Jesus was an Angel and used God's name

by Christ Alone 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Elephant

  christ alone-

  You conveniently skipped over vs 5-8 which says: "For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten You.'? And again, 'I will be a Father to Him and He shall be a Son to Me.'?

  v6 - "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.'

  v7 - "And of the angels He says, 'Who makes His angels winds, and His ministers a flame of fire.'

  v8 - "But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.

  what you interpret in verses 5-8 as proof of your argument, I can interpret that out of all his angels, Jesus is the special one...

  6- the first angel

  7-angel in charge, as in...the archangel

  8-the special one...

  see? its your interpretation against mine...who is correct? can u PROVE who is?

  
  
  
  I just gave you a scripture that shows that Jesus was NOT an angel. Hebrews asks, "For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten You.'? And again, 'I will be a Father to Him and He shall be a Son to Me.'?

  again...this could be interpreted as 'out of all my angels...who is my begotten son?" ...its no more farfetched than your assertion that this proves otherwise...

  That was pretty easy. Here is another proof that Jesus is not Michael: Daniel 10:13, "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

  -you are assuming that Jesus at this time had already taken his place in heaven next to Jehovah...otherwise, yes, there were many princes at that time...

  ONE OF THE CHIEF PRINCES! Meaning there are others. Plus, John 3:16 shows that Jesus is God's ONE AND ONLY Son. He is completely unique.

  -no argument there...

  Here is another: In Hebrews 2:5 it says that the world is not [and will not be] in subjection to an angel. This makes it clear that no angel will ever rule in God's kingdom.

  -the scripture reads 'angels'...no God will not subject the world to many...only one...

  Here is another: Jude 1:9, "But even Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels, did not dare accuse the devil of blasphemy, but simply said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (This took place when Michael was arguing with the devil about Moses' body.)

  -'Lord', or is it Jehovah?

  Micheal did not rebuke the devil. Hmmm...Jesus did though...Matthew 4:10 is an example. Besides this, ALL AUTHORITY, including the authority to rebuke the devil, has been given to Jesus (Matt 28:18)

  -again, you are assuming that Jesus had already been given ALL AUTHORITY...

  Interestingly, the Watchtower did not always teach that Michael and Jesus were one and the same. "Hence it is said, ‘let all the angels of God worship him’: (that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God)…" (1879 WT, p. 4).

  -key words here, 'that must include Michael'...was the watchtower certain?

  I believe you are the one standing with a lack of evidence, Elephant. Boo Yah

  -Christ alone...rather than evidence, what you have presented here underlines my entire point...we both are interpreting...because we are dealing with a subject and events that neither you nor i have been there to witness ...(at least i dont think you have?)
• 

  Retrovirus

  Hi Elephant!

  I'm replying to your post 20, where you say:

  …except religion is not factual based is it?otherwise we would not be having this discussion, right? Christ alone’s point is based on his own parameters he’s set for his mind and comprehension…and he assumes any other interpretation is false… that sounds a little like any person whose confident in his own beliefs…

  So religion isn't fact based? Actually I'd largely agree, but I'm afraid you are not very well versed in what your religion teaches.

  Have a look at the quotes in the first article here.

  An example:

  The Bible describes true faith as “the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) Clearly, far from being naive, a person with real faith has based his beliefs on a careful scrutiny of all available data. Reasoning on such information produces the conviction that even things that cannot be seen with the literal eye are, nonetheless, realities.

  So please tell, are you an apostate, or do you base your faith on evidence and reason? And if the evidence shows that the Bible does not call Jesus an angel, why would the jws do so?

  I'll respond to the other reply on the correct thread; not a good idea to mix them up.

  Retro
• 

  Elephant

  retro-

  The Bible describes true faith as “the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) Clearly, far from being naive, a person with real faith has based his beliefs on a careful scrutiny of all available data. Reasoning on such information produces the conviction that even things that cannot be seen with the literal eye are, nonetheless, realities.

  So please tell, are you an apostate, or do you base your faith on evidence and reason? And if the evidence shows that the Bible does not call Jesus an angel, why would the jws do so?

  -for the first question i would refer to the scripture itself - "the assured expectation of things hoped for..."

  ...what you and i hope for can differ vastly retro, what we find in the scriptures allows for a million different faiths due to those hopes specifically...again your conviction is based on certain established parameters (what you call careful scrutiny)...and it is why we can have this debate on wether Jesus is/was an angel or not.

  for the second question... i would never say "i am an apostate" , rather i base my faith on evidence and reason...in regards to this particular subject (is Jesus an angel?) u can clearly see my evidence and reason is not compatible with yours or christ alone's...
• 

  wannabefree

  Jesus made God's name known .. the name that God had given him .. that name is Jesus.

  The book of Acts shows that any trouble that Jesus' followers had was due to preaching the name Jesus.

  Jesus didn't preach the name Jehovah, he made God's name known in a more meaningful way, he gave additional definition to God's name ... this was done by having the name Jesus declared which means Jehovah is salvation.

  Jehovah = causes to become; shall prove to be; I am

  Jesus = shall prove to be salvation

  So when Jesus said "I have made your name known", he sure did, he made God known to be salvation.
• 

  designs

  If you yelled out 'Hey Jesus' in the 1st century no one would have turned around. 'Jesus' did not appear until the great vowel shift in Middle English (15th century) and was not common until the 17th century.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Elephant, you said, "but you apparently dont have enough conviction or confidence in your 'findings' to refuse presenting what you dont believe its true...what you interpreted as confusion could have been uncomfort for your lack of cohesion and logic... "

  I never attacked your views, I simply made the factual statement that the scriptures don't ever say Yeshua = Michael. As far as you Ad Hominem attack on me, it is unwarranted. You were not present to hear my assignment. The issue I have is that if the scriptures do not say Yeshua = Michael then a book like the Bible Teach book should be perfectly clear and honest about that fact. Instead, every JW equates Yeshua with Michael because they are told that is what the Bible teaches, which is not proven. The majority of JW's are not students of the Bible, but followers of the GB and accept anything they say, i.e " The Spiritual Mother/Organization teaching.". It would be humble and honest to simply say that we " feel " this or that, but we don't know, instead the WTBTS expects total acceptance of their teachings with the threat of punishment for all who disagree.
• 

  cantleave

  LOL - I love threads like this - stating categorically what a mythical man said or did!!!
• 

  Christ Alone

  We are examining literature, can'tleave. It would be the same as discussing Grimms fairy tales if you will. I'm trying to approach this as literature criticism. Nothing funny about it.
• 

  Christ Alone

  I'm glad you've responded to these arguments, Elephant. It really shows everyone, current JWs included, that the Watchtower does not have a leg to stand on, especially in regards to Jesus being an angel. Your counter points shows the lack of thought that the Watchtower (and you) have put into these matters. You have not examined the context, do not grasp the concept of hermeneutics, and when backed into a corner you do what all false teachers do...say "That's just your interpretation."

  No it's not my interpretation. If you know the history of why Hebrews was written and what the writer was trying to counter, you look at the grammatical structure of the points he is making, and you examine the context, there is no other conclusion that you can come to than "Jesus was not and is not an Angel."
• 

  Retrovirus

  So, Elephant:

  In post 20 you say

  …except religion is not factual based is it?

  But now it's

  rather i base my faith on evidence and reason...in regards to this particular subject (is Jesus an angel?) u can clearly see my evidence and reason is not compatible with yours or christ alone's...

  As well as being unable to maintain your line of argument it seems you misuse the words "evidence" and "reason". All your point comes down to "you are wrong, Christ Alone is wrong, I'm right whatever faith is based on" without a shred of support let alone evidence.

  Not much point in continuing, then.