i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
By the way, the phrase "name of the Father"does not need to be associated with the Tetragrammaton
In the context of being written on forehead as with the high priest it most probably does refer to the divine name. But in view of the references to the trigram Yaho in the first chapter of Revelation, perhaps in the form Yaho rather than YHWH.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
There are scholars who argue that the idea of a pre-existent angelic Messiah was already present in texts such as Micah 5 and Isaiah 9 and that Christians picked up on an idea that the Jews had already explored. See William Horbury’s Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (1998):
hi everyone, i just joined and i have been lost a long time, growing up i was a witness with my mum.
i walked away when i was older, did drugs, sex, travelling all my life never stopping anywhere more than 3 months my entire life, relationship after relationship, pain and hurt after pain and hurt.
i always felt like there was something missing, and tried to find what it was.
Watchtower recently relaxed their rules on shunning, and have instructed JWs to be slightly more approachable and friendly to people who have left, though the details remain sketchy. But it perhaps means that you will be able to have more contact with your mother and brother than in the past without going through the whole process of returning to the Kingdom Hall.
Going to Ukraine is a story in itself, it doesn’t need embellished. Search for meaning is a powerful impulse, as you have demonstrated more dramatically than most. I tend to just read books. 📖 I wish you well on your journey.
democrats are always harping on and on about voting rights and how the ability to vote should be easier and access unrestricted.
the most progressive ones want to allow prisoners, and illegals with no voter id the ability to vote along with the criminals, drug addicts, and uneducated low lives who already can vote.. .
after they push for everyone and anyone to be able to vote they then tell us it is a sacred privilege, a duty and honor, and a big responsibility blah, blah ect..... if it is all those grandiose things are true i think it should be harder to vote not easier.
America spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined because that’s what it costs to maintain the largest empire in human history. Do some Americans believe their rulers spend this way out of the goodness of their heart? Some inexplicable benevolence toward the rest of humankind? Because the rest of the world isn’t buying it. The US maintains the largest killing machinery ever because it is in its financial as well as its strategic interest to do so. If Europe took the bait and built a military to rival the US then the US would be unlikely to welcome that outcome. If Europe had a military equal to the US then the US might be less likely to blow up European pipelines at will to further its own economic interests, for example, and Europe might be less supine if the US attempted it in those circumstances.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Paula Fredriksen explains that Jesus is distinguished from God in Philippians 2.
The Greek, however, does not quite correspond to the RSV’s English. In Philippians 2, Jesus is not "in the form of the (high) God,” but in the form of "a god." Jesus does not demur from equality with God the Father, but from "god-status" or, closer to Paul's word choice, equality with "a god." The god who exalts Jesus in verse 9, by contrast, is the high god (ho theos, the god), referred to as "God the Father" in verse 11. The conventions of English capitalization - "God" with the upper-case G in all clauses - obscure Paul's Greek. Paul distinguishes between degrees of divinity here. Jesus is not "God."
Paula Fredriksen, (2017). Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle. Yale University Press, page 138.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Those who read Philippians 2 in agreement with later Trinitarian dogma are invariably scholars who have a prior faith commitment to the Trinity. Scholars who approach the text from a historical perspective read the text in its own first century context, not the fourth century. Many more scholars could be cited, such as Paul Holloway, who explains the passage this way.
Paul conceived of what is commonly referred to as Christ's incarnation as a kind of metamorphosis. According to Phil 2:6-11 Christ was a mighty angel who originally existed "in the form [opñ] of God." For the sake of humans and in obedience to the divine will he took "the form (opon] of a slave," changing himself into human "likeness" (Quoíwua) and "appearance" (oxnua). After his death on a cross, God restored him to his original angelic form, but now as the even more glorious ruling angel who bears the divine Name and shares the divine throne: "therefore God more highly exalted him [UTEpú|woe] and gave him the Name that is above every other name [rò ovoLa Tò UTTÈo Tav övoua], in order that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow .. to the glory of God the Father. "
Paul Holloway, (2017). Philippians. Fortress Press, pages 49 and 50.
You don’t need to agree with the way JWs read passages such as Philippians 2 but you would do well to acknowledge that their reading of such texts is in line with a broad sweep of serious scholars who have studied the text.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
E.P. Sanders was a senior biblical scholar who had a huge impact on the field of study. His comments on Phil 2.5–11 are to the point.
In any case, “equality with,” like “form of,” avoids direct identification of Christ with God. The New Testament authors had not yet thought of the idea of the Trinity, and so making Christ a part of a larger Godhead was not an option. His precise relationship no God was usually just called "sonship," which could have a broad meaning as we shall see when we discuss Romans 1. All Israelites were in some sense "sons of God."
In later years, Paul's use of "form of God" and "being found in human form," would lead to numerous debates: was he God or human merely in appearance? In particular, was he a real human? Fortunately we do not have to delve into this. The hymn as written uses "form of" to mean "possessed at least some of the characteristics of," not merely "appeared to be." On the other hand, "possessed at least some of the characteristics of" proposes less identity between God and Jesus than is expressed in the much later formulation, that God and Christ were of the same ousia, "essence."E. P. Sanders, (2016). Paul: The apostle's life, letters and thought. scm Press, p 603
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
According to many such approaches, Paul construes Christ as a divine being in 2:6, and his comment about not seeking "equality with God as something to be grasped by force (or as 'booty')" means that Christ did not try to usurp the status of the supreme God (res rapienda). Though the language in v. 6 remains difficult, such a reading makes much better sense of the drama of 2:6-11, which seems to require a move from a lower rank in the heavens to a higher one. Furthermore, though many writers ridicule the use of terms like theos (god) for any but the supreme God of Jewish lore, this amounts to a polemical overstatement that is not carried out consistently in practice (see, e.g., IIMelchizedek ii.10. Thus, the statement that Christ was "in the form of a god" (2:6) need not suggest that Christ had some special identification with the supreme deity, though this idea has proved seductive for some. Instead, and in a rather straightforward way, being in the "form of a god" conveys that Christ was originally a lesser divine being, probably a member of the council or heavenly entourage.
Emma Wasserman, (2018). Apocalypse as Holy War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of Paul. Yale University Press, page 133.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
The New Testament does not teach that the Son, the divine Logos is ontologally less than God the Father.
The NT says that God is in every way greater than Jesus.
Jesus gets his knowledge from God. (Rev 1.1)
Jesus gets his power from God. (Matt 28.18)
Jesus gets his life from God. (John 6.57)
Quite simply “the Father is greater than I”. (John 14.28)
Ontology is the language of philosophy not the Bible, but if you force that language onto the Bible it is clear that God is greater than his Son in every conceivable respect.
i would suggest:.
the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.
the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
Are you using ChatGPT to write these responses?
This exaltation does not imply that Jesus became more divine or that He was somehow less than God before
Yes, it implies Jesus is less than God. Because imagine if those NT statements were made by or about God himself. Imagine God said “all power has been given to me”. You would conclude he cannot be God almighty if he received his power. Or suppose it was said about God that he was “exalted to a superior position”. You would again conclude that we are not talking about God almighty because God cannot be exalted to a superior position as he is always supreme. When the NT repeatedly says things about Jesus that indicate that he is less than God almighty it ought to be clear that Jesus is distinct from and subject to God.
