by slimboyfat 152 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Rattigan350:
Gen 3:15 says the seed will crush the serpent which is the devil. The seed is Jesus.
Entirely wrong. The story in Genesis doesn’t say anything at all about the snake being Satan, and doesn’t mention Jesus at all. Christian retcons of the story don’t actually reflect the original content or intent of the borrowed creation myth.
Who were the angels visiting Abraham?
Was not Christ predicted to be the angel of the covenant?
Malachi 3:1 KJV — Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
The verse from Malachi (whose name means angel or messenger, though no one says the book was written by an angel) doesn’t mention Christ or an anointed person, and obviously doesn’t mention Jesus.
Malachi 3:1 mentions two messengers: The first is John the Baptist, who prepared the way for the second Messenger, "the Messenger of the covenant," Jesus Christ.
Matthew and Luke's gospels identify John the Baptist as the first messenger who prepared the way of the Lord by preaching repentance.
Repent and believe is the order of salvation In the New Testament.
Malachi 3:1 mentions two messengers: The first is John the Baptist, who prepared the way for the second Messenger, "the Messenger of the covenant," Jesus Christ.
Malachi doesn’t mention John the Baptist or Jesus. Those are just Christian reinterpretations.
The author of Malachi (literally ‘messenger’) was likely Ezra rather than someone actually named ‘Malachi’, and Ezra is probably also the ‘messenger’ intended at Malachi 3:1.
Definitely the gospel writers affirm the Baptist is bring referred to. Do you think there might be a dual fulfilment here?
Definitely the gospel writers affirm the Baptist is bring referred to.
Christian writers ‘affirmed’ a Christian reinterpretation of vague writings. This is not slightly remarkable.
Do you think there might be a dual fulfilment here?
No. Of course not. Co-opting an old text and framing it around unverifiable anecdotes is not a ‘fulfilment’ of anything.
OK...so you clearly do not accept that the gospel writers were inspired.
Do you believe the writer of Malachi was inspired...and by extention any of the writers of the Hebrew scriptures?
Do you believe the writer of Malachi was inspired...and by extention any of the writers of the Hebrew scriptures?
Of course not. There isn’t even any clear definition of what ‘inspired’ actually means beyond a vague superstitious notion of ideas being communicated magically without any verifiable means of transmission.
There’s a reason that the operative word is ‘believe’ because ‘inspiration’ in the sense intended can’t actually be demonstrated to exist.
But if you have evidence to the contrary, I’m all ears.
If I looked at scripture as you do Jeffro i would not care what Joe Shmoe had to say or intended?
Of course I believe the entire Old Testament points to Jesus Christ, who is alive today and able to save to the uttermost all who call upon Him. So what the writer of Malachi and others have to say is of great concern to me. And of course I accept the interpretations of the writers of the New Testament as authoritative and so they are of great concern to me as well.
