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

[Redpill Drifter @RedpillDrifter]

RARE FRITZ SPRINGMEIER BLOODLINES OF THE ILLUMINATI (1990)

Legendary Fritz Springmeier is one of the foremost authority on the bloodlines of the Illuminati. The Illuminati framed him and he was sentenced to prison in 2003 and was released in 2011 for crimes he didn't commit.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

@JoeKILLUMINATI1 No wonder he became successful at that old of an age.

That's when he attained the 33rd Degree.

Not that silly story they sell us of him hitting his head in a car accident

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

No. This is Theosophy, New Age mysticism, Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and esoteric Freemasonry repackaged into one incoherent “One World Religion.”

Run far, far away from this nonsense.

There is one true God, and salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone. God the Son came down, took upon Himself flesh, and died in our place for our sins. Whoever believes in Him and calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved and, through faith in Christ, become a child of God.

You do not need secret wisdom, occult initiation, “ascended masters” or some syncretistic universal religion. You need Jesus Christ.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

Hard to say, world will be in utter turmoil by then, could be multiple seals into Tribulation, at that point Beast System will be more overt.

By Midpoint, the Beast system will be completely unavoidable for all of humanity.

Pray God cuts the time short for the sake of the elect for none would survive if not.

[Michael Jackson Global @Michael_Jk_]

Who else is sick of this disgusting shit?

“The babies we eat…”

This is a Freudian Slip from Barbara Marx Hubbard, a supposed Pioneer in, ‘Exploring positive options for the Future of Humanity’.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

Lisa… did you really not hear anything Edward Snowden revealed?

Everything you do electronically… and I mean everything is recorded.

You have a multi terabyte dossier stored at the NSA. It has a detailed record of everything you’ve ever done including your search history and every conversation you’ve ever been involved with even when you’re not using your phone.

Project Pogo and Zypher are code names for Tag Track and ID. It’s the government program to track every comment you’ve ever made on any website, forum, and social media platform.

All those autonomous cars you see with 50 cameras… you think that isn’t surveilling you when it drives by you?

It has facial recognition built into the backend. It even identifies stickers on your car and catalogues that on your dossier.

It watches who you associate with, what you wear, where you eat, it records the geographical data of where you were and knows who you’re intimate with and even records your conversation where close enough.

Same with those delivery robots.

Most of that data goes through a foreign nation too.

Need to pass a right to privacy amendment to the constitution to stop it.

[Voice of Rabbis @voiceofrabbis]

Zionist is not synonymous with Jew.

Zionism is a nationalist movement.

Judaism is a faith.

Treating them as the same thing is the main source of antisemitism.

[Jordan Chain @_pblanknews]

"He Named The 13 Families No One Dares To Mention" (then got arrested)

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

This reads more like an Org Chart

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

This reads more like an Org Chart

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

Contrary to popular belief, the Eagle is actually an allegory for the Phoenix.... which is 100% a Masonic Gnostic concept.

Also what do you see above the Eagle (Phoenix)?

It's a 6-Pointed Hexagram formed with 13 Pentagram stars.

The Hexagram is Masonic, not Jewish.

The 6-Pointed Hexagram appears first on the US Seal and $1 Bill 100s of years before it ever appeared on secular flag of Israel... which gives you an indication of WHO ratified Israel's secular creation. Hint hint, all 33rd Degree Freemasons.

Lord Balfour, President Wilson, President Roosevelt, Truman, Baron de Rothschilds.... all 33rd Degree.

Herzl (a minor player) was just a byproduct of Masonry, a secular humanist Atheist to help promote the idea.

https://t.co/Rr8o8J581N

[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]

Bud, it doesn't work that simply. Putting an operating business in a trust or a C-corp doesn't make it untouchable.

If the business owes back taxes, especially sales tax and not just income tax, the taxing authority can lien everything the business owns.

For sales tax, that's the state revenue department filing a state tax lien or warrant; for federal taxes, it's the IRS.

Either one can then levy the bank accounts, seize accounts receivable, and serve levies on card processors so the settlement money goes to them instead of you. States can also revoke the sales tax permit, which effectively shuts the business down.

Sales tax, payroll withholding (941s), and in Washington even workers' comp premiums owed to L&I can all be pinned personally on the responsible people.

Through the state's responsible-person statute, the IRS Trust Fund Recovery Penalty, and L&I's officer-liability rule. Three separate agencies, three separate liens, and none of them care how the entity is structured.

You can use entities to legitimately separate liabilities and assets, but moving assets into a new entity after a tax debt exists usually just gets treated as a nominee or fraudulent transfer, and the lien follows the property.

Ignore the notices and levies long enough and they'll seize and sell the assets, and if needed, go to court to foreclose on the lien or get a receiver appointed, no matter how it's structured.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

@JaysonF67 @thedailyrabbit_ They do, I assure you, they just use sophisticated tax structures to minimize those taxes.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

@TrueOnX @JOKAQARMY1 Total Gnostic heretical nonsense repackaged with a New Age Theosophical delivery.

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

Your screenshot shows the Father creating through the Son. I never denied that. Trinitarians have never claimed the Father and Son are the same Person.

But "through" does not answer the argument I actually made.

Isaiah 44:24 is not merely saying nobody is "like" God. It specifically speaks about creation:

"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF."

Isaiah 42:8 and 46:9 do not erase what Isaiah 44:24 actually says.

Now look at what Hebrews does.

Hebrews 1:10 addresses the Son.

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

And, as I have already pointed out to you before.

Hebrews is quoting Psalm 102:25, where those words are addressed to YHWH:

"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands."

That is the point you keep avoiding.

Hebrews takes language addressed to YHWH as Creator in Psalm 102 and applies it directly to the Son.

So merely repeating "God created through Jesus" does not solve anything.

If your explanation is that YHWH created "alone" and "by myself" by means of a separate created being who actually laid the earth's foundation and whose hands made the heavens, then you have not explained Isaiah 44:24. You have simply repeated the JW conclusion in different words.

Exodus 7:1 does not rescue this either.

Moses being made "a god to Pharaoh" plainly describes his representative authority in that specific relationship. Moses is never said to have:

laid the foundation of the earth,

made the heavens with his own hands,

received the obeisance of God's heavenly angels,

or been addressed with:

"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever"

So comparing Moses in Exodus 7:1 with what Hebrews 1 says about the Son completely misses the argument.

Your point about Hebrews 1:6 has the same problem. Yes, proskuneo can have different senses depending on context. We've already gone through this.

But that means context decides the meaning, not that you can automatically reduce every instance involving Jesus to ordinary obeisance.

Hebrews 1 is not describing Abraham bowing before the Hittites. It is describing the heavenly angels being commanded by God to bow before the Son in a chapter systematically contrasting the Son with the angelic order and applying divine Old Testament language to Him.

And your own organization's earlier NWT editions rendered Hebrews 1:6:

"Let all God's angels worship him"

Revelation 3:21 is another diversion. Believers sharing Christ's throne because Christ grants them authority does not make them Christ, and nobody argued that it does.

Likewise, the Son receiving and exercising mediatorial authority from the Father does not establish that the Son is a creature.

But you STILL have not answered the question I have repeatedly asked about the Watchtower's claim that Jesus is Michael the archangel.

Hebrews does not contrast:

the greatest angel vs. the lesser angels.

It contrasts:

THE SON vs. THE ANGELS.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son?" Hebrews 1:5

Then again:

"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand...?" Hebrews 1:13

If Jesus is Michael, Michael is an angel.

So answer the actual question.

To which angel did God say these things?

Saying "Jesus is above the angels" does not answer it. An archangel could obviously outrank other angels. Hebrews' argument is more fundamental than rank.

The Son is being distinguished from the angelic category itself.

And that is only the negative half of the problem for JW theology.

Hebrews does not merely tell us what the Son isn't.

It tells us who He is.

v.2: through the Son God made the worlds.

v.5: no angel is addressed as the Son is.

v.6: God's angels are commanded to bow before Him.

v.8: the Father addresses the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever."

v.10: the words Psalm 102 addresses to YHWH as Creator are addressed to the Son: "Thou, Lord... hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands."

v.13: again, no angel is addressed as the Son is.

So the conclusion of Hebrews 1 is not merely:

"Jesus isn't Michael"

That conclusion would butcher the clear meaning of those passages.

The chapter takes the Son out of the angelic category, calls Him God, calls Him Lord, and applies to Him the Old Testament language of YHWH the Creator.

That is where your interpretation has to reckon with the text.

Jesus is not Michael the archangel. Jesus is God.

And isolating the words "through whom" in verse 2 does nothing to overturn what the same chapter explicitly says about the identity of the One through whom creation came.

I've already addressed the larger circular method behind these interpretations in my final response.

I'm not reopening the entire debate here. I am simply closing the loop on the Hebrews argument you still have not answered.

https://t.co/MaTZJttN95

[Just the Facts @ich1banF40]

I've been incredibly patient with you, but at this point the problem is no longer a lack of evidence. It is your method of interpretation.

I have repeatedly given you passages that directly contradict the JW claim that Jesus was raised as "spirit only."

Instead of allowing those passages to challenge that belief, you either redefine their plain language or simply ignore them and repeat the JW conclusion.

You just did it again.

You cited Luke 24:31 because Jesus disappeared and compared Him to an angel, yet you stepped right over Luke 24:39, only eight verses later, where Jesus explicitly says:

"a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have"

I have pointed that verse out to you multiple times. You still have not answered it.

You also keep ignoring John 20:27, where Jesus tells Thomas to touch the actual wounds of His crucified body.

You keep ignoring Thomas immediately addressing Him as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28.

And you ignored Acts 17:31, where Paul speaks of the future judgment being carried out "by that man whom he hath ordained"

Those are not side issues. They directly confront your claim that Jesus ceased to be human and now exists as spirit only.

Yet every time Scripture presents something that contradicts that conclusion, the same thing happens:

"body" becomes spirit.

"the man Christ Jesus" becomes "the former man Christ Jesus."

"that man" becomes someone who supposedly is no longer a man.

"flesh and bones" becomes a temporary materialization.

His crucifixion wounds become features of a temporary body He supposedly manufactured.

The empty tomb somehow still means His crucified body was not raised.

Every Gospel ends with that tomb empty and the risen Jesus appearing in person.

Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21.

The women hold His feet (Matt 28:9).

He walks the road to Emmaus and breaks bread (Luke 24:30).

He cooks breakfast for the disciples on the shore (John 21:9-13). And in the very chapter you keep citing, Paul lists appearances to Peter, to the twelve, to James, and to more than 500 at once, most of whom were still alive to be questioned (1 Cor 15:5-7).

Paul's entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15 rests on eyewitnesses to a bodily resurrection, not a spirit sighting. You can't simply ignore these verses as JW teaches you.

And the passages that directly challenge your redefinitions are simply passed over.

That is circular reasoning in its clearest form.

You begin with the conclusion:

"Jesus was resurrected as a spirit creature"

Then every verse is interpreted through that conclusion.

When Scripture contradicts it, you redefine the Scripture. Then you use your redefinition as evidence that the original conclusion was correct.

The conclusion proves the interpretation, and the interpretation proves the conclusion.

That is why you keep going in circles.

And this is not the first time. I already raised the same problem with the NWT inserting "Jehovah" 237 times into the New Testament despite the Greek New Testament manuscript evidence not containing the Tetragrammaton in those locations.

Again, the theological conclusion comes first and the text is made to conform to it.

So ask yourself one serious question:

What could Scripture possibly say that would prove your interpretation wrong?

Jesus says He is not a spirit and has flesh and bones.

You say spirit.

Jesus shows the wounds of the body that was crucified.

You completely ignore it.

Paul says "the man Christ Jesus."

You say former man.

Paul says God will judge the world "by that man"

You say He is no longer a man.

The tomb is empty and Jesus says He would raise His body.

You say that body was discarded.

And I have already addressed another foundational JW claim that you continue to pass over... that Jesus is Michael the archangel.

Hebrews 1 does not blur the distinction between the Son and the angels. It repeatedly emphasizes it.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son?" (Heb. 1:5)

And again:

"To which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand...?" (Heb. 1:13)

The entire argument of Hebrews 1 distinguishes the Son from the angelic order and exalts Him above it. I have already raised this with you, yet instead of seriously dealing with that argument, you return to the same Watchtower conclusion that Jesus is an angelic spirit creature.

That is exactly the pattern I am talking about.

If "body" can mean spirit, "is" can effectively become was, "that man" can mean someone who is no longer a man, "flesh and bones" can mean a temporary materialization, His crucifixion wounds can be reproduced props, His empty tomb can somehow coexist with His body supposedly being discarded, and Hebrews can distinguish the Son from angels while you still identify Him as an archangel, then what evidence would you ever permit to challenge the system?

Obviously none. This is your clue you are in a cult. You should have glaring alarm bells ringing in your ears... instead you hypnotically repeat false dogmas that are clearly opposite of what scripture clearly explains.

At that point Scripture is no longer determining your theology.

Your theology is determining what Scripture is permitted to mean.

I've patiently answered your arguments point by point over several rounds. You have repeatedly ignored the passages that directly challenge the JW system and returned to the same assumptions you started with.

So I am not going to keep allowing you to repeat Watchtower conclusions as though the evidence against them was never presented.

I genuinely pray that you step outside that interpretive framework, read a translation that does not insert Watchtower theology into the text, and ask the question Scripture itself forces us to ask:

Who does Jesus actually say He is, and who do the apostles say He is?

Not who the Watchtower tells you He must be.

Jesus is not merely an archangel. He is not a resurrected spirit creature impersonating the man who died. The very passages I have repeatedly given you are precisely why I reject that teaching.

You have not answered those passages. You have interpreted around them.

That is your circle, not mine. And I am not following you around it again.

[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]

I've been incredibly patient with you, but at this point the problem is no longer a lack of evidence. It is your method of interpretation.

I have repeatedly given you passages that directly contradict the JW claim that Jesus was raised as "spirit only."

Instead of allowing those passages to challenge that belief, you either redefine their plain language or simply ignore them and repeat the JW conclusion.

You just did it again.

You cited Luke 24:31 because Jesus disappeared and compared Him to an angel, yet you stepped right over Luke 24:39, only eight verses later, where Jesus explicitly says:

"a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have"

I have pointed that verse out to you multiple times. You still have not answered it.

You also keep ignoring John 20:27, where Jesus tells Thomas to touch the actual wounds of His crucified body.

You keep ignoring Thomas immediately addressing Him as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28.

And you ignored Acts 17:31, where Paul speaks of the future judgment being carried out "by that man whom he hath ordained"

Those are not side issues. They directly confront your claim that Jesus ceased to be human and now exists as spirit only.

Yet every time Scripture presents something that contradicts that conclusion, the same thing happens:

"body" becomes spirit.

"the man Christ Jesus" becomes "the former man Christ Jesus."

"that man" becomes someone who supposedly is no longer a man.

"flesh and bones" becomes a temporary materialization.

His crucifixion wounds become features of a temporary body He supposedly manufactured.

The empty tomb somehow still means His crucified body was not raised.

Every Gospel ends with that tomb empty and the risen Jesus appearing in person.

Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21.

The women hold His feet (Matt 28:9).

He walks the road to Emmaus and breaks bread (Luke 24:30).

He cooks breakfast for the disciples on the shore (John 21:9-13). And in the very chapter you keep citing, Paul lists appearances to Peter, to the twelve, to James, and to more than 500 at once, most of whom were still alive to be questioned (1 Cor 15:5-7).

Paul's entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15 rests on eyewitnesses to a bodily resurrection, not a spirit sighting. You can't simply ignore these verses as JW teaches you.

And the passages that directly challenge your redefinitions are simply passed over.

That is circular reasoning in its clearest form.

You begin with the conclusion:

"Jesus was resurrected as a spirit creature"

Then every verse is interpreted through that conclusion.

When Scripture contradicts it, you redefine the Scripture. Then you use your redefinition as evidence that the original conclusion was correct.

The conclusion proves the interpretation, and the interpretation proves the conclusion.

That is why you keep going in circles.

And this is not the first time. I already raised the same problem with the NWT inserting "Jehovah" 237 times into the New Testament despite the Greek New Testament manuscript evidence not containing the Tetragrammaton in those locations.

Again, the theological conclusion comes first and the text is made to conform to it.

So ask yourself one serious question:

What could Scripture possibly say that would prove your interpretation wrong?

Jesus says He is not a spirit and has flesh and bones.

You say spirit.

Jesus shows the wounds of the body that was crucified.

You completely ignore it.

Paul says "the man Christ Jesus."

You say former man.

Paul says God will judge the world "by that man"

You say He is no longer a man.

The tomb is empty and Jesus says He would raise His body.

You say that body was discarded.

And I have already addressed another foundational JW claim that you continue to pass over... that Jesus is Michael the archangel.

Hebrews 1 does not blur the distinction between the Son and the angels. It repeatedly emphasizes it.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son?" (Heb. 1:5)

And again:

"To which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand...?" (Heb. 1:13)

The entire argument of Hebrews 1 distinguishes the Son from the angelic order and exalts Him above it. I have already raised this with you, yet instead of seriously dealing with that argument, you return to the same Watchtower conclusion that Jesus is an angelic spirit creature.

That is exactly the pattern I am talking about.

If "body" can mean spirit, "is" can effectively become was, "that man" can mean someone who is no longer a man, "flesh and bones" can mean a temporary materialization, His crucifixion wounds can be reproduced props, His empty tomb can somehow coexist with His body supposedly being discarded, and Hebrews can distinguish the Son from angels while you still identify Him as an archangel, then what evidence would you ever permit to challenge the system?

Obviously none. This is your clue you are in a cult. You should have glaring alarm bells ringing in your ears... instead you hypnotically repeat false dogmas that are clearly opposite of what scripture clearly explains.

At that point Scripture is no longer determining your theology.

Your theology is determining what Scripture is permitted to mean.

I've patiently answered your arguments point by point over several rounds. You have repeatedly ignored the passages that directly challenge the JW system and returned to the same assumptions you started with.

So I am not going to keep allowing you to repeat Watchtower conclusions as though the evidence against them was never presented.

I genuinely pray that you step outside that interpretive framework, read a translation that does not insert Watchtower theology into the text, and ask the question Scripture itself forces us to ask:

Who does Jesus actually say He is, and who do the apostles say He is?

Not who the Watchtower tells you He must be.

Jesus is not merely an archangel. He is not a resurrected spirit creature impersonating the man who died. The very passages I have repeatedly given you are precisely why I reject that teaching.

You have not answered those passages. You have interpreted around them.

That is your circle, not mine. And I am not following you around it again.

[Hannibal999 @Hannibal9972485]

Epstien was using an ISRAELI communications Ceragon Equipment (Israeli Military-Grade) at ZORRO RANCH confirmed 👀🚨

Ceragon is a defense contractor supplying microwave systems to military and intelligence agencies. This is not consumer equipment.

It was Ceragon IP10-G(R3) - Israeli military-grade microwave systems
• Ceragon RFU-CX, 6 GHz - radio frequency units
• Andrews 6-foot antennas - commercial-grade directional antennas

They had to extend the antenna mount by 10 feet to maintain line-of-sight to Sandia Crest. This suggests precise engineering requirements for the link. 👀🚨

It says "Zorro Ranch will provide a man-lift and add a 10 foot section of pipe to the current pipe mount at the Ranch HVAC location"⚠️

Epstein had a PRE-EXISTING 2.4 GHz microwave link to Sandia Crest that was upgraded to 6 GHz in 2014.

https://t.co/Mc2DabNoBF

@RepThomasMassie

[J @jbulldogs4]

they're making it hard on us as possible
-economic crisis
-Housing crisis
-Sterilization (COVID VAX) & other methods
-abortion & contraception

[Deep Leaks @DeepLeaksHQ]

John McAfee told us who the largest drug and human traffickers are.

Did anyone listen?