- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Mercy, You say:
Quote Jesus existed before the foundations of the earth were established. He was the firstborn, the unique son. Only he was in the exact expressive image of the father. Only he was begat by the father. Everything ever created since Jesus was made “through and for” Jesus. I agree. He was the unique son. But not the only son. There are other sons of God, that are spirit creatures. He is without question unique. But that doesn't mean he's not an angel.
I can tell Nick that he is unique in that he is an adminstrator. Does that in any way mean he is unlike me in being a man?
I have never said: Jesus is just an angel, just like all the other angels. Nor would I say King David or King Solomon is just another man, just like all the other men. Sure, he's a man. You can be unique and still have great similarities with other things.
JESUS IS NOT “JUST AN ANGEL.”
The angels are called sons of God (Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but Jesus is THE Son of God (Hebrews 1:8; Matthew 4:3-6). Again, a differentiation. Yet, a similarity.
Jesus is many things. As the “Word” (Greek, lógos), Jesus is God’s messenger par excellence. Remember, too, that as the archangel, as well as “the firstborn of all creation,” Jesus had the highest rank among the angels even before he came to earth.—Colossians 1:15.I would like to raise something else that has been mentioned a few times now:
IF JESUS IS AN ANGEL, HOW COULD HE HAVE ANGELS UNDER SUBJECTION?
HEBREWS 2:8
“All things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him;”
We know that the scripture quoted says that God subjected all things (including angels) under Jesus feet, and that nothing was not subject to him. Some could take this extremely literally and close your eyes to logic and say that this includes God.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:27
“For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS WITH THE EXCEPTION of the one who subjected all things to him.”
But obviously, as 1 Cor 15:27 points out, it is with the obvious exception of the one who subjected all things to him.
Similarly, although no scripture says it, when we are told that both Jesus is and Michael (THE ARCHANGEL) is the leader of angels, it should be “evident that it is with the exception” of Jesus or Michael himself.
Yes, Michael has “his angels” under him. DOES THIS MEAN THAT MICHAEL CAN NOT BE AN ANGEL? Ridiculous. It is “evident” although not stated, that Michael’s angels under his control do not include himself. It is just as “evident” that Jesus could have angels under his subjection and be himself an angel.Could Jesus be an angel? In the spirit creature sense and not the “messenger” sense.
Maybe, but I have trouble with this idea for a couple reasons.
1) He must be the only angel of his type. (example seraphs and cherubs) Granted this doesn't exclude the possibility.
2) The first chapter of Hebrews gives me trouble with this idea. It can be interpreted in different ways, but I still get the impression that Jesus is pictured distinct from the angels. It gives me the impression that he is not one of them, not just that he is exalted above them from within their ranks.
3) Why isn't he just called an angel? What is the big secret? He was hidden but now he is not. He was revealed so why now this mystery?
He is the son of God and the first born over all creation. He is just like his Father. He is unique. He was hidden. Now he is revealed.
I suppose a simple way to put it would be he is a little god. Like Father like son.
Just and God created many different forms of life on earth he may also have done so in heaven. So my point is that all “spirit creatures” do not necessarily have to fall under the definitions we have of angels. (seraphs and cherubs etc..)
Jesus has all authority over all things, I agree, and this includes angels.
However, there are still rankings below that.
Here is the earthly example;
Jesus > Man > Woman
Here would be the heavenly example:
Jesus > Archangels > Angels
Quote He is just like his Father. . . . I suppose a simple way to put it would be he is a little god. Like Father like son. Hi Mercy. He isn't “just” like his Father. His Father is from time indefinite to time indefinite. Jesus was the firstborn of creation. Jesus is a son of God, as the angels are. He is a created spirit being. The angels are created spirit beings. God is not.
I've never heard Jesus described as a “little god.” I've heard a “mighty God.” OH, I see, like a little version of God Almighty. Gottcha. No. God Almighty is without beginning. He is Almighty. Jesus is mighty.Quote He must be the only angel of his type. (example seraphs and cherubs) Granted this doesn't exclude the possibility. To me, the word angel basically means a created spirit being. Of course, Jesus is a very special angel. Some would even call him the principle or chief angel.
Here are some things to think about:
WHAT IS AN ANGEL?
Both the Hebrew maĺakh́ and the Greek aǵgelos literally mean “messenger.” From the first book of the Bible to the last, these words occur nearly 400 times. When spirit messengers are indicated, the words are translated “angels,” but if the reference definitely is to human creatures, the rendering is “messengers.” (Ge 16:7; 32:3; Jas 2:25; Re 22:8.)WHY SO FEW ANGELS NAMED IN THE BIBLE?
The Bible contains the personal names of only two angels, Gabriel (meaning “Able-Bodied One of God”) and Michael (Who Is Like God?). Perhaps so as not to receive undue honor or veneration, angels at times did not reveal their names to persons to whom they appeared.—Ge 32:29; Jg 13:17, 18.WHY DOES GOD SOMETIMES CHANGE A PERSONS NAME?
At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon (Gen 49:1,2; Mat 10:2) God has also changed peoples names when they take on new roles. Saul became Paul. (………….) While dying, Rachel called her newborn son Ben-oni (meaning “Son of My Mourning”), but her bereaved husband Jacob chose to name him Benjamin (Son of the Right Hand). (Ge 35:16-18)
An event in a person’s later life sometimes provided the basis for giving a new name to a person. Esau, for example, got his name Edom (meaning “Red”) from the red lentil stew for which he sold his birthright.—Ge 25:30-34.
Jehovah changed the name of Abram to Abraham (Father of a Crowd (Multitude)) and that of Sarai (possibly, Contentious) to Sarah (Princess), both new names being prophetic. (Ge 17:5, 6, 15, 16) Because of his perseverance in grappling with an angel, Jacob was told: “Your name will no longer be called Jacob but Israel [Contender (Perseverer) With God; or, God Contends], for you have contended with God and with men so that you at last prevailed.” (Ge 32:28) This change in name was a token of God’s blessing and was later confirmed. (Ge 35:10) Evidently, therefore, when the Scriptures prophetically speak of “a new name,” the reference is to a name that would appropriately represent its bearer.—Isa 62:2; 65:15; Re 3:12.
Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth.I am not far off from conceding Jesus is an angel. I just can't quite take that step to say it. I can say that he is a messenger.
I see your logic and acknowledge it fully, but it requires an extra step that I just don't see to make it a confession of mine.
Evidence does exist that could be interpreted that way, but without a vision or a prophet or some form of divine guidance I feel that I would be stepping to far to actually state that Jesus is an angel.
Now the Michael connection is the real issue. I am far off from believing that. Using only the bible I can see how you have circumstantial evidence to build your case. But, David, my friend, once again without divine guidance, how can you state it beyond doubt? Is it possible that there are multiple archangels? Your evidence takes you only so far before you have to step out on faith that your evidence stacks up high enough to actually declare it as truth.
I know you don't like to go into anything beyond the bible. However, we all do it. Let me explain. We use history to help clarify teachings in the scripture. Without maps and history we would never know much about egypt or babylon or where they are located. We would not understand very much about Jerusalem or the temple.
Well using history and historical texts they all state that their are multiple archangels. Is it wise to use these teachings as scripture or doctrine? No I don't think so either. However, the evidence is overwhelming that the people who lived in Jesus time were familiar enough with secular knowledge of the angels. Just as some things are “common knowledge” for us today. Some things were “common knowledge” for them. Part of that common knowledge was the Michael and Gabriel were both archangels.
Unfortunately, only Michael is called the archangel once in scripture. However, Jude v.9 is a quote from the apocryphal book called the assumption of Moses. And ironically, all the aprocryphal books declare multiple archangels.
Do you see my logic at all? Do you see why I can't concede to Michael being Jesus?
Hi Mercy,
A couple of questions for you…1) Are all angels created “things”?
2) Is Yahshua credited for being the Creator of “all things”
Kind regards
this argueing over semantics.
If I am the only one to ever make paper airplanes. And the only thing that exists is paper airplaines then I am still a thing. And God still made me.
Jesus is the firstborn over all creation. God's son made is God's image.
Without beating around semantics I see your point. But taking the scripture as a whole this is what I see.
God once existed alone.
God brought his word into existence.
God through his word created all things.Hi Mercy,
Thanks for the reply….I first want to ask you how you arrived at the conclusion that Yahshua was “the architect at God's side.”?
Quote this argueing over semantics. If I am the only one to ever make paper airplanes. And the only thing that exists is paper airplaines then I am still a thing. And God still made me.
I don't think this is a semantic argument. Nowhere in scripture are we told that the Logos was created at all. And it's unreasonable to assert that an individual could be a created thing AND the Creator of ALL things at the same time. Also, the hebrew concept of “first born” obviously has biblical applications outside of procreation….you do know that right?….Israel was YHWH's first born for instance.Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 22 2006,10:12) Without beating around semantics I see your point. But taking the scripture as a whole this is what I see. God once existed alone.
God brought his word into existence.
God through his word created all things.
I agree with you on the first and third points but where in scripture are we told that “God brought his word into existence.”?Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 17 2005,01:45) Quote In reply to Is 1:18: Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas.
At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”;
JB reads “any other”;
NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.)
David, it would be better for your cause if you quoted creditable translations. I'll address the scriptural citations later in this post.Quote In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
This is pure eisegesis. The phrase “ektisthe ta panta” literally translates: “it was created the all” or to put it into proper English grammatical format: “all things were created.” The bracketed word “other” in the NWT is un-inspired. According to the NWT translating commitee, brackets may only be used on these grounds:Quote In the English readings (interlinear and main) brackets occur. These denote that the word or words enclosed have been inserted by the translator to make some application that is shown by the Greek word or to show something that is understood along with the Greek word because of its grammatical form. Neither of the reasons cited as to why the NWT translating committee used brackets are in any way applicable in Colossians 1:16.
There is simply no grammatical justification to bracket this word here. Actually, the very fact that the words are bracketed is a concession that the word “other” is not in the original Greek manuscripts (NB; The two Greek words for “other” are: allos – which means another of the same kind, and heteros – which means another of a different kind). David, your organization has used these bracketed words for one reason; to allow for its theological presupposition that Jesus is not deity.
Your citings of Luke 13:2, 21:29 and Phil 2:21 as proof texts that is grammatically permissible for the word “other“ to be inferred into the text in Col 1:16 is also groundless. In these passages (and in others were the same practice is rightly followed) the addition of the word “other” doesn't change the meaning at all, but simply makes it read more smoothly. Translators are perfectly entitled to add words for this reason, but only in instances where they do not violate the intended meaning of the text. In Col 1:16, however, the meaning of the text is very much distorted by the addition of the bracketed words in the NWT. It is simple scholastic dishonesty David.
Quote Of course he did not create himself. He was the first spirit creature created.
May I have the scripture that explicitly states this please?Quote Can he be described as a “messenger”? Numerous times, we are told that he was “sent forth” by God. He himself said that he was born into the world to “bear witness to the truth,” the truth about God's kingdom.
“Also to other cities I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth.” (Luke 4:43)
None of this has any bearing on Col 1:16.God Bless
Hi Mercy,
I wrote this post to David with regards to the dreadful mishandling of the Greek in Col 1:16 quite a while ago. The Watchtower recognise the logical conundrum (that I pointed out to you) in the verse so, in effect, added to scripture so as not to have a verse that violates their christological presuppostions….I can give you col. 1:15
15who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,
But I know your response to that already. But you failed to note that Israel was also created.
How can you begat a son without the son being begotten?
How can Jesus be his own dad?You can dissect the trinity and once you know the trinity doctrine is false, then you can see that God is one and that he has a son.
Book of Enoch
Chapter 4848
1
And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness
Which was inexhaustible:
And around it were many fountains of wisdom:
And all the thirsty drank of them,
And were filled with wisdom,
And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect.2
And at that hour that Son of Man was named
In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,
And his name before the Head of Days.3
Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.4
He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.5
All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.6
And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.7
And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous;
For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous,
Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness,
And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits:
For in his name they are saved,
And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life.8
In these days downcast in countenance shall the kings of the earth have become,
And the strong who possess the land because of the works of their hands,
For on the day of their anguish and affliction they shall not (be able to) save themselves.9
And I will give them over into the hands of Mine elect:
As straw in the fire so shall they burn before the face of the holy:
As lead in the water shall they sink before the face of the righteous,
And no trace of them shall any more be found.10
And on the day of their affliction there shall be rest on the earth,
And before them they shall fall and not rise again:
And there shall be no one to take them with his hands and raise them:
For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed.
The name of the Lord of Spirits be blessed.I don't know your views on this book. But my views are that it should have been in the canon.
To david.
Quote (david @ Sep. 22 2006,20:03) Very interesting!
The order is of course correct. This Michael, if he is the third highest in the universe…wow. What will the holy spirit think of this? (That was a joke for the trinitarians.) But seriously, Michael, is someone of great import. He's huge. God, Jesus, Michael, etc. Wow. You'd think there'd be more mention of Michael. Wait! There is. He goes by the name Jesus. Right.
The example I gave was in context of God, Jesus and the angels.
I have also given examples where Michael is not mentioned, such as God > Jesus > Man > Woman. In that model Man is the 3rd highest. So please see them as contextual and not absolute.Michael is one of the chiefs. There are others and yet these others get little or no mention. The point is that Michael gets more than the others, perhap/maybe with the exception of Gabriel.
So yes Michael is a very important angel. He may even be the angel spoken of in Revelation God > Jesus > Angel > John.
He may even be the most important angel, but I cannot see one scripture or even a hint that Michael is the Word of God that was with God, with whom God created the cosmos through.
I am sorry but the bible gives no evidence and to say that Jesus is Michael is pure speculation and should be recognised as such.
To me there is no point in preaching a doctrine based on speculation. It only leads to division. I have many speculations myself. I have even spoken some of them here on Heaven Net, but I would never make a speculation a base doctrine or force others to believe as I do.
It is safe to preach that which is clearly taught. We should also defend against attacks to the foundation of true faith. But speculation should always we spoken as opinion and not fact.
Opinions are OK, so long as they are treated as opinions and are advertised as opinions.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 22 2006,10:18) Hi Mercy,
Thanks for the reply….I first want to ask you how you arrived at the conclusion that Yahshua was “the architect at God's side.”?
Quote this argueing over semantics. If I am the only one to ever make paper airplanes. And the only thing that exists is paper airplaines then I am still a thing. And God still made me.
I don't think this is a semantic argument. Nowhere in scripture are we told that the Logos was created at all. And it's unreasonable to assert that an individual could be a created thing AND the Creator of ALL things at the same time. Also, the hebrew concept of “first born” obviously has biblical applications outside of procreation….you do know that right?….Israel was YHWH's first born for instance.
Is 1:18.Please note the name and subject of this discussion.
The logos can be discussed at large in other appropriate discussions.thx
Quote (david @ Sep. 22 2006,20:03) Interesting. But hasn't God subjected all things under Jesus feet? Don't many scriptures say that:
HEBREWS 2:5-9
“For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. But a certain witness has given proof somewhere, saying: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or [the] son of man that you take care of him? You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. All things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s undeserved kindness might taste death for every [man].”
1 CORINTHIANS 15:27
“For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.”
EPHESIANS 1:22
“He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,”
PHILIPPIANS 3:21
“who will refashion our humiliated body to be conformed to his glorious body according to the operation of the power that he has, even to subject all things to himself.”
To david.If all things are subject to Christ, then that doesn't rule out that they are God's angels or that they are Michaels angels.
Similarly if all people were subject to Joseph and under his authority, then that doesn't rule out that the weren't under subjection to the Pharaoh does it? And to argue that Joseph is the Pharaoh because they both were rulers over Egypt is only one possible conclusion. However we have more detail regarding Joseph and the Pharaoh to know otherwise.
But with Michael and Jesus that detail doesn't exist in the biblical books. So it is speculation and opinion only.
The Pharaoh and Joseph didn't rule 2 different groups of people did they? This reasoning applied to Jesus and Michael doesn't work for me, but I appreciate your point of view nevertheless.
thx
I love Jesus.
I hope I fully understand and walk in the truth and continue to learn more about my Lord. I have no agenda other than the truth.
But, I do know that he is my Lord, my messiah, my christ, the way the truth and the life.
I do not deny him and he says for that he won't deny me.
Thank you Father for sending your son.
Hi Is 1:18,
first, where have you been?Second, you stated:
“And it's unreasonable to assert that an individual could be a created thing AND the Creator of ALL things at the same time.”Let's look at a smiliar scripture. There are many scriptures that speak of God subjecting ALL THINGS under Jesus feet.
HEBREWS 2:5-9
“For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. But a certain witness has given proof somewhere, saying: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or [the] son of man that you take care of him? You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. All things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s undeserved kindness might taste death for every [man].”
EPHESIANS 1:22
“He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,”
PHILIPPIANS 3:21
“who will refashion our humiliated body to be conformed to his glorious body according to the operation of the power that he has, even to subject all things to himself.”IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION. IT'S OBVIOUS. IT'S SO EVIDENT ID DOESN'T REALLY HAVE TO BE STATED, Is 1:18. When something is this obvious, it doesn't have to be stated. If God subjected all things under Jesus feet, the obvious exception would be God himself, as the scripture below says.
1 CORINTHIANS 15:27
“For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.”So as Mercy says, this is a matter of semantics. It is evident that Jesus creating all things wouldn't apply to himself. I don't believe Jesus is ever really referred to as the Creator. Jehovah created everything through Jesus, WITH THE OBVIOUS EXCEPTION OF JESUS WHO JEHOVAH CREATED AND JESUS HIMSELF…OBVIOUSLY.
Quote I have many speculations myself. I have even spoken some of them here on Heaven Net, but I would never make a speculation a base doctrine or force others to believe as I do.
t8, I would never force my beliefs on anyone either. I HAVE NEVER BROUGHT THIS SUBJECT UP. never! Someone always says: “He's a JW. He believes…[and then they list whatever they disbelieve the most, such as Jesus being the archange].” So I have to at least explain why I believe this and point out that there are many scriptural reasons for believing it and that not believing it raises certain troubling questions.You also stated:
Quote Similarly if all people were subject to Joseph and under his authority, then that doesn't rule out that the weren't under subjection to the Pharaoh does it?
And yes, I realized that a while ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
