Searching

by Striker 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Duran

    Your argument suggests that, because "all angels are 'sons of God,'" Jesus is simply another "angelic son," although He may be more exalted than others. However, Hebrews 1 emphasizes Jesus' unique, unparalleled relationship with God, distinct from any angelic beings:

    • Hebrews 1:5 explicitly asks, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’?” This rhetorical question is intended to clarify that God did not say this to any angel, including Michael. The Sonship of Jesus is unique; He is begotten, not created, indicating a divine nature that angels, as created beings, do not share.
    • Verse 6 continues, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” Angels worship Jesus, marking a clear distinction between Jesus and the angelic realm; He is not their equal but their Lord, and only God can rightly receive worship.

    Your argument attempts to equate Jesus with Michael by pointing out that He descends “with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” However, this phrase doesn’t imply that Jesus is an archangel but rather that He descends with the authority and power akin to that of an archangel:

    • Context and Language: In this verse, Paul is using vivid, descriptive language to emphasize the power and authority with which Christ will return. Just as one might say, “He comes with a king’s decree,” this doesn’t imply that the person is a king but that he has the authority of one.
    • Additionally, Revelation 19:16 presents Jesus as “King of kings and Lord of lords,” a title far surpassing that of any angel, including an archangel. His role in the resurrection of the dead and judgment is uniquely divine and beyond the role of any angel.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is merely exalted by God rather than sharing God’s divine nature. However, Scripture attests to the divinity of Jesus and His role as Judge of humanity, which in Jewish theology is a role belonging solely to God:

    • John 5:22-23 asserts, “The Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” This equal honor implies shared divinity. To honor Jesus as one honors the Father underscores His divine status, incompatible with the status of a created being.
    • Philippians 2:9-11 speaks of God exalting Jesus so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord.” The bowing of every knee is a direct echo of Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh declares that every knee will bow to Him alone. Paul’s application of this to Jesus affirms Jesus’ equality with God.

    Your argument contends that Jesus and God are “separate beings” because they appear as distinct persons in Revelation 5. However, this understanding overlooks the Trinitarian distinction between persons while maintaining unity in divine essence:

    • Revelation 5:13-14 depicts “every creature” praising both “the One seated on the throne” and “the Lamb,” with “blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever.” The worship directed at both signifies that the Lamb (Jesus) and the Father are equally worthy of divine worship, reinforcing the Christian understanding of the Trinity.
    • The scene does not imply inequality but rather a relational distinction within the Godhead, where Jesus (the Lamb) and the Father are distinct persons sharing one divine essence. This theological view holds that while they are distinct in personhood, they are united in essence, allowing both to receive worship as God.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that because Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory” and “the exact imprint of his being” (Hebrews 1:3), this means He is merely a reflection, not divine in Himself. However, the phrase signifies that Jesus shares the divine nature with the Father:

    • The Greek word translated as “radiance” (apaugasma) indicates emanation rather than mere reflection. Jesus is described as the outshining of God’s glory, implying that He is of the same divine substance and manifests the very nature of God to us.
    • As “the exact imprint of his being,” Jesus is presented as fully embodying God’s nature, not as a created representation. This phrase is used to affirm that Jesus possesses the same divine nature as the Father.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses suggest that Thomas’s declaration of Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28) is representational, yet the plain reading and immediate context affirm that Thomas was acknowledging Jesus’ divinity directly:

    • Jesus does not correct Thomas but accepts the title, indicating that it was correct to call Him “God.” Had Thomas misunderstood Jesus’ nature, this moment would have been critical for correction. Instead, Jesus commends Thomas’s belief.
    • In Jewish monotheism, calling anyone “my God” other than Yahweh would be blasphemous. Thomas’s declaration is a strong affirmation of Jesus' divine status, aligning with the Gospel of John’s theological aim to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is merely exalted above other angels but remains a created being. However, Scripture clearly delineates Jesus’ identity as God and His unique Sonship, setting Him apart from the angels:

    • Colossians 1:16-17 clarifies that “by him all things were created… all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” This passage suggests that Jesus is not part of creation but is the divine agent through whom creation came into being.
    • The title “archangel” is only ever directly applied to Michael (Jude 1:9), not Jesus. If Jesus were Michael, Hebrews 1:5 would not make sense, as God would indeed be calling one of the angels His Son, directly contradicting the passage.

    The interpretation of Jehovah’s Witnesses fails to account for the full biblical witness to Jesus’ identity. Jesus’ title as “Son of God” and His shared honor and glory with the Father, along with the worship He receives, affirm His divinity. He is not merely a highly exalted angel or representative but God incarnate, as consistently attested in Scripture. The passages presented, when understood in their proper context, reinforce the Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus is fully God, distinct from yet one with the Father, and deserving of worship as such.

  • Duran
    Duran
    • Revelation 5:13-14 depicts “every creature” praising both “the One seated on the throne” and “the Lamb,” with “blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever.” The worship directed at both signifies that the Lamb (Jesus) and the Father are equally worthy of divine worship, reinforcing the Christian understanding of the Trinity.

    Trinity LOL!

    You know 'tri' means 3 and in YOU trinitarians nonsense you are supposed to include the HS equally when speaking about 'both' Jehovah and Jesus and yet no mention of the HS anywhere above.

    And with what honor and glory that Jesus (the Lamb) gets and will get is with Jehovah's full approval and doing. It is Jehovah that exalted him and put him in position to receive such. That never in no way makes them 'both' the same person or equal beings. It never means that Jesus is Jehovah God.

    The title “archangel” is only ever directly applied to Michael (Jude 1:9), not Jesus. If Jesus were Michael, Hebrews 1:5 would not make sense, as God would indeed be calling one of the angels His Son, directly contradicting the passage.

    LOL! There is no contradiction. Verse 5 asked the clear question 'to which one of the angels did God ever say'.

    That's the question asked. Now you seem to have an issue with God calling one of the angels his son, is that right?

    [ 2 the sons of the true God began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful. So they began taking as wives all whom they chose.]

    [4 Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tarʹta·rus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment.]

    [6 And the angels who did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place, he has reserved with eternal bonds in dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.]

    You tell me, are the angels that got with the women, are they God's sons?

    How about the angels that did not forsake their original position, are they God's sons?

    What about here:

    [6 Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them.]

    Are those sons of God, are they angels?

    Is Satan an angel?

    Is Satan God's son?

    Is Michael an angel?

    Is Michael God's son?

    So, if Jesus is Michael (the archangel), what would be the issue with God calling Jesus his son?

    The context shows that the answer to verse 5 as to what angel did God say that to was God's firstborn angelic son.

    New International Version
    And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete
    And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
    Heb 1:6

    This is an interesting example of the writer of Hebrews freely identifying Yahweh with Jesus. The quote is from the LXX Deut 32:43 (also reflected in DDS 4Q44 which uses "Divine Ones rather than angels. It was edited out in the MT) and follows vv. 8,9 where the Lord (Yahweh in MT) is apportioned the Land of Israel from the Most High. There is no reference to another figure, the verse is about Yahweh. The writer of Hebrews clearly identified Jesus the son of God as the manifestation of Yahweh the son of the Most High.

    Again, this is another stage of the development and may not reflect the intent or usage of any other authors.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I should have added that the LXX's unique translating also has Yahweh addressed as an 'angel' of the Most High.

    8 When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.
    9 And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance.

    Deuteronomy 32 - LXX - Bible Study Tools

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Comparing LXX translations (Tigray's, Wever's and Benton') suggests variants in the Greek versions.

    Tigray's translation:

    "O heavens, rejoice with Him Bow to Him, all sons of the divine. 22 O nations, rejoice with His people And let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him."

    Wever's (NETS) translation:

    Be glad oh skies with him and let all the divine sons do obeisance to him. Be glad oh nations with his people and let all the angels of God prevail for him.

    Now note the changes reflected in Brenton's.

    Brenton's translation: Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him;

    I don't wish to spend too much time on this but the writer of Hebrews either only had at his disposal (or chose the reading) that now is reflected in the Brenton translation. All of this betrays the discomfort some had with this section of Deuteronomy. It seems apparent also that 'sons of God' in verse 43 (as well as vs 8) caused discomfort. Various parallel attempts were made to reinterpret the expression as referring to Israelites or angels.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    For comparison 4Q44 actually reads:

    43 Rejoice, heavens, with his people,
    and bow down to him, all gods,(divine ones) for he will avenge the blood of his sons.


    It is often regarded as the volage, the source text, for the LXX. We can see now the LXX insertion of another line referencing angels in an attempt to redefine the 'divine sons' as angels. We can also see in this early 4Q44 form the use of 'sons' rather than "servants' as appears in the MT and SP. This looks back at the line above it. Thereby redefining the sons as humans, Israelites.

    IOW there have been multiple attempts to rehabilitate the text. In the end, the edits contributed to a new Christology which ironically almost mirrored the original polytheistic form.


    The Samaritan Pentateuch edits evens more aggressively, dropping the whole line:

    Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.
  • Duran
    Duran

    @ aqwsed

    Any response to my above post?

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Duran, Any response to my post? The Hebrews text applies the passage addressed to Yahweh to Jesus. Is the author being dishonest with the text or did he genuinely understand Jesus as Yahweh?

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Duran

    Revelation 5 focuses on Jesus’ unique role as the Redeemer who opens the scroll, a specific function not related to the Holy Spirit. This does not imply the Holy Spirit’s exclusion from the Godhead. Scripture presents the Trinity in various contexts, where each Person’s role is distinct. For example, Matthew 28:19 includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Great Commission, showing that each Person has a unique but interconnected role in salvation history.

    The absence of the Holy Spirit in this scene does not negate His divinity, just as scenes without Jesus do not negate His divinity (e.g., Genesis 1:1-2, where the Spirit is present at creation). Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 depict the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and the Son, demonstrating their unity within the Godhead without requiring that each be mentioned in every passage.

    For example according to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, in the account described in Acts 7:55-56, when Stephen the martyr receives a vision of heaven and sees Jesus at the right hand of God, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. From this, they conclude that the Holy Spirit is not a person. However, this reasoning is flawed. The fact that Stephen does not specifically mention the Holy Spirit does not mean it was not present or that it is not a person. The absence of a specific name in a given text does not prove nonexistence. For example, in Stephen’s vision, only Jesus and the Father are mentioned, but the Holy Spirit could still have been present.

    The New Testament frequently mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, as seen in verses such as 2 Corinthians 13:14 and 1 Peter 1:2. In other passages, like Matthew 4:1 and Acts 2:38, the Holy Spirit appears with Jesus without mentioning the Father, yet it is understood that the Father is also present. Additionally, in the Old Testament, there are passages where God and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together without specifically naming Jesus, such as in 2 Chronicles 24:20.

    This shows that the three divine persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—do not need to be named together on every single occasion for their existence and personhood to be affirmed. The fact that Stephen does not mention the Holy Spirit in his vision does not prove that the Holy Spirit is not a person; it merely indicates that there was no need to mention it separately in that context. This does not imply that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force; it simply shows that not every biblical text needs to list all three divine persons by name.

    Philippians 2:6-11 reveals that Jesus’ exaltation is a return to His prior glory. “Being in very nature God, [Jesus] did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing.” His exaltation after the resurrection does not mean He was inferior by nature but reflects His return to the glory He voluntarily set aside (John 17:5). Jesus’ exaltation by the Father is a confirmation of His divine nature, not a sign of inferiority.

    Revelation 5:13-14 shows “every creature” worshiping “the One seated on the throne” and “the Lamb,” with the Lamb receiving the same worship as the Father. In a monotheistic context, this shared worship affirms their equality, as no created being would receive such honor. Additionally, the worship directed to both the Father and the Son is unprecedented in Jewish monotheism unless both are understood as divine.

    The term “sons of God” applies generically to all angels as created beings (Job 1:6, Job 38:7) but not in the unique, relational sense given to Jesus. Hebrews 1:5 highlights that Jesus is the only Son begotten, not created. The Father says to Jesus, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father,” a phrase never applied to an angelic being, including Michael. The verse emphasizes that none of the angels, including archangels, are addressed as the Son in this unique way.

    The term “firstborn” (prototokos) used in Hebrews 1:6 does not imply creation; rather, it signifies preeminence and rank. In Colossians 1:15-17, Jesus is called the “Firstborn of all creation” because He is the agent of creation, through whom “all things were created.” This includes all angelic beings, indicating Jesus’ superiority and distinctiveness as uncreated and divine.

    Describing Jesus’ return “with an archangel’s voice” does not imply that He is the archangel. Rather, it indicates that He arrives with a command, akin to an archangel’s authority. The phrase “voice of an archangel” here signifies Jesus’ commanding role as the Lord of hosts, not His identification as an archangel. Moreover, Jude 9 directly names Michael as the archangel without implying he is divine or equal to God.

    Jesus is explicitly portrayed as greater than all angels in Hebrews 1: He is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:3). Angels are just “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:14), but Jesus is worshiped by them (Hebrews 1:6). If Jesus were Michael, this distinction would be meaningless, as it would contradict the clear hierarchy established by Hebrews 1.

    The Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) used in Hebrews 1:6 is consistently applied to God in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 4:10). The angels’ worship of Jesus signifies that He is more than an angelic figure; He is divine. Hebrews 1:6 places Jesus in a unique category above angels, as it directs angelic worship to Him—a form of reverence reserved for God alone in Jewish monotheism. This again affirms Jesus’ divine status distinct from Michael or any angel.

    In summary, the biblical evidence consistently distinguishes Jesus from Michael the archangel. Jesus:

    • Is worshiped alongside the Father in Revelation 5, receiving divine honor that only God would receive.
    • Is presented as superior to angels in Hebrews 1, where He is uniquely called the Son of God, a title not given to any angel, including Michael.
    • Returns with authority “with the voice of an archangel” but is never called the archangel Himself.
    • Is the agent of creation in Colossians 1:16-17, which includes all angels, positioning Him as Creator rather than a created angelic being.

    The identification of Jesus with Michael the archangel fails to account for the consistent biblical teaching that Jesus is the eternal, divine Son of God, distinct from all created beings and supreme over all, including archangels. The worship, titles, and roles ascribed to Jesus in Scripture affirm His full divinity, making any angelic identification incompatible with the biblical portrayal of Christ.

  • Duran
    Duran

    @ aqwsed

    [6 Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them.]

    Are those said 'sons' of God, angels?

    Is Satan an angel?

    Is Satan God's son?

    Is Michael the archangel, God's son?

    • Returns with authority “with the voice of an archangel” but is never called the archangel Himself.

    You do not believe Jesus is Michael the archangel, so whomever/whatever you believe Jesus is, is Jesus in your understanding above an archangel?

    If so, why would Jesus be said to come with a voice of something that is lesser in authority then himself?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit