According to who? Margaret Barker, the Mormons, and few besides.
The most quoted OT verse in the entire NT is Psalm 110.1 in which YHWH is explicitly distinguished from and superior to the messianic Lord.
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
peacefulpete
Two Powers in Heaven - Dr. Michael Heiser
Here is an article with some good references for further reading.
-
aqwsed12345
The claim that Philo’s Logos is the foundation for John’s Logos theology misinterprets both the Jewish philosopher Philo and the Johannine tradition. While Philo and John both use the term Logos, their conceptions of it are fundamentally different. Philo’s Logos is an intermediary principle that bridges the transcendent God and the material world. It functions as a divine agent, akin to an emanation, but it is not a distinct person or fully divine in itself. It is largely an abstraction, informed by Greek philosophical influences, particularly Stoicism and Platonism. Philo often allegorizes the Hebrew Scriptures, attributing symbolic roles to the Logos as the “reason” of God. However, Philo does not identify the Logos as Yahweh or as a concrete, incarnate figure. John in his Prologue (John 1:1-14) identifies the Logos explicitly as God (theos), fully divine, preexistent, and distinct in personhood while remaining one in essence with God. Unlike Philo’s abstraction, John’s Logos becomes flesh in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14), revealing a fully incarnate divine being. John portrays the Logos as personal and relational, engaging directly with creation and humanity. John’s theology is firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism, yet it includes the divine Logos within the identity of Yahweh, as seen in John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I AM"). The attempt to conflate Philo’s Logos with John’s Logos ignores these critical differences. While Philo’s concept of the Logos may have influenced the Hellenistic language available to John, John’s use is distinctly rooted in Jewish Scripture and the self-revelation of God through Christ. The Logos in John is not a philosophical abstraction but the second person of the Trinity, fully God and fully man.
The discussion of "Two Powers in Heaven," as presented by Dr. Michael Heiser and others, relates to Jewish debates about divine intermediaries in Second Temple Judaism. This idea is frequently used to argue that early Jewish Christians identified Jesus with an intermediary figure like the "Angel of the Lord." In Jewish tradition, the Angel of the Lord is often described with divine attributes (e.g., Exodus 3:2-6), but it is understood as a manifestation of Yahweh, not a distinct or subordinate being. Some Second Temple Jewish texts suggest a “second power” or divine figure, such as the Son of Man in Daniel 7. However, this does not imply polytheism but rather the complexity of God’s self-revelation. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Son of Man from Daniel 7, who shares in divine authority and worship (Matthew 26:64; Revelation 1:13-14). This identification places Jesus within the divine identity, not as a subordinate angelic being. The New Testament frequently applies Old Testament passages about Yahweh directly to Christ (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11 cites Isaiah 45:23). This demonstrates that early Christians saw Jesus as fully divine, not a mere intermediary. The "Two Powers in Heaven" concept highlights the complexity of Jewish thought but fails to support the JW claim that Jesus is merely an archangel. Early Jewish Christians, as evidenced in the New Testament, went beyond the “Two Powers” framework by affirming Jesus’ full divinity as one with Yahweh.
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, a created being, ontologically subordinate to God. This view is neither supported by Scripture nor compatible with early Christian theology. In Revelation 5:13-14, Jesus receives worship alongside God the Father. Worship is reserved for God alone (Exodus 34:14), ruling out the idea that Jesus is a mere angel. Hebrews 1:5-6 explicitly denies that Jesus is an angel: "For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’?" The passage also commands the angels to worship Jesus. While JWs argue that “firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) implies Jesus is a created being, the context refutes this. "Firstborn" (Greek prototokos) signifies preeminence and authority over creation, not temporal origin. The subsequent verses clarify that all things were created "through him and for him," affirming His divine agency in creation. JW Christology reduces Jesus to a created being, denying His full divinity and contradicting both Scripture and the unanimous testimony of the early Church. Their interpretation is anachronistic, projecting modern theological constructs onto ancient texts.
The claim that NT authors understood Yahweh as a second power, distinct from the Most High, reflects speculative interpretations like those of Margaret Barker. This view lacks substantial historical and textual support. The distinction between Yahweh and the messianic Lord in Psalm 110:1 reflects Jesus’ dual nature as both God and man, not subordination to a separate “Most High.” The verse aligns with the Incarnation, where Christ, though fully divine, assumes a human role. Jesus is explicitly identified with Yahweh’s divine name and receives universal worship (Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:9-11), affirming His full divinity.
-
peacefulpete
Ok...again Heb 1:6 is a mashup of Psalm 89 referring to David as God's firstborn and Deut 32 where the Most High delegates Israel to Yahweh his son. Vs. 43 then says all of El's angels should worship Yahweh. It is a creative mashup hinged upon the theme of sonship and deity. It reveals the mind of the author of Hebrews to have then expressly applied it to Jesus. He is linking the Davidic Kingship and Yahweh with Jesus. From our literalist perspective it looks impossible, yet that is typical OT eisegesis found in the NT. Yahweh could be held in the mind as both the high God and as the son/Messiah. In the same way Jesus/Christ could be son/messiah as well as God.
Just as the Logos was described as Son and God. The keystone is the concept of second power/emanations.
It was described as a Mystery for a reason. The WT dumbed down version appeals to the rational mind but requires 'explaining away' a great many passages. The Trinity is again a brilliant bit of theology but is still an artificial formulation imposed upon a far freer conception of God.
-
peacefulpete
It should be obvious, that the concurrent growing disuse of Yahweh contributed to this freer conception of God. Yahweh probably appeared too regional and backwater. That is why it is not at all surprising to not see Yahweh in the NT. It was an artifact by that point.
It's easy to forget the spans of time involved. For us the 5th century and 3rd century BCE seem about the same, but 200 years is a loooong time in the world of memes and trends. Now add another 200 years or more to get to the birth of a anew branch of Judaism that had a unique blend of Messianism and Logos theology. Add another 100-200 years till the earliestevidence we have about what they believed. And another couple hundred years for the manuscripts we use. It is an illusion of the mind to imagine a consistent and uniform theology through those long turbulent years.
-
peacefulpete
Philo’s Logos is the foundation for John’s Logos theology misinterprets...
Philo's writings represent a snapshot in theological development. He assumes his readers know what he is elaborating upon. The concepts were much older and pervasive than a single author. It is entirely possible the author of John never read Philo but was drawing from a larger milieu of thought.
-
peacefulpete
I meant to address Heb 1:5 in a previous thread but forgot. Here again the author is mashing OT references to David (Psalm 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14) and interpreted by some late 2nd temple era readers as Messianic. They are linked through key words and through the idea of sonship.
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you...or again “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son."Ask when this was said of Jesus in the Gospel narrative. According to Luke 3:22 in early western manuscripts and early patristic writings, it was at his baptism. This was the primary proof text for Adoptionists. Origen quotes the passage but argues the timeless nature of God means the begetting was timeless in subtle refutation. Later copyists simply altered the text to drop the begetting part to refute Docetism.
-
aqwsed12345
Hebrews 1:6 states, “And let all God’s angels worship him.” This quotation appears to draw from the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:43, which explicitly calls on the angels to worship Yahweh. The application of this verse to Jesus is not a random or "creative mashup" but a direct affirmation of Jesus’ divinity. Hebrews 1 emphasizes Jesus’ superiority to angels, showing that He is worshiped by them—a role exclusive to God in Jewish monotheism (cf. Exodus 34:14). Psalm 89:27 speaks of David as God’s “firstborn,” which is a typological foreshadowing of Christ as the true “firstborn” (Colossians 1:15, Romans 8:29). This typology does not reduce Christ to a created being but emphasizes His preeminence and royal authority. The invocation of Deuteronomy 32:43 further reinforces the divine status of Christ, as the angels are called to worship Him, a role reserved for Yahweh in Jewish theology. The New Testament authors do not engage in arbitrary "eisegesis" but interpret the OT in light of the revelation of Christ. Their exegesis is typological, seeing Christ as the fulfillment of OT figures and promises. Hebrews consistently portrays Jesus as superior to all OT figures (angels, Moses, the Levitical priesthood) because He is God incarnate. The use of OT texts serves this purpose, not as random or forced reinterpretations. So Hebrews 1:6 affirms Jesus’ deity by applying a verse about Yahweh to Him. This is consistent with the broader NT theology that identifies Jesus as Yahweh incarnate, not as a mere Davidic king or subordinate being.
Both Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 are applied typologically to Jesus in Hebrews 1:5, affirming His unique sonship. Psalm 2:7’s “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” speaks of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, not a temporal act of adoption. This is supported by NT texts like John 1:1-3, which affirm Christ’s eternal preexistence. 2 Samuel 7:14 refers to the Davidic covenant, which finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ as the eternal King (Luke 1:32-33). The Western text of Luke 3:22 includes the phrase, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you." However, this variant does not undermine Christ's eternal sonship. The phrase reflects the public declaration of Jesus’ divine sonship at His baptism, not the beginning of His existence. Origen and later Church Fathers refuted Adoptionism by emphasizing the eternal begetting of the Son (John 1:18) and the unbroken hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures. Hebrews 1:5-6 directly refutes Adoptionism by emphasizing Christ’s eternal sonship and superiority to angels. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature (Hebrews 1:3), which is incompatible with the idea of a created or adopted son. So Hebrews 1:5 does not support Adoptionism but affirms the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. The NT consistently portrays Jesus as fully divine and eternally begotten, not temporally adopted.
Philo’s Logos is a semi-divine intermediary, a metaphysical abstraction influenced by Platonic and Stoic thought. It is not a person but an impersonal principle that bridges the gap between the transcendent God and the material world. John’s Logos, by contrast, is fully divine, eternal, and personal. John 1:1 explicitly states that “the Word was God” (theos), and John 1:14 declares that the Logos “became flesh.” This incarnational theology is foreign to Philo’s framework. John’s Logos is deeply rooted in Jewish Scripture, particularly in the concept of God’s Word (dabar) as a creative and revelatory agent (Genesis 1:3, Psalm 33:6, Isaiah 55:11). The identification of the Logos with Yahweh’s actions (e.g., creation, revelation) underscores the continuity between the OT and NT. John’s Logos is not a Hellenistic borrowing but a fulfillment of Jewish theological themes. So John’s Logos theology is distinct from Philo’s philosophical abstraction. While both use similar terminology, John’s Logos is the divine Word made flesh, fully consistent with Jewish monotheism and revelation.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not an artificial construct but the Church’s articulation of the revealed truth about God’s nature. The NT consistently presents the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons who share one divine essence (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14). The Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and the Cappadocians, developed Trinitarian theology to defend the biblical witness against heresies like Arianism and Adoptionism. The NT frequently applies Yahweh’s divine name and attributes to Jesus, demonstrating continuity with the OT. For example, Philippians 2:9-11 cites Isaiah 45:23 to affirm that Jesus is Yahweh. The alleged “freer conception” of God is unsupported by evidence. The NT authors maintain the strict monotheism of Judaism while revealing the triune nature of God. So the Trinity is a faithful expression of biblical revelation, not an artificial imposition. The NT’s application of Yahweh’s identity to Jesus affirms His full divinity within the unity of the Godhead.
-
BoogerMan
Hebrews 1:6 - "...and when again He may bring in the first-born to the world, He saith, 'And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God." (YLT)
Many Bible translators appear to have a penchant for inserting the word "worship" whenever the Greek word προσκυνέω appears. (Proskyneō)
Definition: Proskyneō - in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication, used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank.
The NWT does it as well:
(Revelation 19:10) "At that I fell down before his feet to worship him. But he tells me: “Be careful! Do not do that! I am only a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who have the work of witnessing concerning Jesus."
(Revelation 22:8) "Well I, John, was the one hearing and seeing these things. When I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing me these things."
Are we to believe that an apostle of Christ would try to worship an angel - twice???????? Or was he trying to exhibit -
Obeisance - a movement of the body expressing deep respect or deferential courtesy, as before a superior; a bow, curtsy, or other similar gesture.
-
peacefulpete
That's what I meant by explaining away......
The semantic distinction you are clasping onto is sleight of hand. missing the identification of Jesus as Yahweh.