Jehova is Christ.

It is commonly considered among many sects that Jehovah, God of the Old Testament, is Christ. However, we find among the many of sects a hand-full (i.e Jehovah Witnesses) that believe Jehovah is the father of Christ. This doctrine is scripturally false.

I do not have sufficient time to post all the scriptures that support my viewpoint. However, I will proceed to list three scriptures/objections that seem to be adequate. We shall proceed beleow:

1. Zacharias 12:10. “And I (Jehovah)  will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall morn for him, as one morn for his only son. 

    – It is important to realize that Jehovah is speaking about himself in this verse. Now, to further fortify my theory we must now skip to John 19:37. It reads: ” And again another scripture saith, they shall look on him who they pierced“‘

2. Hosea 13:4 “Yet I am the lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt have no other god but me: for there is no savior besides me“

- Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”This passage is referring to Christ where as the previous is referring to Jehovah, yet there seems to be a similarity among the two. Now we know that God is not malevolent, thus, God would not want to confuse men. If that is true the these scriptures must be referring to the same personage (i.e Jehovah).

3. Many scriptures in the Old Testament refer to God (Jehovah) as “Alfa and Omega.” That same title appears in the New Testement see: Rev 1: 8, 11 and Rev 22:13.

Freedom

Is it possible that too much freedom can bring about a degree of bondage and oppression? All sentient beings have the ability to freely choose X or Y. However, it appears that if one choses X and X brings about consequence Z, then consequence Z could bring about any possible situation that could positively or negatively affect the acting sentient. The sentient’s choice of Z via the act of choesing X, could cause the sentient to become subject to his choice of Z. An example of this could be staged in the following analogy:

Tim walks down the street and sees a girl playing with a doll outside of a house in his neighborhood. Due to the fact that Tim is financially lacking, and that the girl’s parents are rich, Tim thinks about kidnapping the girl to ask a ransom. (Here Tim has a choice either X -kidnap girl, or Y -Don’t kidnap.) So, Tim decides to act on his urge, so he takes the girl away to his cabin in the mountains. He asks for a ransom, and obviously the police are involved. He is arrested in a grocery store in the city a few days after the initial ransom letter. The girl tried to escape and dies in the forest from falling down a cliff at night. Thus, he is accused for the murder of the girl. He is sentenced to life in jail.

Tim’s actions that were made available via his ability to freely chose, subjected him to bondage and oppression. It seems that freedom is like a double bladed sword, and by that, we can either chose to be or to not be.

john