Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Faith of Our Fathers (Part 1): Were the Early Christians Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Faith of Our Fathers (Part 2): Were the Early Christians Jehovah’s Witnesses?
The claim that early Christians saw Jesus “as distinct and subordinate to God”, and that only later did he become part of a “Trinity of equals,” overlooks critical early Christian texts that suggest otherwise. The New Testament, particularly in the writings of Paul and the Gospels, already indicates a high Christology. In passages such as John 1:1-3, the Logos (Word) is not only with God but is also explicitly called God, which directly counters the idea that Jesus was seen only as a subordinate figure until later centuries.
Geza Vermes, while influential in highlighting Jesus' Jewish roots, is critiqued for underestimating the early Christian devotion to Jesus as divine. Rowan Williams, in his review of Vermes' Christian Beginnings, points out that the rapid development of devotion to Jesus as divine among Jewish followers was not an innovation of the fourth century but can be traced back to the very first generation of Christians. Williams argues that such devotion escalated within the first century, propelled by charismatic experiences of the resurrected Jesus, thus challenging the claim that the Council of Nicaea introduced something entirely new or “revolutionary”.
And it is a fact that Vermes is not exactly known as a researcher of patristics, and it is not appropriate for him to make such bold claims.There are numerous external and internal sources indicating that early Christians believed Jesus to be God, not Michael, long before Nicaea. For example:
- Pliny the Younger (61–113), governor of the provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan around 112 about how to handle Christians who refused to worship the emperor, instead "they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god".
- Tacitus (circa 56–120) wrote that during the Eucharistic ceremonies, Christians consumed the body and blood of their God, which was misunderstood as cannibalism. This clearly demonstrates that early Christians believed in the divinity of Jesus and in His real presence in the Eucharist.
- The Alexamenos Graffito: "Alexamenos worships [his] God," also disproves the Jehovah's Witnesses' concept of the "torture stake."
"While it is true that the new freedom the church experienced under Constantine did have its negative side, it doesn’t follow that the church “fell” as some say. Throughout history the church has made mistakes in its dealings with secular society and in knowing how to properly handle the freedom and power it has experienced. Some complain today that Christians become too wedded to political parties, courting compromise in the process. This was no different in Constantine’s day. That there was a new coloring to the church when it became established under Constantine, there is no debate. But the idea that the church quickly became corrupt, and that the councils convened during his reign were simply pawns of the emperor is simplistic. The church continued to be faithful to the task of clarifying and passing on the apostolic tradition. “The faith professed and practiced in the early churches was not determined by the political machinations of emperors and episcopal hierarchies,” says Williams. “The essential formulation and construction of the Christian identity was something that the fourth century received and continued to expand upon through its biblical exegesis and liturgical life as reflected in the credal Tradition.”Consider what came out of the period of Constantine’s reign. Says Williams:
I am claiming the late patristic period functioned as a kind of doctrinal canon by which all subsequent developments of theology were measured up to the present day. The great creeds of the period, the development of Trinitarian and Christological theology, the finalization of the biblical canon, doctrines pertaining to the human soul and being made in the image of God, to the fall and redemption, to justification by faith, and so on, find their first and (in many cases) enduring foothold in this period. All theological steps later taken, in confirmation or denial, will begin on the trail marked by the early Fathers. . . . The theology that developed after Constantine was not a movement radically subversive to Scripture and to the apostolic faith. On the contrary, the major creeds and doctrinal deliberations were a conscious extension of the earlier Tradition and teaching of the New Testament while attempting, in light new challenges, to articulate a Christian understanding of God and salvation." (Source)
This "Great Apostasy" is not only completely unfounded silly conspiracy theory, it is a desperate forcing of his own heretic ideology into antiquity, even though this theology was invented only by the cult leader on his desk in the open Bible: "ah I think is the correct meaning of the text, so the ancient Christians must have believed it so as well. Oh, the sources do not indicated this? Ah, because that sources are 'apostate' ones, and a good ones were destroyed."
While you refer to John Ziesler’s comments about the subordination of Christ to God in Philippians 2:5-11, it’s important to note that early Christian texts frequently explore the mystery of the relationship between Jesus and God. Though Philippians speaks of Christ's humility and God’s exaltation of him, it does not imply that Christ is merely a subordinate being. In fact, Christ is given the divine title “Lord,” and the hymn suggests that he pre-existed before his earthly life. This indicates an early recognition of Christ’s unique relationship with God, which is foundational to Trinitarian theology, even if not fully articulated in its later, more developed form.
You identify correctly that early Christians used concepts familiar to Jewish thought, such as Wisdom and Logos, to understand Jesus. However, the comparison of these figures to Jesus doesn't diminish Christ’s divine status in Christian theology. In John’s Gospel, the Logos is not just an abstract concept or a secondary power but fully divine, and intimately involved in creation (John 1:1-3). Early Christians saw Jesus as embodying these concepts in a uniquely personal and divine way, unlike the impersonal Wisdom or Shekhinah in Jewish thought.
Peter Schäfer's Two Gods in Heaven highlights a distinct idea in some strands of Jewish thought, but this concept cannot be directly applied to early Christian understanding of Jesus. In Judaism, the "second god" concept was more of a speculative theology—ideas about intermediaries like angels or personified Wisdom. However, the New Testament never presents Jesus as a mere intermediary or lesser god. Instead, Jesus is consistently depicted as possessing the same divine nature as God the Father, even while fulfilling distinct roles within the Godhead.
For example, in John 1:1, Jesus (the Logos) is declared to be both "with God" and "was God," affirming His full divinity. The Shema—the central confession of Jewish monotheism—was reinterpreted by early Christians to include Jesus within the one God of Israel (1 Corinthians 8:6). This shows that early Christians did not see Jesus as a separate, subordinate deity but as fully sharing in the divine identity of the one true God.
The argument based on Philippians 2:5-11, as presented by John Ziesler, suggests that Jesus is distinct and subordinate because He is exalted by God and His exaltation is "to the glory of God the Father." However, this interpretation misses the key theological point of the passage, which emphasizes Jesus' pre-existence in the form of God, His voluntary humiliation, and His subsequent exaltation as the Lord of all creation.
The phrase "being in the form of God" refers to Jesus' pre-existent divinity, showing that He already shared in God's nature before His incarnation. The passage says that Jesus "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped"—not because He lacked equality, but because He willingly chose not to cling to it for His own advantage. This reinforces Jesus' divinity, not His subordination.
Jesus' taking on "the form of a servant" refers to His incarnation—His voluntary assumption of human nature. His subsequent exaltation to the highest place and receiving "the Name above every name" (v. 9) confirms His sovereign lordship over creation. While the passage states that this exaltation is "to the glory of God the Father" (v. 11), it does not imply ontological subordination, especially not ontological inferiority. Rather, it highlights the distinct roles within the Godhead, where the Son's exaltation brings glory to the Father in a relationship of mutual honor.
In Trinitarian theology, the Son's submission to the Father during His earthly ministry and even in His exaltation does not negate His equality with the Father in essence. It reflects a functional distinction, not a difference in nature or divinity.
The argument assumes that because Jesus is exalted by the Father, He must be subordinate in essence. This reflects a misunderstanding of the distinction between ontological equality and functional subordination within the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in essence and nature, sharing the same divine attributes. However, they carry out distinct roles in the economy of salvation.
In His incarnation, Jesus humbled Himself and became obedient to the Father's will. This submission, however, is part of the Son’s role in the work of redemption, not an indication of inferiority. Jesus' exaltation to "the Name above every name" (Philippians 2:9) is a public affirmation of His divine status, which He already possessed in His pre-incarnate state. It is a return to the glory He had with the Father "before the world existed" (John 17:5).
The idea that early Christians mythologized Jesus and only later literalized his divinity (euhemerism) oversimplifies the complex theological developments of the early church. As David Brakke points out in his critique of Vermes, Vermes has to work hard to dismiss the early devotion to Jesus as divine, particularly the early Christian accounts of the resurrection and texts like the Philippians hymn. The exalted status of Jesus, even as early as the Pauline letters, contradicts the claim that Christ’s divinity was a later imposition.
While the Council of Nicaea in 325 clarified the nature of Christ's divinity in response to Arianism, it did not "invent" the idea of Christ’s divinity. Nicaea formalized what had been widely believed for centuries—that Jesus Christ is “of one substance” with the Father. Early Christian worship, prayers directed to Jesus, and theological reflections in the New Testament demonstrate that belief in Jesus’ divinity was foundational long before Nicaea. The council was not introducing a new doctrine but defending what was already practiced by the early church against emerging heresies.
The development of Christian theology, particularly the doctrine of the Trinity, was not a sudden fourth-century invention but rooted in the earliest Christian experiences of Jesus as both Lord and God. Early texts like the Gospels and Pauline letters reflect a high Christology that acknowledges Jesus' divine role alongside the Father, while the Council of Nicaea served to clarify and protect this belief, rather than “create” it.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345
@Rattigan350
1. "Why should anyone care what the Council of Florence says? You all complain about the governing body but these councils are far worse."
For example, you should care about, because then you might find out that Trinitarian Christian theology is defined in such a way that by definition it includes that the Son received everything from the Father, so the fact that you show that the Son received all his knowledge from the Father, you refute nothing of this definition. You know, in the best case, we read after what we actually want to refute, avoiding the straw man arguments.
The Council of Florence, like other ecumenical councils in Christian history, represents the unified decisions of the early Christian Church. These councils, including Florence, were convened to clarify theological issues based on biblical teaching and the tradition passed down from the apostles. Ecumenical councils involved a wide array of bishops, theologians, and early Church leaders from across different regions and churches, relying on Scripture and centuries of tradition. The conclusions they reached were debated extensively, and they built on the apostolic faith handed down from the time of Christ and his apostles.
While you may reject these councils' authority, they have played a vital role in ensuring the consistency and orthodoxy of Christian teaching throughout history, including the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is rooted in Scripture.
2. "There is no Godhead. That is not even a word."
This claim is incorrect. The term "Godhead" is indeed a legitimate word in Christian theology and even in Scripture itself. For instance, the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible uses the term "Godhead" in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. In Colossians 2:9, Paul writes, "For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The term "Godhead" refers to the divine nature or essence of God and is used to describe the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as sharing one divine substance.
The rejection of the word based on its unfamiliarity or perceived complexity does not invalidate its theological importance. It has been part of Christian discourse for centuries and is grounded in biblical language.
3. "Big and fancy words that have no meanings..."
You criticize the use of theological terms like "Godhead" and "Logos" as being overly complicated, but it’s important to recognize that precision in language helps avoid confusion in theological discussions. The early Church used terms like "Logos" (Greek for "Word") and "Godhead" to express the depth of Christian beliefs, rooted in Scripture. The word "Logos" in John 1:1 is not a "fancy word" but a direct translation from the original Greek text. It was used to describe Jesus as the pre-existent divine Word, a concept that was well understood by both Jews and Gentiles at the time.
Furthermore, William Tyndale's quote about a ploughboy understanding Scripture does not mean we should avoid theological depth. Tyndale’s point was that Scripture should be accessible to everyone, not that it should be oversimplified or stripped of meaningful concepts. Theology often requires precision to avoid misunderstanding God’s nature, especially regarding complex doctrines like the Trinity.
4. "The English text says 'The Word was God.'... That's different from 'The Word was God', that is renaming Jesus as the God of old."
You appear to contradict themselves here, stating that "The Word was God" (John 1:1) but then arguing that this isn’t about Jesus being fully divine. However, John 1:1 clearly presents Jesus (the Word) as divine. The absence of the definite article in the Greek before "theos" (God) in John 1:1c emphasizes the quality of the Word’s divinity, not its inferiority. This construction tells us that Jesus shares the very nature of God, not that He is "a god" or merely divine in some lesser sense.
The argument that Jesus is "renaming" God is also misguided. The New Testament identifies Jesus as God (John 20:28, Titus 2:13) while distinguishing Him as a distinct person from the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity reconciles these truths: that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but one in essence.
5. "The doctrine of the Trinity emphasizes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one essence... This is why it is wrong."
You claim that the Trinity is wrong without providing evidence to support their stance. The doctrine of the Trinity is the logical conclusion drawn from Scripture's teaching about the nature of God. The Bible reveals:
- God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4).
- Jesus is divine (John 1:1, John 8:58, Colossians 2:9).
- The Holy Spirit is divine (Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16).
- The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14).
The Trinity is not a philosophical invention, but rather a way to understand and explain the complexity of the biblical revelation of God. The oneness of essence and the three distinct persons is the best way to reconcile the various teachings of the Bible about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345
@Rattigan350
The fact that Jesus receives revelation from the Father does not contradict His divine omniscience. In His incarnational role, Jesus operated within the limitations of human nature while still retaining His divine attributes. The Council of Florence affirms that while the Son receives everything from the Father, this is within the context of an eternal relationship, not a temporal limitation: "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." This reception is part of the eternal communication within the Trinity and does not imply that Jesus lacked divine knowledge.
The purpose of John 1:1 is not merely to correct misunderstandings but to provide a theological foundation for understanding the identity of Jesus as the divine Logos. The text explicitly states, "the Word was God", affirming the full divinity of Christ. The absence of the definite article before "theos" in the original Greek is a grammatical feature that emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the Word's divinity, not a denial of His deity.
The doctrine of the Trinity emphasizes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one essence, one divinity, and one power. The distinction between the persons does not imply a division in the Godhead but rather a relational distinction within the unity of God's nature. This means that when Jesus, the Son, receives knowledge from the Father, it is not a sign of inferiority but a reflection of their eternal relationship within the Godhead.
- Only God is eternal and immortal (Isaiah 40:28, Psalm 90:2, Romans 1:23, 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:17, 6:16). The Father is eternal and immortal (John 5:26), the Son is eternal and immortal (Matthew 28:20, John 5:26, 8:58, 17:5, Hebrews 7:21-28, 13:8, Revelation 1:18), and the Holy Spirit is eternal and immortal (Hebrews 9:14), yet there are not three eternal, immortal Gods, but one.
- Only God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:8-10, Proverbs 15:3, Acts 17:27-28). The Father is omnipresent (Matthew 6:6, John 14:11, 2 John 9), the Son is omnipresent (Matthew 18:20, 28:20, 2 Corinthians 13:5, Colossians 1:17, 2:6, Hebrews 1:3), and the Holy Spirit is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7, John 14:17), yet there are not three omnipresent Gods, but one.
- Only God is omniscient (1 Kings 8:31-32, Psalm 44:21-22, 94:9-10, 139:2, Job 21:22, Daniel 2:20, Romans 11:33-34). The Father is omniscient (Matthew 6:4,32, 10:29-30), the Son is omniscient (Luke 2:46-47, John 2:25, 4:19,29, 16:30, 21:17, Colossians 2:3, Matthew 25:31-45, Hebrews 4:12-13), and the Holy Spirit is omniscient (Isaiah 11:2, 40:13, Daniel 4:6, John 14:26, 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11), yet there are not three omniscient Gods, but one.
- Only God is omnipotent (Genesis 17:1, Exodus 6:3, Psalm 72:18, Matthew 19:26, 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 11:17, 19:6). The Father is omnipotent (Mark 14:36, 2 Corinthians 6:18), the Son is omnipotent (Matthew 28:18, John 3:35, 5:19, Hebrews 1:3, Revelation 1:8), and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent (Job 33:4, Zechariah 4:6, Luke 1:35), yet there are not three omnipotent Gods, but one.
Read this:
- Is Jesus the “I AM”? What does John 8:58 really say?
- “I AM” in the Bible What did it mean to the Jews?
The connection between Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am") and Exodus 3:14 ("I AM WHO I AM") is not just a later theological construct. Early Christian writers and even the Gospel of John itself present Jesus as identifying with the divine name, which would have been a profound statement of His divinity to His audience. This identification is a critical part of understanding Jesus' nature as more than a prophet or teacher but as God incarnate.
The assertion that the apostles or early Christians did not make this connection is incorrect. Early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, recognized this connection. The Gospel of John was written precisely to show that Jesus is the Logos, the divine Word, who existed with God and was God.
Trinitarians do not ignore Psalm 110:1. On the contrary, this passage is crucial in understanding Jesus as both Lord and Messiah, who sits at the right hand of God. Trinitarian theology interprets this as a recognition of Christ’s authority and divine nature, not as a denial of His divinity.
The New Testament mentions baptisms performed "in the name of Jesus," which reflects the early Church's understanding of Jesus’ authority. Baptism "in the name of Jesus" does not express the form of the sacrament but rather its nature: it distinguishes it from John's baptism and indicates that it is performed by the authority of Christ, committing the baptized to Christ's name. Indeed, if in the apostolic era they had baptized only by invoking the name of Jesus, Saint Paul could not have asked the Ephesians, who had never heard of the Holy Spirit, "Into what, then, were you baptized?" (Acts 19:2-3). Early Christian tradition does not recognize any other formula than the invocation of the Trinity. The Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") has been consistently upheld by the Church as reflecting the full revelation of God’s triune nature. Early Church tradition and teachings confirm this understanding.
Claims that Matthew 28:19 is "spurious" are not supported by historical evidence. The use of the Trinitarian formula in early Christian writings and practice shows its authenticity and importance in the Church’s understanding of God’s nature.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
In the Jewish tradition, the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was indeed inscribed on the headband worn by the Kohen Gadol (High Priest). The Tetragrammaton was not written on the high priest's forehead, but on a gold plate, which according to Jerome's description was worn on the high priest's forehead. This plate, bearing the Tetragrammaton, was fixed above the cap on the head of the high priest, and placed on his forehead, where it was tied with a blue cord. However, it's crucial to recognize that this practice was exclusive to the High Priest and was not a general practice for all priests or worshipers. In the New Testament, particularly in the Book of Hebrews, Christ is identified as the ultimate High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-16, 5:5-10, 7:23-28). As such, the role of the High Priest in the Christian context is uniquely fulfilled by Jesus Christ, not by any other individual or group.
In the Book of Revelation, references to names written on foreheads are clearly symbolic. The passages you refer to (Revelation 3:12, 14:1, 22:4) do not mention the Tetragrammaton. Instead, they speak of the "name of the Father" and the "name of the Lamb" being written on the foreheads of the faithful. This symbolism points to ownership, protection, and identity rather than a literal inscription. It signifies that those who bear these names belong to God and Christ, reflecting their allegiance and sanctification. The imagery of writing a name on the forehead in Revelation, particularly in passages like Revelation 3:12 and 14:1, represents divine ownership, identity, and protection. The text does not necessitate a correlation with the Tetragrammaton or the high priest's headband.
McDonough’s work might argue for the influence of Jewish traditions on the text, this does not conclusively establish that the references to the name in Revelation are direct allusions to the Tetragrammaton. Instead, their research can be understood as an examination of how early Christian writings navigated and reinterpreted Jewish concepts within a new theological framework.
You assert that the symbolism in Revelation must necessarily connect to the high priest and the Tetragrammaton. However, the New Testament reinterprets and re-contextualizes many Old Testament symbols. The role of the high priest, for instance, is reinterpreted in the person of Christ (Hebrews 4:14-5:10), and the concept of divine ownership is expanded to all believers (1 Peter 2:9). The high priest's headband, bearing the divine name, symbolized his unique role, but in Revelation, the "name on the forehead" extends this symbolism to all who belong to Christ. It indicates their identity as God’s people and their eternal belonging to Him, rather than directly invoking the imagery of the High Priest's headband.
It is also worth noting that the New Testament frequently reinterprets Old Testament symbols to fit the new covenant in Christ. The emphasis is often on the spiritual fulfillment of these symbols rather than their literal Old Testament counterparts. While the high priest's headband carried significant meaning under the old covenant, under the new covenant, the "name on the forehead" symbolizes a deeper spiritual reality—believers' transformed identity in Christ, who is now our High Priest.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
The passages in the Book of Revelation, specifically Revelation 3:12, 14:1, and 22:4, do not refer to the Jewish High Priest (Kohen Gadol). According to the New Testament, particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is only one High Priest, Christ Himself. Therefore, the idea that the name written on the forehead refers to the Tetragrammaton, as associated with the high priest, is not biblically supported in these contexts.
The Book of Revelation belongs to the genre of apocalyptic literature, which is rich in symbolism. The name written on the forehead is one of many symbolic elements within the text. The assertion that this name is directly connected to the Tetragrammaton or the "trigram" (???) "Yaho" (???) from the first chapter of Revelation is speculative at best and lacks any scriptural evidence.
In Revelation 3:12, the promise of "a new name" given to the overcomers is symbolic of their transformation and eternal belonging to God. This new name is a reference to the changing names of Philadelphia, highlighting a new identity granted by Christ to the faithful. The writing of God's name, the name of the New Jerusalem, and Christ's own new name on the faithful signifies their complete and eternal inclusion in God's kingdom. Here, "name" represents divine nature; through sanctifying grace (and even more through the light of eternal glory), we become partakers of God's nature (cf. 2 Peter 1:4).
In Revelation 14:1, "the name of the Lamb and the 'name' of His Father written on the foreheads" of the 144,000 are symbolic of their total dedication and belonging to God. This is not a literal reference to the Tetragrammaton but a figurative expression indicating that these individuals are wholly claimed by God. The symbolism of "the Lamb and His Father’s 'name' on the foreheads" reflects their divine ownership and protection, underscoring the spiritual nature of the relationship rather than a physical inscription of a specific name, such as the Tetragrammaton.
Hence the references in Revelation to the name written on the forehead should be understood symbolically, emphasizing divine ownership and identity in Christ, rather than a literal reference to the Tetragrammaton or the practices of the Jewish High Priest.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345

@Duran
The problem isn't with acknowledging that the Father is God—Trinitarians wholeheartedly agree with that. The issue lies in the Watchtower Society's understanding that only the Father is God, and that "God" refers exclusively to the Father. This view is a form of unitarianism that denies the full divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity teaches that God is one in essence but exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are not to be confused with one another but are co-equal and co-eternal, sharing the same divine nature. The Watchtower's perspective that conflates "God" solely with the Father ignores the Trinitarian distinction of persons. It also leads to misunderstandings, such as thinking that when Christians say "Jesus is YHWH," they mean "Jesus is the Father," which is not the case in orthodox Christian theology.
In Trinitarian doctrine, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have unique roles within the Godhead, particularly in the economy of salvation. The Father sends the Son, and the Son becomes incarnate, dies, and is resurrected for the salvation of humanity. The Son's role as "sent by the Father" does not imply inferiority but a relational distinction within the Godhead. This is why Scripture can speak of Jesus as being "sent" by the Father or as having God as His God without denying His own divinity.
The Watchtower Society's approach often relies on the conflation of terms, where "God" is exclusively associated with the Father, and "Jesus" is merely seen as a created being, thus misunderstanding the Trinity. In contrast, the term "Jehovah" in Christian theology refers to the divine name of God that encompasses all three persons of the Godhead, not just the person of the Father.
When the Watchtower speaks of "Jehovah and Jesus," it implicitly enforces its Arian theology, which views Jesus as a separate and lesser being (instead of just a distinct person, as the Bible teaches) from God the Father. This distinction is a linguistic and theological imposition that diverges from the traditional Christian understanding. Trinitarians would argue that "Jehovah" is not the exclusive name of the person of the Father but of God in His entirety, including the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Contrary to the portrayal by the Watchtower Society, the doctrine of the Trinity indeed includes the distinction of persons. It has nothing to do with the claim that "He was His own Son, that He sent Himself, and approved Himself." As a human, Jesus could pray to God; that is, His human soul could glorify the divinity that is in close connection with Him yet perfectly distinct from Him in essence. There is no contradiction in this; in fact, it is a natural consequence of the doctrine of the two natures.
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, one person (the Father) sent another (the Son), where their relationship was always real and substantial (not merely apparent), and at the same time, this occurred within the Godhead (not between the Creator and one of His creatures). It's interesting to note the reasoning of the WTS: the reader of their publications is expected to think of the Father whenever the word "God" is mentioned, but when the Bible refers to the Son as God (see John 1:1, 18; 20:28, etc.), they are immediately to think of the "relative" meaning of the word "god" as merely a "title" (?). However, the original Greek text and the Greek manuscripts prior to the 7th-8th century did not differentiate between uppercase "G" and lowercase "g" since they used only uppercase letters.
In the New Testament, particularly in the Gospel of John, Jesus is referred to as "God" (John 1:1, 20:28) and is worshipped as God by His disciples (Matthew 28:9, John 20:28). These instances show that the early Christians recognized Jesus as sharing in the divine nature of Jehovah, even while maintaining the distinction between Jesus and the Father. The concept of "Logos" in John 1:1 underscores this divine identity, presenting Jesus as the pre-existent Word who was with God and was God.
Revelation 14:1 - The "name of the Father" and "the name of the Lamb" are written on the foreheads of the 144,000. This verse highlights the close relationship and unity between the Father and the Son. However, it does not suggest that Jesus is a created being or distinct in essence from God. Instead, it reflects the shared divine authority and identity between the Father and the Son.
By the way, the phrase "name of the Father" does not need to be associated with the Tetragrammaton, nor does the phrase "the name of the Lamb" need to be linked to the name "Jesus." Nowhere in the New Testament do we read that the apostles proclaimed the importance of the cultic veneration of the name Yahweh, or even presented it as a condition for salvation in the Hellenistic world. As for the phrase "hallowed be Thy name," this is a simple Hebraism. The term "name" (onoma, shem) does not refer to a mere sequence of sounds, but rather to the "person," and in this case, it is a circumlocution for the Divine. "Blessed be the name of God" simply means "Blessed be God." The meaning of "hallowed be Thy name" is: 'may Your infinite majesty and perfection be recognized everywhere' (cf. Isa 29:23; 48:11; Ezek 36:23; 39:7; cf. Luke 1:49).
Furthermore, the word "hallow" is not in the optative mood but the imperative, and it is not man who is being asked to do something, but God. Literally translated: "let the name be made holy," i.e., by God, meaning that God should sanctify it among people so that His royal rule may finally come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:9-10). In the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9, Luke 11:2), this petition, "Hallowed be Thy name," means: may the strong and almighty, the good and loving heavenly Father personally and in a way perceptible to human understanding, take into His hands the restoration of this unfathomably chaotic, headless, and unrestrained world.
Jesus did not begin His prayer with "Jehovah," so the phrase "Thy name" here does not encourage some Watchtower-style emphasizated use of "Jehovah," as the word "name" here is to be understood in the sense of "person," or "being", as attested by the New Testament.
In the New Testament, the term "name" (onoma) signifies the person; the word "person" means someone's individual character, identity, and being. The Hebrew and Greek languages, lacking a word equivalent to the term "person," express the concept signified by the word "person" using the word "name." So when, for example, Psalm 75:1 says, "We give thanks to you, O God; Your name is near," it means: we thank You that You are personally close to us. Or in Psalm 116:4, "I called on the name of the Lord" means: I turned to the Lord, bringing my case directly before His person, appealing to Him. Or in Psalm 118:26, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" (Matt 21:9, Mark 11:9, Luke 19:38, John 12:13, Matt 23:39, Luke 13:35), it means: blessed is he who comes with a commission from the Lord, as a representative of His person. In Acts 1:15, it literally says: "The company of names was about 120"; meaning: "There was a company of about 120 persons." (So here again, the name means person or human.) In Acts 3:16, the phrase "the name of Jesus has made this man strong" means: Jesus personally healed him. In Matthew 28:19, the phrase "eis to onoma" can be translated as "in the name of," "on the name of," or "into the name of", and each essentially means this: through baptism, the child is brought into direct relationship with the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Acts 4:11-12 states: "…this Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"; this means: outside of Christ Jesus, there is no other person through whom humanity can be saved. In the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9, Luke 11:2), this petition, "Hallowed be Thy name," means: may the strong and almighty, the good and loving heavenly Father personally and in a way perceptible to human understanding, take into His hands the restoration of this unfathomably chaotic, headless, and unrestrained world. - This is how the word "name," which appears 228 times in the New Testament, should be understood.
John 20:17 - When Jesus speaks of "my God and your God," He is addressing the Father from His position as the incarnate Son, fully divine yet fully human. This distinction does not deny His divinity but rather emphasizes His role in the incarnation, where He humbled Himself to take on human nature. The Son’s humanity involves a relationship with the Father in a way that reflects His mission of redemption.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345

@vienne
"It's not "only begotten god" but "only begotten son." "
In the critical text John 1:18 it's "monogenes theos", also in the Westcott-Hort, the base text on the NWT. The term "only begotten" (Greek: monogenes) is indeed applied to Jesus, and it can mean "unique" or "one of a kind." In John 1:18, the earliest manuscripts refer to Jesus as the "only begotten God" (monogenes theos), while others refer to Him as the "only begotten Son" (monogenes huios). The former emphasizes Jesus' unique divinity, while the latter underscores His unique sonship. Both expressions affirm that Jesus shares a unique relationship with the Father, distinct from all other beings, whether human or angelic.
"To be begotten implies and origin..."
Who said He is unbegotten? That's why you should read about what does Trinitarian theology actually teach:
"And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made..." (Nicene Creed)
"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding." (Athanasian Creed)
"For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.” Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle..." (Council of Florence)
You reference Micah 5:2, interpreting "begotten" as implying a beginning or origin. However, a closer examination of Micah 5:2 reveals that the Messiah's origins are described as "from of old, from ancient times." The Hebrew word used here, olam, often refers to eternity or a time beyond human comprehension. This indicates that the Messiah's existence stretches back into eternity, not simply to a distant point in time. This suggests that the Messiah is eternal, aligning with the Christian understanding of Jesus as eternally existent with God the Father.
The term "begotten" does not necessarily imply that the Son had a beginning (in time). In the context of Trinitarian theology, "begotten" is understood as a relational term that describes the unique and eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. It indicates that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, not a created being. This is why the Nicene Creed, formulated in AD 325, explicitly states that Jesus is "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father." This creed was developed precisely to counter the Arian heresy, which argued that the Son was a created being.
@Duran
"A trinitarian's 'folly' is in their claiming that Jehovah and Jesus are the same person/being, despite the many Scriptures that show that they are two separate persons/beings."
That's why you should first read up on what you want to attack, because it's a simple straw man. But of course you're not willing to do that, because "that's just philosophy" and blah blah blah...
"And the Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost."
"...the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit...." (Council of Florence)
Your argument seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is not modalism (the belief that God merely manifests in different forms) but the belief in one God in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three persons share one divine essence but are distinct in their relationships and roles within the Godhead. The New Testament reveals this complex relationship through passages that affirm both the unity of God (monotheism) and the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
You also work with 'a priori' preconceptions: you logically start from the assumption that God/YHWH only denotes the person of the Father, so if the singular speaks in the first person, as a person separate from him, to Jesus, this already proves that Jesus cannot be God. However, such usage is nothing more than WTS jargon.
When the WTS thinks of God, Jehovah, of course, it automatically thinks of the Father. It is true that the name of the God of Israel is Yahweh or Jehovah. It is also true that Jesus called the Father God and God his Father. But of this, the formula Jehovah / God = the Father is only logical for the Watchtower Society. The divine name Yahweh or Jehovah does not denote only one person, but the Godhead itself (theotes, Col 2:9), in whom three persons can be identified. The name of the second person is "the Son" (ho húios), his human name is "Jesus", and his mission is "Christ." The third person does have a name, since there is only one "Holy Spirit" in the Bible, so it is often simply "the Spirit" (to pneuma). Christians worship the same God with the same name (Jehovah / Yahweh) as Jehovah's Witnesses, they only claim that Jehovah God is more than Father: Son and Holy Spirit as well.
Talking about "Jesus and Jehovah" is a Watchtowerite, JW theological jargon, and of course can only be interpreted in this context.
In order to emphasize antitrinitarian teachings, the divine name YHWH is limited to God the Father only. This is why, for example, if a Christian says "Jesus is Jehovah", then the JW brain understands that "Jesus is the Father", which is obviously ridiculous not only for JWs, but for theologically correct Christianity. With the use of words such as "Jehovah and Jesus" also force their Arian theology, so that the antitrinitarian dogma is embedded in the JW even at the linguistic level. Cf. Newspeak.
But of course, if we expand the wording, it becomes understandable. We do not say, for example, that Jesus is "equal to Jehovah", but that the divine name YHWH is not the name of just one person, namely the Father, but rather the deity itself, in which three persons can be identified.
@slimboyfat
The JW interpretation of Micah 5:2 suggests that the "origins" of the Messiah from "ancient times" imply a beginning or creation. However, this is a misunderstanding of the Hebrew text and the broader theological context. The verse speaks of the Messiah’s "goings forth" being from "of old, from everlasting" (Hebrew: miyemey olam). The phrase "from of old, from everlasting" does not imply that the Messiah had a beginning in time. Instead, it emphasizes the Messiah’s eternal nature, rooted in the divine. The term "goings forth" (motsa'otav) here is better understood as "origins" in the sense of eternal existence rather than a temporal beginning. The text highlights the eternal existence of the Messiah, not His creation. This understanding aligns with other scriptural affirmations of Christ's eternal nature. For instance, John 1:1-3 clearly states that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word (Logos), identified as Christ, was not created; rather, He existed eternally with God and was the agent through whom all things were made.
Jehovah’s Witnesses often interpret the "begotten" passages to mean that Christ had a beginning in time, thus making Him a created being. However, this interpretation overlooks the theological nuance of "begotten" as used in Scripture. The concept that Jesus Christ could be a created being contradicts the New Testament’s consistent testimony of His divine, eternal nature. Christ is described as preexistent before all time (John 1:1-3) and as eternally begotten of the Father (Hebrews 1:5). To imply that Jesus had a beginning by an ex nihilo creative act in time introduces a theological inconsistency.
The phrase "begotten, not made" from the Nicene Creed captures a crucial theological distinction regarding Christ's nature. To "beget" means to generate something of the same essence. When we say Christ is "begotten," it means He is of the same divine essence as the Father, not a created being. "Begotten" signifies a unique relationship within the Godhead, where the Son is generated by the Father eternally, without implying a beginning in time.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345

@vienne
The passage in Philippians 2:6-11 indeed describes Jesus' pre-incarnate state, his incarnation, and subsequent exaltation. However, the interpretation that Jesus was merely in "the form of God" as a spirit, rather than being fully divine, misses the crucial context of Paul's argument. When Paul writes that Jesus existed "in the form of God" (μορφῇ θεοῦ), he is not merely stating that Jesus had "a similar" nature to God, like the angels do. Instead, the phrase indicates that Jesus possessed the very nature and essence of God, sharing fully in the divine identity. The use of "form" (μορφῇ) here does not imply a superficial or incomplete likeness but rather the true and complete nature of God. This understanding is consistent with the broader New Testament witness to Jesus' divinity.
If the statement that Christ existed "in the form of God" only meant that he was an angel or existed as a spirit, so why is it that nowhere in the Holy Scriptures is the statement about angels that they exist "in the form of God"? This is simply an arbitrary statement, proof by assertion. Once Christians knew that Christ was incarnate, then it stands to reason that he did not exist in bodily form before that, so this interpretation would be a mere tautology.
The Bible does not describe angels or other spiritual beings as existing "in the form of God" at all. This phrase is unique and significant because it implies a level of divinity and equality with God that is not attributed to any other being. The use of "form of God" in Philippians 2:6 indicates that Jesus shared in the divine nature, which is why the passage goes on to discuss how He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped or exploited. This clearly distinguishes Jesus from any created being, including angels, and emphasizes His unique divine status.
Thus the term "morphe" in the context of Philippians 2:6 does not merely denote an external appearance or a generic spiritual nature. Instead, "morphe" refers to the essential attributes and nature of something. In saying that Christ existed in the "form of God," Paul is affirming that Christ possesses the very nature and essence of God. This is not merely about being a spirit but about sharing in the full divine nature.
Your argument suggests that Paul is contrasting Jesus with Roman emperors who "grasped" at divinity that did not belong to them. However, the assertion that this juxtaposition was Paul's goal, or that he had this in mind, is not supported by anything from the context, it is an arbitrary statement. While this might be an interesting historical parallel, it does not negate the point Paul is making about Christ's divine nature. The contrast is not between Jesus and mere humans but between Jesus' divine prerogatives and His willingness to empty Himself for humanity's sake. Jesus did not need to grasp at divinity because He already possessed it; instead, He chose to humble Himself.
You suggest that the context of Philippians 2:6 points to a non-Trinitarian view, but this interpretation fails to take into account the doctrine of the Trinity as understood by the early Church. The Trinity is not modalism (which suggests that God simply takes on different modes or forms) but rather the belief in one God in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The passage in Philippians highlights the humility of Christ in not clinging to his equality with God but rather emptying himself to take on human nature. This act of humility does not diminish his divinity but rather emphasizes the mystery of the incarnation—God becoming man while remaining fully God.
Your argument that Jesus cannot be God because "no one has seen God" (John 1:18) overlooks the doctrine of the incarnation. The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), and through the incarnation, God made Himself known in the person of Jesus Christ. The distinction John makes in John 1:18 is between seeing God in His full, unmediated glory (which no one can do) and seeing God as He has revealed Himself in Christ. Jesus is not merely a reflection or a lesser being but the full and perfect revelation of God to humanity.
It is indeed true that "no one has ever seen God," which refers to the fact that no one has fully seen or comprehended the Father in His fullness and glory. However, the verse continues by saying, "the only(-begotted, or unique) God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." This is a clear reference to Jesus, the Son, who has made the Father known to humanity. The distinction between seeing God and seeing Jesus does not diminish the divinity of Christ but rather underscores the unique role of Jesus in revealing the Father to the world. While Jesus, in His incarnation, was seen by people, this does not contradict the statement that no one has seen the Father in His full divine essence. Jesus is the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), making the Father known in a way that is accessible to humanity.
The example of Isaiah's vision in Isaiah 6 is often brought up to discuss whether people have seen God. Isaiah describes seeing the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted. However, the New Testament, particularly in John 12:41, clarifies that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, further affirming the pre-incarnate existence of the Son and His divinity. This supports the understanding that while no one has seen the Father directly, people have encountered the Son, who reveals the Father.
The use of "form" (μορφή) and "image" (εἰκών) in the New Testament does not imply inferiority or a mere resemblance but rather speaks to the real and true representation of God's nature in Christ. For instance, Hebrews 1:3 states that Jesus is the "exact imprint" (χαρακτὴρ) of God's nature. This language underscores the belief that Jesus shares in the same divine essence as the Father. The Son's taking on the "form of a servant" (μορφὴν δούλου) does not negate his divinity but highlights the profound humility of the incarnation, where the eternal Son of God took on human flesh for the sake of humanity.
Your interpretation that Christ "emptied" Himself of divine glory to take on human form is partially correct but requires clarification. The "emptying" (kenosis) does not imply that Christ ceased to be God or shed His divine nature. Instead, it means that He chose not to exercise His divine rights fully and took on human nature, experiencing the limitations and suffering of humanity while remaining fully divine.
The suggestion that Trinitarians rely on "extended verbiage" to make their case misses the point that Trinitarian theology is deeply rooted in the biblical text and the historical understanding of the early Church. The doctrine of the Trinity developed as a way to faithfully interpret the full witness of Scripture, which consistently portrays Jesus as fully God and fully man. This is not a later "imposition" but a necessary conclusion drawn from the biblical data.
@Duran
The Bible, while inspired, is a complex collection of texts written over centuries, in different languages, and within various cultural contexts. To understand its message fully, we must engage in interpretation. This doesn’t mean altering the text, but rather seeking to understand what the original authors intended and how it applies today.
Quoting verses in isolation without considering their context can lead to misunderstandings. For example, when discussing doctrines like the Trinity, we must consider the full scope of biblical revelation, including the Old and New Testaments, to see how God has progressively revealed His nature.
Simply using verses without context to support a preconceived idea is called Proof-texting, and it can lead to incorrect conclusions. It's important to consider the genre, audience, and purpose of each book of the Bible when interpreting a verse.
Trinitarians do not ignore or twist Scripture. Instead, they seek to interpret the Bible faithfully, considering the whole counsel of Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments. The doctrine of the Trinity is not based on cherry-picking verses but on a holistic understanding of the biblical narrative, where God is revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each Person of the Trinity is seen interacting in the work of creation, redemption, and sanctification.
Reason and faith are not opposed to each other. The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed a complex theological concept, but it is rooted in the biblical texts. Reason helps believers to articulate and understand the mystery of God's nature as revealed in Scripture. It’s important to recognize that the limitations of human reason don’t invalidate the truth of Scripture, which often reveals things beyond human comprehension.
The accusation that Trinitarians are "idiots in their reasoning" misunderstands how deeply Trinitarians engage with the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity in its crystallized form was developed over centuries of careful study, debate, and reflection on the entire biblical text, not just isolated verses. Theologians and scholars have long wrestled with how best to articulate the nature of God as revealed in the Bible. The Trinity is the conclusion that they reached, and it reflects a profound respect for all the Scriptures.
Proverbs 26:4 says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him." This verse advises against stooping to the level of unwise arguments, but it doesn't mean we should avoid discussing important issues or challenging misconceptions. The goal should always be to engage with respect, clarity, and a desire for mutual understanding.
Dismissing Trinitarians as "lacking reason" overlooks the genuine and thoughtful engagement that many believers have with the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity is a result of deep reflection on the Bible’s revelation of God, and it has been affirmed by countless believers over the centuries as a faithful expression of biblical truth. Rather than viewing Trinitarians as "idiots," it might be more productive to engage in a respectful dialogue about why they believe what they do and to explore the Scriptures together with an open mind and heart.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345

@Duran
Check this up: Arian Objections To The Trinity Refuted
In 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, the Apostle Paul speaks of the ultimate victory and the handing over of Christ's kingdom, which signifies the end of the mediatorial kingdom, not the cessation of Christ's eternal rule. The context makes it clear that Christ's rule does not end but transforms. Christ subjects Himself to the Father so that God may be all in all. This does not imply the end of Christ's rule but rather the establishment of a new order in the relationship between the Father and the Son.
The context here speaks of the end of the world after the universal resurrection, which is separated from God by sin; for the final act of Christ's redemption, everything is completed by the resurrection, so that Christ can return humanity to God, over which the power of sin, death, the flesh, the world, and the devil ceases. Paul says: to God and the Father; for humanity is then generally subjected to God, the three divine persons, but especially to the Father, as Christ's holy humanity is united with the Son of God, and thus in this humanity united with the Son, the whole redeemed human race enters into a special, filial relationship with the Father.
However, Paul wants to say, since all power is with the Son, we shouldn't believe that the Father has given up everything, or even subjected himself to the Son, as often happens with earthly fathers when they transfer power and possession to their sons. The apostle may have found it necessary to note this for the pagans converted to Christianity, who might think of the pagan myths in which Jupiter deprived his father, Saturn, of his kingdom and authority.
And after all enemies are defeated, and all humans, as well as angels, are subjected to the Son, then he himself will also be subjected to God, so that God may be the sole ruler, and everything depends directly on him. – Since Christ, with the reborn, redeemed humans, forms the new humanity, the new generation, and he, as the head, is inseparable from the body: it is natural that he will also be subjected to God, like every member of this new generation; however, this subjection can only actually refer to his human nature. This expression "that God may be all in all" denotes God's perfect dominion over the creatures.
After the resurrection comes the Last Judgment and the end of the world. According to His holy humanity, the Lord Jesus is the lord and king of the entire created world, primarily of humanity, but also the mediator of the redeemed humanity before the heavenly Father. After the Last Judgment, Christ's mediating role ceases, and eternal happiness will directly be the kingdom of God.
So, after the Last Judgment, the reign of Jesus Christ transitions into God's direct, eternal rule. The Son submits himself to the Father in terms of his human nature.
Scripture also teaches that, in a certain sense, the Father also "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15.23). Jesus submitted himself (hypotassó) to the Father (1 Cor 15:28), "that God may be all in all", but this in no way implies (ontological) inferiority, as he also subjected himself (hypotassó) to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51), and Col 3:11 claims that "Christ is all, and in all".
This passage (as Jn 17:3; 20:17; 1 Cor 11:3 and similar New Testament statements) can only be correctly understood from the perspective of the order of salvation ("status oeconomiae") and the relationship within the Trinity. God the Father has placed His Son above all creation, "putting everything under his feet" (v. 27). However, this only applies to the time until the final fulfillment. In the end, the Son hands everything over to the Father, who has subjected everything to him, and he himself forever exercises his filial position ("subordination"), which he occupied relative to the Father even before the foundation of the world. Otherwise, he would not be the Son - even if he is begotten eternally, without beginning by the Father - and thus divine in essence. (That is, Jesus differs only in being the Son - this is expressed as "begotten by the Father from eternity, without beginning" - otherwise, he possesses the same divine essence, power, "from eternity, without beginning").
Wouldn't he subject himself if he was also begotten of the Father, so in terms of origin he comes after the Father? The relationship between the Father and the Son is based on love, so this act of submission does not diminish Christ's true divinity, as if he were renouncing some of his dignity.
Hence 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 should therefore be understood in the context of the order of salvation and the relations within the Trinity. Here, the Apostle Paul discusses how Christ, during His reign, defeats all His enemies and ultimately subjects Himself to the Father so that God may be all in all. This does not mark the end of Christ's rule but the fulfillment of the order of salvation.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks of Christ handing over the kingdom to the Father after the final victory. This signifies the end of the mediatorial kingdom, not the cessation of Christ's eternal rule. The context clarifies that Christ's reign continues but in a different form. The text discusses that after the universal resurrection, the world, which had been separated from God by sin, will come to an end; for Christ's redemptive work will be completed through the resurrection, allowing Him to present humanity back to God, free from all powers of sin, death, the flesh, the world, and the devil.
Christ, together with the reborn, redeemed people, constitutes the new humanity, the new generation, and as the head, He cannot be separated from the body. After the final judgment, Christ's mediatorial role will cease, and the eternal bliss will be directly God's kingdom. Thus, after the final judgment, the reign of Jesus Christ will transition into God's direct, eternal rule. The Son will subject Himself to the Father according to His human nature.
Paul says "to God and the Father" because, thereafter, humanity will be subjected to God, to the three divine persons, but particularly to the Father, as Christ's holy humanity is united with the Son of God. In this holy humanity united with the Son, the entire redeemed human race enters into a special, filial relationship with the Father. Nevertheless, Paul wants to make it clear that since all power is with the Son, one should not believe that the Father has relinquished everything or subjected Himself to the Son, as often happens with earthly fathers when they hand over power and possessions to their sons. The apostle deemed it necessary to make this remark for the sake of the Christians converted from paganism, who might have thought of pagan mythology, where Jupiter deprived his father Saturn of his kingdom and authority.
Numerous biblical verses emphasize Christ's eternal reign, such as Luke 1:33: "And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom, there will be no end." This clearly shows that Christ's rule is eternal, not "merely until the end of the ages." In Hebrews 1:8, we also read: "But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'"
Christ's rule does not end at the end of the ages. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 speaks of the conclusion of Christ's mediatorial role, and eternal bliss will directly be God's kingdom. However, Christ's eternal rule remains, and He will reign with the Father in eternity. Christ's submission to the Father pertains to His human nature and does not imply the loss of His divine dignity. This submission is a voluntary act of love, which does not diminish His divine essence and authority.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345
@vienne
Your argument criticizes my interpretation of Philippians 2:6, particularly regarding the word "harpagmos," and claims that it means "to steal" or "to attain something that did not belong to him." However, this interpretation overlooks the broader context and the nuances of the Greek language used in the passage. Let's delve into why this criticism doesn't hold up and how the term "harpagmos" should be understood.
The term "harpagmos" is indeed rare in Greek literature and appears only once in the New Testament, in Philippians 2:6. The word itself can have an active sense (raptus, the act of seizing or robbery) or a passive sense (res rapta, something already seized or a prize). However, the context of Philippians 2:6-8 suggests that "harpagmos" should be understood in the passive sense, as something to be grasped or clung to. This interpretation aligns with the broader message of the passage, which emphasizes Christ's humility and willingness to relinquish His divine privileges.
The phrase "oukh harpagmon hēgēsato" is better understood as "He did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped", or "He did not insist on (stick to) the equality with God at all costs". This translation captures the passive sense of "harpagmos" (res rapta), meaning that Christ did not view His equality with God as something to be held onto tightly or clung to. This also results in the 'res retinenda' (“a thing to be retained”) interpretation, because how does the robber feel about the stolen thing? He wants to keep it at all costs, as desirable prey, clings to it, like Gullum in LOTR to the One Ring. The passage negates this rapacious attitude for Christ regarding the "equality with God", so instead of this, He was willing to empty Himself, taking on the form of a servant.
This interpretation is crucial because it contrasts with the idea that Christ was trying to "seize" or "steal" equality with God. The text explicitly states that Christ already existed "in the form of God" (en morphē Theou), indicating that He did not need to attain equality with God—it was already His. The focus is on Christ's voluntary renunciation of His divine privileges, not on any attempt to acquire something that wasn't His.
Historically, various groups, including the Arians, have attempted to reinterpret this passage to diminish Christ's divinity, there are three typical strategies:
1. Wulfila's Gothic Translation: Wulfila, an Arian bishop, translated "equal" (isa) as "similar" (galeiko) in his Gothic version of the Bible, which downplays the equality of the Son with the Father.
2. JW Interpretation: They argue that "harpagmos" should be understood as "something to be seized" (res rapienda) implying that Christ did not attempt to "usurp" equality with God. However, this interpretation conflicts with the passive sense suggested by the context.
3. Relativizing "God": Some interpretations, like the ones slimboyfat propagates here, attempt to diminish the significance of the term "God" (Theos) here, when applied to Christ, suggesting that it refers to a lesser, "god-like" status, and asserting being "in the form of God" only means existing as a spirit, as an angel. This, however, contradicts the consistent use of the term in the New Testament to denote full divinity.
Philippians 2:6-8 is a profound passage that underscores Christ's humility. It begins by stating that Christ existed "in the form of God," which means He shared in the divine nature and glory. Despite this, He "did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped" but "emptied Himself" by taking on human nature. This self-emptying is not a denial of His divinity but an expression of His willingness to humble Himself for the sake of humanity.
The passage culminates in Christ's exaltation by God the Father, showing that His humility and obedience led to His glorification. This sequence—humility, obedience, and exaltation—demonstrates the Christian virtue of humility and the ultimate victory of Christ as both God and man.
The interpretation that "harpagmos" in Philippians 2:6 refers to an attempt by Christ to steal or usurp something that was not His is not supported by the context of the passage. Instead, the word is better understood as referring to something that Christ did not cling to or grasp tightly—His equality with God. The passage highlights Christ's humility and His willingness to relinquish His divine privileges to become human and fulfill His redemptive mission. This understanding is consistent with the broader theological message of the New Testament and the historical interpretations upheld by the Christian Church.
* * *
1 Timothy 2:5 emphasizes Jesus' unique role as the mediator, which is perfectly aligned with His dual nature as fully God and fully man. It does not suggest He is merely a created being standing outside of God’s nature. This passage could be rather problematic for theJW theology, because they assert that Christ ceased to be a man after his death (and is now only an archangel), and according to the text, the man Christ is the mediator, so now there is no mediator for mankind (sorry, actually just for the 144k "class").
The claim that a mediator must be entirely separate from the parties involved in a covenant misunderstands the unique role of Jesus as described in the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul states, "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." This verse does not imply that Jesus is separate from God in essence or being, but rather emphasizes His unique position as both fully God and fully man, perfectly suited to mediate between humanity and God.
As the God-man, Jesus Christ is uniquely qualified to be the mediator. His dual nature means that He can represent both parties: as fully divine, He can represent God to humanity; as fully human, He can represent humanity to God. This does not diminish His divinity but rather affirms His unique role in the economy of salvation.
The assertion that the New Covenant would not require a mediator if it were unilateral is correct in the sense that God initiates and guarantees the covenant. However, the role of Jesus as mediator does not imply that He is a third party. Instead, it demonstrates the way God chose to enact the covenant—through the person of Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. This mediatorship is not a sign of inferiority but an essential function within the framework of God’s redemptive plan.
The role of a mediator in the New Testament is distinct from that in human legal or contractual terms. In the Old Testament, mediators like Moses served as intermediaries between God and Israel, but they were not divine themselves. Jesus, however, as the mediator of the New Covenant, is not merely an intermediary but the incarnate God who bridges the gap between humanity and the divine. His priesthood, as explained in Hebrews, is a fulfillment of the Old Covenant priesthood but is superior because He is both the high priest and the sacrifice (Hebrews 7:26-28).
The book of Hebrews elaborates on Jesus’ high priesthood, showing that He fulfills the role of mediator in a way that no mere human could. Hebrews 9:15 states, "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance." This mediatorship is effective because Jesus is God incarnate, who offers Himself as the perfect sacrifice.
* * *
Your observation that “in some sense Christ needed to be perfected” based on Hebrews 5:9, and that this implies the possibility of failure, is rooted in a misunderstanding of what “perfected” means in this context. The Greek word translated as “made perfect” in Hebrews 5:9 is teleioō, which means “to complete” or “to bring to full maturity.” It does not suggest that Jesus was morally or ontologically imperfect, either in His divine or human nature. Instead, it refers to the completion of His mission as the Messiah. Jesus’ perfection in this context is about reaching the goal set for His incarnate mission: to become the source of eternal salvation for those who obey Him. This is not about overcoming moral flaws but about fulfilling the work He came to do.
In Christian theology, Jesus is recognized as having two distinct natures—divine and human—united in one person. His divine nature, being fully God, is indeed perfect and unchangeable, as Hebrews 13:8 attests: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” However, in His human nature, He experienced growth and development as any human would. Luke 2:52 tells us that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” This growth was part of His experience as a true human being.
Hebrews 5:8-9 emphasizes that Jesus “learned obedience through what He suffered” and was “made perfect” as a result. This does not imply that He was ever disobedient or imperfect but that He fully experienced and accomplished what it meant to be obedient even unto death (Philippians 2:8). The perfection mentioned here refers to the completion of His qualifications as the perfect High Priest who could fully empathize with human weakness and offer Himself as the ultimate sacrifice for sin.
The idea that being “perfected” implies the possibility of failure misunderstands the nature of Christ’s mission. While Jesus experienced real human struggles and suffering, His divine nature ensured that His mission would not fail. The perfection of Christ was not a process of overcoming potential moral failure but of fully accomplishing the purpose for which He was sent—redeeming humanity through His death and resurrection. The possibility of failure is a characteristic of finite, created beings, not of the divine. In Jesus’ case, the process of being “perfected” was not about moral or ethical perfection, which He already possessed, but about completing His role as Savior. It was a journey through which He fulfilled all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) and became the “author of eternal salvation” (Hebrews 5:9).
Finally, it’s crucial to understand that Jesus, as God incarnate, could not fail in His mission. His divine nature ensured the success of His redemptive work. The incarnation was God’s plan for humanity’s salvation, and as such, it carried the certainty of divine fulfillment. The idea of Jesus being “perfected” is thus about the unfolding of God’s perfect plan within human history, not about correcting any imperfection or overcoming a possibility of failure.
In summary, Hebrews 5:9’s statement that Jesus was “made perfect” must be understood within the broader context of His mission and the hypostatic union of His divine and human natures. The perfection refers to the completion of His role as the Messiah and High Priest, not to any moral or ontological deficiency. God’s plan in Christ was never at risk of failure, and Christ’s “perfection” was the realization of that divine plan within human history.