Doctorinal Question: JWs teach Jesus is Micheal the Arc Angel.....

by Lady Liberty 72 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Hebrews 1:1-14

    1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

    5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
    "You are my Son;
    today I have become your Father"? Or again,
    "I will be his Father,
    and he will be my Son"? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
    "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says,
    "He makes his angels winds,
    his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says,
    "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
    and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
    9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
    therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
    by anointing you with the oil of joy." 10 He also says,
    "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands.
    11 They will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
    12 You will roll them up like a robe;
    like a garment they will be changed.
    But you remain the same,
    and your years will never end." 13 To which of the angels did God ever say,
    "Sit at my right hand
    until I make your enemies
    a footstool for your feet"? 14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation

    The entire point of Hebrews chapter 1 is to show the Son Jesus is much more superior than any Angel. Verse 5 asks a rhetorical Q which is "To which of the Angels did God ever say, "you are my son". The answer is to none of the Angels. Because Jesus is NOT nor ever was an Angel. Verse 6 shows that when Christ returns all the Angels will worship him. How can they do this and not be committing a serious sin, unless of course he is God? Note verse 8 it says about Jesus "your throne O'God will last forever". Verse 13, also asks the same rhetorical Q "To which of the Angels", meaning none. No Angels have been asked to sit at God's right side only the one and only DIVINE Son of God. Christ is the Divine Son of God, WAS God before he was manifest on earth in the flesh and upon returning to heaven IS God. See John 1:1.

    Russell eventually taught that Jesus was Michael prior to coming to earth and then once he returned to heaven, was glorified in a greater manner because he gave his life for us. This is contrary to scripture which says that Christ upon returning to heaven recieved the SAME GLORY again that he had prior to coming to earth. Not a new glory, the same one he previously had with the father.

    John 17:5
    And now, Father, glorifyme in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began

    Again, Jesus was WITH God and WAS God prior to becoming flesh and dwelling on the earth. The teaching of Russell and the current WT that Christ was a created being (Arian teaching) is a heresy. Since Russell insisted Christ was created, he had to explain who he was or how he existed prior to coming to earth. Thus, he made Christ the Archangel Michael.

    BTW: this teaching was borrowed by Russell from the 7th day adventists. Peace, Lilly

  • myelaine
    myelaine

    dear bite me...

    " you'd think they would make this adjustment so there isn't any confusion. "...

    lol...you're kidding right?...babylon=confusion

    love michelle

  • glenster
    glenster


    What I have on it is on pp.4 and 7 to 10 at the next link.
    http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/index.htm

    I think the mainstream view has the stronger case than the JWs leaders' stance
    for being the originally intended view.

    A few highlights without all the details and sources:

    The Canaanite God and gods idea was abolished for Judaism during Isaiah's
    time. God in Isaiah denied He used the JWs leaders' method of having a god or
    anyone with Him to create or that there is a god. The most common objection
    the JWs leaders use is that God and Logos suggest two seperate beings, but
    Jewish culture knew how to think of Wisdom in Prov.8 as God's wisdom personified
    (also in other wisdom literature), no one else with Him to create, and many knew
    the similar Demiurge and Logos idea. They knew how to think of God and Logos
    the mainstream way in the 1st century.

    The basic abilty for God to appear as a man is indicated by His ability to
    know everyone's thoughts and hearts, which both views figure He can do though
    neither can fully understand what it's like. It wouldn't take His full mental-
    ity to listen or talk to one person, so it wouldn't to moreover appear to one.
    The mainstream stance on monism basically is that if He can do that with
    billions He could do such a thing in three ways. Strictly one is out or we'd
    have to take turns getting prayers through.

    Several ways the 1st cent. Jews indicated worship of their one God were wor-
    ship, prayer, and the Shema (one Lord and one God), and all three are done for
    Jesus (one God the Father and one Lord Jesus, and Thomas delivering the whole
    Shema to him) with nobody calling him Michael.

    When Jesus and Stephen are threatened with death by stoning, they don't bring
    up Michael to stop it--there wasn't a rule to kill angels or people who said
    they saw one. Jesus says a God in Isaiah-type "ego emi" and Stephen prays to
    Jesus.

    One of the earliest indications of the mainstream view is in the writings of
    Paul and Acts regarding the mid-30's AD: that Paul as Saul condemned Christians
    to death for praying to Jesus. When Paul converts, he prays to Jesus.

    Seeing the early Christians beyond the Bible as witnesses in a court case, the
    mainstream view has the stronger case, too. When it's clear which view of the
    two the writer had, very early ones had the mainstream view and with better
    connections (taught by John, knew Peter and Paul). The Arian view shows up in
    the late 200's and it only referred back to Lucien of Antioch as the founder.

  • Philippus79
    Philippus79

    @ lovelylil

    You are saying that this is a rhetorical question. Let me answer with a similar question: "To which of the humans did He ever say 'This is my son the beloved one'?" This would by the same logic be a rhetorical question with the answer "to none"...

    And since you quote Hebrews, let us have a look at vers 4:

    "So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."

    Two points here. He "became superior", this means that he was elevated in status/position/existence. And he "inherited" a superior name. That also means first/at the beginning/prior to this inheritance he did NOT have this (superior) name. Right? Okay, inherited from whom? Who could bequeath him a name? Only YHWH. Well, which "name" could Yahweh have given him as an inheritance? ....click click

    Phil

  • lovelylil
    lovelylil

    Phil,

    Thanks for your comments. The entire point of Hebrews chapter 1 is to show that Jesus is superior to the Angels. It is making a contrast between the eternal Son of God and the other "sons" of God who are the Angels. Thus the Q "to which of the Angels", is raised. It is stating that only the begotten Son (Jesus) was given the right to sit at God's right hand. This right was offered to any Angels.

    Many people misunderstand this chapter and believe verse 4 is stating that Jesus only became superior to the Angels once he returned to heaven. That is not what it is saying at all.

    Hebrews is stating that the Son is better than the Angels, or higher in rank because he sits at the right hand of God (v3). and because of his eternal inheritance. The Son has obtained a greater name than the Angels. What does this mean exactly? Angels are "sons" collectively, in that they were created by God (see Job 1:6). In contrast Christ is uniquely and eternally the Son. He is superior to the Angels and always was. The term "today I have begotten you" probably refers to the day Christ sat down at God's right hand after he accomplished his work as the Messiah. On that day the eternal Son entered into the full experience of his eternal sonship.

    Again, it is not saying that Jesus was not superior to the Angels prior to that day. As the unique eternal Son of God, he was superior already. Which is why Russell at first taught that Jesus in nature was greater than all the Angels, including Michael.

    Those who interpret Hebrews to say Jesus was at one time not superior to the Angels do so because they believe Christ was created by Jehovah. They reject his eternal sonship. (John 1:1) and that is why they misinterpret this text. They teach that there was a point in time that he became the Archangel above the other angels and that this was upon his resurrection. Becoming the Archangel is his reward for being faithful to Jehovah. But this goes contrary to scripture which never taught Jesus was Michael, or that he was an Angel. Even being relegated to an Archangel is a huge step down from being the one and only eternal Son of God.

    Anyway, I am off to work, feel free to comment and I will answer you tomarrow. Lilly

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    Narcissos

    I really like that analogy of the bridge since it stresses what shouldn't be lost sight of, that Jesus is "the Way" as G.John puts it. I think the Atonement doctrine plays a large part in the emphasis being put on natures. But without that element, I think Jesus could serve that function of a bridge by being just divine enough and just human enough to close the gap between the two. In my tangential way of thinking, I'm reminded of the Buddhist Path of Transformation and how that leads to one's enlightenment.

    glenster

    Seeing the early Christians beyond the Bible as witnesses in a court case, the
    mainstream view has the stronger case, too. When it's clear which view of the
    two the writer had, very early ones had the mainstream view and with better
    connections (taught by John, knew Peter and Paul). The Arian view shows up in
    the late 200's and it only referred back to Lucien of Antioch as the founder.

    Yeah, some of today's mainstream views on the nature of Jesus can be seen in some early christian writings. Especially the 2nd and 3rd century christian writings. But I wouldn't say that the Arian stance was necesarily later. The Ebionites viewed Jesus as being wholely human and its very likely that these Jewish Christians are among the earliest branches of christianity.

    Lovelylil

    I can see how you interpret the elevation of Jesus especially if one refers to the idea of the Kenosis of Christ beforehand. I'm sure you too can see Phil's interpretation of Hebrews. Without any other Pauline material, this one strikes me as saying that Jesus was elevated in status, overall. Adoptionist teachings were held by a fair chunk of christians.

  • myelaine
    myelaine

    my dear JCanon...

    " Michael the Archangel, it is he that is pictured as one of the two "covering cherubs" atop the Ark of the Covenant. The angels are considered to be married. Husband and wife. The other angel, you guessed it, is none other than Satan. So Jesus and Satan were once husband and wife."

    ..or do you mean micheal and satan?

    The watchmen who went about the city
    found me.
    They struck me, they wounded me;
    The keepers of the walls
    Took my veil away from me. Song of Solomon 5:7

    love michelle

  • myelaine
    myelaine

    Who is this coming up from the wilderness, Leaning upon her beloved? I awakened you under the apple tree. There your mother brought you forth; There she who bore you brought you forth. Song of Solomon 8:5 love michelle xo

  • R.Crusoe
    R.Crusoe

    Isa 9:6 might be worth some explanation to you since it predicts the coming of the Prince of Peace! Anyone?

  • Philippus79
    Philippus79

    @lovelilly

    The ggod thing having left the WT is that I know longer have to convince anyone of my view. After all, it is just my understanding of the Word and it doesn't have to be right. Although I personally try real hard to understand the Bible and I take it as the inspired holy Word of God, I believe that we will not know "the truth" or completly understand this ambiguous Book before Jesus returns... So this is not intended to proselytize anyone...

    I understand that in Hebrew a son of a son of a son is also "a son". And Job 1:6 only tells me that angels are called sons of God. In what way they are his "sons" and how angelic creation/procreation works is not said here.

    As regards Hebrews 1, you state that my understanding of verse 4 is a "misunderstanding of many people". I know where this (mis??)understanding come from. It might arise out of the grammatical structure of this sentence which really points to this view:

    Paul uses "ginomai" "being made". This verb is in the 2nd aorist tense. The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action, obviously at a certain point of time.

    The second verb used in this sentence is "kleronomeo" which means "inheritance obtained". Now this verb is in the perfect tense.

    So one could suggest that there was a certain point in the past when he obtained this new status.

    In this context Philipper 2:8-10 might be interesting as well:

    8 More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake/cross. 9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground [...] (NWT corrected to the Westcott & Hort)

    Again "exalted" and "gave" in verse 9 are in the aorist tense but the word "dio" which starts verse 9 link the rest of the sentence to the story told in verse 7 and 8. It makes it causal, implies a temporal succession of events.

    "bending ones knee" does not necessarily imply "worship" but it surely implies a now exalted position.

    Anyway, I'm happy when you are happy with your understanding and I know we depart from the topic here, so that's enough for the minute.

    All the best, regards,

    Phil

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit