Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?

by slimboyfat 152 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  peacefulpete

  Moreover, if the early Church had simply invented authorship to lend credibility to these texts, they likely would have chosen more prominent apostles like Peter or James.

  Of course, there already were Gospels of Peter and James, and they were very popular.

  While this is an interesting interpretation, it lacks solid historical evidence. The idea of a Messiah ben Joseph is not attested in Jewish writings until much later, primarily in rabbinic literature.

  (1) David C. Mitchell, Messiah ben Joseph in the Babylonian Talmud, Review of Rabbinic Judaism 8 (2005): 77-90 | David C Mitchell - Academia.edu

  (1) Messiah bar Ephraim in the Targums | David C Mitchell - Academia.edu

  Jesus reinterpreted this expectation in a radical way, claiming that His own body was the true Temple (John 2:19-21)

  The expectation that a Messiah would build the temple is again from Zechariah. 6:

  12Then say to him, ‘The LORD of armies says this: “Behold, there is a Man whose name is [f]Branch, for He will [g]branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. 13Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the majesty and sit and rule on His throne..."

  This Is also where the 30 pieces of silver element comes from.

  On this topic see an old thread I did.

  Temple Talk.

  In short it seems at an early stage this tradition was altered. The statement was perceived as a Messianic claim, but as time went on it became necessary to adjust this element. Matt and Mark distance Jesus from the statement by saying it was a lie, but the Gospel John instead has him say it but turns it into a metaphor.
  

  Sorry I have trouble with the quote function sometimes.
  
  
  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  The Deutero-Pauline Colossians is an interesting work. Essentially 1:19, 2:9 Sum up what is said throughout the 'Paulines'. Christ was understood as having all the power, the wisdom, the glory, the authority, the worship of God. At least at a point in time. This is likely because of the concept I've been discussing, the 'pleroma' of emanations of God.

  9 For in Christ all (pan) the fullness (pleroma) of the Deity lives in bodily form

  This and other aspects of the Paulines sound very Sethian, a gnostic sect of Hellenized Judaism with a 'Christ' as of the 'pleroma' of God.

  Note that most would insist the sect originated through a merging with Christianity, that is assumed because of the mention of Christ.

  However, Philaster's Catalog of Heresies (384CE), using older sources, identifies them as Pre-Christian. If that is correct, it could be a parallel to the reconstruction posed by Doherty and Carrier.

  Note the Jewish sectarian link...

  From wiki:

  According to John D.Turner, (a foremost expert on the Nag Hammadi works,) two different groups, existing before the 2nd century CE,[11] formed the basis for the Sethians: a Jewish group of possibly priestly lineage, the so-called Barbeloites,[12] named after Barbelo, the first emanation of the Highest God, and a group of Biblical exegetes, the Sethites, the "seed of Seth".

  Further references to Barbelo from the Christian historian Epiphanius, include the concept of a 'virgin birth' of "Light" aka "Christ" in the heavens, not from a human mother as the Gospels dramatize.

  In short there are sufficient reasons to consider the idea that the earliest Christians were a sect of Judaism that embraced hypostatic conceptualizations of God. Subsequently, through a literary and storytelling process, the heavenly dramas of birth, death and resurrection became literalized/materialized in the minds of later Christians as something that took place between John the Baptist (followers called Mandeans/Gnostics) and the tragic events of 66-70.. The above Sethian/Gnostic parallels demonstrate Jewish and Christians theology which may in fact have stayed the path rather than strayed from it.

  Pauline thought as expressed in Col 2:9 supports the conclusion that the writer understood God in a much more complex way than we were taught. ALL the fullness (pleroma) of the Godship (emanations of God, (Wisdom, Light, Logos, Sonship etc.) were in Christ.
  
  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  aqwsed12345......Moreover, if the early Church had simply invented authorship to lend credibility to these texts, they likely would have chosen more prominent apostles like Peter or James.

  Just an additional note. Tertullian in his Against Marcion says the following regarding Gospels:

  Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.

  
  

  Now Marcion's conviction was that the works of Paul and the Gospel had been corrupted and altered by his own church. His version of the Gospel (possibly he had available a form resembling what was named Luke) has no name attached. It seems likely he regarded the names as part of the corruption.

  Tertullian's argument is strange, he accuses Marcion (perhaps rightly so) of starting with a copy of Luke then faults him for not giving his redacted version a pseudonymous name. Going so far as to say anonymous Gospels "should 'not be recognized'. He clearly illustrates why names were assigned to anonymous Gospels; it supplied "credibility".