaiah 44:6 defines the title itself "I am the first and the last; besides me there is no God."

It is an exclusivity claim. Comparing it to flexible words like "father" is equivocation. You swap in a generic sense where the text has defined a unique one. If Jesus is "First and Last" in some lesser sense, there are two First-and-Lasts, and Isaiah is false.

Then you cited Isaiah 9:6. That verse calls the Son El Gibbor, "Mighty God." One chapter later, Isaiah 10:21 uses that identical phrase, El Gibbor, for YHWH himself.

You handed me that 😊

9) Moses and Solomon are a false analogy

Agents act on God's behalf; nobody disputes that. But no agent is called the First and the Last, confessed as "my Lord and my God," worshipped alongside the One on the throne (Rev 5:13), or described as the one apart from whom nothing that came into existence came into existence (John 1:3, your own NWT).

Comparing them is a false analogy.

And your agency model can't survive Hebrews 1:10. The Father doesn't call the Son His instrument. He addresses Him with a psalm to YHWH the Creator: "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." Moses never received that. Jesus did.

Your fallacy count in one reply:

1) - Strawman: the 6,828 YHWH claim, and the "refutation" of a Trinity that teaches Son = Father.

2) - Special pleading: titles are proper for God in Genesis 1 but "generic" when applied to Jesus; Church Fathers rejected, Tosefta accepted.

3) Non sequitur: LXX variation, therefore NT redaction; heretical books with divine names, therefore NT had YHWH; distinct person, therefore not God.

4) Argument from silence: a lost NT text with no manuscript evidence.

5) Suppressed evidence: ignoring P46, P66, and P75.

6) Red herring: shifting from NT manuscript evidence to how English Bibles render the OT.

7) Circular reasoning: the NWT inserts "Jehovah," then cites itself.

8) Cherry-picking: Romans 10:13 without 1 Corinthians 1:2.

9) Equivocation: "First and Last" treated like "father."

10) False analogy: Moses and Solomon.

That's ten fallacies. Not one manuscript.

And consider whose authority you're trusting over every Greek manuscript on earth.

Charles Taze Russell built his end-times chronology on measurements of the Great Pyramid, which he called God's witness in stone. He fixed 1914 as the end of the present world order. It didn't end! 😧😳

His successor Rutherford declared "millions now living will never die" and pointed to 1925. Those millions died. The Watchtower then stoked expectations around 1975, and families sold homes and gave up careers waiting for an end that never came. The pyramid teaching itself was quietly abandoned. 🫥

Scripture has a test for this, and it's in the Torah you keep telling me to respect🫣. "When a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH, and the thing does not come to pass, that is a word YHWH has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously" (Deuteronomy 18:22).

In the name of YHWH. The very name you've built this entire argument around.

An organization that claims to be God's channel on earth, speaks in His name, and has failed that test again and again has told you exactly what it is. By the Bible's own standard, it's a false prophet. And a movement that demands your trust over Scripture, the manuscripts, and the entire witness of the early church, while its own predictions keep collapsing, is a cult.

And that is the organization telling you the apostles' text was secretly corrupted, and that it alone has "restored" it.... 😬

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

I could be wrong but some say Kappy isn't his real name and that he is a psyop.

Mixing a little truth with mistruths.

I know he peddled QAnon which is a known See eye A psyop.

He also mixed in some truth with total vitriolic Hegelian Dialectic hatred of Israel.

While I consider myself non-Zionist I recognize that ethnic Jews and Greeks are united in the same Olive Tree in Christ with Gentiles being grafted in; while also supporting the Biblical view that God still has a plan for ethnic national Israel per Romans 11 and Zechariah 12:10.

His mission seemed to be more to discredit those who were investigating pedophilia....

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

Woah.. given the level of anger in your response, you must be a pedophile yourself.

There is so much evidence from Boystown Nebraska to Epstein's Island... there is no hiding it anymore.

But people like you sadly exist. You're either an unwitting fool or you're a Pedophile given your extremely angry response, which suggests a repulsion to those exposing pedophiles.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

@victoriala13675 @forbiddenmerch My friend, I have written longer-form posts calling out both the Anglican Church and its sister the Catholic Church.

The Catholic-Jesuit-Masonic Vatican is at the cerebral center of Mystery Babylon and the promotion of the One World Religion.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

@Stond13193696 @forbiddenmerch Found the Freemason!

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

She is right in her overview but the control mechanism of Zionism are not Jews, it is Freemasons.

The LGBTQ agenda and the Noahide Laws were passed under the orchestration and full guidance of Freemasons (both Gentiles and Jews acting as Masons).

George H.W. Bush, highest ranking Mason as a Skull & Bones, first signed the Noahide Laws in 1991.

The Lubavitch who helped Bush sign those laws were Masonic - there is a well known photo (2nd image) where the Lubavitcher standing next to Bush is performing the Master of the 2nd Veil sign of the Royal Arch Mason degree.

The 6-Pointed Hexagram on the Israeli flag appears first on the US Seal and $1 Bill 100s of years before it ever appeared on secular flag of Israel.

The Hexagram is a Masonic symbol, not Jewish.

Dispensationalism, which is the hermeneutic used to interpret the Bible that most Evangelicals believe and maximally promotes Zionism to the point of idolatry also was created by John Darby in the 1800s.

John Darby used Theosophical terms in his writings everywhere. Theosophy is a religion started by Helena Blavatsky that worships Satan as God per her own words.

It's all designed to push the world into a One World Religion and One World Government.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

@bungeeallday @tricia_dejong Cherry Picking...? I mean if you call yourself a Christian you should be reading the Bible both OT and New to better know what God the Father cares about and how He wants us to be Holy... something those who focus too exclusively on the NT seem to forget too easily.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

Queen of England in her Knights of Malta regalia.

If you ever had a doubt they are deeply involved in witchcraft... the regalia is even shaped and draped as a Magician's cape.

Also it's well known several of Hitler's high-ranking SS and intelligence officers such as General Reinhard Gehlen escaped the Nuremberg trials specifically due to their Secret Society orientation.

They were Freemasons.

In fact in 1948, General Gehlen was presented with the Grand Cross (3rd Image) of the Order pro Merito Melitensi by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (Knights of Malta).

The Chief Justice of the Nuremberg Trials was a 32nd Degree Freemason (4th Image) who was also a US Supreme Court Justice at the time, which he had to stand down from to except the Chief Prosecutor role of the Nuremberg trials.