The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog 332 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  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.

  This is not correct; nowhere in the gospels does Jesus identify himself as the "messenger/angel of the covenant". And the original passage is especially ambiguous -- is the "messenger of the covenant" a different figure from "my messenger" in the same verse, is "the Lord" a different figure from Yahweh who is speaking in the verse, is the "Lord" the same figure as "the messenger of the covenant"? And this does not take into account the fact that the wording in the Qumran version of Malachi (a thousand years older than the MT) is quite different. The only thing unambiguous is that the book in its final form identifies "my messenger" with Elijah (3:1 = 4:5-6), and the gospels depend on this equation in their identification of John the Baptist with both Elijah and "my messenger". If neither Elijah nor John the Baptist were "angels" in the sense of spiritual beings, then one cannot assume that this is the case with the "messenger of the covenant" in the same verse. And the verses that follow (and parallels like the reference to the "prince of the covenant in Daniel 11) suggest strongly that this messenger is a priestly figure, e.g. the high priest officiating at the Temple of Yahweh. Such a priestly figure was viewed as a messianic figure in certain Jewish writings in the centuries that followed (cf. especially the Testament of Levi but also some Qumran texts), and the epistle of Hebrews builds on this tradition directly in its portrayal of Jesus as a priestly messiah. Curious, then, that Hebrews has a lengthy discussion dismissing the idea that Jesus is an "angel" in an ontological sense, as if to counter certain views about the priestly messiah (such as found in 11QMelch, which identifies the priestly messiah with both Melchizedek and Michael).
• 

  Leolaia
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Leolaia

  Thank you.

  Only problem now is that reniaa will have even less to talk to me about.

  One thing that I found most interesting in your post was this:

  Such a priestly figure was viewed as a messianic figure in certain Jewish writings in the centuries that followed (cf. especially the Testament of Levi but also some Qumran texts), and the epistle of Hebrews builds on this tradition directly in its portrayal of Jesus as a priestly messiah. Curious, then, that Hebrews has a lengthy discussion dismissing the idea that Jesus is an "angel" in an ontological sense, as if to counter certain views about the priestly messiah (such as found in 11QMelch, which identifies the priestly messiah with both Melchizedek and Michael).

  Not only does Hebrews make the case for how much superior Jesus is to angels, but in Chapter 7, the same type of argument is made about how much superior Jesus is to priests in the order of Melchizedek.
• 

  Leolaia

  The importance of 11QMelch for Hebrews has been noted for a long time, although the nature of the text has been extensively debated. The figure of Melchizedek is portrayed in angelic terms, as a divine being like those in Psalm 82:1, who will reign over the "congregation of all the sons of righteousness" as a divine being ('lhyn), and he is identified with the "messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation" from Isaiah 52:7 and the "anointed of spirit" who is cut off in Daniel 9:26. He is a priestly messiah from the divine sphere, who "shall atone for all the Sons of Light" and "carry out the vengeance of God's judgments". The connection between Melchizedek and Michael is found in Melchizedek's role leading the heavenly hosts, the same function Michael has in the War Scroll (1QM). The Essenes thus anticipated many of the ideas found in Hebrews, except that Jesus (who is forever a priest in the order of Melchizedek, cf. 7:11, 17, 26) is explicitly denied in Hebrews 1-2 as being an angel by nature. Some texts, such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, expect both a priestly messiah (from the tribe of Levi) and a Davidic messiah (from the tribe of Judah), imitating the model attested in Zechariah of Zerubbabel ruling alongside Jeshua. This model is not necessarily present in Malachi 3-4, but it could easily be read in light of it (e.g. the "Lord" in Malachi 3:1 corresponding to the kingly messiah and the "messenger of the covenant" corresponding to the priestly messiah). The Qumran version of this verse (which changes the singular to a plural in 3:1b) makes this more explicit, as it has the two as separate figures (distinct from Yahweh) coming to the Temple together at the same time: "They will suddenly come to the Temple, the Lord whom you seek and the messenger of the covenant whom you desire". If "my messenger" and the "messenger of the covenant" are the same figure, then the identification of the former with Elijah in 4:5 (notice the parallelism in wording with 3:1) makes possible the expectation that Elijah would "prepare the way" for a second messianic figure. There is a separate tradition attested in the literature of the time that Elijah would return at the end times with somebody else; in the Animal Apocalypse (early second century BC), this second figure is identified with Enoch whereas in Revelation this second figure is identified with Moses. But nowhere in this "two witnesses" tradition are these two figures messiahs per se; in fact, in the Animal Apocalypse the messiah is a third figure (1 Enoch 90:37-38). But what is especially interesting and relevant is the identification of John the Baptist with Elijah in the synoptic gospels (most elaborated in Luke) while drawing on Malachi 3-4 (which extends far beyond the quotation of 3:1). Luke presents Jesus and John as born at about the same time, with Jesus descended from Judah through David (3:31-33) and with John the Baptist descended from Levi (1:5). John the Baptist is thus for Luke the priestly figure paired with Jesus, the Davidic figure. (Also relevant is the Jewish tradition that Elijah himself was a Levite priest) But while John reveals himself as an Elijah figure, he explicitly denies being a co-messiah with Jesus; he emphatically states his lowliness in relation to the one alone who is Christ (Luke 3:16, Acts 13:25). The synoptic gospels thus show themselves to be dependent on earlier Jewish messianic speculation while at the same time distancing themselves from it.
• 

  isaacaustin
• 

  quietlyleaving

  wow good work Leo
• 

  reniaa

  HI deputy and leolaia

  I think since Jesus is acknowledge Mediator of the new covenant despite malachi ambigous language, I think it's splitting hairs to say he is not the "messenger of the covenant" since he has obvious designated john who did prepare the way for Jesus in the first part of malachi but I'll let it ride.

  I changed my mind I am saying all messengers are angels because that the word for angel only means messenger, so hense the hebrew word in malachi is the word for angel/messenger used in both cases, a messenger doesn't have to necessarily be a spirit creature but spirit creatures are called angel/messengers because they were and acted as messenger to God. I refer the 'Angel of the Lord' or 'messenger of the lord' that appeared to the various leaders abraham moses etc.

  So what we have in reality is spirit creature who work as angels/messengers on the one side and humans on the other that can also work as messengers/or angels. Jesus is an acknowledge messenger to God.

  hebrews clearly shows that Jesus superiority to the angels is not that he isn't an angel but that he earned a position above them, in name hense why we have the word 'Become' used which denotes a lack of superiority in the past so he doesn't preclude a spirit creature acheiving this as isaac would debate it.

  At this point you or isaac may say well as a man Jesus he wasn't superior but that would argue against trinitarian doctrine of fully 100% man and m 100% God at the same time which is trying to say Jesus is God in all his 3 cycles so always superior to angels.

  As for michael it is a bible Fact that many of the main players have multiple names and titles getting referred to them at various points sometimes letting the text define which being is being refered to. Malachi itself is a point in fact and it takes JEsus to identify one of the messengers in it.

  So all witnesses believe is that michael is simply another by which Jesus acts under like he acts under the name of 'the lamb' like he acts under the name of 'the word' like he acts under the name of 'Jesus' or he acts under the name of "christ" which unlike some believe isn't his sir name but the reference to him being the annointed.

  For us to acknowledge any sort of hypostatc union we would have to say that it is this openly as trinitarians do, otherwise you are saying anyone with a name change in the bible is showing a hypostatic union if you cannot acknowledge that we can believe it is only a name alternative in our eyes, not a union of one conscousness with another.

  That you believe michael is a different person to jesus so you would make it a hypostatic union if you put them together but we just think it is another name alternative of the bible precedent has been set as something that can happen without it involveing some sort of hypostatc union.

  Reniaa
• 

  reniaa

  HI again

  On thinking about this. The only creature that cannot be designating a messenger is the "One true God" himself who has the messengers for him.

  As with every discussion this boils down to one point people having to proof Jesus is the one true God. Here is another contradiction revealed. Jesus cannot be a messenger to the one true God and the one true God himself.

  back to the hypostatc union.

  To acknowledge Jesus is 100% percent God while a man on earth is to put all the following points from scripture at fault, 'Made himself little lower than angels' sacrificed for us' 'emptied himself' 'became' greater. because in everyone it refers to Jesus as a whole and that he can be lower or emptied below other spirit creatures something the "One true God" can't be. So trinitarians in their own minds must say this is only refering to the man part of Jesus they have developed in their own doctrine outside of the bible with no backing from the scriptures that obstinately refer to Jesus as a whole not in parts in all these scriptures.

  Reniaa
• 

  quietlyleaving

  reniaa your name changes don't address that "Jesus" changed nature from spirit nature to human nature and then back to spirit nature with a gap in between when he no longer existed - all this according to JW theology.
• 

  Chalam

  Jesus cannot be a messenger to the one true God and the one true God himself

  In that case Jesus would be a heretic as the Pharisees claimed. Have you got your rocks ready to stone Him when He returns?!

  Forget that, get some knee pads instead.

  Reniaa, how do you understand these verses in relation to Jesus? I assume Isaiah is not talking about Jesus at all?

  Isaiah 45:22-24 (New International Version)

  22 "Turn to me and be saved,
  all you ends of the earth;
  for I am God, and there is no other.

  23 By myself I have sworn,
  my mouth has uttered in all integrity
  a word that will not be revoked:
  Before me every knee will bow;
  by me every tongue will swear.

  24 They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone
  are righteousness and strength.' "
  All who have raged against him
  will come to him and be put to shame.

  For me, these explain all.

  Philippians 2:5-11 (New International Version)

  5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
  6 Who, being in very nature God,
  did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
  7 but made himself nothing,
  taking the very nature of a servant,
  being made in human likeness.
  8 And being found in appearance as a man,
  he humbled himself
  and became obedient to death—
  even death on a cross!
  9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
  and gave him the name that is above every name,
  10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
  in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
  11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
  to the glory of God the Father.

  John 10:29-31 (New International Version)

  29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

  31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him

  John 14:8-9 (New International Version)

  8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

  9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

  This was an interesting thread

  I need some good sriptures & reasoning to refute Jesus = Michael Archangel

  All the best,

  Stephen