on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:
o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)
one does not have to believe the trinity to believe that TWO (Jesus and God) are the One God.
We should study the Bible to discover what it says in harmony with the original intention of the Author. Trinitarians hunt for proof texts to substantiate what they already believe.
herk
for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .
"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.
all (as in 100%) must include michael.
Kenneson,
Are Augustine and Calvin and other theologians the last word on whether Jesus was the Angel of the Lord? I believe in the Trinity, but I don't believe that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord.
While some trinitarians such as yourself are not convinced that the angel of the Lord is the "2nd Person of the Trinity," you may find the following of interest:
What do you believe about Jesus? How are you different in your beliefs on Jesus from Jehovah's Witnesses and Trinitarians, since you seem to say you don't fall in either camp?
In the Bible, when a prophet speaks it is said to be the Lord who speaks, not of course because the prophet is the Lord himself but because the prophet has been commissioned to represent and speak for the Lord. The word of the prophet is equal to the word spoken by the Lord himself. Though the prophet is a mere man, he is to be honored by other men as far superior to themselves. For all intents and purposes, he is God when he speaks since God has put his own words in the mouth of the prophet. This was true of Jesus. Moses had foretold concerning him, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.'" (Deuteronomy 18:15, 16)
As explained by Peter, this was the view of all the prophets who looked forward to the coming of the Messiah: "Repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to him you shall give heed to everything he says to you. And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.' And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days." (Acts 3:19-24)
The Jews never expected that the Messiah would be God himself. Neither did the apostles and other earliest Christians. This is clearly evident from the following texts:
While there are several texts that seem to indicate that Jesus existed before his human conception and birth, they need to be understood as the Jews and Christians understood those texts in Bible times, not with the mindset that prevails today among those who have had Western thinking drummed into them from their youth and upward.
herk
on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:
o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)
for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .
"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.
all (as in 100%) must include michael.
for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .
"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.
all (as in 100%) must include michael.
Kenneson,
why did he need to incarnate again in the New Testament?
While I think your question isn't quite clear in meaning, it needs to be asked of trinitarians and JWs. As my cartoon shows, I'm not the one who claims either that Jesus was the angel of the Lord or that he was an incarnation. It's the trinitarians who make that claim, based on the teachings of Augustine, Calvin and others of their favorite theologians. And while JWs rarely if ever use the term "incarnation" with reference to Jesus, they actually do believe in it since they claim Jesus preexisted as the archangel Michael. So, why are you asking me instead of them? You lost me somewhere.
The hypocrites in this matter are the trinitarians who chide JWs for saying Jesus was an angel when they themselves also claim that he was an angel.
herk
for the sake of argument lets assume that the current nwt is correct in rendering proskuneo as "obesiance" .
"but when he again brings his firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: 'and let all god's angels do obeisance to him" hebrews 1:6 the new world translation.. 1. if all (as in 100%) of the angels of god do obeisance to him, then he could not be an angel.
all (as in 100%) must include michael.
the governing body and the board of directors
modern society claims
"from the incorporation of the watch tower bible and tract society of pennsylvania in 1884 until 1972, the president of the society exercised great authority in jehovah's organization, while the governing body was closely associated with the society's board of directors.
Russell was a scumbag, and he was a manipulator and a liar. Just read the transcript of his divorce trial, and you'll see what I mean. The Judge in that trial excoriated him and gave good reasons for doing so. Big time.
My reading of Russell's own account of the divorce episode, as found in the Watchtower itself, did much to convince me that JWs have been an abusive religion from their very beginning. He came across as a male chauvinist pig if ever there was one.
herk
on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:
o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)
Kenneson,
Then you go through great lengths to try to prove to me that some verses indeed show that special agents like Moses, David, angels are functional Gods by office. And the Trinity doctrine is confusing?
No hard feelings, but I'm puzzled why you just can't seem to get it. I'm not the one who decided to call angels, Moses, David and others God. The concept goes back thousands of years and originated with God himself. I've shown you the scriptures on the topic, and I was hoping they would clarify the matter, but apparently they haven't.
Sorry for wasting your time.
herk
on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:
o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)
Kenneson,
But I do accept the original Jewish sense of God.
Somehow you're missing my point, and I don't know why. I keep mentioning it, but it just seems to blow over as if I never mentioned it. I'm not faulting you for that, but I really do wish you would analyze your statement: "But I do accept the original Jewish sense of God."
After making that statement, you proceeded to quote several texts that indicate to me that you really did miss my point.
We agree that there is only one true God. But where we don't seem to agree is in understanding "the original Jewish sense of God." The ancient Jews believed as you and I do that there is only one true God, but they also believed that God's special agents should be viewed as God. They are not God in the ultimate sense of the word, but they are God because they represent him. David and Solomon, for example, sat upon "the throne of David." (1 Kings 2:12) But David's throne was also called "the throne of the Lord." (1 Chronicles 29:23) David was not the Lord actually or in reality. But because he spoke for God to the people, his words were to be obeyed as if they came from God himself.
That is what I mean when I speak of the Jewish sense of God. The Jews didn't invent that concept. It came from God himself. Concerning the angel that God sent to speak to the people of Israel, he said, "Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him." (Exodus 23:21) The angel, as God's representative, was to act in God's name. Often, as shown by the context in each case, angels were called "God" or "the Lord." One example is in Genesis 16:9-13:
God's authority was transferred to the angel because God's name was "in him."
Jesus also had God's name "in him." He said, "I have come in my Father's name." (John 5:43) And, "the works that I do in my Father's name, these testify of me." (John 10:25) Jesus was not the Father, and he was not God actually or in reality. Like the angel who was called God, Jesus was God in the sense of speaking and acting for God. He could even forgive sins just as the angel had been empowered to do.
When the crowds waved palm branches as Jesus rode into Jerusalem, they didn't shout "Blessed is he who comes as the Lord himself." Instead, "The crowds going ahead of him, and those who followed, were shouting, 'Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest!" (Matthew 21:9; Mark 11:9) "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" (Luke 19:38; John 12:39)
Jesus was not the Lord God, but he came in the name of the Lord God as his instrument and agent. That is how the apostles understood it. This becomes plain in what Peter told the assembled Jews at Pentecost: "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- this man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death. But God raised him up again, putting an end to the agony of death." (Acts 2:19-24)
Jesus was not God, but he was empowered to act for God. "God performed through him." This is plain from what he said and how a crowd reacted: "Jesus ... said, '... But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins'--then he said to the paralytic, 'Get up, pick up your bed and go home.' And he got up and went home. But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men." (Matthew 9:6-8) Jesus was not able to forgive sins and to perform powerful miracles because he was God, but because God "had given such authority to men."
The verses you supplied prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus is not God. The Father alone is God. If Jesus is also God in the same sense as the Father, then we have two Gods, not one. Trinitarians by means of mental gymnastics try to explain away that their doctrine teaches more than one God, but their reasoning bears no resemblance to anything in the Bible. Well-known historians have traced the origin of the Trinity back to paganism, not to the earliest Christians.
herk
on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:
o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)
ellderwho,
Your seriousness has to be in question
you ... with blinders on. And fail to look at the the context
your slant
my appologies given for the description of your answers
Maybe we can continue when you make up your mind.
herk
