The Son in two persons (page 17)

reniaa

hi deputy dog

malachi 3:1 is a specific prophecy Jesus mentions as refering to him and john the baptist who prepares the way for him.

He identifies himself as the messenger/angel of the covenant. Angel simply means messenger in hebrew. All we know of angels is they are spirit creatures like God and Jesus and called messengers because they do Gods work for him and in malachi here the prophecy is identifying Jesus as an Angel/messenger of the covenant which he testifies to in mathew 10:11.

So people saying Jesus can't be an angel because they are a different race type argument or he just isn't an angel is just being tricky. When they know this scripture refers to Jesus being the 'Angel of the covenant' confirmed by himself later. And that angels are the same race as God and Jesus which is that they are all spirit creatures.

thats why it can be just a name change.

Reniaa

isaacaustin

Nice try there reniaa, but a bit of deception as well. Sure Jesus is the messenger of the covenant...but messenger does not necessarily mean angel. The Hebrew word is

mal'ak

1) messenger, representative

a) messenger

b) angel

c) the theophanic angel

It can mean an angel, a representative or a messeger. You simply combined angel/messenger into one word as though all messengers are angels.

Nice try though. Foot back in your mouth.

reniaa

Hi isaac

I was making the opposite point that all angels are messengers because thats what the word angel means.

the hebrew word in malachi is angel which is their word for messenger.

So I'm not saying all messengers are angels, just that angels were defined originally as messengers because thats what hebrews knew them to be. Time has made us think of angels as something separate to God and Jesus but when you look at how the bible defines them as a race it just defines them with God and Jesus as spirit creatures.

Reniaa

isaacaustin

ok, sorry if I misunderstood. You are saying angels are messengers. Let's follow that.

Angels are also called sons of God, but they can not do the things god can do. The scriptures do put angels in a different nature than the Father and Son.

Hebrews 1, speaking of Jesus after his resurrection:

1:4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

Better describes nature.

Heb 1:14 descibes angels:

Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?"

Hebrews ch1 and 2 clearly distinguish angels as not of the same nature as the father and Son.

Deputy Dog

reniaa

malachi 3:1 is a specific prophecy Jesus mentions as refering to him and john the baptist who prepares the way for him.

Using your way of thinking John the baptist could be Michael

PSacramento

I try to keep things simple, as to not make my brain explode.

How do I do that? by looking at what is written, PLAINLY in scripture and not going beyond it.

EX:

Nowhere does it say that Jesus was/is the archangle Michael and there are many opportunities for it to be said, all of Hebrews for example, yet it is never said, never, not even once. Simple.

Nowhere does it say that Jesus is God (the Father), nowhere, not even once, simple.

It does say the Jesus is one with the father, the same form as the father, with the father from the very beginning and to know the father we must first know Jesus. Simple.

The bible says that Michael is ONE of the chief Princes, I repeat, ONE, which implies more ( See 1Enoch).

For those that say that 1Enoch is not canon I say, Yeah, so?

If you believe that the RCC is the great Babylon, why are you following thier canon to begin with ?

I thinkl many of these issues are non-issues if people realize that, in the NEW covenant, Jesus is Lord and Saviour and Redeemer and Judge and it is though Jesus and no one else that we reach/know God, it is in Jesus's name, for there is no name greater and no other name in which we have our salvation.

THAT is scripture.

RubaDub

So how can the WT get around the two natures of the Son?

Very easily. Think about someone like Michael Jackson.

He was born a black male and died a white female.

Go figure.

Rub a Dub

Deputy Dog

PS

I can agree with you (on some parts of this) to some extent but think about this.

2Co 11:3

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesuswhom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Deputy Dog

Rub a dub

LOL! I'm sure that would work for reniaa.

PSacramento

DD,

Isn't that verse truly a warning about going what is plainly taught in scripture?

I seems that the WT doesn't really teach the Jesus of scripture, they seem to devalue and deprioritze him, they seem to complicate his role,indeed sometimes they devalue it as if the New Covenant is non existing, they devalue his role in creation, the devalue his position as son of God by stating that he is simply a "messenger" of God ( albeit a "chief messenger"), the devalue his role as the one and only path to knowing God, to God.

While I agree that the Trinity can be a tad confusing and is not taught plainly in scripture, but at least it gioves to Jesus the importance he rightly deserves.

Jesus is the Son of God, the first of everything and all the rest was made through Jesus, Jesus is the Word of God, the bread of God, the Water of God ( See John for all this), Jesus is the saviour, the redeemer, the judge, in Union with his Father, in the same form of his father, equal yet subject to his Father and all these things are scriptural and not interpretive for they are all plainly stated.

I don't see a reason to go beyond this teaching.

The Son in two persons

Share this