aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 722 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  The accusation that Trinitarian scholars approach the text with a prior commitment to the doctrine of the Trinity can be turned back on those who oppose this view. Scholars who reject the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2 often do so from their own prior commitments, whether theological, philosophical, or denominational. For instance, scholars aligned with Jehovah's Witnesses or other non-Trinitarian groups also bring their theological biases to the text, interpreting it in ways that conform to their pre-existing beliefs. Every interpreter, whether Trinitarian or not, brings some level of prior belief to their reading of the text. The critical issue is not whether a scholar has a prior belief but whether their interpretation is consistent with the historical and textual evidence.

  It’s often argued that reading Philippians 2 in a Trinitarian way "imposes" fourth-century doctrine onto a first-century text. However, this overlooks the fact that the seeds of Trinitarian doctrine are found within the New Testament itself, even if not fully developed until later. The early Church’s reflection on texts like Philippians 2:5-11 led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity because the text itself speaks to the divine nature of Christ.

  The language of Philippians 2, particularly phrases like "existing in the form of God" and "equality with God," strongly suggests that Paul viewed Christ as possessing a divine status that is more than just that of a high-ranking angel. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was an attempt to faithfully express what was already present in the New Testament in light of the broader canon.

  For example, I have no idea who this Paul Holloway is, and I have no idea where he got the idea that "According to Phil 2:6-11 Christ was a mighty angel" when there is no """"mighty angel""" in the text all.
  

  His interpretation, which suggests that Paul viewed Christ as a pre-existent angelic being who was exalted to an even higher status after the resurrection, is certainly one perspective, but it is not without its problems. For example, interpreting "form of God" (μορφῇ θεοῦ) as merely angelic diminishes the weight of Paul’s language and the broader context in which Paul portrays Christ’s role in creation (e.g., Colossians 1:16) and His divine authority (e.g., Philippians 2:10-11, where every knee bows to Christ).

  Moreover, the New Testament consistently distinguishes Christ from angels. Hebrews 1:3-4, for example, explicitly states that Christ is superior to the angels, being the "exact representation of God's being". This makes it difficult to reconcile Holloway’s interpretation with the broader New Testament witness.

  Trinitarian scholars are not merely retrofitting later doctrine onto earlier texts. Rather, they argue that the New Testament itself contains the raw material for the doctrine of the Trinity. Passages like John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-20, and Philippians 2:5-11 are understood within the context of Jewish monotheism and the unique claims the early Christians made about Jesus. Trinitarian readings of Philippians 2 consider how the early Christians, many of whom were Jewish monotheists, came to the conviction that Jesus was worthy of worship and identified Him with Yahweh. This worship of Jesus as divine can be seen as a key reason why the early Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, eventually articulated the doctrine of the Trinity.

  While it’s true that a broad range of scholars, including those from non-Trinitarian backgrounds, have studied Philippians 2, there remains a strong consensus among many scholars that the text points to a high Christology. Even scholars who do not hold to traditional Trinitarian orthodoxy often recognize that Philippians 2 presents Christ as more than a mere creature. The passage’s language of "equality with God" and the universal worship of Jesus strongly suggests a divine status. The diversity of scholarly opinion does not negate the validity of the Trinitarian interpretation. In fact, the persistence of Trinitarian readings across centuries, despite the emergence of various non-Trinitarian movements, underscores the strength of the evidence supporting this view.

  The claim that Trinitarian interpretations of Philippians 2 are merely the result of theological bias ignores the fact that all interpretations are shaped by prior commitments. The key issue is whether the interpretation is faithful to the text and consistent with the broader scriptural witness. The Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2, far from being anachronistic, is grounded in the text’s language and its place within the early Christian understanding of Jesus’ identity. This interpretation aligns with the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as fully divine, worthy of worship, and sharing in the essence of God, rather than as a mere angelic or created being.

  Fredriksen claims without any basis that the Son is just a "lesser divine being", based on Philippians 2:6. If being "in the form of God" only means that he existed as a spirit and nothing more, then why does the Bible never claim that angels exist "in the form of God"? Furthermore, the second half of the verse makes it clear that His existence "in the form of God" also meant "equality with God", just he did not consider this a "harpagmos" (a booty, what he needs/wants to retain at all cost), so he did not cling to this glory arising from equality with God at all costs, etc. Holloway also speaks without any basis: where does Philippians 2 say that Jesus is an "angelic being"? Nowhere.

  Fredriksen’s claim that Jesus was "in the form of 'a god'" rather than "in the form of the (high) God" seems to hinge on an interpretation of the Greek text that isn’t supported by the broader context of Paul's writings or by the grammar of the passage itself. The Greek phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ" (en morphē theou) does not suggest "a lesser" divine being or a polytheistic context. Rather, "theou" is a genitive noun meaning "of God," and "morphē" means "form" or "nature." The phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ" is best understood as Paul affirming that Christ existed in the very nature or essence of God. If Paul had meant to indicate a lesser divine being or an angel, he would have used different language. The term "theos" in this context is understood within the framework of Jewish monotheism, where God is singular and unique, and "God" is a monadic term. There is no hint of Jesus being "a god" among many, but rather, Paul is emphasizing that Jesus shared in the divine essence.

  Fredriksen’s reading appears to ignore the broader theological context of Philippians 2:6-11. The passage isn’t just about "degrees" (?) of divinity but is a profound statement on the incarnation and the humility of Christ. The "form of God" and the subsequent "form of a servant" are central to understanding Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, and ultimate exaltation by God the Father. The notion of "equality with God" (τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ) in verse 6 supports the traditional understanding that Jesus, though fully divine, did not cling to His divine privileges but humbled Himself by becoming human. The interpretation that Jesus merely had "god-status" as a lesser being undermines the clear implications of equality with God that Paul conveys.

  Fredriksen’s and other anti-Trinitarian scholars' claims that Philippians 2 refers to Jesus as a kind of lesser divine being or angelic figure are not supported by the text. Nowhere in Philippians 2 does Paul refer to Jesus as an angel or a lesser god. In fact, the New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as superior to angels (see Hebrews 1:4-5), and as someone who possesses the same divine attributes and authority as God the Father. If Paul had intended to convey that Jesus was simply an exalted angel or "a lesser god", he could have used specific language to indicate this, as he does elsewhere when referring to angels or other spiritual beings. Instead, the language of Philippians 2 points to a unique and unparalleled relationship between Jesus and God the Father, where Jesus is both fully divine and fully human.

  The traditional interpretation of Philippians 2, which sees Jesus as fully divine and equal with God, is supported by a vast array of scholarship, both ancient and modern. While it's true that some modern scholars, like Fredriksen, have sought to reinterpret these passages through different lenses, their interpretations often hinge on speculative readings that depart from the more straightforward understanding of the text. The consensus among early Church Fathers and later theologians is that Philippians 2 articulates the doctrine of Christ’s full divinity, His voluntary humility, and His subsequent exaltation. This is consistent with the broader witness of the New Testament and early Christian theology, which sees Jesus as fully God, worthy of worship, and distinct from any created being, including angels.

  Fredriksen's interpretation that Jesus is distinguished from the "high God" and exists as "a lesser divine being" does not hold up when scrutinized against the Greek text, the broader context of Paul's theology, and the testimony of early Christian thought. The Greek phrase "ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ" is best understood as indicating that Jesus possessed the very nature of God, and the text itself suggests that Jesus' equality with God was something He chose not to cling to for the sake of humanity. Rather than supporting a subordinationist view of Jesus as a lesser god, Philippians 2:6-11 emphasizes the profound mystery of the incarnation: that the one who was equal with God took on human nature, humbled Himself, and was exalted by God the Father to a position of universal authority. This passage, therefore, is not about degrees of divinity but about the unique identity and mission of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man.
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  You should look up this link: https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-philippians2-6.htm

  E.P. Sanders’ interpretation of Philippians 2:5–11 does not fully account for the theological depth present in Paul's writings. Sanders argues that the phrase "equality with God" and the concept of the "form of God" suggest a more limited connection between Christ and God, avoiding direct identification with God.

  The phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Phil 2:6) has been interpreted by scholars as an indication of Christ's pre-existing divine status. The Greek word "ἁρπαγμός" (harpagmos), translated as "grasped," can imply something not exploited or held onto. This suggests that Christ, though possessing equality with God, chose not to cling to His divine status but humbled Himself .

  The phrase "form of God" (μορφῇ θεοῦ) in Philippians 2:6 does not merely imply possessing "some" divine characteristics but rather indicates an intrinsic divine nature. As noted in various theological commentaries, the term "morphe" is understood as an expression of the true nature of a being. Jesus, existing in the form of God, signifies His pre-incarnate divine status, possessing the very attributes and essence of God​. This understanding aligns with the early Christian belief that Jesus was indeed fully divine.

  Sanders suggests that the hymn stops short of directly identifying Christ with God, emphasizing a kind of functional subordination. However, the act of "not grasping equality with God" does not imply that Christ lacked equality; rather, it illustrates His humility. The doctrine of Kenosis (self-emptying) described in Philippians 2:7, where Christ voluntarily relinquished His divine privileges without ceasing to be divine, underscores His equality with God.

  The later Christian interpretation that Jesus is of the same essence (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father aligns with the trajectory set by New Testament texts like Philippians 2. Sanders’ assertion that the New Testament authors did not conceive "the idea of the Trinity" is partly accurate in the sense that the formal doctrine of the Trinity was developed later. However, Sanders’ suggestion that these ideas were not fully developed at the time of Paul is somewhat misleading, as the early church consistently viewed such passages as affirming Christ’s divinity, leading naturally into the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. The New Testament texts, including Philippians 2, lay the groundwork for Trinitarian theology. The passage describes Jesus in terms that would later be understood as affirming His divine nature, distinct yet fully equal with the Father. The use of "form of God" and the subsequent exaltation of Jesus, where "every knee shall bow" and "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," (Phil 2:10-11) alludes to Isaiah 45:23, which refers to Yahweh, thereby attributing to Jesus the worship due to God alone. This points to an early Christian understanding of Jesus’ divine status, which would later be fully articulated in the doctrine of the Trinity.

  The tension between Christ’s divine and human natures is a central theme in Christian theology. While Sanders emphasizes the humanity of Christ in this passage, the traditional interpretation, supported by early church theologians, views the passage as affirming both Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. The "form of God" indicates His divine nature, while the "form of a servant" highlights His incarnation as a human being .

  The interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11 by early Church Fathers and theologians aligns with the understanding that Jesus, being in the "form of God," was indeed actually divine. The notion that Jesus was fully divine yet humbled Himself to become human is a cornerstone of Christian theology, reflected in the Nicene Creed and other early formulations of the faith. These theological reflections did not arise in a vacuum but were grounded in scriptural texts like Philippians 2. The Trinity proof texts document also underscores that this passage cannot be easily reconciled with a view that diminishes Christ's divinity, as it explicitly acknowledges His pre-incarnate divine status and voluntary self-limitation​.
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @vienne

  The assertion is made that if Jesus were co-equal with the Father, He would not be "appointed" but would assume the office in His own right. However, this misunderstands the nature of Christ’s mission and the doctrine of the Incarnation.

  Philippians 2:6-8 explains that Jesus, though being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be exploited but emptied Himself, taking on the form of a servant and being made in human likeness. The fact that Christ was "appointed" as High Priest reflects His role in the economy of salvation as the God-man who mediates between God and humanity. This does not diminish His divinity but highlights His unique role in the divine plan of salvation, where He voluntarily takes on a role for the sake of humanity.

  The comparison with Aaron in Hebrews 5 emphasizes that Christ, in His human nature, was appointed by God just as Aaron was. However, unlike Aaron, Christ's priesthood is of a different order—after the order of Melchizedek, which is superior to the Levitical priesthood. This highlights His unique and eternal priesthood, which transcends the earthly priesthood.

  Your argument that God, in whatever form, cannot be weak or learn from weakness misunderstands the nature of the Incarnation.

  Jesus, in His humanity, experienced the full range of human emotions and sufferings, including weakness. This does not imply a deficiency in His divine nature but rather demonstrates the mystery of the Incarnation, where the divine and human natures coexist in the person of Christ. His learning obedience "through what He suffered" (Hebrews 5:8) was part of His human experience, fully identifying with humanity.

  The statement that Jesus was "made perfect" (Hebrews 5:9) does not imply that He was imperfect in His divine nature. Instead, it refers to His human nature being perfected through the fulfillment of His mission, culminating in His sacrificial death and resurrection. This "perfection" means the completion of His work of salvation, making Him the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him.

  Your argument suggests that a priest cannot be the God he serves, and thus Jesus' role as a priest indicates His inferiority to God.

  While earthly priests serve God by offering sacrifices for their own sins and the sins of others, Jesus, being sinless, offers Himself as the perfect sacrifice. His priesthood, therefore, is not just another priestly role but is unique and unparalleled. He is both the priest and the sacrifice, offering Himself to God the Father. This does not make Him less than God but rather highlights the unique role He plays in the divine plan.

  Jesus is both God and the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). His priesthood is not a sign of inferiority but a function of His role in the economy of salvation. He mediates as the God-man, fully God and fully man, reconciling humanity to God through His sacrificial death.

  The argument against Christ's divinity based on His role as a high priest fails to account for the Trinitarian understanding of God and the hypostatic union (the union of Christ's divine and human natures).

  In the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but one in essence. The Son’s incarnation and His role as a high priest do not imply subordination in essence or being but rather a distinct role within the economy of salvation. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in divinity, even as they fulfill different roles.

  The hypostatic union means that Jesus has two natures—divine and human—in one person. His actions as a high priest pertain to His human nature, through which He mediates between God and humanity. His divine nature remains fully God, unchanging and all-powerful.

  The argument presented misunderstands the complex theological doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. Jesus being appointed as a high priest, learning obedience, and being made perfect are all aspects of His incarnate mission as the God-man. These do not diminish His divinity but rather highlight His unique role in the salvation of humanity. The New Testament consistently upholds Jesus’ full divinity while also affirming His genuine humanity, through which He fulfills the role of the ultimate High Priest, not just for a season, but forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  While it’s true that the New Testament shows Jesus in a role of submission to God the Father, this does not necessarily imply that Jesus is ontologically inferior to God. The distinction between Jesus' humanity and divinity is essential to understanding these passages. For example:

  • Revelation 1:1 shows that Jesus, in His role as the mediator between God and humanity, receives knowledge from God. This aligns with His role in the economy of salvation, not with His divine nature.
  • Matthew 28:18 indicates that all authority is given to Jesus in His resurrected, glorified state as the God-man. This does not imply that Jesus was without authority before His resurrection but rather that His authority is now exercised in a new, glorified way.
  • John 6:57 and John 14:28 highlight the unique relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity. When Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I," He refers to His incarnate state, where He voluntarily assumed a position of humility (Philippians 2:5-8). This statement reflects His functional subordination during His earthly ministry, not an ontological subordination within the Godhead.

  You mention that ontology is "the language of philosophy and not the Bible", but theological terms help us clarify and defend the truths found in Scripture. The Church, especially at the Council of Nicaea, used philosophical language to express biblical truths accurately and unambiguously. The term "homoousios" (of the same substance) was used to affirm that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, meaning that they share the same divine essence. while the Bible may not explicitly use the term "ontology," it still addresses and reveals essential truths about the nature of God and His relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ. Theology, the study of the nature of God, often intersects with philosophy, and ontology is a tool that helps us articulate and understand these biblical truths.

  The idea that Jesus is ontologically less than God comes from misunderstandings and misinterpretations that were corrected by the early Church. The Arian controversy, for example, argued that the Son was a created being and thus subordinate to the Father. This view was rejected at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where the Church affirmed that the Son is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father.

  The doctrines developed by the Church were not influenced by pagan philosophy but were responses to heresies that tried to undermine the true nature of Christ as revealed in Scripture. The early Church Fathers and Councils were committed to preserving the apostolic faith as it was handed down, using philosophical language to protect the integrity of the faith against distortions.

  The New Testament affirms both the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus. In His humanity, Jesus can be seen in a role of subordination to the Father. However, in His divinity, Jesus is fully equal with the Father. The distinction between Jesus’ two natures (divine and human) is crucial. The subordination you see in the New Testament pertains to His human nature and His role in salvation history, not to His divine nature.

  The New Testament does not teach that Jesus is ontologically less than God. The passages you’ve cited refer to His role within the economy of salvation, where He voluntarily submitted Himself in His humanity. However, in His divine nature, Jesus is fully God, co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial with the Father. This is the consistent teaching of the early Church, affirmed in the face of heresies that sought to diminish Christ's divine status. Understanding these distinctions is crucial to fully grasping the mystery of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture and upheld by the historic Christian faith.

  To address the argument presented by Emma Wasserman, it's important to clarify the context and interpretation of Philippians 2:6 and to explore the broader theological implications within Christian doctrine. Philippians 2:6-11 is one of the most significant Christological passages in the New Testament, often referred to as the "Christ Hymn." In this passage, Paul describes Jesus Christ’s humility and exaltation. The key phrase in question, "being in the form of God," is often debated, particularly regarding its implications for understanding Christ’s divinity.

  Wasserman suggests that "being in the form of God" could imply that Christ was "a lesser divine being", perhaps part of a heavenly council, rather than being fully equal with God. The word "morphe" does not merely suggest outward appearance but refers to the essential nature or condition of something. Thus, when Paul says Christ was in the "form of God," he is indicating that Christ possesses the very nature of God, not merely a superficial likeness. The phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" does not imply that Christ lacked equality with God or sought to attain it illegitimately. Rather, it emphasizes that Christ, already possessing divine equality, did not cling to His status but willingly humbled Himself for the sake of humanity. This humility and self-emptying (kenosis) is not about rejecting divinity but about voluntarily setting aside the privileges of divinity to fully embrace humanity.

  In the New Testament, the concept of "lesser divine beings" does not align with the developed Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple period. By this time, Jewish thought had firmly established Yahweh as the one and only God, ruling out any notion of other "gods" in the divine sense that was present in earlier, more henotheistic or polytheistic contexts.

  During the Second Temple period, Jewish monotheism had become strictly defined. The use of the term "Elohim" or "Theos" was reserved exclusively for Yahweh, the one true God. This development is evident in the way the Septuagint (LXX) translators chose to render certain Hebrew terms into Greek. For instance, in Psalm 8:5, where the Hebrew text uses "elohim," the LXX translates this as "angels" (aggeloi), not "gods" (theoi), reflecting a clear monotheistic interpretation.

  In the New Testament, the authors operate within this monotheistic framework. Jesus is identified as "Theos" (God) in a way that is unique and distinct from how "Elohim" or "Theos" might have been applied metaphorically or analogically in the Old Testament. The application of the term "Theos" to Jesus, as in John 1:1, is not a trivial designation but a profound theological statement about His nature as fully divine and fully God.

  When the New Testament writers use the term "Theos" to refer to Jesus, they are not merely assigning Him a status as a lesser deity or a member of a divine council. Instead, they are making a definitive statement about His identity as the incarnate Word of God, who shares in the very essence and nature of God. The use of "Theos" to describe Jesus is intentional and significant. The New Testament writers had other terms at their disposal, such as "theios" (divine, godlike), "hemitheos" (demigod), or "hero," but they chose "Theos" to convey the full divinity of Christ. This choice reflects a recognition that Jesus is not merely a powerful spiritual being but fully God, co-equal with the Father.

  By using "Theos," the New Testament authors avoided the confusion that might arise from using terms associated with lesser deities or mythological beings. In classical Greek, "Theos" referred to the major gods of the pantheon, whereas terms like "hemitheos" or "theios" could imply a being of lesser status. The deliberate use of "Theos" for Jesus serves to affirm His unique and supreme divinity.

  The New Testament does not simply carry over the flexible use of "Elohim" from the Old Testament. Instead, it reflects the mature monotheism of Second Temple Judaism, where only Yahweh is God, and any other use of divine titles is metaphorical or honorific, not ontological.

  The New Testament's use of "Theos" for Jesus must be understood in light of this evolved monotheism. While the Old Testament might apply "Elohim" to judges, angels, or even human leaders in a metaphorical sense, the New Testament reserves "Theos" for God alone, and when applied to Jesus, it underscores His divine nature.

  Jehovah's Witnesses and similar groups often attempt to bridge the gap between Old Testament references to "gods" (elohim) and New Testament Christology by skipping over the significant theological developments that occurred between these periods.

  By retroactively applying First Temple period terminology to New Testament theology, one risks imposing an outdated framework onto a more developed monotheistic understanding. The New Testament's use of "Theos" for Jesus is not a mere continuation of Old Testament metaphorical usage but a declaration of His divine identity within a monotheistic context.

  The New Testament's portrayal of Jesus as "Theos" is not about assigning Him the status of a lesser divine being but about affirming His full divinity within a strict monotheistic framework. The term "Theos" is used deliberately and with deep theological significance, reflecting the belief that Jesus is one with the Father in essence and nature. Attempts to interpret Jesus as "a lesser god" based on earlier Old Testament language overlook the significant theological developments that shaped the New Testament's understanding of God and Christ.
• 
  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Why use ChatGPT when I have my own notes?

  Your response highlights a common misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus Christ and the relationship between His divinity and humanity. When the New Testament speaks of Jesus being "exalted" or given "all power," it’s essential to understand that all these statements refer to His incarnate and glorified human nature, not to His divine nature. The distinction between Jesus' divine and human natures is central to Christian theology, particularly in the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, which teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully man.

  Philippians 2:6-7 emphasizes that Jesus, in His divine nature, was equal with God but chose to humble Himself by taking on human nature. The exaltation mentioned in Philippians 2:9 refers to the glorification of His humanity after completing His redemptive work, not a change in His divine status. This refers to the glorification of Jesus' humanity. The notion of exaltation relates to His human nature, which was humbled during His earthly life and now glorified. As God, Jesus is already in the highest possible position; He cannot be “exalted” further in His divine nature. This exaltation pertains to His human nature, which now shares in the divine glory in a new and public way after His resurrection and ascension.

  By the way the NWT translates Philippians 2:9 as "God exalted him to a higher position," whereas the original Greek implies an extreme exaltation ("hyper-exalted") above all else, which is not adequately captured by the NWT's phrasing. Additionally, the NWT introduces the word "other" into the phrase "above every other name," which is not present in the original text, further diluting the sense of Christ's absolute supremacy. The original Greek text of Philippians 2:9 uses the term "hyperypsōsen," meaning "to exalt above all" or "to the highest degree," which reflects the ultimate glorification of Christ's human nature following His humility and death. The phrase "the Name above every name" signifies that Christ's name is supreme, without comparison to others. The NWT's translation appears to reflect Jehovah's Witnesses' theological stance that Jesus is a created being, rather than affirming His divine nature as fully equal with God.

  Matthew 28:18, where Jesus says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me," reflects the authority He exercises as the God-man, in His incarnate state, after His resurrection. It does not imply that He lacked this authority as God but that His humanity was now glorified, and His role as the Mediator was fully realized. This phrase refers to Jesus’ role in His human nature after the resurrection. As God, Jesus always possessed all power. The “giving” of power refers to His mission and role as the incarnate Son, now fully recognized and acknowledged in His glorified state. This does not imply inferiority in His divine nature but rather fulfills His role in salvation history.

  The idea that Jesus is “less than God” because He received power or was exalted is a misunderstanding of the relationship between His divine and human natures.

  As God: Jesus is eternally omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. His divine nature did not change or diminish when He became incarnate. As John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus, as the Word, is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

  As Man: Jesus, in His human nature, humbled Himself and took on the limitations of humanity (Philippians 2:7). This humility and subsequent exaltation pertain to His human nature, not to His divine nature. The exaltation after His resurrection is the glorification of His humanity, not a promotion to divinity. The power and authority He exercises post-resurrection are now manifest in His glorified human nature, acting as the God-man, the mediator between God and humanity.

  The New Testament does not teach that the Son, the divine Logos is ontologally less than God the Father. Rather, it affirms both His full divinity and His real humanity. The statements about Jesus receiving power or being exalted are to be understood in the context of His incarnate mission and the glorification of His humanity. These do not detract from His divinity but rather reveal the mystery of the Incarnation—God becoming man to redeem humanity.

  Thus, the claims made by Jehovah’s Witnesses misinterpret the nature of Jesus and the biblical teaching on His divinity. The exaltation and receiving of power refer to His human nature and role as the Mediator, not a change in His divine status. Jesus, as the God-man, is fully divine and fully human, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity.